Many people think that the popular holiday Poinsettia plant is poisonous. This is not true! For the facts go to:
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/are-poinsettias-poisonous.html
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health. Show all posts
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
HEALTH NEWS
I'm sure most of you are aware of the "growing" bedbug problem which is spreading across the country.. Here are 2 links to information regarding the situation:
Be aware of where you sleep and sit when traveling and /or in public places.
(read the comments; they provide testimony and firsthand experience reports, very informative)
(use this link to check specific addresses and hotels for record of bedbug complaints)
Saturday, August 21, 2010
HEALTH NEWS
From the 'Douglass Report'.......
Receipts covered in hormone-like chemical
Here’s a reality check for those of you who think you can avoid the toxic chemical bisphenol A: It turns out this toxic chemical has even been found in cash register receipts. That’s right: It’s not just cans and plastic bottles, friends — this poison is literally everywhere.
Researchers from the Environmental Working Group found this dangerous estrogen-like substance in 40 percent of receipts from places like Safeway, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, CVS, and KFC.
Even the hippy-friendly greenie paradise Whole Foods had BPA in its receipts. You just can’t trust anyone these days!
But if you think handling receipts with BPA is no big deal, think again. Swiss scientists say that two hours after exposure, 30 percent of the BPA from a receipt remained on the skin — and could no longer be washed away.
Nothing like a hormone boost with each purchase — and they don’t even charge extra for it.
Speaking of BPA, Duane wrote in to ask how to send a message to the FDA urging them to ban this toxic garbage. Here’s what you do, Duane: Write a letter and print it out. Don’t waste money on an envelope or a stamp — just run that letter right through your shredder.
That’s what the feds will do with it, because they don’t care about you or me. The dangers of BPA are well known and well documented — it’s been linked to everything from obesity and cardiovascular problems to reproductive harm and early puberty — and they’re deliberately ignoring all that evidence every single day they fail to act.
But don’t let me bust your bubble. If you enjoy a good exercise in futility, you can send your thoughts to consumer@fda.gov. Tell ‘em I sent you.
If you want to do something more productive with your time, get rid of everything that might contain BPA: Cans, bottles, jars with lids — if it doesn’t say “BPA free,” assume it’s BPA full.
There’s not much you can do about those receipts. I’d say leave them right there at the cash register, but in some places they’ll tackle you at the door if you don’t show a receipt on the way out. You might also need those receipts for warranties, returns and the taxman.
Shopping has officially become a dangerous activity — bring disposable gloves.
WC Douglass, M.D.
realhealth@healthiernews.com
Receipts covered in hormone-like chemical
Here’s a reality check for those of you who think you can avoid the toxic chemical bisphenol A: It turns out this toxic chemical has even been found in cash register receipts. That’s right: It’s not just cans and plastic bottles, friends — this poison is literally everywhere.
Researchers from the Environmental Working Group found this dangerous estrogen-like substance in 40 percent of receipts from places like Safeway, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, CVS, and KFC.
Even the hippy-friendly greenie paradise Whole Foods had BPA in its receipts. You just can’t trust anyone these days!
But if you think handling receipts with BPA is no big deal, think again. Swiss scientists say that two hours after exposure, 30 percent of the BPA from a receipt remained on the skin — and could no longer be washed away.
Nothing like a hormone boost with each purchase — and they don’t even charge extra for it.
Speaking of BPA, Duane wrote in to ask how to send a message to the FDA urging them to ban this toxic garbage. Here’s what you do, Duane: Write a letter and print it out. Don’t waste money on an envelope or a stamp — just run that letter right through your shredder.
That’s what the feds will do with it, because they don’t care about you or me. The dangers of BPA are well known and well documented — it’s been linked to everything from obesity and cardiovascular problems to reproductive harm and early puberty — and they’re deliberately ignoring all that evidence every single day they fail to act.
But don’t let me bust your bubble. If you enjoy a good exercise in futility, you can send your thoughts to consumer@fda.gov. Tell ‘em I sent you.
If you want to do something more productive with your time, get rid of everything that might contain BPA: Cans, bottles, jars with lids — if it doesn’t say “BPA free,” assume it’s BPA full.
There’s not much you can do about those receipts. I’d say leave them right there at the cash register, but in some places they’ll tackle you at the door if you don’t show a receipt on the way out. You might also need those receipts for warranties, returns and the taxman.
Shopping has officially become a dangerous activity — bring disposable gloves.
WC Douglass, M.D.
realhealth@healthiernews.com
Friday, July 23, 2010
HEALTH NEWS MUST WATCH VIDEO
Do yourself and your family a favor and watch this 8 minuet video and heed it's concerns and warnings.
This text will be replaced by the player
Thursday, July 22, 2010
HEALTH NEWS
Don't let the phoney melanoma scare keep you out of the sun
There are many good reasons why we won't – and shouldn't – give up our tan
Sam Shuster The Guardian, Wednesday 21 July 2010
Kira Cochrane asks "why can't we give up the tan?" (Going for the burn, G2, 7 July). The answer is simple: we are not convinced that the alleged harm outweighs the obvious benefits, and we dislike the bullying, fear-mongering campaign against sun exposure.
Skin cancer statistics are used to scare, not educate. Almost all of the 84,000 skin "cancers" that appear each year are in fact benign: they don't spread or kill; their cancerous name is a historical misnomer. Of course, sun exposure increases facial wrinkling, as does smoking, but the black ace in the fear game is melanoma, because the real thing is vicious.
As the article tells us, Cancer Research UK say the incidence of malignant melanoma has "quadrupled in Britain in the last 30 years". But if this were so we would have seen coffin-loads of consequences by now. We haven't, and in a recently published large UK study (British Journal of Dermatology, 2009), I and my colleagues showed that the reason mortality has not increased with incidence is that the tumours reported are actually benign; they are not true malignant melanomas. Our explanation of the phoney melanoma epidemic is "diagnostic drift which classifies benign lesions as … melanoma", a misdiagnosis "driven by defensive medicine, an unsurprising response to its commercialisation".
The recategorisation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that Cochrane quotes, which gives sunbeds "the same high risk … as cigarettes and asbestos", is absurd. The field is an unreliable mess of conflicting conclusions, and the claim of a special risk for younger people, which the article repeats, is now denied. But critically, since we now know incidence is invalidated by classifying benign disease as malignant, until diagnosis is improved only studies of melanoma mortality are acceptable; and the few that have been done show that melanoma mortality actually decreases after UV exposure!
The poor relationship of melanoma to cumulative UV dose had solarphobics running for cover in the idea the article quotes, that a one-off sunburn "could develop into a melanoma". But that doesn't happen: unlike the benign tumours that really are caused by UV, melanomas do not predominate in sun-exposed skin. There are commonsense reasons to avoid sunburn, and for use of sunscreens – but not, as Cochrane implies, to prevent melanoma, for which they have been shown to be ineffective.
Cochrane wonders why "we still associate tanned skin with good health", but there are many good reasons. Although the medical uses that gained Niels Ryberg Finsen a Nobel prize have long past, there are newer uses in photo-chemotherapy, dermatology and psychiatry.
Self-image is measurably increased by a tan, and we will learn much from understanding the mechanism of this wellbeing. UV initiates the synthesis of vitamin D, essential for our bones, and sunscreen promotion has led to problems. It also has a profound effect on our immune function. Strangely, the bastard science of descriptive epidemiology that masterminded the melanoma myth now claims that UV lowers the incidence of many internal cancers and melanoma, thereby outweighing any harmful effects.
Plants and animals owe their existence to the sun, and it is hardly surprising that we've learned to adapt and use it. That's why we can't give up our tan, and more importantly why we shouldn't try.
There are many good reasons why we won't – and shouldn't – give up our tan
Sam Shuster The Guardian, Wednesday 21 July 2010
Kira Cochrane asks "why can't we give up the tan?" (Going for the burn, G2, 7 July). The answer is simple: we are not convinced that the alleged harm outweighs the obvious benefits, and we dislike the bullying, fear-mongering campaign against sun exposure.
Skin cancer statistics are used to scare, not educate. Almost all of the 84,000 skin "cancers" that appear each year are in fact benign: they don't spread or kill; their cancerous name is a historical misnomer. Of course, sun exposure increases facial wrinkling, as does smoking, but the black ace in the fear game is melanoma, because the real thing is vicious.
As the article tells us, Cancer Research UK say the incidence of malignant melanoma has "quadrupled in Britain in the last 30 years". But if this were so we would have seen coffin-loads of consequences by now. We haven't, and in a recently published large UK study (British Journal of Dermatology, 2009), I and my colleagues showed that the reason mortality has not increased with incidence is that the tumours reported are actually benign; they are not true malignant melanomas. Our explanation of the phoney melanoma epidemic is "diagnostic drift which classifies benign lesions as … melanoma", a misdiagnosis "driven by defensive medicine, an unsurprising response to its commercialisation".
The recategorisation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer that Cochrane quotes, which gives sunbeds "the same high risk … as cigarettes and asbestos", is absurd. The field is an unreliable mess of conflicting conclusions, and the claim of a special risk for younger people, which the article repeats, is now denied. But critically, since we now know incidence is invalidated by classifying benign disease as malignant, until diagnosis is improved only studies of melanoma mortality are acceptable; and the few that have been done show that melanoma mortality actually decreases after UV exposure!
The poor relationship of melanoma to cumulative UV dose had solarphobics running for cover in the idea the article quotes, that a one-off sunburn "could develop into a melanoma". But that doesn't happen: unlike the benign tumours that really are caused by UV, melanomas do not predominate in sun-exposed skin. There are commonsense reasons to avoid sunburn, and for use of sunscreens – but not, as Cochrane implies, to prevent melanoma, for which they have been shown to be ineffective.
Cochrane wonders why "we still associate tanned skin with good health", but there are many good reasons. Although the medical uses that gained Niels Ryberg Finsen a Nobel prize have long past, there are newer uses in photo-chemotherapy, dermatology and psychiatry.
Self-image is measurably increased by a tan, and we will learn much from understanding the mechanism of this wellbeing. UV initiates the synthesis of vitamin D, essential for our bones, and sunscreen promotion has led to problems. It also has a profound effect on our immune function. Strangely, the bastard science of descriptive epidemiology that masterminded the melanoma myth now claims that UV lowers the incidence of many internal cancers and melanoma, thereby outweighing any harmful effects.
Plants and animals owe their existence to the sun, and it is hardly surprising that we've learned to adapt and use it. That's why we can't give up our tan, and more importantly why we shouldn't try.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
HEALTH NEWS
Deet Finally Exposed as Neurotoxic
Monday, July 05, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) New research shows that the insect-repelling chemical deet actually functions in the same way as deadly nerve gases and dangerous pesticides, by attacking the nervous systems of both insects and mammals.
"These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals," said researcher Vincent Corbel of Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement in Montpellier.
The chemical known as deet (for N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is found in nearly every commonly used mosquito repellent in the world, and eight billion doses have been applied since its introduction to the consumer market in 1957. The chemical was originally developed as an insect repellent by the U.S. Army in 1946, following experience with jungle warfare in World War II.
Deet's popularity comes largely from its effectiveness in repelling a variety of medically significant insects over longer periods of time than more natural repellents (such as certain vegetable-based oils), and the fact that it can be incorporated into sprays, liquids or lotions. Yet although researchers have long insisted that the chemical is safe, they still recommend that consumers use the minimum amount of repellent necessary to cover exposed skin or clothing, and that deet repellents not be applied directly to any irritated or injured skin. While the United States allows the sale of 100 percent deet repellents, many other countries limit maximum concentrations of the chemical to 30 or 50 percent.
In spite of the chemical's long use, researchers are unsure exactly how deet functions to repel mosquitoes. It has long been believed to affect mosquito behavior without harming the insects, probably by interfering with their sense of smell and their ability to find human prey.
Yet the new study, published in the journal BioMed Central Biology, suggests that deet may function by interfering directly with insects' nervous systems.
"We've found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, in both insects and mammals," the researchers said.
In experiments performed in cockroaches and rats, the researchers found that deet blocked the action of the neurological enzyme acetylcholinesterase. This is the same mechanism that causes the toxic effects of popular carbamate and organophosphate pesticides, as well as chemical weapons such as sarin and VX nerve gas. This may mean that deet repellants are actually insecticides and could damage the human nervous system.
Organophosphates are among the pesticides most commonly implicated in pesticide poisoning worldwide, and are also a commonly used suicide method in agricultural areas. Like nerve gases, organophosphates irreversibly inactivate acetylcholinesterase, leading to excessive salivation and eye watering at low doses, and muscle spasms or death at higher doses. Although carbamates are not as toxic as organophosphates, their effects can be just as severe at high enough doses.
Strong evidence also links these pesticides to dangerous health effects caused by long-term exposure even at low doses.
Previous studies have implicated deet in causing seizures in children, but the current study is the first to uncover how the chemical acts directly on the nervous system.
The researchers also found that the effects of deet were enhanced when it was used in combination with organophosphates or carbamates, as in mixed repellent-insecticide products.
Bahie Abou-Donia of the Duke University Medical Center said that the new findings are consistent with previous research into the risks of deet.
"Deet is a good chemical for protection against insects," Abou-Donia said. "But prolonged exposure results in neurological damage, and this is enhanced by other chemicals and medications."
The researchers in the new study suggested that pregnant women and children under the age of six avoid using deet-containing mosquito repellents. Abou-Donia went farther, calling for such products to carry warning labels about deet's potential to cause neurological harm.
The Environmental Protection Agency has a review of deet's safety planned for 2012.
Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk; www.sciencedaily.com; www.usnews.com; www.dailymail.co.uk.
Monday, July 05, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) New research shows that the insect-repelling chemical deet actually functions in the same way as deadly nerve gases and dangerous pesticides, by attacking the nervous systems of both insects and mammals.
"These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals," said researcher Vincent Corbel of Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement in Montpellier.
The chemical known as deet (for N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is found in nearly every commonly used mosquito repellent in the world, and eight billion doses have been applied since its introduction to the consumer market in 1957. The chemical was originally developed as an insect repellent by the U.S. Army in 1946, following experience with jungle warfare in World War II.
Deet's popularity comes largely from its effectiveness in repelling a variety of medically significant insects over longer periods of time than more natural repellents (such as certain vegetable-based oils), and the fact that it can be incorporated into sprays, liquids or lotions. Yet although researchers have long insisted that the chemical is safe, they still recommend that consumers use the minimum amount of repellent necessary to cover exposed skin or clothing, and that deet repellents not be applied directly to any irritated or injured skin. While the United States allows the sale of 100 percent deet repellents, many other countries limit maximum concentrations of the chemical to 30 or 50 percent.
In spite of the chemical's long use, researchers are unsure exactly how deet functions to repel mosquitoes. It has long been believed to affect mosquito behavior without harming the insects, probably by interfering with their sense of smell and their ability to find human prey.
Yet the new study, published in the journal BioMed Central Biology, suggests that deet may function by interfering directly with insects' nervous systems.
"We've found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, in both insects and mammals," the researchers said.
In experiments performed in cockroaches and rats, the researchers found that deet blocked the action of the neurological enzyme acetylcholinesterase. This is the same mechanism that causes the toxic effects of popular carbamate and organophosphate pesticides, as well as chemical weapons such as sarin and VX nerve gas. This may mean that deet repellants are actually insecticides and could damage the human nervous system.
Organophosphates are among the pesticides most commonly implicated in pesticide poisoning worldwide, and are also a commonly used suicide method in agricultural areas. Like nerve gases, organophosphates irreversibly inactivate acetylcholinesterase, leading to excessive salivation and eye watering at low doses, and muscle spasms or death at higher doses. Although carbamates are not as toxic as organophosphates, their effects can be just as severe at high enough doses.
Strong evidence also links these pesticides to dangerous health effects caused by long-term exposure even at low doses.
Previous studies have implicated deet in causing seizures in children, but the current study is the first to uncover how the chemical acts directly on the nervous system.
The researchers also found that the effects of deet were enhanced when it was used in combination with organophosphates or carbamates, as in mixed repellent-insecticide products.
Bahie Abou-Donia of the Duke University Medical Center said that the new findings are consistent with previous research into the risks of deet.
"Deet is a good chemical for protection against insects," Abou-Donia said. "But prolonged exposure results in neurological damage, and this is enhanced by other chemicals and medications."
The researchers in the new study suggested that pregnant women and children under the age of six avoid using deet-containing mosquito repellents. Abou-Donia went farther, calling for such products to carry warning labels about deet's potential to cause neurological harm.
The Environmental Protection Agency has a review of deet's safety planned for 2012.
Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk; www.sciencedaily.com; www.usnews.com; www.dailymail.co.uk.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Monday, April 05, 2010
HEALTH NEWS
No surprise: Soda linked to diabetes, heart disease
"I don't think another penny needs to be wasted studying soda... we already know this stuff is about as healthy as battery acid. Tastes like it too, if you ask me."
"But they're throwing money at it anyway, and a new study shows that soda drinkers are more likely to come down with diabetes and heart disease. Big surprise."
"But clearly, people aren't getting the message -- because that sweetened sludge remains our national beverage of choice, with even little kids drinking a can or more a day."
"The new study, presented at the American Heart Association's Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention conference, estimated that sugary drinks helped to create 130,000 new diabetes cases over the last decade. The researchers also said that soda caused 14,000 new cases of heart disease in that time."
