Don't Vaccinate without Vitamin C

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 22, 2015

by Helen Saul Case

(OMNS, Oct 22, 2015) My husband and I chose to have our children vaccinated. We think some immunizations are worthwhile. We are not in favor of others, but the law is not set up in such a way where doctors and parents can make decisions together about which particular vaccines children receive. Only with our continued insistence did our children's pediatricians separate the administration of the shots. Otherwise our kids would have been exposed to as many as seven diseases at a clip. And unless your child has a sound medical reason not to get a particular shot, such as a known allergy to certain vaccine ingredients or he or she has a compromised immune system, it is unlikely a doctor will allow a medical exemption. So in many cases a reaction must occur first, and only then might a child be excused from further dosages of a particular vaccine. That's like putting up a traffic light at a dangerous intersection only after people are seriously hurt. Right now, it's a ready, fire, aim approach. It feels like a game of trial and error-of wait and see. That's simply not good enough, and that's why I give my kids vitamin C, and lots of it.

Vitamin C and vaccine reactions

At fifteen months old, hours after she received two shots for four diseases, DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus) and Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type b), my baby daughter was screaming, falling over and uncoordinated, and spiked a fever that registered as high as 103.5 degrees on our temporal thermometer. Knowing that in large doses, vitamin C is an antipyretic (fever reducer) in addition to being an antibiotic, antiviral, and antitoxin,[1] I acted fast and got the fever under control with very large doses of ascorbic acid and calcium ascorbate, or buffered vitamin C, to bowel tolerance, and a tepid bath. At bowel tolerance of vitamin C, she was no longer screaming and uncoordinated. Within the first hour her fever was down by a degree; in the second hour, another degree. For the remainder of the evening her fever hovered around 100.5.

"When it happens to your child, the risks are 100 percent." - Barbara Loe Fisher, National Vaccine Information Center

Her severe reaction was not recorded in her medical record by her doctor. It simply stated "Called service last pm withh fever"- misspelling and all. None of her other symptoms were recorded. During the call, they recommended that I give her children's Tylenol (acetaminophen), especially if her fever went above 101 degrees. Seeing as her fever was below 101, I put her to bed and continued to monitor her temperature each hour. Her fever fluctuated inversely with her intake of vitamin C, so I continued to give her regular doses, (250-500 mg every two hours or so), keeping the Tylenol handy just in case. By the next morning, her temperature registered normal and she was a normal, happy little girl again. While a mild fever indicates the body's natural immune response is in good working order combating vaccines, a high fever that spikes during a vaccine reaction is very serious and must be brought down right away. Acetaminophen can do this, but so can high-dose vitamin C. We watched it work.

It would be years later before we were told which vaccine was to blame for our daughter's severe vaccine reaction at fifteen months of age. Her third, and hopefully last, pediatrician determined based on my detailed written record of her severe reaction (the only record we had) that it was due to the pertussis component of the DPT shot.

Vitamin C makes shots safer and more effective

I believe every doctor should be telling parents to give kids vitamin C when they get vaccinations. In addition to vitamin C's antitoxin properties (for example, its ability for "neutralizing the toxic nature of mercury in all of its chemical forms") Thomas E. Levy, MD, says "there is another compelling reason to make vitamin C an integral part of any vaccination protocol: Vitamin C has been documented to augment the antibody response of the immune system. As the goal of any vaccination is to stimulate a maximal antibody response to the antigens of the vaccine while causing minimal to no toxic damage to the most sensitive of vaccine recipients, there would appear to be no medically sound reason not to make vitamin C a part of all vaccination protocols."[2]

Over forty years ago, Archie Kalokerinos, MD, found that giving infants doses of vitamin C stopped them dying from complications of inoculations.[3] Over forty years ago, Frederick R. Klenner, MD, recommended children under ten take daily "at least one gram [1,000 mg of ascorbic acid] for each year of life."[4] In preparation for immunizations, Dr. Levy recommends "[i]nfants under ten pounds can take 500 mg daily in some fruit juice, while babies between ten and twenty pounds could take anywhere from 500 mg to 1,000 mg total per day, in divided doses. Older children can take 1,000 mg daily per year of life (5,000 mg for a five year-old child, for example, in divided doses)."[5] A sick child, or one suffering vaccine side effects, would require much more.

"Ideally, the vitamin C would be given prior to vaccination and continue afterwards", says Levy. "For optimal antibody stimulation and toxin protection, it would be best to dose for three to five days before the shot(s) and to continue for at least two to three days following the shot.... Even taking a one-time dose of vitamin C in the dosage range suggested above directly before the injections can still have a significant toxin-neutralizing and antibody-stimulating effect. It's just that an even better likelihood of having a positive outcome results from extending the pre- and post-dosing periods of time."[6]

As for the kind of vitamin C to give little ones, our children have done well with a mixture of about 80% ascorbic acid crystals buffered with 20% calcium ascorbate powder added to their favorite juice. As infants, we gave it to them using a dropper.

