Nutrition and the Brain: You Are What You Eat
by: Christa Studzinski, PhD
Wednesday, Dec, 01st
Remember when your grandmother used to say “an apple a day keeps the doctor away”? Turns out that she was right. Not only does a healthy diet keep the doctor away – it can also make you smarter.
It may seem hard to believe that what we eat can have such a large impact on our brain. However, there are strong links between what we eat and how well our brain works. Nutrients found in certain foods can actually make you smarter, while others can actually hurt your brain.
Antioxidants
Antioxidants are a broad category of nutrients that act as scavengers of toxic molecules known collectively as oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is an unavoidable side effect of our metabolism and, if left unchecked, can damage our proteins, cell walls and ultimately kill our cells. This is why antioxidants are so good for us – they neutralize oxidative stress before it can do damage to our brain and body.
Although the brain makes up only 2% of our body weight, it accounts for 25% of our metabolic needs. In other words, a quarter of our metabolism is occurring in our brain! If oxidative stress is an unavoidable side effect of metabolism and can kill our cells, it becomes obvious why our brain needs antioxidants in order to remain healthy and strong.
There are several different antioxidants that can have a positive effect on our mental function. In the table below are some of the most relevant ones to brain function.
Antioxidant Food Sources
Flavonoids (type of polyphenol) Virtually all fruits and vegetables, green tea, cocoa, and red wine
Curcumin (type of polyphenol) Turmeric (a key ingredient in curry powder)
Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) Most fruits and vegetables
Vitamin E (α-tocopherol) Fortified cereals, seed products, nut products, green leafy vegetables
Lipoic Acid Meat and green leafy vegetables
Coenzyme Q10 Meat, fish, soybean oil
There have been countless studies on the benefits of antioxidants. There is evidence that antioxidants can help delay or minimize the symptoms associated with Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease and ALS (Amyotropic Lateral Sclerosis). They can even help delay the dreaded memory lapses that we lovingly refer to as “senior moments”.
Although adding just one or two antioxidant-rich foods to your diet can have benefits, it appears that a shotgun approach may be better than a targeted one. The more variety you can get, the better the impact on your brain. This is mostly because different antioxidants are found in different foods and prefer to neutralize different types of oxidative stress.
Finally, the best part about increasing your antioxidant intake is that it’s never too late. You can see improvements even once you’ve started to experience memory lapses. What’s even more exciting is that combining antioxidants with exercise (both physical and mental) can improve your memory even more dramatically. So when you’re eating your extra antioxidants, don’t forget to exercise your brain by solving crossword puzzles, reading a novel or even just balancing the checkbook!
Omega-3 Fatty Acids
Omega-3 fatty acids, especially docosahexaenoic acid (DHA for short), are a very important component of the brain. Our body cannot make omega-3s, and therefore it’s vital that we get them from our foods. Good sources of DHA include salmon, tuna and cold-water oily fish. Good sources of other omega-3s are foods made with flax and chia.
DHA is a major component of our brain cell walls and makes them springy and flexible. It can contract or expand to let things get in and out of our brain cells, so that they can communicate with one another without breaking.
In humans, DHA plays a very important role in mental function during all stages of life. Babies who are fed a formula rich in DHA, or have mothers who eat a diet rich in DHA have better mental development than babies who don’t get enough DHA from their diet. Similarly, in the elderly, DHA can help preserve mental function and delay the onset of memory loss. Finally, people who eat a diet rich in DHA are less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease.
Saturated and Trans Fats
Saturated and trans fats are found in fried, processed and packaged foods, butter, margarine, lard, and fatty meats. Compared to omega-3 fatty acids, saturated fats and trans fats are at the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Instead of springy and flexible cell walls, these fats make them rigid and inflexible. This makes it rather difficult for your brain cells to communicate with each other. Think of it as trying to talk to your friend through a brick wall – it’s not going to happen unless you break a hole through the wall. Then you’re left with a gaping space that takes a really long time to seal up again and leaves you vulnerable to cold weather, rain and intruders.
Scientists have extensively studied the effects of a high trans fat and/or saturated fat diet, a diet some even refer to as BAD (the Bad American Diet). The evidence is overwhelming – it impairs your memory, increases oxidative stress (which, if you remember from above, ultimately kills your brain cells), increases inflammation and makes you more susceptible to developing diseases like Alzheimer’s disease. Don’t forget these types of fat are also a major cause of obesity, diabetes, heart disease. Knowing this, why would you choose to put these fats into your body?
The impact that diet has on our whole body – from our brain to our toes – is truly amazing. Simple changes can make a huge impact on our overall quality of life, even in the later stages of life. When it comes to improving your mental function, antioxidants, omega-3s and variety (in what you eat and what you do) truly is the spice of life.
http://www.fitnessrepublic.com/articles/nutrition-and-the-brain-you-are-what-you-eat/
About this Author
Christa Studzinski, PhD, is a scientist at the Centre for Research in Neurodegenerative Diseases at the University of Toronto. Her research interests include how diet and lifestyle changes can prevent or treat chronic diseases.
About Me
- Miriam
- I have a health ministry for friends, family, and health lovers world-wide. I choose natural options whenever possible and avoid chemicals, food additives, etc. even in my cosmetics. I eat mostly organic whole foods. You’ll find lots of healthy recipes and great health research on this site.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
High levels of natural plant antioxidant alpha-carotene are associated with fewer deaths from all causes
Another reason I'm so thankful for God's precious food!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 by: S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) Picture this: a chemical is discovered that has amazing health-protecting powers. In fact, if a person consumes enough of the potent life guarding compound, his or her chances of dying from heart disease, cancer or any other reason will plummet for many, many years into the future.
Sound like a futuristic drug out of a sci fi story? It's not. Instead, it's a natural compound available right here and right now -- the antioxidant alpha-carotene, produced by plants.
In a large study of over 15,000 adults, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) scientists found that high blood levels of alpha-carotene were associated with a significantly reduced risk of dying over a 14 year period. The research was just published in the on-line edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
There are several forms of carotenoids, including beta-carotene and lycopene as well as alpha-carotene. Alpha-carotene is very similar to beta-carotene but research has shown it may be more effective at preventing or blocking the growth of cancer cells in the brain, liver and skin, according to the CDC scientists.
"Moreover, results from a population-based case-control study of the association between the consumption of fruits and vegetables and risk of lung cancer suggest that consumption of yellow-orange (carrots, sweet potatoes or pumpkin and winter squash) and dark-green (broccoli, green beans, green peas, spinach, turnips greens, collards and leaf lettuce) vegetables, which have a high alpha-carotene content, was more strongly associated with a decreased risk of lung cancer than was consumption of all other types of vegetables," the authors of the study noted in their paper.
Chaoyang Li, M.D., Ph.D., of the CDC and colleagues investigated the relationship between alpha-carotene and the risk of death among 15,318 adults, all age 20 or older. The research subjects were participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Follow-up Study and all had medical exams and gave blood samples between 1988 and 1994. Then researchers followed the study volunteers through 2006 to find out which of them died and how.
By the end of the study, 3,810 participants were no longer alive -- but the risk for dying was far lower in the people who had the highest levels of alpha-carotene in their blood. In fact, as the level of alpha-carotene went up, the risk of dying went down dramatically.
For example, compared to people with blood alpha-carotene levels between 0 and 1 micrograms per deciliter, those with concentrations of alpha-carotene between 4 and 5 micrograms per deciliter had a 27 percent lower risk of dying. And when blood levels of the antioxidant reached 9 micrograms or higher, there was stunning, almost 40 percent lowered chance of death.
What's more, higher alpha-carotene concentrations were linked with a lower risk of dying not only from cardiovascular disease or cancer, and from all other causes. The researchers noted in their paper that these data support increasing fruit and vegetable consumption as a way of preventing premature death and suggest a need for more clinical research into the health benefits of alpha-carotene.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030574_alpha-carotene_antioxidants.html
For more information:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/co...
http://www.naturalnews.com/antioxid...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030574_alpha-carotene_antioxidants.html#ixzz16pfHrX8f
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 by: S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) Picture this: a chemical is discovered that has amazing health-protecting powers. In fact, if a person consumes enough of the potent life guarding compound, his or her chances of dying from heart disease, cancer or any other reason will plummet for many, many years into the future.
Sound like a futuristic drug out of a sci fi story? It's not. Instead, it's a natural compound available right here and right now -- the antioxidant alpha-carotene, produced by plants.
In a large study of over 15,000 adults, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) scientists found that high blood levels of alpha-carotene were associated with a significantly reduced risk of dying over a 14 year period. The research was just published in the on-line edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
There are several forms of carotenoids, including beta-carotene and lycopene as well as alpha-carotene. Alpha-carotene is very similar to beta-carotene but research has shown it may be more effective at preventing or blocking the growth of cancer cells in the brain, liver and skin, according to the CDC scientists.
"Moreover, results from a population-based case-control study of the association between the consumption of fruits and vegetables and risk of lung cancer suggest that consumption of yellow-orange (carrots, sweet potatoes or pumpkin and winter squash) and dark-green (broccoli, green beans, green peas, spinach, turnips greens, collards and leaf lettuce) vegetables, which have a high alpha-carotene content, was more strongly associated with a decreased risk of lung cancer than was consumption of all other types of vegetables," the authors of the study noted in their paper.
Chaoyang Li, M.D., Ph.D., of the CDC and colleagues investigated the relationship between alpha-carotene and the risk of death among 15,318 adults, all age 20 or older. The research subjects were participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Follow-up Study and all had medical exams and gave blood samples between 1988 and 1994. Then researchers followed the study volunteers through 2006 to find out which of them died and how.
By the end of the study, 3,810 participants were no longer alive -- but the risk for dying was far lower in the people who had the highest levels of alpha-carotene in their blood. In fact, as the level of alpha-carotene went up, the risk of dying went down dramatically.
For example, compared to people with blood alpha-carotene levels between 0 and 1 micrograms per deciliter, those with concentrations of alpha-carotene between 4 and 5 micrograms per deciliter had a 27 percent lower risk of dying. And when blood levels of the antioxidant reached 9 micrograms or higher, there was stunning, almost 40 percent lowered chance of death.
What's more, higher alpha-carotene concentrations were linked with a lower risk of dying not only from cardiovascular disease or cancer, and from all other causes. The researchers noted in their paper that these data support increasing fruit and vegetable consumption as a way of preventing premature death and suggest a need for more clinical research into the health benefits of alpha-carotene.
http://www.naturalnews.com/030574_alpha-carotene_antioxidants.html
For more information:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/co...
http://www.naturalnews.com/antioxid...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030574_alpha-carotene_antioxidants.html#ixzz16pfHrX8f
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Prayer proven to improve health of test subjects
Amen!
Saturday, November 20, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Praying for patients improves their condition significantly more than hypnosis or the power of suggestion could account for, according to a study conducted by researchers from Indiana University-Bloomington and published in the Southern Medical Journal.
Researchers studied Pentecostal Christian faith healing groups in Mozambique and Brazil, where such groups are renowned for their ability to heal impairments of sight and hearing. Although such groups believe that prayer is helpful even from a distance, they emphasize praying while in physical contact with the patient.
"We chose to investigate 'proximal' prayer because that is how a lot of prayer for healing is actually practiced by Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians around the world," researcher Candy Gunther Brown said.
Researchers used objective tests to measure the sight or hearing of patients both before and after the intercessionary prayer. On average, patients improved significantly after being prayed for. Two participants improved their hearing thresholds by 50 decibels, while three improved their vision to 20/80 or better from 20/400 or worse. These changes far surpass those observed in hypnotic or suggestive treatments.
More evidence that the power of prayer surpasses that of suggestion has come from studies where patients improved even though they were completely unaware that they were being prayed for.
"One remarkable study of prayer was performed by Randolph Byrd, M.D., who studied 393 coronary-care patients over a ten-month period," writes Dharma Singh Khalsa in Brain Longevity.
"In Dr. Byrd's Study, half of the 393 patients were prayed for by an outside prayer group," Khalsa writes. "The prayer group was given the first names of the patients, their diagnoses, and a brief description of each patient. None of the doctors or nurses treating any of the patients knew who was being prayed for. The prayer group prayed for the patients each day."
