August 16th, 2011
By: Jonathan Benson
A recent study published in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment has found that taking high doses of vitamin D can help relieve the joint and muscle pain caused by taking aromatase inhibitor drugs for breast cancer. The research, which appears to apply generally to joint and muscle pain, also helps confirm that vitamin D helps to maintain bone density and prevent bone loss.
Researchers from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Mo., tested the effects of a weekly 50,000 international unit (IU) dose of vitamin D on women taking anastrozole, one of three FDA-approved aromatase inhibitors currently available to women with breast cancer. Compared to women taking a placebo, those given the 50,000 IU dose of vitamin D experienced less overall pain and discomfort.
“High-dose vitamin D seems to be really effective in reducing the musculoskeletal pain caused by aromatase inhibitors,” said Dr. Antonella L. Rastelli, assistant professor of medicine and lead author of the study. “Patients who get the vitamin D weekly feel better because their pain is reduced and sometimes goes away completely.”
And although the context of the study involved pain specifically caused by breast cancer drugs, the findings apply to all who experience general joint and muscle pain as well. Vitamin D itself is also a powerful anti-cancer nutrient, which means taking it in high doses can actually be more effective at treating breast cancer than taking aromatase inhibitors.
Vitamin D deficiency directly linked to joint, muscle pain
A comprehensive review of 22 different clinical studies conducted back in 2009 revealed a definitive link between vitamin D deficiency and chronic pain, including that of joints and muscles. Supplementing with high doses of vitamin D was shown to help alleviate and even cure such conditions.
Vitamin D prevents, treats breast cancer
At the 2010 “Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency” conference put on by the University of Toronto School of Medicine, Dr. Cedric Garland announced that breast cancer can be “eradicated” by vitamin D. He presented research showing that vitamin D is crucial for healthy cell growth, and people who get plenty of it — meaning daily doses of 2,000 IU or more for healthy individuals — can prevent the onset of cancer.
June 27th, 2011
By: Mike Adams
Ask somebody about sunscreen and you’re likely to receive an earful of disinformation from a person who has been repeatedly misinformed by health authorities and the mainstream media. Almost nothing you hear about sunscreen from traditional media channels is accurate. So here’s a quick guide to the 7 most important things you need to know about sunscreen, sunlight and vitamin D:
#1) The FDA refuses to allow natural sunscreen ingredients to be used in sunblock / sunscreen products
It’s true: If you create a truly natural sunscreen product using exotic botanicals with powerful sunscreen properties, you will never be able to market it as a “sunscreen” product. That’s because the FDA decides what can be used as sunscreen and what can’t, regardless of what really works in the real world. And there are really only two natural ingredients the FDA has allowed to be sold as sunscreen: Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.
Any other non-chemical sunscreen ingredients, if sold as “sunscreen,” would be considered mislabeled by the FDA and result in your products being confiscated… even if they offer fantastic sunscreen protection!
Not surprisingly, this whole monopoly over sunscreen chemicals is designed to protect the profits of the chemical companies while marginalizing the natural product companies which could easily formulate far better solutions. I have personally spoken to the founders of several health product companies who have figured out amazing sunscreen formulations using nothing but natural botanicals, but the FDA won’t let them market their products as sunscreen products!
It’s just another example of the FDA standing in the way of health innovation.
#2) Nearly all conventional sunscreen products contain cancer-causing chemicals
Read the ingredients list of any sunscreen product sold at Wal-Mart, or Walgreens, or any other mainstream store. I dare ya!
You will not be able to pronounce most of the chemicals found in the ingredients list. That’s because most sunscreen products are formulated with cancer-causing fragrance chemicals, parabens, harsh alcohols, toxic chemical solvents and petroleum oils. A typical sunscreen product is actually a chemical assault on your body. That’s why research shows that using sunscreen actually causes more cancer than it prevents.
#3) In a nation where over 70% of the population is vitamin D deficiency, sunscreen actually blocks vitamin D production
Vitamin D deficiency is perhaps the most widespread vitamin deficiency in North America. According to the research, 70 percent of whites are deficient in vitamin D, and up to 97 percent of blacks are deficient.
