Other Nations Avoid This Like the Plague, yet the US Shamelessly Peddles It

Short Film Reveals the Lunacy of Water Fluoridation

October 31, 2015 | 

By Dr. Mercola

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has hailed water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.

Beginning in 1945, it was claimed that adding fluoride to drinking water was a safe and effective way to improve people's dental health. Over the decades, many bought into this hook, line and sinker, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The featured film, "Our Daily Dose," reviews some of this evidence. As noted in the film's synopsis:

"Filmmaker Jeremy Seifert lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue.

Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day."

Share This Film With Those Still Sitting On the Fence on Fluoride!

The film may not offer many brand new revelations to those of you who are already well-informed about the history and documented hazards of fluoride.

It was primarily created as an educational vehicle aimed at those who may not be aware of these issues, or who might not yet be entirely convinced that drinking fluoride isn't a good thing.

So PLEASE, share this video with all of your friends and family who are on the fence on this issue, and ask them to watch it. It's only 20 minutes long, but it packs a lot of compelling details into those 20 minutes.

Understanding how fluoride affects your body and brain is particularly important for parents with young children, and pregnant women.

It's really crucial to know that you should NEVER mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water for example, as this may overexpose your child to 100 times the proposed "safe" level of fluoride exposure for infants!

If your child suffers with ADD/ADHD, drinking fluoridated water may also worsen his or her condition. Ditto for those with underfunctioning thyroid. So please, do share this video with your social networks, as it could make a big difference in people's health.

Fluoride Is Both an Endocrine Disruptor and a Neurotoxin

Scientific investigations have revealed that fluoride is an endocrine disrupting chemical,1 and a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, and lowers IQ in children.2

It has been implicated as a contributing factor in the rising rates of both attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD)3,4 and thyroid disease.

Indeed, fluoride was used in Europe to reduce thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients as late as the 1970s, and reduced thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05 to 0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).5

For over 50 Years, Fluoride Levels Were Too High, Government Admits

Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure, and in April 2015, the US government admitted that the "optimal" level of fluoride recommended since 1962 had in fact been too high.

As a result, over 40 percent of American teens show signs of fluoride overexposure6 — a condition known as dental fluorosis. In some areas, dental fluorosis rates are as high as 70 to 80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.

So, for the first time, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lowered its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water7,8,9 by 40 percent, from an upper limit of 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L.

The HHS said it will evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children in 10 years to assess whether they were correct about this new level being protective against dental fluorosis.

But just what is the acceptable level of harm in the name of cavity prevention?

A number of studies10,11,12,13 have shown that children who with moderate to severe dental fluorosis score worse on tests measuring cognitive skills and IQ than peers without fluorosis — a clear revelation highlighted in the film, as some still insist that dental fluorosis is nothing more than a cosmetic issue.

The Price We Pay for Cavity Prevention

According to the film, the CDC estimates water fluoridation decreases dental decay by, at most, 25 percent. Recent research14,15 however, suggests the real effect may be far lower.

Based on the findings of three papers assessing the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay, the researchers concluded that water fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth.

If that's the case, then why are we still jeopardizing our children's long-term thyroid and brain health by adding fluoride to drinking water?

Fluoride — like many other poisons — was originally declared safe based on dosage, but we now know that timing of exposure can play a big role in its effects as well. Children who are fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water receive very high doses, and may be affected for life as a result of this early exposure.

Fluoride can also cross the placenta, causing developing fetuses to be exposed to fluoride. Considering the fact that fluoride has endocrine-disrupting activity, this is hardly a situation amenable to the good health of that child. It's important to realize that fluoride is not a nutrient. It's a drug, and it's the ONLY drug that is purposely added directly into drinking water. 

This route of delivery completely bypasses standard rules relating to informed consent, which is foundational for ethical medical practice. What's worse, there's no way to keep track of the dosage. And no one is keeping track of side effects.

Infants Are Severely and Routinely Overdosed on Fluoride

According to the recent Iowa Study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC, infants and young children are being massively overdosed on fluoride. This study, which is the largest US study conducted measuring the amount of fluoride children ingest, concluded that:

• 100 percent of infants receiving infant formula mixed with fluoridated tap water get more than the allegedly safe dose of fluoride. Some formula-fed infants receive 100 times the safe level on a daily basis
• 30 percent of 1-year-olds exceed the recommended safe dose
• 47 percent of 2- to 3-olds exceed the safe dose

Most Water Authorities Use Toxic Waste Product, Not Pharmaceutical Grade Fluoride

As stated, fluoride is a drug, and research into the health effects of fluoride is based on pharmaceutical grade fluoride.

