Audio: Liberal Organizer Tells NYC Activists Not to Mention Where They’re From While Campaigning in Upstate New York

By Cameron Cawthorne | 8 October 2018

THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON — Liberal activists from New York City were bused up to New York’s 19th Congressional District on Saturday to volunteer for Democratic nominee Antonio Delgado’s campaign, but before they reached their destination, a female organizer told the volunteers not to say where they are from because the campaign is concerned about the optics of receiving outside support.

The Washington Free Beacon obtained audio of Kate Linker, president of Greater NYC for Change, telling a group of volunteers on a bus sponsored by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) that the Delgado campaign is concerned about the optics of them visiting, saying that they should not post on social media that they are from New York City.

“One thing that I wanted to say that is important, if you post on social media, please do not mention that you are from New York City,” Linker said. “The reason is, much though they love us, the Faso campaign on September 15th posted that the Delgado campaign was busing in bus loads of New York City democratic socialists, bringing outsiders in to try to sway the campaign. And the [Delgado] campaign is understandably concerned about this.”

Rep. John Faso is the Republican incumbent who Delgado is challenging. […]

Revealed: Canary Mission Blacklist Is Secretly Bankrolled by Major Jewish Federation

For three years, the website has spread fear among undergraduate activists, posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights

By Josh Nathan-Kazis | 3 October 2018

HAARETZ (THE FORWARD) — One of the largest Jewish charities in the U.S. has been secretly funding a shadowy online blacklist targeting college students who criticize Israel.

For three years, a website called Canary Mission has spread fear among undergraduate activists, posting more than a thousand political dossiers on student supporters of Palestinian rights. The dossiers are meant to harm students’ job prospects, and have been used in interrogations by Israeli security officials.

At the same time, the website has gone to great lengths to hide the digital and financial trail connecting it to its donors and staff. Registered through a secrecy service, the site is untraceable.

Now, for the first time, the Forward has definitively identified a major donor to Canary Mission. It is a foundation controlled by the Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, a major Jewish charity with an annual budget of over $100 million.

The federation’s support of Canary Mission connects the American Jewish establishment itself to a website that is facing increasing criticism from young Jews. […]

Google+ Social Platform Hacked & Shutting Down

R.I.P Google+

So, it’s come to light Google+ Social media platform that rivalled the likes of Facebook, has announced that it’s setting down. But the story behind this isn’t all that clear and there are some twists and turns that follow the Cambridge Analytica Facebook scandal earlier in the year.

We reported a little on this with Facebook here:

Delete Facebook? Or, Here’s How To Clean Up Those Spying Facebook Apps

So apparently Google+ has suffered a data leak that affected some 500,000 users, according to Google, in what they are calling a hack, is actually another 3rd party developer access bug. Which basically allowed selected 3rd parties API access. With a little modification this API access could be used upon many user accounts for which the developer didn’t have permission (Think Cambridge Analytica).

Furthermore, it’s been revealed by Google that the Google+ API logs only go back two weeks, so they have no way of telling who’s account may or may not been violated. Two weeks seems a bit iffy to me, surely there are taking long term backups of other data?

How long has the hole been around?

Well that would be since 2015 and only keeping two weeks of logs, there really is no way to tell how far this abuse was.

Google discovered the ‘flaw’ back in March 2018. Wait… March 2018 when Facebook was getting roasted for its extremely similar sticky situation with 3rd party developer access. Yep! They knew of the problem back then and plugged the hole, yet didn’t decide to disclose this massive breach of user data.

So, they’ve tried covering it up.

Google+ Shutting down

Recently Google has announced that it’s going to be shutting down Google+ platform for good.

The consumer version of Google+ currently has low usage and engagment: 90 percent of Google+ user sessions are less than five seconds,” – Google

So not only do they not have the subscriber base, but of who’s left, nobody is even using it! No wonder it’s shutting it down.

Legal Ramifications

New European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules which went into effect in May would have required Google to disclose the information to regulators within 72 hours under threat of penalty, but the Google+ leak was discovered in March, before the GDPR regulations came in and therefore was not covered by the European rules, according to Al Saikali, a lawyer who spoke to the Journal.

Saikali said it was possible that Google could face class action lawsuits over its decision not to disclose the breach. “The story here that the plaintiffs will tell is that Google knew something here and hid it. That by itself is enough to make the lawyers salivate,” he said. – Source RT

Clearly the ‘Timing’ of this find and no doubt Facebook’s does have significant ramifications for the new EU rules. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was purposefully leaked at this time specifically for this reason. To beat the incoming change.

Is there more to this?

So apart from Google+ suffering the same issues as Facebook did, is there anything else to this story? Well, I think there is… Why would Google not disclose this earlier in the year, short of trying to not get roasted, it would point to the fact that all these soical media programs have been playing nice with select developers and abusing loyal customer data.

Also, why are they closing it now? Simply because of numbers? Or are they hiding more?

Well I am going to speculate a little here, but knowing that Google is another big Public facing Darpa program. I wouldn’t be surprised if Google+ didn’t actually create many more profiles automatically for anyone who used an Android phone or a Google account. They might have siphoned off data from our devices, such as messages, website tracking, location tracking information. This of course to be shared with 3rd parties such as large corporations, governmental programs and other nefarious means. Think shadow profiles.

One of the reasons I am thinking of this is because of the timing. It’s awfully convenient for Google to rollup Google+ now under the auspicious reasons that it’s a hacked failed project. Who’s still firmly in the crosshairs of the public and some government oversight committees? Facebook! Yep they aren’t done with them yet, and are facing being broken up or controlled with strict and firm regulation as a public utility.

So nice timing to dim the lights on Google+ and hope they get brushed under the rug and skip the further interrogations and investigations.

Like most stories in life, there’s what’s presented to the public for general consumption (disinformation) and then the truth hiding away between a select few people in control. Unfortunately for them, we’re awaking up to these playbook tactics and are more suspicious, critically thinking. Armed with some previous disclosures from Wikileaks that have confirmed governmental programs such as PRISM.

Diagram of NSA PRISIM Program

Google will be having the spotlight shown on them, since they’ve swiped all peoples Wi-Fi MAC addresses  around the world and GPS data from unsuspecting participants (Android users) to build a map (Google maps) with the most accuracy data available to the public. It’s also extremely well designed for tracking a digital device, something companies and intelligence agencies would happily abuse.

