Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 7th, 2009 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,382
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Health Supplements

Most Americans Dying From Flu-Related Illness Are Likely To Exhibit Nutritional Deficiencies

by Bill Sardi

While the mortality rate for the now prevalent late-2009 season novel H1N1 flu strain is far lower than seasonal-flu death rates in prior years, needless death is always regrettable. According to published medical reports, most Americans dying of flu-related illness need to be immediately tested for nutritional deficiencies upon hospitalization or physician examination as they are likely to exhibit shortages of vitamins and trace minerals.

Despite strong evidence that nutrient adequacy is important in producing antibodies following vaccination and in favorably controlling the immune response, it is not yet common practice in American hospitals or doctors offices to test for nutrient deficiencies.

The Centers for Disease Control reports 29% of patients who succumbed to the flu developed secondary infections in their lungs resulting in pneumonia. [Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Reports September 29, 2009/58(Early Release); 1–4]

Public health authorities are calling for more vaccines, in this case, pneumococcal vaccine (Prevnar®), while ignoring published data showing life-threatening influenza is likely triggered by nutritional deficiencies, particularly vitamin E, vitamin D and the trace mineral selenium.

More recently researchers at the Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, University of Medicine and Dentistry-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said "undernutrition or malnutrition adversely affects host defenses against many invading microorganisms, thereby increasing the severity of infection." These researchers call attention to adequate levels of selenium and vitamin E in reducing the severity of infectious disease as well as inhibiting human-to-human transmission. [Clinical Infectious Disease 2007 Aug 15; 45(4):470–4]

Over reliance upon vaccines, antibiotics, anti-viral drugs

It goes unexplained why health authorities, in an age of antibiotic, vaccine and anti-viral drug resistance, continue to ignore what University of North Carolina researchers call the "the neglected virulence factor: host nutritional status." The nutritional status of the individual not only controls immunity but also the genetic makeup of the attacking virus, say these researchers, who wrote in 2004 that "the nutritional status of the host, until recently, has not been considered a contributing factor to the emergence of infectious disease." [Trends Microbiology 2004 Sep; 12(9):417–23]

Spanish flu deaths reexamined

A review conducted by Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, examined autopsy records, lung tissue sections and bacteriologic data from subjects who succumbed to the Spanish flu of 1918–19 and conclude that they largely died of bacterial pneumonia. [Journal Infectious Disease 2008 Oct 1; 198(7):962–70] While modern medicine does have access to antibiotics, their overuse could imperil the world. Widespread use of antibiotics during a flu pandemic wouldl certainly spark an increase in germ resistance. Modern medicine is walking out on the end of a limb here.

The 1918 Spanish flu occurred prior to the discovery of the first penicillin, the first antibiotic. Flu outbreaks since the availability of antibiotics have not been so deadly. But it also needs to be said the Spanish flu occurred before the 1930s, the decade when most vitamins were discovered, and this may explain why, with widespread food fortification, there has never been another flu epidemic in America quite so deadly.

While antibiotics like erythromycin and chloramphenicol do suppress the growth of bacteria like Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, which are known to secondarily result in flu-related pneumonia, these antibiotics diminish the production of natural antimicrobial peptides such a cathelicidin, a molecule dependent upon vitamin D for synthesis. [FASEB J. 2007 Apr; 21(4):1107–16] Natural immunity is suppressed when antibiotics are used.

Making flu vaccines work

The call this year for the public to require two rather than just one flu shot is admission that adequate immunity was never achieved in prior vaccination campaigns.

Not only does nutritional supplementation help avert flu-related death, but it also improves antibody production following vaccination. Inoculation against the flu is typically not very effective in generating antibodies among senior adult populations, the greatest at-risk group to develop flu-related pneumonia and to die. Flu vaccination among retirees is only about 20–35% effective in producing adequate antibody response. Well-made multivitamins that include vitamins C, E and E, folic acid and selenium are likely to serve well here. [J Gerontology A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2002 Sep; 57(9):M563–6; Vaccine. 2005 Feb 10; 23(12):1457–63; J Parenteral Enteral Nutrition 2004 Sep–Oct; 28(5):348–54]

Calming an over-responsive immune system

Old animals subjected to infectious diseases develop more pronounced inflammation (as evidenced by increased markers of inflammation -- COX-2 and TNF-alpha). Vitamin E calms an over-responsive immune reaction. [J Leukocyte Biology 2008 Oct; 84(4):900–14] This is important because the arrival of armies of white blood cells at the site of infection, such as the lungs, can induce inflammation and result in the lungs rapidly filling up with fluid, literally drowning the patient. One experiment shows that vitamin E enhances protective T-cells (white blood cells made in the thymus gland) and inhibits inflammation that results from an over-responsive immune system. [Immunology Review 2005 Jun; 205:269–84]

Prevent infection altogether

Of course, the best approach is to prevent flu infection altogether. Vitamin E is particularly helpful here because it works in the most vulnerable subjects – the aged. Vitamin E has been shown to reduce viral counts in old, but nor young animals. [Proceedings Nutrition Society 1999 Aug; 58(3):697–705] Human studies show vitamin E-sufficient nursing home patients are far more resistant to respiratory infections. [Immunology Review 2005 Jun; 205:269–84]

Sulfur compound to the rescue

Another underutilized remedy is N-acetylcysteine (NAC), available in most health food stores. NAC is a sulfur compound and precursor to glutathione, a universal antioxidant produced in all living cells. NAC has been in use for more than 50 years for its ability resolve respiratory troubles via dissolution of thick mucus in the lungs and bronchial tree.

In a study conducted at 20 centers in Italy under the direction of the Institute of Hygiene and Preventive Medicine, University of Genoa, Italy, involving 262 subjects, 78% of whom were age 65 years or older who either received 600 milligrams NAC or a placebo tablet twice a day (1200 mg NAC total per day) for 6 months, the effects of NAC were profound. Subjects given NAC experienced a significant reduction in the frequency of flu-like episodes as well as reduced severity of symptoms. While about the same percentage of subjects in both groups exhibited antibodies to the H1N1 Singapore flu strain, only 25% of those in the NAC group developed flu symptoms compared to 79% in the group that received in inactive placebo tablet. [European Respiratory J. 1997 Jul; 10(7):1535–41] NAC even exhibits strong anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties against the dreaded H5N1 bird flu, a viral strain that is not easily transmitted to others, but has a 60% mortality rate (6 in 10 infected die). [Biochemical Pharmacology 2009 Sept 2]

Vitamin D

Long ago when medical researchers were making a connection between vitamin D deficiency and rickets (bone softening in growing children), they noticed that children with rickets also experienced a lot of infections. A study in 1981 showed that vitamin D-deficient mice exhibit sluggish white blood cells called macrophages which literally digest roaming viruses and bacteria. When given vitamin D, the macrophages vigorously pursue germs while normalizing inflammation. [Calcified Tissue International 1981; 33: 673–76] Neutrophils that comprise 70% of the white blood cells that rapidly respond to infection also are very sluggish without vitamin D. [Acta Paediatrica Scandinavia. 1976 Nov; 65(6):695–9]

A team of vitamin D researchers now claims this nutrient, made naturally in the skin upon exposure to solar ultraviolet-B radiation, "has profound effects on human immunity and in normalizing the immune response so as not to create inflammation that can fill the lungs with fluid in cases of influenza." [Epidemiology Infection 2006 Dec; 134(6):1129–40] It is no wonder now why the flu comes in winter months when vitamin D levels are low. Vitamin D would also be appropriate among individuals with pre-existing respiratory problems like chronic asthma and bronchitis. [Current Allergy Asthma Reports 2009 Jan; 9(1):81–7]

Unfortunately, the combination of outdated guidelines for vitamin D dosage in fortified foods and dietary supplements combined with misdirected advice to avoid sun exposure ensures that most adults and children in North America will exhibit less than optimal blood levels of vitamin D. [Progress Biophysics Molecular Biology 2006 Sep;92(1):26–32] When vitamin D blood levels dropped below 40 nanomole concentration among military personnel in training in Finland, they experienced more days of respiratory infection and absence from duty. [American Journal Clinical Nutrition 2007 Sep; 86(3):714–7] To learn more about vitamin D and the flu, including recommended dosage, visit www.vitamindcouncil.com.

Researchers at Winthrop University in New York did what the National Institutes of Health, with its $30 billion budget, hasn’t done. They conducted a 3-year study of 208 African-American post-menopausal women, with equal numbers being given 800 international units (IU) of vitamin D3 or an inactive placebo tablet daily. In the middle of the study vitamin D supplement was increased to 2000 IU per day. After 3 years there were 34 patients who reported cold and flu symptoms, 26 in the placebo group and only 8 in the vitamin D group (a 425% difference). Infections were almost reduced to zero during the time 2000 IU was being administered daily. [Epidemiology & Infection 2009 Oct; 137(10):1396–404] Of course, this study never made news headlines.

