Ett urval av svenska kandidater till EU-parlamentsvalet fick för några veckor sedan kort information och två frågor i ett gemensamt brev från Vidarkliniken, Läkarföreningen för Antroposofiskt Orienterad Medicin (LAOM), Läkarföreningen för Integrativ Medicin (LIM) samt Föreningen för Integrativ Medicin (FIM). Syftet med brevet var att uppmärksamma EU-parlamentskandidaterna på de här viktiga sakfrågorna och att få en viss uppfattning om var de står i dessa frågor.
FRÅGA 1: Vill du verka för att EUs läkemedelsregler kompletteras så att de på ett rimligt sätt går att tillämpa även på ofarliga medel med lång tradition?
FRÅGA 2: Vill du verka för att komplementär medicin och efterfrågade terapiinriktade vårdformer får större forskningsresurser och utvecklingsmöjligheter inom EU?
Hela brevet till kandidaterna finns här som PDF. Bara sex kandidater har svarat. Läs svaren här nedan.
——————————————————————————–
Hej! Jag har ett mångårigt förflutet i läkemedelskontrollen och kommer att – om jag blir invald i parlamentet – att ta mig an denna fråga. Läkemedels nytta och risker måste vara väl kartlagda innan de får marknadsföras och sedan måste man noga följa vad som händer när de är ute på marknaden. Biverkningsrapporteringen måste bli bättre men också uppföljningen av vilken nytta läkemedlen för med sig för patienterna. När det gäller antroposofiska behandlingsmetoder vill jag inte binda upp mig i förväg utan jag vill föra en diskussion med såväl EMEA som det svenska läkemedelsverket samt socialstyrelsen om kunskapsläget i dag och hur man ska kunna gå vidare.
Mvh Barbro Westerholm
——————————————————————————–
Hej och tack för frågor. Svarar att jag absolut tycker att det behövs ett tydligt regelverk även för vårdformer/naturläkemedel som inte omfattass av Läkemedelslagstiftning. Vill också att forskning som all annan forskning ska få samma förutsättningar oavsett inom vilken branch man arbetar inom. Är ledamot i EU’s Regionkimitte och är där ansvarig rapportör till komissionen för Läkemedelspaketet.
Hälsar Susanna Haby Kommunalråd (m) Göteborg och sjuksköterska, susannahaby.nu
——————————————————————————–
Hej, här kommer mina svar:
FRÅGA 1: Vill du verka för att EUs läkemedelsregler kompletteras så att de på ett rimligt sätt går att tillämpa även på ofarliga medel med lång tradition? Jag tycker att det är viktigt att all sjukvård bygger på vetenskap och beprövad erfarenhet. Undersökningar har visat att allt fler människor vänder sig till den alternativa medicinen. Därför är det rimligt att mediciner som används i komplementär medicin på något sätt ska kunna innefattas i EUs läkemedelsregler. Det innebär ju också att vi alla kan vara säkra på att medel som används inom den komplementära medicinen genomgått olika former av kontroller.
FRÅGA 2: Vill du verka för att komplementär medicin och efterfrågade terapiinriktade vårdformer får större forskningsresurser och utvecklingsmöjligheter inom EU? Ja, jag tycker att det behövs såväl forskning som utvecklingssatsningar när det gäller komplementär medicin. Vad jag förstår har vår ”traditionella sjukvård” inte alltid varit så bra på att ta till sig nya kunskaper från den komplementära medicinen. Därför är det viktigt att forskning och utveckling kan ske inom alternativmedicinen, för att sedan annan medicin och allmänheten ska kunna ta del av forskningsresultaten. Dessutom är det viktigt att, såväl den traditionellt västerländska medicinen som den komplementära medicinen bygger på kunskaper om individers olikheter och hur kön, klass, etnicitet och sexualitet kan påverka hälsa och symptom på ohälsa.
Hälsningar Gudrun Schyman
——————————————————————————–
FRÅGA 1: Vill du verka för att EUs läkemedelsregler kompletteras så att de på ett rimligt sätt går att tillämpa även på ofarliga medel med lång tradition? Vi vill låta utreda införandet av ett eget regelverk för naturläkemedel, men en säkerhet mot biverkningar måste ändå finnas.
