MRSA Infections Spreading From Swine to Humans

There has been a lot of coverage lately about the dangerous spread of a highly contagious form of bacterial infection known as MRSA that thrives in healthcare settings such as hospitals and nursing homes. The story we are looking at today raises a red flag about the link between MRSA and its rising incidence in swine and agricultural workers who work on swine farms or in pork processing plants.

For years the pork industry -- and the meat industry in general -- have exposed animals to high doses of antibiotics both through their feed and by directly injecting them with these drugs. It appears this practice is finally catching up with us, as the animals are becoming resistant to diseases such as MRSA, thus putting sick animals into the food chain, and also crossing the species barrier and directly infecting humans with diseases that are also resistant to treatment. You cannot violate the principles of nature indefinitely without eventually reaping the consequences. Thus, the greedy practices of the food industry and the blind eye of regulatory agencies are increasingly taking their toll on human health.


Drug-Resistant Staph Found in Midwestern Swine, Workers

IOWA CITY, Iowa, January 23, 2009 (ENS) - The first study documenting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in swine and swine workers in the United States has been published by University of Iowa researchers.

The investigators found a strain of MRSA, known as ST398, in a swine production system in the Midwest, according to research published today by the science journal "PLoS One."

"Our results show that colonization of swine by MRSA was very common in one of two corporate swine production systems we studied," said Dr. Tara Smith, an associate professor of epidemiology in the University of Iowa College of Public Health and lead author of the study.

"Because ST398 was found in both animals and humans, it suggests transmission between the two," she said.

"Our findings also suggest that once MRSA is introduced, it may spread broadly among both swine and their caretakers. Agricultural animals could become an important reservoir for this bacterium," Smith warned.

Staphylococcus aureus, often called staph, are bacteria commonly carried on the skin or in the nose of healthy people. MRSA is a type of staph that is resistant to the broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used to treat it.

A recent study estimated that MRSA caused 94,000 infections in humans and more than 18,000 deaths in the United States in 2005.

Most MRSA infections occur in hospitals or other health care settings, such as nursing homes and dialysis centers, according to the Mayo Clinic. Older adults and people with weakened immune systems are at most risk. More recently, another type of MRSA has occurred among otherwise healthy people in the wider community. This form, community-associated MRSA, is responsible for serious skin and soft tissue infections and for a serious form of pneumonia.

MRSA has been found in a variety of animals, including horses, cattle, dogs, cats and swine.
Previous studies have shown that many swine and swine farmers in Canada and the Netherlands carry MRSA. However, the University of Iowa study was the first to investigate carriage of MRSA among swine and swine farmers in the United States.

For the study, investigators analyzed nasal swabs of 299 swine and 20 swine workers from two different production systems in Iowa and Illinois. At Production System A, the overall prevalence of MRSA was 70 percent in swine and 64 percent in workers. At Production System B, all swine and human samples were negative for MRSA.

The researchers could not determine why System A had a high prevalence rate of MRSA among its swine and swine handlers, but listed several differences compared to System B.

First, the systems raised different breeds of swine. Second, System A was an older, more established operation that had approximately twice the number of animals as System B. Third, both systems imported sows from different sources, raising the possibility that ST398 may have been introduced via live swine or pork products.

"Iowa ranks first in the nation in swine production," Smith said. "Transmission of MRSA on swine farms or in veterinary facilities could complicate efforts to reduce MRSA transmission statewide and beyond."

The investigators recommended that future studies assess the risk of MRSA disease among swine workers and their contacts, survey retail meat products for MRSA contamination, study larger populations of swine and humans to define the epidemiology of MRSA within swine operations, and assess MRSA carriage rates in other livestock.

http://www.ens-newswire.com:80/ens/jan2009/2009-01-23-095.asp

Research Points to Fruits as Brain Food

There are a ton of good reasons to eat more whole, raw foods such as organic fruit, and now a new study indicates that fresh fruit in your diet may directly benefit brain cells and prevent dementia such as Alzheimer's disease. Apparently there are substances in fruits that naturally act to protect brain cells from deterioration.

Make the decision to buy more healthy foods, such as fruit and vegetables, and to avoid bringing home high-calorie pre-packaged snacks and other processed foods. Another key is to shop well and agree only to eat what you have in the house. It will be a lot easier to reach for a piece of fruit if you don't have chips or sweets available to tempt you. Eventually, your body will begin to develop a taste for new choices, and you will begin to prefer healthier foods. You owe it to yourself and your family to test my advice and personally experience that it works! One relatively simple decision such as this can literally lead to a lifetime of change.


Fruit Rich in Polyphenols Protects Against Alzheimer's Disease, Cognitive Decline
by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Fruits rich in polyphenols may help protect against the oxidative stress that has been linked to cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease, according to a study conducted by researchers from three Korean universities and published in the Journal of Food Science.

"Our study demonstrated that antioxidants in the major fresh fruits consumed in the United States and Korea protected neuronal cells from oxidative stress," the researchers wrote. "Therefore, additional consumption of fresh fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges may be beneficial to ameliorate chemopreventive effects in neurodegenerative disease."

Researchers took a cancer cell line derived from the forebrains of rats, intended to simulate human neurons. These cells were exposed to hydrogen peroxide after being treated with varying concentrations of fruit extracts.

Treatment with fruit extracts led to a significant increase in cell viability and decreased oxidative damage compared with the control group. The most effective extract was from apples, but the orange and banana extracts also functioned well. At the highest concentration, the orange and banana extracts provided 103 and 118 percent more cell protection than the control treatment.

Researchers believe that Alzheimer's disease might be caused by the build-up of amyloid plaque deposits in the brain, due to increased cell death from oxidative damage. Because the fruit extracts in the current study protected nerve cells against oxidative stress, the researchers believe they might provide a protective benefit against Alzheimer's as well.

A prior study found that when mice with Alzheimer's disease were given apple juice with naturally occurring antioxidants, they exhibited improved cognitive performance and their brain tissue appeared to be protected from oxidative damage. More recently, a different study found that the flavones hesperidin, hesperetin, and neohesperidin - naturally occurring chemicals found in citrus fruits - protected against DNA and cell damage, including from hydrogen peroxide.

An estimated 13 million people around the world suffer from Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia.

http://www.naturalnews.com/z025344.html

Vaccines a Snapshot of Healthcare Freedom Issues

There is perhaps no topic that better exemplifies the war on healthcare freedom than vaccinations. The article below does an excellent job of highlighting the hazards of these toxic substances and the trampling of our rights that some have undertaken through an agenda of ever-increasing mandatory vaccines. All this despite a mounting pool of evidence that clearly indicates many vaccines are both dangerous and ineffective.

NVIC is a terrific source for truth regarding these issues, and this article gives a very comprehensive overview of the politics and greed that drive the push for forced vaccines. Let's hope that the Obama administration can keep an open mind about mandatory vaccinations and deal with the facts -- not special interests -- when taking sides on this important issue.



The Great Denial of Vaccine Risks & Freedom
by Barbara Loe Fisher

The Great Denial of vaccine risks for the past three decades by vaccine makers, pediatricians and government officials operating the mass vaccination system is the reason why more and more parents today question and mistrust vaccine science, policy and law. When Harris Coulter and I co-authored DPT: A Shot in the Dark in 1985 exposing flaws in the mass vaccination system that allowed the highly reactive DPT vaccine to stay on the market unimproved for more than 40 years, we never imagined then that those tragic flaws in the system would remain largely intact in 2009.

I knew then that the alliance between industry, organized medicine and government was powerful. But it is only after a quarter century of witnessing the Great Denial of vaccine risks, which has produced millions of vaccine damaged children flooding special education classrooms and doctors offices, that the magnitude of that unchecked power has been fully revealed.

Thomas Jefferson, co-author of the U.S Constitution, said in 1820: "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." When those in power are so afraid of the truth that they abandon reason and are willing to tolerate all kinds of errors in order to hide the truth, people suffer.

Fear of the truth was clearly in play at a Jan. 14 meeting of the Federal Interagency Autism Advisory Committee (IACC) when the Committee took a convenient "re-vote" to nullify a previous vote to use a portion of congressionally appropriated funds in the Combating Autism Act of 2006 to investigate the long reported association between vaccination and autism. Whether the "re-vote" can be blamed on a turf war between federal agencies, a Committee member who defied direction given to her by her employer, Autism Speaks, or a desperate, last minute end-run by health officials to again delay the day when the truth about vaccine risks is known, it is the people who always lose in this high stakes game of denials and delays.

Thomas Jefferson had a lot to say about power, coercion and freedom. He said "Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons." Ask Rita Palma of New York what it means to be subjected to an inquisition about her religious beliefs by an arrogant and fallible man governed by passions and driven to harass and coerce her for private as well as public reasons. Click here and also click here to watch videos of an attorney, acting on behalf of the state of New York, as he puts Rita on the rack and browbeats her for her religious beliefs and faith in God when it comes to vaccinating her children.

Rita has been working with other parents in New York to support the addition of philosophical exemption to vaccination to New York vaccine laws to protect parents, who exercise religious exemptions, and doctors, who issue medical exemptions from harassment by state officials. A public Vaccine Education Roundtable was sponsored by New York Assemblymen Marc Alessi and Richard Gottfried on Dec. 15, 2008 at Stony Brook University to examine vaccine safety and informed consent issues.

Reason and faith, conscience and science, truth and freedom. Those who participate in the Great Denial of vaccine risks cannot tolerate an unbiased, methodologically sound scientific investigation into those risks. And they cannot tolerate the free exercise of religious belief and conscience by those, whose minds and bodies they must control in order to perpetuate the Great Denial.

In 1997, I was asked to present an argument for the moral right to conscientious belief exemption to vaccination to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee in Washington, D.C. After my 20 minute presentation, there was a several hour "discussion" where I was grilled by public health officials who alternately acknowledged the importance of the informed consent principle and called me "selfish," a "threat to the public health" and "uninformed."

The defining moment of that encounter, for me at least, came when I looked the physician architect of the CDC-led "No shots, No school" campaign in the eye and said "Whether or not I put my child's life on the line for you and your vaccines is between me and my God and not between me and you, Doctor." The way he gritted his teeth and glared at me while his face flushed bright red, spoke volumes about what the Great Denial is all about. It is about whether we, the citizens, are going to have the power to freely choose which pharmaceutical products or other medical interventions we are going to use or whether that power is going to be taken from us by doctors and public health officials.

Jacobsen v. Massachusetts is the U.S. Supreme Court decision which affirmed the constitutional right of the states to enact mandatory vaccination laws. Concerned about controlling smallpox, little did the justices at the turn of the 20th century imagine that federal officials would someday recommend 69 doses of 16 vaccines for children from 12 hours of age through age 18 or that New Jersey would mandate more than three dozen doses of 13 vaccines for children to attend school. In an insightful review of that historic 1905 Supreme Court decision, the Harvard Law Review recently examined the application of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts to vaccine laws in the 21st century.

If one citizen or group of citizens in America are allowed to force fellow citizens to risk injury or death without their voluntary, informed consent, then are Americans free in any sense of the word? When forced risk-taking involves mandated use of pharmaceutical products protected from liability in the Judicial system, which the authors of the Constitution created as a check and balance on the Executive and Legislative branches of government, then people can be easily exploited for power and profit. Unless vaccines and other pharmaceutical products are subject to the law of supply and demand so citizens can freely choose those which are necessary, safe and effective and reject those which are not, the people become nothing more than enslaved consumers of potentially dangerous products marketed by companies with no economic or legal incentive to improve those products.

And if the state can tag, track down and force individuals against their will to be injected with biologicals of unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.

As the 44th President of the United States is sworn in today in our nation's Capitol, we can only pray that he will have the intelligence, compassion and conscience to make sure that his Administration is not afraid to find out the truth about vaccine risks. With one child in six now developmentally delayed in America and no answers from government health officials as to how they got that way, our nation's future may depend on it.

The National Vaccine Information Center is prepared to stand with other parent groups representing families with vaccine injured children to call for an end to the Great Denial by those responsible for ensuring our children's health and safety.

Let freedom ring: No forced vaccination. Not in America.

Source: NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) Vaccine E-Newsletter dated January 20, 2009

Tips for Eating More Veggies

One of the simplest yet powerful changes one can make to improve their health is to increase the amount of raw, organic or locally grown vegetables they consume. Veggies are a terrific source of antioxidants, oxygen, vitamins, minerals and other beneficial compounds, and a wonderful source of fiber as well as adding hydration to the body. Boosting the amount of vegetables in your diet will improve colon health and digestion too, thus strengthening the immune system and virtually all other parts of the body to boot.

Juicing is also discussed in today's article, a practice that can open up a whole new world of different nutritious foods to eat. If we can start by substituting raw or juiced vegetables for other foods that we should cut down on or eliminate from our diets, we will be on the right track nutritionally and will likely cut down on calories as well. And guess what? Your body will actually begin the prefer fresh vegetables and fruit. While I advocate juicing vegetables, I suggest eating fruits. Fruits have a synergy about them that comes into play when the whole fruit is eaten, plus you will not get the insulin spike that is common with fruit juice. Change almost never happens overnight, but is rather a compilation of small steps that we learn to practice consistently. The good news is that "success breeds success," so once you get the ball rolling, it gains a momentum of its own. Eating more vegetables is a great place to start.


An Easy Way to Double Your Vegetable Intake

In a new study, women more than doubled their fruit and vegetable intakes and dramatically increased their consumption of "good" fats when they were counseled by registered dietitians and provided with a list of nutritional guidelines reflecting the traditional Mediterranean diet.

The six-month study divided 69 women into two groups. Women in one group continued their usual diet and did not receive any dietary counseling. In the other group, registered dietitians used an "exchange list" of foods that are common in a Mediterranean diet to make a plan for each participant. The list included suggested servings of several categories of foods, such as dark green vegetables.

The group that followed the exchange-list plan reached their nutritional goals within three months, and maintained the change for the six-month duration of the study. The comparison group, however, made few dietary changes.

The Mediterranean diet has been associated with health benefits such as lower risks for cardiovascular disease and cancer. Recent studies also have suggested that such a diet can increase longevity.

In many ways the Mediterranean diet is head and shoulders ahead of the standard American diet. It emphasizes fresh vegetables, which is something most people could use more of, while downplaying processed foods. (Reducing your intake of MSG, a neurotoxin, and high fructose corn syrup, which aggravates inflammation, will in and of itself have a positive impact on your health.)

Studies have shown that following the Mediterranean diet can help:

Reduce your risk of cancer
Prevent diabetes
Improve arthritis
Help people with Alzheimer's live longer
Protect against heart disease
Extend your life

The main thrust behind this latest study was to devise an effective method to achieve the major nutrient intakes of the Greek-Mediterranean diet using American foods. They found that women were able to successfully change their dietary habits when guided by a nutritional counselor.

Using an "exchange list" for foods common in a Mediterranean diet, the participants were able to more than double their fruit and vegetable intakes and dramatically increase their consumption of healthy fats.

This is good news, and certainly something most everyone could do.

The list included suggested servings, or exchanges, of several categories of foods, including:

8-10 servings (or exchanges) each day of high monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), such as olive or hazelnut oil, avocado and macadamia nuts
Limits on fats that are low in MUFA, such as corn oil, margarine, tahini, pine nuts and sesame seeds.
One or more servings a day of dark green vegetables, such as broccoli, peas and spinach
At least one exchange per day of garlic, onions and leeks
One tablespoon or more per day of green herbs, such as basil, cilantro, peppermint and sage
One or more servings a day of red vegetables, such as tomatoes, tomato sauce and salsa
One or more servings a day of yellow or orange vegetables, such as carrots, red bell peppers and pumpkin
One or more servings a day of other vegetables, such as artichokes, cucumber, green beans and sugar snap peas
One or more servings a day of vitamin C fruits, such as oranges, mangoes and strawberries
One or more servings a day of other fruits, such as apples, bananas and grapes

The Easiest Way to Increase Your Vegetable Intake

One of the absolute easiest and most efficient ways to optimize your vegetable intake is to juice your vegetables.

Not only will juicing help your body absorb all the nutrients from the vegetables by making them easily digestible, but you're also avoiding the risk of damaging any of their sensitive micronutrients through cooking. Cooking and processing food destroys micronutrients by altering their shape and chemical composition.


It also allows you greater freedom to add a wider variety of vegetables to your diet that you may not normally enjoy eating whole. This way, you're working with the principle of regular food rotation, which will lessen your chances of developing food allergies.

Selecting the Best Vegetables for Your Nutritional Type

You can easily optimize the benefits from your dietary choices by determining your nutritional type, and selecting fruits and vegetables that are best suited for your unique biochemistry.

According to Nutritional Typing principles, if you are a carb type, vegetable juicing is highly recommended if you want to regain your health. Juicing is also beneficial for mixed types, whereas protein types need to follow some specific guidelines to make it work for them.

If you are a protein type, juicing needs to be done cautiously. The only vegetables that should be juiced are your prime protein-type vegetables that are lower in potassium:

Celery
Spinach
Asparagus
String beans
Cauliflower (including the base)

Regular lettuces and typically wonderful vegetables like collard greens, kale and Swiss chard are far too high in potassium for protein types and will tend to cause biochemical imbalances.

It is also important to keep your serving size of juice to no more than 6 oz., but don't be surprised if you find that as little as 3-4 oz. of juice feels like the right serving size for you. For a protein type, 3-4 oz. of juice is a significant amount.

Also, to make drinking vegetable juice compatible with protein type metabolism (which needs high amounts of fat), it is important to blend a source of raw fat into your juice. The types of raw fat I recommend most are:

Raw cream
Raw butter
Eggs
Avocado
Coconut butter
Freshly ground flax seed

In addition to adding a source of raw fat to your juice, you may also find that adding some, or even all, of the vegetable pulp into your juice helps to make drinking the juiced vegetables more satisfying.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/24/an-easy-way-to-double-your-vegetable-intake.aspx

Coconut Oil Inhibits Disease

In today's discussion, we will look at a very interesting article that focuses on the health benefits of virgin coconut oil, and also touches on the hazards of Western diets that are high in processed vegetable oils.

We hear a lot in the media these days about the increasing incidence of obesity and diabetes in America and elsewhere, but there is little practical advice for reversing these trends. This article hits the nail squarely on the head by identifying specific lifestyle changes that can reverse and prevent diabetes and other illnesses. Coconut oil is not a magic bullet that alone will usher in wellness, but it is another tool that you may want to include in your natural arsenal against disease.


Switching to Coconut Oil can Prevent Diabetes
by Sheryl Walters, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Coconut oil is an ancient super food that has been an essential component to many of the earth's healthiest cultures. Cultures that have consumed high amounts of coconut oil generally have not suffered with diabetes, as well as many other diseases. Unfortunately, as many of these people abandon their traditional ways of eating, they begin to suffer with diabetes, since coconut oil has been shown to protect people from this illness.

For example, the people who live on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific have enjoyed a diet of mostly bananas, yams and coconuts. Diabetes was a completely unknown illness. As the island became healthier and their lifestyle and diet began to include refined flour, sugar and vegetable oils, diabetes appeared. According to the World Health Organisation, up to one half of the urbanised Nauru population age 30 - 64 are diabetic today.

Although few people make the association between refined vegetable oils and diabetes, the link has been well researched. In the 1920s Dr. S. Sweeney studied the effects of vegetable oil on his student. His research showed that a diet high in vegetable oil could cause reversible diabetes within 48 hours in subjects who had not been previously diabetic. A 1998 study published in Metabolism showed that diabetes could be reversed by cutting out polyunsaturated fat. The same results have also been shown in humans.

What is the Difference Between Coconut Oil and Vegetable oils?

There is a molecular difference between coconut oil and all other common vegetable oils such as olive, sunflower and safflower oil. The molecules that make up these polyunsaturated oils are made up of a long chain of fatty acids. On the other hand, virgin coconut oil is made up of smaller molecules or medium chain fatty acids.

Long chain fats are either deposited in blood vessels as cholesterol or stored around the waist, thighs and buttocks as energy stores of fat for emergencies. Medium chain fatty acids are used immediately as a source of energy.

Why Regular Oils Can Potentially Cause Diabetes

Most people with diabetes are on strict low fat, high carbohydrate diets in which the limited fats allowed are restricted to polyunsaturated vegetable oils such as olive, safflower, or sunflower oils. However, studies have shown that if the fats consumed are polyunsaturated, long chain fats, this decreases cell's ability to bind with insulin, and reduces their ability to absorb glucose...especially when these oils are heated during cooking. In other words, polyunsaturated long chain fats, commonly thought to be "healthy", actually make diabetes WORSE!

Furthermore, polyunsaturated vegetable oils can cause free radical damage to the cells, and adversely affect their ability to function. The bottom line is that cooking with polyunsaturated vegetable oils, such as sunflower oil and olive oil, should be avoided by people with diabetes.

Why is Coconut Oil so Beneficial for Diabetes?

The smaller and more easily absorbed medium chain molecules found in coconut oil supply the cells with essential fatty acids without inhibiting insulin and without glucose, so they combat insulin resistance. Virgin coconut oil is a totally unique super food that serves as an energy boost to the body, without causing a spike in blood sugar levels.

Researchers have discovered that while heavy foods (including polyunsaturated oils) slow down the metabolism, organic coconut oil actually stimulates the metabolism to assist the fat burning process, even when they are heated. In simple terms, simply substituting your normal cooking oils with coconut oil can be a tremendous remedy for diabetes, and, along with avoiding sugar and getting plenty of exercise, can help prevent people who don't suffer from this dangerous disease from suffering later in life.

http://www.naturalnews.com/z025388.html

FDA Approves More Drugs in Meat

The FDA has changed their mind about a ruling passed last summer and is again allowing animals that are raised for food to be laced with a type of antibiotics that is one of the favorites of the food industry. These drugs keep the producer's expenses down by controlling disease, cheapening the cost of feed, and causing the animals to grow to slaughtering size faster.

Sounds like a good plan except for a few glitches. The reason this practice was stopped is because of the danger of antibiotic resistant diseases getting stronger, both in the animals and in the human population. Obviously, this situation has not changed, and is likely worse than it was last year. As the article states, the FDA needed time to review comments about their action, and apparently the lobbyists in the food industry spoke the loudest about this issue. Once again this government agency that is supposed to be looking out for our health has sided with their big business comrades to protect the almighty dollar. The only bright side to this all is that this is another great reason to stop eating meat! Such a choice would help both your health and your budget.


FDA Reverses Decision to Ban Certain Antibiotic Use in Food Animals
By Christian Dobbins

January 21 - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it would allow the use of cephalosporins in food-producing animals, reversing a decision made this summer to ban the practice. The agency's initial decision to ban this class of antibiotics stemmed from fears that excessive use in animals such as cows, swine, and chickens could promote drug resistance in strains of bacteria that also infect people.

Cephalosporins are generally used in livestock feed to promote growth and to treat infectious diseases. Citing the importance of cephalosporin drugs for treating disease in humans, on July 3 the FDA announced a planned crackdown on "off-label" use in animals -- the practice of using the drug for a purpose outside the scope of its approved label. However, agriculture groups and makers of veterinary drugs claim that antibiotics are needed, while others have claimed that the data on the human impact used to support the ban were flawed. On Nov. 25 the FDA revoked its decision, saying it had received a number of comments and needed more time to review them; the agency added that it could still impose restrictions later.

As far back as the 1980s, the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine warned of the dangers of overuse of antibiotics in food animals. In the 1998 report The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks, they noted that antibiotic resistance in humans and animals had risen sharply during the last several decades. The report recommended that the federal government form an oversight panel to ensure the appropriate use of antibiotics, and establish a national database to monitor microbe-related illnesses and trends in antibiotic resistance that may result from drug use in food animals.

In 2003 the Institute of Medicine report Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response urged FDA to ban the use of certain anti-microbials in animals if those same drugs could be used to treat illness in humans. The recommendation's goal is to reduce the chances of developing drug-resistant organisms in animals that could eventually cause hard-to-treat diseases in people.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/headlines/20090121.html

Will Mammograms Soon be Obsolete?

Here's a story you may want to keep your eye on. A study conducted by researchers at a dental school in Texas has led to the development of a saliva test that may someday replace mammograms as the main form of preventative testing for breast cancer. This test is much safer than mammograms, but there is a catch. First it must be approved by the FDA, which would deal a blow to the multi-million dollar mammogram and Cancer industry, players which currently have a very cozy relationship with FDA.

Mammograms are big business, generating a cash cow for many in the cancer industry. Consider the fact that annual mammograms are typically recommended for every women over 40, and you begin to get a feel for how much pull this industry has in the healthcare business and thus with the FDA. The sad truth is that mammograms are not very effective at finding and preventing tumors, but to make matters worse, undergoing the procedure exposes women to hazardous levels of radiation, and the process can also lead to spreading cancer cells if they are present due to intense squeezing of the breast.

It will be interesting to see if this saliva test goes anywhere or if it is quashed by those that will not turn away from the financial windfalls that mammograms provide, even though the health and welfare of women is the real issue here.


Breast Cancer Saliva Test to Make Dangerous Mammograms Obsolete
by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) Researchers are working to develop a saliva test for breast cancer that could vastly reduce the use of dangerous and invasive breast cancer screening techniques such as mammograms."This will be a noninvasive, quick means of detection," said lead researcher Charles Streckfus, a professor of diagnostic sciences at the Dental Branch of the University of Texas (UT) at Houston. "With it, dentists will be able to catch cancers before a woman can feel a lump."