"When I was in active pediatric practice, I wish I had known what I know now about vitamin C's ability to greatly modify vaccination side effects. The 103 degree fever worried me much less than the screaming and unsteadiness, which are markers of cerebral irritation." - Ralph Campbell, MD

Giving vitamin C before, during, and after vaccinations

My kids take vitamin C every day, and always have. Now, in preparation for shots, they receive numerous, regular doses of vitamin C before, during (yes right at the doctor's office), and for weeks after administered immunizations. This is what experience and our daughter's vaccine reaction has taught us. While we had given her vitamin C all along, we weren't nearly as diligent about frequent, timely dosing at vaccination time. We thought we were doing enough. As many folks come to find out, what they think is "a lot" of vitamin C isn't always enough vitamin C. You take enough to get the job done.

To avoid vaccine reactions and side effects, days before, the day of, and for days after vaccination, we give our children enough vitamin C to get them just to the point of saturation. After immunizations, their immune system needs all the help it can get. They will get C as often as every hour until they get gassy, a telltale sign that they are getting adequate amounts. The goal is to get them to the point just before "bowel tolerance," or loose bowels. For example, when our daughter was four, we started her with a relatively large loading dose in the morning, 2,000 mg or so, then gave her 1,000-2,000 mg every couple of hours throughout the day. We wait until there is a rumbling tummy or softened or loose stool. Once that point is reached, we throttle back the dose. We continue to give C, but give less. The next day, we do it again.

Amazingly, the day of and for several days after our four-year-old daughter's last vaccination, the first shot she had received since her severe reaction years before, she comfortably held fifteen to twenty grams, that's 15,000 to 20,000 milligrams, of vitamin C each day. She had no reaction whatsoever to the vaccination. No swelling. No fever. No redness. Nothing. She was happy. We were happy. That may sound like a lot of C for a child who only weighed about 33 pounds, but it got the job done. Perhaps your child won't need that much.

You might be surprised how much vitamin C a three-month-old can hold after a couple of vaccinations. I was. We don't allow the kids to get diarrhea and dehydrate, but we do want them to have the vitamin C their bodies require when tackling sickness or immunization side effects. Since gassiness comes before loose bowels, it's a helpful indicator. If bowel tolerance is reached and stools become frequent, liquid, or, as was the case for my breastfed three-month-old, frequent and greenish in color (since they are always liquid-like), we reduced the frequency and dose, but continued to give it regularly, ramping the frequency and dose up and down as the situation requires. This takes a little practice, but we know we're not hurting our children with extra C. It is a very, very safe vitamin.

Vitamin C works

Vitamin C is incredibly safe and effective. We are very comfortable giving both of our kids high doses of C. Older, bigger children may hold more C, and younger ones not as much. Saturation becomes a helpful indicator of how much your child can hold.

I don't believe it is fair to let children get vaccines without vitamin C. I also do not believe it is it fair to let them acquire natural immunity through exposure to disease without vitamin C. Always give C. As to the quantity of C to give, when in doubt, give more.

Dr. Levy is convinced of vitamin C's safety. He says, "Except in individuals with established, significant renal insufficiency, vitamin C is arguably the safest of all nutrients that can be given."[7] And it works. Over forty years ago, Robert F. Cathcart, MD, discovered that bowel tolerance of vitamin C resolved illness more quickly.[8] Neither of our children has yet to need an antibiotic. We use vitamin C instead.

For any parent worried about vaccine reactions and side effects, knowing about vitamin C should provide some real comfort. It sure does for us.

(Helen Saul Case is the author of The Vitamin Cure for Women's Health Problems and coauthor of Vegetable Juicing for Everyone. Portions of this article are excerpted from her new book Vitamins & Pregnancy: The Real Story: Your Orthomolecular Guide for Healthy Babies and Happy Moms, with permission of Basic Health Publications, Inc.)

References:

1. Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. "Antibiotics Put 142,000 into Emergency Rooms Each Year. U.S. Centers for Disease Control Waits 60 Years to Study the Problem." (Oct 13, 2008.): http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n14.shtml (accessed Oct 2015). Also: Saul, A. W. "Notes On Orthomolecular (Megavitamin) Use of Vitamin C." http://www.doctoryourself.com/ortho_c.html (accessed Oct 2015).

2. Levy, T. E. "Vitamin C Prevents Vaccination Side Effects; Increases Effectiveness." Orthomolecular Medicine News Service (Feb 14, 2012): http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v08n07.shtml (accessed Oct 2015).

3. Kalokerinos, A. Every Second Child. Thomas Nelson (Australia) 1974.

4. Klenner, F. R. "Observations on the Dose and Administration of Ascorbic Acid When Employed Beyond the Range of a Vitamin in Human Pathology." Journal of Applied Nutrition, 1971, Vol. 23, Nos. 3 and 4, pp. 61-87. http://www.doctoryourself.com/klennerpaper.html (accessed Oct 2015).

5. Levy, T. E. "Vitamin C Prevents Vaccination Side Effects; Increases Effectiveness." Orthomolecular Medicine News Service (Feb 14, 2012): http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v08n07.shtml (accessed Oct 2015).

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Cathcart, R. F. Vitamin C, titration to bowel tolerance, anascorbemia, and acute induced scurvy. Medical Hypotheses, 1981 7:1359-1376. http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html (accessed Oct 2015).

The Media’s Profound Ignorance About Nutrition Misses the Mark Yet Again

November 25, 2013

 By Dr. Mercola

According to researchers at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research,¹ vitamin supplements are probably useless when it comes to preventing heart disease and/or cancer.
Their analysis is being used by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to update its recommendations on supplement use, and the findings were recently reported by NBC News² under the headline: "Vitamins don't prevent heart disease or cancer, experts find."
But is this really an accurate evaluation of the available evidence? A strong rebuttal³ to NBC's reporting was immediately issued by Dr. Andrew Saul,⁴ editor of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service.
Dr. Saul has over 35 years of experience in natural health education; Psychology Today named him as one of the seven natural health pioneers in 2006.

"I would like to apologize for NBC News. It seems that the organization that brought us Lowell Thomas, John Cameron Swayze, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley has lowered its standard of reporting," he writes.

"NBC's supplement-bashing headline article... displays an ignorance of clinical nutrition that is difficult to ignore, and, thanks to its media prominence, can't be.

Of vitamin supplementation, NBC specifically said that a 'very extensive look at the studies that have been done show it may be a waste of time when it comes to preventing the diseases most likely to kill you.' The 'very extensive look' encompassed 24 preselected studies. It looks like they just possibly may have missed a few..."

Dr. Saul 'Apologizes' for NBC 'Hatchet Job' Reporting on Vitamins

Dr. Saul then goes on to list 19 studies⁵ showing strong correlations between vitamin use and reduced risk of heart disease and cancer. If you're in doubt, I suggest you to take a look at some of those studies before you swallow NBC's "hatchet job on vitamins," as Dr. Saul puts it. Below is a handful. For the full list, please see Dr. Saul's article.⁶

• JAMA 2012:⁷ Multivitamin supplements were found to reduce cancer risk by eight percent.
• International Journal of Cancer 2011:⁸ A mere 10 ng/ml increase in serum vitamin D levels was associated with a 15 percent reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and 11 percent reduction in breast cancer incidence.
• American Heart Journal 2011:⁹ Each 20 micromole/liter (µmol/L) increase in plasma vitamin C was associated with a nine percent reduction in heart failure mortality. According to Dr. Saul, if everyone were to take 500 mg of vitamin C per day—the dose required to reach a healthy level of 80 µmol/L—an estimated 216,000 lives could be spared each year.
• International Journal of Cancer 2011:¹⁰ While the NBC declared that "Vitamin E does no good at all in preventing cancer or heart disease," this study found that gamma-tocotrienol, a cofactor found in natural vitamin E preparations, decreases prostate tumor formation by a respectable 75 percent.
• International Journal of Cancer 2008: Here, 300 IUs of vitamin E per day reduced lung cancer risk by 61 percent.

Were Those Really the Best Studies They Could Find? 

It's worth noting that study selection for the featured review was done by two investigators who "independently selected and reviewed fair- and good-quality trials for benefit and fair- and good-quality trials and observational studies for harms."
What this means is that they didn't assess the consensus found in available research, but rather "independently" picked and chose which ones they wanted to include in the analysis.
Out of the more than 12,760 study abstracts screened, a total of 26 studies were selected for inclusion in their analysis. Selected for inclusion were studies looking at the following supplements' effects on heart disease or cancer:

Multivitamins	Beta-carotene	Vitamin E	Selenium	Vitamin A
Vitamin C	Folic acid	Vitamin D	Vitamin D with calcium	Calcium

Also notable is the fact that for a study to be included in the review, it had to use supplement doses lower than the upper tolerable limit set by the US Food and Nutrition board.^{11, 12} For vitamin D, this means a dose limit of 100 IUs a day for adults! Research suggests most adults need about 35 IUs per pound of body weight in order to obtain therapeutically relevant serum levels. This dose of vitamin D is worthless as most adults require doses 50 times greater. So it is no surprise they found no effect as they were not testing for clinical significant levels. Remember, the devil is in the details.

Vitamin D May Be Critical for Cancer Prevention

Their conclusion on vitamin D is in stark contrast to an ever growing number of studies showing that vitamin D (with or without calcium) has tremendous protective effect against cancer. For example, a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine¹³ concluded that a serum 25(OH)D level of more than 33 ng/mL was associated with a 50 percent lower risk of colorectal cancer.
Another study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition¹⁴ that same year found that after four years of follow up, cancer-free survival was 77 percent higher in women who received 1,100 IU vitamin D and 1,450 mg calcium per day, compared to those who received either a placebo or calcium by itself. Theories linking vitamin D deficiency to cancer have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies.
According to Carole Baggerly, founder of GrassrootsHealth, 90 percent of ordinary breast cancer may be related to vitamin D deficiency. In fact, breast cancer has been described as a "vitamin D deficiency syndrome." The way vitamin D interferes with breast cancer's ability to spread is by affecting the structure of those cells—without adequate vitamin D, they fall apart and are forced to "overmultiply" in order to survive. Previous research has shown that optimizing your vitamin D levels can reduce your risk for as many as 16 different types of cancer, including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, breast, prostate, and skin cancers.

