The Weston A Price Foundation is an important source of nutritional information whose article on soy and its negative impact on the brain and the thyroid is worth reading.
If you do decide to eat soy products, please make sure that they are strictly organic since most soy beans grown in the US are Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and carry serious potential dangers in addition to those listed here.
By John MacArthur http://www.westonaprice.org/soy/soyandbrain.html
“Tofu Shrinks Brain!” No science fiction scenario, this sobering soybean revelation is for real. But how did the “poster bean” of the â€™90s go wrong? Apparently, in many ways–none of which bode well for the brain.
In a major ongoing study involving 3,734 elderly Japanese-American men, those who ate the most tofu during midlife had up to 2.4 times the risk of later developing Alzheimerâ€™s disease. As part of the three-decade long Honolulu-Asia Aging Study, 27 foods and drinks were correlated with participantsâ€™ health. Men who consumed tofu at least twice weekly had more cognitive impairment than those who rarely or never ate the soybean curd.1, 2
“The test results were about equivalent to what they would have been if they were five years older,” said lead researcher Dr. Lon R. White from the Hawaii Center for Health Research. For the guys who ate no tofu, however, they tested as though they were five years younger.
Whatâ€™s more, higher midlife tofu consumption was also associated with low brain weight. Brain atrophy was assessed in 574 men using MRI results and in 290 men using autopsy information. Shrinkage occurs naturally with age, but for the men who had consumed more tofu, White said “their brains seemed to be showing an exaggeration of the usual patterns we see in aging.”
Phytoestrogens–Soy Self Defense
Tofu and other soybean foods contain isoflavones, three-ringed molecules bearing a structural resemblance to mammalian steroidal hormones. White and his fellow researchers speculate that soyâ€™s estrogen-like compounds (phytoestrogens) might compete with the bodyâ€™s natural estrogens for estrogen receptors in brain cells.
Plants have evolved many different strategies to protect themselves from predators. Some have thorns or spines, while others smell bad, taste bad, or poison animals that eat them. Some plants took a different route, using birth control as a way to counter the critters who were wont to munch.
Plants such as soy are making oral contraceptives to defend themselves, says Claude Hughes, Ph.D., a neuroendocrinologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. They evolved compounds that mimic natural estrogen. These phytoestrogens can interfere with the mammalian hormones involved in reproduction and growth–a strategy to reduce the number and size of predators.
Toxicologists Concerned about Soyâ€™s Health Risks
The soy industry says that Whiteâ€™s study only shows an association between tofu consumption and brain aging, but does not prove cause and effect. On the other hand, soy experts at the National Center for Toxicological Research, Daniel Sheehan, Ph.D., and Daniel Doerge, Ph.D., consider this tofu study very important. “It is one of the more robust, well-designed prospective epidemiological studies generally available. . . We rarely have such power in human studies, as well as a potential mechanism.”
In a 1999 letter to the FDA (and on the ABC News program 20/20), the two toxicologists expressed their opposition to the agencyâ€™s health claims for soy, saying the Honolulu study “provides evidence that soy (tofu) phytoestrogens cause vascular dementia. Given that estrogens are important for maintenance of brain function in women; that the male brain contains aromatase, the enzyme that converts testosterone to estradiol; and that isoflavones inhibit this enzymatic activity, there is a mechanistic basis for the human findings.” 3
Although estrogenâ€™s role in the central nervous system is not well understood, White notes that “a growing body of information suggests that estrogens may be needed for optimal repair and replacement of neural structures eroded with aging.”
