Cell Phones and Brain Tumors Are Linked, But Will We Do Anything About It?

Have you ever wondered if your mobile phone is giving you cancer? Legally speaking, there is a link. Of course, that’s only true if you live in Italy.

Studies of the effects that cell phones have on the brain or examinations of the link between phone usage and certain cancers don’t have the same clarity. Where many studies find regular cell phone usage contributes greatly to the risk of cancer and brain tumors, other research finds the device benign. The Italian verdict is one of the first positive acknowledgments of that link. Much of that can be attributed to the Italian court’s refusal to consider studies funded by telecom industries,  but realistically there are too many variables to specifically link cellphone use to a specific condition. It is incredibly likely that cellphones are making us sick. However, they are only one aspect of a modern life designed without human health in mind.

Precedence Has Been Established

The court in the Italian town of Ivrea released an April 11th ruling ordering that a businessman receive a state-funded pension after too much phone use for work caused him to develop a benign brain tumor and resulted in the loss of his hearing. Rumors and theories surrounding the dangers of cell phone usage has swirled for years, and this is a big deal. The Italian courts had previously accepted the case of a sales manager who was on a cellphone five or six hours a day, that was subsequently rejected by a trial court. This paved the way for this ruling, as lawyers for the plaintiff, Stefano Bertone and Renato Ambrosio, pointed out “For the first time in the world, a court has recognised a causal link between inappropriate use of a mobile phone and a brain tumour…” While the court ruling is still subject to an appeal, the plaintiff in the case, Roberto Romeo, will receive 500 euros per month to be paid by INAIL, a national insurance scheme covering workplace accidents.

Recommended: How to Kill Fungal Infections

So How Much is Too Much?

Cell phones have been woven into the fabric of modern life and telling people to avoid them at all costs is not realistic. But there has to be a point at which more damage has been done that the body can recover from. In the case of the plaintiff in the Italian case, Roberto Romeo, he was required to use his company mobile phone for 3 to 4 hours of every working day for 15 years. A rat study found that rats exposed to cell phone radiation nine hours a day for a two year period were more likely to develop malignant brain tumors. Another paper found that a mere 30 minutes a day of cell phone over a ten year period increased the risk of gliomas (a malignant tumor in the brain that occurs on the side of the head) by 40 percent. Yet several other significant studies have found no causal link between cellphones and brain damage, although both the U.S. and the U.K. are in the process of conducting further long-term studies.

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

Why Don’t We Have A Definitive Answer

There are many things that modern society will ignore in the name of progress, even past the point at which something needs to be done. Cell phones are an area with lots of fingers in lots of pies, and the conflicting narratives presented by these studies reinforce that. There is also science’s inability to keep up with phone technology. Before researchers have time conduct long-term studies, phone configurations have changed enough for either side to proclaim the findings of any study out of date.

Is there a clear link between cell phones and brain tumors? After eliminating all telecom funded studies, an Italian court decided there is.

Recommend Reading:
Sources:



New Pill That Can be Digitally Tracked Raises Orwellian Concerns

How much would a chocolate company pay to know exactly when you or the lady in your life is experiencing PMS symptoms in an effort to more effectively target ads? If that level of corporate involvement in your medical records upsets you, you’re not going to like the new digital ingestion tracking system approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

This new tracking system is designed to address the issue of nonadherence, where patients do not follow through on prescribed medical treatments. The treatment, in this case, is called Abilify MyCite and it’s made by Japan-based Otsuka Pharmaceuticals. The actual medication portion of the Abilify MyCite system is brand-name aripiprazole, an antipsychotic drug used for treating schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and as an add-on treatment for depression in adults. “Being able to track ingestion of medications prescribed for mental illness may be useful for some patients,” said Mitchell Mathis, M.D., director of the Division of Psychiatry Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. “The FDA supports the development and use of new technology in prescription drugs and is committed to working with companies to understand how technology might benefit patients and prescribers.”

