Tag Archives: vitamin d

Vitamin D Better than Fluoride at Cavity Prevention

Vitamin D Better than Fluoride at Cavity Prevention

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety

Vitamin D Better than Fluoride at Cavity Prevention. The link between adequate vitamin D levels and increased cavity prevention is long established, with documentation as far back as the Civil War demonstrating the effect of natural sunlight exposure on dental health. Fluoride, which is currently pushed by the government and some mainstream health organizations as a powerful anti-cavity measure, has an even larger amount of scientific research highlighting its negative benefits such as reduced IQ and cancer. Furthermore, it has been found that fluoride does not effectively prevent cavities.

In a report of men rejected from the Civil War draft for lost teeth, a distinction was made between those who received adequate amounts of vitamin D-generating sunlight and those who did not. Only 8 per 100 men from Kentucky suffered from lost teeth, while the number jumped to 25 out of 100 New England men found to have missing teeth.

Of course the increased sunlight allows for optimum vitamin D production, which in northern areas is not possible during many parts of the year. It was Clarence Mills and Bion East who first conducted studies over geographical location and the prevalence of sunlight exposure back in the 1930s. The study observed young males between 12 and 14 from a cross-section survey taken between 1933 and 1934. East found that cavities were inversely related to mean hours of annual sunlight and subsequent vitamin D levels.

The subjects living in the west, where vitamin D production and sunlight are at higher levels, averaged 3,000 hours of sunlight per year and half as many cavities as those in the northeast. The study found that northeastern participants averaged less than 2,200 hours of annual sunlight, leading to significantly less vitamin D production.

Another interesting fact is that vitamin D also attacks oral bacteria, due to the production of a polypeptide known as cathelicidin, which is made in addition to vitamin D by your body in response to direct sunlight.

Meanwhile studies have been documenting how your drinking water may be giving you cancer, reducing your IQ, and causing other health problems. The reason for this is the presence of fluoride in the drinking water, a substance which a 2010 study published in the Environmental Health Perspectives found to decrease IQ in children. Shockingly, over 24 studies have confirmed the link between fluoride consumption and decreased cognitive function. However fluoride also wreaks havoc on other parts of the body, with 100 animal studies linking fluoride to an increase in male infertility, diabetes, and other diseases.

Vitamin D is not only naturally produced by the body in response to sunlight, but it comes with 0 side effects when properly utilized. Preventing cavities through sunlight exposure and vitamin D3 supplementation is a very simple and effective method. Fluoride, on the other hand, not only does not adequately prevent cavities but will heavily damage your body and increase your risk of cancer. Keep in mind that in many areas vitamin D production during winter months is very limited, so it may be necessary to supplement with around 5 to 10,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily. The only way to know for sure if your vitamin D levels are optimal is to have your blood tested.

Sources:

1. http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/dermatoendocrinology/Grant2DE3-3.pdf
2. Lewis JR. Exemptions from military service on account of loss of teeth. Dental Cosmos 1865; 7:240-2. (in East BR. Some epidemiological aspect of tooth decay. Am J Pub Health 1942; 32:1424-50).
3. McBeath EW, Zucker TF. The Role of vitamin D in the control of dental caries in children. J Nutrition 1938; 15:6.
4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/110930%2C110949?dopt=Abstract
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780?dopt=Abstract
6. Cheng YX, IQ of children in areas of high fluorine content, Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases,Supplement 1991.
7. J Epidemiol (CL8), 1996 Dec; 6 (4): 184-91
8. Avioli LV. Fluoride treatment of osteoporosis. Postgrad Med: a special report, 14 Sept 1987:26-27.

SOURCE

3 Reasons to Reconsider Flu Shots

3 Reasons to Reconsider Flu Shots

Anthony Gucciardi
GreenMedInfo.com

Flu shots are becoming the most widely recommended vaccine on the planet, with The Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changing their flu shot recommendation from children between 6 months and 5 years old demographic to virtually everyone except those between the ages of 19-49 who are in perfectly good health. Even within this category there is a barrage of organizations warning against avoiding the ubiquitous flu shot.

The fact of the matter is that seasonal flu shots are simply not backed by reputable science, and a number of major studies have even shown that the seasonal flu shot is not effective at all in preventing the flu. Adding fuel to the fire, this ineffective shot comes with pages of nasty side effects that will certainly make you reconsider getting one this year. Here are 3 major reasons you, your family, and the medical establishment should reconsider flu shots as effective flu prevention tools:

1. Seasonal flu vaccines have been found to only be 1% effective

A new major study has numerically determined the effectiveness of the flu shot to be 1%. This means that despite the H1N1-loaded flu jab, there is still a 99% chance that you will not be protected against the flu. The reason for this, despite the faulty science behind the development of the vaccine, has to do with flu strains. It is extremely challenging, to the point of guessing, which flu strain will affect your area. With such a wide selection, it is very rare (about 1%, according to the study), for it to be the correct strain.

The researchers from the study stated:

“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors. In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.

