Fluoride Accumulation In Your Pineal Gland May Cause Cancer, ADHD, and Early Puberty

Dr. Mercola
Waking Times
December 7, 2012

 
The pineal gland is a small endocrine gland located between the two hemispheres of your brain. It is sometimes called the “third eye” due to its resemblance to the human retina. While your pineal gland is only about the size of a single grain of rice (5-8 mm), it performs several functions that are extremely important to your body.

One main role of your pineal gland is to produce melatonin, the natural sleep hormone that plays a vital role in your normal sleep function. Melatonin is not only necessary for proper sleep however, it also regulates the onset of puberty and fights against harmful free radicals. When your pineal gland function is suppressed, melatonin production suffers and you are putting yourself at risk for a number of startling conditions including:

Alzheimer’s disease	Circadian dysregulation	Insomnia
Bipolar disease	Hormone imbalances: low melatonin	Low back pain

 

When Your Pineal Gland Stress Leads, Disease Follows

 

Any form of pineal gland stress is concerning due to its integral role in your body, which has been studied for thousands of years. In the third century, a prominent Roman physician named Galen described the pineal gland as the “seat of the soul.”

This term was referenced once more by the prominent philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650), who went on to write about the pineal gland in depth. Adding to Galen’s thoughts on the gland, Descartes stated:

“My view is that this gland is the principal seat of the soul, and the place in which all our thoughts are formed.”

One form of pineal gland stress is known as pineal gland calcification — the cause of which may be shocking to you. Sodium fluoride, present in your drinking water and certain store-bought products, and other sources such as Prozac (fluoxetine), fluoroquinolone antibiotics and non-stick cookware could all be contributing to the alarming increase in pineal gland calcification.

I have been warning you about the toxic effects of fluoride for years, and during this time more and more scientists have begun to recognize the dangers. There are so many studies highlighting the toxic effects of fluoride on your body, particularly affecting brain function, yet remarkably, a majority of the tap water in the United States, as well as a few other countries, is still heavily fluoridated.

The connection between pineal gland calcification and fluoride intake may very well be one of the most vital pieces of information in the fight against water fluoridation. You see, up until the 1990′s, no research had ever been conducted on the impact of fluoride on the pineal gland. However, we now have major universities discovering that your pineal gland is a primary target of fluoride accumulation in your body.

Research Confirms Pineal Gland as a Major Fluoride Collector

 

Thanks to research first conducted by the University of Surrey in England in 1997, it is now known that the soft tissue of the adult pineal gland contains more fluoride than any other soft tissue in your body. In fact, the levels of pineal gland fluoride examined in the study were high enough to inhibit enzymes.

When your enzymes are damaged, it can lead to collagen breakdown, eczema, tissue damage, skin wrinkling, genetic damage, and immune suppression. It can also cause problems with your Pineal gland fluoride levels were measured at ~330 parts per million (ppm). The EPA currently sets the maximum allowed level of sodium fluoride in the drinking water at 4 ppm. This is nothing compared to the amount of fluoride found to be stored in the harder tissues of your pineal gland known as hyroxyapatite crystals. Fluoride levels observed in the hard tissue were found to be as high as 21,000 ppm. Hyroxyapatite crystals store more fluoride than any other hard tissue in your body, including teeth and bone.

After researchers concluded that the pineal gland was a major target for extreme fluoride accumulation in your body, they decided to conduct a series of experiments to determine if it was enough to impact the functioning of the gland, particularly melatonin production. Dr. Jennifer Luke from the University of Surrey in England led the researchers in performing the study.

The results were surprising even to the scientists on the research team. Animals treated with fluoride not only had lower levels of melatonin as expected, but female animals experienced an early onset of puberty. Due to the interference of melatonin production in the animals in response to the fluoride treatment, the hormonal triggers that are responsible for puberty were disturbed.
Dr. Luke summarized the findings:

“In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty.”  (CONTINUE READING)

The Huntsman Corporation: BPA and the Molecular Vision of Life

By Daniel Taylor
oldthinkernews.com
June 21, 2012

Cancer is a major business. It seems that massive amounts of money are raised in a “race for the cure” while the cause of cancer is ignored. The influence of foundations, corporations and entrenched scientific theory are all at work in this business.

The Molecular Vision of Life

Cancer research has historically focused on narrowly technical aspects of the disease. The same can be said for western medicine in general. This is largely due to the influential wealth of the captains of industry that have shaped the overall structure and focus of scientific research. This “molecular vision of life” has been the dominant view of western medicine since the beginning of the 20th century. E. Richard Brown writes in Rockefeller Medicine Men,

“Like the foundations and individual capitalists earlier in the century, federal health research has focused on the narrowly technical components of disease and death rather than on the broader economic and physical environments so central to… health… Neither the National Cancer Institute nor the American Cancer Society has shown much interest in investigating the environmental contribution to cancer.”

Today, cancer research is focused heavily on what may be called the “narrowly technical” model of genetics and heredity. While this research has revealed valuable information, there is another level of genetics that plays a dominant role in genetic expression. This upper level of genetics is called Epigenetics, and it is radically changing the entire field. This new field of study is showing that environmental toxins, diet and other factors play a major role in whether or not certain genes express themselves. It is in fact showing us that we have more control over our health than previously thought.

Bisphenol A – Do you know who actually makes it? (CONTINUE READING)

Harvard study: Pasteurized milk from industrial dairies linked to cancer

Jonathan Benson
Natural News
Monday, February 27, 2012

The truth has once again shaken the foundation of the ‘American Tower of Babel’ that is mainstream science, with a new study out of Harvard University showing that pasteurized milk product from factory farms is linked to causing hormone-dependent cancers. It turns out that the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) model of raising cows on factory farms churns out milk with dangerously high levels of estrone sulfate, an estrogen compound linked to testicular, prostate, and breast cancers.

Dr. Ganmaa Davaasambuu, Ph.D., and her colleagues specifically identified “milk from modern dairy farms” as the culprit, referring to large-scale confinement operations where cows are milked 300 days of the year, including while they are pregnant. Compared to raw milk from her native Mongolia, which is extracted only during the first six months after cows have already given birth, pasteurized factory milk was found to contain up to 33 times more estrone sulfate.

Evaluating data from all over the world, Dr. Davaasambuu and her colleagues identified a clear link between consumption of such high-hormone milk, and high rates of hormone-dependent cancers. In other words, contrary to what theU.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), theU.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), and the conventional milk lobby would have you believe, processed milk from factory farms is not a health product, and is directly implicated in causing cancer.

“The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking” without apparent harm for 2,000 years, Dr. Davaasambuu is quoted as saying in theHarvard University Gazette. “The milk we drink today may not be nature’s perfect food.”

Meanwhile, raw, grass-fed, organic milk from cows milked at the proper times is linked to improving digestion, healing autoimmune disorders, and boosting overall immunity, which can help prevent cancer. Though you will never hear any of this from the mainstream media, all milk is not the same — the way a cow is raised, when it is milked, and how its milk is handled and processed makes all the difference in whether or not the end product promotes health or death.

American government seeks to further perpetuate the lie that all milk is the same with egregious new provisions in 2012 Farm Bill

Of particular concern are new provisions in the 2012 Farm Bill that create even more incentives for farmers to produce the lowest quality, and most health-destroying, type of milk possible. Rather than incentivize grazing cows on pastures, which allows them to feed on grass, a native food that their systems can process, the government would rather incentivize confined factory farming methods that force cows to eat genetically-modified (GM) corn and other feed, which makes them sick. (CONTINUE READING)

Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100 adults

Not 60% as you’ve been told

Mike Adams
Natural News
Thursday, October 27, 2011

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that “flu vaccines are 60% effective!”

This absurd claim was repeated across the mainstream media over the past few days, with all sorts of sloppy reporting that didn’t even bother to read the study itself (as usual).
NaturalNews continues to earn a reputation for actually READING these “scientific” studies and then reporting what they really reveal, not what some vaccine-pushing CDC bureaucrat wants them to say. So we purchased the PDF file from The Lancet and read this study to get the real story.
The “60% effectiveness” claim is a total lie – here’s why
What we found is that the “60% effectiveness” claim is utterly absurd and highly misleading. For starters, most people think that “60% effectiveness” means that for every 100 people injected with the flu shot, 60 of them won’t get the flu!
Thus, the “60% effectiveness” claim implies that getting a flu shot has about a 6 in 10 chance of preventing you from getting the flu.

This is utterly false.
In reality — and this is spelled out right in Figure 2 of the study itself, which is entitled, “Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis” — only about 2.7 in 100 adults get the flu in the first place!
See the abstract at:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l…
Flu vaccine stops influenza in only 1.5 out of 100 adults who get the shots
Let’s start with the actual numbers from the study.
The “control group” of adults consisted of 13,095 non-vaccinated adults who were monitored to see if they caught influenza. Over 97% of them did not. Only 357 of them caught influenza, which means only 2.7% of these adults caught the flu in the first place. (CONTINUE READING)

What happened in Freetopia? A video fable about what went wrong with America

The story of Freetopia, written and narrated by Mike Adams from naturalnews.com

Understanding The Effects Of Radiation

www.jplabs.com

If a person is exposed to radiation, especially high dose, there are predictable changes in our body that can be measured. The number of blood cells, the frequency of chromosome aberrations in the blood cells and the amount of radioactive material in urine, are examples of biomarkers that can indicate if one is exposured high dose. If you do not have early biological changes indicated by these measurements the radiation exposure will not pose an immediate threat to you.

The risk for radiation exposure has been very widely studied. The general consensus of opinion for the induction of cancer by ionizing radiation is 10% increase in cancer rate/Sv when the dose is given over a short time with a decrease to 5% when the dose is protracted over an extended time period. (one Sv is equal to 1000 mSv and one mSv is equal to 100 mRem.). Therefore a 10% increase in cancer is related to a dose of 100,000 mrem with 5% if the dose is protracted over a longer period of time.

References:NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1987, Recommendations on limits for exposure to ionizing radiation. NCRP Report No. 91 (Bethesda, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements).

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Risk estimates for radiation protection. NCRP Report No. 115. Issued December 31, 1993. Bethesda, Maryland. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1993, Limitation of exposure to ionizing radiation. NCRP Report No. 116. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Besthesda, Maryland.

THRESHOLD FOR RADIATION INDUCED CANCER (LOW DOSE)

There is no doubt that radiation can cause cancer. The question is what level of radiation it takes to cause cancer. Some belive that this low level is about 20 rads. Below this dose it is not possible to detect adverse health effects (this level has been set by ICRP). The Health Physics Society has issued a position statement "Radiation Risk in Perspective" that addresses this issue. The statement does not claim that there are no observable health effects below 10 rem but that health risks, if they exist below 10 rem, are too small to be observed. The facts in the matter of radiation effects at low doses are very simple: no one knows whether there is any risk or not. All we can say now is that no one has detected any statistically significant effect at doses below about 100 mSv (10 rem). Some epidemiological studies suggest an increased risk of cancer in 15-20 rads dose range. However, the data suggest that risks in the 15-20 rem dose range are very small and difficult to measure. Above 10 rem there appears to be a significant risk of thyroid cancer due to radioiodine exposure in children 15 years of age and younger.
Other references: http://www.physics.umd.edu/deptinfo/facilities/lecdem/honr228q/specialtopics/LowLevRefs.htm, 

EFFECT OF A HIGH DOSE ON HUMANS AND SYMPTOMS

It is well established that high dose ionizing radiation can cause cancer. Effect/symptoms of a high dose is shown below.(Adapted from IOM/NRC, 1999a)

 0 to 25 rads:

• No easily detectable clinical effect in humans.
• However, at about 15 rads there could be temporary sterility (Testis).

25 to 100 rads:

• Slight short-term reduction in blood cells.
• Disabling sickness not common.

100 to 200 rads:

• Nausea and fatigue.
• Vomiting if dose is greater than 125 rads.
• Longer-term reduction in number of some types of blood cells.

200 to 300 rads:

• Nausea and vomiting on the first day of exposure.
• Up to a two-week latent period followed by appetite loss, general malaise, sore throat, pallor, diarrhea, and moderate emaciation.
• Recovery in about three months unless complicated by infection or injury.

300 to 600 rads:

• Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in first few hours.
• Up to a one-week latent period followed by loss of appetite, fever, and general malaise in the second week.
• Followed by bleeding, inflammation of mouth and throat, diarrhea, and emaciation.
• Some deaths in two to six weeks.
• Eventual death for 50% if exposure is above 450 rems.
• Others recover in about six months.

Over 600 rem:

• Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea in the first few hours.
• Followed by rapid emaciation and death in 2^nd week.
• Eventual death of nearly 100%.

High dose could lead to death. Table below shows lethality within 24 to 48 hrs after radiation exposure without medical treatment: 

Absorbed Dose	Lethality w/o treatment, % of population, within 60 days
(rads)	Percent Lethality of population receiving absorbed dose
0 – 25	--
100 – 200	< 5.
200 – 350	< 50.
350 – 500	50 – 99
> 550	99 – 100

References:

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Oct. 2001 Management of terrorist events involving radioactive material, NCRP Report No. 138, Bethesda, Maryland.

Medical Management of Radiological Casualties, Handbook, Military Medical Operations, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20889-5603, http://www.vnh.org/MedManRadCasu/
http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/cat66.html

Courtesy of

The Truth About Sunlight, Cancer and Vitamin D - NaturalNews.tv

If Player Does Not Work... Click Title Above

NaturalNews.tv 
NaturalNews.com