Follow the money - Vaccines (U.S. content)

OpEdNews.com
By Evelyn Pringle
February 11, 2008
http://tinyurl. com/2wmeba

Time to end profit driven mandatory vaccination

The push to keep adding more vaccines to the mandatory schedules comes
directly from a purely profit motivated industry and a recent investor
report estimates that the world-wide market will quadruple from about
$4.3 billion in 2006 to more than $16 billion in 2016, with the
biggest boost coming from kids in the US.

A November 2007 report entitled, "Pipeline and Commercial Insight:
Pediatric and Adolescent Vaccines," authored by vaccine analyst,
Hedwig Kresse, for the independent market analyst Datamonitor
discusses the future outlook for vaccine profits.

The report provides an assessment of products and a patient-based
forecast of market size and coverage rates to the year 2016, and
predicts that the introduction of high price vaccines will induce
rapid growth in the pediatric and adolescent vaccines market.

The report predicts that due to the "promising commercial potential"
of new, high-price vaccines, the pediatric and adolescent market will
quadruple from approximately $4.3 billion in 2006, to over $16 billion
by 2016, across the US, the EU-five including France, Germany, Italy,
Spain, and the UK, and Japan.

The crucial factor for success in the pediatric market, the report
notes, is the introduction of a product into national vaccination
schedules. "Along with reimbursement, this virtually guarantees the
rapid uptake and continuously high coverage rates in the target
population," Ms Kresse states.

As an example, she cites Wyeth's Prevnar, as the first premium price
vaccine launched in the US in 2000 for vaccinating infants against
pneumonia and meningitis.

Since then, Prevnar has been added to the childhood vaccination
schedules in the US and EU-five despite its high price of nearly $320
for the 4-dose regimen. In 2006, Global sales reached almost $2
billion, making Prevnar the first vaccine to attain blockbuster
status, according to the report. By 2016, Datamonitor expects the
total value of the infant market for pneumococcal vaccines to increase
to $2.3 billion.

In June 2006, Merck's Gardasil was approved for cervical cancer.
Because it was the first vaccine offered as a preventive measure for a
form of cancer, its approval generated tremendous public attention
along with pressure for healthcare authorities to make the vaccine
available to teenage girls at a cost of $360 for 3 doses.

"Although most cases of cervical cancer in the developed world can be
prevented through the existing pap smear screening programs, the
expensive HPV vaccination has been recommended and is reimbursed for
teenage girls across the US and Europe," Ms Kresse reports.

She notes that this decision is driven more by public pressure and
excitement about the opportunity to vaccinate against cancer rather
than by real need. The widespread publicity has led to a good uptake
in the target group of adolescent girls, which is usually hard to
reach for vaccination, Ms Kresse points out to investors.

Datamonitor sees a huge commercial opportunity in HPV vaccines, with
annual sales of $1.4 billion in teenage girls for the seven major
markets by 2016 and a cumulative catch-up opportunity in women aged
13-26 that could add up to over $17 billion until 2016.

But Ms Kresse warns investors that the "lack of medical need" for
rotavirus vaccines such as RotaTeq will limit their uptake in most
markets. RotaTeq is advertised to combat diarrhea that usually affects
infants under the age of two, and was introduced by Merck in the US in
2006, at a price of $200 for the three-dose regimen.

According to Ms Kresse, many countries, but not the US, have refused
to add the vaccine to their schedules due to cost-benefit reasons. "In
the developed world, rotavirus diarrhea is rarely severe for small
infants and quick and efficacious treatment is already available," she
writes. "Consequently, healthcare authorities see no need to widely
introduce a very expensive vaccine."

Datamonitor estimates that annual sales will remain limited to
approximately $1 billion across the 7 major markets by 2016 and
predicts that the US will account for the majority of sales, being the
only country to have recommended the rotavirus vaccine for all infants.