FRÅGA 2: Vill du verka för att komplementär medicin och efterfrågade terapiinriktade vårdformer får större forskningsresurser och utvecklingsmöjligheter inom EU? Ja, för att säkerställa såväl effekter som biverkningar.
Med vänliga hälsningar Ella Bohlin (kd) Ledamot partistyrelsen Toppkandidat på Kristdemokraternas valsedel till Europaparlamentet
——————————————————————————–
Hej! Jag ber om ursäkt för sent svar. Jag svarar ja på båda era frågor. Komplementärmedicin är för mig något som borde uppmuntras av EU inte nedmonteras. Jag ser det som ett hot mot folkhälsan att medicinen ska försvåras erbjuda detta till patienter. Jag kommer göra allt jag kan i Europaparlamentet för att stärka komplementärmedicinens resurser och utvecklingsmöjligheter.
Vänligen, Zaida Kandidat Europaparlamentet (MP)
——————————————————————————–
Hej Ursula, Här kommer Marit Paulsens svar på era frågor:
FRÅGA 1: Vill du verka för att EUs läkemedelsregler kompletteras så att de på ett rimligt sätt går att tillämpa även på ofarliga medel med lång tradition? Nej, jag tycker att dagens regler fungerar bra. En noggrann vetenskaplig kontroll är viktig för att garantera patientsäkerheten.
FRÅGA 2: Vill du verka för att komplementär medicin och efterfrågade terapiinriktade vårdformer får större forskningsresurser och utvecklingsmöjligheter inom EU? Jag vill öka det europeiska stödet till forskning, men fördelningen av forskningsresurser är ett område för vetenskapen, inte för politiker.
DN skriver idag om en Tamiflu-resistent influensa som upptäckts.
”En stam av svininfluensavirus som är resistent mot behandling med läkemedlet Tamiflu har upptäckts nära gränsen mellan USA och Mexiko, uppgav den panamerikanska hälsoorganisationen Paho på måndagen.”
Ja det var ju förstås bara en tidsfråga innan resistenta stammar skulle dyka upp. Så måste läkemedelsindustrin göra nya mediciner varpå nya resistenta stammar kommer att forceras fram, osv osv i all oändlighet. Frågan är - är detta det smartaste sättet att hålla oss friska på?
För mej är detta bara ännu ett uttryck för vår envisa ovilja att ta ansvar för vår hälsa genom att leva sunt och stärka kroppens eget immunförsvar, som ju faktiskt kan hantera de flesta virus alldeles utmärkt på egen hand, om som sagt, vi bara sköter om kropp och själ ordentligt. Men det är ju just det vi inte vill! Vi vill ju istället lämna över allt ansvar på läkarna!
Och läkarna har förstås inget emot det, de får hög status, tjänar mycket pengar och får känna sej viktiga. De gillar nog situationen, precis som läkemedelsindustrin som nu tjänar grova pengar på vår virus ångest.
Själv kommer jag inte att ta något influensa vaccin. När jag blir smittad kommer jag lyssna på min kropp precis som jag gjort innan och med hjälp av en duktig naturmedicinare ge den den näring som den behöver för att bekämpa smittan. Jag kommer att se till att jag inte har några låsningar i ryggen, dricka så mycket vatten kroppen vill ha, vila och avakta segern. Det är nog över på 4-5 dar skulle jag tro. Sen kommer jag att ha ett mycket bättre och mer långvarigt skydd mot liknande influensa virus i framtiden (t.ex muterade virus som kanske blir farligt på riktigt) än de som nu istället tar ett vaccin. Och jag kommer heller inte att riskera några negativa biverkningar och sjukdomar från vaccinet (läs artikeln från Mercola längre ned).
Men detta sättet kommer myndigheter och läkarförbundet adrig att rekomendera, varför? Jo för att det kräver kunskaper i behandling i naturmedicin som våra läkare (med några enstaka undantag) helt saknar och dessutom motarbetar. Samma sak med våra myndigheter som styrs av läkare och skeptiker som propagerar för nuvarande system med läkemedel.
