Drug With Adverse Effects Used In American Beef since 2007

January 15, 2014

While the beta-agonist drug Zilmax (Zilpaterol) has been used to promote muscle growth in American-grown cattle since 2007, news of the dramatic adverse effects of this drug didn't hit mainstream news—and hence public consciousness—until late last year.

In early August, 2013, Tyson Food Inc issued a statement saying it would no longer purchase Zilmax-fed cattle for slaughter due to animal welfare concerns. The company had noticed that many of the cows that had been fed the drug had trouble walking. The cattle also displayed other behavioral issues.

Since then, Cargill Inc. has also decided to reject Zilmax-fed cattle until it is confident that any animal welfare issues associated with the drug have been resolved.

Merck, the maker of the drug, initially said it would halt US and Canadian sales of Zilmax, pending company research and review. It wasn't long however before Merck announced it had no plans to discontinue the product,³ saying the company stands behind the safety of the drug.

At present, Merck does not need approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to return Zilmax to market, as the FDA has not taken any action against the drug.

Agricultural drug use has become a major health concern for animals and humans alike, and in my view, organic, grass-fed meat that is humanely raised and butchered is really the only type of meat worth eating, if you want to maintain good health. 

It is important to understand that grass-fed animals not only produce better eggs, milk & meat - but the return to native perennial grasses is key to future.  We destroyed most of the grasslands and replaced them with monocultures like corn and soy.  

 We then produce hydrogenated vegetable oil and high fructose corn syrup for human consumption, and use much of the remainder for feed in concentrated animal feeding operations.

The grasslands act very much like forests, while deforestation is very well known the destruction of grasslands have similar effects.  Perennial grass farming produces more nutritious products, while work in a perfect cycle with nature.

 

Special Report Reveals Shocking Side Effects of Zilmax

Beta-agonist drugs such as Zilmax belong to a class of non-hormone drugs used as a growth promoter in livestock. As a class, beta-agonist drugs have been used in US cattle production since 2003.  

They're fed to cattle in the weeks prior to slaughter to increase weight by as much as 30 pounds of lean meat per cow. Due to the short window between administration of the drug and slaughter, as much as 20 percent of it may remain in the meat you buy. 

A recent special report by Reuters⁴ revealed some of the more horrific effects Zilmax has on cattle: 

"As cattle trailers that had traveled up to four hours in 95-degree heat began to unload, 15 heifers and steers hobbled down the ramps on August 5, barely able to walk. The reason: the animals had lost their hooves, according to US Department of Agriculture documents reviewed by Reuters... 

The next day... two more animals with missing hooves arrived by truck... The animals' feet were 'basically coming apart,' said Keith Belk, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University." 

Merck responded to Reuters with a statement saying that:

"Several third-party experts were brought in to evaluate the situation, review the data and identify potential causes for the hoof issue... The findings from the investigation showed that the hoof loss was not due to the fact these animals had received Zilmax."

It would not, however, disclose the identities of these third-party experts; nor would they release any more details on the investigation. According to Reuters, Tyson Foods had noticed "cattle mobility issues" prior to the August 5 and 6 events that spurred the company to refuse Zilmax-fed cattle, but none of them had been quite this severe.

Increased Use of Livestock Drugs Is Cause for Concern

Merck is required by federal law to report all deaths occurring in treated animals, and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) records show at least 285 cattle have unexpectedly died or been euthanized after receiving Zilmax since the drug's introduction in 2007. 

At least 75 cows lost their hooves and were euthanized within the past two years. Other reported adverse effects in cattle following the administration of Zilmax include:

Stomach ulcers	Brain lesions	Blindness	Lethargy and lameness
Bloody nose	Respiratory problems	Heart failure	Sudden death

According to the featured report, it still has not been determined whether Zilmax is responsible for causing all these side effects—some of them so severe that cattle have to be euthanized. Some of the statistics are telling, however. Within the first two years of Zilmax's introduction to market, the number of euthanized cattle skyrocketed; shooting up by 175 percent compared to the pre-Zilmax range. 

One working theory is that the drug might compound the adverse effects of ailments associated with confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), such as acidosis, which results when a cow eats too many grains or sugar. Excessive heat may be another compounding factor, as well as animal genetics.

"Regardless, the episode at the Tyson plant - which hasn't been publicly disclosed until now - is coming to light at a time of growing concern over risks to animal and human health posed by the increased use of pharmaceuticals in food production," Reuters⁵ says. 

"Livestock pharmaceuticals use is expanding as part of the push to produce more meat at lower cost... The cases of hoofless cattle also raise ethical questions about whether the drive by modern agriculture to produce greater volumes of food, as cheaply as possible, is coming at the cost of animal welfare."

Zilmax Banned for Use in Horses Due to Side Effects

Zilmax is already banned for use in horses due to severe side effects, including muscle tremors and rapid heart rates According to a 2008 veterinary case report involving three horses that were given Zilmax:

"Within 90 minutes the horses had muscular tremors which began in the skeletal muscles of the neck, shoulder, and foreleg and spread throughout the visible skeletal muscles. Intermittent visible muscular tremors continued for up to 1 week after the initial dose of zilpaterol. They also all had certain changes to their blood chemistry, such as elevated BUN, creatinine, and glucose and mild hyponatremia and hypochloremia... Liver and kidney changes were also noted."

Ractopamine, another beta-agonist, is yet another drug used in the US, even though it's been banned in 160 other countries due to its potential health hazards. The researchers also noted that Zilmax is about 125 times more potent than ractopamine, saying this may be why side effects were overlooked in connection with ractopamine studies. 

It's worth noting that, in human medicine, the same class of drugs (beta-agonists) can be found in certain asthma medications, such as Advair. One long-acting beta-agonist called salmeterol was linked to an epidemic of asthma deaths in the 1960s. Weight gain is also a common complaint among Advair users—so much so that the manufacturer has added weight gain to the post-marketing side effects. Other adverse reactions to beta-agonist drugs include increased heart rate, insomnia, headaches, and essential tremor—eerily similar to those experienced by horses. So why wouldn't the drug affect cows in a similar fashion?

