-

-

Important Press Release

About the Fucoidan Used in Xymetri Products

Zradical & FucoidZ

-

-

-

AUSTRALIAN SCIENTISTS IN SWINE FLU BREAKTHROUGH

Seaweed Derivative Shown to Inhibit H1N1 Virus

In a breakthrough that offers new hope for the containment of influenza outbreaks, an Australian biotechnology company has isolated a natural extract from seaweed which has been shown to inhibit the H1N1 virus.

The extract – known as Maritech® 926 – is a fucoidan compound derived from the Undaria pinnatifida species of seaweed. In vitro tests performed under contract by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US, have shown that Maritech® 926 can inhibit the H1N1 influenza virus at extremely low concentrations.

Developed by biotechnology company Marinova Pty Ltd, Maritech® 926 is a natural polysaccharide which has immediate market potential in nutritional supplements, hand washes and nasal delivery products which target the spread and prevention of viral conditions. Scope also exists for the compound to be included in pharmaceutical and medical device applications. As a result of these findings, Marinova has filed for patent protection over the application of Maritech® 926 and other fucoidan extracts in a range of anti-viral applications.

In announcing the findings and patent filing, Marinova’s Senior Scientist, Dr Helen Fitton, said:

“Fucoidan extracts such as Maritech® 926 are known to have significant inhibitory effects on a range of coated viruses. We are particularly excited by the fact that these seaweed extracts have now been shown to have an inhibitory effect on H1N1 at extremely low concentrations. With H1N1 already becoming resistant to some other antiviral agents, we believe that Maritech® 926 offers a potent, natural alternative which supports the immune system against viral attacks”.

-
WOW!!

Incoming search terms for the article:

• maritech fucoidan (12)
• are xymetri products available in australia (1)
• australian fucoidan (1)
• fucoidan anti H1N1 (1)

The Japanese seaweed Undaria arrived in Tasmania in ballast water more than 20 years ago.

A compound in the seaweed acts as a natural defense against marine viruses and toxins.

Scientists at a private laboratory near Hobart are convinced it is just as effective on humans.

-

-

They have tested the compound against several viruses and say it profoundly inhibits the H1N1 virus.

Researcher Dr Helen Fitton says viruses use receptors to get into cells, but this process is stopped in the presence of the seaweed compound.

“The virus is unable to use its receptor to get into the cell,” she said.

Marinova Laboratories CEO Paul Garrott says he is anticipating immediate commercial interest and expects the compound will be used in nasal sprays, hand washes and tablets.

“This whole class of fucoidan compounds have been shown to have very profound antiviral activities against a range of influenza strains, against a range of other viruses and coated viruses – we mentioned HIV, we mentioned the herpes simplex virus.”

As you already know there has been and continues to be a great debate as to the safety and effectiveness of immunization through vaccination.  Despite the growing mountain of evidence which conclusively shows that the risks associated with vaccination far outweighs the benefits many people continue to subject themselves and their children to these dangerous concoctions.

The primary concern of most people is rooted in the presence of thimerosal, a mercury containing preservative found in the vaccines, and its apparent link to the ever increasing rate of Autism in this country and around the world.

In this series of articles we will attempt to illustrate why we believe that these vaccines are not only ineffective in the suppression of the diseases they are intended to remedy they are also a clear and present danger to our children.

-

-

Now it has been claimed by many that although there is sufficient evidence that mercury does indeed effect the development of  brain function the amount of the heavy metal used in the immunization serums are safe for use on humans.

-

-

What do the courts have to say about this issue?

-

LA Times March 13, 2010|By Thomas H. Maugh II and Andrew Zajac

Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles — The federal “vaccines court” ruled Friday in three separate cases that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal does not cause autism, a finding that supports the broad scientific consensus on the matter but that greatly disappointed parents who are convinced that their child’s illness was caused by vaccines.

The court had ruled 13 months ago that a combination of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, commonly known as the MMR vaccine, and thimerosal does not cause the disorder, so the new ruling may finally close the bulk of litigation on the matter. The earlier ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and this one most likely will be also, but most experts think the court will uphold the decision.

