There has been a lot of coverage lately about the dangerous spread of a highly contagious form of bacterial infection known as MRSA that thrives in healthcare settings such as hospitals and nursing homes. The story we are looking at today raises a red flag about the link between MRSA and its rising incidence in swine and agricultural workers who work on swine farms or in pork processing plants.
For years the pork industry -- and the meat industry in general -- have exposed animals to high doses of antibiotics both through their feed and by directly injecting them with these drugs. It appears this practice is finally catching up with us, as the animals are becoming resistant to diseases such as MRSA, thus putting sick animals into the food chain, and also crossing the species barrier and directly infecting humans with diseases that are also resistant to treatment. You cannot violate the principles of nature indefinitely without eventually reaping the consequences. Thus, the greedy practices of the food industry and the blind eye of regulatory agencies are increasingly taking their toll on human health.
Drug-Resistant Staph Found in Midwestern Swine, Workers
IOWA CITY, Iowa, January 23, 2009 (ENS) - The first study documenting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in swine and swine workers in the United States has been published by University of Iowa researchers.
The investigators found a strain of MRSA, known as ST398, in a swine production system in the Midwest, according to research published today by the science journal "PLoS One."
"Our results show that colonization of swine by MRSA was very common in one of two corporate swine production systems we studied," said Dr. Tara Smith, an associate professor of epidemiology in the University of Iowa College of Public Health and lead author of the study.
"Because ST398 was found in both animals and humans, it suggests transmission between the two," she said.
"Our findings also suggest that once MRSA is introduced, it may spread broadly among both swine and their caretakers. Agricultural animals could become an important reservoir for this bacterium," Smith warned.
Staphylococcus aureus, often called staph, are bacteria commonly carried on the skin or in the nose of healthy people. MRSA is a type of staph that is resistant to the broad-spectrum antibiotics commonly used to treat it.
A recent study estimated that MRSA caused 94,000 infections in humans and more than 18,000 deaths in the United States in 2005.
Most MRSA infections occur in hospitals or other health care settings, such as nursing homes and dialysis centers, according to the Mayo Clinic. Older adults and people with weakened immune systems are at most risk. More recently, another type of MRSA has occurred among otherwise healthy people in the wider community. This form, community-associated MRSA, is responsible for serious skin and soft tissue infections and for a serious form of pneumonia.
MRSA has been found in a variety of animals, including horses, cattle, dogs, cats and swine.
Previous studies have shown that many swine and swine farmers in Canada and the Netherlands carry MRSA. However, the University of Iowa study was the first to investigate carriage of MRSA among swine and swine farmers in the United States.
For the study, investigators analyzed nasal swabs of 299 swine and 20 swine workers from two different production systems in Iowa and Illinois. At Production System A, the overall prevalence of MRSA was 70 percent in swine and 64 percent in workers. At Production System B, all swine and human samples were negative for MRSA.
The researchers could not determine why System A had a high prevalence rate of MRSA among its swine and swine handlers, but listed several differences compared to System B.
First, the systems raised different breeds of swine. Second, System A was an older, more established operation that had approximately twice the number of animals as System B. Third, both systems imported sows from different sources, raising the possibility that ST398 may have been introduced via live swine or pork products.
"Iowa ranks first in the nation in swine production," Smith said. "Transmission of MRSA on swine farms or in veterinary facilities could complicate efforts to reduce MRSA transmission statewide and beyond."
The investigators recommended that future studies assess the risk of MRSA disease among swine workers and their contacts, survey retail meat products for MRSA contamination, study larger populations of swine and humans to define the epidemiology of MRSA within swine operations, and assess MRSA carriage rates in other livestock.
http://www.ens-newswire.com:80/ens/jan2009/2009-01-23-095.asp
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Research Points to Fruits as Brain Food
There are a ton of good reasons to eat more whole, raw foods such as organic fruit, and now a new study indicates that fresh fruit in your diet may directly benefit brain cells and prevent dementia such as Alzheimer's disease. Apparently there are substances in fruits that naturally act to protect brain cells from deterioration.
Make the decision to buy more healthy foods, such as fruit and vegetables, and to avoid bringing home high-calorie pre-packaged snacks and other processed foods. Another key is to shop well and agree only to eat what you have in the house. It will be a lot easier to reach for a piece of fruit if you don't have chips or sweets available to tempt you. Eventually, your body will begin to develop a taste for new choices, and you will begin to prefer healthier foods. You owe it to yourself and your family to test my advice and personally experience that it works! One relatively simple decision such as this can literally lead to a lifetime of change.
Fruit Rich in Polyphenols Protects Against Alzheimer's Disease, Cognitive Decline
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Fruits rich in polyphenols may help protect against the oxidative stress that has been linked to cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease, according to a study conducted by researchers from three Korean universities and published in the Journal of Food Science.
"Our study demonstrated that antioxidants in the major fresh fruits consumed in the United States and Korea protected neuronal cells from oxidative stress," the researchers wrote. "Therefore, additional consumption of fresh fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges may be beneficial to ameliorate chemopreventive effects in neurodegenerative disease."
Researchers took a cancer cell line derived from the forebrains of rats, intended to simulate human neurons. These cells were exposed to hydrogen peroxide after being treated with varying concentrations of fruit extracts.
Treatment with fruit extracts led to a significant increase in cell viability and decreased oxidative damage compared with the control group. The most effective extract was from apples, but the orange and banana extracts also functioned well. At the highest concentration, the orange and banana extracts provided 103 and 118 percent more cell protection than the control treatment.
Researchers believe that Alzheimer's disease might be caused by the build-up of amyloid plaque deposits in the brain, due to increased cell death from oxidative damage. Because the fruit extracts in the current study protected nerve cells against oxidative stress, the researchers believe they might provide a protective benefit against Alzheimer's as well.
A prior study found that when mice with Alzheimer's disease were given apple juice with naturally occurring antioxidants, they exhibited improved cognitive performance and their brain tissue appeared to be protected from oxidative damage. More recently, a different study found that the flavones hesperidin, hesperetin, and neohesperidin - naturally occurring chemicals found in citrus fruits - protected against DNA and cell damage, including from hydrogen peroxide.
An estimated 13 million people around the world suffer from Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z025344.html
Make the decision to buy more healthy foods, such as fruit and vegetables, and to avoid bringing home high-calorie pre-packaged snacks and other processed foods. Another key is to shop well and agree only to eat what you have in the house. It will be a lot easier to reach for a piece of fruit if you don't have chips or sweets available to tempt you. Eventually, your body will begin to develop a taste for new choices, and you will begin to prefer healthier foods. You owe it to yourself and your family to test my advice and personally experience that it works! One relatively simple decision such as this can literally lead to a lifetime of change.