However, a majority of water authorities do not even use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid, or hexafluorosilicic acid — toxic waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which are frequently contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, and other toxins.

This is a key point that many fluoride proponents fail to address when arguing for its use. Indeed, holding elected officials accountable for procuring proof that the specific fluoridation chemical used actually fulfills fluoride's health and safety claims and complies with all regulations, laws, and risk assessments required for safe drinking water, has been a successful strategy for halting water fluoridation in a number of areas around the US.

While the idea of hiding toxic industrial waste in drinking water would sound like a questionable idea at best to most people, it was welcomed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 1983 letter, Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, wrote:

"... In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them..."

Data and Science Does Not Support Water Fluoridation

Ninety-seven percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate their water, and data collected by the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as the US,16where a majority of water is still fluoridated. If fluoride were in fact the cause of this decline, non-fluoridating countries should not show the same trend.

Clearly, declining rates of dental decay are not in and of themselves proof that water fluoridation actually works. It's also worth noting that well over 99 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water never even touches a tooth; it simply runs down the drain, contaminating and polluting the environment.

Source: KK Cheng et.al. BMJ 2007.17 Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.

Ending Fluoridation Will Be the Greatest Public Health Achievement of the 21st Century

Despite the fact that the scientific evidence does not support fluoridation, those who question or openly oppose it are typically demonized and written off as crazy conspiracy theorists. Many fluoride supporters claim the science of fluoridation was "settled" some 50 years ago — effectively dismissing all the revelations produced by modern science! To defend their position, they rely on outdated science, because that's all they have. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find modern research supporting water fluoridation.

Indeed, as noted in the film, ending water fluoridation will be one of the greatest public health achievements of the 21st Century, and I for one will not stop until that happens. To learn more about why water fluoridation runs counter to good science, common sense, and the public good, please see the following video, which recounts 10 important fluoride facts.

The Best Cavity Prevention Is Your Diet

The best way to prevent cavities is not through fluoride, but by addressing your diet. One of the keys to oral health is eating atraditional diet or real foods, rich in fresh, unprocessed vegetables, nuts, and grass-fed meats. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, you prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay in the first place.

According to Dr. Francesco Branca, Director of WHO's Department of Nutrition for Health and Development:18 "We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10 percent of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay."

Other natural strategies that can significantly improve your dental health is eating plenty of fermented vegetables, and doing oil pulling with coconut oil. Also make sure you're getting plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, as research suggests even moderate amounts of omega-3 fats may help ward off gum disease. My favorite source is krill oil

Eating less sugar can improve children's health in less than two weeks, Touro Univ study finds

Eating less sugar can improve children's health in less than two weeks, Touro University study finds

By Rachel Raskin-Zrihen  (Vallejo) Times-Herald

POSTED:   10/29/2015 11:14:21 AM PDT  | UPDATED:   ABOUT 20 HOURS AGO

Eating less sugar can improve children's health in less than two weeks, according to a new study conducted jointly by Vallejo's Touro University California and UC San Francisco, officials of both institutions announced this week.

Reducing consumption of added sugar, even without reducing calories or losing weight, can reverse "a cluster of chronic metabolic diseases, including high cholesterol and blood pressure," in children in as little as 10 days, the study found.

The chronic conditions impacted by this also include high blood glucose levels and excess body fat around the waist. Occurring together, they represent increased risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes, the study's authors said.

Other diseases associated with metabolic syndrome, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes -- disorders previously unknown in the pediatric population --now occur in children.

The paper will appear online on Oct. 27, and in the February 2016 issue of the Journal Obesity, they said.

"I have never seen results as striking or significant in our human studies; after only nine days of fructose restriction, the results are dramatic and consistent from subject to subject," said Jean-Marc Schwarz, of the College of Osteopathic Medicine at Touro University California and the paper's senior author. "These findings support the idea that it is essential for parents to evaluate sugar intake and to be mindful of the health effects of what their children are consuming."
Lead author and pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital San Francisco, said the study proves it's not sugar's calories that are so bad for you.

