Disease Proof : Disease Proof : Health & Nutrition News & Commentary : Dr. Joel Fuhrman

The buzz about mandatory HPV vaccinations has cooled down a bit, but in Texas the issue is hotter than ever. The governor wants mandatory vaccinations, but, Texas lawmakers don’t. I’m worried, after all its Texas, this could lead to a shootout. Liz Austin Peterson of the Associated Press reports:

Texas lawmakers rejected Gov. Rick Perry's anti-cancer vaccine order Wednesday, sending him a bill that blocks state officials from requiring the shots for at least four years.


Perry has said he is disappointed but has not indicated whether he will veto the bill. He has 10 days to sign or veto it, or the proposal will become law without his signature.

Lawmakers can override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both chambers. The legislation passed by well over that margin in both chambers.

Republican Rep. Dennis Bonnen, the bill's House sponsor, said he believes it is fair and reasonable.

"I think the governor should see this as the Legislature making a very clear and respectful statement, and I hope he'll accept our wishes," Bonnen said.

Forcing people to profit drug-makers—oops, I mean—get mandatory vaccinations feels like bad news to me. What do you think? Well, I can tell you one thing, Dr. Fuhrman doesn’t like it. He shared his thoughts in a previous post. From Dr. Fuhrman on HPV Vaccinations:

In this country we allow legislatures to mandate which medications we must give our children? People are not allowed to have an opinion about drugs and vaccines different from the majority opinion, in spite of the controversies and poorly studied short and long-term risks.


Remember this is not about arguing about the effectiveness or value of vaccines, just whether we should mandate medical care and take another freedom away from Americans. We no longer have the freedom to take or not take medications. Sounds like the Taliban to me.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Sounds like a cool name for a rock band, right? Well, its not. Apparently the U.S. has quarantined 6,000 hogs that were fed some of the infamous tainted pet food. It gets worse. Some of the slaughtered meat has already entered the food supply. Steven Reinberg of HealthDay News reports:

Some 6,000 hogs have been quarantined across eight U.S. states because they may have eaten contaminated salvage pet food, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced late Thursday.


At the same time, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) officials said that meat from 345 hogs that ate tainted feed has already entered the U.S. food supply, the Associated Press reported.

The quarantined hogs are on farms in California, New York, South Carolina, North Carolina, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma and Ohio, the AP said. And the USDA reported that swine from slaughterhouses in Kansas and Utah may have entered the food supply. Government officials, however, consider the threat to human health to be very low.

The swine are thought to have been exposed to food contaminated by two chemicals, melamine and cyanuric acid, that was sent as salvage by companies who have had to recall massive quantities of dog and cat food as the pet food recall rolls on.

Now, I’m sure no one reading this post eats pork, but, even still. This is a problem that our food supply just doesn’t need. The contamination of food is always a relevant issue. Here are a few posts to remind you:

• Crouching Cow, Hidden Disease
• Less Worry about Mad-Cow?
• Fruit and Veggie Contamination
• Reduce Your Pesticide Exposure By 90%
• Spinach-E. Coli Crisis Worsens

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

In odd news, new research has found that marijuana can halt lung cancer growth by half. Yeah, I’m confused too. The Cancer Blog has more:

Researchers at Harvard University tested marijuana's main ingredient, delta-tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, in both lab and mouse studies and say their experiments are the first to show THC inhibits the growth of cancer.


Researchers are not certain why THC inhibits tumor growth, but it could be that the substance activates molecules that arrest the cell cycle. THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

So does this mean all the people at Phish concerts are pinnacles of health?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Share Link

How do you feel about organic produce? Personally, I dig it. But, I don’t bend over backwards to get it. Only about 20% of my weekly vegetation intake comes from organic produce. Why only 20%? Well, according to Dr. Fuhrman the benefits of just eating more fruits and veggies outweigh many of the commonly worried about non-organic risks, like pesticide residue for example. From Disease-Proof Your Child:

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that the majority of pesticides now in use are probable or possible cancer causers. Studies of farm workers who work with pesticides suggest a link between pesticide use and brain cancer, Parkinson's disease, multiple myloma, leukemia, lymphoma, and cancers of the stomach, prostate, and testes.1 But the question remains, does the low level of pesticides remaining on our food present much of a danger?


