Evidence shows that anti-depressants likely do more harm than good, researchers find

Commonly prescribed anti-depressants appear to be doing patients more harm than good, say researchers who have published a paper examining the impact of the medications on the entire body.

"We need to be much more cautious about the widespread use of these drugs," says Paul Andrews, an evolutionary biologist at McMaster University and lead author of the article, published today in the online journal Frontiers in Psychology.

"It's important because millions of people are prescribed anti-depressants each year, and the conventional wisdom about these drugs is that they're safe and effective."

Andrews and his colleagues examined previous patient studies into the effects of anti-depressants and determined that the benefits of most anti-depressants, even taken at their best, compare poorly to the risks, which include premature death in elderly patients.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-evidence-anti-depressants-good.html

What Eating Too Much Sugar Does to Your Brain

Overeating, poor memory formation, learning disorders, depression -- all have been linked in recent research to the over-consumption of sugar. And these linkages point to a problem that is only beginning to be better understood: what our chronic intake of added sugar is doing to our brains.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average American consumes 156 pounds of added sugar per year. That's five grocery store shelves loaded with 30 or so one pound bags of sugar each. If you find that hard to believe, that's probably because sugar is so ubiquitous in our diets that most of us have no idea how much we're consuming. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) puts the amount at 27.5 teaspoons of sugar a day per capita, which translates to 440 calories -- nearly one quarter of a typical 2000 calorie a day diet.
The key word in all of the stats is "added." While a healthy diet would contain a significant amount of naturally occurring sugar (in fruits and grains, for example), the problem is that we're chronically consuming much more added sugar in processed foods, generally in the rapidly absorbed form of fructose.
That's an important clarification because our brains need sugar every day to function. Brain cells require two times the energy needed by all the other cells in the body; roughly 10% of our total daily energy requirements. This energy is derived from glucose (blood sugar), the gasoline of our brains. Sugar is not the brain's enemy -- added sugar is.
Research indicates that a diet high in added sugar reduces the production of a brain chemical known as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF). Without BDNF, our brains can't form new memories and we can't learn (or remember) much of anything. Levels of BDNF are particularly low in people with an impaired glucose metabolism--diabetics and pre-diabetics--and as the amount of BDNF decreases, sugar metabolism worsens.
In other words, chronically eating added sugar reduces BDNF, and then the lowered levels of the brain chemical begin contributing to insulin resistance, which leads to type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome, which eventually leads to a host of other health problems. Once that happens, your brain and body are in a destructive cycle that's difficult if not impossible to reverse.
Research has also linked low BDNF levels to depression and dementia. It's possible that low BDNF may turn out to be the smoking gun in these and other diseases, like Alzheimer's, that tend to appear in clusters in epidemiological studies. More research is being conducted on this subject, but what seems clear in any case is that a reduced level of BDNF is bad news for our brains, and chronic sugar consumption is one of the worst inhibitory culprits.
Other studies have focused on sugar’s role in over-eating. We intuitively know that sugar and obesity are linked, but the exact reason why hasn’t been well understood until recently. Research has shown that chronic consumption of added sugar dulls the brain’s mechanism for telling you to stop eating. It does so by reducing activity in the brain’s anorexigenic oxytocin system, which is responsible for throwing up the red “full” flag that prevents you from gorging. When oxytocin cells in the brain are blunted by over-consumption of sugar, the flag doesn’t work correctly and you start asking for seconds and thirds, and seeking out snacks at midnight.
What these and other studies strongly suggest is that most of us are seriously damaging ourselves with processed foods high in added sugar, and the damage begins with our brains. Seen in this light, chronic added-sugar consumption is no less a problem than smoking or alcoholism. And the hard truth is that we may have only begun to see the effects of what the endless sugar avalanche is doing to us.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/neuronarrative/201204/what-eating-too-much-sugar-does-your-brain