The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:

“Vaccination had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
“Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
“The analysis howed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
“There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.”
— Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
“In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”

2. Flu shots have been linked to killer nerve disease

Even government health officials have confirmed the link between the H1N1-containing flu shot and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A government agency known as The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the connection following the phony swine flu pandemic. The news came after mainstream media reported on the fact that even 50% of doctors were refusing the H1N1 vaccine over health concerns.

Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.

The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,”
she wrote in a letter to neurologists.

3. Vitamin D is over 800% more effective with no side effects

A major clinical trial performed at the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective in preventing and reversing influenza. Led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the study involved 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. This is actually a very low amount of vitamin D, with many natural health experts recommending around 5,000 IUs per day for most individuals. If the researchers used a higher amount like 5,000 IUs, the findings and subsequent percentage would most likely be even more profound.

What the study found was that 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the 4 month duration of the study, while only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This is in comparison to the flu shot being effective in 1 out of 100 participants, with countless side effects.

This means that vitamin D is 800% more effective in preventing the flu than vaccines at 1200 IUs daily. The percentage could likely climb into the thousands if the dosage was upped to the recommended 5,000 IUs per day, and perhaps even higher beyond that.

There is simply no reason to receive a flu shot when natural alternatives like vitamin D exist. Deadly nerve disease, narcolepsy, and overall ineffectiveness are but a few of the negative aspects of the flu shot. Spread the word about flu shots during Vaccine Information Week, starting October 1st.

SOURCE

Sunscreens Exposed: 9 surprising truths


Sunscreens Exposed: 9 surprising truths

Custom Search

Sunscreens prevent sunburns, but beyond that simple fact surprisingly little is known about the safety and efficacy of these ubiquitous creams and sprays. FDA’s failure to finalize its 1978 sunscreen safety standards both epitomizes and perpetuates this state of confusion. EWG’s review of the latest research unearthed troubling facts that might tempt you to give up on sunscreens altogether. That’s not the right answer – despite the unknowns about their efficacy, public health agencies still recommend using sunscreens, just not as your first line of defense against the sun. At EWG we use sunscreens, but we look for shade, wear protective clothing and avoid the noontime sun before we smear on the cream. Here are the surprising facts:

1. There’s no consensus on whether sunscreens prevent skin cancer.

The Food and Drug Administration’s 2007 draft sunscreen safety regulations say: “FDA is not aware of data demonstrating that sunscreen use alone helps prevent skin cancer” (FDA 2007). The International Agency for Research on Cancer agrees. IARC recommends clothing, hats and shade as primary barriers to UV radiation and writes that “sunscreens should not be the first choice for skin cancer prevention and should not be used as the sole agent for protection against the sun” (IARC 2001a).

2. There’s some evidence that sunscreens might increase the risk of the deadliest form of skin cancer for some people.

Some researchers have detected an increased risk of melanoma among sunscreen users. No one knows the cause, but scientists speculate that sunscreen users stay out in the sun longer and absorb more radiation overall, or that free radicals released as sunscreen chemicals break down in sunlight may play a role. One other hunch: Inferior sunscreens with poor UVA protection that have dominated the market for 30 years may have led to this surprising outcome. All major public health agencies still advise using sunscreens, but they also stress the importance of shade, clothing and timing.

3. There are more high SPF products than ever before, but no proof that they’re better.

In 2007 the FDA published draft regulations that would prohibit companies from labeling sunscreens with an SPF (sun protection factor) higher than “SPF 50+.” The agency wrote that higher values were “inherently misleading,” given that “there is no assurance that the specific values themselves are in fact truthful…” (FDA 2007). Scientists are also worried that high-SPF products may tempt people to stay in the sun too long, suppressing sunburns (a late, key warning of overexposure) while upping the risks of other kinds of skin damage.

Flaunting FDA’s proposed regulation, companies substantially increased their high-SPF offerings in 2011. Nearly one in five products now lists SPF values higher than “50+”, compared to only one in eight in 2009, according to EWG’s analysis of more than 600 beach and sport sunscreens. Among the worst offenders are Walgreens and CVS stores and Neutrogena. Walgreens’ boasts of SPF higher than “50+” on nearly half of its sunscreens; CVS and Neutrogena make the same misleading claim on about a third of theirs.

4. Too little sun might be harmful, reducing the body’s vitamin D levels.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that sunshine serves a critical function in the body that sunscreen appears to inhibit — production of vitamin D. The main source of vitamin D in the body is sunshine, and the compound is enormously important to health – it strengthens bones and the immune system, reduces the risk of various cancers (including breast, colon, kidney, and ovarian cancers) and regulates at least 1,000 different genes governing virtually every tissue in the body (Mead 2008). Over the last two decades, vitamin D levels in the U.S. population have been decreasing steadily, creating a “growing epidemic of vitamin D insufficiency” (Ginde 2009a). Seven of every 10 U.S. children now have low levels. Those most likely to be deficient include children who are obese or who spend more than four hours daily in front of the TV, computer or video games (Kumar 2009).

