Ok, back to the kids.   There are [...]]]> We have three children.  Aside from the occasional sniffle (and one moderately scary thing we had to take care of), all three are as healthy as horses.  My grandfather used that simile often, so I am taking it on faith that horses are some of the healthiest creatures around.

Ok, back to the kids.   There are several reasons why we believe they are healthy:

1. We insist their primary diet be predominantly from the ground (fruits, veggies, nuts, whole grains – organic when feasible or dictated by the dirty dozen list) or from something that had a mother (typically chicken, turkey or fish, occasionally pork, once in a while beef).  They also have their Isagenix organic whey protein shake in the morning with a little shot of the Isagenix cleanse drink (organic aloe vera-based).  That’s for the additional nutrition and minerals that they’re missing with the other “regular” food.
2. They take a dose of liquid colostrum every morning (Isagenix Isamune) – three spritzes in the mouth.  If they feel like they’re beginning to come down with a sniffle, we add a nightly dose as well until they’re back to normal.  Usually takes less than a couple days.
3. They’re up-to-date on all their vaccines.

Huh?  Wait a minute!  I thought you were going to go all Jenny McCarthy on us and rail against vaccines!

Hold your horses (the healthy ones, remember?).  I’ve read Jenny’s book.  She presents a large body of evidence, and her stories are compelling.  More on that in a minute.

This article is about risk.  Humans are not very good at assessing most risks.  We just aren’t.  Too many emotional things come into play when we try to decide how risky a particular behavior is.  Bruce Schneier, love him or hate him, is an industry expert on security.  He’s written about how humans process risk here, here, here, here and here.  And that’s just a representative sample from the past 6 months.

So…back to vaccinations.  What does risk have to do with vaccinations?  Everything.

Ok, class, quick quiz.  What was the leading cause of death in the United States in 1900?  Pneumonia and Influenza.  What was 10th on the list in 1900?  Diptheria.  (Here’s the reference from the CDC.  Last page of the PDF, and work your way up for more recent years)

Fast forward to 1950 (page 50 of the same PDF, for you slackers).  Pneumonia and Influenza have dropped to number 6.  Diptheria is no longer on the list.  However we have a new cause at number 5:  Diseases of Early Infancy.  But…why wasn’t that on the 1900 list?  Wasn’t infant mortality higher in 1900 than 1950? Yes it was.  Ask any genealogy expert, and they’ll tell you.  But in 1900, the vast majority of births happened in the home and mortality data was not formally kept.  In 1950, the vast majority of births happened in hospitals where there was much more rigor in record keeping.

Hey, what about smallpox?  Hasn’t it killed millions of people in the US?  Why isn’t it on the list? Yes it has, but it was largely eradicated in the US in the late 1890’s.  And 1900 is as far back as the CDC’s data goes.  Stop interrupting.

Back to the CDC data.  Fast forward to 1990 (p. 10, Spiccoli).  Pneumonia and the flu are steady at #6.  Infant mortality is hanging out (renamed) at number 15.  Why haven’t they dropped further?  That’s a great question.  Maybe we should look at more than just the ranking of the top 10 or 15.  Let’s look at the rate at which these deaths occurred.

In the PDF, take a look at the far right column of numbers.  That’s the death rate per 100,000 people of population in the US at the time the data was taken.  So that’ll be our comparison point.  Let’s look at Pneumonia and Flu:

• 1900: 202.2
• 1950: 31.3
• 1990: 32.0

So in 1900 there were 6 times as many people dying per capita from pneumonia and influenza than in “modern” times.  Just as another comparison point so that you have some context, what was the rate in 1918?  That was the year of the massive Spanish Flu pandemic.

• 1918: 588.5 (and back on the top of the list for the next three years)

Another quick quiz.  When was flu vaccine first widely available in the US?  In the 1940’s.  Here’s a decent Time magazine article on some history.

Sure, death rate from the flu has gotten a lot lower, but why hasn’t the flu been completely eradicated? Another great question for which there isn’t an easy answer.  Read what Dr. Michael T. Osterholm said about the next flu pandemic in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2005.

Back to the risk conversation.  What do you think it was like to have a loved one die of the flu in 1900?  It was just as bad as it is today, only it was 6 times more likely to happen then than it is now.  In 1918, it was a staggering 18 times more likely.  How about death by diphtheria?  Or smallpox?  Or maybe even worse than death, how about severe physical or mental disability brought on by rubella or polio or hib meningitis?

