Drugs damage the gut microbiome

According to a recent study it’s not just antibiotics that are damaging our gut microbiome. Published in Nature journal, the findings suggest over a quarter of the drugs tested (which included anti-diabetics, proton pump inhibitors, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories and atypical antipsychotics) damaged one species of gut flora at a minimum. Researchers tested 1,000 drugs against 40 bacterial strains. Twenty four percent of those tested inhibited the growth of at least one strain in vitro. They also found common resistance mechanisms in the bacteria as those found in antibiotic resistance. With ever increasing levels of concurrent drug prescribing and many people, particularly the elderly, victims of polypharmacy, this represents evidence that should not be ignored. Perhaps now, more than ever, it’s time to change the paradigm, promote self-care and drug free methods of managing our health – and the health of our microbiome – at the same time as allowing us to live longer, healthier lives.

Global eradication of transfats

The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced new plans to eliminate the use of transfats in the global food supply by 2023. Industrially produced transfats, which occur when unsaturated fats are hydrogenated, have proven links to all-cause mortality, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Some countries have begun the process of eliminating or restricting transfats in food products, but they are still commonly and extensively used in emerging economies worldwide. Although being an admirable initiative this still does not address the problem of oxidised fats found in ultra-processed foods, nor does it encourage consumption of unprocessed whole foods as recommended in the ANH Food4Health guidelines to promote good health.

The power of food as medicine

At ANH-Intl our belief in the power of food as medicine is so great we created our Food4Health guidelines using the most cutting edge nutritional science and research. As rates of chronic disease spiral out of control, health agencies and medical personnel worldwide are now looking to diet and lifestyle practices to stop the rot as they seek alternatives to failing government advice sponsored by big corporatocracies. To meet this rising demand, the WHO have published a new report that directly recognises the importance of diet in disease prevention (namely the Mediterranean and Nordic diets). Success for low-carb, high-fat (LCHF) diet has been demonstrated recently by a clinical research nurse who, recognising the limitations of the UK government’s Eatwell Guidelines, used the Pioppi Diet (devised by cardiologist Aseem Malhotra) to restore her husband to health following a near-fatal heart attack. The benefits of an LCHF diet for glycaemic control in Type 1 diabetes has also been demonstrated in a new study co-authored by low-carb advocate Dr Sarah Hallberg. If that’s not sufficient invitation to ditch any lingering fear of fat, another study has shown the potential for virgin coconut oil to reduce inflammation associated with Alzheimer’s disease – something ANH-Intl has long promoted. When it’s clear that such a simple intervention can exert such a powerful effect, one should ask why governments and health systems like the NHS aren’t advocates of diet and lifestyle interventions. Watch out for more news on our ‘Blueprint for health system sustainability in the UK’  as we call for prevention and self-care to take centre stage to reduce -and even reverse – the current health crisis.

HPV vaccine confusion continues

As concerns continue to mount over the safety of the HPV vaccine, two new studies muddy the water further around this contentious vaccine.

The first, published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, considers a possible link between the introduction of the HPV vaccine and an increase in cervical cancer rates, after The Centre for Cervical Cancer Prevention in Sweden noted an increase in incidence of invasive cervical cancer – particularly during 2014/2015.

However, in juxtaposition, the Cochrane Collaboration have released a review which underscores the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in preventing pre-cancerous changes (a notable change in language from the cancer prevention message that has been used to date). The review focused on 26 randomised controlled studies comparing vaccine to placebo (vaccine adjuvant or other vaccine). These studies have previously been criticised for not comparing the vaccine to a true placebo, thus masking and obscuring the actual potential for the vaccine to cause serious adverse events.

Before you make a decision whether or not to allow your child to be given the HPV vaccine, take a look at our HPV vaccine campaign page so you can make a fully informed decision. If you haven’t already done so, please consider signing (and sharing) our petition calling on health authorities to stop claiming vaccines are ‘safe’ to safeguard informed choice and consent over vaccination.


  1. Your commendable commentaries on vaccine safety/effectiveness/contamination issues are excellent but are too confusing for a typical lay person. A focussed campaign on one aspect (maybe HPV) would enable an easier read and elicit a more focussed response. Government agencies need a focussed message to accept an “issue”. Without a campaign, the status quo in the established medicinal world with all its serious problems will remain. If ONE issue can be exposed to public scrutiny, the rest will follow.

    1. Hello Vic

      Thanks for your comment. To clarify our message around vaccination, we believe that everyone should be able to make an informed decision based on all available information (both for and against) whether or not to use vaccination. We also believe that health authorities should not be able to state that all vaccines are ‘safe’, the detail of which is shown as part of our petition on Change.org. You can find more information on our Vaccine Choice campaign here – https://anhinternational.org/campaign/vaccine-choice/.

      I hope this is helpful.

      Warm Regards

  2. Please note that Bill Gates has just ploughed a great deal of money into the Cochrane Collaboration, which will make me seriously question all further reviews.

  3. Perhaps your readers would also be interested in reading Time for Action’s initial response to the Cochrane systematic review:
    Time For Action Response to Cochrane Paper on HPV Vaccines (9 May 2018)
    TIME FOR ACTION·WEDNESDAY, 9 MAY 2018161 reads
    Time For Action yesterday provided the following statement in response to the press release issued by the Cochrane team (Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group). The press release was a brief outline of main findings of a paper published today (9 May 2018) by the Cochrane group: Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors
    A further response will be issued by the Time For Action group when we have had the opportunity to properly evaluate the full paper.
    A statement from Time For Action in response to the outline summary of the Cochrane Systematic Review: Prophylactic vaccination against human papillomaviruses to prevent cervical cancer and its precursors.
    TIME FOR ACTION is a UK campaign group formed by a group of UK parents whose daughters experienced serious health problems after HPV vaccination. Whilst we welcome research that will help to provide evidence into the efficacy of the vaccine against cervical cancer and better quantify the risks of serious adverse reaction, we have some reservations about this systematic review.
    From the details circulated pre-publication, it appears the systematic review has provided no evidence into the efficacy of the vaccine against cervical cancer. Over 90% of HPV infections are cleared naturally by the body, with no medical intervention. Cervical cancer deaths contribute less than 1% of the total cancer deaths in the UK (2016); the peak rate of cervical cancer deaths is 85 to 89 years of age; and the lifetime risk of cervical cancer is 0.76%. It is premature to claim that a reduction in HPV infections and pre-cancerous lesions at a particular point in time, will translate into a reduction of the cases of, and deaths from, invasive cervical cancer. The report does not look at the other high-risk strains of the HPV virus and whether these have increased or decreased in the vaccinated population. A recent study in Sweden has shown an increase in the rate of cervical cancer in the younger age groups and the author questions whether there could be any link to the introduction of the HPV vaccination and calls for further research.
    Our question to the government is at what point in the future does it expect the rates of cervical cancer to fall dramatically, and when does it expect the HPV vaccine to eliminate cervical cancer completely?
    The Nordic Cochrane team based in Copenhagen published an Index of HPV vaccine clinical studies to address reporting bias. They indexed 206 clinical studies and pointed out that EMA and FDA had based its approval of the HPV vaccines on less than 50% of the clinical trial evidence.
    We are disappointed that this current Cochrane paper appears not to address the lack of true placebo in clinical trials. The majority of control participants in the bivalent and quadrivalent HPV vaccines were given either another vaccine or the aluminium adjuvant from the HPV vaccine, neither of which are ‘inert’ as you would imagine a placebo to be.
    Caron Ryalls of Time For Action said, “ We recently met with the MHRA to highlight our concerns and draw attention to research being conducted in Denmark, funded by the Danish government, into suspected side effects of the HPV vaccination. We are waiting with interest to evaluate this new Cochrane review with regards to risk of serious side effects. We have a growing number of families joining our group with daughters who have experienced serious health problems with a very close temporal association with their HPV vaccination and the number of Yellow Card reports submitted to the MHRA for the HPV vaccination is worrying.”
    In the UK the latest FOI data from the MHRA shows the combined reports of certain chronic illnesses are clearly disproportionately higher than for any other vaccine and we feel this in itself constitutes a signal to be properly investigated.
    To date, no epidemiological study has been done to investigate POTS or CRPS, for which a signal was raised in 2015 by the Danish health authorities. Instead the EMA and WHO have relied on out of date figures for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as a basis for their recommendations. The systematic review commissioned last year by the WHO into selected chronic illnesses, specifically excluded POTS and CRPS from the review.
    “[the Cochrane team] …emphasize that more data are required to provide greater certainty about very rare side effects and the effect vaccines have on rates of stillbirth, and babies born with abnormalities in those who became pregnant around the time of the vaccination”
    We hope this conclusion from the Cochrane team will encourage the UK government to commission a thorough independent study to investigate serious side effects so as to provide the public with the evidence they should already have into the true risks associated with HPV vaccines. It would also be encouraging to see the MHRA undertaking a thorough follow up of all reports of serious adverse reactions, which hasn’t yet be done. We feel this is urgently needed, especially as the system used by the MHRA to detect safety signals, failed to detect the Narcolepsy signal with Pandemrix swine flu vaccination.
    We also expect the JCVI to delay their decision to extend the HPV vaccination to boys, until evidence is available to confirm the safety of the vaccination.
    On behalf of Time For Action
    Caron Ryalls
    07885 422690
    [email protected]
    Index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry clinical study programme and non-industry funded studies: a necessary basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review
    Increased incidence of cervical cancer in Sweden: Possible link with HPV vaccination
    http://ijme.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/20180430_increased_incidence.pdf https://www.facebook.com/notes/time-for-action/time-for-action-response-to-cochrane-paper-on-hpv-vaccines-9-may-2018/2078065312435163/

    1. Hi Helen

      Thanks for taking the time to share Time for Action’s response to the Cochrane Review, which highlights many of the concerns we have in regards to this study.

      Warm Regards

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *