The article below highlights a study conducted by a conventional medicine organization that lauds the cancer-fighting benefits of grape seed extract. It is encouraging to see this material published, and such information is a real shot in the arm for the legitimacy of nutritional therapies in the eyes of the mainstream medical community.
The findings alone are significant, but as an added bonus, the article also makes mention of the value of natural compounds found in fruits and vegetables for preventing and treating cancer and other diseases. But, lest they get too enthusiastic about nutritional therapies, the authors hasten to add that people should not get carried away eating all this "good stuff" as nothing has yet been "proven." I also found it interesting that the researchers discovered that grape seed extract kills only diseased cells, but leaves the healthy ones alone, something that cannot be said about many conventional cancer treatments such as chemotherapy. Perhaps studies such as this will help to turn the tide toward naturally occurring prevention strategies and away from the toxic use of drugs that expose patients to so many risky side effects and don't make them well to boot!
Grape Seed Extract Kills Laboratory Leukemia Cells, Proving Value Of Natural Compounds
31 Dec 2008
An extract from grape seeds forces laboratory leukemia cells to commit cell suicide, according to researchers from the University of Kentucky. They found that within 24 hours, 76 percent of leukemia cells had died after being exposed to the extract.
The investigators, who report their findings in the January 1, 2009, issue of Clinical Cancer Research, a journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, also teased apart the cell signaling pathway associated with use of grape seed extract that led to cell death, or apoptosis. They found that the extract activates JNK, a protein that regulates the apoptotic pathway.
While grape seed extract has shown activity in a number of laboratory cancer cell lines, including skin, breast, colon, lung, stomach and prostate cancers, no one had tested the extract in hematological cancers nor had the precise mechanism for activity been revealed.
"These results could have implications for the incorporation of agents such as grape seed extract into prevention or treatment of hematological malignancies and possibly other cancers," said the study's lead author, Xianglin Shi, Ph.D., professor in the Graduate Center for Toxicology at the University of Kentucky.
"What everyone seeks is an agent that has an effect on cancer cells but leaves normal cells alone, and this shows that grape seed extract fits into this category," he said.
Shi adds, however, that the research is not far enough along to suggest that people should eat grapes, grape seeds, or grape skin in excess to stave off cancer. "This is very promising research, but it is too early to say this is chemo-protective."
Hematological cancers - leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma - accounted for an estimated 118,310 new cancer cases and almost 54,000 deaths in 2006, ranking these cancers as the fourth leading cause of cancer incidence and death in the U.S.
Given that epidemiological evidence shows that eating vegetables and fruits helps prevent cancer development, Shi and his colleagues have been studying chemicals known as proanthocyanidins in fruits that contribute to this effect. Shi has found that apple peel extract contains these flavonoids, which have antioxidant activity, and which cause apoptosis in several cancer cell lines but not in normal cells. Based on those studies, and findings from other researchers that grape seed extract reduces breast tumors in rats and skin tumors in mice, they looked at the effect of the compound in leukemia cells.
Using a commercially available grape seed extract, Shi exposed leukemia cells to the extract in different doses and found the marked effect in causing apoptosis in these cells at one of the higher doses. They also discovered that the extract does not affect normal cells, although they don't know why.
The researchers then used pharmacologic and genetic approaches to determine how the extract induced apoptosis. They found that the extract strongly activated the JNK pathway, which then led to up-regulation of Cip/p21, which controls the cell cycle.
They checked this finding by using an agent that inhibited JNK, and found that the extract was ineffective. Using a genetic approach - silencing the JNK gene - also disarmed grape seed extract's lethal attack in leukemia cells.
"This is a natural compound that appears to have relatively important properties," Shi said.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=134016
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Will Obama Take on Big Pharma?? Maybe Not.
As we fast approach the beginning of the Obama administration, it is interesting to watch his team develop. You can tell a lot about a politician by the caliber of people he surrounds himself with. The opinion piece featured today makes it painfully clear that Obama's choice for Surgeon General, a key post that influences many aspects of the health industry, is the same ol' same ol' -- business as usual.
With the cost of healthcare continuing to skyrocket, even those with insurance are straining their budgets between premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Even sadder is the fact that most of the "care" offered only throws dangerous drugs -- another added expense -- at symptoms, rather than addressing issues through lifestyle changes that lead toward wellness and prevent disease.
