Today, Kevin discusses who is actually controlling all the money in the world; it might not be who you think it is! PLUS, find out the dangers of vaccines and the lengths the government is going to to make sure you get the shots!
WHO says New Flu is Unstoppable
Drug Resistant Tuberculosis is On the Way
Swine Flu Similar to 1918 Pandemic
Flu Shots Put Children in Hospital
Homeless People DIE After Given Bird Flu Vaccine
Cures for Flus, Colds, etc.
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
Today, the fearless Kevin Trudeau talks about the topics they don’t want you to hear!! Plus, the publisher of the One Minute Cure, Maria Veloso, stops by to give you the inside story on how to cure virtually ALL diseases for only a penny a day!
The Fountain Of Youth
Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!
March 30th, 2011
By: Melissa Keith
Last year Health Canada released Fluoride in Drinking Water, a document for public inspection and comment, prepared by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water.
A panel of six experts, four of them dentists, investigated fluoride exposure data with the intent of “revising the current drinking-water guideline” for Canada, while explicitly stating that their objective was not to dictate municipal fluoridation practices.
Fluoridated water is a tough mouthful to swallow for the increasing number of Canadians questioning its impact on their bodies and the environment. Critics have questioned the lengthy report on multiple fronts, including failure to rigorously assess the role of fluoride in a globally pervasive health condition—thyroid disease.
The Health Canada study did not seriously consider thyroid health when it put forward a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) level of 1.5 mg of fluoride per litre of tap water, according to a response from Carole Clinch, research coordinator with People for Safe Drinking Water.
Why focus on thyroid function?
For starters, the thyroid gland is a repository where fluoride accumulates throughout one’s lifetime.
Fluoride is a very small, chemically reactive particle that tends to displace other minerals in certain storage sites within the body. For this reason, it has been used in osteoporosis treatment—fluoride reinforces bone where calcium has been depleted—and dentistry to replace minerals lost from the teeth.
It should be remembered that the World Health Organization (WHO) treats fluoride more like a drug than an essential nutrient. Fluoridation of a municipal water supply is, in effect, administration of a substance that can create “chemical hazards with clearly defined health effects” for all users of that water, according to WHO.
Unless reverse osmosis, distillation, or activated alumina systems are used, you are not able to remove the fluoride. As Paul Connett, PhD, professor emeritus of environmental chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, declares in his critique of Health Canada’s proposed MAC level for fluoride, “Once fluoride has been added to the water it is no longer possible to control the dose that people get. There will be literally millions of people who will get a higher dose of fluoride drinking water at 0.8 ppm [parts per million] than people would get drinking water at 1.5 ppm.”
How fluoride affects the thyroid
Evidence that fluoride accumulates in the thyroid dates back to the early 1900s, where its presence in the glandular tissue first came to light because of obvious goitres (swollen, enlarged thyroid glands).
In the thyroid gland, fluoride can prevent iodine from playing its proper role in synthesizing two hormones critical for normal metabolic activity throughout the body—T3 (triiodothyronine) and T4 (thyroxine).
The names of these hormones allude to the number of iodide particles the thyroid needs to build them. When fluoride—a more reactive substance from the same chemical family as iodine (the halides)—enters the picture, it can interfere with the T3 and T4 manufacture by blocking iodide receptors.
March 1st, 2011
By: Mara Gay
Teenagers should be barred from tanning salons to help prevent them from getting skin cancer, the American Academy of Pediatrics says.
The country’s largest group of pediatric doctors warned today that spending time in the tanning salon greatly increases the chances of getting melanoma, the most aggressive and deadly type of skin cancer. According to the group, melanoma is the second leading type of cancer among women in their 20s.
The new policy makes the American Academy of Pediatrics the latest medical group to campaign for increased regulation of tanning salons. In 2009, the World Health Organization classified tanning as a carcinogen and has also lobbied to bar teens from the popular practice. The American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology support a ban as well.
Dr. Sophie Balk of Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, the lead author of the new statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, said the group is singling out teens because tanning has become trendy among teenage girls. According to research cited by Balk, nearly one out of four white women ages 13 to 19 has visited a tanning salon at least once.
“I would try and encourage people to love the skin they’re in,” Balk told AOL News in a phone interview today. She said the Academy is pushing for legislation that would bar teenagers under the age of 18 from using the tanning salons.