Min metod kräver ”medicinering” med naturliga ämnen såsom vitaminer och mineraler och hälsosam näringstät och naturlig mat och vanligt rent vatten, samt kanske några enkla redskap som akup-nålar och kunskap i hur man justerar leder. Ingenting som går att patentera och tjäna grova pengar på, därför mindre instressant att lägg ner en massa tid och pengar för forskning, därför hamnar den typen av behandling i skymundan. Det är betydligt enklare att spruta en åker med bekämpningsmedel än att ge skörden optimala levnadsbetingelser så den blir motståndskraftig mot sjukdomar och skadedjur.
Som vanligt är det först och främst pengar och egenintresse som styr, även i vården. Och det som ger de grova pengarna är patenterbara mediciner och livslång symptomhantering.
Och våra medier spelar sin roll i det hela. När tog de någonsin upp frågan varför naturmedicinen aldrig får några pengar att bedriva kliniska utvärderingsprojekt för? Varför vill de inte gräva lite i Osher klinikens verksamhet som styrs av skeptiker som saknar både kunskap och erfarenhet av naturmedicin och som betraktar dess effekter som ren placebo, och därför väljer att forska om placebo istället?
Varför är det ingen som ställer sej frågan till ansvariga politiker vad som skulle hända om trots allt tillräcklig evidens för en viss naturmedicinsk metod skulle tas fram? Skulle då metodens utövare få ingå i sjukvårdssystemet? NEJ KNAPPAST! Inte i Sverige! De skulle få finna sej i att även fortsättningsvis få stå utanför sjukvårdsapparaten. Fast i det läget skulle nu sjukgymnaster och läkare kunna erbjuda deras metoder till kraftigt subventionerade priser och därmed orsaka en mycket skev och orättvis konkurrensutslagning. Vilken naturmedicinare vill satsa miljoner och många års forskning och utvärdering med en sån framtid framför sej som bästa scenario?
Det här ämnet är svårt. Det kräver kunskap och erfarenhet i naturmedicin för att man ska kunna se vart problemen ligger och hur de borde lösas. Men ändå vet vi att omkring 70% av sveriges befolkning vill ha en integrering av skolmedicin och naturmedicin. Men i just den här frågan tycks det inte spela någor roll vad majoriteten vill och önskar. Här är det starkare krafter som styr. Men tiden får väl utvisa vilka strategier och krafter som är starkast i slutändan.
Though a high-fiber diet has long been considered good for you and beneficial in staving off colon cancer, Medical College of Georgia researchers have discovered a reason why: roughage activates a receptor with cancer-killing potential.
Researchers report in the April issue of Cancer Research that the GPR109A receptor is activated by butyrate, a metabolite produced by fiber-eating bacteria in the colon. The receptor puts a double-whammy on cancer by sending signals that trigger cell death, or apoptosis, and shutting down a protein that causes inflammation, a precursor to cancer.
”We know the receptor is silenced in cancer but it’s not like the gene goes away,” says Dr. Vadivel Ganapathy, corresponding author and chair of the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in the MCG School of Medicine. Cancer shuts down the receptor by chemically modifying its gene through a process called DNA methylation. It’s a typical MO for cancer to turn genes off to suit its purpose which is why DNA methylation inhibitors already are under study for a variety of cancers.
But cancer patients likely also need something to ensure the receptor gets activated by butyrate, such as eating more roughage or, more likely, getting mega doses of butyrate or a compound with similar properties, Dr. Ganapathy says. One of those activators, niacin, a B-complex vitamin, led to his discovery of the relationship between butyrate and GPR109A.
Research teams at GlaxoSmithKline and the University of Heidelberg, Germany in 2003 showed cloned GPR109A mediated the protective cardiovascular effect of niacin, but was activated only if niacin levels in the blood were 1,000 times normal levels. That got the German research team to search for alternative activators of the receptor, resulting in identification of beta-hydroxybutyrate as a natural receptor activator. The same study showed butyrate also could activate the receptor but with much less potency. That got Dr. Ganapathy thinking about a place where butyrate levels were already high – the colon – which led to his discovery that the receptor was also on colon cells.
Butyrate plays other protective roles in colon cancer. In 2004, MCG researchers identified a gene, SLC5A8, that transports butyrate inside cells where it inhibits the enzyme HDAC, which gets upregulated in cancer to produce the uncontrolled cell growth that is a disease hallmark.
”If you block HDAC, you can kill the cancer cell,” Dr. Ganapathy says. Several synthetic HDAC inhibitors are under study for a variety of cancers at institutions such as the MCG Cancer Center. Unfortunately, just like the newly found GPR109A receptor, cancer also silences the SLC5A8 butyrate transporter. In his current study, the researcher found the receptor was silenced in 15 of 18 colon cancer patients.
”Colon cancer does not want butyrate produced by bacteria to come inside so it silences the transporter. It also does no want butyrate to act on the cell from the outside so it silences the receptor,” Dr. Ganapathy says. “It does not want to have anything to do with butyrate.” Because the compounds that reactivate the receptor also reactivate the transporter, finding a way to mitigate cancer’s attempts to silence the genes would create a two-prong attack against the cancer. Mega doses of butyrate reportedly taste bad. But Dr. Ganapathy believes taking large amounts of niacin, something many patients already do for high cholesterol, is a good substitute.
In fact, he wants to move ahead with clinical trials that compare the course of colon cancer patients who eat a high fiber diet or receive butyrate or niacin therapy along with taking DNA methylation inhibitors that keep GPR109A open for business. He also wants to determine if his theory that inflammation also suppresses the receptor holds true. ”We think receptor activation by butyrate suppresses inflammation, thereby suppressing progression of inflamed cells into cancer cells.” If he’s correct, targeting the receptor also may provide a new treatment for inflammatory bowel disease.
Mercola.com
Monday, July 20, 2009
According to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, your children should be the first target for mass swine flu vaccinations when school starts this fall.[i]
This is a ridiculous assumption for many reasons, not to mention extremely high risk.
In Australia, where the winter season has begun, Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon is reassuring parents the swine flu is no more dangerous than regular seasonal flu. “Most people, including children, will experience very mild symptoms and recover without any medical intervention,” she said.[ii]
Sydney-based immunization specialist Robert Booy predicts swine flu might be fatal to about twice as many children in the coming year as regular influenza. Booy estimates 10-12 children could die from the H1N1 virus, compared with the five or six regular flu deaths seen among children in an average year in Australia.[iii]
“Cure the Disease, Kill the Patient”
Less than 100 children in the U.S. die each year from seasonal flu viruses.[iv] If we use Australia’s math, a very rough estimate would be another 100 children could potentially die of swine flu in the United States in the coming year.
If children are the first target group in the U.S. per Sebelius, that means we’re about to inject around 75 million children with a fast tracked vaccine containing novel adjuvants, including dangerous squalene, to prevent perhaps 100 deaths.
I’m not overlooking the tragedy of the loss of even one child to an illness like the H1N1 flu virus. But there can be no argument that unnecessary mass injection of millions of children with a vaccine containing an adjuvant known to cause a host of debilitating autoimmune diseases is a reckless, dangerous plan.
Why are Vaccinations Dangerous?
The presumed intent of a vaccination is to help you build immunity to potentially harmful organisms that cause illness and disease. However, your body’s immune system is already designed to do this in response to organisms which invade your body naturally.
Most disease-causing organisms enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, pulmonary system or your digestive tract – not through an injection.
These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the IgA immune system. It is a different system from the one activated when a vaccine is injected into your body.
Your IgA immune system is your body’s first line of defense. Its job is to fight off invading organisms at their entry points, reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body’s immune system.
When a virus is injected into your body in a vaccine, and especially when combined with an immune adjuvant like squalene, your IgA immune system is bypassed and your body’s immune system kicks into high gear in response to the vaccination.
Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature, and vaccination carries enormous potential to do serious damage to your health.
And as if Vaccines Weren’t Dangerous Enough on Their Own …
… imagine them turbocharged.
The main ingredient in a vaccine is either killed viruses or live ones that have been attenuated (weakened and made less harmful).
Flu vaccines can also contain a number of chemical toxins, including ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde, phenol (carbolic acid) and even antibiotics like Neomycin and streptomycin.