Think Facebook Is Bad? Google Has TEN Times More Data On You, Including Your Physical Locations

Google stores a wealth of information on the public, rivalling only Facebook as a competitor in this space. So, I am of the firm conviction that way more is going on here with Google & Google+.

Q post 8th october 2018 showing coverup

To Force Gender Equality, Schools Teach Boys to Paint Finger Nails

Some schools are taking gender equality to the extreme and having boys practice female stereotypes while girls practice male stereotypes.

by Matt Agorist

The notion that all people deserve equal rights under their governments is evolving into all people must be forced to be equal. In the name of forcing this equality — which is a dangerously slippery slope — some are going to extremes.

Boys and girls are different. One is not supreme to the other, but on a biological scale, they are not equal. To deny the basic differences like hormone production and the fact that females can get pregnant is to deny nature itself.

However, this hasn’t stopped people from trying to wipe these biological differences out with controversial programs.

Read Entire Article »

What’s Behind the CDC Claiming 80,000 Died From Flu Last Winter?

By Dr. Mercola

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the 2017-2018 flu season was the deadliest flu season in the U.S. in four decades, hospitalizing 900,000 and killing 80,000, including 180 children. According to CNN,1 “ … [F]lu-related deaths have ranged from a low of about 12,000 during the 2011-2012 season to a high of about 56,000 during the 2012-2013.”

While that sounds ominous, it’s worth remembering that what they’re counting as “flu deaths” are not just deaths directly caused by the influenza virus, but also secondary infections such as pneumonia and other respiratory diseases, as well as sepsis.2

As you’d expect, these mortality statistics are now being used to frighten people into getting an annual flu shot. U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams goes even further, saying that getting vaccinated is a “social responsibility,” as it “protects others around you, including family, friends, co-workers and neighbors.”3

But is that actually true? Not according to recent research, it isn’t. In fact, research published earlier this year suggests repeated annual flu vaccinations could actually make you a greater health threat to your community. Influenza vaccination does not appear to lower the risk of disease transmission at all.

Flu Vaccine Allows Transmission of Disease, Study Shows

According to a study4 published in the journal PNAS January 18, 2018, people who receive the seasonal flu shot and then contract influenza excrete infectious influenza viruses through their breath. What’s more, those vaccinated two seasons in a row have a greater viral load of shedding influenza A viruses.

They also note that other studies suggest annual flu vaccination leads to reduced protection against influenza, which means each vaccination is likely to make you progressively more prone to getting sick. According to the authors:

In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons … The association of vaccination and shedding was significant for influenza A but not for influenza B infections …

Finding infectious virus in 39 percent of fine-aerosol samples collected during 30 minutes of normal tidal breathing in a large community-based study of confirmed influenza infection clearly establishes that a significant fraction of influenza cases routinely shed infectious virus … into aerosol particles small enough to remain suspended in air and present a risk for airborne transmission …

The association of current and prior year vaccination with increased shedding of influenza A might lead one to speculate that certain types of prior immunity promote lung inflammation, airway closure and aerosol generation …

If confirmed, this observation, together with recent literature suggesting reduced protection with annual vaccination, would have implications for influenza vaccination recommendations and policies.”

You can get vaccinated, show few or no symptoms and still shed and transmit influenza to other people.5,6

Last Year’s Flu Vaccine Was Only 36 Percent Effective

If you think you cannot get type A or B influenza if you’ve been vaccinated, think again. Your chances of getting influenza after vaccination are still greater than 50/50 in any given year. According to CDC data,7 the 2017-2018 seasonal influenza vaccine’s effectiveness against “influenza A and influenza B virus infection associated with medically attended acute respiratory illness” was just 36 percent.

Ironically, CDC officials continue to recommend influenza vaccination “because the vaccine can still prevent some infections with currently circulating influenza viruses.”8 Dr. William Schaffner, medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, told CNN, “The vaccine is not perfect, but give the vaccine credit for softening the blow.”

Now, if merely softening the blow, lowering your chances of contracting influenza by a measly 36 percent is good enough, why isn’t vitamin D a viable alternative when evidence demonstrates it actually prevents far more cases of acute respiratory infections?

Vitamin D Optimization Helps Prevent Respiratory Infections

Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the excellent track record of vitamin D for preventing respiratory infections. Most recently, a 2017 scientific review9,10 of 25 randomized controlled trials that included nearly 11,000 individuals found that vitamin D supplementation cuts rates of acute respiratory infections among all participants. 

Those with blood levels below 10 ng/mL, which is actually a serious deficiency state, cut their risk of infection by half. People with higher vitamin D levels reduced their risk by about 10 percent. According to this international research team, vitamin D supplementation could prevent more than 3.25 million cases of cold and flu each year in the U.K. alone.11

Another statistic showing vitamin D is a far more effective strategy for preventing respiratory illness during flu season is the “number needed to treat” (NNT).

In a 2014 meta-analysis12 of the available research on inactivated influenza vaccines, the Cochrane Collaboration concluded that 71 people must be vaccinated to avoid a single influenza case; 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of influenza-like illness or acute respiratory infection. They also found that vaccination has “no appreciable effect on hospitalizations.”

Meanwhile, the NNT for vitamin D supplementation was 33, meaning one person would be spared from acute respiratory infection for every 33 people taking a vitamin D supplement. Among those with severe vitamin D deficiency at baseline, the NNT was 4.

So, if you’re going to gamble, which odds would you rather have — a 1 in 71 chance of being protected against respiratory infection, or a 1 in 33 chance (or 1 in 4 should you be severely vitamin D deficient)? Despite such evidence, when was the last time a public health authority even mentioned vitamin D as a preventive measure?

In fact, in a recent Forbes article,13 Bruce Y. Lee, associate professor of international health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, specifically stated that advice to boost vitamin D should be ignored. He highlighted one of my previous articles, pointing out that one of my references showing benefit from vitamin D stated in its conclusion that “it is premature to recommend vitamin D for either the prevention or treatment of viral respiratory infections.”

Call for further research is extremely common in studies, and you’ll find similar commentary in drug studies as well. Does that stop doctors from prescribing them? No. Lee also points out that I sell vitamins, and that this makes my vitamin D recommendation suspect. So, are we to believe that no one advocating for flu vaccines makes any money from it?

In my view, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best respiratory illness prevention and optimal health strategies available. Influenza has also been treated with high-dose vitamin C,14 and vitamin C also boosts the effectiveness of quercetin, a flavonoid antioxidant. Taking zinc lozenges at the first sign of respiratory illness can also be helpful.

Vaccination Does Little to Lessen Flu Symptoms or Decrease Mortality

Going by last season’s effectiveness rating, you had a 64 percent chance of contracting influenza if you got vaccinated. But what about claims that getting a flu shot makes symptoms of influenza milder and reduces your risk of death? There are studies that refute both of those arguments.

According to French research15 published in April 2017, the symptoms of influenza experienced by vaccinated and unvaccinated people are nearly identical. According to the authors:

“Compared to nonvaccinated influenza patients, those who had been vaccinated had a slightly reduced maximum temperature and presented less frequently with myalgia, shivering and headache.

In stratified analyses, the observed effect was limited to patients infected with A(H3) or type B viruses. After adjusting by age group, virus (sub)type and season, the difference remained statistically significant only for headache, which was less frequent among vaccinated individuals.”

Research16 published in 2005 also found no correlation between increased vaccination rates among the elderly and reduced mortality. According to the authors, “Because fewer than 10 percent of all winter deaths were attributable to influenza in any season, we conclude that observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”

Good Example of Why Health Authorities Can’t Be Trusted to Tell the Truth About Vaccine Hazards

Lee and other dogmatic universal vaccination disciples seem to forget that nearly all vaccine safety studies come with marked bias, and the safety testing of vaccines is a joke.17 Nearly all side effects are classified as a “coincidence,” a talking point Lee uses in his article.

September 20, 2018, an important article18 in the BMJ highlighted the fact that, while health authorities swore the pandemic H1N1 swine flu vaccine was safe and had undergone rigorous testing, internal documents unearthed during a lawsuit reveal there were, in fact, questions about the vaccine’s safety. Yet, the public was simply never informed.

The vaccine in question was GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix vaccine, which was linked to a surprisingly high number of cases of narcolepsy across Europe, along with other serious adverse reactions. Associate editor of the BMJ, Peter Doshi, wrote:

“Now … new information is emerging from one of the lawsuits that, months before the narcolepsy cases were reported, the manufacturer and public health officials were aware of other serious adverse events logged in relation to Pandemrix …

For a range of concerning adverse events, reports were coming in for Pandemrix at a consistently higher rate than for the other two GSK pandemic vaccines — four times the rate of facial palsy, eight times the rate of serious adverse events, nine times the rate of convulsions. Overall, Pandemrix had, proportionally, five times more adverse events reported than Arepanrix and the unadjuvanted vaccine.

And the raw numbers of adverse events were not small … The last report seen by The BMJ, dated 31 March 2010, shows 5,069 serious adverse events for Pandemrix (72 per 1 million doses), seven times the rate for Arepanrix and the unadjuvanted vaccine combined … But neither GSK nor the health authorities seem to have made the information public — nor is it clear that the disparity was investigated …

[T]he events of 2009-10 raise fundamental questions about the transparency of information. When do public health officials have a duty to warn the public over possible harms of vaccines detected through pharmacovigilance? How much detail should the public be provided with, who should provide it, and should the provision of such information be proactive or passive? If history were to repeat itself, does the public have a right to know?”

Lee and other flu vaccine proponents also ignore data19 linking the seasonal influenza vaccine with an increased risk for contracting pandemic influenza. Why would Lee ignore all of this information, not to mention the other published vaccine studies referenced throughout this article?

Perhaps, as a specialist in “using ways (including digital media) to translate and communicate scientific and health information to all sectors including the general public,”20 he chose not to include the scientific evidence I am providing in this article because he was reluctant to tell the truth and nothing but the truth about the risks and failures of influenza vaccine.

Another reason could be because Lee has financial ties to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,21 which is a funding partner of Gavi,22 an international vaccine alliance that includes the world’s largest pharmaceutical corporations marketing vaccines. 

Is Flu Vaccine Safe for Pregnant Women?

Caution is not even exercised for pregnant women anymore. Historically, pregnant women have been discouraged from taking drugs and vaccines because there’s very little scientific data evaluating risks for the pregnant woman or growing fetus.

Considering the potential dangers of toxic exposures for both mother and child, pregnant women have thus far not been included in clinical vaccine trials, hence the lack of information.

For better or worse, that will now change, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has now issued draft guidance23 for industry on when and how they may include pregnant women in clinical trials for drugs and therapies. Also, Congress included an amendment to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in the 2016 21st Century Cures Act, so now drug companies producing CDC recommended vaccines for pregnant women cannot be sued if a pregnant woman or her child developing in the womb born alive suffers injury from maternal vaccinations.24

Despite significant vaccine safety research gaps when it comes to maternal vaccination,25 the CDC is now urging all women to get a flu shot during every pregnancy. According to Dr. Laura E. Riley, professor and chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine, who is quoted by CNN, “the flu vaccine is safe and effective for both pregnant women and their fetuses” and can be given during any trimester.26

Where is the supporting evidence for such claims? It really disturbs me that Riley makes no mention at all of CDC-funded research showing that flu vaccination during early pregnancy has in fact been linked in one study to an eightfold risk of miscarriage.

The maternal vaccination study 27,28, 29 found that women who had received an inactivated 2009 pandemic H1N1-containing flu shot the previous year were more likely to suffer miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) within 28 days of receiving another pH1N1-containing flu shot during pregnancy. The finding was statistically significant.

While most of the miscarriages occurred during the first trimester, several also took place in the second trimester.30,31,32 The median fetal term at the time of miscarriage was seven weeks. In all, 485 pregnant women aged 18 to 44 who had a miscarriage during the flu seasons of 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were compared to 485 pregnant women who carried to term.

Of the 485 women who miscarried, 17 had been vaccinated twice in a row — once in the 28 days prior to miscarriage and once in the previous year. For comparison, of the 485 women who had normal pregnancies, only four had been vaccinated two years in a row. Commenting on the study, CDC adviser for vaccines Amanda Cohn stated:

“I think it’s really important for women to understand that this is a possible link, and it is a possible link that needs to be studied and needs to be looked at over more [flu] seasons. We need to understand if it’s the flu vaccine, or is this a group of women [who received flu vaccines] who were also more likely to have miscarriages.”

So how does Riley see fit to claim flu vaccination is safe for both the mother and fetus in all trimesters? Riley also claims the vaccine “protects babies after they are born, preventing flu in the first six months of their lives when they are too young to get their own flu shot.”

Annual Flu Shots Can Increase Future Susceptibility to Influenza and Other Infections

Another commonly accepted myth is that seasonal flu vaccination “primes” your body to combat all strains of influenza,33 regardless of whether they’re included in the vaccine or not. However, vaccines don’t work that way. The vaccine does prime your body to fight viruses, but only those included in the vaccine.

Not only does it not protect against other strains, this priming of your immune system can also make you more susceptible to infection from other pathogens. This phenomenon is an effect inherent in heterologous immunity. As explained in a 2014 paper:34

“Immunity to previously encountered viruses can alter responses to unrelated pathogens … Heterologous immunity … may be beneficial by boosting protective responses.

However, heterologous reactivity can also result in severe immunopathology. The key features that define heterologous immune modulation include alterations in the CD4 and CD8 T cell compartments and changes in viral dynamics and disease progression.”

Heterologous reactivity has been demonstrated in several studies. For example, a 2010 Canadian study35 found people who were vaccinated against seasonal influenza were more susceptible to the pandemic H1N1 influenza strain. These findings were replicated in a 2014 ferret study.36

Similarly, a 2012 Chinese study37 found a child’s chances of contracting a respiratory infection after getting the 2008-2009 seasonal flu shot rose more than fourfold. The study’s authors concluded:

“We identified a statistically significant increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infection among TIV [inactivated influenza vaccine] recipients, including significant increases in the risk of rhinovirus and coxsackie/echovirus infections, which were most frequently detected in March 2009, immediately after the peak in seasonal influenza activity in February 2009.”

Heterologous immunity is also addressed in a 2013 paper,38 which noted that “vaccines modulate general resistance,” and “have nonspecific effects on the ability of the immune system to handle other pathogens.” The authors also stated that:

“… [O]ur current perception of the immune system is … simplistic. It was, to a large extent, shaped in the 1950s with the formulation of the clonal selection hypothesis.

This line of thinking has emphasized the adaptive immune system and the speci?c antigen recognition and speci?c memory, which have been crucial in vaccine development, perhaps at the expense of examining cross-reactive features of the immune system as well as the memory capacity of the innate immune system.

Although tens of thousands of studies assessing disease-speci?c, antibody-inducing effects of vaccines have been conducted, most people have not examined whether vaccines have nonspeci?c effects because current perception excludes such effects.”

Influenza Vaccines May Do More Harm Than Good

The flawed “universal use” vaccination ideology pays no attention at all to studies that show vaccines can cause acute and chronic illness while failing to work as advertised.

Last season’s influenza vaccine had an effectiveness of 36 percent, yet they use the severity of the flu season as a goad to get you to vaccinate yourself and your children yet again — this, despite the fact that most studies find higher rates of health problems after just one or two flu shots.

A mounting body of research strongly questions the validity of annual flu vaccination as an effective public health measure. Here’s just a sampling of the evidence that is completely ignored by heath officials during the annual vaccination campaign:

With each successive annual flu vaccination, the theoretical protection from the vaccine appears to diminish39,40 — A 2012 Chinese study41 found a child’s chances of contracting a respiratory infection after getting the seasonal flu shot rose more than fourfold, and research published in 2014 concluded that resistance to influenza-related illness in persons 9 years and older in the U.S. was greatest among those who had NOT received a flu shot in the previous five years.42

More recent research suggests the reason seasonal flu shots become less protective with each dose has to do with “original antigenic sin.” Here, they found that influenza vaccine failed to elicit a strong immune response in most participants,43 which a University of Chicago Medical Center press release entitled, “Past Encounters with the Flu Shape Vaccine Response,” explained as follows:44

“What’s at play seems to be a phenomenon known as ‘original antigenic sin.’ Flu vaccines are designed to get the immune system to produce antibodies that recognize the specific strains of the virus someone may encounter in a given year.

These antibodies target unique sites on the virus, and latch onto them to disable it. Once the immune system already has antibodies to target a given site on the virus, it preferentially reactivates the same immune cells the next time it encounters the virus.

This is efficient for the immune system, but the problem is that the virus changes ever so slightly from year to year. The site the antibodies recognize could still be there, but it may no longer be the crucial one to neutralize the virus.

Antibodies produced from our first encounters with the flu, either from vaccines or infection, tend to take precedence over ones generated by later inoculations. So even when the vaccine is a good match for a given year, if someone has a history with the flu, the immune response to a new vaccine could be less protective.”

The annual flu shot can increase the risk of contracting other, more serious influenza infections — Canadian researchers reported in 2010 that people who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2008 had twice the risk of getting sick with the pandemic H1N1 “swine flu” requiring medical attention in 2009 compared to those who did not receive a flu shot the previous year.45

These findings were replicated in ferrets in 2014.46 Previously, a 2009 U.S. study compared health outcomes for children between 6 months and age 18 years who did and did not get inactivated influenza vaccine and found that children who received annual influenza vaccinations had a three times higher risk of influenza-related hospitalization, with asthmatic children at greatest risk.47

Flu vaccine doesn’t work well in statin users — Statin drugs (taken by 1 in 4 Americans over the age of 45) may interfere with your immune system’s ability to respond to the influenza vaccine.48,49 After vaccination, antibody concentrations were 38 percent to 67 percent lower in statin users over the age of 65, compared to nonstatin users of the same age.50 Antibody concentrations were also reduced in younger people who took statins.

Influenza vaccine studies document the vaccine’s ineffectiveness — A 2010 independent scientific review of influenza vaccine studies concluded that flu shots have only a “modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost,” and “there is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia or transmission.”51

Another independent review published in 2018 found that in children aged 3 to 16 years, receipt of live or inactivated flu vaccines only slightly reduced the proportion of children with confirmed influenza.52 Moreover, the influenza vaccine fails to prevent influenza-like illness associated with other types of viruses responsible for about 80 percent of all respiratory or gastrointestinal infections during any given flu season.53,54,55

Little evidence that flu vaccination lowers mortality in the elderly — Research56 published in 2006 analyzed influenza-related mortality among the elderly population over age 65 in Italy associated with increased flu vaccination coverage between 1970 and 2001. Investigators found that after the late 1980s, there was no corresponding decline in excess deaths, despite rising flu vaccine uptake among the elderly.