"This study definitively shows that sugar is metabolically harmful ... because it's sugar," he said. "This internally controlled intervention study is a solid indication that sugar contributes to metabolic syndrome and is the strongest evidence to date that the negative effects of sugar are not because of calories or obesity."

Study participants were identified through UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital San Francisco's Weight Assessment for Teen and Child Health Clinic, the authors said. Recruitment was limited to Latino and African-American youth because of their higher risk for certain metabolic syndrome-related conditions like high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes.

The study tested 43 obese children between 9 and 18 with at least one other chronic metabolic disorder, by removing sugar, but maintaining calorie levels.

"They told us it felt like so much more food, even though they were consuming the same number of calories as before, just with significantly less sugar. Some said we were overwhelming them with food," Schwarz said.

After just nine days on the sugar-restricted diet, virtually every aspect of the participants' metabolic health improved, without change in weight, the authors said.

"This study demonstrates that 'a calorie is not a calorie.' The source of the calories determines where in the body they go. Sugar calories are the worst, because they turn to fat in the liver, driving insulin resistance, and driving the risk for diabetes, heart, and liver disease," Lustig said. "This has enormous implications for the food industry, chronic disease, and health care costs."

Study funding came from the National Institutes of Health, UCSF Clinical Translational Science Institute and Touro University.

“Most Cancer Research is Largely a Fraud”

Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False

May 16, 2015 by Arjun Walia. 

98

In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

This is quite distrubing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.

He also went on to call himself out in a sense, stating that journal editors aid and abet the worst behaviours, that the amount of bad research is alarming, that data is sculpted to fit a preferred theory. He goes on to observe that important confirmations are often rejected and little is done to correct bad practices. What’s worse, much of what goes on could even be considered borderline misconduct.

Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to another one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, makes her view of the subject quite plain:

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”  (source)

I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement, and it comes from someone who also held a position similiar to Dr. Horton.

There is much more than anecdotal evidence to support these claims, however, including documents obtained by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day. (source)

This is just one of many examples, and alludes to one point Dr. Horton is referring to, the ommision of data. For the sake of time, I encourage you to do your own research on this subject. I just wanted to provide some food for thought about something that is not often considered when it comes to medical research, and the resulting products and theories which are then sold to us based on that research.

It’s truly a remarkable time to be alive. Over the course of human history, our planet has experienced multiple paradigm shifting realizations, all of which were met with harsh resistence at the time of their revelation. One great example is when we realized the Earth was not flat. Today, we are seeing these kinds of revelatory shifts in thinking happen in multiple spheres, all at one time. It can seem overwhelming for those who are paying attention, especially given the fact that a lot of these ideas go against current belief systems. There will always be resistance to new information which does not fit into the current framework, regardless of how reasonable (or factual) that information might be.

Here are just a few of the CE articles related to this subject:

One of the Most Important Scientists in the World: “Most Cancer Research is Largely a Fraud”

Flawed Medical Research May Be Ruining Your Health & Your Life

Sources:

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964337/

The Race to Stay Ahead of Antibiotic-Resistant Superbugs

October 27, 2015 | l

By Dr. Mercola

Antibiotics are a foundational component of modern medicine, without which many of our current treatment modalities and medical procedures become exceedingly dangerous.

Due to overuse, and the downright reckless misuse of antibiotics for growth promotion purposes among livestock, bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to these drugs. As a result, even “simple” infections like urinary tract infections can become lethal.

A recent example that drives home this point is New York Giants player Daniel Fells, whose foot may have to be amputated due to an antibiotic-resistant infection.

As reported by Scientific American:1

“[T]he NFL reports that Fells was taken to the emergency room with a high fever a week after getting a cortisone shot to relieve pain from toe and ankle injuries.

Doctors found that his ankle was infected with a bacterium called methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, and they fear that the infection might have spread to Fells' bone, which could make an amputation necessary...”

Most MRSA Infections Are Acquired in Hospital Settings

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 75,000 cases of life-threatening MRSA infections were reported in 2012. The vast majority of them, nearly 60,000, were acquired in health care settings.

It’s unclear whether Fells’ MRSA infection was transmitted via the cortisone injection he received. Dr. Bo Shopsin, who was interviewed for the Scientific American story, noted he sees up to 10 people a year who acquired a staph infection from a medical injection.

