Home | About Us | Our Products | Amy's Life Coaching | E-Newsletter | Resources | Contact Us | Site Index
SHOP ONLINE NOW
|
E-Newsletter 
Newsletter
Radio
Shows
|
New! Search All Of My Articles By Topic With Quick and Easy Links If you like this article, please link to it, instead of copying it. Thank you. Green Living Now News, Edition Fourteen The Center for Disease Control (CDC) says, "Every year in the United States, on average, 36,000 people die from the flu." The actual number of flu associated deaths from 1999 to 2002 from the CDC National Vital Statistic Reports are: 753 deaths in 2002 (page 16 of report) So, how does the CDC get 36,000 flu deaths from 753 actual flu deaths? They combine pneumonia deaths with flu deaths, because they say that the flu can lead to pneumonia. These numbers apparently come from doctors "in the field" who have diagnosed a patient with the flu. Have any of those deaths from the flu ever had an identification of a virus that the CDC claims actually caused the flu? Most likely not. In the year 2000, there were 912 deaths listed under pneumonia where the flu virus was never identified. There is no provable link between those pneumonia cases and flu. (http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/04/29/investigators_challenge_cdc_flu_statistics_as_season_draws_to_close.htm) And who is getting the flu? Tommy Thompson, former head of US Health and Human services, stated
that 91 percent of the people who die from the flu in the US every
year are 65 and older. So, how many people under 65 are really dying
from the flu each year? About 68. According to Richard Jedelsohn, MD, Associate Chairman of the New York State Immunization Advisory Council, 30% of flu vaccines are not effective. In higher-risk groups, which include the people who are most in need of protection, flu and pneumonia vaccines are 50-60% ineffective. Doctors see many patients with the flu who have had their flu shot. (Let's Live magazine, by the Editor, Jan. 2000) The flu shot does not protect a person from getting a host of other upper-respiratory-tract infections that also commonly circulate during the winter season. "Vaccines are being used as an ideological weapon. What you see every year as the flu is caused by 200 or 300 different agents with a vaccine against two of them. That is simply nonsense." Dr. Marc Siegel, author of "False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear," agreed. "We have set up a situation where a fear is created, and then we try to create the treatment for this fear. The public gets the idea that the flu is going to kill them and the vaccine will save them. Neither is true," he said." Another problem-Flu vaccines contain the mercury-based thimerosal, which has been blamed for an increase of Autism, and other problems of brain development. There are also other toxic additives, such as formaldehyde. During the Swine flu affair of 1976 there were only 6 cases reported, but the 'swine flu' vaccine reportedly caused 565 cases of Guillain-Barre paralysis, 30 to 60 deaths and numerous other problems, including blindness and impotency. Despite improvements made to flu vaccines since 1976, any and all flu vaccines are capable of causing Guillain-Barre. According to FDA estimates, less than 10% of physicians report vaccine adverse effects. Why should we believe that the benefits of a flu vaccination outweigh the risks when no one knows what the true risks are? Isn't it interesting and disturbing that Congress is planning a measure that will guarantee vaccine manufacturers annual billion-dollar payoffs no matter how many doses are left over, unused? Seems like they are protecting drug manufacturers over us. And what a surprise to hear that Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, actually profits from the sale of Tamiflu, "a worthless drug that in no way shape or form treats the avian flu, but only decreases the amount of days one is sick and can actually contribute to the virus having more lethal mutations, according to Dr. Joseph Mercola. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was made the chairman of Gilead in 1997. He holds major portions of stock in Gilead, and will profit from the ridiculous government scare tactics used to justify the purchase of $2 billion of Tamiflu. What a coincidence.
