The therapeutic value of owning a pet can be very significant, and relationships with animals can bring much pleasure and healing into our lives. However, our pets can be at risk for infections and disease just as we humans are. Today's article discusses some tips that can help you and your pet to stay well and avoid disease.
It is possible for animals to pass along disease to humans, and this is particularly an issue for individuals who have a compromised immune system or for young children whose immune systems are not yet fully developed. It is wise to be aware of some basic practices that will lessen the risk of illness for both you and your pets. Preventative health care is a wonderful philosophy to live by, and it can apply to your cat, dog, or other pets just as much as it much as it can to the rest of the family.
Deadly Diseases You Can Catch From Your Pet
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
By Jessica Ryen Doyle
Pets can serve as wonderful companions -- and owning one certainly has many physical and mental health benefits.
However, with the summer months upon us, it is likely your pets will be spending more time outdoors, leaving them prone to zoonotic diseases -- diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans.
A Corpus Christi, Texas, man and his daughter spent weeks in the hospital because of a diseased cockatiel bought from a PetSmart store, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by the man's family.
Joe De La Garza, 63, later died of psittacosis, KRIS 6 News reported.
"There have been over 250 zoonotic diseases identified," said Dr. Roger Mahr, past president of the American Veterinary Medical Association. "There is a particular focus on household pets."
They are definitely an area of concern. More than 60 percent of U.S. households have pets and the value of that companionship has been recognized.
Zoonotic diseases, which present themselves in the form of bacteria, viruses and fungal infections, can be transmitted from animals to humans four ways, Mahr said:
1. Direct contact with the animal or the animal's surroundings;
2. Oral ingestion of the animal's feces or things that have touched the animal's waste;
3. Aerosol contact, including contaminated droplets in the air such as when the animal sneezes or when a bird stirs up its feathers and/or waste from the cage and the human breathes it in;
4. Vector-borne transmission, including fleas, ticks and mosquitoes.
Mahr, a Chicago-area veterinarian, said the following are common diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans:
*Parasites. Internal parasites such as hookworms or roundworms can produce larvae, which can migrate through the human's body and go through various body organs, including the eyes or skin. External parasites include fleas and ticks.
*Rabies. Transmitted through the saliva of an animal, vaccines are available. Take precautions when you are around strange animals that could bite.
*Ringworms. A fungus that lives on the skin of dogs and cats, the spores can be transmitted from the body of the animal to the human through direct contact.
*Psittacosis. This is a bacterial infection that is frequently transmitted by birds. Usually, a bird with psittacosis will be asymptomatic, Mahr said. By the time a person has developed the disease, he or she will have respiratory flu-like symptoms. People might not realize their illness is life-threatening until it has already affected major organs like the heart, liver or kidneys, he added.
*Salmonella. "We hear about it in food," Mahr said, "but it's an intestinal bacteria that's also carried through feces, particularly in reptiles and amphibians." Mahr said parents should discourage young children from handling frogs and snakes.
*Leptospirosis. This is a bacterial infection transmitted by handling infected urine and then touching your mouth. A vaccine is available, Mahr said.
"The No. 1 way to prevent the transmission of these diseases is to wash one's hands," Mahr said. "Wash your hands before preparing food and after handling pets, especially after cleaning up their waste -- even if you are just cleaning their cage or handling their bedding."
Besides hand-washing, Mahr suggested these tips to prevent transmission of zoonotic diseases:
*Make sure your pet has regular veterinary check-ups and receives the necessary vaccinations and preventative medications;
*Clean up litter boxes and waste in the yard immediately after the pet relieves itself;
*Wear gloves when cleaning up any waste material and when cleaning your fish tank;
*Avoid walking your pet in wooded areas where ticks and mosquitoes live, or areas where rodents and raccoons may be; they carry diseases, too;
*Check your pet on a regular basis for parasites, particularly after it has been outside;
*Avoid letting your pet lick your face. Animals have bacteria and sometimes yeast infections that live in their mouths. For children or people with suppressed immune systems, this can be especially dangerous;
*Be careful of cat scratches. Cats can carry bacteria on their paws and nails.
Mahr cautioned that if a pet is coughing persistently or has diarrhea, it shoud be taken to the veterinarian immediately. These can be symptoms of zoonotic diseases.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,368502,00.html
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The World According to Monsanto
Today's post is a video of an investigative film that documents some very disturbing information regarding the activities of one of the worlds largest international mega corporations. Monsanto has a long history of being controversial, including a track record of covering up and lying about known safety hazards related to their products. In recent years they have been pioneers in the bio-engineering field, and are heavily involved in the trend towards GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in the food supply. This video highlights much of the company's sordid past, as well as some of the dangers, known and unknown, of their current business interests centered around the development and sale of GMOs.
There is much to be alarmed about in this report, but one of the most upsetting factors involves a governmental, legal, and civil system that protects a corporation such as Monsanto rather than being an advocate for the health and safety of the public. Under such conditions, lying about the hazards of the products a company produces becomes a good business decision simply because the amount of money that can be made far outweighs any penalties that may be assessed if they are caught. This has led to the destruction of many lives in the past, and will continue to enable such shameful activities by companies like Monsanto until this travesty of justice is remedied.
Education is our most powerful tool when it comes to exposing the parties involved in such corruption, so I hope you will take the time to watch this video in its entirety, and share it with as many people as possible. The integrity of the food supply for future generations is at stake.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
WARNING: Beware of Chemical Exposure in Your Bathroom
New research is now indicating that millions of plastic shower curtains sold in this country may be making your bath an even more toxic place than it typically already is. Between cleaning and personal care products laced with dangerous chemicals, water treated with fluoride, chlorine, and other poisons, and now the hazards of PVC shower curtains, your daily shower may be exposing your family to a slew of health risks.
