Steel gas mains draw regulators’ scrutiny - U.S. news - msnbc.com

Steel gas mains draw regulators’ scrutiny - U.S. news - msnbc.com:

Steel gas mains draw regulators’ scrutiny

Failures of pipes like the one in California blast have triggered action in other states

Department of Energy / msnbc.com

This map shows the network of major U.S. natural gas pipelines in 2009

By Alex Johnson Reporter

msnbc.com

updated 9/10/2010 5:02:58 PM ET

Natural gas mains made of steel, like the one that apparently failed in Thursday’s deadly California explosion, are considered especially susceptible to corrosion and leaking, leading regulators in some states to consider replacing them.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which serves the San Francisco Bay Area, said Friday that it had isolated a damaged section of a 30-inch steel pipeline in San Bruno after the blast, which killed at least four people, injured 52 others, destroyed 38 homes and set off a fire that charred 15 acres.

1. An msnbc.com-NBC News report

   Alex Johnson is a reporter for msnbc.com. Bill Dedman of msnbc.com and Roger Gray of NBC station KETK of Tyler, Texas, contributed to this report.

In general, gas pipelines are safer than ever: “Distribution incidents” like leaks, fires and explosions have declined sharply since 1970, when many utilities began switching over to plastic pipes, which are less vulnerable to corrosion, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Deaths in such incidents have declined in turn, from 246 in the 1970s to 120 in the 2000s.

But while the majority of natural gas pipes are plastic, about 60 percent of the nation’s 475,000 miles of larger gas mains — those wider than 16 inches in diameter — are steel, according to the Natural Gas Supply Association. That’s because steel pipes can better withstand the pressurization used to move gas efficiently through large pipes.

1. More U.S. news
   1. U.S.: 3,500 unused Gulf wells must be plugged

      Updated 65 minutes ago Energy companies in the Gulf of Mexico will have to permanently plug nearly 3,500 nonproducing wells and dismantle about 650 unused platforms, the Obama administration says. Full story

   2. Final 'kill' of BP well planned by Sunday
   3. Updated 63 minutes ago One for the establishment — Ayotte wins N.H. GOP nod
   4. When the war comes home
   5. Updated 16 minutes ago PG&E had OK to fix pipe near blast; work not done
   6. Were you in the Peace Corps? Share your photos

That strength doesn’t necessarily translate to safety — federal figures show that steel pipes are implicated in more natural gas incidents than those made of plastic materials.

Through Aug. 11 — the last date for which data are available — the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration recorded 57 such incidents this year, 21 of them involving steel pipes and 11 of them plastic pipes. Most of the other incidents also involved metal pipes, usually aluminum or cast iron.

If you own a gas grill, you probably already deal with the main vulnerabilities of steel pipes. Steel corrodes, and because it’s rigid, it can crack under stress. As older steel gas mains have started giving way, explosions — some of them deadly — have led regulators in several states to reconsider whether they’re the best option.

Atmos Energy Corp., the second-largest natural gas distributor in the country, with operations in 12 states, agreed last month to replace 100,000 of the most vulnerable steel pipelines in its North Texas territories by late 2012. The agreement follows years of investigations by Dallas TV station WFAA into explosions involving steel pipes or steel couplings, like one in January, when leaking gas exploded in a home in Irving, killing the owner and seriously injuring his wife.

U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Pipeline Safety / msnbc.com

All told, regulators have identified at least six major explosions since 2006 involving Atmos steel pipelines in Texas, prompting the Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates natural gas pipelines, to study the feasibility of replacing all 525,000 steel service lines across the state.

“Experience has revealed that [steel] is the most prone to leak, so it all needs to come out,” said Geoffrey Gay, a lawyer representing several Texas towns in negotiations with Atmos and the Railroad Commission. “Obviously, my clients are always worried about the health and safety of their citizens.”

Regulators in other states are also starting to crack down.

In Washington, Puget Sound Energy Corp. has until the end of the year to replace about 9,000 older steel natural gas lines in the western part of the state. The deadline was set as part of a settlement with regulators after an investigation of an explosion that killed a 68-year-old woman at her home in Bellevue, a suburb of Seattle, in 2004.

And in Arizona, regulators include a notice in monthly bills sent by Southwest Gas Corp., which serves nearly 2 million natural gas customers in the state and in California and Nevada. The notice warns that “buried steel gas lines are subject to the effects of corrosion if they are not maintained, which could result in leakage,” and says it’s the customer’s responsibility to monitor the lines “to identify these potential problems before they become hazardous.”

It’s not yet known whether the steel composition of the pipe was a factor in Thursday’s blast, but PG&E said it would “take accountability” if it was at fault. The National Transportation Safety Board sent a four-member team to investigate.

Follow Alex Johnson on Facebook | Follow Alex Johnson on Twitter

© 2010 msnbc.com Reprints

Why aspartame is FAR Worse than High Fructose Corn Syrup

It’s been nearly 20 years since the artificial sweetener aspartame gained FDA approval, but the debate about its safety, or lack thereof, has continued on unabated. Today, aspartame can be found in more than 6,000 products, including food products not specifically aimed at diabetics or dieters.

Might you be overdosing on this neurotoxic sweetener?

Sources:

Sweet Misery Video Transcript (PDF)

Aspartame Studies

Free Sample Chapter from Sweet Deception

The first video above -- which contains highlights of Cori Brackett’s documentary film Sweet Misery -- is an excellent summary of the problems with aspartame. You can also obtain the entire DVD if you’re intrigued by these clips. I believe Sweet Misery is one of the best documentaries out there on this topic.

In this follow-up article, I will discuss recent findings that link aspartame to increased risk of premature birth; it’s potential carcinogenic effects; and the ironic ‘side effect’ of it promoting rather than combating weight gain – which of course is one of its primary objectives as a sugar substitute.

If you missed the first half of this discussion, you can read it here.

As I mentioned in that article, the lack of toxicity data should not be construed as proof that aspartame is safe. On the contrary! Aspartame appears to have been approved WITHOUT such data, which makes the issue of its inherent safety for human consumption all the more questionable.

Today, the sheer prevalence of this chemical sweetener in our food supply has re-ignited the issue of aspartame’s safety, despite the fact that the FDA approved it nearly 20 years ago, and has continuously refuted new studies suggesting their original approval was ignorant at best.

It was a decision heavily influenced by political wrangling and alleged scientific fraud that has put people’s health at risk ever since.

In the Source links above, you will find a link to a page on my website dedicated to documenting studies pertaining to health problems associated with aspartame.

You will also find a link to a free sample chapter from my book Sweet Deception for more information about aspartame and the health concerns associated with its use.

Before I delve into the evidence stacked against aspartame as a dieter’s best friend, and recent research that strongly questions its safety for pregnant women, I’d like to quickly address the issue of individual susceptibility to harm.

Although there are tens of thousands of FDA adverse reaction reports and countless more personal accounts of harm, many staunch aspartame users claim they’ve been using it for years and, well… they’re not dead yet, so how bad can it be?

Some People are Naturally More Prone to Formaldehyde Poisoning

An interesting tidbit that can help explain why some people experience ill effects from aspartame quite rapidly, whereas others can ingest aspartame for some time without noticing any ill effects, is that you may have more or less of a particular enzyme that breaks down alcohols that could otherwise be toxic.

Woodrow C. Monte, PhD, a retired professor of food science, explains this in his 2009 article Methanol: A chemical Trojan Horse as the root of the Inscrutable U^[i].

Aspartame contains about 10 percent methanol by weight, also known as wood alcohol, which is broken down into formaldehyde, and then formic acid, in your body.

The only human enzyme capable of metabolizing methanol to formaldehyde is an enzyme called Class I alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH I).

Formaldehyde, in turn, damages your body by “attacking proteins and embalming them” – a simple layman’s description of what happens, courtesy of PBD.org.

According to PBD.org, “small amounts of methanol can cause blindness, as the sensitive proteins in the retina are attacked…” And visual disturbance, including retinal detachment, is one of the reported side effects of aspartame consumption.

Now, Dr. Monte offers a clue as to why methanol may harm some more than others:

“Variability in sensitivity to exogenous methanol consumption may be accounted for in part by the presence of aldehyde dehydrogenase sufficient to reduce the toxic effect of formaldehyde production in tissue through its conversion to the much less toxic formic acid.”

In a nutshell, this is one of the ways in which your individual constitution may render you more or less vulnerable to the detrimental effects of aspartame.

That said, I am convinced that most of those who claim to be able to consume aspartame on a regular basis without ill effect, are still likely accruing damage in their bodies that will ultimately affect their long-term health.

It’s worth keeping in mind that most toxins that are harmful to your health are not going to harm you instantly. The reality is that few health hazards do. As with many other toxins and harmful chemicals, aspartame may be acutely toxic to some, while others can consume it without experiencing any immediate side effects.

However, there’s no guarantee it won’t lead to health problems later on, and it’s certainly not evidence of aspartame’s safety for the population at large – especially when you take into account the tens of thousands of people who HAVE experienced both acute and long-term side effects.

Please remember that just like other artificial sweeteners, there are no long-term safety studies in humans that support its use as they were never required by the FDA.

In addition, as I’ll discuss below, if you consume aspartame while pregnant, you may unwittingly expose your unborn child to completely unnecessary health risks, even if you feel that aspartame is not affecting you in a negative way.

Why Aspartame is NOT a Dieters Best Friend

Low-calorie artificial sweeteners were originally marketed primarily to diabetics and dieters, but now you find them in a variety of processed foodstuffs and snacks that are not specifically aimed at this target market.

But do these zero- or low-calorie products really help you lose weight and/or keep it off?

Well, the research and the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame tend to lead to weight gain. As I’ve often said, there’s more to weight gain or weigh loss than mere calorie intake.

One reason for aspartame’s potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage. Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.

So although you’re not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels.

Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.

Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer “hear” the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.

What happens then?

You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat.

Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.

Artificial Sweeteners Actually INCREASE Weight Gain

Most people use artificial sweeteners to lose weight. The amazing irony is that nearly all the studies that have carefully analyzed their effectiveness show that those who use artificial sweeteners actually gain more weight than those that drink regular sodas.

Common sense would also strongly suggest that they don’t work, because while their use has exploded in the last three decades, that increase closely parallels the obesity epidemic which continues to worsen, not improve, despite the use of these artificial sweeteners.

This connection between sweet taste alone and increased hunger can be found in the medical literature going back at least two decades. These two studies, for example, dating back to the late 80’s and early 90’s, both showed this link between artificial sweeteners and increased hunger:

• Physiology & Behavior, 1988^[ii] – In this study, they determined that intense (no- or low-calorie) sweeteners can produce significant changes in appetite. Of the three sweeteners tested, aspartame produced the most pronounced effects.
• Physiology & Behavior 1990^[iii] – Here, they again evaluated whether or not the mere taste of “sweet” increases hunger, by having human subjects chew gum for 15 minutes containing various levels of aspartame (0.05%, 0.3%, 0.5%, or 1.0%).

  Interestingly, although those who chewed artificially sweetened gum reported increased hunger compared to the control group who were given nothing or unsweetened gum base to chew, the increase did not directly correlate with the aspartame concentration in the gum.

  Women experienced the greatest increase in hunger after chewing gum containing 0.3 percent aspartame (the second lowest concentration amount), while men were the hungriest after chewing on gum containing 0.5 percent aspartame. The authors stated: “The highest aspartame concentrations had a time-dependent, biphasic effect on appetite, producing a transient decrease followed by a sustained increase in hunger ratings. Thus, the concentration of the sweetener, the sex of the subject, and the time after chewing, were all important determinants of whether "sweetness" increased hunger.

While no explanations for these findings were given at that time, researchers are now starting to be able to further explain why and how this happens.

As I explained above, phenylalanine and aspartic acid can stimulate the release of insulin and leptin, which are both involved in the mechanism of satiety.

Additionally, large doses of phenylalanine can lower important neurotransmitters like sero­tonin^[iv], which also influences satiety. Decreased serotonin levels reduce feelings of satiety, which can then lead to over-eating or binge eating.

In a study of high-intensity artificial sweeteners performed on college students, there was no evidence that artificial sweetener use was associated with a decrease in their overall sugar intake either.

These results indicate that eating arti­ficial sweeteners simply perpetuates a craving for sweets, and overall sugar consumption is not reduced—leading to further problems controlling your weight.^[v]

In 2005, data gathered from the 25-year long San Antonio Heart Study also showed that drinking diet soft drinks increased the likelihood of serious weight gain – far more so than regular soda.^[vi]

According to Sharon Fowler, M.P.H:

“On average, for each diet soft drink our participants drank per day, they were 65 percent more likely to become overweight during the next seven to eight years, and 41 percent more likely to become obese.”

This finding supports a 2004 study at Purdue University, which found that rats fed artificially sweetened liquids ate more high-calorie food than rats fed high-caloric sweetened liquids.^[vii]

The researchers believe the experience of drinking artificially sweetened liquids disrupted the animals' natural ability to compensate for the calories in the food.

A more recent review, published in June 2010 in the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, delves into the neurobiology of sugar cravings and summarizes the epidemiological and experimental evidence concerning the effect of artificial sweeteners on weight.^[viii]

The author states:

“Several large scale prospective cohort studies found positive correlation between artificial sweetener use and weight gain.

… Preload experiments generally have found that sweet taste, whether delivered by sugar or artificial sweeteners, enhanced human appetite. Aspartame-sweetened water, but not aspartame capsule, increased subjective appetite rating in normal weight adult males…

Unlike glucose or sucrose, which decreased the energy intake at the test meal, artificial sweetener preloads either had no effect or increased subsequent energy intake. Those findings suggest that the calorie contained in natural sweeteners may trigger a response to keep the overall energy consumption constant.