October 7, 2009

Bill Sardi [send him mail] is a frequent writer on health and political topics. His health writings can be found at www.naturalhealthlibrarian.com. He is the author of You Don’t Have To Be Afraid Of Cancer Anymore.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi123.html
 
Old February 9th, 2011 #2
Swede
morsning korsning
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Terra Scania
Posts: 674
Swede
Default

I can recommend Omega 3, it is in fat fish but if you don't eat fish you need it for your heart. If you are a woman it is important to eat Iron, take iron supplement if you are unsure.
 
Old August 5th, 2011 #3
jamespatrick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1
jamespatrick
Thumbs up TFSupplements

Be careful while choosing all your supplements tho, personally suggesting i have been buying all my supplements from TFsupplments, i think they have amazing shipping, ships within 3 days of the time. and prices are nice too!

I ll recommend it to you, and all my friends.

Tho where do you get your supplements from??
 
Old December 4th, 2011 #4
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://rense.com/general95/supps.htm


Supplements The FDA Wants To Ban
12-2-11


Urgent request for your help again since some of you are having trouble signing the petition through yesterday's link. Supplements will not just become terribly expensive but, unless you act now, many will be gone forever.

The FDA has had this regulation on the books for 17 years, now they have figured out a way without any new laws to make most supplements unavailable without millions of dollars of studies per item. This is always in the name of protecting the public whereas the fact is there are VIRTUALLY NO DEATHS FROM SUPPPLEMENT USE. According to the Poison Control Centers, there were zero deaths due to supplements in 2008. In 2009, there was one.

On the other hand, there have been many illnesses and deaths via medicines and drugs that the FDA has approved over the years.

[b]Please go to the bottom of the attached and complain, as enough voices being heard by our representatives might stop the FDA from implementing these onerous regulations.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
<http://www.gordonresearch.com>www.gordonresearch.com

Please find below a special message from Advanced Bionutritionals. They have some very important information to share with you about the latest attempt by the FDA to ban supplements.-/b]

Read the shocking news below.

Sincerely,

Robert J. Rowen, MD

Dear friend,

I know I've sent you a lot of emails about the new FDA rules. Sorry to keep bothering you. But this is a critical issue. The deadline to comment is December 2. That's tomorrow! (actually, that was two days ago!)
Some of our customers have heard back from their Congressmen. That's good. What's not good is that some of them are misinformed.

For example, Senator Mark Warner writes:

"This guidance, when finalized, does not create new regulations or law. According to the FDA, the industry can use an alternative approach if the approach is consistent with the applicable provisions under an existing law, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA)."

True, it doesn't create a new law. Frankly, that would be easier to fight! Instead these new regulations interpret existing law to wipe out 17 years of safety and innovation.

And Senator Maria Cantwell writes:

"In its new guidance the FDA recommends that a manufacturer should include information explaining the composition of the ingredient, why the ingredient is considered new, recommended usage by consumers, and why the ingredient is considered safe."

Senator Cantwell glosses over what kind of proof the FDA will require to consider a "new" ingredient safe. I put "new" in quotes because these nutrients really aren't new. They come from nature.

But under these proposed guidelines, the FDA will consider any ingredient "new" if a different extraction process is used, if a different "life stage" (like ripe instead of unripe) is used, or even if a supplement uses more of an ingredient than was used 17 years ago.
Bear in mind, that people have been safely taking these ingredients for years - even decades!

Not too long ago, the FDA even called raw walnuts a drug!

Yet the FDA will require companies to conduct prohibitively expensive studies on every ingredient in a product and on every product a company sells.

It is true that the DSHEA of 1994 directed the FDA to define "New Dietary Ingredients." But the FDA did nothing for 17 years. In that time, hundreds - even thousands - of "new" ingredients have been introduced.

Now the FDA wants to ignore nearly two decades of innovation and turn back the clock. Dr. Robert Rowen made a good comparison. What if someone from the government came along and replaced your current computer with a model from 1994? Or swapped your smart phone for a clunky early model cell phone? That's what the FDA wants to do.
This is not hysteria. This is not a mis-reading of the FDA's proposed guidelines. This information comes directly from the FDA's own website.

If enacted, these rules will enable the FDA to ban many of the supplements you are now taking.

Think I'm exaggerating? Then please listen to the full story ...

Back in the early 1990s, the FDA tried to make many supplements illegal. Consumers were so alarmed by the FDA's bullying that they staged a massive revolt. The result was that Congress passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). That law protected supplements from the FDA unless the FDA could prove a supplement wasn't safe.
There was, however, a loophole in the 1994 law. The FDA was given the authority to regulate new ingredients introduced after October 15, 1994.

