In Support of Breastfeeding for Healthy Babies
February 24. 2010
Natural News
By David Gutierrez
Providing breastfeeding education and support to new mothers could prevent more than one million child deaths every year, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).
Although the WHO recommends that infants start breastfeeding within one hour of birth and consume nothing but breast milk — not even water — for the first six months of life, less than 40 percent of mothers worldwide meet this goal. Insufficient breastfeeding is a problem in both rich and poor countries, the agency says.
Because breast milk provides the exact combination of nutrients that a developing infant needs, no artificial formula or adult food can match its nutritive value. In addition, breast milk provides important antibodies to the underdeveloped infant immune system, and helps children’s immune systems develop in a healthy way. Even a formula that provides nutrition similar to that of breast milk does not provide this critical, immune-boosting function.
If 90 percent of women met the WHO breastfeeding guidelines, the agency says, 13 percent of global deaths under the age of five could be prevented, translating into 1.3 million lives saved per year.
Although many women start out breastfeeding, large numbers abandon the practice because they are unable to get the baby to latch on properly or do not know how to breastfeed without suffering unbearable pain or discomfort.
“When it comes to doing it practically, they don’t have the practical support,” said the WHO’s Constanza Vallenas.
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan noted that during disasters, well-meaning donations of formula may encourage women to stop breastfeeding just at the time when the practice is most critical.
“During emergencies, unsolicited or uncontrolled donations of breast milk substitutes may undermine breastfeeding and should be avoided,” she said. “The focus should be on active protection and support of breastfeeding.”
Chan said that mothers in disaster zones need more support to be able to continue or resume breastfeeding.
Click here for the full report.
Over 65 Waiting Longer for Flu Vaccine
November 23, 200
New York Times
By Donald G. McNeill Jr.
Life is unfair. Or, at least, it sure can look that way.
For example, consider this: Who of these four is first in line for a swine flu shot:
1. A great-grandmother in a nursing home with lung problems?
2. A hospital cafeteria worker being treated for AIDS?
3. An overweight department-store Santa with a line of children waiting for his lap?
4. A healthy Wall Street banker whose trophy wife is pushing a new baby in a $600 Bumbleride jogging stroller?
Answer: The banker.
Normal flu seasons have accustomed Americans to an “old people first” ethic, but swine flu has reversed that. It’s pregnant women and children first, and in the rush for the lifeboats, elbows are beginning to fly.
Mostly, as in any panic, confusion has reigned. Older people are still first in line for seasonal flu shots, but all the media attention has been on swine flu. Both kinds of shots are in short supply. More swine vaccine is being made, but slowly. All the seasonal vaccine has already been made — but much of it was taken up by middle-aged people who didn’t know one shot from another and bared their arms for any available needle.
Now that the health authorities are cracking down on the swine flu vaccine and real triage has begun, some older Americans are finding the new realities pretty harsh. Breathing problems and heart conditions are common among people over 50, and some have been calling their Congressmen to complain. Those older Americans and their advocates point to studies indicating that elderly people rarely catch swine flu but, when they do, their outcomes are just as grim as they are for seasonal flu, which kills 36,000 mostly elderly people a year.
“We’re not used to this in the U.S.,” said Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust for America’s Health, a nonpartisan group that works to prevent epidemics, and who testified before Congress last week, essentially defending the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s choices. “When there’s a limited supply of a scarce resource, you have to give it to those who are most at risk and who will benefit the most.”
So why the banker? He gets the shot not for his sake — many Americans would be pleased to see him roast on a spit — but to save his baby. Infants under six months old are at very high risk but too young for a flu shot.
The hospital employee does not have direct patient contact; if he is taking his anti-AIDS drugs, his immune system is not suppressed. And even if Santa is morbidly obese — though that could create a lap problem — he is presumably over 18.