Doctors Change Names of Diseases When Vaccines Do Not Work

Doctors around the world are being faced with children catching the diseases they have been vaccinated against. Rather than diagnosing these children correctly, professionals have discovered that the doctors are giving the diseases new names. This suggests a cover up is going on and the vaccinations we are all being told are safe and effective are in fact completely useless.
Vaccinations are now being given to children to keep them safe from every disease known to man. There appears to be a vaccination for everything from polio to a broken finger nail. However, many professionals now believe that the vaccinations are actually causing the diseases they are supposed to prevent.
It appears that they could be right because news has just been released that 47,500 children became paralyzed after polio vaccinations in India in 2011. According to Dr Jacob a member of the national technical advisory group on immunization and of the working group on the food and drug regulation in 2011 after receiving the polio vaccination, an additional 47,500 children were newly paralyzed, over and above the standard rate of 2 children per 100,000 non-polio AFP (acute flaccid paralysis) cases. (1)
Dr Viera Scheibner is a professional who would not be at all surprised at the above figures. She has firmly believed for many years that contrary to the belief that vaccinations prevent children from becoming ill, they are causing children to catch the diseases that they are being vaccinated against. She best explains this in her extremely well written letter published recently in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). (2) Her letter on the subject of polio vaccinations contains outstanding research and opens a gigantic can of worms that will be difficult for the pharmaceutical industries to ignore. In answer to an article titled ‘Polio eradication: a complex end game – Polio Eradication by Vaccination,’ she wrote:

“Polio eradication by vaccination?

Let me quote some original seminal medical research.

Anderson et al. (1951) in his article “Poliomyelitis occurring after antigen injections” (Pediatrics; 7(6): 741-759) wrote “During the last year several investigators have reported the occurrence of poliomyelitis after  a few weeks after injection of some antigen. Martin in England noted 25 cases in which paralysis of a single limb occurred within 28 days of injection of antigen into that limb, and two cases following penicillin injections.”

She continued:

“Geffen, studying the 1949 poliomyelitis cases in London, observed 30 patients who had received an antigen within four weeks, noting also that the paralysis involved especially the extremity into which the injection had been given.

Dr Scheibner provided many examples of researched evidence proving that vaccinations have been causing cases of paralysis and polio for many years.
Continued here....

PMS and Candida Overgrowth: The Dangers of Estrogen Dominance

Each year, millions of women seek out help for hormonal issues that are commonly identified as PMS (premenstrual syndrome).

PMS can present itself in variety of ways, ranging from emotional symptoms like depression to physical symptoms like fatigue and bloating.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 85% of women have a minimum of one PMS symptom each month. Targeting Candida overgrowth will deal with the root cause of chronic PMS to provide long-term relief and balance hormone levels.

Once PMS or another hormonal imbalance is diagnosed, most physicians will prescribe some kind of hormone replacement therapy or an oral contraceptive, also known as birth control or “the pill.” This is done in order to regulate hormonal rhythms. Typically, birth control only alleviates the physical symptoms of PMS.

Much of conventional therapy focuses on treating the symptoms of PMS. This is only partially effective - if effective at all.

NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) like aspirin or ibuprofen are widely available, and they are a frequent go-to for pain relief.

If the emotional symptoms related to PMS are severe enough, a woman may be placed on an anti-depressant.

Candida and Your Hormones

For those who suffer from PMS, it is important to understand that research shows estrogen supports the growth of Candida. (1)(2)

Research also shows that a common cause of Candida overgrowth is the use of oral contraceptives. (3)(4)(5)

Once Candida becomes a full-blown fungal infection, things have a tendency to spiral out of control.

The nature of candidiasis is a vicious cycle. For example, Candida can overwhelm the tissue in the digestive tract and generate inflammation, which will further the growth and spread of yeast.

Candida also produces a waste product that, in the human body, mimics estrogen. (6)

This means that a Candida infection will send out a chemical message that your body is producing more estrogen than it really is. 

The affect of Candida overgrowth on a woman’s hormonal system is rarely acknowledged.

http://bodyecology.com/articles/pms-and-candida-overgrowth-the-dangers-of-estrogen-dominance

Stress Hormones Found To Make Cancer Resistant To Treatment

26th April 2012

By Sayer Ji - Wake Up World

There are many things that drive cancer. Poor diet, chemical and radiation exposures, and certain infections, figure prominently in the process.  Stress, however, is a major contributing factor that is often completely overlooked.

New research, however, sheds light on just how critically important the physiological consequences of stress are on cancer cell progression.

Adrenaline Increases Cancer Malignancy

Published this month in the journal Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics and entitled “Adrenaline induces chemoresistance in HT-29 colon adenocarcinoma cells,” researchers found that the stress hormone adrenaline induces multidrug resistance in colon cancer cells.¹

Adrenaline is released during times of stress and participates in what is known as the fight-or-flight response of the sympathetic nervous system.  The study investigated the cellular consequences of adrenergic activation (adrenaline activation), which included a dose-dependent increase in the expression of the cancer-associated gene (oncogene) known as ABCB1 gene and its gene product, P-glycoprotein, which is known to protect cancer cells from anticancer compounds.