As stated in the article below, there are alternatives to a PVC shower curtain, and you would do well to invest in one. Another key step is to eliminate hazardous cleaning and care products. It is also advisable to install a water filtration system that will eliminate toxins from the water supply. The heat and humidity in a bathroom only exacerbate the problems of air and water quality. Protect your lungs, skin, and overall health by taking these suggested steps for safety.
We live in a very toxic society. Becoming aware of environmental pollutants and toxins is imperative toward good health and well-being. However, it could actually be life-saving for those fighting disease or illness.
PVC shower curtains harmful to your health
By MIke Dias
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:03:53 PM
If you're you have plans to purchase PVC shower curtain anytime from now, you might want to think again. An environmental organization has discovered that this type of curtain may pose a risk to your health because it emits a large number of toxic compounds.
Last week, the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) , a U.S non-profit organization based out of Falls Church, VA which is dedicated to protecting communities from exposure to dangerous environmental chemicals, in the air, water and soil, published a report indicating that polyvinyl chloride curtains release a variety of harmful chemicals when newly unpacked and used, at least for the first month.
The PVC shower curtains are not just sold in one or two small corner stores in your neighbourhood. These products retail from many if not all national major outlets such as Wal-Mart, Target and Sears and could affect millions of people in the United States.
The title of the report: "Volatile Vinyl -- The New Shower Curtain's Chemical Smell" may be deemed alarmist by some sceptical critics, but its content should be nothing to ignore. The 44-page report summarizes a two-part study carried out on plastic shower curtains purchased from Bed Bath and Beyond, Kmart, Sears, Target and Wal-Mart. The report provides some detailed insight into the nature of this type of curtains and lists the various chemicals and harmful elements contained which can be dangerous to our health.
For further clarification, the PVC shower curtains were tested for two things, the concentrations of chemicals involved in the make-up of these curtains and the volatile organic compounds (VOC) present when unpacked. These volatile organic compounds are released into the atmosphere after these curtains are unpacked and hung up.
The study showed the curtains released over 108 VOCs over a 28-day period. Twenty-eight days later 4 VOCs were still able to be detected in the air. These organic compounds have been linked to diseases such as cancer, and reproductive toxicity and they are also known to cause conditions such as kidney and liver damage as well as damage to the central nervous system and other important parts of the body.
The test meant to determine the chemical make-up of the PVC curtains found some worrisome chemicals including phthalates, which have been associated with reproductive problems such as shortened pregnancy duration in women and premature breast development in girls. These chemicals can also cause damage to sperm and other male reproductive functions.
The study also found that high heat and humidity promoted the release of these dangerous chemicals from the shower curtains.
Some skeptic scientists disagree with the report published and even the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has refused to ban PVC shower curtains despite the complaints of the CHEJ and the fact that 7 of the chemicals found in the study have been listed as hazardous air pollutants by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The level of VOCs present in the curtains is 16 times higher than the recommended guidelines for indoor air quality as stipulated by the U.S Green Building Council and Washington State Indoor Air Quality Program.
Certain retailers have commenced plans to phase out PVC shower curtains but their efforts haven't been an outright and immediate ban. IKEA however has engaged in major steps to drop such curtains in favour of alternatives which are viewed as much more environmentally friendly.
Despite all the pussyfooting and apparent delays by the bureaucracy to give a final verdict on the issue, consumers are launching into action with various efforts condemning the use of PVC shower curtains and demanding that they be banned.
PVC is one of the most used forms of plastic in the world so it is apparent why there seems to be some hesitation to launch a full-scale ban on such products by the government, the economic and financial factors also have to be considered as well.
For individuals who are more concerned about their safety than what the government intends to do now or in the future, the best thing for them to do would be to replace their PVC shower curtains with options which are much more environmentally friendly such as the ethylene vinyl acetate shower curtains which are stocked by a number of major retailers in the United States and all over the globe as well.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/M_edicare_54/061612032008_PVC_shower_curtains_harmful_to_your_health_printer.shtml
As stated in the article below, there are alternatives to a PVC shower curtain, and you would do well to invest in one. Another key step is to eliminate hazardous cleaning and care products. It is also advisable to install a water filtration system that will eliminate toxins from the water supply. The heat and humidity in a bathroom only exacerbate the problems of air and water quality. Protect your lungs, skin, and overall health by taking these suggested steps for safety.
We live in a very toxic society. Becoming aware of environmental pollutants and toxins is imperative toward good health and well-being. However, it could actually be life-saving for those fighting disease or illness.
PVC shower curtains harmful to your health
By MIke Dias
Jun 16, 2008 - 12:03:53 PM
If you're you have plans to purchase PVC shower curtain anytime from now, you might want to think again. An environmental organization has discovered that this type of curtain may pose a risk to your health because it emits a large number of toxic compounds.
Last week, the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) , a U.S non-profit organization based out of Falls Church, VA which is dedicated to protecting communities from exposure to dangerous environmental chemicals, in the air, water and soil, published a report indicating that polyvinyl chloride curtains release a variety of harmful chemicals when newly unpacked and used, at least for the first month.
The PVC shower curtains are not just sold in one or two small corner stores in your neighbourhood. These products retail from many if not all national major outlets such as Wal-Mart, Target and Sears and could affect millions of people in the United States.
The title of the report: "Volatile Vinyl -- The New Shower Curtain's Chemical Smell" may be deemed alarmist by some sceptical critics, but its content should be nothing to ignore. The 44-page report summarizes a two-part study carried out on plastic shower curtains purchased from Bed Bath and Beyond, Kmart, Sears, Target and Wal-Mart. The report provides some detailed insight into the nature of this type of curtains and lists the various chemicals and harmful elements contained which can be dangerous to our health.
For further clarification, the PVC shower curtains were tested for two things, the concentrations of chemicals involved in the make-up of these curtains and the volatile organic compounds (VOC) present when unpacked. These volatile organic compounds are released into the atmosphere after these curtains are unpacked and hung up.
