Alabama does not have a reputation of being one of the most progressive states in the Union, but they are the first to implement a financial penalty for state workers who refuse to deal with their own obesity. Alabama also hits workers who smoke with extra fees as well. These penalties make a lot of sense, and life insurance companies have been charging smokers higher rates for many years. There is no reason why individuals who have healthy habits should pay the higher costs associated with obesity and smoking.
Encouraging people to stay slim and fit is a very worthy idea, but I hope that they will be steered towards preventative measures such as eating nutritionally-rich foods and exercising, rather than simply seeing a doctor for medications that may do more harm than good. True prevention involves practical lifestyle changes that legitimately lead to wellness and a sense of physical, mental, and emotional wholeness.
Extra pounds mean insurance fees for Ala. workers
By PHILLIP RAWLS, Associated Press Writer
Thu Aug 21, 7:49 PM ET
Alabama, pushed to third in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat.
The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit -- or they'll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.
Alabama will be the first state to charge overweight state workers who don't work on slimming down, while a handful of other states reward employees who adopt healthy behaviors.
Alabama already charges workers who smoke -- and has seen some success in getting them to quit -- but now has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many in the Deep South: obesity.
The State Employees' Insurance Board this week approved a plan to charge state workers starting in January 2010 if they don't have free health screenings.
If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or take steps on their own to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won't be charged. But if they don't, they must pay starting in January 2011.
"We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health," said state worker Robert Wagstaff, who serves on the insurance board.
Not all state employees see it that way.
"It's terrible," said health department employee Chequla Motley. "Some people come into this world big."
Computer technician Tim Colley already pays $24 a month for being a smoker and doesn't like the idea of another charge.
"It's too Big Brotherish," he said.
The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who is not making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.
The board has not yet determined how much progress a person would have to show and is uncertain how many people might be affected because everyone could avoid the charge by working to lose weight.
But that's unlikely -- a nationwide study released one day before the board's vote shows Alabamians have a big weight problem. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Trust for America's Health report found 30.1 percent are now obese.
E-K. Daufin of Montgomery, a college professor and founder of Love Your Body, Love Yourself, which holds body acceptance workshops, said the new policy will be stressful for people like her.
"I'm big and beautiful and doing my best to keep my stress levels down so I can stay healthy," Daufin said. "That's big, not lazy, not a glutton and certainly not deserving of the pompous, poisonous disrespect served up daily to those of us with more bounce to the ounce."
A recent study suggested that about half of overweight people and nearly a third of obese people have normal blood pressure and cholesterol levels, while about a quarter of people considered to be normal weight suffer from the ills associated with obesity.
Walter Lindstrom, founder of the Obesity Law and Advocacy Center in California, said he's concerned that all overweight Alabama employees will get is advice to walk more and broil their chicken.
"The state will feel good about itself for offering something and the person of size will end up paying $300 a year for the bad luck of having a chronic disease his/her state-sponsored insurance program failed to cover in an appropriate and meaningful fashion," he said.
William Ashmore, executive director of the State Employees' Insurance Board, said the state will spend an extra $1.6 million next year on screenings and wellness programs, but should see significant long-term savings.
Ashmore said research shows someone with a body mass index of 35 to 39 generates $1,748 more in annual medical expenses than someone with a BMI less than 25, considered normal.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a few states offer one-time financial incentives for pursuing healthy lifestyles. Ohio workers, for instance, get $50 for having health assessments and another $50 for following through with the advice.
Arkansas and Missouri go a step further, offering monthly discounts on premiums for employees who take health risk assessments and participate in wellness programs to reduce obesity, stress and other health problems.
Alabama's new policy is drawing no objection from the lobbying group representing state workers.
Mac McArthur, executive director of Alabama State Employees Association, said the plan is not designed to punish employees.
"It's a positive," he said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_bi_ge/obesity_penalty&printer=1;_ylt=An9PbnT9AgyjCw89YWUGJiBv24cA
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Vaccine Propaganda Machine Revs Up Again
I am convinced that the vaccine debacle and all the cover ups, conflicts of interest, and downright lies associated with this issue will be one of the biggest healthcare stories of the century. It kind of sums up the battle between the agenda-driven network of conventional medicine, governmental regulatory agencies, and profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies against free-thinking people who want to actually educate themselves about their healthcare choices and keep the freedoms to choose how they and their families take care of themselves and pursue wellness.
The vaccine issue also is a classic example of the ever-increasing tendency in this country to trample on our Constitutional rights via the illegal and unethical actions of organizations that are given free reign to operate above the law and without accountability. When billions of dollars are at stake, it is amazing what can happen and how quickly freedom can deteriorate even in this great Nation that has been a beacon of hope to so many oppressed people around the world.
Once again on this blog, we turn to the fine work of the National Vaccine Information Center to get a truthful and honest perspective of what is happening in the vaccine arena. As the heat builds against the shameful and hazardous mass implementation of Gardasil on young girls, often against their parents wishes, stories begin to surface regarding a new "measles epidemic" that are full of lies and misrepresentations. As you read the article below, you will see just how ludicrous it is to make the case for such an epidemic based on many factors, one of which is that there have only been 131 cases among a population of 300 million people! This stance by the government may be more about the elimination of groups who dare to defy the pretzel logic of a corrupted regime than simply about healthcare issues. It would be much easier for them to maintain control of the masses and implement their agendas if homeschoolers, religious groups, and other free-thinkers who believe it is the parent's job to raise and protect their children -- NOT government's -- could be controlled and eventually eliminated. Please take the time to read the excellent piece below that shines some much needed light on the whys and wherefores behind the whole concept of mass vaccinations.
Gardasil Meets Measles: A Coincidence?
by Barbara Loe Fisher
vaccineawakening.com
NVIC.org
StandUpBeCounted.org
The bad news about GARDASIL vaccine keeps getting worse and it was only a matter of time before government health officials promoted an "epidemic" to deflect attention from GARDASIL risks and create an excuse to point accusing fingers at parents who decline to give their children one or more of the 16 federally promoted vaccines. They did the same thing in 1985, when publicity about DPT vaccine reactions prompted officials at the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics to allege there were whooping cough epidemics in eight states due to parents rejecting DPT. Then as now, the cases of disease were divided between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults, which is hardly big news.
The government's dire warnings came late last week after newspaper articles examined the muscle that Merck used to get GARDASIL fast tracked and licensed, followed by an aggressive multi-media advertising and lobbying campaign targeting teenage girls which has already netted the big pharmaceutical company more than $1.5 billion in sales worldwide. The New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial discussed in the Wall Street Journal asking good questions about the evidence for long term protection and cost effectiveness of mass use of GARDASIL vaccine, questions that NVIC first raised in 2007.
And new concerns are being voiced about whether the vaccine is safe to give to adolescent girls, whose bodies are undergoing hormonal changes, as no studies have been published to evaluate whether there are increased risks for vaccine reactions depending upon when the vaccine is administered during a girl's monthly hormonal cycle.
Last week, a CDC apparently weary of all the bad publicity about GARDASIL got its taxpayer-funded PR machine in gear and issued a media advisory warning that 131 cases of measles have been reported in the U.S. this year and that half of those cases involved unvaccinated children whose parents homeschooled their children or held religious or philosophical beliefs opposing use of one or more vaccines. National news stories and local news coverage examined the measles outbreaks and allegations of growing parental vaccine refusal.
The New York Times published an editorial and repeated unsubstantiated claims made by the CDC about the numbers of children, who were injured and died from measles in the past, stating that there were 400-500 deaths; 48,000 hospitalizations and 1,000 cases of brain injury out of 3-4 million measles cases every year prior to mass use of measles vaccine. A quick look at MMWR historical charts reveals that the highest number of reported cases of measles in the U.S. since 1945 (and before the measles vaccine was licensed in 1963) was 763,094 cases in 1958. Why don't CDC officials publicly release the documented cases of hospitalization, injury and death due to measles in that year - or ANY year - instead of demanding blind faith in their version of the facts? (For decades, parents have been waiting for the CDC to document the widely published allegation that there are "36,000 deaths" due to influenza every year in the U.S., a statistic that is promoted to justify new directives that every baby and child through age 18 get annual flu shots.)
The publicizing of 131 cases of measles out of a population of 300 million people in the U.S. and blaming the "outbreak" on 63 cases that occurred in unvaccinated children, whose parents hold religious or conscientious objections to vaccination or homeschool, is a transparent attempt by federal employees to persecute fellow citizens holding religious beliefs, moral convictions, intellectual positions and wellness lifestyles different from their own. Adopting a strategy that "the best defense is a good offense," CDC officials are whipping up fear of those who do not vaccinate in order to cover up a three decade refusal to scientifically investigate reports of children regressing into autism and other kinds of chronic illness after administration of MMR and other vaccines. They know the truth about vaccine risks is becoming more widely known and are lobbying hard for removal vaccine exemptions they do not control so all Americans will be forced without exception to get every vaccine marketed by industry and mandated by government officials.
The premature licensure and universal use recommendation of GARDASIL is just the latest example of what is wrong with the mass vaccination system. If there is a crisis of confidence in the safety of vaccines, which prompts parents to ask pediatricians more questions and seek alternative health care options for keeping their children well, that crisis of confidence can be laid squarely at the feet of those operating the mass vaccination system for failing to do their job. As Generation Rescue founder J.B. Handley recently commented, "Most parents I know will take measles over autism.
There is a 92 to 100 percent uptake of MMR vaccine and many other federally recommended childhood vaccines among children entering kindergarten in every state. This is one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, especially in such a large population. If the MMR vaccine is so unreliable that a few hundred cases or even a few thousand cases of measles among 300 million people is a cause for panic, then the benefits of MMR vaccine weighed against its risks are far less than industry, government and medical organizations have admitted.
In the 1960's, when the live virus measles vaccine was licensed, parents were told it would give their babies the same lifelong immunity that having the natural disease confers. By the late 1980's, it was clear that was not true because measles was occurring in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Government officials eventually recommended another dose of measles vaccine (usually given as MMR) for all children even though there were outstanding questions about the multiplication of different genetic strains of measles and how this may affect the vaccine's ability to prevent measles on an individual and population basis long term.
Today's young mothers do not have qualitatively superior measles antibodies to transfer to their newborns to protect them in the first year of life as past generations of mothers did because most young mothers giving birth today have been vaccinated and never had measles as children, which confers lifelong immunity. So babies born today are vulnerable to measles from birth instead of from ages 15 months to six years, which is when most children in the past experienced measles by age six and severe complications were rare. For several decades, vaccinologists have been attempting to create a "high titer" EZ measles vaccine that can be given to infants under one year that will override any existing natural maternal antibodies and replace them with vaccine induced antibodies but there have been long-standing questions about EZ measles vaccine safety.
Vaccination does not mimic the natural disease process and offers only temporary immunity, which is why vaccine boosters are frequently given. Every vaccine carries a reaction risk that can be greater for some than others. Measles vaccine, which is part of the combination live virus MMR (measles-mumps- rubella) vaccine can cause brain inflammation and permanent brain damage. There have been more than 46,000 reports of health problems associated with MMR vaccination made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) . However, there is gross underreporting of vaccine- related health problems to VAERS and it is estimated that, for example, fewer than 4 percent of all cases of thrombocytopenia (potentially fatal blood disorder) following MMR vaccination are ever reported to VAERS.
The CDC's one-size-fits-all, no-exceptions MMR vaccine policies allow almost no contraindications to MMR vaccine use. According to the CDC, a child can be sick at the time of vaccination or recovering from an illness; have a fever; be taking antibiotics; have a history of allergies; or have experienced a seizure or regression after a previous MMR shot and still be eligible for more MMR vaccine. This kind of cavalier disregard for minimizing vaccine risks is one reason why more parents are questioning government vaccine policies.
Parents, whether they do or do not vaccinate their children, should become informed and clearly understand the symptoms and complications of every infectious disease, including measles. Parents who choose to vaccinate should have a 99 to 100 percent guarantee that the vaccine will, indeed protect their child. They should have a similar guarantee that the vaccine will not injure or kill their child.
Like all pharmaceutical products, vaccines should be subject to the law of supply and demand. When people are captive and unable to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccines that have been rushed to market on greased skids by federal health agencies, where every vaccine reaction is unscientifically labeled a "coincidence," the first casualty is freedom and the second is the health of innocent children.
Public health officials and pediatricians should explain why 20 percent of America's highly vaccinated child population suffers with chronic illness and disability rather than blaming parents who refuse to salute smartly and take the risk of watching the child they love become one more victim of vaccine damage.
To report a vaccine reaction to NVIC's Vaccine Reaction Registry, go to http://www.nvic.org/Report/reaction.htm.
To view vaccine reaction reports, go to the Vaccine VictimMemorial at http://vaccinememo rial.org/
Source: NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter of August 25, 2008
The vaccine issue also is a classic example of the ever-increasing tendency in this country to trample on our Constitutional rights via the illegal and unethical actions of organizations that are given free reign to operate above the law and without accountability. When billions of dollars are at stake, it is amazing what can happen and how quickly freedom can deteriorate even in this great Nation that has been a beacon of hope to so many oppressed people around the world.
Once again on this blog, we turn to the fine work of the National Vaccine Information Center to get a truthful and honest perspective of what is happening in the vaccine arena. As the heat builds against the shameful and hazardous mass implementation of Gardasil on young girls, often against their parents wishes, stories begin to surface regarding a new "measles epidemic" that are full of lies and misrepresentations. As you read the article below, you will see just how ludicrous it is to make the case for such an epidemic based on many factors, one of which is that there have only been 131 cases among a population of 300 million people! This stance by the government may be more about the elimination of groups who dare to defy the pretzel logic of a corrupted regime than simply about healthcare issues. It would be much easier for them to maintain control of the masses and implement their agendas if homeschoolers, religious groups, and other free-thinkers who believe it is the parent's job to raise and protect their children -- NOT government's -- could be controlled and eventually eliminated. Please take the time to read the excellent piece below that shines some much needed light on the whys and wherefores behind the whole concept of mass vaccinations.
Gardasil Meets Measles: A Coincidence?
by Barbara Loe Fisher
vaccineawakening.com
NVIC.org
StandUpBeCounted.org
The bad news about GARDASIL vaccine keeps getting worse and it was only a matter of time before government health officials promoted an "epidemic" to deflect attention from GARDASIL risks and create an excuse to point accusing fingers at parents who decline to give their children one or more of the 16 federally promoted vaccines. They did the same thing in 1985, when publicity about DPT vaccine reactions prompted officials at the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics to allege there were whooping cough epidemics in eight states due to parents rejecting DPT. Then as now, the cases of disease were divided between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and adults, which is hardly big news.
The government's dire warnings came late last week after newspaper articles examined the muscle that Merck used to get GARDASIL fast tracked and licensed, followed by an aggressive multi-media advertising and lobbying campaign targeting teenage girls which has already netted the big pharmaceutical company more than $1.5 billion in sales worldwide. The New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial discussed in the Wall Street Journal asking good questions about the evidence for long term protection and cost effectiveness of mass use of GARDASIL vaccine, questions that NVIC first raised in 2007.
And new concerns are being voiced about whether the vaccine is safe to give to adolescent girls, whose bodies are undergoing hormonal changes, as no studies have been published to evaluate whether there are increased risks for vaccine reactions depending upon when the vaccine is administered during a girl's monthly hormonal cycle.
Last week, a CDC apparently weary of all the bad publicity about GARDASIL got its taxpayer-funded PR machine in gear and issued a media advisory warning that 131 cases of measles have been reported in the U.S. this year and that half of those cases involved unvaccinated children whose parents homeschooled their children or held religious or philosophical beliefs opposing use of one or more vaccines. National news stories and local news coverage examined the measles outbreaks and allegations of growing parental vaccine refusal.
The New York Times published an editorial and repeated unsubstantiated claims made by the CDC about the numbers of children, who were injured and died from measles in the past, stating that there were 400-500 deaths; 48,000 hospitalizations and 1,000 cases of brain injury out of 3-4 million measles cases every year prior to mass use of measles vaccine. A quick look at MMWR historical charts reveals that the highest number of reported cases of measles in the U.S. since 1945 (and before the measles vaccine was licensed in 1963) was 763,094 cases in 1958. Why don't CDC officials publicly release the documented cases of hospitalization, injury and death due to measles in that year - or ANY year - instead of demanding blind faith in their version of the facts? (For decades, parents have been waiting for the CDC to document the widely published allegation that there are "36,000 deaths" due to influenza every year in the U.S., a statistic that is promoted to justify new directives that every baby and child through age 18 get annual flu shots.)
The publicizing of 131 cases of measles out of a population of 300 million people in the U.S. and blaming the "outbreak" on 63 cases that occurred in unvaccinated children, whose parents hold religious or conscientious objections to vaccination or homeschool, is a transparent attempt by federal employees to persecute fellow citizens holding religious beliefs, moral convictions, intellectual positions and wellness lifestyles different from their own. Adopting a strategy that "the best defense is a good offense," CDC officials are whipping up fear of those who do not vaccinate in order to cover up a three decade refusal to scientifically investigate reports of children regressing into autism and other kinds of chronic illness after administration of MMR and other vaccines. They know the truth about vaccine risks is becoming more widely known and are lobbying hard for removal vaccine exemptions they do not control so all Americans will be forced without exception to get every vaccine marketed by industry and mandated by government officials.
The premature licensure and universal use recommendation of GARDASIL is just the latest example of what is wrong with the mass vaccination system. If there is a crisis of confidence in the safety of vaccines, which prompts parents to ask pediatricians more questions and seek alternative health care options for keeping their children well, that crisis of confidence can be laid squarely at the feet of those operating the mass vaccination system for failing to do their job. As Generation Rescue founder J.B. Handley recently commented, "Most parents I know will take measles over autism.
There is a 92 to 100 percent uptake of MMR vaccine and many other federally recommended childhood vaccines among children entering kindergarten in every state. This is one of the highest vaccination rates in the world, especially in such a large population. If the MMR vaccine is so unreliable that a few hundred cases or even a few thousand cases of measles among 300 million people is a cause for panic, then the benefits of MMR vaccine weighed against its risks are far less than industry, government and medical organizations have admitted.
In the 1960's, when the live virus measles vaccine was licensed, parents were told it would give their babies the same lifelong immunity that having the natural disease confers. By the late 1980's, it was clear that was not true because measles was occurring in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Government officials eventually recommended another dose of measles vaccine (usually given as MMR) for all children even though there were outstanding questions about the multiplication of different genetic strains of measles and how this may affect the vaccine's ability to prevent measles on an individual and population basis long term.
Today's young mothers do not have qualitatively superior measles antibodies to transfer to their newborns to protect them in the first year of life as past generations of mothers did because most young mothers giving birth today have been vaccinated and never had measles as children, which confers lifelong immunity. So babies born today are vulnerable to measles from birth instead of from ages 15 months to six years, which is when most children in the past experienced measles by age six and severe complications were rare. For several decades, vaccinologists have been attempting to create a "high titer" EZ measles vaccine that can be given to infants under one year that will override any existing natural maternal antibodies and replace them with vaccine induced antibodies but there have been long-standing questions about EZ measles vaccine safety.
Vaccination does not mimic the natural disease process and offers only temporary immunity, which is why vaccine boosters are frequently given. Every vaccine carries a reaction risk that can be greater for some than others. Measles vaccine, which is part of the combination live virus MMR (measles-mumps- rubella) vaccine can cause brain inflammation and permanent brain damage. There have been more than 46,000 reports of health problems associated with MMR vaccination made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) . However, there is gross underreporting of vaccine- related health problems to VAERS and it is estimated that, for example, fewer than 4 percent of all cases of thrombocytopenia (potentially fatal blood disorder) following MMR vaccination are ever reported to VAERS.
The CDC's one-size-fits-all, no-exceptions MMR vaccine policies allow almost no contraindications to MMR vaccine use. According to the CDC, a child can be sick at the time of vaccination or recovering from an illness; have a fever; be taking antibiotics; have a history of allergies; or have experienced a seizure or regression after a previous MMR shot and still be eligible for more MMR vaccine. This kind of cavalier disregard for minimizing vaccine risks is one reason why more parents are questioning government vaccine policies.
Parents, whether they do or do not vaccinate their children, should become informed and clearly understand the symptoms and complications of every infectious disease, including measles. Parents who choose to vaccinate should have a 99 to 100 percent guarantee that the vaccine will, indeed protect their child. They should have a similar guarantee that the vaccine will not injure or kill their child.
Like all pharmaceutical products, vaccines should be subject to the law of supply and demand. When people are captive and unable to make informed, voluntary decisions about vaccines that have been rushed to market on greased skids by federal health agencies, where every vaccine reaction is unscientifically labeled a "coincidence," the first casualty is freedom and the second is the health of innocent children.
Public health officials and pediatricians should explain why 20 percent of America's highly vaccinated child population suffers with chronic illness and disability rather than blaming parents who refuse to salute smartly and take the risk of watching the child they love become one more victim of vaccine damage.
To report a vaccine reaction to NVIC's Vaccine Reaction Registry, go to http://www.nvic.org/Report/reaction.htm.
To view vaccine reaction reports, go to the Vaccine VictimMemorial at http://vaccinememo rial.org/
Source: NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter of August 25, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Irradiation of Food Set to Expand
A door that may soon lead to the irradiation of most foods in this country was opened by the FDA last week, and it will likely speed up the agenda for those who wish to see restrictions against this hazardous practice lifted. Using the 2006 E. coli crisis related to spinach as justification, the FDA approved the irradiation of spinach and iceberg lettuce with no labeling to inform consumers whether the produce they buy has been treated this way. The debate over irradiation has been on the table for nine years, and some are pushing for an expanded list of foods that may be legally treated with radiation.
In April of 2007 the FDA suggested allowing the use of the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods as part of its proposed easing of rules on the labeling of irradiated foods.
The safety of irradiated food appears to be the FDA's main "concern." They are claiming that such foods are not "significantly" compromised nutritionally, so this is a non-issue in their book. However, such a statement is absurd. In many independent studies, it has been proven that irradiation destroys the major nutritional components of produce such as vitamins and phytochemicals that are designed to naturally prevent inflammation, heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses. It is very similar to what happens when vegetables are microwaved. Certainly destruction of literally all the nutritional value of a food is not a safe practice, let alone the additional hazards that may accompany the introduction of radiation to foods. Once again, the FDA is pandering to the food industry and other interests who command Big Bucks, and throwing true scientific evidence out the window along with disregarding the safety of the American public.
FDA Allows Irradiation of Some Produce
By Jordan Weissmann
Washington Post Staff WriterFriday, August 22, 2008; D01
Food producers can now use radiation to kill bacteria on fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce because of a new Food and Drug Administration ruling meant to help head off outbreaks of foodborne illness.
This is the first time the agency has allowed produce to be irradiated as a health precaution. Tiny doses of radiation already are used to kill pests on some fruits and vegetables. But the process is most often used on meat -- especially E. coli susceptible ground beef -- and some spices. The food is exposed to just enough radiation to kill off most, though not necessarily all, harmful germs. For instance, the process won't rid the produce of foodborne viruses.
"The ruling is basically giving processors, giving those who deal with providing fresh or minimally processed spinach or lettuce to consumers, an additional tool, another technology to reduce the level of microorganisms that are of concern," said Laura Tarantino, director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety.
The decision, effective today, comes nine years after a coalition composed mostly of food industry groups first petitioned the FDA to expand the number of products that could be irradiated. The original petition had sought to make nearly all foods, from processed grains to seafood, approved for the process.
But in 2006, after an E. coli outbreak traced back to spinach left hundreds ill and three dead, the petitioners went back to the FDA asking the agency to look specifically at iceberg lettuce and spinach.
The FDA is still examining the other foods listed in the original petition.
Bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella can infect produce in a number of ways, including when animal waste makes its way into a farm's water supply, when processing equipment becomes infected or when spread by poor sanitation. Tarantino said that irradiation is not a silver bullet for the problem, and that producers still need sound sanitation practices.
Some health safety organizations questioned the FDA's decision, saying it would give producers a free pass to ignore basic issues.
"Having irradiation of foods provides a disincentive for animal factories and other food production facilities to clean up their act," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit consumer organization that monitors industrial agricultural practices.
The FDA concluded that irradiating spinach and iceberg lettuce had no toxic effects and did not significantly reduce the nutritional value of the vegetables. While some critics, such as Freese, are skeptical whether irradiation is safe for consumers, most believe the process isn't harmful in the products for which it has been approved.
Food industry representatives praised yesterday's move. "It's a good initial first step for products that have been considered high risk," said Robert Brackett, chief science officer at the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "This is meant as a safety net."
Brackett said his organization was pushing the FDA to enforce better farm sanitation practices, but is hoping that it will add other products to the irradiation list, such as radicchio, romaine lettuce and other greens that are often eaten uncooked.
"There are other products down the line that I think could be thought of as well, such as peppers and tomatoes in light of the salmonella," he said. "But they would have to be evaluated in terms of what the irradiation does to the quality and safety of those products as well."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103547_pf.html
In April of 2007 the FDA suggested allowing the use of the term "pasteurized" to describe irradiated foods as part of its proposed easing of rules on the labeling of irradiated foods.
The safety of irradiated food appears to be the FDA's main "concern." They are claiming that such foods are not "significantly" compromised nutritionally, so this is a non-issue in their book. However, such a statement is absurd. In many independent studies, it has been proven that irradiation destroys the major nutritional components of produce such as vitamins and phytochemicals that are designed to naturally prevent inflammation, heart disease, cancer, and other illnesses. It is very similar to what happens when vegetables are microwaved. Certainly destruction of literally all the nutritional value of a food is not a safe practice, let alone the additional hazards that may accompany the introduction of radiation to foods. Once again, the FDA is pandering to the food industry and other interests who command Big Bucks, and throwing true scientific evidence out the window along with disregarding the safety of the American public.
FDA Allows Irradiation of Some Produce
By Jordan Weissmann
Washington Post Staff WriterFriday, August 22, 2008; D01
Food producers can now use radiation to kill bacteria on fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce because of a new Food and Drug Administration ruling meant to help head off outbreaks of foodborne illness.
This is the first time the agency has allowed produce to be irradiated as a health precaution. Tiny doses of radiation already are used to kill pests on some fruits and vegetables. But the process is most often used on meat -- especially E. coli susceptible ground beef -- and some spices. The food is exposed to just enough radiation to kill off most, though not necessarily all, harmful germs. For instance, the process won't rid the produce of foodborne viruses.
"The ruling is basically giving processors, giving those who deal with providing fresh or minimally processed spinach or lettuce to consumers, an additional tool, another technology to reduce the level of microorganisms that are of concern," said Laura Tarantino, director of the FDA's Office of Food Additive Safety.
The decision, effective today, comes nine years after a coalition composed mostly of food industry groups first petitioned the FDA to expand the number of products that could be irradiated. The original petition had sought to make nearly all foods, from processed grains to seafood, approved for the process.
But in 2006, after an E. coli outbreak traced back to spinach left hundreds ill and three dead, the petitioners went back to the FDA asking the agency to look specifically at iceberg lettuce and spinach.
The FDA is still examining the other foods listed in the original petition.
Bacteria such as E. coli and salmonella can infect produce in a number of ways, including when animal waste makes its way into a farm's water supply, when processing equipment becomes infected or when spread by poor sanitation. Tarantino said that irradiation is not a silver bullet for the problem, and that producers still need sound sanitation practices.
Some health safety organizations questioned the FDA's decision, saying it would give producers a free pass to ignore basic issues.
"Having irradiation of foods provides a disincentive for animal factories and other food production facilities to clean up their act," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, a non-profit consumer organization that monitors industrial agricultural practices.
The FDA concluded that irradiating spinach and iceberg lettuce had no toxic effects and did not significantly reduce the nutritional value of the vegetables. While some critics, such as Freese, are skeptical whether irradiation is safe for consumers, most believe the process isn't harmful in the products for which it has been approved.
Food industry representatives praised yesterday's move. "It's a good initial first step for products that have been considered high risk," said Robert Brackett, chief science officer at the Grocery Manufacturers Association. "This is meant as a safety net."
Brackett said his organization was pushing the FDA to enforce better farm sanitation practices, but is hoping that it will add other products to the irradiation list, such as radicchio, romaine lettuce and other greens that are often eaten uncooked.
"There are other products down the line that I think could be thought of as well, such as peppers and tomatoes in light of the salmonella," he said. "But they would have to be evaluated in terms of what the irradiation does to the quality and safety of those products as well."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103547_pf.html
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Will "Home-Doctoring" Soon Be Banned?
The US Government, through the auspices of the FTC and the FDA, is rattling it's sabre again against those who would discuss and share natural and preventative remedies designed to maintain health and wellness. This case is certainly about health care freedom, but an even greater issue is at stake regarding basic constitutional rights. As the author points out, our Constitution allows freedom of choice regarding many issues, including health care, but FTC and FDA appear to feel they can trample on those rights despite the unconstitutionality of such behavior.
I applaud this small ministry for taking a stand against such tyranny. If the health care police continue to have their way, it soon may become illegal for free Americans to treat their own bodies, minds, and spirits with anything other than government-mandated medications and procedures. We could see a time in this country when sharing your homegrown vegetables with a neighbor could be construed as practicing medicine without a license, assuming the act of growing your own food remains legal. It's all about control, and when it comes to governmental control, a loss of freedoms is always part of the package.
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Hands up! Back slowly away from the vitamins!
Feds crack down on reports of natural remedy healings
Posted: August 22, 2008 10:33 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Copyright 2008 WorldNetDaily
The Goliath-sized Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have launched an attack on a small radio program and its accompanying website for recommending natural remedies to health problems, but in this case, David is fighting back.
Daniel Chapter One, a national Christian radio program and natural healing ministry, told WND today it may end up going to court against the FTC and FDA over the agencies' attempts to censor the information the ministry releases regarding "natural alternatives" to chemical and drug medications.
"If the FTC is successful in silencing Daniel Chapter One, individual consumers seeking to improve their health and the health of American society as a whole will suffer important losses," said Attorney James S. Turner, lead counsel for the organization, which has set up a separate website to track its battle with the federal government over the issue of vitamins, herbs and other natural supplements.
Jim Feijo, who with his wife set up the Rhode Island-based service that operates as a Christian ministry, told WND the dispute arose after officials in the Canadian health service contacted him and ordered him to shut down his operations. After he declined to cooperate, Canadian officials apparently contacted the FTC and FDA to insist on their demands.
But the issue isn't so simple as someone offering to sell illegal drugs; the products the program offers are natural substances and information about the treatments comes from those who experienced different levels of help, not a flam-flam artist.
According to a letter from Turner, his clients turned down the FTC's "offer to settle its claims" by shutting down operations and paying a substantial fine.
"We have stated your strong belief that you have done nothing that you are not entitled to do and that you have complied with any and all just and constitutional laws that govern your conduct," Turner wrote. "We said that because of your strong belief about the propriety of your behavior and that of Daniel Chapter One you are willing, and intend with our assistance, to present your case for a public hearing before the FTC, and if necessary in court.
"Your deeply held convictions raise serious legal questions for the FTC and the courts. First, what is the nature and intent of the law the FTC seeks to enforce and how does the Constitution restrain government power in enforcing that law? The courts are making it increasingly clear that government must clearly identify health claim wrongs and use the least intrusive power to correct them," he continued.
Regarding FDA intrusion into the situation, Turner said, "regulators must prove that the statements are in fact claims, that they are false claims that are impossible to be true for anyone, and that the defendants knew them to be false at the time they made them."
"Should this action move to court, we will raise the issues surrounding your constitutional rights to make a truthful statements supported by the material you have accumulated in your efforts to help people lead better lives," the lawyer wrote.
"We've lived in communist Berlin, Poland, China, and we've never seen anything like this," Feijo told WND. "They're threatening to come in and confiscated our legal products."
The FDA did not return a WND message today requesting comment, and the FTC could not be reached to leave a message.
Feijo, who's been involved with natural remedies and natural foods for decades, said he focuses on traditional folk remedies -- except the federal government wants to ban that phrase -- and he describes the government's goals as "mind-blowing."
"This is an absurd attempt to prevent the sharing of knowledge," he said.
He said if the government is successful in its current maneuver, there would be no limit to the dangers ordinary people could face. Grandmother's cold remedy could be called a medical treatment and regulated and taxed, and anyone administering "treatments" such as water for dehydration could be determined to be practicing medicine, he suggested.
One of the website's top promotions today included a fluoride reduction system that is described as the most "advanced cartridge system in the world" and says it can remove 91 percent of the fluoride in the water.
Interestingly, only a few weeks ago that the National Kidney Foundation has withdrawn its support for the chemical water additive and the American Water Works Association has been notified it must not eliminate or tamper with documents concerning fluoridation of water as they could be needed in potential lawsuits.
Feijo told WND the federal agencies had demanded customer lists and purchase records of all customers. The agencies also had demanded that a letter go to all customers from Daniel Chapter One warning everyone that its products didn't work.
But that doesn't make any sense, Turner insisted. "Some products can be proven safe and effective for everyone, and some can be proven unsafe and/or ineffective for everyone. There are also some claims that can be proven as always true and some that can be proven as always false," he said.
But in the case of the natural remedies, the statements "are either in the area where they are always true or in the gray area [where results of treatment vary by individual.]"
The FTC, however, "mandates that consumers may only receive health information from producers and sellers that the FTC has determined is proven by the 'science' it selects. No historical knowledge, consumer experience, or traditional practice satisfies FTC demands," the protest website said.
Therein lies the dispute.
"By depriving consumer choice and the right to hear sellers' knowledge about health aspects of their products, the one-size-fits-all FTC health information standard deprives consumer access to alternative health approaches. If the FTC had enforced this standard against Daniel Chapter One over the past 30 years, hundreds of people who provide testimony that Daniel Chapter One products improved or even saved their lives may not have survived," the organization said.
"The Constitution allows individuals to make potentially risky choices for themselves. The FTC does not. Instead, the FTC makes highly risky choices for consumers who have no way to object," the organization said. "Daniel Chapter One's goal is to help people honestly and the help of consumers will be crucial to take this historic stand."
Source: WorldNet Daily dated 8.22.08
I applaud this small ministry for taking a stand against such tyranny. If the health care police continue to have their way, it soon may become illegal for free Americans to treat their own bodies, minds, and spirits with anything other than government-mandated medications and procedures. We could see a time in this country when sharing your homegrown vegetables with a neighbor could be construed as practicing medicine without a license, assuming the act of growing your own food remains legal. It's all about control, and when it comes to governmental control, a loss of freedoms is always part of the package.
LIFE WITH BIG BROTHER
Hands up! Back slowly away from the vitamins!
Feds crack down on reports of natural remedy healings
Posted: August 22, 2008 10:33 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
Copyright 2008 WorldNetDaily
The Goliath-sized Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Food and Drug Administration have launched an attack on a small radio program and its accompanying website for recommending natural remedies to health problems, but in this case, David is fighting back.
Daniel Chapter One, a national Christian radio program and natural healing ministry, told WND today it may end up going to court against the FTC and FDA over the agencies' attempts to censor the information the ministry releases regarding "natural alternatives" to chemical and drug medications.
"If the FTC is successful in silencing Daniel Chapter One, individual consumers seeking to improve their health and the health of American society as a whole will suffer important losses," said Attorney James S. Turner, lead counsel for the organization, which has set up a separate website to track its battle with the federal government over the issue of vitamins, herbs and other natural supplements.
Jim Feijo, who with his wife set up the Rhode Island-based service that operates as a Christian ministry, told WND the dispute arose after officials in the Canadian health service contacted him and ordered him to shut down his operations. After he declined to cooperate, Canadian officials apparently contacted the FTC and FDA to insist on their demands.
But the issue isn't so simple as someone offering to sell illegal drugs; the products the program offers are natural substances and information about the treatments comes from those who experienced different levels of help, not a flam-flam artist.
According to a letter from Turner, his clients turned down the FTC's "offer to settle its claims" by shutting down operations and paying a substantial fine.
"We have stated your strong belief that you have done nothing that you are not entitled to do and that you have complied with any and all just and constitutional laws that govern your conduct," Turner wrote. "We said that because of your strong belief about the propriety of your behavior and that of Daniel Chapter One you are willing, and intend with our assistance, to present your case for a public hearing before the FTC, and if necessary in court.
"Your deeply held convictions raise serious legal questions for the FTC and the courts. First, what is the nature and intent of the law the FTC seeks to enforce and how does the Constitution restrain government power in enforcing that law? The courts are making it increasingly clear that government must clearly identify health claim wrongs and use the least intrusive power to correct them," he continued.
Regarding FDA intrusion into the situation, Turner said, "regulators must prove that the statements are in fact claims, that they are false claims that are impossible to be true for anyone, and that the defendants knew them to be false at the time they made them."
"Should this action move to court, we will raise the issues surrounding your constitutional rights to make a truthful statements supported by the material you have accumulated in your efforts to help people lead better lives," the lawyer wrote.
"We've lived in communist Berlin, Poland, China, and we've never seen anything like this," Feijo told WND. "They're threatening to come in and confiscated our legal products."
The FDA did not return a WND message today requesting comment, and the FTC could not be reached to leave a message.
Feijo, who's been involved with natural remedies and natural foods for decades, said he focuses on traditional folk remedies -- except the federal government wants to ban that phrase -- and he describes the government's goals as "mind-blowing."
"This is an absurd attempt to prevent the sharing of knowledge," he said.
He said if the government is successful in its current maneuver, there would be no limit to the dangers ordinary people could face. Grandmother's cold remedy could be called a medical treatment and regulated and taxed, and anyone administering "treatments" such as water for dehydration could be determined to be practicing medicine, he suggested.
One of the website's top promotions today included a fluoride reduction system that is described as the most "advanced cartridge system in the world" and says it can remove 91 percent of the fluoride in the water.
Interestingly, only a few weeks ago that the National Kidney Foundation has withdrawn its support for the chemical water additive and the American Water Works Association has been notified it must not eliminate or tamper with documents concerning fluoridation of water as they could be needed in potential lawsuits.
Feijo told WND the federal agencies had demanded customer lists and purchase records of all customers. The agencies also had demanded that a letter go to all customers from Daniel Chapter One warning everyone that its products didn't work.
But that doesn't make any sense, Turner insisted. "Some products can be proven safe and effective for everyone, and some can be proven unsafe and/or ineffective for everyone. There are also some claims that can be proven as always true and some that can be proven as always false," he said.
But in the case of the natural remedies, the statements "are either in the area where they are always true or in the gray area [where results of treatment vary by individual.]"
The FTC, however, "mandates that consumers may only receive health information from producers and sellers that the FTC has determined is proven by the 'science' it selects. No historical knowledge, consumer experience, or traditional practice satisfies FTC demands," the protest website said.
Therein lies the dispute.
"By depriving consumer choice and the right to hear sellers' knowledge about health aspects of their products, the one-size-fits-all FTC health information standard deprives consumer access to alternative health approaches. If the FTC had enforced this standard against Daniel Chapter One over the past 30 years, hundreds of people who provide testimony that Daniel Chapter One products improved or even saved their lives may not have survived," the organization said.
"The Constitution allows individuals to make potentially risky choices for themselves. The FTC does not. Instead, the FTC makes highly risky choices for consumers who have no way to object," the organization said. "Daniel Chapter One's goal is to help people honestly and the help of consumers will be crucial to take this historic stand."
Source: WorldNet Daily dated 8.22.08
Monday, August 25, 2008
Prevention is the Best Medicine
As government budgets tighten during these trying economic times, ideas that can help save money -- in this case on health care -- are particularly welcome. We in the natural health arena have been touting the benefits of disease prevention for years, but when Uncle Sam and the general public grab hold of the monetary advantages associated with staying healthy instead of treating disease after the fact, perhaps this concept will be taken more seriously.
I'm sure those that make money off illness -- such as the AMA and Big Pharma -- are watching with amusement when such stories surface. As long as people don't begin to take this prevention thing too seriously, none of their profits are at stake. However, what if Americans begin to get healthier and feel better from following a lifestyle of wellness and decide they can do without all the toxic hazards of medications and other conventional medical treatments? We could have a health care revolution on our hands, and I for one say bring it on!
Small Disease Prevention Steps Would Result in Big Gains, Study Says
An Ounce of Prevention Worth More Than a Pound of Cure
By James Arvantes 8/20/2008
The United States could save more than $16 billion a year within the next five years by making small but strategic investments in disease prevention, according to a new study (72-page PDF; About PDFs) released by the Trust for America's Health, or TFAH.
According to the study, an investment of only $10 per person, per year in community-based interventions designed to increase physical activity, improve nutrition and prevent smoking could result in savings of more than $16 billion annually within the next five years. Furthermore, said the study, this savings -- a return of $5.60 on every $1 spent -- does not include gains achieved in worker productivity, reduced absenteeism at work and school, and enhanced quality of life.
Of the $16 billion in savings, Medicare could save more than $5 billion, Medicaid more than $1.9 billion and private payers more than $9 billion, according to "Prevention for a Healthier America: Investments in Disease Prevention Yield Significant Savings, Stronger Communities."
"We are often focused on major change," said Rich Hamburg, director of government relations for TFAH, in an interview with AAFP News Now. "But there is a growing body of evidence showing that even small changes can make a significant difference."
Losing eight to 10 pounds, for example, could prevent many patients from progressing from prediabetes to diabetes, resulting in significant savings to the health care system, said Hamburg. "It doesn't have to be massive weight loss or running 15 miles a week," he noted. "It means doing some small things and removing some barriers that will move us forward."
The report's findings are based on an economic model developed by researchers at the Urban Institute and a review of evidence-based studies conducted by the New York Academy of Medicine. It also relies on strategic low-cost, community-based primary and secondary prevention efforts that are known to either reduce disease rates or improve health choices but that do not involve direct medical care.
Three key factors have a direct bearing on the population's health, according to the study. These are physical activity, nutrition and smoking. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, one in five do not engage in physical activity, and one in five smoke, notes the report, but these conditions and behaviors can be modified relatively inexpensively.
Various prevention strategies, including enhanced access to affordable nutritious foods, increasing the number of community parks and sidewalks, and raising tobacco taxes to discourage smoking, can target specific communities or at-risk segments of communities, says the report.
These prevention strategies could reduce rates of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure by 5 percent within five years, while leading to similar reductions in the incidence of heart and kidney disease and stroke within the same amount of time. Prevention strategies also could reduce some forms of cancer, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by 2.5 percent within 10 to 20 years, notes the report.
Hamburg stressed that prevention efforts will vary based on the circumstances of individual communities. In some school districts, for example, prevention efforts may entail removing less-than-healthy foods from school vending machines or keeping school gyms open later to allow students to exercise. In another area, prevention may include providing incentives in the food-stamp program to promote the purchase of healthier foods.
One of the keys is to make sure prevention efforts are conducted on a community-wide basis, not in a piece-meal fashion, said Hamburg. In addition, all stakeholders should be involved. "It is difficult to tell someone in a high-crime area to go out and go for a walk," said Hamburg. That's why local police and fire department officials may have to be involved -- to resolve safety issues by making the streets safer, he added.
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/health-of-the-public/20080820-tfah-prev.printerview.html
I'm sure those that make money off illness -- such as the AMA and Big Pharma -- are watching with amusement when such stories surface. As long as people don't begin to take this prevention thing too seriously, none of their profits are at stake. However, what if Americans begin to get healthier and feel better from following a lifestyle of wellness and decide they can do without all the toxic hazards of medications and other conventional medical treatments? We could have a health care revolution on our hands, and I for one say bring it on!
Small Disease Prevention Steps Would Result in Big Gains, Study Says
An Ounce of Prevention Worth More Than a Pound of Cure
By James Arvantes 8/20/2008
The United States could save more than $16 billion a year within the next five years by making small but strategic investments in disease prevention, according to a new study (72-page PDF; About PDFs) released by the Trust for America's Health, or TFAH.
According to the study, an investment of only $10 per person, per year in community-based interventions designed to increase physical activity, improve nutrition and prevent smoking could result in savings of more than $16 billion annually within the next five years. Furthermore, said the study, this savings -- a return of $5.60 on every $1 spent -- does not include gains achieved in worker productivity, reduced absenteeism at work and school, and enhanced quality of life.
Of the $16 billion in savings, Medicare could save more than $5 billion, Medicaid more than $1.9 billion and private payers more than $9 billion, according to "Prevention for a Healthier America: Investments in Disease Prevention Yield Significant Savings, Stronger Communities."
"We are often focused on major change," said Rich Hamburg, director of government relations for TFAH, in an interview with AAFP News Now. "But there is a growing body of evidence showing that even small changes can make a significant difference."
Losing eight to 10 pounds, for example, could prevent many patients from progressing from prediabetes to diabetes, resulting in significant savings to the health care system, said Hamburg. "It doesn't have to be massive weight loss or running 15 miles a week," he noted. "It means doing some small things and removing some barriers that will move us forward."
The report's findings are based on an economic model developed by researchers at the Urban Institute and a review of evidence-based studies conducted by the New York Academy of Medicine. It also relies on strategic low-cost, community-based primary and secondary prevention efforts that are known to either reduce disease rates or improve health choices but that do not involve direct medical care.
Three key factors have a direct bearing on the population's health, according to the study. These are physical activity, nutrition and smoking. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, one in five do not engage in physical activity, and one in five smoke, notes the report, but these conditions and behaviors can be modified relatively inexpensively.
Various prevention strategies, including enhanced access to affordable nutritious foods, increasing the number of community parks and sidewalks, and raising tobacco taxes to discourage smoking, can target specific communities or at-risk segments of communities, says the report.
These prevention strategies could reduce rates of type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure by 5 percent within five years, while leading to similar reductions in the incidence of heart and kidney disease and stroke within the same amount of time. Prevention strategies also could reduce some forms of cancer, arthritis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by 2.5 percent within 10 to 20 years, notes the report.
Hamburg stressed that prevention efforts will vary based on the circumstances of individual communities. In some school districts, for example, prevention efforts may entail removing less-than-healthy foods from school vending machines or keeping school gyms open later to allow students to exercise. In another area, prevention may include providing incentives in the food-stamp program to promote the purchase of healthier foods.
One of the keys is to make sure prevention efforts are conducted on a community-wide basis, not in a piece-meal fashion, said Hamburg. In addition, all stakeholders should be involved. "It is difficult to tell someone in a high-crime area to go out and go for a walk," said Hamburg. That's why local police and fire department officials may have to be involved -- to resolve safety issues by making the streets safer, he added.
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/health-of-the-public/20080820-tfah-prev.printerview.html
Friday, August 22, 2008
Olympian Endorses Sugary Breakfast Cereal
Most Americans, unless they've been vacationing on the moon, are aware of the record eight gold medals won by Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps. It was announced this week that he has signed on to endorse one of the largest selling sugar-laden cereals on the market, Kellogs' Frosted Flakes. In light of the recent obesity and diabetes epidemics that are trashing the health of American children and adults, I can't think of a worse ethical move on the part of an athlete and role model. It was also noted that a business arrangement with McDonald's is in the works for Mr. Phelps whereby he will act as an ambassador for the fast-food giant while in Beijing, helping to introduce Chinese children to the wonderful world of burgers and fries.
Perhaps Phelps does not see his endorsements as a sell-out because he himself is known for being a junk food junkie. However, you would think that as strict as the Olympic Committee can be in certain areas, they might set some rules restricting what products Olympians can be paid millions to push. What's next? Athletes touting tobacco products or alcoholic beverages? Or maybe Michael's agent will cut a deal with a pharmaceutical company for a new drug that allows one to eat anything they want and still perform like a world-class athlete.
But alas, it's not all bad news. The real hero in this year's Olympics is 41 year-old Dana Torres, also a swimmer, who won a very impressive two silver medals. She is known for her healthy habits, including the consumption of super foods and other natural forms of energy and nutrition. I would like to see Phelps accomplish that at her age, especially if he continues to eat the junk that he is endorsing.
Breakfast of a champion? Frosted Flakes! Phelps signs with cereal
BY RICH SCHAPIRO DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Updated Wednesday, August 20th 2008, 1:23 PM
After winning a record eight Olympic gold medals in Beijing, American swimming superstar Michael Phelps signs on with sugar-loaded cereal.
You better eat your . . . Frosted Flakes?
Olympic legend Michael Phelps will appear on boxes of the Kellogg's brand sugar cereal, drawing sharp criticism from health experts worried about the message he'll be sending to children across America.
"I would not consider Frosted Flakes the food of an Olympian," said nutritionist Rebecca Solomon of Mount Sinai Medical Center.
"I would rather see him promoting Fiber One. I would rather see him promoting oatmeal. I would even rather see him promoting Cheerios."
The announcement yesterday that Phelps, 23, winner of a record eight gold medals at the Beijing Olympics, would grace Frosted Flakes and Corn Flakes boxes instead of the traditional athlete's choice of Wheaties left many perplexed.
Frosted Flakes has three times the amount of sugar as Wheaties and 1/3rd the fiber.This doesn't matter much to a virtuoso swimmer who consumes 12,000 calories a day.
Still, in a country where childhood obesity is an alarming issue, Phelps' iconic image sharing space with Tony the Tiger sends the wrong message, experts say.
"For a guy like Michael Phelps who isn't worried about obesity because he's burning thousands of calories as an athlete...eating Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes every so often is not an issue," Solomon said.
The Phelps-emblazoned cereal boxes hit supermarket shelves in mid-September.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/2008olympics/2008/08/19/2008-08-19_breakfast_of_a_champion_frosted_flakes_p.html
Perhaps Phelps does not see his endorsements as a sell-out because he himself is known for being a junk food junkie. However, you would think that as strict as the Olympic Committee can be in certain areas, they might set some rules restricting what products Olympians can be paid millions to push. What's next? Athletes touting tobacco products or alcoholic beverages? Or maybe Michael's agent will cut a deal with a pharmaceutical company for a new drug that allows one to eat anything they want and still perform like a world-class athlete.
But alas, it's not all bad news. The real hero in this year's Olympics is 41 year-old Dana Torres, also a swimmer, who won a very impressive two silver medals. She is known for her healthy habits, including the consumption of super foods and other natural forms of energy and nutrition. I would like to see Phelps accomplish that at her age, especially if he continues to eat the junk that he is endorsing.
Breakfast of a champion? Frosted Flakes! Phelps signs with cereal
BY RICH SCHAPIRO DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Updated Wednesday, August 20th 2008, 1:23 PM
After winning a record eight Olympic gold medals in Beijing, American swimming superstar Michael Phelps signs on with sugar-loaded cereal.
You better eat your . . . Frosted Flakes?
Olympic legend Michael Phelps will appear on boxes of the Kellogg's brand sugar cereal, drawing sharp criticism from health experts worried about the message he'll be sending to children across America.
"I would not consider Frosted Flakes the food of an Olympian," said nutritionist Rebecca Solomon of Mount Sinai Medical Center.
"I would rather see him promoting Fiber One. I would rather see him promoting oatmeal. I would even rather see him promoting Cheerios."
The announcement yesterday that Phelps, 23, winner of a record eight gold medals at the Beijing Olympics, would grace Frosted Flakes and Corn Flakes boxes instead of the traditional athlete's choice of Wheaties left many perplexed.
Frosted Flakes has three times the amount of sugar as Wheaties and 1/3rd the fiber.This doesn't matter much to a virtuoso swimmer who consumes 12,000 calories a day.
Still, in a country where childhood obesity is an alarming issue, Phelps' iconic image sharing space with Tony the Tiger sends the wrong message, experts say.
"For a guy like Michael Phelps who isn't worried about obesity because he's burning thousands of calories as an athlete...eating Corn Flakes and Frosted Flakes every so often is not an issue," Solomon said.
The Phelps-emblazoned cereal boxes hit supermarket shelves in mid-September.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/2008olympics/2008/08/19/2008-08-19_breakfast_of_a_champion_frosted_flakes_p.html
Thursday, August 21, 2008
More Good News About Exercise
Alongside diet, physical activity is one of the key lifestyle factors that can help to prevent and heal disease naturally. The benefits of exercise are numerous, rendering many physical, mental, and emotional advantages. The article posted today focuses on how being active can help our moods and improve our mental faculties as well.
Research studies such as these reveal the science behind what generations past instinctively knew was good for our minds and bodies. When grandma was going through a stressful situation and she washed down all the walls in the house, she may not have understood the reasons behind it, but she knew it helped her manage through tough times. How different from our modern society that has typically bought into the lie that anytime we feel anxious or depressed we should reach for a pill. We have been sold a bill of goods by Big Pharma and their advertising partners that should supposedly help us but has tragically taken us away from wellness and towards dependence upon toxic medications that only worsen our health. Spread the word! Let's get back to the basics of a wholesome, natural diet and plenty of exercise to keep us mentally and physically fit.
Do You Want Happiness, Improved Intelligence and Better Memory?
by Lynn Berry
(NaturalNews) We've all heard about the benefits of exercise for our hearts and to reduce cholesterol, but what about for happiness, improving intelligence and memory as well as for alleviating addiction, stress and aggression.
These are the findings from Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and The Brain, a book published this year by John Ratey, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Ratey believes that exercise is like medicine and helps depression as well. This is supported by other studies. Depression scores were measured in a German survey where for 10 days people were asked to walk quickly on a treadmill for 30 minutes. Researchers concluded at the end of the survey that exercise significantly reduces depression.
Scientists at Yale University found that regular exercise stimulates the hippocampus which is an area of the brain responsible for mood. Their study of mice showed that exercise activated a gene in the hippocampus called VGF. VGF is linked to a chemical involved in new nerve cell development.
The findings have lead to scientists developing a drug that mimics VGF gene workings in the brain. If so, this would replace conventional antidepressants.
According to Ratey, exercise doesn't make you more intelligent, rather it stimulates the brain making for improved learning capacity thereby optimizing performance. Exercise increases blood flow to the part of the brain which is responsible for memory and learning. The stimulation improves brain functioning in learning situations.
Some schools around the world have taken note and have instituted exercise as part of the school day with teachers at Naperville Central High near Chicago reporting improved exam results.
Other studies have correlated physical activity with improved cognitive processing with the best results amongst people who were the most active. A study in Germany found a relation between the amount of activity in rats during pregnancy and the amount of cells in the hippocampus of baby rats. The more activity, the more cells. We'll have to wait to find out if this applies to humans as well.
Increased blood flow to the brain also improves memory function. From studies with mice at the Columbia University Medical Centre (NY), new brain cells grew in the dentate gyrus area, an area which is affected in old age. With new cell growth due to exercise, memory would improve.
The findings about exercise reducing aggression are not new -- we know that exercise is a good way to let off steam by burning energy. However Ratey says that the reason aggression is reduced is due to changes in the brain due to exercise which removes the feeling of aggression.
Scientists in Britain found that just five minutes of brisk walking can alleviate withdrawal symptoms caused from giving up smoking. They believe that exercise stimulates how much dopamine (a mood enhancing hormone) is produced which reduces the desire for nicotine.
Ratey believes that a brisk 30 minute walk four to five times a week is the minimum to achieve the benefits. He also recommends interval training where you speed it up by sprinting for around 30 seconds then walking for two minutes.
Information for this article was taken from The Sydney Morning Herald June 7-8 2008 Can jogging make you smarter? by Simon Usborne republished from The Independent.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023884.html
Research studies such as these reveal the science behind what generations past instinctively knew was good for our minds and bodies. When grandma was going through a stressful situation and she washed down all the walls in the house, she may not have understood the reasons behind it, but she knew it helped her manage through tough times. How different from our modern society that has typically bought into the lie that anytime we feel anxious or depressed we should reach for a pill. We have been sold a bill of goods by Big Pharma and their advertising partners that should supposedly help us but has tragically taken us away from wellness and towards dependence upon toxic medications that only worsen our health. Spread the word! Let's get back to the basics of a wholesome, natural diet and plenty of exercise to keep us mentally and physically fit.
Do You Want Happiness, Improved Intelligence and Better Memory?
by Lynn Berry
(NaturalNews) We've all heard about the benefits of exercise for our hearts and to reduce cholesterol, but what about for happiness, improving intelligence and memory as well as for alleviating addiction, stress and aggression.
These are the findings from Spark: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and The Brain, a book published this year by John Ratey, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston.
Ratey believes that exercise is like medicine and helps depression as well. This is supported by other studies. Depression scores were measured in a German survey where for 10 days people were asked to walk quickly on a treadmill for 30 minutes. Researchers concluded at the end of the survey that exercise significantly reduces depression.
Scientists at Yale University found that regular exercise stimulates the hippocampus which is an area of the brain responsible for mood. Their study of mice showed that exercise activated a gene in the hippocampus called VGF. VGF is linked to a chemical involved in new nerve cell development.
The findings have lead to scientists developing a drug that mimics VGF gene workings in the brain. If so, this would replace conventional antidepressants.
According to Ratey, exercise doesn't make you more intelligent, rather it stimulates the brain making for improved learning capacity thereby optimizing performance. Exercise increases blood flow to the part of the brain which is responsible for memory and learning. The stimulation improves brain functioning in learning situations.
Some schools around the world have taken note and have instituted exercise as part of the school day with teachers at Naperville Central High near Chicago reporting improved exam results.
Other studies have correlated physical activity with improved cognitive processing with the best results amongst people who were the most active. A study in Germany found a relation between the amount of activity in rats during pregnancy and the amount of cells in the hippocampus of baby rats. The more activity, the more cells. We'll have to wait to find out if this applies to humans as well.
Increased blood flow to the brain also improves memory function. From studies with mice at the Columbia University Medical Centre (NY), new brain cells grew in the dentate gyrus area, an area which is affected in old age. With new cell growth due to exercise, memory would improve.
The findings about exercise reducing aggression are not new -- we know that exercise is a good way to let off steam by burning energy. However Ratey says that the reason aggression is reduced is due to changes in the brain due to exercise which removes the feeling of aggression.
Scientists in Britain found that just five minutes of brisk walking can alleviate withdrawal symptoms caused from giving up smoking. They believe that exercise stimulates how much dopamine (a mood enhancing hormone) is produced which reduces the desire for nicotine.
Ratey believes that a brisk 30 minute walk four to five times a week is the minimum to achieve the benefits. He also recommends interval training where you speed it up by sprinting for around 30 seconds then walking for two minutes.
Information for this article was taken from The Sydney Morning Herald June 7-8 2008 Can jogging make you smarter? by Simon Usborne republished from The Independent.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023884.html
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Benefits of Humanely Raised Meats
According to the article featured today, it appears that choosing animal products for consumption that are raised and managed using high welfare standards is good for both the animal and the human consumer. Not only are such standards more humane for these creatures, but it also makes for higher quality meat that is more often free of disease and less contaminated with antibiotic drugs.
Today's post also brings to light recent concerns that shoddy administrative practices have allowed cattle into this country that may have been contaminated with Mad Cow disease. If you choose to eat meat, it is critical that you carefully determine which products end up on your table. Also included below is an excellent article that explains the different types of labels on meat and what they all mean. Understanding this can help you locate and purchase the safest meats for the protection of your family.
Is the U.S. Importing Mad Cow Disease?
July 30, 2008 on 11:50 am By beth In Food Safety
A recent audit of the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) revealed that cows from Canada have been entering the country without being properly inspected. Consequently, concerns have been raised that mad cow disease may have been imported along with the undocumented cows. And because the Bush Administration does not want meatpackers conducting their own private testing for mad cow disease, this threat to public health/food safety is simply a disaster waiting to happen.* Further complicating matters, the under-funded and understaffed USDA has no idea where these cows have ended up because of record-keeping errors made by APHIS.
While this story is newsworthy, it should not come as a surprise to anyone. This last year has been an extremely embarrassing and frightening one for United States agriculture. With the recent Humane Slaughter Act violations, the widespread distribution of downer cattle meat for children's school lunches and the largest meat recall in American history all occurring in the last seven months, it has become clear that major changes have to made within the American agricultural industry.
Prior to this news about Canadian cattle being lost in the US without proper inspection, US interest groups had already been calling for bans on cattle imports, wary of the threat to their own livestock and to the beef industry in general. R-Calf USA, a national cattle producer association, recently sued the USDA for allowing the importation of older Canadian cattle into the US. This rule is now being reconsidered thanks to a federal judge in South Dakota. (Click here To read the full news story about the lost Canadian cattle.)
Now with this revelation about the cracks in our inspection system, the push against foreign imports will be even stronger.
However, even if potentially infected animals continue to be imported, American consumers can protect themselves by making smart food choices. Consumers can reduce their risk considerably by buying their meat, dairy, and eggs from farmers who adhere to high welfare standards.
Animal welfare improvements can increase food safety by reducing stress. When animals are stressed, this can suppress their immune systems and leave them vulnerable to disease. High welfare practices reduce stress, and consequently reduce the incidence of infectious disease that can harm humans. High welfare farms have also significantly reduced or completely eliminated the need for routine antibiotics. This reduces the risk of antibiotic resistance in humans from chronic overuse in food animal production.**
More and more research has shown that the health and well-being of the animal directly relates to the safety of the consumer. When consumers buy food with the Animal Welfare Approved seal they can be assured that the animals lived under the highest welfare conditions, which put them at a much lower risk of contracting disease. Consequently, Animal Welfare Approved food is one of the safest choices for the American consumer.
*Wasserman, B. (2008, May 13). U.S. to stop private mad cow testing. Food Consumer.org.
**De Passille, A.M. and Rushen, J. (2005). Food safety and environmental issues in animal
welfare. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 24 (2), 757-766.
http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/blog/2008/07/30/is-the-us-importing-mad-cow-disease/
CONSUMERS UNION OFFERS ADVICE ON MEAT LABELS THAT DO AND DON'T HELP REDUCE RISK OF EXPOSURE TO MAD COW DISEASE
-- Unbiased, Trusted Information on Meat Labeling in March Consumer Reports Health "Names and Claims" Feature and on the Web at
eco-labels.org --
Yonkers, NY—Consumers Union (CU), the independent nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, is providing consumers with important information about which meat labels can and cannot help consumers wanting to reduce their risk from mad cow disease.
THE MOST HELPFUL LABELS
Mad cow disease is known to pass from one animal to another through the use of animal by-products in animal feed. Certain labels indicate that animal by-products are not used in the feed that produced the meat. Therefore, meat carrying these labels is very low risk in terms of mad cow disease.
"ORGANIC"-- labeled meat provides consumers with the assurance that meat came from a farm that prohibits using animal by-products in the feed for farm animals. All food labeled "organic" must be verified by an independent organization. Visit the www.eco-labels.org for the full CU label report on USDA standards for organic.
"BIODYNAMIC" -- labeled meat provides consumers with the assurance that meat came from a farm that prohibits using animal by-products in the feed for farm animals. All food labeled "biodynamic" are also verified. Visit www.eco-labels.org for the full CU label report on Demeter's Certified Biodynamic label.
In addition, some meat products are labeled as to country of origin. Australia and New Zealand are currently believed to be free of mad cow.
SOMEWHAT HELPFUL LABELS
A number of other labels indicate that meat comes from an animal that was not fed animal by-products, but are not verified by any independent organization. Thus meat carrying these labels may be lower risk, but this is not guaranteed.
"100% GRASS FED" or "GRASS FED ONLY" -- labeled meat should have been produced from animals that were fed only grass and therefore, no animal by-products. However, meat products labeled as just "GRASS FED," without any additional specification, may mean that the animal ate grass for part of its life, but not its whole life. Consumers should therefore contact the farmer or producer and ask whether the animals were also fed animal by-products or rendered animal protein. Unlike the organic label, "grass fed" claims are not necessarily verified by an independent organization unless otherwise specified (e.g. accompanied by a USDA Verified Shield).
"100% GRAIN FED" or "GRAIN FED ONLY" -- labeled meat should have been produced from animals that were fed only grain and therefore, no animal by-products. However, meat products labeled as just "GRAIN FED," without any additional specification, may mean that the animal ate grass for part of its life, but not its whole life. Consumers should therefore contact the farmer or producer and ask whether the animals were also fed animal by-products or rendered animal protein. Unlike the organic label, "grain fed" claims are not necessarily verified by an independent organization unless otherwise specified (e.g. accompanied by a USDA Verified Shield).
"NO ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS" -- labeled meat should have been produced from animals that were fed food without animal by-products. However, unlike the organic or biodynamic labels, "no animal by-products" claims are not necessarily verified by an independent organization unless otherwise specified e.g. accompanied by a USDA Verified Shield).
"100% VEGETARIAN" or "VEGETARIAN FED ONLY"--labeled meat should have been produced from animals that were fed only a vegetarian diet and therefore, no animal by-products. However, meat products labeled as just "VEGETARIAN FED," without any additional specification, may mean that the animal ate grass for part of its life, but not its whole life. Consumers should therefore contact the farmer or producer and ask whether the animals were also fed animal by-products or rendered animal protein. Unlike the organic label, "grain fed" claims are not necessarily verified by an independent organization unless otherwise specified (e.g. accompanied by a USDA Verified Shield).
LABELS THAT SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO REDUCE THE RISK OF EXPOSURE TO MAD COW DISEASE
CAGE FREEFREE RANGE, FREE RUNNING, FREE ROAMING
GRASS FED (without additional specification such as "only" or "100%)GRAIN FED (without additional specification such as "only" or "100%)IRRADIATED, TREATED WITH IRRADIATION (electron beam or gamma)NATURAL
NO ADDITIVES
NO ANTIBIOTICS CLAIMS
NO CHEMICALS ADDED
NO HORMONES CLAIMS
PASTEURIZED
Questions about labeling should be directed to Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D. at 646-594-0212
Eco-labels.org Feature Story www.eco-labels.org/feature.cfm?FeatureID=7
Consumer Reports Mad Cow Updated Alert
http://www.consumerreports.org/static/0312mad0.html
Consumers Union launched www.eco-labels.org in the spring of 2001 to help educate consumers about these labels. Consumers Union believes that the best eco-labels are seals or logos indicating that an independent organization has verified that a product meets a set of meaningful and consistent standards for environmental protection and/or social justice.
Today's post also brings to light recent concerns that shoddy administrative practices have allowed cattle into this country that may have been contaminated with Mad Cow disease. If you choose to eat meat, it is critical that you carefully determine which products end up on your table. Also included below is an excellent article that explains the different types of labels on meat and what they all mean. Understanding this can help you locate and purchase the safest meats for the protection of your family.
Is the U.S. Importing Mad Cow Disease?
July 30, 2008 on 11:50 am By beth In Food Safety
A recent audit of the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) revealed that cows from Canada have been entering the country without being properly inspected. Consequently, concerns have been raised that mad cow disease may have been imported along with the undocumented cows. And because the Bush Administration does not want meatpackers conducting their own private testing for mad cow disease, this threat to public health/food safety is simply a disaster waiting to happen.* Further complicating matters, the under-funded and understaffed USDA has no idea where these cows have ended up because of record-keeping errors made by APHIS.
While this story is newsworthy, it should not come as a surprise to anyone. This last year has been an extremely embarrassing and frightening one for United States agriculture. With the recent Humane Slaughter Act violations, the widespread distribution of downer cattle meat for children's school lunches and the largest meat recall in American history all occurring in the last seven months, it has become clear that major changes have to made within the American agricultural industry.
Prior to this news about Canadian cattle being lost in the US without proper inspection, US interest groups had already been calling for bans on cattle imports, wary of the threat to their own livestock and to the beef industry in general. R-Calf USA, a national cattle producer association, recently sued the USDA for allowing the importation of older Canadian cattle into the US. This rule is now being reconsidered thanks to a federal judge in South Dakota. (Click here To read the full news story about the lost Canadian cattle.)
Now with this revelation about the cracks in our inspection system, the push against foreign imports will be even stronger.
However, even if potentially infected animals continue to be imported, American consumers can protect themselves by making smart food choices. Consumers can reduce their risk considerably by buying their meat, dairy, and eggs from farmers who adhere to high welfare standards.
Animal welfare improvements can increase food safety by reducing stress. When animals are stressed, this can suppress their immune systems and leave them vulnerable to disease. High welfare practices reduce stress, and consequently reduce the incidence of infectious disease that can harm humans. High welfare farms have also significantly reduced or completely eliminated the need for routine antibiotics. This reduces the risk of antibiotic resistance in humans from chronic overuse in food animal production.**
More and more research has shown that the health and well-being of the animal directly relates to the safety of the consumer. When consumers buy food with the Animal Welfare Approved seal they can be assured that the animals lived under the highest welfare conditions, which put them at a much lower risk of contracting disease. Consequently, Animal Welfare Approved food is one of the safest choices for the American consumer.
*Wasserman, B. (2008, May 13). U.S. to stop private mad cow testing. Food Consumer.org.
**De Passille, A.M. and Rushen, J. (2005). Food safety and environmental issues in animal
welfare. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 24 (2), 757-766.
http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/blog/2008/07/30/is-the-us-importing-mad-cow-disease/
CONSUMERS UNION OFFERS ADVICE ON MEAT LABELS THAT DO AND DON'T HELP REDUCE RISK OF EXPOSURE TO MAD COW DISEASE
-- Unbiased, Trusted Information on Meat Labeling in March Consumer Reports Health "Names and Claims" Feature and on the Web at
eco-labels.org --
Yonkers, NY—Consumers Union (CU), the independent nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, is providing consumers with important information about which meat labels can and cannot help consumers wanting to reduce their risk from mad cow disease.
THE MOST HELPFUL LABELS
Mad cow disease is known to pass from one animal to another through the use of animal by-products in animal feed. Certain labels indicate that animal by-products are not used in the feed that produced the meat. Therefore, meat carrying these labels is very low risk in terms of mad cow disease.
"ORGANIC"-- labeled meat provides consumers with the assurance that meat came from a farm that prohibits using animal by-products in the feed for farm animals. All food labeled "organic" must be verified by an independent organization. Visit the www.eco-labels.org for the full CU label report on USDA standards for organic.
"BIODYNAMIC" -- labeled meat provides consumers with the assurance that meat came from a farm that prohibits using animal by-products in the feed for farm animals. All food labeled "biodynamic" are also verified. Visit www.eco-labels.org for the full CU label report on Demeter's Certified Biodynamic label.
In addition, some meat products are labeled as to country of origin. Australia and New Zealand are currently believed to be free of mad cow.
SOMEWHAT HELPFUL LABELS
A number of other labels indicate that meat comes from an animal that was not fed animal by-products, but are not verified by any independent organization. Thus meat carrying these labels may be lower risk, but this is not guaranteed.
"100% GRASS FED" or "GRASS FED ONLY" -- labeled meat should have been produced from animals that were fed only grass and therefore, no animal by-products. However, meat products labeled as just "GRASS FED," without any additional specification, may mean that the animal ate grass for part of its life, but not its whole life. Consumers should therefore contact the farmer or producer and ask whether the animals were also fed animal by-products or rendered animal protein. Unlike the organic label, "grass fed" claims are not necessarily verified by an independent organization unless otherwise specified (e.g. accompanied by a USDA Verified Shield).
"100% GRAIN FED" or "GRAIN FED ONLY" -- labeled meat should have been produced from animals that were fed only grain and therefore, no animal by-products. However, meat products labeled as just "GRAIN FED," without any additional specification, may mean that the animal ate grass for part of its life, but not its whole life. Consumers should therefore contact the farmer or producer and ask whether the animals were also fed animal by-products or rendered animal protein. Unlike the organic label, "grain fed" claims are not necessarily verified by an independent organization unless otherwise specified (e.g. accompanied by a USDA Verified Shield).
"NO ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS" -- labeled meat should have been produced from animals that were fed food without animal by-products. However, unlike the organic or biodynamic labels, "no animal by-products" claims are not necessarily verified by an independent organization unless otherwise specified e.g. accompanied by a USDA Verified Shield).
"100% VEGETARIAN" or "VEGETARIAN FED ONLY"--labeled meat should have been produced from animals that were fed only a vegetarian diet and therefore, no animal by-products. However, meat products labeled as just "VEGETARIAN FED," without any additional specification, may mean that the animal ate grass for part of its life, but not its whole life. Consumers should therefore contact the farmer or producer and ask whether the animals were also fed animal by-products or rendered animal protein. Unlike the organic label, "grain fed" claims are not necessarily verified by an independent organization unless otherwise specified (e.g. accompanied by a USDA Verified Shield).
LABELS THAT SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO REDUCE THE RISK OF EXPOSURE TO MAD COW DISEASE
CAGE FREEFREE RANGE, FREE RUNNING, FREE ROAMING
GRASS FED (without additional specification such as "only" or "100%)GRAIN FED (without additional specification such as "only" or "100%)IRRADIATED, TREATED WITH IRRADIATION (electron beam or gamma)NATURAL
NO ADDITIVES
NO ANTIBIOTICS CLAIMS
NO CHEMICALS ADDED
NO HORMONES CLAIMS
PASTEURIZED
Questions about labeling should be directed to Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D. at 646-594-0212
Eco-labels.org Feature Story www.eco-labels.org/feature.cfm?FeatureID=7
Consumer Reports Mad Cow Updated Alert
http://www.consumerreports.org/static/0312mad0.html
Consumers Union launched www.eco-labels.org in the spring of 2001 to help educate consumers about these labels. Consumers Union believes that the best eco-labels are seals or logos indicating that an independent organization has verified that a product meets a set of meaningful and consistent standards for environmental protection and/or social justice.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Energy Drink Alters Cardiovascular System
At times on this blog we have discussed the marketing of energy drinks to young people using less than honorable methods such as making them taste and look like alcoholic beverages. A study released this month now indicates that otherwise healthy individuals who consume only a single can of Red Bull, one of the largest selling energy drinks, may increase their risk for heart attack or stroke by changing the normal consistency of the blood.
The manufacturer of this product is aware of the risks, and even states that users should limit consumption to a maximum of two servings per day. Ingesting large amounts of caffeine in a short period of time -- whether it is from an energy drink, coffee, or any other source of caffeine -- is particularly hazardous when a person is exercising intensely or for those who have pre-existing conditions. Advertisers seek to hook young people on these beverages, when in reality drinking pure, clean water is the best way for athletes and all of us to stay hydrated and energized.
Red Bull drink lifts stroke risk: Australian study
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:26pm EDT
By Rob Taylor
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Just one can of the popular stimulant energy drink Red Bull can increase the risk of heart attack or stroke, even in young people, Australian medical researchers said on Friday.
The caffeine-loaded beverage, popular with university students and adrenaline sport fans to give them "wings", caused the blood to become sticky, a pre-cursor to cardiovascular problems such as stroke.
"One hour after they drank Red Bull, (their blood systems) were no longer normal. They were abnormal like we would expect in a patient with cardiovascular disease," Scott Willoughby, lead researcher from the Cardiovascular Research Centre at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, told the Australian newspaper.
Red Bull Australia spokeswoman Linda Rychter said the report would be assessed by the company's head office in Austria.
"The study does not show effects which would go beyond that of drinking a cup of coffee. Therefore, the reported results were to be expected and lie within the normal physiological range," Rychter told Reuters.
Willoughby and his team tested the cardiovascular systems of 30 young adults one hour before and one hour after consuming one 250ml can of sugar-free Red Bull.
The results showed "normal people develop symptoms normally associated with cardiovascular disease" after consuming the drink, created in the 1980s by Austrian entrepreneur Dietrich Mateschitz based on a similar Thai energy drink.
Red Bull is banned in Norway, Uruguay and Denmark because of health risks listed on its cans, but the company last year sold 3.5 billion cans in 143 countries. One can contains 80 mg of caffeine, around the same as a normal cup of brewed coffee.
The Austria-based company, whose marketing says "Red Bull gives you wings", sponsors Formula 1 race cars and extreme sport events around the world, but warns consumers not to drink more than two cans a day.
Rychter said Red Bull could only have such global sales because health authorities across the world had concluded the drink was safe to consume.
But Willoughby said Red Bull could be deadly when combined with stress or high blood pressure, impairing proper blood vessel function and possibly lifting the risk of blood clotting.
"If you have any predisposition to cardiovascular disease, I'd think twice about drinking it," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSSYD5846120080815
The manufacturer of this product is aware of the risks, and even states that users should limit consumption to a maximum of two servings per day. Ingesting large amounts of caffeine in a short period of time -- whether it is from an energy drink, coffee, or any other source of caffeine -- is particularly hazardous when a person is exercising intensely or for those who have pre-existing conditions. Advertisers seek to hook young people on these beverages, when in reality drinking pure, clean water is the best way for athletes and all of us to stay hydrated and energized.
Red Bull drink lifts stroke risk: Australian study
Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:26pm EDT
By Rob Taylor
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Just one can of the popular stimulant energy drink Red Bull can increase the risk of heart attack or stroke, even in young people, Australian medical researchers said on Friday.
The caffeine-loaded beverage, popular with university students and adrenaline sport fans to give them "wings", caused the blood to become sticky, a pre-cursor to cardiovascular problems such as stroke.
"One hour after they drank Red Bull, (their blood systems) were no longer normal. They were abnormal like we would expect in a patient with cardiovascular disease," Scott Willoughby, lead researcher from the Cardiovascular Research Centre at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, told the Australian newspaper.
Red Bull Australia spokeswoman Linda Rychter said the report would be assessed by the company's head office in Austria.
"The study does not show effects which would go beyond that of drinking a cup of coffee. Therefore, the reported results were to be expected and lie within the normal physiological range," Rychter told Reuters.
Willoughby and his team tested the cardiovascular systems of 30 young adults one hour before and one hour after consuming one 250ml can of sugar-free Red Bull.
The results showed "normal people develop symptoms normally associated with cardiovascular disease" after consuming the drink, created in the 1980s by Austrian entrepreneur Dietrich Mateschitz based on a similar Thai energy drink.
Red Bull is banned in Norway, Uruguay and Denmark because of health risks listed on its cans, but the company last year sold 3.5 billion cans in 143 countries. One can contains 80 mg of caffeine, around the same as a normal cup of brewed coffee.
The Austria-based company, whose marketing says "Red Bull gives you wings", sponsors Formula 1 race cars and extreme sport events around the world, but warns consumers not to drink more than two cans a day.
Rychter said Red Bull could only have such global sales because health authorities across the world had concluded the drink was safe to consume.
But Willoughby said Red Bull could be deadly when combined with stress or high blood pressure, impairing proper blood vessel function and possibly lifting the risk of blood clotting.
"If you have any predisposition to cardiovascular disease, I'd think twice about drinking it," he said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSSYD5846120080815
Monday, August 18, 2008
Choose Your Skin Care Products Carefully
The article posted below discusses a research study that links the incidents of skin cancer in mice that have been exposed to high amounts of UV light (like that found in sunshine) with the use of certain moisturizers. As the author points out, mice and people are quite different, but the study does raise several points that should make us think.
First of all, it is clear that if we allow too much UV light to contact our skin, it may dramatically increase our chance of developing skin cancer. Don't get me wrong, everyone needs limited exposure to the sun on a daily basis in order to maintain good health and well-being. However, it should be avoided during peak hours and it is never safe to let your skin burn.
Secondly, the toxins found in many commercially available moisturizers and other skin care products can definitely contribute to skin cancer, especially if the skin is already damaged. Be sure to purchase natural skin care products that are composed of natural ingredients that are free from harmful additives and toxic chemicals. Organic sunscreen lotions are highly recommended over the commercial brands which are laden with harmful chemicals. It is also high time that manufacturers of personal care products are held accountable and forced to disclose their complete ingredient list.
Moisturizers Up Skin Cancer in Mice
4 Commonly Used Moisturizing Creams Promote Tumors in UV-Exposed Mice
By Daniel J. DeNoonWebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Aug. 14, 2008 -- Four commonly used moisturizers promoted skin cancers in mouse studies.
Mice are not men. But the unexpected finding suggests that these -- and perhaps other products -- may not be as safe as they're thought to be.
The moisturizers tested in the study were Dermabase, Dermovan (a wholesale-only product discontinued in 2006), Eucerin Original Moisturizing Cream, and Vanicream.
In a mouse model of sun-related skin cancer, frequent application of each product resulted in more skin tumors and faster tumor growth, says study leader Allan H. Conney, PhD, director of the Susan Lehman Cullman Laboratory for Cancer Research and professor in the school of pharmacy at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.
"This was unexpected. We really did not expect to see the tumor-promoting activity of these creams," Conney tells WebMD.
In fact, Conney and colleagues were getting ready to use one of these moisturizers -- Dermabase -- in human clinical trials of topical caffeine, which prevents skin cancer in animal studies.
"We thought it would be prudent to test Dermabase by itself to see if it had tumor-promoting activity," Conney says. "We did not think it would. But lo and behold, to our surprise we got an increased rate of skin cancer."
This led to new tests of Dermabase and the three other moisturizers, which the Conney team hoped to use in their human study. For these new animal studies, the researchers used hairless mice irradiated with ultraviolet light twice a week for 20 weeks. With no further irradiation, such mice eventually develop skin cancer -- very much like humans overexposed to sunlight early in life.
Five days a week, for 17 weeks, the researchers rubbed moisturizer into the animals' skin. The result:
Dermabase increased the total number of tumors by 69%.
Dermovan increased the total number of tumors by 95%.
Eucerin increased the total number of tumors by 24%.
Vanicream increased the total number of tumors by 58%.
"The multimillion-dollar question is, what about humans?" Conney asks. "The answer is, we don't know. Our study raises a red flag and points out the need for epidemiologists to take a look at people who use moisturizing creams. And the companies that market these products should take a look at animal models and see if their products promote tumors."
Testing Moisturizers for Safety
Dermatologist Keyvan Nouri, MD, director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and author of the best-selling book Skin Cancer, agrees that companies that make moisturizers should test their products.
"This study could definitely be a warning to alert these companies to consider testing moisturizing creams with some sort of assay," Nouri tells WebMD. "These creams need to be tested first before they come to market."
Moisturizers are classified as cosmetics by the FDA, which does not require that they undergo the same safety and efficacy tests required for drugs.
Testing Moisturizers for Safety continued...
The moisturizers did not cause cancer in the mice. That came from their early-life radiation exposure. But the creams did make skin cancers grow faster and more readily.
Nouri notes that the radiation damaged the skin of the mice before the moisturizing creams were applied. That, he says, might account for the moisturizers' unusual tumor-promoting effect.
However, he notes that the skin cancers are becoming much more common in humans.
"There are over a million cases a year," he says. "It is by far the most common cancer we deal with. Skin cancers account for more than half of all cancers combined. But most skin cancers are totally curable."
What is it about the moisturizers that might promote cancer?
The Conney team asked Johnson & Johnson to make them a "custom blend" moisturizer without two ingredients previously linked to skin irritation (sodium lauryl sulfate) and tumor promotion (mineral oil). The custom blend (on which Rutgers University and Johnson & Johnson hold a patent) did not promote skin cancer.
But not all of the products tested use these ingredients, so exactly what -- if anything -- might be linked to cancer isn't known. And it's certainly clear that mouse and human skin are very different.
Moisturizers Still Necessary
Nouri warns consumers not to stop using moisturizers.
"As we get older, our skin gets drier," he says. "We need to moisturize, otherwise our skin gets dry and we get eczema, dermatitis, rashes, and so on. It is too soon to say from this study people should stop moisturizing."
Eucerin is made by Beiersdorf Inc."We have just learned about this study and are currently reviewing it to understand the findings," Beiersdorf says in a statement to WebMD. "Eucerin Original Creme has been on the market for more than 100 years and is a highly respected, dermatologist-recommended brand. It has been widely used by both individuals with normal skin and those with diseased skin under the care of physicians, and no incidents of this nature have ever been reported."
Vanicream is made by Pharmaceutical Specialties Inc. In a statement to WebMD, PSI President Conrad O. Thompson, RPh, says there is nothing in the Conney study to indicate any need for change in current recommendations for use of Vanicream.
"Treatment with Vanicream Skin Cream clearly did not increase the proportion of animals that developed tumors," Thompson notes.
Dermovan, a wholesale-only product used as a base to which other ingredients are added by compounding pharmacists, was made by Healthpoint Ltd. until the product was discontinued in 2006.
"The product has been around for 50 years, and has no safety issues related to it," Healthpoint spokesman Mark Mitchell tells WebMD.
Dermabase maker Paddock Laboratories Inc. did not respond to WebMD's request for comment.
The Conney study appears in the Aug. 14 advance online issue of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
http://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20080814/moisturizers-up-skin-cancer-in-mice?print=true
First of all, it is clear that if we allow too much UV light to contact our skin, it may dramatically increase our chance of developing skin cancer. Don't get me wrong, everyone needs limited exposure to the sun on a daily basis in order to maintain good health and well-being. However, it should be avoided during peak hours and it is never safe to let your skin burn.
Secondly, the toxins found in many commercially available moisturizers and other skin care products can definitely contribute to skin cancer, especially if the skin is already damaged. Be sure to purchase natural skin care products that are composed of natural ingredients that are free from harmful additives and toxic chemicals. Organic sunscreen lotions are highly recommended over the commercial brands which are laden with harmful chemicals. It is also high time that manufacturers of personal care products are held accountable and forced to disclose their complete ingredient list.