According to the authors, “These findings suggest that either the vaccine failed to protect the elderly against mortality (possibly due to immune senescence), and/or the vaccination efforts did not adequately target the frailest elderly. As in the U.S., our study challenges current strategies to best protect the elderly against mortality, warranting the need for better controlled trials with alternative vaccination strategies.”

Another 2006 study57 showed that, even though seniors vaccinated against influenza had a 44 percent reduced risk of dying during flu season than unvaccinated seniors, those who were vaccinated were also 61 percent less like to die BEFORE the flu season ever started.

This finding has since been attributed to a “healthy user effect,” which suggests that older people who get vaccinated against influenza are already healthier and, therefore, less likely to die anyway, whereas those who do not get the shot have suffered a decline in health in recent months.

Flu vaccination during pregnancy may raise risk of miscarriage — Research published September 25, 2017, in the medical journal Vaccine 58,59 found that women who had received an inactivated 2009 pandemic H1N1-containing flu shot the previous year were more likely to suffer miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) within 28 days of receiving another pH1N1-containing flu shot during pregnancy. The finding was statistically significant. While most of the miscarriages occurred during the first trimester, several also took place in the second trimester60,61

Effectiveness of flu vaccine is typically below 50 percent — February 16, 2018, the CDC published interim estimates of the 2017-2018 seasonal influenza vaccine’s effectiveness for the U.S.62 The overall adjusted flu vaccine effectiveness against influenza A and influenza B virus infection associated with medically attended acute respiratory illness was 36 percent in 2017-2018. Put another way, the vaccine did not work 64 percent of the time.

More precisely, influenza vaccine effectiveness during the 2017-2018 flu season was estimated to be 25 percent effective against the A(H3N2) virus; 67 percent effective against A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses and 42 percent effective against influenza B viruses. In 2015, a CDC analysis63 revealed that, between 2005 and 2015, the flu vaccine was less than 50 percent effective more than half the time, so 2017-2018’s low effectiveness rating (36 percent) was no great surprise.

The Flucelvax vaccine introduced during the 2017-2018 flu season, which is grown in dog kidney cells rather than chicken eggs, was also a failure. Touted as a new-and-improved flu shot that would protect more people, FDA research found no significant difference between it and the conventional flu shot in protecting seniors. While flu vaccines overall had a 24 percent effectiveness in preventing flu-related hospitalizations in people aged 65 and older, the Flucelvax vaccine had an effectiveness rate of only 26.5 percent in that population.64

Flu vaccine does little to lessen influenza severity — While health officials are fond of saying that getting a flu shot will lessen your symptoms should you contract influenza, a 2017 study65 by French researchers, which aimed to assess the veracity of such claims, found it not to be true most of the time. Looking at data from vaccinated and unvaccinated elderly patients diagnosed with influenza, all they found was a reduction in initial headache complaints among those who had been vaccinated. According to the authors:

“Compared to nonvaccinated influenza patients, those who had been vaccinated had a slightly reduced maximum temperature and presented less frequently with myalgia, shivering and headache. In stratified analyses, the observed effect was limited to patients infected with A(H3) or type B viruses. After adjusting by age group, virus (sub)type and season, the difference remained statistically significant only for headache, which was less frequent among vaccinated individuals.”

Flu vaccine is associated with serious disability — Permanent disability such as paralysis from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) is a risk you need to take into account each time you get a flu shot. GBS was first identified as a risk for influenza vaccine during the 1976 swine flu campaign in the U.S. and in 2003, the CDC stated that for two flu seasons in the early 1990s, the flu vaccine caused an excess of 1.7 cases of GBS per 1 million people vaccinated.66

Data from the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) operated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Justice reveals that GBS is a leading injury for which people are receiving financial compensation for vaccine injuries and deaths, and the flu vaccine is now the most common vaccine cited by adults seeking a vaccine injury compensation award.67,68

Shoulder damage is another risk, caused by improper injection technique.69,70,71 Shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) includes chronic pain, limited range of motion, nerve damage, frozen shoulder and rotator cuff tears, and is typically the result of the injection being administered too high on the arm. This risk is particularly high when people get vaccinated outside of a doctor’s office or other clinical setting.

Many people getting flu shots in a public setting like a grocery store or pharmacy simply roll up their sleeves or pull down the top of their shirt, exposing only the upper part of their deltoid, thereby increasing the risk of getting the injection in the joint space rather than the muscle.

GBS and SIRVA were both added to the Vaccine Injury Table in 2017.72,73 By adding those vaccine complications to the table, vaccine-related GBS and SIRVA cases brought before the “Vaccine Court” in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., will be more likely to receive federal vaccine injury compensation.

In this lecture, immunologist Tetyana Obukhanych, Ph.D., author of “Vaccine Illusion: How Vaccination Compromises Our Natural Immunity and What We Can Do to Regain Our Health,” explains how vaccines damage your immune function, which can result in any number of adverse health effects.

Aspirin — Surprising Alternative to Get the Benefits Without Harm

By Dr. Mercola

There are a number of conditions that come under the umbrella term of cardiovascular disease. The term includes diseases of the blood vessels, which increase the potential for developing coronary artery disease, arrhythmias and stroke.1 Each year, heart disease is on the list of serious health conditions and one of the leading causes of death in the U.S.

According to the American Heart Association, nearly 84 million people in the U.S. suffer from some form of cardiovascular disease, which now kills 1 in 3 people.2 The direct and indirect costs amount to nearly $315 billion and increases each year. Nearly one-third of deaths from cardiovascular disease occur before age 75.

Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability. Women have a higher lifetime risk than men and, on average, someone in the U.S. suffers a stroke every 40 seconds. Risk factors for heart disease include high blood pressure, smoking, diabetes, obesity and physical inactivity.3

Faced with overwhelming numbers of patients with risks for cardiovascular disease and the numbers who die each year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force developed recommendations hoping to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke using aspirin.4 While followed by many, recent research suggests the potential risks may outweigh any perceived benefit.

Potential Benefit to Aspirin May Be Outweighed by Risk

Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) is one of the oldest modern medications, first marketed by the Bayer company in 1897.5 As described in this short video, many physicians recommend a low-dose aspirin-a-day regimen to prevent heart attack and stroke in people with risk factors, or who have had a previous heart attack or stroke.