So what happened? Nothing at first. For 17 years, the FDA took no action, gave no guidance, and launched no enforcement of these "New Dietary Ingredients."

And that's been a good thing. Because for 17 years, the dietary supplement industry has enjoyed tremendous innovation.

These innovations have allowed us to extract and concentrate the most effective natural ingredients. As a result, millions of consumers have benefitted. They've protected their hearts and arteries ... found relief from their joint pain ... boosted their memory ... and more.

And during this time, supplements have enjoyed a remarkable safety record. Statistics show that supplements are safer than prescription drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and even food!

According to the Poison Control Centers, there were zero deaths due to supplements in 2008. In 2009, there was one.

Meanwhile, pathogens like e. coli in food kill at least 2,000 people each year. Acetaminophen in drugs like Tylenol kills 450 people every year. And more powerful prescription drugs kill many more. Even the FDA now says Vioxx likely killed over 26,000 people before they finally took it off the market!

So, who is the one endangering us, fellow Aryans?

Supplements the FDA Wants to Ban

But now the FDA wants to act like the last 17 years never happened. The agency has drafted a proposal to regulate what it calls New Dietary Ingredients. If this proposal is implemented, some of the most effective nutrients you take will be pulled from the market. Nutrients like resveratrol ... ubiquinol CoQ10 ... bacopa ... strontium ... and more.
But that's not all. Under these guidelines, the FDA can define almost anything as a "new" dietary ingredient. For example:

· If a supplement includes more of an ingredient than was used 17 years ago - even something like vitamin C - it's "new."

· If an ingredient uses a different extraction process - like baking or fermentation - it's "new."

· If a supplement uses an ingredient at a different "life stage" - such as using ripe rather than non-ripe apples - it's "new."

· If a supplement duplicates an ingredient in a laboratory rather than extracting it from the food - even though it's chemically identical - it's "new."

· And if a probiotic formula includes a strain of bacteria that wasn't found in yogurt 17 years ago, it's "new."

So what would happen to all these "new" ingredients? The manufacturers would have to take them off the market until they could prove the ingredients are safe - even if those ingredients have been safely used for 17 years!

Why It's Nearly Impossible to Comply

What kind of proof is the FDA demanding? According to the guidelines, many companies would have to conduct animal studies using a dosage that's 1,000 times the typical dose.

I'm not kidding you. It's right there in black and white on the FDA's website. The FDA wants vitamin makers to do studies for a full year, at 1,000 times the typical dose.

So, a fish-oil manufacturer would have to conduct a one-year study where animals are force-fed the human equivalent of 240,000 milligrams of fish oil each and every day! This outlandish dose would injure the animals and give the FDA an excuse to outlaw the product.

It's all in a jews' "work."

But wait, it gets even better. If one fish-oil manufacturer performs such a study and it passes, it doesn't mean the other fish-oil makers can use the same data. No sir. They are still required to go out and do their own studies before they're allowed to sell their product.

And these studies are very expensive. A study like the one above typically costs about $100,000-$200,000 to perform.

Multiply that by several ingredients in several products, and you get an idea of the cost.

Say a company carries 6 products containing 6 ingredients each. It would cost between $3.6 and $7.2 million in studies before that company could even offer the products for sale. For a larger company offering 50 products or more, the costs would be astronomical.
Few supplement makers will be able to afford these studies, and many will be put out of business. And the ones that remain would still be at the mercy of the FDA's whim. That's because there are no requirements for the FDA to approve anything. They can approve or reject anything they want. And in the past, they have rejected the majority of ingredients submitted to them.

That means most of the nutrients you buy today will be pulled from the market and never return. Those that do return will be a lot more expensive - or may only be available as prescription drugs!


A Blatant Abuse of Power
This is a blatant abuse of power. What the FDA is doing here is performing an end-run around the existing law. According to the law, the FDA has to prove a dietary supplement is unsafe for it to be taken off the market. These new guidelines turn that on its head. They are clearly not what Congress intended.

[b]Fortunately, these FDA guidelines have not yet been finalized. All federal agencies are required to give the public an opportunity to comment on a draft before it is made final. In this case, the FDA has given interested parties until December 1st (three days ago!) to comment on the draft. That means there's a small window of opportunity for you to voice your disapproval.

Frankly, I wouldn't bother commenting to the FDA. The process is cumbersome, and those unelected bureaucrats don't care what you think anyway.

What You Can Do
The best way to defeat these new rules is to talk to the people you do elect - your congressman and your two U.S. senators. They have the power to rein in the FDA - and they have done so in the past when enough voters complained.