The patients being prayed for improved more than the patients who were not being prayed for.
Sources for this story include:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/....
http://www.naturalnews.com/030457_prayer_healing.html
Saturday, November 20, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Praying for patients improves their condition significantly more than hypnosis or the power of suggestion could account for, according to a study conducted by researchers from Indiana University-Bloomington and published in the Southern Medical Journal.
Researchers studied Pentecostal Christian faith healing groups in Mozambique and Brazil, where such groups are renowned for their ability to heal impairments of sight and hearing. Although such groups believe that prayer is helpful even from a distance, they emphasize praying while in physical contact with the patient.
"We chose to investigate 'proximal' prayer because that is how a lot of prayer for healing is actually practiced by Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians around the world," researcher Candy Gunther Brown said.
Researchers used objective tests to measure the sight or hearing of patients both before and after the intercessionary prayer. On average, patients improved significantly after being prayed for. Two participants improved their hearing thresholds by 50 decibels, while three improved their vision to 20/80 or better from 20/400 or worse. These changes far surpass those observed in hypnotic or suggestive treatments.
More evidence that the power of prayer surpasses that of suggestion has come from studies where patients improved even though they were completely unaware that they were being prayed for.
"One remarkable study of prayer was performed by Randolph Byrd, M.D., who studied 393 coronary-care patients over a ten-month period," writes Dharma Singh Khalsa in Brain Longevity.
"In Dr. Byrd's Study, half of the 393 patients were prayed for by an outside prayer group," Khalsa writes. "The prayer group was given the first names of the patients, their diagnoses, and a brief description of each patient. None of the doctors or nurses treating any of the patients knew who was being prayed for. The prayer group prayed for the patients each day."
The patients being prayed for improved more than the patients who were not being prayed for.
Sources for this story include:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/....
http://www.naturalnews.com/030457_prayer_healing.html
Eat a variety of colors for amazing health
Take special notice of the amazing characteristics of the Gac fruit mentioned below. I'm very grateful for this particular fruit being in my daily diet and the miraculous vision improvement I've experienced as a result within just a few weeks of starting to consume it! Praise God for His precious creation!
Eat a variety of colors for amazing health
Sunday, November 28, 2010 by: Dr. David Jockers, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Natural foods come in all different shapes, sizes, and colors. Everything on Earth has its own unique function and characteristics. Eating fruits and vegetables of a variety of different colors can give you the best all-round health benefits; each contains a distinctive blend of super nutrients that are fantastic for our well-being.
Red: Fruits and vegetables with the color red contain a super anti-oxidant in the carotenoid pigment lycopene. Lycopene is found in tomatoes, red & pink grapefruit, guava, watermelon, papaya, red bell pepper, and gogi berries. A fruit grown in Southern Asia called "gac" is considered the most lycopene rich food with over 70 times the amount of lycopene as tomato products per volume.
Lycopene is absorbed most effectively when it is combined with a fat source. Gac contains saturated and unsaturated fatty acids making it naturally bioavailable. Tomato sauces or tomatoes with extra virgin olive oil are another bioavailable source. Lycopene is noted for its powerful ability to scavenge free radicals and inhibit cancer cell formation and arterial inflammation.
Orange: Orange containing fruits and vegetables are rich in the potent anti-oxidant beta-carotene. Beta carotene is found in sweet potatoes, yams, mangos, carrots, & apricots. The Vietnamese superfood "gac" has the most beta-carotene with over 10x the amount as carrots.
Beta carotene helps prevent night blindness and other eye problems while working to help improve eye function. It also acts to enhance skin health and immune system stability. Beta carotene has powerful anti-oxidant properties which help clean the body of free radicals that damage tissue and cause cancer.
Greens: The color of life is derived by chlorophyll which is one of the most powerful life-giving substances on the planet. The chlorophyll content of a food is a major indicator of the health attributes of any given plant based food. Chlorophyll rich foods have a very deep green and are extraordinarily useful in building new blood cells and purifying the body from cancer and radiation.
Additionally, green foods contain the carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin that are being studied for their ability to protect your eyes by keeping your retina strong. They are also rich in folate, magnesium, copper, B6, & potassium. Many green vegetables like kale and collard greens contain powerful glucosinolates and methyl cysteine sulfoxides. These super-nutrients help to activate detoxifying enzymes in the liver that play an important role in neutralizing carcinogenic substances.
Blue/Purple: These darker pigments add beautiful shades that enrich your plate. They are also rich in flavonoids, phytochemicals, and anti-oxidants. The phytochemical pigment responsible for the dark color is called anthocyanins. Foods that are rich in anthocyanins include blueberries, plums, red cabbage, eggplant, blackberries, raspberries, & cranberries.
These super nutrients have an especially powerful ability to minimize cancer-induced DNA damage, stall the growth of pre-malignant cells, accelerate cancer cell death, and reduce inflammatory mediators that initiate cancer cell growth. Berries are one of the richest sources of anthocyanins and many experts believe that our ancestors ate far more anthocyanins than we do. In comparison, many researchers believe we are deficient in anthocyanins.
White: The onion family which includes leeks, scallions, onions, & garlic all contain the sulfur containing compound called allicin. This is a powerful anti-microbial that destroys bacteria, viruses, & fungi. Allicin is also a powerful anti-inflammatory that destroys cancer, lowers cholesterol, and reduces inflammatory damage to the heart and vasculature.
Mushrooms contain beta-glucan, selenium, vitamin B6, zinc, & copper that are critical for healthy immune function and the formation of the cellular anti-oxidant glutathione. Cauliflower contains the phytochemicals Indole-3-Carbonyl and Sulforaphanes which are some of nature's most powerful cancer fighters.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029318_k...
http://www.naturalnews.com/030237_g...
http://www.fitnesstipsforlife.com/v...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_c...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycopene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthoc...
http://www.chiro.org/nutrition/FULL...
http://www.disabled-world.com/artma...
http://www.naturalnews.com/030546_food_colors.html
About the author
Dr. David Jockers owns and operates Exodus Health Center in Kennesaw, Ga. He is a Maximized Living doctor. His expertise is in weight loss, customized nutrition & exercise, & structural corrective chiropractic care. For more information go to www.exodushc.com
Eat a variety of colors for amazing health
Sunday, November 28, 2010 by: Dr. David Jockers, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Natural foods come in all different shapes, sizes, and colors. Everything on Earth has its own unique function and characteristics. Eating fruits and vegetables of a variety of different colors can give you the best all-round health benefits; each contains a distinctive blend of super nutrients that are fantastic for our well-being.
Red: Fruits and vegetables with the color red contain a super anti-oxidant in the carotenoid pigment lycopene. Lycopene is found in tomatoes, red & pink grapefruit, guava, watermelon, papaya, red bell pepper, and gogi berries. A fruit grown in Southern Asia called "gac" is considered the most lycopene rich food with over 70 times the amount of lycopene as tomato products per volume.
Lycopene is absorbed most effectively when it is combined with a fat source. Gac contains saturated and unsaturated fatty acids making it naturally bioavailable. Tomato sauces or tomatoes with extra virgin olive oil are another bioavailable source. Lycopene is noted for its powerful ability to scavenge free radicals and inhibit cancer cell formation and arterial inflammation.
Orange: Orange containing fruits and vegetables are rich in the potent anti-oxidant beta-carotene. Beta carotene is found in sweet potatoes, yams, mangos, carrots, & apricots. The Vietnamese superfood "gac" has the most beta-carotene with over 10x the amount as carrots.
Beta carotene helps prevent night blindness and other eye problems while working to help improve eye function. It also acts to enhance skin health and immune system stability. Beta carotene has powerful anti-oxidant properties which help clean the body of free radicals that damage tissue and cause cancer.
Greens: The color of life is derived by chlorophyll which is one of the most powerful life-giving substances on the planet. The chlorophyll content of a food is a major indicator of the health attributes of any given plant based food. Chlorophyll rich foods have a very deep green and are extraordinarily useful in building new blood cells and purifying the body from cancer and radiation.
Additionally, green foods contain the carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin that are being studied for their ability to protect your eyes by keeping your retina strong. They are also rich in folate, magnesium, copper, B6, & potassium. Many green vegetables like kale and collard greens contain powerful glucosinolates and methyl cysteine sulfoxides. These super-nutrients help to activate detoxifying enzymes in the liver that play an important role in neutralizing carcinogenic substances.
Blue/Purple: These darker pigments add beautiful shades that enrich your plate. They are also rich in flavonoids, phytochemicals, and anti-oxidants. The phytochemical pigment responsible for the dark color is called anthocyanins. Foods that are rich in anthocyanins include blueberries, plums, red cabbage, eggplant, blackberries, raspberries, & cranberries.
These super nutrients have an especially powerful ability to minimize cancer-induced DNA damage, stall the growth of pre-malignant cells, accelerate cancer cell death, and reduce inflammatory mediators that initiate cancer cell growth. Berries are one of the richest sources of anthocyanins and many experts believe that our ancestors ate far more anthocyanins than we do. In comparison, many researchers believe we are deficient in anthocyanins.
White: The onion family which includes leeks, scallions, onions, & garlic all contain the sulfur containing compound called allicin. This is a powerful anti-microbial that destroys bacteria, viruses, & fungi. Allicin is also a powerful anti-inflammatory that destroys cancer, lowers cholesterol, and reduces inflammatory damage to the heart and vasculature.
Mushrooms contain beta-glucan, selenium, vitamin B6, zinc, & copper that are critical for healthy immune function and the formation of the cellular anti-oxidant glutathione. Cauliflower contains the phytochemicals Indole-3-Carbonyl and Sulforaphanes which are some of nature's most powerful cancer fighters.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029318_k...
http://www.naturalnews.com/030237_g...
http://www.fitnesstipsforlife.com/v...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_c...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lycopene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthoc...
http://www.chiro.org/nutrition/FULL...
http://www.disabled-world.com/artma...
http://www.naturalnews.com/030546_food_colors.html
About the author
Dr. David Jockers owns and operates Exodus Health Center in Kennesaw, Ga. He is a Maximized Living doctor. His expertise is in weight loss, customized nutrition & exercise, & structural corrective chiropractic care. For more information go to www.exodushc.com
Saturday, November 27, 2010
The Energy Drink Scam -- Do Energy Drinks Actually Help You, or Can They Actually Make You Fatter?
Thank goodness there is one energy drink that does not have any of the following problems but actually contains the good things that the author recommends! GreenZilla Energy available from eXfuze!
The Energy Drink Scam -- Do Energy Drinks Actually Help You, or Can They Actually Make You Fatter?
by Mike Geary, Certified Personal Trainer, Certified Nutrition Specialist
Author - The Truth About Six Pack Abs
Today I have a little rant on energy drinks...
I receive a ton of questions about all of these new "energy" drinks that have hit the market over the last few years. They seem to be all the rage, and they promise you the world with outrageous claims of all of the super energy that you are going to have, and how you'll become the best athlete in the world, start lifting cars over your head, and get a perfect body.
So a couple questions arise:
Are these "energy" drinks really any good for you?
Do they actually increase your energy?
Do they really have some sort of magical energy formula?
Will they help you lose weight?
First of all, let's look at what most of these energy drinks are usually made of. Most of them are simply carbonated water loaded with gut-fattening high fructose corn syrup (or other added sugars), caffeine, the amino acid taurine, and some crappy artificially-derived vitamins added for show to trick you into thinking there's something healthy about these concoctions.
Let's start with the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Well, here we've got empty calories that will go straight to your belly fat, and that are possibly even WORSE for you than plain old refined sugar (although that's up for debate, but semantics in the big picture). Some energy drinks use other added sugars instead of HFCS, but it doesn't really matter, because they are all gut-fattening empty calories with no nutritional benefit.
Ok, so you say that they also have low-sugar or sugar-free varieties as an alternative to the HFCS-laden energy drinks. Yes, but now you have the problem of the harmful chemicals in the artificial sweeteners which have their own set of health dangers.