The study showed the curtains released over 108 VOCs over a 28-day period. Twenty-eight days later 4 VOCs were still able to be detected in the air. These organic compounds have been linked to diseases such as cancer, and reproductive toxicity and they are also known to cause conditions such as kidney and liver damage as well as damage to the central nervous system and other important parts of the body.
The test meant to determine the chemical make-up of the PVC curtains found some worrisome chemicals including phthalates, which have been associated with reproductive problems such as shortened pregnancy duration in women and premature breast development in girls. These chemicals can also cause damage to sperm and other male reproductive functions.
The study also found that high heat and humidity promoted the release of these dangerous chemicals from the shower curtains.
Some skeptic scientists disagree with the report published and even the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has refused to ban PVC shower curtains despite the complaints of the CHEJ and the fact that 7 of the chemicals found in the study have been listed as hazardous air pollutants by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The level of VOCs present in the curtains is 16 times higher than the recommended guidelines for indoor air quality as stipulated by the U.S Green Building Council and Washington State Indoor Air Quality Program.
Certain retailers have commenced plans to phase out PVC shower curtains but their efforts haven't been an outright and immediate ban. IKEA however has engaged in major steps to drop such curtains in favour of alternatives which are viewed as much more environmentally friendly.
Despite all the pussyfooting and apparent delays by the bureaucracy to give a final verdict on the issue, consumers are launching into action with various efforts condemning the use of PVC shower curtains and demanding that they be banned.
PVC is one of the most used forms of plastic in the world so it is apparent why there seems to be some hesitation to launch a full-scale ban on such products by the government, the economic and financial factors also have to be considered as well.
For individuals who are more concerned about their safety than what the government intends to do now or in the future, the best thing for them to do would be to replace their PVC shower curtains with options which are much more environmentally friendly such as the ethylene vinyl acetate shower curtains which are stocked by a number of major retailers in the United States and all over the globe as well.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/M_edicare_54/061612032008_PVC_shower_curtains_harmful_to_your_health_printer.shtml
Monday, June 16, 2008
Grape Juice Bolsters Memory
If you have forgotten to drink your grape juice lately, perhaps you should up the dosage. Recent research indicates this beverage that is so rich in phytonutrients, antioxidants, and other natural substances may be the latest "brain food" discovery as well. This particular study documents the effects of grape juice on elderly people, citing improvements in several areas of cognitive thinking in those who included grape juice in their diets.
It is wise to make sure that the grape juice you are consuming is organic. Several quality companies bottle organic Concord grape juice. Remember that it doesn't take a huge amount -- usually 1 cup two-times daily for those who are experiencing memory concerns. For those that are healthy, 1/2 cup daily is a good preventative amount.
If the use of grape juice and other fruits, vegetables, and whole foods can have a significant effect on senior citizens, a lifestyle that incorporates such foods from an early age must have an even greater influence on wellness. Studies such as these should encourage us to mentor and coach the next generation, primarily through leading by example, as to how important it is to eat well. Modeling healthy lifestyle choices at home is the best way to combat all the negative nutritional messages we are bombarded with every day in the media. Learning about how to cook and eat well is a wonderful project that is educational and fun, and can include family members of all ages.
Pilot Study Showed Improved Memory Skills in Older Adults with Early Memory Decline
CONCORD, Mass., June 2 /PRNewswire/ -- As America's baby boomers continue to age, the number of people 65 years of age and older is expected to double to 70 million by 2030. As such, age-related cognitive decline and incidence of chronic conditions, including Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes and cancer, is on the rise. Research supports that good nutrition -- particularly a diet including phytonutrient-rich fruits, vegetables and their juices -- plays an important role in the aging process and may help slow and possibly even reverse age-related physical and mental declines.
Results from a recent pilot human study suggest that including Concord grape juice in the diet may provide benefit for older adults with early memory decline. This study represents the first placebo-controlled human study to investigate whether regular consumption of a polyphenol-rich food or beverage could have beneficial effects against age-related cognitive decline.
The results were presented at the 38th annual scientific meeting of the American Aging Society in Boulder, Colo., May 30-June 2, 2008. The study, led by Robert Krikorian, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, included 12 adults with early memory decline. Participants drank a total of 15 to 21 ounces, depending on body weight, of either Concord grape juice or placebo daily, divided among meals, for a 12- week period. The beverages were equal in calorie and sugar content but only the Concord grape juice contained natural polyphenolic compounds, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Participants who drank the Concord grape juice showed significant improvement in list learning and trends suggested improved short-term retention and spatial memory.
According to Dr. Krikorian, "These results with Concord grape juice are very encouraging and certainly warrant additional study. A simple, easy-to- incorporate dietary intervention that could improve or protect memory function, such as drinking Concord grape juice daily, may be beneficial for the aging population."
Study collaborators included Tiffany Nash and Marcelle Shidler from the University of Cincinnati as well as James Joseph and Barbara Shukitt-Hale from the USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University. Joseph and Shukitt-Hale's ground-breaking animal research has previously shown that supplementation of certain polyphenol-rich fruits and vegetables resulted in improved cognitive function in animal models. In fact, this human study was a natural next step based on their 2006 publication in Nutrition where they reported that polyphenol-rich Concord grape juice supplementation in the diet of aged rats resulted in beneficial effects on memory and cognitive function.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/drinking-polyphenol-rich-concord-grape-juice-may-improve-memory-in-older-adults,415257.shtml
It is wise to make sure that the grape juice you are consuming is organic. Several quality companies bottle organic Concord grape juice. Remember that it doesn't take a huge amount -- usually 1 cup two-times daily for those who are experiencing memory concerns. For those that are healthy, 1/2 cup daily is a good preventative amount.
If the use of grape juice and other fruits, vegetables, and whole foods can have a significant effect on senior citizens, a lifestyle that incorporates such foods from an early age must have an even greater influence on wellness. Studies such as these should encourage us to mentor and coach the next generation, primarily through leading by example, as to how important it is to eat well. Modeling healthy lifestyle choices at home is the best way to combat all the negative nutritional messages we are bombarded with every day in the media. Learning about how to cook and eat well is a wonderful project that is educational and fun, and can include family members of all ages.
