The Me Experiment: Under the Microscope

The Google University Effect

Bryan — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 17:22:58 +0000

I remain endlessly fascinated with the incredible social experiment we have all been living through over the last decade (and I can say, if you are reading…

via The Google University Effect.

Truth About Alkalizing Your Blood

Bryan — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:25:44 +0000

Posted By Dr. Ben Kim

Is it true that the foods and beverages you consume cause your blood to become more alkaline or acidic?

Contrary to popular hype, the answer is: not to any significant degree.

The pH of your blood is tightly regulated by a complex system of buffers that are continuously at work to maintain a range of 7.35 to 7.45, which is slightly more alkaline than pure water.

If the pH of your blood falls below 7.35, the result is a condition called acidosis, a state that leads to central nervous system depression. Severe acidosis – where blood pH falls below 7.00 – can lead to a coma and even death.

If the pH of your blood rises above 7.45, the result is alkalosis. Severe alkalosis can also lead to death, but through a different mechanism; alkalosis causes all of the nerves in your body to become hypersensitive and over-excitable, often resulting in muscle spasms, nervousness, and convulsions; it’s usually the convulsions that cause death in severe cases.

The bottom line is that if you’re breathing and going about your daily activities, your body is doing an adequate job of keeping your blood pH somewhere between 7.35 to 7.45, and the foods that you are eating are not causing any wild deviations of your blood pH.

So what’s up with all the hype about the need to alkalize your body? And what’s to be made of the claim that being too acidic can cause osteoporosis, kidney stones, and a number of other undesirable health challenges?

As usual, the answers to such questions about human health can be found in understanding basic principles of human physiology. So let’s take a look at the fundamentals of pH and how your body regulates the acid-alkaline balance of its fluids on a moment-to-moment basis.

pH is a measure of how acidic or alkaline a liquid is. With respect to your health, the liquids involved are your body fluids, which can be categorized into two main groups:

Intracellular fluid, which is the fluid found in all of your cells. Intracellular fluid is often called cytosol, and makes up about two-thirds of the total amount of fluid in your body.
Extracellular fluid, which is the fluid found outside of your cells. Extracellular fluids are further classified as one of two types:
- Plasma, which is fluid that makes up your blood.
- Interstitial fluid, which occupies all of the spaces that surround your tissues. Interstitial fluid includes the fluids found in your eyes, lymphatic system, joints, nervous system, and between the protective membranes that surround your cardiovascular, respiratory, and abdominal cavities.

Your blood (plasma) needs to maintain a pH of 7.35 to 7.45 for your cells to function properly. Why your cells require your blood to maintain a pH in this range to stay healthy is beyond the scope of this article, but the most important reason is that all of the proteins that work in your body have to maintain a specific geometric shape to function, and the three-dimensional shapes of the proteins in your body are affected by the tiniest changes in the pH of your body fluids.

The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14. A liquid that has a pH of 7 is considered to be neutral (pure water is generally considered to have a neutral pH). Fluids that have a pH below 7 – like lemon juice and coffee – are considered to be acidic. And fluids that have a pH above 7 – like human blood and milk of magnesia – are considered to be alkaline.

It’s important to note that on the pH scale, each number represents a tenfold difference from adjacent numbers; in other words, a liquid that has a pH of 6 is ten times more acidic than a liquid that has a pH of 7, and a liquid with a pH of 5 is one hundred times more acidic than pure water. Most carbonated soft drinks (pop) have a pH of about 3, making them about ten thousand times more acidic than pure water. Please remember this the next time you think about drinking a can of pop.

When you ingest foods and liquids, the end products of digestion and assimilation of nutrients often results in an acid or alkaline-forming effect – the end products are sometimes called acid ash or alkaline ash.

Also, as your cells produce energy on a continual basis, a number of different acids are formed and released into your body fluids. These acids – generated by your everyday metabolic activities – are unavoidable; as long as your body has to generate energy to survive, it will produce a continuous supply of acids.

So there are two main forces at work on a daily basis that can disrupt the pH of your body fluids – these forces are the acid or alkaline-forming effects of foods and liquids that you ingest, and the acids that you generate through regular metabolic activities. Fortunately, your body has three major mechanisms at work at all times to prevent these forces from shifting the pH of your blood outside of the 7.35 to 7.45 range.

These mechanisms are:

Buffer Systems
- Carbonic Acid-Bicarbonate Buffer System
- Protein Buffer System
- Phosphate Buffer System
Exhalation of Carbon Dioxide
Elimination of Hydrogen Ions via Kidneys

It’s not in the scope of this post to discuss the mechanisms listed above in detail. For this article, I only want to point out that these systems are in place to prevent dietary, metabolic, and other factors from pushing the pH of your blood outside of the 7.35 to 7.45 range.

When people encourage you to “alkalize your blood,” most of them mean that you should eat plenty of foods that have an alkaline-forming effect on your system. The reason for making this suggestion is that the vast majority of highly processed foods – like white flour products and white sugar – have an acid-forming effect on your system, and if you spend years eating a poor diet that is mainly acid-forming, you will overwork some of the buffering systems mentioned above to a point where you could create undesirable changes in your health.

For example, your phosphate buffer system uses different phosphate ions in your body to neutralize strong acids and bases. About 85% of the phosphate ions that are used in your phosphate buffer system comes from calcium phosphate salts, which are structural components of your bones and teeth. If your body fluids are regularly exposed to large quantities of acid-forming foods and liquids, your body will draw upon its calcium phosphate reserves to supply your phosphate buffer system to neutralize the acid-forming effects of your diet. Over time, this may lead to structural weakness in your bones and teeth.

Drawing on your calcium phosphate reserves at a high rate can also increase the amount of calcium that is eliminated via your genito-urinary system, which is why a predominantly acid-forming diet can increase your risk of developing calcium-rich kidney stones.

This is just one example of how your buffering systems can be overtaxed to a point where you experience negative health consequences. Since your buffering systems have to work all the time anyway to neutralize the acids that are formed from everyday metabolic activities, it’s in your best interest to follow a diet that doesn’t create unnecessary work for your buffering systems.

Acid and Alkaline-Forming Effects of Common Foods

Generally speaking, most vegetables and fruits have an alkaline-forming effect on your body fluids.

Most grains, animal foods, and highly processed foods have an acid-forming effect on your body fluids.

Your health is best served by a good mix of nutrient-dense, alkaline and acid-forming foods; ideally, you want to eat more alkaline-forming foods than acid-forming foods to have the net acid and alkaline-forming effects of your diet match the slightly alkaline pH of your blood.

