Voeding en Gezondheid


Study prompts call to examine flu vaccine and miscarriage

Mail.com

NEW YORK (AP) — A puzzling study of U.S. pregnancies found that women who had miscarriages between 2010 and 2012 were more likely to have had back-to-back annual flu shots that included protection against swine flu.

Vaccine experts think the results may reflect the older age and other miscarriage risks for the women, and not the flu shots. Health officials say there is no reason to change the government recommendation that all pregnant women be vaccinated against the flu. They say the flu itself is a much greater danger to women and their fetuses.  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reached out to a doctor’s group, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, to warn them the study is coming out and help them prepare for a potential wave of worry from expectant moms, CDC officials said.

“I want the CDC and researchers to continue to investigate this,” said Dr. Laura Riley, a Boston-based obstetrician who leads a committee on maternal immunization. “But as an advocate for pregnant women, what I hope doesn’t happen is that people panic and stop getting vaccinated.”

Past studies have found flu vaccines are safe during pregnancy, though there’s been little research on impact of flu vaccinations given in the first three months of pregnancy. Flu and its complications kill thousands of Americans every year. The elderly, young children and pregnant women are especially at risk. When a new “swine flu” strain emerged in 2009, it killed 56 U.S. pregnant women that year, according to the CDC.

The study’s authors, two of whom are CDC researchers, saw a big difference when they looked at women who had miscarried within 28 days of getting a shot that included protection against swine flu, but it was only when the women also had had a flu shot the previous season.

They found 17 of 485 miscarriages they studied involved women whose vaccinations followed that pattern. Just four of a comparable 485 healthy pregnancies involved women who were vaccinated that way. The first group also had more women who were at higher risk for miscarriage, like older moms and smokers and those with diabetes. The researchers tried to make statistical adjustments to level out some of those differences but some researchers don’t think they completely succeeded.

Other experts said they don’t believe a shot made from killed flu virus could trigger an immune system response severe enough to prompt a miscarriage. And the authors said they couldn’t rule out the possibility that exposure to swine flu itself was a factor in some miscarriages.

Two other medical journals rejected the article before a third, Vaccine, accepted it. Dr. Gregory Poland, Vaccine’s editor-in-chief, said it was a well-designed study that raised a question that shouldn’t be ignored. But he doesn’t believe flu shots caused the miscarriages. “Not at all,” said Poland, who also is director of vaccine research at the Mayo Clinic.

Though this study may cause worry and confusion, it is evidence “of just how rigorous and principled our vaccine safety monitoring system is,” said Jason Schwartz, a Yale University vaccine policy expert.

Some of the same researchers are working on a larger study looking at more recent data to see if a possible link between swine flu vaccine and miscarriage holds up, said James Donahue, a study author from the Wisconsin-based Marshfield Clinic Research Institute. The results aren’t expected until next year at the earliest, he said.

https://www.mail.com/scitech/health/5510670-study-prompts-call-to-examine-flu-vaccine-miscarri.html#.7518-stage-hero1-6


New Study Confirms Where Cancer Really Comes From

Cancer is one of the most frightening realities that we as Americans are facing today. In fact, it’s not just Americans – people all over the world are receiving diagnoses that they have malignant cancer cells living inside of them.

However, the even more terrifying reality is that, up until now, consumers didn’t have much information as to what was causing it. All that many knew was that their friends, family, and coworkers were going to the doctor and coming back with grave news. And, up until now, it’s easy to believe this enemy is near unpreventable.

Luckily, it looks as though things may be turning around. According to Natural News:

A recently published study out of Canada showed that the total amount of cancer rates that can be linked to lifestyle and environmental factors is substantial, at almost 41 percent.

According to the researchers, “We estimated summary population attributable risk estimates for 24 risk factors (smoking [both passive and active], overweight and obesity, inadequate physical activity, diet [inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, inadequate fiber intake, excess red and processed meat consumption, salt consumption, inadequate calcium and vitamin D intake], alcohol, hormones [oral contraceptives and hormone therapy], infections [Epstein-Barr virus, hepatitis B and C viruses, human papillomavirus, Helicobacter pylori], air pollution, natural and artificial ultraviolet radiation, radon and water disinfection by-products) by combining population attributable risk estimates for each of the 24 factors that had been previously estimated.”

The researchers found out that 40.8 percent of cancer cases can be attributed to the above-mentioned 24 factors. “Tobacco smoking was responsible for the greatest cancer burden, accounting for an estimated 15.7 percent of all incident cancer cases (2,485 cases), followed by physical inactivity and excess body weight, which were responsible for an estimated 7.2 percent and 4.3 percent of incident cancer cases, respectively.”

THE OTHER FACTORS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR LESS THAN FOUR PERCENT OF INCIDENT CANCER CASES EACH. THE RESEARCHERS CONCLUDED THAT COMBINED WITH EXERCISE AND THE CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO AVOID THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS OF INCURRING CANCER, THE DISEASE IS PREVENTABLE. (RELATED: RESEARCHERS FIND ‘INTERACTIONS’ BETWEEN CANCER CELLS AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT.)

Also embedded in the study is the added knowledge that a big part of what is considered as a bad diet is the inclusion of too many sugars, which is common in today’s society. Nowadays, 80 percent of all packaged products contain some form of fructose.