If the government won't change their ways, perhaps we should rethink our own choices. Consider purchasing a catastrophic insurance policy that will keep you from bankruptcy if you experience a major medical event. Then invest what you were spending on other insurance costs into nutritious, organic food and natural supplements along with finding a healthy diet that will help your body to balance in a natural way. It is also wise to establish a working relationship with a natural-minded healthcare practitioner that can help educate and coach you toward wellness. It is time to take personal responsibility for the health of ourselves and our families.
Here We Go: Obama Wants CNN Doctor Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, January 6, 2009
President-elect Barack Obama's choice for U.S. Surgeon General is reportedly CNN journalist Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a pro-vaccine pusher with ties to Merck.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a strong proponent of the Gardasil HPV vaccine, and the television show he once hosted ("Accent Health") was primarily sponsored by Merck, makers of Gardasil.
Now he's poised to become the Surgeon General of the United States. Just what we need, huh? Another pill-pushing, vaccine-pimping Washington bureaucrat with ties to Big Pharma. I told you folks that Obama wasn't going to end Big Pharma's business as usual, and this vaccine-pumping choice for Surgeon General is a disturbing example of yet more pro-Pharma decisions to come.
So who should really be U.S. Surgeon General? Well Dr. Julian Whitaker, of course. His knowledge of nutrition and public health is vastly superior to that of Dr. Sanjay Gupta. But Dr. Whitaker would teach the American people how to cure diabetes, heart disease and cancer using nutritional therapies, and then the whole economy would collapse thanks to all the out-of-work disease industry doctors. So they can't let that happen, right?
Then again, Dr. Gupta is, indeed, a bonafide brain surgeon. That might come in handy in Washington, come to think of it. Maybe he can perform a little brain surgery on his fellow Washingtonian bureaucrats and find a way to restore the common sense they all apparently lost when they got elected.
Get ready for a whole new mandatory vaccination push under the Obama administration, folks. It's the same scam that's been running under the Bush Administration, but now it's going to be disguised as "public health policy." Yep, all those vaccines are President Obama's way of caring for the American people, didn't you know?
Big Business always wins in Washington. As long as the corporations are running the lawmakers and the politicians, the People are always going to lose. The only thing that changes is the face of the person fronting the scam -- and the name of the political party he belongs to. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter: Virtually all politicians secretly belong to the same, single party called the Big Business Party, and their decisions are made to please Big Business, not to protect the People.
You might as well start making your vaccination protest banners right now. With Gupta at the helm, America is going to be a whole new Vacci-Nation.
http://www.naturalnews.com:80/News_000649_Dr_Sanjay_Gupta_Obama_Surgeon_General.html
With the cost of healthcare continuing to skyrocket, even those with insurance are straining their budgets between premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Even sadder is the fact that most of the "care" offered only throws dangerous drugs -- another added expense -- at symptoms, rather than addressing issues through lifestyle changes that lead toward wellness and prevent disease.
If the government won't change their ways, perhaps we should rethink our own choices. Consider purchasing a catastrophic insurance policy that will keep you from bankruptcy if you experience a major medical event. Then invest what you were spending on other insurance costs into nutritious, organic food and natural supplements along with finding a healthy diet that will help your body to balance in a natural way. It is also wise to establish a working relationship with a natural-minded healthcare practitioner that can help educate and coach you toward wellness. It is time to take personal responsibility for the health of ourselves and our families.
Here We Go: Obama Wants CNN Doctor Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, January 6, 2009
President-elect Barack Obama's choice for U.S. Surgeon General is reportedly CNN journalist Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a pro-vaccine pusher with ties to Merck.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a strong proponent of the Gardasil HPV vaccine, and the television show he once hosted ("Accent Health") was primarily sponsored by Merck, makers of Gardasil.
Now he's poised to become the Surgeon General of the United States. Just what we need, huh? Another pill-pushing, vaccine-pimping Washington bureaucrat with ties to Big Pharma. I told you folks that Obama wasn't going to end Big Pharma's business as usual, and this vaccine-pumping choice for Surgeon General is a disturbing example of yet more pro-Pharma decisions to come.
So who should really be U.S. Surgeon General? Well Dr. Julian Whitaker, of course. His knowledge of nutrition and public health is vastly superior to that of Dr. Sanjay Gupta. But Dr. Whitaker would teach the American people how to cure diabetes, heart disease and cancer using nutritional therapies, and then the whole economy would collapse thanks to all the out-of-work disease industry doctors. So they can't let that happen, right?
Then again, Dr. Gupta is, indeed, a bonafide brain surgeon. That might come in handy in Washington, come to think of it. Maybe he can perform a little brain surgery on his fellow Washingtonian bureaucrats and find a way to restore the common sense they all apparently lost when they got elected.