One link to the puzzle may involve calcium-binding proteins, which are associated with protection against neurodegenerative diseases. In recent animal studies at Brigham Young Universityâ€™s Neuroscience Center, researchers found that consumption of phytoestrogens via a soy diet for a relatively short interval can significantly elevate phytoestrogen levels in the brain and decrease brain calcium-binding proteins.4
Concerns About Giving Soy to Infants
The most serious problem with soy may be its use in infant formulas. “The amount of phytoestrogens that are in a dayâ€™s worth of soy infant formula equals 5 birth control pills,” says Mike Fitzpatrick, a New Zealand toxicologist. Fitzpatrick and other scientists believe that infant exposure to high amounts of phytoestrogens is associated with early puberty in girls and retarded physical maturation in boys.5
A study reported in The Lancet found that the “daily exposure of infants to isoflavones in soy infant-formulas is 6-11 fold higher on a bodyweight basis than the dose that has hormonal effects in adults consuming soy foods.” (This dose, equivalent to two glasses of soy milk per day, was enough to change menstrual patterns in women.6 In the blood of infants tested, concentrations of isoflavones were 13,000-22,000 times higher than natural estrogen concentrations in early life.7 )
Soy Interferes with Enzymes
While soybeans are relatively high in protein compared to other legumes, they are a poor source of protein because other proteins found in soybeans act as potent enzyme inhibitors. These “anti-nutrients” block the action of trypsin and other enzymes needed for protein digestion. Trypsin inhibitors are large, tightly folded proteins that are not completely deactivated during ordinary cooking and can reduce protein digestion. Therefore, soy consumption may lead to chronic deficiencies in amino acid uptake.8
Soyâ€™s ability to interfere with enzymes and amino acids may have direct consequence for the brain. As White and his colleagues suggest, “isoflavones in tofu and other soyfoods might exert their influence through interference with tyrosine kinase-dependent mechanisms required for optimal hippocampal function, structure and plasticity.”2
High amounts of protein tyrosine kinases are found in the hippocampus, a brain region involved with learning and memory. One of soyâ€™s primary isoflavones, genistein, has been shown to inhibit tyrosine kinase in the hippocampus, where it blocked “long-term potentiation,” a mechanism of memory formation.9
Tyrosine, Dopamine, and Parkinsonâ€™s Disease
The brain uses the amino acids tyrosine or phenylalanine to synthesize the key neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine, brain chemicals that promote alertness and activity. Dopamine is crucial to fine muscle coordination. People whose hands tremble from Parkinsonâ€™s disease have a diminished ability to synthesize dopamine. An increased incidence of depression and other mood disorders are associated with low levels of dopamine and norepinephrine. Also, the current scientific consensus on attention-deficit disorder points to a dopamine imbalance.
Soy has been shown to affect tyrosine hydroxylase activity in animals, causing the utilization rate of dopamine to be “profoundly disturbed.” When soy lecithin supplements were given throughout perinatal development, they reduced activity in the cerebral cortex and “altered synaptic characteristics in a manner consistent with disturbances in neural function.”10
Researchers at Swedenâ€™s Karolinska Institute and at the National Institutes of Health are finding a connection between tyrosine hydroxylase activity, thyroid hormone receptors, and depleted dopamine levels in the brain–particularly in the substantia nigra, a region associated with the movement difficulties characteristic of Parkinsonâ€™s disease.11,12,13
Soy Affects the Brain via the Thyroid Gland
Tyrosine is crucial to the brain in another way. Itâ€™s needed for the body to make active thyroid hormones, which are a major physiological regulator of mammalian brain development. By affecting the rate of cell differentiation and gene expression, thyroid hormones regulate the growth and migration of neurons, including synaptic development and myelin formation in specific brain regions. Low blood levels of tyrosine are associated with an underactive thyroid gland.
It is well known that isoflavones in soy products can depress thyroid function, causing goiter (enlarged thyroid gland) and autoimmune thyroid disease. In the early 1960s, goiter and hypothyroidism were reported in infants fed soybean diets.14 Scientists at the National Center for Toxicological Research showed that the soy isoflavones genistein and daidzein “inhibit thyroid peroxidase-catalyzed reactions essential to thyroid hormone synthesis.”15
Japanese researchers studied effects on the thyroid from soybeans administered to healthy subjects. They reported that consumption of as little as 30 grams (two tablespoons) of soybeans per day for only one month resulted in a significant increase in thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), which is produced by the brainâ€™s pituitary gland when thyroid hormones are too low. Their findings suggested that “excessive soybean ingestion for a certain duration might suppress thyroid function and cause goiters in healthy people, especially elderly subjects.”16
Thyroid Hormones and Fetal Brain Development
Thyroid alterations are among the most frequently encountered autoimmune conditions in children. Researchers at Cornell University Medical College showed that the “frequency of feedings with soy-based milk formulas in early life was significantly higher in children with autoimmune thyroid disease.”17 In a previous study, they found that twice as many diabetic children had received soy formula in infancy as compared to non-diabetic children.18
Recognizing the risk, Swiss health authorities recommend “very restrictive use” of soy for babies. In England and Australia, public health agencies tell parents to first seek advice from a doctor before giving their infants soy formula. The New Zealand Ministry of Health recommends that “Soy formula should only be used under the direction of a health professional for specific medical indications. . . Clinicians who are treating children with a soy-based infant formula for medical conditions should be aware of the potential interaction between soy infant formula and thyroid function.”19
Thyroid hormones exert their influence during discrete windows of time during development of the infant. Inappropriate hormone levels can have a devastating effect on the developing human brain, especially during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy when the fetus depends on the motherâ€™s thyroid hormones for brain development. After that, both maternal and fetal thyroid hormone levels affect the central nervous system.