Most Important—Maintaining Optimal Vitamin D Serum Levels

Of utmost importance is the maintenance of a therapeutically beneficial serum level year-round. Here, studies indicate that the bare minimum for cancer prevention is around 40 ng/ml. Research suggests an ideal level might be around 60-80 ng/ml. A 2009 review article¹⁵ titled: "Vitamin D for Cancer Prevention: Global Perspective," published in Annals of Epidemiologya states that:

"Higher serum levels of the main circulating form of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), are associated with substantially lower incidence rates of colon, breast, ovarian, renal, pancreatic, aggressive prostate and other cancers.

Epidemiological findings combined with newly discovered mechanisms suggest a new model of cancer etiology that accounts for these actions of 25(OH)D and calcium. Its seven phases are disjunction, initiation, natural selection, overgrowth, metastasis, involution, and transition (abbreviated DINOMIT). Vitamin D metabolites prevent disjunction of cells and are beneficial in other phases.

It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half... The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium.

Smart Supplementation Could Save Healthcare System BILLIONS Each Year

Although Dr. Saul doesn't mention it, the NBC also failed to mention the recent report on vitamins produced by the Council for Responsible Nutrition Foundation, titled: "Smart Prevention—Health Care Cost Savings Resulting from the Targeted Use of Dietary Supplements."¹⁶ This report concluded that—based on the scientific evidence of benefit— supplementation at preventive intake levels could save the American healthcare system more than $11 BILLION each year. Steve Mister, president of the Council for Responsible Nutrition Foundation¹⁷ told Drugstore News:¹⁸

"Chronic disease takes a huge toll on people's quality of life, and the healthcare system spends a tremendous amount of money treating chronic disease, but has failed to focus on ways to reduce those costs through prevention. We already knew that the dietary supplements identified in the report can play a role in reducing the risk of certain chronic diseases; we felt compelled to find out if they could also contribute to healthcare cost savings by reducing the medical events associated with those conditions. This new report says emphatically that they do."

How to Reduce Cost of Heart Disease by More Than $4 Billion Annually

The "Smart Prevention" report examined the effect of eight different dietary supplement regimens on four chronic diseases: heart disease, diabetes, age-related eye disease, and bone disease, and assessed the potential health care cost savings if American adults were to take these supplements at therapeutic dosages.
Unfortunately, this report also failed to review many of the benefits of vitamin D, which is one of the most widely beneficial and least expensive supplements on the market. Again, a growing number of vitamin D experts estimate it could cut the rate of cancer by half. If this were to be factored into the equation, the health care savings could likely go up by a factor of 1,000 or more, and there would be trillions of dollars of savings instead of billions.
Now, in the case of heart disease, use of omega-3 supplements among adults aged 55 and over diagnosed with coronary heart disease could reduce annual hospital costs by more than $2 billion on average, saving the health care system close to $16.5 billion between 2013 and 2020, according to the "Smart Prevention" report. Use of vitamins B6 and B12 among the target population could also reduce hospital costs by an average of more than $1.5 billion annually, saving the health care system more than $12.1 billion between 2013 and 2020. (Again, vitamin D would also radically lower the cost of heart disease as it has profound benefits in cardiac health, but unfortunately the authors didn't factor vitamin D in into this equation.)

According to the authors: "An average of $4.23 billion per year and a cumulative savings of $34 billion from 2013 to 2020 in avoidable hospital utilization costs is potentially realizable if all US adults over the age of 55 diagnosed with CHD were to use phytosterol dietary supplements at protective levels.
Likewise, potential total cost savings among the same target population given the use of the psyllium dietary fiber at preventive daily intake levels would be an average hospital utilization cost avoidance of $4.38 billion per year and cumulative savings of $35.05 billion from 2013 to 2020.
The potential net health care cost savings of phytosterols and psyllium dietary fiber supplementation, after accounting for the cost of supplement utilization, would be an average annual savings of $3.32 billion per year and $2.48 billion per year, respectively, after accounting for the costs of supplementation utilization from 2013 to 2020."

Who Benefits by Scaring You Away from Dietary Supplements?

Earlier this summer, a flurry of media reports told readers to beware, if not outright be afraid, of taking supplements. Two of the primary figureheads in his summer drive of anti-alternative health PR were Dr. Paul Offit and Senator Dick Durbin. Offit, notorious for his claim that infants can tolerate 10,000 vaccines at once, penned a New York Times article with the unambiguous headline: "Don't Take Your Vitamins."¹⁹ The featured NBC article²⁰ again brought Offit's radical opinions to the fore:

"Dr. Paul Offit... says he is not surprised by the findings. But he doubts the millions of Americans who buy vitamins will stop because of this recommendation. 'They are constantly hearing information from those who market these products that they are good for you, that they boost your immunity, that they reduce stress'... Offit said the review could have done more to highlight some of the dangers of overdosing on vitamins.... 'I would like to see someone step forward and say there's harm.'"

