In a newly released campaingn, owners and manufacturers of indoor tanning equipment are
running a series of advertisements that propose that indoor tanning is not harmful, but is in fact beneficial to users. The ads are controversial, as many in the medical field and and some cancer survivors feel they are misleading.
The truth, as is often the case in life, is somewhere in the middle. Proper and moderate use of tanning beds can be very useful at gaining needed vitamin D that is provided by ultraviolet light, but only if chemical sunscreens are not used that block this crucial nutrient. Of course, the best option is exposure to the real thing - natural sunlight. Everyone should get at least 20 minutes per day of direct sunlight, preferably in the early morning or near sunset. However, this is not always realistic for many people, so tanning beds can be a good option. Some researchers have convinced people that any exposure to the sun or other sources of ultraviolet light is bad for the skin and overall health, and this simply is not true, and often leads to vitamin D deficiencies. As with most issues regarding our health, moderation and good judgement are the keys.
New Ads Claim Tanning Is Good for You
Doctors Say Ads Misleading, Misrepresent the Truth
By ELISABETH LEAMY AND ALLEN LEVINE
March 27, 2008
The country's tanning salons are taking on the medical establishment with a bold campaign to convince Americans that exposure to ultraviolet radiation is actually good for you.
"Go get a tan. Your body will thank you," the Indoor Tanning Association proclaims in a TV ad that will appear nationally.
The association launched its marketing drive today with a full page ad in The New York Times to counter medical research that blames ultraviolet rays from the sun and tanning salons for causing melanoma.
"The dermatologists, the sunscreen and cosmetic industries have tried to say that somehow moderate tanning causes melanoma, which is just not true," Sarah Longwell of the Indoor Tanning Association told "Good Morning America" today.
Longwell says the studies warning against prolonged tanning in the sun or use of indoor tanning beds relied on "junk science."
To back its claims, the group cites a study by A. Bernard Ackerman -- who once received the "Master Dermatologist Award" from the American Association of Dermatology -- questioning whether exposure to ultraviolet rays from tanning really can cause melanoma.
"While our campaign will be controversial, it's time people learned the truth about sun exposure," Longwell said. "Not only is moderate tanning completely safe, more and more it's becoming just what the doctor ordered."
The ads say tanning actually is helpful because the body needs to get vitamin D from the sun.
But one doctor said people can get their daily vitamin D requirement from food and a few minutes of sun a week.
Yale Medical School's David Leffell said the ads are misleading.
"The ad misrepresents scientific fact," he said. "Ultraviolet radiation from the sun and from the artificial bulbs that are used in the tanning parlors can lead to skin cancer."
For one cancer survivor, the advertisements were disturbing.
"I don't think they're being honest at all," said Emily Konesky, who fought off advanced stage melanoma two years ago. She said her doctor attributed her illness to her tanning salon habit.
"It is not natural for a 19-year-old to be diagnosed with cancer that takes 30 to 40 years to develop," said Konesky, who used to go to indoor tanning salons as much as four times a week. "I wake up every single morning and think this could be the day that the cancer could come back."
Konesky believes she is living proof ultraviolet rays can do damage because she has the physical scars to prove it.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=4534076
Monday, April 7, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Natural Acne Remedy
A quick look on the internet or in the aisle of your local drug store will produce a plethora of acne treatments. Pharmaceutical companies understand the market for both teens and adults when it comes to fighting acne, and have come through with dozens of different acne products. But how safe and effective are these products? Many contain toxic chemicals that are harsh and damaging to the skin, and will often only temporarily cover up the symptoms of acne without getting to the root causes.
The following article discusses how acne and diet are related, including hormonal imbalances that are due in part to many foods that are commonly eaten. Acne, as well as most other forms of disease, is simply the reaction of the body to improper diet and other lifestyle choices that cause your entire system to become out of balance - especially the endocrine system. Through the use of hormone laden dairy and meat, people ingest enough hormones to change the natural balance of their system, often resulting in acne and other skin problems. Add to that hormone mimicking chemicals found in plastics and personal care products, it is no wonder we see so many difficulties with the endocrine system. Learning how to cleanse and detoxify the body, how to eat healthily (including drinking plenty of pure water), how to supplement effectively, and how to get adequate exercise and sunshine will result in a great reduction of many of the acne concerns which are so prevalent today.
Acne Treatment Remedy: Adjust Your Bodys Balance To Cure Acne Naturally
Andrew Braithwaite
April 02, 2008
Acne is a difficult problem to tackle and it can have many negative effects on a person that are often overlooked. It is important to believe that there is a solution to your acne. Acne is often the result of an imbalance in your body. Many teenagers who suffer from acne do so because of hormonal imbalances.
Nevertheless, what we eat can also trigger growth of bacteria that cause acne on your skin. You can use your diet to help create an internal environment which is not conducive to growth of bacteria that causes acne. Diets high in fat and carbohydrates may contribute to an increase in acne.
It is important to control both the quantity and quality of the food which is consumed in order to use your diet to help reduce acne. While diet alone is not enough to eliminate acne completely, it can certainly help to reduce it greatly. Many people who have suffered with acne indicate that making some simple dietary changes has improved the situation.
Good dietary advice includes reducing the amount of junk food or processed foods, and replacing them with fresh material that is free of preservatives and other chemicals. Sticking to a predominantly natural diet can aid your health in many ways that will help you get clearer skin, including the use of certain natural foods to combat hormones that produce oil, block pores, and cause acne.