Get ready for a whole new mandatory vaccination push under the Obama administration, folks. It's the same scam that's been running under the Bush Administration, but now it's going to be disguised as "public health policy." Yep, all those vaccines are President Obama's way of caring for the American people, didn't you know?
Big Business always wins in Washington. As long as the corporations are running the lawmakers and the politicians, the People are always going to lose. The only thing that changes is the face of the person fronting the scam -- and the name of the political party he belongs to. Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter: Virtually all politicians secretly belong to the same, single party called the Big Business Party, and their decisions are made to please Big Business, not to protect the People.
You might as well start making your vaccination protest banners right now. With Gupta at the helm, America is going to be a whole new Vacci-Nation.
http://www.naturalnews.com:80/News_000649_Dr_Sanjay_Gupta_Obama_Surgeon_General.html
Friday, January 9, 2009
Vitamin D May Fight Pain and Fatigue
As we have discussed in previous posts on this blog, Vitamin D is one of the greatest nutritional tools our Creator has provided for us to flourish and prevent disease. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the world's population lacks sufficient amounts of Vitamin D, and it is a problem that typically worsens during the winter season. This recent study indicates "D" may help individuals with chronic pain and a lack of energy that accompanies many illnesses.
It is critical to get outdoors every day, if possible, even in the winter. It is thought that about 20 minutes per day of direct sunlight on as much of your body as possible will stimulate the body to produce enough "D" for most people's needs. (It will help to improve your mood too!) However, in many cases the use of a quality Vitamin D-3 supplement is also recommended. Vitamin D is not an optional nutrient. Our bodies need it to function properly and to stay well. Right now the USDA recommendation is too low to do much for the body.You can read more about the importance of Vitamin D-3 at: http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/vitamin-d3-articles.html
Chronic Pain and Fatigue Associated With Vitamin D Deficiency
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) People who are vitamin D deficient are more likely to suffer from chronic pain and fatigue, and those with the conditions may improve or even recover entirely when treated with vitamin D supplementation, according to a new study.
Researchers analyzed 22 clinical studies of patients with various kinds of chronic fatigue and pain, repeatedly finding that the conditions were correlated with vitamin D deficiency. Between 48 and 100 percent of those who had back pain, for example, had less than the 20 nanograms per milliliter that is considered an adequate blood level of the vitamin.
In one study, for example, 93 percent of those who suffered from chronic musculoskeletal pain turned out to be vitamin D deficient. A full 25 percent of participants turned out to have severe vitamin D deficiency, with blood levels of less than eight nanograms per milliliter.
Many of the studies found that vitamin D supplementation caused chronic fatigue and pain symptoms to vanish. In one study, for example, 95 percent of those treated with supplements for three months reported improvements in chronic back pain, including 100 percent of those who were severely deficient at the study's start."
Taken as a whole, the research evidence supports vitamin D supplementation as a potentially important therapy for helping to ameliorate muscle, bone, and joint aches and pains," said researcher Stewart B. Leavitt, editor of Pain Treatment Topics.
The researchers noted that vitamin D deficiency is widespread around the world and added their support to the growing sentiment that the current recommended daily amount of vitamin D (600 IU) are too low. Healthy adults should take 1,000 IU per day, they said, while those suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain should probably take 2,000. They emphasized that vitamin D supplements interact with very few drugs or other medical products, and are not harmful except in extraordinarily high doses.
Vitamin D can also be synthesized naturally by the body upon exposure to sunlight.
http://www.naturalnews.com:80/z025237.html
It is critical to get outdoors every day, if possible, even in the winter. It is thought that about 20 minutes per day of direct sunlight on as much of your body as possible will stimulate the body to produce enough "D" for most people's needs. (It will help to improve your mood too!) However, in many cases the use of a quality Vitamin D-3 supplement is also recommended. Vitamin D is not an optional nutrient. Our bodies need it to function properly and to stay well. Right now the USDA recommendation is too low to do much for the body.You can read more about the importance of Vitamin D-3 at: http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/vitamin-d3-articles.html
Chronic Pain and Fatigue Associated With Vitamin D Deficiency
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) People who are vitamin D deficient are more likely to suffer from chronic pain and fatigue, and those with the conditions may improve or even recover entirely when treated with vitamin D supplementation, according to a new study.
Researchers analyzed 22 clinical studies of patients with various kinds of chronic fatigue and pain, repeatedly finding that the conditions were correlated with vitamin D deficiency. Between 48 and 100 percent of those who had back pain, for example, had less than the 20 nanograms per milliliter that is considered an adequate blood level of the vitamin.