Smallpox and polio have been completely eradicated in the United States of America due entirely to vaccinations.  Most of us are too young to remember when those two illnesses were prevalent in our country.  Remember what Schneier said about how immediacy impacts our ability to assess risk?  Most of us don’t consider polio a risk because most of us haven’t experienced it in our lifetimes.  It doesn’t make it any less of a real risk.  Just because they’ve been eradicated in this country doesn’t mean they’ve been removed from the earth altogether.

So, what are the childhood vaccination recommendation standards in this country?  MMR for measles, mumps and rubella.  DPT for diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus.  Add to that the polio vaccine.  Most states and municipalities are also recommending flu and swine flu shots especially for certain particularly vulnerable demographics (folks with COPD, the elderly, children, etc.).  Should you have your children vaccinated?

Let’s take a look at a different facet of the story.  What about the negative consequences of vaccinations?  Back to risk again.  What is the risk of developing a significant (or even fatal) condition directly because of the vaccination?  Is the “cure” worse than the “disease”? (Yes, I know, vaccinations aren’t cures – you know what I mean).  Is the risk of vaccination larger/worse than the risk of not vaccinating?

Back to Jenny McCarthy for a moment.  She really is a lovely person (in all meanings of the word), and she’s as staunch an advocate for her family as you’ll ever find.  It’s not the vaccine, per se, that she’s against.  It’s the ancillary toxins that come along with the vaccine that she’s adamant to eradicate.  Thimerosal, a mercury-based chemical, is an antiseptic and anti-fungal preservative used in certain vaccines.  It just so happens that, in addition to fighting fungus and bacteria, mercury is also toxic to humans…even in trace doses.  Jenny and her folks have built a body of evidence supporting the assertion that toxins (like Thimerosal) in vaccines can cause autism (and other bad stuff).  Other scientists and drug companies have tried to build bodies of evidence to support the opposite.

How about for us?  For our family, it’s a case-by-case determination.  We’ve chosen to vaccinate our kids on all the standard childhood stuff, and we’ve chosen to have our kids be vaccinated with Thimerosal-free vaccines (even if it means getting multiple shots instead of just one – mean parents, I know).

And we’ve also chosen not to give our kids flu shots.  Here’s why, in case you’re interested.  You know we’ve done tons of research on the effects of colostrum.  Get Andrew Keech’s book.  It explains how and why colostrum works.  The data tells us that colostrum is equally or more effective than flu vaccines in preventing occurrence and diminishing effects of the flu.  And since we know there are no toxins in Isamune, we determined it was the better choice.  So far, it’s going well.  The first 4 weeks of school this year, a lot of kids were out sick.  Our kids got on the verge (mildly) a couple brief moments, but they luckily have not been affected by illness at all this school year.

Let me emphasize that this was a well-researched family decision that we determined was right for us.  You need to do your own research and make your own decision for yourselves and your families.

And I’m saving the most incendiary for last.  If you really want to dig into the debate, go read Amy Wallace’s article in this month’s Wired magazine in which she interviews Dr. Paul Offit and lays bare some of the awful impacts of  ”pseudo-science”.

What is your answer to the question?

UPDATE 10/23/2009:

Here’s a synchronicity for you.  Last night on the news, it was reported that the NYC Department of Health has confirmed an outbreak of the mumps in Brooklyn.  57 cases have been confirmed.  The most detailed story is from the NY Daily News.  It seems a boy went to the UK (where vaccination levels are much lower, apparently) and contracted the disease.  He came back and went to summer camp, where he infected a bunch of kids, many of which had received the MMR vaccine (some had not).  This topic is only going to get hotter as the stakes get higher.

Update 2/2/2010:

The Lancet, which is the UK’s premier medical journal, just announced that it’s retracting its 1998 paper linking vaccine to autism.  This retraction is based on an ethics judgement last week by Britain’s General Medical Council against Andrew Wakefield, the lead researcher in the study.  Here’s a link to an article about it on Yahoo.