How It Works

The pill part of the system is the simple part. Abilify MyCite comes with a web-based dashboard that allows a patient to track their actual drug ingestion, daily activity level and self-reported mood and sleep. The sensor that tracks that is roughly the size of a grain of sand and activates upon contact with fluid in the stomach. It detects and records the date and time the pill was taken and relays that to a patch worn by the patient. The patch then sends all of that to the patient’s smartphone. When the patient gives consent, caregivers or medical professionals are able to see all of this data, though the system does not register the ingestion in real time or emergencies. The patient is able to revoke those permissions at any time.

Is It Worth It?

The system itself does not actually increase drug compliance. Both Otsuka Pharmaceuticals and the FDA take care to note that the product does not fix nonadherence, and it remains to be seen if the patients with the first illnesses targeted by this medication will respond positively. While nonadherence is an expensive issue, schizophrenics and those with bipolar frequently skip medications because they don’t like the way they feel when on them or dislike the feeling of being controlled or manipulated. A pill that tracks their compliance is probably not going to change that.

Who Does This Product Work For?

Imagine a system where medical compliance is a condition of benefits without a way around it. Can a digital ingestion tracking system create a situation where your insurance charges you more for choosing not to take a prescription?

The more connected we become, the more difficult it is to keep information private. How secure will this data be? According to Kimberly Whitfield from Otsuka Pharmaceuticals public relations department, “the data is encrypted while it is stored in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant cloud environment, and the cloud service provider does not have a decryption key.” While all of these makes this information much more secure than your average social media profile, information leaks happen across every sector.

The company is clearly taking precautions, but can the information be stopped once it’s out there?

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Sulfites Kill Beneficial Bacteria According to New Study

The first scientific study to test the effects of food preservatives on beneficial bacteria has been published, and the results do not bode well for our health. Researchers from the University of Hawai‘i Maui College have found that sulfites in food preservatives, generally recognized as safe for consumption at levels of 5000 ppm (parts per million) or less, killed or inhibited the growth of beneficial bacteria at levels of 3780 ppm or less. In the words of lead researcher Dr. Sally V. Irwin,

Studies show a significant increase over the past 40 years in food allergies, obesity, and metabolic disorders that have a direct correlation to disbiosis, or changes in the microbiome…In trying to understand what in our environment may be causing this change, the use of many food preservatives and their effects on beneficial bacteria came to mind.”

What They Found

Sulfites are a food preserver found in dried fruits, wine, beer, bottled lemon and lime juices, processed meats, canned goods, and occur naturally in sauerkraut and its brine. Common sulfites include sulfur dioxide, potassium bisulfite, sodium sulfite, and sodium bisulfite. They are frequently used to stop fermentation, which is why they are most commonly associated with fermented beverages like wine.

Related: The Gut-Brain Connection – How it Affects Your Life

For this study, researchers chose four known beneficial bacteria, Lactobacillus species casei, plantarum and rhamnosus, and Streptococcus thermophilus, and tested their reactions to two different preservatives, sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite. The sulfites were in concentrations from 10 to 3780 ppm and exposed to the bacteria for six hours. After only two hours of exposure to sulfites concentrated at 250-500 ppm, all four types of bacteria tested showed no increase or a substantial decrease in cell numbers when compared to the sulfite-free control.

Related: Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease

These results should not be surprising, as this is what sulfites are designed to do. They are added to stop fermentation, the development of bacteria. Many modern innovations do what they are designed to do, but there is often a resistance to believe that what they do could also be harmful. Antibiotic-resistant superbugs are on track to kill more people than cancer by 2050, a result of our indiscriminate love affair with antibiotics, that miracle of modern medicine.

The Implications

This is a preliminary study in that its subjects are lab-grown bacteria and were exposed to the sulfites for a fraction of the time that occurs during real-world digestion. Yet the damage to that beneficial bacteria was clear.

Related: Gluten, Candida, Leaky Gut Syndrome, and Autoimmune Diseases

We depend on our beneficial bacteria. Without it, we are more vulnerable to serious infections, autoimmune disease, obesity, and numerous other damaging health conditions. This study solidly links what is in our food with one of the most serious health issues we face – the decline of our gut microbe diversity. It’s also the only study directly dealing with the effect of food additives on beneficial bacteria.