Another problem with artificial sweeteners is that there are some research studies that indicate artificial sweetener use leads people to inadvertently consume more calories and gain more weight in the long run... in addition to having a negative hormonal effect in the body. I won't go into all of the details on that topic because that would fill up an entire discussion by itself.
Just trust me that artificial sweeteners and artificial chemicals in food in general, are ALL bad news for your body! It's never a good idea to try to "trick" your body with artificial tastes.
What about the caffeine?
Well, first of all, caffeine doesn't in itself provide "energy". Technically, the only substance that actually provides energy is calories (from carbs, protein, and fat).
However, caffeine can be an aid for livening or waking some people up, by means of stimulating the central nervous system.
Instead of caffeine artificially added to some carbonated "energy" drink, I'd rather get my caffeine from a natural source like green, white, or oolong teas (or my new favorite - yerba mate teas), which actually provide very powerful healthy antioxidants too!
Keep in mind though, if you're a regular daily coffee drinker, you probably have some level of addiction to caffeine and probably wouldn't receive too much benefit from the caffeine in an energy drink anyway.
Tip: try to drink more tea and reduce your coffee intake to only a couple days per week max to reduce your dependency on caffeine. Most teas contain much less caffeine than coffee, and some teas (such as green, white, and oolong) contain synergistic phytochemicals that work to slow the response of the caffeine that they do contain. This means you get a milder response from the caffeine in green, oolong, or white teas compared to the harsher jittery response that some people get from coffee.
Now what about that so called magical blend of taurine and B-vitamins that they load into these energy drinks?
Well, big deal...you get taurine in almost any protein source. And the vast majority of those artificially added B-vitamins are simply coming right out into the toilet in your pee. Vitamins are best obtained naturally from a REAL food source, not artificially added to some carbonated drink. Your body just doesn't use fake sources of vitamins as readily as natural sources from real food.
So as you can see, in my opinion, I give all of these energy drinks a big time THUMBS DOWN! Don't fall for the ridiculous marketing of all of these so-called "energy drinks".
Instead, here's my recipe for my own home-made energy drink:
1. Make a big iced tea mixture using green tea, white tea, and yerba mate tea. I like to add a little fruit flavor, so I'll use 1 tea bag of a raspberry or blueberry hibiscus tea, and then use 2-3 green and/or white tea bags, and 2-3 yerba mate tea bags, and make a gallon container of iced tea. I just use a small amount of stevia to lightly sweeten the batch of tea.
2. I buy a container of organic coconut water from a health food store, or buy fresh coconuts to obtain the coconut water from the inside.
3. For my healthy energy drink, I mix a half of a glass of the white/green/yerba mate iced tea mixture and fill the rest of the glass with the coconut water.
This is actually a delicious and truly healthy energy drink instead of the chemical-laden crappy energy drinks that everybody is getting suckered into buying these days.
The green, white, and yerba mate teas contain a small dose of caffeine along with a diverse mixture of powerful antioxidants and synergistic phytochemicals. Plus, the coconut water is a rich source of electrolytes and a diversity of vitamins and minerals. Coconut water is known to provide a good instant energy source, and also contains a small dose of medium chain triglycerides (MCTs), which are healthy fats that are readily used for energy and also aid your immune system.
So enjoy this natural healthy energy drink, knowing that you're doing your body good instead of filling it with chemicals with normal store-bought energy drinks.
As usual, feel free to email this link to your friends and family or share it on your blogs, forums, or facebook pages to help your friends live healthier.
http://www.truthaboutabs.com/energy-drinks.html
The Energy Drink Scam -- Do Energy Drinks Actually Help You, or Can They Actually Make You Fatter?
by Mike Geary, Certified Personal Trainer, Certified Nutrition Specialist
Author - The Truth About Six Pack Abs
Today I have a little rant on energy drinks...
I receive a ton of questions about all of these new "energy" drinks that have hit the market over the last few years. They seem to be all the rage, and they promise you the world with outrageous claims of all of the super energy that you are going to have, and how you'll become the best athlete in the world, start lifting cars over your head, and get a perfect body.
So a couple questions arise:
Are these "energy" drinks really any good for you?
Do they actually increase your energy?
Do they really have some sort of magical energy formula?
Will they help you lose weight?
First of all, let's look at what most of these energy drinks are usually made of. Most of them are simply carbonated water loaded with gut-fattening high fructose corn syrup (or other added sugars), caffeine, the amino acid taurine, and some crappy artificially-derived vitamins added for show to trick you into thinking there's something healthy about these concoctions.
Let's start with the high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Well, here we've got empty calories that will go straight to your belly fat, and that are possibly even WORSE for you than plain old refined sugar (although that's up for debate, but semantics in the big picture). Some energy drinks use other added sugars instead of HFCS, but it doesn't really matter, because they are all gut-fattening empty calories with no nutritional benefit.
Ok, so you say that they also have low-sugar or sugar-free varieties as an alternative to the HFCS-laden energy drinks. Yes, but now you have the problem of the harmful chemicals in the artificial sweeteners which have their own set of health dangers.
Another problem with artificial sweeteners is that there are some research studies that indicate artificial sweetener use leads people to inadvertently consume more calories and gain more weight in the long run... in addition to having a negative hormonal effect in the body. I won't go into all of the details on that topic because that would fill up an entire discussion by itself.
Just trust me that artificial sweeteners and artificial chemicals in food in general, are ALL bad news for your body! It's never a good idea to try to "trick" your body with artificial tastes.
What about the caffeine?
Well, first of all, caffeine doesn't in itself provide "energy". Technically, the only substance that actually provides energy is calories (from carbs, protein, and fat).
However, caffeine can be an aid for livening or waking some people up, by means of stimulating the central nervous system.
Instead of caffeine artificially added to some carbonated "energy" drink, I'd rather get my caffeine from a natural source like green, white, or oolong teas (or my new favorite - yerba mate teas), which actually provide very powerful healthy antioxidants too!
Keep in mind though, if you're a regular daily coffee drinker, you probably have some level of addiction to caffeine and probably wouldn't receive too much benefit from the caffeine in an energy drink anyway.
Tip: try to drink more tea and reduce your coffee intake to only a couple days per week max to reduce your dependency on caffeine. Most teas contain much less caffeine than coffee, and some teas (such as green, white, and oolong) contain synergistic phytochemicals that work to slow the response of the caffeine that they do contain. This means you get a milder response from the caffeine in green, oolong, or white teas compared to the harsher jittery response that some people get from coffee.
Now what about that so called magical blend of taurine and B-vitamins that they load into these energy drinks?
Well, big deal...you get taurine in almost any protein source. And the vast majority of those artificially added B-vitamins are simply coming right out into the toilet in your pee. Vitamins are best obtained naturally from a REAL food source, not artificially added to some carbonated drink. Your body just doesn't use fake sources of vitamins as readily as natural sources from real food.
So as you can see, in my opinion, I give all of these energy drinks a big time THUMBS DOWN! Don't fall for the ridiculous marketing of all of these so-called "energy drinks".
Instead, here's my recipe for my own home-made energy drink:
1. Make a big iced tea mixture using green tea, white tea, and yerba mate tea. I like to add a little fruit flavor, so I'll use 1 tea bag of a raspberry or blueberry hibiscus tea, and then use 2-3 green and/or white tea bags, and 2-3 yerba mate tea bags, and make a gallon container of iced tea. I just use a small amount of stevia to lightly sweeten the batch of tea.
2. I buy a container of organic coconut water from a health food store, or buy fresh coconuts to obtain the coconut water from the inside.
3. For my healthy energy drink, I mix a half of a glass of the white/green/yerba mate iced tea mixture and fill the rest of the glass with the coconut water.
This is actually a delicious and truly healthy energy drink instead of the chemical-laden crappy energy drinks that everybody is getting suckered into buying these days.
The green, white, and yerba mate teas contain a small dose of caffeine along with a diverse mixture of powerful antioxidants and synergistic phytochemicals. Plus, the coconut water is a rich source of electrolytes and a diversity of vitamins and minerals. Coconut water is known to provide a good instant energy source, and also contains a small dose of medium chain triglycerides (MCTs), which are healthy fats that are readily used for energy and also aid your immune system.
So enjoy this natural healthy energy drink, knowing that you're doing your body good instead of filling it with chemicals with normal store-bought energy drinks.
As usual, feel free to email this link to your friends and family or share it on your blogs, forums, or facebook pages to help your friends live healthier.
http://www.truthaboutabs.com/energy-drinks.html
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Label All Milk Drinkers Should Look Out For (Unless You Like Cancer)
Before you read the following eye-opening article, first let me share this. I don't recommend drinking dairy milk of any kind, including raw and organic! My kids and I eat hormone-free cheese as a special weekly junk-food treat and NEVER purchase dairy milk. Yes, cheese is our junk-food treat! Why, because even when you get hormone-free or organic cheese and milk, the casein in it will kill you and give you cancer (thank God our family has an anti-cancer secret weapon). Read The China Study with an open-mind if you want proof. Dr. Campbell points out how casein meets all of the criteria of what makes a carcinogen according to NIH (National Institute of Health) criteria. Instead, we purchase almond milk. Homemade almond milk is the recommendation of Mike Adams of Natural News and Dr. Malkmus of Hallelujah Acres. I'd make it but my family prefers the store-bought kind. I don't drink it though unless I need to add milk to something.
God bless,
Miriam
-----------
Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 25 2010
A few years ago, a number of U.S. states tried to ban "rbGH-free" claims on dairy. Monsanto, which owned rbGH at the time, helped found a group called AFACT, which supported the bans. AFACT was unsuccessful in most states, but it looked like they might win in Ohio, where the fight went to the courts.
Recently, however, the Ohio court came to its decision. First, they ruled that milk in Ohio can still bear an "rbGH-free" label as long as it also bears the disclaimer stating that, "[t]he FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows."
But there's more important news out of Ohio -- the court also challenged the FDA's finding that there is "no measurable compositional difference" between milk from rbGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. This FDA finding has been the major roadblock to rbGH regulation, and the court struck it down.
According to La Vida Locavore:
"The court ... [cited] three reasons why the milk differs: 1. Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, 2. A period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation, and 3. Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk)."
Sources:
La Vida Locavore September 30, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
With a federal court overturning Ohio's ban on 'rBGH-free' labels on dairy products, raw dairy producers and consumers can again bask in new hope. This ruling means that companies that want to clearly state that their products are "rBGH free," "rBST free," or "artificial hormone free" are now allowed to do so.
The fight for labeling of rBGH-laced milk has been ongoing since its introduction to the US market in 1994. Part of the concern is the fact that rBGH is an artificial hormone. The additional concern is that it's a genetically modified artificial hormone. Disallowing the labeling of rBGH-treated dairy essentially set the precedent for not labeling other genetically modified foods.
The debate about labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods has now flared up again, this time because the FDA is reviewing a GM salmon. If approved, the next step will be to determine whether or not the genetically altered salmon must be labeled.
This federal verdict opens the door not only to use rBGH-free labels; it also opens the back door, so to speak, for consumer groups to push for labeling of NON-GM salmon, should the FDA again decide the altered salmon does not need to carry a GM label.
That's one piece of good news.
In addition to that, this verdict is also significant because, for the first time, a court has recognized that milk from cows treated with genetically modified growth hormones (known as rBGH or rBST) is NOT identical to milk from untreated cows.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what concerned scientists and public health advocates have argued for well over 20 years.
Years before the FDA approved it, scientists like Shiv Chopra, who worked for what is now Health Canada -- the Canadian equivalent of the FDA –were raising serious questions about the safety of rBGH milk.
For an insider's look into the politics that surrounded the approval of rBGH, listen to my interview with Shiv Chopra where he addresses this topic.
The recombinant (genetically engineered) bovine growth hormone (rBGH), is used to significantly increase milk production in cows. Treated cows can produce as much as 15-25 percent more milk. But this increase in milk production, and hence profit, has hidden costs, namely the cows' and your health.
There IS a Significant Difference Between rBGH Milk and Non-rBGH Milk
For the past 17 years, the FDA's has held on to their initial finding that there's "no significant difference" between the milk of cows given genetically modified artificial growth hormone and those that aren't.
This is an astounding decision, when you consider all the evidence to the contrary.
Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is a powerful GE drug produced by Monsanto that can seriously damage the cow's health and reproductive capacity. The milk produced by these cows has also been shown to be anything BUT identical to untreated milk.
In fact, as stated in the court's ruling, there are several compositional and qualitative difference between these two types of milk.
Hormone-treated milk is different from non-treated milk because:
It contains increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, which promotes cancer tumors. According to Dr. Epstein, excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers
Hormone use "induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow's "negative energy phase." Milk produced during this stage is considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its decreased level of proteins, the court ruling states
It contains increased somatic cell counts (SCC's). This means the milk contains more pus, which makes it turn sour more quickly. Increased SCC count also affects the milk's taste, smell, texture and color. Raised SCC levels is typically caused by the high incidence of mastitis in rBGH-injected cows
These are what the federal court cited as reasons to determine that hormone treated milk is different from non-treated milk.
But there's more.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, is one of the top experts on cancer prevention. He is frequently called upon to advise Congress about things in our environment that may cause cancer, and he has written eight books, including one of the best books on the topic at hand, called Got (Genetically Engineered) Milk?
Dr. Epstein points out several additional differences between rBGH milk and untreated milk:
Contamination of the milk by the GM hormone rBGH
Contamination of the milk with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and other rBGH-induced disease
Increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme thyroxin-5'-monodeiodinase
Increased concentration of long-chain and decreased concentration of short-chain fatty acids
A reduction in levels of the milk protein casein
All of these factors can cause or contribute to health problems.
This Hormone KILLS Cows
It's also quite clear that it's bad for the cows that are injected with this hormone.
One 1998 survey by Family Farm Defenders found that mortality rates for rBGH-injected cows on factory dairy farms in Wisconsin were about 40 percent per year. In other words, after two and a half years of rBGH injections most of these drugged and supercharged cows were dead.
The typical lifespan of a happy, healthy dairy cow (read: organically-raised) is 15 to 20 years!
Conflict of Interest – The Name of the Game
Despite being presented with these findings and concerns, which were also echoed by other experts such as Dr. Michael Hansen from the Consumers Union back in the early 90's, the FDA gave the hormone its seal of approval, with no real pre-market safety testing required...
How did that happen?
Well, considering the fact that several key FDA decision makers, including Michael Taylor, had previously worked for Monsanto, it's easy to see how the FDA could appear to be so completely unfazed by the evidence.
This conflict of interest also explains why the FDA determined that rBGH-derived dairy products did not need to be labeled, even though polls showed that a whopping 90 percent of American consumers said they wanted labeling in order to be able to avoid buying those products.
As it turns out, all of the major criticisms leveled against rBGH have turned out to be true. Since 1994, the hormone has been banned in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and all 27 nations of the European Union.
Still holding on: the United States...
Monsanto has fought tooth and nail all these years to keep rBGH on the market. One of their sleigh-of-hand tactics was to form the grass-roots organization "The American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology," (AFACT).
To further the Monsanto agenda, this organization defended their "right to use rBGH." They were also on the forefront pushing to outlaw "non-rBGH" labels.
Fortunately, AFACT has been largely unsuccessful in spreading their propaganda and more and more dairies have switched over to being hormone-free.
Which Dairy Brands Offer rBGH-Free Products?
For a list of brands that offer hormone-free dairy products, such as milk, yoghurt and ice cream, the Organic Consumers Organization has compiled this user-friendly list. They indicate which brands are partially rBGH-free, and which have stopped using artificial hormones entirely.
This can be good to know, since many products still do not bear the rBGH-free label.
For example, Ben & Jerry's make their ice cream with milk from dairies that have pledged not to inject their cows with hormones. But Haagen Dazs, Breyers, and Baskin-Robbins have not followed suit, and their ice creams are labeled "all-natural" even though rBGH dairy is anything but...
Keep in mind that organic milk is also rBGH-free, even if it doesn't specify so on the label. Artificial hormones are not permitted in organic dairy farming.
That said, although organic milk is certainly preferable to hormone-laced milk, I still don't recommend it simply because it's still pasteurized...
You can avoid both the risks of rBGH and pasteurization by only drinking raw milk that comes from a small farmer you know and trust. This is the only way to drink milk if you're interested in protecting your health.
RealMilk.com is an excellent resource if you need help finding a high-quality source in your area.
Get Informed and Protect Your Food Freedom
Looking at the bigger picture though, this issue is about much more than milk. It's about protecting your food supply from all sorts of manipulation -- from rBGH and pasteurization to genetically modified crops as a whole.
A key way you can begin to do this is by avoiding any and all GM products, and there are many of them. Most processed foods now contain one or more GM ingredients.
To gain some insight into how best to protect your health from manipulated foods, I recommend exploring the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). You can discover the many hidden hazards of GM foods for yourself at Jeffrey's Web site: ResponsibleTechnology.org.
I also highly recommend downloading and using the IRT's Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
As far as healthful, wholesome milk is concerned, I also urge you to a take a stand to protect your freedom of food choice by joining the Raw Milk Campaign to make access to raw milk a right for all Americans.
You can find Local Chapters and Chapter Leaders by sending an email to: chapters@westonaprice.org.
For more information about milk quality, listen to my interview with Mark McAfee, the founder of Organic Pastures. You can also find lots of valuable information on McAfee's website.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/25/finally-huge-victory-against-monsanto-milk.aspx
Related Links:
Is Your Favorite Ice Cream Made With Monsanto's Artificial Hormones?
The Truth About Milk
BGH: Monsanto and the Dairy Industry's Dirty Little Secret
God bless,
Miriam
-----------
Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 25 2010
A few years ago, a number of U.S. states tried to ban "rbGH-free" claims on dairy. Monsanto, which owned rbGH at the time, helped found a group called AFACT, which supported the bans. AFACT was unsuccessful in most states, but it looked like they might win in Ohio, where the fight went to the courts.
Recently, however, the Ohio court came to its decision. First, they ruled that milk in Ohio can still bear an "rbGH-free" label as long as it also bears the disclaimer stating that, "[t]he FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST-supplemented cows."
But there's more important news out of Ohio -- the court also challenged the FDA's finding that there is "no measurable compositional difference" between milk from rbGH-treated cows and milk from untreated cows. This FDA finding has been the major roadblock to rbGH regulation, and the court struck it down.
According to La Vida Locavore:
"The court ... [cited] three reasons why the milk differs: 1. Increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, 2. A period of milk with lower nutritional quality during each lactation, and 3. Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk)."
Sources:
La Vida Locavore September 30, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
With a federal court overturning Ohio's ban on 'rBGH-free' labels on dairy products, raw dairy producers and consumers can again bask in new hope. This ruling means that companies that want to clearly state that their products are "rBGH free," "rBST free," or "artificial hormone free" are now allowed to do so.
The fight for labeling of rBGH-laced milk has been ongoing since its introduction to the US market in 1994. Part of the concern is the fact that rBGH is an artificial hormone. The additional concern is that it's a genetically modified artificial hormone. Disallowing the labeling of rBGH-treated dairy essentially set the precedent for not labeling other genetically modified foods.
The debate about labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods has now flared up again, this time because the FDA is reviewing a GM salmon. If approved, the next step will be to determine whether or not the genetically altered salmon must be labeled.
This federal verdict opens the door not only to use rBGH-free labels; it also opens the back door, so to speak, for consumer groups to push for labeling of NON-GM salmon, should the FDA again decide the altered salmon does not need to carry a GM label.
That's one piece of good news.
In addition to that, this verdict is also significant because, for the first time, a court has recognized that milk from cows treated with genetically modified growth hormones (known as rBGH or rBST) is NOT identical to milk from untreated cows.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what concerned scientists and public health advocates have argued for well over 20 years.
Years before the FDA approved it, scientists like Shiv Chopra, who worked for what is now Health Canada -- the Canadian equivalent of the FDA –were raising serious questions about the safety of rBGH milk.
For an insider's look into the politics that surrounded the approval of rBGH, listen to my interview with Shiv Chopra where he addresses this topic.
The recombinant (genetically engineered) bovine growth hormone (rBGH), is used to significantly increase milk production in cows. Treated cows can produce as much as 15-25 percent more milk. But this increase in milk production, and hence profit, has hidden costs, namely the cows' and your health.
There IS a Significant Difference Between rBGH Milk and Non-rBGH Milk
For the past 17 years, the FDA's has held on to their initial finding that there's "no significant difference" between the milk of cows given genetically modified artificial growth hormone and those that aren't.
This is an astounding decision, when you consider all the evidence to the contrary.
Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is a powerful GE drug produced by Monsanto that can seriously damage the cow's health and reproductive capacity. The milk produced by these cows has also been shown to be anything BUT identical to untreated milk.
In fact, as stated in the court's ruling, there are several compositional and qualitative difference between these two types of milk.
Hormone-treated milk is different from non-treated milk because:
It contains increased levels of the hormone IGF-1, which promotes cancer tumors. According to Dr. Epstein, excess levels of IGF-1 have been incriminated as major causes of breast, colon, and prostate cancers
Hormone use "induces an unnatural period of milk production during a cow's "negative energy phase." Milk produced during this stage is considered to be low quality due to its increased fat content and its decreased level of proteins, the court ruling states
It contains increased somatic cell counts (SCC's). This means the milk contains more pus, which makes it turn sour more quickly. Increased SCC count also affects the milk's taste, smell, texture and color. Raised SCC levels is typically caused by the high incidence of mastitis in rBGH-injected cows
These are what the federal court cited as reasons to determine that hormone treated milk is different from non-treated milk.
But there's more.
Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, is one of the top experts on cancer prevention. He is frequently called upon to advise Congress about things in our environment that may cause cancer, and he has written eight books, including one of the best books on the topic at hand, called Got (Genetically Engineered) Milk?
Dr. Epstein points out several additional differences between rBGH milk and untreated milk:
Contamination of the milk by the GM hormone rBGH
Contamination of the milk with illegal antibiotics and drugs used to treat mastitis and other rBGH-induced disease
Increased concentration of the thyroid hormone enzyme thyroxin-5'-monodeiodinase
Increased concentration of long-chain and decreased concentration of short-chain fatty acids
A reduction in levels of the milk protein casein
All of these factors can cause or contribute to health problems.
This Hormone KILLS Cows
It's also quite clear that it's bad for the cows that are injected with this hormone.
One 1998 survey by Family Farm Defenders found that mortality rates for rBGH-injected cows on factory dairy farms in Wisconsin were about 40 percent per year. In other words, after two and a half years of rBGH injections most of these drugged and supercharged cows were dead.
The typical lifespan of a happy, healthy dairy cow (read: organically-raised) is 15 to 20 years!
Conflict of Interest – The Name of the Game
Despite being presented with these findings and concerns, which were also echoed by other experts such as Dr. Michael Hansen from the Consumers Union back in the early 90's, the FDA gave the hormone its seal of approval, with no real pre-market safety testing required...
How did that happen?
Well, considering the fact that several key FDA decision makers, including Michael Taylor, had previously worked for Monsanto, it's easy to see how the FDA could appear to be so completely unfazed by the evidence.
This conflict of interest also explains why the FDA determined that rBGH-derived dairy products did not need to be labeled, even though polls showed that a whopping 90 percent of American consumers said they wanted labeling in order to be able to avoid buying those products.
As it turns out, all of the major criticisms leveled against rBGH have turned out to be true. Since 1994, the hormone has been banned in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and all 27 nations of the European Union.
Still holding on: the United States...
Monsanto has fought tooth and nail all these years to keep rBGH on the market. One of their sleigh-of-hand tactics was to form the grass-roots organization "The American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology," (AFACT).
To further the Monsanto agenda, this organization defended their "right to use rBGH." They were also on the forefront pushing to outlaw "non-rBGH" labels.
Fortunately, AFACT has been largely unsuccessful in spreading their propaganda and more and more dairies have switched over to being hormone-free.
Which Dairy Brands Offer rBGH-Free Products?
For a list of brands that offer hormone-free dairy products, such as milk, yoghurt and ice cream, the Organic Consumers Organization has compiled this user-friendly list. They indicate which brands are partially rBGH-free, and which have stopped using artificial hormones entirely.
