Note from Miriam:
Although I disagree with the comments implying that humans have lived longer than 6,000 yrs, this is an excellent article! I followed these recommendations with my first pregnancy and had a more uneventful pregnancy than during my second pregnancy in which I did not do a great job with diet and exercise due to a stressful family situation. Bottomline: eating vegetarian and exercising paid off in my first pregnancy!
by John McDougall, MD
Mon, Jan 31, 2011
As a medical doctor and the father of three grown children, and the grandfather of three growing grandsons (ages, 2, 4, and 7), with one more grandbaby due in August of 2011, I have spent decades studying the science behind the nutritional advice given to couples beginning their family. There are fatal gaps between the truth about the right diet for making a healthy baby and what prospective parents are told. The result is parents’ dreams for the perfect child are unnecessarily destroyed by infertility, miscarriages, stillbirths, birth defects, difficult deliveries, Cesarean sections, failure to thrive, larger-than-normal growth, and retarded physical, mental, and emotional development.
Thirty-eight years ago, as a general practitioner working on a sugar plantation on the Big Island of Hawaii, I had the opportunity to catch over 100 babies (without dropping one). The nutritional advice I was taught to give pregnant women back then was to eat a “well-balanced diet” from the four major food groups, with an emphasis on four servings of dairy products and three servings of “protein” (meat, poultry, fish and eggs) daily. Few of my patients followed my counsel because they were from recently immigrated, low-income Japanese, Chinese, and Filipino families still eating traditional rice-based diets. This basic food resulted in pregnancies and deliveries that were largely uneventful.
Over the past four decades doctors and dietitians have successfully persuaded expectant mothers to eat “a well-balanced diet,” and as a result, pregnancy has become synonymous with sickness. Women spend nine months in misery: fat and fatigued with chronic indigestion and constipation. At least one in ten becomes very ill with a condition known as “preeclampsia” and one in twenty develops “gestational diabetes.” Too often all of this suffering ends with major surgery and an imperfect child.
The facts speak for themselves:
* Obesity in the general population, as well as in pregnant women, has doubled over the past three decades. Now two-thirds of adults in the United States are overweight and 34 percent are obese. The rise in incidence of gestational diabetes has paralleled that of type-2 diabetes.
* The national United States Cesarean section rate was 4.5 percent, near an optimal range of 5 to 10 percent, in 1965, when it was first measured. Now 31.8 percent of births in the United States are through the mother’s abdominal wall (Cesarean births in 1997). Worse yet, in a few other developed countries more than half of all women deliver their babies in an operating room. For example, in Brazil the Cesarean rate is 77.2 percent for women who attend private clinics.1
* Rates of birth defects, preterm births, and low birth-weight babies have been rising steadily since the mid-1980s. Birth defects occur in 1 in 33 births (3 percent); however, when developmental disabilities, which become fully apparent in older children, are included, the rates have been estimated to exceed 10 percent of births.
Pregnancy Does Not Change the Human Diet
Reproduction of the species is the primary biologic purpose of a woman. Nature’s laws dictate that during this critical time she should be at her physical, mental, and emotional best. The heightened nutritional demands of pregnancy cause women to consume an additional 80,000 calories and two pounds of protein to grow her baby. For the human being, just like all other animals, the proper source of these nutrients remains the same whether pregnant or not.
All large populations of trim, healthy people throughout verifiable human history have obtained the bulk of their calories from starch. Examples of once thriving populations include Japanese, Chinese, and other Asians eating sweet potatoes, buckwheat and/or rice; Incas in South America eating potatoes; Mayas and Aztecs in Central America eating corn; and Egyptians in the Middle East eating wheat. Meat provided very few, if any, nutrients, and dairy foods were nonexistent. Therefore, scientific documentation of what most people have eaten over at least the past 13,000 years convincingly supports my claim that the ideal diet for pregnant women is based on starches (rice, corn, potatoes, beans, etc.) with the addition of green and yellow vegetables and fruits.
Obesity Leads to Cesarean Births
Dr. Robert Roy in his article “A Darwinian View of Obstructed Labor” argued, “Evolution is essentially survival of the most reproductively fit.”2 Difficult labor would have been naturally selected out of our (as well as all other) species. Yet in modern societies following the Western diet one-third or more of all women give birth unnaturally. Something major must be wrong.
Many explanations, including women’s laziness and doctors’ greed, have been proposed for the high rates of Cesarean sections seen these days. However, one answer is obvious: In addition to the expanding epidemic of obesity among adults caused by the rich Western diet, this same food causes babies to grow too large to fit through their mothers’ birth canals. The larger the mother, the larger the baby, and the higher the risk of emergency Cesarean birth and injury to mother and infant.3 Full-term infants weighing eight to twelve pounds cannot easily fit through their mothers’ birth canals, which are designed for five- to seven-pound babies. Doctors euphemistically refer to this as “feto-pelvic disproportion” and the defining result is “failure to progress in labor,” which ends in “an emergency Cesarean section.”
Anticipating trouble because of the common occurrence of large babies and unfit mothers, elective Cesarean sections are also on the rise and have resulted in many infants being delivered before term. The average time a fetus spends in the womb has fallen by seven days in the United States since 1992. California Watch reported in February of 2010 that the number of women who die each year from causes directly related to childbirth had more than doubled in California since 1996. Early birth adversely affects lung and brain development and increases the risk of infections and death of newborns. Meddling doctors have been up to little good, and creating much harm.
Preeclampsia Is Serious Sickness of Pregnancy
Preeclampsia is a set of conditions that include hypertension with generalized damage to the blood vessels, kidneys, and liver, and occurs in as many as 10 percent of pregnancies, usually in the second or third trimester. This condition results from the rich Western diet and is less common in women following a diet higher in fiber and potassium, both nutrients reflecting a plant food-based diet.4,5
“The Farm" is a community of young people in Summertown, Tennessee. Members follow a vegan diet (no animal-derived foods) and the outcomes of pregnancy have been reported to be excellent.6 The maternity care records of 775 vegan mothers found no symptoms of preeclampsia, and only one case that met the clinical criteria. In 1987 a research article about the Farm experience proposed that preeclampsia is due to the unrestrained consumption of "fast foods" (foods having high levels of saturated fat) and rapid weight gain of the mothers-to-be. A vegan diet was proposed as the solution.
Morning Sickness Protects Babies from Meat
Drs. Samuel M. Flaxman and Paul W. Sherman in their classic article “Morning Sickness: A Mechanism for Protecting Mother and Embryo,” explained how nausea and vomiting during the first trimester of pregnancy cause pregnant women to physically expel and subsequently avoid foods that cause harm to mother and infant.7 Approximately two-thirds of women experience nausea or vomiting during early pregnancy. Women who develop morning sickness have less risk of miscarriages and a better chance for survival of their infants. Their research revealed that aversions were greatest to meats, fish, poultry, and eggs. In an analysis of 20 traditional societies in which morning sickness has been observed and seven in which it has never been observed, they found the latter were significantly less likely to have animal products as a dietary staple and significantly more likely to have only plants (primarily corn) as staples. Reducing the intake of toxic chemicals found in high concentrations in animal products would be one of the greatest benefits from morning sickness.
