Friday, December 28, 2012
*The 26-year-old male vomited blood after eating traditional mala soup
*Doctors at hospital in Wuhan decided soup had burned through stomach
*Man had no history of ulcers or other gastrointestinal disorders
Doctors in China were left dumbfounded when they discovered a hole in a man's stomach wall after he ate a notoriously spicy bowl of soup.
The 26-year-old unnamed male had consumed a mala soup, meaning 'numbing hot', a traditional Chinese dish.
After choosing the spiciest version of the dish from the menu, the man soon experienced a piercing pain in his stomach.
The unlucky customer soon found himself vomiting blood before being rushed to a local hospital in Wuhan.
Despite having no medical history of ulcers or other gastrointestinal disorders, doctors concluded that the spicy soup had burned a hole through his stomach wall.
According to a report on Japanese site Rocket News 24, 15 per cent of incidents involving stomachs at the hospital are related to hot pot dishes.
The traditional Chinese dish is prepared using Sichuan pepper, a local spice, and chilli pepper/
The combination is known to cause a numbing sensation when consumed.
Most restaurants serving the dish offer it with varying degrees of spiciness.
According to local reports, many Chinese restaurants have begun to replace the natural, more expensive ingredients in hot pot dishes for cheaper, synthetic additives that replicate the spiciness.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...restaurant.html
*Doctors at hospital in Wuhan decided soup had burned through stomach
*Man had no history of ulcers or other gastrointestinal disorders
Doctors in China were left dumbfounded when they discovered a hole in a man's stomach wall after he ate a notoriously spicy bowl of soup.
The 26-year-old unnamed male had consumed a mala soup, meaning 'numbing hot', a traditional Chinese dish.
After choosing the spiciest version of the dish from the menu, the man soon experienced a piercing pain in his stomach.
The unlucky customer soon found himself vomiting blood before being rushed to a local hospital in Wuhan.
Despite having no medical history of ulcers or other gastrointestinal disorders, doctors concluded that the spicy soup had burned a hole through his stomach wall.
According to a report on Japanese site Rocket News 24, 15 per cent of incidents involving stomachs at the hospital are related to hot pot dishes.
The traditional Chinese dish is prepared using Sichuan pepper, a local spice, and chilli pepper/
The combination is known to cause a numbing sensation when consumed.
Most restaurants serving the dish offer it with varying degrees of spiciness.
According to local reports, many Chinese restaurants have begun to replace the natural, more expensive ingredients in hot pot dishes for cheaper, synthetic additives that replicate the spiciness.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-22...restaurant.html
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
New study: Infants receiving the most vaccines are the most likely to be hospitalized and die
Monday, December 24, 2012 by: Neil Z. Miller
A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, analyzed more than 38,000 reports of infant hospitalizations and deaths following vaccinations.[1] Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.
Infants who received 2 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 3 or more vaccines at the same time. Infants who received 3 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 4 or more vaccines at the same time. Babies who received 6, 7, or 8 vaccines during a single pediatric well-baby visit were the most likely to be hospitalized following their injections. In fact, the hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for infants receiving 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for infants receiving 8 vaccine doses.
The authors of the study, Dr. Gary Goldman and Neil Z. Miller, also discovered that younger infants were significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving vaccinations than older infants. In addition, infants who received 5-8 vaccines simultaneously were significantly more likely to die following their shots than infants who received 1-4 vaccines simultaneously.
Several factors could contribute to whether an infant will have an adverse reaction to vaccines, including a genetic predisposition, illness (which may be a contraindication to vaccine administration), quality of vaccines (which can vary by manufacturing methods), and sensitivity to one or more vaccine components. Some infants might be more likely to experience an adverse reaction due to biochemical or synergistic toxicity associated with concurrent administration of multiple vaccines.
In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life. By 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines.
The CDC's Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:
While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit -- even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.
A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, analyzed more than 38,000 reports of infant hospitalizations and deaths following vaccinations.[1] Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.
Infants who received 2 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 3 or more vaccines at the same time. Infants who received 3 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 4 or more vaccines at the same time. Babies who received 6, 7, or 8 vaccines during a single pediatric well-baby visit were the most likely to be hospitalized following their injections. In fact, the hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for infants receiving 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for infants receiving 8 vaccine doses.