Fruit Rich in Polyphenols Protects Against Alzheimer's Disease, Cognitive Decline
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Fruits rich in polyphenols may help protect against the oxidative stress that has been linked to cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease, according to a study conducted by researchers from three Korean universities and published in the Journal of Food Science.
"Our study demonstrated that antioxidants in the major fresh fruits consumed in the United States and Korea protected neuronal cells from oxidative stress," the researchers wrote. "Therefore, additional consumption of fresh fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges may be beneficial to ameliorate chemopreventive effects in neurodegenerative disease."
Researchers took a cancer cell line derived from the forebrains of rats, intended to simulate human neurons. These cells were exposed to hydrogen peroxide after being treated with varying concentrations of fruit extracts.
Treatment with fruit extracts led to a significant increase in cell viability and decreased oxidative damage compared with the control group. The most effective extract was from apples, but the orange and banana extracts also functioned well. At the highest concentration, the orange and banana extracts provided 103 and 118 percent more cell protection than the control treatment.
Researchers believe that Alzheimer's disease might be caused by the build-up of amyloid plaque deposits in the brain, due to increased cell death from oxidative damage. Because the fruit extracts in the current study protected nerve cells against oxidative stress, the researchers believe they might provide a protective benefit against Alzheimer's as well.
A prior study found that when mice with Alzheimer's disease were given apple juice with naturally occurring antioxidants, they exhibited improved cognitive performance and their brain tissue appeared to be protected from oxidative damage. More recently, a different study found that the flavones hesperidin, hesperetin, and neohesperidin - naturally occurring chemicals found in citrus fruits - protected against DNA and cell damage, including from hydrogen peroxide.
An estimated 13 million people around the world suffer from Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z025344.html
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Vaccines a Snapshot of Healthcare Freedom Issues
There is perhaps no topic that better exemplifies the war on healthcare freedom than vaccinations. The article below does an excellent job of highlighting the hazards of these toxic substances and the trampling of our rights that some have undertaken through an agenda of ever-increasing mandatory vaccines. All this despite a mounting pool of evidence that clearly indicates many vaccines are both dangerous and ineffective.
NVIC is a terrific source for truth regarding these issues, and this article gives a very comprehensive overview of the politics and greed that drive the push for forced vaccines. Let's hope that the Obama administration can keep an open mind about mandatory vaccinations and deal with the facts -- not special interests -- when taking sides on this important issue.
The Great Denial of Vaccine Risks & Freedom
by Barbara Loe Fisher
The Great Denial of vaccine risks for the past three decades by vaccine makers, pediatricians and government officials operating the mass vaccination system is the reason why more and more parents today question and mistrust vaccine science, policy and law. When Harris Coulter and I co-authored DPT: A Shot in the Dark in 1985 exposing flaws in the mass vaccination system that allowed the highly reactive DPT vaccine to stay on the market unimproved for more than 40 years, we never imagined then that those tragic flaws in the system would remain largely intact in 2009.
I knew then that the alliance between industry, organized medicine and government was powerful. But it is only after a quarter century of witnessing the Great Denial of vaccine risks, which has produced millions of vaccine damaged children flooding special education classrooms and doctors offices, that the magnitude of that unchecked power has been fully revealed.
Thomas Jefferson, co-author of the U.S Constitution, said in 1820: "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." When those in power are so afraid of the truth that they abandon reason and are willing to tolerate all kinds of errors in order to hide the truth, people suffer.
Fear of the truth was clearly in play at a Jan. 14 meeting of the Federal Interagency Autism Advisory Committee (IACC) when the Committee took a convenient "re-vote" to nullify a previous vote to use a portion of congressionally appropriated funds in the Combating Autism Act of 2006 to investigate the long reported association between vaccination and autism. Whether the "re-vote" can be blamed on a turf war between federal agencies, a Committee member who defied direction given to her by her employer, Autism Speaks, or a desperate, last minute end-run by health officials to again delay the day when the truth about vaccine risks is known, it is the people who always lose in this high stakes game of denials and delays.
Thomas Jefferson had a lot to say about power, coercion and freedom. He said "Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons." Ask Rita Palma of New York what it means to be subjected to an inquisition about her religious beliefs by an arrogant and fallible man governed by passions and driven to harass and coerce her for private as well as public reasons. Click here and also click here to watch videos of an attorney, acting on behalf of the state of New York, as he puts Rita on the rack and browbeats her for her religious beliefs and faith in God when it comes to vaccinating her children.
Rita has been working with other parents in New York to support the addition of philosophical exemption to vaccination to New York vaccine laws to protect parents, who exercise religious exemptions, and doctors, who issue medical exemptions from harassment by state officials. A public Vaccine Education Roundtable was sponsored by New York Assemblymen Marc Alessi and Richard Gottfried on Dec. 15, 2008 at Stony Brook University to examine vaccine safety and informed consent issues.
Reason and faith, conscience and science, truth and freedom. Those who participate in the Great Denial of vaccine risks cannot tolerate an unbiased, methodologically sound scientific investigation into those risks. And they cannot tolerate the free exercise of religious belief and conscience by those, whose minds and bodies they must control in order to perpetuate the Great Denial.
In 1997, I was asked to present an argument for the moral right to conscientious belief exemption to vaccination to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee in Washington, D.C. After my 20 minute presentation, there was a several hour "discussion" where I was grilled by public health officials who alternately acknowledged the importance of the informed consent principle and called me "selfish," a "threat to the public health" and "uninformed."
The defining moment of that encounter, for me at least, came when I looked the physician architect of the CDC-led "No shots, No school" campaign in the eye and said "Whether or not I put my child's life on the line for you and your vaccines is between me and my God and not between me and you, Doctor." The way he gritted his teeth and glared at me while his face flushed bright red, spoke volumes about what the Great Denial is all about. It is about whether we, the citizens, are going to have the power to freely choose which pharmaceutical products or other medical interventions we are going to use or whether that power is going to be taken from us by doctors and public health officials.
Jacobsen v. Massachusetts is the U.S. Supreme Court decision which affirmed the constitutional right of the states to enact mandatory vaccination laws. Concerned about controlling smallpox, little did the justices at the turn of the 20th century imagine that federal officials would someday recommend 69 doses of 16 vaccines for children from 12 hours of age through age 18 or that New Jersey would mandate more than three dozen doses of 13 vaccines for children to attend school. In an insightful review of that historic 1905 Supreme Court decision, the Harvard Law Review recently examined the application of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts to vaccine laws in the 21st century.
If one citizen or group of citizens in America are allowed to force fellow citizens to risk injury or death without their voluntary, informed consent, then are Americans free in any sense of the word? When forced risk-taking involves mandated use of pharmaceutical products protected from liability in the Judicial system, which the authors of the Constitution created as a check and balance on the Executive and Legislative branches of government, then people can be easily exploited for power and profit. Unless vaccines and other pharmaceutical products are subject to the law of supply and demand so citizens can freely choose those which are necessary, safe and effective and reject those which are not, the people become nothing more than enslaved consumers of potentially dangerous products marketed by companies with no economic or legal incentive to improve those products.