Pilot Study Showed Improved Memory Skills in Older Adults with Early Memory Decline
CONCORD, Mass., June 2 /PRNewswire/ -- As America's baby boomers continue to age, the number of people 65 years of age and older is expected to double to 70 million by 2030. As such, age-related cognitive decline and incidence of chronic conditions, including Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes and cancer, is on the rise. Research supports that good nutrition -- particularly a diet including phytonutrient-rich fruits, vegetables and their juices -- plays an important role in the aging process and may help slow and possibly even reverse age-related physical and mental declines.
Results from a recent pilot human study suggest that including Concord grape juice in the diet may provide benefit for older adults with early memory decline. This study represents the first placebo-controlled human study to investigate whether regular consumption of a polyphenol-rich food or beverage could have beneficial effects against age-related cognitive decline.
The results were presented at the 38th annual scientific meeting of the American Aging Society in Boulder, Colo., May 30-June 2, 2008. The study, led by Robert Krikorian, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, included 12 adults with early memory decline. Participants drank a total of 15 to 21 ounces, depending on body weight, of either Concord grape juice or placebo daily, divided among meals, for a 12- week period. The beverages were equal in calorie and sugar content but only the Concord grape juice contained natural polyphenolic compounds, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. Participants who drank the Concord grape juice showed significant improvement in list learning and trends suggested improved short-term retention and spatial memory.
According to Dr. Krikorian, "These results with Concord grape juice are very encouraging and certainly warrant additional study. A simple, easy-to- incorporate dietary intervention that could improve or protect memory function, such as drinking Concord grape juice daily, may be beneficial for the aging population."
Study collaborators included Tiffany Nash and Marcelle Shidler from the University of Cincinnati as well as James Joseph and Barbara Shukitt-Hale from the USDA-ARS Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University. Joseph and Shukitt-Hale's ground-breaking animal research has previously shown that supplementation of certain polyphenol-rich fruits and vegetables resulted in improved cognitive function in animal models. In fact, this human study was a natural next step based on their 2006 publication in Nutrition where they reported that polyphenol-rich Concord grape juice supplementation in the diet of aged rats resulted in beneficial effects on memory and cognitive function.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/drinking-polyphenol-rich-concord-grape-juice-may-improve-memory-in-older-adults,415257.shtml
Friday, June 13, 2008
Attacks on Nutritional Supplements: Is There a Conflict of Interest?
The following story addresses a current issue that has huge implications regarding health freedoms in this country. Once again we see that the "fox is guarding the hen-house," so to speak. Big Pharma, the FDA, and other parties that do not want Americans to have free access to natural substances are working through the media to discredit vitamins, supplements, herbs, and even nutritional foods. We see the same old patterns at work, often involving inaccurate research studies that are purposely manipulated to show skewed results.
The goal of those carrying this agenda is to outlaw any substance or procedure that they consider to be in competition with pharmaceuticals and other conventional medical treatments. But even beyond that, there are some who would seek to keep "nutritionals" legal, but only allow those approved by the FDA to be sold.
Ultimately, those responsible would like to control all aspects of our lives, including the food supply and all of our health care options. If there were ever a time to start home gardening, that time is now. We cannot depend on others to provide the nutrition our bodies need any longer. It may come to the point that the only way to obtain real food and the natural benefits it provides is to grow it ourselves or network with others who have the same vision. Dangerous policies such as those supported by the powers that be may force people to go "underground" in order to avoid the effects of a government that seeks to protect and favor the pharmaceutical industry rather than to encourage true wellness and creative entrepreneurism when it comes to the health and welfare of its citizens.
The truth behind the headlines about antioxidants and vitamins
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) If you've been reading the health headlines in the mainstream media recently, you might have come to the conclusion that vitamins are the most dangerous thing you could possibly consume. Headlines declare antioxidants to be useless, vitamin C to be dangerous and vitamin E to be deadly! Nutrition, it seems, is suddenly under attack by the mainstream media, and if you believe all the headlines, you should probably flee from dietary supplements and start chugging prescription drugs as quickly as possible.
But what's really behind these scare tactics, and is there any real science backing the headlines appearing in the popular press? To answer this question, consider one highly-publicized example of a large antioxidant study (vitamins E and C) in women. A nine-year study followed more than 8,000 women to determine the effects of antioxidants in preventing heart disease. The study found a significant reduction in stroke (31 percent reduction) and heart attacks (22 percent) among those women who actually took the vitamins. But if you consider all the women who originally signed up for the study -- including those thousands who never took the vitamins -- it turns out the results show nothing substantial.
This all comes down to common sense. Of course you're not going to see positive results in women who didn't take the vitamins; nor would you see results from anything else (a drug, an herb, etc.) if the women didn't actually take that substance. And yet the mass media stories about the study all declare antioxidants to be useless because they are considering the measured results of all the women who didn't take the antioxidants. It's like taking a hundred cars that ran out of gas, filling up 40 of them with gasoline, then declaring that gasoline doesn't make cars run because 60 of them are still on empty.
It sounds absurd, I know, but it's only the beginning of this story: Time after time, medical researchers and the mainstream media seem to go out of their way to distort scientific studies and misinform readers about the usefulness of vitamins and dietary supplements.
Vitamin E will kill you! (And other media lies)
Another study publicized last year declared that vitamin E was deadly and would kill you with heart attacks and strokes. This particular meta-data analysis was based on synthetic vitamin E (a completely unnatural chemical made from petroleum derivatives), not the natural vitamin E that appears in nature. Furthermore, many of the study subjects were elderly patients suffering from heart disease, putting them at high risk for heart attacks from day one. When these patients started to die during the study, researchers declared, "The vitamin E killed them!"