"Look, I don't know how they came up with these numbers -- they could have pulled them off of bottle caps for all I know. But there's no doubt that soda causes diabetes, heart disease and so much more -- including obesity and osteoporosis, and not just some of the time. Drink this junk regularly, and you will get sick. It's only a matter of time."
"Don't think switching to diet sludge will save you. If there's one thing worse for you than regular cola, it's diet cola. Diet drinkers face all of the same problems as non-diet drinkers -- and then some."
"As a bonus, they get to enjoy the side effects of aspartame, the toxic sweetener inside most of those beverages. This poison has been linked to seizures, coma, cancer, headaches, blindness, tinnitus, memory loss, and even death. If you want to know more about aspartame, read more here. You'll never touch this stuff again. And as a final kick in the pants, diet soda drinkers don't even lose weight. In fact, plenty of studies have shown that they actually get FATTER."
"Bottom line: If you want to be healthy, cut soda out completely -- unless it's plain old carbonated seltzer water."
Naturally fizzy,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
HEALTH NEWS
In recent days, there have been several stories about the dangers of children choking on hot dogs. Because it will soon be baseball season, as well as summer outdoor grilling time, there will be a large increase in hot dog consumption throughout the country. You may (or may not) be interested in the following information about the making of this 'all American' food favorite:
Choking on Hot Dogs? It's not the shape, it's the ingredients......
Choking on Hot Dogs? It's not the shape, it's the ingredients......
Sunday, January 24, 2010
MUST READ: THE FLU/VACCINE SCAM
Pulling back the curtain
on swine flu.. From the "DAILY DOSE"
"Looks like the swine flu "crisis" has finally unraveled -- just as I've warned right from the start. A leading European health official is now pushing for an investigation into the so-called pandemic -- and the desperate push to line Big Pharma pockets at your expense.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, health chief at the Council of Europe, put it best when he told the European press, "We have had a mild flu -- and a false pandemic." His resolution calling for the investigation passed the Council, setting the stage for an emergency debate. It seems they've finally realized that the real emergency isn't the flu -- it's the lies we've been told about it, and the dangerous vaccines forced on millions based on those filthy falsehoods.
The good doctor -- turns out there are still a few of us left -- is even calling the non-pandemic "one of the greatest medical scandals of the century." We're only a decade into this century -- we've still got 90 years to see what else Big Pharma has up its sleeve! But already, this one's been a doozy. It'll be hard to top Vioxx in terms of death and destruction... but as far as swindles go, swine flu takes the prize. Around the world, supposedly concerned and impartial health "experts" all predicted terrifying (and ultimately nonexistent) consequences from the swine flu... and many of them just so happened to have financial ties to Big Pharma.
Maybe that's why the World Health Organization was so quick to change its definition of "pandemic" to make swine flu fit the bill. These same experts are now warning of a swine flu "third wave" and urging more people to submit to the needle. Listen closely and you might hear them laughing as they count their money. Give it a rest already, guys. This con job's over."
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
More:
http://www.naturalnews.com:80/027984_swine_flu_vaccines.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1K74Tnrrok
http://www.wanttoknow.info/healthmediaarticles
http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-swine-flu-fear-mongering
on swine flu.. From the "DAILY DOSE"
"Looks like the swine flu "crisis" has finally unraveled -- just as I've warned right from the start. A leading European health official is now pushing for an investigation into the so-called pandemic -- and the desperate push to line Big Pharma pockets at your expense.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, health chief at the Council of Europe, put it best when he told the European press, "We have had a mild flu -- and a false pandemic." His resolution calling for the investigation passed the Council, setting the stage for an emergency debate. It seems they've finally realized that the real emergency isn't the flu -- it's the lies we've been told about it, and the dangerous vaccines forced on millions based on those filthy falsehoods.
The good doctor -- turns out there are still a few of us left -- is even calling the non-pandemic "one of the greatest medical scandals of the century." We're only a decade into this century -- we've still got 90 years to see what else Big Pharma has up its sleeve! But already, this one's been a doozy. It'll be hard to top Vioxx in terms of death and destruction... but as far as swindles go, swine flu takes the prize. Around the world, supposedly concerned and impartial health "experts" all predicted terrifying (and ultimately nonexistent) consequences from the swine flu... and many of them just so happened to have financial ties to Big Pharma.
Maybe that's why the World Health Organization was so quick to change its definition of "pandemic" to make swine flu fit the bill. These same experts are now warning of a swine flu "third wave" and urging more people to submit to the needle. Listen closely and you might hear them laughing as they count their money. Give it a rest already, guys. This con job's over."
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
More:
http://www.naturalnews.com:80/027984_swine_flu_vaccines.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1K74Tnrrok
http://www.wanttoknow.info/healthmediaarticles
http://www.wanttoknow.info/a-swine-flu-fear-mongering
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
MORE 'BIG PHARMA' SCAMS & FRAUD
Tamiflu anti-viral drug revealed as complete hoax; Roche studies based on scientific fraud....
Monday, December 14, 2009
by Mike Adams, Editor of NaturalNews.com
"When it comes to selling chemicals that claim to treat H1N1 swine flu, the pharmaceutical industry's options are limited to two: Vaccines and anti-virals. The most popular anti-viral, by far, is Tamiflu, a drug that's actually derived from a Traditional Chinese Medicine herb called star anise. But Tamiflu is no herb. It's a potentially fatal concentration of isolated chemical components that have essentially been bio-pirated from Chinese medicine. And when you isolate and concentrate specific chemicals in these herbs, you lose the value (and safety) of full-spectrum herbal medicine. That didn't stop Tamiflu's maker, Roche, from trying to find a multi-billion-dollar market for its drug. In order to tap into that market, however, Roche needed to drum up some evidence that Tamiflu was both safe and effective.
Roche engages in science fraud. Roche claims there are ten studies providing Tamiflu is both safe and effective. According to the company, Tamiflu has all sorts of benefits, including a 61% reduction in hospital admissions by people who catch the flu and then get put on Tamiflu. The problem with these claims is that they aren't true. They were simply invented by Roche. A groundbreaking article recently published in the British Medical Journal accuses Roche of misleading governments and physicians over the benefits of Tamiflu. Out of the ten studies cited by Roche, it turns out, only two were ever published in science journals. And where is the original data from those two studies? Lost! The data has disappeared. Files were discarded. The researcher of one study says he never even saw the data. Roche took care of all that, he explains.
So the Cochrane Collaboration, tasked with reviewing the data behind Tamiflu, decided to investigate. After repeated requests to Roche for the original study data, they remained stonewalled. The only complete data set they received was from an unpublished study of 1,447 adults which showed that Tamiflu was no better than placebo. Data from the studies that claimed Tamiflu was effective was apparently lost forever. As The Atlantic reports, that's when former employees of Adis International (essentially a Big Pharma P.R. company) shocked the medical world by announcing they had been hired to ghost-write the studies for Roche. It gets even better: These researchers were told what to write by Roche! As one of these ghostwriters told the British Medical Journal:"The Tamiflu accounts had a list of key messages that you had to get in. It was run by the [Roche] marketing department and you were answerable to them. In the introduction ...I had to say what a big problem influenza is. I'd also have to come to the conclusion that Tamiflu was the answer." In other words, the Roche marketing department ran the science and told researchers what conclusions to draw from the clinical trials. Researchers hired to conduct the science were controlled by the marketing puppeteers. No matter what they found in the science, they had already been directed to reach to conclusion that "Tamiflu was the answer." Now, I don't know about you, but where I come from, we call this "science fraud." And as numerous NaturalNews investigations have revealed, this appears to be the status quo in the pharmaceutical industry. Virtually none of the "science" conducted by drug companies can be trusted at all because it really isn't science in the first place. It's just propaganda being dressed up to look like science. Sadly, even the CDC has been fooled by this clinical trial con. As stated by author Shannon Brownlee in The Atlantic:"...the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention appears to be operating in some alternative universe, where valid science no longer matters to public policy. The agency's flu recommendations are in lockstep with Roche's claims that the drug can be life-saving -- despite the FDA's findings and despite the lack of studies to prove such a claim. What's more, neither the CDC nor the FDA has demanded the types of scientific studies that could definitively determine whether or not the company's claims are true: that Tamiflu reduces the risk of serious complications and saves lives. Nancy Cox, who heads the CDC's flu program, told us earlier this year she opposes a placebo-controlled study (in which one half of patients would be given Tamiflu and the other half would be given placebo), because the drug's benefits are already proven." Did you catch that last line? The CDC isn't interested in testing Tamiflu because "the drug's benefits are already proven." Except they aren't. But this is how the pharmaceutical industry operates: Step 1) Fabricate evidence that your drug works. Step 2) Use that fraudulent evidence to get your drug approved. Step 3) Use fear to create consumer demand for your drug (and encourage governments to stockpile it). Step 4) Avoid any actual scientific testing by claiming the drug has already been proven to work (and cite your original fraudulent studies to back you up). This is the recipe the CDC is following right now with Tamiflu. It's a recipe of scientific stupidity and circular logic, of course, but that seems to be strangely common in the medical community these days.