And if the state can tag, track down and force individuals against their will to be injected with biologicals of unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.
As the 44th President of the United States is sworn in today in our nation's Capitol, we can only pray that he will have the intelligence, compassion and conscience to make sure that his Administration is not afraid to find out the truth about vaccine risks. With one child in six now developmentally delayed in America and no answers from government health officials as to how they got that way, our nation's future may depend on it.
The National Vaccine Information Center is prepared to stand with other parent groups representing families with vaccine injured children to call for an end to the Great Denial by those responsible for ensuring our children's health and safety.
Let freedom ring: No forced vaccination. Not in America.
Source: NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) Vaccine E-Newsletter dated January 20, 2009
NVIC is a terrific source for truth regarding these issues, and this article gives a very comprehensive overview of the politics and greed that drive the push for forced vaccines. Let's hope that the Obama administration can keep an open mind about mandatory vaccinations and deal with the facts -- not special interests -- when taking sides on this important issue.
The Great Denial of Vaccine Risks & Freedom
by Barbara Loe Fisher
The Great Denial of vaccine risks for the past three decades by vaccine makers, pediatricians and government officials operating the mass vaccination system is the reason why more and more parents today question and mistrust vaccine science, policy and law. When Harris Coulter and I co-authored DPT: A Shot in the Dark in 1985 exposing flaws in the mass vaccination system that allowed the highly reactive DPT vaccine to stay on the market unimproved for more than 40 years, we never imagined then that those tragic flaws in the system would remain largely intact in 2009.
I knew then that the alliance between industry, organized medicine and government was powerful. But it is only after a quarter century of witnessing the Great Denial of vaccine risks, which has produced millions of vaccine damaged children flooding special education classrooms and doctors offices, that the magnitude of that unchecked power has been fully revealed.
Thomas Jefferson, co-author of the U.S Constitution, said in 1820: "We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." When those in power are so afraid of the truth that they abandon reason and are willing to tolerate all kinds of errors in order to hide the truth, people suffer.
Fear of the truth was clearly in play at a Jan. 14 meeting of the Federal Interagency Autism Advisory Committee (IACC) when the Committee took a convenient "re-vote" to nullify a previous vote to use a portion of congressionally appropriated funds in the Combating Autism Act of 2006 to investigate the long reported association between vaccination and autism. Whether the "re-vote" can be blamed on a turf war between federal agencies, a Committee member who defied direction given to her by her employer, Autism Speaks, or a desperate, last minute end-run by health officials to again delay the day when the truth about vaccine risks is known, it is the people who always lose in this high stakes game of denials and delays.
Thomas Jefferson had a lot to say about power, coercion and freedom. He said "Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons." Ask Rita Palma of New York what it means to be subjected to an inquisition about her religious beliefs by an arrogant and fallible man governed by passions and driven to harass and coerce her for private as well as public reasons. Click here and also click here to watch videos of an attorney, acting on behalf of the state of New York, as he puts Rita on the rack and browbeats her for her religious beliefs and faith in God when it comes to vaccinating her children.
Rita has been working with other parents in New York to support the addition of philosophical exemption to vaccination to New York vaccine laws to protect parents, who exercise religious exemptions, and doctors, who issue medical exemptions from harassment by state officials. A public Vaccine Education Roundtable was sponsored by New York Assemblymen Marc Alessi and Richard Gottfried on Dec. 15, 2008 at Stony Brook University to examine vaccine safety and informed consent issues.
Reason and faith, conscience and science, truth and freedom. Those who participate in the Great Denial of vaccine risks cannot tolerate an unbiased, methodologically sound scientific investigation into those risks. And they cannot tolerate the free exercise of religious belief and conscience by those, whose minds and bodies they must control in order to perpetuate the Great Denial.
In 1997, I was asked to present an argument for the moral right to conscientious belief exemption to vaccination to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee in Washington, D.C. After my 20 minute presentation, there was a several hour "discussion" where I was grilled by public health officials who alternately acknowledged the importance of the informed consent principle and called me "selfish," a "threat to the public health" and "uninformed."
The defining moment of that encounter, for me at least, came when I looked the physician architect of the CDC-led "No shots, No school" campaign in the eye and said "Whether or not I put my child's life on the line for you and your vaccines is between me and my God and not between me and you, Doctor." The way he gritted his teeth and glared at me while his face flushed bright red, spoke volumes about what the Great Denial is all about. It is about whether we, the citizens, are going to have the power to freely choose which pharmaceutical products or other medical interventions we are going to use or whether that power is going to be taken from us by doctors and public health officials.
Jacobsen v. Massachusetts is the U.S. Supreme Court decision which affirmed the constitutional right of the states to enact mandatory vaccination laws. Concerned about controlling smallpox, little did the justices at the turn of the 20th century imagine that federal officials would someday recommend 69 doses of 16 vaccines for children from 12 hours of age through age 18 or that New Jersey would mandate more than three dozen doses of 13 vaccines for children to attend school. In an insightful review of that historic 1905 Supreme Court decision, the Harvard Law Review recently examined the application of Jacobsen v. Massachusetts to vaccine laws in the 21st century.
If one citizen or group of citizens in America are allowed to force fellow citizens to risk injury or death without their voluntary, informed consent, then are Americans free in any sense of the word? When forced risk-taking involves mandated use of pharmaceutical products protected from liability in the Judicial system, which the authors of the Constitution created as a check and balance on the Executive and Legislative branches of government, then people can be easily exploited for power and profit. Unless vaccines and other pharmaceutical products are subject to the law of supply and demand so citizens can freely choose those which are necessary, safe and effective and reject those which are not, the people become nothing more than enslaved consumers of potentially dangerous products marketed by companies with no economic or legal incentive to improve those products.
And if the state can tag, track down and force individuals against their will to be injected with biologicals of unknown toxicity today, then there will be no limit on which individual freedoms the State can take away in the name of the greater good tomorrow.
As the 44th President of the United States is sworn in today in our nation's Capitol, we can only pray that he will have the intelligence, compassion and conscience to make sure that his Administration is not afraid to find out the truth about vaccine risks. With one child in six now developmentally delayed in America and no answers from government health officials as to how they got that way, our nation's future may depend on it.
The National Vaccine Information Center is prepared to stand with other parent groups representing families with vaccine injured children to call for an end to the Great Denial by those responsible for ensuring our children's health and safety.
Let freedom ring: No forced vaccination. Not in America.