This can be good to know, since many products still do not bear the rBGH-free label.
For example, Ben & Jerry's make their ice cream with milk from dairies that have pledged not to inject their cows with hormones. But Haagen Dazs, Breyers, and Baskin-Robbins have not followed suit, and their ice creams are labeled "all-natural" even though rBGH dairy is anything but...
Keep in mind that organic milk is also rBGH-free, even if it doesn't specify so on the label. Artificial hormones are not permitted in organic dairy farming.
That said, although organic milk is certainly preferable to hormone-laced milk, I still don't recommend it simply because it's still pasteurized...
You can avoid both the risks of rBGH and pasteurization by only drinking raw milk that comes from a small farmer you know and trust. This is the only way to drink milk if you're interested in protecting your health.
RealMilk.com is an excellent resource if you need help finding a high-quality source in your area.
Get Informed and Protect Your Food Freedom
Looking at the bigger picture though, this issue is about much more than milk. It's about protecting your food supply from all sorts of manipulation -- from rBGH and pasteurization to genetically modified crops as a whole.
A key way you can begin to do this is by avoiding any and all GM products, and there are many of them. Most processed foods now contain one or more GM ingredients.
To gain some insight into how best to protect your health from manipulated foods, I recommend exploring the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT). You can discover the many hidden hazards of GM foods for yourself at Jeffrey's Web site: ResponsibleTechnology.org.
I also highly recommend downloading and using the IRT's Non-GMO Shopping Guide.
As far as healthful, wholesome milk is concerned, I also urge you to a take a stand to protect your freedom of food choice by joining the Raw Milk Campaign to make access to raw milk a right for all Americans.
You can find Local Chapters and Chapter Leaders by sending an email to: chapters@westonaprice.org.
For more information about milk quality, listen to my interview with Mark McAfee, the founder of Organic Pastures. You can also find lots of valuable information on McAfee's website.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/11/25/finally-huge-victory-against-monsanto-milk.aspx
Related Links:
Is Your Favorite Ice Cream Made With Monsanto's Artificial Hormones?
The Truth About Milk
BGH: Monsanto and the Dairy Industry's Dirty Little Secret
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Skin Benefits of Mangosteen and Pomegranate
I've been mixing Seven+ with my Aubrey Organics moisturizer for about a year now! It feels, smells, and works heavenly! The following articles mention Mangosteen and Pomegranate for dermatological use, but I also happen to know from my own independent research that Brown Seaweed and Sea Buckthorn are used this way in high-end salons. Recently, Acai and Goji have been added to very expensive organic moisturizers. How great that Seven+ contains ALL OF THEM, and we can just add a few drops to our moisturizer for pennies!
Cosmoceutical Critique: Mangosteen
http://www.skinandallergynews.com/views/cosmeceutical-critique-by-leslie-s-baumann/blog/cosmoceutical-critique-mangosteen/b2276f473b.html
Pomegranate Skin Benefits
http://beyondjane.com/beauty/skin/pomegranate-skin-benefits/
Cosmoceutical Critique: Mangosteen
http://www.skinandallergynews.com/views/cosmeceutical-critique-by-leslie-s-baumann/blog/cosmoceutical-critique-mangosteen/b2276f473b.html
Pomegranate Skin Benefits
http://beyondjane.com/beauty/skin/pomegranate-skin-benefits/
Monday, November 8, 2010
Don't Give This to Your Daughter - Despite What Your Doctor Says: Gardasil vaccine
Don't Give This to Your Daughter - Despite What Your Doctor Says
Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 05 2010 | 197,375 views
It's been four years since Gardasil debuted as a blockbuster vaccine with sales that rocketed to over $1.1 billion in its first nine months.
Touted as a wonder vaccine that would end cervical cancer, it was supposed to be the savior of both mankind and Merck's Vioxx-damaged bottom line. But now, according to CNN Money, it's a dud.
It just posted $219 million in sales. But in the pharma world, that's a paltry pittance, nothing short of an in-flight explosion that's caused Merck stock to drop 3 percent, with analysts and investors scrambling to figure out what went wrong.
So what happened?
How did a vaccine that was supposed to be Merck's beacon for higher profits in the 21st Century go from flagship to flop?
The Science Speaks for Itself
CNN Money calls Gardasil's crash a "design flaw" and faults the economy, puritanical parents, bad press, and Merck itself for contributing to the fallout.
The article ends with the hypothesis: "Or, maybe people just aren't ready for a cancer vaccine when it's for a sexually transmitted disease."
I think they're way off the mark.
The real reason Gardasil is a flop is that people have become educated about this vaccine.
They've looked at the science and weighed the risks vs. the supposed benefits, and have made a choice not to get it for themselves or their children.
The word is out: despite what the CDC would have you believe, Gardasil's safety record is in serious question. As of September 28, 2010, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has more than 18,000 Gardasil-related adverse events listed in it, including at least 65 deaths.
As a vaccine used in the developed world, the science speaks for itself: Gardasil can't – and never will -- replace Pap smears, which are the reason that the incidence of cervical cancer is so low in the United States after decades of including pap smears in routine medical care for women.
Today, cervical cancer is not even in the top 10 cancers that kill American women every year.
As a vaccine for children, it doesn't make sense to vaccinate to try to prevent an infection that is cleared from your body without any negative effects within two years in most healthy persons, and is not transmitted in a school setting like other airborne diseases that are easily transmitted in crowded conditions.
Gardasil is designed to prevent only two of at least 15 strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer in those who do not clear the virus from their body within two years and become chronically infected.
There is also some evidence that Gardasil-induced immunity may wane after about five years. Pre-licensure clinical trials did not follow young girls or women for decades to find out if the vaccine does, in fact, prevent cervical cancer.
What went wrong with Gardasil is that this may be a vaccine that set many more health care consumers on a course of self-education that helped them make an informed decision about whether or not to take it – and there are several good reasons why many are deciding NOT to take it.
Science vs. Politics
First, the science: Peer-reviewed journal articles widely available on the Internet show that Gardasil is not what it was made out to be in the "one-less" TV commercials that jumped into people's living rooms a few years ago.
Consumers now know that:
Gardasil is NOT a cancer vaccine. It is simply a vaccine for two strains of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) that in some instances can lead to cancer in some women (Gardasil's other two HPV strains are for genital warts, which don't cause cancer).
Since there are at least 15 HPV strains that can lead to cancer, Gardasil-vaccinated girls can still get cervical cancer from other 13 HPV strains not contained in the vaccine.
The vaccine doesn't work if you've already been infected with the HPV strains in the vaccine.
But the politics of this information is that you won't hear it or read it in the mainstream press. Instead, what you get is a repetition of the politically charged mantra that parents don't want their young daughters or sons to get a vaccine associated with sexual behaviors, and complaints about the vaccine's high cost.
However, the real truth is that Gardasil's downfall has nothing to do with sex or money.
The Truth about HPV and Cancer
It is important to distinguish between HPV and cancer: Just because you currently have HPV, or may have had the infection in the past, does NOT mean you have cancer or will get cancer.
HPV is NOT cancer. It is a viral infection that can lead to cancer in some people if the virus does not naturally clear from your body, as it does for most people within two years.
Some high risk factors for developing chronic HPV infection are:
Smoking
Co-infection with herpes, Chlamydia or HIV
Long term birth control use
Multiple births
In the US, infection with HPV is very common, and it is estimated that about 20 million Americans have an HPV infection at any given time. In fact, HPV is so common that most sexually active people will get it at some time in their lives.
The important thing to know about HPV is that in almost all cases, it clears up on its own without any adverse health effects within two years in most healthy people.
Genital HPV infection that is persistent, and more likely to lead to cancer, is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners. According to the CDC, other contributing risk factors to HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer includes smoking, having herpes, Chlamydia or HIV (the virus associated with AIDS), or another health problem that makes it hard for your body to deal with infections.
Using birth control pills for a long time (five or more years) or having given birth to three or more children is also a risk factor.
Also, certain populations in the US are more prone to getting cervical cancer. According to CervicalCancerCampaign.org:
"Cervical cancer occurs most often in certain groups of women in the United States including African-American women, Hispanic women, white (non-Hispanic) women living in rural New York State and northern New England, American Indian women, and Vietnamese-American women.
Hispanic women have twice the rate of cervical cancer compared to non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50 percent more than non-Hispanic white women".
These disparities are due, in part, from poor access to health care. The women who are most at risk for the disease are women who do not have regular check-ups that include pap tests.
Official reports from the CDC and WHO estimate that between 11,000 and 12,000 women in the US are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,800 to 4,100 die from it.
About half of these women had never had a pap smear before they discovered they had cervical cancer. The majority of the others had not had a pap smear within the previous five years.
According to the CDC's report on HPV to Congress in 2004:
"Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV infection in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with pap tests and have appropriate follow-up of abnormalities.
The purpose of screening with the pap test is to detect cervical abnormalities that can be treated, thereby preventing progression to invasive cervical cancer, and also to detect invasive cervical cancer at a very early stage. If detected early and managed promptly, survival rates for cervical cancer are over 90 percent."
A study published in 2000 in the Archives of Family Medicine also showed that in the US, women who are elderly, unmarried, and uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of cervical cancer.
The Truth About Gardasil
According to a 2006 report to the international group Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Gardasil and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline's two-strain HPV vaccine) are only effective in young women and men (boys are now approved to receive HPV vaccine) who have never been infected with HPV.
According to Merck's package insert on Gardasil, the end-point in its clinical trials for the vaccine's efficacy, or effectiveness, was NOT cancer, but instead was the presence, or non-presence, of vaccine-relevant pre-cancerous lesions (CIN 2/3).
There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.
In fact, in clinical trials, Gardasil's protection against cell dysplasia leveled off at four years, and clinical trial participants were given a fourth dose to boost the number of antibodies measured in the blood (immunogenicity) of those who got the vaccine. This is the efficacy being reported by Merck, even though the vaccine series is marketed as three shots, not four.
And, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for Gardasil, its efficacy against genital warts is only two years.
Additionally, according to the manufacturer's package insert:
Gardasil does not eliminate the necessity for pap screening
It does not treat active infections, lesions or cancers
And it may not result in protection for all vaccinees
An outstanding question is whether the mass use of Gardasil (and Cervarix) by all girls and boys will put pressure on other HPV strains not contained in the vaccines to become more dominant and perhaps more virulent in causing cervical cancer.
The "replacement" effect has happened with other infectious organisms that have developed resistance to vaccines used on a mass basis, such as pertussis (whooping cough) and pneumococcal vaccines.
The Truth about Gardasil's Clinical Trials
Only 27 percent of girls who have received the Gardasil vaccine have gotten all three shots in the vaccine's series. Merck blames it on forgetfulness, and has launched a "reminder" program that contacts vaccinees, and urges them to complete the series.
CNN Money suggests that it has to do with the vaccine's high cost – just under $400 for a three-shot series, although some private doctors charge up to $875 for a three-shot series.
But neither has considered the third possibility – that the reported reactions girls are suffering after getting one or two shots of Gardasil are so severe that they decide not to go back for more.
In any drug trial, whether it's for a vaccine or not, safety should be the top priority – and Gardasil's safety should have been thoroughly investigated before it was licensed and put on the market and recommended by public health doctors for ALL young girls to use.
But Merck used bad methodology in its pre-licensure safety studies that did NOT contain a true placebo. In reporting systemic adverse reactions to the vaccine, instead of using a true placebo that is not reactive on its own, Merck used a vaccine component (aluminum) in what they called the "placebo."
Aluminum can cause inflammation in the body and can make your blood brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins to pass into your brain and cause damage. It is definitely not appropriate to use an aluminum-containing "placebo" to measure the reactivity of an experimental vaccine like Gardasil that will be given to children.
Researchers did use a saline placebo in one clinical trial, but only reported it in reference to injection site reactions. In those comparisons, the saline placebo had significantly fewer reactions than either the vaccine or the aluminum-containing placebo.
When it came to reporting the actual adverse, systemic events with the vaccine, Merck combined the aluminum and saline placebos, thus making the "placebo" results nearly the same as the vaccine's – and impossible to objectively judge true safety comparisons.
This encouraged the perception that the vaccine is "safe" because the adverse events associated with it were nearly the same as the aluminum containing " placebo."
Another important outcome of the clinical trials that was not properly investigated before licensure was the potential association between the deaths that occurred in the clinical trials and the Gardasil vaccine.
A number of the girls who died during the trials were killed in car crashes. Yet, Merck did not report whether the girls were the drivers or passengers at the time of the accidents.
This could be critical information in determining the vaccine's true safety, since one of the most common post-marketing adverse events is syncope (sudden fainting) as well as dizziness, seizures, and neurological events that could have contributed to a car accident if the person had just received a Gardasil shot and was driving at the time of the accident.
The Truth about Gardasil and its Thousands of Injuries and Deaths
The federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has been in place since 1986, but many experts believe that only 1 to 10 percent of all serious health problems that occur after vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, ever make it into the VAERS database.
Most doctors and other vaccine providers do not report vaccine-related adverse events to VAERS even though it is a requirement under federal law since 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Gardasil was a "fast tracked" vaccine and with so little active reporting of Gardasil-related health problems to VAERS, this means that Gardasil should be on the red-alert list for agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Yet these three federal health agencies and medical organizations urging doctors to give Gardasil to children and young women have joined Merck in insisting that Gardasil is safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Gardasil victims and their parents have been posting their heart breaking stories on websites.
These tragic entries posted by Gardasil casualties is stark testify to the fact that something isn't right with this vaccine – and what isn't right is that the list of Gardasil victims just keeps growing.
The unfortunate fact is Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16, and most of the serious health problems and deaths in the pre-licensure clinical trials were written off as a "coincidence."
And now, since those adverse reactions aren't listed as possible warning signs that the vaccine can cause harm, health officials are still ignoring them, even while girls die and others suffer ongoing, and often permanent, injuries and disabilities from it.
For example, a rough comparison of Gardasil and Menactra (a vaccine against meningitis) adverse event reports to VAERS through November 30, 2008 revealed that:
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many emergency room visit reports; 4 times more death reports; 5 times more "did not recover" reports; and 7 times more "disabled" reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with all of the reports of blood clots. All 23 reports of blood clots following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many cardiac arrest reports. All 9 reports of cardiac arrest following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 6 times as many fainting reports and at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many lupus reports. 27 reports of lupus following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 15 times as many stroke reports. 16 reports of stroke following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 33 times as many thrombosis reports. 34 reports of thrombosis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 5 times as many sasculitis reports. 11 reports of vasculitis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasiil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 30 times as many rechallenge reports, which involve a worsening of symptoms experienced after previous receipt of Gardasil.
What's disturbing about this is that these reports in all likelihood are just the tip of the iceberg because most physicians are making their reports to Merck, rather than to VAERS, and Merck is forwarding such poor quality information to VAERS that the CDC and FDA can't follow up on the majority of reports that Merck makes.
As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2009, Merck made 68 percent of the reports to VAERS and 89 percent of them had information that was too insufficient to review!
Is This a Vaccine that You Would Want?
An editorial in the August 19, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) commented specifically on the risks and benefits of vaccinating with Gardasil, Merck's marketing of it, and the safety issues that are so obvious with this drug:
"When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit," the JAMA author said.
"Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed.
"The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly."
The commentary is so poignant that it's a wonder that the mainstream media still hasn't' picked up on the impact of what this author is trying to say – that maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't be so quick to jump on the Gardasil bandwagon.
The JAMA commentary goes on to say that one of the core questions of all medical decisions should be: When is the available information about harmful adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits?
It's apparent that that question is in the minds of anyone who has really taken the time to study this vaccine.
What happened to Gardasil is that consumers looked at the science and lots of them made a choice to not use this vaccine.
And that, CNN Money, is why Gardasil is a flop.
What You Can Do to Make a Difference
Don't sit this one out! We need to take action NOW.
Tell your friends and your family. Tell everyone. With a little bit of effort, we can make big strides toward preserving our freedom to make voluntary health decisions affecting our future, especially our children's future.
One of the top goals for NVIC is preserving your freedom of choice about when to use vaccines. This non-profit charity has been fighting for your right to make informed VOLUNTARY vaccine choices since 1982.
Mercola.com and NVIC are dedicating Nov. 1-6, 2010 Vaccine Awareness Week in a joint effort to raise public awareness about important vaccine issues.
Vaccine Awareness Week will feature a series of articles and interviews on vaccine topics of interest to Mercola.com newsletter subscribers and NVIC Vacine E-newsletter readers.
During this Vaccine Awareness Week, NVIC is also launching the online NVIC Advocacy Portal that will give you the tools you need to take action to protect legal medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions to vaccination in YOUR state.
Please register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at www.NVICadvocacy.org TODAY!
And while you are at it, please make a donation to NVIC so they can continue fighting on behalf of all Americans to make sure we don't lose our informed consent rights when it comes to vaccination.
Your Donations to the NVIC help fund efforts that raise vaccine awareness, including the following excellent vaccine resources:
State Vaccine Requirements
Influenza Mini Guide Ebook
Special Report: Influenza Vaccine Mandates Ineffective & Unwise
Are You Over Vaccinating Your Child?
Vaccine Ingredients Calculator
How to Legally Avoid Immunizations
For information about legally avoiding immunizations in Canada, please see the Canadian Vaccination Liberation website
www.vaclib.org.
Stay tuned to this newsletter for more updates, or follow the National Vaccine Information Center on Facebook. Together we CAN make a difference!
Posted By Dr. Mercola | November 05 2010 | 197,375 views
It's been four years since Gardasil debuted as a blockbuster vaccine with sales that rocketed to over $1.1 billion in its first nine months.
Touted as a wonder vaccine that would end cervical cancer, it was supposed to be the savior of both mankind and Merck's Vioxx-damaged bottom line. But now, according to CNN Money, it's a dud.
It just posted $219 million in sales. But in the pharma world, that's a paltry pittance, nothing short of an in-flight explosion that's caused Merck stock to drop 3 percent, with analysts and investors scrambling to figure out what went wrong.
So what happened?
How did a vaccine that was supposed to be Merck's beacon for higher profits in the 21st Century go from flagship to flop?
The Science Speaks for Itself
CNN Money calls Gardasil's crash a "design flaw" and faults the economy, puritanical parents, bad press, and Merck itself for contributing to the fallout.
The article ends with the hypothesis: "Or, maybe people just aren't ready for a cancer vaccine when it's for a sexually transmitted disease."
I think they're way off the mark.
The real reason Gardasil is a flop is that people have become educated about this vaccine.
They've looked at the science and weighed the risks vs. the supposed benefits, and have made a choice not to get it for themselves or their children.
The word is out: despite what the CDC would have you believe, Gardasil's safety record is in serious question. As of September 28, 2010, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has more than 18,000 Gardasil-related adverse events listed in it, including at least 65 deaths.
As a vaccine used in the developed world, the science speaks for itself: Gardasil can't – and never will -- replace Pap smears, which are the reason that the incidence of cervical cancer is so low in the United States after decades of including pap smears in routine medical care for women.
Today, cervical cancer is not even in the top 10 cancers that kill American women every year.
As a vaccine for children, it doesn't make sense to vaccinate to try to prevent an infection that is cleared from your body without any negative effects within two years in most healthy persons, and is not transmitted in a school setting like other airborne diseases that are easily transmitted in crowded conditions.
Gardasil is designed to prevent only two of at least 15 strains of HPV that can lead to cervical cancer in those who do not clear the virus from their body within two years and become chronically infected.
There is also some evidence that Gardasil-induced immunity may wane after about five years. Pre-licensure clinical trials did not follow young girls or women for decades to find out if the vaccine does, in fact, prevent cervical cancer.
What went wrong with Gardasil is that this may be a vaccine that set many more health care consumers on a course of self-education that helped them make an informed decision about whether or not to take it – and there are several good reasons why many are deciding NOT to take it.
Science vs. Politics
First, the science: Peer-reviewed journal articles widely available on the Internet show that Gardasil is not what it was made out to be in the "one-less" TV commercials that jumped into people's living rooms a few years ago.
Consumers now know that:
Gardasil is NOT a cancer vaccine. It is simply a vaccine for two strains of human papillomaviruses (HPVs) that in some instances can lead to cancer in some women (Gardasil's other two HPV strains are for genital warts, which don't cause cancer).
Since there are at least 15 HPV strains that can lead to cancer, Gardasil-vaccinated girls can still get cervical cancer from other 13 HPV strains not contained in the vaccine.
The vaccine doesn't work if you've already been infected with the HPV strains in the vaccine.
But the politics of this information is that you won't hear it or read it in the mainstream press. Instead, what you get is a repetition of the politically charged mantra that parents don't want their young daughters or sons to get a vaccine associated with sexual behaviors, and complaints about the vaccine's high cost.
However, the real truth is that Gardasil's downfall has nothing to do with sex or money.
The Truth about HPV and Cancer
It is important to distinguish between HPV and cancer: Just because you currently have HPV, or may have had the infection in the past, does NOT mean you have cancer or will get cancer.
HPV is NOT cancer. It is a viral infection that can lead to cancer in some people if the virus does not naturally clear from your body, as it does for most people within two years.
Some high risk factors for developing chronic HPV infection are:
Smoking
Co-infection with herpes, Chlamydia or HIV
Long term birth control use
Multiple births
In the US, infection with HPV is very common, and it is estimated that about 20 million Americans have an HPV infection at any given time. In fact, HPV is so common that most sexually active people will get it at some time in their lives.
The important thing to know about HPV is that in almost all cases, it clears up on its own without any adverse health effects within two years in most healthy people.
Genital HPV infection that is persistent, and more likely to lead to cancer, is most common in men and women who have had multiple sex partners. According to the CDC, other contributing risk factors to HPV infection that leads to cervical cancer includes smoking, having herpes, Chlamydia or HIV (the virus associated with AIDS), or another health problem that makes it hard for your body to deal with infections.
Using birth control pills for a long time (five or more years) or having given birth to three or more children is also a risk factor.
Also, certain populations in the US are more prone to getting cervical cancer. According to CervicalCancerCampaign.org:
"Cervical cancer occurs most often in certain groups of women in the United States including African-American women, Hispanic women, white (non-Hispanic) women living in rural New York State and northern New England, American Indian women, and Vietnamese-American women.
Hispanic women have twice the rate of cervical cancer compared to non-Hispanic white women. African-American women develop this cancer about 50 percent more than non-Hispanic white women".
These disparities are due, in part, from poor access to health care. The women who are most at risk for the disease are women who do not have regular check-ups that include pap tests.
Official reports from the CDC and WHO estimate that between 11,000 and 12,000 women in the US are diagnosed with cervical cancer each year, and 3,800 to 4,100 die from it.
About half of these women had never had a pap smear before they discovered they had cervical cancer. The majority of the others had not had a pap smear within the previous five years.
According to the CDC's report on HPV to Congress in 2004:
"Cervical cancer is an uncommon consequence of HPV infection in women, especially if they are screened for cancer regularly with pap tests and have appropriate follow-up of abnormalities.
The purpose of screening with the pap test is to detect cervical abnormalities that can be treated, thereby preventing progression to invasive cervical cancer, and also to detect invasive cervical cancer at a very early stage. If detected early and managed promptly, survival rates for cervical cancer are over 90 percent."
A study published in 2000 in the Archives of Family Medicine also showed that in the US, women who are elderly, unmarried, and uninsured are more likely to be diagnosed at a late stage of cervical cancer.
The Truth About Gardasil
According to a 2006 report to the international group Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH), Gardasil and Cervarix (GlaxoSmithKline's two-strain HPV vaccine) are only effective in young women and men (boys are now approved to receive HPV vaccine) who have never been infected with HPV.
According to Merck's package insert on Gardasil, the end-point in its clinical trials for the vaccine's efficacy, or effectiveness, was NOT cancer, but instead was the presence, or non-presence, of vaccine-relevant pre-cancerous lesions (CIN 2/3).
There is absolutely no proof, and no clinical trials that show Gardasil protects against cancer in the long-term.
In fact, in clinical trials, Gardasil's protection against cell dysplasia leveled off at four years, and clinical trial participants were given a fourth dose to boost the number of antibodies measured in the blood (immunogenicity) of those who got the vaccine. This is the efficacy being reported by Merck, even though the vaccine series is marketed as three shots, not four.
And, according to Dr. Diane Harper, a lead researcher for Gardasil, its efficacy against genital warts is only two years.
Additionally, according to the manufacturer's package insert:
Gardasil does not eliminate the necessity for pap screening
It does not treat active infections, lesions or cancers
And it may not result in protection for all vaccinees
An outstanding question is whether the mass use of Gardasil (and Cervarix) by all girls and boys will put pressure on other HPV strains not contained in the vaccines to become more dominant and perhaps more virulent in causing cervical cancer.
The "replacement" effect has happened with other infectious organisms that have developed resistance to vaccines used on a mass basis, such as pertussis (whooping cough) and pneumococcal vaccines.
The Truth about Gardasil's Clinical Trials
Only 27 percent of girls who have received the Gardasil vaccine have gotten all three shots in the vaccine's series. Merck blames it on forgetfulness, and has launched a "reminder" program that contacts vaccinees, and urges them to complete the series.
CNN Money suggests that it has to do with the vaccine's high cost – just under $400 for a three-shot series, although some private doctors charge up to $875 for a three-shot series.
But neither has considered the third possibility – that the reported reactions girls are suffering after getting one or two shots of Gardasil are so severe that they decide not to go back for more.
In any drug trial, whether it's for a vaccine or not, safety should be the top priority – and Gardasil's safety should have been thoroughly investigated before it was licensed and put on the market and recommended by public health doctors for ALL young girls to use.
But Merck used bad methodology in its pre-licensure safety studies that did NOT contain a true placebo. In reporting systemic adverse reactions to the vaccine, instead of using a true placebo that is not reactive on its own, Merck used a vaccine component (aluminum) in what they called the "placebo."
Aluminum can cause inflammation in the body and can make your blood brain barrier more permeable, allowing toxins to pass into your brain and cause damage. It is definitely not appropriate to use an aluminum-containing "placebo" to measure the reactivity of an experimental vaccine like Gardasil that will be given to children.
Researchers did use a saline placebo in one clinical trial, but only reported it in reference to injection site reactions. In those comparisons, the saline placebo had significantly fewer reactions than either the vaccine or the aluminum-containing placebo.
When it came to reporting the actual adverse, systemic events with the vaccine, Merck combined the aluminum and saline placebos, thus making the "placebo" results nearly the same as the vaccine's – and impossible to objectively judge true safety comparisons.
This encouraged the perception that the vaccine is "safe" because the adverse events associated with it were nearly the same as the aluminum containing " placebo."
Another important outcome of the clinical trials that was not properly investigated before licensure was the potential association between the deaths that occurred in the clinical trials and the Gardasil vaccine.
A number of the girls who died during the trials were killed in car crashes. Yet, Merck did not report whether the girls were the drivers or passengers at the time of the accidents.
This could be critical information in determining the vaccine's true safety, since one of the most common post-marketing adverse events is syncope (sudden fainting) as well as dizziness, seizures, and neurological events that could have contributed to a car accident if the person had just received a Gardasil shot and was driving at the time of the accident.
The Truth about Gardasil and its Thousands of Injuries and Deaths
The federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has been in place since 1986, but many experts believe that only 1 to 10 percent of all serious health problems that occur after vaccination, including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths, ever make it into the VAERS database.
Most doctors and other vaccine providers do not report vaccine-related adverse events to VAERS even though it is a requirement under federal law since 1986 with the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act.
Gardasil was a "fast tracked" vaccine and with so little active reporting of Gardasil-related health problems to VAERS, this means that Gardasil should be on the red-alert list for agencies like the CDC, the FDA, and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).
Yet these three federal health agencies and medical organizations urging doctors to give Gardasil to children and young women have joined Merck in insisting that Gardasil is safe, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Gardasil victims and their parents have been posting their heart breaking stories on websites.
These tragic entries posted by Gardasil casualties is stark testify to the fact that something isn't right with this vaccine – and what isn't right is that the list of Gardasil victims just keeps growing.
The unfortunate fact is Merck only studied the vaccine in fewer than 1200 girls under age 16, and most of the serious health problems and deaths in the pre-licensure clinical trials were written off as a "coincidence."
And now, since those adverse reactions aren't listed as possible warning signs that the vaccine can cause harm, health officials are still ignoring them, even while girls die and others suffer ongoing, and often permanent, injuries and disabilities from it.
For example, a rough comparison of Gardasil and Menactra (a vaccine against meningitis) adverse event reports to VAERS through November 30, 2008 revealed that:
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least twice as many emergency room visit reports; 4 times more death reports; 5 times more "did not recover" reports; and 7 times more "disabled" reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with all of the reports of blood clots. All 23 reports of blood clots following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many cardiac arrest reports. All 9 reports of cardiac arrest following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone without any other vaccines.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 6 times as many fainting reports and at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 4 times as many lupus reports. 27 reports of lupus following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 15 times as many stroke reports. 16 reports of stroke following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 3 times as many syncope reports.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 33 times as many thrombosis reports. 34 reports of thrombosis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 5 times as many sasculitis reports. 11 reports of vasculitis following Gardasil occurred when Gardasiil was given alone.
Compared to Menactra, receipt of Gardasil is associated with at least 30 times as many rechallenge reports, which involve a worsening of symptoms experienced after previous receipt of Gardasil.
What's disturbing about this is that these reports in all likelihood are just the tip of the iceberg because most physicians are making their reports to Merck, rather than to VAERS, and Merck is forwarding such poor quality information to VAERS that the CDC and FDA can't follow up on the majority of reports that Merck makes.
As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in August 2009, Merck made 68 percent of the reports to VAERS and 89 percent of them had information that was too insufficient to review!
Is This a Vaccine that You Would Want?
An editorial in the August 19, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) commented specifically on the risks and benefits of vaccinating with Gardasil, Merck's marketing of it, and the safety issues that are so obvious with this drug:
"When weighing evidence about risks and benefits, it is also appropriate to ask who takes the risk, and who gets the benefit," the JAMA author said.
"Patients and the public logically expect that only medical and scientific evidence is put on the balance. If other matters weigh in, such as profit for a company or financial or professional gains for physicians or groups of physicians, the balance is easily skewed.
"The balance will also tilt if the adverse events are not calculated correctly."
The commentary is so poignant that it's a wonder that the mainstream media still hasn't' picked up on the impact of what this author is trying to say – that maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't be so quick to jump on the Gardasil bandwagon.
The JAMA commentary goes on to say that one of the core questions of all medical decisions should be: When is the available information about harmful adverse effects sufficient to conclude that the risks outweigh the potential benefits?
It's apparent that that question is in the minds of anyone who has really taken the time to study this vaccine.
What happened to Gardasil is that consumers looked at the science and lots of them made a choice to not use this vaccine.
And that, CNN Money, is why Gardasil is a flop.
What You Can Do to Make a Difference
Don't sit this one out! We need to take action NOW.
Tell your friends and your family. Tell everyone. With a little bit of effort, we can make big strides toward preserving our freedom to make voluntary health decisions affecting our future, especially our children's future.
One of the top goals for NVIC is preserving your freedom of choice about when to use vaccines. This non-profit charity has been fighting for your right to make informed VOLUNTARY vaccine choices since 1982.
Mercola.com and NVIC are dedicating Nov. 1-6, 2010 Vaccine Awareness Week in a joint effort to raise public awareness about important vaccine issues.
Vaccine Awareness Week will feature a series of articles and interviews on vaccine topics of interest to Mercola.com newsletter subscribers and NVIC Vacine E-newsletter readers.
During this Vaccine Awareness Week, NVIC is also launching the online NVIC Advocacy Portal that will give you the tools you need to take action to protect legal medical, religious and conscientious belief exemptions to vaccination in YOUR state.
Please register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at www.NVICadvocacy.org TODAY!
And while you are at it, please make a donation to NVIC so they can continue fighting on behalf of all Americans to make sure we don't lose our informed consent rights when it comes to vaccination.
Your Donations to the NVIC help fund efforts that raise vaccine awareness, including the following excellent vaccine resources:
State Vaccine Requirements
Influenza Mini Guide Ebook
Special Report: Influenza Vaccine Mandates Ineffective & Unwise
Are You Over Vaccinating Your Child?
Vaccine Ingredients Calculator
How to Legally Avoid Immunizations
For information about legally avoiding immunizations in Canada, please see the Canadian Vaccination Liberation website
www.vaclib.org.
Stay tuned to this newsletter for more updates, or follow the National Vaccine Information Center on Facebook. Together we CAN make a difference!
Vaccination rates fall among better educated families even while CDC keeps pushing vaccine quackery
Vaccination rates fall among better educated families even while CDC keeps pushing vaccine quackery
Friday, November 05, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) Vaccination rates among children insured by commercial health insurance plans have dropped four percent between 2008 and 2009, says a new report by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. In its annual State of Health Care Quality report, the organization revealed that vaccine rates are falling sharply among high-education families.
This trend infuriates the vaccine industry and all the shills who push vaccines, of course. Despite all their high-dollar propaganda, expensive advertising and vaccine booths in airports, Wal-Marts and grocery stores, more and more people are coming to realize that many vaccines are dangerous for children and the seasonal flu vaccines in particular offer absolutely no scientifically-validated benefit whatsoever. They are pure quackery and nothing more.
The really interesting thing about this trend is that parents with a higher education are consciously choosing to protect their children from vaccines. Remarkably, the vaccine industry insists that "they're the stupid ones" because they don't believe the vaccine propaganda. But as it turns out, the American people are smarter than the vaccine industry thinks, and as they're learning the truth about seasonal flu vaccines, they're making informed, intelligent decisions to protect their children from such vaccines.
Seasonal flu vaccines simply do not work
It's a scientific fact: Seasonal flu vaccines don't work on at least 99% of the population (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...). You have to vaccinate 100 people, in other words, just to avoid flu symptoms in ONE person -- and that's if you believe the drug company's own clinical trial data! (Which is almost certainly biased in favor of the vaccines.)
The second scientific fact the flu industry conveniently avoids talking about is that vitamin D offers far better protection against flu infections, and it's cheaper, safer and easier to take! Children will gladly chew vitamin D tablets if it means avoiding a jab with a sharp needle.
Vitamin D makes the immune system work
Vitamin D, you see, activates the immune response to flu infections. Virtually everyone who suffers from the flu in the winter is vitamin D deficient. That's why flu season is the winter, by the way: Because that's when everybody is deficient in vitamin D! (http://www.naturalnews.com/029333_v...)
Most likely, the four percent of families who are choosing to avoid flu shots are supplementing their children's diets with vitamin D and other immune-boosting nutrients. So they're actually better off with vitamin D than they would have been with the vaccine!
Vitamin D, by the way, also prevents tuberculosis (http://www.naturalnews.com/021855.html), asthma, cancer, kidney disease and nearly a hundred other serious health conditions, including autoimmune disorders. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029605_v...)
Vaccines are only chosen by ignorant people
The vaccine industry is terrified of vitamin D because it knows if the truth about vitamin D becomes widely known, people will stop taking seasonal flu shots and the drug companies will lose billions of dollars.
It has already begun, in fact. In one year, natural health websites like NaturalNews have helped educate the public and reduce dangerous vaccination rates by an astonishing four percent. This is why the vaccine industry is in a panic this year, paying celebrities and TV doctors to appear on posters and television ads, trying to push more seasonal flu vaccines on a population that is increasingly rejecting them for good reason.
It's all going to end up as follows: Within a few years, only the most ignorant people will even consider getting a seasonal flu shot. These are the same people who drink diet soda (a scam), who take diabetes drugs (another scam), who raise money for pink ribbon breast cancer events (an even bigger scam) and who eat processed junk food at every meal. They are the ones who will suffer from conventional medicine while the better informed individuals and families will increasingly reject conventional medicine and seek out healthier, more natural alternatives.