Wyeth's Prevnar vaccine came on the market in 2000 and is recommended
for children under 2. The vaccine was hailed as a breakthrough and had
sales of more than $1.5 billion in 2006. Prevnar is given as four
shots to children between 2 and 15 months.

On September 18, 2007, NewsMax reported that the vaccine has
dramatically curbed pneumonia and other serious illnesses in children
but is also having an unfortunate effect: "promoting new superbugs
that cause ear infections."

According to NewsMax, doctors reported finding the first such germ
that is resistant to all drugs approved to treat childhood ear
infections and 9 toddlers in Rochester, N.Y., have had the bug and
that it also may be turning up elsewhere.

It is a strain of strep bacteria not included in the pneumococcal
vaccine. Prevnar prevents seven strains responsible for most cases of
pneumonia, meningitis and bloodstream infections. But dozens more
strains exist and some have become resistant to antibiotics since the
vaccine combats the more common strains.

If the new strains continue to spread, "it tells us the vaccine is
becoming less effective" and needs to be revised, Dr Dennis Maki,
infectious diseases chief at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Hospitals and Clinics, told NewsMax.

A new study in the November 8, 2007 New England Journal of Medicine by
researchers at Oregon Health & Science University, supported by the
United States Public Health Service, suggests that the schedule for
vaccinating and revaccinating against diseases should be reevaluated
and adjusted.

The study found that in many cases, the established duration of
immunity for vaccines is greatly underestimated, which means that
people are getting booster shots when their immunity levels do not
require it and those antibody responses caused by viruses such as
measles mumps, and rubella remained at protective levels for several
decades and in most cases, for life.

The research also reconfirmed a previous finding by Slifka and his
colleagues: that the duration of immunity after smallpox vaccination
is much longer than previously thought. In that earlier study
published in the journal Nature Medicine in 2003, these OHSU
researchers observed surprisingly long-lived antiviral antibody
responses but they were unable to measure the slow rate of decline.

The study indicates that the duration of immunity after smallpox
vaccination is maintained with a calculated half-life of 92 years and
that a person who has received the primary series of tetanus vaccine
is likely to be protected for 3 decades.

Experts say we have allowed ourselves and our children to be overdosed
through a culture dominated by industry marketing influence which has
now become dangerously out of control and detrimental to our
children's health. "In the 21st century, it is unacceptable to be
marketing medication to infants and children that may not work," Dr
Steven Czinn, chair of the department of pediatrics at the University
of Maryland School of Medicine, told Reuters on October 11, 2007.

In the November 19, 2007 Huffington Post article, "Over Medicated and
Over-Vaccinated: The Unintended Consequence of Medicines Meant to
Protect," Deirdre Imus asks, "Where are the conflict-free studies that
prove giving infants and children 49 immunizations - most of them by
age 5, are safe and effective?"

She points out that studies have provided evidence that the
over-vaccination of dogs and cats can result in numerous maladies
including cancer, skin and ear conditions, arthritis, allergies,
diabetes, aggression, behavior problems and other immune system
dysfunctions. "There is even a name for the conditions caused by
animal over-vaccination, vaccinosis," she notes.

Ms Imus also points out that the mercury-containing preservative,
thimerosal, used in vaccines for over 50 years was removed from animal
vaccines in 1992.

"Unfortunately for the kids," she writes, "it remained in children's
vaccines for another decade and remains in some vaccines like the
influenza (25 micrograms) and tetanus vaccine (25 micrograms) today
and in trace amounts (3 micrograms) in some immunizations."

She says most people do not realize is that any liquid waste
containing more than 200 parts per billion (ppb) mercury must be
deposited at a hazardous waste site and that drinking water cannot
exceed 2 ppb mercury.

"But when the influenza vaccines arrive and are injected into pregnant
woman and infants as young as six months, those vaccines contain
50,000 ppb mercury," Ms Imus notes.

