Article by Brooke Scheller: The Crazy Side Effect Of Getting Tattoos That No One Knows About

Another article about the dangers with tattoos – posted 11 October 2016, by Brooke Scheller

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-26866/the-crazy-side-effect-of-getting-tattoos-that-no-one-knows-about.html

You’re almost never in a room with someone who doesn’t have a tattoo …

Having tattoos has become more common than being bare-skinned. I myself have several tattoos including a three-quarter sleeve on my left arm. I got my first tattoo when I turned 18 and really only stopped a few years ago. So, why did I stop when getting tattoos is so fun?

My wake-up call:

After becoming trained in functional medicine, a means of seeking the root cause of a client’s symptoms or chronic conditions through extensive analysis, I decided to get a full workup done. This included a stool analysis and routine blood work to learn more about my health. I wasn’t expecting to see anything alarming, but when I received the results of my blood tests, I cried. I thought I was living a healthy lifestyle, but my blood work revealed liver enzymes that were that of someone in liver failure. I was terrified.

What scared me even more was that generally I felt pretty good. Aside from having some moderate hiving on my skin (not just in the areas of my tattoos) and a history of anxiety, I had never had any major health concerns.

Heavy metal — in my liver:

When uncovering more details through a hair analysis for heavy metals, we found that my body’s toxic load was through the roof. Because I had written off toxic personal products and processed foods years ago, I decided to stop getting tattoos and go through a heavy-duty detox process. This included swearing off alcohol, using herbal chelation, and incorporating liver support herbs like milk thistle and dandelion to support removal of the heavy metals in my system. My liver enzymes returned to normal after only a few months.

In the following months and years, in my practice we saw many others who, like me, shared an extremely overburdened liver in correlation to their number of tattoos. Unfortunately metals like mercury, iron, arsenic, lead, and cadmium help to give tattoo ink its color and permanency factor. Carbon black and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a sootlike product and a known pollutant, are often the main ingredients in black ink.

Toxic tattoos—what to avoid:

Exposure to these metals and toxins can place an extreme burden on the liver and the other detox organs. Studies show that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been found stored in the lymph nodes of tattooed people causing them to actually turn black. Many of the heavy metals, like lead and mercury, are also considered to be neurotoxins that can affect cognitive function and cause brain fog, fatigue, and many other symptoms. While the damage of these toxins individually to our health is well-studied, the research on the long-term effects of tattoos is still in its infancy.

If you choose to get tattoos, speak to your tattoo artist about the safest, most nontoxic products available. Some color inks use vegetable-based pigment from spices like turmeric instead of a high dose of heavy metal. While these products do exist, your artist may have to special-order them.

If you suspect that you’ve been exposed to high levels of toxins or heavy metals, seek the professional help of a functional medicine practitioner to help you safely detox. Our skin is our body’s largest organ. Just like clean eating, what we put on our skin is equally important. It goes straight to our bloodstream and throughout our entire body — it’s easy to block or forget about this, but it’ll affect your health just as much as what you eat.

Related reads:

Advertisements

Article by Camila Domonoske: 50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

I have posted a lot about sugar, here’s another article about that theme, from Camila Domonoske, posted 13 Sept 2016 at npr.org

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists To Point Blame At Fat

In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation wanted to “refute” concerns about sugar’s possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.

The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease.

The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.

“It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did, because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” co-author Stanton Glantz told The New York Times.

Money on the line

In the article, published Monday, authors Glantz, Cristin Kearns and Laura Schmidt aren’t trying make the case for a link between sugar and coronary heart disease. Their interest is in the process. They say the documents reveal the sugar industry attempting to influence scientific inquiry and debate.

The researchers note that they worked under some limitations — “We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died,” they write. Other organizations were also advocating concerns about fat, they note.

There’s no evidence that the SRF directly edited the manuscript published by the Harvard scientists in 1967, but there is “circumstantial” evidence that the interests of the sugar lobby shaped the conclusions of the review, the researchers say.

For one thing, there’s motivation and intent. In 1954, the researchers note, the president of the SRF gave a speech describing a great business opportunity.

If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet — for the sake of their health — they would need to replace that fat with something else. America’s per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third.

But in the ’60s, the SRF became aware of “flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates,” as John Hickson, SRF vice president and director of research, put it in one document.

He recommended that the industry fund its own studies — “Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors.”

The next year, after several scientific articles were published suggesting a link between sucrose and coronary heart disease, the SRF approved the literature-review project. It wound up paying approximately $50,000 in today’s dollars for the research.

One of the researchers was the chairman of Harvard’s Public Health Nutrition Department — and an ad hoc member of SRF’s board.

“A different standard” for different studies

Glantz, Kearns and Schmidt say many of the articles examined in the review were hand-selected by SRF, and it was implied that the sugar industry would expect them to be critiqued.

In a letter, SRF’s Hickson said that the organization’s “particular interest” was in evaluating studies focused on “carbohydrates in the form of sucrose.”

“We are well aware,” one of the scientists replied, “and will cover this as well as we can.”

The project wound up taking longer than expected, because more and more studies were being released that suggested sugar might be linked to coronary heart disease. But it was finally published in 1967.

Hickson was certainly happy with the result: “Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print,” he told one of the scientists.

The review minimized the significance of research that suggested sugar could play a role in coronary heart disease. In some cases the scientists alleged investigator incompetence or flawed methodology.

“It is always appropriate to question the validity of individual studies,” Kearns told Bloomberg via email. But, she says, “the authors applied a different standard” to different studies — looking very critically at research that implicated sugar, and ignoring problems with studies that found dangers in fat.

Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life.

One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible.

Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because “such diets are rarely consumed by man.”

The Harvard researchers then turned to studies that examined risks of fat — which included the same kind of epidemiological studies they had dismissed when it came to sugar.

Citing “few study characteristics and no quantitative results,” as Kearns, Glantz and Schmidt put it, they concluded that cutting out fat was “no doubt” the best dietary intervention to prevent coronary heart disease.

Sugar lobby: “Transparency standards were not the norm”

In a statement, the Sugar Association — which evolved out of the SRF — said it is challenging to comment on events from so long ago.

“We acknowledge that the Sugar Research Foundation should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities, however, when the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today,” the association said.

“Generally speaking, it is not only unfortunate but a disservice that industry-funded research is branded as tainted,” the statement continues. “What is often missing from the dialogue is that industry-funded research has been informative in addressing key issues.”

The documents in question are five decades old, but the larger issue is of the moment, as Marion Nestle notes in a commentary in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine:

“Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues. In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola’s cozy relationships with sponsored researcherswho were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not.”

As for the article authors who dug into the documents around this funding, they offer two suggestions for the future.

“Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies,” they write.

They also call for new research into any ties between added sugars and coronary heart disease.

Article about Monsanto – how they wrote some of their own safety reviews

Here’s another reason why to stay away as far as possible from anything related to Monsanto… article posted 9 Aug 2017

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews

Monsanto Was Its Own Ghostwriter for Some Safety Reviews

Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.

Monsanto Co. started an agricultural revolution with its “Roundup Ready” seeds, genetically modified to resist the effects of its blockbuster herbicide called Roundup. That ability to kill weeds while leaving desirable crops intact helped the company turn Roundup’s active ingredient, the chemical glyphosate, into one of the world’s most-used crop chemicals. When that heavy use raised health concerns, Monsanto noted that the herbicide’s safety had repeatedly been vetted by outsiders. But now there’s new evidence that Monsanto’s claims of rigorous scientific review are suspect.

Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. That finding by the cancer-research arm of the World Health Organization led California last month to list glyphosate as a known human carcinogen. It has also spurred more than 1,000 lawsuits in state and federal courts by plaintiffs who claim they contracted non-Hodgkin lymphoma from Roundup exposure.

Monsanto disclosed that it paid Intertek Group Plc’s consulting unit to develop the review supplement, entitled “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate.” But that was the extent of Monsanto’s involvement, the main article said. “The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company,” according to the review’s Declaration of Interest statement. “Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

Monsanto’s internal emails tell a different story. The correspondence shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.

“An extensive revision of the summary article is necessary,” wrote that panelist, John Acquavella, an epidemiologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, in a February 2016 email attached to his suggested edits of the draft. Alarmed, Ashley Roberts, the coordinator of the glyphosate papers for Intertek, forwarded Acquavella’s note and edits to Heydens at Monsanto, with the warning: “Please take a look at the latest from the epi(demiology) group!!!!”

Heydens reedited Acquavella’s edits, arguing in six different notes in the draft’s margin that statements Acquavella had found inflammatory were not and should not be changed, despite the author’s requests. In the published article, Heydens’s edits prevailed. In an interview, Acquavella says that he was satisfied with the review’s final tone. According to an invoice he sent Monsanto, he billed the company $20,700 for a single month’s work on the review, which took nearly a year to complete.

Monsanto defends the review’s independence. Monsanto did only “cosmetic editing” of the Intertek papers and nothing “substantive” to alter panelists’ conclusions, says Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president for global strategy. While the “choice of words” in the Declaration of Interest “was not ideal,” he says, “it didn’t change the science.”

In July 2016, the journal’s editor, Roger McClellan, emailed his final instructions to Roberts at Intertek on what the paper’s Acknowledgment and Declaration of Interest statements should include. “I want them to be as clear and transparent as possible,” he wrote. “At the end of the day I want the most aggressive critics of Monsanto, your organization and each of the authors to read them and say—Damn, they covered all the points we intended to raise.”

Specifically, McClellan told Roberts to make clear how the panelists were hired—“ie by Intertek,” McClellan wrote. “If you can say without consultation with Monsanto, that would be great. If there was any review of the reports by Monsanto or their legal representatives, that needs to be disclosed.”

Roberts forwarded McClellan’s emails, along with a more technical question, to Heydens, who responded, “Good grief.” The Declaration of Interest statement was rewritten per McClellan’s instructions, despite being untrue. There was no mention of the company’s participation in the editing.