And the great-grandmother? She was born before 1957, probably caught H1N1 flus several times growing up, and may still have protective antibodies. True, if she is unlucky enough to catch swine flu anyway, she is at risk. But public health is a numbers game and her probability is low. Also, flu shots don’t protect the aged well, since their immune systems may be too weak to build new antibodies. Studies suggest it is more effective to inoculate their nurses and visitors.
On the AARP Web site, some people are complaining. “I’m 70 and my wife is 69 and we are last on the list for H1N1. I thought there was no death panels,” wrote one.
But Dr. J. T. Howell, a geriatric specialist in Bucks County, Pa., said most of his older patients were taking their back-of-the-line status in stride.
Click here for the full report
Claims of a Vaccine to Quit Smoking
November 16, 2009
Reuters
Nabi Biopharmaceuticals (NABI.O) and a unit of GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK.L) signed a licensing agreement for Nabi’s experimental vaccine to treat nicotine addiction and the prevention of smoking relapse, the companies said, sending Nabi shares up 26 percent.
Nabi will get $40 million upfront and is eligible to get more than $500 million in option fees and milestones for the vaccine, NicVAX, and follow-on nicotine vaccines, the companies said in a statement.
In return, the British drugmaker will get an option to exclusively in-licence NicVAX on a worldwide basis and a licence to develop follow-on nicotine vaccines.
Nabi will be responsible for the first of two NicVAX late-stage trials, and upon successful completion GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA could take responsibility for further development of the vaccine.
The companies expect to complete the deal in the first quarter of 2010.
The vaccine, which received a $10 million grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse in October, is designed to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that bind to nicotine.
In August, Nabi had agreed to the sell PentaStaph, its experimental vaccine for staph infections and related assets, to GlaxoSmithKline for up to $46 million.
The global market for smoking cessation is expected to reach $4.6 billion by 2016, and vaccines could account for $2 billion in sales, according to independent market research firm Datamonitor.
In October, a similar anti-smoking vaccine by Cytos Biotechnology (CYTN.S) and Swiss drugmaker Novartis (NOVN.VX) missed its main goal in a mid-stage study, leading some analysts to question whether it can make it to the market.
Nabi shares rose 26 percent to $4.50 in morning trade Monday on Nasdaq. Glaxo shares were down 4 pence at 1247 pence by 1434 GMT on the London Stock Exchange.
Click here for the full report
New Film Questions Health Industry on HIV and AIDS
October 29, 2009
NaturalNews
By Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Canadian filmmaker Brent Leung isn’t winning any friends in the pharmaceutical industry these days. His breakthrough documentary “House of Numbers” features jaw-dropping interviews with doctors, researchers and even the co-discoverer of HIV himself (Luc Montagnier), all of whom reveal startling information calling into question the “official” explanation of HIV and AIDS.
The film isn’t publicly available yet, as it’s been screened in film festivals around the world. Check the available screening events at the film’s website: www.HouseOfNumbers.com
Because of the game-changing statements heard from numerous health authorities in this film, it threatens the very foundations of the HIV / AIDS industry. Pharmaceutical companies are fronting a specific mythology about AIDS that maximizes their profits from AIDS drugs and (failed) vaccines, but that mythology is about to be dismantled when House of Numbers is released in theaters nationwide over the next few months.
This could be the documentary that shatters Big Pharma’s false paradigms about HIV and AIDS.
The AIDS testing hoax
In the film, Brent Leung subjects himself to an HIV test and discovers that a “diagnosis” of being HIV positive has more to do with the answers you provide to lifestyle questions than any specific microbe appearing in your blood. The diagnosis of AIDS — as well as the very definition — is also apparently so wishy-washy that increasing numbers of well-trained scientists are now questioning whether AIDS exists at all.
“The presently available data does not prove the existence of HIV,” says one health expert interviewed for the film. Another expert says, “The more diseases they could lump into these AIDS categories, the more patients they could catch.”
“I think HIV totally has turned out not to be the cause of AIDS. HIV has turned out not to be!” says another interviewee.