Of course he would. Take away nutrition, and the only thing you have left to battle disease with is drugs, surgery, and vaccines. While it's important to remember that a) there is a major difference between natural whole-food supplements and pharmaceutical grade synthetic vitamins and minerals, and b) that supplements should only be taken in addition to, NOT in place of, a healthy diet, I believe Big Pharma mouthpieces are standing on quicksand when it comes their claim that supplements are harmful, or do more harm than good in the long term.

Data Shows the Safety of Supplements

The March 2013 GAO Dietary Supplements report,²¹ for example, showed how incredibly safe supplements are—particularly when compared to drugs and vaccines. Since 2008, the supplement industry has been required to report adverse events to the FDA's adverse effects reporting (AER) system, pursuant to the 2006 Act. Consider the following statistics comparing dietary supplement AERs with drug AERs from the 2013 GAO report2 for the year 2008:

• 1,080 dietary supplement AERs were reported to FDA4
• 526,527 prescription drug AERs were reported4
• 26,517 vaccine AERs were reported4

When you do the math, there were 488 times as many adverse events reported from prescription drugs as from dietary supplements. In all, the number of AERs is miniscule compared to the hundreds of millions of supplement servings consumed each year.²² In fact, according to a 2007 National Health Interview Survey,²³ more than half of American adults (157 million individuals) take nutritional supplements. Further compare that to the statistic that about the same number of people—just over half of all Americans—take two or more prescription drugs,²⁴ and the difference in safety between supplements and drugs becomes even clearer. Other data further supports the remarkable safety record of dietary supplements. For example:

• In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reversed its long-standing anti-vitamin stance with the publication of two scientific reviews (based on 30 years' worth of scientific papers looking at vitamins in relation to chronic diseases), both of which recommended daily multivitamin supplementation for all adults.²⁵
• Data from the US National Poison Data System's annual report, which tracked data from 57 U.S. poison centers, showed vitamin and mineral supplements caused zero deaths in 2010. For comparison, pharmaceuticals caused more than 1,100 of the total 1,366 reported fatalities.
• FDA-approved drugs cause 80 percent of poison control fatalities each year.²⁶ Poison control centers report 100,000 calls, 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations and nearly 500 deaths each year from acetaminophen (Tylenol) alone.
• Data from the European Union indicate that pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times as likely to kill you as dietary supplements. You're actually more likely to be struck dead by lightning or drown in your bathtub than have a lethal reaction to a dietary supplement.

Take Control of Your Health with Proper Nutrition and Lifestyle

Granted, there are poor-quality supplements out there—many of which, by the way, are produced by large pharmaceutical companies—that are made with synthetic ingredients that could potentially do more harm than good, especially in mega doses, which I don't recommend. Yet the overall safety record of supplements, despite some inferior products being used, really speaks volumes. The same cannot be said for drugs, where even drugs perceived as more or less harmless, such as acetaminophen, actually cause more adverse event reports than supplements.
About 90 percent of each dollar Americans spend on food is spent on government-subsidized, disease-inducing denatured processed foods that tend to leave you vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies. Drugs clearly cannotfix this problem, although conventional medicine surely tries by throwing prescriptions at each and every symptom that is, ultimately, rooted in poor nutrition. In this respect, there's clearly a place for properly selected, high-quality whole food dietary supplements, taken at therapeutic dosages.
Furthermore, certain nutrient deficiencies, such as vitamin D for example, are rampant now that everyone has been scared away from sun exposure. This is tragic, since the evidence is quite clear that optimizing your vitamin D levels can have a highly protective effect against a wide variety of chronic disease, including but not limited to heart disease and cancer. The featured review in NO WAY disputes such evidence, considering the studies they chose to include.
Ideally, you'd get most or all necessary nutrients from whole food—or in the case of vitamin D, from appropriate sun exposure—but there are cases in which a supplement can be helpful to counteract a deficiency. If you're eating a wholesome diet you're FAR less likely to end up with nutritional deficiencies, however. Last but not least, you may sign up for the peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service free of charge at orthomolecular.org. You can also freely access the entire OMNS archive at that link.

Source:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/11/25/vitamins-cancer-prevention.aspx

10 Things You Think Are Healthy, but Aren't

September 16, 2015 

By Dr. Mercola

Awareness is increasing that many household goods, from your personal care products and food packaging to your couch cushions, could harbor dangerous chemicals. Less well known is the fact that even seemingly healthy products may turn out to be bad for you.

If you have any of these "healthy" or at the very least innocuous-seeming items around your home, you may want to think twice…

10 'Healthy' Items Your Home Is Better Off Without

1. Antibacterial Soap

Washing your hands is your number one protection against the acquisition and spread of infectious disease. But you do not need to use antibacterial soap to get the job done.