This amount of mercury is 250 times higher than hazardous waste, she
notes, and according to EPA guidelines, this amount can only be
considered safe if a person weighs 550 pounds. "Even trace amounts of
mercury in vaccines can be anywhere from 600 to 2000 ppb," she warns.

On November 13, 2006, PutChildrenFirst.org, a parent-led organization
advocating vaccine safety, issued a press release to announce the
results of a survey conducted October 27-30, 2006, by Zogby
International of over 9,000 Americans to learn their plans for getting
flu shots, their knowledge of its ingredients, and who they hold
responsible for making sure vaccines are safe.

The survey showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans were
unaware that most flu shots contain mercury and that they would refuse
a shot with mercury. After learning that mercury is an ingredient, 74%
of those polled said they were less likely to get a flu shot and 86%
of parents said they were less likely to allow their child to get a shot.

Lisa Handley is a founding parent of PutChildrenFirst.org, whose son
Jamison had an adverse reaction to a flu shot with mercury in 2003. "I
know firsthand how life-changing a flu shot with mercury can be, since
our son began his regression into autism after his flu shot," she states.

"With everything we know about the dangers of mercury and the havoc it
can wreak on young, developing brains, there is no excuse for any
vaccine to contain mercury," says Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN, President of
SafeMinds, a nonprofit organization committed to ending
mercury-induced neurological disorders.

"The survey reveals that Americans are overwhelmingly in the dark
about what is in most flu shots," Ms Redwood stated in the press release.

"They do not want a known neurotoxin injected into their children, and
they believe Congress and medical professionals must be more vigilant
about keeping vaccines safe and mercury-free," she added.

PutChildrenFirst also advises that two recent studies in leading
medical journals admitted that limited data exists to support the
effectiveness of flu vaccines. One study, in the Journal of the
American Medical Association, noted that, "there is scant data on the
efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccine in young children,"
the release notes.

According to Ms Imus, we are beginning to see prescribed vaccines,
like the whole cell DPT and Rotovirus, which are later found to be unsafe.

"While physicians warn the public about the over use of antibiotics,"
she points out, "it is the physicians themselves that over-prescribed
these antibiotics for every ailment under the sun."

"And like antibiotics," she writes, "every time a new vaccine was
developed, it quickly found its way onto the immunization schedule
along with the recommended booster shots."

"We are now reaping the unintended consequences of the overuse of
these medical interventions," she states. "Instead of being healthier,
we have a nation of very sick children."

Forcing parents to inject poisonous concoctions into innocent,
helpless children against their will is a gross violation of their
most basic parental rights.

Evelyn Pringle
evelyn-pringle@ sbcglobal.net

Authors Bio: Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for OpEd News and
investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government
and corporate America.

Is Milk Your Best Choice for Calcium?

What's Best For Your Bones?

Those advertisements pushing milk as the answer to strong bones are almost inescapable. But does "got milk" really translate into "got strong bones?"

The pro-milk faction believes that increased calcium intake - particularly in the form of the currently recommended three glasses of milk per day - will help prevent osteoporosis, the weakening of bones. Each year, osteoporosis leads to more than 1.5 million fractures, including 300,000 broken hips.

On the other side are those who believe that consuming a lot of milk and other dairy products will have little effect on the rate of fractures but may contribute to problems such as heart disease or prostate cancer.

Which view is right? The final answers aren't in. But here is a summary of what's currently known about calcium and its effects on the body.

What is calcium?

Calcium is a mineral that the body needs for numerous functions, including building and maintaining bones and teeth, blood clotting, the transmission of nerve impulses, and the regulation of the heart's rhythm. Ninety-nine percent of the calcium in the human body is stored in the bones and teeth. The remaining 1 percent is found in the blood and other tissues.

Where do we get calcium?

The body gets the calcium it needs in two ways. One is by eating foods that contain calcium. good sources include dairy products, which have the highest concentration per serving of highly absorbable calcium, and dark leafy greens or dried beans, which have varying amounts of absorbable calcium.