Eat a good, ideally certified organic whole foods natural diet (no more processed junk food), and take lots of vitamin C (I use Emergen C by Alacer Corp. I plan to get some onto my site soon). Also, Reishi mushroom extract has anti-allergic, anti-inflammatory, anti-viral, antibacterial, and antioxidant properties. Washing your hands with soap and water frequently (no antibacterial products-not good for you), and carry around an organic hand sanitizer. Lots of rest and relaxation are also important. A healthy immune system is much less vulnerable to any virus or bacteria that we may be exposed to. Sources: 2. Congress Threatens Organic Standards I don't know about you but when I go to the store to buy organic food, I expect it to be free of all synthetic chemicals and genetically modified seeds. That's why I'm paying the higher price. Well, it's also because I want to support (preferably) the small family farms that are raising their food with practices that do not harm the health of any living being. Apparently I am not alone. A 2005 survey by the Consumers Union found that 85% of consumers expect to find few or no synthetic substances in organic products. The demand for cleaner safer food continues to grow. Organic food sales have grown by 20 percent each year in recent years. When the Department of Agriculture got involved in the national organic certification effort in 2002, I was skeptical. It seemed to me that the corporate food giants just wanted a way to get into the organic game because they saw that there were large profits to be made. That's not bad, except that these same corporations wanted to be allowed to use synthetic substances, changing the whole meaning of "organic". In other words, they wanted to grow food conventionally, but call it "organic" and charge more for it. No thanks, we already have conventional food. Many organic farmers felt the same way about the U.S.D.A. "organic" seal as I did. They also knew that the USDA had great difficulty standing up to the lobbying pressure of big food and big agriculture. The Organic label is supposed to mean something. It's supposed to give consumers confidence that the food has been grown and raised according to strict principles that do not allow the use of synthetic chemicals (pesticides, antibiotics, etc.), that animals are treated humanely, fed foods that they would eat naturally (no slaughterhouse waste or genetically engineered foods, for instance), have access to fresh air, sunshine and exercise, and no genetically engineered seeds. The image that springs to my mind is the organic family farms that we see here in Vermont. Rolling green pastures with happy contented dairy cows munching away on fresh nutritious grass, chickens pecking at organic grains, bugs and plants, pigs digging around for goodies in the fresh earth… you get the picture. So, what's happening with the USDA organic label? Last week, agribusiness got its wish; an amendment was slipped into the agricultural spending bill in a closed-door Republican meeting. The goals are to overturn a court decision reinstating the old legal standard that prohibits synthetic substances in organic foods, and to allow the agriculture secretary the ability to approve synthetic substances if no organic substitute was commercially available. "For the first time, the Secretary will have the power to expedite petitions for access to the list of substances that are commercially unavailable in organic form. Right now there are 38 synthetic substances on the National List that have been carefully reviewed and approved by the National Organic Standards Board over the past ten years. Eight more synthetic substances have been reviewed and approved by the NOSB and are awaiting USDA authority to be placed on the National List. The industry has requested that 517 more synthetic substances be approved. In all likelihood, this new power granted to the Secretary will be the opening of the floodgate to these hundreds of synthetic ingredients being allowed in products labeled "USDA Organic.""(Source: Organic Consumers Association) Bottom line…this amendment will water down the USDA organic label so that it means nothing. The only good thing about this is that it does not affect the other certified organic labels, such as Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA), Oregon Tilth, California Certified Organic Growers, and others. So, look for those labels when shopping for organic food and skip anything that only says "USDA organic" until further notice. Also, choose locally grown certified organic food first, that way you'll be supporting small family farms that are good stewards of the earth. These farmers do not get taxpayer subsidies like the big conventional agribusinesses do, and sadly many are going out of business. You can find local organic food at local farmer's markets, from Community Supported Agriculture groups, and in some natural food stores, and on the Internet (I sell two organic granolas, 2 types of organic nuts, organic food bars, and delicious organic mushroom growing kits). Take Action: http://www.organicconsumers.org/usda.htm Sources: http://www.organicconsumers.org/sos/oca-1.cfm 3. New Food/Health Study Revealed And I Don't Know What To Eat Anymore… Have you heard of