Monsanto’s editorial involvement appears “in direct opposition to their disclosure,” says Genna Reed, a science and policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. “It does seem pretty suspicious.”

In response to questions, McClellan wrote in an email on Aug. 7 that he’d been unaware of the Monsanto documents and has forwarded the matter to the journal’s publisher, Taylor & Francis, in Abingdon, England. “These are serious accusations relative to scientific publishing canons and deserve very careful investigation,” he wrote. “I can assure you that Taylor and Francis, as the publisher, and I, as the Scientific Editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology, will carefully investigate the matter and take appropriate action.” A Taylor & Francis spokeswoman says it has begun an investigation.

The Monsanto documents, more than 70 in all, were obtained through pretrial discovery and posted online by some of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who claim Monsanto missed a 30-day window to object to their release. Monsanto says it was blindsided by the disclosures and has asked U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria in San Francisco to order the documents pulled from the web and to punish the attorneys for violating confidentiality orders. Says Monsanto’s Partridge: “It’s unfortunate these lawyers are grandstanding at the expense of their clients’ interests.”

Other emails show that Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, Donna Farmer, was removed as a co-author of a 2011 study on glyphosate’s reproductive effects, but not before she made substantial changes and additions to the paper behind the scenes. The study, published in Taylor & Francis’s Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, served to counter findings that glyphosate hampers human reproduction and development. Partridge says Farmer’s contributions didn’t warrant authorship credit. While almost all of her revisions made it into the published paper, her name doesn’t even show up in the acknowledgments.

BOTTOM LINE – Monsanto has long noted that independent scientists have vouched for the safety of its Roundup herbicide. Court data show its employees edited some of those reviews.

Information om Börje Peratts filmer om Erik Enby + en artikel

“Behandlingen” av Erik Enby är verkligen en skandal utan dess like – har du chansen att se filmen om Erik som Börje Peratt har gjort, så se till att ta chansen. Filmen kommer att visas i Malmö 24 september, här är mer information om det:
https://www.facebook.com/erikenbyfilm/

Börje är också på gång att filma en uppföljare, Justitiemordet, här är information om det:
https://www.facebook.com/filmproducenten/

Och här är en artikel som är skriven av Erik Enby (om jag har förstått det rätt)

http://newsvoice.se/2017/08/28/erik-enby-cancerpatienter/

Dr Erik Enby: Tillåtet behandla cancerpatienter men inte cancersjukdomen med alternativ

postad 28 aug 2017

DEBATT. Folk har varit sjuka i alla tider och de har prövat allt som kan tänkas hämma olika sjukdomsförlopp. Det som fungerar har ackumulerats som alternativa metoder över hela världen vid sidan av den konventionella etablerade medicinens sätt att påverka sjukdomsprocesserna. Det menar dr Erik Enby som hjälpt många patienter till hälsa när den svenska vården misslyckats.

Text: Erik Enby

Jag har studerat alternativen så gott jag har kunnat och orkat och nu när jag är 80 år kan jag se tillbaka på en 40-årsperiod som läkare och terapeut, då jag mycket ofta har hjälpt kroniskt sjuka med icke gängse terapier.

Jag har kommit fram till att det finns ett flertal mycket bra terapier vid sidan av de medicinska i det så kallade alternativet. En sådan var THX-behandlingen som lanserades av veterinärmedicinske doktorn Elis Sandberg som jag kände. Han lär ha fått 360,000 patientbesök genom att använda detta enda medel som han själv var upphovsmannen till. Vem gör om det?

Jag har alltså kommit fram till att det finns riktigt bra terapier ”vid sidan om”. Det gäller bara att känna till dem. Det är dock svårt att erhålla gedigen information om dessa.

En förklaring kan vara att de som ”vet” inte så gärna släpper ifrån sig denna kunskap, ty sådana ”bra” behandlingar finns för det mesta bara att få på dyra behandlingshem – för dollarmiljonärer.

En annan förklaring kan vara att det inte lönar sig att hjälpa sjuka, ty de är ju oftast i hög ålder och om Svensson och Pettersson lever 10 år extra med sina åkommor blir ju detta en dålig affär för samhället.


De rika kan betala för sin egen överlevnad och har man pengar så finns det vissa möjligheter att erhålla bra terapier. Sådana finns inte att få på Sahlgrenska sjukhuset eller KI.


Samtidigt meddelar myndigheterna att man bluffar och lurar de sjuka på de dyra behandlingshemmen på Bahamas och övriga ställen i de varmare länderna dit miljonärerna åker. Till det kallare Sverige kommer de inte så gärna.

Märk att man inte säger ett enda ord om all mikrobiologisk aktivitet som finns i olika former av tumörsubstanser. Denna hämmar man så vitt jag har förstått inte med en enda av canceretablissemangets behandlingar.


När man vet att olika former av cancersubstans är full av mikrobiologisk aktivitet har man rätt att förmoda att denna aktivitet är själva sjukdomen. Om urinvägsbesvär eller halsinfektioner har att göra med mikrobiologisk växt – infektioner – kan det ju vara så med cancersjukdomen också, men man tiger om detta.


Man håller istället fast vid den gamla teorin där man menar att cancer i sig är orsakad av en kromosomförändring, vilket genererar cancerceller och att den eller de svampinfektioner som förekommer i sjuka vävnadsområden och kroppsvätskan vid maligna kroniska åkommor är ett sekundärfenomen.

Tillåtet att behandla cancerpatienter med alternativ

Jag behandlar infektionsväxten i cancerpatientens sjuka vävnadsområde och kroppsvätska med infektionshämmande icke gängse substanser och får därvid ofta gynnsamma behandlingsresultat. 

Det gör jag utan att ha en läkarlegitimation. Varför får jag fortsätta? Jag får ju inte behandla cancerpatienter. Jo, jag får behandla cancerpatienter, men inte cancersjukdomen. Det gör jag inte heller enligt canceretablissemanget, ty jag riktar min behandling mot den mikrobiologiska växten i cancersubstans och kroppsvätska som betraktas som ett sekundärfenomen till cancersjukdomen enligt canceretablissemanget.

Därför får jag fortsätta att behandla och canceretablissemanget kan i lugn och ro hålla fast vid sina gamla mer och mer ifrågasatta förklaringar av de sjukdomsprocesser som orsakar de oroande sjukdomsbilder som tyder på att malign sjukdom är på gång samtidigt som man inte behöver fundera över sjukdomens djupaste natur, SOM ÄR EN INFEKTION.

Kroniska sjukdomar beror på mikrobiologisk växt

Man kan resonera i samma banor när det gäller vilken sjukdom som helst. Kromosomförändring orsakar urinvägsbesvär och därefter kommer den mikrobiologiska växten till urinvägarna som ett sekundärfenomen. Tillämpa gärna resonemanget på hela infektionssjukdomspanoramat.


Ibland inser man att man skall eliminera infektionen – den mikrobiologiska växten – med antibiotika – och då blir patienten ofta märkbart förbättrad. Detta gäller ju även syfilis och gonorré.


Man kanske skulle försöka eliminera den mikrobiologiska växten i vävnader och kroppsvätska vid olika former av maligna sjukdomar och även andra kroniska sjukdomstillstånd. Det är mycket märkligt att man inte ägnar någon forskningskraft åt sådant alldenstund det inte kan vara möjligt att det makthavande medicinska etablissemanget är helt ovetande om ovanstående.

Är man helt fast i att försvara allt förslaget elittänkande kring de maligna sjukdomarna för att undvika den enorma katastrof som det skulle innebära för canceretablissemanget och läkemedelsindustrin om det skulle bli känt att det finns ”cancermikrober” och att all kronisk sjukdom (biologiskt, zoologiskt) har med nedbrytning av organisk substans orsakad av olika former av mikrobiologisk växt att göra?

Text: Erik Enby

Erik Enby (1937-) är en svensk medicine licentiat och specialist inom geriatric som har uppmärksammats för hans studier som beskriver mikrobers aktivitet i blod vid kroniska sjukdomstillstånd. Detta ansågs länge kontroversiellt, men i maj 2015 publicerade ett internationellt forskar-team forskningsresultat som ger stöd för Enby.

Läkaren Erik Enby har framgångsrikt hjälpt många patienter med kroniska sjukdomar som: cancer, psoriasis och kol genom att tillämpa icke konventionella ofarliga metoder. Vårdetablissemanget svarade med att delegitimera Enby istället för att ta reda på varför hans patienter tillfrisknar. 

Dokumentärfilmen ”Läkaren som vägrade ge upp” (2016) sammanfattar Enbys situation. I år (2017) kommer ytterligare en dokumentärfilm om Erik Enby, producerad av AlmaNova.

Läs mer om Erik Enby på Vetapedia

Article from Ali Le Vere, about toxic chemicals in tattoos

I have posted about tattoos several times before, I don’t think it is a good idea to inject something in our bodies, not vaccines, not tattoo ink… I also heard recently from a breast cancer nurse that it was common to find tattoo colors in the lymph nodes, when they removed the lymph nodes from breast cancer patients, when they had tattoos… the lymph system recognize the color as a foreign thing in the body, and want to get rid of it…

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/toxic-chemicals-found-tattoos-links-autoimmune-and-inflammatory-diseases

Toxic Chemicals Found in Tattoos: Links to Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases

Tattooing is a long-standing human ritual that transcends historical and sociocultural boundaries, but more regulatory oversight is needed to ensure inks are not contaminated with dangerous chemical byproducts.

Debunking Tattoo Mythology: A Short History of The Tattooing Ritual

Tattoos represent a cultural rite of passage, a mode of self-expression, and a means of cultivating one’s unique identity (1). British captain, explorer, and navigator James Cook introduced the word tattoo into the European vernacular, as an amalgamation of the Polynesian word ‘ta’ to ‘strike something’ and the Tahitian word ‘tatau’ meaning ‘to mark something’ (2).

