Today's post references an excellent article discussing the ridiculous and unsafe practice of fluoridating American drinking water. Fluoride is a toxic chemical that can adversely affect the nervous system, brain function (including intelligence), thyroid health, bone health, and a myriad of other bodily systems. This is particularly true for children, both born and unborn.
The ludicrous thing is that science has proven that fluoridated water is of no value to tooth health, but in fact leads to excessive fluoride levels and tooth damage. This is a classic example of many situations in modern conventional health care: The "cure" is worse than the "cause."
Fluoride is just one of many reasons why most public water is unsafe to drink. I recommend a high quality water purification system such as Wellness Filters for your home in order to protect your family from the hazards of chemical-laden drinking, cooking, and bathing water.
Fluoride Lowers IQ, Studies Show
Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a prominent fetal toxicologist said in a recent Canadian TV interview that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.
Dr. Howard, President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment and Senior Lecturer, Developmental Toxico-Pathology, University of Liverpool, England, made presentations at three Toronto Canada meetings - International Society of Fluoride Research, Fluoride Action Network and the Citizens for a Safe Environment.
Studies done in several countries show that children's IQ are likely to be lower in high natural water fluoride areas, said Howard. These studies are plausible because fluoride is known to affect the thyroid hormone which affects intelligence and fluoride is also a neurotoxicant, said Howard. Such studies have not been conducted in countries that artificially fluoridate the water such as the US, UK and Canada, but should be, he said.
"This new brain research together with the NRC's evidence of fluoride's thyroid and bone damage and the CDC's recommendation against use of fluoridated water in infant formula as well as the National Kidney Foundation's withdrawal of their fluoridation support makes a strong case for ending this 60-year-old fluoridation experiment." says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
Fluoride, added to water supplies ostensibly to prevent tooth decay, is also in virtually all US non-organic foods and beverages from pesticide residues and processing with fluoridated water.
"There have now been over 40 animal studies which show that fluoride can damage the brain, and no less than 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children, and only 2 that don't," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council's (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed recent fluoride toxicology and concluded, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
Michael Connett, FAN's Project Director co-authored a poster presentation at the International Association of Dental Research entitled, "Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence." which identified 20 ecological studies that purport an association between high fluoride exposure and decreased human intelligence.
"The weight of evidence that's on the table now says that, on a precautionary basis, we should stop this practice (fluoridation)," said Dr. Howard.
FAN is now working on getting an additional 7 Chinese studies published for the first time in English-language journals by the end of the year. These additional studies include two studies showing that fluoride can pass the placenta and damage the brain of the fetus, and 5 more studies finding a reduction in IQ among children exposed to excess fluoride.
"The Canadian Dental Association says there is no evidence to support the claims that fluoride in drinking water can lead to lower IQs," reported the Lethbridge Herald.
Here is the evidence: http://www.FluorideAlert.org/brain
The President of the Ontario Dental Association further displayed ignorance of current fluoride research, apparently widespread in the dental community, when he insisted in the CTV broadcast that ingested fluoride incorporates into children's developing teeth to prevent decay. That theory was discarded long ago in favor of science which shows fluoride decay-preventing properties occur by topical means alone.
A study by Yoder concluded, "The majority of dental professionals surveyed were unaware of the current understanding of fluoride's predominant posteruptive mode of action."
"No child is, or ever was, fluoride deficient. In fact, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control tells us that 1/3 of U.S school children are fluoride-overdosed causing dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. It's time to stop fluoridation," says Beeber.
http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=20080814_flouride_lower_iq_study.htm
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Statins + Obesity = Greater Risk for Prostate Cancer
It appears there's another fly in the ointment for Big Pharma's billion dollar baby --
statin drugs. A new study finds an alarming increase of prostate cancer in overweight men who use statins long-term, boosting rates by 80% for those taking these drugs for 5 years or more. If your doctor tries to put you on statins, please realize that there are many serious side effects associated with these drugs, and yet many people are prescribed them for life! Besides the dangers, they often don't work as advertised, and can in fact even worsen your risk for cardiovascular disease.
If you have abnormally high cholesterol or other indicators of arterial inflammation, there are many safer, more effective ways to regain your health. Some of these include dietary and supplemental therapies such as flaxseed (and oil), oatmeal, fish oil (high in omega-3 fatty acids), exercise, and other lifestyle choices that will lead you towards wellness and away from disease. Don't fall for the statin scam. They're a huge moneymaker for the pharmaceutical companies, but they are no friend to your health.
Prostate cancer risk increased in obese men: study
By Michelle Rizzo
Fri Aug 22, 2:17 PM ET
Use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, especially long-term use, appears to raise the risk of prostate cancer among obese men, according to findings of a new study.
"Given the epidemic of obesity in the U.S. and the frequent use of statins, the positive association we observed raises substantial concern as to the safety of these widely prescribed agents," Dr. Janet L. Stanford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and colleagues wrote in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
In a population-based, case-control study, the researchers matched 1,001 men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2002 and 2005 with 942 age-matched cancer-free controls from King County, Washington.