The vast majority (89 to 99 percent) of synthetic chemicals, including pesticides, herbicides, building materials, and industrial wastes that are known to cause an increase in infertility, spontaneous abortions, recurrent miscarriages, and birth defects gain access to the body through food. More specifically, the foods with the highest levels of chemical contamination are those that are high on the food chain: meat, poultry, fish, and dairy products.8-12 The reason that these animal foods are the primary source of pollution is because their fatty tissues attract and concentrate chemicals—a process known as “bioaccumulation.” Consuming organic foods would be another big step to having a cleaner body.
Plant Foods Repair Genetic Damage
The human body has detoxification systems that have evolved over 300 million years to protect animals from natural toxins. These same systems will also rid the body of synthetic pollutants.13-16 Much attention has been given to the ability of plant-derived folate (a water-soluble B vitamin) to synthesize and repair our genetic materials (DNA), especially during times of rapid cell division and growth, such as occurs during pregnancy. In the 1960s, research linked folate deficiency in a woman’s diet to severe birth defects, especially those of the nervous system (for example, spina bifida). Because the Western diet is deficient in folate (plant foods) there is an almost universal recommendation for women in their reproductive years to take a supplement containing 0.4 mg of folic acid daily.17 In many countries this goal has been met by fortifying cereals and flours with this vitamin. The result has been a definite reduction in birth defects, especially those of the nervous system. (Folate is the natural form of this B vitamin and folic acid is the synthetic form given as supplements.)
Eating a diet high in plant foods is also essential for making good male sperm. Men with high folate intake have been found to have lower overall frequencies of several types of aneuploid sperm.”18 Aneuploidy is a condition where one or a few chromosomes are above or below the normal chromosome number, and is associated with birth defects, such as Down syndrome. Decreased folate metabolism in mothers has also been associated with increased risk of having an infant with Down syndrome.18
The bottom line is that a plateful of meat and dairy—devoid of starches, vegetables and fruits—is a set-up for genetic damage leading to a less than perfect baby.
Prenatal Vitamins Do Not Compensate for a Bad Diet
The story of folic acid supplementation is not all good. Taking isolated concentrated nutrients in the form of vitamin pills or fortified foods creates nutritional imbalances that can place mother and baby at increased risks. Folic acid supplements may increase the risk of autism and asthma in the child.19,20 In adults, folic acid supplementation at levels recommended to reduce birth defects definitely increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, and death.
Taking “prenatal vitamins” (supplements of multivitamins) has been linked to illness in mothers and birth defects in babies. For example, among the babies born to women who took more than 10,000 IU of preformed vitamin A per day, estimates are that about 1 infant in 57 had a malformation attributable to the supplement.21 Prenatal vitamins have also been associated with low birth weights and congenital heart defects.22-24 (Vitamins as naturally found in plants are never toxic.)
Fixing the problem with recommendations for a healthy diet of plant foods for men and women throughout life, rather than forcing folic acid and other supplements (pills) on the population at large, is the right approach. The only supplement I recommend during pregnancy is vitamin B12 (at least 5 micrograms daily).
Fish and Omega-3 Fats Adversely Effect Pregnancy
Stories of the possibility of brain damage from not getting enough omega-3 fatty acids (like DHA and EPA from fish) easily stroke people’s emotions, especially when the stories are about unborn or young children.25 There is no evidence to show that increasing intakes of DHA in pregnant and lactating women consuming diets that meet requirements for the basic fats made by plants (n-6 and n-3 fatty acids) have any physiologically significant benefit to the infant.26 In fact, there is substantial evidence that higher intakes of fish fat can have an adverse effect on pregnancy for both mother and child. Fish-eating prolongs gestation, increasing birth weight, which results in an increase in birth injuries and Cesarean section births. 27-31 There is also an increase in infant mortality in fish-eating populations.29,30 Taking fish oils during pregnancy can cause hypertension in mothers.32 In one study, feeding fish oil supplements to lactating mothers resulted in offspring (seven-year-old boys) with higher blood pressure and body weight, and lower physical activity.33
If the above findings are insufficient to keep prospective parents away from seafood, please note that fish are the primary source of highly toxic methymercury found in pregnant women’s bodies. Mercury poisoning of the brain results in motor dysfunction, memory loss, and learning disabilities, as well as depression-like behaviour.34 Even very low doses may cause damage to the developing brain of the fetus.35 The January 28, 2008 issue of the New York Times reported that six pieces of sushi from most of the restaurants and stores would contain more than 49 micrograms of mercury. This level is of concern to the FDA and EPA.
Calcium and Protein Are Merchandizing Messages
Even after learning the hazards of eating meat and dairy products rather than starches, parents are perplexed because of the misinformation taught about the necessity of these food groups in order to get adequate protein and calcium, especially for the unborn. These are messages from industry solely designed to sell their products and are completely false. Plants supply sufficient amounts of protein and calcium to grow the muscles and skeletons of the largest animals that walk the earth, including the elephant, hippopotamus, giraffe, horse, and cow. You can safely assume that there are sufficient quantities of both of these nutrients in vegetable foods to grow relatively small human beings, including their developing babies, and without the risks to the family discussed above.
Fighting for a Successful Pregnancy
Having a normal baby and a healthy mother are not simply a matter of luck. Ideally, plans for a family should be started long before conception. Estimates are, because of the large amount of food consumed during the early growing years, that 50 percent of the lifetime exposure to pesticides occurs during the first five years of life.36 So feed your children well for the sake of your grandchildren. When possible, lose excess body fat long before conception. In this way stored pollutants will be eliminated as the body fat is dissolved.37,38 This is good, especially when the diet you are using to cause the weight loss is free of pollutants and full of detoxifying substances—a diet of starches, fruits, and vegetables—and even better, a diet focusing on organic plant produce.
Tobacco, alcohol, coffee, medications, and illicit drugs are known to harm mother and baby, so these should be avoided. Sunshine (for vitamin D and more) and moderate exercise round out the McDougall Program for Pregnancy. With the foundation of a starch-based diet—which should be a moral and professional obligation of all dietitians and doctors worldwide to teach people—chances are excellent for every parent’s dream for the perfect baby to come true.
References:
1) Rebelo F, da Rocha CM, Cortes TR, Dutra CL, Kac G. High cesarean prevalence in a national population-based study in Brazil: the role of private practice. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010 Jul;89(7):903-8.
2) Roy RP. A Darwinian view of obstructed labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Feb;101(2):397-401.
3) Ju H, Chadha Y, Donovan T, O'Rourke P. Fetal macrosomia and pregnancy outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Oct;49(5):504-9.
4) Frederick IO, Williams MA, Dashow E, Kestin M, Zhang C, Leisenring WM. Dietary fiber, potassium, magnesium and calcium in relation to the risk of preeclampsia. J Reprod Med. 2005 May;50(5):332-44.
5) Qiu C, Coughlin KB, Frederick IO, Sorensen TK, Williams MA. Dietary fiber intake in early pregnancy and risk of subsequent preeclampsia. Am J Hypertens. 2008 Aug;21(8):903-9. Epub 2008 Jul 17.
6) Carter JP, Furman T, Hutcheson HR. Preeclampsia and reproductive performance in a community of vegans. South Med J. 1987 Jun;80(6):692-7.
7) Flaxman SM, Sherman PW. Morning sickness: a mechanism for protecting mother and embryo. Q Rev Biol. 2000 Jun;75(2):113-48.
8) Duarte-Davidson R, Jones KC. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the UK population: estimated intake, exposure and body burden. Sci Total Environ. 1994 Jul 11;151(2):131-52.