In addition to the viruses and other additives, many vaccines also contain immune adjuvants like aluminum and squalene.
The purpose of an immune adjuvant added to a vaccine is to enhance (turbo charge) your immune response to the vaccination. Adjuvants cause your immune system to overreact to the introduction of the organism you’re being vaccinated against.
Adjuvants are supposed to get the job done faster (but certainly not more safely), which reduces the amount of vaccine required per dose, and the number of doses given per individual.
Less vaccine required per person means more individual doses available for mass vaccination campaigns. Coincidentally, this is exactly the goal of government and the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make millions from their vaccines.
Will There Be Immune Adjuvants in Swine Flu Vaccines?
The U.S. government has contracts with several drug companies to develop and produce swine flu vaccines. At least two of those companies, Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline, are using an adjuvant in their H1N1 vaccines.
The adjuvant? Squalene.
According to Meryl Nass, M.D., an authority on the anthrax vaccine,
“A novel feature of the two H1N1 vaccines being developed by companies Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline is the addition of squalene-containing adjuvants to boost immunogenicity and dramatically reduce the amount of viral antigen needed. This translates to much faster production of desired vaccine quantities.”[v]
Novartis’s proprietary squalene adjuvant for their H1N1 vaccine is MF59. Glaxo’s is ASO3. MF59 has yet to be approved by the FDA for use in any U.S. vaccine, despite its history of use in other countries.
Per Dr. Nass, there are only three vaccines in existence using an approved squalene adjuvant. None of the three are approved for use in the U.S.
What Squalene Does to Rats
Oil-based vaccination adjuvants like squalene have been proved to generate concentrated, unremitting immune responses over long periods of time.[vi]
A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology demonstrated a single injection of the adjuvant squalene into rats triggered “chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation,” also known as rheumatoid arthritis.[vii]
The researchers concluded the study raised questions about the role of adjuvants in chronic inflammatory diseases.
What Squalene Does to Humans
Your immune system recognizes squalene as an oil molecule native to your body. It is found throughout your nervous system and brain. In fact, you can consume squalene in olive oil and not only will your immune system recognize it, you will also reap the benefits of its antioxidant properties.
The difference between “good” and “bad” squalene is the route by which it enters your body. Injection is an abnormal route of entry which incites your immune system to attack all the squalene in your body, not just the vaccine adjuvant.
Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system.[viii]
Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene.[ix] MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets.[x]
The Department of Defense made every attempt to deny that squalene was indeed an added contaminant in the anthrax vaccine administered to Persian Gulf war military personnel – deployed and non-deployed – as well as participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP).
However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product. A test was developed to detect anti-squalene antibodies in GWS patients, and a clear link was established between the contaminated product and all the GWS sufferers who had been injected with the vaccine containing squalene.
A study conducted at Tulane Medical School and published in the February 2000 issue of Experimental Molecular Pathology included these stunning statistics:
“ … the substantial majority (95%) of overtly ill deployed GWS patients had antibodies to squalene. All (100%) GWS patients immunized for service in Desert Shield/Desert Storm who did not deploy, but had the same signs and symptoms as those who did deploy, had antibodies to squalene.
In contrast, none (0%) of the deployed Persian Gulf veterans not showing signs and symptoms of GWS have antibodies to squalene. Neither patients with idiopathic autoimmune disease nor healthy controls had detectable serum antibodies to squalene. The majority of symptomatic GWS patients had serum antibodies to squalene.”[xi]
According to Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., a former principle research scientist for the government of Australia:
“… this adjuvant [squalene] contributed to the cascade of reactions called “Gulf War Syndrome,” documented in the soldiers involved in the Gulf War.
The symptoms they developed included arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), Raynaud’s phenomenon, Sjorgren’s syndrome, chronic diarrhoea, night sweats and low-grade fevers.”[xii]
Post Vaccination Follow-Up Might as Well Be Non-Existent
There is virtually no science to support the safety of vaccine injections on your long-term health or the health of your children. Follow-up studies last on average about two weeks, and look only for glaring injuries and illnesses.