No overall association was observed between the risk of prostate cancer and the current or past use of statin treatment. Duration of statin use was also not associated with prostate cancer risk.
"We also found no evidence that use of a statin was associated with risk of developing more aggressive subtypes of prostate caner," Stanford said in an interview with Reuters Health. "Overall we found no support for the current hypothesis that statin use may reduce risk of prostate cancer."
However, the results do suggest a significant increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer associated with current statin use and with longer durations of use among obese men (defined as a body mass index of 30 greater).
"Among obese men," Stanford told Reuters Health, "current use of a statin was associated with a 50 percent increase in risk of prostate cancer; and use for 5 or more years was associated with an 80 percent increase in risk of the disease; both of these risk estimates were statistically significant."
These findings warrant further investigation, she said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080822/hl_nm/prostate_risk_dc&printer=1;_ylt=An_n7K0dzWY.qS4Q_PM7LCUR.3QA
statin drugs. A new study finds an alarming increase of prostate cancer in overweight men who use statins long-term, boosting rates by 80% for those taking these drugs for 5 years or more. If your doctor tries to put you on statins, please realize that there are many serious side effects associated with these drugs, and yet many people are prescribed them for life! Besides the dangers, they often don't work as advertised, and can in fact even worsen your risk for cardiovascular disease.
If you have abnormally high cholesterol or other indicators of arterial inflammation, there are many safer, more effective ways to regain your health. Some of these include dietary and supplemental therapies such as flaxseed (and oil), oatmeal, fish oil (high in omega-3 fatty acids), exercise, and other lifestyle choices that will lead you towards wellness and away from disease. Don't fall for the statin scam. They're a huge moneymaker for the pharmaceutical companies, but they are no friend to your health.
Prostate cancer risk increased in obese men: study
By Michelle Rizzo
Fri Aug 22, 2:17 PM ET
Use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, especially long-term use, appears to raise the risk of prostate cancer among obese men, according to findings of a new study.
"Given the epidemic of obesity in the U.S. and the frequent use of statins, the positive association we observed raises substantial concern as to the safety of these widely prescribed agents," Dr. Janet L. Stanford of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and colleagues wrote in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
In a population-based, case-control study, the researchers matched 1,001 men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2002 and 2005 with 942 age-matched cancer-free controls from King County, Washington.
No overall association was observed between the risk of prostate cancer and the current or past use of statin treatment. Duration of statin use was also not associated with prostate cancer risk.
"We also found no evidence that use of a statin was associated with risk of developing more aggressive subtypes of prostate caner," Stanford said in an interview with Reuters Health. "Overall we found no support for the current hypothesis that statin use may reduce risk of prostate cancer."
However, the results do suggest a significant increase in the risk of developing prostate cancer associated with current statin use and with longer durations of use among obese men (defined as a body mass index of 30 greater).
"Among obese men," Stanford told Reuters Health, "current use of a statin was associated with a 50 percent increase in risk of prostate cancer; and use for 5 or more years was associated with an 80 percent increase in risk of the disease; both of these risk estimates were statistically significant."
These findings warrant further investigation, she said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080822/hl_nm/prostate_risk_dc&printer=1;_ylt=An_n7K0dzWY.qS4Q_PM7LCUR.3QA
Monday, September 8, 2008
Medical Establishment Raising Concerns About Gardasil
Merck's HPV vaccine for cervical cancer is coming under scrutiny regarding its safety, effectiveness, and cost. An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine is questioning the legitimacy of the "science" behind the trial studies that were used to justify vaccinating pre-teen girls, a move that several state governments are considering making mandatory.
I find it amazing that it just two short years over 8 million young women have been inoculated with the HPV vaccine -- all because of very effective, yet misleading, marketing. These marketers understand that "fear" will get people to do just about anything, especially if that fear concerns their children.
As the article below and the Journal point out, there are clearly too many unanswered questions that raise red flags about the wisdom of these mass vaccinations, and many groups and individuals have been sounding the alarm. It is encouraging to finally see voices in conventional medicine speaking up about this debacle.
If your state requires these vaccines, be aware that you have the right to refuse to subject your children to this hazardous procedure. Vaccination options vary from state to state, but it would behoove you to investigate and learn how you can legally say no to Gardasil and protect your constitutional rights as well as the health and wellness of your children.
Researchers Question If HPV Vaccine Is Worth the Risk
Gardasil's High Cost and Effectiveness Come Under Fire
By SHARYN ALFONSI
Aug. 20, 2008
Sonya Sheehan's daughters are the picture of health, and she wants to keep it that way. As a nurse, Sheehan had her older daughter inoculated with Gardasil, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. She plans to give the shot to her 6-year-old in a few years, to protect her against cervical cancer.
Most medical organizations have strongly advocated using the HPV vaccine for girls 11 and 12 years old.
Merck, the maker of the vaccine, launched a massive and carefully targeted marketing campaign, where young women stand before the camera and declare with confidence, "I could be one less," woman to die of cervical cancer.