But there used to be one guy talking about the damage antibiotics do. Now we have a wealth of information confirming just how much damage messing with the gut microbiome can do.

Sources:



Should We Peel Fruits & Veggies to Minimize Pesticide Exposure?

The best way to remove chemical residue from fruit has been found, and it’s peeling them. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts – Amherst tested three different liquids to soak apples in for 12-15 minutes, the bleach solution that farmers dunk fruit in after harvest, a liquid slurry of baking soda, and plain old tap water. The baking soda was the best option for receiving surface pesticides. Even though the baking soda was effective, researchers concluded that peeling is the best way to avoid fungicides and pesticides as it’s the only way to remove some of the chemicals the fruit absorbs.

Things to Be Concerned About

Twenty percent of the fungicides and four percent of the pesticides scientists treated the apples with soaked into the flesh of the apple, and the only way to remove that is to peel it. For this experiment, the apples were soaked in fungicide for 24 hours. This is not a faithful recreation of conventional apple growing practices, and it’s likely that real-world apples have absorbed even more fungicide than those used in the experiment.

Of the three solutions, the one used by the agricultural industry is unlikely to have any effect at all. The positive baking soda results took 12-15 minutes to manifest. Apples are washed in a Clorox bleach solution for 2 minutes post-harvest, but researchers found that it did not effectively remove any pesticides. Organic produce can also use pesticides, and there’s no way to truly eliminate them, nor do standard industry practices suggest that considering consumer health is a priority.

Take it Off…

The solution offered again and again? Peel your fruits and vegetables! But this is problematic from a health viewpoint. That’s where a lot of the nutrients are, including much of the all-important fiber. Fiber is a critical component in fruit, as it’s the fiber that slows down the body’s absorption of the fruit’s natural sugars.

Fiber is not the only nutrient you reduce when the apple is peeled. A peeled apple has less potassium and vitamin C. It’s also missing compounds called triterpenoids that kill cancer cells and prevent the new cancer cells from growing. The peel also includes antioxidants that help prevent the oxidation of polyunsaturated fats.

Most Options Are Not Great Options

Don’t want any agricultural chemicals on your food? Only buy organic…but even that isn’t a failsafe. Organic food is still sprayed with approved pesticides, and our environment is so saturated with glyphosate that the likelihood of your organic apple coming into contact with it is quite good. Other solutions take away as much as the help. Peeling can eliminate a greater amount of pesticides, but it comes at the expense of health benefits. Safe food options are disappearing. Are we worried yet?

Recommended:
Sources:



Pollution Linked to Nine Million Deaths A Year Worldwide

A new report from the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health found that nine million people died from pollution in 2015. Of that nine million, air pollution causes the majority of them, 6.5 million deaths a year. Water and workplace pollution trail behind with 1.8 and 0.8 million deaths respectively. The highest percentage of pollution deaths occur in countries rapidly industrializing, like India (24.5% of all deaths are from pollution), Pakistan (21.9%), and China (19.5%). These deaths are a big deal, and worldwide costs associated with treating and supporting those affected by the pollution have reached 4.6 trillion dollars.

So who should be worrying about this? The majority of the people reading this are living in developed nations like the United States, where 5.7 percent of deaths are a result of pollution. Long-term exposures or high levels of air pollution lead to decreased lung function, damaged respiratory function, an increased workload for the heart, and other conditions like asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and possibly cancer. The list of people the pollution effects include pregnant women, the elderly, children under 14, people who work or exercise vigorously outdoors, and anyone with heart or lung disease. Even if you’re not in this growing list of affected people in a rapidly developing country, recent climate events make it clear that we are not ready for many of the challenges of our own making.

What Does Increased Pollution Mean?

Are there any solutions? Recent studies have suggested that B vitamins can offset air pollution. There are ways to efficiently detox the accumulation of heavy metals due to pollution, from activated charcoal to superfoods like chlorella. There are filters available for water and air, plants that purify the air more effectively, and salt lamps to manage indoor air. But to what end? This new report supports the view that we are still not doing enough to combat pollution.