Chronic vitamin D deficiency promotes cancer, winter flu and infections, depression, osteoporosis and hormonal imbalances. Depending on whom you believe, vitamin D alone can prevent anywhere from 50% to nearly 80% of all cancers.
By blocking vitamin D production in the skin, sunscreen products actually contribute to cancer-promoting nutritional deficiencies.
This doesn’t mean you should never wear a sunscreen product, of course. If your skin is really pale and you’re planning a day on the beach in Hawaii, you will obviously benefit from some level of sun protection using a truly natural sunscreen product. But an informed health-conscious person would try to allow their skin to achieve a natural, healthy tan (yes, a tan truly is healthy if it’s combined with good nutrition, see below) through sensible exposure levels that activate vitamin D production in the skin.
#4) You can boost your internal sun resistance by changing what you eat
Here’s the real secret about sun exposure that no one in conventional medicine is talking about (because, as usual, they are woefully ignorant about nutrition): You can boost your internal sunscreen by eating antioxidant-rich foods and superfoods.
The supplement astaxanthin, for example, is very well known for boosting your skin’s natural resistance to sunburn. Its fat-soluble carotenoids are actually transported to skin cells where they protect those cells from UV exposure.
The more natural antioxidants you have in your diet, the more sunlight your skin will be able to handle without burning. Nearly everyone mistakenly believes that a person’s sunlight burn response is purely a genetic factor. They’re wrong. You can radically improve your resistance to UV exposure through radical dietary changes.
I’m a great example of this, actually, as I used to burn in just 20 – 30 minutes of sunlight when I was on a junk food diet years ago. But now, as someone who eats superfoods and high-end nutritional supplements every day, I can spend hours in the sun and will only turn slightly red (which fades a few hours later and does not result in a burn or skin peeling).
Except for one time on an all-day visit to a water park, I have not worn sunscreen in over 8 years. I spend a large amount of time in the sun, and I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever about skin cancer. My skin, most people tell me, looks significantly younger than my biological age. That’s not from sunscreen; it’s from nutrition. Sun exposure does not make your skin “age” if you follow a high-nutritional density diet.
December 29th, 2010
By: David Gutierrez
Vitamin D deficiency may contribute to the development of breast cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of South Carolina and presented at the Third American Association for Cancer Research Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Miami.
Researchers measured vitamin D levels in 107 women who had received a breast cancer diagnosis within the past five years. Not only was vitamin D deficiency widespread among the participants, but lower levels of the vitamin were also significantly correlated with triple-negative breast cancer.
Triple-negative breast cancer is the most aggressive and hardest to treat form of the disease, as it is unresponsive to all the most effective drugs. The researchers found that it was eight times more common in women with vitamin D deficiency than in those with adequate levels of the vitamin.
The findings may explain why rates of triple-negative are consistently higher in black and Hispanic women than among white women.
“We know that darker skin pigmentation acts somewhat as a block to producing vitamin D when exposed to sunlight, which is the primary source of vitamin D in most people,” researcher Susan Steck said.
Indeed, while only 15 percent of white women in the study had low levels of vitamin D deficiency, 60 percent of black participants had insufficient levels.
“[The study] corroborates other research showing racial differences in vitamin D status and provides further support for a protective role of vitamin D in breast cancer,” the researchers wrote.
As more evidence of vitamin D’s role in disease prevention has emerged in recent years, health experts have become increasingly alarmed at the widespread levels of deficiency across the United States.
“Vitamin D deficiency is epidemic in America, and it contributes not only to the development of osteoporosis but to increased cancer and heart disease as well,” writes Joel Fuhrman in his book Cholesterol Protection for Life.
November 15th, 2010
By: David Gutierrez
Women of African ancestry are more likely to develop a more aggressive form of breast cancer known as “triple negative,” researchers have found, but the explanation for this correlation may have more to do with vitamin levels than with genetic predisposition.