The following lists indicate which common foods have an alkaline-forming effect on your body fluids, and which ones result in acid ash formation when they are digested and assimilated into your system.

Foods that have a Moderate to Strong Alkaline-Forming Effect

Watermelon
Lemons
Cantaloupe
Celery
Limes
Mango
Honeydew
Papaya
Parsley
Seaweed
Sweet, seedless grapes
Watercress
Asparagus
Kiwi
Pears
Pineapple
Raisins
Vegetable juices
Apples
Apricots
Alfalfa sprouts
Avocados
Bananas
Garlic
Ginger
Peaches
Nectarines
Grapefruit
Oranges
Most herbs
Peas
Lettuce
Broccoli
Cauliflower

Foods that have a Moderate to Strong Acid-Forming Effect

Alcohol
Soft drinks (pop)
Tobacco
Coffee
White sugar
Refined Salt
Artificial sweeteners
Antibiotics (and most drugs)
White flour products (including pasta)
Seafood
White vinegar
Barley
Most boxed cereals
Cheese
Most beans
Flesh meats
Most types of bread

Please note that these lists of acid and alkaline-forming foods are not comprehensive, nor are they meant to be.

If you’re eating mainly grains, flour products, animal foods, and washing these foods down with coffee, soda, and milk, you will almost certainly improve your health by replacing some of your food and beverage choices with fresh vegetables and fruits.

The primary purpose of this article is to offer information that explains why I believe that you don’t need to take one or more nutritional supplements or “alkalized water” for the sole purpose of alkalizing your body. Your body is already designed to keep the pH of your body fluids in a tight, slightly alkaline range.

The ideal scenario is to make fresh vegetables and fruits the centerpieces of your diet, and to eat small amounts of any other nutrient-dense foods that your appetite calls for and that experience shows your body can tolerate.

I hope these thoughts bring some clarity to this often misunderstood health topic.

Bryan — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:07:30 +0000

Isagenix Scam: Questionable Medical Claims, No Science Behind Them

Fraud Files Blog

Multi-level marketing company Isagenix offers a cleansing product which it claims helps people lose weight. Is this MLM scheme offering a bogus product, or is this a legitimate weight loss program?

Let’s start off by clarifying that in general, multilevel marketing companies are legal scams in the United States. The government allows them to exist and multiply. They offer products which are little more than a “front” for the schemes, since without a legitimate looking product or service, the companies would be at risk of appearing to be illegal pyramid schemes.

In this article, we are not focusing on the MLM method of selling an opportunity or product. We are looking at the product itself. Isagenix has its roots in colon cleansing products. These are detoxification products which they claim help people lose weight. The company also offers vitamins, supplements, and anti-aging products for the skin.

Does detox work to help lose weight? Is it something healthy that people should be doing regularly? The Mayo Clinic says that detox diets have no proven scientific benefits. Our bodies naturally remove toxins from things we ingest, and there is no need to add some sort of cleansing products to our diets to remove toxins.

Dr. Harriet Hall writes more below about the junk science behind Isagenix. In short, there are no proven benefits to using the Isagenix products. Users of the products may offer anecdotes about their success with them, but that is not the same as having independent scientific studies supporting such claims. Of course, Isagenix prohibits reps from making medical claims about the products, but such a prohibition never seems to stop the distributors in any company.

Critique of Isagenix

by Harriet Hall, M.D.

A friend inquired about a product, Isagenix (actually a whole family of products) that is being pushed by the leader of her weight loss group, claiming that “The Isagenix cleanse is unique because it not only removes impurities at the cellular level, it builds the body up with incredible nutrition. Besides detoxing the body, Isagenix teaches people a wonderful lesson that they don’t need to eat as much as they are accustom to and eating healthy choices are really important and also a lot of the food we are eating is nutritionally bankrupt.”

I went through the website (http://www.isagenix.com/) and watched the promotional videos. There is so much to criticize that I hardly know where to start. It’s all misinformation, unsupported claims, testimonials, and money-making ploys.

I couldn’t find a critique of Isagenix on the Web, but that’s not surprising. No serious medical scientist would take it seriously enough to bother about it. And it’s basically all been done before; it’s just a slightly new wrinkle on an old scam. You will find some information on related products at:http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/detox.html

You can also go to the quackwatch.org homepage and type in cleansing or type in detoxification.

The claims on the Isagenix website are a mishmash of pseudoscience, myth, misrepresentation, and outright lies. For example:

Americans are sicker than ever before.
Toxicity accounts for most diseases.
The body protects itself from toxins by coating them with fat, causing obesity. [The truth: some toxins are soluble in fat and can be taken into existing fat cells, but no new fat cells are created.]
The internal organs become clogged and deteriorate if you don’t cleanse.
Nutrients that cleanse, revitalize, rejuvenate — what does this even mean?
The human body needs cleansing like air conditioners that need their filters changed and car engines that need oil changes. [This is nonsense: the human body cannot be compared to a machine: it is a living, self-regulating organism that does its own maintenance.]

They engage in scare-mongering about toxins, but provide no data to show that the tiny amounts we ingest lead to any significant adverse health effects. They also provide no evidence that their treatment actually removes any toxins from the body. Or that doing so would have any significant impact on health. There have been no properly controlled scientific studies of their “cleansing” treatments, only testimonials of the sort that abound on the Internet for hundreds of other ineffective products.

There is absolutely no rationale for the particular combination of ingredients in their products. They have LOTS of different products, and have included just about every nutrient and herbal remedy in existence: 242 of them! Some of these we know to be useless, some are potentially harmful, and we have no idea how the particular ingredients in the mixtures might interact for better or for worse.

They offer “ionic” minerals from “ancient plant deposits.” Minerals are the same thing wherever they come from, and all “ionic” means is that it is in a form that can be absorbed — i.e. magnesium as milk of magnesia rather than as a lump of elemental magnesium metal.

They advertise “no caffeine added” for a product that contains green tea; green tea contains caffeine. They repeat the tired old myth that our food isn’t as nutritious as in the “good old days.” They put digestive enzymes in their products to help you assimilate them, not realizing that orally ingested digestive enzymes are themselves digested in the stomach before they can do anything. They say that their electrolytes “ignite the body’s electrical system” — I have no idea what this means, and it certainly is not scientific terminology.