A 1999 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that pregnant women with underactive thyroids were four times more likely to have children with low IQs if the disorder were left untreated. The study found that 19 percent of the children born to mothers with thyroid deficiency had IQ scores of 85 or lower, compared with only 5 percent of those born to mothers without such problems.20
Thyroid, Brain, and Environmental Toxins
Children exposed prenatally and during infancy to common environmental toxins like dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) can suffer behavioral, learning, and memory problems because these chemicals may be disrupting the normal action of thyroid hormone.21
Soybeans grown in the United States contain residues of the pesticide dieldrin, an organochlorine similar to DDT. Although both chemicals were banned in the 1970s, dieldrin still persists in soils and is absorbed through the roots. Today it is the most toxic residue found on domestic soybeans.22 In Silent Spring, Rachel Carson warned that dieldrin is nearly 50 times as poisonous as DDT. In addition to disrupting hormones, it can have long delayed neurological effects, ranging from loss of memory to mania.23 Chinese aphids were recently discovered in fields scattered across Wisconsin, so increased pesticide applications are likely.
Combinations of insecticides, weed killers, and artificial fertilizers–even at low levels–have measurable detrimental effects on thyroid and other hormones as well as on the brain.24 EPA scientists now want to upgrade the commonly used herbicide, atrazine, to a “likely carcinogen.” In animal tests, atrazine attaches to sites on the hypothalamus, a crucial brain region involved with regulating levels of stress and sex hormones.25
Individuals newly diagnosed with Parkinsonâ€™s disease were more than twice as likely to have been exposed to insecticides in their home, compared to those without the disease.26 In September 2000, The Lancet reported that farmers and gardeners regularly exposed to pesticides may have more than five times the risk of developing mild cognitive dysfunction.
Soy formulas for infants can contain other neurotoxins: aluminum, cadmium, and fluoride. Studies found that aluminum concentrations in soy-based formulas were a 100-fold greater compared to human breast milk,27 while cadmium content was 8-15 times higher than in milk-based formulas.28 In an Australian study, the fluoride content of soy-based formulas ranged from 1.08 to 2.86 parts per million. The authors concluded that “prolonged consumption (beyond 12 months of age) of infant formula reconstituted with optimally-fluoridated water could result in excessive amounts of fluoride being ingested.”29 A study of Connecticut children revealed that mild to moderate fluorosis was strongly associated with soy-based infant formula use.30
In May 2000, Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility released their report, “The Toxic Threats to Child Development.” In the section on neurotoxins, they concluded, “Studies in animals and human populations suggest that fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain.”31
Iodine versus Fluorine
The thyroid gland uses tyrosine and the natural element iodine to make thyroxine (T4), a thyroid hormone containing four iodine atoms. The other, much more biologically active thyroid hormone is tri-iodothyronine (T3), which has three iodine atoms. Lack of dietary iodine has long been identified as the problem in diminished thyroid hormone synthesis.
According to the International Council for the Control of Iodine Deficiency Disorders: “Iodine deficiency has been called the worldâ€™s major cause of preventable mental retardation. Its severity can vary from mild intellectual blunting to frank cretinism, a condition that includes gross mental retardation, deaf mutism, short stature, and various other defects. . . The damage to the developing brain results in individuals poorly equipped to fight disease, learn, work effectively, or reproduce satisfactorily.”
This crucial role of iodine is another reason why the thyroid gland is especially vulnerable today. Canadian researcher Andreas Schuld has documented more than 100 studies during the last 70 years that demonstrate adverse effects of fluoride on the thyroid gland.32 Schuld says, “Fluorine, being the strongest in the group of halogens, will seriously interfere with iodine and iodine synthesis, forcing more urinary elimination of ingested iodine as fluoride ingestion or absorption increases.” (See page 21.)
