Super Immunity (7 page)

Consider another blood pressure drug class: beta-blockers. In the large POISE (Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation) trial, conducted in twenty-three countries, all 8,351 enrolled patients were randomized to either metoprolol (a common beta-blocker) or a placebo. After thirty days, overall mortality (death) was higher in the group treated with the beta-blocker—3.1 percent vs. 2.3 percent—and the drug-treated group had almost double the incidence of stroke.
⁹
Additional analyses did not identify any subgroup that benefited from metoprolol. The artificially lowered blood pressure had clear risks; the drugs caused more harm than good.

In fact, there is no data to suggest that these drugs prevent heart attacks in healthy people with only mildly elevated blood pressure. The latest review of the evidence was presented in a 2007 issue of the
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
.
¹⁰
Despite three decades of physicians using beta-blockers for hypertension, the authors of the state-of-the-art paper noted that no study has shown that beta-blocker therapy reduces death in hypertensive patients, even when compared with placebos. A review conducted by the highly respected Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found essentially the same thing: the prescriptions written for beta-blockers to lower blood pressure do not extend lifespan.
¹¹

The liberal use of medications in an attempt to reduce the effects of our toxic diet-style has its own set of unique risks, as these research findings suggest. Medications to lower blood pressure also cause fatigue, lightheadedness, and loss of balance. They can lead to falls in the elderly, potentially causing hip fractures, and they can lower diastolic blood pressure excessively (as they lower systolic), which increases the potential for cardiac arrhythmias, potentially leading to death.
¹²
Blood pressure medications that lower diastolic blood pressure too far have also been shown to increase the occurrence of atrial fibrillation, another serious rhythm disturbance of the heart.
¹³

In the elderly, moderately high blood pressure is not a risk factor for increased mortality.
Low
blood pressure, on the other hand, is: blood pressure values below 140/70 are associated with excess mortality in the elderly, and this is especially noticeable when drugs push down the diastolic blood pressure too low.
¹⁴

Systolic pressure is the first, higher number; it represents the force of the heart pumping against the resistance offered by the blood vessel walls. Diastolic pressure is the second, lower number; it represents the pressure against the blood vessels during the relaxation and filling phase of the heartbeat. When blood vessels stiffen with disease and aging, the systolic rises because the vessels do not expand during systole as they should, and the diastolic falls because the blood vessel wall no longer contracts inward as it should.

Because coronary artery filling occurs during diastole, people with coronary artery disease (CAD) are at increased risk for coronary ischemic events (caused by insufficient blood flow and oxygenation) when diastolic blood pressure falls below a certain level. This is because when diastolic blood pressure is too low, the heart does not refill adequately with blood during diastole. When international researchers studied 22,000 patients in a fourteen-country study, they found a striking increase in heart attacks in those whose medications brought the diastolic blood pressure below 84. Those with a diastolic blood pressure below 60 had three times the occurrence of heart attacks compared to those with a diastolic above 80! We often have to look outside this country for some balanced research.

Whether it's cold medications, antibiotics, pain medications, immunizations, or blood pressure or diabetic medications, the false perception is that these are life-saving interventions dramatically extending our lives. Our confusion is understandable: generally speaking, drug studies are designed to hide potential side effects, and the long-term negative outcomes from drug use are most often hidden or unknown. The side effects and risks of using
multiple
drugs at the same time are even greater. The dangers of this major health issue are profound, rarely investigated, and impossible to predict. In recent years, more and more emergency room visits and hospital admissions are due to the effects of medications. For example, consider the following limited list:
¹⁵

Our bodies are highly resilient and self-repairing, but medicines cannot enable us to escape the biological laws of cause and effect. When we damage ourselves with exposure to toxic, disease-causing diets, we develop diseases.

Medicines cannot drug away the
cellular defects that develop in response to
improper nutrition throughout life.

The point here is that we have to be responsible for our own health and rely on vigilant avoidance of the underlying causes of disease. We need to adopt scientifically supported superior nutrition and rid ourselves of the idea that doctors and pharmaceutical companies are our saviors, capable of enabling us to live long and productive lives.

The Pros and Cons of Flu Shots

All medical interventions have a benefit-to-risk ratio. Each person has to weigh the supposed benefits against the potential risks. Often the long-term risks of medications are not clearly delineated, however, and most of the time they are not adequately investigated. The supposed benefits are almost always exaggerated by pharmaceutical companies and the authorities in their sphere of influence in medicine and government.

Flu vaccines have benefits and risks as well. Researchers and physicians study these issues and attempt to ascertain if the benefits outweigh the risks, but no scientific person studying this issue would conclude that immunizations are
without
risk. So to consider whether getting vaccinated against the flu is wise and advisable, we have to look at how effective flu shots are and then weigh that against the known (and potential additional unknown) risks. When reviewing this information, keep in mind that the dangers of the flu are highest in sickly and poorly nourished individuals; healthy people have little to fear from the simple flu.