Even the FDA says Tamiflu doesn't work. The FDA, remarkably, hasn't entirely given in to the Tamiflu hoax. They required Roche to print the following disclaimer on Tamiflu lables -- a disclaimer that openly admits the drug has never been proven to work:"Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza." Even further, an FDA spokesperson told the British Medical Journal, "The clinical trials... failed to demonstrate any significant difference in rates of hospitalization, complications, or mortality in patients receiving either Tamiflu or placebo." It's the same message over and over again, like a broken record: Tamiflu doesn't work. And the "science" that says Tamiflu does work was all apparently fabricated from the start.
The Tamiflu stockpiling scandal: Junk science, though, is good enough for the U.S. government. Based on little more than fabricated evidence and Big Pharma propaganda, the U.S. government has spent $1.5 billion stockpiling Tamiflu. This turned out to be a great deal for Roche, but a poor investment for U.S. citizens who ended up spending huge dollars for a medicine that doesn't work. As is stated in the Atlantic:"Governments, public health agencies, and international bodies such as the World Health Organization, have all based their decisions to recommend and stockpile Tamiflu on studies that had seemed independent, but had in fact been funded by the company and were authored almost entirely by Roche employees or paid academic consultants.
The upshot of all this is that governments around the world are flushing billions of dollars down the drain stockpiling a drug that doesn't work -- a drug promoted via propaganda and scientific fraud. This isn't the first time your government has wasted taxpayer dollars, of course (it seems to be what the U.S. government does best), but this example is especially concerning given that this was all done with the excuse that natural remedies are useless and only vaccines and Tamiflu can protect you from a viral pandemic. But as it turns out, vaccines and Tamiflu are useless and only natural remedies really work. That's why so many informed people around the world have been stocking up on vitamin D, garlic, anti-viral tinctures and superfoods to protect themselves from a potential pandemic that most world governments remain clueless to prevent. I find it fascinating that the governments of the world are stockpiling medicines that DON'T work, while the natural health people of the world are stockpiling natural remedies that DO work. If a real pandemic ever strikes our world, there's no question who the survivors will be (hint: it won't be the clueless chaps standing in line waiting for their Tamiflu pills...). Which remedies really do work to boost immune function and protect the body from infectious disease? I've actually published a special report revealing my top five recommended remedies: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_A... In addition to the remedies mentioned in that report, I also recommend high-dose vitamin D as well as the Viral Defense product from www.PlantCures.com . I have no financial ties to any of the companies whose products are recommended here, by the way. Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, I don't operate purely for profit. My job is to get valuable information out to the People -- information that can help save lives and reduce suffering. This is the job the FDA and CDC should be doing but have long since abandoned in their betrayal of the American people."
Sources for this story include:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...
(A must read)
Sign the Health Revolution PetitionJoin the call for genuine health freedom in America. End FDA tyranny and Big Pharma corruption. Watch the video and sign the petition here.
Monday, December 14, 2009
by Mike Adams, Editor of NaturalNews.com
"When it comes to selling chemicals that claim to treat H1N1 swine flu, the pharmaceutical industry's options are limited to two: Vaccines and anti-virals. The most popular anti-viral, by far, is Tamiflu, a drug that's actually derived from a Traditional Chinese Medicine herb called star anise. But Tamiflu is no herb. It's a potentially fatal concentration of isolated chemical components that have essentially been bio-pirated from Chinese medicine. And when you isolate and concentrate specific chemicals in these herbs, you lose the value (and safety) of full-spectrum herbal medicine. That didn't stop Tamiflu's maker, Roche, from trying to find a multi-billion-dollar market for its drug. In order to tap into that market, however, Roche needed to drum up some evidence that Tamiflu was both safe and effective.
Roche engages in science fraud. Roche claims there are ten studies providing Tamiflu is both safe and effective. According to the company, Tamiflu has all sorts of benefits, including a 61% reduction in hospital admissions by people who catch the flu and then get put on Tamiflu. The problem with these claims is that they aren't true. They were simply invented by Roche. A groundbreaking article recently published in the British Medical Journal accuses Roche of misleading governments and physicians over the benefits of Tamiflu. Out of the ten studies cited by Roche, it turns out, only two were ever published in science journals. And where is the original data from those two studies? Lost! The data has disappeared. Files were discarded. The researcher of one study says he never even saw the data. Roche took care of all that, he explains.
So the Cochrane Collaboration, tasked with reviewing the data behind Tamiflu, decided to investigate. After repeated requests to Roche for the original study data, they remained stonewalled. The only complete data set they received was from an unpublished study of 1,447 adults which showed that Tamiflu was no better than placebo. Data from the studies that claimed Tamiflu was effective was apparently lost forever. As The Atlantic reports, that's when former employees of Adis International (essentially a Big Pharma P.R. company) shocked the medical world by announcing they had been hired to ghost-write the studies for Roche. It gets even better: These researchers were told what to write by Roche! As one of these ghostwriters told the British Medical Journal:"The Tamiflu accounts had a list of key messages that you had to get in. It was run by the [Roche] marketing department and you were answerable to them. In the introduction ...I had to say what a big problem influenza is. I'd also have to come to the conclusion that Tamiflu was the answer." In other words, the Roche marketing department ran the science and told researchers what conclusions to draw from the clinical trials. Researchers hired to conduct the science were controlled by the marketing puppeteers. No matter what they found in the science, they had already been directed to reach to conclusion that "Tamiflu was the answer." Now, I don't know about you, but where I come from, we call this "science fraud." And as numerous NaturalNews investigations have revealed, this appears to be the status quo in the pharmaceutical industry. Virtually none of the "science" conducted by drug companies can be trusted at all because it really isn't science in the first place. It's just propaganda being dressed up to look like science. Sadly, even the CDC has been fooled by this clinical trial con. As stated by author Shannon Brownlee in The Atlantic:"...the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention appears to be operating in some alternative universe, where valid science no longer matters to public policy. The agency's flu recommendations are in lockstep with Roche's claims that the drug can be life-saving -- despite the FDA's findings and despite the lack of studies to prove such a claim. What's more, neither the CDC nor the FDA has demanded the types of scientific studies that could definitively determine whether or not the company's claims are true: that Tamiflu reduces the risk of serious complications and saves lives. Nancy Cox, who heads the CDC's flu program, told us earlier this year she opposes a placebo-controlled study (in which one half of patients would be given Tamiflu and the other half would be given placebo), because the drug's benefits are already proven." Did you catch that last line? The CDC isn't interested in testing Tamiflu because "the drug's benefits are already proven." Except they aren't. But this is how the pharmaceutical industry operates: Step 1) Fabricate evidence that your drug works. Step 2) Use that fraudulent evidence to get your drug approved. Step 3) Use fear to create consumer demand for your drug (and encourage governments to stockpile it). Step 4) Avoid any actual scientific testing by claiming the drug has already been proven to work (and cite your original fraudulent studies to back you up). This is the recipe the CDC is following right now with Tamiflu. It's a recipe of scientific stupidity and circular logic, of course, but that seems to be strangely common in the medical community these days.
Even the FDA says Tamiflu doesn't work. The FDA, remarkably, hasn't entirely given in to the Tamiflu hoax. They required Roche to print the following disclaimer on Tamiflu lables -- a disclaimer that openly admits the drug has never been proven to work:"Tamiflu has not been proven to have a positive impact on the potential consequences (such as hospitalizations, mortality, or economic impact) of seasonal, avian, or pandemic influenza." Even further, an FDA spokesperson told the British Medical Journal, "The clinical trials... failed to demonstrate any significant difference in rates of hospitalization, complications, or mortality in patients receiving either Tamiflu or placebo." It's the same message over and over again, like a broken record: Tamiflu doesn't work. And the "science" that says Tamiflu does work was all apparently fabricated from the start.
The Tamiflu stockpiling scandal: Junk science, though, is good enough for the U.S. government. Based on little more than fabricated evidence and Big Pharma propaganda, the U.S. government has spent $1.5 billion stockpiling Tamiflu. This turned out to be a great deal for Roche, but a poor investment for U.S. citizens who ended up spending huge dollars for a medicine that doesn't work. As is stated in the Atlantic:"Governments, public health agencies, and international bodies such as the World Health Organization, have all based their decisions to recommend and stockpile Tamiflu on studies that had seemed independent, but had in fact been funded by the company and were authored almost entirely by Roche employees or paid academic consultants.
The upshot of all this is that governments around the world are flushing billions of dollars down the drain stockpiling a drug that doesn't work -- a drug promoted via propaganda and scientific fraud. This isn't the first time your government has wasted taxpayer dollars, of course (it seems to be what the U.S. government does best), but this example is especially concerning given that this was all done with the excuse that natural remedies are useless and only vaccines and Tamiflu can protect you from a viral pandemic. But as it turns out, vaccines and Tamiflu are useless and only natural remedies really work. That's why so many informed people around the world have been stocking up on vitamin D, garlic, anti-viral tinctures and superfoods to protect themselves from a potential pandemic that most world governments remain clueless to prevent. I find it fascinating that the governments of the world are stockpiling medicines that DON'T work, while the natural health people of the world are stockpiling natural remedies that DO work. If a real pandemic ever strikes our world, there's no question who the survivors will be (hint: it won't be the clueless chaps standing in line waiting for their Tamiflu pills...). Which remedies really do work to boost immune function and protect the body from infectious disease? I've actually published a special report revealing my top five recommended remedies: http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_A... In addition to the remedies mentioned in that report, I also recommend high-dose vitamin D as well as the Viral Defense product from www.PlantCures.com . I have no financial ties to any of the companies whose products are recommended here, by the way. Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, I don't operate purely for profit. My job is to get valuable information out to the People -- information that can help save lives and reduce suffering. This is the job the FDA and CDC should be doing but have long since abandoned in their betrayal of the American people."
Sources for this story include:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2009...
(A must read)
Sign the Health Revolution PetitionJoin the call for genuine health freedom in America. End FDA tyranny and Big Pharma corruption. Watch the video and sign the petition here.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
HEALTH NEWS: Sodas, Obesity & HFCS
Bubbling Over: New Research Shows
Direct Link Between Soda and Obesity
September 17th, 2009
While health officials have long suspected the link between obesity and soda consumption, research released today provides the first scientific evidence of the potent role soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages play in fueling California’s expanding girth. In their landmark study: Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California, researchers from the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research (CHPR) and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy (CCPHA) discovered a strong correlation between soda consumption and weight. Based upon data from more than 40,000 interviews conducted by the California Health Interview Surveys (CHIS), researchers found that adults who drink a soda or more per day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight than those who do not drink sodas, regardless of income or ethnicity. "The science is clear and conclusive: soda is fueling California’s $41 billion a year obesity epidemic," says CCPHA Executive Director Dr. Harold Goldstein, an author of the research brief. "We drink soda like water. But unlike water, soda serves up a whopping 17 teaspoons of sugar in every 20-ounce serving."
Research shows that over the last 30 years Americans consumed 278 more calories per day even as physical activity levels remained relatively unchanged. One of the biggest changes in diet during that period was the enormous increase in soda consumption, accounting for as much as 43 percent of all new calories. According to Goldstein, that research, combined with this new data on soda consumption, offers conclusive proof of the link between soda and obesity. And while adult soda consumption is troubling, consumption trends among children paint an even more alarming picture for the future health of California.
The study found that 41 percent of young children (2-11 years of age) are drinking at least one soda or sugar-sweetened beverage every day. Adolescents (12-17) represent the biggest consumers, with 62 percent (over 2 million youths) drinking one or more sodas every day – the equivalent of consuming 39 pounds of sugar each year in soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages. "Soda is cheap, sweet and irresistibly marketed to teens," says the study’s lead author, Dr. Susan H. Babey, a research scientist with the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. "Not enough teens know about the health and dietary risks of drinking huge quantities of what is essentially liquid sugar while television and advertising tell them it is ‘cool’ to do so."
There were major differences in adult consumption rates by county, the study discovered. Residents of the lowest soda consuming counties of Marin, San Francisco, Yolo and San Mateo drink far less soda than their counterparts in the heaviest drinking counties of Kings, Madera, Kern and Imperial. Nevertheless, the soda/obesity linkage still holds true - those who consume large amounts of soda, regardless of where they live, suffer disproportionally from obesity and overweight. "If we are serious about tackling the obesity crisis, cutting back soda consumption has to be the top priority," Goldstein asserts. "Parents, communities, businesses and government all have a role to play in helping to reduce consumption. We cannot afford to raise another ‘Pepsi Generation.’"
Funding for the study was provided by The California Endowment, a private statewide health foundation that is a national leader in the childhood obesity prevention movement. "This research clearly shows the very serious health risks of drinking soda and other sweetened beverages. I hope policymakers will read this report closely and think about what they can do to combat the obesity epidemic that is clearly tied to consuming too many sodas," says Dr. Robert K. Ross, president and CEO of The California Endowment. Click Here for Info on the full study
Related:
The dangers of high fructose corn syrup
by Ly Hua
If you thought high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was bad, start paying attention to what's being added now to very new and popular drinks like Vitamin water. It's called crystalline fructose. For some reason it kinda sounds better, but it's HFCS on steroids (figuratively, of course). Most drinks that contain this technically have less sugar (because it's sweeter, so they don't use as much). That's one of the selling points these beverage companies try to highlight about their drinks. Products like vitamin water would be a healthy alternative to soda and other beverages sweetened with high fructose corn syrup. However, they use crystalline fructose.
At first I loved vitamin water. Then I did my research. High fructose corn syrup is bad because it contains either a 50/50 or 80/20 mixture of fructose to glucose. Both are 5-carbon sugars, but glucose is broken down by all the cells in the body for energy. Fructose however can only be broken down by the liver. Studies have also shown that the, since the molecular structures are similiar, the cells in the body will metabolize fructose, but at a rate about 1/3 slower. That means the sugar remains in your blood for a longer period of time, increasing the risk of diabetes.
Crystalline fructose contains close to 99% fructose. Which means drinking vitamin water (and all the other new products out there sporting crystalline fructose) means you're making your liver work extra hard. Liver's aren't suppose to be working that hard every day, so you'll end up causing a fatty liver or getting cirrhosis of the liver. Here's yet another marketing ploy to try to take advantage of the ignorance of the consumer. (BTW, Gatorade now uses high fructose corn syrup, which defeats the whole concept of its usefulness during athletic events and training).
Other alternatives being explored by the beverage and food industries include sugar alchohols, such as sorbitol and malitol. I've seen these sugar alchohols in chocolate bars, diet and sports drinks, as well as chewing gum. The body doesn't metabolize these chemicals, so they contribute zero calories (or close to it) of energy. However, because the body doesn't metabolize them, you get a very similiar result to eating fat free potato chips fried in Olestra (if you recall, that oil didn't metabolize in the body, so it too contributed zero calories of energy). The end result was, eating too many products containing these sugar substitutes caused bloating and diarrhea.
Learn more about this author, Ly Hua.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
HEALTH CARE REFORM; ANOTHER VIEW
"The Wrong Diagnosis"
by Dr. Andrew Weil
Posted: August 9, 2009 11:00 PM
The Huffington Post
I'm worried -- and if I'm worried, you should be, too.The reason I'm worried is that the wrong diagnosis is being made.As any doctor can tell you, the most crucial step toward healing is having the right diagnosis. If the disease is precisely identified, a good resolution is far more likely. Conversely, a bad diagnosis usually means a bad outcome, no matter how skilled the physician.And, what's true in personal health care is just as true in national health care reform: Healing begins with the correct diagnosis of the problem.
Washington is working on reform initiatives that focus on one problem: the fact that the system is too expensive (and consequently too exclusive.) Reform proposals, such as the "public option" for government insurance or calls for drug makers to drop prices, are aimed mostly at boosting affordability and access. Make it cheap enough, the thinking goes, and the 46 million Americans who can't afford coverage will finally get their fair share.
But what's missing, tragically, is a diagnosis of the real, far more fundamental problem, which is that what's even worse than its stratospheric cost is the fact that American health care doesn't fulfill its prime directive -- it does not help people become or stay healthy. It's not a health care system at all; it's a disease management system, and making the current system cheaper and more accessible will just spread the dysfunction more broadly.
It's impossible to make our drug-intensive, technology-centric, and corrupt system affordable. Consider that Americans spent $8.4 billion on medicine in 1950, vs. an astonishing 2.3 trillion in 2007. That's $30,000 annually for a family of four. The bloated structure of endless, marginal-return tests; patent-protected drugs and "heroic" surgical interventions for virtually every health problem simply can't be made much cheaper due to its very nature. Costs can only be shifted in various unpalatable ways.
So, a far more salient question that must be addressed is: Are we getting good health for our trillions? Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding, "No." The U.S. ranked near the very bottom of the top 40 nations -- below Columbia, Chile, Costa Rica and Dominica -- in a rating of health systems by the World Health Organization in 2000. In short, we pay about twice as much per capita for our health care as does the rest of the developed world, and we have almost nothing to show for it.
I'm not against high-tech medicine. It has a secure place in the diagnosis and treatment of serious disease. But our health care professionals are currently using it for everything, and the cost is going to break us. In the future, this kind of medicine must be limited to those cases in which it is clearly indicated: trauma, acute and critical conditions, disease involving vital organs, etc. It should be viewed as a specialized form of medicine, perhaps offered only in major centers serving large populations.Most cases of disease should be managed in other, more affordable ways.
Functional, cost-effective health care must be based on a new kind of medicine that relies on the human organism's innate capacity for self-regulation and healing. It would use inexpensive, low-tech interventions for the management of the commonest forms of disease. It would be a system that puts the health back into health care. And it would also happen to be far less expensive than what we have now.
If we can make the correct diagnosis, the healing can begin. If we can't, both our personal health and our economy are doomed.Politicians aren't going to resolve this issue overnight. Any health care reform bill that gets jammed through Congress in the next month or two will be dangerously flawed. Washington needs to take a step back and re-examine the entire task with an eye toward achieving the most effective solution, not the cheapest and most expeditious.
Friday, August 21, 2009
HEALTH NEWS & RESEARCH
Pot-Like Compounds Halt Prostate Cancer Growth
Madrid, Spain: The administration of selective cannabinoid agonists halt the proliferation of human prostate cells in vitro (in a Petri dish) and in vivo (in laboratory animals), according to preclinical findings published online this week in the British Journal of Cancer and reported by Reuters News Wire.
Investigators at the University of Alcala School of Medicine in Spain assessed the anti-proliferative and anti-tumor properties of two synthetic CB2 agonists. The agonists, which bind selectively to the CB2 receptors in a manner similar to the active components in cannabis, induced prostate cell death and inhibited tumor cell growth in animals. "This study defines the involvement of CB2-mediated signaling in the in vivo and in vitro growth inhibition of prostate cancer cells, and suggests that CB2 agonists have potential therapeutic interest and deserve to be explored in the management of prostate cancer," authors concluded.
Speaking to Reuters, researchers stressed that their research was still exploratory and that "it absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis."
Commenting on the study NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said, "While I am pleased to see scientists' and the mainstream media's interest in the anti-cancer properties of cannabis, the untold story is that researchers have been well aware of these effects for 35 years. The real question is: 'Why, after three decades and dozens of preclinical trials documenting cannabis' potent anti-cancer abilities, are investigators still replicating these findings in lab rats rather than in humans?'"
For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, "Inhibition of tumour prostate PC-3 cell growth by cannabinoids R(+)-Methanandamide and JWH-015: Involvement of CB2," will appear in the British Journal of Cancer.
Madrid, Spain: The administration of selective cannabinoid agonists halt the proliferation of human prostate cells in vitro (in a Petri dish) and in vivo (in laboratory animals), according to preclinical findings published online this week in the British Journal of Cancer and reported by Reuters News Wire.
Investigators at the University of Alcala School of Medicine in Spain assessed the anti-proliferative and anti-tumor properties of two synthetic CB2 agonists. The agonists, which bind selectively to the CB2 receptors in a manner similar to the active components in cannabis, induced prostate cell death and inhibited tumor cell growth in animals. "This study defines the involvement of CB2-mediated signaling in the in vivo and in vitro growth inhibition of prostate cancer cells, and suggests that CB2 agonists have potential therapeutic interest and deserve to be explored in the management of prostate cancer," authors concluded.
Speaking to Reuters, researchers stressed that their research was still exploratory and that "it absolutely isn't the case that men might be able to fight prostate cancer by smoking cannabis."
Commenting on the study NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said, "While I am pleased to see scientists' and the mainstream media's interest in the anti-cancer properties of cannabis, the untold story is that researchers have been well aware of these effects for 35 years. The real question is: 'Why, after three decades and dozens of preclinical trials documenting cannabis' potent anti-cancer abilities, are investigators still replicating these findings in lab rats rather than in humans?'"
For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: paul@norml.org. Full text of the study, "Inhibition of tumour prostate PC-3 cell growth by cannabinoids R(+)-Methanandamide and JWH-015: Involvement of CB2," will appear in the British Journal of Cancer.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
FOOD SAFETY AND YOUR HEALTH
13 Secret Toxins Lurking in Your Food, and How to Avoid Them
By Tina McCarthy, EcoSalon.
August 11, 2009.
Various shelves throughout every aisle of your grocery store are stocked with wolves in sheep’s clothing. Colorful packaging, appetizing pictures, and nutrition claims hide the truth: unhealthy chemicals are lurking in many these seemingly harmless foods. Here are some tips to help you steer clear of hidden toxins that masquerade as safe products.
1. Stay away from processed meats like bacon, hot dogs, and sausage. Sodium nitrate accounts for their appetizing red hue, but this additive can also cause the formation of nitrosamines in your system, which can lead to cancer.
2. Stick to low-mercury fish like American-farmed tilapia instead of swordfish or tuna. Overexposure can cause memory problems, fatigue, and other health issues, and besides, most wild fish stocks are threatened these days. (Looking for an alternative? There’s branzini, the fish you’ve never heard of.)
3. Reduce the amount of canned food you consume. Cans are commonly lined with bisphenol-A, an organic compound that, according to the Lang study, may be associated with diabetes and heart disease.
4. Cut back on meat and dairy products. These animal products may contain trace amounts of harmful contaminants like polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated biphenyl and dioxins. Although many of these toxins have been banned, they are still present in the soil. Reducing your intake of animal products is also more friendly to the environment.
5. Skip the diet soda and artificial sweeteners. Prolonged exposure to aspartame, a neurotoxic chemical additive in these products, can lead to nerve cell damage, dizziness, and headaches. Besides, anything that gives rats brain tumors is worth avoiding in my book.
6. Choose the farmed fish carefully. Studies show that farm-raised fish contain more polychlorinated biphenyl and over ten times the amount of dioxin.
7. Opt for organic chicken. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy discovered traces of arsenic in non-organic chickens. Exposure to this dangerous chemical can lead to cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Another study also found numerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria in conventional poultry.
8. Only drink milk that says “no rBGH” on the carton because recombinant bovine growth hormone has been linked with breast cancer. Better yet, opt for responsibly-produced, unsweetened soy, nut or rice milk.
9. Avoid manufactured snacks. Hydrogenated oils are used to lengthen the shelf life of products like crackers and cookies, but they are also associated with diabetes and heart disease. Another reason to stay away from the middle aisles: snack foods are generally loaded with salt, corn syrup and other unhealthy ingredients.
10. Stay away from artificially-colored foods like candy, maraschino cherries, and gelatin. Mice and rats exposed to blue 1 and 2, red 3 and yellow 6 suffered from brain, adrenal gland, thyroid, and kidney tumors.
11. Always buy organic produce. This one’s a no-brainer, but the list wouldn’t be complete without it. Lingering pesticides can lead to nervous and reproductive system damage, not to mention cancer.
12. Use stainless steel or cast iron cookware to prepare your meals. The Teflon used to create nonstick surfaces can release noxious gases when exposed to high temperatures, which puts you at risk for heart disease.
13. Never microwave food in plastic bowls, containers, or dishes. Exposure to heat causes the bisphenol-A found in plastics to break down and potentially contaminate your food. Also, make sure to hand wash them.
By Tina McCarthy, EcoSalon.
August 11, 2009.
Various shelves throughout every aisle of your grocery store are stocked with wolves in sheep’s clothing. Colorful packaging, appetizing pictures, and nutrition claims hide the truth: unhealthy chemicals are lurking in many these seemingly harmless foods. Here are some tips to help you steer clear of hidden toxins that masquerade as safe products.
1. Stay away from processed meats like bacon, hot dogs, and sausage. Sodium nitrate accounts for their appetizing red hue, but this additive can also cause the formation of nitrosamines in your system, which can lead to cancer.
2. Stick to low-mercury fish like American-farmed tilapia instead of swordfish or tuna. Overexposure can cause memory problems, fatigue, and other health issues, and besides, most wild fish stocks are threatened these days. (Looking for an alternative? There’s branzini, the fish you’ve never heard of.)
3. Reduce the amount of canned food you consume. Cans are commonly lined with bisphenol-A, an organic compound that, according to the Lang study, may be associated with diabetes and heart disease.
4. Cut back on meat and dairy products. These animal products may contain trace amounts of harmful contaminants like polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated biphenyl and dioxins. Although many of these toxins have been banned, they are still present in the soil. Reducing your intake of animal products is also more friendly to the environment.
5. Skip the diet soda and artificial sweeteners. Prolonged exposure to aspartame, a neurotoxic chemical additive in these products, can lead to nerve cell damage, dizziness, and headaches. Besides, anything that gives rats brain tumors is worth avoiding in my book.
6. Choose the farmed fish carefully. Studies show that farm-raised fish contain more polychlorinated biphenyl and over ten times the amount of dioxin.
7. Opt for organic chicken. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy discovered traces of arsenic in non-organic chickens. Exposure to this dangerous chemical can lead to cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Another study also found numerous antibiotic-resistant bacteria in conventional poultry.
8. Only drink milk that says “no rBGH” on the carton because recombinant bovine growth hormone has been linked with breast cancer. Better yet, opt for responsibly-produced, unsweetened soy, nut or rice milk.
9. Avoid manufactured snacks. Hydrogenated oils are used to lengthen the shelf life of products like crackers and cookies, but they are also associated with diabetes and heart disease. Another reason to stay away from the middle aisles: snack foods are generally loaded with salt, corn syrup and other unhealthy ingredients.
10. Stay away from artificially-colored foods like candy, maraschino cherries, and gelatin. Mice and rats exposed to blue 1 and 2, red 3 and yellow 6 suffered from brain, adrenal gland, thyroid, and kidney tumors.
11. Always buy organic produce. This one’s a no-brainer, but the list wouldn’t be complete without it. Lingering pesticides can lead to nervous and reproductive system damage, not to mention cancer.
12. Use stainless steel or cast iron cookware to prepare your meals. The Teflon used to create nonstick surfaces can release noxious gases when exposed to high temperatures, which puts you at risk for heart disease.
13. Never microwave food in plastic bowls, containers, or dishes. Exposure to heat causes the bisphenol-A found in plastics to break down and potentially contaminate your food. Also, make sure to hand wash them.
Monday, August 10, 2009
NATIONAL HEALTH CARE REFORM
(click to enlarge)
If you have questions and/or, are being confused by all the misinformation and flat out LIES coming from the 'opponents' of 'Healthcare Reform' (coordinated & financed by Big Pharma, the Insurance Industry and HMO's), then be sure to mark your calender and attend this upcoming Community Meeting sponsored by AARP. And in the meantime, consider the following article:
Palin Lies About Health Care, She's good at one thing.
Posted by Steven D., Booman Tribune at 11:00 AM on August 8, 2009.
Not an original title, is it? Yet that is what the journalists and newspapers who report on her should be doing if they are going to publish every stupid, deceitful thing she says, like this: "Palin accuses Obama of pushing Medicare 'death panel' "
Gov. Palin blasted Democratic-led health care reform and accused President Obama of backing a "death panel" that would withhold Medicare funds from the elderly and disabled when funding runs short. From that headline and lead paragraph you'd think Obama was planning on sending everyone over 65 to death camps.
At least when we accused Bush of Nazi like tactics he really was doing some of the same things the Nazi's did, like prosecuting an illegal aggressive war which he lied about to sell it to the American Public, torture, and warrantless surveillance, including keeping tabs on antiwar groups composed of Quakers and Vegans, of all people. We had proof for our allegations of wrongdoing but the media still wouldn't cover it half the time, or gave far more coverage to Republican rebuttals devoid of substance than they did to the people coming forward with evidence of crimes.
By the way, it isn't just the Anchorage Newspaper that's promoting Palin's lies. Here's the headline ABC News is giving her entry on Facebook: "Palin Says Obama's Health Care Plan Is 'Evil'
And here's her money quote:
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil," Palin wrote.
Hey, big media. If you are going to give free publicity to these loons at least give a response from a Democrat in your story. I don't care much for Jake Tapper, but at least he does the legwork that should have been done to demonstrate that Palin is full of it when she makes such outrageous and frankly fraudulent claims:
"One can question whether there will by necessity be any rationing decisions that will need to come as a part of health care reform (and, in fact, we have) but pictures of government bureaucrats forcing euthanasia upon seniors -- and, now, children with Down syndrome -- because they're not productive members of society are not part of any reasonable debate on the facts of the matter."
Asked specifically what the former governor was referring to when painting a picture of an Obama "death panel" giving her parents or son Trig a thumbs up or down based on their productivity, Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded in an email: "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'."
That's a curious reading of page 425 of the House Democrats' bill, which refers to “advance care planning consultation,” defined as a senior and a medical practitioner discussing “advance care planning, if…the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years.” This includes an “explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to,” an “explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses,” and an “explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.”
As Tapper notes, Factcheck.org has disputed the Palin camp's claim that this provision of the House bill will lead to "death panels deciding whether you get medical treatment or are cut off from care and forced to be euthanized." Still, this is the headline ABC News gave Tapper's story, even though he essentially debunks Palin's entire confabulated death panel fantasy/lie: "Palin Paints Picture of 'Obama Death Panel' giving Thumbs Down to Trig"
How many people are going to read past that headline before forming their opinion? Far too few. There are no "death panels" in the health care reform bills floating around Congress, so why does that phrase appear in almost every headline about this story? Why not just state the obvious: Palin is lying. Or if you don't have the guts for that, at least say that Palin's is making unfounded and outrageous claims about the Democratic bill for health care reform (if you're going to waste time writing about her Facebook entries at all). Of course, that would take something that most of these media corporations don't want to do: real journalism.
Friday, August 07, 2009
HEALTH NEWS
Caffeine May Prevent and Help Reverse Alzheimer's
(NaturalNews) There is probably no more dreaded and feared disease than memory-destroying and life-robbing Alzheimer's. According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA), as many as 2.4 to 4.5 million Americans are currently living with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and, as Baby Boomers age, those numbers are expected to soar. Unfortunately, despite millions spent on research and the development of drugs to delay or help symptoms, the bottom line is nothing works to truly prevent, stop or heal the disease. At least, nothing from Big Pharma. The National Institutes of Health's NIA web site does list some natural strategies -- a nutritious diet, exercise, social engagement, and mentally stimulating pursuits -- which may prevent or delay AD. But now there's new and stunning research that strongly suggests a substance found in nature offers another a way to fight Alzheimer's and maybe even reverse its effects: caffeine.
(NaturalNews) There is probably no more dreaded and feared disease than memory-destroying and life-robbing Alzheimer's. According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA), as many as 2.4 to 4.5 million Americans are currently living with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and, as Baby Boomers age, those numbers are expected to soar. Unfortunately, despite millions spent on research and the development of drugs to delay or help symptoms, the bottom line is nothing works to truly prevent, stop or heal the disease. At least, nothing from Big Pharma. The National Institutes of Health's NIA web site does list some natural strategies -- a nutritious diet, exercise, social engagement, and mentally stimulating pursuits -- which may prevent or delay AD. But now there's new and stunning research that strongly suggests a substance found in nature offers another a way to fight Alzheimer's and maybe even reverse its effects: caffeine.
In experiments with lab mice especially bred to develop symptoms of Alzheimer's disease, University of South Florida (USF) researchers at the Florida Alzheimer's Disease Research Center ADRC gave the aged animals the equivalent of the caffeine in five cups of coffee a day. The results? Their severe memory impairment was reversed.This study, along with other AD research by the same group of scientists, was just published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease. Both studies show that caffeine significantly decreased abnormal levels of beta amyloid (the protein linked to AD) in both the brains and blood of lab rodents who had symptoms of Alzheimer's. This research follows on the heels of previous ADRC research that found caffeine given to this same strain of mice when they were young prevented memory problems from developing -- even though the animals were bred to develop Alzheimer's symptoms as they grew old.
"The new findings provide evidence that caffeine could be a viable 'treatment' for established Alzheimer's disease, and not simply a protective strategy," said lead author Gary Arendash, PhD, a USF neuroscientist with the Florida ADRC, in a statement to the media. "That's important because caffeine is a safe drug for most people, it easily enters the brain, and it appears to directly affect the disease process."Dr. Arendash and his research team began investigating caffeine's ability to possibly treat Alzheimer's after they read a Portuguese study conducted a few years ago that found people with Alzheimer's had consumed far less caffeine over the last 20 years than people who never came down with AD. There have also been several uncontrolled clinical studies that have noted moderate caffeine consumption seems to offer protection against memory decline during normal aging.
So the ADRC scientists decided to conduct highly controlled experiments using Alzheimer's afflicted mice in order to distinguish the effects caffeine might actually have on memory from other lifestyle factors such as diet and exercise.The Florida ADRC study used 55 of the genetically altered mice who develop memory problems identical to Alzheimer's disease as they become old. Behavior tests were conducted to confirm the mice were experiencing memory problems when they reached the age of 18 to 19 months, the equivalent of a human who's around 70. Then the scientists gave half the mice caffeine-laced water -- in all, they received the equivalent of five eight oz. cups of regular coffee a day. As a control, the other half of the mice in the study group received plain water.
After two months, the caffeinated mice could perform much better on tests designed to measure their memory and ability to think. Although the mice that drank plain water continued to show mental deterioration, the mice on caffeine not only had stopped losing their memories, their memories were identical to normal aged mice without dementia. Moreover, the caffeinated mice showed an approximate 50 percent reduction in beta amyloid, the substance linked to sticky lumps of plaques in the brain that are the key sign of Alzheimer's disease.More experiments by the same research team suggest that caffeine has the ability to restore memory by reducing the enzymes needed to produce beta amyloid. In fact, the Florida scientists think caffeine may suppress inflammatory changes in the brain that lead to the AD-associated increase of beta amyloid.