The liver is responsible for the control of toxins. Mycotoxins can build up if your diet is wrong or imbalanced. A person prone to acne is more likely to react. These Mycotoxins effect hormones that cause acne.
Changing your eating habits can be a huge challenge especially if you are used to eating a certain way for so long, but this can be done. We must concentrate on the benefits to drive you to do what it takes to find a solution for your acne. Eating enough fruits and vegetables is very important, as food is great for cleansing your system and, of course, provides your body with many nutrients needed to heal.
Drinking fresh fruit and vegetable juices can be a great addition, especially carrot juice as it is very effective at promoting healthy skin. You may want to consider investing in a quality juicer in order to obtain the freshest, healthiest juice possible.
http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/articles/57383
The following article discusses how acne and diet are related, including hormonal imbalances that are due in part to many foods that are commonly eaten. Acne, as well as most other forms of disease, is simply the reaction of the body to improper diet and other lifestyle choices that cause your entire system to become out of balance - especially the endocrine system. Through the use of hormone laden dairy and meat, people ingest enough hormones to change the natural balance of their system, often resulting in acne and other skin problems. Add to that hormone mimicking chemicals found in plastics and personal care products, it is no wonder we see so many difficulties with the endocrine system. Learning how to cleanse and detoxify the body, how to eat healthily (including drinking plenty of pure water), how to supplement effectively, and how to get adequate exercise and sunshine will result in a great reduction of many of the acne concerns which are so prevalent today.
Acne Treatment Remedy: Adjust Your Bodys Balance To Cure Acne Naturally
Andrew Braithwaite
April 02, 2008
Acne is a difficult problem to tackle and it can have many negative effects on a person that are often overlooked. It is important to believe that there is a solution to your acne. Acne is often the result of an imbalance in your body. Many teenagers who suffer from acne do so because of hormonal imbalances.
Nevertheless, what we eat can also trigger growth of bacteria that cause acne on your skin. You can use your diet to help create an internal environment which is not conducive to growth of bacteria that causes acne. Diets high in fat and carbohydrates may contribute to an increase in acne.
It is important to control both the quantity and quality of the food which is consumed in order to use your diet to help reduce acne. While diet alone is not enough to eliminate acne completely, it can certainly help to reduce it greatly. Many people who have suffered with acne indicate that making some simple dietary changes has improved the situation.
Good dietary advice includes reducing the amount of junk food or processed foods, and replacing them with fresh material that is free of preservatives and other chemicals. Sticking to a predominantly natural diet can aid your health in many ways that will help you get clearer skin, including the use of certain natural foods to combat hormones that produce oil, block pores, and cause acne.
The liver is responsible for the control of toxins. Mycotoxins can build up if your diet is wrong or imbalanced. A person prone to acne is more likely to react. These Mycotoxins effect hormones that cause acne.
Changing your eating habits can be a huge challenge especially if you are used to eating a certain way for so long, but this can be done. We must concentrate on the benefits to drive you to do what it takes to find a solution for your acne. Eating enough fruits and vegetables is very important, as food is great for cleansing your system and, of course, provides your body with many nutrients needed to heal.
Drinking fresh fruit and vegetable juices can be a great addition, especially carrot juice as it is very effective at promoting healthy skin. You may want to consider investing in a quality juicer in order to obtain the freshest, healthiest juice possible.
http://www.losangeleschronicle.com/articles/57383
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Sugars That Heal
Sugar, specifically refined sugar, has a bad reputation in the health world, as well it should. However, all sugars are not created equally. Eight essential sugars known as Glyconutrients are gaining an increasing amount of attention in the world of nutrition and natural medicine, and many are recognizing glycoscience as one of the most powerful discoveries in the history of wellness.
The following article gives an excellent overview of the ins and outs of glyconutrients, as well as some valuable information about why these critical nutrients are missing from our modern diets. As we continue to hear more and more about the hazards and ineffectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs and other conventional medical treatments, it is encouraging to reflect on the potential benefits of natural alternatives such as glyconutrients. The answers to the staggering health problems that we as a society face today are not found to be found in drugs or other toxic substances, but rather by returning to a diet and lifestyle upon which we were naturally created to thrive.
Glyconutrients: what are they? What are they used for? What is the science behind them?
Source: Townsend Letter: The Examiner of Alternative Medicine
Publication Date: 01-AUG-07
The following article gives an excellent overview of the ins and outs of glyconutrients, as well as some valuable information about why these critical nutrients are missing from our modern diets. As we continue to hear more and more about the hazards and ineffectiveness of pharmaceutical drugs and other conventional medical treatments, it is encouraging to reflect on the potential benefits of natural alternatives such as glyconutrients. The answers to the staggering health problems that we as a society face today are not found to be found in drugs or other toxic substances, but rather by returning to a diet and lifestyle upon which we were naturally created to thrive.
Glyconutrients: what are they? What are they used for? What is the science behind them?
Source: Townsend Letter: The Examiner of Alternative Medicine
Publication Date: 01-AUG-07
Have you been doing everything that person in the white coat suggests, yet you still suffer from chronic health challenges? The flu used to be a 24- to 48-hour bug, and then it was gone. Today, the flu can last ten days to two weeks and sometimes kills people. Cancers, type 2 diabetes, and many other health problems in adults and children are on the rise globally. One out of four kids in the United States is clinically obese. What's going on?