Researchers also went to great lengths to cherry-pick studies that showed negative results for vitamin E, tossing out all the studies that showed positive results. This kind of subjective inclusion of clinical trials in a meta analysis is a classic sign of scientific fraud.
I know what you're thinking: Researchers are smarter than that. They wouldn't be so foolish as to count the results of people who didn't take the vitamins, or give supplements to the near-dead and blame their deaths on the supplements. But you might be assuming these researchers are operating with ethics in the first place, and experience tells us they're not. Many are recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants offered to them by drug companies. Their primary research (and revenue source) involves studying the effects of pharmaceuticals. Researchers who don't consistently "discover" positive effects for pharmaceuticals are eventually blackballed from the industry and find themselves jobless and unemployable. There's a tremendous amount of pressure applied to researchers to make sure they uncover findings that support the financial interests of the drug companies. Eight percent of all clinical trials funded by drug companies produce results that are favorable to the financial interests of those companies.
Similarly, there is also a lot of pressure to find something wrong with dietary supplements, herbs and nutrition -- precisely because such substances compete with pharmaceuticals. The more consumers take nutritional supplements, the less they need pharmaceuticals (because nutrition actually prevents disease and keeps you healthy), so one of the key ways to ensure a strong future market for pharmaceuticals is to discredit nutritional supplements and make people believe they're somehow dangerous.
The danger of pharmaceuticals
This is all quite laughable, given that prescription drugs are now the 4rd leading cause of death in America. FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are killing at least 100,000 Americans a year right now, and just one diabetes drug recently scrutinized for its health effects was reported by Dr. David Graham, a senior FDA drug safety researcher, to have likely killed more than 80,000 Americans! That's more Americans than died in the entire Vietnam War, and this is from but one drug.
Almost nothing is killing Americans faster than prescription drugs: Not terrorists, not war, not chemicals in the food, car accidents or drunk driving. Only cancer and strokes kill more Americans, and even in those cases, death is accelerated by the side effects of the pharmaceuticals used to treat those diseases (chemotherapy is especially toxic and causes tremendous harm to the liver, kidneys and brain). Pharmaceuticals are so universally dangerous to the health and safety of Americans that if they were herbs, they would have all been outlawed years ago.
And yet the mainstream media tries to distract the public and get people to focus on the dangers of vitamins instead. Vitamins have killed no one. No one ever died from taking natural vitamin E, or eating superfoods or ingesting vitamin-rich berries. In fact, nutritional supplements and superfoods greatly enhance human health, protecting you from disease and greatly reducing your risk of cancer, heart disease, depression, diabetes, obesity and many other common diseases.
It is a curious sign of the times that the mainstream media, which receives billions of dollars in advertising from drug companies, now finds itself in the business if misinforming Americans, trying to convince them that day is night, up is down, and nutrition is dangerous. War is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is tyranny. It's right out of the book 1984 by George Orwell, and sadly, it has become reality with the mainstream media today.
So don't be suckered by the headlines. Be a skeptical thinker, and consider who's funding these skewed studies that somehow keep inventing dangers associated with herbs or dietary supplements. Herbs, vitamins and superfoods are astonishingly safe, and yet pharmaceuticals are so dangerous that each year, they kill more Americans than would fit in a superbowl football stadium. Where's the news about all those deaths? Nowhere to be found. There are profits to protect and markets to defend. The people have to be kept ignorant of the true causes of health -- and taught to fear nutrition -- in order to keep the Big Pharma racket profitably rolling along.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023357.html
The goal of those carrying this agenda is to outlaw any substance or procedure that they consider to be in competition with pharmaceuticals and other conventional medical treatments. But even beyond that, there are some who would seek to keep "nutritionals" legal, but only allow those approved by the FDA to be sold.
Ultimately, those responsible would like to control all aspects of our lives, including the food supply and all of our health care options. If there were ever a time to start home gardening, that time is now. We cannot depend on others to provide the nutrition our bodies need any longer. It may come to the point that the only way to obtain real food and the natural benefits it provides is to grow it ourselves or network with others who have the same vision. Dangerous policies such as those supported by the powers that be may force people to go "underground" in order to avoid the effects of a government that seeks to protect and favor the pharmaceutical industry rather than to encourage true wellness and creative entrepreneurism when it comes to the health and welfare of its citizens.
The truth behind the headlines about antioxidants and vitamins
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) If you've been reading the health headlines in the mainstream media recently, you might have come to the conclusion that vitamins are the most dangerous thing you could possibly consume. Headlines declare antioxidants to be useless, vitamin C to be dangerous and vitamin E to be deadly! Nutrition, it seems, is suddenly under attack by the mainstream media, and if you believe all the headlines, you should probably flee from dietary supplements and start chugging prescription drugs as quickly as possible.
But what's really behind these scare tactics, and is there any real science backing the headlines appearing in the popular press? To answer this question, consider one highly-publicized example of a large antioxidant study (vitamins E and C) in women. A nine-year study followed more than 8,000 women to determine the effects of antioxidants in preventing heart disease. The study found a significant reduction in stroke (31 percent reduction) and heart attacks (22 percent) among those women who actually took the vitamins. But if you consider all the women who originally signed up for the study -- including those thousands who never took the vitamins -- it turns out the results show nothing substantial.
This all comes down to common sense. Of course you're not going to see positive results in women who didn't take the vitamins; nor would you see results from anything else (a drug, an herb, etc.) if the women didn't actually take that substance. And yet the mass media stories about the study all declare antioxidants to be useless because they are considering the measured results of all the women who didn't take the antioxidants. It's like taking a hundred cars that ran out of gas, filling up 40 of them with gasoline, then declaring that gasoline doesn't make cars run because 60 of them are still on empty.
It sounds absurd, I know, but it's only the beginning of this story: Time after time, medical researchers and the mainstream media seem to go out of their way to distort scientific studies and misinform readers about the usefulness of vitamins and dietary supplements.
Vitamin E will kill you! (And other media lies)
Another study publicized last year declared that vitamin E was deadly and would kill you with heart attacks and strokes. This particular meta-data analysis was based on synthetic vitamin E (a completely unnatural chemical made from petroleum derivatives), not the natural vitamin E that appears in nature. Furthermore, many of the study subjects were elderly patients suffering from heart disease, putting them at high risk for heart attacks from day one. When these patients started to die during the study, researchers declared, "The vitamin E killed them!"
Researchers also went to great lengths to cherry-pick studies that showed negative results for vitamin E, tossing out all the studies that showed positive results. This kind of subjective inclusion of clinical trials in a meta analysis is a classic sign of scientific fraud.
I know what you're thinking: Researchers are smarter than that. They wouldn't be so foolish as to count the results of people who didn't take the vitamins, or give supplements to the near-dead and blame their deaths on the supplements. But you might be assuming these researchers are operating with ethics in the first place, and experience tells us they're not. Many are recipients of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants offered to them by drug companies. Their primary research (and revenue source) involves studying the effects of pharmaceuticals. Researchers who don't consistently "discover" positive effects for pharmaceuticals are eventually blackballed from the industry and find themselves jobless and unemployable. There's a tremendous amount of pressure applied to researchers to make sure they uncover findings that support the financial interests of the drug companies. Eight percent of all clinical trials funded by drug companies produce results that are favorable to the financial interests of those companies.
Similarly, there is also a lot of pressure to find something wrong with dietary supplements, herbs and nutrition -- precisely because such substances compete with pharmaceuticals. The more consumers take nutritional supplements, the less they need pharmaceuticals (because nutrition actually prevents disease and keeps you healthy), so one of the key ways to ensure a strong future market for pharmaceuticals is to discredit nutritional supplements and make people believe they're somehow dangerous.
The danger of pharmaceuticals
This is all quite laughable, given that prescription drugs are now the 4rd leading cause of death in America. FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are killing at least 100,000 Americans a year right now, and just one diabetes drug recently scrutinized for its health effects was reported by Dr. David Graham, a senior FDA drug safety researcher, to have likely killed more than 80,000 Americans! That's more Americans than died in the entire Vietnam War, and this is from but one drug.
Almost nothing is killing Americans faster than prescription drugs: Not terrorists, not war, not chemicals in the food, car accidents or drunk driving. Only cancer and strokes kill more Americans, and even in those cases, death is accelerated by the side effects of the pharmaceuticals used to treat those diseases (chemotherapy is especially toxic and causes tremendous harm to the liver, kidneys and brain). Pharmaceuticals are so universally dangerous to the health and safety of Americans that if they were herbs, they would have all been outlawed years ago.
And yet the mainstream media tries to distract the public and get people to focus on the dangers of vitamins instead. Vitamins have killed no one. No one ever died from taking natural vitamin E, or eating superfoods or ingesting vitamin-rich berries. In fact, nutritional supplements and superfoods greatly enhance human health, protecting you from disease and greatly reducing your risk of cancer, heart disease, depression, diabetes, obesity and many other common diseases.
It is a curious sign of the times that the mainstream media, which receives billions of dollars in advertising from drug companies, now finds itself in the business if misinforming Americans, trying to convince them that day is night, up is down, and nutrition is dangerous. War is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is tyranny. It's right out of the book 1984 by George Orwell, and sadly, it has become reality with the mainstream media today.
So don't be suckered by the headlines. Be a skeptical thinker, and consider who's funding these skewed studies that somehow keep inventing dangers associated with herbs or dietary supplements. Herbs, vitamins and superfoods are astonishingly safe, and yet pharmaceuticals are so dangerous that each year, they kill more Americans than would fit in a superbowl football stadium. Where's the news about all those deaths? Nowhere to be found. There are profits to protect and markets to defend. The people have to be kept ignorant of the true causes of health -- and taught to fear nutrition -- in order to keep the Big Pharma racket profitably rolling along.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z023357.html
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Pain Pills Are Not "One Size Fits All"
Millions of people are given medicines that contain codeine every year, as it has become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs for pain here in the US. This addictive substance is often used to "treat" individuals with chronic pain, and in addition to the many hazardous side effects of codeine (it is particularly toxic to the liver), research now indicates that its effectiveness may vary greatly from person to person based partly on genetic and racial factors. It appears that certain people are at higher risk for dangerous side effects from codeine as well.
The widespread use of a drug like codeine is a perfect example of really bad medicine. I wonder how many people who are prescribed codeine are told that it is not a long-term answer for chronic pain, but in fact will introduce further health complications from ongoing use, and will do nothing to correct the issues that are causing the pain in the first place. Many doctors will write a script for codeine simply because chronic pain is such a common symptom in many of their patients and these physicians do not know what else to do or do not care enough to help these men and women who are trusting in them for a solution to find real answers to the underlying factors that are causing pain. I would venture to guess that a large percentage of individuals who are on codeine could greatly reduce their pain levels simply from shedding extra pounds and learning how to stretch and properly exercise their bodies. The tragedy is that once people begin to use a drug such as codeine, they lose what little impetus they may have left to get up and move in ways that will lead them towards wholeness. Instead of pursuing health and wellness, codeine users are often given a cocktail of added drugs to deal with the side effects, thus putting their systems even further out of balance.
If you suffer from chronic pain I encourage you to look into alternative ways of dealing with it rather than getting hooked on drugs. Many people are having great success with treatments such as massage, exercise, hydrotherapy, physical therapy, chiropractic care, bioelectric therapy, stress management, natural-foods based diet, and other options that will build you up instead of tear your body down through the use of pharmaceuticals.
Genetic Factors Affect Codeine's Work as Painkiller
Fri Jun 6, 11:47 PM ET
FRIDAY, June 6 (HealthDay News) -- The popular painkiller codeine can be ineffective or, worse, cause serious reactions if you are among those people whose bodies do not process the medication properly.