9) Patandin S, Lanting CI, Mulder PG, Boersma ER, Sauer PJ, Weisglas-Kuperus N. Effects of environmental exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins on cognitive abilities in Dutch children at 42 months of age. J Pediatr. 1999 Jan;134(1):33-41.
10) Schecter A, Wallace D, Pavuk M, Piskac A, Papke O. Dioxins in commercial United States baby food. J Toxicol Environ Health. 2002 Dec 13;65(23):1937-43.
11) Duarte-Davidson R. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the UK population: estimated intake, exposure and body burden. Sci Total Environ. 1994 Jul 11;151(2):131-52.
12) Liem AK. Exposure of populations to dioxins and related compounds. Food Addit Contam. 2000 Apr;17(4):241-59.
13) Hanausek M, Walaszek Z, Slaga TJ. Detoxifying cancer causing agents to prevent cancer. Integr Cancer Ther. 2003 Jun;2(2):139-44.
14) Smith TJ, Yang CS. Effect of organosulfur compounds from garlic and cruciferous vegetables on drug metabolism enzymes. Drug Metabol Drug Interact. 2000;17(1-4):23-49.
15) Smith TJ. Mechanisms of carcinogenesis inhibition by isothiocyanates. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2001 Dec;10(12):2167-74.
16) Furst A. Can nutrition affect chemical toxicity? Int J Toxicol. 2002 Sep-Oct;21(5):419-24.
17) U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Folic acid for the prevention of neural tube defects: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009 May 5;150(9):626-31.
18) Young SS, Eskenazi B, Marchetti FM, Block G, Wyrobek AJ. The association of folate, zinc and antioxidant intake with sperm aneuploidy in healthy non-smoking men. Hum Reprod. 2008 May;23(5):1014-22.
19) Whitrow MJ, Moore VM, Rumbold AR, Davies MJ. Effect of supplemental folic acid in pregnancy on childhood asthma: a prospective birth cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Dec 15;170(12):1486-93.
20) Beaudet AL, Goin-Kochel RP. Some, but not complete, reassurance on the safety of folic acid fortification. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Dec;92(6):1287-8.
21) Rothman KJ, Moore LL, Singer MR, Nguyen US, Mannino S, Milunsky A. Teratogenicity of high vitamin A intake. N Engl J Med. 1995 Nov 23;333(21):1369-73.
22) Poston L, Briley AL, Seed PT, Kelly FJ, Shennan AH; Vitamins in Pre-eclampsia (VIP) Trial Consortium. Vitamin C and vitamin E in pregnant women at risk for pre-eclampsia (VIP trial): randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2006 Apr 8;367(9517):1145-54.
23) Smedts HP, de Vries JH, Rakhshandehroo M, Wildhagen MF, Verkleij-Hagoort AC, Steegers EA, Steegers-Theunissen RP. High maternal vitamin E intake by diet or supplements is associated with congenital heart defects in the offspring. BJOG. 2009 Feb;116(3):416-23.
24) Yuskiv N, Honein MA, Moore CA. Reported multivitamin consumption and the occurrence of multiple congenital anomalies. Am J Med Genet A. 2005 Jul 1;136(1):1-7.
25) Hibbeln JR, Davis JM, Steer C, Emmett P, Rogers I, Williams C, Golding J. Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes in childhood (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study. Lancet. 2007 Feb 17;369(9561):578-85.
26) http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=471
27) Olsen SF, Osterdal ML, Salvig JD, Weber T, Tabor A, Secher NJ. Duration of pregnancy in relation to fish oil supplementation and habitual fish intake: a randomised clinical trial with fish oil. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007 Feb 7;
28) Olsen SF, Hansen HS, Sorensen TI, Jensen B, Secher NJ, Sommer S, Knudsen LB. Intake of marine fat, rich in (n-3)-polyunsaturated fatty acids, may increase birthweight by prolonging gestation. Lancet. 1986 Aug 16;2(8503):367-9.
29) Ju H, Chadha Y, Donovan T, O'Rourke P. Fetal macrosomia and pregnancy outcomes. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009 Oct;49(5):504-9.
30) Joensen F, Olsen SF, Holm T, Joensen HD. Perinatal deaths in the Faroe Islands during 1986-95. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2000 Oct;79(10):834-8.
31) Olsen SF, Samuelsen S, Joensen HD. A clinico-pathological classification of perinatal deaths in the Faroe Islands. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 May;102(5):389-92.
32) Olafsdottir AS, Skuladottir GV, Thorsdottir I, Hauksson A, Thorgeirsdottir H, Steingrimsdottir L. Relationship between high consumption of marine fatty acids in early pregnancy and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. BJOG. 2006 Mar;113(3):301-9.
33) Asserhøj M, Nehammer S, Matthiessen J, Michaelsen KF, Lauritzen L. Maternal fish oil supplementation during lactation may adversely affect long-term blood pressure, energy intake, and physical activity of 7-year-old boys. J Nutr. 2009 Feb;139(2):298-304.
34) Johansson C, Castoldi AF, Onishchenko N, Manzo L, Vahter M, Ceccatelli S. Neurobehavioural and molecular changes induced by methylmercury exposure during development. Neurotox Res. 2007 Apr;11(3-4):241-60)
35 Cace IB, Milardovic A, Prpic I, Krajina R, Petrovic O, Vukelic P, Spiric Z, Horvat M, Mazej D, Snoj J. Relationship between the prenatal exposure to low-level of mercury and the size of a newborn's cerebellum. Med Hypotheses. 2010 Dec 30.
36) Weiss B, Amler S, Amler RW Pesticides. Pediatrics. 2004 Apr;113(4 Suppl):1030-6.
37) Pelletier C, Imbeault P, Tremblay A Energy balance and pollution by organochlorines and polychlorinated biphenyls. Obes Rev. 2003 Feb;4(1):17-24.
38) Imbeault P, Chevrier J, Dewailly E, Ayotte P, Despres JP, Mauriege P, Tremblay A. Increase in plasma pollutant levels in response to weight loss is associated with the reduction of fasting insulin levels in men but not in women. Metabolism. 2002 Apr;51(4):482-6.
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.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Seasonal flu vaccine fairy tale rapidly collapsing as the truth comes out
The flu vaccine industry's fairy tales are rapidly collapsing to the point where even medical authorities are now telling people to avoid buying flu vaccines.
Here's why the vaccine industry's attempt to push its quack-derived vaccine propaganda has actually backfired and caused more people than ever to become aware of the fact that seasonal flu vaccines simply don't work:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031043_flu_vaccines_quackery.html
Here's why the vaccine industry's attempt to push its quack-derived vaccine propaganda has actually backfired and caused more people than ever to become aware of the fact that seasonal flu vaccines simply don't work:
http://www.naturalnews.com/031043_flu_vaccines_quackery.html
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Do You Need Nutritional Supplements?
by Mark Hyman, MD
12/18/2010
MANY PEOPLE ASK me whether or not they need nutritional supplements if they eat a healthy diet. The next question that almost inevitably comes up is what they should take and where they can get high-quality supplements. Today, I’d like to bring some light to this issue, outline what I recommend most people take, and explain what is currently being offered in the Healthy Living Store.
In a perfect world, no one would need supplements. But given the stress of our modern life, the poor quality of our food supply, and the high load of toxins on our brains and bodies, most of us need a basic daily supply of the raw materials for all our enzymes and biochemistry to run as designed.