More Court Decisions Here

-

The Special Masters in those three cases found that Petitioners failed to establish causation between MMR vaccines, the mercury-laced vaccine preservative thimerosal, and autism (the court decision, which is under appeal, deferred any finding on a thimerosal-only theory of causation).  The rulings could have a significant precedential impact on some 5,000 families who opted to bring their cases in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP) hoping that the vaccine court would officially hold that the MMR vaccine or thimerosal had caused autism in their children.

The New York Times joined the government Health Agency (HRSA) and its big pharma allies hailing the decisions as proof that the scientific doubts about vaccine safety had finally been “demolished.” The US Department of Health and Human services said the rulings should “help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism.” The Times, which has made itself a blind mouthpiece for HRSA and a leading defender of vaccine safety, joined crowing government and vaccine industry flacks applauding the decisions like giddy cheerleaders, rooting for the same court that many of these same voices viscously derided just one year ago, after Hannah Poling won compensation for her vaccine induced autism.

But last week, the parents of yet another child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for autism services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute brain damage that led to his autism spectrum disorder.

The family of 10-year-old Bailey Banks won their case quietly and without fanfare in June of 2007, but the ruling has only now come to public attention. In the remarkably clear and eloquent decision, Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the Banks had successfully demonstrated that “the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer.”

Bailey’s diagnosis is Pervasive Developmental Disorder — Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) which has been recognized as an autism spectrum disorder by CDC, HRSA and the other federal health agencies since at least the 1990s.

In his conclusion, Special Master Abell ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which, in turn, had caused the autism spectrum disorder PDD-NOS in the child:

The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

The Bailey decision is not an isolated ruling. We now know of at least two other successful ADEM cases argued in Vaccine Court. More significantly, an explosive investigation by CBS News has found that since 1988, the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars, to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. In many of these cases, the government paid out awards following a judicial finding that vaccine injury lead to the child’s autism spectrum disorder. In each of these cases, the plaintiffs’ attorneys made the same tactical decision made by Bailey Bank’s lawyer, electing to opt out of the highly charged Omnibus Autism Proceedings and argue their autism cases in the regular vaccine court. In many other successful cases, attorneys elected to steer clear of the hot button autism issue altogether and seek recovery instead for the underlying brain damage that caused their client’s autism.

Medical records associated with these proceedings clearly tell the tale. In perhaps hundreds of these cases, the children have all the classic symptoms of regressive autism; following vaccination a perfectly healthy child experiences high fever, seizures, and other illnesses, then gradually, over about three months, loses language, the ability to make eye contact, becomes “over-focused” and engages in stereotypical head banging and screaming and then suffers developmental delays characteristic of autism. Many of these children had received the autism diagnosis. Yet the radioactive word “autism” appears nowhere in the decision.

Instead the vaccine court Special Masters rest their judgments on their finding that the vaccines caused some generalized brain injury, mainly Encephalopathy/encephalitis (brain inflammation) or “seizure disorders” — conditions known to cause autism-like symptoms. A large number of the children who have won these judgments have been separately diagnosed with autism. HRSA acknowledged this fact in a recent letter, but told us it does not keep data on how many of these children were autistic.

-

Conclusion

-

The Vaccine Court, in other words, seems quite willing to award millions of dollars in taxpayer funded compensation to vaccine-injured autistic children, so long as they don’t have to call the injury by the loaded term “autism. ” That hazard is particularly acute for vaccine victims who appear before the Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP). Since that body’s decisions are closely watched, published and accorded the weight of precedent, many lawyers consider the burden of proof for petitioners to be impossibly high before the OAP Panel.  It was for this reason that Bailey’s attorney, Mark McLaren, elected to opt out of the OAP and try his case separately, even though Bailey has been receiving autism-related services in his home state and was eligible to file a case in the Court’s Omnibus Autism Proceedings (OAP).

-

Incoming search terms for the article:

• will swine flu cuases ADEM (1)

-

-

As in most debates between naturalists and the scientific community the topic of natural foods verses those cultivated  from GMOs is hotter than ever.  In this series of articles we will broach the topic of GMOs to further your understanding of the issue at hand.

-

-

Overview

Genetic modification of food is not new.
For centuries, food crops and animals have been altered through selective breeding. While genes can be transferred during selective breeding, the scope for exchanging genetic material is much wider using genetic engineering. In theory, genetic engineering allows genetic material to be transferred between any organism, including between plants and animals. For example, the gene from a fish that lives in very cold seas has been inserted into a strawberry, allowing the fruit to be frost-tolerant.

By far the most common genetically modified (GM) organisms are crop plants. But the technology has now been applied to almost all forms of life, from pets that glow under UV light to bacteria which form HIV blocking “living condoms” and from pigs bearing spinach genes to goats that produce spider silk.

When did genetically modified foods originate?
Between 1997 and 1999, gene-modified (GM) ingredients suddenly appeared in 2/3rds of all US processed foods. This food alteration was fueled by a single Supreme Court ruling. It allowed, for the first time, the patenting of life forms for commercialization. Since then thousands of applications for experimental GM organisms have been filed with the US Patent Office alone, and many more abroad.

The first commercially grown genetically modified whole food crop was the tomato (called Flavr Savr), which was made more resistant to rotting by Californian company Calgene. The tomatoes were released into the market in 1994 without any special labeling.
In February 1996, J. Sainsbury and Safeway Stores in the United Kingdom introduced Europe’s first genetically-modified food product. A variant of the Flavr Savr was used by Zeneca to produce tomato paste which was sold in Europe during the summer of 1996. Following GM crops included insect resistant cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybeans both of which were commercially available in 1996.

In 2003, countries that grew 99 % of the global transgenic crops were the United States (63 %), Argentina (21 %), Canada (6 %), Brazil (4 %), China (4 %), and South Africa (1 %) and today the Grocery Manufacturers of America estimate that 75 % of all processed foods in the U.S. contain a GM ingredient.

Between 1995 and 2005, the total surface area of land cultivated with GMOs had increased by a factor of 50, from 17,000 km² (4.2 million acres) to 900,000 km² (222 million acres), of which 55 percent were in Brazil.

In the US, by 2006 89 % of the planted area of soybeans, 83 % of cotton, and 61 % maize were genetically modified varieties.

Today many GM crops are grown in North America. India has also come aboard the bandwagon in 2002 with a rapid and continuing expansion of GM cotton varieties.
“Genetic engineering is inherently dangerous, because it greatly expands the scope for horizontal gene transfer and recombination, precisely the processes that create new viruses and bacteria that cause disease epidemics, and trigger cancer in cells.” – Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

The Problem

The way we see it the problem of GMOs being used on our food supply is three fold.  For most Americans it is a question of civil liberty.  For the time being American consumers have the right to eat the kinds of foods that they desire.  They have the right to chose weather they consume GMO foods or not.  Or do they?

There are no labeling requirements imposed on those who grow GMO crops or produce processed or natural foods for that matter,  As has been stated above GM ingredients can be found in 2/3rds of the processed foods consumed by Americans.  It is also known that these GMO crops find their way into our food chain and subsequently onto our family dinner table, through livestock which feeds on these GMO products.

The Bottom Line here is that weather we trust in the science behind these products or not, weather the products are believed to be safe or not or weather we want to consume these products or not WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE PUTTING INTO OUR BODIES AND THAT CHOICE HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM US in terms of GMOs and our food supply.

Be on the look out for Part 2 of this series where we will discuss the controversy surrounding GMOs in terms of their relative safety.

Incoming search terms for the article:

• cache:khmoQZjTvWkJ:www healthproductsguru com/448/are-acid-reducing-drugs-dangerous/ slippery elm green smoothie (2)

Although vitamin C & zinc have historically received most of the press regarding their ability to help resist cold and flu, Vitamin D is the big winner here.  In fact recent studies have shown that people with the lowest vitamin D levels are often the most susceptible to colds and flu.

“The findings of our study support an important role for vitamin D in prevention of common respiratory infections, such as colds and the flu,” says researcher Adit Ginde, MD, MPH, of the University of Colorado, Denver, Division of Emergency Medicine, in a news release. “Individuals with common lung diseases, such as asthma or emphysema, may be particularly susceptible to respiratory infections from vitamin D deficiency.”

“We are planning clinical trials to test the effectiveness of vitamin D to boost immunity and fight respiratory infection, with a focus on individuals with asthma and COPD, as well as children and older adults — groups that are at higher risk for more severe illness,” Ginde says. “While it’s too early to make any definitive recommendations, many Americans also need more vitamin D for its bone and general health benefits.”

A group of scientists from UCLA published a remarkable paper in the prestigious journal, Nature. The UCLA group confirmed two other recent studies, showing that a naturally occurring steroid hormone – a hormone most of us take for granted – was, in effect, a potent antibiotic. Instead of directly killing bacteria and viruses, the steroid hormone under question increases the body’s production of a remarkable class of proteins, called antimicrobial peptides. The 200 known antimicrobial peptides directly and rapidly destroy the cell walls of bacteria, fungi, and viruses, including the influenza virus, and play a key role in keeping the lungs free of infection. The steroid hormone that showed these remarkable antibiotic properties was plain old vitamin D.

A few years ago, I became convinced that vitamin D was unique in the vitamin world by virtue of three facts. First, it’s the only known precursor of a potent steroid hormone, calcitriol, or activated vitamin D. Most other vitamins are antioxidants or co-factors in enzyme reactions. Activated vitamin D – like all steroid hormones – damasks the genome, turning protein production on and off, as your body requires. That is, vitamin D regulates genetic expression in hundreds of tissues throughout your body. This means it has as many potential mechanisms of action as genes it damasks.

Second, vitamin D does not exist in appreciable quantities in normal human diets. True, you can get several thousand units in a day if you feast on sardines for breakfast, herring for lunch and salmon for dinner. The only people who ever regularly consumed that much fish are peoples, like the Inuit, who live at the extremes of latitude. The milk Americans depend on for their vitamin D contains no naturally occurring vitamin D; instead, the U.S. government requires fortified milk to be supplemented with vitamin D, but only with what we now know to be a paltry 100 units per eight-ounce glass.

The vitamin D steroid hormone system has always had its origins in the skin, not in the mouth. Until quite recently, when dermatologists and governments began warning us about the dangers of sunlight, humans made enormous quantities of vitamin D where humans have always made it, where naked skin meets the ultraviolet B radiation of sunlight. We just cannot get adequate amounts of vitamin D from our diet. If we don’t expose ourselves to ultraviolet light, we must get vitamin D from dietary supplements.

The third way vitamin D is different from other vitamins is the dramatic difference between natural vitamin D nutrition and the modern one. Today, most humans only make about a thousand units of vitamin D a day from sun exposure; many people, such as the elderly or African Americans, make much less than that. How much did humans normally make? A single, twenty-minute, full body exposure to summer sun will trigger the delivery of 20,000 units of vitamin D into the circulation of most people within 48 hours. Twenty thousand units, that’s the single most important fact about vitamin D. Compare that to the 100 units you get from a glass of milk, or the several hundred daily units the U.S. government recommend as “Adequate Intake.” It’s what we call an “order of magnitude” difference.

Our advice – get tested to check vitamin D levels in your body.  Take vitamin D supplements derived from natural sources.  Last and certainly not least, get 20/40 minuits of exposure to sunlight daily.  For more information Click Here about vitamin D supplementation.

Incoming search terms for the article:

• bacteria feed off of the vitamin d hormone (1)
• legal action against vitamin d (1)
• ucla nature vitamin d flu (1)
• vit d effective against h1n1?(as of 2010) (1)
• vitamin d and h1n1 virus (1)

This simplistic yet sound advice is more applicable today than ever before.  It has been reported that thousands of  people in America alone have been infected with the H1N1 (Swine Flu) Virus.  There is however a greater danger lurking in the darkness that is receiving very little press.

According to the National Institutes of Health, over the past forty years, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA – “flesh eating” Pneumonia)) has changed from a usually controllable nuisance into a serious public health problem.  It is believed that the over use of antibiotics has caused this mutation and subsequently created an antibiotic-resistant bacteria.  In a paper published in the June (09) addition of The Lancet Infectious Diseases a type pf pneumonia is discussed that has proved fatal in 75% of reported cases.  At first, it was primarily one of the most common hospital-acquired infections. But in recent years, new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, often dubbed “super bugs”, have popped up in communities and caused severe, even life-threatening infections in otherwise healthy people, involving the skin, heart, blood or bones.  The weakening of the immune system by the H1N1 virus has made people particularly susceptible to the CA-MRSA virus.  Since CA-MRSA  is a community acquired virus it is best to avoid hospitals at all costs if you have been effected by the H1N1 virus or any other malady that may have weakened your immune system.