Traditional medicine has no answers to sky-rocketing increases in autoimmune, cardiovascular, and degenerative diseases. There is growing evidence that many of these diseases point to a single dietary deficiency of "glyconutrients," newly discovered molecules that are important for a healthy immune system and cellular communication. Cellular communication is how the body heals itself. Glyconutrients are non-toxic foods that allow communication within your body, identifying cells to attack and destroy as well as those to protect and nurture, and informing your digestive system on which foods to absorb into the bloodstream and which to ignore.
The first glyconutrient molecule was discovered in 1981. Other glyconutrient molecules were virtually undetected until the early 1990s, when science and medicine broke the code determining how all cells in the body communicate with one another to perform their complex functions. Researchers are calling the discovery of these glyconutrients the most important medical breakthrough in over 500 years. Even the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is calling Glycobiology (Glycomics) one of ten emerging technologies that will change the world for the better!
So, why doesn't your doctor know about glyconutrients? When did he or she graduate from medical school? Until recently, most doctors were given less than an hour of nutritional training before receiving their medical degree. Since October 1999, five Nobel Prizes in Physiology have been awarded in this area of science. In 1996, Harper's Biochemistry, a medical textbook for doctors, first added a chapter on glyconutrients to their 24th edition. Today, glyconutrient technology is being taught in universities and medical schools throughout the world.
Until recently, too, we thought that the only role for the 200+ known carbohydrates was to provide energy to the body. Now we know that the eight glyconutrients, which are also carbohydrates, are in a class by themselves. These specific eight molecules are biologically active sugars or plant carbohydrates (monosaccharides) that coat the surface of every one of the trillions of cells in the body. They are not vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, herbs, enzymes, or homeopathic drugs.
The eight glyconutrients include the following:
* xylose
* fucose [not fructose]
* galactose
* glucose
* mannose
* N-acetylglucosamine
* N-acetylgalactosamine
* N-acetylneuraminic acid [a sialic acid]
Today's American diet is deficient in several of these important monosaccharides, which are necessary for cellular function. They are simply gone from the food chain! In abundance are glucose and galactose. Glucose comes from such foods as wheat, rice, and sugar cane. Galactose comes from milk products, and if you don't consume dairy, you are probably deficient in this monosaccharide, too.
Why is our modern diet missing several of these glyconutrients? Because most of our so-called "fresh fruits and vegetables" are grown in nutrient-depleted soils, green-harvested (which means they are picked "green" and lack the nutrients that come from being vine-ripened), sprayed with pesticides, stored for weeks or months, over-processed, over-cooked, artificially ripened, gassed, genetically engineered, frozen, canned, refined, pasteurized, etc. If you buy "organic," all you are getting is "pesticide-free," but most of the fruits and vegetables still lack nutrients for the same reasons.
Toxins are another of many things in our environment that interrupt the body's ability to obtain these eight essential sugars. One of the most well-known toxins comes in a little brown bottle with a white cap: the pharmaceutical drug. All drugs are toxic! If they are not toxic, then they are not a drug. Pharmaceutical companies are aware of this emerging glyconutrient technology and are spending billions trying to duplicate these natural food molecules. However, decoding glyconutrients will be far more complex than decoding the human genome. And only live glyconutrients--in nature, not in synthetic form--will work in the human body.
What happens if the body becomes deficient in these molecules? In today's market, glyconutrients are available as dietary supplements. Look for those that are high-quality and contain as many of the essential eight as possible. The body also has a back-up system that will produce the missing glyconutrients through slow enzymatic processes. But when this system breaks down, the body's ability to heal itself on a cellular level also breaks down. Our inability to fight infections, viruses, bacteria, and toxins is seen as the main reason for the rise in health challenges such as overactive immune disorders, underactive immune disorders, autoimmune diseases, inflammatory disorders, and many other conditions.
Glyconutrients are the "spark of life" for the baby's immune system, safe for newborns. In fact, six glyconutrients exist in mother's breast milk, and the body makes the other two. When babies are not breast-fed, they have higher levels of health problems throughout their entire life.
When the body is functioning properly, it means good cellular communication exists. When the body is not functioning property, it means there is dysfunction and cellular miscommunication--and a dysfunctional body means disease.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33205832_ITM
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Artificial Hormones Increase Risk for Recurring Cancers
New evidence has been discovered that indicates the use of synthetic Hormone Replacement Therapy after a bout with breast cancer can increase the likelihood of the cancer returning or a new cancer developing. This is just another one of many reasons why synthetic HRT should be avoided or at least investigated fully before use, while implementing natural hormone replacement along with a healthy lifestyle may lead to better overall health and decrease the incidence of reproductive cancers and other debilitating diseases in women and men who use them.
Traditional cancer treatments are so toxic in and of themselves that they often cause new malignancies to occur during actual treatment or long after treatment has been completed. Combine these traditional cancer treatments with synthetic HRT, and the risks become even greater. Altering hormonal balances artificially can produce many dangerous side effects in both women and men. Again, make sure that you are aware of these risks before saying yes to treatment. The drug companies and the FDA continually dance around the issues and try to minimize the hazards, but manipulating the body with such chemicals is inherently risky and can lead to many serious short-term and long-term health problems.