The historical use of tattoos extends back at least seven thousand years ago, as tattoos were discovered on the extremities of a mummy from that period found in Northern Chile (3). Also, the five thousand year-old mummified remains of Ötzi the Iceman were found to contain osteochondrosis, or abnormal bone growth, in body sites where tattoos were present (2). Pesapane and colleagues (2014) likewise note that documentation of tattoos dates back to records by Roman emperor Constantine the Great in 313 AD, Pope Hadrian 1 in 787 AD, and the Old Testament (2).

Historically, tattoos were used to demarcate group identity, to protect the internal body from the exterior world, as a symbol of religious indoctrination, and in branding rituals as a form of medieval punishment. As an example of tattoos signifying group affiliation, “Crusaders used mostly Christian motifs to ensure that they received a Christian funeral in case they died in a foreign country” (3). In Japan, on the other hand, criminals were branded with tattoos as a mark of social stigmatization from the eighteenth century onward, which led to the rise of a tattooed demographic called the Yakuza (3).

Although condemned as marks of defilement by monotheistic religions, tattoos were a venerated practice in ancient Egypt and Rome, and remained a secret practice in some Christian sects such as the Sanctuary of Loreto (2). Ocean expeditions of the eighteenth century heralded a resurgence in the popularity of the tattoo, as interaction of colonialists with local South Pacific cultures led to adoption of local tattoo motifs by the former, and the eventual replacement of native designs with European-themed tattoos (3).

In the nineteenth century, a veritable “tattoo mania” was embraced by elite aristocratic European social classes (2). Celebrity figures including Tsar Nicholas II, Sir Winston Churchill, and Empress Elisabeth of Austria all sported tattoos (2, 3). However, in the late nineteenth century, the law profession contributed to the demise of the traditional meanings of the tattoo in their attempts to “conclude from the physiognomy of the exterior appearance as to the moral standards or criminal intent of a person” (3). The public perception of tattoos was also influenced by the display of tattooed persons as elements in circuses and carnivals (3).

Today, popularity of tattooing once again soars, as studies have demonstrated that nearly a third of university students, and 80 million people in the United States, are tattooed (4, 5). With its origins in pre-industrial cultural traditions and supernatural mythology, tattooing and other body modifications have been a long-standing component of the human condition. Clearly, “Tattoos and piercings can no longer be regarded as destructive acts of self mutilation practiced by fringe groups” (1, p. 115).

Histologic Reactions Secondary to Tattoos

Although the age of moralizing tattoos as an indictment of character should be long passed, concerns linger over health implications. According to Wenzel and colleagues (2013), “Medical complications after tattooing are often seen by physicians, but are generally unknown to the public” (6, p. 138). Tattoos have been associated with “allergic, lichenoid, granulomatous, and pseudolymphomatous reactions or induction of skin diseases” (2, p. 145). Other localized skin diseases, including the autoimmune disorders lichen planus and psoriasis, as well as eczema and morphea, have also been induced by tattoos (7).

In one nationwide survey of German-speaking countries, for example, 67.5% of individuals with tattoos reported skin problems, 6% reported systemic reactions resulting from tattoos, with 1.3% reporting light sensitivity of the tattooed skin (8). The survey similarly revealed that chronic problems including burning, itching, erythema, papules, nodules, and eczema occurred in 6% of subjects (8). It is estimated that five million people in the United States have persistent skin problems secondary to tattoos, but data on toxicant-induced health problems related to tattoos has not been systematically collected (9).

According to Goldstein (1979), “The injection of any foreign material into the skin produces an inflammatory response, and some degree of necrosis, due to mechanical disruption of the tissue” (10, p. 896). Although this initial reaction normally subsides, subsequent sensitization reactions can occur along with mild fibrosis of the papillary dermis, meaning thickening and scarring of collagenous connective tissue (10).

In addition, perivascular infiltration of lymphocytes and macrophages, meaning migration of white blood cells of the immune system to sites around slightly dilated blood vessels, is also a feature of tattooed tissues (10). Various histological abnormalities can occur, such as foreign-body type or sarcoid type granulomatous formations, comprised of aggregates of macrophage cells known as histiocytes (10). Inflammatory infiltrates characterized by significant fibroplasia, or the growth of fibrous tissue, creating nodules known as dermatofibroma and keratoses can also occur (10).

Pathological skin pigmentation, known as cutaneous dyschromia, can likewise occur due to deposition of heavy metals such as bismuth and mercury in the basement membranes of sebaceous glands and sweat ducts (10).

Tattoo Safety: A Need For More Regulatory Oversight

Researchers state, “Tattoo inks are typically composed of negligibly soluble or insoluble pigments, dispersants in which the pigments are suspended and other additives for preservation or to alter the viscosity of the ink” (11). Although some contemporary inks can contain organic pigments, colored ink conventionally contains metals (12). Because other industrial applications of tattoo inks include paint and printing, they can harbor up to 10% impurities (9). Further, studies show that the “vast majority of tested tattoo inks contained significant amounts of NPs [nanoparticles],” which are associated with a litany of ill health effects (13).

A recent study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials revealed that chemicals present in tattoo ink induced cytotoxicity (cell death), genotoxicity (DNA mutation), and adaptive stress response pathways (11).  Adaptive stress pathways are activated to restore cellular homeostasis, or balance, following damage incurred to cell structure, indicating that tattoo ink disrupts cellular integrity (34). Chemicals in tattoo ink can contribute to deleterious health outcomes by different modes, including binding of chemicals to enzymes and biological molecules and partitioning of chemicals into cell membranes (11).

Safety Hazards of Colored Inks

Because no color additives are approved for intradermal injection, no tattoo pigments are approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As articulated in a study by Arisa and Alster (2012), “The majority of tattoo ink is industrial-grade color intended for use as printer ink or automobile paint” (14).

Colored pigments, on the one hand, can decompose following light exposure into dangerous aromatic amines which are subsequently disseminated throughout the body and accumulate in lymphatic system, interfacing directly with components of the immune system (6). In a recent study, the levels of genotoxicity (DNA damage) and oxidative stress (inflammatory) pathways induced by red and yellow tattoo ink were particularly troublesome, as they generated the greatest response (11). Another study by Falconi and colleagues (2009) found that red tattoo ink significantly reduced viability of fibroblast cells, which are responsible for production of the extracellular matrix that provides the structural framework for tissues (15).

When exposed to natural or ultraviolet light, azo pigments contained within red and yellow inks have been demonstrated to emit hazardous compounds, and they also have been shown to contain the probable human carcinogen 3,3-dichlorobenzidine as an intermediary in their production (11). Furthermore, o-anisidine and 4-aminobiphenyl, aromatic amines within red ink, can elicit genotoxic effects, damaging genetic material after metabolic activation (11, 16). Other investigations have elucidated a connection between red tattoo ink, skin irritation, and tumors (6). In various studies, “Coincidental lesions such as sarcoidosis, B-cell lymphoma, pseudolymphoma, melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and squamous cell carcinoma have also been reported to occur” (14).

Safety Hazards of Black Inks

However, black inks, which predominately consist of soot products, are also problematic (9). Carbon black in black ink is derived from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons, which accounts for its polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content (17). PAHs represent ubiquitous pollutants derived from the burning of organic materials such as wood, petrol, oil, and coal, which elicit well-defined carcinogenic (cancer-causing), mutagenic (DNA-altering), and toxic effects (18).

Researchers state, “Chemical analysis revealed the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the tested black tattoo ink at concentrations twice the recommended level” (11). In particular, the PAHs pyrene and fluoranthene were found at the highest levels, and the possible human carcinogen naphthalene was also detected (11). PAHs are capable of absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun and producing a cytotoxic reactive oxygen species (ROS), singlet oxygen, as a byproduct, which can result in cell death (6). In another study, 10 of 11 black inks tested had levels of PAH exceeding the concentration recommended by the European Council, and 100% of black inks analyzed had levels of the carcinogen benzo(a)pyrene exceeding safe limits (17).

One toxic ingredient found in black tattoo ink, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene (HCBD), is a byproduct of manufacturing processes for chlorinated solvents, and has a history of use as a fumigant or pesticide (9). It has been shown to perpetuate skin, kidney, and liver damage in rodent studies (19). 9-fluorenone, acquired from coal tar, has likewise been found in black tattoo ink and may cause phototoxic reactions, or chemically induced skin irritation following sunlight exposure (20, 21).

Hexamethylenetetramine, a preservative used in the manufacture of coatings, resins, rubber, and cosmetics, is another agent contained within some black tattoo inks (9). It releases formaldehyde, the xenobiotic toxic substance used to embalm corpses, which is associated with systemic autoimmune disease (22). It has likwewise been shown in the literature to cause respiratory allergies and contact dermatitis (9).

Particularly alarming is the occurrence of dibenzofuran (DBF) in black tattooing agents, which is derived from “the incomplete combustion of coal biomass, refuse, diesel fuel, and residual oil, as well as tobacco smoke” 9, p. 236). When polychlorinated, or attached to chlorine atoms, it belongs to a dangerous class of persistent organic pollutants called dioxin-like chemicals (9). Dioxin-like chemicals exert gastrointestinal, hepatic, and dermal toxicity and DBF can cause respiratory irritation (9).

Components of Tattoo Ink Linked to Autoimmunity and Mitochondrial Dysfunction

Another study found that all 14 commercially available black inks analyzed contained the softener dibutyl phthalate, a sensitizing agent which “acts directly on keratinocytes and can drive Th2 responses following skin exposure via induction of thymic stromal lymphopoietin gene expression” (9, p. 231). This is to say, dibutyl phthalate can facilitate expression of a gene that tips the immune system in the direction of Th2-dominant responses, which have been implicated in some autoimmune diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and Sjögren’s syndrome (23).

Other chemicals found within tattoos, such as formaldehyde, may induce autoimmunity by either inducing cell death, and exposing antigenic material within the cell against which the immune system may mount an attack, or by covalently binding to tissue and creating ‘neoantigens’ which incite immune responses (24, 25, 26).