... Increasing evidence suggests that artificial sweeteners do not activate the food reward pathways in the same fashion as natural sweeteners… Natural and artificial sweeteners also activate the gustatory branch differently.

… Lastly, artificial sweeteners, precisely because they are sweet, encourage sugar craving and sugar dependence.

… Unsweetening the world’s diet may be the key to reversing the obesity epidemic.”

That last statement is probably the most accurate conclusion there is. Americans in particular are addicted to the flavor sweet, which appears to trigger a complex set of biological systems, pathways, and mechanisms that in the end leads to excess weight gain whether that flavor comes loaded with calories or not.

In the end, the research tells us that artificial sweeteners are nothing more than a pipe dream when it comes to being a dieter’s aid, because contrary to what the marketing campaigns claim, low- or no-calorie artificial sweeteners are more likely to help you pack on the pounds than shed them.

Aspartame and Premature Birth

One of the most recent studies published on the health effects of aspartame could be likened to the Ajinomoto Titanic hitting the iceberg…

A Danish study published in June, which included more than 59,000 Danish women, found that daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery by as much as 78 percent.^[ix]

According to a recent article in the British MailOnline, some British public health experts are now advising pregnant women to avoid aspartame-containing foods and beverages to protect their unborn child, as preterm delivery exposes the baby to a number of health risks -- and staggering health care costs.

In the US, neonatal intensive care for an infant born prematurely, meaning before the 37^th week of pregnancy, can cost anywhere from $20,000 to $100,000.

The researchers found that pregnant women who drank an average of just one diet soda per day increased their risk of going into labor before the 37^th week by 38 percent.

Four or more diet sodas a day increased the risk of premature birth by 78 percent.

Meanwhile, no link was found between sugar-sweetened beverages and preterm delivery.

As usual, the researchers call for more studies to confirm these results, and I for one hope those studies are done so that, eventually, we may see a reversal in the recommendations by our health organizations, especially where expectant mothers are concerned.

Does Aspartame Cause Cancer?

The FDA, the media, and nearly all medical “experts” will tell you that it doesn’t, citing evidence such as the 2006 U.S. National Cancer Institute “study,” which involved more than 560,000 people between the ages of 50 to 69.^[x]

What they fail to tell you is that this was NOT a controlled study.

In fact, it shouldn’t even be called a study, because actual studies are controlled.

It was a SURVEY, based on food and beverage consumption surveys filled out between 1995 and ’96.

Based on these self-reported rough estimates of what the participants ate and drank, the researchers calculated the amount of aspartame participants had consumed, and compared it with subsequent cancer rates in the five years following.

However, aside from being a mere survey, which in no way can determine cause, there are two glaring factors that make it very difficult to give it any credence whatsoever:

1. In 1995 there were far fewer food products and beverages that contained aspartame, so consumption was likely FAR lower back then compared to today, and
2. How many people – especially back then – actually read labels to determine whether or not something contained aspartame? After all, the old food surveys the researchers used were NOT specifically collected to ascertain aspartame consumption.

Some people sneer at animal studies, but there are reasons for using animals in lieu of humans in controlled studies. First of all, in many cases using humans would simply be unethical, but the human lifespan is also so long that a controlled study would be extremely impractical.

This is a major reason for using rats, as their lifespan is far shorter.

Many researchers will euthanize the animals after a set time, but others, such as Dr. Soffritti with The Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center of the European Ramazzini Foundation has performed two controlled aspartame safety study on rats, so far, in which the rats are observed over the course of their natural lifetime.

What did he find?

The first study found that after being fed the human equivalent of four to five bottles of diet soda a day, the rats developed high rates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers.

At the highest dose level, 25 percent of the female rats developed lymphomas-leukemias compared with just 8.7 percent of the controls.

His findings, which raised a firestorm of controversy and denial across the world, were published in the Environmental Health Perspectives in 2006.^[xi]

The researchers determined that the carcinogenic effect of aspartame was as low as 400 parts per million (ppm), concluding that:

“The results of this mega-experiment indicate that APM [aspartame] is a multipotential carcinogenic agent, even at a daily dose of 20 mg/kg body weight, much less than the current acceptable daily intake.

On the basis of these results, a reevaluation of the present guidelines on the use and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed.”

A very important fact to consider here is that the Ramanizzi Foundation is an independent, non-profit institution that has been dedicated to cancer prevention for more than 35 years.

Not surprisingly, the results drew massive criticism from the industry. But the Ramanizzi Foundation refused to back down. Laleva.org reported the Foundation's rebuttal[xii]:

“… Prior long-term carcinogenesis studies on aspartame (4 total) were conducted over 20 years ago by the producers of the artificial sweetener using a small number of animals per sex per group. The results of these studies provided the basis for the current opinion regarding the non-carcinogenicity of aspartame.

In responding to the AFC panel comments, Soffritti noted that “what the panel considers shortcomings of the study are instead distinctive and positive characteristics of our research protocol, research which has provided the scientific basis for changes in international regulations numerous times over the last 30 years.”

For instance, the European Ramazzini Foundation conducts what are known as lifespan mega-experiments, meaning that large groups of rodents are allowed to live out their natural lifespan and are examined for histopathological changes upon spontaneous death. This model is in contrast with most laboratories where rodents are sacrificed at 110 weeks of age (representing about 2/3 of the lifespan).

The Ramazzini study design closely mirrors the human condition in which persons may be exposed to agents in the industrial and general environments from embryonic life until natural death. “Since 80% of cancer is diagnosed in humans over the age of 55, it is of paramount importance to observe how an agent affects laboratory animals in the last third of their lives”, notes Soffritti.”

But the story doesn’t end there.

Two years later, in 2007, the Ramanizzi Foundation published a follow-up study -- again flagging the link between cancer and aspartame.

This time, their research highlighted the troubling discovery that when the exposure begins in the womb, aspartame’s carcinogenic effect is further increased.[xiii]

But the evidence still didn’t gain any traction.

FoodNavigator.com reported that FDA spokesman Michael Herndon told Reuters: "At this time, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."^[xiv]

Stonewalling at its finest…

This is why you must become an informed consumer. The FDA simply refuses to address and properly investigate this potential health threat for you.

Have You Experienced a Bad Aspartame Reaction? Report it!

Did you know that only a fraction of all adverse reactions are ever reported? When it comes to side effects from drugs and vaccines, a mere 1 to 4 percent of all adverse events are reported, which leads me to think that adverse reactions from other FDA-regulated products, such as aspartame, is likely even lower.

This is a problem that only you as the consumer can have an impact upon.

In order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they’ve approved, they must be notified – by as many people who experience a problem as possible. So I urge you, if you experience side effects from aspartame, report it to the FDA.