HRT Ups Cancer Recurrence
Reported April 1, 2008
(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- A diagnosis of breast cancer does not mix well with hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
According to European researchers, women who take HRT after a bout with breast cancer are significantly more likely to see their cancer return or to develop a new malignancy.
The investigators compared two groups of women, both with about 220 participants. The first group received HRT after cancer treatment, while the second did not. Over a median follow-up of four years, 39 women in the HRT group had a recurrence of their cancer or a new cancer, compared to 17 in the non-HRT group. The researchers estimate an overall five year disease recurrence rate of about 22 percent for women taking HRT, versus about nine percent for those who forego treatment with hormones. That puts the absolute increased risk due to HRT at about 14 percent.
In an accompanying editorial, Kathy I. Pritchard, M.D., of the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, notes this is one of the first studies to take a randomized, controlled approach to gauging the effects of HRT on women who have had breast cancer and is helping to settle the debate that has raged in the medical community about whether or not these drugs are appropriate for breast cancer survivors.
Although randomized data concerning use of HRT for symptomatic intervention in breast cancer survivors are still sparse, it seems that the harmful side effects of HRT have finally been clearly demonstrated, Dr. Pritchard writes.
http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_printStory.cfm?storyid=18518
Traditional cancer treatments are so toxic in and of themselves that they often cause new malignancies to occur during actual treatment or long after treatment has been completed. Combine these traditional cancer treatments with synthetic HRT, and the risks become even greater. Altering hormonal balances artificially can produce many dangerous side effects in both women and men. Again, make sure that you are aware of these risks before saying yes to treatment. The drug companies and the FDA continually dance around the issues and try to minimize the hazards, but manipulating the body with such chemicals is inherently risky and can lead to many serious short-term and long-term health problems.
HRT Ups Cancer Recurrence
Reported April 1, 2008
(Ivanhoe Newswire) -- A diagnosis of breast cancer does not mix well with hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
According to European researchers, women who take HRT after a bout with breast cancer are significantly more likely to see their cancer return or to develop a new malignancy.
The investigators compared two groups of women, both with about 220 participants. The first group received HRT after cancer treatment, while the second did not. Over a median follow-up of four years, 39 women in the HRT group had a recurrence of their cancer or a new cancer, compared to 17 in the non-HRT group. The researchers estimate an overall five year disease recurrence rate of about 22 percent for women taking HRT, versus about nine percent for those who forego treatment with hormones. That puts the absolute increased risk due to HRT at about 14 percent.
In an accompanying editorial, Kathy I. Pritchard, M.D., of the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer Center in Toronto, notes this is one of the first studies to take a randomized, controlled approach to gauging the effects of HRT on women who have had breast cancer and is helping to settle the debate that has raged in the medical community about whether or not these drugs are appropriate for breast cancer survivors.
Although randomized data concerning use of HRT for symptomatic intervention in breast cancer survivors are still sparse, it seems that the harmful side effects of HRT have finally been clearly demonstrated, Dr. Pritchard writes.
http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_printStory.cfm?storyid=18518
Monday, March 31, 2008
Asthma Drug May Produce Suicidal Thoughts
One of the most popular asthma/allergy drugs used by millions here in the US and around the world may cause mental and emotional changes in some patients that could lead to suicide. Already fraught with admitted side-effects such as anxiety and depression, the FDA is taking a closer look at Singulair, a drug that produces billions in annual sales for Big Pharma giant Merck.
Many of the drugs prescribed for asthma are potentially very toxic, especially to children. They often contain steroids and other dangerous substances that will cause long-term damage to patients. Now it appears that suicide must be added to the list of potentially harmful side effects as well. There are many natural remedies for the treatment of asthma, such as a diet that eliminates food allergens, plenty of fresh air, and exercise (swimming is especially good for asthmatics as long as the water is not chlorinated). If you or a loved one suffers from asthma, please do your research before agreeing to the use of medications. Your physician may not be telling you the whole story when it comes to the risks involved.
FDA Investigates Merck Drug-Suicide Link
By MATTHEW PERRONE - 3 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday it is investigating a possible link between Merck's best-selling Singulair and suicide.
FDA said it is reviewing a handful of reports involving mood changes, suicidal behavior and suicide in patients who have taken the popular allergy and asthma drug.
Merck has updated the drug's labeling four times in the past year to include information on a range of reported side effects: tremors, anxiousness, depression and suicidal behavior.
FDA said it asked the Whitehouse, N.J.-based company to dig deeper into its data on Singulair for evidence of possible links to suicide. The agency said it has not established a "causal relationship" between Merck's drug and suicidal behavior. An agency spokeswoman said the review was prompted by three to four suicide reports it received since last October.
It could take up to nine months before agency scientists can draw any conclusions, FDA said in a posting to its Web site.
The agency recently began notifying the public earlier about possible safety issues. The policy change came after the FDA was criticized for acting too slowly on information about the risks of Merck's painkiller Vioxx and, GlaxoSmithKline plc's diabetes pill Avandia.
Merck officials stressed that the FDA's inquiry is based on reports, not clinical studies - which are the standard tool for evaluating drug safety. The company said none of the 11,000 patients enrolled in 40 Singulair trials has committed suicide.
"We have no indication that anything about the mechanism of Singulair is consistent with these events," said George Philip, director of research and product development. "But because suicide is a life-threatening event we thought it was important to provide this information in the product label."
Merck said it recently added reports of suicide to Singulair's label, which already listed suicidal thinking and behavior as reported side effects.