The other way the body gets calcium is by pulling it from bones. This happens when blood levels of calcium drop too low, usually when it's been a while since having eaten a meal containing calcium. Ideally, the calcium that is "borrowed" from the bones will be replaced at a later point. But, this doesn't always happen. Most important, this payback can't be accomplished simply by eating more calcium.

Growing healthy bones

Bone is living tissue that is always in flux. Throughout the lifespan, bones are constantly being broken down and built up in a process known as remodeling. Bone cells called osteoblasts build bone, while other bone cells called osteoclasts break down bone.

In healthy individuals who get enough calcium and physical activity, bone production exceeds bone destruction up to about age 30. After that, destruction typically exceeds production.


What is osteoporosis?

Osteoporosis, or "porous bones," is the weakening of bones caused by an imbalance between bone building and bone destruction. People typically lose bone as they age, despite consuming the recommended intake of calcium necessary to maintain optimal bone health. An estimated 10 million Americans - 8 million women and 2 million men - have osteoporosis. Another 34 million have low bone mass, placing them at increased risk for osteoporosis.(1)

Achieving adequate calcium intake and maximizing bone stores during the time when bone is rapidly deposited (up to age 30) provides an important foundation for the future. But it will not prevent bone loss later in life. The loss of bone with aging is due to several reasons, including genetic factors, physical inactivity, and lower levels of circulating hormones (estrogen in women and testosterone in men).

Postmenopausal women account for 80 percent of all cases of osteoporosis because estrogen production declines rapidly at menopause. Of course, men are also at risk of developing osteoporosis, but they tend to do so 5-10 years later than women, since testosterone levels do not fall abruptly the way estrogen does in women. It is estimated that osteoporosis will cause half of all women over age 50 to suffer a fracture of the hip, wrist, or vertebra.


How can osteoporosis be slowed down?

Preventing osteoporosis depends on two things: making the strongest, densest bones possible during the first 30 years of life and limiting the amount of bone loss in adulthood.

There are a number of lifestyle factors that can help with the latter:

Getting regular exercise, especially weight-bearing and muscle strengthening exercise.
Getting adequate vitamin D, whether through diet, exposure to sunshine, or supplements.
Consuming enough calcium to reduce the amount the body has to borrow from bone.
Consuming adequate vitamin K, found in green-leafy vegetables.
Not getting too much preformed vitamin A.
Preventing bone loss in adulthood

Several complementary strategies can help prevent or minimize bone loss during adulthood and old age. These include:

Getting regular exercise

Physical activity that puts some strain or stress on bones causes the bones to retain and possibly even gain density throughout life. Cells within the bone sense this stress and respond by making the bone stronger and denser. Such "weight-bearing" exercises include walking, dancing, jogging, weightlifting, stair-climbing, racquet sports, and hiking.

Swimming is a useful form of exercise for the heart and cardiovascular system. But because water supports the bones, rather than putting stress on them, it's not considered a good "weight-bearing" exercise for bone strength. In addition, physical activity doesn't strengthen all bones, just those that are stressed, so you need a variety of exercises or activities to keep all your bones healthy.

Another function of physical activity, probably at least as important as its direct effect on bone mass, is its role in increasing muscle strength and coordination. With greater muscle strength, one can often avoid falls and situations that cause fractures. Making physical activity a habit can help maintain balance and avoid falls.

Getting enough calcium

Despite the debates surrounding milk and calcium, one thing is clear: adequate calcium - both for bone development and for non-bone functions - is key to reducing the risk of osteoporosis. However, the healthiest or safest amount of dietary calcium hasn't yet been established. Different scientific approaches have yielded different estimates, so it's important to consider all the evidence.