The authors of the study, Dr. Gary Goldman and Neil Z. Miller, also discovered that younger infants were significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving vaccinations than older infants. In addition, infants who received 5-8 vaccines simultaneously were significantly more likely to die following their shots than infants who received 1-4 vaccines simultaneously.
Several factors could contribute to whether an infant will have an adverse reaction to vaccines, including a genetic predisposition, illness (which may be a contraindication to vaccine administration), quality of vaccines (which can vary by manufacturing methods), and sensitivity to one or more vaccine components. Some infants might be more likely to experience an adverse reaction due to biochemical or synergistic toxicity associated with concurrent administration of multiple vaccines.
In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life. By 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines.
The CDC's Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:
While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit -- even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.
Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated
Parents say vaccines cause autism and autoimmune diseases and many other acute or chronic disease. The question is: is there any truth to this? How many kids have avoidable chronic illness as a result of vaccines?
One way to find out would be to compare vaccinated children with unvaccinated children. The pro-vaccine say of such a study, “it can’t be done,” for various spurious reasons. But is the bottom line that such a study could possibly bring the whole childhood vaccine schedule into question? If unvaccinated children were shown to be healthier, might vaccination rates fall?
Should a comparative study show that that the rate of autism in unvaccinated is significantly less than the rate among vaccinated children, might the Government have to pay a couple of billion to provide these injured people the compensation they deserve?
Those of us who have only been able to provide lip service can now support it, and help to make it happen. The study will look at several potential health differences, and if it is properly done and statistically sound, with results that show vaccinated children suffer the same mental and physical illness that the unvaccinated do, I will concede the argument.
If we all chip in to raise the million US dollars it will take to hire the personnel, do the distribution of questionnaires, analyze the data, and everything in between, the study can be completed.
The lead investigator and the creators of the questionnaire are highly qualified to conduct the study. The lead investigator is a visiting professor in the School of Health Sciences at Jackson State University, has MPH and DrPH degrees in epidemiology from Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine and an MA in sociology from the University of Essex (UK).
The study already has ethics approval and is ready to roll.
Here is a short radio clip discussing the lack of such a study thus far, and some other information on the childhood vaccination program.
All it needs is funding.
As you can imagine, there are no pharmaceutical or government agencies rushing to donate to the cause of answering some of the very questions now being asked in congress today. We need answers, and those answers will only arrive by doing this study.
Some of the bigger organizations who question vaccines are not donating, so it’s up to us. If you long to know the answer as much as I do, please donate something, even five dollars, to help make it happen.
If you don’t donate anything then please don’t whine about how your kid has no way out of the vaccine schedule, about how there is vaccine after vaccine added every few years, about how nobody listens and the medical profession says there is no proof that numerous medical conditions correlate with the number of vaccines given in a lifetime.
If you don’t get on board then consider that you have just capitulated to, and joined the Paul Offits of the world.
The study is called, “Vaccination Status and Health Outcomes among Homeschool Children.” Research is being done by epidemiologists at Jackson State University.The pilot study involved four states. That data has not been fully analyzed. The upcoming study will be nationwide in the USA.
The proposal for the study states: “This study concerns a major current health question: namely, whether vaccination is linked in any way to children’s long-term health. Vaccination is one of the greatest discoveries in medicine, yet little is known about its long-term impact. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of vaccination by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in terms of a number of major health outcomes, including asthma, autism, diabetes, and learning disability.
The study involves a partnership between Jackson State University (JSU), Jackson, MS and the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), Salem, OR, which has long been involved in research on homeschool education…This study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Jackson State University.”
Read More
One way to find out would be to compare vaccinated children with unvaccinated children. The pro-vaccine say of such a study, “it can’t be done,” for various spurious reasons. But is the bottom line that such a study could possibly bring the whole childhood vaccine schedule into question? If unvaccinated children were shown to be healthier, might vaccination rates fall?
Should a comparative study show that that the rate of autism in unvaccinated is significantly less than the rate among vaccinated children, might the Government have to pay a couple of billion to provide these injured people the compensation they deserve?
Those of us who have only been able to provide lip service can now support it, and help to make it happen. The study will look at several potential health differences, and if it is properly done and statistically sound, with results that show vaccinated children suffer the same mental and physical illness that the unvaccinated do, I will concede the argument.