The commercials have caught the attention of parents, and in just two years, more than 8 million young women have been given a Gardasil shot.
Dr. Nathan Litman, Director of Inpatient Pediatrics at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, considers Gardasil a medical breakthrough.
"This vaccine should be able to prevent about 70 percent of cervical cancer," he said.
But, an editorial to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday outlined some serious concerns about the vaccine.
First, Gardasil's long-term effectiveness is unclear. Because cervical cancer takes years to develop, critics say the current information is insufficient to determine whether Gardasil works.
"The overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown," Dr. Carolyn J. Haug, the Journal of Norwegian Medical Association's editor, wrote in the New England Journal editorial. "The real impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer will not be observable for decades."
Gardasil is also expensive, costing about $400 to $1,000 for the necessary three doses of the vaccine. Studies have not proven how long the immunity will last and whether or not additional shots will be needed, which would raise the cost even higher.
And it's not a slam dunk. The vaccine only protects against some of the viruses that cause cervical cancer, so women still need regular pap screenings. And some doctors said that a traditional pap screen may be more effective.
These remaining questions have prompted some doctors to ask if it's worth it for girls to get vaccinated in the first place.
"Most of the information people have right now leads them to believe that if they're vaccinated with Gardasil, they're protected for life, and that's just not true," said Dr. Diane Harper of Dartmouth College.
There is also the issue of side effects. FDA records reveal that, since Gardasil's approval, nearly 9,000 girls had "bad health events" after receiving their shots. These included 78 reported outbreaks of genital warts, 18 deaths and six cases of Guillain Barre Syndrome, which can result in paralysis. It is unknown whether there are unseen side effects, like decreasing the body's ability to fight off other strains of the HPV virus.
Merck maintains that the vaccine is perfectly safe and effective.
"These reports are from conditions that have occurred following the vaccination," said Dr. Rick Haup, executive director of Merck research labs. "They do not necessarily mean they are causally related."
But, "with so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious," Haug wrote.
Virginia is set to require all young girls to get vaccinated before entering middle school this fall, and dozens of other states are considering whether to make the Gardasil shot mandatory for young women.
These lingering questions are sure to inject a new shot of concern into the debate.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5620282
I find it amazing that it just two short years over 8 million young women have been inoculated with the HPV vaccine -- all because of very effective, yet misleading, marketing. These marketers understand that "fear" will get people to do just about anything, especially if that fear concerns their children.
As the article below and the Journal point out, there are clearly too many unanswered questions that raise red flags about the wisdom of these mass vaccinations, and many groups and individuals have been sounding the alarm. It is encouraging to finally see voices in conventional medicine speaking up about this debacle.
If your state requires these vaccines, be aware that you have the right to refuse to subject your children to this hazardous procedure. Vaccination options vary from state to state, but it would behoove you to investigate and learn how you can legally say no to Gardasil and protect your constitutional rights as well as the health and wellness of your children.
Researchers Question If HPV Vaccine Is Worth the Risk
Gardasil's High Cost and Effectiveness Come Under Fire
By SHARYN ALFONSI
Aug. 20, 2008
Sonya Sheehan's daughters are the picture of health, and she wants to keep it that way. As a nurse, Sheehan had her older daughter inoculated with Gardasil, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. She plans to give the shot to her 6-year-old in a few years, to protect her against cervical cancer.
Most medical organizations have strongly advocated using the HPV vaccine for girls 11 and 12 years old.
Merck, the maker of the vaccine, launched a massive and carefully targeted marketing campaign, where young women stand before the camera and declare with confidence, "I could be one less," woman to die of cervical cancer.
The commercials have caught the attention of parents, and in just two years, more than 8 million young women have been given a Gardasil shot.
Dr. Nathan Litman, Director of Inpatient Pediatrics at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, considers Gardasil a medical breakthrough.
"This vaccine should be able to prevent about 70 percent of cervical cancer," he said.
But, an editorial to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday outlined some serious concerns about the vaccine.
First, Gardasil's long-term effectiveness is unclear. Because cervical cancer takes years to develop, critics say the current information is insufficient to determine whether Gardasil works.
"The overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown," Dr. Carolyn J. Haug, the Journal of Norwegian Medical Association's editor, wrote in the New England Journal editorial. "The real impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer will not be observable for decades."
Gardasil is also expensive, costing about $400 to $1,000 for the necessary three doses of the vaccine. Studies have not proven how long the immunity will last and whether or not additional shots will be needed, which would raise the cost even higher.
And it's not a slam dunk. The vaccine only protects against some of the viruses that cause cervical cancer, so women still need regular pap screenings. And some doctors said that a traditional pap screen may be more effective.
These remaining questions have prompted some doctors to ask if it's worth it for girls to get vaccinated in the first place.
"Most of the information people have right now leads them to believe that if they're vaccinated with Gardasil, they're protected for life, and that's just not true," said Dr. Diane Harper of Dartmouth College.