Moisturizers Up Skin Cancer in Mice
4 Commonly Used Moisturizing Creams Promote Tumors in UV-Exposed Mice
By Daniel J. DeNoonWebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
Aug. 14, 2008 -- Four commonly used moisturizers promoted skin cancers in mouse studies.
Mice are not men. But the unexpected finding suggests that these -- and perhaps other products -- may not be as safe as they're thought to be.
The moisturizers tested in the study were Dermabase, Dermovan (a wholesale-only product discontinued in 2006), Eucerin Original Moisturizing Cream, and Vanicream.
In a mouse model of sun-related skin cancer, frequent application of each product resulted in more skin tumors and faster tumor growth, says study leader Allan H. Conney, PhD, director of the Susan Lehman Cullman Laboratory for Cancer Research and professor in the school of pharmacy at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.
"This was unexpected. We really did not expect to see the tumor-promoting activity of these creams," Conney tells WebMD.
In fact, Conney and colleagues were getting ready to use one of these moisturizers -- Dermabase -- in human clinical trials of topical caffeine, which prevents skin cancer in animal studies.
"We thought it would be prudent to test Dermabase by itself to see if it had tumor-promoting activity," Conney says. "We did not think it would. But lo and behold, to our surprise we got an increased rate of skin cancer."
This led to new tests of Dermabase and the three other moisturizers, which the Conney team hoped to use in their human study. For these new animal studies, the researchers used hairless mice irradiated with ultraviolet light twice a week for 20 weeks. With no further irradiation, such mice eventually develop skin cancer -- very much like humans overexposed to sunlight early in life.
Five days a week, for 17 weeks, the researchers rubbed moisturizer into the animals' skin. The result:
Dermabase increased the total number of tumors by 69%.
Dermovan increased the total number of tumors by 95%.
Eucerin increased the total number of tumors by 24%.
Vanicream increased the total number of tumors by 58%.
"The multimillion-dollar question is, what about humans?" Conney asks. "The answer is, we don't know. Our study raises a red flag and points out the need for epidemiologists to take a look at people who use moisturizing creams. And the companies that market these products should take a look at animal models and see if their products promote tumors."
Testing Moisturizers for Safety
Dermatologist Keyvan Nouri, MD, director of dermatologic surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and author of the best-selling book Skin Cancer, agrees that companies that make moisturizers should test their products.
"This study could definitely be a warning to alert these companies to consider testing moisturizing creams with some sort of assay," Nouri tells WebMD. "These creams need to be tested first before they come to market."
Moisturizers are classified as cosmetics by the FDA, which does not require that they undergo the same safety and efficacy tests required for drugs.
Testing Moisturizers for Safety continued...
The moisturizers did not cause cancer in the mice. That came from their early-life radiation exposure. But the creams did make skin cancers grow faster and more readily.
Nouri notes that the radiation damaged the skin of the mice before the moisturizing creams were applied. That, he says, might account for the moisturizers' unusual tumor-promoting effect.
However, he notes that the skin cancers are becoming much more common in humans.
"There are over a million cases a year," he says. "It is by far the most common cancer we deal with. Skin cancers account for more than half of all cancers combined. But most skin cancers are totally curable."
What is it about the moisturizers that might promote cancer?
The Conney team asked Johnson & Johnson to make them a "custom blend" moisturizer without two ingredients previously linked to skin irritation (sodium lauryl sulfate) and tumor promotion (mineral oil). The custom blend (on which Rutgers University and Johnson & Johnson hold a patent) did not promote skin cancer.
But not all of the products tested use these ingredients, so exactly what -- if anything -- might be linked to cancer isn't known. And it's certainly clear that mouse and human skin are very different.
Moisturizers Still Necessary
Nouri warns consumers not to stop using moisturizers.
"As we get older, our skin gets drier," he says. "We need to moisturize, otherwise our skin gets dry and we get eczema, dermatitis, rashes, and so on. It is too soon to say from this study people should stop moisturizing."
Eucerin is made by Beiersdorf Inc."We have just learned about this study and are currently reviewing it to understand the findings," Beiersdorf says in a statement to WebMD. "Eucerin Original Creme has been on the market for more than 100 years and is a highly respected, dermatologist-recommended brand. It has been widely used by both individuals with normal skin and those with diseased skin under the care of physicians, and no incidents of this nature have ever been reported."
Vanicream is made by Pharmaceutical Specialties Inc. In a statement to WebMD, PSI President Conrad O. Thompson, RPh, says there is nothing in the Conney study to indicate any need for change in current recommendations for use of Vanicream.
"Treatment with Vanicream Skin Cream clearly did not increase the proportion of animals that developed tumors," Thompson notes.
Dermovan, a wholesale-only product used as a base to which other ingredients are added by compounding pharmacists, was made by Healthpoint Ltd. until the product was discontinued in 2006.
"The product has been around for 50 years, and has no safety issues related to it," Healthpoint spokesman Mark Mitchell tells WebMD.
Dermabase maker Paddock Laboratories Inc. did not respond to WebMD's request for comment.
The Conney study appears in the Aug. 14 advance online issue of the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.
http://www.webmd.com/melanoma-skin-cancer/news/20080814/moisturizers-up-skin-cancer-in-mice?print=true
Friday, August 15, 2008
Probiotics, the Immune System & Allergies
A recent British study has strengthened evidence that the health of the gut can carry great influence on the immune system and the overall wellness of the body. When given a natural probiotic, which builds up beneficial bacteria in the digestive tract, patients experienced a reduction of certain antibodies that typically trigger the common allergic reaction known as hay fever.
As is often the case with natural substances, the study also found that the natural probiotic provided a boost in the number of antibodies that act to prevent allergies. We in the natural medicine field are always preaching about prevention being the best medicine, but actually it is not an idea that is original with us. We are simply agreeing with the natural order instituted by our Creator. Remember, we are designed first to stay well, and then secondly to heal if disease should occur.
When choosing a probiotic, look for a high quality product that will specifically target the needs of your digestive tract. Along with seasonal digestive tract cleansing and liver/gallbladder cleansing, I recommend Latero-Flora which contains a unique strain of Bacillus Laterosporus (B.O.D. STRAIN), a naturally occurring spore-bearing bacteria. Beware that there are many food companies that may label their products as having probiotic ingredients (perhaps even the milk product mentioned in the article below), but they typically fall short of providing true probiotic benefits.
Probiotics Can Help in the Treatment of Hay Fever
by Leslee Dru Browning
With the peak grass pollen season approaching, scientists have revealed that a daily dose of probiotics can change the immune status of people with hay fever. In the first human study of its kind, scientists at the Institute of Food Research found that probiotic bacteria in a daily drink can modify the immune system's response to grass pollen, a common cause of seasonal hay fever.
But they are not recommending that sufferers rush to the supermarket shelves just yet. The changes found may not have an immediate effect on symptoms.
"This was a pilot study based on small numbers of patients, but we were fascinated to discover a response", says research leader Professor Claudio Nicoletti. "The probiotic significantly reduced the production of molecules associated with allergy."
Hay fever is an allergic reaction to pollen or fungal spores, most commonly grass pollen. The immune system mistakes the spores for harmful invaders and produces excessive amounts of the antibody IgE to bind to them and fight them off.
IgE stimulates the release of histamine to flush out the spores, and this irritates the airways making them swell, producing the symptoms of hay fever.
In this study, volunteers with a history of seasonal hay fever drank a daily milk drink with or without live bacteria over 5 months. The study was double-blinded and placebo controlled, so neither the volunteers nor the scientists knew who had been assigned the probiotic drinks. The probiotic drinks contained Lactobacillus casei, a bacterial species that has been widely studied for its health promoting properties.
Blood samples were taken before the grass pollen season, then again when it was at its peak (June), and 4 weeks after the end of season. There were no significant differences in levels of IgE in the blood between the two groups at the start of the study, but IgE levels were lower in the probiotic group both at the peak season and afterwards.
At the same times, levels of the antibody IgG were higher, a type of antibody that in contrast to IgE is thought to play a protective role against allergic reactions.
"The probiotic strain we tested changed the way the body's immune cells respond to grass pollen, restoring a more balanced immune response", says Dr. Kamal Ivory, a senior member of the group.
The changes observed may also reduce the severity of symptoms, but clinical symptoms were not measured in this study. That is one aim of further research.
"These are really interesting results", says Dr. Linda Thomas, head of science at Yakult U.K., who provided the drinks and some of the funding. "We are delighted that independent scientists found evidence of this biological activity. The project was part of ongoing research into the benefits of our probiotic strain. The Institute of Food Research is well positioned to do this kind of fundamental research, as it is unique in having the right combination of expertise in microbiology, immunology, flow cytometry and human nutrition research."
Professor Nicoletti's group intend to perform a similar study in the near future to see if the immunological changes translate into a real reduction in the clinical symptoms of hay fever. They would also like to examine the mechanisms involved.
With more and more research revealing the benefits of probiotics I believe it would be beneficial for anyone suffering from allergies or digestion problems to add them in their diet. Probiotics have also been shown to help people who suffer from food allergies. They are available over-the-counter in capsule form.
Journal reference:
Ivory et al. Oral delivery of Lactobacillus casei Shirota modifies allergen-induced immune responses in allergic rhinitis. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2008; 0 (0): 080528223344047 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2008.03025.x
Source:
Institute of Food Research
(http://www.ifr.ac.uk/)
About the author
Leslee Dru Browning is a 6th generation Medical Herbalist & Nutritionist from the ancestral line of Patty Bartlett Sessions; Pioneer Mid-Wife & Herbalist. Leslee practiced Medical Herbalism and Nutritional Healing for over 25 years and specialized in Cancer Wellness along with Chronic Illness. She now devotes her career to teaching people, through her writing, about Natural Healing from An Herbal Perspective.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023789.html
As is often the case with natural substances, the study also found that the natural probiotic provided a boost in the number of antibodies that act to prevent allergies. We in the natural medicine field are always preaching about prevention being the best medicine, but actually it is not an idea that is original with us. We are simply agreeing with the natural order instituted by our Creator. Remember, we are designed first to stay well, and then secondly to heal if disease should occur.
When choosing a probiotic, look for a high quality product that will specifically target the needs of your digestive tract. Along with seasonal digestive tract cleansing and liver/gallbladder cleansing, I recommend Latero-Flora which contains a unique strain of Bacillus Laterosporus (B.O.D. STRAIN), a naturally occurring spore-bearing bacteria. Beware that there are many food companies that may label their products as having probiotic ingredients (perhaps even the milk product mentioned in the article below), but they typically fall short of providing true probiotic benefits.
Probiotics Can Help in the Treatment of Hay Fever
by Leslee Dru Browning
With the peak grass pollen season approaching, scientists have revealed that a daily dose of probiotics can change the immune status of people with hay fever. In the first human study of its kind, scientists at the Institute of Food Research found that probiotic bacteria in a daily drink can modify the immune system's response to grass pollen, a common cause of seasonal hay fever.
But they are not recommending that sufferers rush to the supermarket shelves just yet. The changes found may not have an immediate effect on symptoms.
"This was a pilot study based on small numbers of patients, but we were fascinated to discover a response", says research leader Professor Claudio Nicoletti. "The probiotic significantly reduced the production of molecules associated with allergy."
Hay fever is an allergic reaction to pollen or fungal spores, most commonly grass pollen. The immune system mistakes the spores for harmful invaders and produces excessive amounts of the antibody IgE to bind to them and fight them off.
IgE stimulates the release of histamine to flush out the spores, and this irritates the airways making them swell, producing the symptoms of hay fever.
In this study, volunteers with a history of seasonal hay fever drank a daily milk drink with or without live bacteria over 5 months. The study was double-blinded and placebo controlled, so neither the volunteers nor the scientists knew who had been assigned the probiotic drinks. The probiotic drinks contained Lactobacillus casei, a bacterial species that has been widely studied for its health promoting properties.
Blood samples were taken before the grass pollen season, then again when it was at its peak (June), and 4 weeks after the end of season. There were no significant differences in levels of IgE in the blood between the two groups at the start of the study, but IgE levels were lower in the probiotic group both at the peak season and afterwards.
At the same times, levels of the antibody IgG were higher, a type of antibody that in contrast to IgE is thought to play a protective role against allergic reactions.
"The probiotic strain we tested changed the way the body's immune cells respond to grass pollen, restoring a more balanced immune response", says Dr. Kamal Ivory, a senior member of the group.
The changes observed may also reduce the severity of symptoms, but clinical symptoms were not measured in this study. That is one aim of further research.
"These are really interesting results", says Dr. Linda Thomas, head of science at Yakult U.K., who provided the drinks and some of the funding. "We are delighted that independent scientists found evidence of this biological activity. The project was part of ongoing research into the benefits of our probiotic strain. The Institute of Food Research is well positioned to do this kind of fundamental research, as it is unique in having the right combination of expertise in microbiology, immunology, flow cytometry and human nutrition research."
Professor Nicoletti's group intend to perform a similar study in the near future to see if the immunological changes translate into a real reduction in the clinical symptoms of hay fever. They would also like to examine the mechanisms involved.
With more and more research revealing the benefits of probiotics I believe it would be beneficial for anyone suffering from allergies or digestion problems to add them in their diet. Probiotics have also been shown to help people who suffer from food allergies. They are available over-the-counter in capsule form.
Journal reference:
Ivory et al. Oral delivery of Lactobacillus casei Shirota modifies allergen-induced immune responses in allergic rhinitis. Clinical & Experimental Allergy, 2008; 0 (0): 080528223344047 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2008.03025.x
Source:
Institute of Food Research
(http://www.ifr.ac.uk/)
About the author
Leslee Dru Browning is a 6th generation Medical Herbalist & Nutritionist from the ancestral line of Patty Bartlett Sessions; Pioneer Mid-Wife & Herbalist. Leslee practiced Medical Herbalism and Nutritional Healing for over 25 years and specialized in Cancer Wellness along with Chronic Illness. She now devotes her career to teaching people, through her writing, about Natural Healing from An Herbal Perspective.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023789.html
Thursday, August 14, 2008
More Price-Gouging By Drug Firms
Last week on this blog, we discussed some of the unscrupulous ways certain pharmaceutical companies are profiting excessively off a loophole in Medicare that allows them to overcharge patients and insurers. (See post of July 25, 2008.) Well, according to the article below, apparently they are milking it for all they can by increasing the prices of some drugs by over 1000% or more, in certain cases. Unfortunately, according to AARP, many of these price jumps are tied to drugs that are most often prescribed to senior citizens.
I read a quote this week from a spokeswoman for Ovation Pharmaceuticals, a company that recently raised the price on its drug Cosmegen by an astounding 3400%. In defending this move, she stated: "These are not the big cancers that are going to yield huge profits." Here we have a representative of Big Pharma openly stating that they make the bulk of their money off of cancer. We know that's true, but rarely will a drug company admit to it. Maybe they need to invest some of their profits in a better public relations farm. At any rate, I'd like to see somebody run for office who would actually sic the Federal Trade Commission on the bad apples in this industry and put a stop to their outlandish behavior.
Prices for Some Drugs Skyrocket
By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY
Drug companies are quietly pushing through price hikes of 100% -- or even more than 1,000% -- for a very small but growing number of prescription drugs, helping to drive up costs for insurers, patients and government programs.
The number of brand-name drugs with increases of 100% or more could double this year from four years ago, researchers from the University of Minnesota say. Many of the drugs are older products that treat fairly rare, but often serious or even life-threatening, conditions.
Among the examples: Questcor Pharmaceuticals last August raised the wholesale price on Acthar, which treats spasms in babies, from about $1,650 a vial to more than $23,000. Ovation raised the cost of Cosmegen, which treats a type of tumor, from $16.79 to $593.75 in January 2006.
The average wholesale price of 26 brand-name drugs jumped 100% or more in a single cost adjustment last year, up from 15 in 2004, the university study found. In the first half of this year, 17 drugs made the list.
"This does drive up the price of health care," says Alan Goldbloom, president of Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota. "Hospitals are either eating the cost or passing it along to insurers, so you and I are paying it in increased premiums."
Some of the drugs are administered in hospitals, which bill insurers, patients or government programs for them. Insured patients pay either a flat dollar amount, such as $20, or a percentage of the drug's cost.
Last year, prices rose about 7.4% on average for 1,344 brand-name drugs, according to Express Scripts, which manages drug benefits for large employers and insurers.
Reasons for the larger increases are varied, researchers say.
"There's no simple explanation," says Stephen Schondelmeyer, director of the PRIME Institute at the University of Minnesota, which studies drug industry economics. "Some companies seem to figure no one is watching so they can get away with it."
The price increases are drawing legal and political scrutiny:
* In a decision awaiting approval by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, drugmaker Abbott agreed last week to pay up to $27.5 million to settle a lawsuit over a 400% price increase on its HIV/AIDS drug Norvir. The price did not change.
* Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., asked the Government Accountability Office last week to investigate large price hikes. Klobuchar asked the Federal Trade Commission in April to investigate Ovation Pharmaceuticals, which raised prices on four drugs in 2006 by up to 3,437%.
Drug companies say the price hikes cover the costs of keeping the drugs on the market. They say the drugs are often less costly than alternative treatments, such as surgery or newer, high-tech medicines.
Questcor says on its website that it had to raise Acthar's price after struggling for years to "keep (it) financially viable."
Ovation says it needed to cover its 2005 purchase of the drugs and facility upgrades. "We feel we made an important investment in keeping these older products alive," says spokeswoman Sally Benjamin Young.
EXAMPLES OF RISING DRUG PRICES
Researchers found a growing number of drugs with one-time price increases of 100% or more. Some examples based on average wholesale prices:
Cosmegen from Ovation, treats Wilms' tumor, Increased from $16.79 to $593.75 (3,436%)
Indocin IV from Ovation, treats heart problem in premature babies, Increased from $136.10 to $1,875 (1,278%)
Acthar from Questcor, treats infantile spasms, Increased from $1,650 to $23,269 (1,310%)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2008-08-07-costlydrugs_N.htm
I read a quote this week from a spokeswoman for Ovation Pharmaceuticals, a company that recently raised the price on its drug Cosmegen by an astounding 3400%. In defending this move, she stated: "These are not the big cancers that are going to yield huge profits." Here we have a representative of Big Pharma openly stating that they make the bulk of their money off of cancer. We know that's true, but rarely will a drug company admit to it. Maybe they need to invest some of their profits in a better public relations farm. At any rate, I'd like to see somebody run for office who would actually sic the Federal Trade Commission on the bad apples in this industry and put a stop to their outlandish behavior.
Prices for Some Drugs Skyrocket
By Julie Appleby, USA TODAY
Drug companies are quietly pushing through price hikes of 100% -- or even more than 1,000% -- for a very small but growing number of prescription drugs, helping to drive up costs for insurers, patients and government programs.
The number of brand-name drugs with increases of 100% or more could double this year from four years ago, researchers from the University of Minnesota say. Many of the drugs are older products that treat fairly rare, but often serious or even life-threatening, conditions.
Among the examples: Questcor Pharmaceuticals last August raised the wholesale price on Acthar, which treats spasms in babies, from about $1,650 a vial to more than $23,000. Ovation raised the cost of Cosmegen, which treats a type of tumor, from $16.79 to $593.75 in January 2006.
The average wholesale price of 26 brand-name drugs jumped 100% or more in a single cost adjustment last year, up from 15 in 2004, the university study found. In the first half of this year, 17 drugs made the list.
"This does drive up the price of health care," says Alan Goldbloom, president of Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota. "Hospitals are either eating the cost or passing it along to insurers, so you and I are paying it in increased premiums."
Some of the drugs are administered in hospitals, which bill insurers, patients or government programs for them. Insured patients pay either a flat dollar amount, such as $20, or a percentage of the drug's cost.
Last year, prices rose about 7.4% on average for 1,344 brand-name drugs, according to Express Scripts, which manages drug benefits for large employers and insurers.
Reasons for the larger increases are varied, researchers say.
"There's no simple explanation," says Stephen Schondelmeyer, director of the PRIME Institute at the University of Minnesota, which studies drug industry economics. "Some companies seem to figure no one is watching so they can get away with it."
The price increases are drawing legal and political scrutiny:
* In a decision awaiting approval by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, drugmaker Abbott agreed last week to pay up to $27.5 million to settle a lawsuit over a 400% price increase on its HIV/AIDS drug Norvir. The price did not change.
* Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., asked the Government Accountability Office last week to investigate large price hikes. Klobuchar asked the Federal Trade Commission in April to investigate Ovation Pharmaceuticals, which raised prices on four drugs in 2006 by up to 3,437%.
Drug companies say the price hikes cover the costs of keeping the drugs on the market. They say the drugs are often less costly than alternative treatments, such as surgery or newer, high-tech medicines.
Questcor says on its website that it had to raise Acthar's price after struggling for years to "keep (it) financially viable."
Ovation says it needed to cover its 2005 purchase of the drugs and facility upgrades. "We feel we made an important investment in keeping these older products alive," says spokeswoman Sally Benjamin Young.
EXAMPLES OF RISING DRUG PRICES
Researchers found a growing number of drugs with one-time price increases of 100% or more. Some examples based on average wholesale prices:
Cosmegen from Ovation, treats Wilms' tumor, Increased from $16.79 to $593.75 (3,436%)
Indocin IV from Ovation, treats heart problem in premature babies, Increased from $136.10 to $1,875 (1,278%)
Acthar from Questcor, treats infantile spasms, Increased from $1,650 to $23,269 (1,310%)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2008-08-07-costlydrugs_N.htm
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Vaccine Propaganda Conspiracy Well-Funded
Today's post is about the cloak-and-dagger political and financial activity that goes on behind the scenes to support the vaccine industry. Never mind a thirty-year plus trail of casualties and a slew of ignored and unanswered questions -- the wholesale vaccination of children and adults must go on, at least according to a network of worldwide organizations whose motives are often very questionable.
As the article below points out, the pro-vaccine lobby is not satisfied with the status quo, which already is a cash cow that yields obscene profits and allows for control of the thoughts and actions of millions of citizens. Many more vaccines are being researched and developed to feed the golden goose. Even if we are branded as crack-pot renegades, it behooves all of us to speak out against this madness. Perhaps one of the most effective ways to do this is to talk to your physician regarding your concerns, especially if you have young children. If he or she gives you a hard time, let them know how you feel by finding another health care practitioner.
Voices for Hiding Vaccine Risks: Follow the $
by Barbara Loe Fisher
When it comes to hiding vaccine risks from the people, all you have to do is "follow the money" to find out who has always done it the best. There are a number of influential non-profit organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Every Child by Two, and Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) that have been funded by drug companies selling vaccines and/or have been paid by federal agencies using taxpayer dollars to push vaccine use.
On July 25, CBS News reported on some of the financial ties between vaccine manufacturers and non-profit organizations or individuals (i.e., rotavirus vaccine patent holder Paul Offit, M.D.) who are aggressively promoting vaccination and refusing to acknowledge vaccine risks. The report infuriated a new "non-profit" organization, Voices for Vaccines, that demanded CBS News retract its story and "apologize" for informing the public about the money connection between the pharmaceutical industry and individuals and organizations urging people to buy and use vaccines. On August 1, CBS News issued a statement defending the public's right to know:
"Our report last Friday represents one part of the extensive reporting CBS News has done, and will continue to do, on the issues surrounding vaccines and possible links to autism. That continuing coverage has repeatedly reported on the critical importance of the nation's maintaining a robust vaccination program for children. Reporting on what critics, including members of Congress, believe to be potential conflicts of interest for vaccine advocates who receive funding from vaccine makers is also an entirely legitimate aspect of our overall coverage. We believe our report was in no way defamatory of any institution or individual, and that no retraction is warranted."
While parents are doing their own research so they can make educated vaccine choices for their children that minimize vaccine risks, celebrities questioning vaccine safety such as Jenny McCarthy are being challenged by celebrities defending vaccine safety such as Amanda Peet, Yesterday, Peet became the celebrity spokesperson for Every Child by Two.
When you connect the dots in a "Follow the Vaccine Money" exercise, you don't have to look very far to see who is paying who to promote unquestioning faith in the safety of vaccines and one- size-fits-all vaccine policies. It takes a lot of money for the drug companies and their allies to persuade parents that it is necessary to pump 69 doses of 16 vaccines into children from birth to age 18 to keep them healthy.
Here are some of the major players:
* The Carter Center, founded in 1984 by Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter is affiliated with Emory University and sponsors vaccination programs funded by drug companies and operated by former employees of the CDC. (Rosalyn Carter co- founded Every Child by Two with Betty Bumpers in 1991 with funding from vaccine manufacturers.) Several vaccine manufacturers have donated more than $1 million to the Carter Center.
* The International Task Force for Disease Eradication is sponsored by the Carter Center and operates programs that are funded by vaccine manufacturers (see "Health Program Partners"at ) and directed by present and former CDC officials for the purpose of eradicating infectious diseases including polio, mumps and rubella through mass vaccination programs.
* The Carter Center is a partner with the Task Force for Child Survival and Development, which sponsors programs funded by vaccine manufacturers and directed by former CDC officials such as William Foege, M.D., M.P.H. and Alan Hinman, M.D., M.P.H.
* The Task Force for Child Survival and Development is sponsoring Voices for Vaccines, which has a Steering Committee composed of individuals employed by an affiliate of the Carter Center or Every Child by Two and non-profit organizations, many of whom receive funding from vaccine manufacturers such as the American Academy of Family Physicians and Immunization Action Coalition and P-Kids and Families Fighting Flu.
These are only some of the major players keeping the Vaccine Machine up and running smoothly in the U.S. It is a machine powered by a national and international web of individuals working for and with major pharmaceutical corporations, government health agencies, non-profit medical organizations, world banks, the World Health Organization and wealthy philanthropic foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to make sure that people in every country continue to purchase and use many vaccines without thinking about it.
The public health program that began with a mandate to eradicate smallpox from the earth using smallpox vaccine has turned into a lucrative ATM for the drug companies. It provides a kind of money laundering scheme for "non-profits" who pretend to be free from conflicts of interest with an industry whose products they are hawking. It has also become a money pit for the American taxpayer feeding the insatiable Vaccine Machine creating hundreds of new vaccines being tested in more than 2,000 clinical trials that will no doubt be candidates for future vaccine mandates.
Amanda Peet, who is being coached by doctors to tell parents to "trust the doctors," has learned her lines well but neither she nor Jenny McCarthy will ultimately decide the fate of the vaccine safety and informed consent movement begun by parents of vaccine injured children in 1982. Because what is at stake is not the outcome of a Hollywood celebrity face- off but the ability of the American people to free themselves from the tyranny of the "medical experts" who have betrayed the public trust by failing to do their job.
For nearly three decades, before and after passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, parents have been calling on doctors in charge of the mass vaccination system to find out how and why vaccines injure and kill some children. We have been asking doctors to give us a good explanation for why so many of our highly vaccinated children are so chronically ill with 1 in 6 becoming learning disabled; 1 in 9 suffering with asthma and 1 in 150 developing autism. And the only explanation we get or action we have seen is doctors and government health agencies sticking their heads in the sand and twisting themselves into pretzels yelling "it's a coincidence" every time a child regresses into chronic poor health after vaccination.
The last thing we need to do is return to the dark ages when we allowed ourselves to be treated like the infants whose lives we entrusted without question to paternalistic pediatricians patting us on the head. You don't have to have an M.D. or Ph.D. written after your name to become an informed health care consumer and weigh the benefits and risks of vaccination in order to make an intelligent, well considered vaccine decision for your child or yourself.
Unquestioning faith belongs in a church and not in a doctor's office.
Source: NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter of August 6, 2008
As the article below points out, the pro-vaccine lobby is not satisfied with the status quo, which already is a cash cow that yields obscene profits and allows for control of the thoughts and actions of millions of citizens. Many more vaccines are being researched and developed to feed the golden goose. Even if we are branded as crack-pot renegades, it behooves all of us to speak out against this madness. Perhaps one of the most effective ways to do this is to talk to your physician regarding your concerns, especially if you have young children. If he or she gives you a hard time, let them know how you feel by finding another health care practitioner.
Voices for Hiding Vaccine Risks: Follow the $
by Barbara Loe Fisher
When it comes to hiding vaccine risks from the people, all you have to do is "follow the money" to find out who has always done it the best. There are a number of influential non-profit organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Every Child by Two, and Immunization Action Coalition (IAC) that have been funded by drug companies selling vaccines and/or have been paid by federal agencies using taxpayer dollars to push vaccine use.
On July 25, CBS News reported on some of the financial ties between vaccine manufacturers and non-profit organizations or individuals (i.e., rotavirus vaccine patent holder Paul Offit, M.D.) who are aggressively promoting vaccination and refusing to acknowledge vaccine risks. The report infuriated a new "non-profit" organization, Voices for Vaccines, that demanded CBS News retract its story and "apologize" for informing the public about the money connection between the pharmaceutical industry and individuals and organizations urging people to buy and use vaccines. On August 1, CBS News issued a statement defending the public's right to know:
"Our report last Friday represents one part of the extensive reporting CBS News has done, and will continue to do, on the issues surrounding vaccines and possible links to autism. That continuing coverage has repeatedly reported on the critical importance of the nation's maintaining a robust vaccination program for children. Reporting on what critics, including members of Congress, believe to be potential conflicts of interest for vaccine advocates who receive funding from vaccine makers is also an entirely legitimate aspect of our overall coverage. We believe our report was in no way defamatory of any institution or individual, and that no retraction is warranted."
While parents are doing their own research so they can make educated vaccine choices for their children that minimize vaccine risks, celebrities questioning vaccine safety such as Jenny McCarthy are being challenged by celebrities defending vaccine safety such as Amanda Peet, Yesterday, Peet became the celebrity spokesperson for Every Child by Two.
When you connect the dots in a "Follow the Vaccine Money" exercise, you don't have to look very far to see who is paying who to promote unquestioning faith in the safety of vaccines and one- size-fits-all vaccine policies. It takes a lot of money for the drug companies and their allies to persuade parents that it is necessary to pump 69 doses of 16 vaccines into children from birth to age 18 to keep them healthy.
Here are some of the major players:
* The Carter Center, founded in 1984 by Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter is affiliated with Emory University and sponsors vaccination programs funded by drug companies and operated by former employees of the CDC. (Rosalyn Carter co- founded Every Child by Two with Betty Bumpers in 1991 with funding from vaccine manufacturers.) Several vaccine manufacturers have donated more than $1 million to the Carter Center.
* The International Task Force for Disease Eradication is sponsored by the Carter Center and operates programs that are funded by vaccine manufacturers (see "Health Program Partners"at ) and directed by present and former CDC officials for the purpose of eradicating infectious diseases including polio, mumps and rubella through mass vaccination programs.
* The Carter Center is a partner with the Task Force for Child Survival and Development, which sponsors programs funded by vaccine manufacturers and directed by former CDC officials such as William Foege, M.D., M.P.H. and Alan Hinman, M.D., M.P.H.
* The Task Force for Child Survival and Development is sponsoring Voices for Vaccines, which has a Steering Committee composed of individuals employed by an affiliate of the Carter Center or Every Child by Two and non-profit organizations, many of whom receive funding from vaccine manufacturers such as the American Academy of Family Physicians and Immunization Action Coalition and P-Kids and Families Fighting Flu.
These are only some of the major players keeping the Vaccine Machine up and running smoothly in the U.S. It is a machine powered by a national and international web of individuals working for and with major pharmaceutical corporations, government health agencies, non-profit medical organizations, world banks, the World Health Organization and wealthy philanthropic foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to make sure that people in every country continue to purchase and use many vaccines without thinking about it.
The public health program that began with a mandate to eradicate smallpox from the earth using smallpox vaccine has turned into a lucrative ATM for the drug companies. It provides a kind of money laundering scheme for "non-profits" who pretend to be free from conflicts of interest with an industry whose products they are hawking. It has also become a money pit for the American taxpayer feeding the insatiable Vaccine Machine creating hundreds of new vaccines being tested in more than 2,000 clinical trials that will no doubt be candidates for future vaccine mandates.
Amanda Peet, who is being coached by doctors to tell parents to "trust the doctors," has learned her lines well but neither she nor Jenny McCarthy will ultimately decide the fate of the vaccine safety and informed consent movement begun by parents of vaccine injured children in 1982. Because what is at stake is not the outcome of a Hollywood celebrity face- off but the ability of the American people to free themselves from the tyranny of the "medical experts" who have betrayed the public trust by failing to do their job.
For nearly three decades, before and after passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, parents have been calling on doctors in charge of the mass vaccination system to find out how and why vaccines injure and kill some children. We have been asking doctors to give us a good explanation for why so many of our highly vaccinated children are so chronically ill with 1 in 6 becoming learning disabled; 1 in 9 suffering with asthma and 1 in 150 developing autism. And the only explanation we get or action we have seen is doctors and government health agencies sticking their heads in the sand and twisting themselves into pretzels yelling "it's a coincidence" every time a child regresses into chronic poor health after vaccination.
The last thing we need to do is return to the dark ages when we allowed ourselves to be treated like the infants whose lives we entrusted without question to paternalistic pediatricians patting us on the head. You don't have to have an M.D. or Ph.D. written after your name to become an informed health care consumer and weigh the benefits and risks of vaccination in order to make an intelligent, well considered vaccine decision for your child or yourself.
Unquestioning faith belongs in a church and not in a doctor's office.
Source: NVIC Vaccine E-Newsletter of August 6, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Research Defines Why Cranberries Keep Us Healthy
The use of cranberry juice to stave off and heal urinary tract infections has been a mainstay in folk medicine for centuries. A newly released study has discovered technically how this occurs, and the information supports the endless resources that are offered to us by the vast array of healing and preventative gems that are created by design into naturally found foods, herbs, and other plants. The diversity of health benefits available from nature is a topic that has been studied by many for years, but yet it appears we have only begun to scratch the surface when it comes to understanding the possibilities.
