Have You Been Hoodwinked by This Dangerous "Medical Con Artist"? This "Mafia-like" company conned the world into popularizing this treatment that has a proven link to paralysis and death. Now even this leading medical journal is suggesting you boycott this company until "missing information" is supplied...

Story at-a-glance

• St. Louis County, Missouri hospital employees are required to get a flu shot, or they will become ineligible for a raise in 2013, as well as face corrective action in the form of a written warning.
• In Switzerland, some health care workers are not only personally refusing to get vaccinated for the flu, but they’re reluctant to offer the vaccine to their patients either, due to lack of effectiveness data and side effect concerns.
• The flu vaccine is, at best, only effective against influenza A and B, which represents only about 10 percent of all circulating viruses. This means that even if you get a flu shot, and it happens to be effective for you, you’re still completely vulnerable to 90 percent of the flu-like viruses that are circulating in your area…
• State health department officials are increasingly joining with medical trade association lobbyists in many states to severely restrict or eliminate medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions for not only health care workers but all children and their parents.By Dr. Mercola
  

  An employee of Mercy Hospital in West St. Louis County, Missouri recently spoke with CNN about her frustrations surrounding their flu shot policy.¹
  Employees are required to get a flu shot, or they will become ineligible for a raise in 2013, as well as face corrective action in the form of a written warning.
  Despite being happy with her job otherwise, this particular employee noted well-founded fears over proven adverse reactions linked to the shot, and feels her personal freedoms are being violated.
  It's a sentiment echoed not only across the United States, but also around the globe, as health care workers are increasingly being asked to get a flu shot against their will – or forfeit their jobs.

  Health Care Workers Are Refusing Flu Shots and Are Hesitant to Offer Them

  In Switzerland, some health care workers are not only personally refusing to get vaccinated for the flu, but they're reluctant to offer the vaccine to their patients either. Teaching hospitals in Geneva, Switzerland led a study last year that found many health care workers viewed the seasonal flu as "a benign disease not really requiring any special [prevention] effort."
  Others believe the risks and lack of proven effectiveness raise questions over the flu shot recommendations. As Swissinfo reported:²
  

  "Pascal Büchler is a homeopathic physician in Yverdon-les-Bains and a member of a group that offers "nuanced and critical" thoughts on vaccines.

  'I'm certainly not a dogmatic anti-vaccinist,' he says. 'But vaccines against seasonal flu have been shown to be ineffective for elderly people, who are also the greatest risk group.'

  A Swiss-German gynecologist explained to swissinfo.ch that he refuses to vaccinate pregnant women against influenza, as ordered by the Federal Office of Public Health, 'because we cannot rule out the risk of resulting fetal abnormalities.'"

  A Needle in a Haystack...

  Even if you were to overlook the risk of side effects, which I'll discuss below, getting a flu shot to prevent the flu is very much like finding a needle in a haystack. There are over 200 viruses that cause influenza and influenza-like illnesses. Both produce the same symptoms, such as fever, aches and pains, headache, cough and runny nose, so the only way a physician can tell what is actually the flu and what is another viral illness is with laboratory testing.
  The flu vaccine is, at best, only effective against influenza A and B, which represents only about 10 percent of all circulating viruses.³ This means that even if in the best case scenario you get a flu shot, and it happens to be effective for you, you're still completely vulnerable to 90 percent of the flu-like viruses that are circulating in your area...
  If you happen to come down with symptoms of the flu, it's actually far more likely that you have a flu-like illness than the actual "flu" for which the flu shot is designed against. And that doesn't even mean you're definitely protected against all flu viruses.

  Major Medical Journal Questions Flu Drug Tamiflu's Effectiveness

  Tamiflu is one of two drugs (the other is Relenza) that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends for treating the flu. The drug has also been included in a list of "essential medicines" put out by the World Health Organization (WHO).
  The CDC claims Tamiflu can shorten the duration of flu symptoms and lower your risk of complications and hospitalization, but a British Medical Journal (BMJ) open data campaign is calling on Roche, the drug's maker, to release full clinical trial reports to prove it.⁴
  In 2009, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) conducted a major review of available data and found no evidence Tamiflu can prevent healthy people with flu from suffering complications such as pneumonia.⁵ Tamiflu may shorten the bout of illness by a meager day or so, the investigators said, but it was impossible to know whether it prevents severe disease, because the published data was insufficient. In October 2012, BMJ editor in chief Fiona Godlee sent a letter to Roche board member John Bell,⁶ noting that the findings in their 2009 report could not be relied upon because:
  

  • Eight of the 10 Tamiflu trials upon which its effectiveness claims were based were never published

  • The two that had been published were funded by Roche and authored by Roche employees and Roche-paid external experts

  She further noted:
  

  "The Cochrane reviewers now know that there are at least 123 trials of Tamiflu and that the majority (60%) of patient data from Roche Phase 3 completed trials remain unpublished. There are concerns on a number of fronts: the likely overstating of effectiveness and the apparent under-reporting of potentially serious adverse effects."

  Roche made a promise to release full clinical trial reports in 2009, but has yet to do so, hence BMJ's most recent request for the full data. Meanwhile, the European Medicines Agency is investigating Roche for improper reporting of side effects, including deaths, related to Tamiflu and 18 other drugs.⁷ Side effects of Tamiflu include convulsions, delirium and delusions. Deaths in children and adults have been reported, as have neuropsychological effects such as altered behavior and nightmares. Other rare side effects such as toxic epidermal necrolysis and blindness have also been reported.

  You Might be Surprised by the Science Surrounding Flu Shots' (Lack of) Effectiveness

  The evidence against flu vaccines is rapidly mounting as well. Most people simply assume that flu shots "work," but even a cursory review of the science shows otherwise. A review published earlier this year, for instance, found that the elderly, in particular, do not appear to receive measureable value from the flu shot,⁸ which is the same conclusion reached by several previous studies. According to the authors:
  

  "Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking."

  In essence, if you're a senior, you're taking a health risk for a theoretical health benefit that can't be confirmed and, if you're a healthy adult, it's truly a shot in the dark. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines also didn't offer much protection to children over the age of 7, while the effectiveness of inactivated flu vaccine for children under 2 has also been questioned.⁹ In the latter study, only one study on flu vaccine in children under 2 could be found, despite the fact that it is now a standard recommendation. The author noted:¹⁰
  

  "It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada."