There is also the issue of side effects. FDA records reveal that, since Gardasil's approval, nearly 9,000 girls had "bad health events" after receiving their shots. These included 78 reported outbreaks of genital warts, 18 deaths and six cases of Guillain Barre Syndrome, which can result in paralysis. It is unknown whether there are unseen side effects, like decreasing the body's ability to fight off other strains of the HPV virus.
Merck maintains that the vaccine is perfectly safe and effective.
"These reports are from conditions that have occurred following the vaccination," said Dr. Rick Haup, executive director of Merck research labs. "They do not necessarily mean they are causally related."
But, "with so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious," Haug wrote.
Virginia is set to require all young girls to get vaccinated before entering middle school this fall, and dozens of other states are considering whether to make the Gardasil shot mandatory for young women.
These lingering questions are sure to inject a new shot of concern into the debate.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5620282
Friday, September 5, 2008
New Study Indicates Further Dangers of Conventional Hormone Replacement Therapy
Even the mainstream medical establishment has finally come around and admitted that the use of synthetic hormone replacement therapy in women is hazardous. They initially stated that the use of such drugs was only linked to increased risk of breast cancer in women using them for at least five years. However, new evidence indicates that shorter usage periods can significantly increase risk for certain types of cancers after only three years. It is obvious that the use of these artificial forms of hormones is not a good choice for health-conscious women, regardless of the length of exposure.
The "one size fits all" approach to hormonal balance that is the foundation of most HRT regimens is obviously a huge mistake. One of the concerns is that such therapies assume that all women are estrogen-deficient, despite the fact that this is typically not the case. The use of synthetic estrogen does help relieve some hormonal symptoms, but never gets to the root of the concern and in fact may cause more health concerns down the road. The use of a high-quality, natural hormone replacement product will address the problem of progesterone deficiency that is overlooked by conventional HRT, and will provide natural hormonal balance in a form that is gentle to the body, and easily recognized and assimilated for maximum safety and efficiency. There are many natural ways of dealing with hormonal changes. Do not be duped into thinking that the use of synthetic HRT, even for a short time, is necessary or safe, regardless of the advice of many well-meaning but misinformed healthcare practitioners.
Hormone Replacement Therapy Boosts Risk of Breast Cancer by 400 Percent
by David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases women's risk of lobular breast cancer by four times after only three years, according to a study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.
"Previous research indicated that five or more years of combined hormone-therapy use was necessary to increase overall breast cancer risk," said lead researcher Christopher Li of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. "Our study ... suggests that a significantly shorter length of exposure to such hormones may confer an increased risk."
Researchers suggested that the longer time period found in prior studies arose from the fact that those studies looked only at breast cancer in general, while the current study looked specifically at lobular cancers.
Lobular breast cancer accounts for approximately 10 percent of invasive breast cancers, while ductal breast cancer, in which tumors form in the breast's milk ducts, accounts for much of the rest.
In the current study, researchers questioned 1,500 post-menopausal women in western Washington about their use of HRT. Women who were currently taking HRT had three times the cancer rate as women who were not undergoing the therapy. Those who had been taking HRT drugs for three years or more had four times the risk.
The researchers noted that the occurrence of lobular cancer in the United States increased by 52 percent between 1987 and 1999, while the incidence of ductal-lobular cancer rose by 96 percent. In the same time period, the occurrence of ductal cancer rose by only 3 percent.
In 2002, the results of the Women's Health Initiative study first showed a link between HRT and increased breast cancer risk, leading to a sharp drop in the prevalence of HRT. Between 2001 and 2004, the researchers noted, breast cancer rates in the United States fell by 8.6 percent.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023893.html
The "one size fits all" approach to hormonal balance that is the foundation of most HRT regimens is obviously a huge mistake. One of the concerns is that such therapies assume that all women are estrogen-deficient, despite the fact that this is typically not the case. The use of synthetic estrogen does help relieve some hormonal symptoms, but never gets to the root of the concern and in fact may cause more health concerns down the road. The use of a high-quality, natural hormone replacement product will address the problem of progesterone deficiency that is overlooked by conventional HRT, and will provide natural hormonal balance in a form that is gentle to the body, and easily recognized and assimilated for maximum safety and efficiency. There are many natural ways of dealing with hormonal changes. Do not be duped into thinking that the use of synthetic HRT, even for a short time, is necessary or safe, regardless of the advice of many well-meaning but misinformed healthcare practitioners.
Hormone Replacement Therapy Boosts Risk of Breast Cancer by 400 Percent
by David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases women's risk of lobular breast cancer by four times after only three years, according to a study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention.
"Previous research indicated that five or more years of combined hormone-therapy use was necessary to increase overall breast cancer risk," said lead researcher Christopher Li of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. "Our study ... suggests that a significantly shorter length of exposure to such hormones may confer an increased risk."
Researchers suggested that the longer time period found in prior studies arose from the fact that those studies looked only at breast cancer in general, while the current study looked specifically at lobular cancers.
Lobular breast cancer accounts for approximately 10 percent of invasive breast cancers, while ductal breast cancer, in which tumors form in the breast's milk ducts, accounts for much of the rest.
In the current study, researchers questioned 1,500 post-menopausal women in western Washington about their use of HRT. Women who were currently taking HRT had three times the cancer rate as women who were not undergoing the therapy. Those who had been taking HRT drugs for three years or more had four times the risk.
The researchers noted that the occurrence of lobular cancer in the United States increased by 52 percent between 1987 and 1999, while the incidence of ductal-lobular cancer rose by 96 percent. In the same time period, the occurrence of ductal cancer rose by only 3 percent.
In 2002, the results of the Women's Health Initiative study first showed a link between HRT and increased breast cancer risk, leading to a sharp drop in the prevalence of HRT. Between 2001 and 2004, the researchers noted, breast cancer rates in the United States fell by 8.6 percent.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023893.html
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Irradiation Can Be Hazardous to Your Skin
Last week, we addressed the issue of irradiation of food products here on the blog. Below is a very insightful article that addresses some of the potentially harmful effects of irradiation as they specifically relate to skin care. The skin, the largest organ of the body, is an excellent indicator of overall health, for good or for bad. When essential nutrients in food are destroyed or compromised by exposure of radiation, all systems of the body, including the skin, will suffer. Without the necessary building blocks, the skin cannot stave off disease properly or heal and rejuvenate itself as it is designed to do.
Besides eating an organic diet composed of chemical-free and non-radiated foods, it is critical that you choose your skin care products carefully as well. Buy products that are made of natural ingredients and do not include harsh or hazardous chemicals. Remember, whatever you put on your skin goes directly into your body and is transported very efficiently via the circulatory system. Keeping your skin healthy will help your entire body to stay cleansed and balanced.
Will Irradiating our Vegetables Affect the Health of Our Skin?
Published on: August 27th, 2008 08:21pm
Montrose, CA (The Open Press) August 27, 2008 -- As of August 22, 2008, food suppliers are free to irradiate some of our vegetables, according to an FDA ruling. Right now the rule limits the practice to lettuce and spinach, but the FDA is looking at extending this to include other fruits and vegetables. Although the FDA says irradiation doesn't destroy nutrients, many experts disagree. In fact, some say the specific nutrients destroyed by radiation are vital for the treatment and prevention of many serious health conditions. They are also pivotal in natural skin care.
The new FDA ruling comes on the heels of the spinach scare and is an attempt to ensure harmful bacteria and other microorganisms are eliminated. However, some experts say that eliminating the bacteria through radiation will also eliminate phytonutrients. As phytonutrients are said to convert to vitamin A, destroy free radicals, enable inter-cell communication, enhance the immune system, alter estrogen metabolism, repair DNA damage caused by exposure to toxins, kill cancer cells and detoxify cancer-causing agents (carcinogens), it is anticipated that irradiation could have serious health repercussions.
You may have noticed that several of the functions attributed to phytonutrients are directly related to the condition of the skin. The antioxidant activity, immune system enhancement, hormonal regulation and conversion to vitamin A are basics in natural skin care. Healthy skin starts with healthy food and a properly functioning body.
While skin problems and skin care may be the least of our concerns when we're facing the loss of something that kills cancer cells, the skin is, after all, the body's largest organ and plays a vital role in overall health. The outer layer of the skin, composed of dead skin cells, natural oils and fats, is designed to prevent the absorption of bacteria, viruses and dangerous chemical substances. It is also vital for the elimination of toxins.
If the skin is not in good condition, and we're no longer receiving some of the nutrients we depend on from food, we're fighting an uphill battle with very little ammunition.
What can you do about it? The FDA requires requires a "radura" logo along with the statement "treated with radiation" or "treated by irradiation." Much of the irradiated produce is expected to be in packages -- which should display those warnings. For lettuce and spinach that's not bagged, you may have to do a little more research.
Also, protect your skin -- good skin care is even more important when the nutrients in our food are under attack and even food with the highest nutrient content possible won't protect you from airborne pollutants. Thousands of doctors now recommend a shielding lotion. A good shielding lotion, unlike traditional skin care products like lotions and moisturizers, bonds with the outer layer of the skin to form a new protective non-greasy layer that doesn't clog the pores. It locks in natural moisture, keeps out chemicals, and is probably the best solution out there for preserving the integrity of the skin's outer layer.
Mother Nature seems to have provided us with everything we need. While man has figured out how to utilize Her natural resources to our benefit, we have also been instrumental in their destruction. Whether we're talking about treatment and prevention of cancer or natural skin care, our health depends on protecting what we have left and preventing further damage. If we buy organic, nutrient-rich food and use natural skin care treatment products like shielding lotion, we're better able to meet those challenges.
http://www.theopenpress.com/index.php?a=print&code=00&id=37012
Besides eating an organic diet composed of chemical-free and non-radiated foods, it is critical that you choose your skin care products carefully as well. Buy products that are made of natural ingredients and do not include harsh or hazardous chemicals. Remember, whatever you put on your skin goes directly into your body and is transported very efficiently via the circulatory system. Keeping your skin healthy will help your entire body to stay cleansed and balanced.