Studies have shown that people who use antibacterial soaps and cleansers develop a cough, runny nose, sore throat, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and other symptoms just as often as people who use regular soaps.1

Part of the reason for this is because most of these symptoms are actually caused by viruses, which antibacterial soaps can't kill. But even for symptoms like vomiting and diarrhea, which may be caused by bacteria, using antibacterial soaps will offer you no advantage over plain soap and water.2

So, the rational conclusion is antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary for the purpose of washing away bacteria. 

A 2007 systematic review published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases confirmed that antibacterial soap containing triclosan did not provide any additional benefit compared with a non-antibacterial soap.3

Antibacterial soap, will, however, expose you to triclosan, an antibacterial chemical that has been linked to concerns over antibiotic resistance and endocrine disruption.

Some animal studies showed that triclosan caused fetal bone malformations in mice and rats, which may hint at hormonal effects. Triclosan has also been found to cause estrogenic activities in human breast cancer cells, which may stimulate the growth and development of cancer cells.4

2. Your Chair

At the molecular level, your body was designed to be active and on the move all day long. When you stop moving for extended periods of time, such as by sitting, it's like telling your body it's time to shut down and prepare for death.

Research published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, for instance, showed that women who sit for 10 or more hours a day may have a significantly greater risk of developing heart disease than those who sit for five hours or less.5

Research published in Diabetologia also found that those who sat for the longest periods of time were twice as likely to have diabetes or heart disease, compared to those who sat the least.6 Sitting for more than eight hours a day has also been associated with a 90 percent increased risk of type 2 diabetes.7

Excess sitting may increase your risk of colon, breast, and endometrial cancers, and the more hours you spend sitting in a day, the shorter your lifespan may be. 

One study found, for instance, that reducing the average time you spend sitting down to less than three hours a day could increase your life expectancy by two years.8

The evidence is overwhelming at this point — 10,000 studies and growing — that prolonged sitting will reduce your lifespan by promoting dozens of chronic diseases, even if you exercise regularly. I believe the answer is tostand up as much as possible (aiming for less than three hours of sitting daily).

If you work a desk job, a standing workstation will be instrumental for achieving this goal, and I also recommend getting 10,000 steps a day via daily walk, in addition to regular high-intensity exercises.

3. Whitening or Antibacterial Toothpaste

Whitening toothpastes may be grittier in order to scrub stains off your teeth, but the grit may actually wear away your enamel or make your teeth and gums more sensitive. Also be on the lookout for antibacterial toothpaste, like Colgate Total, which contains triclosan.

In addition, many commercial brands may be loaded with toxic toothpaste ingredients, like sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), artificial sweeteners, fluoride, propylene glycol, and microbeads. The latter pose a risk to the environment and have been found getting trapped under patients' gums.

This gives food and bacteria an entrance to your gum line, which could actually cause gum disease.9 It's possible to make your own toothpaste and avoid many of the pitfalls of commercial varieties. You can find two homemade toothpaste recipes here.

4. Cotton Swabs

Your ears should have a healthy amount of earwax, as they're a self-cleaning part of your body. Excess earwax should move out of your ear canal automatically, as cells there actually migrate naturally.

The removal of earwax is also helped along by movements of your jaw (talking, chewing, etc.), and once it reaches your outer ear it will simply fall out or be removed when you shower or bathe.

According to the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF), under ideal circumstances your ear canals should never have to be cleaned, especially with cotton swabs. They state:10

"Unfortunately, many people mistakenly believe that earwax should be routinely removed for personal hygiene. This is not so. In fact, attempting to remove earwax with cotton-tipped swabs, bobby pins, or other probing devices can result in damage to the ear, including trauma, impaction of the earwax, or even temporary deafness.

These objects only push the wax in deeper, and can block the ear canal entirely."

Under normal circumstances, earwax is only produced in the outer one-third of your ear canal. One of the primary risks of cotton swabs is they can push the earwax into the deeper part of your ear canal, near the eardrum. As AAO-HNSF noted:11

"When a patient has wax blockage against the eardrum, it is often because he has been probing the ear with such things as cotton-tipped applicators, bobby pins, or twisted napkin corners. These objects only push the wax in deeper."

When earwax is pushed deep into your ear where it doesn't belong, it can bring fungus, bacteria, and viruses from the outer ear into the inner ear, increasing the risk of infection. It can also block your ear canal, leading to hearing loss, or even cause a ruptured eardrum.

It's a vicious cycle, too, because the more you rub your ears with cotton swabs, the more histamine will be released, which makes your skin irritated and inflamed. This, in turn, may make you want to insert a cotton swab again, leading to additional dryness and irritation.12

5. Humidifier

During the winter months, heaters and cold temperatures may lead to dry air with low humidity. This dry air can lead to dry skin, irritated sinuses and throat, and itchy eyes. Over time, exposure to low humidity can even dry out and inflame the mucous membrane lining your respiratory tract. When this natural barrier is no longer working properly, it increases your risk of colds, the flu, and other infections.