Might Beta-Agonists in Meat Pose Human Health Hazards?

According to Randox Food Diagnostics,⁸ which has created tests for Zilmax residue in beef, use of beta-agonists prior to slaughter is of particular concern "as this poses a risk to the consumer and may result in consumer toxicity." Research findings to this effect include:

• A 2003 study in Analytica Chimica Acta:⁹ residue behaviour of Zilmax in urine, plasma, muscle, liver, kidney, and retina of cattle and pig was assessed. Two heifers and 16 pigs were treated with Zilmax and slaughtered after withdrawal times varying from 1 to 10 days. The drug was detectable at each point of time examined in all matrices except plasma after a withdrawal period of 10 days. It's worth noting that in the US, the recommended market window is three to 10 days after discontinuing Zilmax¹⁰
• A 2006 study¹¹ on residues of Zilmax  in sheep found detectable levels in liver and muscle tissues up to nine days after discontinuation of the drug

Even before it was approved, scientists expressed concerns that beta-agonists might result in increased cardiovascular risk for consumers.¹² According to an article published in the Journal of Animal Science in 1998:¹³

"The use of highly active beta-agonists as growth promoters is not appropriate because of the potential hazard for human and animal health, as was recently concluded at the scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production (Nov. 1995, Brussels)."

Not All Meat Is Created Equal

I believe the movement toward ethical and sustainable meat eating is an important one, both in terms of animal welfare and human health. Agricultural drug use is indeed becoming a major health concern for animals and humans alike, courtesy of factory farming methods where efficiency and low cost is the primary objective. 

Besides beta-agonist drugs like Zilmax and Ractopamine (the latter of which, by the way, is banned in 160 countries), animals raised in American confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are also typically given a number of other drugs, including antibiotics and hormones. 

You are essentially getting a concoction of drugs in every piece of meat you eat. The routine use of antibiotics alone now poses a significant threat to human health, as it has spawned a dramatic rise in antibiotic-resistant disease. Instead of their natural diet, which is plain grass, CAFO cattle are also fed a wholly unnatural diet consisting of pesticide-laden and oftentimes genetically engineered (GE) grains—primarilyGE corn and soy.

Organic, grass-fed and finished meat that is humanely raised and butchered is really about the only type of meat that is healthy to eat. By purchasing your meat from smaller farms that raise their animals in a humane fashion, according to organic principles, you're promoting the proliferation of such farms, which in the end will benefit everyone, including all the animals.

I've also previously written about the atrocities that take place in some U.S. CAFOs, where filthy, crowded conditions are the norm, and I think most people would agree that such animal abuse is inexcusable, even if they're "only" being raised for food. It would be foolish to think that the end result—the meat from these animals—would have any major health benefits.

In fact, the differences between CAFO beef and organic grass-fed beef are so vast; you're really talking about two different animals, and two separate industries with entirely different farming practices and environmental impact. The latter also tends to favor far more humane butchering practices, which is also a very important part of "ethical meat."

Rethink Your Shopping Habits, to Protect Your Family's Health

Whether you do so for ethical, environmental, or health reasons — or all of the above -- the closer you can get to the "backyard barnyard," the better. Ideally, you'll want to get all your animal products, including meat, chicken and eggs, from smaller community farms with free-ranging animals that are organically fed and locally marketed. This is the way food has been raised and distributed for centuries... before it was corrupted by politics, corporate greed, and the blaring arrogance of the food industry.

You can do this not only by visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also by taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs. The following organizations can also help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area, raised in a humane, sustainable manner:

1. Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
2. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
3. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
4. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
5. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes "Find Good Food" map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and markets near you.

 NOTE:  It doesn't have to be like this, you can vote with every dollar that you spend, buy from a local rancher and ensure that his stock is grass fed, not grain fed, confirm no steroids, antibiotics, hormones.  Or purchase through online companies that specialize in all sorts of yummy Grassland Beef, also lots of other meats to choose from.  You'll be amazed at the taste and texture difference, plus you won't have an upset stomach or diarrhea from eating naturally raised meats.

Even meat from boutique butcher shops could be coming from the same CAFO, just packaged more interestingly.   

You'll be shocked to learn what domestic cattle eat, if you've ever heard of Distiller Grains, you may never have associated it with feed.

What Do Whiskey & Pasteurized Milk Have In Common?

Money.  Big money.

Isn't big business always about money and never about the consumers' health or what they want to buy?

American Whiskey distilleries started production in the US after whiskey imports stopped with the war of 1812.  Alcohol production resulted in large amounts of wasted grain.  Distillery waste disposal represented a major expense.  This distilleries waste by product was called swill or slop.

Now what to do with this chemically altered waste?  Why not feed it to the cows?  Get rid of the garbage by feeding it to the cows!

Cows are biologically equipped to graze on grass, they do not naturally eat corn or grains.  They had to be forced to eat this smelly slop.

Farmers would stop feeding all food and water and give the cows salt to make them thirsty.  Then they were given cold slop until they got used to it, it was that or starve.  Once the cows were used to it they would be fed the hot slop right from the stills.  Streamlined efficiency.

These confined animal feed lots were the precursors to our manure mounded, crowded, disease ridden filthy pens that we have today.   The slop made the cows sick.  The milk produced from sick cows who were fed this whiskey distillery slop was very poor quality.

Pathogenic bacteria increased resulting in unhealthy and contaminated milk.  There was no concern for the cow's health or the quality of the milk or the people who bought and drank the milk.  Not surprisingly there were deaths caused by the raw milk produced in those conditions.

Learn More Here



 

How Vaccine Policy & Law Threatens Parental Rights in America

By Dr. Mercola

"THE GREATER GOOD looks behind the fear, hype and politics that have polarized the vaccine debate in America today.
The film re-frames the emotionally charged issue and offers, for the first time, the opportunity for a rational and scientific discussion on how to create a safer and more effective vaccine program."

This film recently received the 2nd annual "Koroni Award for a documentary feature addressing an issue of importance to public health" at the Sidewalk Film Festival.
It also received the Cinematic Vision Award at the 2011 Amsterdam Film Festival. From my point of view, this film couldn't be more timely and, if you have any interest in the vaccine controversy, is a must see.

I sincerely hope you will share this article with family, close friends and social networks, and urge everyone you know to take the time to watch it.
Barbara Loe Fisher summarizes the purpose of the film rather succinctly when she says that the issue of vaccines, "has become so polarized – you're either pro-vaccine or you're anti-vaccine."

"When you take a centrist position, like the National Vaccine Information Center, you are automatically put into the category of being anti-vaccine. But the truth is, we're just trying to make vaccine policies and vaccines safer."

Individual Rights versus Politics

The Greater Good "weaves together the stories of families whose lives have been forever changed by vaccination," and shows how modern medicine, especially when driven by politics and big business, can rob you of some of your most basic rights. The results of such politically- and financially-driven policies can be devastating and one movie reviewer, who saw the groundbreaking documentary, commented:

"What's being said is staggering, especially if you don't know too much about the science of, and politics behind, vaccines." – LA Weekly

But this film is focused on analyzing what can be done to create positive change and reduce irrational fears so parents and doctors can work together to minimize vaccine risks vaccine risks to individuals and our population.

The film seeks to open the channels of communication between parents, doctors, and policy makers to listen and learn from each other in order to begin a rational discussion about vaccine safety. After all, don't all of us want our kids to be healthy and safe from unnecessary harm?

In order to ensure the safety of as many children as possible, we cannot continue to ignore the signs that maybe we've taken vaccines as our primary disease prevention strategy too far; to the point that we're now seeing too many people being hurt.

Unlike many other TV programs and documentaries on this topic, The Greater Good takes care to acknowledge both doctors and scientists, who advocate for mass, mandatory vaccination policies as well as those, who question the science, policy and ethics of current vaccine policies.

From my point of view, there can be little doubt that we need to review the safety and effectiveness of the current vaccination program in the U.S., and this review needs to include methodologically sound investigative science. If we don't do that now, we may not be able to stop further damage to the health of future generations of children.

Incomplete Science Shapes US Vaccination Policies

Public health officials have long insisted that vaccines are the best way to protect the public health. As a result, the number of doses of vaccines included in the childhood vaccination schedule has tripled over the past 30 years, from 23 doses of seven different vaccines in 1980 to 69 doses of 16 different vaccines in 2010.

However, alongside the rise in administered vaccines, we've also seen a significant rise in children with chronic disease and disabilities. For whatever reason, our kids are getting sicker. Infant mortality has also risen. In 1960, America ranked 12th in infant mortality among all nations of the world. By 2005, we ranked 30th.

Furthermore, more full term babies die before their first birthday in the US¹ than in most European countries, and the US gives its infants more vaccines than any other country in the world.

So, could it all be a coincidence?

The truth is, we don't know.

No one has formally and independently studied the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, and this is something that needs to be done not just for each individual vaccine, but also for multiple vaccine combinations.

The research is INCOMPLETE, and that is a major part of the problem. How can you claim a pharmaceutical product like a vaccine is safe for everyone and that using multiple vaccines from day of birth throughout childhood is a wise public health policy when that policy has not been adequately studied? As a nation, the U.S. is gambling the health of its citizens on assumptions.
As stated in the film:

"The certainty is not scientific."

Vaccines are currently approved based on the research submitted to the government by the drug companies that have developed the new vaccine and funded the pre-licensure studies. Many of the studies drug companies conduct do not use true placebos and have only a few hundred or a few thousand healthy people enrolled, who do not match the health profile of the millions of people told to get the vaccine after it is licensed.

The safety of vaccine policies are primarily based on the word of the companies that produce and profit from vaccines and enjoy a liability shield from vaccine injury lawsuits in civil court that was given to them by Congress and the Supreme Court.
Is this wise?

Furthermore, the mass vaccination program takes a one-size-fits-all strategy approach. It does not acknowledge that we are all individuals with different predispositions and health status, which can play a significant role in how we react to vaccines or prescription drugs. For example, research by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride indicates that children with compromised gut flora are particularly prone to vaccine damage.

Currently there is almost no individual screening done by most doctors to assess whether an individual is at high risk for having a vaccine reaction that can end in serious health problems or even death. Wouldn't it make sense to do everything possible to minimize vaccine risks?

After all, while increasing numbers of parents opt to delay vaccinations or opt out of vaccines for their children, there are many parents who want to vaccinate their children and they deserve to have confidence that everything possible is being done to minimize vaccine risks for their child.

Being able to easily and inexpensively decrease a child's chances of experiencing an adverse reaction should be embraced and encouraged by all health officials and doctors rather than conveniently dismissing the legitimate vaccine safety concerns of parents as "anti-vaccine" and "anti-establishment."

Why We Should Urge Our Daughters to Be One Less Victim of Gardasil

In 2006, Merck released Gardasil, a vaccine designed to protect young girls and women against being infected with four strains of human papillomavirus (HPV). The idea was that if HPV infection, which is cleared asymptomatically within two years by more than 90 percent of those who get it, is that HPV associated cervical cancers in women would be prevented.

One of the three vaccine injury cases featured in The Greater Good movie is that of Gabi Swank, a 15-year-old honors student who decided to get the Gardasil vaccine after seeing a "Be One Less" Gardasil vaccine advertisement on TV. Like so many young girls, she wasn't warned about any possible side effects when she got the shots, which are given as a series of three injections.

Gabi is now a Gardasil injury statistic, a young girl permanently disabled by the vaccine.

At the time the documentary was filmed, she had already suffered two strokes and experienced partial paralysis. She also lost part of her vision and today suffers frequent seizures. When she was in high school, many days she had to use a wheelchair to get around school due to muscle pain and chronic fatigue.

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, recently issued an update on adverse reaction reports relating to Gardasil.² The documents obtained from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) detail 26 new deaths reported following HPV vaccination between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011. That's 26 deaths of young, previously healthy girls in just one year. Other serious side effects reported during that time frame included:

Seizures	Paralysis	Blindness	Pancreatitis
Speech problems	Short term memory loss	Guillain-Barre syndrome	Ovarian cysts

Between May 2009 and September 2010, 16 deaths occurred after Gardasil vaccination. For that time frame there were also 789 reports of "serious" adverse reactions, of which 213 resulted in permanent disability and 25 resulting in a diagnosis of Guillain Barre Syndrome, Judicial Watch reported.³

When Politics and Vaccine Safety Collide… You Usually Lose

According to Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton: "These reports raise additional concerns about Gardasil's questionable safety and provide ample reason to end the push to give it young girls and boys. And the CDC's continued caginess on reported deaths is disturbing. Federal, state, and local officials need to stop promoting this vaccine for children."

Unfortunately, many elected officials are doing just the opposite. Texas Governor Rick Perry is a perfect example. In 2007, he signed an Executive Order mandating all 11- and 12-year-old girls in Texas to get the HPV vaccine.⁴ Fortunately, the law was overturned two months later, after a firestorm of opposition. Many have now connected the dots and exposed his too-cozy ties to Merck,⁵ the maker of Gardasil. More recently, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill allowing minors to be given Gardasil vaccine (and other vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases) without their parents' knowledge or informed consent.

Annual PAP Test Now Discouraged. Why?

According to recently updated guidelines by the federal Preventive Services Task Force,⁶ women over 21 are now to be dissuaded from annual PAP smears. Instead the panel recommends that women between 21 and 65 get a PAP smear test every three years, stating that "evidence is still insufficient to weigh harms and benefits of tests screening for human papillomavirus (HPV)."

Other cancer groups agree. As reported by Reuters:⁷ "'Everybody agrees on almost everything: Let's get rid of regular annual Pap testing, let's get rid of teenage screenings, let's screen women who aren't getting screened,' said Debbie Saslow, the American Cancer Society's director of breast and gynecologic cancer."

The problem with this stance is that PAP smears prevent cervical cancer deaths far more effectively than the HPV vaccine ever will. And it's hard to compare the potential side effects of the HPV vaccine with the potential side effects of PAP tests.

I've never heard of anyone dying or becoming paralyzed from a PAP smear…
Now, I don't necessarily disagree with their recommendation to reduce the frequency of PAP testing, but I question the double standard that is so readily visible here. Why are cancer groups recommending getting rid of a safe and effective screening method, which we know saves lives, while vigorously advocating the clearly risky HPV vaccine? For example, the National Cervical Cancer Coalition offers the following response to the question about Gardasil's safety:

"The FDA has licensed the vaccine as safe and effective. This vaccine has been tested in thousands of females (9 to 26 years of age) around the world. These studies have shown no serious side effects. The most common side effect is brief soreness at the injection site."

It does not even hint at the many thousands of serious adverse events reported after Gardasil vaccinations to the government's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) since its approval, including 26 deaths in the past 12 months alone!

Furthermore, the death rate from cervical cancer in the United States is a mere 3 per 100,000. Your daughter has a much higher risk of dying in a car accident than she does dying from cervical cancer. Cervical cancer rates are even lower in some European countries. The reason why the mortality rate is so low is because the immune system's of the vast majority of women are usually strong enough to clear up this kind of infection on its own, and does so in more than 90 percent of all cases. The CDC even admits to this fact on their website.

For the 'Greater Good' – At What Price?

Rigidly maintaining the assumption that one-size-fits-all mass-vaccinations are necessary and "for the greater good" fails to take into account the possibility that there is harm being done to an increasing number of people, who are not being counted when vaccine benefit and risk calculations are done by health officials.

Keep in mind that to this day, we have NO reliable data indicating just how many children are truly being harmed by any particular vaccine, as adverse event reporting is completely voluntary. Many people are still unaware that the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) even exists, or that you can file a report yourself if your doctor fails to make a report.

The CDC itself admits that only a small fraction of hospitalization, injuries and deaths after vaccination are ever reported. In one 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated that fewer than one percent of all doctors report injuries and deaths following the administration of prescription drugs. This estimate may be even lower for vaccines. According to Barbara Loe Fisher, one survey conducted by the NVIC in New York in 1994 revealed that only one doctor in 40 reported to VAERS.⁸

In an ideal world scenario, any and all adverse events would be reported following vaccination, and health outcomes would be evaluated long-term. Today, many doctors and health authorities simply dismiss adverse events as "unrelated" to the vaccine. But on what do they base their conclusions?

I urge you to take the time to watch The Greater Good, and start to think about some of the profound questions raised in the film. What we need is an open, intelligent, civil dialogue about how we can ensure the health and well-being of our children, and that doesn't mean it has to be all or nothing!

Everyone should be allowed to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination and that means you should be able to use every recommended vaccine, some vaccines or no vaccines at all. We should all have the legal right to make informed, voluntary decision about any drug or vaccine or medical procedure that carries risk to our health or the health of our children.

When our government recommends doctors give children 69 doses of vaccines and many of those vaccines are mandated, safety MUST become the FIRST priority for public health officials, and doctors giving vaccines. It is essential that the appropriate studies be done to find out if the current vaccine schedule is doing far more harm than good.

Money and Ideology Influencing Vaccine Policy & Law: How Parental Rights Are Being Threatened in America

There's ample evidence showing that the US government, through the CDC, has an enormous, well-coordinated plan to mass-vaccinate with as many vaccines as possible.⁹ This plan has been ongoing for years, and has grown exponentially. They've covered all their bases by enjoining numerous legislative groups, such as Women In Government¹⁰ (whose sponsors¹¹ include Merck, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline), and physicians' groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics. These are just two examples – there are literally dozens, and possibly more, groups and individuals that are collectively pushing vaccines.

Churches are one of the latest additions to the ever-growing list of organizations to be pulled into the fold of vaccine pushers. For example, last year, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, along with the U.S. Health and Human Services, the Office of Minority Health, and the CDC, began reaching out to faith-based organizations, urging them to sponsor flu clinics with Walgreens.