Their antioxidant mixture contains 15,000 IU of vitamin A as beta carotene plus 5000 IU as palmitate. The Medical Letter recently reviewed vitamin A and warned that no one should take high-dose beta carotene supplements, and that women should not take vitamin A supplements at all during pregnancy or after menopause. Among other things, they said: Vitamin A may also have pro-oxidant effects in vivo. A high intake of vitamin A from supplements and food has been associated with an increased risk of hip fracture in postmenopausal women and with teratogenicity when taken during early pregnancy. A placebo-controlled intervention trial in Finnish smokers found that 20 mg/day of a beta carotene supplement increased the incidence of lung cancer by 18%, which was statistically significant. Another large double blind intervention trial in smokers and asbestos exposed workers, terminated early because no benefit was demonstrated, found that combined therapy with 30 mg of beta carotene and 25,000 IU of vitamin A daily was associated with an increase in the incidence of lung cancer, cardiovascular mortality and total mortality.

The Medical Letter concluded: “A balanced diet rich in fruits and vegetables may be safer than taking vitamin supplements. No biologically active substance taken for a long term can be assumed to be free of risk.”

Isagenix claims to promote weight loss. All “treatments” for [temporary] weight loss work the same way: they get people to ingest fewer calories than they expend. There is no reason to think that a person who restricts calorie intake and exercises will lose any more weight if they add Isagenix products. Diuretic and laxative effects, psychological factors, and enthusiasm for a new method may initially fool people into thinking they have benefited.

Their medical advisor, Becky Natrajan, MD, tells us on a video presentation that she is “excited about results” but she does not say what those results are or why she thinks the results are due to the product rather than to diet, exercise and other factors. Perhaps her funniest argument is that the $5 a day Isagenix costs you is less expensive than open heart surgery. As if it were a simple choice between the two!

She tells you to contact the person who told you about Isagenix. And one of the headings on the website is “Wealth.” There you will find out how you can sell products from your home and become an associate, a consultant or an executive with increasing levels of financial return. This sounds like a typical multilevel marketing scheme, typical of products that can’t be marketed effectively based purely on their merits.

In short, Isagenix is a slick marketing enterprise that lines the promoters’ pockets by selling baseless hope. There is a disclaimer on the website that should be taken very seriously: “These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.”

The FACTS about Mitt Romney … Only the Facts

Bryan — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:44:09 +0000

Every voter should read this fact sheet regarding the background of
Mitt Romney, especially those that continue to claim that they will
*sit it out* this time around.

Personal Information:

● His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
● He was born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.

● His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan
● He was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
● He has been married to Ann Romney since 1969; they five children.

Education:

● B.A. from Brigham Young University,
● J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University

Religion:

● Mormon – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Working Background:

● After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.

● After attending both Harvard Business and Law Schools
simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam.
● In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital a private equity
investment firm, one of the largest such firms in the United States .

● In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy.
● He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
● In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts
where he eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.

Some Interesting Facts about Romney:

● Bain Capital, starting with one small office supply store in
Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now over 2,000 stores employing
90,000 people.

● Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business
miracles again and again, with companies like Domino’s, Sealy,
Brookstone, The Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music Group,
Dollarama, Home Depot, and many others.

● He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad’s
gubernatorial campaign 1 year.
● He was an unpaid intern in his Dad’s governor’s office for eight years.

● He was an unpaid bishop and stake president of his church for ten years.
● He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee
for three years.

● He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts
for four years.
● He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.

Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country, but
has given more back to its citizens in terms of money, service and
time than most men.

And in 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of
his income.

Just for comparison purposes, Obama gave 1% and Joe Biden gave $300 or .0013%.

Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:

● He will show us his birth certificate
● He will show us his high school and college transcripts.

● He will show us his social security card.
● He will show us his law degree.
● He will show us his draft notice.

● He will show us his medical records.
● He will show us his income tax records.
● He will show us he has nothing to hide.

Mitt Romney’s background, experience and trustworthiness show him to
be a great leader and an excellent choice for President of the United
States.

You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the
Republicans could have selected.

Consider this; at least we know what religion he is, and that he won’t
desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers or practice fiscal
irresponsibility.

I know he has the ability to turn around this financial debacle that
the current regime has gotten us into.

We probably won’t like all the things necessary to recover from this
debt, but someone with Romney’s background can do it.

But, perhaps on the minus side:

● He was never a “Community Organizer”,
● He never took drugs or smoked pot,

● He never got drunk,
● He did not associate with communists or terrorists,
● He never attend a church whose pastor called for God to damn the US.

NOW, tell me why you are not voting!

We cannot afford 4 more years of Barack Obama.

Ignorant Maher: Romney Only Gives to Mormons – ‘His Cult’; ‘That’s Not a Charity – They’re Not Poor People’ | NewsBusters.org

Bryan — Thu, 10 May 2012 04:26:51 +0000

Ignorant Maher: Romney Only Gives to Mormons – ‘His Cult’; ‘That’s Not a Charity – They’re Not Poor People’ | NewsBusters.org.

What an uneducated and ignorant thing to do. The Mormon Church is one of the largest religious charities globally! Don’t believe me? Check out this link http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/

Wheat Grass: The Green Wonder?

Bryan — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:51:33 +0000

Trying to keep track of all the health claims made on behalf of wheat grass is like trying to mow a lawn with a pair of nail clippers. Wheat grass is essentially the sprout of the plant that will eventually grow into a shaft of wheat. Touted as “the green wonder,” wheat grass has been said to cure cancer, stop hair from graying, prevent cavities, lower cholesterol, speed wound healing, aid digestion and even promote weight loss.

Unfortunately, little scientific evidence exists to support such claims. An exhaustive search of the scientific literature finds just two ‘actual’ clinical studies conducted in the past three decades. One is an Israeli study examining wheat grass’ effects on ulcerative colitis – the other an Indian study on wheat grass’ effect on a rare genetic blood disorder. While both studies claim positive benefits, small sample sizes and, in one case, lack of placebo controls, undermine the integrity of their results.

Step beyond the high standards of peer reviewed scientific studies and into the open pasture of the worldwide web and you’ll find plenty of on-line articles and internet sites braying the benefits of wheat grass. Sometimes the anti-cancer claims even cite academic research – but at root of all these references are really only two studies done in the 1970’s. The first was conducted at the Pauling Institute by Dr.Arthur Robinson, he found a decrease in squamous cell carcinoma lesions on mice fed a diet restricted to apples, pears, carrots, tomatoes, sunflower seeds, bananas – and wheat grass. There is no legitimate reason to attribute the reduction in cancerous activity to wheat grass alone. Why not to apples, or tomatoes – or one of the other items in the feed bowl?

The second study was conducted at the University of Texas by Dr.Chui-Nan Lai (who, for what it’s worth, has since gone on to found the Lapis Lazuli Light organization “in the hope of spreading the seeds of total healing to the world.”) Using wheat grass extract, Dr.Lai found anti-mutagenic effects on liver cancer cells in rats. Dr.Lai attributes the activity to the grass’ chlorophyll, but she herself concedes that “the wheat sprout was not unique… Two other sprouts, mung bean and lentil, demonstrated similar inhibitory activities.”

Indeed, Chlorophyll – the compound that helps plants convert sunlight into energy – can be found in any green, growing plant. Even if we lend full credence to the preliminary research on chlorophyll’s antioxidant activity, a gram for gram comparison of wheat grass vs.spinach shows that spinach has more than twice the chlorophyll content of wheat grass. Beyond chlorophyll, wheat grass is purportedly high in calcium (spinach has eight times as much), magnesium (spinach has six times as much), potassium (spinach has almost ten times as much), vitamin C (spinach has fifteen times as much), and vitamin A (spinach has 43 times as much).

When we turn from well-researched nutrients to newer areas of nutrition investigation – like alkalinity – you’ll find a head-to-head comparison shows that spinach is as “alkaline” as wheat grass.

Bottom line: Unlike spinach, and other highly nutritious fruits and vegetables, wheat grass is not a Superfood – at least according to its nutrient profile and published scientific research. That said, the fact that the many health claims have yet to be scientifically verified, does not mean that they are false. There are many other fantastic claims floating about on the internet that also have yet to be refuted – but the absence of verification and refutation seemsa thin reed, if you’ll pardon the pun – upon which to make one’s health choices.

The information shared here is based on studies and research performed by scientists at the Dole Nutrition Institute who have also concluded that wheat grass is not something that they themselves would choose to consume, or feed to their families. There’s no evidence that it’s harmful, but its relatively high cost, bad taste and lower nutrient profile compared to other readily available fruits and vegetables suggest it’s a poor choice in rounding out a healthy diet.

Questions & Answers on Pertussis

Bryan — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:23:37 +0000

Technical content reviewed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, November 2010

What causes pertussis?
Pertussis is caused by a bacterium, Bordetella pertussis.

How does pertussis spread?
Pertussis is spread through the air by infectious droplets and is highly contagious.

How long does it take to show signs of pertussis after being exposed?
The incubation period of pertussis is commonly 7 to 10 days, with a range of 4–21 days.

What are the symptoms of pertussis?
Pertussis disease can be divided into three stages:

Catarrhal stage: can last 1–2 weeks and includes a runny nose, sneezing, low-grade fever, and a mild cough (all similar symptoms to the common cold).

Paroxysmal stage: usually lasts 1–6 weeks, but can persist for up to 10 weeks. The characteristic symptom is a burst, or paroxysm, of numerous, rapid coughs. At the end of the cough paroxysm, the patient can suffer from a long inhaling effort that is characterized by a high-pitched whoop (hence the name, “whooping cough”). Infants and young children often appear very ill and distressed, and may turn blue and vomit. “Whooping” does not necessarily have to accompany the cough.

Convalescent stage: usually lasts 2–6 weeks, but may last for months. Although the cough usually disappears after 2–3 weeks, paroxysms may recur whenever the patient suffers any subsequent respiratory infection. The disease is usually milder in adolescents and adults, consisting of a persistent cough similar to that found in other upper respiratory infections. However, these individuals are still able to transmit the disease to others, including unimmunized or incompletely immunized infants.

How serious is pertussis?
Pertussis can be a very serious disease, especially for infants. Rates of hospitalization and complications increase with decreasing age. During the two-year period 2004–05, a total of 66 deaths from pertussis were reported to CDC. Children age 3 months and younger accounted for 85% of these deaths.

As noted above in the section on symptoms, the breathing difficulties associated with this disease can be very distressing and frightening for the patient and his or her family.

Although adults are less likely than infants to become seriously ill with pertussis, most make repeated visits for medical care and miss work, especially when pertussis is not initially considered as a reason for their long-term cough. In addition, adults with pertussis infection have been shown to be a frequent source of infection to infants with whom they have close contact.

What are possible complications from pertussis?
Younger patients have a greater chance of complications from pertussis than older patients. The most common complication is secondary bacterial infection, which is the cause of most pertussis-related deaths. Pneumonia occurs in one out of 20 cases; this percentage is higher for infants younger than age 6 months.

Infants are also more likely to suffer from such neurologic complications such as seizures and encephalopathy, probably due to the reduction of oxygen supply to the brain. Other less serious complications include ear infection, loss of appetite, and dehydration.

Adults with pertussis can have complications such as pneumonia (up to 5% of cases) and rib fracture from coughing (up to 4% of cases). Other reported side effects include (among others), loss of consciousness, female urinary incontinence, hernias, angina, and weight loss.

How do I know if my child has pertussis?
The diagnosis of pertussis is usually made based on its characteristic history and physical examination. A laboratory test may be done, which involves taking a specimen from the back of the patient’s throat (through the nose).

Is there a treatment for pertussis?
Antibiotics are necessary in treating pertussis cases. The drug of choice is usually a form of erythromycin that is also given to all household and other close contacts of the patient to minimize transmission, regardless of age and vaccination status.

Patients also need supportive therapy such as bed rest, fluids, and control of fever.

All close contacts younger than seven years of age should complete their DTaP vaccine series if they have not already done so. If they have completed their primary four dose series, but have not had a dose within the last three years, they should be given a booster dose. People age 10 years and older should receive a dose of Tdap if they haven’t received it already.

How long is a person with pertussis contagious?
People with pertussis are most infectious during the catarrhal period and during the first two weeks after onset of the cough (approximately 21 days).

How common is pertussis in the United States?
Before a vaccine against pertussis was available, pertussis (whooping cough) was a major cause of childhood illness and death in the United States. From 1940–1945, over one million cases of pertussis were reported. With the introduction of a vaccine in the late 1940s, the number of reported pertussis cases in the U.S. declined from approximately 200,000 a year in the pre-vaccine era to a low of 1,010 cases in 1976.

Since the 1980s, there has been an increase in the number of cases of pertussis, especially among adolescents (10–19 years of age) and babies less than 6 months of age. The incidence of pertussis is in the U.S. is cyclical, with peaks occurring every 3–5 years as the number of susceptible people increase to the point where transmission can occur. In 2004 and 2005, over 25,000 cases of pertussis were reported to CDC in each of those years, the highest number since 1959. The reason for this increase is not clear. California experienced a substantial increase in reported cases in 2010. By the end of August, 3,600 cases had been reported, the most in 52 years, including 8 deaths from pertussis in infants too young to be fully protected.

Can you get pertussis more than once?
Reinfection appears to be uncommon but does occur. With natural infection, immunity to pertussis will likely wane as soon as seven years following disease; reinfection may present as a persistent cough, rather than typical pertussis.

Value of Vaccines Fast Facts and Myths

Bryan — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:10:17 +0000

(As taken from a GlaxoSmithKline Pamphlet)

Fast Facts
Vaccination is a proven method for controlling and in some instances eradicating disease. Every year due to vaccines, approximately three million deaths are prevented and 750,000 children are saved from disability. With the exception of clean, safe drinking water, no treatment has rivalled vaccination in its ability to reduce mortality rates. Immunisation campaigns are among the most successful and cost-effective public health interventions. Some experts suggest they have saved in the vicinity of 20 million lives in the last two decades.4
Globally, 24 million children – almost 20% of children born each year – do not have access to the complete routine immunisations which are recommended to be scheduled for their first year of life. In 2002, the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that 1.4 million deaths among children under five years of age were due to diseases that could have been prevented by routine vaccination; accounting for 14% of global mortality in children of this age.
Vaccines have been demonstrated to dramatically reduce and, in some instances, eradicate disease: The global eradication of smallpox has resulted in savings of US$1.3 billion a year in treatment and prevention costs ever since. Polio cases fell by over 99% from over 300,000 per year in the 1980s to fewer than 2,000 in 2009.7 Over 20,000 deaths from neonatal tetanus are prevented annually due to high rates of vaccine coverage.

Since the introduction of the rotavirus vaccine in national immunisation programmes in 2006, considerable reductions in severe and fatal cases of childhood diarrhoea have been observed in countries with a range of economic statuses.
“Vaccines prevent children from death and disability, enabling families to break out of a cycle of poverty and ill health.” GAVI Alliance Economic benefits of vaccines Vaccination is one of the most cost-effective public health measures available, presenting an economic benefit for individuals, communities and nations with healthcare systems.2 Immunization reduces the social and financial costs of treating diseases, offering opportunities for poverty reduction and greater social and economic development. For example, a Kenyan study estimated that a one week ‘supplemental immunization activity’ against measles carried out in 2002 – in which approximately 13 million children were vaccinated – would result in a net saving of $12 million in healthcare costs over the following ten years; during which time it would prevent over three million infections and 125,000 deaths.
Socioeconomic benefits of vaccines Vaccines have been used to protect those in greatest need of protection against infectious diseases, such as pregnant women, cancer patients and the immunocompromised. Investment in the area of vaccination is an important contributor to poverty reduction, improved quality of life, and economic development and prosperity.12 High levels of vaccination can also offer ‘herd immunity’ – this is a state at which immunisation levels in a given population are so high that even the small minority not immunised may be protected.
What are vaccines?

The vaccine concept is based on stimulating the body’s defence mechanisms against a specific pathogen to establish this immunological memory. By definition, all effective vaccines lead to the development of immune memory, by mimicking the threat of an infection and providing antigens derived from the specific pathogen. The ability to generate immune memory is the key attribute of the adaptive immune system, which is crucial for the long-term protection of individuals and populations. Through the addition of compounds called adjuvants, a vaccine’s ability to elicit a strong, durable protective immune response can be enhanced, therefore making them more effective. ‘Adjuvant Systems’ are specific combinations of individual adjuvants.

Vaccines have an impact around the world In Kenya, introduction of Hib (Haemophilus influenzae type B) vaccine into the routine childhood immunisation programme reduced the incidence of Hib disease among children younger than five years of age by 88%, reducing overall mortality in under-fives by 4%. The launch of RotarixTM saw hospitalisations in Brazil due to rotavirus gastroenteritis decrease by almost 60% in children younger than five, in post vaccines period. Up until 1999, meningitis C was the most common cause of death in children in the UK aged between one and five. Through the introduction of various vaccines for meningitis C, including MenitorixTM, incidence rates of meningitis have fallen significantly; since 2000, the meningitis C vaccination programme has prevented over 9,000 cases of serious disease and more than 1,000 deaths.

GSK is at the forefront of vaccine technology with significant advances to optimise protection from infectious diseases. 70% of our pipeline is based on vaccines containing Adjuvant Systems (AS). GSK has been investing in AS technology for almost 20 years. We have a large portfolio of adjuvant systems on which to draw to enrich the company’s expanding vaccine pipeline.

GSK is committed to providing global access to vaccines GSK is committed to making our vaccines available to developing countries and developed countries. For over 20 years we have made our entire vaccine portfolio, such as our combination vaccines, available at preferential prices to developing countries using a tiered pricing system. In 2010, GSK delivered 1.4 billion vaccine doses to 179 countries – this equates to almost 3 million doses each an every day. Over 70% of the vaccine doses distributed in 2010 were to developing countries.

Are vaccines safe?

Today, vaccines have an excellent safety record. Vaccine manufacturers can only sell their vaccines after they have satisfied regulatory authorities of the positive risk/benefits balance of the vaccines. All vaccines must be evaluated by the relevant national vaccine committees, for example the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

Are vaccines safe in babies and children?

Regulatory authorities carefully assess the data available for each vaccine before they grant it a license, and it is only once authorities are satisfied that the benefit outweighs the risks in children, that a vaccine will be authorised for use in this age group. Babies and children are given vaccines at a young age because this is when they are most vulnerable to vaccine preventable diseases. Routine vaccination helps to protect children from diseases that can be detrimental to their well-being.

Are vaccines dangerous for the immune system?

No evidence suggests that the recommended childhood vaccines can ‘overload’ the immune system. In contrast, from the moment babies are born they are exposed to numerous bacteria and viruses on a daily basis.

Do vaccines contain harmful ingredients?

Vaccine manufacturers can only sell their vaccines after they have satisfied regulatory authorities of their safety as well as their efficacy. If a vaccine contained a harmful ingredient it would not be deemed to be safe by the authorities and would not be licensed for sale.

Do vaccines cause disease and illness?

Vaccines prevent up to 3 million deaths and save 750,000 children from disabilities every year.2 Some vaccines may very rarely cause side-effects, which are almost always short-term in nature.

Do vaccines cause autism?

There is no scientific evidence that any vaccine formulations, including those containing thiomersal/thimerosal (contains ethyl mercury), cause neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism. The WHO’s Global Advisory Committee on Vaccines Safety (GACVS) reviewed this issue in 2002 and concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity in those exposed to thiomersal in vaccines,20 and in 2008 maintained the view that there is no evidence supporting any change in WHO’s recommendation for thiomersal-containing vaccines, including for low-birth-weight infants where indicated.

Do vaccines work?
Most childhood vaccines are 90-99% effective in preventing disease. They have kept children healthy and saved millions of lives around the world for more than 50 years.

Is it really necessary for babies/children to be vaccinated?

Maternal immunity passed to a baby by its mother only lasts for a few months and does not protect them against the vast number of vaccine preventable diseases they may encounter.19 It is therefore highly recommended that babies and children are vaccinated.

Are additional vaccine doses really needed once one dose has been administered?

Multiple doses are generally needed to provide sufficient stimulation of the immune system and booster doses may be needed to induce or maintain persistent immune responses.

Is ongoing vaccination necessary?

Many diseases which used to be major childhood killers are now rare. However, in certain parts of the world, some of the pathogens that cause vaccine preventable disease are still common and can be passed on to individuals that are not protected by vaccination. For this reason the need for vaccination is ongoing.

Why do newer vaccines cost so much?

Although highly effective, older vaccines such as the polio vaccine are based on well-established technologies that have been in widespread use for many decades. They are single antigen vaccines, which mean that they contain a single molecule designed to trigger production of an antibody and as a result are relatively simple and inexpensive to produce. In contrast, newer vaccines often contain multiple antigens and use advanced technologies (such as GSK’s Adjuvant Systems) designed to enhance their efficacy, which is needed for some diseases. These innovations induce a more enhanced, targeted stimulation of the immune response, producing strong, sustained and a broad protection that is of an improved efficacy to older vaccines.

References
1 UNICEF. Vaccines bring 7 diseases under control. The progress of nations 1996 – Health. February 2006. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/pon96/hevaccin.htm (accessed 18th April, 2011)
2 Ehreth J. The global value of vaccination. Vaccine 2003; 21: 4105-4117
3 Plotkin S, Orenstein W, Offit P. A short history of vaccination. Expert Consult. Vaccines. 2011
4 UNICEF. A short history of vaccination. Fact Sheet – Immunization 2010. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_46851.html (accessed 18th April, 2011)
5 WHO, UNICEF, World Bank. State of the world’s vaccines and immunization, 3rd edition. Geneva, 2009
6 WHO. Immunzation surveillance, assessment and monitoring. Available at: http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/en/ (accessed 19th April, 2011)
7 WHO. Poliomyelitis fact sheet. November 2010. Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/index.html (accessed 18th April, 2011)
8 UNICEF. Improving equity by eliminating maternal and neonatal tetanus. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/5524_Unicef_6pg_final.pdf (accessed 18th April, 2011)
9 Patel et al. Real-world impact of rotavirus vaccination. The Pediatric Infections Disease Journal 2011; 30(1): S1-S5
10 GAVI Alliance. GAVI and its role in achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Available at: http://www.gavialliance.org/media_centre/features/gavi_mdgs.php#MDG1 (accessed 19th April, 2011)
11 WHO. Fact sheet – Immunization against diseases of public health importance. March 2005. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/fact_sheet/2005/FS_288.pdf (accessed 9th May, 2011)
12 Andre F.E. et al. WHO. Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Bulletin of the WHO 2008; 86(2): 81-160
13 Garcon, N. et al. Understanding modern vaccines – Perspectives in vaccinology. Elsevier. 2011; Vol 1 Issue 1
14 Akumu A.O. et al. WHO. Economic evaluation of delivering Haemophilus influenza type b vaccine in routing immunization services in Kenya. Bulletin of the WHO 2007; 85(7): 511-518
15 Safadi et al. Hospital-based surveillance to evaluate the impact of rotavirus vaccination in Sao Paolo, Brazil. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2010; 29(11): 1019-22
16 Department of Health. Meningococcal C vaccine (Meningitis C) Factsheet. October 1999. Available at: http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/vaccinations/Documents/mencfsht%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed 4th May, 2011)
17 Health Protection Agency. Meningococcal infection factsheet. 2011 Available at: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733822509 (accessed 3rd May, 2011)
18 GSK Challenging the world of Vaccines Corporate Brochure 2011
19 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine Safety – Frequently asked questions about multiple vaccinations and the immune system. 2011. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/multiplevaccines.html (accessed 19th April, 2011)
20 WHO. Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety. Weekly epidemiological record 2002; 47: 389-404
21 WHO. Joint WHO-CDC conference on laboratory quality systems, Lyon, April 2008 – joint statement and Recommendations. Weekly epidemiological record 2008; 32: 285-292
22 American Academy of Pediatrics. Vaccine safety: The facts. 2008. Available at: http://www.cispimmunize.org/pro/pdf/VaccineSafety_parenthandout.pdf (accessed 18th April, 2011)

The truth about vitamins

Bryan — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:07:13 +0000

Vitamin C was thought to ward off colds
Every day millions of people in Britain take vitamin supplements.
It is an industry that is worth £300 million a year, but the pills are surrounded by controversy.

Some people claim that by taking them in large doses, they will prevent or even cure illnesses like cancer and heart disease.

But others fear that taking large doses of some vitamins could in certain cases be dangerous.

“For most people there’s absolutely no benefit in taking high dose vitamin supplements,” said Catherine Collins, chief dietician at London’s St George Hospital.

“At best they are a waste of money and at worst they could seriously affect your health.”

Both sides of the argument are investigated in a Horizon documentary to be broadcast on BBC television on Thursday.

Cold claim

The huge popularity of taking large doses of vitamins can be traced back to one of the greatest scientists of the 20th Century, double Nobel prize winner, Linus Pauling.

Taking Vitamin C supplements is not going to help prevent the common cold.
Professor Balz Frei
He claimed that by taking large doses of Vitamin C, the equivalent of the amount found in hundreds of oranges you could prevent or even cure the common cold.

Many scientists accused him of quackery, but the public loved it.

Professor Pauling even claimed that huge doses of vitamins could help you live longer.

His work inspired a new generation of health advisors, who remain convinced that large doses of vitamins improves your health.

“I believe taking that vitamin supplements, not only adds years to your life, but also adds life to your years,” said Patrick Holford of the Institute for Optimum Nutrition.

Vitamin C is the most popular vitamin sold in Britain, but was Linus Pauling right that it helps you fight the common cold?

New findings

Professor Balz Frei, the director of the Linus Pauling Institute, thinks that the latest scientific evidence reveals that Pauling was both right and wrong.

Vitamin A has been linked to weakened bones
For the general population, taking large doses of Vitamin C does not to stop you catching colds – but it can relieve the symptoms and reduce the cold’s duration.

But lots of people take Vitamin C for a very different reason. It is one of a group of vitamins called anti-oxidants that are claimed to help prevent diseases like cancer or heart disease.

The idea comes from scientific studies that have shown that people who eat a diet rich in anti-oxidants, are less likely to develop these illnesses.

One explanation for this is that anti-oxidants can help prevent damage from harmful molecules called free radicals.

“Why we grow old is in part due to the activity of free radicals,” said Professor Jeffrey Blumberg, of Tufts University Boston.

Absorption

Vitamin E is one of the most popular anti-oxidant vitamin supplements on sale.

But earlier this year an American scientist warned that people could be missing the potential benefit of their supplements if they took them on an empty stomach, because the Vitamin E might not be absorbed properly without the presence of some of fat.

New research from King’s College London, commissioned by Horizon, has investigated this idea further and yielded some surprising results.

The supplement they tested contained a tiny quantity of fat in itself and this seemed to be enough to enable the supplement to be absorbed.

Scientists are also still locked in debate about whether taking high doses of Vitamin C and E really can reduce your risk of chronic disease, but most safety experts agree that even in doses several times greater than the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA), they are still relatively safe.

But in recent years there has been some worrying evidence emerging about a possible harmful effect of Vitamin A, even at quite low doses.

Research has shown that long term intakes of Vitamin A at around twice the RDA, may be linked to weaker bones and an increased risk of bone fracture.

The theory remains controversial, but if it’s correct it means that people with high intakes of Vitamin A, either from food or the use of supplements may be slowly, silently weakening their bones.

How Flanders Helped Shape Freedom in America

Bryan — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:26:19 +0000

A great story I found while on a business trip to Brussels. I had no idea this place was so important in the US Declaration of Independence…

From the desk of Paul Belien on Sun

July 11 is Flanders Day. The date refers to the day in 1302 when an army of Flemish burghers defeated a superior army of French knights by driving them into a swamp. Historically the term Flanders refers to the mediaeval county of Flanders centered around the town of Brugge (Bruges in French). Today, the term Flanders is used in a broader sense, referring to the Dutch-speaking part of contemporary Belgium i.e. the historical counties of Flanders, Brabant and Loon. Brussels, the historical capital of Brabant, is currently the capital of Europe, Belgium and Flanders (in its contemporary, broad sense).

Flanders today: the northern, Dutch-speaking part of Belgium

Most Americans do not know that they owe a lot to the freedom-loving Flemings. A significant portion of the roots of American democracy can be found in the mediaeval Flemish towns of Brugge and Ghent and in the Brabant towns of Brussels and Antwerp. To find these roots we must return to the early Middle Ages, the period following the disintegration of Charlemagne’s empire. Ironically, the European Union claims to go back to the same roots.

Indeed, part of the original mystique of the movement for European unification can be found in the name that was given to the Brussels building which for almost 50 years has housed the European Council of Ministers. The building is called the Charlemagne Building. Charlemagne, king of the Germanic tribe of the Franks, was crowned Emperor of the West in 800 AD. He was the first ruler France and Germany ever had in common. His son Louis the Pious was the last. His grandsons, Charles the Bald and Louis the German, became the first kings of respectively France and Germany when in 843 at Verdun the Carolingian empire was divided and the kingdoms of France (the West-Frankish kingdom) and of an entity encompassing present-day Germany (the East-Frankish kingdom) were established.

Charlemagne is considered the father of the political unification of Europe just as he is considered the father of both France and Germany, the two nations whose alliance constitutes the political backbone of the process for European unification after the Second World War. The territory of the original six member-states of the European Economic Community (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg) was an almost exact copy of this Carolingian Empire. Only Switzerland was missing.

But Charles the Bald and Louis the German were not the only grandsons of Charlemagne. They had a brother, Lothar, who inherited the imperial crown and the lands lying between France and Germany – the Middle-Frankish kingdom. This Kingdom of the Middle was named after him: Lotharii Regnumor Lorraine. Lothar’s realm comprised all the countries lying between France and Germany today (the three Benelux-nations plus Switzerland) as well as the Eastern part of present-day France and the Western part of contemporary Germany plus the northern half of Italy.

Carolingian Empire after the Treaty of Verdun, 842

When Lothar’s son died without offspring in 875 the middle territories were divided between Charles the Bald and Louis the German. However, as these regions lay on the periphery of their heartlands generations of kings of France and emperors of the so-called “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” trying to consolidate their powers were never able to establish a firm rule over them. The result was that throughout the Middle Ages, and for some of them up to the 18th century and even today, the lands of the ancient middle part of Charlemagne’s empire were made up of virtually self-governing republics of farmers (as in Switzerland), independent countries controlled by burghers (as in the Netherlands and along the Rhine) or city republics (as in the North of Italy).

Virtually self-governing, with little interference from greedy princes, their tax collectors and meddling civil servants, these lands became very prosperous. Capitalism originated here. This whole axis from Amsterdam in the north to Siena in the south evolved into the economic spine of continental Europe. During the course of history in some of these middle regions (notably in the Netherlands in the Burgundian era and at the time of the United Dutch Republic, and in Switzerland) these small, independent states merged gradually into federations where the constituting parts and the individual citizens retained a large degree of autonomy. In these regions sophisticated political theories were devised which ensured that the Prince or the government did not embody the highest authority and were accountable to the Law. Switzerland has been a republic since the 13th century and the Netherlands was a republic from the 16th to the 18th century. The Burgundian Netherlands had a Prince, but whenever he wanted to raise taxes this prince, the Duke of Burgundy, had to ask the 17 counties of the Federation (and in the most prosperous of these counties, like Flanders and Brabant, even the different cities) for permission. The former Carolingian Middle Lands saw not only the birth of capitalism but also of limited government.

Historically, the formation of the Dutch nation started at the end of the 14th century when the Dukes of Burgundy through a series of marriages united 17 hitherto independent territories in the delta of the Rhine, Maas (Meuse) and Scheldt rivers, that were commonly referred to as the Nederlanden in Dutch (literally: the Low Countries) or the Provinciae Belgicae in Latin. This area comprised contemporary Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg as well as a part of northern France.

The 17 Provinces, map by Nicolaes Visscher (North is right)

Because these 17 provinces were situated on the periphery of the two kingdoms that they nominally belonged to (i.e. the Kingdom of France for Flanders and Artois, and the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation for the other 15 counties and duchies) they became a cluster of very prosperous and virtually independent city states where neither the overlord (the King of France or the Emperor) nor the feudal lord of the various counties and duchies had much to say. The burghers of towns like Brugge, Ghent, Antwerp, Brussels, Leuven, Mechelen, Breda, Middelburg, Rotterdam and Amsterdam ruled themselves. Very soon a republican tradition developed, where the nominal lord was tolerated only so long as he did not harm the interests of the cities, allowed them to rule themselves, and respected the charters and liberties which his predecessors had granted.

The Privilege of the Burghers

As early as the beginning of the 12th century, the citizens of Flanders had already formulated the principle that they were entitled to depose their Prince if the latter did not fulfil his duties towards the people. When in February 1128 Count William Clito of Flanders, son of Duke Robert Curthose of Normandy and grandson of William the Conqueror of England, introduced a new tax, despite an earlier promise not to, the Flemish cities rebelled. The burghers demanded that the Count be brought before an independent court, consisting of “barons from both parties and responsible men from the clergy and the people,” to decide whether or not the Count had broken his promise and, if so, to depose him. Instead of recognizing that the Prince had been appointed by God the Flemings insisted that he, too, was subject to the law and, if he did not accept this, he would be removed by an impartial court.

The Count objected and raised an army to teach his subjects a lesson, but he was defeated and killed in a battle with the Ghent militia in July 1128 whereupon the nobles and cities of Flanders convened to choose themselves another count from a different family. When the King of France, the overlord of the County of Flanders, tried to interfere the city of Brugge issued a proclamation, stating quite bluntly: “Let it be known to everyone […] that the King of France has nothing to do with the appointment or election of a Count of Flanders. […] This is the privilege of the nobles and burghers of this land.” During the following three centuries various Kings of France tried to meddle with Flemish affairs but never succeeded in establishing a permanent hold on the richest county of their kingdom.

From Brugge and Ghent the new principle of “government by consent” and under the Rule of Law spread into neighbouring Antwerp, Brussels and other Brabant cities and towns. From 1356 onwards every new Duke of Brabant, upon his accession, had to take a solemn vow, the so-called Joyful Entry. In this vow the prince promised to respect the liberties of the citizens and formally acknowledged that they had a right to rebel and “separate” from him if he did not do so. By the time the Dukes of Burgundy became lords of the various Low Countries it was an accepted principle in all the 17 provinces that the prince succeeded as Lord of the Netherlands only at the moment that he took this vow.

When in the middle of the 16th century the direct descendant of the Burgundians, the Habsburg King Philip II of Spain, tried to introduce Spanish absolutism in the Netherlands, the Dutch states rebelled. Their States-General convened in The Hague on 26 July 1581 where they issued the Plakkaat van Verlatinge (Statement of Separation) to justify their secession from Spain. “It is common knowledge that […] the sovereign is there to serve his subjects, without whom he would not be sovereign,” the document stated. When the sovereign violates the rights of the people “he must be regarded not as a sovereign but as a tyrant. Then his subjects may freely choose no longer to acknowledge him as their sovereign – especially after the States of the land have taken counsel together – but to separate from him and in place of him to choose another to be their sovereign and to protect their safety.” The Dutch provinces decided to establish a confederation of sovereign republics. This new state, inhabited by Catholics as well as Calvinist Protestants, issued a proclamation of religious tolerance (the so-called Pacification of Ghent) and vested supreme authority in representatives whose mandate was provisional and temporary. The military leadership was assigned to a Stadholder(literally: a defender of the city), Prince William “the Taciturn” of Orange.

Eventually, however, Spanish troops succeeded in reconquering 10 of the 17 provinces. The fall of Antwerp in 1585 marked the end of independence in the southern provinces but the Spanish troops were unable to subdue the lands further to the North because the Dutch had flooded the estuary of the Maas and Rhine, thus creating a barrier of water against the Spanish. After the Spanish conquest of the South more than ten percent of the population of southern provinces such as Flanders and Brabant fled to the North and resettled in and around Amsterdam and other towns in Holland and Zeeland. The population of Antwerp fell from 84,000 in 1583 to 42,000 in 1589; Ghent from 45,000 to 22,000; Brugge from 35,000 to 17,000; Mechelen from 30,000 to 10,000. In the North, Amsterdam boomed from 30,000 to 60,000; Haarlem from 16,000 to 40,000; Middelburg from 10,000 to 30,000; Leiden from 13,000 to 26,000.

Crossing the Atlantic

While the southern (Spanish) Netherlands remained under foreign rule and became a colony first of the Spanish Habsburgs, later of their Austrian relatives, the confederation of the seven northern provinces – theConfoederatio Belgica or United Dutch Republic – became a global power. It established its own colonies all over the world, from America to South Africa, the Far East and Japan. The Dutch colonists took their political ideas along with them, also to Nova Belgica, New Netherland, with its capital Nieuw-Amsterdam, known today as New York.

Nova Belgica et Anglia Nova, map by W.J. Bleau (North is right)

It was a 30-year old adventurer from Amsterdam, Arnout Vogels, who in 1610 became the first fur trader along the Hudson river. Vogels was born in Antwerp and had fled Brabant with his parents after the Spanish conquest. In 1624 Nieuw-Amsterdam was founded by the West India Company, a Dutch trading company established by Willem Usselincx, an Antwerp businessman who had also fled to Amsterdam in 1585. According to Russell Shorto in his 2004 bestselling history of Manhattan, The Island at the Centre of the World, the Dutch gave America its cosmopolitan outlook and shaped it into the open and democratic society it is today. The democratic traditions of the Netherlands were brought to America by Adriaen van der Donck, a lawyer from Brabant.

There is a direct historical line linking Brugge to Antwerp, Antwerp to Amsterdam and Amsterdam to New York. The “centre of the world,” as a beacon of self-governing democracy and liberty where capitalism originated, evolved along this line. Brugge was the Manhattan of the 13th century, as Antwerp was the Manhattan of the 16th century and Amsterdam that of the 17th century. Likewise Antwerp was the Brugge of the 16th century, Amsterdam that of the 17th, and New York that of the 20th century.

A number of typically American things such as cookie (koekje), dollar(daalder) and Santa Claus (Sinterklaas) have a Dutch origin which dates back to mediaeval Flanders. The same is true for the concept that free trade liberates people and that political and economic freedom are indivisible. Professor Stephen E. Lucas of the University of Wisconsin at Madison writes in “The Plakkaat van Verlatinge: A Neglected Model for the American Declaration of Independence” (his contribution to Hofte, R., and H. Kardux, eds. The Netherlands in Five Centuries of Transatlantic Exchange. Amsterdam: VU Press, 1994) that the text of the Declaration of Independence issued by the American Continental Congress on 4 July 1776 was clearly modelled on the 1581 Dutch Plakkaat van Verlatinge. The American Declaration stated: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that […] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e. to secure the liberties of the people] it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This is exactly what the Flemings had said in 1128 when they deposed Count William Clito of Flanders and the burghers of Brugge declared that “the appointment or election of a Count of Flanders […] is the privilege of the nobles and burghers of this land.”