Will Irradiating our Vegetables Affect the Health of Our Skin?
Published on: August 27th, 2008 08:21pm
Montrose, CA (The Open Press) August 27, 2008 -- As of August 22, 2008, food suppliers are free to irradiate some of our vegetables, according to an FDA ruling. Right now the rule limits the practice to lettuce and spinach, but the FDA is looking at extending this to include other fruits and vegetables. Although the FDA says irradiation doesn't destroy nutrients, many experts disagree. In fact, some say the specific nutrients destroyed by radiation are vital for the treatment and prevention of many serious health conditions. They are also pivotal in natural skin care.
The new FDA ruling comes on the heels of the spinach scare and is an attempt to ensure harmful bacteria and other microorganisms are eliminated. However, some experts say that eliminating the bacteria through radiation will also eliminate phytonutrients. As phytonutrients are said to convert to vitamin A, destroy free radicals, enable inter-cell communication, enhance the immune system, alter estrogen metabolism, repair DNA damage caused by exposure to toxins, kill cancer cells and detoxify cancer-causing agents (carcinogens), it is anticipated that irradiation could have serious health repercussions.
You may have noticed that several of the functions attributed to phytonutrients are directly related to the condition of the skin. The antioxidant activity, immune system enhancement, hormonal regulation and conversion to vitamin A are basics in natural skin care. Healthy skin starts with healthy food and a properly functioning body.
While skin problems and skin care may be the least of our concerns when we're facing the loss of something that kills cancer cells, the skin is, after all, the body's largest organ and plays a vital role in overall health. The outer layer of the skin, composed of dead skin cells, natural oils and fats, is designed to prevent the absorption of bacteria, viruses and dangerous chemical substances. It is also vital for the elimination of toxins.
If the skin is not in good condition, and we're no longer receiving some of the nutrients we depend on from food, we're fighting an uphill battle with very little ammunition.
What can you do about it? The FDA requires requires a "radura" logo along with the statement "treated with radiation" or "treated by irradiation." Much of the irradiated produce is expected to be in packages -- which should display those warnings. For lettuce and spinach that's not bagged, you may have to do a little more research.
Also, protect your skin -- good skin care is even more important when the nutrients in our food are under attack and even food with the highest nutrient content possible won't protect you from airborne pollutants. Thousands of doctors now recommend a shielding lotion. A good shielding lotion, unlike traditional skin care products like lotions and moisturizers, bonds with the outer layer of the skin to form a new protective non-greasy layer that doesn't clog the pores. It locks in natural moisture, keeps out chemicals, and is probably the best solution out there for preserving the integrity of the skin's outer layer.
Mother Nature seems to have provided us with everything we need. While man has figured out how to utilize Her natural resources to our benefit, we have also been instrumental in their destruction. Whether we're talking about treatment and prevention of cancer or natural skin care, our health depends on protecting what we have left and preventing further damage. If we buy organic, nutrient-rich food and use natural skin care treatment products like shielding lotion, we're better able to meet those challenges.
http://www.theopenpress.com/index.php?a=print&code=00&id=37012
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Move Made to Increase Sales of Hazardous Drug Roaccutane
In the Australian marketplace, the medication Roaccutane (known as Accutane in the US), which is given to treat severe acne, can only be prescribed by a limited number of dermatologists and other specialists. These restrictions are in place because this powerful drug has been linked to a number of serious side effects including birth defects, depression, and suicidal behaviors. The Australian equivalent of the FDA (the Therapeutic Goods Administration, or TGA) is currently discussing the possibility of allowing all physicians to describe this toxic drug. The manufacturers and distributors of Roaccutane claim they have nothing to do with these potential changes. However, I have a hard time believing that, especially if the TGA and pharmaceutical companies have the same cozy relationship as such firms have with the FDA here in the states.
I find it quite an irony that the group within TGA considering this proposal is called "The National Drugs and Poisons Scheduling Committee." At least the Australians are a bit more out front about the toxicity of many drugs than their American counterpart.
As with all medical concerns, acne is best dealt with via natural means, like a healthy, nutritious diet, ample amounts of pure water, plenty of physical activity, and natural skin care products that are free from dangerous chemicals. Living well is the best way to both prevent and treat acne.
Acne Drug 'May Lead to More Abortions'
Using the controversial acne drug Roaccutane could lead to more abortions, according to specialists.Roaccutane is used for the treatment of severe, persistent acne, but it has made headlines in recent years for its unproven links with depression and suicide.
According to dermatologists, a move by health authorities to allow GPs to prescribe the heavy-duty medication will push up prescription rates and endanger patients.
Dr Stephen Shumack, secretary of the Australasian College of Dermatologists said that there was a risk that patients would not be informed of the dangers of birth abnormalities among babies born to women taking Roaccutane, potentially causing them to choose an abortion.
"This would be a very bad move indeed," the Sydney Morning Hearld quoted Shumack, as saying.