Some scientists argue that the extremely low level of pesticide residue remaining on produce is insignificant and that there are naturally occurring toxins in all natural foods that are more significant. The large amount of studies performed on the typical pesticide-treated produce have demonstrated that consumption of produce, whether organic or not, is related to lower rates of cancer and disease protection, not higher rates. Certainly, it is better to eat fruits and vegetables grown and harvested using pesticides than not eating them at all. The health benefits of eating phytochemical-rich produce greatly outweigh any risk pesticide residues might pose.

Organic and non-organic is always a hot topic of conversation. Even though I’m not a strict buyer of organic produce, I do think that we’d be better off if all our food was organic. What do you think? And here, to help fuel the discussion, check out this report by Amy Spindler of CookingLight.com. In it, the experts weigh in on organic verses conventional:

What's best for the environment is hotly debated among experts. "There is no scientifically accepted evidence that organic foods are better for the environment. Organic production allows natural pesticides, which can be toxic to humans and wildlife," says Alan McHughen, Ph.D., professor of botany and plant sciences at the University of California, Riverside. Organic fertilizers may also contain harmful bacteria, such as E. coli. Plus, organic farming yields only 75 to 90 percent of the crop of conventional systems, meaning that more land must be planted in order to have an equal return.


Organic advocates counter that chemicals used in conventional farming spread far beyond the fields where they are applied and have unintended consequences. "Synthetic pesticides have been linked to developmental and neurological problems," Benbrook says. "Organics eliminate synthetic pesticides and the damage they do to farmers, land, and drinking water."

Although, once the marketers hook into the organic idea, I’m sure they’ll be rolling out organic Big Macs, Chalupas, and Double Whoppers. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

The AFP reports that coal burning and too much fluoride is having devastating effects on rural Chinese. Benjamin Morgan has more:

In many developed countries, fluoride, which is often naturally occurring in water and also coal, is added to toothpaste and drinking water.


Since the 1960s many medical experts have believed that small amounts of fluoride helps prevent tooth decay and strengthen bones.

However, the claimed benefits have increasingly drawn fire from medical experts who say that there are no tangible health advantages to the human body.

Several European countries over the last five years have stopped public water fluoridation programmes amid questions whether the mineral does more harm than good.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Share Link

Imagine toys with lead. I thought that this type of danger was a thing of the past, but, apparently its not. According to the Associated Press the EPA recently instructed manufacturers of children’s products to provide health and safety studies if any lead might be found in their products. John Heilprin explains:

The Environmental Protection Agency agreed in response to legal pressure to write up to 120 importing and manufacturing companies by the end of the month, instructing them to provide health and safety studies if any lead might be found in the products they make for children.


"Parents still need to be vigilant about the recalls on products marketed to children that might contain lead, and take those products away from children as soon as they are recalled," Jessica Frohman, co-chair of the Sierra Club's national toxics committee, said Sunday.

The EPA letters are part of a settlement it signed Friday with the Sierra Club and another advocacy group, Improving Kids' Environment. The agency also must tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission "that information EPA has reviewed raises questions about the adequacy of quality control measures by companies importing and/or distributing children's jewelry."

This is good. You can never be too worried about keeping dangerous chemicals away from you and your children. Dr. Fuhrman talks about this in Disease-Proof Your Child. Take a look:

We must be careful not to expose our children to chemical cleaners, insecticides, and weed killers on our lawns. Chemicals used in pressure-treated wood used to build lawn furniture, decks, fences, and swing sets have also been shown to place children at risk. When young children are around, we must be vigilant to maintain a chemical-free environment.

And here are a couple of posts on the subject:

• Toxins: Heavy Metals and Your Home
• Secret Chemicals in Our Food

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Share Link

In the May 2005 editition of Healthy Times Dr. Fuhrman points out that all fish have contamination issues. And this chart makes it pretty clear that they do, take a look:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

For years we’ve been told that China is an over-bustling population, but, that may change. Reuters reports that pollution, stress, and smoking are among the reasons why China is a seeing a rise in infertility:

Sperm counts had fallen noticeable since the 1970s, the report quoted Wang Yifei of Shanghai's Jiaotong University as telling a symposium on reproduction health in the eastern city of Hangzhou.


"A certain percentage of the sperm donated by seemingly healthy college boys to our sperm bank in Shanghai is not eligible in terms of sperm count or motility," Wang said.

Rising wealth resulting from the country's headlong economic boom over the past few decades had contributed to the problem in helping promote unhealthy lifestyles, said another academic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link