Balance studies - which examine the point at which the amount of calcium consumed equals the amount of calcium excreted - suggest that an adequate intake is 550 mg/day. To ensure that 95 percent of the population gets this much calcium, the National Academy of Sciences established the following recommended intake levels:

1,000 mg/day for those age 19-50
1,200 mg/day for those age 50 or over
1,000 mg/day for pregnant or lactating adult women
But most balance studies are short-term and therefore have important limitations. To detect how the body adapts to different calcium intakes over a long period of time - and to get the big picture of overall bone strength - requires studies of longer duration.

The results from such long-term studies may be surprising to some. While they do not question the importance of calcium in maximizing bone strength, they cast doubt on the value of consuming the large amounts currently recommended for adults.

In particular, these studies suggest that high calcium intake doesn't actually appear to lower a person's risk for osteoporosis. For example, in the large Harvard studies of male health professionals and female nurses, individuals who drank one glass of milk (or less) per week were at no greater risk of breaking a hip or forearm than were those who drank two or more glasses per week.(2, 3) Other studies have found similar results.

Additional evidence also supports the idea that American adults may not need as much calcium as is currently recommended. For example, in countries such as India, Japan, and Peru where average daily calcium intake is as low as 300 mg/day (less than a third of the US recommendation for adults, ages 19-50), the incidence of bone fractures is quite low. Of course, these countries differ in other important bone-health factors as well - such as level of physical activity and amount of sunlight - which could account for their low fracture rates.

Ideally, these issues might be resolved by randomizing a large group of adults to get different amounts of calcium and following them to see how many would eventually break a bone. In fact, a few such studies have been conducted, but they have not provided clear results because they were small or of short duration, or they provided calcium in combination with vitamins, which could obscure the true effects of calcium.

To illustrate the different conclusions drawn from examining the same body of data, a British committee that is comparable to the U.S. group that established calcium requirements here concluded that 700 mg/day was enough for individuals aged 19 and older.

Getting enough vitamin D

Vitamin D plays a critical role in maintaining bone health. When blood levels of calcium begin to drop, the body responds in several ways. It promotes the conversion of vitamin D into its active form, which then travels to the intestines (to encourage greater calcium absorption into the blood) and to the kidneys (to minimize calcium loss in the urine).

For bone health, an adequate intake of vitamin D is no less important than calcium. Vitamin D is found in milk and vitamin supplements, and it can be made by the skin when it is exposed to sunlight in the summertime. But not all sunlight is created equal. Above 40 degrees latitude (north of San Francisco, Denver, Indianapolis, and Philadelphia), the winter sunlight isn't strong enough to promote vitamin D formation. Sunscreens also prevent the formation of vitamin D, although they are still recommended to reduce risk of sun-induced skin cancer and skin damage.

An examination of clinical trials of vitamin D for the prevention of osteoporosis found that the vitamin decreases vertebral fractures and may decrease nonvertebral fractures.(4) A similar analysis of the effect of vitamin D on falls indicated that supplementation with vitamin D reduces the risk of falls among ambulatory or institutionalized older individuals with stable health by more than 20%.(5) (For more information on Vitamin D and chronic disease prevention, see Ask the Expert - Vitamin D.)

Getting enough vitamin K

Vitamin K, which is found mainly in green, leafy vegetables, likely plays one or more important roles in calcium regulation and bone formation.(6) Low intake of the vitamin has been associated with low bone mineral density in women, but not men.(7) Getting one or more servings per day of broccoli, Brussels spouts, dark green lettuce, collard greens, or kale should be enough to meet the daily recommended target of 120 micrograms/day for men and 90 micrograms/day for women.