Please go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number listed for your state, and report your adverse reaction.

There’s no telling just how many reports they might need before considering taking another look at the safety of aspartame or reconsidering their stance on the findings from more recent studies, but the only way to press them is by reporting any and all adverse effects.

References

---

• [i] Woodrow C. Monte PhD, “Methanol: A chemical Trojan Horse as the root of the Inscrutable U”, Medical Hypotheses, November 6, 2009 (10.1016/j.mehy.2009.09.059)
• [ii] Peter J. Rogers, Jo-Anne Carlyle, Andrew J. Hill and John E. Blundell, “Uncoupling sweet taste and calories: Comparison of the effects of glucose and three intense sweeteners on hunger and food intake”, Physiology & Behavior 1988; 43(5): 547-552
• [iii] Tordoff MG, Alleva AM., “Oral stimulation with aspartame increases hunger”, Physiology & Behavior March 1990; 47(3):555-9
• [iv] H. L. Wang, V. H. Harwalkar and H. A. Waisman, “Effect of dietary phenylalanine and tryptophan on brain serotonin”, Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics April 1962; 97(1): 181-184
• [v] Chen, L. N., Parham, E. S., “College Students’ Use of High-Intensity Sweeteners Is Not Consistently Associated with Sugar Consumption”, J Am Diet Assoc. 91(1991): 686–90
• [vi] UT Health Center San Antonio Press Release, “New analysis suggests ‘diet soda paradox’ – less sugar, more weight”, June 14, 2005 · Volume: XXXVIII · Issue: 24
• [vii] Davidson TL, Swithers SE., “A Pavlovian approach to the problem of obesity”, Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. July 2004;28(7):933-5.
• [viii] Qing Yang, “Gain weight by “going diet?” Artificial sweeteners and the neurobiology of sugar cravings”, Yale J Biol Med. June 2010; 83(2): 101–108.
• [ix] Halldorsson TI, Strøm M, Petersen SB, Olsen SF., “Intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks and risk of preterm delivery: a prospective cohort study of 59,334 Danish pregnant women”, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition June 30, 2010 [Epub ahead of print]
• [x] National Cancer Institute, “Aspartame and Cancer fact sheet”
• [xi] Morando Soffritti, Fiorella Belpoggi, Davide Degli Esposti, Luca Lambertini, Eva Tibaldi, Anna Rigano, “First Experimental Demonstration of the Multipotential Carcinogenic Effects of Aspartame Administered in the Feed to Sprague-Dawley Rats,” Environmental Health Perspectives March 2006;114(3):379-85
• 
  
• [xii] “EUROPEAN RAMAZZINI FOUNDATION STANDS BEHIND ASPARTAME STUDY RESULTS, ANNOUNCES ONGOING RESEARCH ON ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS”, Laleva.org, May 5, 2006,
• [xiii] Soffritti M, Belpoggi F, Tibaldi E, Esposti DD, Lauriola M., “Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases cancer effects in rats”, Environmental Health Perspectives September 2007; 115(9):1293-7
• [xiv] Stephen Daniells, “New study reignites aspartame cancer concerns”, FoodNavigator.com, June 26, 2007,

Alkaline Water According to Dr. Mercola

Alkaline Water According to Dr. Mercola: "If You Fall for This 'Water Fad' - You Could Do Some Major Damage
Posted By Dr. Mercola | September 11 2010 | 43,025 views

Clean, pure water is a cornerstone of good health. Your body is mostly water, so the ongoing intake of water is essential to your every function.

It’s common knowledge that most water sources are now polluted, but there is tremendous confusion about what kind of drinking water is the most health promoting, and what kind of home water treatment produces the best drinking water.

Today, too many people are choosing soda instead of pure water as their primary beverage and the health of an entire culture is at risk.

The number one source of calories in the U.S. comes from high fructose corn syrup primarily in the form of soda. Americans drink an average of one gallon of soda each week, and this excessive fructose consumption is a driving force behind obesity and chronic degenerative disease in this country.

The most practical and economical strategy to combat obesity and chronic disease is to replace all sodas and other sweet beverages with pure water.

The trouble is, most public water supplies are loaded with hazardous contaminants, such as disinfection byproducts, fluoride, and pharmaceutical drugs, to name just a few.

Nevertheless, you DO need to make water your beverage of choice if you want to be healthy—but it should be purified water.

But beyond water filtration, there’s also the issue of pH—alkaline versus acidic water. There are quite a few astonishing health claims being made about alkaline water, but are they true?

Most of them are not.

The theory behind alkaline water is, in a nutshell, that alkaline (ionized) water is a powerful antioxidant with surplus electrons that can “mop up” the dangerous free radicals you have coursing through your veins. Marketers claim alkaline water can correct excess acidity in your tissues, which can then prevent or reverse cancer, arthritis, and other degenerative diseases.^[i]

Above is my interview with Houston Tomasz on this topic. He’s a ten-year veteran in the water filtration industry and this article expands on some of the items that we discuss in our interview. The segment is part of a much longer interview that we will air in future issues. Additionally, I have interviewed two other experts on this topic and they both agree that ionizers that produce alkaline water are not your best choice.

“Snake Oil on Tap”

When I posted a comment on my Facebook page, announcing I was interviewing Houston, I asked for questions and the most popular question by far was whether or not to drink alkaline water.

Many alkaline water enthusiasts are convinced its powers are unparalleled and will vehemently defend it. I am also certain that many will post vigorous objections to my position, and that is their choice. It is also my choice and responsibility to provide information on a system that many people are relying on to provide health benefits that I feel are unjustified.

It is my impression that the scientific justification for these water systems is absent and these consumers have merely fallen under the spell of a skilled marketer who selectively misused pseudoscientific information, and twisted it around to scare them into buying their product.

There are a plethora of testimonials and so-called scientific studies on the Internet claiming alkaline water will cure your every ill. Many consumers, struggling to make sense of the scientific jargon, eventually throw up their hands in frustration.

In truth, there are very, very few legitimate scientific studies about the effects of alkaline water on human health.

The reality is, most of the circulating information is distributed by clever marketers, with very little scientific validity to back up their claims.

Complicating matters is the fact that most water ionizers and alkalizers are being marketed by multi-level marketing (MLM) companies with less than stellar ethics. They sell you a very expensive machine, for which you get a good discount if you sign up as a rep, and once you’re part of the MLM, you can’t very well change your mind about its benefits (especially if you’re going to sell the units)—even if you realize that the alkaline water is no longer “working” for you.

I have been personally approached many times and encouraged to sell these systems and there would have been large revenue streams had I chosen to do so, but I would never promote anything that I would never use personally, and I can assure you that I would never use alkaline water as a regular source of water.

Please understand I have no ax to grind here, and I am not selling any competing products. The sole purpose of this report is as a public health message to warn people that alkaline water is not all it is hyped up to be.