When adrenaline-induced P-glycoprotein levels increase within cancer cells, they become more effective at excreting drugs that may do them harm, e.g. chemotherapy. P-glycoprotein is used to transport xenobiotics out through what are known as ATP-dependent efflux pumps. These are highly expressed in the epithelial cells of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, liver, and capillaries of the brain, testes, and ovaries, and normally defend healthy cells against toxicants in the environment.  In cancer, however, a wide range of oncogenes are unregulated and tumor suppressor genes downregulated, resulting in assemblages of cells (tumors) that can do great harm to the body as a whole.

http://wakeup-world.com/2012/04/26/stress-hormones-found-to-make-cancer-resistant-to-treatment/

Marijuana Causes Cancer-Suicide *MUST-WATCH!*

Chocolate Gives Statins A $29 Billion Run For Their Money

20th April 2012

By Sayer Ji - Wake Up World

With the blockbuster cholesterol-lowering class of drugs known as statins being widely promoted for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, despite their having over 300 documented adverse health effects (including heart failure!), how does chocolate sound as a viable, heart-friendly alternative?

We already connect amorously with chocolate (to the tune of 6 billion lbs of cocoa consumed annually worldwide), revealing in heart-felt expressions like “I love it,” and “this is to die for!” how comfortable we are with publicly declaring our affection. But did you know that while it makes our emotional hearts sing, it may actually keep our physical hearts happy, alive and ticking longer, as well?

Indeed, back in 2006, researchers found that for elderly men, eating cocoa intake was inversely associated with blood pressure and 15-year cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. When compared with the lowest tertile (lowest 33%) of cocoa intake, the adjusted relative risk for men in the highest tertile was .50 for cardiovascular mortality, or a 50% reduction, and .53 for all-cause mortality, or a 47% reduction. Not bad considering the median cocoa intake among users was 2.11 grams per day, or just one half an ounce a week.

http://wakeup-world.com/2012/04/20/chocolate-gives-statins-a-29-billion-run-for-their-money/

The 5 best natural antibiotics and anti-virals that destroy superbugs and just about everything else

(NaturalNews) Sir Alexander Fleming discovered the antibacterial power of the mold Penicillium notatum in 1928. Even though it was a natural healing agent effective in destroying Staphylococcus aureus and other noxious bacteria, the pharmaceutical industry got hold of nature's bounty and it became -- along with multiple other Big Pharma inventions -- the nightmare of modern antibiotics, causing as many problems for mankind as they were supposed to help. Because of the overuse of antibiotics, super-bugs have developed that are resistant to all but the most powerful drugs, whose side effects are often dangerous.

In nature's infinite wisdom, several other highly effective substances exist with antibacterial, antifungal and antiviral properties, all able to protect the human body safely and with deep healing powers. You don't have to go much farther than the refrigerator or your pantry cupboard to find safe, delicious foods and herbs to eradicate the most virulent bacteria and viruses.



Here is that list of 5

Ten Best Foods to Eat Frequently for a Terrific Health Kick...

By Dr. Mercola

If optimal health is your goal, there's no getting around your diet. Your physical health is a direct reflection of what you put into your body, and how you live your life in general. Pre-packaged processed foods may be convenient, but cooking from scratch using fresh unprocessed ingredients is an absolute must if you want to improve your health.

The term "superfood" has become something of a marketing buzzword in recent years, and many processed food products will boast such ingredients. But don't be fooled. Processing tends to denature nutrients, so what you end up with is typically a far inferior version compared to the real thing.

Your best bet is to simply stick with the originals, meaning whole organic foods.

Below is a list of my top 10 best superfoods—whole foods that offer a wide range of essential nutrients that can easily be integrated into a balanced diet. Aim to incorporate as many of these foods into your diet on a daily or weekly basis, and you'll be off to a great start. Keep in mind that all of the foods on this list should be organic or wild.
Here is the list of those 10 foods

True Cause of Heart Disease Not Cholesterol

Vaccine failure admitted: Whooping cough outbreaks higher among children already vaccinated

(NaturalNews) For several years, NaturalNews has maintained that many vaccines actually cause the very infectious diseases they claim to prevent. Measles vaccines, for example, actually cause measles. And flu shot vaccines actually increase susceptibility to the flu. (See sources below.)