Some other factors may also help lower the risk of osteoporosis:

Take care with caffeine. Although the votes aren't all in, there is some evidence that drinking a lot of coffee - about four or more cups per day - can increase the risk of fracture. Caffeine tends to promote calcium excretion in urine.
Avoid too much protein. Getting too much protein can leach calcium from your bones. As your body digests protein, it releases acids into the bloodstream, which the body neutralizes by drawing calcium from the bones. Animal protein seems to cause more of this calcium leaching than vegetable protein does.(3) Just how important protein is as a risk factor for osteoporosis is still up in the air.
Get enough vitamin A, but not too much. Long-associated with good vision, vitamin A has also been found to direct the process of borrowing and redepositing calcium in bone. However, too much preformed vitamin A can promote fractures. Avoid vitamin supplements that have a full RDA (5,000 IU) of vitamin A as preformed vitamin A, unless prescribed by your doctor. Vitamin A in the form of beta-carotene does not increase one's fracture risk.
Postmenopausal women may also want to talk to a health care provider about taking a medication that can strengthen bones. The estrogen in postmenopausal hormones can compensate for the drop in estrogen levels after menopause, helping to prevent - and perhaps even partially reverse - bone loss. However, hormone replacement therapy has fallen from grace as the mainstay for preventing osteoporosis after results from several studies showed that it increased the risk of heart disease, stroke, and blood clots.(8) Other medications such as alendronate (Fosamax), risedronate (Actonel), calcitonin (Miacalcin), raloxifene (Evista), and parathyroid hormone (Fortéo) have been approved for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis.


Should you get calcium from milk?

When most people in the United States think of calcium, they immediately think of milk. But should this be so? Milk is actually only one of many sources of calcium, and there are some important reasons why milk may not be the best source for everyone. These include:


Lactose intolerance
Many people have some degree of lactose intolerance. For them, eating or drinking dairy products causes problems like cramping, bloating, gas, and diarrhea. These symptoms can range from mild to severe. Certain groups are much more likely to have lactose intolerance. For example, 90 percent of Asians, 70 percent of blacks and Native Americans, and 50 percent of Hispanics are lactose-intolerant, compared to only about 15 percent of people of Northern European descent.
One alternative for those who are lactose intolerant but who still enjoy consuming dairy products is to take a pill containing enzymes that digest milk sugar along with the dairy product, or to consume milk that has the lactase enzyme added to it.


High saturated fat content
Many dairy products are high in saturated fats, and a high saturated fat intake is a risk factor for heart disease. And while it's true that most dairy products are now available in fat-reduced or nonfat options, the saturated fat that's removed from dairy products is inevitably consumed by someone, often in the form of premium ice cream, butter, or baked goods.
Strangely, it's often the same people who purchase these higher-fat products who also purchase the low-fat dairy products, so it's not clear that they're making great strides in cutting back on their saturated fat consumption. For more information on dietary fats, click here.


Possible increased risk of ovarian cancer
High levels of galactose, a sugar released by the digestion of lactose in milk, have been studied as possibly damaging to the ovaries and leading to ovarian cancer. Although such associations have not been reported in all studies, there may be potential harm in consuming high amounts of dairy products.(9, 10)


Possible increased risk of prostate cancer
A diet high in calcium has been implicated as a potential risk factor for prostate cancer. In a Harvard study of male health professionals, men who drank two or more glasses of milk a day were almost twice as likely to develop advanced prostate cancer as those who didn't drink milk at all.(11) Moreover, the association appears to be with calcium itself, rather than with dairy products in general.
Clearly, although more research is needed, we cannot be confident that high milk intake is safe.


The bottom line-recommendations for calcium intake and bone health

Adequate, lifelong dietary calcium intake is necessary to reduce the risk of osteoporosis. Consuming adequate calcium and vitamin D and performing regular, weight-bearing exercise are also important to build maximum bone density and strength. After age 30, these factors help slow bone loss, although they cannot completely prevent bone loss due to aging.

Milk and dairy products are a convenient source of calcium for many people. They are also a good source of protein and are fortified with vitamins D and A. At this time, however, the optimal intake of calcium as well as the optimal sources of calcium, are not clear. As noted earlier, the National Academy of Sciences currently recommends that people ages 19-50 consume 1,000 mg of calcium per day, and that those age 50 or over get 1,200 mg per day. Reaching 1200 mg per day would usually require drinking two to three glasses of milk per day over and above an overall healthy diet.

