diet and healthHispanics in the U.S., live on average over two years longer than whites, and over seven years longer than blacks.

A recent government report contains the strongest evidence yet of what some call the “Hispanic paradox” — remarkable longevity in a population with many poor and undereducated members. One theory holds that Hispanics who immigrate to the U.S. tend to be among the healthiest from their countries.

According to the Chicago Tribune:

“A Hispanic born in 2006 could expect to live about 80 years and seven months, the government estimates. Life expectancy for a white is about 78, and for a black, just shy of 73 years.”


Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

According to a recently released life expectancy report by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there are significant disparities between ethnic groups in America.

Hispanics living in the US outlive Caucasians by more than two years. African Americans lag even further behind. Their life expectancy is more than seven years shorter than Hispanics, at just under 73 years, compared to Hispanics’ life expectancy of nearly 81 years.

But the so-called “Hispanic paradox” that the Chicago Tribune mentions may not be such a mystery after all, if you look at what drives longevity in the first place.

Can Money Buy You Health and Longevity?

Conventional wisdom tells us that populations with more money and higher educational status live longer. And there’s plenty of evidence to support this.

The “Hispanic paradox” refers to the curious fact that despite having such a large portion of poor and undereducated members (three times as many Hispanics live below the poverty level compared with Caucasians), the Hispanic community still outlives the wealthier and more educated Caucasian population.

According to the Chicago Tribune,

“A leading theory is that Hispanics who manage to immigrate to the U.S. are among the healthiest from their countries.

. An estimated 40 percent of them are immigrants, who in some cases arrived after arduous journeys to do taxing manual labor.

. However, experts say that immigrant hardiness diminishes within a couple of generations of living here. Many believe it’s because the children of immigrants take up smoking, fast-food diets and other habits blamed for wrecking the health of other ethnic populations.”

I’d say they more or less hit the nail on the head with that last statement.

First generation American Hispanics live longer because they’re eating a FAR more natural diet, and they’re typically far more physically active than Americans in general.

But it only takes a generation or two to lose many of the healthful customs that are the cornerstones of good health.

These statistics really speak to the power of an unprocessed diet and an active lifestyle. What good does money do if you spend a majority of it on denatured, chemical-laden, processed foods?

It’s quite clear that eating a diet consisting of high amounts of processed foods will shorten your life, yet 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed food, and the number one source of calories in the US comes from high fructose corn syrup – a staple ingredient in nearly all processed foods, from frozen dinners, to condiments, snacks, and soda.

Hispanics, in general, tend to have strong culinary customs, where food is cooked from scratch with fresh ingredients, and I strongly believe this is a major part of the equation. I have advocated a return to home cooking for years now, because I believe it’s one of the most effective ways to improve your health and extend your life.

Want to Live Longer? Eat Natural Foods!

The concept of “native diets” being superior to the processed diets of the modern, Western world goes back nearly 100 years.

Dr. Weston A. Price was a dentist and dental researcher who, in the early 1930’s, went on an investigation that spanned the globe to determine why native populations, who ate traditional foods, exhibited perfect physical health well into old age.

What he discovered, and wrote about in depth in his classic book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, was that as populations adopted industrially processed foods, veering away from natural fare, their health started to decline.

Modern food processing  actually began in the early part of 1800, when vacuum bottling was invented, followed by tinning and canning technology in 1810. Back then, lead-containing cans wrought health problems on those who consumed it.

In 1862, pasteurization was discovered, and with it came the destruction of one of Earth’s most nutritious food groups – raw dairy. The major shift toward a diet consisting of more processed food occurred in the 1920’s, right around the time Dr. Price published his book.

Price’s research took him to remote tribal communities — Swiss, Eskimos, Polynesians, Africans, New Zealanders, and more — and what he discovered made him one of the foremost authorities on the role of foods in their natural form, and the development of degenerative illnesses as a result of processed foods. (For more information about Price and details of his research, please see this link.)

Clearly, the Western diet has deteriorated significantly since then. More denaturing and harmful food processing methods have followed, and we’re seeing the ramifications of this unnatural food culture in our skyrocketing disease statistics.

How We’re Breeding a Diseased Future Generation

It’s easy to understand how the younger generations get lured into thinking that processed food is “regular food.” After all, that’s what most kids are surrounded by and grow up with.

But processed, pre-packaged foods and fast food restaurants of today are actually radically different from real food.

Unless this misconception is corrected, and soon, the disease trends we’re now seeing are only going to get worse as much of the processed foods consumed today are not even food-based! That’s right, some processed foods and snacks are little more than a mish-mash of chemicals created in a lab, with no perceivable expiration date.

This is a serious problem, not only short term for the person who consumes these foods, but for the generations to come.

Researchers have now discovered that genetic mutations and malfunctions that cause disease are created in future generations when consuming highly processed and artificial foods.

Poor Diet and Disease Cannot Be Un-Linked

There aren’t many mysteries when it comes to health and disease, and once you start seeing how everything is interconnected, you’ll also see that nearly every disease can be traced back to the foods you’ve chosen to eat.

For example, many people do not realize the connections between diet, obesity, and other diseases such as heart disease or cancer.

Taking cancer as an example, obese women are up to 60 percent more likely to develop some form of cancer than normal-weight women, and obese women are also far more likely to have babies with genetic defects.

One of the links between obesity and certain forms of cancer is estrogen.

Breast cancer, for example, is typically fueled by estrogen, and this hormone is produced in your fat tissue. Hence, the more body fat you have, the more estrogen you’re likely to produce, which could contribute to the formation of breast cancer.

Tracing this issue back to its roots: obesity is directly attributable to your diet, and fast food, high in trans fats and sugar, is a major contributor to obesity.

Yet how often do you hear health officials talk about the need for a raw, whole, organic diet when addressing rising cancer rates?

Virtually never!

If you want to do something about your state of health, you simply MUST become conscious about your food selections.

  • Are you eating real, unadulterated foods, or are you eating chemical concoctions, pressed and mashed and artificially flavored to give the appearance of being food?
  • Are you eating foods that are loaded with antibiotics and hormones?
  • Are you eating foods that contain ingredients that are genetically modified to pull double-duty as pesticides?

These are important questions that will only become more important as time goes on and public health continues to decline.

The Healthy Ingredients of Native Diets

What makes Dr. Price’s work so incredible is that even though it was published in 1939, it is still equally valid today. That is one of the signs of a health truth: it lasts for many years. If it was true in 1939 it should still hold true when 2019 rolls around.

Dr. Price noticed some similarities between the native diets that allowed the people to thrive.

Among them:

  • The foods were natural, unprocessed, and organic (and contained no sugar except for the occasional bit of honey or maple syrup).
  • The people ate foods that grew in their native environment. In other words, they ate locally grown, seasonal foods.
  • Many of the cultures ate unpasteurized dairy products, and all of them ate fermented foods.
  • The people ate a significant portion of their food raw.
  • All of the cultures ate animal products, including animal fat and, often, full-fat butter and organ meats.

When he analyzed his findings, he found that the native diets contained ten times the amount of fat-soluble vitamins, and at least four times the amount of calcium, other minerals, and water-soluble vitamins as that of Western diets at that time.