Most people don’t understand the role of vitamins and minerals in our bodies. I certainly didn’t when I finished medical training. I thought if we just had enough to prevent us from some horrible deficiency state like scurvy (vitamin C deficiency), then you didn’t have to worry about how much you were getting. I also thought that if you ate “enriched food” like white flour with a few vitamins added back in, or milk with vitamin D added in, additional vitamin supplementation was a waste.
What most people don’t realize is the same thing I was unaware of when I first started practicing medicine: The real reason our food supply must be “enriched” is because it is has be so processed that it is “impoverished” to start with.
Today, even with our “enriched food,” over 92 percent of Americans are deficient in one or more vitamins. That doesn’t mean they are receiving less than the amount they need for optimal health. That means they receive less than the MINIMUM amount necessary to prevent deficiency diseases.
In a study from the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, researchers found that 6 percent of those tested had serious vitamin C deficiency and 30 percent were borderline low.(i) A report in the journal Pediatrics found obesity and malnutrition coexisting. Obese, overfed, and undernourished children with cognitive disorders were found to have scurvy and severe vitamin D deficiency or rickets. These deficiencies damage our children’s bodies and brains.(ii) You never think of an overweight person as malnourished, but they are!
A USDA survey showed that 37 percent of Americans don’t get enough vitamin C, 70 percent not enough vitamin E, almost 75 percent don’t get enough zinc, and 40 percent don’t get enough iron.(iii) I would say 100 percent of us don’t have enough of the basic nutrients to create optimal health or give ourselves a metabolic tune up.
The foods you eat no longer contain the nutrient levels you require for optimal health for many reasons. Crops are raised in soil where nutrients have been depleted. Plants are treated with pesticides and other chemicals so they no longer have to fight to live, which further diminishes their nutrient levels and their phytonutrient content (not to mention the toxic exposure you receive from such chemicals). Animals are cooped up in pens or giant feedlots instead of roaming free eating the nutrient-rich wild grains and grasses they once consumed. Since cow’s stomachs are adapted to grass instead of corn, they must take antibiotics to prevent them from exploding.
To complicate this further all of us are exposed to hazardous toxins and chemicals that poison our bodies, we live with too much stress, we don’t sleep enough, we don’t exercise enough, and we are inflamed making the nutritional demands on our bodies even heavier. Those with chronic illnesses are in even worse shape.
Nutrients are not drugs and they don’t work as drugs do. They work with your biology by supporting normal enzyme function and biochemical reactions.
Avoiding Disease Versus Giving Yourself a Metabolic Tune Up
Ultimately, the question is not how much of a certain nutrient or vitamin you need to avoid illness, but how much you need to be optimally healthy! Dr. Robert Heaney, one of the world’s leading vitamin D researchers, in a recent groundbreaking editorial in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition about the delayed (yet very serious) consequences of taking LESS than the optimal amounts of nutrients for life said that “because the current [vitamin] recommendations are based on the prevention of the [deficiency] disease only, they can no longer be said to be biologically defensible. The pre-agricultural human diet … may well be a better starting point for policy. The burden of proof should fall on those who say that these more natural conditions are not needed and that lower intakes [of nutrients] are safe.”
In today’s world everyone needs a basic multivitamin and mineral supplement. The research is overwhelming on this point.(iv) My own experience as a practitioner corresponds to what the research tells us. I have tested for vitamin and nutrient deficiencies in thousands of patients and found that by correcting them people feel better, improve their mood, mental sharpness, memory and ability to focus, as well as have more energy, resolve chronic health complaints or conditions and even lose weight. Taking supplements also helps prevent disease.
The basic vitamin recommendations outlined below include nutrients that form the backbone for proper optimal biological function, robust health, and healthy aging. These nutrients work as a team and the basic workhorse team outlined below should be taken by everyone.
You may ask: What about the research that says supplements don’t work? I’d like to shed some light on that question as well.
Studies showing nutrients have no benefit were either done with single nutrients or synthetic non-bio-identical forms of the nutrients. If you just take high doses of a single nutrient like beta-carotene (normally part of hundreds of dietary carotenoids and antioxidants), you may not acquire the desired effect or problems may arise. Think about it this way: Broccoli is good for you, but that doesn’t mean that eating broccoli alone for a year is good for you. In fact it may kill you!
Nutrients are not drugs and they don’t work as drugs do. They work with your biology by supporting normal enzyme function and biochemical reactions. Medications block or interfere with normal function. Studying medications and nutrients using the same methods doesn’t make scientific sense.
Additional supplements may help people with specific imbalances or provide added support for certain times in our life cycle where needs for some nutrients are increased—during pregnancy for example.
The products and supplement kits available in my Healthy Living Store have been chosen to offer the support needed to create good health. I will outline what kits are available in a moment. But first, I want to explain why taking high-quality supplements is essential.
Not all Supplements are Created Equally
It is important to find safe, high-quality, and effective nutritional supplement products. Be aware that all brands are not created equally. Quality is up to the manufacturer because of limited regulations regarding manufacturing. Certain companies are more careful about quality, sourcing of raw materials, consistency of dose from batch to batch, the use of active forms of nutrients, not using fillers, additives, colorings, etc. When choosing supplements it is important that you choose quality products.
However, finding the best products to support health can be a difficult task. The lack of adequate government regulations, the dizzying number of products on the market, and the large variations in quality all create a minefield of obstacles for anyone trying to find the right supplement, vitamin, or herb.
While I do not officially endorse or have any consulting or employee relationship with any supplement companies, I do believe a few have risen to the top of the supplement industry and can be safely used to help support and enhance your health. When choosing supplements, make sure to consider the following factors:
Manufacturers who use GMP (good manufacturing practices) or the equivalent.
Third-party analysis for independent verification of active ingredients and contaminants.
Products that have some basis in basic science, clinical trials, or have a long history of use and safety.
Use of clean products, free of harmful preservatives, fillers, binders, excipients, flow agents, shellacs, coloring agents, gluten, yeast, and lactose and other allergens.
To your good health,
Mark Hyman, MD
References
(i) Hampl, J.S., Taylor, C.A., and C.S. Johnston. 2004. Vitamin C deficiency and depletion in the United States: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1994. Am J Public Health. 94(5): 870–5.
(ii) Noble, J.M., Mandel, A., and M.C. Patterson. 2007. Scurvy and rickets masked by chronic neurologic illness: revisiting “psychologic malnutrition”. Pediatrics. 119(3): e783–90
(iii) Ames, B.N. 2004. A role for supplements in optimizing health: the metabolic tune-up. Arch Biochem Biophys. 423(1): 227–34. Review.
(iv) Kaplan, B.J., Crawford, S.G., Field, C.J., and J.S. Simpson. 2007. Vitamins, minerals, and mood. Psychol Bull. 133(5): 747–60.
12/18/2010
MANY PEOPLE ASK me whether or not they need nutritional supplements if they eat a healthy diet. The next question that almost inevitably comes up is what they should take and where they can get high-quality supplements. Today, I’d like to bring some light to this issue, outline what I recommend most people take, and explain what is currently being offered in the Healthy Living Store.
In a perfect world, no one would need supplements. But given the stress of our modern life, the poor quality of our food supply, and the high load of toxins on our brains and bodies, most of us need a basic daily supply of the raw materials for all our enzymes and biochemistry to run as designed.