However, these recommendations are based on very short-term studies, and are likely to be higher than what people really need. Currently, there's no good evidence that consuming more than one serving of milk per day in addition to a reasonable diet (which typically provides about 300 milligrams of calcium per day from nondairy sources) will reduce fracture risk. Because of unresolved concerns about the risk of ovarian and prostate cancer, it may be prudent to avoid higher intakes of dairy products.

At moderate levels, though, consumption of calcium and dairy products has benefits beyond bone health, including possibly lowering the risk of high blood pressure and colon cancer.(12-14) While the blood pressure benefits appear fairly small, the protection against colon cancer seems somewhat larger, and most of the latter benefit comes from having just one glass of milk per day. Getting more than this doesn't seem to lower risk any further.

For individuals who are unable to digest - or who dislike - dairy products and for those who simply prefer not to consume large amounts of such foods, other options are available. Calcium can also be found in dark green leafy vegetables, such as kale and collard greens, and in dried beans and legumes.

Calcium is also found in spinach and chard, but these vegetables contain oxalic acid, which combines with the calcium to form calcium oxalate, a chemical salt that makes the calcium less available to the body. A variety of calcium-fortified foods, such as orange juice, are now on the market.

Calcium (and vitamin D) can also be ingested as a supplement. Antacids contain calcium as well. However, men may want to avoid calcium supplements for men because of questions about possible risks of prostate cancer.

An extensive list of the calcium content of foods is available online from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These foods are good sources of calcium:

Food Amount Calcium
Yogurt, plain, low fat 8 oz 415
Collards, frozen, boiled 1 cup 357
Skim milk 1 cup 306
Spinach, frozen, boiled 1 cup 291
Yogurt, plain, whole milk 8 oz 275
Cheese food, pasteurized American 1 oz 162
Cottage cheese, 1% milk fat 1 cup 138
Baked beans, canned 1 cup 154
Iceberg lettuce 1 head 97
Canned salmon 3 oz 181
Oranges 1 cup 72
Trail mix (nuts, seeds, chocolate chips) 1 cup 159
Almonds 1 oz (24 nuts) 70
Blackeye peas, boiled 1 cup 211
Green peas, boiled 1 cup 94





References

1. Osteoporosis facts. National Osteoporosis Foundation.
2. Owusu W, Willett WC, Feskanich D, Ascherio A, Spiegelman D, Colditz GA. Calcium intake and the incidence of forearm and hip fractures among men. J Nutr 1997; 127:1782-7.
3. Feskanich D, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA. Milk, dietary calcium, and bone fractures in women: a 12-year prospective study. Am J Public Health 1997; 87:992-7.
4. Papadimitropoulos E, Wells G, Shea B, et al. Meta-analyses of therapies for postmenopausal osteoporosis. VIII: Meta-analysis of the efficacy of vitamin D treatment in preventing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Endocr Rev 2002; 23:560-9.
5. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Dawson-Hughes B, Willett WC, et al. Effect of Vitamin D on falls: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2004; 291:1999-2006.
6. Weber P. Vitamin K and bone health. Nutrition 2001; 17:880-7.
7. Booth SL, Broe KE, Gagnon DR, et al. Vitamin K intake and bone mineral density in women and men. Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 77:512-6.
8. Manson JE, Hsia J, Johnson KC, et al. Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:523-34.
9. Cramer DW. Lactase persistence and milk consumption as determinants of ovarian cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 1989; 130:904-10.
10. Cramer DW, Harlow BL, Willett WC, et al. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of ovarian cancer. Lancet 1989; 2:66-71.
11. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Wolk A, et al. Calcium and fructose intake in relation to risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Res 1998; 58:442-447.
12. Martinez ME, Willett WC. Calcium, vitamin D, and colorectal cancer: a review of the epidemiologic evidence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998; 7:163-8.
13. Hyman J, Baron JA, Dain BJ, et al. Dietary and supplemental calcium and the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1998; 7:291-5.
14. Cappuccio FP, Elliott P, Allender PS, Pryer J, Follman DA, Cutler JA. Epidemiologic association between dietary calcium intake and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of published data. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142:935-45.