  Further, the notion that giving health care workers the flu shot will protect hospital patients from the flu is another unproven case of wishful thinking. A Cochrane Database Review—which is the gold standard for assessing the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of commonly used medical interventions – concluded:¹¹
  

  "There is no credible evidence that vaccination of healthy people under the age of 60, who are HCWs [health care workers] caring for the elderly, affects influenza complications in those cared for."

  As for the general adult population, Cochrane published the following bombshell conclusion last year:¹²
  

  "Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines.

  The review demonstrated that reliable scientific evidence confirming that influenza vaccines are effective is thin and there is plenty of reason to suspect that there may be a manipulation of conclusions when the studies are funded by drug companies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding."

  No One is Exempt From Flu Shot Risks

  Forcing a health care worker to receive a flu shot or face disciplinary action is not only an assault to their personal freedom, especially given the startling lack of proven effectiveness, but it's also a potential risk to their health.
  While infants and young children are at greatest risk, NO ONE is exempt from the potential serious complications of vaccination, one of which is Guillaine-Barre syndrome (GBS). In the video above, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), interviews a Connecticut artist and her mother, a former professor of nursing, who developed GBS after getting a seasonal flu shot in 2008 and today is permanently disabled with total body paralysis.
  This family has chosen to share their heartbreaking story to help those who have had the same experience feel less alone, and to educate others about what it means to be vaccine injured. What happened to this family is a poignant reminder of just how important it is to make well-informed decisions about vaccinations.
  The inactivated influenza vaccine has been associated with development of GBS since 1976, when an inactivated "swine flu" shot given to millions of healthy Americans caused GBS in several hundred previously healthy Americans and there were 30 deaths.¹³
  Not to mention, research published in the Journal of Virology¹⁴ in November of last year also confirmed that the seasonal flu vaccine may actually weaken children's immune systems and increase their chances of getting sick from influenza viruses not included in the vaccine, which is to say all but three! And in September, the Canadian press broke the story that new research confirms initial findings that the flu vaccine appeared to actually increase people's risk of getting sick with H1N1 "swine flu," and cause more serious bouts of illness to boot.

  Your Right to Choose is Under Attack

  It is not only health care workers who are being pressured into making a health care decision they oftentimes don't agree with...
  In the states of Connecticut and New Jersey, mandates are already in place that force parents to give their 6-month-old babies a flu vaccine or be banned from daycare. And state health department officials are increasingly joining with medical trade association lobbyists in many states to severely restrict or eliminate medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions for all children and their parents, notes Barbara Loe Fisher.
  The partnership between government health agencies and big Pharma, based on ideology, profit-making and bad science, is moving closer and closer to discriminating against those who want to exercise their right to informed consent and abstaining from participating in an ever-expanding vaccine schedule. This is a pressing issue for health care workers in the immediacy, but it's one that is quickly snowballing into the general population as well.

  Is Diabetes Triggered by the Flu Virus?

  Although most cases of diabetes (type 2) are caused by diet and lifestyle choices that cause your cells to become insulin resistant, some cases of diabetes (type 1) occur when the immune system destroys pancreatic cells needed to produce insulin.
  Because type 1 diabetes often seems to "appear" after an infection, it's been suggested a virus may trigger the disease, and cause the immune dysfunction that leads to diabetes. Now researchers have determined that the flu virus may play a role in causing both pancreatitis and diabetes in humans and animals.¹⁵ The press is using this as another scare-tactic for why you should get the flu shot... but rest assured, there is another way.

  How to Stay Flu-Free, Naturally

  Fortunately, avoiding a serious case of the flu doesn't require a flu vaccination. By following these simple guidelines, you can help keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you're far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with or, if you do get sick with the flu, you are better prepared to move through it without complications and soon return to good health.
  

  • Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I've previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency may actually be the true culprit behind the seasonality of the flu – not the flu virus itself. This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. Regularly monitor your vitamin D levels to confirm your levels are within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml.
  Ideally, you'll want to get all your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, but as a last resort you can take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. According to the latest review by Carole Baggerly (Grassrootshealth.org), adults need about 8,000 IU's a day.
  
  • Avoid Sugar and Processed Foods. Sugar impairs the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a healthy immune system is one of the most important keys to fighting off viruses and other illness. Be aware that sugar (typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup) is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.
  • Optimize Your Gut Flora. The best way to do this is avoid apply the step above by avoiding sugars, processed foods and most grains, and replacing them with healthy fats and taking regular amounts of fermented foods, which can radically improve the function of your immune system
  • Get Enough Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you're tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night's Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.
  • Have Effective Tools to Address Stress. We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness. If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique, which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma.
  • Get Regular Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. Be sure to incorporate high-intensity interval exercises like Peak Fitness into your routine.
  • Take a Good Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils that are trans fats and in processed foods as it will seriously damage your immune response.
  • Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don't use antibacterial soap for this – antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
  • Tried and True Hygiene Measures. In addition to washing your hands regularly, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze. If possible, avoid close contact with those, who are sick and, if you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.
  • Use Natural Antibiotics. Examples include oil of oregano and garlic. These work like broad-spectrum antibiotics against bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in your body. And unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, they do not appear to lead to resistance.
  • Avoid Hospitals. I'd recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you're having an emergency and need expert medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds. The best place to get plenty of rest and recover from illness that is not life threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home.

  Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Vaccine Exemptions

  With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it's critical to protect your right to informed consent and to abstain from vaccinating by exercising vaccine exemptions in state public health laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.
  

  

  Add  Internet Marketing Business Opportunities
  BE EMPOWERED NOW!
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

   

General Health Checkups and Medical Screening Tests—Do You Really Need Them?

By Dr. Mercola

Alan Cassels, a drug policy researcher at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, has written several books about the drug industry. His latest work is called Seeking Sickness: Medical Screening and the Misguided Hunt for Disease.
This book is loaded with helpful information about medical screening, and really focuses on an important topic, which is prevention.
It's been a longstanding passion of mine to prevent disease rather than to treat it, because it's so much easier to implement a preventive strategy. There is an enormous amount of effort and research invested in the traditional community into medical screening procedures.
The trouble is, conventional medicine views these medical tests as "prevention," when in fact there's nothing preventive about them at all. They're just diagnostic tools, and some aren't even all that accurate at that. Worse yet, some may be risky, and do more harm than good.