"The college fears that appropriate people may not be given it, inappropriate people may be given it, and the side effects may not be managed appropriately.
"And, overall, far more people will be given it, which increases the risk of pregnancies, especially if this is not properly screened for, and then there's potentially more abortions," he added.
He said that under current arrangement there had been very few pregnancy issues with the drug.
More than 140,000 prescriptions were written for Roaccutane in the past financial year but prescribing is limited to the nation's 400 dermatologists and specialist physicians.
However, the Therapeutic Goods Administration''s national drugs and poisons scheduling committee said that it would consider a proposal to extend prescribing rights to include 18,000 GPs.
Roaccutane manufacturer Roche, and several firms that sell the drug generically, have denied making the request.
Shumack described it as "ill-conceived" and said the college would oppose it.
http://living.oneindia.in/health/pregnancy/2008/acne-drug-roaccutane-abortions-260808.html
I find it quite an irony that the group within TGA considering this proposal is called "The National Drugs and Poisons Scheduling Committee." At least the Australians are a bit more out front about the toxicity of many drugs than their American counterpart.
As with all medical concerns, acne is best dealt with via natural means, like a healthy, nutritious diet, ample amounts of pure water, plenty of physical activity, and natural skin care products that are free from dangerous chemicals. Living well is the best way to both prevent and treat acne.
Acne Drug 'May Lead to More Abortions'
Using the controversial acne drug Roaccutane could lead to more abortions, according to specialists.Roaccutane is used for the treatment of severe, persistent acne, but it has made headlines in recent years for its unproven links with depression and suicide.
According to dermatologists, a move by health authorities to allow GPs to prescribe the heavy-duty medication will push up prescription rates and endanger patients.
Dr Stephen Shumack, secretary of the Australasian College of Dermatologists said that there was a risk that patients would not be informed of the dangers of birth abnormalities among babies born to women taking Roaccutane, potentially causing them to choose an abortion.
"This would be a very bad move indeed," the Sydney Morning Hearld quoted Shumack, as saying.
"The college fears that appropriate people may not be given it, inappropriate people may be given it, and the side effects may not be managed appropriately.
"And, overall, far more people will be given it, which increases the risk of pregnancies, especially if this is not properly screened for, and then there's potentially more abortions," he added.
He said that under current arrangement there had been very few pregnancy issues with the drug.
More than 140,000 prescriptions were written for Roaccutane in the past financial year but prescribing is limited to the nation's 400 dermatologists and specialist physicians.
However, the Therapeutic Goods Administration''s national drugs and poisons scheduling committee said that it would consider a proposal to extend prescribing rights to include 18,000 GPs.
Roaccutane manufacturer Roche, and several firms that sell the drug generically, have denied making the request.
Shumack described it as "ill-conceived" and said the college would oppose it.
http://living.oneindia.in/health/pregnancy/2008/acne-drug-roaccutane-abortions-260808.html
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Chronic Stress Aggravates Allergies
As the incidence of allergies and asthma increases in the general population, many studies have been done that clearly link such reactions to stress levels in people's lives. Researchers at Ohio State University presented findings last month from a project that reinforces these conclusions. What is particularly interesting about this study is that it also correlates chronic or ongoing stress with delayed allergic reactions. In other words, stress today can lead to allergic reactions tomorrow.
We in the natural health field have long believed and taught that stress can have numerous long-term effects on many systems of the body, including the immune system which is closely tied to allergic reactions. This is why lifestyle changes such as a natural, whole-foods diet, including plenty of fresh, pure water, and lots of physical exercise, are so much more useful for controlling allergies than the medications often prescribed that tend to have side effects that tear down the immune system instead of strengthening it. In fact, the best way to prevent allergies from ever occurring in the first place is to pursue a lifestyle of wellness that keeps you healthy instead putting yourself in a position where you have to overcome disease. If you should suffer from high stress levels, along with a very healthy diet I would suggest the following: Learn to say no; spend at least 30 minutes every day listening to music, reading or just being quiet; remove yourself from stressors; take a good Vitamin B-12 and B-Complete along with an organic, liquid multi-vitamin mineral complex; exercise (walking is excellent) for 40 minutes every day, and get sunshine on your body every day.
Remember: It is much easier to stay well than to get well.
Stress, Anxiety Worsen Response to Allergens
Thursday, August 14, 2008; 12:00 AM
THURSDAY, Aug. 14 (HealthDay News) -- Even a little stress and anxiety can greatly worsen and extend a person's reaction to common allergens, a new study says.
The finding, to be presented Thursday at the American Psychological Association annual meeting, in Boston, are important, as allergies are the fifth-most-common chronic disease in the United States. The researchers estimated that Americans pay more than $3.4 billion for allergy medications and allergy-related doctor visits annually, and lose about 3.5 million work days a year because of them.
"Allergies are not minor problems," researcher Jan Kiecolt-Glaser, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Ohio State, said in a news release issued by the university. "A huge number of people suffer from allergies and, while hay fever, for example, is generally not life-threatening, allergy sufferers often also have asthma, which can be deadly."