If we all chip in to raise the million US dollars it will take to hire the personnel, do the distribution of questionnaires, analyze the data, and everything in between, the study can be completed.
The lead investigator and the creators of the questionnaire are highly qualified to conduct the study. The lead investigator is a visiting professor in the School of Health Sciences at Jackson State University, has MPH and DrPH degrees in epidemiology from Tulane School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine and an MA in sociology from the University of Essex (UK).
The study already has ethics approval and is ready to roll.
Here is a short radio clip discussing the lack of such a study thus far, and some other information on the childhood vaccination program.
All it needs is funding.
As you can imagine, there are no pharmaceutical or government agencies rushing to donate to the cause of answering some of the very questions now being asked in congress today. We need answers, and those answers will only arrive by doing this study.
Some of the bigger organizations who question vaccines are not donating, so it’s up to us. If you long to know the answer as much as I do, please donate something, even five dollars, to help make it happen.
If you don’t donate anything then please don’t whine about how your kid has no way out of the vaccine schedule, about how there is vaccine after vaccine added every few years, about how nobody listens and the medical profession says there is no proof that numerous medical conditions correlate with the number of vaccines given in a lifetime.
If you don’t get on board then consider that you have just capitulated to, and joined the Paul Offits of the world.
The study is called, “Vaccination Status and Health Outcomes among Homeschool Children.” Research is being done by epidemiologists at Jackson State University.The pilot study involved four states. That data has not been fully analyzed. The upcoming study will be nationwide in the USA.
The proposal for the study states: “This study concerns a major current health question: namely, whether vaccination is linked in any way to children’s long-term health. Vaccination is one of the greatest discoveries in medicine, yet little is known about its long-term impact. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of vaccination by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children in terms of a number of major health outcomes, including asthma, autism, diabetes, and learning disability.
The study involves a partnership between Jackson State University (JSU), Jackson, MS and the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), Salem, OR, which has long been involved in research on homeschool education…This study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Jackson State University.”
Read More
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The Single Deadliest Ingredient in Your Pantry?
Is salt the same as sodium?
Sodium content varies with the type of salt you use and most people are not getting their sodium from a salt shaker. It's estimated that 77% of the sodium in our diets comes from restaurant and packaged foods.According to Paul Pitchford in his book "Healing with Whole Foods," typical refined table salt that you buy in the supermarket is about 99.5% sodium chloride and the balance is composed of chemicals to prevent caking, as well as potassium iodide to prevent goiters and sometimes sugar to stabilize the iodine.
In a teaspoon of that salt, there are about 6,200 mg of sodium chloride and of that amount, 2,400 mg are sodium. That is about the maximum recommended daily amount of sodium for a healthy adult according to the CDC and well in excess of the 1,500 mg limit recommended for 70% of the population.
Pitchford estimates that the average American takes in 17,000 mg of salt per day or about 3 ½ teaspoons of highly refined table salt.
Is sodium or salt essential for good health?
Sodium is essential to maintain the balance of fluids in your body, transmit nerve impulses and stimulate the contraction and relaxation of muscles. Too little sodium can lead to dehydration and symptoms of weakness and nausea as well as muscle cramps.Refined table salt has no benefits independent of its sodium content and its iodine content, if iodized. However, pure unrefined salt is another matter.
Unprocessed whole sea salt can have 40 to 57% less sodium than processed table salt. In addition, it contains up to 60 trace minerals which, according to Pitchford, give it a profile most similar to that of our own blood. Those minerals are important for the formation of vitamins, enzymes and proteins in the body.
Keep in mind that salt is not the only source of sodium. Pitchford lists the major alternate dietary sources of sodium as eggs, seafood, meats, kelp, seaweed, beets, turnips, Swiss chard, spinach and parsley.
What does this mean for you? Although the link between blood pressure and sodium has been challenged, there is still no benefit to eating high sodium processed foods. Instead, try to increase the amount of whole natural sodium rich foods in your diet.
The most important thing to do is replace that table salt with a high quality unbleached natural sea salt. Unrefined sea salt will have some color to it – grey, pink, yellow, brown, etc. – depending on its source and its mineral content. Good choices to try are Celtic Sea Salt or Himalayan Pink Sea Salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)