Black inks likewise have been shown to induce production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as singlet oxygen or peroxyl radicals, which are free-radicals that can steal electrons from neighboring molecules and damage cell constituents (17). One study by Regensberger and colleagues (2010) found that in the presence of ultraviolet light, some black inks reduced activity of the energetic powerhouses of the cell, the mitochondria, of human dermal keratinocytes, the type of cell that predominates in the outermost layer of skin (27). Impaired mitochondrial activity has health implications since mitochondrial dysfunction is implicated in mood disorders, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, migraine headaches, autoimmune diseases, and cancer (28).

Risk of Infection from Tattoos

Although professional tattooist organizations have improved hygienic standards, concerns about contagious exposure through tattooing remains (29). As articulated by Serup (2017), microbial pathogens such as hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV), and human immunodeficiency viruses (HIV) can be introduced, and “Severity of infection varies from minor to major, ultimately with life-threatening septicemia” (29, p. 30). People who are immunocompromised are often advised to refrain from tattooing (29).

Although sanitation measures are improving and risk of contracting infectious diseases from contaminated tattoo equipment has decreased, the inks themselves may harbor infectious microbes (30). Recent studies reveal that, despite 42% of products claiming sterility on their labels, 10% of unopened and 17% of previously used stock bottles of tattoo ink were contaminated with pathogenic bacteria, and that almost a third of products had leaking physical seals (31). Those inks marketed as nontoxic, which exclude alcohol and preservatives, possess greater risk of microbial contaminants, such as the Starbrite Colors tattoo inks which were removed from the market due to the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acremonium mold (14).

How To Ensure Tattoo Safety

As an honored tradition, indelible art form, and means of forging individuation, it is incumbent upon the industry to guarantee safer options for tattoo ink. People should have the bodily autonomy to engage in tattooing practices without sacrificing their health.

For instance, vegetable-based inks, such as yellow pigments derived from turmeric, may represent a safer alternative, although they may need to be special ordered by the tattoo artist. Not dissimilar to cosmetics, the FDA has not traditionally enforced or regulated tattoo inks (32). Further, the level of transparency regarding ingredients is impeded by the proprietary nature of the tattoo inks sold by many manufacturers.

In addition, because the term non-toxic is not legally regulated, what is advertised as nontoxic ink may still contain deleterious ingredients, such as blue pigments derived from the neurotoxin aluminum and white pigments derived from titanium dioxide nanoparticles. The latter, for example, is not only classified as possessing carcinogenic properties by both the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, but also elicits oxidative damage that can cause immunogenicity, inflammation, genotoxicity, and problems with cell integrity (33).

Consumers should demand access to safer tattoo inks and also rally for more regulatory oversight not only in this domain, but in the realms of cosmetics and personal care products as well. Further, for those suffering from toxicity as a result of tattoos, natural regimens intended to support biotransformation and elimination may be indicated, and some individuals suffering overt heavy metal toxicity may need to undergo chelation protocols supervised by an environmental medicine physician.

References

1. Stirn, A. (2007). [“My body belongs to me”–cultural history and psychology of piercings and tattoos] [Article in German]. The Umsch, 64(2), 115-119.

2. Pesapane, F. et al. (2014). A short history of tattoo. Journal of the American Medical Association: Dermatology, 150(2), 145. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.8860

3. Schmid, S. (2013). Tattoos — An historical essay. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 11(6), 444-447.

4. King, K.A., & Vidourek, R.A. (2013). Getting inked: tattoo and risky behavioral involvement among university students. Social Science, Journal, 50, 540-546.

5. Laumann, A.E., & Derick, A.J. (2006). Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: a national data set. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 413-421.

6. Wenzel, S.M. et al. (2013). Adverse reactions after tattooing: review of the literature and comparison to results of a survey. Dermatology, 226, 138-147.

7. Khunger, N., Molpariya, A., & Khunger, A. (2016). Complications of tattoos and tattoo removal: stop and think before you ink. Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery, 8(1), 30-36.  doi: 10.4103/0974-2077.155072.

8. Klugl, I. et al. (2010). Incidence of health problems associated with tattooed skin: a nation-wide survey of German-speaking countries. Dermatology, 221, 43-50.

9. Lehner, K. et al. (2011). Black tattoo inks are a source of problematic substances such as dibutyl phthalate. Contact Dermatitis, 231-238.

10. Goldstein, A.P. (1979). VII. Histologic reactions in tattoos. Journal of Dermatology and Surgical Oncology, 5(11), 896-900.

11. Neale, P.A. et al. (2015). Bioanalytical evidence that chemicals in tattoo ink can induce adaptive stress responses. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 296, 192-200. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.04.051.

12. Bäumler, W. et al. (2000). Q-switch laser and tattoo pigments: first results of the chemical and photophysical analysis of 41 compounds. Laser Surgery Medicine, 13-21.

13. Høgsberg, T. et al. (2011). Tattoo inks in general usage contain nanoparticles. British Journal of Dermatology, 165(6), 1210-1218. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10561.x.

14. Arisa, O.E., & Alster, T.S. (2012). Rising Concern over Cosmetic Tattoos. Dermatologic Survey,  38(3), 424–429. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2011.02202.x

15. Falconi, M. et al. (2009). Influence of a commercial tattoo ink on protein production in human fibroblasts. Archives of Dermatology Research, 539-547.

16. Oda, Y. (2004). Analysis of the involvement of human N-acetyltransferase 1 in the genotoxic activation of bladder carcinogenic arylamines using a SOS/umu assay system. Mutation Research: Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, 399-406.

17. Høgsberg, T. et al. (2013). Black tattoo inks induce reactive oxygen species production correlating with aggregation of pigment nanoparticles and product brand but not with the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content. Experimental Dermatology, 464-469.

18. Abdel-Shafy, H.I., & Mansour, M.S.M. (2016). A review on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Source, environmental impact, effect on human health and remediation. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum, 25(1), 107-123.

19. Dubrat, P., & Gradiski, D. (1987). Percutaenous toxicity of hexachlorobutadiene. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenhagen), 43, 346-353.

20. Atsumi, T. et al. (1998). Cytotoxicity of photosensitizers camphorquinone and 9-fluorenone with visible light irradiation on a human submandibular-duct cell line in vitro. Archives of Oral Biology, 43, 73-81.

21. Okada, N. et al. (2008). Effects of visible light-irradiated camphorquinone and 9-fluorenone on murine oral mucosa. Dental Materials Journal, 27, 809-813.

22. Bigazzi, P.E. (1997). Autoimmunity caused by xenobiotics. Toxicology, 119, 1-21.

23. Ishida, H. et al. (1997). [An imbalance between Th1 and Th2-like cytokines in patients with autoimmune diseases–differential diagnosis between Th1 dominant autoimmune diseases and Th2 dominant autoimmune diseases]. Nixon Rinsho, 55(6), 1438-1443.

24. Pollard, K.M. (2012). Gender differences in autoimmunity associated with exposure to environmental factors. Journal of Autoimmunity, 38(2-3), J177–J186.

25. Germolec, D., Kono, D.H., Pfau, J.C. et al. (2012). Animal models used to examine the role of the environment in the deveopment of autoimmune disease: findings from an NIEHS expert panel workshop. Journal of Autoimmunity, 39(4), 285–293.

26. Griem, P. et al. (1998). Allergic and autoimmune reactions to xenobiotics: how do they arise? Immunology Today, 19(3), 133–141.

27. Regensburger, J. et al. (2010). Tattoo inks contain polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that additionally generate deleterious singlet oxygen. Experimental Dermatology, 19, 275-281.

28. Pieczenik, S.R., & Neustadt, J. (2007). Mitochondrial dysfunction and molecular pathways of disease. Experimental and Molecular Pathology, 83, 84-92.

29. Serup, J. (2017). Tattoo Infections, Personal Resistance, and Contagious Exposure through Tattooing. Current Problems in Dermatology, 52, 30-41. doi: 10.1159/000450777.

30. Bonadonna, L. (2015). Survey of studies on microbial contamination of marketed tattoo inks. Current Problems in Dermatology, 48, 190-195. doi: 10.1159/000369226.

31. Høgsberg, T. et al. (2013). Microbial status and product labelling of 58 original tattoo inks. Journal of the European Dermatology and Venereology, 27(1), 73-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-3083.2011.04359.x.

32. Ortiz, A.E., & Alster, T.S. (2012). Rising concern over cosmetic tattoos. Dermatologic Surgery, 38(3), 424-429.

33. Skocaj, M. et al. (2011). Titanium dioxide in our everyday life; is it safe? Radiology and Oncology, 45(4), 227-247.

34. Simmons, S.O. et al. (2009). Cellular stress response pathway system as a sentinel ensemble in toxicological screening. Toxicological Science, 111, 202-225.

 

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Artikel från Kurera, (Isabelle Hedander) läkemedelsskandalen som tystades ner

Den här artikeln är från 2015, men det här temat är tyvärr fortfarande aktuellt, läkemedelsskandaler tystas ner, och dom ger sig på alternativa terapier – myggen silas och kamelerna sväljs, som det heter… 

https://kurera.se/lakemedelsskandalen-som-tystades-ner-och-gick-oss-forbi/

Läkemedelsskandalen som tystades ner – och gick oss förbi

17 juni, 2015

I slutet av januari hände något stort – som totalt gick allmänheten förbi.
Vad? Jo, den europeiska läkemedelsmyndigheten EMA avslöjade ett omfattande bedrägeri gällande laboratorierapporter som förfalskats och manipulerats i processen att få läkemedel godkända – vilket ledde till att 876 mediciner fick säljförbud och återkallades från den europeiska marknaden.
Ändå har ingen hört talas om det. Anmärkningsvärt, tycker två debattörer på Newsvoice.