"I've been following the marketing tactics of the pharmaceutical industry for almost 18 years now," Cassels says. 
"I came upon screening partly because I started to see that a lot of people who ended up being put on certain regimes ended up there because they'd been through some screening regime – perhaps a screen for their blood cholesterol, a screen for their eyeball pressure, or even something simply as benign as screening for high blood pressure.
I started to look upstream from the pharmaceutical industry and really look at the kind of tactics that were used to entrap more and more people into drug regimes. And screening... is very pervasive."

To Screen, or Not to Screen?

A recent article in The Atlantic¹, written by Oklahoma physician John Henning Schumann, MD, brings up the issue of over-screening—medical tests that simply are not necessary, or worse, detrimental. He discusses the case of one of his patients, who brought in results obtained from a "medical screening fair" at her local church.
The test was advertised as a bargain at $129, but according to Dr. Schumann, it was a complete waste of money considering she didn't have any risk factors warranting the testing. Besides relieving her of some hard-earned money, all it did was make her anxious when she really didn't need to be.

"I love America and the free market. I love companies that make a buck with hard work and ingenuity..." he writes. "But I don't love when innocent people get fleeced in the name of bad medicine that pretends to be good. Worse yet, when it happens at church. Commercial screening companies fiendishly target churches to find parishioners looking for healthy bargains. If your local church is endorsing a "health screening fair," it must be good, right?"

Yes, churches, synagogues and other houses of worship have recently been targeted by the medical industry in an effort to increase business. This became woefully apparent last year, when the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, co-sponsored by the U.S. Health and Human Services, the Office of Minority Health, and the CDC, held an invitation-only, off the record call².
The focus of the call was on getting faith-based organizations to sponsor flu clinics with Walgreens. As an example, they cited a priest who stopped in the middle of mass to roll up his sleeve and get vaccinated, inspiring the rest of his parish to line up behind him. This has nothing to do with promoting good health. It's just another marketing shtick, and a potentially dangerous one at that. I'm sure the priest in question didn't stop to recount the many potential side effects before his flock took to the line to follow his lead.

"She didn't need these screening tests, and I'll tell you why," Dr. Schumann continues.
"As a non-smoking daily walker, her chance of having peripheral arterial disease (blockage of the leg arteries) is vanishingly small. The ultrasound of her abdomen, to search for an aneurysm of the aorta, is also a waste of money since her likelihood of having the condition borders on the absurd. The same is true for the ultrasound she received of her carotid arteries. In fact, the country's most influential (and controversial) authority on screening, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommends against all of the tests Mildred underwent as routine screening tests.

The broader issue on why excessive screening is bad is that it can lead to a cascade of obligatory follow-up costs down the line... Companies should not play on our fears to sell us unnecessary screening exams. When they do, we should be confident that we're better off not buying them."

Routine Health Checks Found to Have No Benefit

In related news, a recent study by the Cochrane Library³, the gold standard for independent medical reviews, found that:

"General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow-up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial."

This may sound shocking to many, as general health checks are typically considered to be part and parcel of early disease detection and prevention. However, after reviewing the health outcomes of nearly 183,000 people, the researchers found that, in terms of making you live longer, getting regular health check-ups doesn't appear to make a difference...
Regular screening may however increase your drug use, and you may receive a diagnosis and treatment for a condition that might never have led to any symptoms or had any impact on your longevity. According to lead researcher Lasse Krogsbøll⁴ of The Nordic Cochrane Centre in Copenhagen, Denmark:

"What we're not saying is that doctors should stop carrying out tests or offering treatment when they suspect there may be a problem. But we do think that public healthcare initiatives that are systematically offering general health checks should be resisted."

This isn't the first time researchers have concluded we may be over-testing and over-treating. In fact, over the past few years this has become increasingly studied, and most analyses concur that more testing and more aggressive treatment does not translate into reduced mortality. Naturally, there's no way to make recommendations here that could apply to everyone or even most people. Evaluating your risk factors is one important factor of course, as stated in Dr. Schumann's article. Evaluating your symptoms is another. If you're asymptomatic, maintain a healthy, active lifestyle, and don't have any risk factors, perhaps signing up for a bunch of medical tests at your local church, "just in case," is not in your best interest.

Medical Screenings—Heavily Promoted to Increase Sales of Post-Screening Activity

Alan Cassels also has something to say about this:

"[S]o much of what we consider to be disease in the orthodox medicine world has been created, has been shaped, and has really been molded by the pharmaceutical industry," he says. "And very much what we consider to be medicine is determined by the kinds of things that end in what the drug industry calls the 'drug successful visit.' Not just anything that we potentially could be sick with, but anything that any healthy person could get.

And really, screening is about looking in healthy people to find signs of disease.

I want to distinguish right off the bat that when I'm talking about screening, I'm talking about people who have no symptoms, who are otherwise healthy, and who have really no reason to consult the doctor or being told, 'You need to be proactive. You need to seek out early signs of disease. That's a good thing to do to keep yourself healthy.' People that actually have symptoms – feel a lump or whatever – and then go in for a test, that's a diagnostic test. That's something different.

I'm talking about a screening test where you're taking otherwise healthy people and trying to find signs of disease in them."

Common Cancer Screens Can Do More Harm than Good

Much like myself, Cassels research has led him to seriously question common tests like mammography for breast cancer, and the PSA test for prostate cancer. In the interview above he explains:

"[O]ne thing that we know for sure is that a lot of the activity around screening makes a lot of money for a lot of people. One example might be the whole world of mammography... [W]e're telling healthy women who have no symptoms, 'Go in every year. From the day you turn 40, go in once a year, and have your breasts radiologically screened.'

What we're not telling women is that just the act of screening involves a whole downstream potential for harm and also involves huge amounts of certain medical resources in terms of the radiologist, the surgeons, and so on.

It's a huge industry. You might say, 'Well, what's wrong with that industry if it's actually saving lives?' Well, when you sit down, and you look at the number of women that have to be screened in order to have one woman benefit, it's actually quite shocking... The best studies (these are studies that are over 10-years long and done in Canada, the U.S., and in Europe), have found that you have to screen 2,100 women every year for 11 years to prevent one death. So, to answer the question, 'Is it lifesaving?' Yes. One in 2,100 women would benefit from being screened over an 11-year period.

