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.

Here’s the article at Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091007/hl_hsn/plasticschemicaltiedtoaggressioninyounggirls

Also remember that just because two [...]]]> There is yet another study (Environmental Health Perspectives, Oct 6th, 2009) on the negative effect of Bisphenol-A (BPA), which is a hormone disrupting chemical found in plastics.  It’s also in the interior can liner of practically every canned food you can buy in the grocery store.

Here’s the article at Yahoo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091007/hl_hsn/plasticschemicaltiedtoaggressioninyounggirls

Also remember that just because two things are proved to be related (correlation) doesn’t by itself prove that one thing causes another to happen (causality).  That’s what the Yahoo article is describing when it says “not everyone agreed with the study’s conclusions”.  It’s a limitation of the design of this particular study (and many other studies, actually).  Proving causality is a more difficult proposition.

Of course, there continues to be a mounting body of factual and scientific evidence linking BPA with negative impacts on humans.   One little puff of smoke doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a fire, but big, billowing towers of the stuff usually implies some form of combustion.  Some folks believe the BPA evidence is a puff of smoke.  Others believe it’s a mushroom cloud of sky-darkening proportions.  What do you believe?

He explains it well that you can’t mess up with Isagenix even if you don’t follow the schedule perfectly or even if you go on vacation without your  products for a week or even if you [...]]]> This guy won the 2009 IsaBody Challenge. His story is great and typical for folks that consume the Isagenix products consistently.  http://www.isagenixpodcast.com/2009/08/isagenix-real-people-real-results-august-182009/

He explains it well that you can’t mess up with Isagenix even if you don’t follow the schedule perfectly or even if you go on vacation without your  products for a week or even if you skip a day or two here and there for celebrations.  As long as you get back on the products when the event is over, your body will adjust quickly and get you back on track.  It’s really hard to mess up if you hold tight to this one simple rule:  Put Isagenix into your mouth!

The IsaBody Challenge for the 2010 Celebration in San Diego, CA is open for participants.  This time, participants have been given the flexibility to choose their 24-week period.  Here are the details:

http://isabodychallenge.isagenix.com/

Isagenix will change your life if you’re ready to take the leap and the IsaBody Challenge provides a good incentive to keep you on track. 

For me, it all came down to Matthew 7:7.   I was seeking and I found because I took the leap of faith and walked through the door.

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.

http://www.isagenixhealth.net/?p=297

“Bill’s a welcome addition to our team,” says Coover. “His wealth of knowledge and experience in nutrition research, [...]]]> Dr. William E. Wheeler, Ph.D., ACSM joined Isagenix in 2006 as a special consultant, formally a staff nutritionist to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, to coordinate scientific studies on nutrition and advise Isagenix President and CEO Jim Coover.

“Bill’s a welcome addition to our team,” says Coover. “His wealth of knowledge and experience in nutrition research, product formulation, product review and regulatory compliance all serve to broaden our resources for providing leading-edge, result-producing products and programs.” 

Dr. Wheeler is the senior author of numerous scientific publications on nutrition and has helped develop more than 6,200 nutritional products.

His research philosophy aligns well with Isagenix’s focus on using natural products in its nutritional cleansing, weight-loss and youth-restoring systems. “The company emphasizes superior quality, honesty and integrity,” he says. “Isagenix products deliver true nutrition, which works with your body naturally—without the use of stimulants.”

Dr. Wheeler fine-tuned his expertise on natural nutrition and performance with years of advising Olympic and professional athletes and teams. He says people should treat their bodies with as much care as athletes treat their bodies. “We’re all athletes. A 65-year-old grandma and Brett Favre have the same protein requirement per pound.” Dr. Wheeler adds, “Now don’t misquote me; I didn’t say Brett Favre throws like a 65-year-old grandma.”

Dr. Wheeler’s past clients include the 1996 U.S. Olympic decathlon team; 2002 U.S. Olympic snowboarding team; several NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball teams; NASCAR and the Air Force Academy college football team.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.  Always consult your doctor before starting an Isagenix program or any nutritional supplement program. Individual results may vary.

Cleansing has always been a key in my educational approach, and a great way to start any new program of nutrition, whether through food or supplementation.  [...]]]> “For over a decade, I have been doing nutritional counseling and live blood microscopy – trying to help people get – and stay – on a path of improved health.”

Cleansing has always been a key in my educational approach, and a great way to start any new program of nutrition, whether through food or supplementation.  Many have asked me about weight loss programs that were on the market, and if they worked or not. In most cases, unfortunately, these programs did not get to the root of the problem of weight gain, and in many cases caused more harm than good.

When I was approached to look at the Isagenix 9-Day Fat-Burning System, I took an open minded approach, which I do with all types of programs, and was very surprised to see none of the harmful ingredients I have come to expect in weight loss products. In fact, I saw it was a cleanse and fortification program that was far beyond anything I had ever seen before – and it had ALL of the ingredients I normally work with and then some.

After further investigation, I found that many of the stories of improved health and weight loss went back to basics of my philospohy of getting the body back into balance, and letting it do the healing from within. So where do I go from here, I asked myself. I have always had a rule that I would never work with a product unless I tried it myself. Although I had no weight to lose, being the same weight at 50 that I was at 20, I decided to check my body percentage and try a 9-Day program myself. My body fat was 19.9% and for my measurements and age was right at the excellent level of 19.8%. Can I improve on that, was the question I asked myself. After the first 2 days of cleansing – I dropped to 18.4% and continued to decrease until day 9 when I was at 16.4% – a total loss of 3.5% body fat!!  Now at 160 pounds, that’s a fat loss of almost 6 pounds, but on the scale I had actually gained 2 pounds.  So what happended?

To my suprise, I had gained muscles from the high quality protein in the program, and since muscle weighs more than fat, that’s why the scale showed weight gain.  This goes back to the basics – when you balance the body – it will take care of itself – and, in my case, muscle gain was needed. This is why looking at the scale for results can be deceiving when working with a total health system like Isagenix.  I have found it best – for those with a body fat analyzer – to look more at how you feel and how your clothes fit – than looking at the scale.

I have kept my body fat at 16.4% for almost a year now. I continue to take an Isagenix Shake every morning to start the day, and I use the Cleanse for Life for periodic cleansing during the month. I use the other high quality nutritional products offered by Isagenix to complete my Nutritional Support Program. I have worked with many others using this unique program and have seen amazing results in both weight loss and health gain.  I have no hesitation in sharing it with anyone  who wants to make an effort in taking control of their life. Whether you are looking to cleanse, lose weigh, gain muscle, increase your energy level – Isagenix is the perfect program to get back to the basics of what nature intended – good health!!

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.  Always consult your doctor before starting an Isagenix program or any nutritional supplement program. Individual results may vary.