You may be tempted to add humidity to your home's air using a humidifier, and this is a sensible solution as long as it doesn't backfire. You must be very careful about making sure your humidity levels are not too high, as high humidity will cause mold to grow, which could devastate your health.

Additionally, the moist, warm environment of a humidifier is a breeding ground for bacteria and fungi, which travel out of the unit via a "toxic mist" that you later breathe in.

Research has shown that breathing in dirty mist from humidifiers can lead to lung problems, including infection, and humidifier use is actually associated with an increased risk of developing asthma in children.13 So if you choose to use a humidifier, do so sparingly, making sure humidity levels do not get too high. A hygrometer, which you can find at most hardware stores, can measure the amount of moisture in your home's air so you can adjust your humidifier use accordingly. Some humidifiers also have a hygrometer built in.

According to Dr. Robert Ivker, D.O., former president of the American Holistic Medical Association, the ideal level of relative humidity for sinus health is between 35 to 45 percent. This level is also generally recommended to avoid mold damage in your home. As far as using a humidifier goes, you'll also need to make sure you clean it often, at least once every three days using hydrogen peroxide to remove any film or mineral deposits.

The water in the reservoir should be changed daily, and be sure the area around it (tabletops, windows, carpeting, curtains, etc.) are kept dry. If you have a central air heating system, the best humidifier is one that is built directly over your furnace and tied into a humidistat and water source so the entire process is automated and your home is evenly humidified.

6. Loofah

A loofah provides a perfect environment for bacteria, fungi, and mold to grow, especially when kept in the warm, humid confines of your bathroom or shower. As you run it over your skin, it's possible that small wounds (including tiny nicks from shaving) could be infected, leading to impetigo, folliculitis, or other skin issues.14 If you love to loofah, choose one made of a natural fiber, which will naturally contain enzymes to inhibit microbial growth, and replace it monthly. After each use, wring it out and allow it to dry thoroughly – and store it in a cool, dry spot.

7. Blender

Blenders are handy for whipping up healthy morning smoothies… but if you're not washing yours properly, it could be a problem. The blender gasket (the rubber ring that holds the blade portion of the blender in place) has been found to be the third germiest item in the kitchen, and research showed it commonly harbored salmonella, E. coli, yeast, and mold.15 The solution is simple – when you're done using your blender, be sure to disassemble it completely and wash each part, including the gasket, well.

8. Nail Tools

Pumice stones, cuticle clippers, and other nail tools harbor bacteria from your skin. If you neglect to wash them, they could potentially cause skin infections (this is especially true if you share your nail tools with friends or family members). Nail tools should be washed with soap and water after each use, and pumice stones should be replaced every three to four weeks.

9. Rubber Spatula

Rubber spatulas were found to be even germier than blender gaskets, coming in at the second germiest item in the kitchen. The problem is that most people do not pull the spatula head off the handle when cleaning, which allows E. coli, yeast, and mold to grow. If your spatula comes apart, always remove the head and wash each piece separately. If not, pay special attention to the joint between the head and the handle when washing.

10. Stuffed Animals

Stuffed animals are known to collect dust mites, which are a major cause of indoor dust allergies. If you're allergic, exposure can lead to sneezing, runny nose, itchy eyes, and other symptoms. If your child can't part with theirs, cut the number down to one or two kept on the bed, with the rest stored on a shelf. You can also put the stuffed animals in a plastic bag and leave it in the freezer overnight, as the cold will kill the dust mites.

Do Scented Candles, Incense, and Air Fresheners Cause Cancer, Allergies, and Asthma?

Many people enjoy the ambience that scented candles, incense, and air fresheners can add to their home, but with that pleasant scent come some hidden health risks. Such products are known to contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), allergens, phthalates, and cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde. Many of the chemicals emitted by these products have been linked to hormone disruption, allergies, asthma, and even cancerous mutations in DNA.

In one recent study, scented candles were found to act as potent sources of VOC emissions whether they were lit or not, and when lit, formaldehyde had the highest emission concentration.16 Incense sticks and air fresheners have also been shown to contribute to poor indoor air quality, including the release of benzene.17 The Daily Mail further reported:18

"In 2013, after a study of more than 2,000 pregnant women, the International Journal of Public Health reported that women who used air fresheners in their homes were significantly more likely to have babies that suffered from wheezing and lung infections. One study that followed 14,000 children from before and after birth found they had higher levels of diarrhea and earache, while their mothers had raised risks of headaches and depression, all linked to the frequent use of air fresheners and aerosols during pregnancy and early childhood.

A 2007 study also found that using air fresheners as little as once a week can raise the risk of asthma in adults. The same report found that the risk of developing asthma was up to 50 percent higher in people who had been exposed to air-freshener sprays."

Chemicals in Personal Care Products Linked to Increased Risk of Miscarriage

Chemicals known as phthalates, which are used as plasticizers in everything from vinyl flooring to detergents, hoses, raincoats, adhesives, air fresheners, and toys — and even in many soaps, shampoos, lotions, nail polish, and other personal care products.

Phthalates are one of the groups of "gender-bending" chemicals causing males of all species to become more female. Research conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) discovered high levels of phthalates inall 289 adult Americans tested, and the levels of some phthalates in women of childbearing age exceeded the government's safe levels set to protect against birth defects, leading scientists to conclude phthalate exposures are "much higher and more common than previously suspected.19

A new study also revealed that women with higher levels of phthalates in their urine were more likely to have miscarriages between 5 and 13 weeks of pregnancy than those with lower levels.20 These chemicals have disrupted the endocrine systems of wildlife as well, causing testicular cancer, genital deformations, low sperm counts, and infertility in a number of species, including polar bears, deer, whales, and otters, just to name a few. Scientists believe phthalates are responsible for a similar pattern in humans as well, and they have been linked to:

Impaired ovulatory cycles and polycystic ovary disease (PCOS)	"Decreased dysgenesis syndrome": A syndrome involving cryptorchidism (undescended testicles), hypospadias (birth defect in which opening of urethra is on the underside of the penis instead of at the end), oligospermia (low sperm count), and testicular cancer
Interference with sexual differentiation in utero	Enlarged prostate glands
Disturbed lactation	Numerous hormonal disruptions
Early or delayed puberty	Breast cancer and uterine fibroids

How to Create a Healthier Home

While it's important to carefully wash items like your blender to remove germs, and replace loofahs regularly to avoid infections, by far the greatest risks in your home come from the chemicals in common household products. The fewer ingredients a product contains, the better, and try to make sure anything you put on or in your body – or use around your home – contains only substances you're familiar with. If you can't pronounce it, you probably don't want it anywhere near your family. The following tips will help you to create a healthier home, naturally.

1. As much as possible, buy and eat organic produce and free-range, organic meats to reduce your exposure to added hormones, pesticides, and fertilizers. Also avoid milk and other dairy products that contain the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST).
2. Rather than eating conventional or farm-raised fish, which are often heavily contaminated with PCBs and mercury, supplement with a high-quality purified krill oil, eat smaller fish, or fish that is wild-caught and lab tested for purity. Wild caught Alaskan salmon is about the only fish I eat for these reasons.
3. Buy products that come in glass bottles or jars rather than plastic or canned, since chemicals can leach out of plastics and into the contents.
4. Store your food and beverages in glass rather than plastic, and avoid using plastic wrap.
5. Use glass baby bottles and avoid plastic sippy cups for your little ones.
6. Eat mostly raw, fresh foods. Processed, prepackaged foods (of all kinds) are a common source of chemicals such as BPA and phthalates.
7. Replace your non-stick pots and pans with ceramic or glass cookware.
8. Filter your tap water — both for drinking and bathing. If you can only afford to do one, filtering your bathing water may be more important, as your skin absorbs contaminants. To remove the endocrine-disrupting herbicide Atrazine, make sure the filter is certified to remove it. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), perchlorate can be filtered out using a reverse osmosis filter.
9. Look for products that are made by companies that are earth-friendly, animal-friendly, green, non-toxic, and/or 100% organic. This applies to everything from food and personal care products to building materials, carpeting, paint, baby items, upholstery, and more.
10. Use a vacuum cleaner with a HEPA filter to remove house dust, which is often contaminated with traces of chemicals.
11. When buying new products such as furniture, mattresses, or carpet padding, ask what type of fire retardant it contains. Be mindful of and/or avoid items containing PBDEs, antimony, formaldehyde, boric acid, and other brominated chemicals. As you replace these toxic items around your home, select those that contain naturally less flammable materials, such as leather, wool and cotton.
12. Avoid stain- and water-resistant clothing, furniture, and carpets to avoid perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs).
13. Minimize your use of plastic baby and child toys, opting for those made of natural wood or fabric instead.
14. Only use natural cleaning products in your home or make your own. Avoid products that contain 2-butoxyethanol (EGBE) and methoxydiglycol (DEGME) — two toxic glycol ethers that can damage fertility and cause fetal harm.21
15. Switch over to organic brands of toiletries such as shampoo, toothpaste, antiperspirants, and cosmetics. You can replace many different products with coconut oil and baking soda, for example. EWG has a great database22 to help you find personal care products that are free of phthalates and other potentially dangerous chemicals. I also offer one of the highest quality organic skin care lines, shampoo and conditioner, and body butter that are completely natural and safe.
16. Replace feminine hygiene products like tampons and sanitary pads with safer alternatives.
17. Avoid artificial air fresheners, dryer sheets, fabric softeners, or other synthetic fragrances.
18. Look for products that are fragrance-free. One artificial fragrance can contain hundreds – even thousands – of potentially toxic chemicals.
19. Replace your vinyl shower curtain with one made of fabric.

Source:

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/16/10-items-that-seem-healthy.aspx?x_cid=20150916_nonlead1_10-items-that-seem-healthy_facebookdoc