Soy Inhibits Zinc Absorption
The high phytic-acid content in soy may also have adverse effects on brain function. Phytic acid is an organic acid present in the outer portion of all seeds which blocks the uptake of essential minerals in the intestinal tract: calcium, magnesium, iron, and especially zinc. Soybeans have very high levels of a form of phytic acid that is particularly difficult to neutralize and which interferes with zinc absorption more completely than with other minerals.
The soy industry acknowledges the problem with the admission that while “one-half cup of cooked soybeans contains one mg of zinc
. . . zinc is poorly absorbed from soyfoods.” As for iron, “both phytate and soy protein reduce iron absorption so that the iron in soyfoods is generally poorly absorbed.”33
According to unpublished documents, researchers testing soy formula found that it caused negative zinc balance in every infant to whom it was given.34 Even when the diets were additionally supplemented with zinc, there was a strong correlation between phytate content in formula and poor growth.
Zinc and the Brain
Relatively high levels of zinc are found in the brain, especially the hippocampus. Zinc plays an important role in the transmission of the nerve impulse between brain cells. Deficiency of zinc during pregnancy and lactation has been shown to be related to many congenital abnormalities of the nervous system in offspring. In children, “insufficient levels of zinc have been associated with lowered learning ability, apathy, lethargy, and mental retardation.”35
The USDA references a study of 372 Chinese school children with very low levels of zinc in their bodies. The children who received zinc supplements had the most improved performance–especially in perception, memory, reasoning, and psychomotor skills such as eye-hand coordination. Three earlier studies with adults also showed that changes in zinc intake affected cognitive function.36
New research has identified a specific contingent of neurons, called “zinc-containing” neurons, which are found almost exclusively in the forebrain, where in mammals they have evolved into a “complex and elaborate associational network that interconnects most of the cerebral cortices and limbic structures.” This suggests the importance of zinc in the normal and pathological processes of the cerebral cortex.37 Furthermore, age-related tissue zinc deficiency may contribute to brain cell death in Alzheimerâ€™s dementia.38
Not a Good Idea
High levels of phytoestrogens and zinc-blocking phytic acid, plus additional neurotoxic compounds such as dieldrin, aluminum, fluoride and cadmium combine in soy to yield a veritable witchesâ€™ brew that can have adverse effects on the brain during development and throughout life.
Unfortunately, many American are now consuming soy foods in high amounts as infant formula, soy milk and tofu-based products, usually as a substitute for nourishing animal foods. In Asia, soy is consumed in small amounts as a fermented condiment and not as a substitute for animal foods.
Asians recognize the need for “brain foods” like eggs and fish and realize that large amounts of soy can cause thyroid problems and inhibit growth. They know that for optimum mental function, soy foods are not a good idea.
1. White LR, Petrovich H, Ross GW, Masaki KH, Association of mid-life consumption of tofu with late life cognitive impairment and dementia: the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. Fifth International Conference on Alzheimerâ€™s Disease, #487, 27 July 1996, Osaka, Japan.
2. White LR, Petrovitch H, Ross GW, Masaki KH, Hardman J, Nelson J, Davis D, Markesbery W, Brain aging and midlife tofu consumption. J Am Coll Nutr 2000 Apr;19(2):242-55.
3. Doerge and Sheehan, Letter to the FDA, Feb 18, 1999. (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/2020_000609_soyfdaletter_feature.htm)
5. Soy Infant Formula Could Be Harmful to Infants: Groups Want it Pulled. Nutrition Week, Dec 10, 1999;29(46):1-2; See also www.soyonlineservice.co.nz
6. Cassidy A, Bingham S, Setchell KD, Biological effects of a diet of soy protein rich in isoflavones on the menstrual cycle of premenopausal women. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 Sep;60(3):333-40.
7. Setchell KD, Zimmer-Nechemias L, Cai J, Heubi JE, Exposure of infants to phyto-oestrogens from soy-based infant formula. Lancet 1997 Jul 5;350(9070):23-27.
8. Fallon SA, Enig MG, Tragedy and Hype, The Third International Soy Symposium. Nexus Magazine, Vol 7, No 3, April-May 2000.
9. Oâ€™Dell TJ, Kandel ER, Grant SG, Long-term potentiation in the hippocampus is blocked by tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Nature 1991 Oct 10 353:6344 558-60.
10. Bell JM, Whitmore WL, Cowdery T, Slotkin TA, Perinatal dietary supplementation with a soy lecithin preparation: effects on development of central catecholaminergic neurotransmitter systems. Brain Res Bull 1986 Aug;17(2):189-95.
11. Zetterstrom RH, Williams R, Perlmann T, Olson L, Cellular expression of the immediate early transcription factors Nurr1 and NGFI-B suggests a gene regulatory role in several brain regions including the nigrostriatal dopamine system. Brain Res Mol Brain Res 1996 Sep 5;41(1-2):111-20.
12. Castillo SO, Baffi JS, Palkovits M, Goldstein DS, Kopin IJ, Witta J, Magnuson MA, Nikodem VM, Dopamine biosynthesis is selectively abolished in substantia nigra… Mol Cell Neurosci 1998 May;11(1-2):36-46.
13. Baffi JS, Palkovits M, Castillo SO, Mezey E, Nikodem VM, Differential expression of tyrosine hydroxylase in catecholaminergic neurons of neonatal wild-type and Nurr1-deficient mice. Neuroscience 1999;93(2):631-42.
14. Shepard TH, Soybean goiter. New Eng J Med 1960;262:1099-1103.
15. Divi RL, Chang HC, Doerge DR, Anti-thyroid isoflavones from soybean: isolation, characterization, mechanisms of action. Biochem Pharmacol 1997 Nov 15;54(10):1087-96.
16. Ishizuki Y, Hirooka Y, Murata Y, Togashi K, The effects on the thyroid gland of soybeans administered experimentally in healthy subjects. Nippon Naibunpi Gakkai Zasshi 1991 May 20;67(5):622-29.
17. Fort P, Moses N, Fasano M, Goldberg T, Lifshitz F, Breast and soy-formula feedings in early infancy and the prevalence of autoimmune thyroid disease in children. J Am Coll Nutr 1990 Apr;9(2):164-67.
18. Fort P, Lanes R, Dahlem S, Recker B, Weyman-Daum M, Pugliese M, Lifshitz FJ, Breast feeding and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in children. Am Coll Nutr 1986;5(5):439-41.
19. Regulatory Guidance in other countries: New Zealand Ministry of Health Position Statement on Soy Formulas (http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/regulat.htm)(Adobe Acrobat PDF file: http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/files/mohsoy.pdf)
20. Haddow JE, Palomaki GE, Allan WC, Williams JR, Knight GJ, Gagnon J, Oâ€™Heir CE, Mitchell ML, Hermos RJ, Waisbren SE, Faix JD, Klein RZ, Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent neuropsychological development of the child. N Engl J Med 1999 Aug 19;341(8):549-55.
21. Hauser P, McMillin JM, Bhatara VS, Resistance to thyroid hormone: implications for neurodevelopmental research on the effects of thyroid hormone disruptors. Toxicol Ind Health 1998 Jan-Apr;14(1-2):85-101.
22. Groth E, Benbrook CM, Lutz K, Update: pesticides in childrenâ€™s foods, an analysis of 1998 USDA PDP data on pesticide residues, Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., May, 2000 (Adobe Acrobat PDF file).
23. Hayes WJ, The toxicity of dieldrin to man. Bull World Health Organ 1959;20:891-92.
24. Porter WP, Jaeger JW, Carlson IH, Endocrine, immune and behavioral effects of aldicarb (carbamate), atrazine (triazine) and nitrate (fertilizer) mixtures at groundwater concentrations. Toxicol Ind Health 1999 Jan-Mar;15(1-2):133-50.
25. Watson, Traci, Common herbicide likely causes cancer. USA Today, June 29, 2000.
26. Nelson L, American Academy of Neurologyâ€™s 52nd annual meeting in San Diego, CA, April 29-May 6, 2000.
27. McGraw M, Bishop N, Jameson R, Robinson MJ, Oâ€™Hara M, Hewitt CD, Day JP, Aluminium content of milk formulae and intravenous fluids used in infants.Lancet 1986 Jan 18;1(8473):157.
28. Dabeka RW, McKenzie AD, Lead, cadmium, and fluoride levels in market milk and infant formulas in Canada. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 1987;70(4):754-57.