Recently, a trio of studies was published in the New England Journal of Medicine demonstrating daily low-dose aspirin provides no significant health benefits for healthy older adults.6 Instead, the data demonstrated this strategy may increase the potential for serious harm. The first study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from Monash University in Australia.7

Nearly 20,000 people participated from Australia and the U.S. over age 70 and considered healthy at the start of the study. Half the participants received 100 mg of aspirin a day and the other half took a placebo. The trial was terminated at a median of 4.7 years follow-up as the researchers determined there would be no benefit of continued aspirin use with regard to the primary endpoint of the study.

Data demonstrated8 aspirin use in this population did not prolong disability-free survival over a period of five years, but in fact led to a higher rate of major hemorrhage (bleeding) than the placebo. The second study9 confirmed these results, finding the risk of major hemorrhage was primarily in the upper intestine gastrointestinal tract and intracranial bleeding.

The third study10 found higher all-cause mortality in apparently healthy older adults who used aspirin. Interestingly, this data attributed death primarily to cancer-related events. These results support previous data11 demonstrating the benefit of aspirin therapy in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease may not outweigh the risk.

One of the primary potential adverse effects from aspirin use is bleeding, and the most common site is the stomach or intestines. Individuals with a history of stomach ulcers, long term use of anti-inflammatory medications or long-term users of anticlotting drugs may have a higher risk.

Aspirin Plus Gut Bacteria Increases Your Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Another recent study published in the medical Journal of Australia found individuals with a Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection who take low-dose aspirin have an even higher risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding than those taking aspirin without the infection.12

H. pylori is a spiral-shaped bacterium that may adhere to the epithelial lining of the stomach.13 It is responsible for more than 90 percent of duodenal ulcers and 80 percent of gastric ulcers. Nearly two-thirds of the world’s population are infected but not everyone infected is symptomatic.

Several methods are used to diagnose H. pylori infection, including a blood test measuring specific antibodies or a breath test following the consumption of a specific carbon labeled drink. As H. pylori metabolizes urea rapidly, the labeled carbon is absorbed and can then be measured in expiration.14

In a meta-analysis of four high-quality studies, researchers found upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage was more frequent in those using aspirin and who were infected with H. pylori than in those who were not. While the researchers found the risk almost doubled, the exact nature of the interaction was unclear. The authors hypothesized the relationship may be antagonistic, suggesting:15

“From a pathophysiological perspective, the interaction could conceivably be antagonistic rather than additive or synergistic; for instance, H. pylori infection stimulates the production of gastric mucosal prostaglandins, which may counter the depletion resulting from inhibition of mucosal cyclooxygenase-1 by aspirin.”

However, as it is costly and time-consuming to test for and treat H. pylori infections, the researchers believed it is not practical to treat all patients on low-dose aspirin for H. pylori. Instead, they suggest patients who are at higher risk of ulcer complications be closely monitored or other forms of treatment used.16

How Aspirin Works

Aspirin is the first nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) discovered and has been used to reduce pain and swelling in conditions such as muscle aches, toothaches and headaches.17 It works by blocking natural substances known as cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). These enzymes produce prostaglandins, a hormone-like molecule that triggers inflammation.18

Aspirin works in a way unique to other NSAIDs as it splits into two parts. One part attaches to the enzyme and the other blocks the reaction that produces prostaglandins.19 One particular prostaglandin, thromboxane A2, makes platelets sticky, increasing the potential to form clots.

As aspirin inhibits COX-1, and therefore the production of thromboxane A2, it interrupts the chain of events and reduces the formation of clots.20 Aspirin has been used as an antiplatelet medication to prevent blood clots from forming in the prevention of a clot-based heart attack or stroke. This is the desired result when aspirin is used as a preventative in cardiovascular disease.

However, it is also the basis for the significant side effect of intracranial and gastrointestinal bleeding, as platelets are necessary to stop bleeding from minor injury. Risk factors physicians have used to determine if aspirin prevention may be helpful include hypertension, diabetes, smoking and high cholesterol levels.21

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends adults between the ages of 50 and 59 years who do not have a high risk of bleeding and are likely to live at least another 10 years take low-dose aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease.22

Prostaglandins help protect the lining of your stomach through the production of acid neutralizing biocarbonate and protective mucus. Inhibiting COX-1 reduces these prostaglandins and increases the risk of bleeding and ulcers.23 Inhibition of COX-1 may increase blood pressure or reduced kidney function, especially in the elderly or patients who have previous kidney disease.

Nattokinase Reduces Clot Formation Without Side Effects

Natto is a fermented soybean product that has been eaten as a traditional food in Japan for thousands of years.24 Nattokinase is produced by the bacteria Bacillus subtilis during the fermentation of soybeans to produce natto.

Benefits found have included dramatic effects on breaking down blood clots, reducing production of blood clots and benefits to persistent sinus conditions. Without conventional drugs, nattokinase has been a powerful way to reduce chronic rhinosinusitis under study conditions.25

Clinical studies have determined nattokinase dissolves excess fibrin in blood vessels, improving circulation and reducing the risk of serious clotting. It also decreases blood viscosity and improves blood flow, consequently lowering blood pressure. Nattokinase is a strong thrombolytic, comparable to aspirin without the same serious side effects.

According to one study, consuming nattokinase was associated with a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure.26 Studies in humans and animals have demonstrated it supports the circulatory system, thinning the blood and dissolving clots. It has also been effective in reducing deep vein thrombosis, or blood clots, in individuals who are on long-haul flights or vehicle travel.27

While use of aspirin and statin medication come with a long list of serious side effects, the use of nattokinase, used for centuries with few reported side effects, is only recently undergoing phase II clinical trial studies in the U.S. for atherothrombotic prevention. Studies have demonstrated single dose administration enhances clot breakdown and anticoagulation.28

Reduce Your Cardiovascular Risk Making Simple Lifestyle Changes

There are a number of factors with the potential to impact your cardiovascular health. Diet, exercise and sleep play a significant role. A study looking at longevity confirmed low levels of inflammation in your body are the most potent predictors for living a long life. Inflammatory levels also correspond to the ability to maintain cognitive function and live independently.

Avoiding processed foods, often high in inflammatory agents such as refined sugars and processed fats, is your first step. Your nutrition is responsible for nearly 80 percent of the health benefits you reap from a healthy lifestyle and keeps your inflammation in check.