En så stor skandal inom läkemedelsindustrin borde ha ett nyhetsvärde, kan nog många tycka. Ändå tog ingen större svensk tidning upp saken. Anledningen? Jo, att det rörde sig om läkemedel, något som varken Svensson eller Svenssons media har för vana att ifrågasätta. Hade det däremot rört sig om kosttillskott eller naturmedel hade det blivit ett betydligt större ramaskri.
Detta uttrycker i alla fall juristen Thomas Arvidsson och journalisten Thorbjörn Sassersson på den alternativa nättidningen Newsvoice.

Först ut med debattartikel
Det var Arvidsson som var först ut med att bli detaljerad kring detta. Det gjorde han i en artikel på Newsvoice – och verkade därmed vara en av få personer i Sverige som över huvud taget noterat att något otillbörligt hänt.

Många klagomål om utebliven effekt
Det gäller i samtliga fall så kallade generika, det vill säga billigare kopior av originalläkemedel, berättar Arvidsson. Han skriver: ”Många patienter som fått de originalmediciner som läkarna skrivit ut utbytta på apoteken mot billigare kopior (generika) har framfört klagomål till apoteken och till sina läkare att utbytesmedicinerna inte har effekt.
Han fortsätter:
”Medicinerna har inte fått förväntad effekt eller de har medfört oönskade biverkningar. Patienterna har då ofta fått beskedet från sina läkare att detta inte är möjligt då generika är exakta kopior av originalmedicinerna och de ska innehålla samma verksamma beståndsdelar och ska ha samma verkan på sjukdomstillstånden de är ämnade för.”

EMA fattade misstankar
Arvidsson skriver fortsättningsvis att det var när antalet patienter som klagade ökade som den europeiska läkemedelsmyndigheten EMA (där Sverige är med via Läkemedelsverket) fattade misstankar om att någonting kunde vara fel och bestämde sig för att göra en närmare granskning av preparaten med flest klagomål.
Granskningen inleddes i september 2014 och EMA fann snabbt att det i samtliga fall var ett och samma företag – det indiska företaget GVK Biosciences – som hade ansvarat för underlagshandlingarna och prövningarna för godkännandeprocessen.

Utökade granskningen
EMA beslutade sig då för att utöka kontrollen och granskningen till att gälla samtliga läkemedel där nämnda företag svarat för underlag och testningar av läkemedel för godkännande. Det visade sig röra sig om ett drygt hundratal läkemedel i cirka 1000 olika beredningsformer. Samtliga var så kallade generika, det vill säga billigare kopior av originalmediciner.
”EMA sände även inspektörer till företagets anläggning i Hyderabad i Indien, för att på plats ta del av samtliga data och underlag för hur testningar och prövningar av dessa läkemedel skett,” skriver Arvidsson.

Förfalskat material var underlag för nya godkännanden
Arvidson fortsätter så här:
”Resultatet avslöjade ett omfattande fusk och bedrägeri med bland annat förfalskade och manipulerade laboratorierapporter och dokumentation som fungerat som underlag för att medicinerna sedan godkändes av de europeiska läkemedelsmyndigheterna och i Sverige av Läkemedelsverket.

Sverige återkallade 16 tidigare godkända läkemedel
EMAs granskning fick som resultat att Läkemedelsverket i Sverige omedelbart återkallade 16 tidigare godkända genetiska läkemedel. Det gällde såväl psykofarmaka som läkemedel för somatiska – alltså kroppsliga – sjukdomar.
Ändå omskrevs nyheten som små notiser och endast av ett fåtal tidningar, med informationen hämtad från det, i alla fall enligt journalisten och debattören Thorbjörn Sassersson, mycket nedtonade pressmeddelande som Läkemedelsverket publicerat på sin hemsida. Sassersson som för övrigt kan ses som man två på pucken, när han efter Thomas Arvidssons artikel svarade med en egen debattartikel.

Spådde tystnad i mainstream media
Sassersson, redaktör för NewsVoice och med bakgrund som bland annat miljökonsult, menade att nyheten borde ha ett enormt allmänintresse men att mainstream media kommer att förbli tyst. Detta för att de har fullt upp med att ”trakassera elöverkänsliga eller försöka hitta fel på något ofarligt kosttillskott”, som han uttrycker det.
”Man kan enkelt föreställa sig mediernas, politikernas och myndigheternas reaktion om det avslöjats att 876 st alternativa preparat baserats på fuskforskning,” skriver Sassersson.

Oklart hur många som skadats
Han poängterar vidare att Arvidssons artikel tydliggjort att det rör sig om exempel på organiserad ekonomisk brottslighet och om företag som inte drar sig för att utsätta miljontals patienter för hälsorisker.
Han skriver bland annat:
”Alla dessa patienter över hela Europa har i åratal tagit verkningslösa ”kemiska preparat” varav många dessutom har gett biverkningar. Per definition är detta kvacksalveri.”
Han konstaterar också att det är oklart hur många som skadats eller avlidit på grund av dessa 876 fuskmediciner men att det sannolikt heller inte kommer att att undersökas av ansvariga myndigheter.

”Undrar hur det blivit om det handlat om naturmediciner?”
Han får medhåll från Arvidsson som kommenterar Sasserssons artikel så här:
”Undrar just hur många spaltkilometer det hade blivit i ”gammelmedia” om det handlat om 876 kosttillskott, naturmediciner eller homeopatika? Då hade det blivit krigsrubriker! Men nu handlar det ju om ”riktiga” mediciner och då nämns inte ett ord. Skrämmande att notera hur styrd media är när det gäller vilka nyheter som får komma ut och vilka som har ”locket på”. Tur att det finns alternativa kanaler.”

Av Isabelle Hedander

Läsarberättelse om diabetes, från Ann Fernholms blogg

http://annfernholm.se/2017/06/07/mamma-till-barn-med-diabetestank-om-sjukvardens-kostrad-leder-fel/

En läsarberättelse om diabetes, från Ann Fernholms blogg, publicerad 07 juni 2017:

Mamma till barn med diabetes:
”Tänk om sjukvårdens kostråd leder fel?”

För några år sedan var det en intensiv debatt kring hur personer med typ 2-diabetes skulle äta. Många valde att överge den kolhydratrika tallriksmodell som ofta rekommenderas i vården och började istället äta mer fett och protein, med målet att stabilisera blodsockret. På löpsedlar varnades för att det skulle orsaka ett skyhögt kolesterol, men majoriteten fick bättre blodfetter. Det blev ganska snart uppenbart att dessa varningar var grundlösa.

Debatten kring typ 2-diabetes har nu lugnat sig. Istället har det uppstått en – om möjligt – än mer infekterad debatt kring typ 1-diabetes. Föräldrar som upplever att deras barn får ett stabilare blodsocker och mår bättre när de drar ner på kolhydraterna i maten, bör enligt vissa läkare anmälas till socialkontoret. De menar att barnen kommer att drabbas av ketoacidos (ett tillstånd där blodet blir surt), få livsfarligt låga blodsocker och sluta växa.

Föräldrar som prövar att dra ner på kolhydraterna till sina barn upplever att detta inte alls stämmer. För något år sedan berättade en familj om sin erfarenhet av att minska på mängden kolhydrater i maten för Storstockholms diabetesförening. Den specialistutbildade intensivvårdssjuksköterskan Katarina Skogfält märker också att hennes barn får ett mycket stabilare blodsocker och mår bättre när de drar ner på mängden kolhydrater i maten (utan att något av det som läkarna varnar för har slagit in). Nu vill ännu en förälder – som har mejlat mig – berätta sin historia. Här är den:

Mackor, pasta och pannkakor på sjukhuset

Jag är mamma till en kille på 12 år som fick diabetes typ 1 i november förra året. Långt innan sonen fick sin diagnos hade vi som familj minskat intaget av snabba kolhydrater, eftersom vi alla mår bättre av en sådan mathållning. Det som förvånade mig i denna nya situation var vårdens fokus på kolhydrater. Sonens meny bestod plötsligt av mackor, pasta och pannkakor. Var han sugen på O´boy var det inget problem att ge honom det. Jag fick lära mig att det viktigaste för att barnet skulle växa, inte bli akut sjuk eller få långsiktiga skador, var att hitta den perfekta balansen mellan kolhydrater och insulin. Informationsmaterialet från sjukhuset innehöll många listor med kolhydratmängd i glass, godis, bröd, potatis, tacoskal o.s.v. Här är exempel:

Det jag saknade var informationen om ”det andra”, nämligen den mat som man får stabila blodsockerkurvor av och som inte kräver insulin i samma utsträckning.

Stress när blodsockret åkte berg- och dalbana

Under den första tiden gjorde vi som vi blev rekommenderade, men märkte snabbt att det inte fungerade bra. Efter ett huvudmål, bestående av ungefär 40 gram kolhydrater, stack blodsockerkurvan iväg uppåt i rasande fart och efter några timmar blev sonen istället låg. Det var svårt att dosera insulin på ett sätt som gjorde honom stabil och vi fick en pojke med svängande blodsocker och även svängande humör. Allt kändes stressigt och fel. Istället började vi återgå till den kost vi hade haft innan. Vi trappade sakta men säkert ned mängden snabba kolhydrater igen. Vi följde blodsockerkurvorna noga och mätte även ketoner i blodet. Istället för vårdens rekommenderade 200 gram kolhydrater per dag äter vårt barn nu omkring 80 gram kolhydrater. Här är ett exempel på hur sonens blodsockerkurva oftast ser ut numera:

Varningarna stämmer inte

Till min förvåning märkte jag snabbt att min önskan att ge honom en mindre mängd kolhydrater väckte motstånd i många sammanhang. I dagens diabetesvård tycks fokus ligga på att man ska leva och äta ”som vanligt” och dosera insulin därefter. Jag möttes av kommentarer som ”han kan dö om han inte får tillräckligt med kolhydrater”, ”han riskerar att få ketoacidos” och ”han kommer inte att växa normalt”. Vår erfarenhet är att dessa varningar inte alls stämmer. Ju mer kolhydrater han äter desto svårare blir det att balansera hans blodsocker. Nyligen var han på kalas och fick då en halv pizza. Direkt sticker blodsockret upp till 18 mmol/l och när vi försöker parera med insulin får han istället för lågt blodsocker.