The liver converts codeine into morphine using the enzyme CYP2D6, a process that causes pain relief in most people. However, genetic differences in some people cause either too much or too little of the enzyme to be produced, resulting in less than pleasant results, reports Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy group, in its June Worst Pills, Best Pills newsletter.
People whose liver's produce higher than normal CYP2D6 levels convert more of the codeine into morphine -- a situation that could cause excessive sedation, severe constipation and other side effects. While this only occurs in about 4 percent of Caucasian North Americans, prevalence is much higher in people from Greece and Portugal (10 percent), Saudi Arabia (20 percent) and Ethiopia (30 percent).
People with less CYP2D6 find little or no relief from codeine, because the liver does not convert enough into morphine. This happens in about 6 percent to 10 percent of Caucasians, 3 percent to 6 percent of Mexican-Americans, 2 percent to 5 percent of African-Americans and about 1 percent of Asians.
"When one adds the number of people who are genetically deficient in CYP2D6 to the number of people taking medications that inhibit CYP2D6, it is clear that a significantly large group of people are at risk of a suboptimal response to codeine," Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said in a prepared statement.
Certain medications can also affect one's CYP2D6 activity. The enzyme's production is inhibited, for example, by: diphenhydramine, a common antihistamine sold over-the-counter as Benadryl; and quinidine, a medication used to treat abnormal heart rhythm and sold under the brand names Duraquin, Quinaglute, Dura-tabs, and Quinidex, the report said.
Testing one's CYP2D6 enzyme level is neither routinely available nor affordable, so patients taking codeine for the first time should use caution and watch for signs of an excessive response, such as sedation, respiratory depression and gastrointestinal effects, Wolfe said.
"All inadequate or excessive responses to this drug need to be reported to a physician," Wolfe said.
More information
The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about codeine.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080607/hl_hsn/geneticfactorsaffectcodeinesworkaspainkiller&printer=1;_ylt=AnU6i4fOgc3S7VfeMd3po3y9j7AB
The widespread use of a drug like codeine is a perfect example of really bad medicine. I wonder how many people who are prescribed codeine are told that it is not a long-term answer for chronic pain, but in fact will introduce further health complications from ongoing use, and will do nothing to correct the issues that are causing the pain in the first place. Many doctors will write a script for codeine simply because chronic pain is such a common symptom in many of their patients and these physicians do not know what else to do or do not care enough to help these men and women who are trusting in them for a solution to find real answers to the underlying factors that are causing pain. I would venture to guess that a large percentage of individuals who are on codeine could greatly reduce their pain levels simply from shedding extra pounds and learning how to stretch and properly exercise their bodies. The tragedy is that once people begin to use a drug such as codeine, they lose what little impetus they may have left to get up and move in ways that will lead them towards wholeness. Instead of pursuing health and wellness, codeine users are often given a cocktail of added drugs to deal with the side effects, thus putting their systems even further out of balance.
If you suffer from chronic pain I encourage you to look into alternative ways of dealing with it rather than getting hooked on drugs. Many people are having great success with treatments such as massage, exercise, hydrotherapy, physical therapy, chiropractic care, bioelectric therapy, stress management, natural-foods based diet, and other options that will build you up instead of tear your body down through the use of pharmaceuticals.
Genetic Factors Affect Codeine's Work as Painkiller
Fri Jun 6, 11:47 PM ET
FRIDAY, June 6 (HealthDay News) -- The popular painkiller codeine can be ineffective or, worse, cause serious reactions if you are among those people whose bodies do not process the medication properly.
The liver converts codeine into morphine using the enzyme CYP2D6, a process that causes pain relief in most people. However, genetic differences in some people cause either too much or too little of the enzyme to be produced, resulting in less than pleasant results, reports Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy group, in its June Worst Pills, Best Pills newsletter.
People whose liver's produce higher than normal CYP2D6 levels convert more of the codeine into morphine -- a situation that could cause excessive sedation, severe constipation and other side effects. While this only occurs in about 4 percent of Caucasian North Americans, prevalence is much higher in people from Greece and Portugal (10 percent), Saudi Arabia (20 percent) and Ethiopia (30 percent).
People with less CYP2D6 find little or no relief from codeine, because the liver does not convert enough into morphine. This happens in about 6 percent to 10 percent of Caucasians, 3 percent to 6 percent of Mexican-Americans, 2 percent to 5 percent of African-Americans and about 1 percent of Asians.
"When one adds the number of people who are genetically deficient in CYP2D6 to the number of people taking medications that inhibit CYP2D6, it is clear that a significantly large group of people are at risk of a suboptimal response to codeine," Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, said in a prepared statement.
Certain medications can also affect one's CYP2D6 activity. The enzyme's production is inhibited, for example, by: diphenhydramine, a common antihistamine sold over-the-counter as Benadryl; and quinidine, a medication used to treat abnormal heart rhythm and sold under the brand names Duraquin, Quinaglute, Dura-tabs, and Quinidex, the report said.
Testing one's CYP2D6 enzyme level is neither routinely available nor affordable, so patients taking codeine for the first time should use caution and watch for signs of an excessive response, such as sedation, respiratory depression and gastrointestinal effects, Wolfe said.
"All inadequate or excessive responses to this drug need to be reported to a physician," Wolfe said.
More information
The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about codeine.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080607/hl_hsn/geneticfactorsaffectcodeinesworkaspainkiller&printer=1;_ylt=AnU6i4fOgc3S7VfeMd3po3y9j7AB
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Hazards of Cancer Treatments in Children
Cancer is always a difficult diagnosis to handle, especially when it is found in a child. Decisions must be made regarding treatment, and parents are often put under the gun to move quickly. They are also commonly intimidated by medical authorities if they express any doubts about recommended therapies or lean towards alternative treatments. However, as the article posted below points out, there are very good reasons that parents should be wary of traditional cancer treatments such as chemo and radiation. These toxic procedures are particularly hard on the immature bodies of young children.