I have no doubts that many people do notice improvements in their health when they initially start drinking alkaline water, but I believe there are other reasons for this, and I am convinced that this is not a healthful strategy in the long run, so it is my strong recommendation to avoid alkaline water ionizers.

Some people experience an initial “high” when they start drinking alkaline water. This can easily be attributed to detoxification, and the fact that they are likely just becoming better hydrated.

Detoxification is about the only benefit of this type of water, and this benefit is limited to very SHORT TERM USE (no more than a week or two).

I will elaborate on what is known about alkaline water, but first you’ll need a basic understanding of the properties of water and a few definitions.

Types of Water Available to You

As I will review in a future interview with Houston, there are many reasons why you want to avoid drinking tap water, or as Daniel Vitalis, a raw water enthusiast, refers to it: “tap liquid.” He believes calling what flows from your unfiltered tap “water” is being overly generous, and I would have to agree.

In terms of types of water, here are some basic definitions to keep in mind:

• Purified water: Water that is physically processed to remove impurities (e.g., distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis, carbon filtration, etc.)

• Distilled water: Water that is boiled and evaporated away from its dissolved minerals, and then the vapor is condensed.

• Bottled Water. This water is typically from a spring or has gone through reverse osmosis before it is bottled. However, some brands are simply bottled tap water that may or may not have gone through any additional filtering.

• Ionized water or alkaline water: Water that has been separated into alkaline and acid fractions using electrolysis, which takes advantage of the naturally occurring electric charges found in the magnesium and calcium ions; in the drinking water industry, ionized water refers to alkaline water, which has a pH greater than 7.

• Deionized or demineralized water: Water in which the mineral ions (salts such as sodium, calcium, iron, copper, chloride and bromide) have been removed by exposing it to electrically charged resins that attract and bind to the salts.

• Hard and soft water: Hard water is any water containing an appreciable quantity of dissolved minerals; soft water is treated water in which the only cation (positively charged ion) is sodium.

Understanding PH

The concept of the acidity or alkalinity of your body—or of water—is based on the pH scale. So it’s necessary to have a basic understanding of what pH is.

PH is simply a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions. In fact, the acronym “pH” is short for “potential of hydrogen.” The higher a liquid’s pH, the fewer free hydrogen ions it has; the lower its pH, the more free hydrogen ions it has. One pH unit reflects a tenfold change in ion concentration—for example, there are ten times as many hydrogen ions available at a pH of 7 than at a pH of 8 ^[ii].

The pH scale goes from 0 to 14, and a pH of 7 is neutral.

Anything with a pH below 7 is considered acidic, with battery acid being the most extreme example, around 1. Anything with a pH above 7 is alkaline (or basic), with lye at the top of the scale, around 13. ^[iii]

Natural water on our planet ranges in pH from 6.5 to 9.0, depending on surrounding soil and vegetation, seasonal variations and weather, and even time of day responses to sunlight. Human activities further influence the pH of our water, from the barrage of toxic industrial pollutants.

According to an educational website called “Water on the Web”2:

“Pollutants in water can cause it to have higher algal and plant growth, as a result of increased temperature or excess nutrients, causing pH levels to rise. Although these small changes in pH are not likely to have a direct impact on aquatic life, they greatly influence the availability and solubility of all chemical forms in the lake and may aggravate nutrient problems.

For example, a change in pH may increase the solubility of phosphorus, making it more available for plant growth and resulting in a greater long-term demand for dissolved oxygen.”

Most aquatic animals and plants have adapted to life in water with a very specific pH, and will die from even slight changes. A pH below 4 or above 10 will kill most fish, and very few animals can tolerate waters with a pH below 3 or above 11 ^[iv].

With living systems being so sensitive to changes in pH, it should comes as no surprise that YOU, as another living organism on this planet, would be sensitive to your water’s pH as well.

Guidelines for the pH of Your Drinking Water

So, what are the recommendations for optimal drinking water pH?

The WHO has published a nearly-600 page document called “Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.” ^[v]

In this voluminous tome, you would expect to find everything you’d ever want to know about your drinking water, right?

Well, everything EXCEPT a pH recommendation—there are no health-based guidelines for pH!

They state that pH usually has “no direct impact on consumers,” yet they also write pH is one of the “most important operational water quality parameters.”

They do recommend your water pH be in the range of 6.5 to 8.0 so as not to corrode your pipes—and they’re NOT talking about your body’s plumbing:

“Alkalinity and calcium management also contribute to the stability of water and control its aggressiveness to pipe and appliance. Failure to minimize corrosion can result in the contamination of drinking water and in adverse effects on its taste and appearance. Failure to minimize corrosion can result in the contamination of drinking water and in adverse effects on its taste and appearance.”

It appears that the WHO is more concerned about the pipes in your house than the pipes in your body.

Most likely the optimal pH of the water you were designed to drink is somewhere between 6.5 and 7.5.

Alkalinity Research I: Flora and Fauna

Although the research is clear that alkaline water has detrimental effects on plants and animals, there are not many studies with humans.

A review of the literature turns up a variety of anecdotal evidence about the importance of ph to various living organisms, however, and as you might expect, optimal pH varies, depending on the organism.

The scientific literature indicates pH is important for nutrition and vitality. For example:

• Michigan State University studied greenhouse growth media (including the pH of that media), finding it is extremely important for the media pH to be properly adjusted prior to planting. Too high of a pH (greater than 6.5) increases the chances of micronutrient deficiencies. To low of a pH (less than 5.3) results in calcium and/or magnesium and/or manganese toxicity. ^[vi]

• Ohio State University Extension Service reports that alkaline water affects a plant’s ability to obtain nutrients from the soil and can alter the soil’s pH over time.^[vii]

• An ecological study in the Netherlands found that an influx of alkaline water led to the demise of a native plant called Stratiotes aloides L. ^[viii]

• Fish chronically exposed to alkaline soft water exhibit signs of stress (sometimes fatal), while fish in alkaline hard water experienced no such adverse effects, according to a study at the University of British Columbia. ^[ix]

If you are a gardener, you can view a helpful illustration of the environmental effects of pH in your own garden. If your pH is low, your hydrangea produces pink flowers, but if your pH is high, you’ll get blue flowers.

But what about us bipeds?

Alkalinity Research II: Humans

There has been a great deal of debate about battling cancer by making your body alkaline. This has become a focus of interest as cancer rates have skyrocketed (along with many other chronic, debilitating diseases), while our bodies have become more acidic from our processed-food diets.

The scientific research about the benefits of alkalinity is by no means conclusive.

PH appears to have a major influence on cell mitochondria:

• Normal cells die under extremely alkaline conditions. A study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry found that alkalosis (rising cellular pH) causes alkaline-induced cell death as a result of altering mitochondrial function. ^[x]

• Another study out of Cornell University states that antioxidants have not proven to be effective against many neurodegenerative diseases, and they state it may be a result of how the mitochondria operate within the cell in certain pH conditions.^[xi]

There are some scientific studies that really argue against alkalinity, at least with respect to preventing or treating cancer.