According to Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, one of the co-chairs of the commission behind this report, This is not traditional pollution that is killing people in these rapidly industrializing lower-middle-income countries, it’s urban industrial air pollution — chemical pollution…”

Radioactive cesium isotopes from the nuclear disaster the so-called fingerprint of Fukushima in 2011 reached Canadian waters within two years. What will happen with the well documented Chinese air problems? This is a new reality, and we still don’t know what will happen.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Why Are Our Natural Pollinators in Decline?

The loss of biodiversity is a worldwide, urgent crisis. Plant biodiversity is closely connected to insect biodiversity because pollinators assist the plants with reproduction and genetic variation. Research shows that commercial honey bee populations (various species) have decreased in the United States by 30-40% since 2006. Since the majority of food production relies on honey bees, it is important to determine the causes of these changes and implement the necessary solutions, such as reducing pesticide use on crops and implementing more organic agricultural practices. As consumers, our choices directly impact the environment, because many environmental issues are connected to the mass production of food and other goods. Sometimes we do not know about these issues until it is too late to fix them.

Pollinator Decline

The process used to detect declines in insect pollinator populations is very challenging, expensive, and time-consuming. It can take up to 20 years of monitoring to detect a small decline per year in some species such as birds, fish, and plants. With insects, it can take even longer due to the necessary sample sites, and long-term studies to determine the abundance and diversity of species, and it can be difficult to identify specimens to the species level. Although it would require a large investment to establish accurate pollinator monitoring programs at the regional, national or international level, it is worth the investment.

Agricultural and Ecological Value of Pollinators

The value of worldwide insect-pollinated crops is estimated around $200 billion per year. Insect pollination increases the size, quality, and quantity of fruit and/or seeds for the majority of our major crops worldwide. Global agricultural production will decrease significantly if pollinators drastically decline in number, requiring extensive investment to increase their numbers. If too many pollinator species were to go extinct, it would also require the use of alternative pollination techniques in order to maintain current food production rates. This would increase prices for consumers because other pollinating methods, hand or mechanical, are very expensive. It would be advisable to proactively prevent the decline of pollinators before the declines reach crisis levels.

Most of the insect decline research has been focused on “managed” honey bee colonies that are raised by beekeepers. However, there are not many programs that monitor the status of native bees and other wild pollinators such as flies, wasps, moths, and butterflies, which actually can be more effective pollinators of crops than managed honey bees.

In addition to pollinating crops, approximately 75 to 90 percent of all flowering plants are pollinated with the help of insects and other animals. Insects and flowering plants also serve a vital role as a food source for many species within ecosystems around the world. The ecological value of the insects and the plants they pollinate cannot truly be quantified, but it exceeds the contributions to agriculture.

Organic Certification

One potential solution to pollinator species decline would be an increase in organic agricultural practices. Overall, these practices are safer for pollinators and other wildlife. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a certification process for organic products. In order to qualify for certification, crops must meet a strict set of criteria established by the National Organic Program (NOP) which preserve natural resources and biodiversity (see USDA under “sources” for details). In general, USDA organic crops cannot be exposed to:

  • Radiation
  • Sewage
  • Prohibited pesticides
  • Synthetic fertilizers
  • Genetic modification

Organic livestock regulations include:

  • No antibiotics
  • No growth hormones
  • Fed 100% organic diet
  • Have access to the outdoors
  • Meet animal health and welfare standards

If a multi-ingredient product is labeled USDA organic, it must contain at least 95% organic ingredients. Residue testing is done on an annual basis by accredited certifying agents. The USDA Organic Seal is a leading global standard in organic agriculture.

Colony Collapse Disorder

The causes of pollinator decline are still being researched. Although there has been a decline in pollinators for many years, colony collapse disorder (CCD) was first reported in the U.S. in 2006, when whole colonies of adult honey bees began mysteriously dying. Studies have linked CCD to viruses, bacteria, fungi, mites, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, habitat loss and cross-country transport. Pollinators also become malnourished as their habitat is destroyed, and as climate change leads to changes in flowering seasons.