But at the same time, of those 2,100 women, about 600 to 700 of them will have a false-positive. They will find something unusual or something abnormal, and that will require biopsies, open surgeries, mastectomies, and so on. Not to mention the psychological harm of inflicting a cancer scare... The problem is that you're generating a huge amount of activity to save one in 2,000 women. In the best-case scenario, you're causing 600 or 700 women to have huge amounts of procedure... It seems to me that it's an awfully high cost to pay to prevent one death.

And I think that there are many, many other things that we can do to try to reduce the risk of breast cancer in women rather than telling them to get their annual mammography screen."

The male version of mammography is the annual PSA test. It's a simple blood test that measures the level of an antigen in your blood. An elevated reading could indicate that you have prostate cancer, or are at increased risk of developing prostate cancer. Or not, as the PSA test is notoriously inaccurate...

"What most men aren't being told – this is from the research that I did – is when they're given that test, the likelihood of them finding cancer cells in their prostate are fairly high," Cassels explains.

"In fact, it's directly proportional to your age. If you live to be 60 or 70 years old, there's a good chance you're going to have a 60 percent chance of having some evidence of prostate cancer. You might say, 'Wow, if you've got prostate cancer, shouldn't you do something about it?'

Well, certainly with the PSA test and its lack of specificity and accuracy, you've got 60 or 70 percent of the male population that will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime. But only about three percent of men will die from prostate cancer.

What doctors have told me is that most men will die with prostate cancer, but not because of it. And that's really kind of a mindblowing concept for a lot of people, because they think what you're saying is that, 'I can have a cancer in my body and live a perfectly, long, and healthy life.' Absolutely.

One of the things that screening is good at is finding signs of disease. What it's not very good at is finding disease that matters. In this case, having an elevated PSA level could be caused by a whole range of things. And if you're otherwise asymptomatic, going down that line of getting tested will lead to biopsies, possibly surgery, other kinds of treatment including chemotherapy, and hormone therapy. At the end of the day, a lot of the men that go through that mill end up becoming incontinent or impotent because of the treatment."

Medical Science Rarely a Slam Dunk

In related news, a recent study⁵ by Dr. John Ioannidis of the Stanford School of Medicine in California warns against placing too much faith in medical studies showing very large effects of medical treatment (benefits or harms). The massive analysis tracked the fate of thousands of studies, from the effects demonstrated in the initial study, compared to the effects elucidated in subsequent trials.
Interestingly, in 90 percent of cases where "very large" effects were initially reported, such effects shrank or vanished altogether as subsequent studies were done to confirm the results. Dr. Ioannidis told Reuters⁶:

"Our analysis suggests it is better to wait to see if these very large effects get replicated or not... Keep some healthy skepticism about claims for silver bullets, perfect cures, and huge effects."

Typically, studies reporting very significant effects are based on smaller, less reliable experiments. This is because small trials are more likely to be skewed by chance alone. The authors also point out that studies showing very large effects rarely address mortality, and are more likely to address laboratory-defined efficacy. Alas, changes in lab values does not necessarily equate to improved health... Sometimes, this kind of efficacy could actually be disastrous.
Dr. Andrew Oxman of the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services in Oslo, who wrote an editorial⁷ about the study, told Reuters⁸:

"'There are lots of examples where things start to be used and have entered the market based on surrogate outcomes and then actually proved harmful.' He mentioned the heart rhythm drugs encainide and flecainide, which for many years were given to people with acute heart attacks. But then trials showed they were actually bad for these patients. 'These drugs were by given well-meaning clinicians, but they actually killed more people than the Vietnam War did,' Oxman said.

Statins are another perfect example of this, as they are very effective at reducing your cholesterol level, yet wreak all sorts of havoc in your body while doing so. If you're not careful it may even lead to premature death. Your cholesterol numbers will probably be a-okay though, if that brings any relief to anyone, and your death will be chalked up to some other health problem.
According to Cassels:

"[W]hen you look at the big meta-analyses of statin drugs, there are about five major studies that have tens of thousands of patients in them... testing drugs like simvastatin or atorvastatin (Zocor or Lipitor). When you look at the totality of those studies, the one thing that you find is that the benefit, in terms of reduction in heart attack or stroke for people who haven't had a heart attack or stroke (we're talking primary prevention), is simply not there.

You can alter cholesterol quite easily using cholesterol-lowering drugs. But the question is, 'What's important? Having your cholesterol altered or reducing your risk and reducing the chance that you could have a heart attack?'

I think that the main thing that has happened... [is that] we focus on the numbers... when in fact, what really counts is whether you have a heart attack or stroke.

Of course, it takes long-term studies, five- and 10-year long studies, to determine whether drugs will prevent that. And certainly in the primary prevention population, you don't see any reductions. Women don't benefit from having their cholesterol altered with statins, and certainly [not] the elderly. Some of the newer research is showing that older people who have higher cholesterol actually have a protective effect from that."

Final Thoughts

Of the tens of thousands of treatments evaluated in Dr. Ioannidis study, only one stood out as a clear "slam dunk" in terms of the benefit of treatment. A respiratory intervention in newborns repeatedly demonstrated a reliable, very large drop in death rates. That really tells us something about "evidence-based medicine," doesn't it?
It's not at all as clear-cut as conventional doctors and health authorities would like us to believe. Today, I think many treatment recommendations, especially in terms of drugs and vaccines, are clearly premature and based on very flimsy evidence. The same applies to many of the medical screening tests available. The evidence of real benefit simply isn't there in many cases.

"I guess the summary statement is: go into the screening with your eyes wide open," Cassels says.

"And that is to say that it's not an emergency procedure. If you're being offered a screen of any sort whether it's a mental health screen, a screening of osteoporosis, for blood pressure, cholesterol, or for cancers, take the time to ask the questions. 'How could I be hurt by this screening?'

When you actually understand that a screening can potentially harm you, you might take a very different approach to rushing into it. You might take more time to actually do some research. And really when you do research, it's important that you look at independent sources of information.