29. Silva M, Reynolds EC, Fluoride content of infant formulae in Australia. Aust Dent J 1996 Feb;41(1):37-42.
30. Pendrys DG, Katz RV, Morse DE, Risk factors for enamel fluorosis in a fluoridated population. Am J Epidemiol 1994 Sep 1;140(5):461-71.
31. Schettler T, Stein J, Reich F, Valenti M, In Harmâ€™s Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development. (http://www.igc.org/psr/ihw.htm) Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, May 2000.
32. Studies dealing with fluoride and thyroid. (http://www.bruha.com/fluoride/html/thyroid_studies.htm)See also: Fluoride Controversy in the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. (http://www.tldp.com/fluoride.htm)
33. Soy Nutritive Content, United Soybean Board. (http://www.talksoy.com/nutritive1.htm)
34. Pfeiffer CC, Braverman ER, Zinc, the brain and behavior. Biol Psychiatry 1982 Apr;17(4):513-32.
35. Personal communication with Dr. Mary G. Enig
36. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Food & Nutrition Research Briefs, July 1997. (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/usda/fnrb/fnrb797.html)
37. Frederickson CJ, Suh SW, Silva D, Frederickson CJ, Thompson RB, Importance of zinc in the central nervous system: the zinc-containing neuron. J Nutr 2000 May;130(5S Suppl):1471S-83S.
38. Ho LH, Ratnaike RN, Zalewski PD, Involvement of intracellular labile zinc in suppression of DEVD-caspase activity in human neuroblastoma cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2000 Feb 5;268(1):148-54.
Fluoride is a multi-system poison. The Natural Solutions Foundation strongly opposes compulsory drugging through its addtion to the water systems of communities. We believe that this is both medically reckless and unconstitutional.
The Natural Solutions Foundation’s strongly anti-fluoride position for infants and children is now echoed by the American Dental Association (ADA) which says that children under 1 year should not be exposed to fluoride.
Although the US supported fluoride in infant formula during the 2006 Codex Committee on Nutritiona and Foods for Special Dietary Uses meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand which dealt with infant formula and other special purpose foods, using data provided by the Natural Solutions Foundation, South Africa pushed the restriction on fluoride in healthy infants’ formula through, despite strong US objection.
Long a proponent of fluoridation of children’s teeth, the ADA joins the Natural Solutions Foundation in pointing out the dangers of the now-debunked toxin in infant’s bodies.
Rather than deal with the expense of safe disposal, the mining industry created the false belief that fluoride should be added to water, toothpaste, supplements, etc. That way, mining companies make a profit instead of taking a loss on fluoride which is expensive to dispose of according to EPA regulations. Despite propaganda to the contrary, fluoride has no known place in human metabolism and increases disease in those exposed to it. It is toxic to the brain, kidneys, bones, teeth, causes bone and other cancers at levels far lower than those permitted in water and has no known positive impact on human health despite oft-repeated but deeply flawed research claims to the contrary. Recent re-evaluation of the original research and other data make it clear that fluoride in any amount is a cumulative biological poison.
Although the United States has sought to add Fluoride to infant formula in the US and internationally, the World Health Organization recommends that infant formula be prepared in water which has no fluoride. Fluoridating water supplies means that infants will necessarily be exposed to amounts of fluoride which are toxic to them. “Little is known of the particular susceptibility of infants to fluoride but what we do know makes it clear that infant formula should be mixed with fluoride free water because fluoride is so toxic to them. Since infants are generally more sensitive to toxins than adults, banning it from formula is the only sensitive alternative,” according to Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation (http://www.HealthFreedomUSA.org).
Despite its wide acceptance as a water and food additive, and even as a “nutritional supplement,” fluoride is actually a dangerous metabolic poison with permanent effects at levels much lower than 1 part per million (ppm). Exposure is cumulative since fluoride is a bio-accumulator which remains in the body and can cause cancer, kidney failure, bone disease, including bone cancers, structural damage to bone and teeth, thyroid poisoning, pineal gland calcification, reproductive failure, synergistic increases in lead poisoning when both are present, endocrine disruption leading to diabetes, other cancers and decreases in the availability of essential nutrients like magnesium.
In addition to water, the FDA allows sodium aluminum fluoride (cryolite) to be sprayed on more than 30 fruits and vegetables at up to 7 ppm. The USDA set a 1.2 ppm limit for arsenic and fluoride pesticides in 1933 since they are equally toxic. While arsenic sprays have been phased out, fluoride ones are increasingly popular and now can be used not only on food but on food storage areas as well. Current FDA water fluoridation standards allow up to 4 ppm and assure on-going fluoride contamination for most Americans.