"These are some of the most promising Alzheimer's mouse experiments ever done showing that caffeine rapidly reduces beta amyloid protein in the blood, an effect that is mirrored in the brain, and this reduction is linked to cognitive benefit," Huntington Potter, PhD, director of the Florida ADRC and an investigator for the caffeine studies, said in the media statement. "Our goal is to obtain the funding needed to translate the therapeutic discoveries in mice into well-designed clinical trials." Based on their groundbreaking findings in mice, scientists at Florida ADRC and Byrd Alzheimer's Center at USF want to carry out human trials to see if caffeine can benefit people with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer's disease. There's strong reason to think caffeine can fight AD. The researchers have already determined in preliminary studies that caffeine given to elderly non-demented humans quickly affects their blood levels of beta amyloid, just as it did in the Alzheimer's lab animals. If larger, well documented and controlled clinical studies do confirm caffeine can prevent and/or treat Alzheimer's in humans, as it does in mice, the ramifications will be nothing short of mind-boggling. According to the Alzheimer's Association, at least half of the US population 85 and older have or end up with AD and the disease and other dementias triple healthcare costs for Americans 65 and older, in addition to causing untold suffering .
Editor's note: NaturalNews is opposed to the use of animals in medical experiments that expose them to harm. We present these findings in protest of the way in which they were acquired. We are also opposed to the idea of using large volumes of caffeine as a "treatment" for Alzheimer's, especially given the adrenal depletion caused by ongoing caffeine consumption. The conclusions presented in this story are interesting, but in no way does NaturalNews condone the regular consumption of caffeine as a brain stimulant.
References :Caffeine Reverses Cognitive Impairment and Decreases Brain Amyloid-B Levels in Aged Alzheimer's Disease Mice; Gary W Arendash, Takashi Mori, Chuanhai Cao, Malgorzata Mamcarz, Melissa Runfeldt, Alexander Dickson, Kavon Rezai-Zadeh, Jun Tan, Bruce A Citron, Xiaoyang Lin, Valentina Echeverria, and Huntington Potter; Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, Volume 17:3 (July 2009).Caffeine Suppresses Amyloid-B Levels in Plasma and Brain of Alzheimer's Disease Transgenic Mice; Chuanhai Cao, John R Cirrito, Xiaoyang Lin, Lilly Wang, Deborah K Verges, Alexander Dickson, Malgorzata Mamcarz, Chi Zhang, Takashi Mori, Gary W Arendash, David M Holzman, and Huntington Potter; Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, Volume 17:3 (July 2009For more information :http://www.nia.nih.gov/Alzheimers/P...http://www.nia.nih.gov/Alzheimers
Sign the Health Revolution Petition. Join the call for genuine health freedom in America. End FDA tyranny and Big Pharma corruption. Watch the video and
Saturday, July 25, 2009
HEALTH, SCIENCE & SUNSHINE
Sunshine! HUH? I SHOULD SPEND MORE TIME IN THE SUN?
By Robert Bazell, Chief MSNBC Science & Health Correspondent
One of the refrains we hear most often covering the health and science beat is: “You tell me one day something is bad for me and then it is good.” There are many legitimate reasons for this perception, and this story is a fine example.
About three decades ago, dermatologists alarmed at the rising incidence of skin cancer began a campaign to get people to stop spending so much time in the sun, or at least to cover up with strong suntan lotion if they did. The effort was enormously successful. Now there is a big problem with it. When the sun’s rays (unfiltered by lotion) strike our skin, our bodies produce vitamin D. Scientists always knew vitamin D is critical for good health. Children not exposed enough to the sun can get a terrible disease called rickets.
But around 1989 scientists began to discover that vitamin D played an important critical role in all the cells in the body, and they hypothesized that a lack of vitamin D could increase the risks for cancer. Large population studies have now verified that people with low vitamin D levels indeed have higher levels of several common types of cancer, including colon and breast. Some of the best research comes from the Nurse’s Health Study and the Health Professionals Study -- two efforts run by the Harvard School of Public Health that have been following tens of thousands of people for decades. The latest study looks at cancer incidence in men. In addition to the Harvard study, two others have come out demonstrating an increased incidence of breast cancer in women with low levels of vitamin D. Those were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
So how much vitamin D do we need? Based on these latest studies, experts now recommend a minimum of 1,000 units a day. We get about 200 from food and supplements usually contain 400. That is where the sun comes in. No one is saying people should get sunburned or even tan. But you can get 1,000 units of vitamin D by spending 10 minutes in the sun in the middle of the day with your arms and face exposed. Amazingly, with our automobile and indoor lifestyle many Americans do not get even that much. So here is an example where the advice is changing not because of confusion, but because science is making genuine progress.
Once again, science is confirming the age old wisdom that sunlight is essential and beneficial to all living things.
By Robert Bazell, Chief MSNBC Science & Health Correspondent
One of the refrains we hear most often covering the health and science beat is: “You tell me one day something is bad for me and then it is good.” There are many legitimate reasons for this perception, and this story is a fine example.
About three decades ago, dermatologists alarmed at the rising incidence of skin cancer began a campaign to get people to stop spending so much time in the sun, or at least to cover up with strong suntan lotion if they did. The effort was enormously successful. Now there is a big problem with it. When the sun’s rays (unfiltered by lotion) strike our skin, our bodies produce vitamin D. Scientists always knew vitamin D is critical for good health. Children not exposed enough to the sun can get a terrible disease called rickets.
But around 1989 scientists began to discover that vitamin D played an important critical role in all the cells in the body, and they hypothesized that a lack of vitamin D could increase the risks for cancer. Large population studies have now verified that people with low vitamin D levels indeed have higher levels of several common types of cancer, including colon and breast. Some of the best research comes from the Nurse’s Health Study and the Health Professionals Study -- two efforts run by the Harvard School of Public Health that have been following tens of thousands of people for decades. The latest study looks at cancer incidence in men. In addition to the Harvard study, two others have come out demonstrating an increased incidence of breast cancer in women with low levels of vitamin D. Those were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
So how much vitamin D do we need? Based on these latest studies, experts now recommend a minimum of 1,000 units a day. We get about 200 from food and supplements usually contain 400. That is where the sun comes in. No one is saying people should get sunburned or even tan. But you can get 1,000 units of vitamin D by spending 10 minutes in the sun in the middle of the day with your arms and face exposed. Amazingly, with our automobile and indoor lifestyle many Americans do not get even that much. So here is an example where the advice is changing not because of confusion, but because science is making genuine progress.
Once again, science is confirming the age old wisdom that sunlight is essential and beneficial to all living things.
Friday, June 26, 2009
HEALTH ALERT OF THE WEEK
From 'The Week', June 12, 2009
Health & Science
Is the pool a cesspool?
Chances are you'll find yourself in a swimming pool this summer. A new study has some bad news: You might be doing the backstroke in a toilet. When asked about their behavior in swimming pools, 20 percent of people admit to peeing whenever nature calls. And researchers say urine is just one of the many contaminants found in pools used by lots of people. Babies swim in diapers filled with urine and feces. Some people work out and, covered with sweat, dive in without showering first. Sick children paddle about, shedding viruses and bacteria with every stroke. Filthy pool habits, scientists say, add up to numerous outbreaks of summertime "recreational water illnesses" such as diarrhea, ear and skin infections, and respiratory illness. When swimmers fill pool water with their effluvia, epidemiologist Michele Hlavsa tells LiveScience, chlorination cannot guarantee that you won't get sick. "Unhygienic behavior brings germs into the pool and makes it harder for chlorine to do its job," she says.
Happy swimming!
Health & Science
Is the pool a cesspool?
Chances are you'll find yourself in a swimming pool this summer. A new study has some bad news: You might be doing the backstroke in a toilet. When asked about their behavior in swimming pools, 20 percent of people admit to peeing whenever nature calls. And researchers say urine is just one of the many contaminants found in pools used by lots of people. Babies swim in diapers filled with urine and feces. Some people work out and, covered with sweat, dive in without showering first. Sick children paddle about, shedding viruses and bacteria with every stroke. Filthy pool habits, scientists say, add up to numerous outbreaks of summertime "recreational water illnesses" such as diarrhea, ear and skin infections, and respiratory illness. When swimmers fill pool water with their effluvia, epidemiologist Michele Hlavsa tells LiveScience, chlorination cannot guarantee that you won't get sick. "Unhygienic behavior brings germs into the pool and makes it harder for chlorine to do its job," she says.
Happy swimming!
Monday, June 08, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