... The United States Preventive Services Task Force—their stuff is all available on the Internet. In terms of the spectrum of trustworthiness, I would place that in the More Trustworthy category, as opposed to the other category, which might be those groups that stand to benefit from screening and over-promote and overpromise on screening's benefits. So, really, independent information is I think key, and knowing that screening can potentially harm you."

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oczZye3hpY

  Internet Marketing Business Opportunities

PreDiabetic, Post-Diabetic, Insulin Shutdown, Pancreatic Cancers: Dehydration.

As far as I understand, during the immediately prediabetic phase of function, or its post-diabetic phase of insulin shutdown, pancreatic cancers are also associated with dehydration.

I am of the opinion that type 1 diabetes --- the kind you must inject insulin to control, even though it is classified as an autoimmune disease --- is another of the many complications of dehydration.
 
 Autoimmune diseases are also dehydration produced. it seems dehydration-produced cancers are more frequent in tissues that have secretory functions, like the intestinal tract, the breast, or the pancreas. 

Other pains are also related to dehydration:

* Arthritis pain of the hand, arm, and leg joints.

* Back and neck pain.

* Migraine headaches. These should be taken as a serious indicator of " brain thirst" that herald eventual disruption of brain function, including brain tumors or degenerative diseases such as MS, Parkinson's disease, and even Alzheimer's disease. 

* Angina.

* Fibromyalgia, denoting acid buildup in the muscles and the connective tissue --- the locomotive faculties of the body.

* And more. 

Adequate rehydration should be the first step toward pain relief. Hydration is a godsend solution for these pains. Take it from me and test water as a natural painkiller.  



 It has become an established trend to silence the pains of the body with some sort of chemical without knowing the wider physiological  implications of the pain mechanism and its significant association with the level of acidity in the body. Pain means that an area is acidic. This can cause severe damage to the DNA structure of the cells within the area.

You Are In The Center Of Your Heart Msytery

Did you know, that when you body is first conceived, you actually start as one beating torodial heart field?

You begin as just a few cells… which happen to be in the shape of a tetrahedron like this:



The cells continue to divide… until the heart is formed.

What many people don't know, is that the heart begins as a toroid(see picture below)



You begin as one beating heart, one toroidal heart field.  Way before your brain even begins to form.

This same field is alive in you right now.

The question is… What's in the center of the field?

That's the mystery.

And that's what we like to poke, prod, and look at, at Silent Furnace, because the whole Universe dwells there, inside of you..

Discovered This Lucrative Solution

Our Vision, and how YOU can Get Money Today…

Our Vision, and how YOU can Get Money Today…at Empower Network is much different than any other company you’ll find in the marketing space, because the fuel that drives our vision is helping someone brand new make their first $100 online. We look out for the ‘little guys’ and live and die by the value we provide to our members.

We treat our members AS VALUED PARTNERS, always staying mindful that your #1 priority is to build your business and keep it profitable. We’ll never overwhelm you with training or distractions that you don’t need or want. Our #1 priority to help you grow – personally and financially …and make our community a place where lives are impacted and ANYONE can succeed.

Our vision is to help hundreds of thousands of network marketers, affiliate marketers and entrepreneurs have massive breakthroughs and create a permanent change in their quality of life and financial situation.



http://theinnozablog.blogspot.sg/2012/06/1-water-generation-from-thin-air-in.html

YOU CAN GET MONEY ONLINE NOW ....

GET MONEYClick here 

Increase your value ..online entrepreneurs

I was told my heart had been damaged : John Fox

Mr. John Fox's case is very unusual in that his severe case of heart disease was reversed sufficiently to make life once again normal for him—without the bypass surgery that is now in vogue. Mr. Fox is in his sixth decade of life.

He is a retired electronics engineer who has spent many highly responsible years with the Navy. Today, he is one of the 50 living Bates-Trained Natural "Vision specialists. At some point in time, he was nearly blind in one eye and losing vision in the other. He became intrigued with the Bates method of vision training because of his own needs.

As a result of his training, he is not going blind anymore and his eyesight is saved—virtually normal now.

A few years back, he was considered hypertensive. He received medication to reduce his blood pressure. He could not take the medications; they made him worse. His problems started when he suffered his heart attacks. His letter explains what happened to him and how he is better now. The highlight of this letter is that after two months of taking increased water, and a slight adjustment to his diet, in addition to his daily walks, his coronary arteries must have cleared sufficiently for him to feel normal. 

He now enjoys normal activity without having to endure any pain, and all of that without the use of any medication or suffering by-pass surgery.

Imagine that a person with such a severe heart problem as Mr. Fox could in about two months get back to normal life and not need invasive treatment even though chemical treatments failed! The proposed nature-designed approach to the problem scientifically and logically seems to depend on physiological reversal of the disease process. It's an ideal way of offering cures for some degenerative disease conditions.

BATES-FOX
Natural Vision Training
2945 North Lexington Street
Arlington Virginia 22207
Telephone 703 536 7482
Attestation: 25 March 1992

It was in the spring of 1991 when I first learned from a member of the Foundation For the Simple In Medicine the value of water as a form of medication. Six months before, I had suffered two heart attacks and had undergone angioplasty surgery. After the operation, I was prescribed heavy dosages of calcium and beta blockers, baby-aspirin, nitroglycerine (for pain), and cholesterol-reducing medicine for recovery. The angiogram before the angioplasty had shown one of the arteries of my heart was 97 percent blocked by cholesterol deposits. 

I was told my heart had been damaged.

After six months of strict attention to my prescribed "recuperation" program, I noticed that my condition was rapidly deteriorating, to the extent that I had difficulty sleeping because of pain in my left arm, back and chest, and also felt these same pains when I took my daily walks. I visualized myself going for bypass surgery at the scheduled time for reevaluation of my condition. By this time, I also suffered from serious side effects caused by the medications, such as: my prostate created retention and blocking problems; I had also developed problems with my vision and memory recall.

I first began my rehabilitation through diet by a regular intake of six to eight 8-ounce glasses of water each day for three days. I was told to drink water a half-hour before eating my daily meals. I cut off my anti-cholesterol pills, aspirin and nitroglycerine pills. Judging by the effect of the water, it seemed I did not need them. I also started taking orange juice and started using salt in my diet again (I had been on a sodium-free diet). After the first three days, I
was feeling more comfortable about all of that added water. After three weeks of gradually reducing the calcium and beta-blockers, I noticed some very favorable/ changes. Whenever I felt pain, I would drink water and /get instant relief. My diet remained the same—fruits, vegetables, chicken, fish, orange juice, and carrot juice. To get more tryptophan, I was asked to add cottage cheese and lentil soup to my diet.