Autoimmune disorders like those seen in Gulf War Syndrome frequently take years to diagnose due to the vagueness of early symptoms. Complaints like headaches, fatigue and chronic aches and pains are symptoms of many different illnesses and diseases.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for vaccine purveyors and proponents to look seriously at the long-term health consequences of their vaccination campaigns.
What You Can Do to Protect Yourself and Your Family
Visit the National Vaccination Information Center (NVIC) site and join in the fight against mandatory swine flu vaccinations.
Educate yourself about influenza strains, vaccination risks, and the public health laws in your state that may require you or your children to undergo either mandatory vaccination or quarantine.
Take care of your health to reduce or eliminate your risk of contracting the flu. The key is to keep your immune system strong by following these guidelines:
Eliminate sugar and processed foods from your diet. Sugar consumption has an immediate, debilitating effect on your immune system.
Take a high quality source of animal-based omega 3 fats like Krill Oil.
Exercise. Your immune system needs good circulation in order to perform at its best for you.
Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D deficiency is the likely cause of seasonal flu viruses. Getting an optimal level of vitamin D will help you fight infections of all kinds.
Get plenty of good quality sleep.
Deal with stress effectively. If you feel overwhelmed by stress, your body will not have the reserves it needs to fight infection.
Wash your hands. But not with an antibacterial soap. Use a pure, chemical-free soap.
——————————————————————————–
Läsvärd vaccinkritisk site: http://www.theflucase.com
——————————————————————————–
[i] USAToday.com, Swine flu shots may go to kids first, Sebelius says, June 16, 2009 http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-16-swine-flu-vaccine_N.htm
[ii] ABC.net.au, Health minister reassures parents over swine flu, July 2, 2009 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/02/2614972.htm
[iii] Google News, AFP, Australia urges calm after child flu death, July 2, 2009, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hVoGSwV_jPgg6J6Aoz8wSQiGyosg
[iv] Meryl Nass, M.D., July 4, 2009 http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2009/07/h1n1-update-australiahong-kongus.html
[v] Meryl Nass, M.D., July 3, 2009 http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2009/07/h1n1-vaccines-with-novel-adjuvants.html
[vi] Rense.com, Vaccines, Autism, and Gulf War Syndrome, August 15, 2005 http://www.rense.com/general67/vacc.htm
[vii] The American Journal of Pathology, The Endogenous Adjuvant Squalene Can Induce a Chronic T-Cell-Mediated Arthritis in Rats, 2000 http://ajp.amjpathol.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/6/2057
[viii] Vaccination Liberation, Adjuvant Index Page http://www.vaclib.org/basic/adjuvants.htm
[ix] Autoimmune Technologies, News Release: SQUALENE FOUND IN ANTHRAX VACCINE, http://www.autoimmune.com/SqualeneInVaccine.html
[x] Autoimmune Technologies, Gulf War Syndrome: ANTI-SQUALENE ANTIBODIES LINK GULF WAR SYNDROME TO ANTHRAX VACCINE http://www.autoimmune.com/GWSGen.html
[xi] ScienceDirect.com, Experimental and Molecular Pathology, Volume 68, Issue 1, February 2000, Pages 55-64 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFB-45F4JKG-1X&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=955180233&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=da9e0c0eb432179ab78532f0ab787c09
[xii] Adverse Effects of Adjuvants in Vaccines, by Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., 2000 http://www.whale.to/vaccine/adjuvants.html
A new study of 3,299 persons has shown that those with higher levels of vitamin D cut their risk of dying from cancer in half. Another recent study shows that ample intake of vitamin D, about 2,000 IU per day, can cut breast cancer incidence by half. Still more research found that inadequate Vitamin D is ”associated with high incidence rates of colorectal cancer” and specifically urges that ”prompt public health action is needed to increase intake of Vitamin D-3 to 1000 IU/day.”
Vitamin D’s anticancer properties are so evident, and so important, that the Canadian Cancer Society now recommends supplementation with 1,000 IU of Vitamin D per day for all adults in winter, and year-round for persons at risk.
The American Cancer Society, however, is dragging its feet, still maintaining that ”More research is needed to define the best levels of intake and blood levels of vitamin D for cancer risk reduction.”