Either way, cases such as these show just how risky it can get when there are no effective antibiotics left. It’s also driving up health care costs — a price that livestock manufacturers do not take into account when calculating the cost of not using antibiotics.

As previously noted by Scientific American:2

“[R]esearchers estimate that antibiotic resistance causes Americans upwards of $20 billion in additional healthcare costs every year stemming from the treatment of otherwise preventable infections.”

One in 25 Patients Contract a Hospital-Acquired Infection

MRSA infections are only one type of infection resistant to drugs. There are many others.

In the CDC’s 2013 report “Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States,” no less than 18 superbugs were identified as “urgent, serious, and concerning threats” to humankind.3 

The majority of these dangerous bacteria are in the gram-negative category, because that variety has body armor that makes it extremely resistant to the immune response.

Most disturbing of all, some forms are now exhibiting “panresistance” — meaning, resistance to every antibiotic in existence. One of the latest multi-drug resistant bacteria that is gaining ground is Carbapenem-resistantEnterobacteriaceae (CRE), which produces an enzyme that breaks down antibiotics.

Hospitals are again the most common source of this infection, which is lethal in about 9 percent of all cases. When the CRE infection affects the blood, the death rate jumps to 50 percent.4

According to the most recent CDC data,5 hospital-acquired infections now affect 1 in 25 patients. In 2011, an estimated 722,000 patients contracted an infection during a stay in an acute care hospital in the US, and about 75,000 of them died as a result of it.

Moreover, a study6, 7 published online in The Lancet Infectious Diseases on October 15, 2015 warns that half of all post-surgical infections, and over a quarter of infections occurring after chemotherapy, are now caused by antibiotic-resistant organisms!

As reported by Medical News Today:8

“A 30 percent reduction in the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis (preventive use of antibiotics) could result in 120,000 additional infections and 6,300 infection-related deaths every year in the US alone.”

A report9 commissioned by the British government estimates that by the year 2050, drug-resistant disease will cause more than 10 million deaths and cost the global economy $100 trillion annually.

But that’s not all.

Add to the danger of drug-resistant infection the increased risk for other more chronic health problems, such as obesity and allergies10 — both of which have been linked to antibiotic overexposure — and the cost of antibiotic overuse mounts even further...

The Routes of Contamination in Hospitals Are Many...

Besides injections, other common modes of transmission of infections in hospital settings include invasive procedures such as central lines and catheters. 

However, researchers have also discovered that health care personnel often transfer pathogens onto their skin during the removal of protective gear such as gloves and gowns.

Using a black light to check for contamination, the researchers found that contamination of the hands, forearms, neck, face, hair, or clothing occurred 46 percent of the time. What’s worse, when personnel failed to use proper protective equipment technique, contamination occurred 70 percent of the time.

This drives home the point that even minor flaws in anti-contamination technique, such as putting on or pulling off your protective gear in the wrong sequence, can have a dramatic impact on the spread of deadly bacteria. Senior author Dr. Curtis J. Donskey told Scientific American:11

"Most of the participants appeared to be unaware of the high risk for contamination and many reported receiving minimal or no training in putting on and taking off (personal protective equipment).”

Antibiotic-Susceptibility Testing Is Flawed, Experts Say

Interestingly, researchers have also discovered that the routine test used to determine which antibiotic to use for hard-to-treat infections doesn’t work properly when used on antibiotic resistant bugs, because while they behave one way in the lab test, they behave differently in the human body. And this only adds to the difficulty in treating these kinds of infections.

As reported by Bloomberg:12

“‘We’re saying the standard way the world does this is wrong,’ said Michael J. Mahan, a professor of Microbiology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. That standard protocol, established in the 1960s, is called antibiotic susceptibility testing: Bacteria are grown in a solution called Mueller-Hinton broth, and then attacked with various antibiotics to see which one works best...

When [Mahan’s] team tested salmonella in the petri dishes that labs typically use, an antibiotic called polymyxin killed the bacteria. But when they grew salmonella in petri dishes formulated with a material that more closely resembles the cells the bacteria infect, the antibiotic was useless. They concluded that the bacteria's defenses — essentially the mechanisms that make superbugs ‘super’ — can switch on or off depending on their surroundings.”

Another study found similar results. In this case, the antibiotic azithromycin failed to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the lab test, yet worked fine in infected mice. Apparently, once inside animal tissue, the perceived “superbug” lost its superpowers.