Dr. Batmanghelidj requested that I take two one-hour walks (25 min. mile) a day. After the second month, I noticed no more pain—even walking up steep hills. After the fifth month, I changed my walks to 1/2 hour and increased my pace to a 15-minute mile. No constrictions were noticed during my walks and my energy had increased two-fold.

Much of my power to recall had been reestablished, and my vision returned to normal.

In October 1991, I had a series of chemical and physical tests, including x-rays, sonogram, echo-cardiogram and electrocardiogram, to determine the state of my heart. The tests showed that my heart had restored to its normal state and I did not need any form of medication to cope with my daily routine. My doctor could not believe how simply all this change had taken place.

John 0. Fox
Bates-Fox Natural Vision Training

Adding the statements of Mr. Wahby to the results presented by Mr. Fox, Mr. Paturis, Mr. Liguori, Mrs. Johnson, Col. Burmeister and Mr. Peck, one begins to recognize the fact that common tap water has medicinal values hitherto unrecognized. Water is a readily available natural medicine for some of the prevalent and very serious medical conditions that are known to kill many thousands of people every year. 

Is it heart disease or dehydration that is killing people? In my professional and scientific view, it is dehydration that is the biggest killer, more than any other condition you could imagine. The different aspects and "chemical idiosyncrasies" of each individual's body reaction to the same pattern of dehydration have received different professional labels and have been treated differently—and ineffectively.

Dehydration is the common factor. It is the difference in the "chemical blueprint" in the design of each body that initially demonstrates the signs of chronic dehydration by different outward indicators. Later in the process, other indicators of the same dehydration become apparent. The reason for this difference in the initial pattern may well be the selective process of "shower-head" emergency hydration of some cell types in the body. 

If you take a second look at the letters by Mr. Peck, Mr. Paturis and Mr. William Gray (page 152), you will see that the individuals in question had multiple problems that got better by the regulation of daily water intake. 

You are now privy to information on where the mistake lies in the creation of monstrous problems within the health care systems in scientifically advanced countries. They seem to allow the arrogant treatment of a simple dehydration of the human body by chemical mallets until real diseases are born.

*****

Letters to Doctor Batmanghelidj

Dear Dr. Batmanghelidj,
November 22,1993
I have just ordered another copy of your book on water, having given a son my first copy. I tell everybody about it and my experiences. Perhaps you would be interested.
My first son Charles, 58, who lives with me is deaf and autistic. I take him 3 or 4 days a week to a facility for the handicapped. They had been taking his blood pressure there and notified me that the doctor said he should go on medication - his BP was 140-160/100-104. I had just received your book and asked the M.D. to let me experiment for 2 weeks. Reluctantly he agreed, but warned me it was very dangerous.
I kept Charles home and used the water routine, also adding a little magnesium and potassium.
Two weeks later the nurse took his BP. and it was 106/80. She said-"The doctor will be in shortly"- evidently the M.D. didn't believe her and he checked it himself and had to admit it was so. He didn't ask me what I did, so I did not tell him about water, but if the BP. continues as it is, I will tell him.
I went on the water routine too without any particular problem in mind, but noticed that in about 10 days my tendency to get dizzy if I moved my head quickly had disappeared. I also had been unable to lower my head to flat at nights and had to have several pillows. Now lam much better, and have had only one spell in over a month: I am 82 and a 1/2.
Thank you for the work you are doing - it is much needed. 

More power to you. 

Marjori Ramsay.

*If you can find out why this doctor was not interested in discovering how Charles's mother brought his blood pressure back to normal, you will then realize why we have a health care crisis on our hands!!

*******************
Michael Peck has in the past been involved in an administrative capacity with the Foundation for the Simple in Medicine. The foundation is a medical research ("think tank") institution. At a scientific and public education level, the foundation is engaged in the introduction of the paradigm shift on water metabolism of the body in this country.
Mr Peck briefly explains his medical problems since childhood. Who in the world would have thought so many disparate medical conditions could be related, and after so many years, these conditions would disappear as a result of a simple adjustment to daily water intake? The solution to Mr. Peck's medical problems was so unique his wife also began to adopt the "treatment ritual."

MICRO INVESTMENTS, INC.
Dr. F. Batmanghelidj
25 March 1992
Foundation For The Simple In Medicine
2146 Kings Garden Way
Falls Church, Va. 22043

Dear Dr. F. Batmanghelidj,
This letter is a testimony to the merits of water as an essential part of the daily dietary requirements for good health.
I have been following your recommendations for nearly five years, and have found myself taking for granted the positive effects of water intake.
When I first started on the program I was overweight, with high blood pressure and suffering from asthma and allergies, which I have had since a small child. l had been receiving treatment for these conditions. Today, I have my weight and blood pressure under control (weight loss of approximately 30 pounds and a 10 point drop in blood pressure). The program reduced the frequency of asthma and allergy related problems, to the point of practical
nonexistence. Additionally, there were other benefits, I experienced fewer colds and flus, and generally with less severity.
I introduced this program to my wife, who had been on blood pressure medication for the past four years, and through increased water intake has recently been able to eliminate her medication.
Thanks again for your program,

Michael Peck

################################

 Michael Paturis is a fellow Rotarian. He first became aware of my work when I was asked to speak before his club a few years ago. One day we had lunch together and I explained in detail why hypertension and fat accumulation in the body are generally the consequences of chronically occurring dehydration. He accepted my advice of increasing his daily water intake. He also convinced his wife to adopt the measure. Please note the impact of increased water intake on allergies and asthma that have been stated in the two letters.
Lt. Col. Walter Burmeister has observed the effect of water on his own blood pressure. As you can read in his letter, which is being published with his kind consent, he, too, has experienced a drug-free and nature-designed adjustment to his blood pressure.
If water is a natural diuretic, why do intelligent and appearing-to-be-learned people still insist on using chemicals to get rid of water from the kidneys? As far as I am concerned, this action constitutes negligence. Since this action will eventually damage the kidneys, and ultimately the heart, its practice should stop.
My colleagues who still insist on blindly using diuretics in the treatment of hypertension are walking into foreseeable litigations for negligent treatment of their patients. The new information will provide their patients with sufficient insight to understand what damages have been caused in them by the stupid way of asserting the treatment of "hypertension" with diuretics. Let the February 1995 class action suit of smokers against the tobacco industry be a
lesson for the health care industry.