Impacts of Chemicals Used in Conventional Agriculture

Herbicides

Although honey bees have received the most attention, species such as the monarch butterfly have also drastically declined since 2012. As herbicides destroy their larval food source, milkweed, they experience nutritional deficiency and habitat loss. Monarchs are known for their long migrations, and they require sufficient nutrition to survive such journeys. Pollinators are dependent on vegetation, just as vegetation is dependent on pollinators. When herbicides kill targeted plants, there are unintended consequences on many other plant species and the animals that rely on their presence. One example of this is the monarch butterfly, which has been negatively affected by the loss of milkweed. Many species of insects rely on very specific plant species for nectar, pollen, and nesting material. Applying herbicides can reduce the abundance of arthropods in general, which includes butterflies, moths, true bugs, flies, and bees among many others. Not only does this reduce insect biodiversity, but the other animals that feed on them, such as birds are also affected. Overall, it is important to minimize the areas of herbicide exposure, especially to native habitat surrounding croplands. It is also important to use selective herbicides that will not affect non-targeted plant species.

Fungicides

Some studies have shown that fungicide presence can contribute to CCD in honey bees. In contrast, other studies have shown that a fungal gut infection, could be the cause of the collapse in bee populations and that a fungicide could reduce CCD. It most likely depends on the type of fungicide used, and whether it is applied to crops or given directly to hives to treat a fungal infection. Because CCD is so complex, continued research is necessary to determine whether a fungicide is one potential solution, but it appears there are positive and negative effects.

Insecticides

A class of insecticides called neonicotinoids have been linked to immune suppression in honey bees, which allows for an increase in fungal infections. The European Commission has banned three neonicotinoids while further research is conducted; however, it is known that neonicotinoids can remain in the environment for at least six years. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted studies on the residues of neonicotinoids in agricultural environments, there have not been very many studies focused on the levels existing in water sources, due to insecticide runoff. Most species rely on natural water sources for survival, in which case, these chemicals could potentially be found in many animal species.

Two types of neonicotinoids are major pesticides used to treat corn and soybeans in the United States. In addition, plants used for backyard landscaping, that are sold in commercial nurseries, may also have been grown using these pesticides. The toxicity for oral exposure in bees is much higher than contact exposure. For instance, according to the calculated LD50 (lethal dose, and the amount it takes to kill half of an adult hive in 24 hours), and the quantities applied to corn fields, the amount of neonicotinoid in one corn kernel would be enough to kill an entire colony. These findings suggest that testing the drinking water of bees is an important factor when determining the level of toxicity, which typically is underreported. The repeated exposure to various pesticides in nectar, pollen and drinking water, have a direct effect on the decline of bees and other insects.

The costs of neonicotinoids outweigh the benefits which the EPA may have overestimated. They may increase the yield of some crops, but have the potential to reduce biodiversity, negatively impacting species at multiple levels in ecosystems. Ultimately, a growing human population increases the demand for pollinator-dependent crops to meet worldwide consumer needs, yet pollinators continue to decline. This imbalance between supply and demand would most likely cause a food shortage, increasing the price of food for consumers.

Fertilizers

The use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers instead of manure-based methods can cause significant nitrate contamination of nearby freshwater systems. The use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers allows farmers to continually grow crops on the same land without waiting for nutrients to return naturally. This appears to be a practical solution to feeding a growing human population; however, studies also show that there is enough food produced annually to feed the current population, it is just an issue of distribution and waste. While issues surrounding food distribution and waste production are very complex, the simple solution of overusing synthetic fertilizers is having negative long-term effects on the environment. Runoff from agricultural land can cause “dead zones” in bodies of water where the oxygen is depleted due to eutrophication (algal bloom, death, and decomposition). This leads to the collapse of local ecosystems and loss of biodiversity because species, such as fish and other invertebrates can die from a lack of oxygen.

Organic methods have a lower yield than conventional methods, which is partially due to the prohibited use of synthetic fertilizers. However, the price we pay for ecosystem damage caused by excess nitrogen is tremendous. One potential solution is the use of leguminous cover crops, such as beans, peas, and clover, to perform nitrogen fixation at a sufficient rate to increase crop yield. Legumes are known for attracting nitrogen-fixing bacteria to their roots. When used as a cover crop (planted over the soil in the offseason), they can help to add nutrients and organic matter to the soil for future crops while also reducing erosion.