In one study, for example, 93 percent of those who suffered from chronic musculoskeletal pain turned out to be vitamin D deficient. A full 25 percent of participants turned out to have severe vitamin D deficiency, with blood levels of less than eight nanograms per milliliter.
Many of the studies found that vitamin D supplementation caused chronic fatigue and pain symptoms to vanish. In one study, for example, 95 percent of those treated with supplements for three months reported improvements in chronic back pain, including 100 percent of those who were severely deficient at the study's start."
Taken as a whole, the research evidence supports vitamin D supplementation as a potentially important therapy for helping to ameliorate muscle, bone, and joint aches and pains," said researcher Stewart B. Leavitt, editor of Pain Treatment Topics.
The researchers noted that vitamin D deficiency is widespread around the world and added their support to the growing sentiment that the current recommended daily amount of vitamin D (600 IU) are too low. Healthy adults should take 1,000 IU per day, they said, while those suffering from chronic musculoskeletal pain should probably take 2,000. They emphasized that vitamin D supplements interact with very few drugs or other medical products, and are not harmful except in extraordinarily high doses.
Vitamin D can also be synthesized naturally by the body upon exposure to sunlight.
http://www.naturalnews.com:80/z025237.html
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
More Antibiotics? You Must be Kidding!
At first I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this story. Free antibiotics from a major grocery store chain? Even conventional medicine has recognized the dangers of the promiscuous use of these drugs and the hazards that can result. Where is the watchdog of our drug safety in America -- the FDA -- when a company comes up with a marketing ploy such as this? They get militant with anyone that dares discuss the benefits of natural foods or supplements, but yet allow the encouragement of these harmful drugs that, as the article points out, don't even effectively treat most of the ailments they are typically prescribed for.
Not only don't antibiotics help with viral ailments such as flu, colds, and others, but they actually weaken the body's ability to fight disease by compromising the balance of flora in the digestive tract where approximately 75% of the immune system is located. A better alternative is to take a quality probiotic product that boosts the number of "good" bacteria in the gut, thus strengthening the body and increasing its ability to absorb more nutrients from food as well. This plan to hand out antibiotics only encourages doctors to overprescribe and is one of the finest examples that I have ever seen of the pretzel logic that has long been the hallmark of Big Pharma and the FDA.
Antibiotics -- Even Free Ones -- Won't Cure Most Winter Ills
January 07, 2009 01:01 PM ET
The eastern seaboard will soon be awash in free antibiotics, as Wegmans yesterday announced the 72-store supermarket chain will make a 14-day supply of nine generic oral antibiotics available at no charge.
Giant Foods and Stop & Shop had already announced similar programs.
Wegmans says the program is aimed at helping people get through cold and flu season and will end March 31.
This is a nice public relations effort, and it is truly helpful for consumers who need these drugs. But the fact is that most wintertime ailments -- cold, flu, most sore throats, bronchitis, sinusitis -- are caused by viruses, not bacteria, and won't respond at all to antibiotics, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But doctors, pressed for time and perhaps not entirely certain that their patient's illness isn't caused by a bacterial infection, often go ahead and prescribe a course of antibiotics anyway. If the drugs are free, the temptation to prescribe is even greater. This can lead to a second problem: antibiotic resistance.
Overuse of antibiotics has led to an alarming growth in bacteria and other microbes that don't respond to the antibiotics that used to kill them. Antibiotic resistance is considered one of the world's most pressing public health problems.
Taking antibiotics when you don't need them may make your body resistant to antibiotics when you do, according to the CDC. If you've got a bug and your doctor says to let it run its course, do that instead of demanding antibiotics, even free ones.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2009/01/07/antibiotics_print.htm
Not only don't antibiotics help with viral ailments such as flu, colds, and others, but they actually weaken the body's ability to fight disease by compromising the balance of flora in the digestive tract where approximately 75% of the immune system is located. A better alternative is to take a quality probiotic product that boosts the number of "good" bacteria in the gut, thus strengthening the body and increasing its ability to absorb more nutrients from food as well. This plan to hand out antibiotics only encourages doctors to overprescribe and is one of the finest examples that I have ever seen of the pretzel logic that has long been the hallmark of Big Pharma and the FDA.
Antibiotics -- Even Free Ones -- Won't Cure Most Winter Ills
January 07, 2009 01:01 PM ET
The eastern seaboard will soon be awash in free antibiotics, as Wegmans yesterday announced the 72-store supermarket chain will make a 14-day supply of nine generic oral antibiotics available at no charge.