Industry pressure is strong to increase the amount of fluoride we ingest: DOW Chemical uses extremely high fluoride tolerances on a wide number of common foods including 98 ppm for wheat germ, 40 ppm for wheat bran, 31 ppm for rice bran, 30 ppm for some nuts, 28 ppm for corn meal, 26 ppm for corn flour, 25 ppm for millet, wild rice, sorghum and wheat grains and 17 ppm for oat grain.
Leading scientists have called for a ban on all fluoride usage in light of its devastating impact on health and a recent evaluation of the data upon which fluoridation was initially approved by the FDA for municipal water supplies was deeply and fraudulently distorted when presented to the FDA and the public since toxic results were not revealed in the group receiving fluoridated water.
Vaccines often contain fluoride as an adjuvant or immune system irritant to provoke the immune system into producing more antibodies with fewer antigens since antigens are the expensive part of vaccines. Since vaccines also frequently contain aluminum hydroxide, the synergistic toxicity of the two toxins is significantly more than the toxicity of either toxic metal alone at the same dosage. This problem is repeated in municipal water supplies since fluoride is added for its alleged dental health benefits while aluminum salts are added to “polish” the water and give it an appealing gleaming appearance.
Fluoride as an additive has a dark past: it was first added to water in the Soviet Gulag (prison system) since it is a neurological poison and made political and other difficult prisoners complacent and therefore easier to manage. It was added to the water supplies of the Nazi death and slave labor camps for the same reason. Fluoride is widely used as an additive although the scientific evidence upon which its use rests is either fraudulent or flawed. Long a staple of water treatment, sodium fluoride has been replaced by other, even more toxic fluoride compounds like sulfuryl fluoride which has never been tested in water supplies nor approved for use in them.
The New York State Attorney General has expressed support for banning this dangerous but widely used pesticide. Fluoride contamination from either natural sources or its addition to liquids and products used by children results in dental fluorosis, a permanent mottling of teeth which is both cosmetic and structural, and similar structural damage to bone associated with increased fractures, osteoporosis (bone loss) and demineralization of bone. IQ loss and other neurological damage is due both to the fluoride itself and the dangerous interaction of fluoride with lead since fluoride renders lead even more toxic to the brain. Fluoride without lead leads to loss of higher cognitive functions including decision-making and IQ.
For donations in multiples of $25, weâ€™ll say â€œThanksâ€ with a 1/2 lb bag of our full bodied Valley of the Moon(TM) Coffee: Shade Grown, GMO and Chemical Free Coffee from the Chiriqui Highlands of Panama, it’s Friendly Food Certified: Friendly to Your Health, Friendly to the Workers and Friendly to the Environmenthttp://drrimatruthreports.com/?page_id=1130
The heat is on: against a growing background beat of “Pandemic’s nearly here, pandemic’s nearly here!” the repeated refrain of “Vet more vaccinations, get more shots!” is getting louder, too.
This time, we have a speculative paper that strikes me as absurd in which children are placed at high risk for getting vaccinated with yet more untested, potentially dangerous and very, very profitable vaccinations. In this case, the call is for saving the lives of children by vaccinating them with vaccines which contain deadly poisons like mercury, formaldehyde, fetal DNA, steal viruses, fluoride, chrolides, aluminum, etc., for a disease whose impact is vastly overstated (see “Flu Shot Does Not Reduce Risk of Death” following and not particularly the analysis of statistical conclusions about the death rate from flu. The highly absurd figure of 36,000 deaths per year from flu is used to sell flu vaccines and fear. But all, that’s right, all, deaths from pneumonia or any other flu-related cause, whether it is or is not actually related to flu, is counted as a flu death in the grim sales pitch: get vaccinated or die.
As this second article cited shows, the reality, when examined closely, is nowhere near the puffery.
Well, what would you expect from a propaganda campaign?
Vaccinating Younger Population Minimizes Life-Years Lost to Influenza
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Sept 05 – Shifting the current vaccination strategy to target younger populations would reduce the number of years of life lost (YLL) to influenza, according to a report in the August 1st issue of The Journal of Infectious Diseases.