Researchers have discovered that the onset of breast cancer changes the density of different proteins excreted by the salivary glands. In the current study, published in the journal Cancer Investigation, Streckfus and other researchers from the UT-Houston Dental Branch and Medical School compared the protein levels found in the saliva of 10 women with breast cancer, 10 healthy women, and 10 women with a type of tumor called fibroadenoma.

Fibroadenoma is the most common kind of benign breast tumor.

"Saliva is a complex mixture of proteins," said researcher William Dubinsky. "We go through a process that compares different samples by chemically labeling them in such a way that we can not only identify the protein, but determine how much of it is in each sample. This allows us to compare the levels of 150-200 different proteins in cancerous versus non-cancerous specimens to identify possible markers for disease.

"The researchers identified 49 proteins that were present at different levels between the three groups. These proteins should hypothetically allow doctors to use such a saliva test to alert them when a woman has a tumor, and to determine whether it is cancerous or benign.

"This is a unique finding," Streckfus said, "as it targets both the benign and malignant tumor, which could potentially reduce the number of false positives and false negatives associated with current cancer diagnostics".

Previously, the same team of researchers was able to correctly detect whether a woman had breast cancer 85 percent of the time, using only one saliva protein as a marker. With 49 different markers, Streckfus says that the accuracy of the test should be closer to 95 percent.

In the current method, the saliva sample is placed onto a hand-held, gold-plated chip or lab dish, developed by UT-Austin biochemists. A laser analyzes the protein content of the sample.

"I see this as a future public health service by dentists" Streckfus said. "Most folks, especially women and children, visit the dental office way more often than they ever see the physician. Saliva is a non-invasive, quicker way for detection."

Many obstacles remain before this test could be available, however. The first step is more studies to confirm the effectiveness of the protein markers as diagnostic tools in a larger group of patients. Streckfus and colleagues hope to launch a large, multicenter clinical trial of the test within the next two years, and to apply for FDA approval within five.

The only saliva test currently approved by the FDA is one for HIV/AIDS.

A saliva test for breast cancer has many advantages over current diagnostic methods such as ultrasounds, mammograms, biopsies and blood tests. It would be far less invasive and expensive than most such tests, and have a much higher accuracy rate than blood tests, which are not currently favored for breast cancer diagnosis due to their poor accuracy.

The higher accuracy of a saliva test comes in part from the fact that saliva proteins are much easier to detect than the proteins in blood, Dubinsky said."In the case of breast cancer, saliva analysis has been used to monitor patient response to chemotherapy or surgical treatment of the disease," said Professor Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser for the British Dental Association. "The mouth itself is a good indicator of an individual's overall health, and dentists already play an important role in diagnosing and detecting oral cancers."

Streckfus said that a saliva test would be particularly valuable in places where mammography centers are rare, such as in many Third World countries, or in breast cancer survivors who need to be regularly monitored for potential cancer recurrence.

Regular use of mammograms is not only expensive and emotionally distressing, but can also be dangerous. Because women are exposed to X-ray radiation as part of the mammogram procedure, regular mammogram use actually increases women's risk of developing various cancers. For this reason, mammograms are not normally performed for women under the age of 40, in whom the risk of breast cancer is relatively low unless symptoms are present.

But Streckfus warned that a saliva test cannot utterly replace mammograms, because the saliva test is unable to determine which breast contains the tumor.Nonetheless, cancer patient advocates have greeted the new research as promising. According to Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, the saliva test will one day be "a terrific advance."

"I think advances like this test portend the day when we'll be able to diagnose disease that would be invisible using today's technologies," Lichtenfeld said. "[Patients will] be able to be diagnosed and treated before they would otherwise know they have the disease."

Streckfus and colleagues are also researching whether saliva tests can be used to diagnose other cancers, including of the cervix, uterus, head, neck and ovaries. Another group of researchers, at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, is also working on a saliva test for head-and-neck cancer. According to Lichtenfeld, the Johns Hopkins team is farther along than the UT-Houston team, because their test relies on genetic rather than protein markers.

http://www.naturalnews.com/z025348.html

Psych Drugs Linked to Fatalities?

In a very disturbing study released last week, British researchers have determined that Alzheimer's patients who are given certain antipsychotic drugs, often for the purpose of controlling undesirable behaviors, have a much greater chance of premature death than those who are not given the drugs.

This is a scathing indictment of the way we treat the elderly in Western society, many times institutionalizing them and drugging them with hazardous medications that can have serious side effects. In the situation outlined in today's story, it actually goes beyond side effects and results in unnecessary deaths. This is an outrage, and certainly morally, if not legally, a crime against humanity.

To call such procedures "healthcare" is a clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath, despite the muddled ethics of Big Pharma and many doctors that are under their spell. As I have so often stated on this blog, it is time we stand up and take back the control of responsible healthcare for our selves and our loved ones. It is critical that we are involved and informed about any and all medications or other procedures that are recommended to us or our family members, whether they are young or old. If we fail to do this we are only enabling the promiscuous use of drugs and must also take part of the blame for allowing ridiculous and dangerous care such as this to occur.


Antipsychotics Up Death Risk in Alzheimer's Patients
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter Fri Jan 9, 11:48 pm ET

FRIDAY, Jan. 9 (HealthDay News) -- Alzheimer's patients who are prescribed antipsychotic drugs face a higher risk of death than similar patients not given these medications do, British researchers report.

While the short-term use of antipsychotics has been found to benefit Alzheimer's patients, studies have found that prolonged use can have serious side effects, including Parkinson-like symptoms, sedation, chest infections, decline in brain function, stroke and death.

"It's an eye-opening study since it was one of the few non-company sponsored studies to look at long-term risks," said dementia expert Dr. P. Murali Doraiswamy, chief of the biological psychiatry division at Duke University.

"Antipsychotics are not and never were indicated for use in people with dementia," he added.
"But millions of elderly [people] were put on antipsychotics in nursing homes, often with little or no evidence to support such use."

For the study, lead researcher Dr. Clive Ballard, of the Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases at King's College London, and his colleagues randomly assigned 128 Alzheimer's patients to one of several antipsychotics or a placebo. The antipsychotic drugs included thioridazine, chlorpromazine, haloperidol, trifluorperazine or risperidone.

The researchers found that, for the whole study period, the risk of death was 42 percent lower among people taking a placebo compared with those taking antipsychotics.

After one year of follow-up, 70 percent of the patients taking antipsychotics were still living, compared with 77 percent of those on placebo.

But after two years, 46 percent of those taking antipsychotics were alive, compared with 71 percent of those taking placebo. And after three years, only 30 percent of those on antipsychotics were alive, compared with 59 percent of those taking a placebo, the researchers found.

The findings were published online Jan. 8 in The Lancet Neurology.

Despite the findings, Doraiswamy said there's still a place for antipsychotics in some people with dementia. "If there is no other way to stop an Alzheimer's patient from acting dangerously and all other measures have failed, then antipsychotics can be used as a measure of last resort, but only for the shortest possible time at the lowest possible dose," he said.

The study authors agreed.

"Our opinion is that there is still an important but limited place for atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of severe neuropsychiatric manifestations of Alzheimer's disease, particularly aggression," the researchers wrote. "However, the accumulating safety concerns, including the substantial increase in long-term mortality, emphasize the urgent need to put an end to unnecessary and prolonged prescribing."

William Thies, chief medical officer at the Alzheimer's Association, said his group suggests that "non-pharmacological treatments" may be as effective as the antipsychotic drugs and should be considered first.

"Non-pharmacological treatments are things like changing the environment of the patient, changing the way the patient is addressed, and eliminating certain triggering events that may cause deteriorations in patient behavior," he said.

What You Need to Know About Antipsychotics

"Families need to be on the lookout and question their doctor closely if he or she recommends an antipsychotic for Alzheimer's," said Dr. P. Murali Doraiswamy, chief of the biological psychiatry division at Duke University.
He said families need to ask:

What is it for?
Why did you choose it? Is this the lowest dose that works?
Have you considered an alternative?
How long will my relative need to be on it?
How often will my relative be checked for side effects?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090110/hl_hsn/antipsychoticsupdeathriskinalzheimerspatients/print

EPA Gives Blessing to Controversially High Levels of Chemical

In a move that some consider a perk for chemical companies, the outgoing Bush administration has approved increased drinking water levels of a toxin used in the manufacture of certain non-stick coatings. As the article below points out, many scientists and consumer advocates are concerned that such levels of PFOA may pose both short-term and long-term public health hazards.

Basically unregulated for many decades, the dangers of PFOA only came out during legal action against one of most flagrant polluters on the planet, the DuPont Corporation. Once again we have the financial interests of Big Business put ahead of the health and welfare of Americans. Considering how many chemicals have been invented and dumped into the environment over the last several generations, it is scary to think about the implications both for now and the future. There certainly must be many of these substances that are known hazards, but as of yet the facts remain hidden behind corporate veils of secrecy and deception. Undoubtedly, new evidence will also arise to indict other chemicals that are now considered "safe."

What can we do to protect ourselves? Start with performing several liver/gallbladder cleanses in order to cleanse the liver an digestive tract of toxins and chemicals. Next, eat a diet rich in organic fruits and vegetables that supply the body with large amounts of naturally occurring phytonutrients to combat free radicals and disease. Lastly, make sure you drink the purest water available by using a high quality water purification system. If you live in an area that is prone to chemical pollution, you may also want to consider moving for the sake of your family's health and wellness.


U.S. warns of Teflon chemical in water
But critics say advisory is not strict enough to safeguard health

By Michael Hawthorne
Tribune reporter
January 16, 2009

Less than a week before the Bush administration leaves office, federal environmental regulators are issuing a controversial health advisory on drinking water contaminated with a toxic chemical used to make Teflon and other non-stick coatings.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is advising people to reduce consumption of water containing more than 0.4 parts per billion of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA -- a level critics say is not strict enough. Studies have shown the chemical, which is linked to cancer, liver damage and birth defects, has built up in human blood throughout the world.

It is unclear how many cities might exceed the new limit because the EPA doesn't require water treatment plants to test for PFOA. When the Tribune tested samples of Chicago tap water last year, it found extremely low levels of the compound -- about 3 parts per trillion. The finding led city officials to begin testing Lake Michigan water for PFOA; initial results found similarly small amounts.

Critics called the EPA's advisory a last-minute gift from the Bush administration to DuPont and a handful of other companies that make PFOA. Some scientists have proposed limits as low as 0.02 parts per billion.

President-elect Barack Obama's pick to lead the EPA in his administration, New Jersey Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa Jackson, set an advisory level of 0.04 parts per billion in her state -- 10 times stricter than the new federal limit.

"This is essentially legalizing unsafe exposure levels," said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit organization that has pushed the EPA to regulate PFOA. "Nobody should have to drink a cancer-causing Teflon chemical in their water."

The EPA's sudden decision to issue national guidelines comes amid rising concerns about PFOA, which has been dumped into water and air with virtually no oversight for more than a half-century.

The company 3M stopped making PFOA in 2000 under pressure from the EPA. DuPont still uses PFOA to make Teflon and related coatings, but agreed to stop manufacturing the chemical by 2015 after the EPA declared 2 years ago that it likely causes cancer.

The agency's advisory, dated Jan. 8 but released publicly this week, appears to be linked to the recent discovery of contaminated beef from cattle that grazed in an Alabama pasture fertilized with PFOA-laden sewage sludge.

"We are issuing a scientific drinking water health advisory to provide guidance and reduce potential risk to public health if local situations occur," Benjamin Grumbles, the EPA's assistant administrator for water, said in a statement.

DuPont has repeatedly insisted that its own research shows PFOA is not harmful to humans at levels found in the environment.

"We are reviewing the document, and at this time, it appears the advisory value for PFOA is consistent with nearly all regulatory guidelines established by EPA regions, states and other countries," the company said Friday in a statement.

PFOA and related chemicals concern other scientists and regulators because the compounds don't break down and they stay in human blood for at least four years. They have also shown up in foods such as apples, bread, beans and ground beef.

Little was known about PFOA outside of DuPont and a handful of other companies until 2002, when internal company documents started to be made public as part of a class-action lawsuit. The suit was filed on behalf of thousands of people living near a Teflon plant along the Ohio River near Parkersburg, W.Va.

As part of a legal settlement with its neighbors in that area, DuPont agreed to provide alternative sources of drinking water or upgraded treatment equipment when PFOA levels exceed 0.05 parts per billion, a far more stringent limit than the EPA's new advisory.

In Little Hocking, Ohio, across the river from the Teflon plant, water tests found PFOA levels as high as 7.2 parts per billion.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/health/chi-teflon-chemical-16,0,6531076,print.story

Unhealthy Trends in Rural Population

In a reversal of traditional patterns, the study analyzed in today's article finds that many rural Americans weigh more and exercise less than their urban counterparts. I find this to be an interesting sociological phenomenon, because it contradicts what used to be the norm in decades past. The stereotypical city-dweller was thought to be physically soft due to a passive lifestyle and a poor diet, while those that lived in the country generally were seen as engaging in labor-intensive work in conjunction with a more nutritious diet of foods fresh off the farm.

Nowadays, it appears that many city people are more proactive about pursuing a healthy lifestyle, and unfortunately many individuals who live in rural areas do not make their living working physically hard, as farmers used to. In addition, it is often more difficult to find a good source of organic fruits and vegetables in some rural areas. In many small towns, fast food restaurants are the main choices for dining out. Perhaps the lesson here is that no matter where we live, if we value a lifestyle that leads to wellness, it is up to us to take whatever steps are needed whether we are a "city mouse" or "country mouse."


Eating At Buffets Plus Not Exercising Equals Obesity In Rural America
25 Dec 2008

In small towns in the Midwestern United States, people who eat out often at buffets and cafeterias and who perceive their community to be unpleasant for physical activity are more likely to be obese."

It's not that people don't want to get physical activity or eat healthy foods, but we've made it difficult in many communities," says Ross Brownson, Ph.D., senior author of the study and a professor at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work at Washington University in St. Louis.

"People in small towns spend a great deal of time in cars, and they also may not have easy access to fresh fruits and vegetables in their markets."

The findings are published in the December issue of Preventive Medicine.

Thirty percent of U.S. adults are obese, which increases their risk for health conditions such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke. Rural adults have higher levels of obesity and are less active in their leisure time than urban and suburban U.S. adults, says Brownson, a faculty scholar of Washington University's Institute for Public Health and a professor at the School of Medicine.

From July to September 2005, 1,258 randomly selected adults in 12 rural communities in Missouri, Arkansas and Tennessee completed telephone surveys about their food choices and physical activity. Eligible households were within two miles of a community walking trail.

Researchers asked about their access to produce and low-fat foods, frequency and location of food shopping and frequency and location of restaurant dining. They also were asked how they perceived their community for physical activity.

The findings revealed that respondents who ate out often, especially at buffets, cafeterias and fast food restaurants, were more likely to be obese. Those with a high school education or less reported limited access to fruits and vegetables and were more likely to shop at convenience stores.

Additionally, obese participants tended to have less education and lower annual incomes than normal weight respondents. They also were more likely to view their community as unpleasant for physical activity, such as lacking sidewalks for walking or biking or to have few places to be active.

"Although obesity rates are higher in rural areas, this is one of the first studies to look at food choices and exercise in this population," says Alicia Casey, first author of the paper and now a doctoral student in health communications at Penn State University. "Determining how much these factors increase the risk of obesity in rural areas can help us determine methods to help this group."

Brownson points out that a lot of travel planning focuses on how to increase the numbers of automobiles on our roadways, not on how to make travel friendly by foot or bicycle.

Possible interventions to enhance safety for people who want to walk or bicycle along rural roads include widening the shoulders, using signage to identify pedestrian and cycle areas and reducing speed limits. Options to increase availability and affordability of healthy foods could involve working with food outlet owners and changes in state or federal taxation and agricultural policies to reduce the relative price of healthy foods compared to unhealthy foods.

Society, Brownson stresses, will be better off finding ways to prevent obesity instead of trying to treat the condition. "We need to take these issues into account when we're making transportation and city planning decisions," he says. "Everyone will benefit if we make the healthy choice the easy choice."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=133837

Consumers Duped by "Healthy" Soft Drinks

It's about time somebody took action against soft drink manufacturers that are pawning their beverages off as health food, and that has happened in the form of a recently filed law suit that takes on Coca-Cola regarding what boils down to sugar water with a few useless vitamins thrown in to justify the excessive price. So basically what they are marketing is sweetened water (likely of a questionable source) with synthetic compounds they call "vitamins" that cannot be recognized and nutritionally utilized by the body anyway.

Corporations are very wily when it comes to marketing and consumer trends, and they know that people are becoming more educated about health and desire to make changes, although most have no clue where to begin. So, companies provide a slew of products that are "low-fat" or "diet" or "enriched" or "natural" (there are many "healthy" terms that are indiscriminately used) so that their customers can feel better about the things they are buying and consuming. In reality, as is the case in this situation, it is all about profit and the public is getting the wool pulled over their eyes. Let's hope that lawsuits such as these may continue to be publicized in the media and that the end result will be a dramatic shift in the way consumers view and understand the value of real food and nutritionally beneficial choices.


Coca-Cola Sued for Marketing Vitaminwater as Healthy
Center for Science in the Public Interest Claims Line's Labels, Ads are Misleading
By Ira Teinowitz and Natalie Zmuda Published: January 15, 2009

WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- A class action suit filed in California yesterday contends that Coca-Cola is illegally marketing its Vitaminwater line as healthy, and has in the process generated more than half a billion dollars in revenue.

The suit cites the labeling of Vitaminwater with flavors such as 'energy' and 'multi-v' as proof of its health claims.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest is one party to the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, that cites California consumer-protection laws and Coke's marketing of Glaceau Vitaminwater. The "defendant's advertising and marketing campaigns as well as its labeling of Vitaminwater deceptively promote VitaminWater as a healthy alternative to soft drinks," said the suit, which was filed by Reese Richman, a New York law firm.

"Vitaminwater is not a healthy beverage. Rather it is sugar water -- just like soft drinks -- with a few added vitamins," it further reads.

The suit cites the labeling of Vitaminwater with flavors such as "defense," "rescue," "energy" and "multi-v" as proof of its health claims. It contends that the claims allow Coke to sell a "healthy" product that contains the same level of sugar as a can of soda at a price premium to that of soft drinks.

The suit asks that California consumers of Vitaminwater since 2005 be awarded actual and punitive damages.

No negotiations
At a press conference today in Washington, CSPI leader Steve Gardner said the group hadn't negotiated with Coke because it hadn't had much success in negotiating on other cases with the company. "It's is really shocking that a company like Coca-Cola feels the need to market a soft drink as a vitamin pill to hide the fact it is really sugar water," he said.

Diana Garza Ciarlante, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman, called the suit and charges "ludicrous."

"Glaceau Vitaminwater is clearly and properly labeled and shows the amount of vitamins and calories in the product," she said. "Consumers today are savvy, educated and are looking for more from their beverages than just hydration. Many people know that they are not receiving adequate nutrients from their diets, so they have turned to products like Glaceau Vitaminwater in order to help supplement what they are not receiving from the foods they eat," she said.

"This is not about protecting the public interest," added the spokeswoman. "This is about increasing the readership of CSPI's increasingly irrelevant newsletter."

http://adage.com/print?article_id=133810

Quality Sleep Helps Prevent Colds

We have often discussed on this blog the fact that plenty of consistent quality sleep is one of the key lifestyle choices that lead toward wellness, and a newly released study now provides more scientific evidence as to why this is true. It appears, at least according to this research, that the quality of sleep is even more important than the overall amount.

During the winter months, when viruses that cause colds and flu are more abundant, it is especially critical to take care of ourselves, and good sleep will bring vitality to the immune system and allow the body to function at optimal levels in other areas too, such as ridding itself of toxins and waste products. This also helps us fight off disease of all kinds, and helps to strengthen and repair all systems of the body. Look on your rest at night as "down time" for your body, when daily maintenance can occur that is a foundation for health and vitality.


Good Night's Sleep Puts Colds to Bed
Sleeping 7 or More Hours a Night May Help Prevent the Common Cold
By Jennifer WarnerWebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Jan. 12, 2009 -- Getting a good night's sleep may be one of the best ways to prevent the common cold.

A new study shows that people who sleep less than seven hours per night are three times more likely than those who sleep at least eight hours to catch a common cold after being exposed to a cold-causing virus.

Researchers say it's been commonly thought that poor sleep increases your chances of coming down with the common cold, but until now there has been little scientific evidence to support that notion.

Sleep Fights Colds

In the study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers studied 153 healthy men and women. Each of the participants kept track of their sleeping habits for 14 days, noting how long and how well they slept the previous night as well as whether they felt rested.

After 14 days, the participants were quarantined, given nasal drops containing a cold-causing virus (rhinovirus), and monitored for five days for signs of a common cold.

The results showed that those who slept an average of less than seven hours per night were nearly three times more likely to develop a common cold than those who reported eight or more hours per night in the weeks leading up to the experiment.

Quality, Not Quantity Matters

But it wasn't just about how much time they were spending in bed. Researcher Sheldon Cohen, PhD, of Carnegie Mellon University, and colleagues found the percentage of time spent actually asleep was especially important.

For example, those who spent 92% of their time in bed asleep were five and a half times more likely to develop a common cold than those who spent 98% or more of their time in bed sleeping.

Feeling rested, however, was not associated with getting a cold.

Researchers write that "these results strongly suggest the possibility of sleep playing a causal role in cold susceptibility."

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20090112/good-nights-sleep-puts-colds-to-bed?print=true

Add Sesame Seeds for Flavor and Nutrition

Looking for something different to spice up some of your favorite healthy recipes? Today's article discusses the joys and benefits of consuming sesame seeds. As the author points out, be sure to find a source of fresh, organic seeds that have been properly stored to retain nutrition and prevent rancidity. It is also important to use raw sesame seeds, as any cooking or other processing tends to lessen or destroy the nutritional benefits of most foods, including these tasty seeds.

Seeds and nuts, in their raw natural state are some of the best super foods we can eat. They contain many compounds that are highly beneficial to the body. It is critical to include a generous amount of raw foods, including seeds, nuts, sprouts, and organic fruits and vegetables in our diets every day. These types of foods are truly the "stuff of life," and will help our bodies to obtain optimal nutrition and strengthen our immune systems to ward off disease through preventative measures that will naturally occur if we are given the proper building blocks.


Sesame seeds loaded with nutrition
By Jill Wendholt Silva
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted: 01/13/2009 11:17:03 AM PST

Look for sesame seeds in the American diet and you're most likely to find them as an edible decoration sprinkled on a hamburger bun. But the tiny ivory-colored seed may actually be one of the oldest condiments and one of the most nutritious seeds known to man.

A native of Asia, the nutty, slightly sweet seeds were first brought to the United States by African slaves who called them "benne." Once grown in the South Carolina and Georgia Low Country, the seed eventually became a popular ingredient in Southern cooking.

Sesame seeds are high in heart-healthy monounsaturated fats, minerals such as copper, manganese and calcium, as well as a host of disease-fighting phytonutrients.

They also contain sesaminol compounds, the precursors to lignins, phytoestrograns that are under study for their possible anti-cancer and cardioprotective powers.

Sesame seeds also contain zinc, a mineral that ensures bone health and improves the immune system and reproductive health.

Sesame seeds can be used as breading for any kind of fried or baked protein.

Storage tip: Sesame seeds contain plenty of oil, so to avoid rancidity, store in an airtight container in a cool dry place for up to 3 months or refrigerated for up to 6 months.

Pump it up: According to "The Family Nutrition Book" (Little Brown) by William Sears, sesame seeds are so small they tend to pass through the intestines largely undigested. To release the nutrition inside the seeds, he advises grinding them into a meal. Add the seed meal to the breading mixture. If you like, add whole seeds as a garnish as well.

Tidbit: A 2006 study in the Journal of Nutrition found that eating 3 tablespoons of ground sesame seeds a day reduced cholesterol levels in post-menopausal women.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/bay-area-living/ci_11443539

Grape Seed Extract vs. Cancer: New Supporting Research

The article below highlights a study conducted by a conventional medicine organization that lauds the cancer-fighting benefits of grape seed extract. It is encouraging to see this material published, and such information is a real shot in the arm for the legitimacy of nutritional therapies in the eyes of the mainstream medical community.

The findings alone are significant, but as an added bonus, the article also makes mention of the value of natural compounds found in fruits and vegetables for preventing and treating cancer and other diseases. But, lest they get too enthusiastic about nutritional therapies, the authors hasten to add that people should not get carried away eating all this "good stuff" as nothing has yet been "proven." I also found it interesting that the researchers discovered that grape seed extract kills only diseased cells, but leaves the healthy ones alone, something that cannot be said about many conventional cancer treatments such as chemotherapy. Perhaps studies such as this will help to turn the tide toward naturally occurring prevention strategies and away from the toxic use of drugs that expose patients to so many risky side effects and don't make them well to boot!


Grape Seed Extract Kills Laboratory Leukemia Cells, Proving Value Of Natural Compounds
31 Dec 2008

An extract from grape seeds forces laboratory leukemia cells to commit cell suicide, according to researchers from the University of Kentucky. They found that within 24 hours, 76 percent of leukemia cells had died after being exposed to the extract.

The investigators, who report their findings in the January 1, 2009, issue of Clinical Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, also teased apart the cell signaling pathway associated with use of grape seed extract that led to cell death, or apoptosis. They found that the extract activates JNK, a protein that regulates the apoptotic pathway.

While grape seed extract has shown activity in a number of laboratory cancer cell lines, including skin, breast, colon, lung, stomach and prostate cancers, no one had tested the extract in hematological cancers nor had the precise mechanism for activity been revealed.

"These results could have implications for the incorporation of agents such as grape seed extract into prevention or treatment of hematological malignancies and possibly other cancers," said the study's lead author, Xianglin Shi, Ph.D., professor in the Graduate Center for Toxicology at the University of Kentucky.

"What everyone seeks is an agent that has an effect on cancer cells but leaves normal cells alone, and this shows that grape seed extract fits into this category," he said.

Shi adds, however, that the research is not far enough along to suggest that people should eat grapes, grape seeds, or grape skin in excess to stave off cancer. "This is very promising research, but it is too early to say this is chemo-protective."

Hematological cancers - leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma - accounted for an estimated 118,310 new cancer cases and almost 54,000 deaths in 2006, ranking these cancers as the fourth leading cause of cancer incidence and death in the U.S.

Given that epidemiological evidence shows that eating vegetables and fruits helps prevent cancer development, Shi and his colleagues have been studying chemicals known as proanthocyanidins in fruits that contribute to this effect. Shi has found that apple peel extract contains these flavonoids, which have antioxidant activity, and which cause apoptosis in several cancer cell lines but not in normal cells. Based on those studies, and findings from other researchers that grape seed extract reduces breast tumors in rats and skin tumors in mice, they looked at the effect of the compound in leukemia cells.

Using a commercially available grape seed extract, Shi exposed leukemia cells to the extract in different doses and found the marked effect in causing apoptosis in these cells at one of the higher doses. They also discovered that the extract does not affect normal cells, although they don't know why.

The researchers then used pharmacologic and genetic approaches to determine how the extract induced apoptosis. They found that the extract strongly activated the JNK pathway, which then led to up-regulation of Cip/p21, which controls the cell cycle.

They checked this finding by using an agent that inhibited JNK, and found that the extract was ineffective. Using a genetic approach - silencing the JNK gene - also disarmed grape seed extract's lethal attack in leukemia cells.

"This is a natural compound that appears to have relatively important properties," Shi said.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=134016

Will Obama Take on Big Pharma?? Maybe Not.

As we fast approach the beginning of the Obama administration, it is interesting to watch his team develop. You can tell a lot about a politician by the caliber of people he surrounds himself with. The opinion piece featured today makes it painfully clear that Obama's choice for Surgeon General, a key post that influences many aspects of the health industry, is the same ol' same ol' -- business as usual.

With the cost of healthcare continuing to skyrocket, even those with insurance are straining their budgets between premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Even sadder is the fact that most of the "care" offered only throws dangerous drugs -- another added expense -- at symptoms, rather than addressing issues through lifestyle changes that lead toward wellness and prevent disease.

If the government won't change their ways, perhaps we should rethink our own choices. Consider purchasing a catastrophic insurance policy that will keep you from bankruptcy if you experience a major medical event. Then invest what you were spending on other insurance costs into nutritious, organic food and natural supplements along with finding a healthy diet that will help your body to balance in a natural way. It is also wise to establish a working relationship with a natural-minded healthcare practitioner that can help educate and coach you toward wellness. It is time to take personal responsibility for the health of ourselves and our families.


Here We Go: Obama Wants CNN Doctor Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, January 6, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama's choice for U.S. Surgeon General is reportedly CNN journalist Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a pro-vaccine pusher with ties to Merck.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a strong proponent of the Gardasil HPV vaccine, and the television show he once hosted ("Accent Health") was primarily sponsored by Merck, makers of Gardasil.

Now he's poised to become the Surgeon General of the United States. Just what we need, huh? Another pill-pushing, vaccine-pimping Washington bureaucrat with ties to Big Pharma. I told you folks that Obama wasn't going to end Big Pharma's business as usual, and this vaccine-pumping choice for Surgeon General is a disturbing example of yet more pro-Pharma decisions to come.

So who should really be U.S. Surgeon General? Well Dr. Julian Whitaker, of course. His knowledge of nutrition and public health is vastly superior to that of Dr. Sanjay Gupta. But Dr. Whitaker would teach the American people how to cure diabetes, heart disease and cancer using nutritional therapies, and then the whole economy would collapse thanks to all the out-of-work disease industry doctors. So they can't let that happen, right?

Then again, Dr. Gupta is, indeed, a bonafide brain surgeon. That might come in handy in Washington, come to think of it. Maybe he can perform a little brain surgery on his fellow Washingtonian bureaucrats and find a way to restore the common sense they all apparently lost when they got elected.

Get ready for a whole new mandatory vaccination push under the Obama administration, folks. It's the same scam that's been running under the Bush Administration, but now it's going to be disguised as "public health policy." Yep, all those vaccines are President Obama's way of caring for the American people, didn't you know?

Big Business always wins in Washington. As long as the corporations are running the lawmakers and the politicians, the People are always going to lose. The only thing that changes is the face of the person fronting the scam -- and the name of the political party he belongs to. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter: Virtually all politicians secretly belong to the same, single party called the Big Business Party, and their decisions are made to please Big Business, not to protect the People.

You might as well start making your vaccination protest banners right now. With Gupta at the helm, America is going to be a whole new Vacci-Nation.

http://www.naturalnews.com:80/News_000649_Dr_Sanjay_Gupta_Obama_Surgeon_General.html

Vitamin D May Fight Pain and Fatigue

As we have discussed in previous posts on this blog, Vitamin D is one of the greatest nutritional tools our Creator has provided for us to flourish and prevent disease. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the world's population lacks sufficient amounts of Vitamin D, and it is a problem that typically worsens during the winter season. This recent study indicates "D" may help individuals with chronic pain and a lack of energy that accompanies many illnesses.

It is critical to get outdoors every day, if possible, even in the winter. It is thought that about 20 minutes per day of direct sunlight on as much of your body as possible will stimulate the body to produce enough "D" for most people's needs. (It will help to improve your mood too!) However, in many cases the use of a quality Vitamin D-3 supplement is also recommended. Vitamin D is not an optional nutrient. Our bodies need it to function properly and to stay well. Right now the USDA recommendation is too low to do much for the body.You can read more about the importance of Vitamin D-3 at: http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/vitamin-d3-articles.html


Chronic Pain and Fatigue Associated With Vitamin D Deficiency
by David Gutierrez, staff writer

(NaturalNews) People who are vitamin D deficient are more likely to suffer from chronic pain and fatigue, and those with the conditions may improve or even recover entirely when treated with vitamin D supplementation, according to a new study.

Researchers analyzed 22 clinical studies of patients with various kinds of chronic fatigue and pain, repeatedly finding that the conditions were correlated with vitamin D deficiency. Between 48 and 100 percent of those who had back pain, for example, had less than the 20 nanograms per milliliter that is considered an adequate blood level of the vitamin.

In one study, for example, 93 percent of those who suffered from chronic musculoskeletal pain turned out to be vitamin D deficient. A full 25 percent of participants turned out to have severe vitamin D deficiency, with blood levels of less than eight nanograms per milliliter.

Many of the studies found that vitamin D supplementation caused chronic fatigue and pain symptoms to vanish. In one study, for example, 95 percent of those treated with supplements for three months reported improvements in chronic back pain, including 100 percent of those who were severely deficient at the study's start."

Taken as a whole, the research evidence supports vitamin D supplementation as a potentially important therapy for helping to ameliorate muscle, bone, and joint aches and pains," said researcher Stewart B. Leavitt, editor of Pain Treatment Topics.

The researchers noted that vitamin D deficiency is widespread around the world and added their support to the growing sentiment that the current recommended daily amount of vitamin D (600 IU) are too low. Healthy adults should take 1,000 IU per day, they said, while those suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain should probably take 2,000. They emphasized that vitamin D supplements interact with very few drugs or other medical products, and are not harmful except in extraordinarily high doses.

Vitamin D can also be synthesized naturally by the body upon exposure to sunlight.

http://www.naturalnews.com:80/z025237.html

More Antibiotics? You Must be Kidding!

At first I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this story. Free antibiotics from a major grocery store chain? Even conventional medicine has recognized the dangers of the promiscuous use of these drugs and the hazards that can result. Where is the watchdog of our drug safety in America -- the FDA -- when a company comes up with a marketing ploy such as this? They get militant with anyone that dares discuss the benefits of natural foods or supplements, but yet allow the encouragement of these harmful drugs that, as the article points out, don't even effectively treat most of the ailments they are typically prescribed for.

Not only don't antibiotics help with viral ailments such as flu, colds, and others, but they actually weaken the body's ability to fight disease by compromising the balance of flora in the digestive tract where approximately 75% of the immune system is located. A better alternative is to take a quality probiotic product that boosts the number of "good" bacteria in the gut, thus strengthening the body and increasing its ability to absorb more nutrients from food as well. This plan to hand out antibiotics only encourages doctors to overprescribe and is one of the finest examples that I have ever seen of the pretzel logic that has long been the hallmark of Big Pharma and the FDA.


Antibiotics -- Even Free Ones -- Won't Cure Most Winter Ills
January 07, 2009 01:01 PM ET

The eastern seaboard will soon be awash in free antibiotics, as Wegmans yesterday announced the 72-store supermarket chain will make a 14-day supply of nine generic oral antibiotics available at no charge.

Giant Foods and Stop & Shop had already announced similar programs.

Wegmans says the program is aimed at helping people get through cold and flu season and will end March 31.

This is a nice public relations effort, and it is truly helpful for consumers who need these drugs. But the fact is that most wintertime ailments -- cold, flu, most sore throats, bronchitis, sinusitis -- are caused by viruses, not bacteria, and won't respond at all to antibiotics, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But doctors, pressed for time and perhaps not entirely certain that their patient's illness isn't caused by a bacterial infection, often go ahead and prescribe a course of antibiotics anyway. If the drugs are free, the temptation to prescribe is even greater. This can lead to a second problem: antibiotic resistance.

Overuse of antibiotics has led to an alarming growth in bacteria and other microbes that don't respond to the antibiotics that used to kill them. Antibiotic resistance is considered one of the world's most pressing public health problems.

Taking antibiotics when you don't need them may make your body resistant to antibiotics when you do, according to the CDC. If you've got a bug and your doctor says to let it run its course, do that instead of demanding antibiotics, even free ones.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2009/01/07/antibiotics_print.htm

Additional Hazards of Cigarette Smoke

The article featured today is pertinent to everyone, but may be of particular interest to individuals who suffer from allergies and asthma, or who are prone to chemical sensitivity. This research indicates that exposure to a building where smoking has occurred may result in toxic reactions due to the dust and chemicals that have accumulated.

This is especially important for anyone who is very sensitive to smoke and the many chemicals it contains or leaves behind. Smokers can apparently collect hazardous materials on their clothing, hair, and skin which can be toxic to others, especially children. Even when staying at a hotel, be sure to verify that your :non-smoking" room has truly never been smoked in. Some establishments may run an air purifier in a smoking room and pass it off as a non-smoking room when they need the space. Protect yourself from third-hand smoke!



Third-Hand Smoke Becomes Latest Cigarette Scare
Posted By MedHeadlines On 6 January, 2009 @ 6:26 In Children's Health, Medical Research,

Smoking cigarettes is a bad idea and medical science is continuously proving it's even worse than originally imagined. Science has proven that smoking often kills the smoker, by way of inhaled (first-hand) smoke. Second-hand smoking is both annoying and dangerous to anyone who, willingly or not, inhales the smoke of a nearby smoker. The medical journal, 'Pediatrics,' has now identified third-hand smoke and the health dangers it poses, especially to the very youngest non-smokers in a room.

Even when a smoker isn't actively smoking, toxic dust and dangerous volatile chemical compounds that filled the air while the cigarette was lit are still in the air. And what goes up, almost always comes down, settling onto furniture surfaces, flooring, and all other objects in the same room where the cigarette was smoked. It’s this residual contamination that is becoming known as third-hand smoke.

What makes third-hand smoke a particular concern is that it settles onto eating utensils and glassware that children eat and drink from, passing the toxins it contains on to the child. It also settles on children's food, toys, and everything else in the room, a particular concern for children who are learning to crawl along contaminated carpets, rugs, and smooth floorings and for everything a young child puts into his or her mouth.

Many parents are aware of the health risks to their children and pets when toxic lawn chemicals are used outside and a growing number of parents and pet owners have chosen to refrain from their use. In light of the 'Pediatrics' report on third-hand smoke, Joel Africk suggests concerned parents beware of the hazards of third-hand smoke with the same degree of vigilance with which they monitor lawn chemicals. Africk is president and CEO of the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago.

While noting the 'Pediatrics' study doesn't call for a legal ban on cigarette smoking in the privacy of one's home, he does urge parents to be aware of the hazards cigarettes cause to their children, even after the cigarette is extinguished and the smoke has cleared. According to Africk, it seems rather simple. He says, "if (parents) allow smoking in the home, it's going to hurt their children."

http://medheadlines.com:80/2009/01/06/third-hand-smoke-becomes-latest-cigarette-scare/print/

Babies at Risk from Melamine

Breastfeeding is clearly the safest, most nutritious way to feed your babies and provide the best building blocks for them to thrive. However, if you do choose to use formula, don't fall for the FDA's weak position on the risks of melamine in formula. The following article does an excellent job of detailing those risks and explaining why FDA cannot be trusted.

Melamine is toxic to all humans, but especially to infants whose bodily systems are not yet fully developed. As the article points out, consuming farm-raised fish, especially from China, is also particularly risky due to the toxins, such as melamine and others, in their feed. Once again, FDA honchos have made a decision to not ruffle the feathers of the food industry, and in the process have put the welfare of us and our children in peril.


FDA Claims Toxin in Infant Formula is No Big Deal
According to the FDA, levels of melamine found in a sample of U.S. made infant formula do not pose a safety risk.

The agency detected trace amounts of the toxic chemical in a sample of Nestle Nutrition's Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron. Melamine was found in concentrations of 137 and 140 parts per billion. The FDA said that concentrations less than 1,000 parts per billion do not raise safety concerns, although earlier they had argued that no level of melamine was safe.

Agency testing also found cyanuric acid, a chemical relative of melamine, in a single sample of Mead Johnson's Enfamil Lipil with Iron.

Sources:
American Association for Health Freedom
MedPage Today December 1, 2008
Los Angeles Times December 24, 2008

Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This is another vivid example of how far off track the FDA has traveled from its roots as protector of public safety.

The article cites an especially flagrant violation of public trust in which the FDA outdid itself by

1) completely reversing its position on the safety of melamine in food products, and

2) risking the health of infants in the process.

The truth is that the FDA as it is currently structured is no longer able to protect you and your family. The FDA doesn't view you as its client. Drug companies have become the FDA's biggest client, and their interests come well ahead of yours.

Sadly, the risk of melamine is no longer contained to just milk products. In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, fish from China have also been found to be contaminated with this industrial chemical. China is the world's largest producer of farm-raised seafood, exporting billions of dollars worth of shrimp, catfish, tilapia, salmon and other fish. The U.S. imported about $2 billion of seafood products from China in 2007, almost double the volume of four years earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

According to industry experts and businesspeople in China, melamine has been routinely added to fish feed, to boost protein readings. What's worse, new research indicates that the flesh in fish that have been fed melamine still contains residues of the substance.

How Dangerous Is Melamine for Your Baby?

Melamine is a compound composed of nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. It began appearing in household goods and laminates in the late 1930's. When combined with formaldehyde and exposed to extreme heat, melamine forms into a moldable material that is virtually unbreakable once cooled.

Inside a human body, melamine combined with cyanuric acid forms into insoluble crystals in renal tubules, kidneys, the ureter, urethra or urinary bladder.

Babies who've been fed infant formula containing high concentrations of melamine have shown the following symptoms:

Unexplained fever arising from urinary tract infections
Unexplained crying in infants, especially when urinating, possible vomiting
Small amounts of blood in the urine
Acute obstructive renal failure
Pain on urinating, and passage of stones while urinating
High blood pressure
Edema
Pain over the kidneys

Keeping Your Baby Safe

Breastfeeding is without question the best way to keep your child safe from contaminants in commercial formula.

Beyond the concern for safety, there are so many other benefits to breastfeeding -- for both you and your baby -- it should be the option of choice whenever possible.

A very short list of some of the positive effects of breastfeeding your baby includes:

Reduced risk of heart disease for baby later in life
Higher intelligence
Reduced risk of obesity in teen years
Reduced womb-to-world trauma for newborns
Mothers who breastfeed return to pre-pregnancy weight faster

Is There a Safe Alternative to Breastfeeding?

Absolutely nothing beats breast milk as a nutritional and health resource for your baby. I can't stress it enough. There are at least 400 nutrients in breast milk that are not found in formula.

However, if for some reason you're not able to breastfeed, your next best option is to make a healthy infant formula using raw milk. You can find additional homemade formula recipes here.

Whatever you do, avoid infant soy formula. Unfermented soy is hazardous to your health, and soy formula is one of the worst foods you can feed to your baby.

http://articles.mercola.com:80/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/01/fda-claims-toxin-in-infant-formula-is-no-big-deal.aspx