Giant Foods and Stop & Shop had already announced similar programs.
Wegmans says the program is aimed at helping people get through cold and flu season and will end March 31.
This is a nice public relations effort, and it is truly helpful for consumers who need these drugs. But the fact is that most wintertime ailments -- cold, flu, most sore throats, bronchitis, sinusitis -- are caused by viruses, not bacteria, and won't respond at all to antibiotics, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But doctors, pressed for time and perhaps not entirely certain that their patient's illness isn't caused by a bacterial infection, often go ahead and prescribe a course of antibiotics anyway. If the drugs are free, the temptation to prescribe is even greater. This can lead to a second problem: antibiotic resistance.
Overuse of antibiotics has led to an alarming growth in bacteria and other microbes that don't respond to the antibiotics that used to kill them. Antibiotic resistance is considered one of the world's most pressing public health problems.
Taking antibiotics when you don't need them may make your body resistant to antibiotics when you do, according to the CDC. If you've got a bug and your doctor says to let it run its course, do that instead of demanding antibiotics, even free ones.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-health-and-money/2009/01/07/antibiotics_print.htm
Additional Hazards of Cigarette Smoke
The article featured today is pertinent to everyone, but may be of particular interest to individuals who suffer from allergies and asthma, or who are prone to chemical sensitivity. This research indicates that exposure to a building where smoking has occurred may result in toxic reactions due to the dust and chemicals that have accumulated.
This is especially important for anyone who is very sensitive to smoke and the many chemicals it contains or leaves behind. Smokers can apparently collect hazardous materials on their clothing, hair, and skin which can be toxic to others, especially children. Even when staying at a hotel, be sure to verify that your :non-smoking" room has truly never been smoked in. Some establishments may run an air purifier in a smoking room and pass it off as a non-smoking room when they need the space. Protect yourself from third-hand smoke!
Third-Hand Smoke Becomes Latest Cigarette Scare
Posted By MedHeadlines On 6 January, 2009 @ 6:26 In Children's Health, Medical Research,
Smoking cigarettes is a bad idea and medical science is continuously proving it's even worse than originally imagined. Science has proven that smoking often kills the smoker, by way of inhaled (first-hand) smoke. Second-hand smoking is both annoying and dangerous to anyone who, willingly or not, inhales the smoke of a nearby smoker. The medical journal, 'Pediatrics,' has now identified third-hand smoke and the health dangers it poses, especially to the very youngest non-smokers in a room.
Even when a smoker isn't actively smoking, toxic dust and dangerous volatile chemical compounds that filled the air while the cigarette was lit are still in the air. And what goes up, almost always comes down, settling onto furniture surfaces, flooring, and all other objects in the same room where the cigarette was smoked. It’s this residual contamination that is becoming known as third-hand smoke.
What makes third-hand smoke a particular concern is that it settles onto eating utensils and glassware that children eat and drink from, passing the toxins it contains on to the child. It also settles on children's food, toys, and everything else in the room, a particular concern for children who are learning to crawl along contaminated carpets, rugs, and smooth floorings and for everything a young child puts into his or her mouth.
Many parents are aware of the health risks to their children and pets when toxic lawn chemicals are used outside and a growing number of parents and pet owners have chosen to refrain from their use. In light of the 'Pediatrics' report on third-hand smoke, Joel Africk suggests concerned parents beware of the hazards of third-hand smoke with the same degree of vigilance with which they monitor lawn chemicals. Africk is president and CEO of the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago.
While noting the 'Pediatrics' study doesn't call for a legal ban on cigarette smoking in the privacy of one's home, he does urge parents to be aware of the hazards cigarettes cause to their children, even after the cigarette is extinguished and the smoke has cleared. According to Africk, it seems rather simple. He says, "if (parents) allow smoking in the home, it's going to hurt their children."
http://medheadlines.com:80/2009/01/06/third-hand-smoke-becomes-latest-cigarette-scare/print/
This is especially important for anyone who is very sensitive to smoke and the many chemicals it contains or leaves behind. Smokers can apparently collect hazardous materials on their clothing, hair, and skin which can be toxic to others, especially children. Even when staying at a hotel, be sure to verify that your :non-smoking" room has truly never been smoked in. Some establishments may run an air purifier in a smoking room and pass it off as a non-smoking room when they need the space. Protect yourself from third-hand smoke!