Too much fat intake is also not good for the body. As a matter of fact, a July 2017 study that was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that saturated fat intake is related to a risk of lung cancer in smokers and those who have quit smoking for the past 10 years. Charred and barbecued meats, on the other hand, can increase the risks of pancreatic and breast cancers.

BUT WHAT TAKES THE CAKE ARE PROCESSED FOODS. ACCORDING TO HONG KONG DIETITIAN SALLY SHI-PO POON, “PROCESSED FOODS” CAN BE SAID TO REPRESENT ANY FOOD THAT HAS BEEN ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE IN SOME WAY, FOR CONVENIENCE’S SAKE.

COMMON PROCESSED FOODS INCLUDE BREAKFAST CEREALS, CANNED AND FROZEN VEGETABLES, BREAD, PASTA, SAVORY SNACKS SUCH AS CRISPS AND BISCUITS, MICROWAVE OR READ-TO-EAT MEALS, BREAD, OILS, PROCESSED MEATS SUCH AS LUNCHEON MEAT AND JERKY, AND DRINKS SUCH AS COFFEE, JUICE, AND MILK.

Now, it may be shocking to read this list and to realize all the processed foods that can cause cancer. This is especially surprising, as these foods and drinks make up a very large part of the average American diet.

However, it’s important to consider that not all processed foods are bad for you. For instance, milk needs to go through the process of pasteurization in order to remove the bacteria residing in it.

In addition, researchers state that minimally processed foods are OK to add into your diet. This is because they are almost as good as unprocessed foods, and that the difference between them is minimal.


BOMBSHELL: United Nations admits latest outbreak of polio in Syria was caused by polio vaccines

Aangeleverd door: Ed Vries

Bron: Natural News

BOMBSHELL: United Nations admits latest outbreak of polio in Syria was caused by polio vaccines

Image: BOMBSHELL: United Nations admits latest outbreak of polio in Syria was caused by polio vaccines

(Natural News) In war-torn Syria, there’s little doubt that the conflict has taken a toll on health. Now, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reports that their attempt at using vaccines to “protect” children against polio has backfire — infecting more children with the devastating disease rather than saving them.

Vaccines make children sick, you don’t say?

As World Health Organization representative Elizabeth Hoff reports,  “As of 18 August 2017, 33 children under the age of five have been paralyzed. The detection of the circulating vaccine derived polio virus type 2 (cVDPV2) cases demonstrates that disease surveillance systems are functional in Syria. Our priority now is to achieve the highest possible polio immunization coverage to stop the circulation of virus.”

Thirty-three children paralyzed by the vaccine that was supposed to protect them — and the UN’s response is to just keep doling out more vaccines? Sadly, that’s par for the course. Obviously, bad medicine is never the problem — there’s just not enough bad medicine, that’s all.

Fran Equiza, a UNICEF representative commented, “No child should have to live with devastating effects of polio.” And yet, this is the second outbreak of polio to strike Syria since the conflict first took roots in 2011.

Earlier this summer, NPR reported on this very phenomenon, wherein mutant strains from the polio vaccine caused more paralysis than wild polio. Could it really be that a lab-altered version of a virus is more dangerous than the one found in nature? Absolutely.

As Jason Beaubien reports, as of June 2017, there were more cases of child paralysis caused by the polio vaccine than the actual, wild-caught disease itself. At the time of his reporting, just six cases of “wild” polio, which is naturally occurring in the environment, had been reported worldwide. Conversely, 21 cases of vaccine-derived polio had been reported internationally in June. Obviously, in Syria that number skyrocketed over the last two months — 33 children in Syria alone have been paralyzed by vaccine-derived polio.

Raul Andino, a professor of microbiology at the University of California at San Francisco explains, “We discovered there’s only a few [mutations] that have to happen and they happen rather quickly in the first month or two post-vaccination. As the virus starts circulating in the community, it acquires further mutations that make it basically indistinguishable from the wild-type virus. It’s polio in terms of virulence and in terms of how the virus spreads.”

Andino’s research also shows that the polio virus used in the vaccine will replicate inside human hosts’ intestines. In places with poor sanitation, this often means it has the chance to spread from person-to-person with relative ease. Places where conflict and war have decimated health care systems are known for being breeding grounds for disease outbreak.

It comes as no surprise (sadly) that war-weary Syria is expected to have even more cases of polio in the coming months. Michael Zaffran, the director of polio eradication at the World Health Organization contends, “In Syria, there may be more cases coming up.” Zaffran adds that the WHO is aware of the risk that comes with the live polio vaccine and says it is “a very regrettable hiccup for the poor children that have been paralyzed, of course. But with regards to the whole initiative, you know it’s not something that is unexpected.”

He added that while the children’s paralysis is unfortunate, “from a public health perspective, the benefits far outweigh the risk.” Do you think that will comfort the children and their families as they struggle with the after-effects of vaccine-derived polio?  [Related: Learn more about the risks of inoculation at Vaccines.news]

Sources for this article include:

UNICEF.org.hk

UN.org

NPR.org


Why Is the World Legalizing Marijuana All at the Same Time?

Aangeleverd door: Mo

US states are rapidly legalizing marijuna. Big Pharma is introducing their version of Kmart Cannibas. Why? Is it just because cancer is due to increase by some 70% over the next 13 years, according to the World Health Org.? or is there something else going on.