Most people don’t understand the role of vitamins and minerals in our bodies. I certainly didn’t when I finished medical training. I thought if we just had enough to prevent us from some horrible deficiency state like scurvy (vitamin C deficiency), then you didn’t have to worry about how much you were getting. I also thought that if you ate “enriched food” like white flour with a few vitamins added back in, or milk with vitamin D added in, additional vitamin supplementation was a waste.
What most people don’t realize is the same thing I was unaware of when I first started practicing medicine: The real reason our food supply must be “enriched” is because it is has be so processed that it is “impoverished” to start with.
Today, even with our “enriched food,” over 92 percent of Americans are deficient in one or more vitamins. That doesn’t mean they are receiving less than the amount they need for optimal health. That means they receive less than the MINIMUM amount necessary to prevent deficiency diseases.
In a study from the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, researchers found that 6 percent of those tested had serious vitamin C deficiency and 30 percent were borderline low.(i) A report in the journal Pediatrics found obesity and malnutrition coexisting. Obese, overfed, and undernourished children with cognitive disorders were found to have scurvy and severe vitamin D deficiency or rickets. These deficiencies damage our children’s bodies and brains.(ii) You never think of an overweight person as malnourished, but they are!
A USDA survey showed that 37 percent of Americans don’t get enough vitamin C, 70 percent not enough vitamin E, almost 75 percent don’t get enough zinc, and 40 percent don’t get enough iron.(iii) I would say 100 percent of us don’t have enough of the basic nutrients to create optimal health or give ourselves a metabolic tune up.
The foods you eat no longer contain the nutrient levels you require for optimal health for many reasons. Crops are raised in soil where nutrients have been depleted. Plants are treated with pesticides and other chemicals so they no longer have to fight to live, which further diminishes their nutrient levels and their phytonutrient content (not to mention the toxic exposure you receive from such chemicals). Animals are cooped up in pens or giant feedlots instead of roaming free eating the nutrient-rich wild grains and grasses they once consumed. Since cow’s stomachs are adapted to grass instead of corn, they must take antibiotics to prevent them from exploding.
To complicate this further all of us are exposed to hazardous toxins and chemicals that poison our bodies, we live with too much stress, we don’t sleep enough, we don’t exercise enough, and we are inflamed making the nutritional demands on our bodies even heavier. Those with chronic illnesses are in even worse shape.
Nutrients are not drugs and they don’t work as drugs do. They work with your biology by supporting normal enzyme function and biochemical reactions.
Avoiding Disease Versus Giving Yourself a Metabolic Tune Up
Ultimately, the question is not how much of a certain nutrient or vitamin you need to avoid illness, but how much you need to be optimally healthy! Dr. Robert Heaney, one of the world’s leading vitamin D researchers, in a recent groundbreaking editorial in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition about the delayed (yet very serious) consequences of taking LESS than the optimal amounts of nutrients for life said that “because the current [vitamin] recommendations are based on the prevention of the [deficiency] disease only, they can no longer be said to be biologically defensible. The pre-agricultural human diet … may well be a better starting point for policy. The burden of proof should fall on those who say that these more natural conditions are not needed and that lower intakes [of nutrients] are safe.”
In today’s world everyone needs a basic multivitamin and mineral supplement. The research is overwhelming on this point.(iv) My own experience as a practitioner corresponds to what the research tells us. I have tested for vitamin and nutrient deficiencies in thousands of patients and found that by correcting them people feel better, improve their mood, mental sharpness, memory and ability to focus, as well as have more energy, resolve chronic health complaints or conditions and even lose weight. Taking supplements also helps prevent disease.
The basic vitamin recommendations outlined below include nutrients that form the backbone for proper optimal biological function, robust health, and healthy aging. These nutrients work as a team and the basic workhorse team outlined below should be taken by everyone.
You may ask: What about the research that says supplements don’t work? I’d like to shed some light on that question as well.
Studies showing nutrients have no benefit were either done with single nutrients or synthetic non-bio-identical forms of the nutrients. If you just take high doses of a single nutrient like beta-carotene (normally part of hundreds of dietary carotenoids and antioxidants), you may not acquire the desired effect or problems may arise. Think about it this way: Broccoli is good for you, but that doesn’t mean that eating broccoli alone for a year is good for you. In fact it may kill you!
Nutrients are not drugs and they don’t work as drugs do. They work with your biology by supporting normal enzyme function and biochemical reactions. Medications block or interfere with normal function. Studying medications and nutrients using the same methods doesn’t make scientific sense.
Additional supplements may help people with specific imbalances or provide added support for certain times in our life cycle where needs for some nutrients are increased—during pregnancy for example.
The products and supplement kits available in my Healthy Living Store have been chosen to offer the support needed to create good health. I will outline what kits are available in a moment. But first, I want to explain why taking high-quality supplements is essential.
Not all Supplements are Created Equally
It is important to find safe, high-quality, and effective nutritional supplement products. Be aware that all brands are not created equally. Quality is up to the manufacturer because of limited regulations regarding manufacturing. Certain companies are more careful about quality, sourcing of raw materials, consistency of dose from batch to batch, the use of active forms of nutrients, not using fillers, additives, colorings, etc. When choosing supplements it is important that you choose quality products.
However, finding the best products to support health can be a difficult task. The lack of adequate government regulations, the dizzying number of products on the market, and the large variations in quality all create a minefield of obstacles for anyone trying to find the right supplement, vitamin, or herb.
While I do not officially endorse or have any consulting or employee relationship with any supplement companies, I do believe a few have risen to the top of the supplement industry and can be safely used to help support and enhance your health. When choosing supplements, make sure to consider the following factors:
Manufacturers who use GMP (good manufacturing practices) or the equivalent.
Third-party analysis for independent verification of active ingredients and contaminants.
Products that have some basis in basic science, clinical trials, or have a long history of use and safety.
Use of clean products, free of harmful preservatives, fillers, binders, excipients, flow agents, shellacs, coloring agents, gluten, yeast, and lactose and other allergens.
To your good health,
Mark Hyman, MD
References
(i) Hampl, J.S., Taylor, C.A., and C.S. Johnston. 2004. Vitamin C deficiency and depletion in the United States: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1994. Am J Public Health. 94(5): 870–5.
(ii) Noble, J.M., Mandel, A., and M.C. Patterson. 2007. Scurvy and rickets masked by chronic neurologic illness: revisiting “psychologic malnutrition”. Pediatrics. 119(3): e783–90
(iii) Ames, B.N. 2004. A role for supplements in optimizing health: the metabolic tune-up. Arch Biochem Biophys. 423(1): 227–34. Review.
(iv) Kaplan, B.J., Crawford, S.G., Field, C.J., and J.S. Simpson. 2007. Vitamins, minerals, and mood. Psychol Bull. 133(5): 747–60.
Bring happiness to your life with the ancient nutritious goji berry
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 by: Alex Malinsky aka RawGuru, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) Grown in the hills and valleys of Tibet, Mongolia and China for 6000 years, goji berries have long attained an esteemed place in the East Asian household. Indeed, they are used as a food and medicine. In the Chinese language the word goji is a derivative. The brightly colored orange and red berry is so dubbed because it is said that if you eat a handful every morning it will induce a mellow or happy mood all day long. Therefore, goji berries are also known as happy berries.
Imagine the taste of a fully ripe cherry; now make the taste slightly less sweet with a hint of sour. You are imagining the taste of the balanced flavor of the powerful goji berry. The treasure of the goji berry is its medley of antioxidants, 21 trace minerals, beta carotene (more than carrots), vitamins such as C (higher than oranges) and B1, B2 and B6; it packs a punch in the nutritional department. However, the beauty of its complementary nature is that it is unassuming enough in taste so that it does not overwhelm the palate. You will find yourself gobbling them down in such oblivious pleasure that before you know it your container is empty. They are the perfect snack.
If you are new to goji berries, add them incrementally into your diet to gradually build and sustain their healthful benefits. This is preferential to bombarding the body by consuming large quantities in an attempt to quickly obtain the goji mojo, so to speak. Goji berries power the immune system by helping it to withstand strain and exertion, and they may slow the effects of aging, defend the liver, assist in vision health and improvement, and build the circulatory and cardiovascular systems. However, excess quantities can potentially affect allergies and interact with high blood pressure medicine. As usual, if in doubt, consult with your physician.
And just so you know, on the Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity or ORAC scale, developed by physician and chemist Dr. Guohua Cao at the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, goji berries rate number one with a score of 25,300 ORAC units. This means that goji berries have high antioxidant power. They go after the free radicals to neutralize and destroy them with a capacity higher than other well-respected superfood fruits such as blueberries, strawberries and prunes. These are the fruits purported to aid in fighting and preventing cancer and other auto-immune diseases.
The wonderful goji berry is available raw and as a juice. But try it blended into your daily smoothie or brewed in a hot beverage, or substitute goji berries wherever you would typically use raisins. Add it to your soup pot and you will discover a secret the Asian cultures have known for centuries...goji berries make for uncommonly delicious soup stones.
Sources:
http://www.purcellmountainfarms.com...
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/...
http://www.downtoearth.org/health/v...
http://www.gojiberryfacts.com/relev...
About the author
Alex Malinsky aka RawGuru is an award winning chef and one of the leading experts in the field of raw food. He started to learn about raw foods at the early at of 15. After 10 years on the raw food diet he continues to be on the cutting edge of nutritional research and product development. Visit Alex's website at: www.RawGuru.com for more information.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031038_goji_berries_nutrition.html#ixzz1BduiT2WX
(NaturalNews) Grown in the hills and valleys of Tibet, Mongolia and China for 6000 years, goji berries have long attained an esteemed place in the East Asian household. Indeed, they are used as a food and medicine. In the Chinese language the word goji is a derivative. The brightly colored orange and red berry is so dubbed because it is said that if you eat a handful every morning it will induce a mellow or happy mood all day long. Therefore, goji berries are also known as happy berries.
Imagine the taste of a fully ripe cherry; now make the taste slightly less sweet with a hint of sour. You are imagining the taste of the balanced flavor of the powerful goji berry. The treasure of the goji berry is its medley of antioxidants, 21 trace minerals, beta carotene (more than carrots), vitamins such as C (higher than oranges) and B1, B2 and B6; it packs a punch in the nutritional department. However, the beauty of its complementary nature is that it is unassuming enough in taste so that it does not overwhelm the palate. You will find yourself gobbling them down in such oblivious pleasure that before you know it your container is empty. They are the perfect snack.
If you are new to goji berries, add them incrementally into your diet to gradually build and sustain their healthful benefits. This is preferential to bombarding the body by consuming large quantities in an attempt to quickly obtain the goji mojo, so to speak. Goji berries power the immune system by helping it to withstand strain and exertion, and they may slow the effects of aging, defend the liver, assist in vision health and improvement, and build the circulatory and cardiovascular systems. However, excess quantities can potentially affect allergies and interact with high blood pressure medicine. As usual, if in doubt, consult with your physician.
And just so you know, on the Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity or ORAC scale, developed by physician and chemist Dr. Guohua Cao at the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore, goji berries rate number one with a score of 25,300 ORAC units. This means that goji berries have high antioxidant power. They go after the free radicals to neutralize and destroy them with a capacity higher than other well-respected superfood fruits such as blueberries, strawberries and prunes. These are the fruits purported to aid in fighting and preventing cancer and other auto-immune diseases.
The wonderful goji berry is available raw and as a juice. But try it blended into your daily smoothie or brewed in a hot beverage, or substitute goji berries wherever you would typically use raisins. Add it to your soup pot and you will discover a secret the Asian cultures have known for centuries...goji berries make for uncommonly delicious soup stones.
Sources:
http://www.purcellmountainfarms.com...
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/...
http://www.downtoearth.org/health/v...
http://www.gojiberryfacts.com/relev...
About the author
Alex Malinsky aka RawGuru is an award winning chef and one of the leading experts in the field of raw food. He started to learn about raw foods at the early at of 15. After 10 years on the raw food diet he continues to be on the cutting edge of nutritional research and product development. Visit Alex's website at: www.RawGuru.com for more information.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031038_goji_berries_nutrition.html#ixzz1BduiT2WX
Top 20 things that are more dangerous to children than lead paint in Mattel toys
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
The mainstream media is amusingly irrational when it comes to reporting scare stories. The latest example involves the lead content of Mattel toys made in China. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a third recall of Mattel toys involving over 700,000 toys containing unacceptably high levels of lead paint (over .06 percent lead). Irrational parents are rushing back to retailers in droves, turning in their Mattel toys to "save their children" from the dangers of lead paint. Mattel, for its part, is being rightly blasted in the media for selling shoddy products made with toxic heavy metals.
But here's the interesting part in all this: Parents directly poison their children every day with products far more dangerous than Mattel toys. Don't believe me? I'll name twenty things in this article that are far more dangerous to children than Mattel toys. It doesn't mean Mattel toys are safe, of course. They apparently do contain unacceptably high levels of lead, and there's no question about the toxicity of lead. But children don't eat toys nearly as often as they eat some other toxic substances given to them by their parents, and even as parents are herding back into retailers to refund their toxic lead-laden toys, they're returning home and poisoning their children with many other products that are far worse.
The press, of course, reports nothing about these other toxic products. And why? Because they're made in America.
American products poisoning American children
American products, you see, are often given blanket immunity by the U.S. press. While the media is happy to jump on toxic lead found in Chinese products, they completely ignore (for example) the toxic mercury that dentists continue to place into the mouths of young children all across the country. Why is it considered highly dangerous for a child to merely touch a toy with .06 percent lead paint while it is considered perfectly safe for a child to chew on a filling made with 40 percent mercury? Mercury is far more toxic than lead in many ways, yet the media has nothing to say about the mass poisoning of children through the outmoded dental work still being performed on children today. Mercury fillings were invented before the Civil War, and they're just as toxic now as they were then!
Of course, if dental fillings were made in China, the U.S. press would be screaming about their toxicity! But since they're installed by crazed U.S. dentists -- many of whom still manage to seem convincingly sane -- there's zero coverage in the mainstream media.
Reporting the truth about dangerous chemicals, heavy metals and other threats to children is extremely selective. The public never hears the real truth about what's dangerous -- they only hear what the media want them to think is dangerous!
But I've had it with popular media distortions. Here, I'm going to reveal the top 20 things that are more dangerous to children than the lead paint in Mattel toys. Interestingly, most of these are things that parents intentionally give their children (or feed to them!). If you're worried about lead paint, you should be far more worried about these 20 things...
The top 20 things that are more dangerous to children than lead paint in Mattel toys
1. Mercury fillings
Often called "silver fillings" to hide the fact that they're made from mercury, these highly toxic fillings are placed directly into the mouths of children where they are inhaled (mercury vapor) and swallowed, causing systemic mercury poisoning to the child and leading to long-term neurological damage. Visit www.IAOMT.org and watch the "Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas" video to learn more.
2. Vaccines
Think vaccines are safe? You've been hoodwinked by the popular media parroting drug company propaganda. Vaccines are preserved with methyl mercury, one of the most dangerous chemical forms of the toxic heavy metal. This mercury is injected directly into the bodies of children where it causes severe neurological damage. And yes, it does cause Autism, despite what you've read in the dumbed-down press. Only a fool would inject their child with mercury-preserved vaccines.
3. Hot dogs
Hot dogs are made with horrifying processed meat parts (click here to see shocking photos of processed meat products, then preserved with a cancer-causing ingredient called sodium nitrite. As detailed in my book Grocery Warning, this ingredient causes brain tumors in children, not to mention leukemia, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer and other cancers. Hot dogs are far more dangerous to a child's health than lead paint in my opinion, and yet parents keep feeding them to their children!
4. Antibacterial soap
How about a little nerve toxin in your soap? That's what's found in antibacterial soap. It's a toxic cocktail of chemicals designed to kill life. That's how it kills bacteria. The problem is that it also harms people -- especially infants and children who are trying to develop healthy nervous systems. Avoid all products claiming to be "antibacterial." You're better off using natural soap (like Dr. Bronner's soap, www.DrBronner.com ) and letting your child's immune system fight off common bacteria. The world isn't sterile, after all. You can't turn your house into a germ-free bubble.
5. ADHD drugs
Would you give your child street drugs like speed or meth? Probably not, but what if your doctor wrote you a prescription for speed and said your child needed it because he was ADHD? If you're like most parents, you'd fall in step and start giving your child speed. But wait, you say: ADHD drugs are not speed, are they? But of course they are. They belong to a class of drugs called amphetamines. They used to be illegally sold as speed. Now they're prescription drugs, and they're given to children in schools all across America (and elsewhere). Psychiatrists and drug companies are making a killing dosing up kids and infants on substances that used to be considered illegal street drugs (and that have no legitimate medical use whatsoever).
6. Sports drinks
For some reason, parents irrationally believe sports drinks are healthy because they contain the word "sports." Didn't they notice the neon green artificial coloring? Sports drinks are, in my opinion, a nutritional joke. Made from salt water, processed sweeteners and petrochemical coloring, many of their ingredients are actually harmful. Drinking water would be smarter, and feeding your child some healthy trace minerals would be even better. Low on potassium? Eat a banana.
7. Cough syrup and over-the-counter medicines
Nearly all children's over-the-counter medicines contain multiple toxic substances such as chemical sweeteners, preservatives and additives. Cough syrup, in particular, has been scientifically proven to be absolutely worthless in preventing coughs. Many "children's" medicines are actually more toxic than their adult counterparts because they're sweetened up and cosmetically enhanced with artificial colors made from petrochemicals. Yet parents poison their children every day with over-the-counter medicine.
8. Sunscreen
The sunscreen industry is a huge scam. Most popular sunscreen products actually cause skin cancer due to the numerous toxic chemicals they contain (which are quickly absorbed into the skin where they cause DNA mutations that lead to cancer). Even worse, sunscreen blocks the UV radiation that allows the skin to manufacture all-important vitamin D -- the most powerful anti-cancer nutrient yet known to modern science. It prevents over a dozen different cancers, yet parents block it by slathering toxic sunscreen on their children, all while mistakenly believing they're "protecting their children from cancer!" What a scam.
9. Fluoride in the water
I've always found it amazing that city water officials were dumb enough to actually buy a toxic waste substance and arrange to have it dripped into the public water supply where it would be ingested by infants and children. The result? Mass fluorosis and toxicity to children everywhere. Didn't these people realize that fluoride only works topically? (That is, it only works if you rub it on your teeth, then spit it out, and even that only works if you're using natural fluoride, not the chemicals spit out as byproducts of the fertilizer industry, which is what city water departments are buying and dripping into the water supply.) Click here to see my CounterThink cartoon on this topic.
Whoever heard of drinking a topical medication in the first place? It's like swallowing sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Even worse, putting this into the public water supply effectively mass medicates everyone with a bioactive chemical substance that no one has been given a prescription for. This is all done with no regard for the level of natural fluoride children might already be ingesting from other sources. The situation is so crazy that it's difficult to find a more insane example of medical tyranny than the mass fluoridation of public water supplies. The fact that doctors and dentists so vehemently support it demonstrates just how crazy they really are.
10. Processed milk
Children as young as 10 years old are now being diagnosed with heart disease and clogged arteries. Ever wonder how it happened? It's due in part, I believe, to all the processed milk children are swallowing these days. Not only is the milk contaminated with pus, blood and detectable levels of pesticides and other chemicals, it's also homogenized, meaning the fats are artificially modified in a way that makes them stay in suspension. This homogenization also makes milk fats dangerous to cardiovascular health. While I support the consumption of raw, unprocessed milk, I think that consuming processed, homogenized milk is dangerous to the health of infants, children and adults alike!
11. Fast food
Fast food is extremely unhealthy for children. Not only are the foods often fried, homogenized, hydrogenated and otherwise altered, they're also laced with chemical additives, taste enhancers, processed sugars, petrochemical food coloring and other unhealthy substances. Strangely, many parents actually reward their children for good behavior by buying them unhealthy fast food meals, thereby creating a psychological association between good feelings and junk food. (Fast food restaurants further exploit this psychological link by building playgrounds and running feel-good advertisements that emphasize friends and fun, then link those good vibes to their food products.)
12. Antidepressant drugs
Children as young as six months old are now being put on psychotropic drugs such as SSRIs (antidepressants). These drugs, we now know, cause suicidal thoughts and violent behavior, especially in young boys. They imbalance brain chemistry and even alter the body's metabolism of sugar, promoting diabetes and leading to rapid weight gain. These drugs are so dangerous that feeding them to children should be considered a crime. Every single school shooting involving a child in the United States in the last 15 years has been linked to antidepressant drug use. Need I say more?
13. Chemical laundry detergents
Parents are shown fancy ads on television depicting how wonderful and clean their clothes will be if they wash them in brand-name laundry detergent. What they're not shown, however, is the toxicity of all the synthetic chemicals that go into most laundry detergent products. The fragrance chemicals alone are often carcinogenic, and they're just as bad for the environment as they are children's health. A new alternative has appeared, however: Soap berries! It's laundry soap that grows on trees. We offer it at www.BetterLifeGoods.com
14. Flame retardant chemicals
Did you know that new mattresses for infants and children are often sprayed with extremely toxic flame retardant chemicals? These are easily absorbed through the skin of infants and children where they contribute to numerous neurological disorders and immune suppression. Many clothing products are also sprayed with flame retardants, as are some carpeting products. In the push to make everything fireproof, state regulators (who have mandated the flame retardant chemicals in states like California) have created a toxic environment for everyone. I suppose if you're a politician, it's always better for a million people to die of a mysterious disease that can't be linked to you than to have one baby burning up on the evening news with fingers of blame pointed directly at you.