The reason they're doing this, health officials said, is that they've found that non-traditional settings such as worship services can be highly effective in influencing people's decisions...

Pushing matters even further, in Indiana, a law now requires churches with day care centers to make sure each child has received "age appropriate" vaccines as determined by the state department of health¹² – effectively removing a parent's right to change their child's vaccine schedule. The old law only required parents to inform the church day care center that they objected to vaccines for religious reasons.

It did not make churches the enforcers of the state vaccine schedule.

When you follow the money, you realize that vaccine makers are the ones pulling the political strings to eliminate vaccine exemptions. Eliminating this right nationwide would be a major coup de gras in terms of making sure everyone is vaccinated with as many vaccines as possible.

Make no mistake about it, it's the Pharma-funded medical trade associations and state and federal health agency employees that are lobbying in state legislatures for non-medical vaccine exemptions to be removed, and it has everything to do with maximizing profits, and nothing to do with protecting people's health from every disease under the sun. The (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to strip citizens in Vermont of their right to non-medical exemptions earlier this year is but one example of what is happening, and what the ultimate plan for the entire nation is...

Profit Before Safety

Naturally, there's BIG money driving all this. The pharmaceutical industry and its cohorts have been really creative about how to influence vaccine uptake. Positive and negative reinforcement strategies are simultaneously employed, from strong-arming physicians with the threat of a bad health grade if they fail to have a good vaccine rate in their practice, to monetary gifts and other ego-boosting incentives.¹³

Another strategy to increase vaccination rates and coverage is to push combination vaccines.¹⁴ This saves money and increases vaccination rates at the same time. Never mind the fact that most drug company pre-licensure studies do not study new combination vaccines given simultaneously with all the other vaccines licensed and recommended to demonstrate that giving children multiple doses of vaccines at the same time is actually safe.

The government is heavily funding the vaccine plan, in a number of different ways. As just one example, the federal government had $1,575,000 in grants available through June 15, 2012 to "increase adult immunization rates through healthcare provider partnerships."¹⁵ And then there's the "317 grant program," which funnels hundreds of millions of dollars toward vaccinations. As stated on the Coalition's website:¹⁶

"...in 2005, CDC awarded $431 million in federal grants to state, local, and territorial health agencies for program operations and vaccine purchase. Currently there are 64 grantees: all 50 states, six large cities, and eight territories and former territories."

At the same time, the CDC is now accepting handouts from, and encourages "partnerships" and "sponsorships" between vaccine makers and private physicians – which really is a form of conflict of interest – to further boost vaccine coverage. To that end, incentives such as cash and grocery gift cards have also been designed to give to parents so they'll want to vaccinate without any fuss.¹⁷ In 1994, the CDC also formed a foundation that that has numerous vaccine programs, many of which are sponsored by major pharma funds.¹⁸

And then there's Big Pharma's lobbying, which seems almost small compared to the "big incentive guns" that the CDC has pulled out in this effort... It all ties in to the Health and Human Services (HHS) updated National Vaccine Plan.¹⁹

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand vaccine exemptions, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.
Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact.

Signing up for NVIC's free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org not only gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community, but when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

Write or email your elected state representatives and share your concerns. Call them, or better yet, make an appointment to visit them in person in their office. Don't let them forget you!

It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what's really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the "real life" experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don't share information and experiences with one another, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the "other side" of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than "statistically acceptable collateral damage" of national one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn't be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:

• NVIC's Quick Fact Information on Diseases & Vaccines: Learn more about the 16 diseases and vaccines licensed and recommended by doctors for children and adults. Find out what the vaccine manufacturers, government and medical trade groups say, along with independent analyses and live links to references, so you can do your own research.
• NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
• If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
• Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or government officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

Shocking Report Gardasil Infected Blood Transfusions

(NaturalNews) A shocking new report reveals that receiving blood donated from someone vaccinated with Gardasil, the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine, may be downright dangerous to your health.

S.A.N.E. Vax, Inc., contracted with an independent lab which tested 13 Gardasil vials from 13 different lots from all over the world and found that the genetically modified HPV DNA strands present in Gardasil had firmly attached to the vaccination's aluminum adjuvant in a whopping 100% of the samples tested.

While natural HPV DNA does not stay in the bloodstream long, the aluminum binding allows the genetically modified recombinant HPV DNA (rDNA) to behave differently, potentially entering cells and wreaking havoc.

The vials were analyzed after a concerned parent contacted S.A.N.E. Vax, because her 13-year-old daughter developed an auto-immune reaction that would later be diagnosed as acute juvenile rheumatoid arthritis within 24 hours after receiving her third Gardasil vaccine. Two years following the incident, the girl's blood still tested positive for HPV DNA that should not be there. In fact, these strands have also been found in post-mortem samples as well, as in the case of teen Jasmine Renata, who died inexplicably in her sleep six months after receiving a Gardasil shot.

S.A.N.E. Vax points out that both Merck, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures Gardasil, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) claimed there was no viral DNA in Gardasil at the time of its "fast-tracked" approval. Milford Hospital Pathologist Dr. Sin Hang Lee, who analyzed the Gardasil vials, testified, "Undegraded viral and plasmid DNA fragments are known to activate macrophages, causing them to release tumor necrosis factor, a myocardial depressant which can induce lethal shock in animals and humans."

NaturalNews has previously reported that, by injecting a vaccine, any potentially toxic ingredients therein become much more harmful, because they are allowed to bypass the natural protections of the respiratory system and digestive tract. Dr. Lee noted, "DNA in an injectable protein-based vaccine may increase the risk of autoimmune disorders and gene mutation which may lead to malignancies."

Both Merck and the FDA should have been aware of this risk, but in fact, according to the official prescribing information for Gardasil, the vaccine "has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity." Anyone who receives the Gardasil shot or allows administration to their children is taking a huge auto-immune disorder and/or cancer risk.

Vactruth's Sandy Lunoe wrote the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ask about the potential dangers of blood transfusion recipients taking a Gardasil shot; the CDC responded that "the presence of DNA fragments is expected" and "Vaccination with Gardasil provides no known risk to the blood recipients or the blood donor." Lunoe notes that the CDC gave no evidence to support this statement.

Gardasil Adverse Reactions 'Like a Catalog of Horrors'

Tom Fitton, president of watchdog Judicial Watch, wrote, "The FDA adverse event reports on the HPV vaccine read like a catalog of horrors." Some of the adverse events include not only auto-immune disorders and cancer, but Guillain-Barre syndrome, paralysis, numbness, facial palsy, chronic pain, infertility, chronic fatigue syndrome and more.

So many horrible reactions have occurred in the wake of Gardasil vaccinations that the Japanese government has withdrawn support and now requires the nation's medical professionals to warn patients who request Gardasil about the potential for adverse effects.

As of August 2013, S.A.N.E. Vax reports that HPV vaccines have caused over 30,000 adverse reactions, including 6,154 cases where the recipient did not recover, 975 cases where the recipient was disabled and 139 deaths. The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has already awarded nearly $6 million in damages to Gardasil victims.

Despite the mounting evidence that Gardasil is dangerous, the FDA continues to maintain that Gardasil is safe and effective, and the National Institutes of Health even recently awarded the University of California nearly $550,000 to study new propaganda campaigns for pushing the shot on low-income minority parents.

This is also despite the fact that HPV itself does not cause cervical cancer. In addition, the CDC even admits that 90% of HPV is taken care of naturally by the body's immune system within two years. Key Gardasil developer Dr. Diane Harper has recently come out against the vaccine to clear her conscience, stating, "Gardasil has been associated with at least as many serious adverse events as there are deaths from cervical cancer developing each year."

In other words, thousands have been damaged by a vaccine that does not even provide any real health benefit.

$1 Million Offered To Any Drug Exec To Take 1,000 "Safe" Vaccines

Piers Morgan has been offered $1 million if he will agree to be injected with 1,000 off-the-shelf vaccine shots within a two-week period. The offer was made late last week by Alex Jones of Infowars.com and stemmed from a spirited conversation he was sharing with the Health Ranger on live national radio about the fact that mercury, aluminum, MSG and formaldehyde are all still used in vaccines. (See video clip, below.)

Following an hour of discussion about the toxicity of the destructive chemicals and heavy metals still used in vaccines -- a fact openly admitted by the CDC -- Jones suggested that executives of vaccine companies should be executed if found guilty of crimes against humanity by a lawful court of their peers. Adams suggested that instead of a regular execution, they should simply be injected with large quantities of their own medicines -- the very same vaccines that are routinely injected into infants and children across America.

This conversation soon morphed into the idea that Piers Morgan should be offered $1 million if he agrees to be injected with 1,000 vaccines.

The Piers Morgan $1 million vaccine challenge is official

Jones then made the announcement official, looking directly into the camera and offering Piers Morgan $1 million if he would take 1,000 vaccine shots over a two-week period, administered under controlled conditions. Both Jones and the Health Ranger predicted Morgan would not be able to survive such an assault of deadly chemicals on the body.

The offer is not a stunt. It is a serious challenge for Piers Morgan, a long-time promoter of vaccines, to prove that they are safe even in the quantities being routinely recommended by vaccine advocates (who ridiculously say that even 100,000 vaccines would be safe for children).

The 1,000 vaccines to be administered to Piers Morgan if he accepts the challenge are:

• 500 Influenza vaccines
• 100 Anthrax vaccines
• 100 Polio vaccines
• 100 Gardasil vaccines
• 100 Hepatitis B vaccines
• 100 Meningitis vaccines

The $1 million vaccine challenge was also extended to any executive of a vaccine manufacturer, opening the challenge to thousands of potential takers.

Will any drug company executives claim the $1 million and agree to be injected with 1,000 vaccines?

Vaccine promoters claim there is no limit to the number of vaccines that can be safely injected

Here's why this challenge is not a joke: Vaccine promoters are on the record saying that there is absolutely no limit to the number of vaccines a child may be safely given. One especially prominent vaccine promoter insists that children can safely receive 100,000 vaccines!

If this is what these people believe, then will any of them step up and agree to be injected with 1,000 vaccines to prove vaccine safety once and for all?

Are there any executives from Merck, Pfizer, GSK or other drug companies willing to be injected with 1,000 doses of their own medicine?

Surely someone will step forward to prove, once and for all, that all these vaccines carry no risk whatsoever... right?

Let's give it a few days and find out. I can assure you with a high degree of certainty that no drug company executive is likely to accept this challenge. Not even a CDC official, for that matter. And certainly not Piers Morgan, as he became gravely ill last year after receiving just one flu shot.

If I'm wrong and someone does accept the challenge, then this is going to be one of the most widely-publicized events in medical history. There will be a huge underground industry of betting on how many vaccine shots the person receives before convulsing, losing consciousness or just flat-out dying on the spot.

For the record, I don't wish any harm on anyone, but this demonstration is, as the vaccine industry says, "for the greater good." The death of just one person crazy enough to voluntarily accept this challenge could help save the lives of millions of others who learn the truth about the dangers of vaccines and thereby seek far safer ways to defend themselves against infectious disease.

So let's root for some takers on this and hope there's at least one high-level person in the vaccine industry who has enough backbone to step forward and put his own life on the line to demonstrate the "safety" of his own company's vaccines.

But don't hold your breath. Drug company executives aren't suicidal. They know their vaccines can be deadly, which is exactly why they won't accept this challenge.

Watch the full video interview at one of the links below (the conversation about vaccines begins around 47:00)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-fNmXoCWck
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=D76B895D10...

Why Michael J Fox Will Never Find Parkinson's Cure

Over the years, certain celebrities have been associated with specific diseases, largely due to press coverage. For instance, Patrick Swayze will be associated with pancreatic cancer indefinitely. Michael J. Fox represents Parkinson's disease, and the 'Marlborough Man' ironically represents lung cancer.

 For those who do not remember, the Marlborough Men were the smoking cowboys who attempted to make filtered cigarettes seem more masculine. The commercials were a huge success, until all the actors began dying from lung cancer.

The demise of the Marlboro Men was publicized heavily by Big Media, because it has long been open season against tobacco products, but the cause of Michael Fox's Parkinson's disease is always side-stepped.

 Readers may notice there has never been a peep about the cause; and moreover, the talk has been singularly about finding the supposedly elusive cure. The cause of Fox's disease is not as politically correct to attack, nor is curing it. It would get most reporters fired.

Throughout the 1980's, Michael did commercials for Pepsico, and he promoted Diet Pepsi cola exclusively in the latter years of his contract. It is believed that he became an ardent consumer of Diet Pepsi throughout this period (even off-set).

Then, in 1991, Michael was diagnosed with young-onset Parkinson's disease. It would be seven years before he told the public about his diagnosis, so the link has been missed by most people.

In 2000, Michael founded the Michael J. Fox Foundation, which was supposed to help discover the cause and cure for Parkinson's disease. Various groups have sent information to the foundation about the link between aspartame (found in diet colas) and Parkinson's disease, but they have been ignored.

The group instead donated $175,000,000 to researchers of Parkinson's disease, while wholly ignoring the information about aspartame.

The foundation is yet another organization which apparently believes that funneling even more money into the pharma-chemical industry cartel will help to find an elusive cure, for something that would require an admission of guilt to cure, and the loss of a billion dollar diet drinks industry.

Thus, The chemical industry is the problem, not the solution.

 Their even greater profits from treatment regimens soar higher with each new Michael they create. Meanwhile, they continue promoting diet drinks as the healthy alternative, because sugars after all, are bad.

The mainstream medical establishment apparently does not know the cause of Parkinson's disease, but it has been linked with heavy metal exposure and excitotoxins. N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors in the brain are responsible for the excitotoxicity associated with Parkinson's disease.

Aspartate is one of the main components that is released when aspartame is metabolized, and it directly effects the NMDA receptors. Regular intake of aspartame damages those receptors, and can eventually lead to Parkinson's disease.

It is known that Parkinson's disease occurs whenever the dopamine-related nerve cells inside the brain are decimated. With dramatically decreased dopamine, the nerve cells in the effected part of the brain cannot properly transmit messages.

 In studies, aspartame has been shown to decrease dopamine levels in the brain to induce the unmistakable neurological decline that is seen in Parkinson's patients. A troubling study in Norway verified aspartame as an excitotoxin and as a neurotoxin that is particularly dangerous to children.

Yet none of this is ever mentioned by either the Michael J. Fox Foundation, nor any mainstream media outlets, for which the topic of aspartame is avoided.

Aspartame will cause the death of brain cells and damage to the brain neurons without any other implicating factors. It is a pure poison that is sometimes used to kill ants, and it is known to be the surest way to cause brain tumors in laboratory rats.

 Some cancer studies have used aspartame to intentionally induce cancers in laboratory rats, for the purpose of later testing anti-cancer drugs. It was used because it is so reliable at producing cancers in high dosages.

 It frequently does this to humans too, by the way. In addition to its ability to cause (or mimic the symptoms of) Parkinson's disease, it may also cause multiple sclerosis, diabetes, fibromyalgia, reduced intelligence, obesity, asthma, muscle spasms, and a total of 92 symptoms that even the F.D.A. was forced to confess.

 Let's not forget the brain tumors, either. There is a great irony that 'obesity' is one of the side effects of aspartame, considering it is used exclusively in diet products. The same chemical industry that produce this stuff is the industry that sells the even more lucrative treatments for the aftermath, so it is a case of one hand washing the other. Therefore the cure will not be found anytime soon.

The Politics of Aspartame and Why It is Still Legal

In January of 1980, the F.D.A. advisory board banned aspartame, because their research showed that it caused brain tumors. This decision could only be overturned by the commissioner.

Then, in November 1980, Donald Rumsfeld was hired as part of the transition team for President Ronald Reagan, prior to which, he had been the President of Searle (the company that created aspartame). On the first day of the new administration, the previous F.D.A. commissioner's authority was suspended, and Rumsfeld assigned Dr. Arthur Hayes as the new head of the F.D.A..

 Hayes was previously just a defense contractor, but they both had a close relationship because they had worked together under the Nixon Administration in close contact with the President of Pepsico. Hayes' first decision was to approve aspartame for dry foods, and by the end of 1983, he had approved aspartame for soft drinks too.

 He was later forced to leave the agency, due to media pressure for his acceptance of corporate "gifts". The defense contractor then went to the Searle public relations firm as its "senior medical adviser". Shortly thereafter, Monsanto purchased Searle. Rumsfeld received a $12 million "bonus" for his help in ram-rodding the F.D.A. into unbanning aspartame.

Perhaps Michael J. Fox will someday realize what caused his disease, and if he does, we pray that he will use his celebrity influence to inform others about aspartame.

There are very few people who drink Diet Pepsi as frequently as Michael did, particularly at such a young age. Thus, Parkinson's disease rarely occurs in people so young.

 Finding the cause of these events is not difficult, except for people who are intentionally trying to avoid the obvious. Unfortunately, most of the organizations that pretend to seek a cure do, in fact, ignore the obvious.

They prefer genetic explanations, since these mean that nobody is to blame, and there is no responsibility for anyone, and no reason for the funding to ever stop. Both the lawyers and the accountants like it that way. Genetic explanations mean that they are certain to never find that cure, and that's money in the bank.

If the mainstream media were to spend as much time attacking excitotoxins like aspartame and MSG as they did tobacco, it would not be long before many of the major diseases, including Parkinson's disease, became a thing of the past. Fibromyalgia would disappear completely.

Eating Raw Garlic 2X Weekly Works Better Than Chemo

Marco Torres, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

That’s a statistic the cancer industry cannot claim because almost 40% of cancer patients die within five years and more than 80% die within twelve years either of the cancer or the treatment that was administered for the cancer.

 Eating garlic twice a week will never kill you and it reduces cancer risk without any side effects whatsoever.

The reason so many people die with conventional cancer treatment is that while damaging healthy cells, chemotherapy also triggers them to secrete a protein that sustains tumour growth and resistance to further treatment.

Only through the forces that have carefully conspired to thwart meaningful advances in cancer research and treatment over the past century has chemotherapy succeeded. In what reality do we live in when cut, poison and burn are the only ways acceptable to treat cancer?

The Power of Garlic

Garlic (Allium sativum) is a member of the onion family Alliaceae. Garlic has been used throughout history for both its culinary and medicinal properties. Garlic’s distinctive characteristics arise from sulfur, which constitutes almost 1% of its dry weight.

 Although garlic does not typically serve as a major source of essential nutrients, it may contribute to several dietary factors with potential health benefits, including the presence of oligosaccharides, arginine-rich proteins and, depending on soil and growing conditions, selenium and flavonoids.

Preclinical models provide rather compelling evidence that garlic and its associated components can lower the incidence of breast, colon, skin, uterine, esophagus, and lung cancers. uppression of nitrosamine formation continues to surface as one of the most likely mechanisms by which garlic retards cancer.

The ability of garlic to inhibit tumors due to different cancer-inducing agents and in different tissues indicates that a generalized cellular event is likely responsible for the change in tumor incidence and that the response is highly dependent on environmental or other types of biological insults. Because metabolic activation is required for many of these carcinogens, there is likelihood that either phase I or II enzymes are altered.

A breakdown of allicin appears to be necessary for achieving maximum tumor inhibition. Allyl sulfur compounds preferentially suppress neoplastic over non-neoplastic cells (Sakamoto, Lawson, and Milner 1997).

It is becoming increasingly clear that the response to allyl sulfurs relates to their ability to form free radicals rather than to serve as an antioxidant (Antosiewicz et al. 2008). Allyl sulfurs may bring about changes by influencing the genomic expression by affecting histone homeostasis.
Garlic has even been found to be 100 Times More Effective Than Antibiotics

44% Reduction in Cancer Risk

Researchers at the Jiangsu Provincial Centre for Disease Control and Prevention claim to have found a protective association between the intake of raw garlic and lung cancer, advocating that, “garlic may potentially serve as a chemopreventive agent for lung cancer.”

The study, published online in the journal Cancer Prevention Research,notes that Chinese medicine has used garlic since 2000 BCE. The authors suggest compounds such as diallyl sulfide–that are released when a garlic bulb breaks into cloves–may contribute to the herb’s potential preventative powers. The researchers did not look at cooked garlic in this study.

A number of studies on garlic have appeared dealing with diallyl sulfide and cancer. One from the Republic of Korea cites diallyl disulfide (DADS) as the most prevalent oil-soluble sulfur compound in garlic, inhibiting cell proliferation in many cell lines. Scientists there examined DADS ability to kill cells in a process involving free radical production. They found that the famous tumor suppressor gene, p53, arrested the cell cycle when DADS treatment was present

Cancer cells died following 24 hour DADS treatment that activated the p53 gene. They also found that DADS induced cell death was prevented by treatment with a compound known to prevent p53 dependent cell death by reducing free radical levels in the mitochrondria, the cellular furnaces. Their results showed that mitochrondrial free radicals may serve as second messengers in DADS-induced cell death, which requires activation of p53. That study was found in the January Journal of Biochemical and Molecular Toxicology.

When scientists looked at 4,500 adults in perfect health and 1,424 adults with lung cancer, they discovered that those who ate raw garlic at least twice weekly had a significantly lower chance of contracting lung cancer. Scientists worked it out to be a 44% less likely chance. Findings were similar even if the adults smoked or were near cooking fumes, with a 30% less likely chance.

The researchers conducted face-to-face, standardised interviews in China with 1,424 lung cancer patients and 4,543 healthy controls which aimed to find out about participants’ lifestyles and diets – in particular how much garlic they ate and whether they smoked.
According to the researchers the “effective components in garlic in lung cancer chemoprevention warrant further in-depth investigation.”

Supplement opportunities

The researchers suggested that diallyl sulphide – a compound released when a garlic bulb sprouts into cloves – may be at the root of garlic’s preventative potential.
Diallyl sulphide is a breakdown of allicin, an antibiotic and anti-fungal compound largely depleted by cooking or pickling.

While the study concentrated primarily on garlic in its raw state, it can also be consumed in tablet, oil, powder, aged and cooked form.

Garlic (allium sativum) is an important ingredient of Chinese medicine and can be found within many traditional herbal remedies and traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs).
Yet proclamations of these health properties can be found outside of China too. The World Health Organisation’s guidelines recommend a dose of around one clove of fresh garlic for adults per day. While garlic tablets are a licensed drug in Germany, where they are prescribed for the treatment of atherosclerosis.

Most of us buy garlic at a supermarket. We don’t know what kind it is, how fresh it is or where it’s grown. But there’s a good chance it comes from China, which produces 75 percent of the world’s supply — and whose food exports have come under scrutiny after recent discoveries of tainted pet food ingredients, toothpaste and more.

According to Euromonitor International, China produced 13,719,1000 tonnes of the world’s 17,789,7000 tonne supply of garlic in 2012.

Garlic is the United States’ biggest fresh-vegetable import from China, which sent 138 million pounds of it worth more than $70 million last year. The U.S. also gets small amounts from Mexico, Argentina and about 15 other countries.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service says dehydrated Chinese garlic imports increased 384 percent in the past 10 years. Independent lab tests found “high levels of lead, arsenic and added sulfites in two supermarket-brand imported garlic powders from store shelves.”

My advice is to buy garlic locally if you can and avoid chinese garlic whenever possible.

NOTE:  My advice is to grow your own garlic, nothing could be easier no matter where you live.  In snow country, I plant my garlic at least several weeks before the snow covers it.  It's protected with about 6 inches of straw and needs nothing done to it all winter long.   You'll see it's lovely green shoots sticking up through the snow, not a problem if you pick the right strain.

Once the snow melts, continue to keep soil moist, but not wet and you'll harvest some amazing garlic.  I typically grow about 4 different, very fiery strains.