“We can be exposed to HIV many times without being … infected,” says Dr Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize-winning virologist credited with the co-discovery of HIV. “Our immune system creates [antibodies] within a few weeks, if you have a good immune system.”
The documentary film exposes the sharp contradictions in current scientific opinion about HIV / AIDS. “As I started questioning scientists and delving further into testing protocols and statistical modeling and science, I began to see a lot of the contradictions that they had amongst themselves,” said filmmaker Brent Leung. “One of the things that became apparent to me is how important it is to question everything that we’re told and not automatically accept any fact as truth.”
One bizarre thing the film exposes is the ever-shifting definition of “AIDS.” In the United States, the official definition has been rewritten three times, and definitions vary widely around the world. AIDS isn’t simply the presence of the HIV virus; it’s a fictitious disease label that’s attached to a list of symptoms that continues to expand as the drug companies attempt to ensnare yet more victims into the AIDS label trap.
The experts sound off
House of Numbers is not a “fringe” film featuring dissenting opinions from conspiracy theorists. Rather, it is a lucid, intelligent collection of conversations with some of the world’s top virologists and Nobel prize-winning scientists, including former experts from the CDC, the WHO and UNAIDS. Many are speaking out against the conventional AIDS mythology for the first time on camera.
Those interviewed for the film include Dr. Robert Gallo, Dr. Luc Montagnier, Dr. Michael Gottlieb, Dr. Joe Sonnabend, Dr. Kary Mullis, James Curran, Dr. Peter Piot, Dr. James Chin, Dr. Peter Duesberg and many others.
The film has already received “Best Documentary” and other awards from the many film festivals where it has been featured. Momentum is building for the film, and mainstream distribution looks like a healthy possibility for 2010.
“My main hope is that it educates people about the fact that this isn’t a clear cut issue,” says Leung. “I also hope it empowers people – that it causes them to question not just HIV and AIDS, but all facets of issues which impact our lives. I think we should further explore what we don’t know, and to welcome further discussion, because that will help us to know more and become more informed.”
Scientists Find Early Exposure to Flu Can Help Fight H1N1
October 27, 2009
NaturalNews
By Sherry Baker
Despite all the panic and hype about the H1N1 pandemic and the rush to immunize people in droves against the virus, the fact is — so far — the outbreak has been fairly mild. Now University of California (UC) Davis, researchers studying H1N1, formerly referred to as “swine flu,” have identified a group of immunologically important sites called epitopes in the virus that are also present in seasonal flu viruses, which have been circulating for untold years. So what does this mean? If you were exposed to the earlier influenza viruses, you probably already have some level of immunity to H1N1.
The new study would explain why so many people over the age of 60 — whose bodies were likely exposed to similar flu viruses over the decades — have been found to carry antibodies or other kinds of immunity against H1N1. In fact, the CDC now admits pre-existing antibodies against the virus are found in about one third of H1N1 2009 patients over the age of 60, a fact that shows some natural immunity to the new H1N1 virus exists in many people.
These findings indicate that human populations may have some level of existing immunity to the pandemic H1N1 influenza and may explain why the 2009 H1N1-related symptoms have been generally mild,” researcher Carol Cardona, a veterinarian and Cooperative Extension specialist at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, said in a media statement.
Cardona and UC scientist Zheng Xing recently posted their findings online in the journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases. The study is also slated for publication in the November print edition of the journal, which is published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “Our hypothesis, based on the application of data collected by other researchers, suggests that cell-mediated immunity, as opposed to antibody-mediated immunity, may play a key role in lowering the disease-causing ability, or pathogenicity, of the 2009 H1N1 influenza,” Xing said in the media release.
Curiously, the new research suggests that although previous similar flu viruses seem to have produced antibodies in exposed people, these antibodies are not what are providing protection for those infected with the H1N1 2009 strain of influenza. Instead, Cardona and Xing theorize that instead of stimulating protective antibodies, the epitopes of the new H1N1 virus produce an immune response in a different way. The virus triggers production of cytotoxic T-cells that kill infected cells, attack the invading virus, and rev up the immune system.
