Search This Blog

8 August 2008

Conventional Infertility Treatments "Useless" Even As Fertility Rates Plummet for Mainstream Toxic Consumers

Research on conventional infertility treatments that monitored the results of 580 couples found such treatments to have absolutely no benefit. Conducted in Scotland, the research involved five hospitals providing artificial insemination and the prescription drug clomid -- a drug commonly used for treating infertility in the United States, Canada and other western nations.

The research reveals that couples attempting to conceive naturally experienced a 17% success rate (becoming pregnant and giving birth to a healthy baby) while those on the clomid drug actually had a lower rate of success: 14%. Even worse, from 10 to 20 percent of women on the drug experienced side effects that included abdominal pain, bloating, nausea and headaches.

Modern infertility treatments are "quackery"
What this research reveals is that two of the most common treatments used by conventional medicine to treat infertility are mere quackery, based on medical mythology rather than rigorous scientific scrutiny. They continue to be prescribed to patients only because doctors don't like to "do nothing" when patients are asking for solutions, and prescribing a drug or a biological intervention is often seen as reassuring to patients who have been brainwashed into thinking infertility is a medical problem rather than a nutrition and health problem.

While conventional doctors deride the advice of midwives who recommend "unproven" natural remedies, it turns out their own infertility treatments offer absolutely no fertility benefits whatsoever to their patients. And yet patients are often paying tens of thousands of dollars for these very treatments that don't work!

Much of modern medicine, it turns out, is based on quackery. In just the last year, rigorous scientific assessment of clinical trials has revealed the following:

• Antidepressant drugs work no better than placebo.
• Cholesterol drugs work no better than herbs like red yeast rice.
• Artificially lowering your cholesterol produces no health benefits.
• Chemotherapy is pure quackery and offers no benefits for over 99% of cancer patients.

In fact, finding a conventional medical procedure that actually works to reverse a degenerative health condition seems virtually impossible. No conventional oncologist, for example, has ever produced a cancer patient who has been cured of cancer. Yet people are cured of cancer every day in the world of naturopathic medicine; often by simply boosting their vitamin D intake and drinking nutrient-rich vegetable juices on a daily basis (broccoli, cabbage and other greens).

Why infertility is now so high
Over 33% of couples now experience infertility for no explainable reason. Fertility doctors remain mystified, and amazingly, almost nobody in conventional medicine has yet figured out that fertility is linked to diet and exposure to toxic chemicals.

While couples are chowing down junk foods, taking prescription medications and turning their bodies into toxic chemical waste dumps, fertility doctors scratch their heads and wonder... "Gee... What could be causing this fertility problem?" The only thing they can offer is more chemicals, of course!

Meanwhile, the rampant abuse of toxic chemicals in personal care products, household cleaners, food additives and pharmaceuticals is causing trans-generational DNA damage that I have already publicly predicted will cause a large portion of the western population to collectively win the Darwin Award by removing their genes from the gene pool.

Join the crowd: Win the Darwin Award!
Consumers who contaminate their bodies with hundreds of different toxic chemicals, you see, are causing DNA damage that is not merely genetic, but epigenetic, meaning it passes on the expression of the DNA to the next generation. While this idea remains blasphemous in conventional medicine, it is become apparent to those scientists who are paying attention (like Dr. Bruce Lipton, author of The Biology of Belief) who explain how gene expression is now carried from one generation to the next, and exposure to toxic chemicals causes trans-generational genetic damage.

Extrapolate this out a few generations and you get massive infertility for mainstream consumers. Basically, anybody who isn't really, really green is going to find themselves at a genetic dead end. Unable to reproduce, their own genes will depart the gene pool of the human race, leaving the future of human civilization to those who actually care about green living and natural health.

And that's a very good thing for the future of human civilization. It's a natural pruning process that eliminates all the idiots and leaves the future of human life on Earth only to those who are best adapted to protecting it: The green living folks, hippies and natural health followers. It's natural selection in full force!

Mark my words: Today's 33% infertility rate is just the beginning. A wave of massive infertility is about to sweep the human race over the next 2-3 generations, and we could see infertility rates top 90% in just the next fifty years.