the "China Study"? It's touted as the largest human scientific study in history about the health effects of diet on 6500 people in Southeast Asia (130 villages in China) over 7 years. In a nutshell, the author, Dr. T. Colin Campbell, claims that there is an association between a high animal protein based diet and disease mortality for more than 48 diseases. Supposedly a diet high in animal protein raised cholesterol levels and heart disease, but a high plant based protein diet had the opposite effect. Dr. Campbell says that the worst protein is casein, found in dairy products. Allegedly casein promotes cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. Perhaps most surprising was the claim that omega oil rich fish, free range chicken and organic beef, all contributed to disease when eaten in larger amounts than 5% of your total calories in one day (source: Dr. Nan Fuchs, "Women's Health Letter", www.womenshealthletter.com). Most Americans eat meat (and not these healthier meats) for all three meals each day. So, 5% of your day's calories, what's that the equivalent of, one bite of meat? So, here's my problem: Last Spring I took the Metabolic Typing diet online questionnaire (http://metabolictyping.com/) and learned that I was a Protein Type, which means that my ideal ratio is 40% protein, 30% fat, and 30% carbohydrates. 40% protein is a far cry from 5%. I've been following it loosely (I don't restrict which vegetables and fruits I eat, because that part doesn't make sense to me). I also drink raw organic whole milk, which I get directly from an organic dairy farm. According to the Weston Price Foundation (http://www.westonaprice.org/index.html), which helped inspire the Metabolic Typing Diet, raw organic milk (from grass and hay fed cows) is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidophilus, vitamins and enzymes, and the finest source of calcium available. Pasteurizing milk kills much of the nutrition, and seems to cause allergies. Often people who are lactose intolerant can drink raw milk (I have a friend who is in that group). Homogenizing milk breaks all of the fat into tiny little bits that can get into your bloodstream more easily, rather than get digested through your stomach, and it destroys the beneficial fat. I've been drinking raw organic milk for nearly two years and have never gotten sick from it. The dairy we go to is amazing, the cows so well cared for, and they constantly test for bacteria. What's a metabolic type? Essentially this dietary science says that, "One person's food is another person's poison". Each of us comes with a specific genetic background and individual biochemical and physiological systems. This means that no one type of diet is good for all people. When you look at how many weight loss programs that are out there, this belief makes perfect sense. So, from a Metabolic Typing Diet perspective, it wouldn't be a surprise that the Southeast Asian people in Dr. Campbell's study would be vegetarian based. However, it would be wrong to assume that everyone, especially those of us living in Northern climates should also follow a vegetarian diet. For example, a protein-based type like me does not do well on a vegetarian based diet. (I was a vegetarian for a few years off and on, but found it very hard to sustain. I didn't have as much energy as I do now). Though I still struggle with the idea of eating creatures that have mothers (though I cannot bring myself to eat beef or lamb and haven't for approximately 12 years) I know from my body that I feel much better when I eat poultry and some fish (no mercury laden tuna or swordfish). Back to the China Study…as soon as I read the article that Dr. Nan Fuchs wrote about the China Study in her newsletter, my first thought was, I wonder if Dr. Campbell is associated with any animal rights groups, such as PETA. Sure enough, according to a critic of his book, "The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, and Long-Term Health", Campbell is now on the advisory board of the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), "which describes itself as 'a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine, conducts clinical research, and encourages higher standards for ethics and effectiveness in research,' but whose pro-vegan agenda reflects its ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights groups, including, according to Newsweek, Stop Hunting and Animal Cruelty, which the Department of Justice calls a 'domestic terrorist threat,'" and according to Chris Masterjohn. It's also interesting that PCRM is an organization of 5000 physicians advocates the nutritional reasons for shifting toward a plant-based diet. Masterjohn believes that Campbell has manipulated the finding of the China Study to fit into his view that everyone should shift to a vegetarian based diet. So, for now, I'm sticking with my protein based organic diet, until further notice. Sources: It's free to subscribe to my monthly newsletter. Sign up for Green Living Expert, Amy Todisco's, Sign up for our FREE newsletter now: Any Questions? Don't hesitate to contact me,
Amy Todisco,
|
|
|
|
|
Email: info@greenlivingnow.com
Phone: (802) 434-3813 Toll Free Number: 1-888-GREEN08
© 2004-2005 Green Living Now. All rights reserved.