Crop yield and GMOs

Reducing wasted food is key to meeting the food demands of the world. Americans waste 215 meals per person, per year. Some argue that in order to use organic farming methods to produce enough food for the world, it would require more land to produce the same amount of food, which would lead to further deforestation and biodiversity loss. Another argument is that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) help us provide enough food for the world, and genetic modification is not permitted by USDA organic certification. However, organic agriculture could produce enough food for the current population, and a potentially larger population without increasing the land use, partially through the use of leguminous cover crops for nitrogen fixation. Organic agricultural methods around the globe do have a lower yield than conventional; however, it depends on the context, and can range from 5 to 34 percent lower. It depends on the crop type, growing conditions and standard of organic practices. Perennial plants, fruit trees, legumes and oilseed crops are the best candidates for high output under organic conditions. Growing a diverse selection of crops, that are grown without insecticides or genetic modification, can protect pollinator populations while maximizing crop yield.

Instead of debating crop yield between conventional and organic agriculture, the focus should be shifted to how much food is wasted, and learning how to be more resourceful with our food, in order to supply enough nutrition worldwide. In this way, we can utilize safer farming methods that support biodiversity while still providing food for a growing human population.

Related: Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods

Conclusion

It is estimated that organic food sales have increased by approximately 20 percent each year since 1990. As consumers continue to become more educated about organic certification and the ways it can affect the environment and their health, the demand will most likely increase. From a long-term environmental perspective, we cannot afford to continue to use conventional agricultural practices. The price premium on organic products today should be considered an investment in the future for our planet and our ability to feed the world.

If insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and synthetic fertilizers have been shown to negatively affect pollinators and many other species, it can be assumed that the use of USDA organic standards in agriculture could be one way to decrease the rate of decline in wildlife populations, and preserve biodiversity. The majority of worldwide crops rely on pollinators for efficient yield. If pollinator populations continue to decline, there will be a significant reduction in food production and an increase in prices for consumers. Purchasing organic foods directly supports an industry using methods found to be safer for bees and other pollinator species. It also meets the demand for higher standards in production and health. If consumers demand certified organic garden and landscaping plants, or at least plants grown without neonicotinoid pesticides, they can assist local pollinator populations with a safe food source. As a result of this demand, the agriculture and retail industries will respond, and organic options will become more affordable and readily available.

Sources:



WHO Says the World Will Run Out of Antibiotics Able to Treat Bacteria Superbugs

Antibiotic-resistant infections are on the rise. The World Health Organization released a list of the 12 different bacteria strains that could pose the highest level of risk to human health. The list, divided into three sections based on how critical the threat is, represents health problems the WHO feels we should be solving. Conventional medicine is not likely to have those answers. WHO, publishers of the “priority pathogens” list, reports that there are not enough new antibiotics in development to adequately combat these microbes, and the rate that bacteria develops resistance at will outpace new drug development soon.

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Are and Will Be a Big Problem

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria is scary. The leading cause of death worldwide, ischaemic heart disease, claims 8 million people. If we continue at the current rate of prescribing antibiotics for people, animals, and livestock, 10 million people will die of antibiotic-resistant infections by the year 2050. WHO’s top three “priority pathogens” are Acinetobacter baumannii, pseudomonas aeruginosa, and enterobacteriaceae (E.coli). All three of these infections have already demonstrated significant resistance to antibiotic treatments.

Related: After Taking Antibiotics, This Is What You Need To Do To Restore Healthy Intestinal Flora

What’s Going On With the New Drugs?

So let’s talk about the new antibiotics. Of the 51 antibiotics and biologicals currently in development to treat these “priority pathogens,” the WHO only classifies 8 of them as innovative. The other 25 are modifications of existing treatments and will only function as stop-gap measures.