But the Indoor Tanning Association, which represents the tanning salon industry, says parents bear the ultimate responsibility for their children’s health. John Overstreet, the association’s executive director, noted that most states already require parental permission in tanning salons and said there is no need for increased regulation.
“I think parents can best determine whether or not their teenager should get a suntan,” he told AOL News by phone today.
He said teens account for about 10 percent of the industry’s clients. A ban, he said, “would definitely push some of these businesses over the edge.”
Overstreet said some studies suggest that tanning in moderation can actually be healthy, by boosting vitamin D levels in the body.
According to the Academy of Pediatrics, however, recommending that teens seek out tanning to achieve healthy levels of vitamin D, which is vital to bone health, is irresponsible. Instead, the authors said, teens should consider taking supplements. “Why should you expose yourself to a carcinogen if you can go outside or take a supplement?” Balk said.
Each year, about 8,500 Americans die from melanoma, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
February 16th, 2011
By: Ethan A. Huff
The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently investigating reports from 12 different countries claiming that the H1N1 (swine flu) vaccination is responsible for causing narcolepsy, a disorder involving extreme chronic fatigue and the tendency to fall asleep suddenly and without warning. One of the reports from Finland, for instance, found that children who received the swine flu vaccine were 900 percent more likely to develop narcolepsy than non-vaccinated children.
“Since August 2010, following widespread use of vaccines against influenza (H1N1) 2009, cases of narcolepsy, especially in children and adolescents, have been reported from at least 12 countries,” said WHO. ” Officials admit the concerns are valid and say they will look into them further, but WHO continues to recommend swine flu vaccines anyway, including GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) Pandemrix.
The Finnish study, which was released by Finland’s National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), stopped short of fully blaming the vaccines, adding a caveat about a possible “joint effect of the vaccine and some other factor(s).” But the vaccine is clearly correlated to the condition, and by all preliminary appearances, seems to be a primary causative factor.
Considering WHO’s lead role in promoting the swine flu “pandemic” that led to mass vaccination campaigns in the first place, it is highly unlikely that this corrupt agency will ever come out and condemn swine flu vaccines, no matter how many reports and studies emerge. After all, admission that the vaccines were not all they were claimed to be would expose the agency as a purveyor of lies.
Early in 2010, the truth came out that WHO’s pandemic was nothing more than an organized farce to generate fear and reap obscene profits. Drug companies were exposed for putting pressure on WHO to declare a pandemic in order to push their vaccines. GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemix raked in over $1.4 billion as a result of the scare campaign.
February 10th, 2011
By: Ethan A. Huff
Introducing babies to solid food too soon significantly raises their chances of becoming obese, according to a new study published in the journal Pediatrics. Researchers from various hospitals in and around Boston, Mass., concluded that formula-fed babies who begin eating solid foods before four months are 600 percent more likely to become obese by age three than children who begin eating solid foods later.
The team tracked 847 infants as part of the study, 75 percent of whom became obese by age three. Breastfed babies in the group who began eating solid foods before four months of age were not any more prone to obesity than those fed solid foods after four months of age. Only formula-fed babies experienced an increased obesity risk, both before and after four months, indicating a striking nutritional difference between formula and breast milk.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the World Health Organization, and various other groups, all now recommend that babies be breastfed for at least the first six months of their lives. Surveys indicate that only about 75 percent of American babies receive any breast milk at all, and only about half of those get it for more than four months.
According to a 2005 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, switching from baby formula to breast milk reduces a child’s likelihood of becoming obese by up to 20 percent. Making the switch is also better for a child’s overall health, as many formulas are loaded with highly refined sugars, genetically-modified (GM) ingredients, and other nutrient-deficient additives.
Breastfeeding also produces healthier children who experience less infections and disease. A 2010 study out of Greece, for instance, found that babies breastfed for at least the first six months experience less overall infections. The study essentially showed that breastfeeding works better than vaccines at providing superior immunity, and without the harmful side effects.
February 3rd, 2011
Finnish researchers have found an increased risk of narcolepsy among 4 to 19-year-olds who were given swine flu shots, a government health agency said Tuesday.
A preliminary study by the National Narcolepsy Task Force indicates that children vaccinated with Pandemrix “contributed to the observed increase in incidence of narcolepsy” compared to those who were not vaccinated in the same age group, it said.
The agency said, however, that the increase likely was caused “by joint effect of the vaccine and some other factor,” and added that it would have to conduct more research as similar increases in narcolepsy cases have not been reported in other countries using the vaccine.
Pandemrix shots were made for the swine flu pandemic, and it is not clear how many people would still be receiving them since the usual flu shot now includes the swine flu strain. In Finland, health personnel stopped administering Pandemrix in August 2010 when concerns were first voiced about the vaccine.
Narcolepsy is a rare disorder that causes people to suddenly fall asleep. It is seldom fatal.
The National Institute for Health and Welfare, which published the findings, said that 60 children and adolescents contracted narcolepsy in Finland in 2009 and 2010. Fifty-two of them – or almost 90 percent – had received the Pandemrix vaccine, it added.
It’s not clear how many in the young age group were vaccinated with Pandemrix but half of Finland’s 5.3 million population were given the shot during the winter of 2009 to 2010.
“Based on the preliminary analyses, the risk of falling ill with narcolepsy among those vaccinated in the 4-19 years age group was nine-fold in comparison to those unvaccinated in the same age group,” the study said.
It found that the biggest increase was among those aged 5 to 15 years. No cases were seen among those under age 4 or over age 19.
The European Medicines Agency, the regulatory body responsible for authorizing use of the vaccine, launched an investigation into a possible link between the swine flu vaccine and narcolepsy in August.
GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which produces Pandemrix, said it was aware of the Finnish report.
“This investigation is independent of a broader ongoing European Medicines Agency investigation initiated in 2010,” the company said in a statement. “GlaxoSmithKline is reviewing the report and believes it would be premature to draw any conclusions on a potential association between Pandemrix and narcolepsy until this European investigation has been completed.”
The company said that more than 31 million doses of Pandemrix had been administered in 47 countries with 162 cases of narcolepsy reported in people who were vaccinated. Some 70 percent of the cases originated in Finland and Sweden, it said.
The World Health Organization welcomed the report but said it does not recommend any changes to use of Pandemrix and that the vaccine remains on the list of recommended vaccines.
The European Medicines Agency also said that it would not change its assessment of the benefit-risk relating to use of the vaccine.
The Finnish institute said the association between narcolepsy and the Pandemrix vaccine needs more investigation with special attention on “infections and other stimuli in close time association with the pandemic vaccination.”
The agency said its final report would be published in August.
January 28th, 2011
Bill Gates’ foundation and Abu Dhabi’s crown prince are donating $50 million each to vaccinate children in Afghanistan and Pakistan against polio and other diseases.
Sheik Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation say two-thirds of the funds will go toward a pair of vaccines against pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough and other ailments afflicting young children in Afghanistan. The rest will be given to the World Health Organization and UNICEF to provide polio vaccines in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Gates recently told The Associated Press eradicating polio is his top priority, and that he’s planning to announce a major donation to the effort in Davos, Switzerland on Friday.
December 28th, 2010
By: Amy Chaves
The November 2010 issue of Nature reported that several large pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline, have chosen to pull out of the psychiatric pharmacology in the treatment of schizophrenia. The reason is obvious, according to Nature author, Abbott: The first generation of schizophrenia drugs (manufactured in the 1950s) and the second generation (manufactured in the 1990s) have not addressed the adverse side effects of antipsychotic drugs on patients.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes schizophrenia as a mental disorder that interferes with a person’s ability to identify what is real. A person affected with this disorder is not able to manage emotions, cognition, as well as communication. Symptoms could appear in early adolescence as “early flickers of paranoia, hypersensitivity, and hallucination” (Dobbs, 2010). According to WHO, schizophrenia is usually characterized by disruptions in the most fundamental human attributes such as perception, language, thought, emotion, and sense of self. In 2001, WHO estimated that schizophrenia affects 7 per thousand of the adult population (the equivalent of 24 million worldwide), mostly between 15 to 35 years old.
The same November 2010 issue of Nature discussed about a US clinical trial involving nearly 1,500 patients in 57 clinical sites, and at a cost of US$43 million. This trial examined an array of second generation antipsychotic drugs to determine if they were better than the first generation antipsychotic drugs. The clinical trial spanned from 2001-2005. When the results of the unblinded trial were released in 2005, the psychiatric community and pharmacological companies were astounded: the findings suggest that the new drugs were barely different from the old ones.
Although both generations of anti-psychotic drugs were reported to control hallucinations and delusions, patients taking the second generation drugs remained confused, withdrawn, and devoid of drive, the same side effects observed in the first generation drugs. The result of this clinical trial, according to psychiatrist Jeffrey Lieberman, is frustrating and humbling for the research community and it had a chilling effect on the pharmaceutical industry (Abbott, 2010).
A systematic review in 2003 by Bagnall, et al., examined the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drugs used to treat schizophrenia. The review consisted of 171 randomized, controlled trials, of which 28 were from drug manufacturers. Although the review showed that atypical drugs (i.e., risperidone, amisulpride, olanzipine, and clozapine) were seen to be more effective in relieving symptoms of schizophrenia than typical ones, it nonetheless found the following common side-effects: agitation, movement disorders, impotence, dry mouth, nausea and vomiting, dizziness, and weight gain.
The same systematic review examined the safety of these drugs and some of the following adverse reactions were found: death, malignant syndrome, seizures, hepatic dysfunction, and cardiac problems.
A systematic review, involving the application of scientific strategies to limit bias, is a synthesis of relevant studies that address specific clinical questions. Reviews of this kind are considered as the best evidence for making clinical decisions.
The findings of the 2001-2005 US clinical trial and the systematic review of Bagnall, et al. point to the ineffectiveness of anti-psychotic drugs in dealing with schizophrenia. Considering that up to 1% of the world’s population is estimated to be affected by this disorder, schizophrenia represents a huge market for any pharmaceutical. However, as research have shown, the pharmaceutical industries have done little in 50 years to address the adverse side-effects that patients have experienced from antipsychotic drugs .
November 17th, 2010
The Huffington Post
By: Maria Cheng
Eating a healthy diet may be good for you, but it may be unintentionally slimming for the economies of some developing countries, a new study says. British researchers modeled what could happen if people in Britain and Brazil adopted healthier diets as defined by the World Health Organization, including more fruits and vegetables and less meat and dairy products.
In Britain, experts estimated that fixing the country’s bad eating habits might prevent nearly 70,000 people from prematurely dying of diet-related health problems like heart disease and cancer. It would also theoretically save the health system 20 billion pounds ($32 billion) every year.
In Brazil, however, the rates of illnesses linked to a poor diet are not as high as in the U.K. So Brazilians would get relatively few health benefits while their economy might lose millions.
The study was paid for by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and was published online Thursday in the medical journal, Lancet.
“We are not suggesting people not eat a healthy diet,” said Richard Smith, a professor of health system economics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. “We’re just trying to point out that healthier eating can have unintended consequences.”
Smith and colleagues said decisions in Brazil and in Western countries to adopt more vegetarian diets could cost the meat-dependent Brazilian economy 1,388 million reais ($815 million).
“In an ideal world, we would all have a perfect diet,” Smith said. “But it’s also desirable that everybody has a job.”
Smith said officials should consider nutritional guidelines more carefully. For countries like Brazil, which rely heavily on meat imports to the West and to Japan, global nutritional advice could potentially be devastating.
Others weren’t so sure.
“There are things happening in the rest of the world that this model didn’t account for,” said Julian Morris, executive director of International Policy Network, a London-based think tank. “The increasing demand for meat in Asia is substantial, ongoing, and might counteract any reduced demand in developed countries.”
Morris also disputed the assumption that healthy eating recommendations would change what people actually do have for dinner.
“If you really want a dramatic change in consumption of meat and dairy products, you need a radical policy, like a tax or quota system,” he said.
Robert Beaglehole, an emeritus professor at the University of Auckland not linked to the study, said scientific developments might help one day.
“The answer could be to breed healthier cattle and pigs,” he said, adding that more research was needed on whether additional strategies were necessary to ensure healthy eating guidelines don’t accidentally hurt developing economies.
Smith said experts shouldn’t assume nutritional advice, even when it’s followed, automatically improves health.
“You could tell people to buy less meat and maybe they will buy bananas instead,” he said. “But they could also buy more beer and wine.”