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL PATURIS
431 N. LEE STREET
OLD TOWN ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22314
 
F. Batmanghelidj, M.D.
Foundation For The Simple In Medicine
2146 Kings Garden Way
Falls Church, Virginia 22043
Dear Dr. Batmanghelidj:
I again wish to thank you for your kindness in helping my wife and me to better appreciate the importance of water
to our health.
We feel the conscious increase in our water consumption contributed greatly to our weight loss — a weight loss
which had been urged upon both of us by our respective physicians for years. My loss of approximately forty-five (45) pounds has resulted in such a lowering of my blood pressure that I am no longer taking medicine for my blood pressure. My wife's weight loss has alleviated the discomfort she has experienced for years with her back. In addition, she believes the weight loss has reduced her discomfort and problems with her allergies.
With best wishes, I remain
Sincerely,
E. Michael Paturis
 

3 August 1994
F. Batmanghelidj, M.D.
Foundation For The Simple In Medicine
2146 Kings Garden Way
Falls Church, Virginia 22043

Dear Dr. Batmanghelidj:
Since my 24 May 1994 letter, and your consequent telephone call, a physical change of address has absorbed my
time. The new address is LTC Walter F. Burmeister, 118 Casitas del Este, El Paso, Texas 79935.
Albeit, much more important than these facts, I am in a position to verify how tap water effectively lowers hypertension. Starting in early April 1994, leaving years of diuretics and calcium-blockers behind, in accordance with your recommendation, for  approximately 3 months I drank a minimum of eight 8-ounce glasses of tap water; occasionally more. The blood pressure, heretofore contained by drugs, gradually dropped from an average around 150-160 systolic/over 95-98 diastolic to an amazing, drug free, 130-135 systolic/over 75-80 diastolic fluctuating average.
My wife makes these measurements at home; each time taking two or three readings. The record shows several lows of 120s. over 75d. and a rare high of 140s. over 90d. However, the average range, as stated above, uniformly dominates.
In addition to vitamins and minerals, this drug-free approach, based essentially on tap water and a pinch of salt, has relaxed my system end justifies the confidence that you hold the handles of a truly revolutionary and marvelous medical concept.
Since you are about to publish a book with applicable testimonies of the Hydration System, my personal experience is gratefully offered as a way of saying thank you.
Respectfully yours,

#1 WATER GENERATION FROM THIN AIR * IN SINGAPORE!

Latest UPDATE , Hey guys, the selling price for the EcoloBlue 30s will be S$2296 now. 30% off S$3,280 for year 2012 end promotion.  While stock last. ORDER NOW FOR BEST QUALITY OF WATER FROM THE AIR YOU ARE BREATHING NOW...

Following Watercure Protocol

Whatever your health condition is, you stand to benefit more IF you follow this watercure protocol.

0. Find out your correct daily hydration need. (your body weight in kilogram) x (32.53) ml = (your daily water quota) ml. 10% of this daily water quota is your personal 'glass of water'.
1. Drink 2 'glasses of water' (dose) , first thing in the morning upon rising.

2. Half hour before meal, drink 1 ' glass of water' .

3. Two and a half hour after meal, drink 1 'glass of water'.

4. Drink 1 'glass of water' before going to bed at night.

NOTE: For every 1250 ml of water intake , use 1/4 teaspoon of sea salt. Average body weight of 30 kg will need this 1250 ml water and 1/4 teaspoon salt, daily.

http://theinnozablog.blogspot.sg/2012/11/our-vision-and-how-you-can-get-money.html

(inspiration from www.watercure.com ) 

EcoloBlue - Producing water straight from the air we breathe (Back to Basic)

EcoloBlue is iTORTLE's first product to promote in Singapore. The unique features and competitive advantages are:

1. No water source or bottled water required 
2. Option for Solar Panel integration
3. Lowest power consumption in the market with patented innovation
4. Tested TOP quality superior to bottled water, tap water and even purified water!
5. Option to produce Alkaline water or Soda water

---

  Our tap water from the reservoirs, sea, NEWater and water bought from overseas are all due to the basic water cycle. Hence, our system goes back to basic, bringing you the pure drinking water straight from your home/office. 

HOW IT WORKS

EcoloBlue Atmospheric Water Generators extract pure, perfect, delicious drinking water straight from the air. Unlike other Atmospheric Water Generators, ours are state-of-the-art in every way. All our components are the most advanced, and highest quality available anywhere in the World. LEARN MORE

Interested to purchase, 

For EcoloBlue systems

A) About Atmospheric Water Generator (AWG) Technology

1)    How do you produce water from the air we breathe?

There are water vapors in the air we breathe. Relative humidity is the amount of water vapors in the mixture of air. Water vapors are condensed to water by cooling to its dew point.

2)    What is an Atmospheric Water Generator (AWG)?

An Atmospheric Water Generator is an appliance that employs dehumidification/condensing technology that extracts water from the humidity in the air. The water is then filtered and purified through several filters including carbon, and reverse osmosis, and UV sterilization lights. The result is pure drinking water from the air. This technology is often referred to "water from air", "water from humidity", "air water maker", “air to water” or "air water generator". Google “Atmospheric Water Generator” and you will find EcoloBlue as the top link after Wikipedia’s definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_water_generator)

3)    Is there enough water in the air to produce water?

There are 3.1 quadrillion gallons (11.3 quadrillion liters) of water in the atmosphere at any given time. The average humidity in your home or office in Singapore is at least 70%. Sufficient water can be generated with humidity as low as 35%.

4)    Why do I need to switch to AWG when I have my bottled dispenser?

AWG is plug and play system as long as there is a standard power supply. No longer have to find space to store the huge ‘5-gallon’ water bottle and no longer have to carry up the heavy bottle to refill it. For your convenience, AWG will be your choice. Only need to call us for changing of filters and maintenance service every 6 months. 