Third-Hand Smoke Becomes Latest Cigarette Scare
Posted By MedHeadlines On 6 January, 2009 @ 6:26 In Children's Health, Medical Research,
Smoking cigarettes is a bad idea and medical science is continuously proving it's even worse than originally imagined. Science has proven that smoking often kills the smoker, by way of inhaled (first-hand) smoke. Second-hand smoking is both annoying and dangerous to anyone who, willingly or not, inhales the smoke of a nearby smoker. The medical journal, 'Pediatrics,' has now identified third-hand smoke and the health dangers it poses, especially to the very youngest non-smokers in a room.
Even when a smoker isn't actively smoking, toxic dust and dangerous volatile chemical compounds that filled the air while the cigarette was lit are still in the air. And what goes up, almost always comes down, settling onto furniture surfaces, flooring, and all other objects in the same room where the cigarette was smoked. It’s this residual contamination that is becoming known as third-hand smoke.
What makes third-hand smoke a particular concern is that it settles onto eating utensils and glassware that children eat and drink from, passing the toxins it contains on to the child. It also settles on children's food, toys, and everything else in the room, a particular concern for children who are learning to crawl along contaminated carpets, rugs, and smooth floorings and for everything a young child puts into his or her mouth.
Many parents are aware of the health risks to their children and pets when toxic lawn chemicals are used outside and a growing number of parents and pet owners have chosen to refrain from their use. In light of the 'Pediatrics' report on third-hand smoke, Joel Africk suggests concerned parents beware of the hazards of third-hand smoke with the same degree of vigilance with which they monitor lawn chemicals. Africk is president and CEO of the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago.
While noting the 'Pediatrics' study doesn't call for a legal ban on cigarette smoking in the privacy of one's home, he does urge parents to be aware of the hazards cigarettes cause to their children, even after the cigarette is extinguished and the smoke has cleared. According to Africk, it seems rather simple. He says, "if (parents) allow smoking in the home, it's going to hurt their children."
http://medheadlines.com:80/2009/01/06/third-hand-smoke-becomes-latest-cigarette-scare/print/
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Babies at Risk from Melamine
Breastfeeding is clearly the safest, most nutritious way to feed your babies and provide the best building blocks for them to thrive. However, if you do choose to use formula, don't fall for the FDA's weak position on the risks of melamine in formula. The following article does an excellent job of detailing those risks and explaining why FDA cannot be trusted.
Melamine is toxic to all humans, but especially to infants whose bodily systems are not yet fully developed. As the article points out, consuming farm-raised fish, especially from China, is also particularly risky due to the toxins, such as melamine and others, in their feed. Once again, FDA honchos have made a decision to not ruffle the feathers of the food industry, and in the process have put the welfare of us and our children in peril.
FDA Claims Toxin in Infant Formula is No Big Deal
According to the FDA, levels of melamine found in a sample of U.S. made infant formula do not pose a safety risk.
The agency detected trace amounts of the toxic chemical in a sample of Nestle Nutrition's Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron. Melamine was found in concentrations of 137 and 140 parts per billion. The FDA said that concentrations less than 1,000 parts per billion do not raise safety concerns, although earlier they had argued that no level of melamine was safe.
Agency testing also found cyanuric acid, a chemical relative of melamine, in a single sample of Mead Johnson's Enfamil Lipil with Iron.
Sources:
American Association for Health Freedom
MedPage Today December 1, 2008
Los Angeles Times December 24, 2008
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This is another vivid example of how far off track the FDA has traveled from its roots as protector of public safety.
The article cites an especially flagrant violation of public trust in which the FDA outdid itself by
1) completely reversing its position on the safety of melamine in food products, and
2) risking the health of infants in the process.
The truth is that the FDA as it is currently structured is no longer able to protect you and your family. The FDA doesn't view you as its client. Drug companies have become the FDA's biggest client, and their interests come well ahead of yours.
Sadly, the risk of melamine is no longer contained to just milk products. In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, fish from China have also been found to be contaminated with this industrial chemical. China is the world's largest producer of farm-raised seafood, exporting billions of dollars worth of shrimp, catfish, tilapia, salmon and other fish. The U.S. imported about $2 billion of seafood products from China in 2007, almost double the volume of four years earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
According to industry experts and businesspeople in China, melamine has been routinely added to fish feed, to boost protein readings. What's worse, new research indicates that the flesh in fish that have been fed melamine still contains residues of the substance.
How Dangerous Is Melamine for Your Baby?
Melamine is a compound composed of nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. It began appearing in household goods and laminates in the late 1930's. When combined with formaldehyde and exposed to extreme heat, melamine forms into a moldable material that is virtually unbreakable once cooled.