Their diets were also rich in enzymes because they ate fermented and raw foods (enzymes help you to digest cooked foods), and their intake of omega-3 fats was at least ten times higher than in today’s diet.

How to Survive in a Diseased Health Paradigm

Even though we live lives that are far different from those of our ancestors, you can still benefit from their traditional diets by using them as dependable roadmaps to good health.

By implementing the native dietary patterns listed above, you too can improve or maintain optimal health. However, modern life has also removed us from many other natural, health-promoting lifestyle patterns that need to be addressed.

Here is a summary of the most important and most effective dietary and lifestyle measures I know of:

Following these guidelines is a powerful way to avoid premature aging and disease of all kinds, so that you can far exceed the U.S. national average life expectancy, regardless of your financial- and educational status, or your racial heritage.

Related Articles:

 Comments (92)

fluoridated water A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association finds once again that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride results in a condition known as fluorosis, in which tooth enamel becomes discolored. The condition can eventually lead to badly damaged teeth. The new study found that fluoride intake during a child’s first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website:

“Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing … enamel fluorosis.”


Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

It was 2007 when the American Dental Association (ADA) first warned that parents of infants younger than a year old “should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride” when mixing baby formula, due to concerns about fluorosis.

Now the Journal of the American Dental Association has published a study that found increased fluorosis risk among infants who were fed infant formula reconstituted with fluoride-containing water, as well as used fluoridated toothpastes.

The authors noted:

“Results suggest that prevalence of mild dental fluorosis could be reduced by avoiding ingestion of large quantities of fluoride from reconstituted powdered concentrate infant formula and fluoridated dentifrice.”

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has also followed suit, warning on their Community Water Fluoridation page that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing enamel fluorosis.

They also state:

“In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources-water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products-contributes to enamel fluorosis.”

This is as far as the CDC warnings go, however, and they continue to state that water fluoridation is safe — and dental fluorosis is only a “cosmetic” problem. In reality, neither of these assertions is true.

Dental Fluorosis is a Sign of Excessive Fluoride Intake

Dental fluorosis results in white and brown spots on your teeth. It is only caused by fluoride — typically due to ingesting too much fluoride during your developing years, from birth to about 8 years of age. According to the CDC, about one-third of U.S. children aged 12 to 15 years have very mild to mild forms of enamel fluorosis on their teeth.

Promoters of fluoridation say that these markings are “just cosmetic,” but it can also be an indication that the rest of your body, such as your bones and the rest of your organs, including your brain, has been exposed to too much fluoride also.

As Dr. Paul Connett, a chemist specializing in environmental chemistry, explained in our recent interview:

“We know that 32 percent of American children have been overexposed to fluoride because you have this telltale sign of dental fluorosis, which in its mildest form is little white specs. But when it gets more serious, it affects more of the surface of your teeth and it becomes colored; yellow, brown and orange mottling of the teeth .

The teeth are the window to the bones. If you’ve seen the damage to the teeth, what damage can you not see?”

In other words, if fluoride is having a detrimental, visual effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it’s also damaging something else inside your body, such as your bones.

Bone is living tissue that is constantly being replaced through cellular turnover. Bone building is a finely balanced, complicated process. Fluoride has been known to disrupt this process ever since the 1930s.

Why it’s Dangerous to Swallow Fluoride

The United States is one of only eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply. It is added under the guise that it helps prevent and control tooth decay .

This is in spite of the fact that there never been any demonstrated difference in tooth decay between countries with fluoridated and non-fluoridated water, and no difference between states that have a high- or low percentage of their water fluoridated.

Even promoters of fluoridation concede that the major benefits are topical; fluoride works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside of your body, so why swallow it?

The fluoride added to your drinking water is in fact a chemical waste product! It is NOT something you should use as a supplement to your diet.

There are plenty of studies showing the dangers of fluoride to your health, such as:

As far as tooth decay is concerned, this is not caused by lack of fluoride.

Tooth decay is caused by acids in your mouth, typically created from sugar being metabolized by bacteria (Streptococcus mutans), and as you may already know, the number one source of calories in the United States is high fructose corn syrup.

The acid produced then attacks your enamel. Eventually the bacteria can get into the dentine, at which point tooth decay sets in. So there are far better options for decreasing tooth decay than using a topical or ingested poison, with a chief one being minimizing your intake of sugary foods and eating a healthful diet.

You typically don’t find dental caries in more primitive societies that do not consume vast amounts of sugar like in the United States.

Make Sure Your Children are Not Exposed to Fluoride

One of dentist Bill Osmunson’s main concerns is water fluoridation for infants. The ADA and the CDC now both recommend that infants NOT receive fluoridated water for drinking, nor for making their formula, as fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than mother’s milk.

“We shouldn’t fluoridate water and harm our most vulnerable,” Dr. Osmunson says.

It is my strong belief and recommendation to avoid giving your children fluoridated water.

Unfortunately, the only way to ensure your water is pure enough to drink is by installing ahigh quality water filtration system in your house, such as a reverse osmosis filter that can filter out much of the fluoride and other dangerous water contaminants like disinfection byproducts (DBPs).

Remember that most bottled water also typically contains fluoride, even though it’s not stated on the label, and whatever you do, avoid using “nursery water,” which is fluoridated water sold specifically for infants.

Fluoride in your drinking water is one more reason why breastfeeding your infant is so essential. Nature has kept breast milk virtually fluoride-free for a reason.

If you are unable to breastfeed and are instead using formula, make sure the water you use is fluoride-free. Again, for now the best way you can provide pure, fluoride-free water to your family is by using a reverse osmosis filter, which you can install in your home.

Even better, if you are unable to breastfeed use this recipe to make homemade infant formula using raw milk and no water at all.

Keep in mind also that if you are a pregnant woman it is equally important for your water to be fluoride-free, as this chemical can harm your developing fetus.

The Ultimate Solution is to Get Fluoride Out of Tap Water

Even though the ADA and the CDC have issued warnings that parents not use fluoridated tap water to make infant formula, neither of them has openly informed the public!

So there are millions of parents out there using tap water to make up formula, oblivious of the fact that the agencies that promote fluoridation in this country have issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose.

Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply you doom many low-income families to fail to protect their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information, as they simply don’t have the resources to install a reverse osmosis system.

This is why the only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the United States.

The Fluoride Action Network is an absolutely phenomenal resource for further education, and they’re doing much to pressure the US government for change. We will be working together to devise a complete game plan to tackle this issue head on. Once we reach the tipping point, which may be as little as 5 percent of the population, we will be able to reverse the policies of water fluoridation.

Our strategy will begin with addressing Canada, because 60 percent of Canada is already un-fluoridated. If we can get the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow.

You can visit for the most recent updates and progress, as well as tips on how you can get involved and take action in this important cause.

In addition, I highly recommend getting a copy of Dr. Connett’s new book, The Case Against Fluoride, for more information on the bad science and political agendas that got this toxic chemical in our drinking water and is, at least for now, keeping it there.

Related Articles:

 Comments (56)

Drug Avandia Draws Debate Over Risks, Benefits

Click here to watch this video

A new federal report projects 1 in 3 American adults could have diabetes by 2050. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the number of Americans with diabetes may double or triple over the next 40 years.