Flu Facts

We are told that about 10 percent of U.S. residents get influenza each year. About 100,000 are hospitalized, and it is most often quoted that 36,000 Americans die from complications of the flu each year. But that is an older statistic that is now questioned. A recent study, in government reports, provides updated estimates of the range of flu-associated deaths that occurred in the United States during the three decades prior to 2007. The CDC estimates that from the 1976–1977 season to the 2006–2007 season, flu-associated deaths ranged from a low of about 3,000 per year to a high of about 49,000. So an average of 25,000 is more accurate.
¹⁶
The biggest complication and cause of death in someone with the flu is bacterial pneumonia, which develops most often in elderly or immunosuppressed individuals. The symptoms of the flu include:

• High fever

• Headache

• Extreme fatigue

• Muscle aches

• Cough, sore throat, nasal congestion (common but not universal)

• Gastrointestinal symptoms, such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (more common in children)

Of these symptoms, it is primarily severe headaches and muscle aches that usually differentiate the flu from other viral illnesses (such as colds).

People stay contagious for about a week after contracting the standard flu. The good news is that, if you are generally healthy and eat a healthy diet, consuming a high percentage of your calories from fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts, you need not panic. The flu is not a dangerous disease in healthy individuals. Even the more virulent and dangerous flu strains, such as the avian flu, stand little chance against a truly healthy immune system.

Forty percent of Americans die of heart attacks and strokes, but almost all of these deaths are avoidable with excellent nutrition. About 35 percent of all Americans die of cancer; likewise, the vast majority of these deaths are the result of poor nutrition. Indeed, the premise of this book is that today's epidemic of cancer is not predominantly genetic; rather, it is mostly the result of nutritionally handicapped immune systems. When we eat a nutrient-scarce diet, diseases flourish. With nutritional excellence, our body becomes a miraculous, disease-resistant organism. The flu is no exception.

The Purported Benefits of Flu Shots

The issue is not whether the flu can be harmful and even in rare cases cause death; we know it can. The issue is how much of that morbidity and mortality can be reduced by vaccination. The influenza vaccine is frequently cited as a means to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with infection, and the CDC (U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) now recommends universal influenza vaccination for all individuals starting at age six months or older. But how effective is the vaccination?

For the first time, the CDC's recommendations now include healthy adults who are not in contact with individuals at high risk for the complications of influenza. The recommendation for vaccinating healthy adults is built upon several assumptions:

• The vaccine will reduce the number of cases of influenza.

• The vaccine will reduce complications of influenza.

• The vaccine will reduce the transmission of influenza.

• The vaccine will accomplish these goals
safely
.

Over 200 separate viruses cause the flu and flulike illnesses whose symptoms include fever, cough, headaches, body aches and pains, and a runny nose. Even with the best-case scenario, during years when the most prevalent strains of influenza A and B have been correctly guessed at and included for the following season in the design of the vaccine, the flu shot still covers less than 10 percent of the circulating viruses creating these illnesses. In the real world, the viral strains that are chosen for the vaccine simply cannot be an exact match with those circulating; only a partial match is ever achieved. So how effective is flu vaccine at preventing flu?

Moreover, can the vaccine prevent
complications
of influenza, which occur very rarely among adults without chronic illness? The best way we have to answer these questions is to look at the current analysis from the earlier-cited, highly respected Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which investigates such issues. Cochrane finds weak evidence of vaccine efficacy.
¹⁷

These researchers examined medical databases through June 2010 for randomized, controlled trials of influenza vaccines. Nonrandomized trials were also included if they provided safety data regarding the vaccine. The main study outcome was the number of influenza infections and the seriousness of infection symptoms. Researchers also followed rates of influenza complications and the number of working days lost. Finally, the risk for adverse events associated with the influenza vaccine was evaluated. The review included fifty studies involving over 70,000 participants. Considering how avidly our U.S. health authorities promote the flu vaccine, the findings were surprising: this independent analysis of the data revealed that vaccine use did
not
affect the number of people hospitalized or days lost from work. Furthermore, none of the different influenza vaccines had a significant effect in reducing the risk of complications of influenza among healthy adults.

These investigators also reviewed the risk for serious adverse events associated with the use of the influenza vaccine. The review determined that the vaccine may promote an additional 1.6 cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome for each million vaccinations given. Guillain-Barré syndrome is a nerve disorder that starts as loss of sensation and then progresses to muscle weakness and paralysis, including inability to breathe.

Overall, the review found the evidence for universal vaccination to be underwhelming and were critical of the CDC's recommendations for healthy adults.

The Cochrane review made it clear that about half the trials reviewed were funded by the vaccine companies and observed that, in such cases, the results are questionable, because such trials include only ideal viral-matching conditions and also limit the tracking of harm. Cochrane investigators noted widespread manipulation of the conclusions in such vaccine-manufacturer-funded studies. But even when looking at these biased studies, where the vaccine was well matched to the circulating virus, we see that vaccination against influenza was far from fully protective against infection, that the vaccine did not significantly impact the number of days of work missed, and that it did not prevent complications of influenza.