In clinical trials of asthma patients, the most common side effects were headache, flu, abdominal pain and cough.
With sales of $4.3 billion last year, Singulair is used by millions of patients in the U.S, according to Merck. First approved in 1998, it's part of a class of asthma and allergy drugs that includes AstraZeneca's Accolate and Critical Therapeutics's Zyflo.
FDA said it is also reviewing reports of side effects with those drugs. Their labeling does not contain language about suicide.
"Patients should not stop taking Singulair before talking to their doctor," FDA said in its statement, adding that doctors should monitor patients for suicidal behavior and mood changes.
Shares of Merck & Co. Inc. rose 8 cents to close at $44.78.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ism9h1KwfQYjFxJVMYhupl8FOU-gD8VMA2F00
Many of the drugs prescribed for asthma are potentially very toxic, especially to children. They often contain steroids and other dangerous substances that will cause long-term damage to patients. Now it appears that suicide must be added to the list of potentially harmful side effects as well. There are many natural remedies for the treatment of asthma, such as a diet that eliminates food allergens, plenty of fresh air, and exercise (swimming is especially good for asthmatics as long as the water is not chlorinated). If you or a loved one suffers from asthma, please do your research before agreeing to the use of medications. Your physician may not be telling you the whole story when it comes to the risks involved.
FDA Investigates Merck Drug-Suicide Link
By MATTHEW PERRONE - 3 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday it is investigating a possible link between Merck's best-selling Singulair and suicide.
FDA said it is reviewing a handful of reports involving mood changes, suicidal behavior and suicide in patients who have taken the popular allergy and asthma drug.
Merck has updated the drug's labeling four times in the past year to include information on a range of reported side effects: tremors, anxiousness, depression and suicidal behavior.
FDA said it asked the Whitehouse, N.J.-based company to dig deeper into its data on Singulair for evidence of possible links to suicide. The agency said it has not established a "causal relationship" between Merck's drug and suicidal behavior. An agency spokeswoman said the review was prompted by three to four suicide reports it received since last October.
It could take up to nine months before agency scientists can draw any conclusions, FDA said in a posting to its Web site.
The agency recently began notifying the public earlier about possible safety issues. The policy change came after the FDA was criticized for acting too slowly on information about the risks of Merck's painkiller Vioxx and, GlaxoSmithKline plc's diabetes pill Avandia.
Merck officials stressed that the FDA's inquiry is based on reports, not clinical studies - which are the standard tool for evaluating drug safety. The company said none of the 11,000 patients enrolled in 40 Singulair trials has committed suicide.
"We have no indication that anything about the mechanism of Singulair is consistent with these events," said George Philip, director of research and product development. "But because suicide is a life-threatening event we thought it was important to provide this information in the product label."
Merck said it recently added reports of suicide to Singulair's label, which already listed suicidal thinking and behavior as reported side effects.
In clinical trials of asthma patients, the most common side effects were headache, flu, abdominal pain and cough.
With sales of $4.3 billion last year, Singulair is used by millions of patients in the U.S, according to Merck. First approved in 1998, it's part of a class of asthma and allergy drugs that includes AstraZeneca's Accolate and Critical Therapeutics's Zyflo.
FDA said it is also reviewing reports of side effects with those drugs. Their labeling does not contain language about suicide.
"Patients should not stop taking Singulair before talking to their doctor," FDA said in its statement, adding that doctors should monitor patients for suicidal behavior and mood changes.
Shares of Merck & Co. Inc. rose 8 cents to close at $44.78.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ism9h1KwfQYjFxJVMYhupl8FOU-gD8VMA2F00
Money Trail Leads to Big Tobacco
The story posted below brings several disturbing issues to light. It involves a research study regarding the use of lung scans on smokers, and the involvement of money from tobacco companies and CT scan manufacturers as sources of funding for the study. The most obvious conflict of interest is the disclosure of monies supplied by a major tobacco company, but perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that the lung scans being studied are being presented as a benefit for smokers, when the truth is that these types of CT scans expose individuals to toxic amounts of radiation in and of themselves.
It is sad indeed that we cannot trust many scientists and be certain that they have the best interests of the public at heart. The legacy of questionable relationships involving many public health groups like the American Cancer Society and government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health is scandalous, and it makes it very difficult for informed people to trust advice given to them by their physicians regarding health and treatment options. This is why it is so important to be proactive and educated about the choices available to you should you become ill, or more crucially, the options you can exercise on your own initiative to pursue wellness and prevent disease.
Tobacco Cash in Lung Study Stirs Flap
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE and STEPHANIE NANO - 1 day ago
The disclosure of hidden tobacco money behind a big study suggesting that lung scans might help save smokers from cancer has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science.
Two medical journals that published studies by Weill Cornell Medical College researchers in 2006 are looking into tobacco cash and other financial ties that weren't revealed. The studies reported benefits from lung scans, which the Cornell team has long touted.
It's a crucial public health issue: Dozens of groups, including such anti-smoking crusaders as the American Cancer Society, have given the Cornell team money to see if routinely screening smokers with CT scans can spot the world's most lethal cancer in time to prevent deaths.
The federal government also has given money even though scientists have criticized the Cornell study's design and the government has its own more rigorous study under way.