If you are unsure of how to make the necessary changes to reduce inflammation, and therefore your risk of several diseases, I suggest following my free Optimized Nutrition Plan. The plan starts at a beginner phase and will systematically guide you step-by-step to an advanced level.

Regular movement and exercise helps to normalize your insulin levels and avoid insulin resistance. While you may think of physical activity as a regimented fitness routine, what you do outside the gym plays an equally important role in your overall health and wellness.

The average adult spends nearly 10 hours a day sitting. This level of inactivity simply cannot be counteracted with a 60-minute workout each day. Chronic sitting is an independent risk factor for insulin resistance and early death, even when you eat right and exercise regularly.29

For more information on integrating exercise and diet to combat inflammation, including a list of anti-inflammatory foods you may consider including in your dietary plan, see my previous article, “Exercise and Diet Combat Inflammation, Allowing You to Live Longer.”

Cholesterol Does Not Cause Heart Disease

By Dr. Mercola

Cholesterol is a waxy substance found in nearly every cell of your body, vital for optimal functioning. For instance, your body uses cholesterol in the construction of cell membranes and in regulating protein pathways required for cell signaling. Without sufficient amounts of cholesterol in your body you may experience a negative impact on your brain health, hormone levels and heart disease risk.

Your body also uses cholesterol to manufacture vitamin D after exposure to the sun. Most of the cholesterol in your body is manufactured in your liver using nutrients extracted from your food. Animals use cholesterol in much the same way, which means meat from beef, pork or chicken have similar levels.1 

The rate your body absorbs dietary cholesterol ranges between 20 and 60 percent, depending on individual factors.2 Unfortunately, while critical to your health, saturated fats and cholesterol have been wrongly vilified as the culprits of heart disease for more than six decades.

The first scientific evidence linking trans fats to heart disease and exonerating saturated fats was published in 1957 by the late biochemist Fred Kummerow.3 Unfortunately, his research was overshadowed by Ancel Keys’ Seven Countries Study,4 which linked saturated fat to heart disease.

Later, reanalysis of Keys’ study revealed the data was cherry picked to produce this link, but by then the saturated fat myth was already firmly entrenched. In the past several decades, other studies have debunked the saturated fat myth.

Most recently, a scientific review5 identified significant flaws in three recent industry-funded studies, and presented substantial evidence that total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels are not an indication of heart disease risk.

Yet Another Study Busts the Cholesterol Myth

Guidelines published for eating fats continue to be confusing as the basic premise was wrong. Dietary fat is associated with heart disease, but it is processed vegetable oils loaded with trans fats and damaged omega-6 fats that are producing the problem, not saturated fats.

An international team of 17 experts analyzed the results from three large reviews recently published by statin advocates. The three studies attempted to validate the current belief that statin treatment helps prevent cardiovascular disease. The international team was unable to satisfy criteria for causality and found fault in the conclusions the three studies made.6

The international team wrote there may be an association between young and middle-aged people with high total or LDL cholesterol that may potentially raise the risk of heart disease.

However, they point out an association is not the same as causation, and few previous studies have adjusted for other factors linked to heart disease such as coagulation, inflammation, infections and endothelial sensitivity. Specifically, the authors found:7

  • There was no association between total cholesterol and the degree of atherosclerosis severity.
  • Total cholesterol levels are generally not predictive of the risk of heart disease and may be absent or inverse in many studies.
  • In many studies LDL was not associated with atherosclerosis and in a large U.S. based study of nearly 140,000 patients who suffered an acute myocardial infarction, LDL levels at the time of admission were lower than normal.
  • Adults over the age of 60 with higher LDL levels generally live longer.
  • Few adults who experience familial hypercholesterolemia die prematurely.

The researchers concluded that high cholesterol levels cannot be the main cause of heart disease as those with low levels have nearly the same degree of sclerosis as those with high levels, and the risk of having a heart attack is the same or higher when cholesterol levels are low.

They believe the hypothesis has been kept alive by reviewers using misleading statistics and excluding results from unsuccessful trials while ignoring numerous contradictory observations.8 For a description of other studies debunking the saturated fat myth, often linked closely to increasing cholesterol levels, see my previous article, “The Cholesterol Myth Has Been Busted — Yet Again.”

Statins Raise Risks Without Benefits, Especially in Those With Diabetes

In dire cases, physicians may prescribe a medication with significant side effects when the potential benefits outweigh the possible risks, such as a strong antibiotic known to potentially trigger kidney damage when you suffer a life-threatening infection. In this instance, although there is significant risk with the antibiotic, without it you will likely die.

However, as statin drugs are designed to reduce cholesterol levels and cholesterol does not cause heart disease, all risks associated with the medication come without any benefit to your health. The trend for prescribing statin drugs is concerning, and is particularly relevant to diabetics whose underlying disease increases their risk of heart disease.

Recent recommendations suggest high dose statins should be automatically started in anyone 40 to 75 years of age with diabetes but no other risk factors for heart disease.9 This, despite the fact that statins have been shown to increase fasting blood glucose levels in diabetics.10 While statin supporters claim the drug is safe and effective, research has uncovered multiple side effects, some of which are deadly:11,12

  • General — Urinary tract infections, dizziness, partial loss of sensitivity to sensory stimuli, distortion of the sense of taste, amnesia and headache
  • Gastrointestinal — Diarrhea, indigestion, nausea, intestinal gas, constipation, abdominal discomfort, abdominal pain, vomiting and pancreatitis
  • Metabolic — Abnormal liver function tests, hyperglycemia, hepatitis, anorexia, hypoglycemia and weight gain
  • Musculoskeletal — Joint pain, pain in extremity, musculoskeletal pain, muscle spasms, myalgia, joint swelling, back pain, elevated creatine phosphokinase, neck pain and muscle fatigue, muscle wasting and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)13 
  • Cardiovascular — Death in up to 10 percent of patients,14 contributes to heart disease15

Strikingly, the expert reviewers in the featured study noted claims of effective and safe treatment with statin drugs are invalid, saying:16

“In our analysis of three major reviews, that claim the cholesterol hypothesis is indisputable and that statin treatment is an effective and safe way to lower the risk of CVD [cardiovascular disease], we have found that their statements are invalid, compromised by misleading statistics, by exclusion of unsuccessful trials, by minimizing the side effects of cholesterol lowering, and by ignoring contradictory observations from independent investigators.”

Inflammation Drives Cardiovascular Disease

Biased research launched a low-fat myth and reshaped the food industry for decades to come. As saturated fat and cholesterol were rejected, manufacturers switched to using trans fats and sugar to add taste to processed foods. These changes increased inflammatory levels and drove a new level of disease.

A study from Brigham and Women’s Hospital was the culmination of a nearly 25-year cardiovascular research work designed to test if reducing inflammation would also reduce the risk of recurrent heart attack or stroke. The study enrolled 10,000 people with a history of heart attack and a persistently elevated C-reactive protein level, a strong biomarker of inflammation.

At the conclusion of the study, the researchers noted that using medication to reduce inflammation also reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and death.17 However, the medications used in the study came with significant side effects. In contrast to acute inflammation after an injury, chronic inflammation does not produce immediate symptoms.

Over an extended period of time, chronic inflammation silently damages your tissues and arterial walls, which your body attempts to repair. These repairs may build over time and create plaque, potentially breaking off and blocking smaller arteries in the heart or brain, triggering a heart attack or stroke.

This process may go on for years without being noticed, as chronic inflammation has few apparent symptoms. Research has demonstrated deficiencies and excesses of certain micronutrients, such as folate, vitamin E and zinc, may result in an ineffective or excessive inflammatory response. Researchers note:18

“Inflammation acts as both a ‘friend and foe’: it is an essential component of immunosurveillance and host defense, yet a chronic low-grade inflammatory state is a pathological feature of a wide range of chronic conditions, such as the metabolic syndrome, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, Type 2 diabetes mellitus and CVD.”

Assessment of Heart Disease Risk More Effective Using These Tests

Specific ratios and blood level values tell you more about your risk of heart disease than your total cholesterol number. The size of your LDL cholesterol and your LDL particle number, for example, is more important than your overall total LDL value.

Large particle LDLs are not harmful to your health while small, dense LDL particles may create injury as they squeeze through the lining of your arteries, oxidize and trigger inflammation.

An NMR LipoProfile, which measures your LDL particle number, is a better assessment of your risk of heart disease than total or total LDL cholesterol level. The following tests may also give you a better assessment of your potential risk for cardiovascular disease:

High sensitivity C-reactive protein (HS-CRP) — This is one of the best overall measures of inflammation and an excellent screen for your risk of heart disease. Ideally your level should be below 0.7 and the lower the better.

Cholesterol ratios — Your HDL/cholesterol ratio and triglyceride/HDL ratio are both strong indicators of your risk. For your HDL/cholesterol ratio divide your HDL by your total cholesterol and multiply by 100. The percentage should ideally be above 24 percent. For your triglyceride/HDL ratio divide your triglyceride total by your HDL. The ideal percentage is below 2 percent.

Fasting insulin level — As sugar and carbohydrates are metabolized they trigger a release of insulin, which creates triglycerides and promotes the accumulation of fat. This process increases inflammation and makes it more difficult to lose or maintain an ideal weight. Excess fat around your midsection is one of the major contributors to heart disease.19

Your fasting insulin level can be determined by a simple, inexpensive blood test. A normal fasting blood insulin level is below 5 microunits per milliliter (mcU/ml) but, ideally, you’ll want it below 3 mcU/ml. If your insulin level is higher than 3 to 5, the most effective way to optimize it is to reduce net carbs.

Fasting blood sugar level — Studies have demonstrated people with higher fasting blood sugar levels have a higher risk of having coronary heart disease.20 When your fasting blood sugar is between 100 and 125 mg/dl, your risk of coronary artery disease increases by 300 percent compared to having a level below 79 mg/dl.

Iron level — Iron creates an environment for oxidative stress, so excess iron may increase your inflammation and increase your risk of heart disease. An ideal iron level for adult men and nonmenstruating women is between 40 and 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). You do not want to be below 20 ng/ml or above 80 ng/ml.

Manage Your Risk of Heart Disease With Effective Lifestyle Choices

To effectively manage your cardiovascular risk, it is critical to reduce chronic inflammation. Magnesium plays a vital role in biological function and mitochondrial health, and is a culprit in the development of inflammation when your levels are low. It may also play a role in inhibiting the deposit of lipids on arterial walls and plaque formation.21

In one double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients who received intravenous magnesium within 24 hours of their heart attack experienced 24 percent fewer deaths within the following five years.22 Researchers concluded the benefits of magnesium intake on chronic disease may be explained by the effect it has on inhibiting inflammation. 

There are multiple factors affecting the inflammatory process in your body. Some of the more significant over which you have control, include:

Hyperinsulinemia — An excess of insulin in your blood triggered by a diet high in net carbohydrates. What you eat tends to be the deal-breaker in how much insulin your body secretes. However, there are other factors contributing to your insulin levels, such as smoking, sleep quality, exercise and vitamin D level.

You can read more about how to reduce your insulin and fasting blood sugar levels to reduce inflammation in my previous article, “Insulin, Not Cholesterol, Is the True Culprit in Heart Disease.

Unbalanced fatty acids — Your body needs a balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats. Unfortunately, most diets have an overabundance of omega-6 fats leading to greater levels of inflammation. Strive for a 1-to-1 ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats to reduce inflammation and your risk of heart disease.

High iron stores — Ensure your ferritin blood levels are below 80 ng/ml. If elevated, the simplest and most efficient way to lower your iron level is to donate blood. If you can’t donate, then therapeutic phlebotomy will effectively eliminate the excess iron.

Leaky gut — Food particles and bacteria leaking from your intestines increase your level of inflammation and your risk of heart disease. By eliminating grains, sugars and lectin-rich legumes, while adding fermented foods, you may heal your gut and reduce your level of inflammation.

Inadequate levels of magnesium — A century ago your diet provided nearly 500 milligrams (mg) of magnesium per day. Today, courtesy of nutrient-depleted soil, you may be getting only 150 mg per day. Your body flushes excess magnesium through your stool, so using magnesium citrate and monitoring stool consistency, consider starting with 200 mg of oral magnesium citrate and gradually increasing until you develop slightly loose stools.

My personal preference for magnesium supplementation is magnesium threonate, as it appears to more efficiently penetrate cell membranes, including your mitochondria. It penetrates your blood-brain barrier and may help improve memory. It also may be a good alternative to reduce migraine headaches.