The study looked at 28 volunteers with a history of hay fever and seasonal allergies. Researchers gave standard allergy prick tests to the volunteers, then measured the raised "wheals" that formed on the arms of the participants before and after they were subjected to stressful situations, such as given a speech and answering a series of math questions. They were tested again the next day as well.
"The wheals on a person who was moderately anxious because of the experiment were 75 percent larger after the experiment, compared to that same person's response on the day when they were not stressed," Kiecolt-Glaser said, signifying a stronger reaction.
"But people who were highly anxious had wheals that were twice as big after they were stressed compared to their response when they were not stressed. Moreover, these same people were four times more likely to have a stronger reaction to the skin test one day later after the stress," she said.
This second-day "late-phase reaction" signals an ongoing and strengthening response to the allergens, the researchers said. It suggests that sufferers may react strongly to other stimuli that previously hadn't caused them to develop an allergic reaction.
Co-investigator Gailen Marshall, a professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Mississippi, said late-phase reactions typically do not respond to common allergy treatment, such as antihistamines.
"Late-phase reactions also occur in allergic asthma and can, in the proper settings, be potentially life-threatening. The results of this study should alert practitioners and patients alike to the adverse effects of stress on allergic reactions in the nose, chest, skin and other organs that may seemingly resolve within a few minutes to hours after starting, but may reappear the next day when least expected," he said.
Therefore, people may be setting themselves up to have more persistent allergy issues by being stressed and anxious when allergy attacks begin, Kiecolt-Glaser said.
More information
The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about stress.
SOURCE: Ohio State University, news release, Aug. 14, 2008
We in the natural health field have long believed and taught that stress can have numerous long-term effects on many systems of the body, including the immune system which is closely tied to allergic reactions. This is why lifestyle changes such as a natural, whole-foods diet, including plenty of fresh, pure water, and lots of physical exercise, are so much more useful for controlling allergies than the medications often prescribed that tend to have side effects that tear down the immune system instead of strengthening it. In fact, the best way to prevent allergies from ever occurring in the first place is to pursue a lifestyle of wellness that keeps you healthy instead putting yourself in a position where you have to overcome disease. If you should suffer from high stress levels, along with a very healthy diet I would suggest the following: Learn to say no; spend at least 30 minutes every day listening to music, reading or just being quiet; remove yourself from stressors; take a good Vitamin B-12 and B-Complete along with an organic, liquid multi-vitamin mineral complex; exercise (walking is excellent) for 40 minutes every day, and get sunshine on your body every day.
Remember: It is much easier to stay well than to get well.
Stress, Anxiety Worsen Response to Allergens
Thursday, August 14, 2008; 12:00 AM
THURSDAY, Aug. 14 (HealthDay News) -- Even a little stress and anxiety can greatly worsen and extend a person's reaction to common allergens, a new study says.
The finding, to be presented Thursday at the American Psychological Association annual meeting, in Boston, are important, as allergies are the fifth-most-common chronic disease in the United States. The researchers estimated that Americans pay more than $3.4 billion for allergy medications and allergy-related doctor visits annually, and lose about 3.5 million work days a year because of them.
"Allergies are not minor problems," researcher Jan Kiecolt-Glaser, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Ohio State, said in a news release issued by the university. "A huge number of people suffer from allergies and, while hay fever, for example, is generally not life-threatening, allergy sufferers often also have asthma, which can be deadly."
The study looked at 28 volunteers with a history of hay fever and seasonal allergies. Researchers gave standard allergy prick tests to the volunteers, then measured the raised "wheals" that formed on the arms of the participants before and after they were subjected to stressful situations, such as given a speech and answering a series of math questions. They were tested again the next day as well.
"The wheals on a person who was moderately anxious because of the experiment were 75 percent larger after the experiment, compared to that same person's response on the day when they were not stressed," Kiecolt-Glaser said, signifying a stronger reaction.
"But people who were highly anxious had wheals that were twice as big after they were stressed compared to their response when they were not stressed. Moreover, these same people were four times more likely to have a stronger reaction to the skin test one day later after the stress," she said.
This second-day "late-phase reaction" signals an ongoing and strengthening response to the allergens, the researchers said. It suggests that sufferers may react strongly to other stimuli that previously hadn't caused them to develop an allergic reaction.
Co-investigator Gailen Marshall, a professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of Mississippi, said late-phase reactions typically do not respond to common allergy treatment, such as antihistamines.
"Late-phase reactions also occur in allergic asthma and can, in the proper settings, be potentially life-threatening. The results of this study should alert practitioners and patients alike to the adverse effects of stress on allergic reactions in the nose, chest, skin and other organs that may seemingly resolve within a few minutes to hours after starting, but may reappear the next day when least expected," he said.
Therefore, people may be setting themselves up to have more persistent allergy issues by being stressed and anxious when allergy attacks begin, Kiecolt-Glaser said.
More information
The U.S. National Library of Medicine has more about stress.
SOURCE: Ohio State University, news release, Aug. 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