Vaccination allocation policy has been the subject of debate in light of several issues, among them the criticism by bioethicists of the inherent axiom that any life lost has the same value, regardless of the age of the deceased, the authors explain.
Dr. Mark A. Miller from the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues sought to provide an alternative quantitative tool to help guide pandemic vaccine priority setting and achieve the greatest possible population impact, by preventing the loss of as many years of life as possible.
For a 1918-like pandemic scenario, in which most YLL occur for the younger age groups, the optimal vaccination group comprises people younger than 45 years, according to the models employed.
For a 1957-like epidemic, in which YLL were similar for older and middle age groups, it is unclear whether vaccinating the middle-age group would be better than vaccinating seniors, leading the investigators to conclude “that these age groups would be equally good choices.”
For a mild 1968-like influenza epidemic, the researchers note, vaccinating people 45 to 64 years old represents the optimal strategy for minimizing YLL.
“Our estimation is not an endorsement of any particular policy but highlights how the choice of health outcome metrics such as YLL can influence the prioritization of age groups to vaccinate in pandemic settings,” the authors explain. “It also shows that the vaccine priority scheme for seasonal influenza is not optimized to mitigate the impact of pandemic influenza.”
“These results suggest the need for pandemic plans to have an element of flexibility that allows the prioritization of age groups for immunization at the start of a pandemic to be modified as age-specific epidemiological data on the novel virus become available in real time,” the researchers conclude.
“Equally important, the question of who should be vaccinated first needs to be debated and reasoned through now, before the onset of a public health emergency, while we have the time to reflect on which decision-making metric is the most appropriate,” they add.
J Infect Dis 2008;198:305-311.
Flu Shot Does Not Reduce Risk Of Death, Research Shows
ScienceDaily (Aug. 31, 2008) Ã¢â‚¬â€ The widely-held perception that the influenza vaccination reduces overall mortality risk in the elderly does not withstand careful scrutiny, according to researchers in Alberta. The vaccine does confer protection against specific strains of influenza, but its overall benefit appears to have been exaggerated by a number of observational studies that found a very large reduction in all-cause mortality among elderly patients who had been vaccinated.
The study included more than 700 matched elderly subjects, half of whom had taken the vaccine and half of whom had not. After controlling for a wealth of variables that were largely not considered or simply not available in previous studies that reported the mortality benefit, the researchers concluded that any such benefit “if present at all, was very small and statistically non-significant and may simply be a healthy-user artifact that they were unable to identify.”
“While such a reduction in all-cause mortality would have been impressive, these mortality benefits are likely implausible. Previous studies were likely measuring a benefit not directly attributable to the vaccine itself, but something specific to the individuals who were vaccinatedÃ¢â‚¬â€a healthy-user benefit or frailty bias,” said Dean T. Eurich,Ph.D. clinical epidemiologist and assistant professor at the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta. “Over the last two decades in the United Sates, even while vaccination rates among the elderly have increased from 15 to 65 percent, there has been no commensurate decrease in hospital admissions or all-cause mortality. Further, only about 10 percent of winter-time deaths in the United States are attributable to influenza, thus to suggest that the vaccine can reduce 50 percent of deaths from all causes is implausible in our opinion.”
Dr. Eurich and colleagues hypothesized that if the healthy-user effect was responsible for the mortality benefit associated with influenza vaccination seen in observational studies, there should also be a significant mortality benefit present during the “off-season”.
To determine whether the observed mortality benefits were actually an effect of the flu vaccine, therefore, they analyzed clinical data from records of all six hospitals in the Capital Health region in Alberta. In total, they analyzed data from 704 patients 65 years of age and older who were admitted to the hospital for community-acquired pneumonia during non-flu season, half of whom had been vaccinated, and half of whom had not. Each vaccinated patient was matched to a non-vaccinated patient with similar demographics, medical conditions, functional status, smoking status and current prescription medications.
In examining in-hospital mortality, they found that 12 percent of the patients died overall, with a median length of stay of approximately eight days. While analysis with a model similar to that employed by past observational studies indeed showed that patients who were vaccinated were about half as likely to die as unvaccinated patients, a finding consistent with other studies, they found a striking difference after adjusting for detailed clinical information, such as the need for an advanced directive, pneumococcal immunizations, socioeconomic status, as well as sex, smoking, functional status and severity of disease. Controlling for those variables reduced the relative risk of death to a statistically non-significant 19 percent.