Click here for the full report.
Prostate Cancer Myth Busted
October 19, 2009
Natural News
By Mike Adams
Everywhere you turn these days, drug companies are attempting to associate diseases with viruses as a preamble for a future vaccine push. For the last few years, Pharma-friendly researchers have been claiming prostate cancer might be caused by Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus (XMLV) because they’ve discovered such viruses in prostate cancer tumors.
Similarly, there was a recent push to claim that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was caused by a virus for the same reason: CFS sufferers seem to have higher counts of the virus than healthy people. But as recently published in a NaturalNews article, it makes more sense that this viral count is a side effect of CFS than a root cause. (Unless, of course, a strange virus was introduced via a vaccine, which is one vector through which such a condition could have been forced onto victims.)
No link between XMRV and prostate cancer
Now, new research published in the journal Retrovirology which looked at the presence of the virus in 589 prostate cancer patients reveals that there is no link between XMRV and prostate cancer. Out of the 589 prostate cancer patients studied, DNA or RNA fragments of XMRV viruses were found in exactly zero patients.
None of the patients even had antibodies for XMRV.
This research reveals quite conclusively that XMRV is not “the” cause of prostate cancer. Obviously, prostate cancer can exist entirely without the presence of XMRV. This doesn’t mean, of course, that XMRV doesn’t contribute to cancer in some way in those patients where it shows a presence, but it does prove that XMRV is not a requirement for prostate cancer.
As with CFS, the more likely explanation here seems to be that XMRV is only found in prostate cancer patients because cancer is a disease that grows out of control in a suppressed immune system environment. The same immune system that fails to keep cancer in check is also likely to be a poor defender against invading viruses.
As a metaphor, consider this: Paramedics see blood at most traffic accidents. But do they leap to the conclusion that traffic accidents are caused by blood? Of course not. That would be silly.
The presence of blood is simply an unfortunate side effect of the root cause (someone driving on medications, perhaps). So why do prostate cancer researchers leap to the conclusion that the mere presence of a virus in cancer tumors describes a causal relationship between the two? It’s an unscientific leap of logic that simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. And this new German study provides yet more evidence calling into question any such link between XMRV and prostate cancer.
Click here for full report from Natural News
Why Millions of Americans Don’t Need a Swine Flu Vaccine
September 16, 2009
Natural News
By Mike Adams
The FDA has now suddenly granted approval to four different H1N1 vaccines, all on the same day! With virtually no testing, these fast-tracked vaccines are now approved for use on everyone: Infants, children, adults, senior citizens and even expectant mothers. But does everyone really need these vaccines?
According to the CDC, by June of 2009, one million Americans had already been exposed to H1N1 swine flu. Although the CDC hasn’t released official infection statistics in recent months, with the rapid spread of the mild virus, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that by now, three months later, the number of Americans who have been exposed to H1N1 swine flu has at least doubled to two million.
Yet here’s the interesting part: You don’t see two million Americans dying from swine flu.
That’s because many of those who were infected by swine flu never had any idea they were infected at all. They were so-called “symptomless carriers,” because they never experienced a sniffle or other flu-like symptoms. Their immune systems conquered swine flu automatically and effectively, creating antibodies and overcoming the infection by relying on fundamental human physiology.
Even for those who got sick, virtually everyone survived the sickness. After a few days of extra rest in bed (and hopefully some nutritional supplementation), they were able to kick the virus and return to normal life. This is all a normal part of beating any flu.
All these millions of people who were infected by H1N1 and didn’t die have naturally made their own swine flu antibodies. They are now immune to the swine flu, and they now have zero risk of being infected or killed by this H1N1 swine flu in the future.
At the same time, the CDC has no idea how many Americans already have H1N1 antibodies from surviving a swine flu infection. The WHO has no idea of this worldwide figure, either. It is likely in the tens of millions of people around the world.