Now we have an open admission of precisely this point.

New research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

As Reuters reports: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832...)

In early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough -- the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illnesses center around unvaccinated kids, knowing they are more vulnerable to the disease. "We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That's what started catching our attention."

This same article also admits that these vaccines have never been tested for long-term effectiveness:

"GSK has never studied the duration of the vaccine's protection after the shot given to four- to six-year-olds, the spokesperson said. Dr. Joel Ward at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute said it's still important for parents to get their kids immunized, even though it doesn't provide lasting protection from whooping cough."

Huh? So let me get this straight:

• Whooping cough infections are MORE common among children already vaccinated against whooping cough than unvaccinated children.

• The whooping cough vaccines have NEVER been tested for long-term efficacy.

• Doctors openly admit the vaccine "doesn't provide lasting protection" against the disease.

• But doctors and government authorities mindlessly push the vaccine anyway?!

That's essentially like saying, "We know these vaccines don't really work, but everybody should get vaccinated anyway."
http://www.naturalnews.com/035466_whooping_cough_vaccines_outbreaks.html

“Bad” LDL Cholesterol May Protect Us Against Cancer

LDL cholesterol is demonized, but we’ve told you the other side of the story. Now a new discovery adds to the growing list of health benefits.

There may be a link between low levels of “bad” low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol—that is, not enough of it—and increased cancer risk, according to new research. Scientists at Tufts University looked at 201 cancer patients and 402 cancer-free patients. They found that cancer patients who never took cholesterol-lowering drugs on average had lower LDL cholesterol levels for an average of about 19 years prior to their cancer diagnosis. In other words, they were “healthier” according to the LDL demonizers in today’s medicine.

Previous studies, which looked at patients who did take cholesterol-lowering drugs, also suggested a strong link between low LDL cholesterol levels and higher cancer risk.

This finding underscores what we have said before. The “HDL cholesterol is good and LDL is bad” message being perpetrated by mainstream medicine is at the very least an oversimplification. LDL is needed by the body to build new muscle, which is important as we age. LDL can protect the brain as we age, and low levels of it can escalate problems such as dementia and memory loss. As Dr. Joseph A. Mercola points out, cholesterol is neither “good” nor “bad,” and attempts to artificially lower your cholesterol can be quite dangerous, in part because of serious side effects such as muscle damage.

So why does mainstream medicine demonize LDL cholesterol? Could it be because it benefits the billion-dollar cholesterol drug industry? Statin drugs are taken by one in four Americans over age of 45, and if patients stopped buying cholesterol drugs, Big Pharma would be in a serious financial crisis. In fact, as soon as the study’s cancer findings were published, a heart “expert” immediately warned that “statins used for LDL reduction shouldn’t be stopped if there is an appropriate use to lower heart disease risk.”

So mainstream medicine’s advice is to hang onto these “miracle drugs” even though they have been linked to nerve damage, muscle damage, liver enzyme derangement, tendon problems, anemia, acidosis, cataracts, sexual dysfunction, an increase in type 2 diabetes, and now cancer.

In the long run, statins are going to be a bonanza, but for the trial lawyers, not the drug companies. But by then it will be too late for those taking them now.

http://www.anh-usa.org/ldl-cholesterol-may-protect-us-against-cancer/ 

Why is this Organic Food Stuffed With Toxic Solvents?

Story at-a-glance

• Biotech company Martek is under fire for nondisclosure of non-organic manufacturing processes of their infant formula additives, DHA and ARA, which have made their way into numerous infant formulas, including some bearing the USDA Organic Seal
• Martek’s DHA and ARA products are synthetic attempts at omega-3 fats, chemically extracted from algae and fungi that have never before been part of the human diet
• These infant formula additives, never USDA approved, have been heavily processed and chemically treated with solvents like hexane, and modified with the use of recombinant DNA techniques, all of which are supposed to be disallowed in organic products
• There are hundreds of adverse reaction reports filed with the FDA about infants suffering severe gastrointestinal distress, vomiting, and diarrhea after consuming formula with these additives
• Political shenanigans and powerful corporate lobbyists threaten the quality and safety of your products, including a recent increase in the tolerated level of pesticides in American products
• http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/01/gmo-infant-formula.aspx?e_cid=20120401_SNL_Art_1