Back in the 1970s, the FDA tried to require "warning labels" on vitamins. Angry voters called and wrote letters, and Congress responded with the Proxmire Amendments which limited the FDA's power.

Then in the 1990s, the FDA went on the warpath again. When voters complained, Congress passed the Dietary Health Supplement Education Act, which once again limited the FDA's power.

But like a monster killed in a horror movie, the FDA keeps coming back. And so once again, it's time for us to step up and call the folks who rely on our votes.

Here's what you need to do:

Go to <http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml>http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml and look up the phone numbers of your U.S. Senators and your Representative (congressman). Then give them a call.

Don't be shy and don't worry. No one is going to bite you, no one is going to argue with you, and no one is going to quiz you to see how well you know the issues. The job of the staffers who answer is to listen politely and to relay what you say to their boss. So please do call. And please be polite and respectful of the staffers' time.

Here are some talking points to use when you call:

· Hello, my name is [name] and I am a constituent of [name of Senator or Representative].

· I am very concerned about the new FDA draft guidance on dietary supplements and new dietary ingredients.

· [Feel free to tell them about the supplements you take and/or the benefits you get from those supplements. Then feel free to make as many of the following points as you like:]

1. Supplements have an unrivaled safety record. Statistics show they're safer than drugs, safer than medical devices, safer than cosmetics, and even safer than food.

2. The FDA cannot define New Dietary Ingredients so broadly. According to these guidelines, almost everything is a New Dietary Ingredient. This will strangle innovation and deprive consumers of the supplements they depend on for their health.

3. The FDA did nothing about new dietary ingredients for 17 years. Now they want to wipe out 17 years' worth of innovation and 17 years' worth of benefits to the consumer.

4. When the Dietary Health Supplement Education Act was passed, Congress intended a simple notification process for new dietary ingredients. The FDA is turning this into a pre-approval scheme, which goes against the intent of the law.

5. The FDA already has ample regulatory authority to take action against a product if it's unsafe. They don't need to have this pre-approval power, too.

6. These could be disastrous to public health. At a time when preventative measures are even more important to health care costs, the FDA is limiting access to preventative health care.

7. The cost of complying with these guidelines would be astronomical. Experts estimate that the studies required would cost between $100,000 and $200,000 per ingredient notification. That adds up to millions of dollars per supplement company. Smaller companies would not be able to afford this and would go out of business.

The economy is already hurting (thanks to the jews) and we have high unemployment. Experts estimate that this could cost the economy tens of billions of dollars and result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

8. The government's resources are already stretched. We have record budget deficits and record debt. Why enact more regulations when there are no safety issues here?

· I request that Congress direct the FDA to carefully review their draft guidance. If they do not amend the guidance to reflect my concerns, I request that Congress call hearings at the end of the review process. I also call on Congress to write legislation that would "grandfather" all supplements currently on the market.

· Thank you for your time.

After the phone call, send a letter to your senators and reps, making the same points. Make sure the letter is in your own words (form letters tend not to work as well). You can find the e-mail and physical addresses at the same website, <http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml>http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml.

Then send the same letter to HNIC Obongo. (His address and phone number are on the website, too.)

Please, please, please don't make the mistake of thinking that the FDA won't take your supplements away. Similar regulations were passed in other countries such as those in Europe, and the result was disastrous! Many supplements were taken off the market forever. In some instances, the entire supplement industry was decimated or destroyed. Don't let that happen here.

Take action now! You only have a small window of opportunity to make your voice heard. Get started by going to <http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml>http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml.

Sincerely,

Garret W. Wood
President

Access the FACT website: http://promed.gordonresearch.com/factforum/welcome.html
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old December 4th, 2011 #5
Swede
morsning korsning
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Terra Scania
Posts: 674
Swede
Default

I can recommend Iherb.com to buy vitamins. Great prices.

To ensure you get all vitamins and nutrients, buy a multivitamin/omega 3.
 
Old December 4th, 2011 #6
procopius
Senior Member
 
procopius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,611
procopius
Default

I rarely ever get sick and I've never gotten a flu shot in my life. I just drink some orange juice when ever I feel threatened by a cold or if I am feeling funny. Some people are different, some just catch illnesses easier then others, I guess I'm just lucky.
 
Old October 2nd, 2017 #7
ruzle123
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2
ruzle123
Default

Hello!

I am suffered from fever last week but I recover from it but since I have weakness so can anyone suggest me which supplements are helpful for me.
 
Old October 5th, 2017 #8
ruzle123
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 2
ruzle123
Default

Hello!

As I say I need some health supplement but I need them in my area.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 AM.
Page generated in 0.12269 seconds.