According to the lead researcher, the antibiotic-susceptibility test does not accurately translate into how the drug will perform in an actual patient, noting that, "The patient’s not made out of Mueller-Hinton broth." Stanley Maloy, former president of the American Society for Microbiology also told Bloomberg that:

"It’s really clear from these papers that there are key examples where the way we’ve been doing things up until now is probably inadequate. It is a very big shift."

Agriculture Is a Primary Driver of Antibiotic Resistance

It’s important to realize that just about any infection can become life-threatening these days. This is why the irresponsible approach of the agricultural industry is so egregious. Use of antibiotics in food production is a major factor driving the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, yet the industry is doing very little to address its role in this growing health threat.

The US uses nearly 30 million pounds of antibiotics each year to raise food animals.13,14 This accounts for about 80 percent of all antibiotics used in the US,15 and nearly 70 percent of these antibiotics are considered “medically important” for humans.16

Even the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acknowledges that antibiotic-resistant disease can be spread via ingestion or contact with contaminated foods, yet despite that knowledge the agency has opted not to ban the use of antibiotics in agriculture. Instead, three years ago the FDA simply recommended that pharmaceutical companies voluntarily re-label certain antibiotics,17,18 reserving them for use in sick animals only. As reported by Mother Jones,19 this has had virtually no effect on the way antibiotics are used:

“The FDA's policy phases out growth promotion but leaves prevention intact — even though giving animals small daily doses of antibiotics to ‘prevent’ disease is virtually indistinguishable from giving them small daily doses to promote growth.

A 2014 Pew analysis found no fewer than 66 antibiotic products that the FDA allows to be used for ‘disease prevention’ at levels that are ‘fully within the range of growth promotion dosages and with no limit on the duration of treatment.’ In other words, you change the language you use to describe the practice and continue giving your herd of 4,000 confined pigs the same old daily dose of antibiotics.”

California Passes Law to Curb Use of Antibiotics in Food Production

To address these federal regulatory shortcomings, California recently passed its own state law to restrict antibiotic use in livestock.20 While the bill still allows antibiotics to be used as “prophylaxis to address an elevated risk of contraction of a particular disease or infection," the drugs cannot be used “in a regular pattern.” This minor detail closes the loophole that allows farmers to simply change the stated reason for why they’re dosing their herd. The bill, which was signed by on October 10, will go into effect in 2018.

Between now and then, California livestock producers will have to figure out how to keep their animals healthy without the routine use of antibiotics. As reported by Aljazeera,21 researchers are investigating the use of probiotics, probiotics, and certain herb and plant extracts, such as oregano and thyme, known for their antimicrobial properties. Others are working on more potentially disturbing alternatives. According to the article:

“Other scientists are tinkering with genetic innovations that boost animals’ immunity...  Animal scientist Mark Cook and his team at the University of Wisconsin at Madison discovered a way to disable an off switch in chickens’ immune systems and have replicated the results in cattle. ‘It works in all of them,’ said Jordan Sand, an associate scientist with the University of Wisconsin team and the chief technical officer of Ab E Discovery, the spinoff company the team founded to continue its research and take it to market.”

The research involves the protein interleukin-10 (IL-10), which acts as a signaling agent, telling the immune system when to stop working. The team vaccinated egg-laying hens to create antibodies for IL-10, and then mixed the antibody-producing eggs into feed given to chickens infected with an intestinal disease. 

By eating the eggs, the chickens became “immune” to the IL-10 signal telling their immune systems to shut off, and few ended up developing the disease. The question here is, what does eating such chickens mean to human health? Will it provide a benefit, or might it affect human health in some unsuspected adverse way?

Shoddy Drug Manufacturing Practices Also Promote Antibiotic Resistance

The pharmaceutical industry also shoulders a significant burden for promoting the spread of antibiotic resistance. As noted in a recent paper22 published in Chemical and Engineering News, makers of antibiotics promote resistance by dumping the drugs right into wastewater during the manufacturing process.

Forbes Magazine23 addressed this issue in a previous article, noting that many drug companies have located their manufacturing facilities in countries where production costs are low, such as China and India. But such countries also tend to have far less rigorous water treatment protocols. 