Many were stunned to learn that a foundation Cornell set up and listed in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2006 as a sponsor of the study actually got $3.6 million from a parent company of cigarette maker Liggett Group Inc. The tobacco source was reported in a New York Times story Wednesday.
Liggett, whose owner was the first to break with other tobacco companies and say that tobacco was addictive and deadly, announced its donation to the Cornell foundation in 2000 in a press release. But the foundation's funding source wasn't disclosed to the journal.
On Wednesday, company spokeswoman Carrie Bloom noted in a statement that the company "had no control or influence over the research."
Scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and "any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable," Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute, said in a statement.
Any findings from a study tainted by hidden industry ties "will be much less believable," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. The problem is avoidable, he added. "There are plenty of people around who are bright and knowledgeable and don't have conflicts of interest. We need to look harder to find these people."
The cancer society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said the society would not have contributed to the study if it knew "Big Tobacco" was co-funding the work. Still, there is no sign that the study's findings are tainted, and "it is my belief that something can be learned that can be useful," he said.
The chief Cornell researcher, Dr. Claudia Henschke, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment. Cornell's dean, Dr. Antonio Gotto, said: "The claim that we set this foundation up in order to cover up the money just isn't true. We made a public announcement that we were taking the money from the tobacco company."
In retrospect, Gotto said perhaps the tobacco cash and patents that Cornell researchers hold on related technology should have been disclosed in Henschke's journal articles. Instead, one listed only the Cornell foundation.
Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, said she contacted Henschke months ago after others pointed out patents not disclosed in a July 2006 study. DeAngelis said Henschke didn't believe the patents were relevant to the research and resisted disclosing them.
"We'd been working with Dr. Henschke trying to get her to write a letter of apology - which is our policy - and to take responsibility," DeAngelis said. "It was not easy to get her to do anything."
Asked whether she would have published the research if the tobacco funding had been known, DeAngelis said: "Absolutely not. I would have turned down the paper."
A spokeswoman for the New England Journal, which published the Henschke paper listing the Cornell foundation as a sponsor, one of about 30, said only that the journal was investigating the matter.
Smokers are in dire need of good science on the risk and benefits of lung scans, which are being marketed directly to the public in shopping centers and similar settings. About 1 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and most will die because it is found too late for treatment to do much good.
Advanced X-rays called spiral CT scans have been touted as a way to find tumors earlier. But doctors fear that screening could lead to too many false alarms and unnecessary biopsies without saving lives. The cancer society does not currently recommend them, and most insurers don't pay for them.
Interest in the scans soared after Henschke published a key study in 1999 saying they found more tumors than conventional X-rays. Her ongoing study aims to prove the value of these scans but has been criticized because it lacks a comparison group.
The National Cancer Institute's study now under way has several comparison groups. It, too, has been criticized because two of its leaders were paid by tobacco companies as expert witnesses in lawsuits. Brawley says these were small amounts and one researcher gave the money back. Results of the federal study are expected in 2009 or 2010.
Laurie Fenton Ambrose, president of the patient advocacy group, the Lung Cancer Alliance, has complained about the government study conflicts, and says attacks on Henschke are "mudslinging."
"There is a difference between money that is provided independent of any tobacco control that would help fund research that would advance better patient outcomes and money that tobacco (companies) pay researchers for their testimony against screening in class action lawsuits," she said.
However, her group has taken industry money, too - from a maker of CT scanning equipment.
Niederhuber said the government "takes conflict of interest very seriously" and is committed to finishing its study with integrity.
An independent safety monitoring board is in place, and "investigators involved in the study do not have access to the data collected and cannot influence the data in any way that might affect the outcome of the trial," he added.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOTY8-blA7pr_lwIlOGBqZVqLH8AD8VLD38O0
It is sad indeed that we cannot trust many scientists and be certain that they have the best interests of the public at heart. The legacy of questionable relationships involving many public health groups like the American Cancer Society and government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health is scandalous, and it makes it very difficult for informed people to trust advice given to them by their physicians regarding health and treatment options. This is why it is so important to be proactive and educated about the choices available to you should you become ill, or more crucially, the options you can exercise on your own initiative to pursue wellness and prevent disease.
Tobacco Cash in Lung Study Stirs Flap
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE and STEPHANIE NANO - 1 day ago
The disclosure of hidden tobacco money behind a big study suggesting that lung scans might help save smokers from cancer has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science.
Two medical journals that published studies by Weill Cornell Medical College researchers in 2006 are looking into tobacco cash and other financial ties that weren't revealed. The studies reported benefits from lung scans, which the Cornell team has long touted.
It's a crucial public health issue: Dozens of groups, including such anti-smoking crusaders as the American Cancer Society, have given the Cornell team money to see if routinely screening smokers with CT scans can spot the world's most lethal cancer in time to prevent deaths.
The federal government also has given money even though scientists have criticized the Cornell study's design and the government has its own more rigorous study under way.
Many were stunned to learn that a foundation Cornell set up and listed in the New England Journal of Medicine in October 2006 as a sponsor of the study actually got $3.6 million from a parent company of cigarette maker Liggett Group Inc. The tobacco source was reported in a New York Times story Wednesday.
Liggett, whose owner was the first to break with other tobacco companies and say that tobacco was addictive and deadly, announced its donation to the Cornell foundation in 2000 in a press release. But the foundation's funding source wasn't disclosed to the journal.
On Wednesday, company spokeswoman Carrie Bloom noted in a statement that the company "had no control or influence over the research."
Scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and "any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable," Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute, said in a statement.
Any findings from a study tainted by hidden industry ties "will be much less believable," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. The problem is avoidable, he added. "There are plenty of people around who are bright and knowledgeable and don't have conflicts of interest. We need to look harder to find these people."
The cancer society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said the society would not have contributed to the study if it knew "Big Tobacco" was co-funding the work. Still, there is no sign that the study's findings are tainted, and "it is my belief that something can be learned that can be useful," he said.
The chief Cornell researcher, Dr. Claudia Henschke, did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment. Cornell's dean, Dr. Antonio Gotto, said: "The claim that we set this foundation up in order to cover up the money just isn't true. We made a public announcement that we were taking the money from the tobacco company."
In retrospect, Gotto said perhaps the tobacco cash and patents that Cornell researchers hold on related technology should have been disclosed in Henschke's journal articles. Instead, one listed only the Cornell foundation.
Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, said she contacted Henschke months ago after others pointed out patents not disclosed in a July 2006 study. DeAngelis said Henschke didn't believe the patents were relevant to the research and resisted disclosing them.
"We'd been working with Dr. Henschke trying to get her to write a letter of apology - which is our policy - and to take responsibility," DeAngelis said. "It was not easy to get her to do anything."
Asked whether she would have published the research if the tobacco funding had been known, DeAngelis said: "Absolutely not. I would have turned down the paper."
A spokeswoman for the New England Journal, which published the Henschke paper listing the Cornell foundation as a sponsor, one of about 30, said only that the journal was investigating the matter.
Smokers are in dire need of good science on the risk and benefits of lung scans, which are being marketed directly to the public in shopping centers and similar settings. About 1 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with lung cancer this year, and most will die because it is found too late for treatment to do much good.
Advanced X-rays called spiral CT scans have been touted as a way to find tumors earlier. But doctors fear that screening could lead to too many false alarms and unnecessary biopsies without saving lives. The cancer society does not currently recommend them, and most insurers don't pay for them.
Interest in the scans soared after Henschke published a key study in 1999 saying they found more tumors than conventional X-rays. Her ongoing study aims to prove the value of these scans but has been criticized because it lacks a comparison group.
The National Cancer Institute's study now under way has several comparison groups. It, too, has been criticized because two of its leaders were paid by tobacco companies as expert witnesses in lawsuits. Brawley says these were small amounts and one researcher gave the money back. Results of the federal study are expected in 2009 or 2010.
Laurie Fenton Ambrose, president of the patient advocacy group, the Lung Cancer Alliance, has complained about the government study conflicts, and says attacks on Henschke are "mudslinging."
"There is a difference between money that is provided independent of any tobacco control that would help fund research that would advance better patient outcomes and money that tobacco (companies) pay researchers for their testimony against screening in class action lawsuits," she said.
However, her group has taken industry money, too - from a maker of CT scanning equipment.
Niederhuber said the government "takes conflict of interest very seriously" and is committed to finishing its study with integrity.
An independent safety monitoring board is in place, and "investigators involved in the study do not have access to the data collected and cannot influence the data in any way that might affect the outcome of the trial," he added.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOTY8-blA7pr_lwIlOGBqZVqLH8AD8VLD38O0
Friday, March 28, 2008
Many Benefits to Eating Organic
The news has been filled lately with outbreaks of disease related to both contaminated meat as well as fruits and vegetables. As more and more of our food is produced corporately, both here in the US and those imported from around the world, the chances of poor food safety and excessive exposure to legalized toxins such as growth hormones and pesticides only increases. It is clear that the only alternative that makes sense as far as gaining maximum nutrition and avoiding dangerous substances in our food is to grow our own or buy locally what we cannot produce ourselves.
Even when buying organic it is important to know your sources. Many corporations have jumped on the organic bandwagon, and the powers that be have allowed them to advertise foods as organic when they are not truly organic at all. I encourage everyone to grow as much of their own food as possible and to make sure that the seeds that are purchased are organic and not genetically engineered. Typing heirloom seeds into a search engine will give you a lot of information as well as places to buy seeds. Growing your own produce can be done even if you reside in an urban setting through the use of alternative gardening techniques such as growing veggies in specialized containers on a deck or porch, or even indoors. One particular company is marketing a growing container for vine vegetables or fruits called the Topsy Turvy Upside-down Tomato Planter which looks very easy to use while taking up a limited amount of space. Growing your own food is a great way to eat well and to get the whole family involved in the agricultural process as well.
Want a Nutritional Edge? Buy Organic
by Stephanie Whited
(NaturalNews) A recent UK government report found that chickens raised in the widespread, non-organic fashion, have a 23.4% chance of being contaminated with salmonella, a bacteria responsible for food poisoning. The chance of an organic flock having salmonella? Only 4.4%.
What's the difference between how the chickens are raised?
Organic chickens must have "access to outdoor ranges and pasture, with an emphasis on enabling the animals to express their natural behaviour." Sounds pretty reasonable.
The non-organic chickens are mostly housed in cages which allow each individual bird the space of a standard sheet of paper. Yes, the 8 1/2" X 11" kind. These birds are also given antibiotics, which not only help to create superbugs and weaken the birds' immune systems, but they potentially have the same effect on you when you eat the chicken or its eggs.