Source: NVIC (National Vaccine Information Center) Vaccine E-Newsletter dated January 20, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tips for Eating More Veggies
One of the simplest yet powerful changes one can make to improve their health is to increase the amount of raw, organic or locally grown vegetables they consume. Veggies are a terrific source of antioxidants, oxygen, vitamins, minerals and other beneficial compounds, and a wonderful source of fiber as well as adding hydration to the body. Boosting the amount of vegetables in your diet will improve colon health and digestion too, thus strengthening the immune system and virtually all other parts of the body to boot.
Juicing is also discussed in today's article, a practice that can open up a whole new world of different nutritious foods to eat. If we can start by substituting raw or juiced vegetables for other foods that we should cut down on or eliminate from our diets, we will be on the right track nutritionally and will likely cut down on calories as well. And guess what? Your body will actually begin the prefer fresh vegetables and fruit. While I advocate juicing vegetables, I suggest eating fruits. Fruits have a synergy about them that comes into play when the whole fruit is eaten, plus you will not get the insulin spike that is common with fruit juice. Change almost never happens overnight, but is rather a compilation of small steps that we learn to practice consistently. The good news is that "success breeds success," so once you get the ball rolling, it gains a momentum of its own. Eating more vegetables is a great place to start.
An Easy Way to Double Your Vegetable Intake
In a new study, women more than doubled their fruit and vegetable intakes and dramatically increased their consumption of "good" fats when they were counseled by registered dietitians and provided with a list of nutritional guidelines reflecting the traditional Mediterranean diet.
The six-month study divided 69 women into two groups. Women in one group continued their usual diet and did not receive any dietary counseling. In the other group, registered dietitians used an "exchange list" of foods that are common in a Mediterranean diet to make a plan for each participant. The list included suggested servings of several categories of foods, such as dark green vegetables.
The group that followed the exchange-list plan reached their nutritional goals within three months, and maintained the change for the six-month duration of the study. The comparison group, however, made few dietary changes.
The Mediterranean diet has been associated with health benefits such as lower risks for cardiovascular disease and cancer. Recent studies also have suggested that such a diet can increase longevity.
In many ways the Mediterranean diet is head and shoulders ahead of the standard American diet. It emphasizes fresh vegetables, which is something most people could use more of, while downplaying processed foods. (Reducing your intake of MSG, a neurotoxin, and high fructose corn syrup, which aggravates inflammation, will in and of itself have a positive impact on your health.)
Studies have shown that following the Mediterranean diet can help:
Reduce your risk of cancer
Prevent diabetes
Improve arthritis
Help people with Alzheimer's live longer
Protect against heart disease
Extend your life
The main thrust behind this latest study was to devise an effective method to achieve the major nutrient intakes of the Greek-Mediterranean diet using American foods. They found that women were able to successfully change their dietary habits when guided by a nutritional counselor.
Using an "exchange list" for foods common in a Mediterranean diet, the participants were able to more than double their fruit and vegetable intakes and dramatically increase their consumption of healthy fats.
This is good news, and certainly something most everyone could do.
The list included suggested servings, or exchanges, of several categories of foods, including:
8-10 servings (or exchanges) each day of high monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), such as olive or hazelnut oil, avocado and macadamia nuts
Limits on fats that are low in MUFA, such as corn oil, margarine, tahini, pine nuts and sesame seeds.
One or more servings a day of dark green vegetables, such as broccoli, peas and spinach
At least one exchange per day of garlic, onions and leeks
One tablespoon or more per day of green herbs, such as basil, cilantro, peppermint and sage
One or more servings a day of red vegetables, such as tomatoes, tomato sauce and salsa
One or more servings a day of yellow or orange vegetables, such as carrots, red bell peppers and pumpkin
One or more servings a day of other vegetables, such as artichokes, cucumber, green beans and sugar snap peas
One or more servings a day of vitamin C fruits, such as oranges, mangoes and strawberries
One or more servings a day of other fruits, such as apples, bananas and grapes
The Easiest Way to Increase Your Vegetable Intake
One of the absolute easiest and most efficient ways to optimize your vegetable intake is to juice your vegetables.
Not only will juicing help your body absorb all the nutrients from the vegetables by making them easily digestible, but you're also avoiding the risk of damaging any of their sensitive micronutrients through cooking. Cooking and processing food destroys micronutrients by altering their shape and chemical composition.
It also allows you greater freedom to add a wider variety of vegetables to your diet that you may not normally enjoy eating whole. This way, you're working with the principle of regular food rotation, which will lessen your chances of developing food allergies.
Selecting the Best Vegetables for Your Nutritional Type
You can easily optimize the benefits from your dietary choices by determining your nutritional type, and selecting fruits and vegetables that are best suited for your unique biochemistry.
According to Nutritional Typing principles, if you are a carb type, vegetable juicing is highly recommended if you want to regain your health. Juicing is also beneficial for mixed types, whereas protein types need to follow some specific guidelines to make it work for them.
If you are a protein type, juicing needs to be done cautiously. The only vegetables that should be juiced are your prime protein-type vegetables that are lower in potassium:
Celery
Spinach
Asparagus
String beans
Cauliflower (including the base)
Regular lettuces and typically wonderful vegetables like collard greens, kale and Swiss chard are far too high in potassium for protein types and will tend to cause biochemical imbalances.
It is also important to keep your serving size of juice to no more than 6 oz., but don't be surprised if you find that as little as 3-4 oz. of juice feels like the right serving size for you. For a protein type, 3-4 oz. of juice is a significant amount.
Also, to make drinking vegetable juice compatible with protein type metabolism (which needs high amounts of fat), it is important to blend a source of raw fat into your juice. The types of raw fat I recommend most are:
Raw cream
Raw butter
Eggs
Avocado
Coconut butter
Freshly ground flax seed
In addition to adding a source of raw fat to your juice, you may also find that adding some, or even all, of the vegetable pulp into your juice helps to make drinking the juiced vegetables more satisfying.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/24/an-easy-way-to-double-your-vegetable-intake.aspx
Juicing is also discussed in today's article, a practice that can open up a whole new world of different nutritious foods to eat. If we can start by substituting raw or juiced vegetables for other foods that we should cut down on or eliminate from our diets, we will be on the right track nutritionally and will likely cut down on calories as well. And guess what? Your body will actually begin the prefer fresh vegetables and fruit. While I advocate juicing vegetables, I suggest eating fruits. Fruits have a synergy about them that comes into play when the whole fruit is eaten, plus you will not get the insulin spike that is common with fruit juice. Change almost never happens overnight, but is rather a compilation of small steps that we learn to practice consistently. The good news is that "success breeds success," so once you get the ball rolling, it gains a momentum of its own. Eating more vegetables is a great place to start.
An Easy Way to Double Your Vegetable Intake
In a new study, women more than doubled their fruit and vegetable intakes and dramatically increased their consumption of "good" fats when they were counseled by registered dietitians and provided with a list of nutritional guidelines reflecting the traditional Mediterranean diet.
