Apple-Cinnamon Overnight Oats and Spiralize It Release Day

Yesterday was not only my birthday, but the eve of the release of my second cookbook – Spiralize It! While I wish I could stay I spent the evening counting down the minutes to midnight awaiting the release, the truth is I spent the day sick on the couch and was in bed by 9...

Read More »

from La Mav Combined http://snip.ly/RFEo
via IFTTT

Red Apple Lipstick Winter Collection 2015

This is a triple wammy... video, discount code and giveaway!!

Red Apple Lipstick have released their Winter 2015 collection and you can see lip swatches in my video here.

You can use my (non affiliate) code for 22% off orders of $50 or more, use: Rachel22

AND you can enter a giveaway to win $100 of store credit!! How fricking generous are these peeps?! Incredible!

a Rafflecopter giveaway

If you have any trouble with the rafflecopter widget then please click here to enter.

Buy the new collection from Red Apple Lipstick here.

Information: 
This post does include products sent for consideration.
The links are not affiliated.
All opinions are honest and my own, any suggestions made are based on my own experiences and are meant as a guide. Please always take care when making any DIY products and patch test to rule out an adverse reaction.

from La Mav Combined http://snip.ly/ixDm
via IFTTT

Natural Eyebrow Tutorial using Ecobrow

  Today’s video is a natural eyebrow tutorial using Ecobrow and I’ve created 2 different looks. The first look is for a super natural no makeup look and the second is a little more polished, but still natural. I’m loving… Continue Reading →

from La Mav Combined http://snip.ly/N8JB
via IFTTT

Shocking News — FDA Approves Genetically Engineered Salmon

By Dr. Mercola

On November 2, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first genetically modified food animal¹ — an Atlantic salmon that grows twice as fast as natural salmon, thanks to the insertion of genes from Chinook salmon and eelpout (an eel-like fish).

As a result, they carry three copies of each chromosome instead of two. But that's not the only change. Their sex hormones will also undergo complicated manipulation to ensure they're all female.

They're also said to be sterile, as an added precaution should they manage to escape, but the sterilization process has been criticized as flawed, and not 100 percent guaranteed.²

Adding insult to recklessness, the FDA will not require any additional labeling identifying the genetically aberrant nature of this salmon. The news of the approval was shocking to many, considering the strong opposition to it, and undoubtedly resulted in more than a few exasperated facepalms.

Critics Have Long Raised Serious Questions About Human and Environmental Safety

The FDA claims there's "reasonable certainty of no harm" coming from eating Aquabounty's "Frankenfish." Even the Center for Science in the Public Interest³ (CSPI) has gone on record saying the genetically engineered (GE) salmon is safe to eat and will not harm the environment.

But on what, exactly, are these opinions based? As noted by Food Democracy Now!:

"... [A]pproval of AquaBounty's genetically engineered salmon was done using only the company's own shoddy scientific studies, which were so poorly designed they wouldn't pass a 5th grade science fair.

For two of the studies submitted, AquaBounty used sample sizes so small that they have no scientific credibility, with only 12 fish tested for one study, while another study on possible allergic reactions in humans involved only six fish!"

They're far from alone in their critique. In a 2011 interview,⁴ Professor Anne Kapuscinski of Dartmouth College, an environmental scientist and scientific adviser to the government on transgenic organisms noted:

"My main concern was that the kind of data presented [by Aquabounty] had gaps, and the quality of the analysis of the data, especially the statistical analysis, was really quite a low bar...

I was concerned that there were some problems with small sample sizes, some problems with statistical analysis, and I was even more concerned that there were key parts missing from the risk assessment.

It seemed like the approach taken, the risk assessment, wasn't really up to speed with the state of the art risk assessment."

Wait... Is It a Fish, or a Drug?

But that's not all. The FDA is not regulating Aquabounty's salmon as food. It chose to review it as a drug.⁵

That's right, all GE animals, starting with this GE salmon, will be regulated under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, "because the recombinant DNA (rDNA) construct introduced into the animal meets the definition of a drug."

Yet the reason it puts forth for not requiring a label is that it's nutritionally equivalent to conventional farm-raised Atlantic salmon. So which is it — a fish or a drug?

In the eyes of the FDA, it's a perfectly normal fish, but it's also a drug, but since it's a fish that is comparable to other fish, it doesn't need to be labeled, even though all drugs typically need to be labeled... Figure that one out if you can!

It's worth reiterating that the alleged nutritional equivalence is that of farm-raised salmon, not wild.

And studies have shown there are significant nutritional differences between farmed and wild salmon, and as for the labeling issue, we have labeling requirements to distinguish between farmed and wild too. But not for this sterile, genetically engineered, all-female lab-created salmon.

Why Regulating GE Animals As Drugs Is a Bad Idea

It's important to realize that regulating this fish (and any subsequent GE food animals) as a drug rather than a food has implications. As previously noted by Food and Water Watch:⁶

"The FDA has gotten it wrong from the very beginning: it chose to regulate GE salmon as it would regulate a drug, not a food — even though consumers could end up eating it.

This means that the FDA is not comprehensively examining many critical dimensions surrounding the food safety of GE salmon as an actual food product for human consumption.

Independent scientists have criticized the risk assessment for GE salmon due to the agency's heavy dependence on very small sample sizes. Using only a handful of GE salmon in their assessment makes the FDA's subsequent statistical analysis questionable at best.

Their analysis did demonstrate that their small sample of GE salmon showed 40 percent higher rates of a hormone linked to cancer and 20 to 50 percent higher allergenic rates — along with higher rates of physical deformities in GE salmon.

But the FDA's conclusion focused on the fact that it could not detect a difference between GE and non-GE salmon. This is how they determined that GE salmon is safe." [Emphasis mine]

In a 2010 letter⁷ to the FDA, the group notes:

"The fish exhibits a multitude of material differences, evident in measures of allergenicity, hormone levels, fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, and minerals. In fact, in every food safety aspect considered by the FDA, the agency found double-digit differences between GE salmon and control groups.

Disconcertingly, as members of the FDA's Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee repeatedly pointed out during their meeting in September, the FDA's scientific approach and statistical analysis were conducted in such a way that these differences went largely unacknowledged and unexamined by the agency.

But even the pervasive flaws in the FDA's process cannot mask the ubiquitous differences in GE salmon. Of the 60 nutrition analytes that the FDA considered... more than a third of these showed double-digit differences compared to control groups. And the GE salmon exhibited triple-digit differences in four fatty acids.

Indeed the overall picture from the data is one of GE salmon being high in fat — though not higher in beneficial omega fats-and lower in protein. Because salmon are prized for having high protein content and healthy fat levels... these differences are of particular interest to consumers."

FDA Does Not Have a Track Record of Correctly Assessing Health Threats

Both the FDA and CSPI have a history of being wrong. Both were wrong about trans fats, for example, but the truth didn't become fully apparent until decades had passed and tens of thousands of people had died from heart disease as a result of eating a trans fat-laden diet. CSPI purports to be a consumer watchdog group focused on nutrition and food safety, but history shows they're seriously misguided when determining what's in the public's best interest.

As for the FDA, it has become little more than a rubber-stamping agency for food and drug industry experiments. At one point, "FDA Approved" actually meant something, but those days are long done. It's truly shocking that, right in the midst of rising scientific concern about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the FDA ignores all warning signs and approves a genetically engineered food animal, and without a labeling requirement to boot!

As reported by Reuters:⁸

"The approval for the fish, to be sold under the AquAdvantage brand, requires that the salmon be raised only in two designated land-based and contained hatcheries in Canada and Panama, and not in the United States. All of the fish will be female, and reproductively sterile, to prevent inadvertent breeding of the genetically modified fish with wild salmon, FDA officials said.

The agency on Thursday also issued draft guidelines on how food manufacturers could identify whether the salmon in their products are genetically modified. The guidelines state that such labeling would be voluntary."

Approval of GE Salmon Intensifies Opposition

Following the approval, Food and Water Watch announced it is talking to members of Congress about rolling back the approval. If that doesn't work, the group may file a lawsuit to block the fish from getting to market. Some retailers have already pledged to not carry the GE salmon, including Kroger Co., Safeway, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods Market.

The Center for Food Safety has also vowed to sue the FDA over the decision, and environmental groups have already filed suit against the Canadian government. As reported by Newsweek,⁹ the groups argue that: "the permission granted to AquaBounty Technologies to cultivate its AquAdvantage salmon eggs on Prince Edward Island was too wide in scope and would allow other GM animal companies to do the same without proper oversight."

According to Friends of the Earth, an estimated 35 other species of genetically altered food animals are in the pipeline, including chickens, pigs,¹⁰ cows, and other species of fish. The approval of GE salmon effectively opens the floodgates to a dietary experiment of gigantic proportions, and the results are far from predictable!

Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, may have stated the solution best when she said:¹¹"Moms buy 85 percent of the food. If we don't buy it they can't sell it, regardless of the corrupt lawmaking." [Emphasis mine] A growing number of studies have linked GE crops like corn and soy to animal and human health problems, as well as environmental problems.

As for the salmon; they will only be allowed to be raised in land-based tanks, but what if there's an environmental disaster, such as a flood, hurricane, or earthquake? Accidental or even intentional release by an employee is another variable.

Just look at places like Florida, where deadly pythons have been released into the wild. It's virtually inevitable that somehow, some way, somebody will release a few of these hatchlings or fish into the wild, because that's what humans do — we're inherently reckless and largely ignorant.

Were these gigantic carnivorous salmon to get out into the wild, they could potentially wipe out the natural salmon population.¹² And should even a small fraction of escaped fish turn out to be fertile after all, they could breed with other salmon, permanently altering the entire salmon population. Why in the world are we taking these insane risks just so salmon farms can save a few bucks in the short-term?

And should even a small fraction of escaped fish turn out to be fertile after all, they could breed with other salmon, permanently altering the entire salmon population. Why in the world are we taking these insane risks just so salmon farms can save a few bucks in the short-term?

The Great Salmon Fraud — yet Another Reason Why GE Salmon Should Be Labeled

According to recent reports,^13,14,15 massive fraud is being committed already, with more than 40 percent of salmon being mislabeled during off-season. If the industry cannot keep track of farmed versus wild, how can we expect them to prevent farmed GE salmon from entering the wild, and/or getting mixed up — label wise — with wild salmon, which at present is the only way to avoid this GE fish?

The salmon fraud in question was revealed by the environmental group Oceana, which conducted DNA testing on 82 samples of salmon gathered from stores and restaurants in Virginia, Washington D.C., Chicago, and New York, between December 2013 and March 2014. Their results showed that:

• Overall, 43 percent of the samples were mislabeled
• 69 percent involved farm-raised salmon being represented as wild-caught salmon
• 67 percent of the restaurant samples were mislabeled
• 20 percent of store bought salmon was mislabeled
• Larger grocery chains had fewer incidences of mislabeling compared to smaller grocery stores

The organization notes that during winter months, when wild-caught fish are out of season, your likelihood of buying mislabeled fish is far higher than during summer months when wild salmon is plentiful. A 2013 investigation, in which samples were collected from stores and restaurants in the summer, found that only seven percent of the salmon were mislabeled. As reported by NBC2 News:¹⁶

"There is little traceability in the supply chain for fish, in large part because the majority of wild-caught salmon in the US is exported for processing overseas in order to cut costs. After exporting, it is very difficult to determine how much of our wild salmon returns to the US with the correct labeling... Consumers should be suspicious of wild-caught salmon that has a relatively low price out-of-season. "

The likelihood that GE salmon will end up being mislabeled as wild is probably just as high as farmed fish being mislabeled as wild. Overall, your chances of being fooled into eating this GE salmon disguised as something else is high unless you don't know the complete supply chain, which most don't. In light of the rampant mislabeling already occurring, it seems inevitable that GE salmon will simply become part of the 'wild salmon scam.'

The Hypocrisy of Senator Murkowski Has Not Gone Unnoticed

Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska recently shared her concerns with the President, saying¹⁷ the FDA's approval of AquAdvantage salmon is "quite disturbing news to any of us who care about our wild species of salmon." She went on to say:

"This ... is a process that splices genetic material from a Chinook salmon, a king salmon, and ... integrates it with a pout fish and an Atlantic salmon. People might know about an Atlantic salmon, a farmed salmon. What is an ocean pout? ... An ocean pout is basically this eel-type of bottom fish. Those of my colleagues who know their salmon know about the Chinooks, the sockeyes, and the chums, and they know that this isn't anything close to a salmon ... This is an eel ...

The resulting organism, this company claims, is going to grow to the size of an Alaskan king salmon in a shorter period of time than that found in nature. Freaky. We call this combination 'Frankenfish' because it is just not right ... It disturbs me, quite honestly, that the FDA would sign off on the approval of a genetically engineered animal designed for human consumption...

If this is going to be allowed into the markets...then it needs to be labeled as such. The FDA has said there will be draft guidance on voluntary labeling ... That is not good enough for this mom. That is not good enough for most who care about what their families are eating. So we are going to continue to press for mandatory labeling if the FDA is going to approve — wrongheadedly, in my mind — this genetically engineered fake fish for human consumption. They darn well better agree that labeling will be required because I am not going to eat it ..."