På en kost med 80 gram kolhydrater per dag har han inga ketoner i blodet, han kan ta insulin regelbundet utan att hamna lågt i blodsocker, han växer bra, har ett HbA1c på 38 och hans blodsockerkurvor ligger oftast stabilt.

Färre toppar och dalar gör livet lugnare

Just nu informeras det mycket om diabetes typ 1 i media. Det är jättebra. Att ha diabetes typ 1 är verkligen ingen liten sak. Det är en allvarlig sjukdom som ska tas på största allvar. Jag läser om föräldrar som vakar nätterna igenom, går i bitar av stress och oro och sliter sitt hår i kampen mot Försäkringskassan. Jag är också en typisk ”diabetsmamma” i bemärkelsen att jag följer kurvor, planerar ätandet, håller koll på natten och oroar mig för hur det ska gå. Men när andra föräldrar beskriver det ständigt överhängande hotet om död och kaos känner jag helt enkelt inte igen mig. Sonens kurvor ”far inte runt okontrollerbart”. Hans blodsocker ”lever inte sitt eget liv”. Han blir inte längre låg i blodsockret fem gånger på en natt och han pendlar inte mellan 2,5 och 20 i blodsockernivå under loppet av några timmar. Jag förstår att jag kan väcka ilska hos andra föräldrar när jag skriver detta, eftersom andras erfarenhet kan vara en helt annan. Men tänk om det inte behöver vara så? Tänk om den bild vi målar upp för varandra och läser om i media inte behöver stämma? Tänk om de råd vi får av sjukvården leder fel?

Varför är inte vården nyfiken?

Självklart reagerar olika kroppar lite olika och självklart finns många yttre och inre faktorer som påverkar blodsockret. Samtidigt delar vi alla samma biokemiska processer. Har man diabetes typ 1 får man högt blodsocker av för mycket snabba kolhydrater. För lågt blodsocker får man av för mycket insulin. Rekyler uppstår om man överdoserar kolhydrater vid lågt värde eller överdoserar insulin vid högt. Genom att läsa allt jag kommer över på temat, följa bloggar och Facebooksidor och prata med kunniga personer har jag kunnat lägga det pussel som ger mitt barn fina värden och god stabilitet så långt det just nu är möjligt. Jag önskar att detta faktum kunde väcka nyfikenhet hos vården och hos andra som kämpar på samma vis. Istället möter jag varierande grad av motstånd på många håll. Men jag är övertygad om att mitt barn, och många med honom, skulle kunna revolutionera sin hälsa och sin sjukdom om vi på allvar vågade se över kostbehandlingen vid diabetes typ 1.

Min kommentar:

Låt oss analysera den här mammans berättelse utifrån ett historiskt perspektiv. Hade hennes son fötts i början av 1900-talet hade behandlingen bestått av en extremt strikt lågkolhydratkost – allt annat hade snabbt dödat barnet. En medicinprofessor i Uppsala lär ha sagt att hans patienters mat bestod av ”varannan dag späck och gurka, varannan dag gurka och späck”. Men i januari 1922 fick en döende pojke på ett sjukhus i Toronto den första insulinsprutan. Det ledde till att sockerhalten sjönk i hans urin och han överlevde.

Upptäckten av insulin är en av medicinhistoriens viktigaste och har räddat enormt många liv. MEN. Nu har pendeln slagit om helt. Den kost som tidigare var den enda möjliga – en strikt lågkolhydratkost – har blivit livsfarlig och vissa läkare menar att barn med typ 1-diabetes numera behöver äta 200 gram kolhydrater varje dag.

Saknas vetenskaplig grund för kostråd

Vad har de då för grund när de påstår detta? För att en medicinsk behandling ska kunna anses vara vetenskapligt grundad krävs så kallade randomiserade kontrollerade kliniska prövningar som bevisar effekter och utvärderar eventuella biverkningar. Men som en statlig expertgrupp konstaterade år 2010 råder ”en uppenbar brist på studier” när det gäller kost vid typ 1-diabetes. Dessvärre har det inte tillkommit en enda högkvalitativ studie sedan detta uttalande.

För att ge kostråden en starkare vetenskaplig grund samlar nu Kostfonden in pengar till en vetenskaplig undersökning (läs mer här – och stöd studien). Personer med typ 1-diabetes, som den 12-åriga killen ovan, har rätt att få vetenskapligt baserade behandlingar.

En svart-vit debatt gagnar ingen

När vetenskapen brister blir det ofta debatt och den som förs idag kring kost och typ 1-diabetes är väldigt svart-vit. Det är som att barn antingen måste äta 200 gram kolhydrater varje dag eller annars max 20 gram (en så kallad ketogen kost). Mamman ovan har hittat barnets balans i 80 gram kolhydrater varje dag – ett mellanting mellan de två extremerna. Blodsockret ligger mycket stabilare än tidigare, men barnet har inga ketonkroppar i blodet och får tillräckligt mycket insulin för att växa.

I morgon kommer ett nytt inlägg från mamman. Då beskriver hon hur en dags mat kan se ut för hennes son. I övermorgon kommer jag att berätta om forskning som kan förklara varför vissa personer med typ 1-diabetes får väldigt svårt att reglera sitt blodsocker. Många får veta i vården att typ 1-diabetes endast handlar om att kroppens egen insulinproduktion med tiden blir helt utslagen och att man med hjälp av insulinsprutor/pumpar kan kompensera för detta. Riktigt så enkelt är det inte. Produktionen av hormonet glukagon börjar också strejka. Det förstärker blodsockersvängningar och förklarar varför det är så lätt att få ett livshotande lågt blodsocker. Mer om det i övermorgon!

Sist men inte minst: varför i hela (lägg in valfritt svärord här) ger man barn O’boy på sjukhus? Inget barn ska dricka O’boy – vare sig de har diabetes eller inte. Gör man choklad själv tar man typ en tesked socker per tesked kakao. I O’boy är det fyra gångar mer socker. Dessutom är det ungefär dubbelt så dyrt som att köpa socker och kakao var för sig – något att tänka på för alla sjukhus som har ansträngd ekonomi.

Vill du läsa fler liknande inlägg? Följ mig på Facebook eller Twitter

En till artikel om Gardasilvaccinet (HPV)

Det är verkligen helt förfärligt med alla biverkningar med det här vaccinet – hur många flickor (och pojkar, också) ska behöva dö innan det händer något? Och om dom inte dör, så är det väldigt många som får permanenta kroppsskador. Och vaccinet hjälper ju inte mot cancer, vissa som har fått vaccinet har fått cancer – det som vaccinet var tänkt att förhindra…
Här är Majas historia

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/602573?programid=909

Vem ska bota Maja?
Sön 23 aug 2015 kl 15:03

2013 blev Maja sjuk. Hon var 13 och helt orkeslös. Sakta har hon blivit allt sämre: värk, känselbortfall, och plågsamma utslag. Nu sitter hon i rullstol och ingen läkare kan säga vad hon lider av.
Maja skickas vidare från den ena specialisten till den andra; de tar samma plågsamma prover och hon får berätta samma historia om och om igen. Men de kan inte bota henne och en efter en ger de upp om hennes fall.  Och hela tiden blir hon sämre.Det började med att hon kände sig lite hängig, att hon inte orkade lika mycket när hon spelade innebandy. Sedan kom värk,  känselbortfall och muskelsvaghet, benen blev som spagetti. I dag kan hon inte sitta upp själv och hon har inte kunnat gå i skolan på två år.

Maja och hennes föräldrar  upplever att de inte blir tagna på allvar av sjukvården. Själva är familjen övertygad om att hon skadats av Gardasil, ett vaccin mot livmoderhalscancer som erbjuds alla grundskoletjejer i Sverige. Det var  nämligen efter att hon fått  tre vaccinsprutor som hennes symtom dök upp.

Och ingen läkare har kunnat ge någon alternativ förklaring.

I Danmark har det uppstått en debatt om biverkningar av Gardasil efter en uppmärksammad TV-dokumentär om ett 100-tal unga tjejer som anser sig handikappade av vaccinet. Men i Sverige är det alltjämt en ickefråga och en ickediagnos.

Dokumentären är gjord av Per Shapiro, frilansreporter med inriktning på undersökande journalistik och dokumentärt berättande. Han arbetar  bland annat för Ekot, Kaliber, och Uppdrag granskning.

“Vem ska bota Maja” är hans andra P1 Dokumentär. Han har tidigare gjort “Lettland – drömmen som gick i kras”

Producent: Håkan Engström

Och här är en artikel om en pojke som dog av Gardasilvaccinet

https://www.healthnutnews.com/healthy-boy-dies-gardasil-injection/

Healthy Boy Dies After Gardasil Injection

Joel Gomez was just 14 years old. Medical records show he was a healthy boy who made all his check-ups at his pediatrician’s office.He had no pre-existing health issues.

He had no cardiac abnormalities, psychological disorders, substance abuse, or any other issues.

But, he had a vaccine the day before he died.

From the article:

“An expert hired by the family of a boy who died after his second Gardasil injection has testified that Gardasil likely caused the boy’s death. The case – Gomez versus USDOH: Petition No. 15-0160V1 – was filed by a California law firm for petitioners Adan Gomez and Raquel Ayon, on behalf of their deceased son Joel Gomez.  The petition states, in part:

“Joel Gomez received a Merck Gardasil vaccine on June 19, 2013 and again on August 19, 2013, and died in his sleep the following day on August 20, 2013. The death was caused in fact by receiving the Gardasil Vaccine.

Gardasil did cause or contributed to a myocardial infarction in the decedent, and that the second dose of Gardasil finally caused a fatal hypotension in this case on the day of vaccination. There was no other plausible cause for the death of Joel Gomez. . .”

Sadly, Joel was another casualty of the Gardasil vaccine.

Joel was injected, in his left arm, on June 19, 2013 with his first dose of Gardasil (with no adverse reactions reported by the family or physician) and again on August 19, 2013, with a second dose of Gardasil. Then he went home, fell asleep, and died. He was found unresponsive in bed the following day, taken to the hospital, and pronounced dead.

How many more kids have to suffer, or even die before the United States says “enough”?

An autopsy done on August 23, by a medical examiner (ME) of Los Angeles, California revealed significant abnormal findings:

“…a long narrow band of dark reddish discoloration which is somewhat darker than the rest of the myocardium, extends over a length of 6 cm and has a width of 0.4 cm extending from the anterior base of the heart almost to the apex. ..this lesion is limited to the anterior free wall. Both lungs are extremely heavy. The lung parenchyma is dark-purple-red and completely soaked with edema fluid and blood. Microscopically, a localized lesion was found in the left ventricle of the heart.”

When Dr. Sin Hang Lee, MD (who the family hired) reviewed the autopsy findings, it was his opinion that the lesion of the heart was a healing myocardial infarct – a few weeks old- and was the result of the first Gardasil vaccination. He stated, “The HPV L1 gene DNA fragments bound to the aluminum adjuvant in Gardasil can cause sudden and unexpected surge of tumor necrosis factor-α and other cytokines. Some of these cytokines released from macrophages are potent myocardial depressants, capable of causing hypotension with low cardiac perfusions in certain genetically or physically predisposed individuals.” And this type of damage, according to Dr. Lee is practically unheard of. In fact, poor Joel’s heart actually presents as a textbook description of myocardial infarction- commonly observed in much older patients with a history of heart attack(s).

More from the article:

“A CDC study shows that among 12,424 reported adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination from June 1, 2006 through December 3 1, 2008, there were 32 deaths with a mean age of 18 years old, who died 2 to 405 days after the last Gardasil® injection. Medical records and autopsy reports on 20 of the 32 deaths were available for review and confirmed there were 4 unexplained deaths and 6 cardiac-related deaths.”

Again, how many more kids need to die? And how many Gardasil-vaccinated girls (or boys) have developed permanent myocardial damage, whether it’s called myocarditis or infarct?

Our hearts go out to all the parents and families who have had loved ones die or who have been seriously harmed by this vaccine, or any other. We look ahead with hope, to a day when this won’t happen anymore. And we can make it happen. All it takes is just one voice. Don’t be afraid to use yours.

XO- Erin

Article from Dr Tim O’Shea: Vaccines and the Peanut Allergy Epidemic

Another vaccine-related article, written by Dr Tim O’Shea – this article is about peanut allergy

http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/vaccines-and-the-peanut-allergy-epidemic/

– Dr Tim O’Shea

Have you ever wondered why so many kids these days are allergic to peanuts? Where did this allergy come from all of a sudden?

Before 1900, reactions to peanuts were unheard of. Today almost a 1.5 million children in this country are allergic to peanuts.

What happened? Why is everybody buying EpiPens now?

Looking at all the problems with vaccines during the past decade, [2] just a superficial awareness is enough to raise the suspicion that vaccines might have some role in the appearance of any novel allergy among children.

But reactions to peanuts are not just another allergy. Peanut allergy has suddenly emerged as the #1 cause of death from food reactions, being in a category of allergens able to cause anaphylaxis. This condition brings the risk of asthma attack, shock, respiratory failure, and even death. Primarily among children.

Sources cited in Heather Fraser’s 2011 book The Peanut Allergy Epidemic suggest a vaccine connection much more specifically. We learn that a class of vaccine adjuvants – excipients – is a likely suspect in what may accurately be termed an epidemic. [1]

But let’s back up a little. We have to look at both vaccines and antibiotics in recent history, and the physical changes the ingredients in these brand new medicines introduced into the blood of children.

ANAPHYLACTIC SHOCK AND ALLERGY

Before 1900, anaphylactic shock was virtually unknown. The syndrome of sudden fainting, respiratory distress, convulsions, and sometimes death did not exist until vaccinators switched from the lancet to the hypodermic needle. That transformation was essentially complete by the turn of the century in the western world.

Right at that time, a new disease called Serum Sickness began to afflict thousands of children. A variety of symptoms, including shock, fainting, and sometimes death, could suddenly result following an injection.

Instead of covering it up, the connection was well recognized and documented in the medical literature of the day.  Dr Clemens Von Pirquet, who actually coined the word “allergy,” was a leading researcher in characterizing the new disease. [5] Serum Sickness was the first mass allergenic phenomenon in history. What had been required for its onset, apparently, was the advent of the hypodermic needle.

When the needle replaced the lancet in the late 1800s, Serum Sickness soon became a frequent visitor to the child’s bed. It was a known consequence of vaccinations. Indeed, the entire field of modern allergy has evolved from the early study of Serum Sickness coming from vaccines.

VACCINE HYPERSENSITIVITY

Von Pirquet recognized that vaccines had 2 primary effects: immunity and hypersensitivity. [5] He said they were inseparable: the one was the price of the other.

In other words, if we were going to benefit from the effects of mass immunization, we must accept the downside of mass hypersensitivity as a necessary co-feature. Modern medicine has decided that this double effect should be kept secret, so they don’t allow it to be brought up much.

Many doctors in the early 1900s were dead set against vaccines for this precise reason. The advertised benefit was not proven to be worth the risk. Doctors like Walter Hadwen MD, Wm. Howard Hay, and Alfred Russell Wallace saw how smallpox vaccines had actually increased the incidence of smallpox. [2,3] Wallace was one of the principal epidemiologists of the age, and his charts showing the increase in smallpox death from vaccination are unassailable – meticulous primary sources.

Another landmark researcher of the early 1900s was Dr Charles Richet, the one who coined the term anaphylaxis. [4] Richet focused on the reactions that some people seemed to have to certain foods. He found that with food allergies, the reaction came on as the result of intact proteins in the food having bypassed the digestive system and making their way intact into the blood, via leaky gut.

Foreign protein in the blood, of course, is a universal trigger for allergic reaction, not just in man but in all animals. [6]

But Richet noted that in the severe cases, food anaphylaxis did not happen just by eating a food. That would simply be food poisoning.

Food anaphylaxis is altogether different. This sudden, violent reaction requires an initial sensitization involving injection of some sort, followed by a later ingestion of the sensitized food. Get the shot, then later eat the food.

The initial exposure creates the hypersensitivity. The second exposure would be the violent, perhaps fatal, physical event.

Richet’s early work around 1900 was primarily with eggs, meat, milk and diphtheria proteins. Not peanuts. The value of Richet’s research with reactive foods was to teach us the sequence of allergic sensitivity leading to anaphylaxis, how that had to take place.

Soon other doctors began to notice striking similarities between food reactions and the serum sickness that was associated with vaccines. Same exact clinical presentation.

PENICILLIN

Next up was penicillin, which became popular in the 1940s. It was soon found that additives called excipients were necessary to prolong the effect of the antibiotic injected into the body. The excipients would act as carrier molecules. Without excipients, the penicillin would only last about 2 hours. Refined oils worked best, acting as time-release capsules for the antibiotic.

Peanut oil became the favorite, because it worked well, and was available and inexpensive.

Allergy to penicillin became common, and was immediately recognized as a sensitivity to the excipient oils. To the present day, that’s why they always ask if you’re allergic to penicillin. The allergy is a sensitivity to the excipients.

By 1953 as many as 12% of the population was allergic to penicillin. [1] But considering the upside with life-threatening bacterial infections, it was still a good deal – a worthwhile risk.

By 1950 antibiotics were being given out like M&Ms. Soldiers, children, anybody with any illness, not just bacterial. Despite Alexander Fleming’s severe warnings against prophylactic antibiotics, antibiotics were given indiscriminately as the new wonder drug. Just in case anything. [7] Only then, in the 1950s, did peanut allergy begin to occur, even though Americans had been eating peanuts for well over a century.

Remember – just eating peanuts cannot cause peanut allergy. Except if they are allowed to become moldy of course, in which case aflatoxins are released. But that’s really not a peanut allergy.

When peanut allergy did appear, the numbers of cases were fairly small and initially it wasn’t even considered worthy of study.

THE RISE OF VACCINES

The big change came with vaccines. Peanut oils were introduced as vaccine excipients in the mid 1960s. An article appeared in the NY Times on 18 Sept, 1964 that would never be printed today. [8] The author described how a newly patented ingredient containing peanut oil was added as an adjuvant to a new flu vaccine, in order to prolong the “immunity.” The oil was reported to act as a time release capsule, and theoretically enhanced the vaccine’s strength. Same mechanism as with penicillin.

That new excipient, though not approved in the US, became the model for subsequent vaccines. ([1] p 103)

By 1980 peanut oil had become the preferred excipient in vaccines, even though the dangers were well documented. [9] It was considered an adjuvant – a substance able to increase reactivity to the vaccine. This reinforced the Adjuvant Myth: the illusion that immune response is the same as immunity [2].

The pretense here is that the stronger the allergic response to the vaccine, the greater will be the immunity that is conferred. This fundamental error is consistent throughout vaccine literature of the past century.

Historically, researchers who challenged this Commandment of vaccine mythology did not advance their careers.

KEEPING PEANUT ADJUVANTS A SECRET

The first study of peanut allergies was not undertaken until 1973. It was a study of peanut excipients in vaccines. Soon afterwards, and as a result of the attention from that study, manufacturers were no longer required to disclose all the ingredients in vaccines.

What is listed in the Physicians Desk Reference in each vaccine section is not the full formula. Same with the inserts. Suddenly after 1973, that detailed information was proprietary: the manufacturers knew it must be protected. Intellectual property. So now they only were required to describe the formula in general.