Inside a human body, melamine combined with cyanuric acid forms into insoluble crystals in renal tubules, kidneys, the ureter, urethra or urinary bladder.
Babies who've been fed infant formula containing high concentrations of melamine have shown the following symptoms:
Unexplained fever arising from urinary tract infections
Unexplained crying in infants, especially when urinating, possible vomiting
Small amounts of blood in the urine
Acute obstructive renal failure
Pain on urinating, and passage of stones while urinating
High blood pressure
Edema
Pain over the kidneys
Keeping Your Baby Safe
Breastfeeding is without question the best way to keep your child safe from contaminants in commercial formula.
Beyond the concern for safety, there are so many other benefits to breastfeeding -- for both you and your baby -- it should be the option of choice whenever possible.
A very short list of some of the positive effects of breastfeeding your baby includes:
Reduced risk of heart disease for baby later in life
Higher intelligence
Reduced risk of obesity in teen years
Reduced womb-to-world trauma for newborns
Mothers who breastfeed return to pre-pregnancy weight faster
Is There a Safe Alternative to Breastfeeding?
Absolutely nothing beats breast milk as a nutritional and health resource for your baby. I can't stress it enough. There are at least 400 nutrients in breast milk that are not found in formula.
However, if for some reason you're not able to breastfeed, your next best option is to make a healthy infant formula using raw milk. You can find additional homemade formula recipes here.
Whatever you do, avoid infant soy formula. Unfermented soy is hazardous to your health, and soy formula is one of the worst foods you can feed to your baby.
http://articles.mercola.com:80/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/01/fda-claims-toxin-in-infant-formula-is-no-big-deal.aspx
Melamine is toxic to all humans, but especially to infants whose bodily systems are not yet fully developed. As the article points out, consuming farm-raised fish, especially from China, is also particularly risky due to the toxins, such as melamine and others, in their feed. Once again, FDA honchos have made a decision to not ruffle the feathers of the food industry, and in the process have put the welfare of us and our children in peril.
FDA Claims Toxin in Infant Formula is No Big Deal
According to the FDA, levels of melamine found in a sample of U.S. made infant formula do not pose a safety risk.
The agency detected trace amounts of the toxic chemical in a sample of Nestle Nutrition's Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron. Melamine was found in concentrations of 137 and 140 parts per billion. The FDA said that concentrations less than 1,000 parts per billion do not raise safety concerns, although earlier they had argued that no level of melamine was safe.
Agency testing also found cyanuric acid, a chemical relative of melamine, in a single sample of Mead Johnson's Enfamil Lipil with Iron.
Sources:
American Association for Health Freedom
MedPage Today December 1, 2008
Los Angeles Times December 24, 2008
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This is another vivid example of how far off track the FDA has traveled from its roots as protector of public safety.
The article cites an especially flagrant violation of public trust in which the FDA outdid itself by
1) completely reversing its position on the safety of melamine in food products, and
2) risking the health of infants in the process.
The truth is that the FDA as it is currently structured is no longer able to protect you and your family. The FDA doesn't view you as its client. Drug companies have become the FDA's biggest client, and their interests come well ahead of yours.
Sadly, the risk of melamine is no longer contained to just milk products. In a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, fish from China have also been found to be contaminated with this industrial chemical. China is the world's largest producer of farm-raised seafood, exporting billions of dollars worth of shrimp, catfish, tilapia, salmon and other fish. The U.S. imported about $2 billion of seafood products from China in 2007, almost double the volume of four years earlier, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
According to industry experts and businesspeople in China, melamine has been routinely added to fish feed, to boost protein readings. What's worse, new research indicates that the flesh in fish that have been fed melamine still contains residues of the substance.
How Dangerous Is Melamine for Your Baby?
Melamine is a compound composed of nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen. It began appearing in household goods and laminates in the late 1930's. When combined with formaldehyde and exposed to extreme heat, melamine forms into a moldable material that is virtually unbreakable once cooled.
Inside a human body, melamine combined with cyanuric acid forms into insoluble crystals in renal tubules, kidneys, the ureter, urethra or urinary bladder.
Babies who've been fed infant formula containing high concentrations of melamine have shown the following symptoms:
Unexplained fever arising from urinary tract infections
Unexplained crying in infants, especially when urinating, possible vomiting
Small amounts of blood in the urine
Acute obstructive renal failure
Pain on urinating, and passage of stones while urinating
High blood pressure
Edema
Pain over the kidneys
Keeping Your Baby Safe
Breastfeeding is without question the best way to keep your child safe from contaminants in commercial formula.