For example, in Patancheru, India, 90 different pharmaceutical companies discharge 400,000 gallons daily24 into the local water treatment plant, and less than 25 percent of this waste water undergoes treatment. As reported by Forbes:

“Researchers from Sweden have studied the area around Hyderabad for a number of years, publishing a series of reports since 200725... The worst pollutant was ciprofloxacin, with concentrations up to 31 mg/L and in only one day totaling ‘44 kg, which is equivalent to Sweden’s entire consumption over 5 days, or, expressed in another manner, sufficient to treat everyone in a city with 44 000 inhabitants.’ 

These researchers also found that the effluent was toxic to many organisms, and that it promoted resistance genes.26Almost two percent of DNA samples from downstream sites sampled had resistance genes.27” [Emphasis mine]

Contaminated wastewater also finds its way onto crop fields via irrigation and sludge (biosolids) used as fertilizer. In this way, drug resistant genes are spread far and wide throughout the environment. According to a 2008 CDC report,28 E.coli bacteria resistant to multiple drugs have even been found in the Arctic; brought there by migrating birds!

What's the Solution?

The impending superbug crisis has a four-prong solution:

• Improved infection prevention, with a focus on strengthening your immune system naturally. Avoiding sugars, processed foods, and grains, optimizing stress reduction, sleep, and vitamin D levels are foundational for this. Adding in traditionally fermented and cultured foods is equally important, as this will help optimize your microflora
• More responsible use of antibiotics in human medicine
• Limiting use of antibiotics in livestock animals, along with a return to biodynamic farming and a complete overhaul of our food system
• Innovative new approaches to the treatment of infections from all branches of science, natural as well as allopathic. Fortunately, Mother Nature gives us a cornucopia of botanicals with inherent antibiotic activity that does not promote resistance like antibiotic drugs do. Natural compounds with antimicrobial activity include:

Garlic	Cinnamon	Oregano extract	Colloidal silver
Manuka honey (Clinical trials have found that Manuka honey can effectively eradicate more than 250 clinical strains of bacteria, including some resistant varieties, such as MRSA)	Probiotics and fermented foods	Echinacea	Sunlight and vitamin D

How to Avoid Promoting Antibiotic Resistance

Optimizing your own immune system function will help keep you safe from developing a potentially lethal infection in the first place. I also urge you to consider the following strategies, which will help curtail the spread of antibiotic resistance in general. While the problem of antibiotic resistance needs to be stemmed through public policy on a nationwide level, the more people who get involved on a personal level, the better.

Such strategies include:

• Use antibiotics only when absolutely necessary. For example, antibiotics are typically unnecessary for most ear infections, and they do NOT work on the common cold or flu, both of which are caused by viruses. Antibiotics only work on bacterial infections, and even then, they're best reserved for more serious infections.
• Avoid antibacterial household products, such as antibacterial soaps, hand sanitizers, and wipes, etc., as these also promote antibiotic resistance by allowing the strongest bacteria to survive and thrive.
• Properly wash your hands with warm water and plain soap, to prevent the spread of bacteria. Be particularly mindful of washing your hands and kitchen surfaces after handling raw meats, as about half of all meat sold in American grocery stores is likely to be contaminated with pathogenic bacteria. Avoid antibiotic soaps that typically have dangerous chemicals like triclosan.
• Take common-sense precautions in the kitchen: Kitchens are notorious breeding grounds for disease-causing bacteria, courtesy of contaminated meat products, including antibiotic-resistant strains of E-coli. To avoid cross-contamination between foods in your kitchen, I suggest adhering to the following recommendations:
• Use a designated cutting board, preferably wood, not plastic, for raw meat and poultry, and never use this board for other food preparation, such as cutting up vegetables. Color coding your cutting boards is a simple way to distinguish between them
• To sanitize your cutting board, be sure to use hot water and detergent. Simply wiping it off with a rag will not destroy the bacteria
• For an inexpensive, safe, and effective kitchen counter and cutting board sanitizer, use 3 percent hydrogen peroxide and vinegar. Keep each liquid in a separate spray bottle, and then spray the surface with one, followed by the other, and wipe off
• Coconut oil can also be used to clean, treat, and sanitize your wooden cutting boards. It's loaded with lauric acid that has potent antimicrobial actions. The fats will also help condition the wood
• Purchase organic, antibiotic-free meats and other foods. Reducing the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a significant reason for making sure you're only eating grass-fed, organically-raised meats, and animal products. Besides growing and raising your own, buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources is your best bet, and I strongly encourage you to support the small family farms in your area.