The six-month study divided 69 women into two groups. Women in one group continued their usual diet and did not receive any dietary counseling. In the other group, registered dietitians used an "exchange list" of foods that are common in a Mediterranean diet to make a plan for each participant. The list included suggested servings of several categories of foods, such as dark green vegetables.
The group that followed the exchange-list plan reached their nutritional goals within three months, and maintained the change for the six-month duration of the study. The comparison group, however, made few dietary changes.
The Mediterranean diet has been associated with health benefits such as lower risks for cardiovascular disease and cancer. Recent studies also have suggested that such a diet can increase longevity.
In many ways the Mediterranean diet is head and shoulders ahead of the standard American diet. It emphasizes fresh vegetables, which is something most people could use more of, while downplaying processed foods. (Reducing your intake of MSG, a neurotoxin, and high fructose corn syrup, which aggravates inflammation, will in and of itself have a positive impact on your health.)
Studies have shown that following the Mediterranean diet can help:
Reduce your risk of cancer
Prevent diabetes
Improve arthritis
Help people with Alzheimer's live longer
Protect against heart disease
Extend your life
The main thrust behind this latest study was to devise an effective method to achieve the major nutrient intakes of the Greek-Mediterranean diet using American foods. They found that women were able to successfully change their dietary habits when guided by a nutritional counselor.
Using an "exchange list" for foods common in a Mediterranean diet, the participants were able to more than double their fruit and vegetable intakes and dramatically increase their consumption of healthy fats.
This is good news, and certainly something most everyone could do.
The list included suggested servings, or exchanges, of several categories of foods, including:
8-10 servings (or exchanges) each day of high monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA), such as olive or hazelnut oil, avocado and macadamia nuts
Limits on fats that are low in MUFA, such as corn oil, margarine, tahini, pine nuts and sesame seeds.
One or more servings a day of dark green vegetables, such as broccoli, peas and spinach
At least one exchange per day of garlic, onions and leeks
One tablespoon or more per day of green herbs, such as basil, cilantro, peppermint and sage
One or more servings a day of red vegetables, such as tomatoes, tomato sauce and salsa
One or more servings a day of yellow or orange vegetables, such as carrots, red bell peppers and pumpkin
One or more servings a day of other vegetables, such as artichokes, cucumber, green beans and sugar snap peas
One or more servings a day of vitamin C fruits, such as oranges, mangoes and strawberries
One or more servings a day of other fruits, such as apples, bananas and grapes
The Easiest Way to Increase Your Vegetable Intake
One of the absolute easiest and most efficient ways to optimize your vegetable intake is to juice your vegetables.
Not only will juicing help your body absorb all the nutrients from the vegetables by making them easily digestible, but you're also avoiding the risk of damaging any of their sensitive micronutrients through cooking. Cooking and processing food destroys micronutrients by altering their shape and chemical composition.
It also allows you greater freedom to add a wider variety of vegetables to your diet that you may not normally enjoy eating whole. This way, you're working with the principle of regular food rotation, which will lessen your chances of developing food allergies.
Selecting the Best Vegetables for Your Nutritional Type
You can easily optimize the benefits from your dietary choices by determining your nutritional type, and selecting fruits and vegetables that are best suited for your unique biochemistry.
According to Nutritional Typing principles, if you are a carb type, vegetable juicing is highly recommended if you want to regain your health. Juicing is also beneficial for mixed types, whereas protein types need to follow some specific guidelines to make it work for them.
If you are a protein type, juicing needs to be done cautiously. The only vegetables that should be juiced are your prime protein-type vegetables that are lower in potassium:
Celery
Spinach
Asparagus
String beans
Cauliflower (including the base)
Regular lettuces and typically wonderful vegetables like collard greens, kale and Swiss chard are far too high in potassium for protein types and will tend to cause biochemical imbalances.
It is also important to keep your serving size of juice to no more than 6 oz., but don't be surprised if you find that as little as 3-4 oz. of juice feels like the right serving size for you. For a protein type, 3-4 oz. of juice is a significant amount.
Also, to make drinking vegetable juice compatible with protein type metabolism (which needs high amounts of fat), it is important to blend a source of raw fat into your juice. The types of raw fat I recommend most are:
Raw cream
Raw butter
Eggs
Avocado
Coconut butter
Freshly ground flax seed
In addition to adding a source of raw fat to your juice, you may also find that adding some, or even all, of the vegetable pulp into your juice helps to make drinking the juiced vegetables more satisfying.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/24/an-easy-way-to-double-your-vegetable-intake.aspx
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Coconut Oil Inhibits Disease
In today's discussion, we will look at a very interesting article that focuses on the health benefits of virgin coconut oil, and also touches on the hazards of Western diets that are high in processed vegetable oils.
We hear a lot in the media these days about the increasing incidence of obesity and diabetes in America and elsewhere, but there is little practical advice for reversing these trends. This article hits the nail squarely on the head by identifying specific lifestyle changes that can reverse and prevent diabetes and other illnesses. Coconut oil is not a magic bullet that alone will usher in wellness, but it is another tool that you may want to include in your natural arsenal against disease.
Switching to Coconut Oil can Prevent Diabetes
by Sheryl Walters, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Coconut oil is an ancient super food that has been an essential component to many of the earth's healthiest cultures. Cultures that have consumed high amounts of coconut oil generally have not suffered with diabetes, as well as many other diseases. Unfortunately, as many of these people abandon their traditional ways of eating, they begin to suffer with diabetes, since coconut oil has been shown to protect people from this illness.
For example, the people who live on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific have enjoyed a diet of mostly bananas, yams and coconuts. Diabetes was a completely unknown illness. As the island became healthier and their lifestyle and diet began to include refined flour, sugar and vegetable oils, diabetes appeared. According to the World Health Organisation, up to one half of the urbanised Nauru population age 30 - 64 are diabetic today.
Although few people make the association between refined vegetable oils and diabetes, the link has been well researched. In the 1920s Dr. S. Sweeney studied the effects of vegetable oil on his student. His research showed that a diet high in vegetable oil could cause reversible diabetes within 48 hours in subjects who had not been previously diabetic. A 1998 study published in Metabolism showed that diabetes could be reversed by cutting out polyunsaturated fat. The same results have also been shown in humans.
What is the Difference Between Coconut Oil and Vegetable oils?
There is a molecular difference between coconut oil and all other common vegetable oils such as olive, sunflower and safflower oil. The molecules that make up these polyunsaturated oils are made up of a long chain of fatty acids. On the other hand, virgin coconut oil is made up of smaller molecules or medium chain fatty acids.
Long chain fats are either deposited in blood vessels as cholesterol or stored around the waist, thighs and buttocks as energy stores of fat for emergencies. Medium chain fatty acids are used immediately as a source of energy.
Why Regular Oils Can Potentially Cause Diabetes
Most people with diabetes are on strict low fat, high carbohydrate diets in which the limited fats allowed are restricted to polyunsaturated vegetable oils such as olive, safflower, or sunflower oils. However, studies have shown that if the fats consumed are polyunsaturated, long chain fats, this decreases cell's ability to bind with insulin, and reduces their ability to absorb glucose...especially when these oils are heated during cooking. In other words, polyunsaturated long chain fats, commonly thought to be "healthy", actually make diabetes WORSE!
Furthermore, polyunsaturated vegetable oils can cause free radical damage to the cells, and adversely affect their ability to function. The bottom line is that cooking with polyunsaturated vegetable oils, such as sunflower oil and olive oil, should be avoided by people with diabetes.
Why is Coconut Oil so Beneficial for Diabetes?
The smaller and more easily absorbed medium chain molecules found in coconut oil supply the cells with essential fatty acids without inhibiting insulin and without glucose, so they combat insulin resistance. Virgin coconut oil is a totally unique super food that serves as an energy boost to the body, without causing a spike in blood sugar levels.
Researchers have discovered that while heavy foods (including polyunsaturated oils) slow down the metabolism, organic coconut oil actually stimulates the metabolism to assist the fat burning process, even when they are heated. In simple terms, simply substituting your normal cooking oils with coconut oil can be a tremendous remedy for diabetes, and, along with avoiding sugar and getting plenty of exercise, can help prevent people who don't suffer from this dangerous disease from suffering later in life.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z025388.html
We hear a lot in the media these days about the increasing incidence of obesity and diabetes in America and elsewhere, but there is little practical advice for reversing these trends. This article hits the nail squarely on the head by identifying specific lifestyle changes that can reverse and prevent diabetes and other illnesses. Coconut oil is not a magic bullet that alone will usher in wellness, but it is another tool that you may want to include in your natural arsenal against disease.
Switching to Coconut Oil can Prevent Diabetes
by Sheryl Walters, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Coconut oil is an ancient super food that has been an essential component to many of the earth's healthiest cultures. Cultures that have consumed high amounts of coconut oil generally have not suffered with diabetes, as well as many other diseases. Unfortunately, as many of these people abandon their traditional ways of eating, they begin to suffer with diabetes, since coconut oil has been shown to protect people from this illness.
For example, the people who live on the island of Nauru in the South Pacific have enjoyed a diet of mostly bananas, yams and coconuts. Diabetes was a completely unknown illness. As the island became healthier and their lifestyle and diet began to include refined flour, sugar and vegetable oils, diabetes appeared. According to the World Health Organisation, up to one half of the urbanised Nauru population age 30 - 64 are diabetic today.
Although few people make the association between refined vegetable oils and diabetes, the link has been well researched. In the 1920s Dr. S. Sweeney studied the effects of vegetable oil on his student. His research showed that a diet high in vegetable oil could cause reversible diabetes within 48 hours in subjects who had not been previously diabetic. A 1998 study published in Metabolism showed that diabetes could be reversed by cutting out polyunsaturated fat. The same results have also been shown in humans.
What is the Difference Between Coconut Oil and Vegetable oils?
There is a molecular difference between coconut oil and all other common vegetable oils such as olive, sunflower and safflower oil. The molecules that make up these polyunsaturated oils are made up of a long chain of fatty acids. On the other hand, virgin coconut oil is made up of smaller molecules or medium chain fatty acids.
Long chain fats are either deposited in blood vessels as cholesterol or stored around the waist, thighs and buttocks as energy stores of fat for emergencies. Medium chain fatty acids are used immediately as a source of energy.
Why Regular Oils Can Potentially Cause Diabetes
Most people with diabetes are on strict low fat, high carbohydrate diets in which the limited fats allowed are restricted to polyunsaturated vegetable oils such as olive, safflower, or sunflower oils. However, studies have shown that if the fats consumed are polyunsaturated, long chain fats, this decreases cell's ability to bind with insulin, and reduces their ability to absorb glucose...especially when these oils are heated during cooking. In other words, polyunsaturated long chain fats, commonly thought to be "healthy", actually make diabetes WORSE!
Furthermore, polyunsaturated vegetable oils can cause free radical damage to the cells, and adversely affect their ability to function. The bottom line is that cooking with polyunsaturated vegetable oils, such as sunflower oil and olive oil, should be avoided by people with diabetes.
Why is Coconut Oil so Beneficial for Diabetes?
The smaller and more easily absorbed medium chain molecules found in coconut oil supply the cells with essential fatty acids without inhibiting insulin and without glucose, so they combat insulin resistance. Virgin coconut oil is a totally unique super food that serves as an energy boost to the body, without causing a spike in blood sugar levels.
Researchers have discovered that while heavy foods (including polyunsaturated oils) slow down the metabolism, organic coconut oil actually stimulates the metabolism to assist the fat burning process, even when they are heated. In simple terms, simply substituting your normal cooking oils with coconut oil can be a tremendous remedy for diabetes, and, along with avoiding sugar and getting plenty of exercise, can help prevent people who don't suffer from this dangerous disease from suffering later in life.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z025388.html
Friday, January 23, 2009
FDA Approves More Drugs in Meat
The FDA has changed their mind about a ruling passed last summer and is again allowing animals that are raised for food to be laced with a type of antibiotics that is one of the favorites of the food industry. These drugs keep the producer's expenses down by controlling disease, cheapening the cost of feed, and causing the animals to grow to slaughtering size faster.
Sounds like a good plan except for a few glitches. The reason this practice was stopped is because of the danger of antibiotic resistant diseases getting stronger, both in the animals and in the human population. Obviously, this situation has not changed, and is likely worse than it was last year. As the article states, the FDA needed time to review comments about their action, and apparently the lobbyists in the food industry spoke the loudest about this issue. Once again this government agency that is supposed to be looking out for our health has sided with their big business comrades to protect the almighty dollar. The only bright side to this all is that this is another great reason to stop eating meat! Such a choice would help both your health and your budget.
FDA Reverses Decision to Ban Certain Antibiotic Use in Food Animals
By Christian Dobbins
January 21 - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it would allow the use of cephalosporins in food-producing animals, reversing a decision made this summer to ban the practice. The agency's initial decision to ban this class of antibiotics stemmed from fears that excessive use in animals such as cows, swine, and chickens could promote drug resistance in strains of bacteria that also infect people.
Cephalosporins are generally used in livestock feed to promote growth and to treat infectious diseases. Citing the importance of cephalosporin drugs for treating disease in humans, on July 3 the FDA announced a planned crackdown on "off-label" use in animals -- the practice of using the drug for a purpose outside the scope of its approved label. However, agriculture groups and makers of veterinary drugs claim that antibiotics are needed, while others have claimed that the data on the human impact used to support the ban were flawed. On Nov. 25 the FDA revoked its decision, saying it had received a number of comments and needed more time to review them; the agency added that it could still impose restrictions later.
As far back as the 1980s, the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine warned of the dangers of overuse of antibiotics in food animals. In the 1998 report The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks, they noted that antibiotic resistance in humans and animals had risen sharply during the last several decades. The report recommended that the federal government form an oversight panel to ensure the appropriate use of antibiotics, and establish a national database to monitor microbe-related illnesses and trends in antibiotic resistance that may result from drug use in food animals.
In 2003 the Institute of Medicine report Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response urged FDA to ban the use of certain anti-microbials in animals if those same drugs could be used to treat illness in humans. The recommendation's goal is to reduce the chances of developing drug-resistant organisms in animals that could eventually cause hard-to-treat diseases in people.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/headlines/20090121.html
Sounds like a good plan except for a few glitches. The reason this practice was stopped is because of the danger of antibiotic resistant diseases getting stronger, both in the animals and in the human population. Obviously, this situation has not changed, and is likely worse than it was last year. As the article states, the FDA needed time to review comments about their action, and apparently the lobbyists in the food industry spoke the loudest about this issue. Once again this government agency that is supposed to be looking out for our health has sided with their big business comrades to protect the almighty dollar. The only bright side to this all is that this is another great reason to stop eating meat! Such a choice would help both your health and your budget.
FDA Reverses Decision to Ban Certain Antibiotic Use in Food Animals
By Christian Dobbins
January 21 - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it would allow the use of cephalosporins in food-producing animals, reversing a decision made this summer to ban the practice. The agency's initial decision to ban this class of antibiotics stemmed from fears that excessive use in animals such as cows, swine, and chickens could promote drug resistance in strains of bacteria that also infect people.
Cephalosporins are generally used in livestock feed to promote growth and to treat infectious diseases. Citing the importance of cephalosporin drugs for treating disease in humans, on July 3 the FDA announced a planned crackdown on "off-label" use in animals -- the practice of using the drug for a purpose outside the scope of its approved label. However, agriculture groups and makers of veterinary drugs claim that antibiotics are needed, while others have claimed that the data on the human impact used to support the ban were flawed. On Nov. 25 the FDA revoked its decision, saying it had received a number of comments and needed more time to review them; the agency added that it could still impose restrictions later.
As far back as the 1980s, the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine warned of the dangers of overuse of antibiotics in food animals. In the 1998 report The Use of Drugs in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks, they noted that antibiotic resistance in humans and animals had risen sharply during the last several decades. The report recommended that the federal government form an oversight panel to ensure the appropriate use of antibiotics, and establish a national database to monitor microbe-related illnesses and trends in antibiotic resistance that may result from drug use in food animals.
In 2003 the Institute of Medicine report Microbial Threats to Health: Emergence, Detection, and Response urged FDA to ban the use of certain anti-microbials in animals if those same drugs could be used to treat illness in humans. The recommendation's goal is to reduce the chances of developing drug-resistant organisms in animals that could eventually cause hard-to-treat diseases in people.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/headlines/20090121.html
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Will Mammograms Soon be Obsolete?
Here's a story you may want to keep your eye on. A study conducted by researchers at a dental school in Texas has led to the development of a saliva test that may someday replace mammograms as the main form of preventative testing for breast cancer. This test is much safer than mammograms, but there is a catch. First it must be approved by the FDA, which would deal a blow to the multi-million dollar mammogram and Cancer industry, players which currently have a very cozy relationship with FDA.
Mammograms are big business, generating a cash cow for many in the cancer industry. Consider the fact that annual mammograms are typically recommended for every women over 40, and you begin to get a feel for how much pull this industry has in the healthcare business and thus with the FDA. The sad truth is that mammograms are not very effective at finding and preventing tumors, but to make matters worse, undergoing the procedure exposes women to hazardous levels of radiation, and the process can also lead to spreading cancer cells if they are present due to intense squeezing of the breast.
It will be interesting to see if this saliva test goes anywhere or if it is quashed by those that will not turn away from the financial windfalls that mammograms provide, even though the health and welfare of women is the real issue here.
Breast Cancer Saliva Test to Make Dangerous Mammograms Obsolete
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Researchers are working to develop a saliva test for breast cancer that could vastly reduce the use of dangerous and invasive breast cancer screening techniques such as mammograms."This will be a noninvasive, quick means of detection," said lead researcher Charles Streckfus, a professor of diagnostic sciences at the Dental Branch of the University of Texas (UT) at Houston. "With it, dentists will be able to catch cancers before a woman can feel a lump."
Researchers have discovered that the onset of breast cancer changes the density of different proteins excreted by the salivary glands. In the current study, published in the journal Cancer Investigation, Streckfus and other researchers from the UT-Houston Dental Branch and Medical School compared the protein levels found in the saliva of 10 women with breast cancer, 10 healthy women, and 10 women with a type of tumor called fibroadenoma.
Fibroadenoma is the most common kind of benign breast tumor.
"Saliva is a complex mixture of proteins," said researcher William Dubinsky. "We go through a process that compares different samples by chemically labeling them in such a way that we can not only identify the protein, but determine how much of it is in each sample. This allows us to compare the levels of 150-200 different proteins in cancerous versus non-cancerous specimens to identify possible markers for disease.
"The researchers identified 49 proteins that were present at different levels between the three groups. These proteins should hypothetically allow doctors to use such a saliva test to alert them when a woman has a tumor, and to determine whether it is cancerous or benign.
"This is a unique finding," Streckfus said, "as it targets both the benign and malignant tumor, which could potentially reduce the number of false positives and false negatives associated with current cancer diagnostics".
Previously, the same team of researchers was able to correctly detect whether a woman had breast cancer 85 percent of the time, using only one saliva protein as a marker. With 49 different markers, Streckfus says that the accuracy of the test should be closer to 95 percent.
In the current method, the saliva sample is placed onto a hand-held, gold-plated chip or lab dish, developed by UT-Austin biochemists. A laser analyzes the protein content of the sample.
"I see this as a future public health service by dentists" Streckfus said. "Most folks, especially women and children, visit the dental office way more often than they ever see the physician. Saliva is a non-invasive, quicker way for detection."
Many obstacles remain before this test could be available, however. The first step is more studies to confirm the effectiveness of the protein markers as diagnostic tools in a larger group of patients. Streckfus and colleagues hope to launch a large, multicenter clinical trial of the test within the next two years, and to apply for FDA approval within five.
The only saliva test currently approved by the FDA is one for HIV/AIDS.
A saliva test for breast cancer has many advantages over current diagnostic methods such as ultrasounds, mammograms, biopsies and blood tests. It would be far less invasive and expensive than most such tests, and have a much higher accuracy rate than blood tests, which are not currently favored for breast cancer diagnosis due to their poor accuracy.