Experts disagree on the solution. The American Medical Association has recommended 10 minutes of direct sun (without sunscreen) several times a week (AMA 2008), while the American Academy of Dermatology holds that “there is no scientifically validated, safe threshold level of UV exposure from the sun that allows for maximal vitamin D synthesis without increasing skin cancer risk” (AAD 2009). Vitamin D supplements are the alternative, but there is debate over the proper amount. The Institute of Medicine has launched new research to reassess the current guidelines. In the meantime, your doctor can test your vitamin D levels and give advice on sunshine versus supplements.

5. The common sunscreen ingredient vitamin A may speed the development of cancer.

Recently available data from an FDA study indicate that a form of vitamin A, retinyl palmitate, when applied to the skin in the presence of sunlight, may speed the development of skin tumors and lesions (NTP 2009). This evidence is troubling because the sunscreen industry adds vitamin A to 30 percent of all sunscreens.

The industry puts vitamin A in its formulations because it is an anti-oxidant that slows skin aging. That may be true for lotions and night creams used indoors, but FDA recently conducted a study of vitamin A’s photocarcinogenic properties, the possibility that it results in cancerous tumors when used on skin exposed to sunlight. Scientists have known for some time that vitamin A can spur excess skin growth (hyperplasia), and that in sunlight it can form free radicals that damage DNA (NTP 2000).

In FDA’s one-year study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent sooner in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream (at a concentration of 0.5%) than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream. Both groups were exposed to the equivalent of just nine minutes of maximum intensity sunlight each day.

It’s an ironic twist for an industry already battling studies on whether their products protect against skin cancer. The FDA data are preliminary, but if they hold up in the final assessment, the sunscreen industry has a big problem. In the meantime, EWG recommends that consumers avoid sunscreens with vitamin A (look for “retinyl palmitate” or “retinol” on the label).


6. Free radicals and other skin-damaging byproducts of sunscreen.

Both UV radiation and many common sunscreen ingredients generate free radicals that damage DNA and skin cells, accelerate skin aging and cause skin cancer. An effective sunscreen prevents more damage than it causes, but sunscreens are far better at preventing sunburn than at limiting free radical damage. While typical SPF ratings for sunburn protection range from 15 to 50, equivalent “free radical protection factors” fall at only about 2. When consumers apply too little sunscreen or reapply it infrequently, behaviors that are more common than not, sunscreens can cause more free radical damage than UV rays on bare skin.

7. Pick your sunscreen: nanomaterials or potential hormone disruptors.

The ideal sunscreen would completely block the UV rays that cause sunburn, immune suppression and damaging free radicals. It would remain effective on the skin for several hours and not form harmful ingredients when degraded by UV light. It would smell and feel pleasant so that people use it in the right amount and frequency.

Unsurprisingly, there is currently no sunscreen that meets all of these criteria. The major choice in the U.S. is between “chemical” sunscreens, which have inferior stability, penetrate the skin and may disrupt the body’s hormone systems, and “mineral” sunscreens (zinc and titanium), which often contain micronized- or nano-scale particles of those minerals.

After reviewing the evidence, EWG determined that mineral sunscreens have the best safety profile of today’s choices. They are stable in sunlight and do not appear to penetrate the skin. They offer UVA protection, which is sorely lacking in most of today’s sunscreen products. Mexoryl SX (ecamsule) is another good option, but it’s sold in very few formulations. Tinosorb S and M could be great solutions but are not yet available in the U.S. For consumers who don’t like mineral products, we recommend sunscreens with avobenzone (3 percent for the best UVA protection) and without the notorious hormone disruptors oxybenzone or 4-MBC. Scientists have called for parents to avoid using oxybenzone on children due to penetration and toxicity concerns.

8. Europe’s better sunscreens.

Sunscreen makers and users in Europe have more options than in the United States. In Europe, sunscreen makers can select from among 27 chemicals for their formulations, compared to 17 in the U.S. Companies selling in Europe can add any of seven UVA filters to their products, but have a choice of only three when they market in the U.S. European sunscreens could earn FDA’s proposed four-star top rating for UVA protection, while the best U.S. products would earn only three stars. Sunscreen chemicals approved in Europe but not by the FDA provide up to five times more UVA protection; U.S. companies have been waiting five years for FDA approval to use the same compounds. Last but not least, Europeans will find many sunscreens with strong (mandatory) UVA protection if proposed regulations in Europe are finalized. Under FDA’s current proposal, Americans will not.

9. The 34th summer in a row without final U.S. sunscreen safety regulations.

In the United States, consumer protection has stalled because of the FDA’s 33-year effort to set enforceable guidelines for consumer protection. EWG has found a number of serious problems with existing sunscreens, including overstated claims about their perfomance and inadequate UVA protection. Many of these will be remedied if and when the FDA’s proposed sunscreen rule takes effect. But even after the rule is enacted, gaps will remain. FDA does not consider serious toxicity concerns such as hormone disruption when approving new sun filters. The new rules would also still allow sunscreen makers to use ingredients like vitamin A that can damage the skin in sunlight, and would fail to require makers to measure sunscreen stability despite ample evidence that many products break down quickly in sunlight. Read more.

SOURCE