You might call it a self-balancing population control mechanism: When humans get too numerous and start poisoning the planet with all their chemicals, the result is widespread infertility that causes a relatively rapid collapse in global population. Reducing the population to 10% of its current size, in turn, eases the chemical contamination on the planet, resulting in a return of fertility. Nature has an interesting way of achieving homeostasis, and doing it through infertility doesn't require a sudden wipeout of those already living; it only requires a dramatic drop in reproduction.

Or, to put it in blunt terms, the "Feeders and Breeders" are about to stop breeding.

What does all this mean to you? It's really quite simple: If you want to make babies, eat a largely plant-based diet and avoid exposure to toxic chemicals. Go green! Live naturally.

If, on the other hand, you want to join all the other billions of humans who are about to win the collective Darwin Award, keep taking pharmaceuticals, eating junk food and sloshing toxic personal care products on your skin every day. You will quickly find that your family tree has been pruned back to a twig, which is probably exactly where it should be if you're toxic to the planet in the first place.

Mainstream consumerism is the best birth control
Realizing all this has completely changed my view of the world. You see, previously, when I would go shopping and see people buying toxic products, I would get frustrated and try to educate them to not poison themselves. I soon learned this was a complete waste of time (never try to teach an idiot about health; you only waste your time and annoy the idiot!).

But now when I see people doing that, I understand the bigger picture: These are people who are choosing to remove their genes from the gene pool! Not right away, of course, but in a couple of generations (which is pretty fast in terms of the history of life on Earth). In effect, they are unwittingly applying the laws of natural selection to themselves! They deserve an award or something...

Oh yeah, they're winning one already: The Darwin Award.

Because, let's face it: The future of life on Earth belongs solely to those who can protect the integrity of their DNA.

And mainstream consumers are utterly failing to do that. Do you think mammography, chemotherapy and dangerous pharmaceutical chemicals protect your DNA? Nope, they damage your DNA. Every visit to a conventional doctor -- and all his chemical and radiological treatments -- is like a vote for your own genetic obliteration.

But feel free to vote how you'd like. Whether you want your grandchildren to be able to reproduce is entirely up to you. And that's the beauty of this whole system: Each individual is entirely responsible for their own genetic future. From what I can see, though, most people are opting out of a genetic future by leading extremely toxic, polluting lifestyles that damages their own bodies as well as the entire planet.

Their offspring will not be missed. Those of us actually want to protect the future of life on Earth will all be much better off when toxic people stop making babies.

Probiotics Can Help in the Treatment of Hay Fever

With the peak grass pollen season approaching, scientists have revealed that a daily dose of probiotics can change the immune status of people with hay fever. In the first human study of its kind, scientists at the Institute of Food Research found that probiotic bacteria in a daily drink can modify the immune system’s response to grass pollen, a common cause of seasonal hay fever.

But they are not recommending that sufferers rush to the supermarket shelves just yet. The changes found may not have an immediate effect on symptoms.

“This was a pilot study based on small numbers of patients, but we were fascinated to discover a response”, says research leader Professor Claudio Nicoletti. “The probiotic significantly reduced the production of molecules associated with allergy.”

Hay fever is an allergic reaction to pollen or fungal spores, most commonly grass pollen. The immune system mistakes the spores for harmful invaders and produces excessive amounts of the antibody IgE to bind to them and fight them off.

IgE stimulates the release of histamine to flush out the spores, and this irritates the airways making them swell, producing the symptoms of hay fever.

In this study, volunteers with a history of seasonal hay fever drank a daily milk drink with or without live bacteria over 5 months. The study was double-blinded and placebo controlled, so neither the volunteers nor the scientists knew who had been assigned the probiotic drinks. The probiotic drinks contained Lactobacillus casei, a bacterial species that has been widely studied for its health promoting properties.

Blood samples were taken before the grass pollen season, then again when it was at its peak (June), and 4 weeks after the end of season. There were no significant differences in levels of IgE in the blood between the two groups at the start of the study, but IgE levels were lower in the probiotic group both at the peak season and afterwards.