Beyond the concern for safety, there are so many other benefits to breastfeeding -- for both you and your baby -- it should be the option of choice whenever possible.
A very short list of some of the positive effects of breastfeeding your baby includes:
Reduced risk of heart disease for baby later in life
Higher intelligence
Reduced risk of obesity in teen years
Reduced womb-to-world trauma for newborns
Mothers who breastfeed return to pre-pregnancy weight faster
Is There a Safe Alternative to Breastfeeding?
Absolutely nothing beats breast milk as a nutritional and health resource for your baby. I can't stress it enough. There are at least 400 nutrients in breast milk that are not found in formula.
However, if for some reason you're not able to breastfeed, your next best option is to make a healthy infant formula using raw milk. You can find additional homemade formula recipes here.
Whatever you do, avoid infant soy formula. Unfermented soy is hazardous to your health, and soy formula is one of the worst foods you can feed to your baby.
http://articles.mercola.com:80/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/01/fda-claims-toxin-in-infant-formula-is-no-big-deal.aspx
Monday, January 5, 2009
Walk Away From Diabetes
It's amazing what a difference a few easily achievable lifestyle changes can make in a person's health, and it is also encouraging to see studies such as the one in today's article published in the mainstream media. A simple walking regimen alone -- even without other changes such as a healthy diet -- can dramatically reduce risk for disease.
Just as poor habits add up and have accumulative negative effect on our health, so it is with choices that lead toward wellness. Don't feel you have to do everything right. Just begin to begin, and if you are consistent, you will find it easier to implement additional changes that will improve your health. The important thing is to make a decision to get started and become committed to sticking with the process of change.
Study Shows Regular Exercise Might Prevent Onset Of Diabetes In Black Women
22 Dec 2008
Taking a brisk walk several times a week for exercise appears to reduce black women's risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to a study published this month in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Reuters Health reports. Few studies have been conducted on the benefits of exercise among black women, according to Reuters. For the study, Julie Palmer of Boston University and colleagues used data from the ongoing Black Women's Health Study that followed 45,000 black women from 1995 to 2005.
Researchers found that those who said they walked for a minimum of five hours weekly for exercise were one-third less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who did not walk. The risk of being diagnosed with the disease was significantly lower among women who said they regularly took a brisk walk even when taking into account possible contributing factors such as age, income and diet. The study included a large number of obese women and they too appeared to have a lower risk for developing diabetes if they exercised regularly.
Palmer said, "This is important, because it suggests a way to reduce diabetes risk even among the women who are at highest risk of the disease," adding, "The finding that brisk walking for a few hours a week or longer reduces diabetes risk may be the most important finding of all. This is something almost all women can do in the course of their daily lives."
Researchers also found that women who watched television for five or more hours a day were 86% more likely to develop diabetes than those who watched less than one hour per day (Norton, Reuters Health, 12/18).
An abstract of the study is available online.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=133880
Just as poor habits add up and have accumulative negative effect on our health, so it is with choices that lead toward wellness. Don't feel you have to do everything right. Just begin to begin, and if you are consistent, you will find it easier to implement additional changes that will improve your health. The important thing is to make a decision to get started and become committed to sticking with the process of change.
Study Shows Regular Exercise Might Prevent Onset Of Diabetes In Black Women
22 Dec 2008
Taking a brisk walk several times a week for exercise appears to reduce black women's risk of developing type 2 diabetes, according to a study published this month in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Reuters Health reports. Few studies have been conducted on the benefits of exercise among black women, according to Reuters. For the study, Julie Palmer of Boston University and colleagues used data from the ongoing Black Women's Health Study that followed 45,000 black women from 1995 to 2005.
Researchers found that those who said they walked for a minimum of five hours weekly for exercise were one-third less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who did not walk. The risk of being diagnosed with the disease was significantly lower among women who said they regularly took a brisk walk even when taking into account possible contributing factors such as age, income and diet. The study included a large number of obese women and they too appeared to have a lower risk for developing diabetes if they exercised regularly.
Palmer said, "This is important, because it suggests a way to reduce diabetes risk even among the women who are at highest risk of the disease," adding, "The finding that brisk walking for a few hours a week or longer reduces diabetes risk may be the most important finding of all. This is something almost all women can do in the course of their daily lives."
Researchers also found that women who watched television for five or more hours a day were 86% more likely to develop diabetes than those who watched less than one hour per day (Norton, Reuters Health, 12/18).
An abstract of the study is available online.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=133880
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