~ Sixty million plastic bottles end up in American landfills daily.
~ Thirty-eight billion water bottles are discarded into landfills every year.
~ Last year, consumers spent $15 billion on disposable bottled water.
~ Bottling water has produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide.
~ It takes three liters of water to produce one liter of bottled water.
~ Consumers use 1.5 million tons of plastic for water bottles each year; less than 5% of this plastic waste is recycled.
~ You can get approximately 450 gallons of tap water for the price of one bottled water.
~ Producing the bottles for American consumption required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil, not including the energy for transportation.

Source: http://www.hydrosbottle.com/the-real-cost-of-bottled-water

5)    Will it be more expensive than using bottled water dispenser?

In Singapore, the ‘5-gallon’ bottled water cost about S$ 8. If one bottle is used up per day, 1 month will be 28 bottles, which will cost S$ 224 per month. 1 year will be S$ 2,688 and 2 years will be S$ 5,376! Our EcoloBlue 26 costs only S$ 1,999 and a 2 years filter package cost only S$ 720. So for 2 years, it will cost only S$ 2,719! Even with our serviceman coming up to your door step to service the system and changing the filter for you, it will only cost S$ 3,119 for 2 years! All you need to do is to enjoy the purest drinking water hussle-free. Each filter can be used for 1,500 gallons of water before replacement. i.e. 300 bottles of '5-gallon' bottled water (S$ 2,400). A 6-month filter package is less than S$200!!

6)    Why do I need to use AWG when tap water is available?

Singapore tap water is clean and safe for drinking. It comes from mainly 4 different area – Water Desalination plant (converting water from sea water), 17 reservoirs, Reclaimed water by NEWater, and imported water from Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Singapore). Getting an AWG will give you a more independency to your own water supply. You are the one generating your own drinking water that goes through 12-filtration process just before you dispensed the water out. It is the purest water supply you can get. Incorporate a Solar panel package will make it more sustainable. Even when power supply is cut off, you will still have water supply.  

B) About EcoloBlue company

7)    What is EcoloBlue?

EcoloBlue, Inc. is a company from USA who provide sustainable water solution + clean, renewable, sustainable energy + biodegradable plastics since 2007. Ever since, it has been expanding out to various countries in Europe, Africa, Middle East, Russia and now Asia. Visit http://www.ecoloblue.com/about.html for more information.

8)    Is the water produced clean and safe for drinking?

Absolutely! It goes through our patented 12-filtration system and certified by more than 10 laboratories worldwide on the water quality. Our appliances extract humidity from the atmosphere through a state-of-the-art, proprietary condensation process and transforms it into absolutely 99.9% pure, healthy drinking water.

9)    Why EcoloBlue is the best AWG in the world?

·      It is one of the pioneer in AWG and with a patent for the system

·      It is the first to have a touch screen display panel

·      It is the first to have a Soda Water dispensing option

·      It is involved in numerous humanitarian work with its AWGs

·      It has a display alarm to inform user when to change the filters and the UV lamps

·      It has the lowest power consumption in generating water (around 280W)

·      It is the first when you google “Atmospheric Water Generator”

10) How much water does EcoloBlue AWG produce?

The EcoloBlue 30 is capable of producing 30 liters of pure drinking water per day, while the EcoloBlue 26 produces 26 liters of water per day. We have industrial unit EcoloBlue 200 to EcoloBlue 5000. The number represent the amount of water it can produce per day.

11)How big is the EcoloBlue home/office system?

The EcoloBlue 26/30/30s™ weighs at approximately 50 kg, and measures approximately 45cm wide by 42.5cm deep and 110cm tall. The appliance has caster wheels (lockable) for easy movement and re-location.

12)What filters does The EcoloBlue use?

The EcoloBlue 26/30/30s™ uses a 12-stage filtration process, which includes: 1 bottom tank carbon filter, 2 silver impregnated carbon filters, 1 filmtec reverse osmosis membrane, 1 bio ceramic mineral filter, and 3 Philips UV sterilization lamps (1 in the bottom tank, 1 in the top holding tank, and 1 in the tubing as water is poured into your glass).

13)How often do we need to change the filter?

The reverse osmosis and the UV lights (total 3) should be replaced every 2 years under normal system operation, and the carbon and mineral filters should be replaced every 6 months.

14)Is the water produced free from bacteria or other germs?

The EcoloBlue 26/30/30s™ water generation process utilizes high intensity UV (ultra violet) filters to eliminate any microorganisms, including bacteria and viruses. Ultra violet light has been used for over 50 years to purify water and is accepted by the United States Public Health Service as a standard methodology for water treatment. Independent test results measured 99.9% purity, far exceeding EPA requirements.

15)Does the system consume a lot of energy?

Our AWG consume the least amount of energy. It only uses 280 W for the generation of water. The generation of water will stop once it reaches full tank and start generating again when it is being dispensed

16) Is it difficult to use the system?

It is absolutely easy to use. We can provide a short training on how to maintain the system and usage of the system upon the first purchase. Manuals will be provided as well. We have service engineer who will be able to support you in any case of breakdown or difficulties. Our hotline is 8338-8136. Give us a call or SMS for any urgent matters. We provide the best after sales service.

Any further questions that are not answered here? Drop us your questions at sales@itortle.com and we will be pleased to attend to you and put it up in our FAQ section. Thank you very much. :)

Interested to purchase, 

CERTIFICATION

Certification for EcoloBlue AWGs

ATC CE Certificates:

ATC CE EMC Certificate for EB 30

ATC CE EMC Certificate for EB 30s

ATC CE LVD Certificate for EB 30

ATC CE LVD Certificate for EB 30s

ROHs Test Report:

ROHS Test report for EB 30 and EB 30s

Water Test Reports:

Russia Test Report

UK Aqua Legion

USA California McCampbell Analytical, Inc., Pittsburg

USA Florida Pro-Lab

Europe Nederland Waterlaboratorium Zuid, Breda

Europe Estonia Health Protection Inspectorate - Tallinn

China PONY Testing International Group

Australia ALS Laboratory Group - Environmental Division Sydney 

Kingdom of Bahrain - AL HOTY Analytical Services - Milieu Gulf WLL

U.A.E. - Dubai Central Laboratory - Dubai Municipality

Hong Kong Productivity Council

Patent: Patent for EcoloBlue AWG

Interested to