At the same times, levels of the antibody IgG were higher, a type of antibody that in contrast to IgE is thought to play a protective role against allergic reactions.

“The probiotic strain we tested changed the way the body’s immune cells respond to grass pollen, restoring a more balanced immune response”, says Dr. Kamal Ivory, a senior member of the group.

The changes observed may also reduce the severity of symptoms, but clinical symptoms were not measured in this study. That is one aim of further research.

“These are really interesting results”, says Dr. Linda Thomas, head of science at Yakult U.K., who provided the drinks and some of the funding. “We are delighted that independent scientists found evidence of this biological activity. The project was part of ongoing research into the benefits of our probiotic strain. The Institute of Food Research is well positioned to do this kind of fundamental research, as it is unique in having the right combination of expertise in microbiology, immunology, flow cytometry and human nutrition research.”

Professor Nicoletti’s group intend to perform a similar study in the near future to see if the immunological changes translate into a real reduction in the clinical symptoms of hay fever. They would also like to examine the mechanisms involved.

With more and more research revealing the benefits of probiotics I believe it would be beneficial for anyone suffering from allergies or digestion problems to add them in their diet. Probiotics have also been shown to help people who suffer from food allergies. They are available over-the-counter in capsule form.

Journal reference:

Ivory et al. Oral delivery of Lactobacillus casei Shirota modifies allergen-induced immune responses in allergic rhinitis. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2008; 0 (0): 080528223344047 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2008.03025.x


Institute of Food Research

About the author
Leslee Dru Browning is a 6th generation Medical Herbalist & Nutritionist from the ancestral line of Patty Bartlett Sessions; Pioneer Mid-Wife & Herbalist. Leslee practiced Medical Herbalism and Nutritional Healing for over 25 years and specialized in Cancer Wellness along with Chronic Illness. She now devotes her career to teaching people, through her writing, about Natural Healing from An Herbal Perspective.

Girl Dies After HPV Jab - CDC Blames Birth Control Pills

Some people may remember the article about young Brittany who became paralyzed shortly after receiving the HPV vaccine. However, Brittany is not the only young girl to experience such a problem. A fourteen-year-old girl named Jessica had a similar experience after receiving the vaccine, as reported by a news story in The Nevada Appeal by Jo Rafferty.

According to the article, just eight days after receiving the vaccine, Jessica was hospitalized and diagnosed with Guillain-Barre syndrome. Paralyzed and unable to walk after the vaccine, Jessica (like Brittany) was an active, athletic girl prior to receiving it. The article reports that a family friend named Tondra Vees was told by the family that the girl’s neurologist said that it was the HPV vaccine that had caused her paralysis.

"One Less" Brilliant Mind

Unfortunately, one girl’s experience was much worse. In an article entitled "One Less," in East Bay News by Tom Grant, it is reported that a nineteen-year-old young lady named Brooke Petkevicius collapsed against a wall and later died two weeks after receiving the first dose of the HPV vaccine. She was also an active young woman who was preparing to run in a marathon and was a straight-A student with a long list of accomplishments. However, her autopsy makes absolutely no mention of the Gardasil vaccine; it merely states that she died of a pulmonary embolism or blood clot. Interestingly, the article says that the CDC cites the fact that the girl happened to be taking birth control pills, which increases the risk of blood clots, as the reason for her death.

Talk about "natural selection" in reverse! That’s not to say that it isn’t a tragedy when any young life is taken away needlessly. It most certainly is. However, it is hard not to wonder what such an obviously talented young lady may have accomplished had her life not ended so prematurely. If the CDC really believes that the birth control pills alone were the cause of the girl’s death, one has to ask why young girls aren’t being strongly warned that death is a possible "side effect" of taking birth control pills.

CDC: Girls Dropping Dead Just an Unhappy Coincidence

Perhaps the CDC really believes that it’s just a mere coincidence that this girl died shortly after receiving the HPV vaccine. Did it ever occur to anyone that the problem may have something to do with taking birth control pills in conjunction with receiving the vaccine? Did anyone ever bother asking what brand of birth control pills the girl was using? Did they try to determine when she took the birth control pills in relationship to when she had the vaccine? Intelligent folks can probably think of many, many other questions that need to be addressed.

Shouldn’t the public at least be made aware of all of these people who "coincidentally" drop dead or suffer adverse reactions so shortly after receiving the vaccine? Perhaps the CDC has chosen to adopt a "wait and see" attitude about all of this and will only alter their recommendations if the body count starts to climb. Why isn’t the public demanding more answers about this vaccine? It is hard to comprehend the cavalier attitude of some people about girls dying shortly after receiving the HPV jab. Many times those same people speak out against murderers and criminals being given lethal injections but do not share the same concerns about young girls. What’s wrong with this picture?

In addition to telling Brooke’s sad story, Grant’s article also has numerous other accounts of reactions reported by other girls. In fact, Grant reports that another girl died of a blood clot just three hours after receiving the vaccine. Three hours. Just a coincidence? Really?

Are Computer Geeks More Thorough Than Certain Doctors?

To put it in a different perspective, consider this analogy. Suppose you install a new piece of software on your computer. Three hours after installing the software, the computer crashes. Would it be reasonable to consider the possibility that the new software created or contributed to the problem? Suppose the support tech simply said, "Oh, it must be due to your operating system. Your operating system (fill-in-the-blank with your favorite operating system) is known to crash sometimes. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with that new software you just installed."

Well, truthfully, while the problem may have had something to do with the operating system, any computer scientist worth his salt is going to start asking all sorts of probing questions about the type of software that was recently installed. No self-respecting computer geek would simply say, "Well, we never had any problems with any software before when we conducted beta tests. Therefore, the problem must be your operating system." Of course not. That computer geek is going to try to figure out if there are any incompatibilities between the software that was installed and the operating system of the computer it was installed on and the interactions between any of the other programs.

Young Girls Are Being Used as Lab Rats

Unfortunately, the human body is a whole lot more complex than a computer. If someone drops dead or gets paralyzed after a vaccine, you can’t just do a "restore" as you could with a computer. Just like each individual’s computer has lots of unique pieces of software running on it, every young girl has her own set of unique characteristics and circumstances. Some girls may be taking birth control pills. Some girls may be taking numerous other medications and over-the-counter drugs. Each young girl has many different things that are unique about her. How many of these permutations and combinations have been tested? Nobody wants you to ask that question!

HPV Vaccine Tested in Third World Countries

Nor do they want you to ask where the testing occurred. According to, Merck outsourced trials for the Gardasil vaccine to a company called JayaJan Pharmaceutical Research in India. They report that it is much cheaper to get CROs (Contract Research Organizations) to conduct research in other areas of the world, and regulations in some areas are much more lax. Apparently a Merck spokesperson named Amy Rose refused to specify exactly how many of the trials for the HPV vaccine were conducted by CROs or what Merck’s role was in overseeing these trials. was unable to get her to comment on what percentages of the subjects of the trials were from Third World countries.

There are some obvious concerns about trials that are conducted by CROs. For example, CROs may consider that trials with results that will make the drug companies happy will generate repeat business. Also, if adverse reactions were to occur during a trial, there would likely be much less of a chance of anyone digging into it too deeply if the subjects were all from a foreign country. An excellent, must-see film starring Ralph Fiennes called The Constant Gardener explores the idea of drug trials being conducted in Africa, and it certainly leaves the mind reeling.

Why Do Some Doctors Behave Like Trained Monkeys?

Another major concern is that some doctors don’t seem to want to report the adverse effects of this vaccine. According to a news report, Barbara Loe Fischer, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center, gets calls from parents claiming their doctors won’t report adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine. What’s up with this? Why wouldn’t any reputable doctor want to make sure that any reaction possibly tied to the vaccine is correctly reported? Like trained monkeys, they recommend any new vaccine that the CDC endorses and don’t want to "stir the pot" by reporting the side effects experienced by their patients.

A Cash Cow for Merck

Meanwhile, the ad campaign for Gardasil has been in full force. Merck has been running ads during television shows like the very popular American Idol and Sex in the City, the latest chick flick to hit the theaters. That certainly can’t be cheap, but predicts that if the vaccine becomes routine, it would mean annual sales of 3.2 billion by 2010. But as the money starts pouring in, how many of the shareholders will give a thought to girls like Brittany, Jessica and Brooke?