Consider the research by Robert Gilles, who has studied tumor formation and acidity.^[xii] According to Gilles, tumors, by their very nature, make themselves acidic—even in an alkaline cellular structure. In other words, they make their own acidity.

Scientists who are in the process of developing prototypes for potential new anticancer agents that selectively kill tumor cells by interfering with the regulation of intracellular pH, have found that alkaline treatments do NOT have the desired effect—but strongly acidic treatments do.^[xiii]

Talk about fighting fire with fire—they are fighting acid-loving cancer cells with acid!

LESS alkalinity inside a cancer cell seems to be what you want, not more.

So, all of those ionizer salesmen promising alkaline water will lower your cancer risk are completely clueless when it comes to what the scientific research actually shows.

Even more interesting is a 2005 study by the National Cancer Institute, which revisits the use of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) to treat cancer. They found that, in pharmacologic doses administered intravenously, ascorbic acid successfully killed cancer cells without harming normal cells.^[xiv] This is yet another example of cancer cells being vulnerable to acidity, as opposed to alkalinity.

It’s clear that the relationship between alkalinity and cancer has been grossly oversimplified by those jumping to premature conclusions—and of course by those trying to profit off your fear.

The bottom line is that alkaline water isn’t cancer’s magic bullet.

Balance is Key

As is true with many things, in the end it’s a matter of balance.

Water that is too acidic or too alkaline can be detrimental to human health and lead to nutritional disequilibrium. This was demonstrated in a Swedish well water study ^[xv], which found both pH extremes to be problematic.

Your body simply was not designed to drink highly alkaline water all the time.

So I believe it’s best to be VERY careful when it comes to something as foundational as the water you drink on a daily basis. If you get it wrong, you could really cause yourself some major damage.

It makes sense that you are designed to drink water that occurs naturally, which excludes alkaline water with pH levels of 8 and above.

And if you drink alkaline water all the time, you’re going to raise the alkalinity of your stomach, which will buffer your stomach’s acidity and impair your ability to digest food as low stomach acid is one of the most common causes of ulcers. This can open the door for parasites in your small intestine, and your protein digestion may suffer. It also means you’ll get less minerals and nutrients over time—in fact, some of these health effects can already be seen in hard-core alkaline water drinkers.

Alkalinity is also potentially a problem because it is antibacterial, so it could potentially disrupt the balance of your body’s beneficial bacteria.^[xvi]

Living Water

What you want is pure water—water that is clean, balanced, and healthful, neither too alkaline nor too acidic. Ideally, the pH of your water should be close to 7, which is neutral.

Somewhere between 6 to 8 is likely fine.

And some of the most healthful waters in the world—that emerging from mountain springs—are actually acidic in the range of 6.5. and would absolutely be my preference if it were readily available.

If this is something that interests you there is a web site, FindaSpring.com where you can find springs in your local area.

That is “living water,” which is living in the same way that raw food is “living food.”

One reason I am such an advocate for eating plenty of fresh, organic raw food is for its biophotons. Biophotons are the smallest units of light, which are stored in and used by all biological organisms—including you. Vital energy finds its way into your cells from the biodynamic foods you eat.

In the same way that raw foods are alive with biophoton energy, natural water is “alive” in a similar way.

If you really want to alkalinize your body it would seem wise to encourage it with the highest quality water possible which is obtained from vegetable juice. Green vegetable juices will help your body normalize your body’s pH naturally.

If this is new to you and you are interested in more information you can review my juicing manual for free.

I cannot think of “living water” without thinking of the visionary work of Dr. Masaru Emoto, the Japanese researcher who experimented with the crystal forms of water. What he discovered is that different forms of energy influence water’s ability to organize into beautiful crystal forms.^[xvii]

He demonstrated that water crystallization depends on the natural health of the water. He found that water from natural springs, healing water sources, etc., formed beautiful and complex crystalline geometries—like snowflakes. Water that had been distilled or polluted lost its inner order, and its ability to crystallize was profoundly disturbed.

You wouldn’t want to eat dead food... so why would you want to drink dead water?

Water Ionizers are NOT Filters!

It is really important to understand that the ionization process in no way, shape, or form purifies your water. Many of them have additional carbon-based filtration systems added, as reverse osmosis or distilled water will not allow the ionizer to produce alkaline water.

If for whatever reason the information I am presenting here does not convince you to avoid using ionizers, then you will need to carefully analyze the water filter that is being used.

This article only addresses ionizers and alkaline water. In the near future I will post a comprehensive review of water filters as it is complex issue that is beyond the scope of this article.

Is Your Water Filter Certified?

In order to ensure your water is pure, you should use a high quality water filter in your home and workplace. You can narrow down the choices by making sure the product you choose is certified by a reputable independent water certification agency.

Two of the best, most stringent certifications are NSF and ANSI, who write the standards. If a water purifier is certified by NSF or ANSI, the product claims have been verified, the system is structurally sound, and the literature and labeling is not misleading. Look for the NSF seal.

Three other less rigorous certifications are Pace Analytical, Underwriters Laboratories, and The Water Quality Association (WQA).

There is no national regulation of water products—states have their own regulations, which vary greatly state by state.

The EPA has published a chart listing their limits for every type of water contaminant, including microorganisms, disinfectants and disinfectant byproducts, organic and inorganic chemicals, and radionuclides, viewable here.

Please beware that some companies may mislead you by listing their UL certification, but this certification is good for the electrical components only, and has no bearing on water quality whatsoever.

Optimizing Your Body’s PH: Back to Basics

The typical American diet is loaded with sugar and processed foods, which throws off your body’s ability to optimize your pH. Although your body has mechanisms to buffer your pH, many of you are likely living in a state of low-grade acidosis from eating too many low-quality processed, devitalized food..

Our ancestors had no problems with pH because they ate a pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer diet, rich in plant foods and high quality meats, and devoid of grains.

You can optimize your body’s pH by eating like your ancestor’s did—a diet rich in raw, organic, whole foods—and this will help your body achieve homeostasis.

Remember, there is no one-size-fits-all nutrition plan that works for everyone, which is why Nutritional Typing is so helpful. Determining your nutritional type will help you narrow down the foods that are best for YOUR body’s individual chemistry.

A diet that makes one person “acidic” may make another person “alkaline,” so there is no one single universal food list for perfect pH.

For example, protein types can “over-alkalize” their systems by consuming too many dark green vegetables, which can worsen rather than improve their health, in spite of the many beneficial phytonutrients in leafy greens. (I am very familiar with this mistake as it’s one I made prior to understanding nutritional typing!)

I want you to be aware of just how important it is to understand your body at a deeper level. Your body is a complex, multi-faceted biochemical system that is unlikely to respond well to shot-in-the-dark treatments, like alkaline water.

References

---

• i “It’ll quench your thirst, of course” (January 22, 2007) Los Angeles Times: The Healthy Skeptic
• ii “Water on the web: pH,” National Curriculum for Colleges and High Schools
• iii “Water properties: Ph” USGS: Water Science for Schools
• iv N Mesner and J Geiger. (June 2005) “Understanding your watershed: What is pH?,” Utah State University Extension
• v “Guidelines for drinking-water quality,” World Health Organization, First addendum to third edition, Volume 1 Recommendations
• vi DD Warnoke and DM Kraukopf (September 1983) “Greenhouse growth media: testing and nutrition guidelines” Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E-1736
• vii J Christensen. “Alkaline water plant damage” GardenGuides.com
• viii JGM Roelofs. “Inlet of alkaline river water into peaty lowlands: Effects on water quality and Stratiotes aloides L. stands” Aquatic Botany Volume 39, Issues 3-4, 1991, Pages 267-293.
• ix TY Yesaki and GK Iwama. “Survival, acid-base regulation, ion regulation, and ammonia excretion in rainbow trout in highly alkaline hard water,” Dept. of Animal Science, University of British Columbia, Canada (March 5, 1992) JSTOR: Physiological Zoology, Vol. 65, No. 4, Jul-Aug 1992, pages 763-787.
• x HJ Majima, et al. “Prevention of mitochondrial injury by manganese superoxide dismutase reveals a primary mechanism for alkaline-induced cell death,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 273, pages 8217-8224 (April 3, 1998)
• xi HH Szeto. “Mitochondria-targeted peptide antioxidants: Novel neuroprotective agents,” AAPS Journal 2006; 8(3): E521-E531
• xii RJ Gillies et al. “Causes and effects of heterogeneous perfusion in tumors,” Neoplasia August 1999; 1(3): 197-207
• xiii D Rotin, et al. “Cytotoxicity of compounds that interfere with the regulation of intracellular pH: A potential new class of anticancer drugs,” Cancer Res. Mar 15, 1987 ; 47(6): 1497-504
• xiv Q Chen, et al. “Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: Action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues,” PNAS September 20, 2005, vol. 102, no. 38, pages 13604-13609
• xv I Rosborg, et al. “Inorganic constituents of well water in one acid and one alkaline area of south Sweden,” (May 13, 2002) Lund University, Lund, Sweden Water; Air and Soil Pollution (2003) 142: 261-277
• xvi NV Vorobjeva, et al. “The bacterial effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water on bacterial strains involved in hospital infections” Artificial Organs (June 2004) vol. 28, issue 6, 590-592
• xvii M Emoto. Water Crystal Study (Japan)

Related Links:

Is Bottled Water Really Pure

This Common Beverage Can Spike Brain Damage, Obesity, and Cancer Risk

Careful With Your Water Filters

Prescription and OTC Drug Recalls Soaring

Leading a common sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to produce a healthy body and mind, and increase your longevity. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, and even government itself sure won't make it easy for you to avoid the garbage that ruins your health.

The drug industry spends about $15 billion a year manipulating and distorting your perceptions about the proper solutions for your health challenges. And, the food industry spends TWICE that much to brainwash you and your children to choose highly processed convenience foods that will accelerate your path toward death and disease -- and your need to use drugs to control your symptoms.

It’s a vicious cycle of deceit and misinformation!

Fortunately, you can still take self-responsibility, educate yourself, make better, healthier choices, and be a living testament to what the truth of the matter really is.

By adhering to the basic tenets of optimal health – the basics of a healthy lifestyle, not just a temporary fix for a particular ailment -- you are building a healthy mind and body, and thereby safeguarding yourself against a multitude of health problems and serious diseases.

With Recalls at an All-Time High, Meet Big Pharma's Newest Scam

Posted By Dr. Mercola | September 08 2010 | 11,362 views

Recalls of prescription and over the counter drugs are surging in the U.S. The FDA reported more than 1,700 recalls last year, compared to less than 430 in 2008.
One single company, drug repackager Advantage Dose, accounted for more than 1,000 of those recalls. But even excluding Advantage Dose, recalls jumped 50 percent last year.
CNN reports:

“The fast pace of drug recalls seems to be continuing in 2010 ... High-profile recalls of Tylenol and other products ... have drawn attention to quality concerns in manufacturing ...

The spike in recalls, especially of generic and over-the-counter drugs, is being driven by manufacturing lapses, experts say. Some of the biggest culprits: the quality of raw materials, faulty labeling and packaging and contamination.”

Sources:

  CNN August 16, 2010

 

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

CNN's chart, below, shows the number of drug recalls between 2006 and 2009. Over the initial three years, recalls kept inching upward, only to spike dramatically between 2008 and 2009, from 426 recalls to 1,742.
That’s an increase of 309 percent in one year!

A single drug repacker, which has since been shut down, accounted for over 1,000 of those recalls, but even if you discount that one rotten apple, drug recalls still rose by over 50 percent.

Recent Drug Recalls Revisited

As recently as May, drug maker Johnson and Johnson voluntarily recalled all unexpired lots of certain over-the-counter (OTC) pediatric drugs, including Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl products, after they discovered “manufacturing deficiencies that could affect the quality, purity or potency of the medicines.”(A full list of the products affected by the recall can be found at this link.)
The recalled products were found to contain either:

1. Higher concentration of active ingredient than specified
2. Inactive ingredients that may not meet testing requirements
3. Tiny particles of unspecified origin

Amazingly, that was the second mass recall of these types of OTC drugs within less than a year.
In September of 2008, 21 children’s and infant’s Tylenol liquid products were deemed potentially unsafe due to bacterial contamination found in one of the inactive ingredients.
With all these recalls occurring, how can any health conscious consumer trust the safety or the effectiveness of any of these drugs?
I find it astonishing that while drug prices in general are soaring, drug manufacturers are still using rising costs as an excuse for failing to produce high-quality, pure products.
How about getting by with a little less profit in order to ensure each product is at minimum free of contamination and contains the specified amount of ingredients?
After all, as of 2007, the pharmaceutical industry was worth more money than the gross domestic product (GDP) – which is the market value of all the output produced in a nation in one year -- of entire COUNTRIES, including Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland, according to statistics from the World Bank.
In fact, if placed on the list ranking the countries of the world according to gross domestic product, the pharmaceutical industry ranked number 17 out of 185 countries in 2007!
But apparently, that’s still “not enough”…