So here’s the relevant question: What happens when you give an H1N1 vaccine to a person who already has H1N1 antibodies?
All of the risk, none of the benefit
The answer is that injecting such a person with an H1N1 vaccine exposes them to all the risks of a vaccine with none of the purported benefits. In other words, such a vaccine cannot help them in any way because they’re already immune to H1N1!
The vaccine can only harm them or have no effect.
Given that there is zero reward but some measurable risk for these people taking the vaccine, it only makes sense that people who have existing H1N1 antibodies should never be given an H1N1 vaccine shot.
To determine this, however, each person about to receive a vaccine shot would have to be tested to see if they already have H1N1 influenza antibodies. But to conduct that test for the entire U.S. population would take years to complete. (The CDC testing labs are already overrun and can’t handle millions of tests in a timely manner…)
Thus, there is currently no effort to test anyone for H1N1 antibodies before injecting them with the H1N1 vaccine… a vaccine that may have been rendered utterly useless to that person even before the shot!
No medical justification, just FEAR marketing
Millions of people around the world, you see, have already survived H1N1 swine flu. For those individuals, there is absolutely no medical justification for being vaccinated. The only justification for a vaccine is economic — to sell another vaccine to someone who doesn’t need it.
This is, of course, the predominant business model of the pharmaceutical industry: Sell monopoly-priced drugs to people who, for the most part, don’t really need them. That’s how psychiatric drugs are pushed these days, and much the same is true for cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs and of course vaccines.
With the swine flu, neither the pharmaceutical industry nor the mainstream media has bothered to address this important question of injecting people who are already antibody positive. It’s not only a question of the additional health risk to the recipient of the injection; it’s also a question of the efficient use of vaccines when the available supply is limited. For every person who is injected but didn’t need the vaccine, there’s another person out there who won’t get the vaccine (from the point of view of western medicine, of course, which wants everyone to be vaccinated).
You are your own vaccine!
But there’s a bigger point in all this. If millions of people have already been infected with H1N1 swine flu and virtually none of them died, it’s a powerful demonstration of the awesome defensive capabilities of the human immune system and the human body’s ability to make your own vaccine.
As a human being with a functioning immune system, you are a walking vaccine factory. Simply by exposing your body to an invading virus, your immune system gets to work, manufacturing its own “vaccine” and building its own antibodies to make you immune to any further infections from that virus. That’s why you only get the chicken pox once. It’s why one winter’s flu doesn’t strike you every winter. It’s the reason you are still alive today, and it doesn’t require needles, or chemical preservatives, or adjuvants or a trip to the local medical clinic.
And if your human body already has this miraculous nanotechnology known as the immune system, why do you need a vaccine for the ridiculously mild H1N1 swine flu in the first place?
Sure, if H1N1 had a kill rate of five percent, that would be a different story. But we’re talking about a flu that’s so mild, a single death from it results in national headline news. “Cornell student dies from swine flu…”
As I explained in a related article here on NaturalNews, you are 40 times more likely to be struck by lightning than to have your life saved by the swine flu vaccine.
And that’s if you’ve never been infected by swine flu in the first place. If you’ve already been infected and you’re still alive, your odds of being saved by a swine flu vaccine injection are precisely zero.
Would you buy a lotto ticket if there were zero chance of winning something? Most people wouldn’t, and yet many of those very same people are lining up to get ready for a swine flu vaccine lottery that may offer them exactly the same empty odds of success.
That, of course, is why the swine flu vaccine isn’t being marketed using statistics, mathematics or reasoned logic. It’s being pushed through one mechanism: Fear. Because as the drug companies have long since learned, fear always overcomes reason when it comes to pimping vaccines. And even mathematicians and scientists will line up to get injected with a vaccine they don’t even need if they can be properly motivated to discard reason and abandon statistical reality.
Click here for the full report from Natural News