So, non-organic animals are likely to be raised under harsh conditions and administered antibiotics and hormones (the run-off of which create mutated fish), but what about non-organic fruits and vegetables?
Non-organic fruits and vegetables are grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizer. So what? Well, studies are showing that more than 90% of children in the US "have detectable residues of at least one neurotoxic pesticide in their urine." Something is called neurotoxic when it is poisonous to your brain and nervous system.
Pesticides may also be changing our hormones and reproductive systems. They've been found to change the hormones of animals in tests and in the wild, and a lot of our systems are similar, so aren't they probably hurting us too? Visit Mindfully.org for more details.
How can we avoid them? According to a study outlined in a 2003 Environmental Health Perspectives article, children "eating organic fruits and vegetables had six times lower levels of pesticide byproducts in their blood versus children eating conventional produce."
Anytime that pesticide is found on organic produce, it is either because pesticides have drifted from a nearby non-organic farm or the produce has been contaminated by "long-ago banned pesticides that linger in the environment." So the effects of pesticide use are extremely long term!
Besides helping you to avoid dangerous pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones, choosing organics also supplies you with more nutrients. Those organically raised chickens we just discussed lay eggs which, according to a Mother Earth News, contain:
* 1/3 less cholesterol
* 1/4 less saturated fat
* 2/3 more vitamin A
* 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
* 3 times more vitamin E
* 7 times more beta carotene
That's a huge difference! Mindfully.org compared over 30 different studies and found that on average, organic food does have more nutrients than inorganic food. Organic food was found to be far superior in three areas: Vitamin C content, a lower content of carcinogenic nitrates and better protein quality. These are key areas to a higher immunity, avoiding cancer, and cell health. Protein is in every cell of the body!
While it is better to eat fruits and vegetables with pesticides instead of processed foods, those who eat organically will have a healthy advantage. Ask your local stores to buy organic!
http://www.naturalnews.com/z022880.html
Even when buying organic it is important to know your sources. Many corporations have jumped on the organic bandwagon, and the powers that be have allowed them to advertise foods as organic when they are not truly organic at all. I encourage everyone to grow as much of their own food as possible and to make sure that the seeds that are purchased are organic and not genetically engineered. Typing heirloom seeds into a search engine will give you a lot of information as well as places to buy seeds. Growing your own produce can be done even if you reside in an urban setting through the use of alternative gardening techniques such as growing veggies in specialized containers on a deck or porch, or even indoors. One particular company is marketing a growing container for vine vegetables or fruits called the Topsy Turvy Upside-down Tomato Planter which looks very easy to use while taking up a limited amount of space. Growing your own food is a great way to eat well and to get the whole family involved in the agricultural process as well.
Want a Nutritional Edge? Buy Organic
by Stephanie Whited
(NaturalNews) A recent UK government report found that chickens raised in the widespread, non-organic fashion, have a 23.4% chance of being contaminated with salmonella, a bacteria responsible for food poisoning. The chance of an organic flock having salmonella? Only 4.4%.
What's the difference between how the chickens are raised?
Organic chickens must have "access to outdoor ranges and pasture, with an emphasis on enabling the animals to express their natural behaviour." Sounds pretty reasonable.
The non-organic chickens are mostly housed in cages which allow each individual bird the space of a standard sheet of paper. Yes, the 8 1/2" X 11" kind. These birds are also given antibiotics, which not only help to create superbugs and weaken the birds' immune systems, but they potentially have the same effect on you when you eat the chicken or its eggs.
So, non-organic animals are likely to be raised under harsh conditions and administered antibiotics and hormones (the run-off of which create mutated fish), but what about non-organic fruits and vegetables?
Non-organic fruits and vegetables are grown with synthetic pesticides and fertilizer. So what? Well, studies are showing that more than 90% of children in the US "have detectable residues of at least one neurotoxic pesticide in their urine." Something is called neurotoxic when it is poisonous to your brain and nervous system.
Pesticides may also be changing our hormones and reproductive systems. They've been found to change the hormones of animals in tests and in the wild, and a lot of our systems are similar, so aren't they probably hurting us too? Visit Mindfully.org for more details.
How can we avoid them? According to a study outlined in a 2003 Environmental Health Perspectives article, children "eating organic fruits and vegetables had six times lower levels of pesticide byproducts in their blood versus children eating conventional produce."
Anytime that pesticide is found on organic produce, it is either because pesticides have drifted from a nearby non-organic farm or the produce has been contaminated by "long-ago banned pesticides that linger in the environment." So the effects of pesticide use are extremely long term!
Besides helping you to avoid dangerous pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones, choosing organics also supplies you with more nutrients. Those organically raised chickens we just discussed lay eggs which, according to a Mother Earth News, contain:
* 1/3 less cholesterol
* 1/4 less saturated fat
* 2/3 more vitamin A
* 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
* 3 times more vitamin E
* 7 times more beta carotene
That's a huge difference! Mindfully.org compared over 30 different studies and found that on average, organic food does have more nutrients than inorganic food. Organic food was found to be far superior in three areas: Vitamin C content, a lower content of carcinogenic nitrates and better protein quality. These are key areas to a higher immunity, avoiding cancer, and cell health. Protein is in every cell of the body!
While it is better to eat fruits and vegetables with pesticides instead of processed foods, those who eat organically will have a healthy advantage. Ask your local stores to buy organic!
http://www.naturalnews.com/z022880.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