With a speech like that, you'd think Sen. Murkowski would be supportive of GMO labeling. But no. She's not. She does want labeling for GE salmon, but she has as of yet refused to support GMO labeling of all foods. This is about as hypocritical as it gets. To garner support for her GE salmon label, Murkowski said it wouldn't set a precedent for labeling of GE crops, because: "Corn doesn't swim from one field to another and propagate with other corn in another state. Fish move. Fish escape." ¹⁸

Clearly she's clueless about how crop pollination works. That level of ignorance if completely unacceptable at this point, as the future of mankind is hanging in the balance. Pollen, like fish, escape their confines by way of blowing winds and pollinating insects.

There's absolutely no way to stop transgenic plants from propagating outside their designated planting areas. Since they cannot be confined, transgenic plants pose just as much risk to the environment and to native or conventional plant species as transgenic fish do.

Transgenic organisms are novel; different than their traditional counterparts. Consumers have a right to know if eel is spliced with salmon, and if bacteria are spliced with corn. One is not more important to label than another. Transgenic food is not a consumer expectation, and therefore it must be identified, and states have a right to do so.

Center for Science in the Public Interest has also been staunchly against labeling GMO's, yet they too recently told Politico that consumers should know if they are eating GE fish. This is the same hypocritical double speak we've seen from Senator Murkowski, showing just how contradictory this organization really is.

Senators Ready to Preempt State Labeling in Exchange for SmartLabels

The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which was one of the hidden architects of HR 1599,¹⁹ incorrectly named "The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act"^20,21,22 but more appropriately called the DARK Act (Deny Americans Right to Know) claims that GMO labeling would increase food prices by $500 for a family living in New York.²³

This lie was in part how this anti-democratic, anti-consumer, and Monsanto-protection legislation ended up being passed by the House of Representatives back in July 2015. The bill prevents states from creating their own food labeling requirements for GMOs, and if passed by the Senate, it would rescind Vermont's labeling law, set to take effect in July 2016. However, as noted by The Huffington Post:²⁴

"The Senate does not seem to want to go along with this trampling on the democratic decision making of states that have voted for labeling. So the industry is now floating an idea in the Senate that would still preempt state labeling and halt even federal labeling, but would give the appearance of calling for labeling of all GE foods.

The latest ploy? QR codes... [USDA Secretary Tom] Vilsack and... Hillary Clinton are promoting QR code information on GE foods as sufficient to rescind the mandatory on package clear and accessible labeling required by the state laws."

QR stands for Quick Response, and the code can be scanned and read by smart phones and other QR readers.²⁵ The code brings you to a product website that provides further details about the product. So instead of declaring GMO ingredients right on the box so you can see it at the moment of purchase, you have to navigate through the product's website to try to figure out if any of its ingredients are transgenic.

And that's if the company is honest about it in the first place. There's nothing forcing companies to declare GMOs on their website. On the contrary, HR 1599 allows GMOs to be promoted as "natural," which further adds to the confusion. But getting back to the issue of cost, how can printing four words on a label raise the annual food cost by $500 per family, while printing a new QR code and implementing and maintaining a website doesn't affect prices at all?

The industry completely destroys their own argument with the QR code program, and show us their true intention — which is to HIDE any information relating to GMO ingredients as far away from the product as possible. Unfortunately, the food industry is inching closer to converting the Senate to this idea, which would be an absolute disaster.

Important Action Item: Speak to Your Senators

At this point, it's really important to contact your Senators to tell them that QR codes do NOT in any way eliminate the need for GMO labeling. In fact, QR codes or SmartLabels are inherently discriminatory, since you cannot use them unless you own a smartphone. Thirty-six percent of Americans do not own one.²⁶ Moreover, only 50 percent of low income people and those living in rural areas own a smartphone.

The DARK Act preempts states' rights and violates individual rights, and as such must not pass. Implementing QR codes does not change those facts. Democrats from agricultural states in particular need to be reminded about the President's executive order on preemption of states' rights and standing up for the rights of consumers. As noted in a 2009 article by the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies:²⁷

"On May 20, 2009, President Obama issued a Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies on preemption. The purpose of that Memorandum was to declare the new Administration's 'general policy' to be that 'preemption of State law by executive departments and agencies should be undertaken only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the States and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption.'

The President explained that, even though the Federal Government's role in promoting the general welfare is 'critical,' the States play a concurrent and often more aggressive role in protecting the health and safety of their citizens and the environment. He stated that overreaching by the Federal Government with respect to preemption limits the ability of the States to 'apply to themselves rules and principles that reflect the[ir own particular] circumstances and values...'

The President's Memorandum discouraging regulatory preemption comes against a backdrop of calls from Congress and others for increased regulation in a variety of areas. If put into law, market participants will have to shoulder greater regulatory burdens, but they will not receive immunity from state court lawsuits by doing so unless Congress provides for such immunity."

You can also find your Senators' contact information by calling the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121. A phone call has greater impact than an email, but a face-to-face meeting is usually the most impactful of all. In addition to contacting the two Senators representing your state, you can also sign the Food Democracy Now!'s petition, addressed to members of Congress, the FDA, and the President Obama.

SmartLabel Campaign Is a Ploy That Has Nothing to Do with GMO Transparency

For the record, the idea that adding the words "Produced with Genetic Engineering" to food labels would increase food prices was a bold-faced lie to begin with. The argument is quite idiotic if you take a moment to reflect on past label changes. Did the addition of a peanut allergy warning raise food prices? How about "contains soy and milk" warnings?

Now, the FDA wants to add a line for added sugars to the label, and while the food industry has a lot to say about why that shouldn't be added, the issue of it raising prices is NOT one of them. That really should tell you something.

If your personal experience with food prices through various label changes does not convince you that the GMA's argument is a ploy, take a look at the Environmental Working Group's "GMO Labeling Won't Increase Food Prices" page.²⁸ It lists six different studies that have analyzed the costs associated with GMO labeling and found them to be negligible to nonexistent.

However, for companies to create and maintain a website filled with information for each and every product, THAT, I bet, will cost money, and could very well result in price hikes.

These SmartLabels do not improve access to information, as Hershey's claims in their ad. Instead, by making finding the truth time consuming and cumbersome, food makers can count on many Americans staying in the dark about the presence of GMOs in their products. Imagine, for each and every product you're considering buying, you have to scroll through an entire website on your smartphone! How helpful is that really?

Personally, I cannot be bothered with such aggravation, but then again, I rarely buy processed foods and therefore avoid label reading altogether. That is, I believe, the best answer in these times of obfuscations and lies. However, GMO labeling is ultimately about being helpful to everyone. You shouldn't have to own a smartphone to obtain this information. Polls²⁹ show 94 percent of Americans want GMOs to be labeled.

We didn't say we want to wade through pages of nonessential information and advertising gimmicks for each and every product to get to that information. Another irony is that the food industry has often balked at adding information on labels because too much information would simply confuse consumers. And then they add entire websites to the label!

from La Mav Combined http://snip.ly/TPD3
via IFTTT

Flu Flop: Another Year of Dangerous CDC Lies

By Dr. Mercola

Despite the fact that last year's (2014 to 2015) flu vaccine was a major flop with an abysmal 18 percent effectiveness rate, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publicly expressed unreserved confidence in this year’s (2015-2016) vaccine.

In September 2015, CDC Director Tom Frieden said in a news conference, "Get vaccinated … That's the best way to protect yourself, your family and your community against flu."¹

A CDC analysis also was used to reassure the public that the most common strains of influenza virus circulating in the US and in other regions match the strains included in this year’s vaccine.^2,3

That was in August 2015 and the “get vaccinated” advertisements have been out in full force – at airports, grocery stores, subways and more – telling Americans that the best way to prevent influenza and stay well during the flu season is by getting a flu shot.

It remains to be seen how effective (or ineffective) this year’s flu vaccine will be, but in the meantime research has shown that much remains to be understood about the potential negative effects of frequent vaccination on human health.

Getting Flu Shots Regularly May Make You More Susceptible to the Flu

Data collected from Canada and Hong Kong during 2009-2010 showed that people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 had twice the risk of getting the H1N1 “swine flu” compared to those who hadn't received a flu shot.^4,5,6

ABC News reported at that time that such shots may actually set you up for less “broad” protection than if you get, and recover from, a natural infection.⁷

It’s also been shown that getting previous flu shots led to a blunting effect or “interference” that left the recipient less protected from certain influenza strains in later years

In fact, research in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that vaccine-induced protection against influenza was greatest among those not vaccinated during the prior five years.⁸

In other words, the long-term effects of getting an annual flu shot are completely unknown, but it appears this strategy may be backfiring, leaving those who have been vaccinated annually less protected than those who have not been frequently vaccinated.

Dr. Michael Gardam, director of infection prevention and control at Toronto's University Health Network, told CBC News:⁹

"People do not have a good explanation for why … The idea basically is that your immune system is occupied elsewhere. It would be like getting the swirling ball of death on your Mac where your operating system is doing something else rather than opening the file."

Dr. Danuta Skowronski, a Canadian researcher who conducted the original study discovering individuals with a history of annual seasonal flu shots increased their risk of infection with pandemic H1N1 influenza, noted that the findings are so new that "policy-makers have not yet had a chance to fully digest them or understand the implications."¹⁰

Unfortunately, instead of warning the public that annual flu shots may carry unknown risks and cause effects that are not well understood, public health officials continue to promote them as a panacea for influenza prevention. To say this is misleading is a vast understatement.

Why Might Flu Shots Increase Your Risk of Certain Flu Infections?

Similar evidence demonstrating that flu shots might make you sicker continues to be released. For instance, research presented at the 105th International Conference of the American Thoracic Society in San Diego revealed that children who had gotten seasonal flu shots were more at risk for hospitalization from H1N1 pandemic influenza than children who had not gotten previous flu shots.

Children who had received the influenza vaccinations had three times the risk of hospitalization for H1N1pandemic influenza as children who were not vaccinated. Among children with asthma, the risk was even higher.¹¹ Skowronski offered two hypotheses for why those who received seasonal flu shots in 2008 may have been at increased risk for pandemic influenza in 2009:¹²

• No Protective Antibodies Generated: It’s possible that the 2008 seasonal flu vaccine protected against an H1N1 virus that was related to the 2009 circulating pandemic influenza virus – but not similar enough to generate antibodies to neutralize it. The 2008 flu shot may therefore have “facilitated infection with the pandemic virus” the following year.

• A similar mechanism is seen with dengue viruses transmitted by mosquitoes, which cause hemorrhagic dengue fever in humans; those infected with one type of dengue virus are at increased risk of developing life-threatening dengue if they’re infected with one of the other three virus strains.

• Infection Block Hypothesis: If you’re naturally infected with influenza, your body will build antibodies that may fight off other influenza strains that circulate in future years. Flu vaccine, however, will only protect you against the type A or type B influenza strains it contains and artificial vaccine acquired immunity is not identical to naturally acquired immunity. So it’s possible that people who didn’t get influenza A infection prior to 2009, were therefore more susceptible to the influenza A pandemic virus.

Skowronski stressed to CBC News that these are only theories, noting:

"… [W]ho knows, frankly? The wise man knows he knows nothing when it comes to influenza, so you always have to be cautious in speculating."¹³

Flu Shots Urged for Pregnant Women Despite Unknown Effects

The flu vaccine is widely recommended for pregnant women, despite a lack of adequate safety testing. It was around this time in 2014 that a study came out in the New England Journal of Medicine stating the flu vaccine provided partial protection against confirmed influenza in pregnant women and their infants.¹⁴

The media began touting headlines like "flu vaccine safe for pregnant women," and one news outlet, News 4 Jax, even quoted maternal-fetal medicine Dr. Erin Burnett as saying, "All pregnant women should get the vaccine because it's 100 percent safe in pregnancy."¹⁵

This is quite a statement, since even the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lists influenza (and Tdap) vaccines as either Pregnancy Category B or C biologicals, which means that adequate testing has not been done in humans to demonstrate safety for pregnant women, and it is not known whether the vaccines can cause fetal harm or affect reproduction capacity.¹⁶

There are ingredients in flu vaccines, including mercury-containing (Thimerosal) preservatives, and many more bioactive and potentially toxic ingredients that have not been fully evaluated for potential genotoxic or other adverse effects on the human fetus developing in the womb that may negatively affect health after birth.

The rush to vaccinate pregnant women to try to passively vaccinate the developing fetus is a clear case of policy preceding science, as NVIC President Barbara Loe Fisher pointed out in her public comment at a recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine advisory committee meeting where public health officials made preparations to fast track vaccines targeting pregnant women to licensure. She said,

“Maternal vaccination policy has preceded vaccine safety science. Now there are proposals on the table here in this Committee and in the 21st Century Cures Act backed by FDA and industry to lower FDA licensing standards to ensure that vaccine policy can continue to precede vaccine safety science in the future.”¹⁷

It is clear that in the future many pregnant women are not only going to be urged to get the current government recommended influenza, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines during every pregnancy but also be urged to get more vaccines that may not have been thoroughly tested. While women are evaluating their options for staying well during pregnancy, it is always wise to optimize  vitamin D levels, which has the potential to not only cut your risk of the flu in half but also can protect you and your baby from serious complications, such as premature delivery and preeclampsia.

More People Opting Out of the Flu Vaccine in the UK

Last year, the flu vaccine in the UK was even more of a failure than in the US. In the UK, during the 2014-15 flu season the flu vaccine was only 3 percent effective.

The Conversation described this as “one bad year,” but even during a good year the effectiveness is usually around 50 percent, which means whether or not it will protect you amounts to the flip of a coin.¹⁸

So it’s no wonder that this year the UK is seeing low uptake of the vaccine – influenza vaccination rates are down 6 percent compared to last year.¹⁹ Vaccination rates are even low among groups considered to be most vulnerable to the flu, such as the elderly, children under 5 and those with chronic heart, lung or kidney disease.

The fact is that people are right to be skeptical about an annual vaccine with this kind of questionable track record. Its effectiveness is wholly dependent on the educated “guesses” of public health officials to choose the “right” influenza strains that circulate widely in any given year to include in the vaccine.

And then they are banking on the hope that the virus won’t mutate into a new strain between the time the vaccine is developed in the spring and when the “flu season” begins in the fall.

This is precisely what happened last year. In June 2015, research was published in Cell Reports showing that the influenza A virus that had widely circulated during the 2014-2015 flu season had mutated. However, that mutation was not factored in when the vaccine was developed in early 2014.²⁰

Even then, if all conditions are accounted for and you’ve been vaccinated against the exact same influenza strain you’re likely to be exposed to in real life, the vaccine is not 100-percent effective. As mentioned, on a good year it may only be 50 or 60 percent effective.

During the past three flu seasons the CDC has claimed the flu vaccine's overall effectiveness in the US was between 47 percent and 62 percent, but some experts have measured it at 0 to 7 percent.^21,22

Statins May Weaken the Effect of the Flu Vaccine

If you’re taking statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, you should know that this may weaken your body’s response to the flu vaccine. In those over 65 who received a flu shot, researchers found antibody concentrations were between 38 percent and 67 percent lower than those in people not taking statins.²³ Among younger individuals a weakened response was also seen.

Those who received a flu shot and were taking statins were 11 percent more likely to develop a respiratory illness that required medical attention compared to those not taking the drugs.²⁴ It’s thought that statins’ anti-inflammatory properties may be responsible for lowering the immune system’s response to the vaccine.

Considering that one in four Americans over aged 45 take statins, this could be one reason why the flu vaccine appears particularly ineffective among the elderly. The Lancet even concluded, “evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking”²⁵ The "solution" was to come out with a new, higher dose vaccine – Fluzone High-Dose vaccine. It contains four times the amount of antigen found in a standard dose.²⁶

Research published in 2014 showed Fluzone may lower the risk of getting influenza by 24 percent among seniors compared to the standard-dose vaccine.²⁷ This still isn't saying much, considering during the 2012 to 2013 flu season the standard flu vaccine was just 9 percent effective in seniors aged 65 and over.

Even when getting a vaccine with four times the dose, only one in four cases of influenza in older patients was potentially prevented. And it’s unclear whether the vaccine actually lowers the risk of influenza-related health complications and deaths.

Now, in another attempt to force the elderly to respond to the notoriously ineffective influenza vaccine, the FDA has licensed a potentially highly reactive flu vaccine that contains a controversial oil in water MF59 (squalene) adjuvant, which has been associated with development of narcolepsy and other autoimmune disorders and chronic illness.

The Fluad vaccine developed by Novartis (sold in 2015 to Australia’s CSL Group now trading as Seqiris) is supposed to stimulate a supercharged inflammatory immune response in those over age 65 that will be more protective.  At a September 2015 FDA committee meeting, consumer advocates protested that not enough study had been done in U.S. seniors to prove the squalene-adjuvanted vaccine was safe for them.²⁸

Even Congress Is Asking Why the Flu Vaccine Isn't Working

At a congressional hearing held by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Oversight and Investigations in November 2015, lawmakers questioned federal officials about why more progress hasn't been made toward developing effective flu vaccines and treatments.

Witnesses from the CDC, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority were questioned, with most lawmakers expressing "frustration that the health agencies were not further along." As reported by STAT:²⁹

"We are still developing flu vaccines with 1940s technology,' said Representative Tim Murphy, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the subcommittee. 'We need better testing to quickly learn of mutations.' And Representative Diana DeGette, of Colorado … showed her impatience with the group, noting that 'I've been pushing for 10 years to fix the system.'"

Even Uber Is Offering Free Flu Shots for You and 10 Friends

In November 2015, UberHEALTH advertised a one-day event in which they would deliver "wellness packs" for $10 to people in 35 US cities. And if you receive a wellness pack (it's unclear what a wellness pack contains), you can also request a free flu shot from a registered nurse – for you and up to 10 of your friends.³⁰ Last year, during the company's first UberHEALTH pilot program, flu vaccines were requested at 2,378 sites, and nurses vaccinated 2,057 persons.³¹

Uber believes they’re helping the public health by offering a convenient and simple way for people to get the flu vaccine – but what they’re really doing is furthering the misconception that getting a flu shot is the “best” way to prevent influenza. Your immune system health is, in fact, the most powerful predictor of whether or not you’ll get sick this flu season or anytime during the year… with influenza or one of the hundreds of other influenza-like illnesses going around.

Flu Prevention Tips: Diet, Vitamin D, Gut Health, and More

I firmly believe that optimizing your vitamin D levels is the single most important and least expensive action you can take to help strengthen immune function and protect against getting sick during the flu season, and would STRONGLY urge you to have your vitamin D level monitored to confirm your levels are therapeutic at 50 to 70 ng/ml year-round.

Vitamin D is an important player in overall healthy immune function, but it's also an effective antimicrobial agent in its own right, producing 200 to 300 different antimicrobial peptides in your body that kill bacteria, viruses, and fungi.

A 2010 study³² that didn't get much widespread attention demonstrated the effectiveness of vitamin D as a preventive strategy against influenza. Children taking just 1,200 IUs of vitamin D3 per day, which is considered a low dose, were shown to be 42 percent less likely to come down with influenza.

Further, if your diet contains a lot of sugars, grains and processed foods, you’re not doing your body any favors this flu season. Instead of giving your body the fuel it needs to function optimally, which means being healthy enough to fight off infectious viruses, you’re giving it more toxic elements that it must overcome.

Most people don't realize that 80 percent of your immune system actually lies in your gastrointestinal tract. That's why controlling your sugar intake is crucial for optimizing your gut health and immune system function.

Additionally, making sure you’re ingesting plenty of beneficial bacteria in the foods you eat (specifically fermented foods) is also crucial. In one study, 3- to 5-year-old children who received either a single strain or combination of beneficial bacteria called probiotics twice a day for six months had:³³

• Reduced fever by 53 percent and 73 percent respectively
• Decreased coughing by 41 percent and 62 percent
• Reduced runny noses by 28 percent and 59 percent
• Reduced antibiotic use by 68 percent and 84 percent (which is a major gain in and of itself because antibiotics are vastly overused in children and also devastate your gut flora)

More Tips to Avoid Getting Sick

Proper sleep, stress management and regular exercise are also important influenza and flu-like illness preventers. It is actually a well-known fact that exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. The job of these cells is to neutralize pathogens throughout your body. The better these cells circulate, the more efficient your immune system is at locating and defending against viruses and other pathogens that may otherwise opportunistically disable your immune system’s defense mechanisms.

There are other factors that can come into play too, of course. The following guidelines will also act in concert to support your immune system and help you avoid getting sick:

• Take a High-Quality Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils (think vegetable oils) as it will seriously damage your immune response.
• Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth, or other people. Be sure you don't use antibacterial soap for this – antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple toxin-free soap that you can switch your family to.
• Tried-and-True Hygiene Measures. In addition to washing your hands regularly, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze, ideally with the crook of your elbow (to avoid contaminating your hands). If possible, avoid close contact with those who are sick and, if you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.
• Use Natural Immune-Boosters. Examples include oil of oregano and garlic, both of which offer effective protection against bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in your body. And unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, they do not appear to lead to resistance.
• Avoid Hospitals. I'd recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you're having an emergency and need expert medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds. The best place to get recover from illness that is not life threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home.

from La Mav Combined http://snip.ly/5cMn
via IFTTT

JADE FACIAL ROLLER

  When it comes to skincare, I take it very seriously. I see it as a ritual. A type of meditation. Time to really take time to be in-tune with […]

from La Mav Combined http://snip.ly/L4fg
via IFTTT

Recipe: Simple Superfood Yogurt Bowl

Thank you to Stonyfield for sponsoring this post. Small but mighty. That’s the way my weekday breakfasts need to be. Something easy to make but that will keep me satisfied... Read More

       

from La Mav Combined http://snip.ly/yAyR
via IFTTT