Cranberries are able to identify the "bad-guys" and sort out the good bacteria from the ones that trigger infections. Therefore, they do not indiscriminately destroy helpful organisms in our systems like antibiotic drugs do. In addition, this research indicates that cranberries work to prevent disease first, while having a healing effect as well. So remember to consume cranberries on a regular basis to keep yourself healthy and reap other benefits from this marvelous fruit that likely have not even been discovered yet!
Scientists Discover Exactly How Cranberry Juice Fights Infections
by Sherry Baker
(NaturalNews) For decades, the idea that drinking cranberry juice could prevent or treat urinary tract infections was greeted with doubt and sometimes even sarcasm by doctors who considered this an "old wives' tale". But in recent years, studies have shown that cranberry juice does exactly what countless grandmas and herbalists said it does. It wards off infections. But how?
Now comes word that researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) have the answer. Cranberry juice creates what the scientists call an "energy barrier" that has the amazing power to prevent disease-causing microorganisms from starting an infection. This barrier changes the thermodynamic properties of infection-causing germs in the urinary tract. Simply put, the bacteria are then unable to hook onto cells and cause illness.
The study looked at two varieties of E. coli bacteria -- one with projections known as fimbriae which are believed to be used by bacteria to latch into cells and one without the hair-like appendages. The bacteria with fimbriae are found on many virulent bacteria, including those that cause painful urinary tract infections.
Both varieties were exposed to different concentrations of cranberry juice. The research team, headed by Terri Camesano, associate professor of chemical engineering at WPI, and a team of graduate students, including PhD candidate Yatao Liu, found that even at low concentrations the fruit juice made it difficult for the illness-causing bacteria to attach to cells. The scientists' conclusions, recently published in the science journal Colloids and Surfaces, strongly indicate that cranberry juice repels bacteria with fimbriae. The juice had had little if any effect on E. coli bacteria without the hair-like projections, suggesting that something in the juice interacts directly only on the "bad bacteria" that has tentacle-like fimbriae.
"Our results show that, at least for urinary tract infections, cranberry juice targets the right bacteria -- those that cause disease -- but has no effect on non-pathogenic organisms, suggesting that cranberry juice will not disrupt bacteria that are part of the normal flora in the gut," Camesano said in a statement for the press. "We have also shown that this effect occurs at concentrations of cranberry juice that are comparable to levels we would expect to find in the urinary tract."
She also said that to take advantage of the antibacterial benefits of cranberry, it's a good idea to consume cranberry juice regularly -- even daily.
In fact, drinking cranberry juice might do more than help prevent painful urinary tract infections. The Mayo Clinic is currently enrolling research subjects in a study to see if the fruit juice can help prevent cardiovascular disease. Previous studies have shown that cranberries can lower "bad" cholesterol levels, and help reduce the risk of gum disease, stomach ulcers and cancer.
About the author
Sherry Baker is a widely published writer whose work has appeared in Newsweek, Health, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Yoga Journal, Optometry, Atlanta, Arthritis Today, Natural Healing Newsletter, OMNI, UCLA's "Healthy Years" newsletter, Mount Sinai School of Medicine's "Focus on Health Aging" newsletter, the Cleveland Clinic's "Men's Health Advisor" newsletter and many others.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023802.html
Cranberries are able to identify the "bad-guys" and sort out the good bacteria from the ones that trigger infections. Therefore, they do not indiscriminately destroy helpful organisms in our systems like antibiotic drugs do. In addition, this research indicates that cranberries work to prevent disease first, while having a healing effect as well. So remember to consume cranberries on a regular basis to keep yourself healthy and reap other benefits from this marvelous fruit that likely have not even been discovered yet!
Scientists Discover Exactly How Cranberry Juice Fights Infections
by Sherry Baker
(NaturalNews) For decades, the idea that drinking cranberry juice could prevent or treat urinary tract infections was greeted with doubt and sometimes even sarcasm by doctors who considered this an "old wives' tale". But in recent years, studies have shown that cranberry juice does exactly what countless grandmas and herbalists said it does. It wards off infections. But how?
Now comes word that researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) have the answer. Cranberry juice creates what the scientists call an "energy barrier" that has the amazing power to prevent disease-causing microorganisms from starting an infection. This barrier changes the thermodynamic properties of infection-causing germs in the urinary tract. Simply put, the bacteria are then unable to hook onto cells and cause illness.
The study looked at two varieties of E. coli bacteria -- one with projections known as fimbriae which are believed to be used by bacteria to latch into cells and one without the hair-like appendages. The bacteria with fimbriae are found on many virulent bacteria, including those that cause painful urinary tract infections.
Both varieties were exposed to different concentrations of cranberry juice. The research team, headed by Terri Camesano, associate professor of chemical engineering at WPI, and a team of graduate students, including PhD candidate Yatao Liu, found that even at low concentrations the fruit juice made it difficult for the illness-causing bacteria to attach to cells. The scientists' conclusions, recently published in the science journal Colloids and Surfaces, strongly indicate that cranberry juice repels bacteria with fimbriae. The juice had had little if any effect on E. coli bacteria without the hair-like projections, suggesting that something in the juice interacts directly only on the "bad bacteria" that has tentacle-like fimbriae.
"Our results show that, at least for urinary tract infections, cranberry juice targets the right bacteria -- those that cause disease -- but has no effect on non-pathogenic organisms, suggesting that cranberry juice will not disrupt bacteria that are part of the normal flora in the gut," Camesano said in a statement for the press. "We have also shown that this effect occurs at concentrations of cranberry juice that are comparable to levels we would expect to find in the urinary tract."
She also said that to take advantage of the antibacterial benefits of cranberry, it's a good idea to consume cranberry juice regularly -- even daily.
In fact, drinking cranberry juice might do more than help prevent painful urinary tract infections. The Mayo Clinic is currently enrolling research subjects in a study to see if the fruit juice can help prevent cardiovascular disease. Previous studies have shown that cranberries can lower "bad" cholesterol levels, and help reduce the risk of gum disease, stomach ulcers and cancer.
About the author
Sherry Baker is a widely published writer whose work has appeared in Newsweek, Health, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Yoga Journal, Optometry, Atlanta, Arthritis Today, Natural Healing Newsletter, OMNI, UCLA's "Healthy Years" newsletter, Mount Sinai School of Medicine's "Focus on Health Aging" newsletter, the Cleveland Clinic's "Men's Health Advisor" newsletter and many others.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023802.html
Monday, August 11, 2008
Merck Behind Anti-Vitamin Campaign
It's undeniable that the objectivity of major media outlets has been compromised by loyalty to advertisers, many of their biggest customers being companies in the pharmaceutical industry. The following article is a clear-cut example of how Big Pharma's financial prowess can cause the truth to be distorted to the American people.
The greed of powerful drug companies such as Merck is combined with strong political ties that make for a shameful display of racketeering-like behavior that should not exist in a free country. It seems that some companies in the drug industry will stop at nothing when it comes to discrediting natural, drug-free health initiatives such as vitamin supplementation. This is not free enterprise, but rather bold-faced abuse of the American system that seems to be largely overlooked by or even enabled by governmental regulatory agencies. When you follow the trail of money and connections, such behavior mimics the tactics of underworld organizations such as the Mafia. This is a gross violation or our rights to seek out and practice healthcare freedoms in this country.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service,
August 7, 2008
AOL Shills For Big Pharma
(OMNS, August 7, 2008) Drug Company Propaganda on AOL's Health Page
"AOL's Dangerous Vitamins" (1) is loaded with much more than your recommended daily dose of misinformation. "Medical experts are concerned that you may be at risk for vitamin overload"! "Be wary of high doses"! "Increased risk of all-cause mortality"!
Yes, AOL surely wants you to stop taking vitamins. Dangerous, they say. Overdoses, they say.
Baloney. Where are the bodies? According to 24 years of nation-wide data collected by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, there is not even one death per year from vitamin "overdosing." (2) Half of the population takes them, and the more they take, the healthier they are. (3) Vitamins have long been proven exceptionally safe, even in high doses. (4)
How come AOL does not know that vitamin supplements are safe and effective? Or do they? Let's take a closer look. A small webpage note indicates that the "Dangerous Vitamins" article is "presented by Journey for Control." Say, guess who "Journey for Control" really is? Click the link and see for yourself: "Journey for Control is a trademark of Merck & Co., Inc." Yes, that is indeed the huge drug conglomerate. How about that: an anti-vitamin article promoted by a drug company.
One word question: Why? One word answer: Cash. At the Merck website, you can get a load of their dollar-driven agenda. Merck is on a "journey for control," to be sure. They want information control to consumers. For instance, Merck believes that "Direct-to-Consumer Advertising contributes to greater public awareness about conditions and diseases, as well as available treatments." And as for lobbying, Merck believes it just fine "where government initiatives to control health care costs and regulate the health care system will directly affect the Company's business and the incentives for pharmaceutical innovation."
Note that telling last phrase, "directly affect the Company's business and the incentives for pharmaceutical innovation." The biggest threat to big pharma profits is a healthy populace that does not use their expensive drugs. People who take more vitamins are healthier than people than people who take too few: it is just that simple. Thousands of peer-reviewed research studies show this over and over again: Vitamin therapy is very safe and very effective. Merck Pharmaceutical and their mercenary information-puppet AOL don't much like it.
Conspiracy thinking, you say? Unfortunately, no. The US Food and Drug Administration, whose task is supposedly to regulate the drug industry, agrees that high-dose vitamin preparations are direct competition for their pet clients, the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing new there. FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy David Adams, at the Drug Information Association Annual Meeting, back in July 12, 1993, said:
"Pay careful attention to what is happening with dietary supplements in the legislative arena... If these efforts are successful, there could be created a class of products to compete with approved drugs. The establishment of a separate regulatory category for supplements could undercut exclusivity rights enjoyed by the holders of approved drug applications."
And the FDA Dietary Task Force Report, released June 15, 1993, said:
"The task force considered many issues in its deliberations including to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive for drug development."
This is the real reason Merck Pharmaceutical seeks shills to generate anti-vitamin propaganda. Since Merck Pharmaceutical can't get this control without media help, they get AOL's editorial staff to do their work for them. There is no mistake about it: the author of "Dangerous Vitamins" is Caroline Howard, who, says her AOL bio, is a "senior editor on AOL's Health site." Neither her previous job experience "as photo editor for the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, AP, and the Village Voice," nor her bachelor's degree in social science and photography, nor even her master's in journalism especially qualify her as a nutrition expert. And yet there it is; nutritional nonsense online for millions to see. "Dangerous Vitamins" is crude vitamin-bashing, written by AOL, bankrolled by Merck, and read by you. And your friends and your family.
It is time to say it out loud: AOL is on the take. Now you know. Click away from AOL. Get your nutrition news elsewhere, somewhere where the "information" is not bought and paid for by big pharma.
References:
(1) http://www.aolhealth.com/healthy-living/nutrition/vitamin-safety? [be sure to include the question mark in the link]
(2) Annual Reports of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poisoning and Exposure Database (AAPCC), 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Ste. 330, Washington, DC 20016. Download any report from1983-2006 at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NationalPoisonDataSystem/AnnualReports/tabid/125/Default.aspx free of charge. The "Vitamin" category is usually near the end of the report.
(3) http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n11.shtml Block G, Jensen CD, Norkus EP, Dalvi TB, Wong LG, McManus JF, Hudes ML. Usage patterns, health, and nutritional status of long-term multiple dietary supplement users: a cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2007 Oct 24;6(1):30
(4) http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/index.shtml
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org/
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D.
Damien Downing, M.D.
Harold D. Foster, Ph.D.
Steve Hickey, Ph.D.
Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D.
James A. Jackson, PhD
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D.
Erik Paterson, M.D.
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D.
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor and contact person.
Email: omns@orthomolecular.org
The greed of powerful drug companies such as Merck is combined with strong political ties that make for a shameful display of racketeering-like behavior that should not exist in a free country. It seems that some companies in the drug industry will stop at nothing when it comes to discrediting natural, drug-free health initiatives such as vitamin supplementation. This is not free enterprise, but rather bold-faced abuse of the American system that seems to be largely overlooked by or even enabled by governmental regulatory agencies. When you follow the trail of money and connections, such behavior mimics the tactics of underworld organizations such as the Mafia. This is a gross violation or our rights to seek out and practice healthcare freedoms in this country.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service,
August 7, 2008
AOL Shills For Big Pharma
(OMNS, August 7, 2008) Drug Company Propaganda on AOL's Health Page
"AOL's Dangerous Vitamins" (1) is loaded with much more than your recommended daily dose of misinformation. "Medical experts are concerned that you may be at risk for vitamin overload"! "Be wary of high doses"! "Increased risk of all-cause mortality"!
Yes, AOL surely wants you to stop taking vitamins. Dangerous, they say. Overdoses, they say.
Baloney. Where are the bodies? According to 24 years of nation-wide data collected by the American Association of Poison Control Centers, there is not even one death per year from vitamin "overdosing." (2) Half of the population takes them, and the more they take, the healthier they are. (3) Vitamins have long been proven exceptionally safe, even in high doses. (4)
How come AOL does not know that vitamin supplements are safe and effective? Or do they? Let's take a closer look. A small webpage note indicates that the "Dangerous Vitamins" article is "presented by Journey for Control." Say, guess who "Journey for Control" really is? Click the link and see for yourself: "Journey for Control is a trademark of Merck & Co., Inc." Yes, that is indeed the huge drug conglomerate. How about that: an anti-vitamin article promoted by a drug company.
One word question: Why? One word answer: Cash. At the Merck website, you can get a load of their dollar-driven agenda. Merck is on a "journey for control," to be sure. They want information control to consumers. For instance, Merck believes that "Direct-to-Consumer Advertising contributes to greater public awareness about conditions and diseases, as well as available treatments." And as for lobbying, Merck believes it just fine "where government initiatives to control health care costs and regulate the health care system will directly affect the Company's business and the incentives for pharmaceutical innovation."
Note that telling last phrase, "directly affect the Company's business and the incentives for pharmaceutical innovation." The biggest threat to big pharma profits is a healthy populace that does not use their expensive drugs. People who take more vitamins are healthier than people than people who take too few: it is just that simple. Thousands of peer-reviewed research studies show this over and over again: Vitamin therapy is very safe and very effective. Merck Pharmaceutical and their mercenary information-puppet AOL don't much like it.
Conspiracy thinking, you say? Unfortunately, no. The US Food and Drug Administration, whose task is supposedly to regulate the drug industry, agrees that high-dose vitamin preparations are direct competition for their pet clients, the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing new there. FDA Deputy Commissioner for Policy David Adams, at the Drug Information Association Annual Meeting, back in July 12, 1993, said:
"Pay careful attention to what is happening with dietary supplements in the legislative arena... If these efforts are successful, there could be created a class of products to compete with approved drugs. The establishment of a separate regulatory category for supplements could undercut exclusivity rights enjoyed by the holders of approved drug applications."
And the FDA Dietary Task Force Report, released June 15, 1993, said:
"The task force considered many issues in its deliberations including to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive for drug development."
This is the real reason Merck Pharmaceutical seeks shills to generate anti-vitamin propaganda. Since Merck Pharmaceutical can't get this control without media help, they get AOL's editorial staff to do their work for them. There is no mistake about it: the author of "Dangerous Vitamins" is Caroline Howard, who, says her AOL bio, is a "senior editor on AOL's Health site." Neither her previous job experience "as photo editor for the New Yorker, Vanity Fair, AP, and the Village Voice," nor her bachelor's degree in social science and photography, nor even her master's in journalism especially qualify her as a nutrition expert. And yet there it is; nutritional nonsense online for millions to see. "Dangerous Vitamins" is crude vitamin-bashing, written by AOL, bankrolled by Merck, and read by you. And your friends and your family.
It is time to say it out loud: AOL is on the take. Now you know. Click away from AOL. Get your nutrition news elsewhere, somewhere where the "information" is not bought and paid for by big pharma.
References:
(1) http://www.aolhealth.com/healthy-living/nutrition/vitamin-safety? [be sure to include the question mark in the link]
(2) Annual Reports of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' National Poisoning and Exposure Database (AAPCC), 3201 New Mexico Avenue, Ste. 330, Washington, DC 20016. Download any report from1983-2006 at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/NationalPoisonDataSystem/AnnualReports/tabid/125/Default.aspx free of charge. The "Vitamin" category is usually near the end of the report.
(3) http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v03n11.shtml Block G, Jensen CD, Norkus EP, Dalvi TB, Wong LG, McManus JF, Hudes ML. Usage patterns, health, and nutritional status of long-term multiple dietary supplement users: a cross-sectional study. Nutr J. 2007 Oct 24;6(1):30
(4) http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/index.shtml
Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org/
The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.
Editorial Review Board:
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D.
Damien Downing, M.D.
Harold D. Foster, Ph.D.
Steve Hickey, Ph.D.
Abram Hoffer, M.D., Ph.D.
James A. Jackson, PhD
Bo H. Jonsson, MD, Ph.D
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D.
Erik Paterson, M.D.
Gert E. Shuitemaker, Ph.D.
Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D., Editor and contact person.
Email: omns@orthomolecular.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