Breast tumors may carry any combination of a variety of receptors, including estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and HER-2/neu receptors. Because modern treatments have focused on targeting these three receptors, cancers that carry none of them — that are triple negative — are significantly harder to treat.
“Outcome disparities are therefore likely to increase, because fewer black women are candidates for these newer treatments,” said researcher Lisa A. Newman of the University of Michigan.
To conduct the study, which was published in the journal Cancer, researchers compared the types of breast cancer diagnosed in white and black women at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and African women at the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital in Ghana. They found that while only 16 percent of white and 26 percent of black participants had triple negative cancer, the rate was 82 percent among African women.
The researchers immediately proposed a genetic explanation for their findings, suggesting that African ancestry predisposes women to develop triple negative breast cancers. As evidence, they cited studies showing that while breast cancer rates are lower among black women in the United States than among white women, black women tend to develop cancers at a younger age, and those cancers are more aggressive and more likely to be fatal.
The data may be interpreted another way, however. For example, a number of studies have identified traits including obesity, excess weight gain since childhood, failure to breastfeed after pregnancy and use of lactation suppressants as risk factors for basal-type breast cancers, of which triple negative cancers are a subcategory.
Meanwhile, cancer researcher Sarah Gehlert of the University of Chicago is conducting research into the effect community factors on breast cancer risk.
“Women who live in areas with … a lot of violent crime, and who live in unsafe housing, without a lot of community support … will be more likely to have sporadic mutations and will have [worse outcomes] with breast cancer,” Gehlert said.
If women in Ghana and black women in Michigan live in more stressful, toxic environments than white Michigan women, this could partially explain the study’s findings. Notably, Ghanian women in the study were also likely to develop cancer younger and to have larger, more advanced tumors. Similarly, a higher rate of triple negative cancer has also been found among Hispanic women in the United States, whose genetic ancestry is quite different than African American women.
One factor shared by black and Hispanic women is darker skin color and a corresponding predisposition to vitamin D deficiency.
“We produce vitamin D from UV sunlight, but melanin — which gives dark skin its color — blocks UV light,” said Dr Helen Cooper of Birmingham University.
Vitamin D helps to regulate the immune system and has been associated with a lower risk of certain cancers. Researchers believe this is why rates of cancer are so much lower closer to the equator, where the sun is strongest.
In addition to helping prevent cancers in general, vitamin D may also help reverse the course of breast cancer.
“There is some evidence that Vitamin D can help transform breast cancer cells into healthy cells,” writes Phyllis A. Balch in her book Prescription for Herbal Healing.
“Vitamin D supplements are not necessary; all that is needed for the body to manufacture adequate amounts of Vitamin D for fighting cancer is to expose your hands and face to sunlight for twenty minutes each day. Do not use sunscreen during this twenty-minute period, since sunblocks screen out the kind of ultraviolet light that stimulates the natural production of the vitamin.”
August 30, 2010
by Ethan A. Huff
A new study out of Oxford University pinpoints vitamin D deficiency as a culprit in serious illnesses like cancer and autoimmune disorders. According to the report, which was recently published online in the journal Genome Research, genetic receptors throughout the body need adequate vitamin D levels to prevent these and other serious illnesses from developing.
Multiple sclerosis, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Chron’s disease, leukemia — these and many more diseases are often caused by a lack of vitamin D. Your genes literally have receptors that need vitamin D in order to properly express themselves. If there is not enough of the vitamin, serious illness is prone to develop.
The Oxford team made specific observations about the importance of vitamin D in the genome regions associated with autoimmune diseases and cancer, noting that the nutrient is absolutely vital in helping to prevent these diseases from forming.
“Considerations of vitamin D supplementation as a preventative measure for these diseases are strongly warranted,” expressed Sreeram Ramagopalan, author of the study.
However, current recommendations for vitamin D intake are unacceptably low, and many nations are considering updating their guidelines. The U.S. Institute of Medicine, for example, recommends getting a mere 200 to 600 international units (IU) of vitamin D a day, an amount far too low to have much therapeutic effect.
Since summer sun exposure creates about 20,000 IU of vitamin D in the skin in just 15 minutes, supplementation with at least 5,000 to 10,000 IU of vitamin D daily, particularly during the winter, is preferable. Healthy blood levels of vitamin D are somewhere between 50 and 80 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml), so many natural health professionals recommend having a “25 OH Vitamin D” blood test performed to check these levels.
July 28, 2010
By: David Gutierrez
An increase in blood levels of vitamin D can significantly reduce a person’s risk of heart disease, according to a study conducted by researchers from Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Salt Lake City and presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Atlanta.
Researchers reviewed the health records of more than 9,000 people who had been diagnosed with vitamin D insufficiency and who had also undergone vitamin D testing at a later date. They found that approximately 50 percent of all patients had achieved healthy vitamin D levels of at least 30 nanograms per milliliter by the second test. Rates of heart disease were significantly lower in this group than among patients who were still deficient in the vitamin.
Prior studies have shown a correlation between low levels of vitamin D and a higher risk of heart disease. Yet researchers have been unable to determine whether there is any direct connection between the two factors, since low vitamin D levels might also correlate with a number of other cardiovascular risk factors such as general poor health, poor diet or lack of exercise.
The only way to firmly establish a connection would be to conduct an experiment where only half a group of vitamin D-deficient participants is supplemented while the rest receive a placebo. Because vitamin D deficiency has been proven to increase the risk of other diseases, such a study would not be ethical and cannot be conducted.
“What we did was observational and not definitive, but we think it adds significantly to the story,” said lead author J. Brent Muhlestein. “It’s at least a reasonable piece of evidence to add to the hypothesis that low vitamin D is causative of cardiovascular risk and treatment can reduce cardiovascular disease risk.”
The body synthesizes vitamin D naturally upon exposure to sunlight. Low levels of the vitamin have been linked to weakened bones and higher risks of infection, cancer and autoimmune diseases.
July 27, 2010
By: David Gutierrez
A new study has once again shown that people living farther from the equator are significantly more likely to suffer from vitamin D deficiency.
“Results show clear differences in vitamin D status between the north and south and marked ethnic differences,” said researchers from Aberdeen University in Scotland.
The body produces vitamin D upon exposure to the UV-B radiation found in sunlight, with a light-skinned person able to synthesize all they need in as little as 15 minutes during the summer at a moderate latitude. Because the sun gets weaker the farther a person moves from the equator, however, it takes more and more sun exposure to get the same amount of the vitamin. This problem is only exacerbated in the winter.
The researchers compared both sun exposure and vitamin D levels in women under the age of 66 living in either Aberdeen, in the north of Scotland, or in Surrey, in England’s south. All the women wore UV-B sensitive bandages on their bodies, and their vitamin D blood levels were measured once every three months over a 15-month period.
The researchers found significantly lower sun exposure in Aberdeen than in Surrey at all times of the year. Mirroring these results, they found no vitamin D deficiency among any white Surrey residents. In contrast, between 25 and 27 percent of Aberdeen women were vitamin D deficient during the winter or spring, while 4.2 percent were deficient even in the summer.
Even in Surrey, as many as 60 percent of Asian women were still vitamin D deficient, and also showed lower sun exposure than their white counterparts. The researchers suggested that more traditional clothing (which covers more of the skin) and darker skin might account for part of this difference.
People with darker skin produce vitamin D more slowly than people with lighter skin.
“The recommendation of 10 minutes of sunlight exposure a day may need to be changed for those with darker skin or in higher latitudes,” researcher Helen Macdonald said.
April 21, 2010
By Richard Alleyne
Scientists believe a combination of cold temperatures and lack of sun could help explain higher rates of the disease in northerly parts of the world.
Poor exposure to the sun’s rays can lead to vitamin D deficiency, which may increase prostate cancer risk, it is claimed.
At the same time, cold weather might help to slow the degradation of cancer-triggering industrial pollutants and pesticides, said US researchers.
Cold temperatures were also believed to help the chemicals precipitate out of the atmosphere and fall to the ground.
Dr Sophie St-Hilaire, who led the scientists from Idaho State University, said: “We found that colder weather, and low rainfall, were strongly correlated with prostate cancer.
“Although we can’t say exactly why this correlation exists, the trends are consistent with what we would expect given the effects of climate on the deposition, absorption, and degradation of persistent organic pollutants including pesticides”.
Around one in six men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime.
Across the northern hemisphere, reported incidence of the disease is greater in higher latitudes, according to the scientists.
The rate varies by about five per cent.
Each year in the UK, around 35,000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and 10,000 die from the disease.
It is known that some pollutants can cause cancer, said the researchers writing online in the International Journal of Health Geographics.
Experts believed that cold weather slowed the chemicals’ degradation and caused them to precipitate to the ground.
Rain and humidity were also thought to play important roles in their absorption and degradation.
Dr St-Hilaire said: “This study provides an additional hypothesis for the north-south distribution of prostate cancer, which builds on the existing supposition that individuals at northern latitudes may be deficient in Vitamin D due to low exposure to UV (ultraviolet) radiation during the winter months.
“Our study suggests that in addition to vitamin D deficiency associated with exposure to UV radiation, other meteorological conditions may also significantly affect the incidence of prostate cancer”.
The scientists analysed prostate cancer data for every US county between 2000 and 2004.
They found that lower temperatures correlated with higher rates of prostate cancer, after adjusting for UV radiation, local pesticide use, rainfall, snowfall and other factors.
“We hypothesise that temperature may be associated with the incidence of prostate cancer by modulating exposure to POPs (persistent organic pollutants), some of which have been linked to the disease,” the researchers wrote.
Organic chemicals tended to exist in a solid rather than a gaseous form at cold temperatures, they pointed out. This would cause them to fall to earth.
Temperature also affected the degradation of POPs in the soil and atmosphere.
January 21, 2010
by Erin Allday
As recently as a decade ago, vitamin D was mostly thought of as a helper-nutrient – it allowed the body to absorb and use calcium for strong bones. With a diet of fortified foods and a little bit of sunshine every day, most people got plenty of it.
But that was years ago. Today, research suggests that vitamin D does much more than help build strong bones, and the findings come at a time when a high number of people are no longer getting enough of the nutrient, doctors say.
“We’ve become a culture that shuns the sunshine and doesn’t drink milk,” said Dr. Donald Abrams, chief of hematology-oncology at San Francisco General Hospital.
As a result, doctors are seeing a small resurgence of rickets and are concerned about osteoporosis in adults over age 50, especially as Baby Boomers get older.
Known for causing bowed legs, fractured bones and poor growth primarily in children, rickets all but disappeared in the United States decades ago as diets improved and vitamin D was added to certain dairy products like milk.
Vitamin D’s moment
To remedy the low vitamin D levels they are seeing, doctors are beginning to recommend supplements to their patients, and more of the vitamin than recommended by national guidelines. That is largely because research over the past decade has increasingly suggested that vitamin D plays a far bigger role in overall health than previously believed.
Aside from its well-known reputation for building and maintaining strong bones, vitamin D could be tied to cancer prevention and cardiovascular health, and some researchers are looking into a connection between vitamin D deficiency and gum disease, said Dr. Mark Ryder, chair of the division of periodontology at the UCSF School of Dentistry.
“It helps boost your ability to fight infection, and it also reduces some destructive inflammation in your body, including inflammation with periodontal disease,” Ryder said. “Every five or 10 years, a new vitamin becomes the vitamin of the moment. The hot one right now is probably vitamin D, and so far all of the evidence looks encouraging.”
If, in fact, vitamin D is more important than believed, people probably need more of it than they’re getting – and more than doctors have recommended in the past, Ryder said.
More D is better
National guidelines recommend between 200 and 600 international units of vitamin D a day. Doctors say it’s unclear exactly how much vitamin D people should be getting, but 1,000 international units a day is a good place to start. It is possible, but unlikely, to get too much vitamin D – some studies say people can safely take 10,000 units a day and suffer no ill effects.
“I recommend to my patients who are older that they take between 800 and 1,200 units a day, unless they have certain diseases that cause poor absorption, and then they may need more,” said Dr. Jerry Minkoff, an endocrinologist with Kaiser Permanente in Santa Rosa. “I don’t own stock in Nature’s Blend, but yes, people should just take a supplement. It’s very cheap, and it’s very safe.”
National studies suggest that about two-thirds of Americans currently meet vitamin D recommendations, but many doctors say those guidelines are outdated. Abrams, the hematology-oncology expert at San Francisco General, said vitamin D deficiency has become so common in his patients that he routinely recommends a supplement, even without a test to confirm whether they’re getting enough of the nutrient.
There often are no symptoms from low vitamin D levels except in cases where the deficiency is so great that rickets or osteoporosis result. Some people may feel tired or sluggish and find they have more energy when they take a vitamin D supplement, but there are no clinical trials to prove those effects.
The supplement typically comes in pill form, but people can get vitamin D naturally from sun exposure and by eating certain foods. Both of those options are problematic, however.
It might only take a few minutes of sun exposure every day to create enough vitamin D, but doctors are wary to recommend spending time in the sun because of the risk of skin cancer. Wearing sunblock prevents vitamin D production.
Cod liver oil is the best source of vitamin D – it has 1,360 units in a tablespoon. But it tastes awful.
Most other foods with vitamin D just don’t have enough of it to be practical sources. Salmon and some other fish have a few hundred units of vitamin D per serving, but most people don’t eat enough fish to reliably get the nutrients they need every day. Two cups of fortified milk a day would meet the current vitamin D recommendations – but few Americans drink that much.
November 16, 2009
By Mike Adams
Here’s what we know with some degree of certainty about the H1N1 virus in Ukraine right now: nearly 300 people have died from the viral strain, and over 65,000 people have been hospitalized (the actual numbers are increasing by the hour). The virus appears to be either a highly aggressive mutation of the globally-circulating H1N1 strain, or a combination of three different influenza strains now circulating in Ukraine. Some observers suspect this new “super flu” might be labeled viral hemorrhagic pneumonia (meaning it destroys lung tissue until your lungs bleed so much that you drown in your own fluid), but that has not been confirmed by any official sources we’re aware of.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko has issued emergency quarantine orders for nine of the country’s regions and ordered the deployment of mobile military hospitals. He announced that the nation had been simultaneously hit with two different seasonal flu strains plus H1N1 — and then hinted that all three might have recombined into the deadly new Ukrainian super flu.
In his own words, as reported by Daily Mail, “Unlike similar epidemics in other countries, three causes of serious viral infections came together simultaneously in Ukraine: two seasonal flus and the Californian flu. Virologists conclude that this combination of infections may produce an even more aggressive new virus as a result of mutation.”
On November 6, Ukraine’s Deputy Health Minister Zinovy Mytnyk announced that over 600,000 citizens had already caught the new flu. British scientists are now conducting tests on the new viral strain to find out why it appears to be so deadly (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor…).
The mainstream media is blaming Ukraine’s poor health care system for the relatively high rates of hospitalization and death (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/w…), but they refuse to mention (yet again) the vitamin D deficiency found across this population living at high latitude in the winter, where sunlight is relatively scarce.
Here’s a useful blog for staying up to date on the Ukrainian plague:
What we don’t know
Now here’s what we don’t know about the Ukraine outbreak:
What is the actual genetic composition of this mutated strain?
Scientists have not released any meaningful news about the genetic sequence of the Ukraine strain. For the moment, the WHO is somewhat quiet on the matter. The last WHO update was from November 3 (and the situation has become considerably worse since). (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_11_…).
Was this viral strain released as a bioweapon?
There are numerous reports circulating widely across the ‘net that cite aerial spraying across Kiev in the days before the new “super flu” outbreak. People are speculating that this was a bioweapon attack intentionally unleashed upon the Ukrainian population. So far, NaturalNews can find no credible information supporting this theory, but it remains a possibility to be researched further.
Does Baxter Pharmaceuticals have anything to do with the outbreak?
You may recall that earlier this year, Baxter shipped live avian flu viral material to labs in 18 countries, including one in the Ukraine. (http://www.naturalnews.com/025760.html) There is suspicion that Baxter could be tied to a planned outbreak of a weaponized virus as a population control bioweapon of some sort, but NaturalNews has not been unable to find any credible information sources supporting this theory. Lacking any better leads on this subject, as far as we can tell right now this remains an unproven conspiracy theory. (If anyone has more credible info on this, please send it our way for review.)
It is plausible that Baxter had something to do with this, but we just don’t have any convincing evidence to back it up at this point.
H1N1 vaccines likely offer little protect against the Ukraine super flu
People receiving H1N1 vaccine shots right now need to know that currently-available H1N1 vaccine shots may offer no protection whatsoever against the “Ukraine Strain.” That’s because once the virus mutates, changing it genetic structure, it can instantly render all existing vaccines obsolete.
Depending on the degree of genetic changes, there is a possibility that some level of immunity may be conferred to people who already have H1N1 antibodies, but here’s the dirty little secret the vaccine industry doesn’t want you to know: People who built their own natural immunity to H1N1 through exposure rather than vaccines have a much greater likelihood of exhibiting natural immunity to genetic variations of H1N1. In other words, people who overcame H1N1 exposure on their own, without being vaccinated, have a far stronger defense against H1N1 variations that might appear.
This is yet another reason why flu vaccines are so dangerous: The deny your immune system the important opportunity to exercise its own adaptive defenses and build stronger protections against future infections.
One possible scenario that could unfold with all this is that the Ukraine strain might spread around the world, wiping out those who got vaccinated against H1N1 because their immune systems suffer from a suppressed ability to naturally generate antibodies to a new strain. Meanwhile, drug companies will try to scramble and create a whole new batch of “super flu” vaccines, but they’re always too little, too late. Theoretically, millions of people could die around the world while waiting in line for yet another vaccine shot.
All they really need is vitamin D3, some herbal anti-virals, a healthy diet and plenty of rest, but no one is telling them that.
Even the Ukraine super flu is no match for a healthy immune system. Remember: Out of 65,000+ hospitalizations, fewer than 300 people have died so far. That’s still a very low mortality rate, even if the spread of the viral infection seems aggressive.
WHO cranking up anti-viral drug push
Meanwhile, the WHO is upping its push for anti-viral drugs, saying that drugs like Tamiflu should now be used earlier on swine flu victims (http://www.google.com/hostednews/af…).
They still won’t recommend anti-viral herbs, foods, supplements or natural remedies, of course. The WHO remains a faithful pusher of Big Pharma’s profit agenda, even while denying the People of the world the truth about how they can save their own lives with anti-viral natural remedies. To both the WHO and CDC, the swine flu pandemic has always been about pushing a pharmaceutical agenda at the expense of public health.
Had the public been informed about vitamin D and natural anti-virals like Lomatium, many lives could have already been saved. Instead, the drug pushers at the CDC and WHO have tens of millions of people standing in line waiting for vaccines instead of consuming natural supplements and remedies that could help protect them from influenza.
The profit agenda forces us to wonder: With the current H1N1 strain fizzling out — and yet billions of dollars worth of vaccines still needing to be sold — could the Ukraine strain have been engineered to scare up more demand and more sales of vaccines and anti-virals?
That’s a question that all thinking people need to be asking right now. But we also need to be careful in assessing what’s true here. Reading the postings about this on the ‘net, I’ve noticed way too many people leaping to assumptions about what’s happening in the Ukraine without any real evidence to back that up. The reports about Joseph Moshe, in particular, appear to be a complete hoax.
While it’s possible this was an engineered bioweapon of some sort, it’s not enough to just assume that’s true and then declare it to be so. More evidence is needed before NaturalNews would back a theory like that.