Why aren’t more antibiotics in the pipeline when numerous health organizations have explicitly stated the worldwide need for them? There isn’t a good answer to that questions, although profit margins are the most likely answer. Antibiotics aren’t meant for long-term use, and the decade long research and development period affects pharmaceutical companies’ return on investment. Drug companies are also reluctant to manufacture orally administered antibiotics, their most accessible form.

Fourteen percent of the drugs currently in development make it to market, and medical professionals argue that needs to change. But fewer drug hurdles are not the answer. More antibiotics aren’t the answer either.

Related: How C. Diff Infections Decrease with Fewer Antibiotics

Why Antibiotics Don’t Work Even When They Work

Doctors did not regularly prescribe colistin. Although powerful, it’s an older drug and causes severe kidney damage. That changed when resistance to modern, more highly-regarded antibiotics became more commonplace, and colistin became the antibiotics of last resort. Now that has changed. Chinese pig farmers used colistin when doctors stopped prescribing it, and the first colistin resistant gene was recorded in November 2015. The gene has spread worldwide, and scientists and healthcare professionals don’t have an answer yet.

Related: How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials

Should antibiotics be part of the answer though? Drug-resistant strains of bacteria generally occur in people who are already sick and those with weak immune systems. Sick people are given antibiotics. Antibiotics eliminate beneficial bacteria, and damage the immune system. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria has developed in response to an overuse of antibiotics. It’s naive to imagine a world where we go cold-turkey on antibiotics, but every antibiotic usage is giving like the strongest bacteria another opportunity to figure out to survive treatment.

A Few Tips to Not Need Antibiotics

The first step to getting rid of antibiotic use is build up your immune system naturally. If you don’t get sick, there is no need for antibiotics. To do that, you need an immune system ready to take on anything. It’s easier to make and stick to a series of small changes, and there are plenty ways you can start building your immune system today with items found at the average grocery store.

Certain herbs, especially garlic, are your new best friends.

Oregano, calendula, echinacea, and goldenseal are some relatively accessible herbs that boost the immune system. Even easier to find? Garlic. Raw garlic can be added to salads, in snacks, and on dinners. Infections want an easy target, and the allicin found in garlic is a powerful deterrent to those harmful pathogens. If you have a mouth infection, chewing on raw garlic can be beneficial.

Tighten up your diet, and learn to love salads.

Eat as many whole, homemade foods as possible. Your meal prep should become a vegetable version of the will it float game from the Letterman version of the Late Show – Will. It. Salad! The answer is usually yes. The more fresh vegetables, the better. My favorite way to break up that monotony is with homemade hummus, quinoa, fresh tomatoes, and lemon juice. Refined sugar in its many forms damages the body, feeding fungus, bacteria, viruses, and other parasites while lowering the body’s immune system.

Prioritize your sleep.

Sleep deprivation causes an estimated 100,000 car accidents every year. Businesses in U.S. lose 411 million dollars a year due to a lack of sleep. It also makes you more susceptible to pathogens and infection. Lack of sleep suppresses the immune system. According to Diwakar Balachandran, director of the Sleep Center at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, “A lot of studies show our T-cells go down if we are sleep deprived…and inflammatory cytokines go up.” The ultimate in sleeping resets is electronic-free camping for a few days, but most people aren’t able to regularly do that. Popular herbal treatments include B vitamins, healthy fats like vitamin D, tryptophan, valerian root, and chamomile root.

Related: Some Antibiotics May Blind, Cripple, or Kill You

The Creation of Superbugs and Superweeds – Another Strike Against GMOs

Supporters of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) say that they lower the use of pesticides and benefit the environment. However, the record demonstrates that there are growing negative environmental impacts from GMOs. One major problem caused by the widespread use of GMOs, and the herbicides and pesticides they were developed to withstand, is the emergence of superweeds and superbugs – plants and insects now resistant to these chemicals.” – GMO Inside.org

Personal Preparedness

The rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and climate change are linked by more than factory farming. We need to rethink the way we prepare for both of these things. The WHO is looking for antibiotics, but antibiotics have played a critical part in developing these bugs. Our food and environment dictate our health, and we have more control over that than modern medicine would have you believe.

Related Reading:
Sources: