American doctor Ian Crozier was treated for Ebola in Atlanta last year and declared free of the virus in his blood. But he had no way of knowing it still lurked in his eye.

At the time, his eyes were the least of his worries.

"There were lots of things sort of higher on the food chain," he told CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360." "I was struggling to learn to walk again."

But not long after, mild burning and light sensitivity afflicted his eyes.

Less than two months later, he was back at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta; testing showed the virus was still living in his eye.

Perplexed

His case has left doctors stunned and highlighted the need for eye checkups for Ebola survivors.

Crozier, 44, was hospitalized at Emory University Hospital for more than a month in September after contracting the disease in Sierra Leone, where he worked at a hospital.

At the time, the hospital said he was the sickest of all the four Ebola patients treated there.

Crozier was discharged in October, and about two months later, he developed eye problems and returned to Emory. Doctors stuck a needle in his eye and removed some fluid, which tested positive for the virus.

Tom's of Maine has become a mainstream brand among health-conscious consumers. Unfortunately, it turns out that most of these consumers are unaware of who owns Tom's of Main and what ingredients Tom's products contain. This might be shocking to some but Tom's of Maine isn't owned by Tom and is not from Maine. In fact, it's owned by a well-known corporate giant — Colgate-Palmolive of New York. In the United States alone, Colgate-Palmolive's 35% share mostly relies on a patented gingivitis formula which contains triclosan, a toxic chemical substance that reacts with the chlorine in tap water to become chloroform — a deadly chlorinated aromatic.

It has been known for some time that diabetics are prone to a host of problems: poor circulation, vision, even back pain.

But it seems a new one has been added to the list: dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. According to one review of the published literature, diabetic patients had a 46 percent higher risk of developing Alzheimer's and a whopping 250 percent increased risk of dementia caused by problems with blood supply to the brain. This is why these problems sometimes are called "Type 3" diabetes.

It appears the chronic high blood sugar associated with Types 1 and 2 diabetes is hard on the blood vessels. This, in turn, affects the tissues that rely on the oxygen and fuel these vessels' supply, including the brain.

I did not write this column to add to the woes of diabetics. But during my work with nutrition, I am amazed at how many diabetics, Types 1 and 2, still are eating carbohydrate-based diets, even if they are avoiding processed sugar.

The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) issued an epidemiological alert on the potential spread on the continent of the mosquito-borne viral disease Zika, which is similar to dengue and Chikungunya, but with milder symptoms.

Costa Rica's Health Ministry reported that the alert was prompted by the confirmation last month of the first cases of Zika in Brazil and on Chile's Easter Island.

"The island's proximity to the Polynesian Triangle prompted alerts for the Americas," Roberto Castro, from the ministry's Health Surveillance Department, said.

A Zika infection may go unnoticed or be misdiagnosed because like dengue and Chikungunya it causes fever, rashes, swelling of joints, headaches and red eye. Symptoms appear within three to 12 days after the bite of an infected mosquito. Symptoms are usually mild and last from two to seven days.

The virus, also known as ZIKV, was first found in the Aedes africanus mosquito and later in the Aedes Aegypti and Aedes polynesiensis mosquitoes. There are also documented cases of transmission by other Aedes species including Albopictus, currently found in Costa Rica and which also carry Chikungunya.

The Consumer Protection Amendment (CPA) was brought forth today in California to strike a balance between vaccine mandates and the absence of vaccine manufacturer liability highlighted by SB 277.

As the controversial bill advances through the California legislature, SB 277 has been met with strong and growing public resistance. This citizen movement is drawing attention to the legal implications of the arcane National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986.

This amendment gives consumers in California the opportunity to sue vaccine manufacturers in the event of injury or death.

It also creates the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the federal government's attempts to block any lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers.

June 1st, 2015, I published UK's Independent Newspaper Blows Lid Off Vaccine Damages only to find that investigative reporter extraordinaire Sharyl Attkisson published her article Government Wipes Recent Vaccine Injury Data from Website the day before, May 31st. What a truly exciting coincidence, I think, insofar as it seems unforeseen circumstances were plotting to expose the true dichotomy about vaccines and the horrific, life-long and life-endangering damages they cause: vaccine adverse reactions.

What I find absolutely stunning about Sharyl's reporting is that she apparently is fearless in laying out the skullduggery involved with the feds deliberate actions, which seem to be efforts to 'salvage' a sinking ship: vaccines—due to their adverse reactions reporting and claims settlements by the U.S. Vaccine Court. I wonder what the feds will do to skew the VAERS reporting system where U.S. citizens report adverse reactions.

In my daily research I came across a report so alarming I put aside planned writing in order to bring this to the attention of those who care about life. It has to do with one of the main treatments for cancer used in modern medicine—chemotherapy. New research has documented that chemotherapy, far from ridding anyone of cancer actually feeds the growth and spread of cancer.

Sometimes it almost seems like the drugs industry works overtime to find new ways to hurt, cripple or even kill us. Scientist Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle in a write-up of a study of why cancer cells were so easy to kill in the lab but not inside our bodies, found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival. "The increase in WNT16B was completely unexpected," Nelson told AFP.

He added that,"WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumor cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy." That would explain why in cancer treatment, tumors often respond well initially, followed by rapid regrowth and then resistance to further chemotherapy.

The study was conducted by a team of scientists from different cancer research centers, universities as well as from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories. It was published online in August 2012 in the journal Nature Medicine. Among their alarming conclusions was that, "The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression."

The Environmental Protection Agency today released a long-awaited draft report on the impact of fracking on drinking water supplies. The analysis, which drew on peer-reviewed studies as well as state and federal databases, found that activities associated with fracking do "have the potential to impact drinking water resources." But it concluded that in the United States, these impacts have been few and far between.

The report identifies several possible areas of concern, including: "water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and discharge of water."

However, the report says, "We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources."

Women may believe that eating the placenta after childbirth, or taking pills made from a dried-out version of this organ that nourishes the fetus, can help with problems such as postpartum depression and breast-feeding difficulties. However, there's no scientific evidence to support these claims, according to a new review of previous studies.

Interest in consuming placenta (also called the afterbirth) has perhaps been spurred by celebrities who tout the benefits of the practice, researchers said.

"Yummy...PLACENTA pills!" Kourtney Kardashian wrote in an Instagram post on Jan. 10. "No joke...I will be sad when my placenta pills run out. They are life changing!"

Some women eat the placenta raw, others may dry out the organ or cook it. There are companies that will take the placenta and process it into capsules, and also instructions online for women who want to do this themselves.

In the new review, researchers found that the "the primary motivation for most women for consuming placenta is to prevent postpartum depression," said study co-author Cynthia Coyle, a clinical psychologist at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. "But are women making the choice to do this, and forgoing other scientifically proven treatments? We don't know the answer to that."

There is some evidence from animal studies that for mice, eating placenta could reduce pain during labor or delivery, Coyle said. But there's no evidence that it works the same way in women, and most women don't consume placenta for this reason anyway, Coyle said.

Some women may take placenta pills for cosmetic reasons, thinking that the pills will tighten aging skin or help with regulating hormones during menopause, according to the review.

Coyle and her colleagues looked at 10 studies done to date on why women are interested in eating the placenta, as well as how "placentophagy," or eating the placenta, may affect health.

(Ho hum, not again)

A number of people have written to me pointing out an outbreak of mass hysteria in the UK press about statins protecting against cancer. I suspect this hysteria has been repeated around the world. Here are the headlines from the eponymous Daily Mail

Statins slash risk of death by cancer: They slow tumour growth

by up to 50% reveal major studies

Experts say there is 'overwhelming' evidence that statins can treat cancer

Study showed they cut death rates for bone cancer patients by 55 per cent

GPs should make patients aware of pills' new benefits, researchers say

I have been aware of claims that statins protect against cancer for many years. They pop up on a pretty regular basis. I have tended to ignore them on the basis that, anyone who is stupid enough to believe such research, deserves all the statins they can get.

However, such is the overblown hype this time, that I feel the need to rouse myself from my slumber, and explain why this is just complete rubbish. I don't need to read the original studies to do this. I have read enough of these over the years. I hope this does not sound too arrogant, but I will happily apologise if any single thing I write here proves to be wrong.