Doctors at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta write in The Lancet Infectious Diseases article that CA-MRSA has become well known for causing skin and soft-tissue infections that are transmitted by person-to-person contact or contact with contaminated objects. However, now there are increasing cases of CA-MRSA caused pneumonia that kills lung tissue. And those becoming sick with the disease aren’t necessarily the old and/or physically weak. In fact, according to the report from the Emory team led by Alicia Hidron, MD, an infectious diseases fellow and Henry Blumberg, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Emory, CA-MRSA pneumonia appears to most commonly affect young and previously healthy patients.

Dr. Hidron and Dr. Blumberg also noted in their paper that, besides causing a high fever, CA-MRSA pneumonia can sometimes cause low blood pressure that progresses to septic shock and requires patients to be placed on mechanical respirators in order to breathe. Another important point discussed in the article may turn out to have special relevance due to the emergence of H1N1 influenza, especially by the time flu season rolls around this fall: potentially deadly CA-MRSA pneumonia appears to occur most commonly following a flu-type illness.

Serious MRSA disease can strike anyone, regardless of age, health or where they live. Outbreaks have occurred among young athletes who play contact sports and among people living in close quarters, such as nursing homes, military facilities, nursing homes, and childcare centers.

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases advises using these precautions to help prevent CA-MRSA infections:

Practice good hygiene.
Keep cuts and scrapes clean and bandage until healed.
Avoid contact with other people’s wounds or bandages.
Don’t share soiled or used personal items, such as towels, washcloths, razors, or clothes.
Use hot water and bleach to wash soiled sheets, towels and clothes.

Zradical – Is the only liquid beverage on the market with pure fucoidan using a proprietary cold water vaccum extraction, Zradical supports the immune system, helps joint function, improves healthy cell maintenance.

About 4 percent of the total dry weight of many types of brown seaweed consists of a polysaccharide known as Fucoidan.  Fucoidan is a sulfated polysaccharide that possesses a complex structure.  Its chief components include a sulfuric esterified L-fucose, and the trace elements of galactose, xylose, and glucuronic acid.

Japanese researchers discovered that a polysaccharide known as Fucoidan found in kombu and other types of brown seaweed (wakame, mozuku, and hijiki), causes various types of established cancer cell lines to self-destruct.  Examples of cancer cell strains where this self-destruct phenomenon was observed include human acute promyelocytic leukemia cells (HL-60 cell line), human stomach cancer cells (AGS cell line), human colon cancer cells (HCT-116 cell line), and cancer cells of the descending colon (SW-480 cell line/WiDr cell line).  Moreover, this self-destruction was observed to take place without affecting normal cells.  Currently, efforts are underway to clarify the precise mechanism by which this phenomenon occurs.

From ancient times (dating from the Jomon era, approximately before the 2nd Century BC onwards), brown seaweed has been a mainstay of the traditional Japanese diet.  The inhabitants of Okinawa, Japan enjoy some of the highest life expectancies in Japan.  Okinawans happen to have one of the highest per capita consumption rates of kombu — 1 gram per person per day.  It is noteworthy that the cancer death rate in Okinawa is the lowest of all the prefectures in Japan.

The average per capita consumption rate of kombu in Japan is approximately 0.5 grams per day.  Such a serving of kombu would include roughly 5 mg of Fucoidan.  In vivo experiments are currently underway to determine the effects of Fucoidan within living organisms.  If it is confirmed that Fucoidan can help bring about apoptosis solely in cancer cells that are multiplying at uncontrolled rates, we would then have within our reach the long-dreamed-of cancer drug — one that does its job without causing adverse side effects.

1. Hepatology Research, Volume 35, Issue 3, Pages 190-198
A. Saito, M. Yoneda, S. Yokohama, M. Okada, M. Haneda, K. Nakamura

v4syhwg57i

Incoming search terms for the article:

• zradical (53)
• zradical com (8)
• z radical (6)
• what does zradical do (4)
• z-radical (3)
• xymetri (2)
• zradical information (1)
• zradical for children (1)
• zradical nutrition facts (1)
• zradical xymetri (1)