Parents who express concerns are often told that these treatments have evolved in recent years so that they are more effective and less toxic than back in the "old days." Unfortunately, this is not always true. Researchers in this study found that children who were most recently exposed to chemo and radiation had higher risk factors in some cases than those treated 30-40 years ago.
Whenever we receive medical treatments that have potentially dangerous side effects, the hazards may not surface for many years. What we or our children are exposed to today may result in dire consequences in the future. Unfortunately, when the medical establishment discusses cancer response rates and other statistics, they often do not factor in (usually intentionally) health hazards that typically appear after the time period they consider as a "cure" (commonly five years.) There are many reasons for this misinformation, one of the main being the financial implications that are at stake for the "cancer industry."
It is wise to establish a working relationship with a practitioner of natural medicine so that if the time ever comes when cancer must be dealt with, you have someone available to work with who can help you sort out your options during such a stressful time. Even more importantly, you can also get advice about developing a lifestyle that leads you towards wellness and will greatly reduce the risk of cancer and other debilitating diseases from ever occurring in the first place. Remember, prevention is by far the best treatment.
Study details heart problems after childhood cancer
Fri Jun 6, 1:22 PM ET
Survivors of childhood cancer who had aggressive chemotherapy are at increased risk of structural and functional heart problems, a new study indicates.
Both chemotherapy, especially with drugs called anthracyclines, and radiation to the chest are known to increase the risk of heart damage among childhood cancer survivors, Dr. Veronika Velensek of the University Children's Hospital Ljubljana in Slovenia and colleagues note.
To better understand the risk factors for cardiovascular disease among these patients, Velensek and her team performed a battery of tests of heart structure and function in 211 patients who had survived for at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer in childhood. All were treated between 1968 and 1998.
More than half (53 percent) had signs of heart damage.
Individuals treated most recently (1989-1998) were at greatest risk, the researchers found; nearly three-quarters of these patients had heart damage. These patients were all treated with intensive chemotherapy with several drugs, including high doses of anthracyclines, the researchers note.
Patients who underwent radiation were at increased risk of heart valve disease. Those treated for Hodgkin's disease between 1968 and 1988 were at greatest risk. "A possible explanation for this could be that in the time period higher doses of irradiation were used...older radiation therapy techniques were available and less effective shielding was used," the researchers write in the online medical journal BMC Cancer.
Patients who had received a large total dose of anthracyclines and were treated with drugs called alkylating agents at the same time were most likely to have systolic dysfunction, or problems with contraction of the heart's main pumping chambers, as well as enlargement of the chambers on the left side of the heart.
The researchers also found that 46 percent of the patients had below-normal exercise tolerance. While no specific type of treatment was linked to poor fitness, the researchers note, the fact that one third of the patients were sedentary and obese may have been a factor.
SOURCE: BMC Cancer, May 20, 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/hl_nm/childhood_cancer_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AlcT99tfsf0niT37lBXmRMQR.3QA
Parents who express concerns are often told that these treatments have evolved in recent years so that they are more effective and less toxic than back in the "old days." Unfortunately, this is not always true. Researchers in this study found that children who were most recently exposed to chemo and radiation had higher risk factors in some cases than those treated 30-40 years ago.
Whenever we receive medical treatments that have potentially dangerous side effects, the hazards may not surface for many years. What we or our children are exposed to today may result in dire consequences in the future. Unfortunately, when the medical establishment discusses cancer response rates and other statistics, they often do not factor in (usually intentionally) health hazards that typically appear after the time period they consider as a "cure" (commonly five years.) There are many reasons for this misinformation, one of the main being the financial implications that are at stake for the "cancer industry."
It is wise to establish a working relationship with a practitioner of natural medicine so that if the time ever comes when cancer must be dealt with, you have someone available to work with who can help you sort out your options during such a stressful time. Even more importantly, you can also get advice about developing a lifestyle that leads you towards wellness and will greatly reduce the risk of cancer and other debilitating diseases from ever occurring in the first place. Remember, prevention is by far the best treatment.
Study details heart problems after childhood cancer
Fri Jun 6, 1:22 PM ET
Survivors of childhood cancer who had aggressive chemotherapy are at increased risk of structural and functional heart problems, a new study indicates.
Both chemotherapy, especially with drugs called anthracyclines, and radiation to the chest are known to increase the risk of heart damage among childhood cancer survivors, Dr. Veronika Velensek of the University Children's Hospital Ljubljana in Slovenia and colleagues note.
To better understand the risk factors for cardiovascular disease among these patients, Velensek and her team performed a battery of tests of heart structure and function in 211 patients who had survived for at least five years after being diagnosed with cancer in childhood. All were treated between 1968 and 1998.
More than half (53 percent) had signs of heart damage.
Individuals treated most recently (1989-1998) were at greatest risk, the researchers found; nearly three-quarters of these patients had heart damage. These patients were all treated with intensive chemotherapy with several drugs, including high doses of anthracyclines, the researchers note.
Patients who underwent radiation were at increased risk of heart valve disease. Those treated for Hodgkin's disease between 1968 and 1988 were at greatest risk. "A possible explanation for this could be that in the time period higher doses of irradiation were used...older radiation therapy techniques were available and less effective shielding was used," the researchers write in the online medical journal BMC Cancer.
Patients who had received a large total dose of anthracyclines and were treated with drugs called alkylating agents at the same time were most likely to have systolic dysfunction, or problems with contraction of the heart's main pumping chambers, as well as enlargement of the chambers on the left side of the heart.
The researchers also found that 46 percent of the patients had below-normal exercise tolerance. While no specific type of treatment was linked to poor fitness, the researchers note, the fact that one third of the patients were sedentary and obese may have been a factor.
SOURCE: BMC Cancer, May 20, 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/hl_nm/childhood_cancer_dc&printer=1;_ylt=AlcT99tfsf0niT37lBXmRMQR.3QA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