Next Step You Need to be Aware of - - the Switch from Drugs to Vaccines

As the patents on many blockbuster drugs are expiring, and Big Pharma is increasingly found liable for damages from dangerous drugs, drug companies have shifted their focus from drugs to vaccines.
There are currently vaccines against everything from obesity to smoking, and even stress, in the pipelines – health concerns that have precious little to do with bacterial or viral infections, which is the basis for the vaccine theory in the first place (and even that theory is up for discussion).
Aside from being potentially dangerous to the extreme, why is this trend so troubling?
In a nutshell: Lack of liability.
Drug companies have fiercely defended every single drug ever recalled as being safe and effective – until definitively proven dead wrong, and sometimes they still wouldn’t fess up to their culpability.
The same shameless, misleading strategies used for drugs are being used for vaccines.
But with vaccines, not only are the health risks far greater for you and your family, the subsequent liability for the drug company is greatly reduced or even eliminated!
So you take ALL the risk, while the drug companies demand your trust, take your money, and avoids any legal actions should your life be destroyed by one of their vaccines.
From a drug maker’s perspective, vaccines may be one of the absolute “safest” products to make, because their liability is negligible to non-existent, depending on the vaccine.
Pandemic vaccines are 100 percent risk-free for the vaccine maker, as laws ushered in after 9/11 exempt them from ANY liability. And, making matters worse, the laws create a negative incentive to test it for safety, because if they are fully aware of problems, then they could potentially be held liable for willful misconduct! It’s in their best interest to know as little as possible about the adverse reactions their vaccine might cause.
Non-pandemic vaccine injuries fall under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which is a no-fault federal vaccine injury compensation program. But again, very few vaccine injured children ever receive compensation from this program, and as explained in this previous article, the program is so seriously flawed as to be useless.
Getting back to the issue of recalling dangerous medicines, without liability, what incentive is there to voluntarily recall a vaccine when dangers or serious problems are discovered?
None!
The HPV vaccine Gardasil has obvious problems that have led to 53 recorded deaths of vibrant, healthy young girls, and yet everyone is moving on like nothing is the matter. No recall. Not even an official warning.
So should we buy into the promises of safe, pure, effective vaccines, when history has shown us that mistakes occur FAR more frequently than anyone would dare to guess – both in drug and vaccine manufacturing?
The answer, of course, is up to you. But they won’t be getting my vote of confidence anytime soon.

Deception at an All Time High

Adding to this debauched mess is the rise in out-and-out deception, as Prevent Disease describes so well in this recent article.
It’s become very apparent that disinformation operations are at an all-time high – or at least it is the most OBVIOUS campaigning we’ve ever been privy to.
Prevent Disease, in an attempt to demonstrate the outright lies by national governments and the media, highlights three examples from the last year alone — the H1N1 scandal, airport body scanners, and the BP oil disaster.
According to Prevent Disease:

“... [T]he H1N1 scandal reached its pinnacle in the fall of 2009 ... From radio, internet, television, newspapers, magazines, outdoor posters, signage and promotions, you could not escape the flu hype campaigns so diligently pursued by all the malicious agendas at play who only wanted one thing — to promote a dangerous H1N1 vaccine.

After hundreds of reports exposed the criminal activity by all levels of government, we left the same people in power to do it all over again.”

And when news first unfolded about the BP oil disaster, the immediate response was to cover-up, deny, and respond with ignorance. In the end, a private company was permitted to use extremely potent toxins to mask the extent of their environmental crime while putting tens of thousands, if not millions of American’s health at risk.
Prevent Disease goes on to list “25 rules of disinformation,” employed with great success by a number of individuals with the intent to “prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them.”
It may be well worth your time to read through them, as being aware of how the con is done will help you avoid being conned in the first place.

Who Do You Trust, and Why, Exactly?

Another interesting article that ties in here was published in the British Guardian, under the headline: “Drug firms hiding negative research are unfit to experiment on people. Another pharmaceutical giant has settled a big compensation claim. So why are they allowed to go on misleading the public?”

That is becoming the ten thousand dollar question…
Why are drug companies ALLOWED to continue maintaining the status quo despite being caught lying, defrauding, even knowingly killing, time and time again?

And perhaps even more intriguing, why is the public still falling for their tactics?
Just how many bizarre and devastating side effects must be rattled off at the end of a drug ad before it grabs your attention and make you question its stated benefit?

I believe that humans inherently want to trust and depend on authority. The question is, at which point does critical thinking and pure self-preservation kick in? It seems we’re still waiting for critical mass to be reached when it comes to this point, but I think we’re getting closer…
One such authority that have been granted full trust are scientists, employing the scientific method to prove or disprove the causes of health, disease, and drug safety, among many things.
But even in these prestigious vestiges of medicine, we’re now finding more and more evidence of corruption that threatens the entire premise of the scientific method. Dr. Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD has shared shocking information about the underbelly of medical science in this newsletter, as well as Dana Ullman.
If you missed either of those interviews, I highly recommend reviewing them now.
Ullman also has a phenomenal column in the Huffington Post, where he recently wrote:

“Doctors today commonly assert that they practice "scientific medicine," and patients think that the medical treatments they receive are "scientifically proven."

However, this ideal is a dream, not reality, and a clever and profitable marketing ruse, not fact.”

Recent court cases highlight the truth of what Golomb and Ullman discuss. For example, it was discovered that AstraZeneca purposefully “buried” studies with unflattering results for their drug Seroquel.
The Guardian’s Ben Goldacre writes:

“In trial 15, patients with schizophrenia who were in remission were randomly assigned to receive either Seroquel, or a cheap, old-fashioned drug. After a year, the patients on Seroquel were doing worse. These negative findings were left unpublished.
… Here is the opening of another email in that quetiapine case. Richard Lawrence writes in an internal memo to colleagues: "Lisa has done a great smoke and mirrors job on trial 15.””

Smoke and mirrors… Ain’t that the truth! And that is oftentimes what you’re using when making decisions that affect your health.
In the case of Seroquel, this smoke and mirrors job led to tens of thousands of people developing drug-induced diabetes, in addition to not actually working as advertised... Once these buried studies were unearthed, AstraZeneca ended up paying off more than 17,500 patients who had developed diabetes and related illnesses.
Again, I remind you that class action lawsuits against drug manufacturers for vaccine damage is not an option. They rigged the game years ago and effectively lobbied Congress to make it illegal to sue them for any vaccine related injuries.
So, beware jumping on the vaccine bandwagon for every ill.

Healthy Lifestyle – Not Pills or Injections – is the Answer to Your Health Problems

It should be self evident by now that the idea of synthetic chemicals being the answer for your health problems is FALSE.
However, there are certain basic tenets of optimal health that have remained permanent truths, regardless of the claim-of-the-day spouted by modern science, and these include:

1. Eat a healthy diet that’s right for your nutritional type, paying very careful attention to keeping your insulin levels down. This typically involves increasing your consumption of whole (preferably organic) foods, while avoiding processed foods and sugary drinks of all kinds, as they are loaded with fructose, genetically modified ingredients, and chemicals.
2. Drink plenty of clean water
3. Address your day-to-day stress
4. Exercise
5. Get plenty of appropriate sun exposure
6. Limit your exposure to toxins
7. Consume healthy fats
8. Eat plenty of raw food
9. Optimize your insulin and leptin levels
10. Get plenty of sleep