Why was peanut allergy so violent? Adjuvant pioneer Maurice Hilleman claimed peanut oil adjuvants had all protein removed by refining. [9] The FDA disagreed. They said some peanut protein traces would always persist [10]- that even the most refined peanut oils still contained some traces of intact peanut proteins. This was the reason doctors were directed to inject vaccines intramuscular rather than intravenous – a greater chance of absorption of intact proteins, less chance of reaction.

But all their secret research obviously wasn’t enough to prevent sensitivity. Mother Nature bats last: no intact proteins in the body. 60 million years of Natural Selection didn’t create the mammalian immune system for nothing. Put intact proteins, peanut or whatever, for any imagined reason into the human system and the inflammatory response will fire. And since the goal of oil emulsion adjuvants was to prolong reactivity in the first place – the notion of time-release – this led to sensitization.

PEANUT ALLERGY EPIDEMIC

Although peanut allergies became fairly common during the 1980s, it wasn’t until the early 1990s when there was a sudden surge of children reacting to peanuts – the true epidemic appeared. What changed? The Mandated Schedule of vaccines for children doubled from the 80s to the 90s:

1980 – 20 vaccines
1995 – 40 vaccines
2011 – 68 vaccines 

It would be imprudent enough to feed peanuts to a newborn, since the digestive system is largely unformed. But this is much worse – injecting intact proteins directly into the infant’s body. In 36 vaccines before the age of 18 months.

A new kind of anaphylaxis appeared with peanut reactions: reverse anaphylaxis. (p 172, [1]) The reaction was not only to the sensitizing antigen, but to the weird new antibodies that had just been introduced in the human species by the new antigen. Without the usual benefit of the evolutionary process.

As vaccines doubled between the 1980s and the 1990s, hundreds of thousands of kids were now exhibiting peanut sensitivities, with frequent cases of anaphylaxis reactions, sometimes fatal.

But nobody talked about it.

Following the next enormous increase in vaccines on the Mandated Schedule after 9/11, whereby the total shot up to 68 recommended vaccines, the peanut allergy soon reached epidemic proportions: a million children: 1.5% of them. These numbers fit the true definition of epidemic even though that word has never been used in mainstream literature with respect to peanut allergy, except in Fraser’s odd little book.

Many researchers, not just Heather Fraser, could see very clearly that

“The peanut allergy epidemic in children was precipitated by childhood injections.”
( [1], p 106)

But with the newfound research, the medical profession will do what they always must do – bury it. Protect the companies. So no money will be ever allocated from NIH to study the obvious connection between vaccine excipients and peanut allergy. That cannot happen, primarily because it would require a control group – an unvaccinated population. And that is the Unspoken Forbidden.

Same line of reasoning that has prevented Wakefield’s work from ever being replicated in a mainstream US clinical study. No unvaccinated populations. Which actually means no studies whose outcome could possibly implicate vaccines as a source of disease or immunosuppression. Vaccines as a cause of an allergy epidemic? Impossible. Let’s definitely not study it.

Instead let’s spend the next 20 years looking for the Genetic Link to the childhood peanut allergy epidemic…

In such a flawed system, any pretense of true clinical science is revealed as fatally handicapped of course: we are looking for the truth, wherever our studies shall take us, except for this, and this, and oh yes, this.

Evidence for the connection between peanut excipients and vaccines is largely indirect today, because of the circling of the wagons by the manufacturers. It is very difficult to find peanut excipients listed in the inserts and PDR listings of vaccines. Simple liability.

FRAME OF REFERENCE

So in addition to all the other problems with vaccines delineated in our text, now we have a new one – peanut oil excipients. Which all by themselves can cause severe, even fatal, episodes of shock, as well as chronic allergy – irrespective of the mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, and the attenuated pathogens which the manufacturers do admit to.

Quite a toxic burden to saddle the unprotected newborn with. No wonder the US Supreme Court refers to vaccines as “unavoidably unsafe.”

Childhood allergies doubled between 1980 and 2000, and have doubled again since that time. [11] Theories abound. Childhood vaccines doubled at the same time. Why is there a virtual blackout of viable discussion about this glaring fact?

The epidemic of peanut allergy is just one facet of this much broader social phenomenon. We have the sickest, most allergic kids of any country, industrialized or not, on Earth. A study of the standard literature of vaccines is identical to a study of the history of adjuvants – an exercise in cover-up and dissimulation. Unvaccinated children don’t become autistic. And they don’t go into shock from eating peanuts.

But there can never be a formal clinical study where the control group is unvaccinated. NIH would never do that. They cannot. They know the outcome.

references

1. Fraser, H, The Peanut allergy epidemic, Skyhorse 2011

2. O’Shea, T, Vaccination is not immunization, thedoctorwithin 2013

3. Wallace, AR, Vaccine delusion, 1898

4. Richet, C, Nobel lecture, acceptance speech, 11 Dec 1913
Nobel Lectures Physiology or Medicine 1901-1921, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1967
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-lecture.html

5. Von Pirquet, C, MD, On the theory of infectious disease
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 80, January 1987

6. O’Shea, T, Allergies: the threshold of reactivity
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/Allergies-The-Threshold-of-Reactivity/

7. O’Shea, T, The post antibiotic age
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/antibiotics/Post-Antibiotic-Age/

8. Jones, S, Peanut oil used in a new vaccine New York Times 18 Sep 13

9. HOBSON, D, MD, The potential role of immunological adjuvants
in influenza vaccines Postgraduate Medical Journal March 1973 , no. 49, p 180.
http://pmj.bmj.com/content/49/569/180.full.pdf

9. Technical Report # 595, Immunological Adjuvants, World Health Org. 1976.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_595.pdf

10. FDA: March 2006. Approaches to Establish Thresholds for Major Food Allergens
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/food/labelingnutrition/foodallergenslabeling/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/ucm192048.pdf

11. O’Shea, T, The threshold of reactivity
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/allergies/Allergies-The-Threshold-of-Reactivity/

Om gluten och havre, bloggpost från Hälsa som livsstil

Gluten finns ju framför allt i vete, råg och korn, men det finns andra typer av liknande protein i andra sädesslag, som också kan ställa till problem ibland – här är en bra förklaring på hur det är med havre, från bloggen Hälsa som livsstil

https://www.halsasomlivsstil.com/finns-det-gluten-i-havregryn/?fref=gc&dti=410004222410849
Publicerad:  | Uppdaterad: 6 februari, 2017

Gluten är en sammansättning av proteiner som finns i spannmål. När det pratas om gluten är det främst vete, råg och korn som menas men gluten finns även i majs, ris, havre och andra medlemmar av familjen gräsväxter. Dock skiljer sig strukturen på gluten åt mellan de olika sädeslagen. Så finns det gluten i havregryn eller hur ligger det till? Det ska vi ta reda på nu.

Gluten och havre

Havre innehåller gluten. Men det gör även ris och majs och de klassas som glutenfria. Hur kommer det sig att dessa livsmedel klassa som glutenfria trots att de egentligen innehåller gluten?

Specifikt för havre ligger det till så här. Havre befinner sig på en annan genetisk gren än de som vi kallar för gluteninnehållande gryn. Det gör att gluteninnehållet också skiljer sig åt. Havre innehåller inte den potentiellt skadliga formen av gluten som påverkar personer med celiaki. Gluten innehåller ett protein vid namn gliadin. En specifik typ av gliadin, a-gliadin (alpha-gliadin) är det protein som personer med glutenintolerans reagerar mot. A-gliadin finns inte i havregryn vilket är anledningen till varför det sägs att det inte finns något gluten i havregryn.

Havregryn är alltså ”glutenfritt” om man fokuserar på a-gliadin men annars innehåller det gluten precis som andra växter ur gräsordningen.

Viktigt att tänka på är att det fortfarande finnas vissa personer som reagerar på havregryn precis som allergier mot andra sorters råvaror. Personer som lider av glutenkänslighet kan reagera mot andra delar av glutenet. Det gör att även om havre kan ses som glutenfritt så kan dessa personer ändå få negativa symtom.

På bilden nedan kan du se den genetiska ordningen i gräsfamiljen, lägg märke till att havre (engelska: oats) är på en egen genetisk gren separerat från vete, råg och korn.

Gluten i havregryn

Havregryn kan bli kontaminerat med gluten

Havregryn klassas som glutenfritt men där är en viktig aspekt att ta i beaktning för personer med glutenintolerans. Skillnaden mellan certifierat glutenfria havregryn och traditionella havregryn är att de behandlas på olika sätt under produktionen. Certifierat glutenfria havregryn hålls strikt isär från andra gluteninnehållande gryn för att det inte ska finnas en riska att gluten kan leta sig ner bland grynen. Maxgränsen för gluteninnehåll i produkter som är certifierat glutenfria går vid 20 ppm (parts per million)vilket motsvarar 1 mg/kg.

Med traditionella havregryn processas de i fabriker som även tar hand om andra gluteninnehållande gryn. Det finns därför en risk att lite rester av vete, råg eller korn skulle kunna råka följa med ner i förpackningen med havregryn. Därför bör inte personer med celiaki förlita sig på att havregrynen är helt glutenfria på grund av kontamineringsrisken.

Certifierat glutenfria havregryn kan du hitta här.

Havregrynsgröt

Havregryn innehåller, förutom en mindre komplex form av gluten än vete, råg och korn, även antinutrienter så som fytinsyra. Fytinsyra hindrar kroppen från att ta upp specifika mineraler. Det går dock att komma runt problemet med antinutrienter genom att förbereda havregrynen på rätt sätt. Genom att blötlägga havregrynen tillsammans med krossat bovete och en skvätt vassle neutraliseras fytinsyran och gör gröten mer lättsmält.

Mer om hur du tillagar havregrynsgröt med mer tillgänglig näring kan du läsa här

PS. Gilla Hälsa som livsstil på Facebook  och Instagram och glöm inte bort att anmäla dig till vårt nyhetsbrev.

Previous Older Entries

September 2017
M T W T F S S
« Aug    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930