Your immune system is a nanotechnology miracle that already knows how to block viruses and stop the flu. All it needs is to be activated with the right nutrition. Vitamin D does for your immune system what vaccines can never do -- it unleashes a biological miracle that can hunt down and eliminate invading microorganisms and viral fragments, protecting you from all the germs the drug industry wants you to be terrified of.
Don't believe the vaccine quackery and fear mongering. Join the educated crowd that's consciously and intelligently choosing alternatives to vaccines -- alternatives that work better and safer at lower cost, too. With vaccines, remember that you always run the risk of being paralyzed or ending up in the hospital with a coma.
Read the truth about what happened in Australia with seasonal flu vaccines earlier this year: Children suffered vomiting, fevers and seizures. Read it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_A...
As reported in that story:
"Perth mother of two Bea Flint said her 11-month-old boy Avery had a seizure after receiving the first dose of the two-dose flu vaccination on Saturday. Mrs Flint said that after the 9am vaccination she noticed Avery had a minor temperature about 2pm. At 7.45pm, Avery started whimpering and moaning. When Mrs Flint got to his cot the baby had vomited and was lying on his side having a seizure. 'He couldn't cry - his head was hanging down in the car seat and he couldn't move. I was petrified - it was one of the worst experiences of my life."
If that's what you want for your children, go ahead and get them vaccinated. But if you'd rather them stay healthy and alive, give 'em vitamin D instead.
What they won't tell you about vitamin D
By the way, 400 IU of vitamin D is simply not enough. Most nutritionists today are recommending ten times that amount (4000 IUs) for adults, and half that (2000 IUs) for children. The 200 / 400 IU dosage was actually set as a deliberate tactic to keep the population in a state of vitamin D deficiency. And it has worked, too. 97% of black Americans are vitamin D deficient right now. This has caused a huge boost to the cancer industry, mostly at the expense of black men and women. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028119_v...)
The more you know about all this, the more amazing the real story about vaccines, vitamin D and cancer really becomes, you see. Keep reading NaturalNews to stay informed in a way the mainstream media will never cover. We cite the scientific sources and tell you the true story about how vitamin D makes seasonal flu shots irrelevant.
Don't start a needle habit.
This flu season, choose nutrition, not a needle.
Articles Related to This Article:
• Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines
• Facebook crowdsourced investigation exposes vaccine denials of SIGA Technologies
• The great thimerosal cover-up: Mercury, vaccines, autism and your child's health
• Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
• Vaccines cause autism: Supporting evidence
• Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against children?
Friday, November 05, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
(NaturalNews) Vaccination rates among children insured by commercial health insurance plans have dropped four percent between 2008 and 2009, says a new report by the National Committee for Quality Assurance. In its annual State of Health Care Quality report, the organization revealed that vaccine rates are falling sharply among high-education families.
This trend infuriates the vaccine industry and all the shills who push vaccines, of course. Despite all their high-dollar propaganda, expensive advertising and vaccine booths in airports, Wal-Marts and grocery stores, more and more people are coming to realize that many vaccines are dangerous for children and the seasonal flu vaccines in particular offer absolutely no scientifically-validated benefit whatsoever. They are pure quackery and nothing more.
The really interesting thing about this trend is that parents with a higher education are consciously choosing to protect their children from vaccines. Remarkably, the vaccine industry insists that "they're the stupid ones" because they don't believe the vaccine propaganda. But as it turns out, the American people are smarter than the vaccine industry thinks, and as they're learning the truth about seasonal flu vaccines, they're making informed, intelligent decisions to protect their children from such vaccines.
Seasonal flu vaccines simply do not work
It's a scientific fact: Seasonal flu vaccines don't work on at least 99% of the population (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...). You have to vaccinate 100 people, in other words, just to avoid flu symptoms in ONE person -- and that's if you believe the drug company's own clinical trial data! (Which is almost certainly biased in favor of the vaccines.)
The second scientific fact the flu industry conveniently avoids talking about is that vitamin D offers far better protection against flu infections, and it's cheaper, safer and easier to take! Children will gladly chew vitamin D tablets if it means avoiding a jab with a sharp needle.
Vitamin D makes the immune system work
Vitamin D, you see, activates the immune response to flu infections. Virtually everyone who suffers from the flu in the winter is vitamin D deficient. That's why flu season is the winter, by the way: Because that's when everybody is deficient in vitamin D! (http://www.naturalnews.com/029333_v...)
Most likely, the four percent of families who are choosing to avoid flu shots are supplementing their children's diets with vitamin D and other immune-boosting nutrients. So they're actually better off with vitamin D than they would have been with the vaccine!
Vitamin D, by the way, also prevents tuberculosis (http://www.naturalnews.com/021855.html), asthma, cancer, kidney disease and nearly a hundred other serious health conditions, including autoimmune disorders. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029605_v...)
Vaccines are only chosen by ignorant people
The vaccine industry is terrified of vitamin D because it knows if the truth about vitamin D becomes widely known, people will stop taking seasonal flu shots and the drug companies will lose billions of dollars.
It has already begun, in fact. In one year, natural health websites like NaturalNews have helped educate the public and reduce dangerous vaccination rates by an astonishing four percent. This is why the vaccine industry is in a panic this year, paying celebrities and TV doctors to appear on posters and television ads, trying to push more seasonal flu vaccines on a population that is increasingly rejecting them for good reason.
It's all going to end up as follows: Within a few years, only the most ignorant people will even consider getting a seasonal flu shot. These are the same people who drink diet soda (a scam), who take diabetes drugs (another scam), who raise money for pink ribbon breast cancer events (an even bigger scam) and who eat processed junk food at every meal. They are the ones who will suffer from conventional medicine while the better informed individuals and families will increasingly reject conventional medicine and seek out healthier, more natural alternatives.
Your immune system is a nanotechnology miracle that already knows how to block viruses and stop the flu. All it needs is to be activated with the right nutrition. Vitamin D does for your immune system what vaccines can never do -- it unleashes a biological miracle that can hunt down and eliminate invading microorganisms and viral fragments, protecting you from all the germs the drug industry wants you to be terrified of.
Don't believe the vaccine quackery and fear mongering. Join the educated crowd that's consciously and intelligently choosing alternatives to vaccines -- alternatives that work better and safer at lower cost, too. With vaccines, remember that you always run the risk of being paralyzed or ending up in the hospital with a coma.
Read the truth about what happened in Australia with seasonal flu vaccines earlier this year: Children suffered vomiting, fevers and seizures. Read it here: http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_A...
As reported in that story:
"Perth mother of two Bea Flint said her 11-month-old boy Avery had a seizure after receiving the first dose of the two-dose flu vaccination on Saturday. Mrs Flint said that after the 9am vaccination she noticed Avery had a minor temperature about 2pm. At 7.45pm, Avery started whimpering and moaning. When Mrs Flint got to his cot the baby had vomited and was lying on his side having a seizure. 'He couldn't cry - his head was hanging down in the car seat and he couldn't move. I was petrified - it was one of the worst experiences of my life."
If that's what you want for your children, go ahead and get them vaccinated. But if you'd rather them stay healthy and alive, give 'em vitamin D instead.
What they won't tell you about vitamin D
By the way, 400 IU of vitamin D is simply not enough. Most nutritionists today are recommending ten times that amount (4000 IUs) for adults, and half that (2000 IUs) for children. The 200 / 400 IU dosage was actually set as a deliberate tactic to keep the population in a state of vitamin D deficiency. And it has worked, too. 97% of black Americans are vitamin D deficient right now. This has caused a huge boost to the cancer industry, mostly at the expense of black men and women. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028119_v...)
The more you know about all this, the more amazing the real story about vaccines, vitamin D and cancer really becomes, you see. Keep reading NaturalNews to stay informed in a way the mainstream media will never cover. We cite the scientific sources and tell you the true story about how vitamin D makes seasonal flu shots irrelevant.
Don't start a needle habit.
This flu season, choose nutrition, not a needle.
Articles Related to This Article:
• Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines
• Facebook crowdsourced investigation exposes vaccine denials of SIGA Technologies
• The great thimerosal cover-up: Mercury, vaccines, autism and your child's health
• Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
• Vaccines cause autism: Supporting evidence
• Are mandatory vaccinations acts of violence against children?
Friday, November 5, 2010
Why does your child have a mystery tummy ache? From fructose!
Why does your child have a mystery tummy ache? From fructose!
Thursday, November 04, 2010 by: S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) Here's a common scenario: a young child or even a teenager complains of a tummy ache. But he or she has no fever or few other symptoms. So the doctor says there's nothing wrong with the youngster, other than maybe a little gas. So the little kid or adolescent is suspected of faking a stomach problem to stay out of school. However, a new study just unveiled at the American College of Gastroenterology's (ACG) 75th Annual Scientific meeting held recently in San Antonio, Texas, may have a simple explanation for all those mysterious tummy aches many children swear they have. The culprit? Intolerance to fructose.
Unfortunately, the typical American diet contains processed foods and soft drinks that are loaded with high fructose corn syrup, so countless kids are exposed daily to the stuff. And it turns out fructose intolerance, also called fructose malabsorption, is common in children of all ages with recurrent or functional abdominal pain.
Researchers Daniel Lustig, M.D. and Bisher Abdullah, M.D., pediatric gastroenterologists with the Mary Bridge Children's Hospital and Health Center in Tacoma, Washington, investigated a total of 245 children between the ages of 2 and 18 with unexplained chronic abdominal pain alone or associated with constipation, gas or bloating and/or diarrhea. A breath hydrogen test (BHT), which is a marker for fructose intolerance, was performed in all patients in the study. If a patient's breath hydrogen exceeds 20 points above baseline, then the patient is likely fructose intolerant. And the BHT was found to be positive in 132 of 245 patients – a whopping 54 percent.
All of the 132 patients with a positive BHT for fructose were placed on a low fructose diet and close to 70 percent had a resolution of their stomach pain when they stayed away from fructose.
"With the widespread use of high fructose corn syrup, it is difficult to avoid, so the challenge is finding those foods with low fructose and still maintain a healthy nutritional balance that patients will adhere to, especially teenagers," Dr. Lustig said in a press statement. "But the good news is that over half of patients who are fructose intolerant and are able to maintain a low fructose diet will notice an immediate improvement in their symptoms."
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/high-fru...
Thursday, November 04, 2010 by: S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) Here's a common scenario: a young child or even a teenager complains of a tummy ache. But he or she has no fever or few other symptoms. So the doctor says there's nothing wrong with the youngster, other than maybe a little gas. So the little kid or adolescent is suspected of faking a stomach problem to stay out of school. However, a new study just unveiled at the American College of Gastroenterology's (ACG) 75th Annual Scientific meeting held recently in San Antonio, Texas, may have a simple explanation for all those mysterious tummy aches many children swear they have. The culprit? Intolerance to fructose.
Unfortunately, the typical American diet contains processed foods and soft drinks that are loaded with high fructose corn syrup, so countless kids are exposed daily to the stuff. And it turns out fructose intolerance, also called fructose malabsorption, is common in children of all ages with recurrent or functional abdominal pain.
Researchers Daniel Lustig, M.D. and Bisher Abdullah, M.D., pediatric gastroenterologists with the Mary Bridge Children's Hospital and Health Center in Tacoma, Washington, investigated a total of 245 children between the ages of 2 and 18 with unexplained chronic abdominal pain alone or associated with constipation, gas or bloating and/or diarrhea. A breath hydrogen test (BHT), which is a marker for fructose intolerance, was performed in all patients in the study. If a patient's breath hydrogen exceeds 20 points above baseline, then the patient is likely fructose intolerant. And the BHT was found to be positive in 132 of 245 patients – a whopping 54 percent.
All of the 132 patients with a positive BHT for fructose were placed on a low fructose diet and close to 70 percent had a resolution of their stomach pain when they stayed away from fructose.
"With the widespread use of high fructose corn syrup, it is difficult to avoid, so the challenge is finding those foods with low fructose and still maintain a healthy nutritional balance that patients will adhere to, especially teenagers," Dr. Lustig said in a press statement. "But the good news is that over half of patients who are fructose intolerant and are able to maintain a low fructose diet will notice an immediate improvement in their symptoms."
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/high-fru...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)