People with diabetes face medical costs more than twice that of those without the illness. The total costs of diabetes is about $174 billion annually. Currently, roughly 24 million Americans, or 1 in 10 adults have the disease.

The Boston Herald reports:

“The CDC report … gives a range for the predicted increase — from 1 in 3 to 1 in 5 [people] by 2050 — to reflect differing assumptions about how many people will develop diabetes, and how long they will live after developing the disease.”


Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Conventional medicine would have you believe that there is no stopping
the rise in diabetes, but I ‘m going to tell you precisely how to not
only prevent it but reverse it.

Currently, roughly 1 in 10 of US adults has type 2 diabetes, and according to the latest CDC estimates published last month, diabetes is expected to affect a staggering 1 in 3 adults by 2050.

But the statistics get even more mind-blowing than that when you factor in those with pre-diabetes; those who are a hair’s breadth away from the full-blown disease.

Add those to the equation, and nearly 1 in 4 Americans are already either pre-diabetic or diabetic!

Rise in Diabetes Also Drives Other Disease Rates

Most of my paternal relatives (my dad included), have, or have died from, diabetes, so this is an issue very close to my heart.

It is definitely not a disease to be taken lightly. It increases your risk of heart disease and brings on fatal and non-fatal heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular events 15 years earlier than in those without diabetes, as well as significantly shortens your lifespan.

Rising diabetes rates exponentially increase other serious diseases, one of which is Alzheimer’s disease. As I’ve discussed before, some are even referring to Alzheimer’s as “type 3 diabetes,” due to the links between the two diseases.

Diabetes also fosters numerous other health complications, including:

  • Heart disease and stroke
  • High blood pressure
  • Blindness
  • Kidney disease
  • Nervous system disease
  • Amputations
  • Dental disease
  • Pregnancy complications

Diabetics are also increasingly being misled to take statin drugs to prevent heart disease (which is strongly associated with diabetes), which adds further insult to injury.

Statin drugs have been shown to actually cause heart failure and are not the right treatment for most people. These drugs offer a “cure” that is far worse than the disease, yet vast numbers of people are being manipulated into taking them as “preventive medicine” once they’re diagnosed with diabetes.

The truly insane part of all this is that type 2 diabetes is virtually 100 percent preventable, and most people can successfully reverse the condition without any drug intervention at all.

The problem is that the conventional advice for preventing and managing this disease is incorrect, which is why most doctors’ advice causes diabetics to die. Even the CDC is clueless here, stating in their report that “intervention can reduce, but not eliminate, increases in diabetes prevalence.”

I firmly disagree.

The High Cost of Diabetes

Again, type 2 diabetes is virtually 100 percent preventable and treatable with common-sense lifestyle changes that cost little to nothing. Meanwhile, the conventional treatment of diabetes is VERY expensive.

As reported by the Boston Herald:

“People with diagnosed diabetes have medical costs more than twice that of those without the disease.

The total costs of diabetes are an estimated $174 billion annually, including $116 billion in direct medical costs, according to the CDC.”

I shudder to think about the enormous ramifications to health and the health care system should we fail to turn this disease trend around.

Fortunately, there is plenty of room for hope, because all we need to do is inform people about the truth about this disease. This is why I ask you to keep sharing this vital information with everyone you know.

These large numbers of people with diabetes  are simply unnecessary, because as you’ll see below, avoiding diabetes is a fairly simple and straight-forward affair. However, it does require you to take control of your diet and your lifestyle.

According to the Boston Herald:

“… [A]bout 15 percent of families don’t want dietary counseling because their insurance company will deny the fee.”

First of all, the advice you get from conventionally-trained nutritionists may or may not be accurate and helpful, and secondly, the information you need to make the correct lifestyle changes are available for FREE!

So please, always avoid allowing the lack of insurance coverage to prevent you from taking control of your diet.

My website contains nearly 8,000 pages of free information about diabetes alone! The best way to access this free information is to visit our diabetes index page.

Why are Diabetes Cases Surging?

The latest statistics on diabetes in the US are a very sad commentary and a major clue that conventional medicine has it all wrong; their standard diabetes recommendations — both in terms of medication and nutrition — are incorrect.

At best, they simply do not work. At worst, they’re aggravating your problem and speeding up the deteriorating disease process.

There’s no doubt in my mind that if government agencies and the medical community would stop catering to the greedy demands of the sugar, grain and pharmaceutical industries, and start issuing recommendations that actually promote health rather than deteriorating it further, this modern epidemic would be curbed in fairly short order.

But again and again, you’ll find the ludicrous advice that consuming starchy carbohydrates, and even added sugar “in moderation,” is okay for diabetics, as long as you use blood glucose lowering tools to balance out their effects.

Just ONE Soda a Day Can Raise Your Diabetes Risk by 25 Percent!

A recent meta-analysis concluded that drinking just ONE soda — or other sweetened drink, including Vitamin Water — per day can raise your risk of developing diabetes by 25 percent, compared to drinking just one sugary drink per month.

According to U.S. News & World Report:

Previous studies have shown that sugar-sweetened beverages are strongly associated with weight gain.

They identified eight studies with enough data to let them check for a link between sugary drinks and type 2 diabetes and three similar studies of metabolic syndrome.

The largest diabetes study, which followed more than 91,000 American women ages 24 to 44 for eight years, made the strongest case for a relationship, and it wasn’t just because higher consumption of sweetened drinks added excess calories that turned into pounds.

While weight gain is a known diabetes risk factor, the diabetes-beverage link persisted even after adjusting for that.”

Considering the fact that the number one source of calories consumed in the US is in the form of soda, it’s not hard to see the correlation between inappropriate dietary choices and the meteoric rise of diabetes.

Why Conventional Diabetes Recommendations are almost all WRONG

It’s vitally important to understand that type 2 diabetes is NOT a blood sugar disease like you’ve likely been led to believe.

Type 2 diabetes is a disease caused by insulin resistance and faulty leptin signaling, both of which are regulated through your diet. Every diabetic needs to understand that the number one way to avoid and control this disease is to severely restrict or eliminate sugars (particularly fructose) and starchy carbs like breads and cereals – more or less the complete opposite of conventional recommendations.

Until this concept becomes well-known in both the medical community and by the public at large, the misconception about what diabetes is and the appropriate way to treat it will continue to be promoted.

Conventional treatment that is focused on fixing the symptom of elevated blood sugar, rather than addressing the underlying disease, is doomed to fail in most cases. Treatments that concentrate merely on lowering blood sugar while raising insulin levels can actually worsen rather than remedy the actual problem of metabolic miscommunication.

It just trades one evil for another.

Since most treatments for type 2 diabetes utilize drugs that either raise insulin or lower blood sugar, the tragic result is that the typical, conventional medical treatment for diabetes contributes to the additional diseases and the shortened lifespan that diabetics’ experience.

Diabetics Must Become Aware of the Function of Leptin

The two hormones insulin and leptin work hand-in-hand when it comes to diabetes.

Insulin — When your blood sugar becomes elevated it is a signal for insulin to be released to direct the extra energy into storage. A small amount is stored as a starch called glycogen in your body, but the majority is stored as your main energy supply — fat.

Thus, in this regard insulin’s major role is not to lower sugar, but to take the extra energy and store it for future times of need. Insulin lowers your blood sugar as a side effect of directing the extra energy into storage.

This is why treatments that concentrate merely on lowering blood sugar for diabetes while raising insulin levels can actually worsen rather than remedy the actual problem of metabolic miscommunication.

So, please, understand that if you only implement strategies to treat your blood sugar level, you are destined for premature death. Taking insulin is in fact one of the WORST things you can do, as it will actually make your insulin and leptin resistance worse over time.

Leptin — Leptin is largely responsible for the accuracy of insulin signaling, and whether you become insulin resistant or not.

Leptin is a hormone produced by your fat cells. It helps regulate your appetite and tells your body and brain how much energy it has, and what to do with that energy.

Two of the most important organs that influence whether you develop (type 2, insulin resistant) diabetiesor not are your liver and your brain, and it is their ability to “hear” the leptin signals that determines this.

Once you become leptin resistant, the part of leptin’s message that would normally reduce hunger and fat stores, and increase fat burning, does not get through to your brain — so you stay hungry and store more fat, rather than burning it.

It’s a vicious cycle, where a high sugar/grain diet increases fat storage and promotes leptin resistance, which in turn drives insulin resistance and obesity, which eventually leads to full-blown diabetes.

If You Want to Prevent or Reverse Diabetes, IGNORE the  Following “Health” Agencies

  1. American Dietetic Association
  2. American Heart Association
  3. American Diabetes Association

For the last 50 years, many people have been following the nutritional recommendations from these agencies, which advise a high complex carbohydrate, low saturated fat diet.

Clearly, these recommendations are NOT working.

Again, it’s imperative to understand that if you have diabetes, you need to avoid sugar/fructose, grains (even organic, whole grains) and other starchy carbs like rice, potatoes and cereal, to get healthy.

Most Diabetics Can be Cured with Lifestyle Changes

The good news is, you do NOT need to become another statistic!

Rest assured that nearly 100 percent of type 2 diabetics can be successfully treated – eliminating the symptoms of diabetes, or the high risk of developing health complications — if you are willing to implement the following recommendations:

  1. Exercise

    Exercise is an absolutely essential factor, without which you’re highly unlikely to get this devastating disease under control. It is clearly one of the most potent ways to lower your insulin and leptin resistance.

    Typically, you’ll need large amounts of exercise, until you get your blood sugar levels under control. You may need up to an hour or two a day. Naturally, you’ll want to gradually work your way up to that amount, based on your current level of fitness.

    For more information and guidelines for an optimal exercise program, please see this article where I explain the superior benefits of Peak 8 exercises.

  2. Eliminate sugar/fructose, artificial sweeteners and grains

    For the last 50 years, people have been following the nutritional recommendations dictated by conventional health agencies, which advise a high complex carbohydrate, low saturated fat diet. The end result has been a 700 percent increase in diabetes in the same time frame and many have come to view diabetes as an incurable chronic disease.

    Our current diabetes statistics are the inevitable result of seriously flawed dietary recommendations. Also artificial sweeteners are not a good substitute for sugar and will actually cause you to gain more weight than sugar.

    Instead, you’ll want to eliminate foods that your body will react to by creating insulin, which includes all types of sugars and grains. This also means avoiding most processed foods of all kinds as they are loaded with fructose. You may even need to avoid fruits until your blood sugar is under control.

  3. Eat right for your Nutritional Type

    Exercising and avoiding grains and sugars might not be enough unless you balance your protein, carb and fat ratios for your unique and specific genetic biochemistry.

    This is so important, I now offer the entire online nutritional typing test for free. Please do take advantage of this free offer as we  previously charged $29 to take the same test.

  4. Monitor your fasting insulin level

    This is every bit as important as your fasting blood sugar. You’ll want your fasting insulin level to be between 2 to 4. The higher your level, the worse your insulin receptor sensitivity is.

    The recommendations mentioned above are the key steps you need to achieve this reduction.

  5. Optimize your vitamin D levels

    Interestingly, optimizing your vitamin D levels can not only help improve type 2 diabetes if you have it, but can likely eliminate the risk of type 1 diabetes in your children if you are pregnant. It’s also vital for infants to receive the appropriate amounts of vitamin D in their early years for these same reasons.

    Ideally, you’ll want to do this by exposing a large amount of your skin to appropriate amounts of sunshine (or a safe tanning bed) on a regular basis, year-round. Your body can safely create up to 20,000 units of vitamin D a day this way.

    However, if neither of these options are available, you may want to use an oral vitamin D3 supplement. But remember, if you choose to take an oral supplement it’s essential that you get your levels tested regularly by a proficient lab to make sure you’re not reaching toxic levels, and are within the therapeutic range.

    Maintaining your vitamin D levels around 60-80 ng/ml can significantly help control your blood sugar.

These are the basic steps you need to take, starting today, if you have type 2 diabetes.

Doing so will virtually guarantee that your diabetes will disappear. And if you want to make sure you are not one of the millions impacted by the coming diabetes epidemic, these same steps will help you to stay healthy and diabetes-free.

Related Articles:

 Comments (167)

little girl vaccinationIt’s been four years since Gardasil debuted as a blockbuster vaccine with sales that rocketed to over $1.1 billion in its first nine months.

Touted as a wonder vaccine that would end cervical cancer, it was supposed to be the savior of both mankind and Merck’s Vioxx-damaged bottom line. But now, according to CNN Money, it’s a dud.

It just posted $219 million in sales. But in the pharma world, that’s a paltry pittance, nothing short of an in-flight explosion that’s caused Merck stock to drop 3 percent, with analysts and investors scrambling to figure out what went wrong.

So what happened?

How did a vaccine that was supposed to be Merck’s beacon for higher profits in the 21st Century go from flagship to flop?

The Science Speaks for Itself

CNN Money calls Gardasil’s crash a “design flaw” and faults the economy, puritanical parents, bad press, and Merck itself for contributing to the fallout.

The article ends with the hypothesis: “Or, maybe people just aren’t ready for a cancer vaccine when it’s for a sexually transmitted disease.”

I think they’re way off the mark.

The real reason Gardasil is a flop is that people have become educated about this vaccine.

They’ve looked at the science and weighed the risks vs. the supposed benefits, and have made a choice not to get it for themselves or their children.

The word is out: despite what the CDC would have you believe, Gardasil’s safety record is in serious question. As of September 28, 2010, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has more than 18,000 Gardasil-related adverse events listed in it, including at least 65 deaths.

As a vaccine used in the developed world, the science speaks for itself: Gardasil can’t – and never will — replace Pap smears, which are the reason that the incidence of cervical cancer is so low in the United States after decades of including pap smears in routine medical care for women.

Today, cervical cancer is not even in the top 10 cancers that kill American women every year.

As a vaccine for children, it doesn’t make sense to vaccinate to try to prevent an infection that is cleared from your body without any negative effects within two years in most healthy persons, and is not transmitted in a school setting like other airborne diseases that are easily transmitted in crowded conditions.

Gardasil is designed to prevent only two of at least 15 strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer in those who do not clear the virus from their body within two years and become chronically infected.

There is also some evidence that Gardasil-induced immunity may wane after about five years. Pre-licensure clinical trials did not follow young girls or women for decades to find out if the vaccine does, in fact, prevent cervical cancer.

What went wrong with Gardasil is that this may be a vaccine that set many more health care consumers on a course of self-education that helped them make an informed decision about whether or not to take it – and there are several good reasons why many are deciding NOT to take it.

Science vs. Politics

First, the science: Peer-reviewed journal articles widely available on the Internet show that Gardasil is not what it was made out to be in the “one-less” TV commercials that jumped into people’s living rooms a few years ago.

Consumers now know that:

  • Gardasil is NOT a cancer vaccine. It is simply a vaccine for two strains of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) that in some instances can lead to cancer in some women (Gardasil’s other two HPV strains are for genital warts, which don’t cause cancer).
  • Since there are at least 15 HPV strains that can lead to cancer, Gardasil-vaccinated girls can still get cervical cancer from other 13 HPV strains not contained in the vaccine.
  • The vaccine doesn’t work if you’ve already been infected with the HPV strains in the vaccine.

But the politics of this information is that you won’t hear it or read it in the mainstream press. Instead, what you get is a repetition of the politically charged mantra that parents don’t want their young daughters or sons to get a vaccine associated with sexual behaviors, and complaints about the vaccine’s high cost.

However, the real truth is that Gardasil’s downfall has nothing to do with sex or money.

The Truth about HPV and Cancer

It is important to distinguish between HPV and cancer: Just because you currently have HPV, or may have had the infection in the past, does NOT mean you have cancer or will get cancer.

HPV is NOT cancer. It is a viral infection that can lead to cancer in some people if the virus does not naturally clear from your body, as it does for most people within two years.

Some high risk factors for developing chronic HPV infection are:

  • Smoking
  • Co-infection with herpes, Chlamydia or HIV
  • Long term birth control use
  • Multiple births

In the US, infection with HPV is very common, and it is estimated that about 20 million Americans have an HPV infection at any given time. In fact, HPV is so common that most sexually active people will get it at some time in their lives.

The important thing to know about HPV is that in almost all cases, it clears up on its own without any adverse health effects within two years in most healthy people.

Genital HPV infection that is persistent, and more likely to lead to cancer, is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners. According to the CDC, other contributing risk factors to HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer includes smoking, having herpes, Chlamydia or HIV (the virus associated with AIDS), or another health problem that makes it hard for your body to deal with infections.

Using birth control pills for a long time (five or more years) or having given birth to three or more children is also a risk factor.

Also, certain populations in the US are more prone to getting cervical cancer. According to

“Cervical cancer occurs most often in certain groups of women in the United States including African-American women, Hispanic women, white (non-Hispanic) women living in rural New York State and northern New England, American Indian women, and Vietnamese-American women.

  • Hispanic women have twice the rate of cervical cancer compared to non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50 percent more than non-Hispanic white women”.

These disparities are due, in part, from poor access to health care. The women who are most at risk for the disease are women who do not have regular check-ups that include pap tests.

Official reports from the CDC and WHO estimate that between 11,000 and 12,000 women in the US are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,800 to 4,100 die from it.

About half of these women had never had a pap smear before they discovered they had cervical cancer. The majority of the others had not had a pap smear within the previous five years.

According to the CDC’s report on HPV to Congress in 2004:

“Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV infection in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with pap tests and have appropriate follow-up of abnormalities.

The purpose of screening with the pap test is to detect cervical abnormalities that can be treated, thereby preventing progression to invasive cervical cancer, and also to detect invasive cervical cancer at a very early stage. If detected early and managed promptly, survival rates for cervical cancer are over 90 percent.”

A study published in 2000 in the Archives of Family Medicine also showed that in the US, women who are elderly, unmarried, and uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of cervical cancer.

The Truth About Gardasil

According to a 2006 report to the international group Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Gardasil and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline’s two-strain HPV vaccine) are only effective in young women and men (boys are now approved to receive HPV vaccine) who have never been infected with HPV.

According to Merck’s package insert on Gardasil, the end-point in its clinical trials for the vaccine’s efficacy, or effectiveness, was NOT cancer, but instead was the presence, or non-presence, of vaccine-relevant pre-cancerous lesions (CIN 2/3).

There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.

In fact, in clinical trials, Gardasil’s protection against cell dysplasia leveled off at four years, and clinical trial participants were given a fourth dose to boost the number of antibodies measured in the blood (immunogenicity) of those who got the vaccine. This is the efficacy being reported by Merck, even though the vaccine series is marketed as three shots, not four.

And, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for Gardasil, its efficacy against genital warts is only two years.

Additionally, according to the manufacturer’s package insert:

  • Gardasil does not eliminate the necessity for pap screening
  • It does not treat active infections, lesions or cancers
  • And it may not result in protection for all vaccinees

An outstanding question is whether the mass use of Gardasil (and Cervarix) by all girls and boys will put pressure on  other HPV strains not contained in the vaccines to become more dominant and perhaps more virulent in causing cervical cancer.

The “replacement” effect has happened with other infectious organisms that have developed resistance to vaccines used on a mass basis, such as pertussis (whooping cough) and pneumococcal vaccines.

The Truth about Gardasil’s Clinical Trials

Only 27 percent of girls who have received the Gardasil vaccine have gotten all three shots in the vaccine’s series. Merck blames it on forgetfulness, and has launched a “reminder” program that contacts vaccinees, and urges them to complete the series.

CNN Money suggests that it has to do with the vaccine’s high cost – just under $400 for a three-shot series, although some private doctors charge up to $875 for a three-shot series.

But neither has considered the third possibility – that the reported reactions  girls are suffering after getting one or two shots of Gardasil are so severe that they decide not to go back for more.

In any drug trial, whether it’s for a vaccine or not, safety should be the top priority – and Gardasil’s safety should have been thoroughly investigated before it was licensed and put on the market and recommended by public health doctors for ALL young girls to use.

But Merck used bad methodology in its pre-licensure safety studies that did NOT contain a true placebo. In reporting systemic adverse reactions to the vaccine, instead of using a true placebo that is not reactive on its own, Merck used a vaccine component (aluminum) in what they called the “placebo.”

Aluminum can cause inflammation in the body and can make your blood brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins to pass into your brain and cause damage. It is definitely not appropriate to use an aluminum-containing “placebo” to measure the reactivity of an experimental vaccine like Gardasil that will be given to children.

Researchers did use a saline placebo in one clinical trial, but only reported it in reference to injection site reactions. In those comparisons, the saline placebo had significantly fewer reactions than either the vaccine or the aluminum-containing placebo.

When it came to reporting the actual adverse, systemic events with the vaccine, Merck combined the aluminum and saline placebos, thus making the “placebo” results nearly the same as the vaccine’s – and impossible to objectively judge true safety comparisons.

This encouraged the perception that the vaccine is “safe” because the adverse events associated with it were nearly the same as the aluminum containing ” placebo.”

Another important outcome of the clinical trials that was not properly investigated before licensure was the potential association between the deaths that occurred in the clinical trials and the Gardasil vaccine.

A number of the girls who died during the trials were killed in car crashes. Yet, Merck did not report whether the girls were the drivers or passengers at the time of the accidents.

This could be critical information in determining the vaccine’s true safety, since one of the most common post-marketing adverse events is syncope (sudden fainting) as well as dizziness, seizures, and neurological events that could have contributed to a car accident if the person had just received a Gardasil shot and was driving at the time of the accident.

The Truth about Gardasil and its Thousands of Injuries and Deaths

The federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has been in place since 1986, but many experts believe that only 1 to 10 percent of all serious health problems that occur after vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, ever make it into the VAERS database.

Most doctors and other vaccine providers do not report vaccine-related adverse events to VAERS even though it is a requirement under federal law since 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.

Gardasil was a “fast tracked” vaccine and with so little active reporting of Gardasil-related health problems to VAERS, this means that Gardasil should be on the red-alert list for agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Yet these three federal health agencies and medical organizations urging doctors to give Gardasil to children and young women have joined Merck in insisting that Gardasil is safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.

Gardasil victims and their parents have been posting their heart breaking stories on websites.

These  tragic entries posted by Gardasil casualties is stark testify to the fact that something isn’t right with this vaccine – and what isn’t right is that the list of Gardasil victims just keeps growing.

The unfortunate fact is Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16, and most of the serious health problems and deaths in the pre-licensure clinical trials were written off as a “coincidence.”

And now, since those adverse reactions aren’t listed as possible warning signs that the vaccine can cause harm, health officials are still ignoring them, even while girls die and others suffer ongoing, and often permanent, injuries and disabilities from it.

For example, a rough comparison of Gardasil and Menactra (a vaccine against meningitis) adverse event reports to VAERS through November 30, 2008 revealed that:

  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many emergency room visit reports; 4 times more death reports; 5 times more “did not recover” reports; and 7 times more “disabled” reports.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with all of the reports of blood clots. All 23 reports of blood clots following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many cardiac arrest reports. All 9 reports of cardiac arrest following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 6 times as many fainting reports and at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many lupus reports. 27 reports of lupus following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 15 times as many stroke reports. 16 reports of stroke following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 33 times as many thrombosis reports. 34 reports of thrombosis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 5 times as many sasculitis reports. 11 reports of vasculitis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasiil was given alone.
  • Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 30 times as many rechallenge reports, which involve a worsening of symptoms experienced after previous receipt of Gardasil.

What’s disturbing about this is that these reports in all likelihood are just the tip of the iceberg because most physicians are making their reports to Merck, rather than to VAERS, and Merck is forwarding such poor quality information to VAERS that the CDC and FDA can’t follow up on the majority of reports that Merck makes.

As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2009, Merck made 68 percent of the reports to VAERS and 89 percent of them had information that was too insufficient to review!

Is This a Vaccine that You Would Want?

An editorial in the August 19, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) commented specifically on the risks and benefits of vaccinating with Gardasil, Merck’s marketing of it, and the safety issues that are so obvious with this drug:

“When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit,” the JAMA author said.

Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed.

“The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly.”

The commentary is so poignant that it’s a wonder that the mainstream media still hasn’t’ picked up on the impact of what this author is trying to say – that maybe, just maybe, people shouldn’t be so quick to jump on the Gardasil bandwagon.

The JAMA commentary goes on to say that one of the core questions of all medical decisions should be: When is the available information about harmful adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits?

It’s apparent that that question is in the minds of anyone who has really taken the time to study this vaccine.

What happened to Gardasil is that consumers looked at the science and lots of them made a choice to not use this vaccine.

And that, CNN Money, is why Gardasil is a flop.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

Don’t sit this one out! We need to take action NOW.

NVIC Advocacy PosterTell your friends and your family. Tell everyone. With a little bit of effort, we can make big strides toward preserving our freedom to make voluntary health decisions affecting our future, especially our children’s future.

One of the top goals for NVIC is preserving your freedom of choice about when to use vaccines. This non-profit charity has been fighting for your right to make informed VOLUNTARY vaccine choices since 1982. and NVIC are dedicating Nov. 1-6, 2010 Vaccine Awareness Week in a joint effort to raise public awareness about important vaccine issues.

Vaccine Awareness Week will feature a series of articles and interviews on vaccine topics of interest to newsletter subscribers and NVIC Vacine E-newsletter readers.

During this Vaccine Awareness Week, NVIC is also launching the online NVIC Advocacy Portal that will give you the tools you need to take action to protect legal medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions to vaccination in YOUR state.

Please register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at TODAY!

And while you are at it, please make a donation to NVIC so they can continue fighting on behalf of all Americans to make sure we don’t lose our informed consent rights when it comes to vaccination.

Your Donations to the NVIC help fund efforts that raise vaccine awareness, including the following excellent vaccine resources:

For information about legally avoiding immunizations in Canada, please see the Canadian Vaccination Liberation website

Stay tuned to this newsletter for more updates, or follow the National Vaccine Information Center on Facebook. Together we CAN make a difference!

 Comments (173)

vaccine shot In the early 1950s, the United States administered four vaccines — diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and smallpox. Children received 13 doses of four vaccines by the time they were two years old and not more than three vaccines in a single visit.

By the mid-1980s, there were seven vaccines — diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and polio.

Children received 15 doses of seven vaccines by the time they were two years old and not more than four vaccines in a single visit.

Since the mid-1980s, many vaccines have been added to the schedule.

Today, children may receive as many as 37 doses of 14 vaccines by the age of two, and as many as eight vaccines in a single visit!

The United States recommends more vaccines than any country in world. The CDC recommends 48 doses of 14 vaccines by age six, and 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18.

The CDC also recommends an annual flu shot for all Americans from six months of age through year of death.

What exactly is fueling this dramatic rise in the number of shots recommended to our children and adults?

Are Infectious Diseases on the Rise?

Outside of an occasional local outbreak, like the recent whooping cough epidemic in California that the media blew completely out of proportion, the diseases included on the vaccination schedule are actually stable in the 21st century United States.

According to Dr. Robert Sears, author of The Vaccine Book, the number of childhood cases of diseases included on the vaccine schedule, in the U.S. in 2007, was:

  • Pneumococus — approx. 10,000 cases a year
  • Diphtheria – 5 cases per year, 0 cases some years
  • Tetanus – 1 case per year in children under 5
  • Pertussis – approx. 10,000 cases a year
  • Hepatitus B – 30 cases in 1 year olds, 30 cases in 1-5 year olds
  • Rotavirus – 500,000 cases, 50,000 hospitalizations, 20-70 deaths
  • Polio – 0 cases since 1985
  • Measles – 50-100 cases a year
  • Mumps – 250 cases a year
  • Rubella – 250 cases a year
  • Chickenpox – 50,000 cases a year
  • Hepatitis A – 10,000 cases a year, most in children aged 5-14
  • Flu – Millions of cases
  • Meningococcal Disease – approx. 3000 cases a year

Media stories about an occasional local outbreak of a disease, usually designed to promote as much fear as possible, never seem to balance their accounts with readily available statistics supporting the facts about childhood diseases in the U.S.

Has the incidence of serious infectious childhood disease in the U.S been reduced solely due to widespread use of vaccines (as vaccine proponents always claim), or has improved sanitation, health care and living conditions played a big role both before and after vaccines came on the scene?

Are other first-world nations, which are currently giving fewer vaccines to their children than the U.S., experiencing a similar drop in infectious diseases thanks to improved living conditions?

With some of the highest vaccine rates on earth, does the United States have the world’s healthiest children?

To better answer these questions, we have to look at the overall picture of the health of our children in the United States.

Has More Vaccination Led to More Health?

Unfortunately in the United States, especially when it comes to anything that has to do with your health, there is a misguided notion that more is always better. You see this time and time again in products on pharmacy shelves marketed as “maximum strength”. You could say the U.S has a fascination with believing that if a little is good, a lot must be better.

This is not always the case. Take for instance aspirin, considered by many to be one of the safest drugs. If you take two aspirin, your headache may disappear. If you take ten, you may experience some serious problems. If you take 50, you better hope there’s a hospital nearby!

The question must be asked — has dramatically increasing the number of vaccines given to our children during the past 30 years actually led to healthier or sicker children?

There is accumulating evidence that dramatically increasing the numbers of vaccinations our children get has made vaccine makers richer, while America’s children are moving in the opposite direction of health — statistics show they are actually getting sicker.

During the past 30 years, the number of vaccinations our children receive has tripled, and during that same period of time, the number of children with learning disabilities, ADHD, asthma and diabetes has also more than tripled!

Vaccine makers and proponents will tell you that these statistics are unrelated. But no good scientific evidence currently exists that demonstrates vaccines ARE NOT contributing to the increasing incidence of chronic illness and disability in our children.

More than twice as many children have chronic brain and immune system dysfunction today than they did in the 1970s when half as many vaccines were given to children.

Sadly, today in America:

  • 1 in 6 children is diagnosed with a learning disability
  • 1 in 9 children suffer from asthma
  • 1 in 110 develop autism
  • 1 in 450 become diabetic

As the National Vaccine Information Center asks in a bulletin entitled “48 Doses of Vaccines Before Age 6” :

“Is the atypical manipulation of the immune system with more and more vaccines in early life setting some children up for chronic disease and disability?


Clearly, more and more vaccines are not solving the widespread health problems currently affecting our children. The fact is, vaccines could be a major part of the problem.

Flu Shots for ALL Americans

Today, the most common childhood infection is influenza, and in the past few years federal health officials have directed doctors to give all Americans an annual flu shot, from six months of age onward, until the year of death.

New Jersey has also passed a law requiring all children attending daycare or pre-school to get an annual flu shot, and some health care workers are being fired if they refuse to get an annual flu shot.

This can only be viewed as the prelude to a much larger campaign that, in the future, may end up dictating whether you will be allowed to enter higher education, get a job, or even travel. Simply put, this trend of mandating annual influenza vaccinations must be resisted and stopped.

Is There Evidence the Flu Shot is Necessary, Safe or Effective?

Many studies funded by pharmaceutical companies selling vaccines have “proved” that influenza vaccine is safe and effective. But independent reviews of those studies have found the opposite is true.

Studies are now showing what people who refuse to take flu shots have known for a long time: that flu shots simply do not work as advertised.

For example:

  • Giving young children flu shots appeared to have no impact on flu-related doctor visits or hospitalizations during two recent flu seasons, according to a study published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine.
  • The flu vaccine is no more effective for children than a placebo, according to a large-scale, systematic review of 51 studies, published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
  • NO studies have conclusively proven that flu shots prevent flu-related deaths among the elderly.
  • A study published in the Lancet found that influenza vaccination was NOT associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia in older people.
  • Research published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine also confirms that there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza and pneumonia, despite the fact that vaccination coverage among the elderly has increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent today.

For even more information, studies, and statistics about the flu shot, please review this previous article.

In 2009, public health doctors at the World Health Organization (WHO) and in the U.S. declared a H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic when a new bird-swine-human strain of H1N1 influenza was identified in Mexico.

However, the 2009 “swine flu” pandemic turned out to be very mild – one of the mildest influenza seasons in recent years, in fact! — while the pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccine turned out to be HIGHLY reactive.

It has been alleged that the 2009 pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccine is much more deadly than the swine flu itself. In fact, in 2010 Australia temporarily banned use of seasonal influenza vaccine containing the pandemic H1N1 strain for children under the age of five after 99 children were admitted to the hospital with convulsions after receiving the shot!

The U.S. 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccine contains the pandemic H1N1 vaccine strain that caused so many convulsions in Australian children.

A federal oversight committee reviewing the 2009 pandemic H1N1 vaccine used in the U.S. found a possible link between the swine flu vaccine with Guillain-Barrre Syndrome (GBS), idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP), a blood clotting disorder, and Bell’s Palsy, which causes facial paralysis,

It’s astounding how effective drug companies are at manipulating national health policy. They have been able to manipulate and pervert the public health system so they now can sell toxic, ineffective flu shots in pharmacies, airports, college campuses, grocery stores, and countless other outlets, without ANY solid evidence that the flu shots even work, and despite the many questionable ingredients found in the shots, such as:

Since we don’t know whether many of our sick and disabled children are chronically ill because they’ve already been over-vaccinated, why are we trying to force more vaccines, like the ineffective and risky flu vaccine, on them?

And why are governments constantly trying to mandate even more shots for children?

Follow the Money

The vaccine industry seems to view the 308 million people living in the United States as little more than pin cushions for their profitable vaccine products.

Pharmaceutical profits from swine-flu-related drugs alone have soared – with earnings between $10 billion and $15 billion in 2009, according to estimates from investment bank JPMorgan.

A report from 2007 entitled “Pipeline and Commercial Insight: Pediatric and Adolescent Vaccines,” written by vaccine analyst Hedwig Kresse, makes some interesting points about the future of vaccine profits.

The report includes an assessment of products and forecast of market size and coverage rates to the year 2016, predicting that due to the “promising commercial potential” of new, high-price vaccines, the pediatric and adolescent vaccine market will quadruple from approximately $4.3 billion in 2006, to over $16 billion by 2016, across the US, the EU-five including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK, and Japan.

The crucial factor for success in the pediatric market, the report notes, is the introduction of products into the national vaccination schedules.

As an example, Dr. Kresse cites Wyeth’s Prevnar, as the first premium price vaccine launched in the US in 2000 for vaccinating infants against pneumonia and meningitis. Since then, Prevnar has been added to the childhood vaccination schedules in the US and EU-five despite its high price of nearly $320 for the four-dose regimen.

The sad reality could be that the motivation for continually increasing both the number of shots given and the price of the vaccines is nothing more than a desire by big Pharma to improve “market share” and profits.

The Alliance Between the Vaccine Industry and the Government

In the first quarter of 2010 alone, the US federal government representatives received $19 million per day from lobbyists, and over $1 billion in total lobbyist spending, a large chunk of the money coming from the health care sector.

Keep in mind, this is only federal lobbying efforts. This figure doesn’t take into account the millions more spent lobbying at the state level, not to mention the cozy lobbying arrangements between the drug reps and individual doctors.

Why this massive lobbying push by the vaccine industry?

One of the reasons (certainly not the only one), is to influence vaccine mandates. The vaccine industry has a vested interest in (and continually spends big money on) trying to make sure that more vaccines and more doses are mandated by the government.

For every mandate they have successfully pushed through, there are some recent ones that have failed due to action taken by parents of vaccine injured children and others to defeat them.

Currently in California, there is a bill under consideration to make pertussis vaccine booster doses mandatory for all children between 7th and 12th grade.

And in New York there has been a battle over a bill to make flu shots mandatory for all health care workers, and those who refuse an annual flu shot stand to lose their job.

There are also a whopping 145 additional vaccines in the pipeline being developed and tested in clinical trials. Since drug companies are going to want a stable, predictable market in the U.S. for these new vaccines, they’re likely to press for mandated use of many of them, both by children and adults.

Prejudice Against the Unvaccinated?

One of your basic freedoms as a human being is your right to decide what you put into your own body.

Especially when it comes to medical risk-taking, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks and have the ability to refuse to allow substances you consider to be harmful, toxic or poisonous to be forced upon you.

But are those of us who are trying to exercise our right to informed consent to medical risk-taking facing prejudice and discrimination?

When it comes to getting an education, keeping your job, or being allowed to obtain health insurance and medical care, the answer could soon be “yes.”

Besides the potential looming threat of job loss for unvaccinated health care workers in New York, students in all 50 US states are required to get dozens of doses of vaccines to enroll in school (exemptions to this requirement do exist however. More about that in a minute).

Furthermore, according to WebMD, the new government healthcare reform may include trying to make vaccines mandatory, meaning a real possibility now exists that you will be required to receive mandated vaccines to qualify for health insurance:

“The CDC almost certainly will make universal flu vaccination official U.S. policy for this fall’s 2010-2011 flu season, as it consistently follows the advice of the panel of outside experts, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).”

The partnership between government health agencies and big Pharma, based on ideology, profit-making and bad science, is moving closer and closer to discriminating against those who want to exercise their informed consent rights when it comes to making voluntary vaccination decisions.

The Vaccine Industry’s Fight Against Exemptions

Not only do the vaccine manufacturers want to take away your freedom of choice, there is also a new push coming from the vaccine industry to remove the existing non-medical legal exemptions to vaccination, which include:

  • Religious Exemption— All states allow a religious exemption to vaccination except Mississippi and West Virginia.
  • Philosophical, Personal or Conscientious Belief Exemption— The following 18 states allow exemption to vaccination based on philosophical, personal or conscientiously held beliefs: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

These exemptions are apparently viewed by the vaccine industry as unfair market practices that interfere with their ability to maximize profits. There is nothing the drug companies would like more than to make all their vaccines mandatory, without exception. And unfortunately, through extremely powerfully lobbying, they’ve managed to manipulate our politicians and public health officials to help them push their wares.

Do you want your right to make informed health and vaccine choices for yourself and your family taken out of your hands?

They do. They are fighting to do just that.

Will you let them?

Dr. Paul “For Profit” Offit

One of the names you see again and again as a proponent for the safety and efficacy of vaccines is Dr. Paul Offit.

Who is Paul Offit?

Dr. Paul Offit, also known as “For Profit” Offit, is a fairly well-known and frequent proponent of forced vaccination. He regularly dismisses many of the potential vaccine risks and promotes vaccine mandates. But he is not just a doctor who believes that vaccinations save lives.

Far from it.

If you want to read a fascinating expose of this doctor, read the recent Philadelphia Magazine expose on him.

Offit is a listed inventor on a cluster of patents that protect Merck’s RotaTeq vaccine and share the title “Rotavirus Reassortant Vaccine.” They include four granted U.S. patents — US5626851, US5750109, US6113910 and US6290968 — and two granted European patents — EP323708 and EP493575.

He is also the recipient of a $350,000 grant from Merck for the vaccine’s development, a consultant to Merck Pharmaceuticals and, the icing on the cake, previously served as a member of The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

ACIP is a 15-member panel of immunization experts, selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They provide advice and guidelines to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine-preventable diseases.

As a member of the ACIP from 1998 to 2003, Offit was involved in CDC recommendations about giving rotavirus vaccine to all babies. He voted “yes” three times out of four on issues pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus use recommendation.

To clarify, Offit voted for the FIRST Rotashield vaccine manufactured by Wyeth (monkey-human hybrid virus) approved by ACIP in 1998 to be given to all babies. He abstained from the vote in 1999 to recommend that Rotashield be removed from the market.

He did not vote for the Merck RotaTeq vaccine (cow-human hybrid virus) to be recommended for use in all babies because he was prevented under ACIP/government rules from voting to recommend a product he had a personal financial stake in.

As a result of the rotavirus vaccine being added to the CDC’s childhood vaccination schedule, the value of Offit’s stake in the Merck RotaTeq vaccine he helped to create skyrocketed.

In 2008 CHOP sold its royalty stake in RotaTeq for $182 million, and Offit received an unspecified chunk: his share of the intellectual property, according to him was “in the millions”.

Why Isn’t This ILLEGAL?

Though Offit declines to say exactly how much he has gained personally, Age of Autism reported that Offit earned at least $29 million, and perhaps as much as $55 million from being a co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine that was recommended by US public health agencies for universal use by all American babies.

Of course, all of this begs the question — can someone’s vote on an “independent” government vaccine policymaking committee be trusted as being “unbiased” when that person could eventually profit from the committee’s vaccine policy recommendation?

Would Offit, or anyone for that matter, truly be an unbiased judge of a vaccine’s safety and effectiveness when there is that big of a personal financial stake in the outcome?

It’s a rhetorical question, but I think the answer speaks for itself. Especially when you consider that Offit is also the doctor who made the infamous and scientifically irresponsible assertion that “an infant can safely receive up to 10,000 vaccines at once and 100,000 in a lifetime.”

The Vaccine Industry’s Ethical Questions

Besides the questions of whether vaccines are safe or effective, or whether supposedly independent vaccine advisory panels have been hijacked by doctors with financial conflicts of interest, or whether the questionable ingredients in vaccines have been properly tested for toxicity, there are other questions to consider as well.

No discussion of the business practices of the vaccine industry would be complete without addressing the questionable ethical practices long associated with the pharmaceutical industry.

Numerous times in the past 50 years they have been accused of falsifying drug study results, paying bribes, covering up or omitting side effects and deaths, and denying responsibility when drugs are pulled off the market for killing people.

For an eye-opening introduction to the criminal side of the vaccine industry please review this recent article.

According to an ABC News story from 2010, drug company reps from Eli Lily were instructed by the company to regularly give lavish gifts to doctors, and push more profitable drugs at higher doses in order to maximize profits, regardless of safety concerns. According to the story:

“To sell their drugs, pharmaceutical companies hire former cheerleaders and ex-models to wine and dine doctors, exaggerate the drug’s benefits and underplay their side-effects, a former sales rep told a Congressional committee this morning.”

With an ethical track record like this, full of outright lies, cover-ups, denials and bribery, how can you trust anything they say?

Always Look for Hidden Motivations

It is understandable that most people would like to believe the words of respected leaders in the health field, and companies claiming they are producing products that save lives.

Unfortunately, it is often na

Next Page →