Lexan (#7 plastic) bottles, including Nalgene water bottles, show that food and fluids stored can contain trace [...]]]> This is my review of an E (The Environmental Magazine) article in the January – February 2008 issue.  Per the article, “most plastic bottles are safe to reuse a few times IF properly wasked with hot soapy water.  However…

Lexan (#7 plastic) bottles, including Nalgene water bottles, show that food and fluids stored can contain trace amounts of Bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic chemical that interferes with the body’s hormonal messaging system.  The same studies found repeated re-use of #7 bottles increases the chance that chemicals will leak out of the tiny cracks and crevices that develop over time.  Per the Environment California Research and Policy Center (which reviewed 130 studies), BPA is linked to breast and uterine cancer, increased risk of miscarriage, and decreased testerone levels.  BPA can wreak havoc on children’s developing systems.  Beware that most baby bottles and sippy cups are made of plastics containing BPA (and I understand them to leach more chemicals when heated).  Most experts agree that the amount of BPA that could leach through normal handling is probably small but are concerned about cumulative effects.

Health advocates also recommend NOT using bottles made from plastics #1 (polyethylene terephthalate, a.k.a. PET or PETE), including most disposable bottles.  Studies indicate they may leach DEHP (another probable human carcinogen-after repeated use).  Another bad choice for water bottles is plastic #3 (polyvinyl chloride or PVC), which can leach hormone-disrupting chemicals.  Plastic #6 (polystyrene or PS) has been shown to leach styrene, a possible human carcinogen, into food and fluids as well. 

Safer choices include bottles made from HDPE (plastic #2), low-density polyethylene (LDPE or plastic #4), or polypropylene (PP or plastic #5).  Aluminum bottles, like those by SIGG, and stainless steel water bottles are also safe.

The article recommends these contacts:  www.TheGreenGuide.com and www.EnvironmentCalifornia.org.”

I, personally, believe that a stainless steel bottle is the best choice.  With #7 bottles being considered the safest choice several years ago and then to be suspected of increasing the risk for liver damage years later, I can’t help but wonder if #2, #4, #5 plastics will still be considered safe in 10 years.

“I have been asked a couple of times recently, “What is the difference between the Isagenix Nutritional Cleansing and the Herbal Colon Cleansing?” Many people seem to [...]]]> Jeff Gadley is a former Registered Nurse, Olympic Athlete, and Fitness, Health & Exercise Expert.  He compares the difference between the Isagenix Nutritional Cleanse and Herbal Colon Cleanse below:

“I have been asked a couple of times recently, “What is the difference between the Isagenix Nutritional Cleansing and the Herbal Colon Cleansing?” Many people seem to think that they are the same, operate by the same exact process and that the products end results are similar. That’s totally incorrect!

Truth be told, comparatively speaking, these products are like talking apples to oranges.

Let me explain… The Herbal Colon Cleansing product was developed to help you to get rid of what is termed fecal matter. This fecal matter is like spackle or paste stuck to the lining of your lower or large intestines. The idea is that this paste like substance is a breeding ground for parasites, bacteria and harmful pathogenic agents.

The reality of the matter is it that science has proven that this fecal matter problem does exist! According to the program general recommendation information, an Herbal Colon Cleansing procedure is suggested at least 2 times per year. With the paste-like substance removed from your lower gut, you feel better and your body will start to absorb nutrients better from the food that you eat.

Now, let’s get a base understanding of Isagenix Nutritional Cleansing.  As the company explains in corporate marketing materials, cleansing is not new.  However, what they have done is brought it from an ancient approach to modern day and thus, created a scientifically advanced product that is designed to infuse a nutrition dense formulation of minerals, herbs and botanicals into your body for the purpose of eliminating toxins and impurities.

Now, follow this closely… These toxins and impurities are embedded in tissues and body fat, so one of the main objectives of their process is to help you get these dangerous substances out of your body.

Research has shown that these toxins and impurities have been linked to your body adding fat stores and making it difficult to lose weight and keep it off! This is because the extra body fat is produced as a defense mechanism to protect the body from the dangerous substances being introduced to it daily.

When comparing the different process of a Colon Cleanse versus the Isagenix Nutritional Cleanse we can start to see that one is dealing with the physical mechanics of the body’s elimination system, while the Isagenix product is for optimizing the physiology of cell and chemical functions in the entire human body.

What that means is that it gets to the root of all problems that arise in the human body.

Recent research has discovered that our bodies are loaded with 200+ toxins, chemicals and impurities and that these nasty particles of destruction come from the food that we eat, the fluids that we drink and the air that we breathe.

There is no way to avoid these hazardous chemicals and pollutants from getting inside of you.  Their product was specifically designed to reduce life-long accumulated levels of toxins and impurities.

In conclusion, both are good products that your body would greatly benefit from. However, the Isagenix Nutritional Cleansing product dominates Herbal Colon Cleansing in terms of providing your body with excellent nutritive substances and the critical nutrition needed for the body to begin the process of healing.

I strongly encourage you to do your own research in order to verify the information contained in this article and draw your own conclusions about what is best for you.”

Recent studies have found Colostrum to be three times more effective against flu than the flu vaccine. A trial was conducted [...]]]> This is a supporting article to my previous posting titled “Peptide Immunotherapy“.  If you have not read that posting, it’s very important that you do so urgently as this is just a tiny comment on that full article.

Recent studies have found Colostrum to be three times more effective against flu than the flu vaccine. A trial was conducted comparing colostrum to flu vaccine. The paper titled “Prevention of Influenza Episodes With Colostrum Compared With Vaccination in Healthy and High-Risk Cardiovascular Subjects” evaluated the efficacy of a 2-month treatment with oral colostrum in the prevention of flu episodes compared with anti influenza vaccination. Groups included healthy subjects without prophylaxis and those receiving both vaccination and colostrum. After 3 months of follow-up, the number of days with flu was 3 times higher in the non-colostrum subjects.  There were 4 groups studied:

• The colostrum group had 13 flu episodes with duration of illness up to 4.3 days, no hospital admissions.
• The colostrum + vaccination group had 14 flu episodes with duration of illness up to 4.6 days, no hospital admissions.
• The group with no prophylaxis had 41 flu episodes with duration of illness up to 13.2 days, 2 subjects required hospital admission.
• The vaccination only group had 57 flu episodes with duration of illness up to 11.3 days, 1 subject required hospital admission.

Part 2 of the study had a similar protocol with 65 very high-risk cardiovascular subjects, all of whom had prophylaxis. The incidence of complications and hospital admission was higher in the group that received ONLY a vaccination compared with the colostrum groups.

Colostrum, both in healthy subjects and high-risk cardiovascular patients, is at least 3 times more effective than vaccination to prevent flu and is very cost-effective.

____________________

I contacted Dr. Keech and he explains this about Swine Flu:

“Like many of the other animal flu diseases it is not the virus that causes sickness and possibly death, but the “Cytokine Storm” that the presence of this type of virus causes. The pro-inflammatory cytokine response cause respiratory distress by “drowning the patient”, thus depriving the patient of oxygen, which can led to death.

The way to prevent and reverse this affect is to rebalance the activated T-cell production of cytokines. This is done via cytokine modulation. Peptides for colostrum have a immunomodulatory effect on the human cytokine system. This normalisation or balancing of the cytokine system take only a few minutes, because the cytokine half-lifes are short in human plasma. There is a product called “IsaMune”, which is a sublingal cytokine modulator.”

____________________

Please save yourself the hassle and take a proactive stance toward the upcoming 2009 fall flu season.  The media and white house are communicating that people should beware.

You can kill two birds with one stone if you act before 8-30-2009 (deadline for free signup).  Join the Isagenix community now and save.  Get products at wholesale prices ($27 for 1 bottle or $130 for 5) vs. retail prices ($38 for 1 bottle or $187 for 5).  A family should purchase the 5 pack to get through the season and this quantity qualifies for the free sign-up with autoship deal.  You can always move out your autoship date or cancel it in the future.

See the Isagenix signup area on the home page to the left to make a purchase.  Let us know if you have any questions or want to talk off-line.  It’s important to let your family know about this product!  Folks who want the product, but are not comfortable using a computer, are welcome to contact Karri directly at 646-929-4561.

Caution:  Pregnant and Organ-recipient individuals should NOT take IsaMune.  See the Peptide Immunotherapy post.

Disclaimer: The statements contained herein have not been evaluated by the FDA.  It is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.  The statements are for informational purposes only and are not meant to replace the services or recommendations of a physician or qualified health care practitioner.  Those with health problems or pregnancy are specifically advised that they should consult their physician before taking colostrum or any nutritional supplement.

The article is at this URL:  http://www.isagenixhealth.net/?p=44