What is taking them so long?
Researchers in 2006 noted that ”The evidence suggests that efforts to improve vitamin D status, for example by vitamin D supplementation, could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects.”
If you search the US National Institutes of Health’s Medline online database for ”cancer vitamin D,” you will find over five thousand papers. . . some dating back nearly 60 years.
It’s true: physician reports on vitamin D stopping cancer have been ignored for decades. In 1951, T. Desmonts reported that vitamin D treatment was effective against Hodgkin’s disease (a cancer of the lymphatic system). That same year, 57 years ago, massive doses of vitamin D were also observed to improve epithelioma. In 1955, skin cancer was again reported as cured with vitamin D treatment. In 1963, there was a promising investigation done on vitamin D and breast cancer. Then, in 1964, vitamin D was found to be effective against lymph nodal reticulosarcoma, a non-Hodgkin’s lymphatic cancer.
The American Cancer Society has been obsessed with finding a drug cure for cancer. Pharmaceutical researchers are not looking for a vitamin cure. And when one is presented, as independent investigators and physicians have continuously been doing since 1951, it is ignored.
No longer. Michael Holick, MD, Boston University Professor of Medicine, has come right out and said it: ”We can reduce cancer risk by 30 to 50% by increasing vitamin D. We gave mice colon cancer, and followed them for 20 days. Tumor growth was markedly reduced simply by having vitamin D in the diet. There was a 40% reduction in tumor size. And, casual sun exposure actually decreases your risk of melanoma. Everyone needs 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 each day.”
What about safety? Yes, it is possible to get too much vitamin D, but it is not easy. ”One man took one million IU of vitamin D per day, orally, for six months, ”says Dr Holick. ”Of course, he had the symptoms of severe vitamin D intoxication. His treatment was hydration (lots of water), and no more vitamin D or sunshine for a while. He’s perfectly happy and healthy. This was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. I have no experience of anyone dying from vitamin exposure. In thirty years, I’ve never seen it.”
There are, of course, some reasonable cautions with its use. Persons with hyperparathyroidism, lymphoma, lupus erythematosus, tuberculosis, sarcoidosis, kidney disease, or those taking digitalis, calcium channel-blockers, or thiazide diuretics, should have physician supervision before and while taking extra vitamin D. And when employing large doses of vitamin D, periodic testing is advisable.
But 1,000 IU per day of vitamin D is simple and safe. Some authorities recommend much more. The American Cancer Society recommends less.
What a shame.
For more information: orthomolecular.org And Health Research Center: http://www.sunarc.org
ScienceDaily (May 20, 2003) — WASHINGTON, DC – May 19, 2003 – A new anti-herpes agent derived from a common herb effectively treats and prevents the disease in animals. Researchers from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia present their data today at the 103rd General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology.
”Prunella vulgaris [also known as self-heal] is a perennial plant commonly found in China, the British Isles, Europe, and North America. In herbal literature, P. vulgaris has been described as a hot water infusion to treat sores in the mouth and throat, as an astringent for internal and external purposes, as a crude anti-cancer drug, and as a herbal remedy to lower high blood pressure,” says Song Lee, one of the researchers on the study.
Lee and his colleagues extracted a lignin-carbohydrate compound from the plant, which was incorporated into a topical cream and tested on mice and guinea pigs with experimental herpes simplex virus-1 (HSV-1) and herpes simplex virus-2 (HSV-2) infections. Guinea pigs receiving the lignin-carbohydrate complex cream treatment showed a significant reduction in skin lesions compared to those that received no treatment. Mice receiving the lignin-carbohydrate complex cream treatment showed a significant increase in survival rate compared to animals that received no treatment.
”The anti-HSV compound from P. vulgaris is a novel lignin-carbohydrate complex with potent activity against HSV-1 and HSV-2 and has a different anti-herpes mechanism than acyclovir, the current clinical anti-herpes drug,” says Lee. ”Given the high incidence of herpes infection and the emergence of acyclovir-resistant strains of herpes viruses, the Prunella lignin-carbohydrate complex may prove to be a useful new anti-herpes drug.”