The higher accuracy of a saliva test comes in part from the fact that saliva proteins are much easier to detect than the proteins in blood, Dubinsky said."In the case of breast cancer, saliva analysis has been used to monitor patient response to chemotherapy or surgical treatment of the disease," said Professor Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser for the British Dental Association. "The mouth itself is a good indicator of an individual's overall health, and dentists already play an important role in diagnosing and detecting oral cancers."
Streckfus said that a saliva test would be particularly valuable in places where mammography centers are rare, such as in many Third World countries, or in breast cancer survivors who need to be regularly monitored for potential cancer recurrence.
Regular use of mammograms is not only expensive and emotionally distressing, but can also be dangerous. Because women are exposed to X-ray radiation as part of the mammogram procedure, regular mammogram use actually increases women's risk of developing various cancers. For this reason, mammograms are not normally performed for women under the age of 40, in whom the risk of breast cancer is relatively low unless symptoms are present.
But Streckfus warned that a saliva test cannot utterly replace mammograms, because the saliva test is unable to determine which breast contains the tumor.Nonetheless, cancer patient advocates have greeted the new research as promising. According to Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, the saliva test will one day be "a terrific advance."
"I think advances like this test portend the day when we'll be able to diagnose disease that would be invisible using today's technologies," Lichtenfeld said. "[Patients will] be able to be diagnosed and treated before they would otherwise know they have the disease."
Streckfus and colleagues are also researching whether saliva tests can be used to diagnose other cancers, including of the cervix, uterus, head, neck and ovaries. Another group of researchers, at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, is also working on a saliva test for head-and-neck cancer. According to Lichtenfeld, the Johns Hopkins team is farther along than the UT-Houston team, because their test relies on genetic rather than protein markers.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z025348.html
Mammograms are big business, generating a cash cow for many in the cancer industry. Consider the fact that annual mammograms are typically recommended for every women over 40, and you begin to get a feel for how much pull this industry has in the healthcare business and thus with the FDA. The sad truth is that mammograms are not very effective at finding and preventing tumors, but to make matters worse, undergoing the procedure exposes women to hazardous levels of radiation, and the process can also lead to spreading cancer cells if they are present due to intense squeezing of the breast.
It will be interesting to see if this saliva test goes anywhere or if it is quashed by those that will not turn away from the financial windfalls that mammograms provide, even though the health and welfare of women is the real issue here.
Breast Cancer Saliva Test to Make Dangerous Mammograms Obsolete
by David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Researchers are working to develop a saliva test for breast cancer that could vastly reduce the use of dangerous and invasive breast cancer screening techniques such as mammograms."This will be a noninvasive, quick means of detection," said lead researcher Charles Streckfus, a professor of diagnostic sciences at the Dental Branch of the University of Texas (UT) at Houston. "With it, dentists will be able to catch cancers before a woman can feel a lump."
Researchers have discovered that the onset of breast cancer changes the density of different proteins excreted by the salivary glands. In the current study, published in the journal Cancer Investigation, Streckfus and other researchers from the UT-Houston Dental Branch and Medical School compared the protein levels found in the saliva of 10 women with breast cancer, 10 healthy women, and 10 women with a type of tumor called fibroadenoma.
Fibroadenoma is the most common kind of benign breast tumor.
"Saliva is a complex mixture of proteins," said researcher William Dubinsky. "We go through a process that compares different samples by chemically labeling them in such a way that we can not only identify the protein, but determine how much of it is in each sample. This allows us to compare the levels of 150-200 different proteins in cancerous versus non-cancerous specimens to identify possible markers for disease.
"The researchers identified 49 proteins that were present at different levels between the three groups. These proteins should hypothetically allow doctors to use such a saliva test to alert them when a woman has a tumor, and to determine whether it is cancerous or benign.
"This is a unique finding," Streckfus said, "as it targets both the benign and malignant tumor, which could potentially reduce the number of false positives and false negatives associated with current cancer diagnostics".
Previously, the same team of researchers was able to correctly detect whether a woman had breast cancer 85 percent of the time, using only one saliva protein as a marker. With 49 different markers, Streckfus says that the accuracy of the test should be closer to 95 percent.
In the current method, the saliva sample is placed onto a hand-held, gold-plated chip or lab dish, developed by UT-Austin biochemists. A laser analyzes the protein content of the sample.
"I see this as a future public health service by dentists" Streckfus said. "Most folks, especially women and children, visit the dental office way more often than they ever see the physician. Saliva is a non-invasive, quicker way for detection."
Many obstacles remain before this test could be available, however. The first step is more studies to confirm the effectiveness of the protein markers as diagnostic tools in a larger group of patients. Streckfus and colleagues hope to launch a large, multicenter clinical trial of the test within the next two years, and to apply for FDA approval within five.
The only saliva test currently approved by the FDA is one for HIV/AIDS.
A saliva test for breast cancer has many advantages over current diagnostic methods such as ultrasounds, mammograms, biopsies and blood tests. It would be far less invasive and expensive than most such tests, and have a much higher accuracy rate than blood tests, which are not currently favored for breast cancer diagnosis due to their poor accuracy.
The higher accuracy of a saliva test comes in part from the fact that saliva proteins are much easier to detect than the proteins in blood, Dubinsky said."In the case of breast cancer, saliva analysis has been used to monitor patient response to chemotherapy or surgical treatment of the disease," said Professor Damien Walmsley, scientific adviser for the British Dental Association. "The mouth itself is a good indicator of an individual's overall health, and dentists already play an important role in diagnosing and detecting oral cancers."
Streckfus said that a saliva test would be particularly valuable in places where mammography centers are rare, such as in many Third World countries, or in breast cancer survivors who need to be regularly monitored for potential cancer recurrence.
Regular use of mammograms is not only expensive and emotionally distressing, but can also be dangerous. Because women are exposed to X-ray radiation as part of the mammogram procedure, regular mammogram use actually increases women's risk of developing various cancers. For this reason, mammograms are not normally performed for women under the age of 40, in whom the risk of breast cancer is relatively low unless symptoms are present.
But Streckfus warned that a saliva test cannot utterly replace mammograms, because the saliva test is unable to determine which breast contains the tumor.Nonetheless, cancer patient advocates have greeted the new research as promising. According to Leonard Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, the saliva test will one day be "a terrific advance."
"I think advances like this test portend the day when we'll be able to diagnose disease that would be invisible using today's technologies," Lichtenfeld said. "[Patients will] be able to be diagnosed and treated before they would otherwise know they have the disease."
Streckfus and colleagues are also researching whether saliva tests can be used to diagnose other cancers, including of the cervix, uterus, head, neck and ovaries. Another group of researchers, at Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, is also working on a saliva test for head-and-neck cancer. According to Lichtenfeld, the Johns Hopkins team is farther along than the UT-Houston team, because their test relies on genetic rather than protein markers.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z025348.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