What drug is taken by more Americans than any other?

What drug is taken by more Americans than any other drug?

You might guess cholesterol-lowering statins, but you'd be wrong. Statins are only used by about 13 million. That's a drop in the bucket.

You might guess acetaminophen or aspirin, but you'd be wrong.

Millions of people use these over-the-counter analgesics every day, but that's nothing compared to American's number one drug: fluoride.

Most of us have been taking a daily dose of fluoridated tap water since birth. About two-thirds of all U.S. water supplies are fluoridated, and most of those supplies are in major population areas.

According to a recent report in Scientific American, people who live fluoride-free are probably healthier than the rest of us. And ironically, their teeth might be in better shape too.

--------------------------------------------
Overdoing it
--------------------------------------------

A company called DS Waters manufactures a product called Nursery – a steam distilled, purified bottled water for babies and infants. And when they've finished creating this pristine water what do they do? They add fluoride.

That's like manufacturing a pure, unadulterated ointment, and then packing a fly into every jar.

Here are some of the key revelations from the Scientific American report on fluoride:
Over-consumption of fluoride is common – in addition to our tap water, fluoride is added to toothpaste, mouthwash, medications, beverages, and even some foods
Over-consumption of fluoride often causes dental fluorosis – a discoloring or pitting of the teeth
A 16-year study that tracked 700 children showed that mild fluorosis was 50 percent more likely among children who lived in fluoridated areas compared to children who didn't drink fluoridated tap water.
Chinese studies have linked high fluoride intake with lower I.Q.
Studies with lab animals reveal that high fluoride intake may increase bone fracture risk
A National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewed hundreds of fluoride studies and concluded that fluoride intake can alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid
That last item is arguably the most disturbing. The thyroid produces hormones that regulate metabolism and growth. The chair of the NRC committee told Dan Fagin, the author of the Scientific American piece, "The thyroid changes do worry me."

--------------------------------------------
Benefits? Not so much
--------------------------------------------

Some of the Scientific American revelations are not surprising – not to e-Alert readers anyway.

Three years ago I told you about Harvard research in which data showed that boys who drink fluoridated water between the ages of five and 10 may have an increased risk of bone cancer. And William Campbell Douglass II, M.D., reports that several osteoporosis studies have linked hip fracture risk to high fluoride intake. In addition, Dr. Campbell reports that animal trials have shown that fluoride enhances the brain's absorption of aluminum, which increases Alzheimer's risk.

But just try to tell your dentist that fluoride is a potential toxin. He'll probably insist that the risks are overblown, while the dental benefits are irrefutable. And that's when you can offer these two points:

1) The largest study ever conducted on fluoridation and oral health included more than 39,000 children in 84 locations throughout the U.S. Results showed no statistical difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

2) Tooth decay trends tracked by the World Health Organization from 1970 to 2002 show that the incidence of decayed, missing, or filled teeth has been steadily in decline with each passing year in the U.S., France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Iceland, and Greece. Only one of these countries adds fluoride to the public water supply: the U.S.

In his article, Dan Fagin notes that scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift. I hope he's right. It's a shift long overdue.


http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/freecopy.html


Or forward this e-mail to a friend so they can sign-up to receive their own copy of the HSI e-Alert.

David Icke

Like him or not; he is a useful publicist who makes you think.

Find attached a number of links that will surprise, sadden or frustrate you.

Don't believe all you hear, read or are told; do you own homework.

Info about the RFID chip - be afraid; very afraid!


Real ID: From “No Fly” to “No Drive” Lists?
Kurt Nimmo

Think you can escape?

Merck Vaccines and their underlying poison