About the author
Joanne Waldron is a computer scientist with a passion for writing and sharing health-related news and information with others. She runs the Naked Wellness: The Gentle Health Revolution forum, which is devoted to achieving radiant health, well-being, and longevity.

Organic Similac: Formula for Obesity?

Most mothers know that breast milk is best for baby, but there are some people who, perhaps for health reasons, need to find a safe alternative. In many instances, these moms look for an organic infant formula and are willing to pay top dollar to give their babies the best possible nutrition. Sadly, just because an infant formula is given the "organic" label doesn't necessarily mean that it is healthy.

For example, a recent article in The New York Times revealed that the organic version of Similac infant formula is sweetened with cane sugar (sucrose) and is much sweeter than other infant formulas. While all infant formulas have some added sugars to aid in the digestion of proteins, other organic products use sugars like organic lactose, which is presumably a better match for what's found in breast milk and doesn't have the sweetness of sucrose. Most health-conscious readers are probably shaking their heads and thinking that it is nothing short of insanity to be adding sugar to baby formula when the U.S. is in the middle of an obesity epidemic. Were pediatricians actually consulted about what was put into this formula? Or was the product designed primarily by food chemists like the ones that create fast food strawberry milkshakes?

According to a list of frequently asked questions on the FDA website, the FDA currently does not approve infant formula before it can be marketed. The FDA does require that infant formula contain minimum amounts of certain nutrients, and it does provide upper limits for some nutrients. Certain nutrients that are required to be included in any infant formula are protein, fat, linoleic acid, vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, thiamin (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B2), vitamin B6, vitamin B12, niacin, folic acid, pantothenic acid, vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc, manganese, copper, iodine, sodium, potassium and chloride. If cow's milk is not used for the formula, then biotin, choline and inositol must be included.

Any substance that is generally recognized as safe may be used in infant formula in the United States. For now, that means that sugar can be used in baby formula in the U.S., and there is absolutely no upper limit to the amount of sugar that can be dumped into it. Europe, on the other hand, in light of the childhood obesity epidemic, has banned all sucrose from baby formula products beginning in 2009.

According to the The New York Times article, Dr. Benjamin Caballero, director of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, doesn't think sucrose belongs in infant formula, either. Dr. Caballero believes that feeding children sweet things encourages them to eat more. He explains that babies and children generally prefer sweeter foods and will eat more of them than foods that aren't as sweet.

While having babies eat more might be of interest to food corporations, parents need to be concerned with the health of their children. Concerns about obesity aren't the only problem with putting sugar in baby formula. If a baby's teeth are constantly exposed to sugar, this could result in tooth decay.

Clearly, finding a safe infant formula is a daunting task. According to The Breastfeeding Task Force of Greater Los Angeles, there are many risks associated with using infant formula instead of breast milk. For example, formula feeding is responsible for up to 26% of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in children. Middle-ear infections are three to four times more common in children who are fed infant formula, and children who are fed infant formula are also much more likely to be hospitalized due to bacterial infections. In addition to the health risks, some studies have shown that formula-fed babies don't do as well on intelligence tests as breast-fed babies.

Moreover, sugar isn't the only undesirable thing turning up in infant formula. An NPR report indicates that certain formulas enhanced with omega-3 fatty acids may actually pose a health risk. Other reports warn about Bisphenol-A turning up in infant formulations. What is a new mother to do?

Maybe new moms should take a lesson from the animal kingdom. What other mammals feed their babies the milk of other creatures? Do dogs try to feed their puppies cat milk? Of course not. Even small children know that cat milk is for kittens, just like cow's milk is for baby cows. Perhaps the perfect formula for a baby just isn't something that can be found in a can.

About the author
Joanne Waldron is a computer scientist with a passion for writing and sharing health-related news and information with others. She runs the Naked Wellness: The Gentle Health Revolution forum, which is devoted to achieving radiant health, well-being, and longevity.