15. Soda
Aside from directly promoting diabetes and obesity, sodas also contain high amounts of phosphoric acid, a substance that dissolves bones and causes a loss of bone mineral density. This causes massive tooth decay as well as a shrinking jaw bone and overall skeletal fragility. Diet sodas are even worse, since they contain chemical sweeteners linked to neurological disorders and learning disabilities.
16. Air fresheners
Air fresheners contain cancer-causing chemicals. Unleashing them in the house exposes children to these chemicals, promoting asthma and other respiratory problems. If you value the health of your children, avoid air freshener products and just use essential oils or citrus peels instead. (Peel an orange and hang the peel in your kitchen.)
17. Synthetic vitamins
Many children's vitamins are made with cheap, synthetic "vitamin" chemicals that actually harm people who take them. Plus, many are loaded up with artificial colors, sucrose and chemical sweeteners. Avoid cheap, store-bought children's vitamins or anything containing cyanocobalamin (a toxic form of vitamin B12). Quality children's vitamins are available through sources like Nordic Naturals (fish oils) and www.IntegratedHealth.com (also check www.WellnessResources.com for high-quality supplements).
18. Dryer sheets
Most popular dryer sheets and fabric softeners are made with toxic synthetic chemicals that are not safe to use on children's clothing. The fragrance chemicals alone are often highly carcinogenic, and the other chemicals contribute additional toxicity to the clothing. Children's clothes should never be washed or dried in chemicals. Only use natural detergents and fabric softeners, or avoid the fabric softeners altogether.
19. Bacon
Most bacon and sausage are processed meat products made with sodium nitrite (like the hot dogs, above) and contaminated with various chemicals lodged in the animal fats. Conventionally-raised beef, pork and chicken products are, in my opinion, extremely toxic to the human body and contribute to colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer and many other diseases and disorders. If you make meat for your children, shop for 100% organic, free-range, antibiotic-free meats that have no nitrites or nitrates.
20. Shampoo and bath products
Virtually all popular shampoo and bath products sold on the market contain cancer-causing chemicals. The ingredients read like a top-40 list of toxic chemicals. Virtually none of these chemicals have ever been tested or approved for use on humans (they are simply ignored because the FDA astonishingly believes the skin won't absorb chemicals). If you want healthy products, use the shampoo I recommend: Pure Essentials Fragrance-Free Shampoo from Earth Science (www.TheNewES.com)
Keeping your health priorities straight
So that's the list of 20 items that are more dangerous to the health of children than the lead paint in Mattel toys. Most parents have no concern whatsoever for any of these 20 things, but they're going ape-shoot-crazy over the tiny amounts of lead in their Barbie toys and Elmo stuffed animals. It all just goes to show you that the sheeple will think anything the mainstream media tells them to think (and they'll ignore everything else).
It's classic American contradiction: Returning a Mattel toy at the local toy store while taking your child to a dentist to have mercury implanted in the cavities caused by all the soda the kid consumed at home (because the parents keep buying Coke and Pepsi). If it all weren't so downright tragic, it would almost be funny.
Almost.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/022014_heavy_metals_childrens_health.html#ixzz1CIhRglGS
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
The mainstream media is amusingly irrational when it comes to reporting scare stories. The latest example involves the lead content of Mattel toys made in China. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a third recall of Mattel toys involving over 700,000 toys containing unacceptably high levels of lead paint (over .06 percent lead). Irrational parents are rushing back to retailers in droves, turning in their Mattel toys to "save their children" from the dangers of lead paint. Mattel, for its part, is being rightly blasted in the media for selling shoddy products made with toxic heavy metals.
But here's the interesting part in all this: Parents directly poison their children every day with products far more dangerous than Mattel toys. Don't believe me? I'll name twenty things in this article that are far more dangerous to children than Mattel toys. It doesn't mean Mattel toys are safe, of course. They apparently do contain unacceptably high levels of lead, and there's no question about the toxicity of lead. But children don't eat toys nearly as often as they eat some other toxic substances given to them by their parents, and even as parents are herding back into retailers to refund their toxic lead-laden toys, they're returning home and poisoning their children with many other products that are far worse.
The press, of course, reports nothing about these other toxic products. And why? Because they're made in America.
American products poisoning American children
American products, you see, are often given blanket immunity by the U.S. press. While the media is happy to jump on toxic lead found in Chinese products, they completely ignore (for example) the toxic mercury that dentists continue to place into the mouths of young children all across the country. Why is it considered highly dangerous for a child to merely touch a toy with .06 percent lead paint while it is considered perfectly safe for a child to chew on a filling made with 40 percent mercury? Mercury is far more toxic than lead in many ways, yet the media has nothing to say about the mass poisoning of children through the outmoded dental work still being performed on children today. Mercury fillings were invented before the Civil War, and they're just as toxic now as they were then!
Of course, if dental fillings were made in China, the U.S. press would be screaming about their toxicity! But since they're installed by crazed U.S. dentists -- many of whom still manage to seem convincingly sane -- there's zero coverage in the mainstream media.
Reporting the truth about dangerous chemicals, heavy metals and other threats to children is extremely selective. The public never hears the real truth about what's dangerous -- they only hear what the media want them to think is dangerous!
But I've had it with popular media distortions. Here, I'm going to reveal the top 20 things that are more dangerous to children than the lead paint in Mattel toys. Interestingly, most of these are things that parents intentionally give their children (or feed to them!). If you're worried about lead paint, you should be far more worried about these 20 things...
The top 20 things that are more dangerous to children than lead paint in Mattel toys
1. Mercury fillings
Often called "silver fillings" to hide the fact that they're made from mercury, these highly toxic fillings are placed directly into the mouths of children where they are inhaled (mercury vapor) and swallowed, causing systemic mercury poisoning to the child and leading to long-term neurological damage. Visit www.IAOMT.org and watch the "Smoking Teeth = Poison Gas" video to learn more.
2. Vaccines
Think vaccines are safe? You've been hoodwinked by the popular media parroting drug company propaganda. Vaccines are preserved with methyl mercury, one of the most dangerous chemical forms of the toxic heavy metal. This mercury is injected directly into the bodies of children where it causes severe neurological damage. And yes, it does cause Autism, despite what you've read in the dumbed-down press. Only a fool would inject their child with mercury-preserved vaccines.
3. Hot dogs
Hot dogs are made with horrifying processed meat parts (click here to see shocking photos of processed meat products, then preserved with a cancer-causing ingredient called sodium nitrite. As detailed in my book Grocery Warning, this ingredient causes brain tumors in children, not to mention leukemia, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer and other cancers. Hot dogs are far more dangerous to a child's health than lead paint in my opinion, and yet parents keep feeding them to their children!
4. Antibacterial soap
How about a little nerve toxin in your soap? That's what's found in antibacterial soap. It's a toxic cocktail of chemicals designed to kill life. That's how it kills bacteria. The problem is that it also harms people -- especially infants and children who are trying to develop healthy nervous systems. Avoid all products claiming to be "antibacterial." You're better off using natural soap (like Dr. Bronner's soap, www.DrBronner.com ) and letting your child's immune system fight off common bacteria. The world isn't sterile, after all. You can't turn your house into a germ-free bubble.
5. ADHD drugs
Would you give your child street drugs like speed or meth? Probably not, but what if your doctor wrote you a prescription for speed and said your child needed it because he was ADHD? If you're like most parents, you'd fall in step and start giving your child speed. But wait, you say: ADHD drugs are not speed, are they? But of course they are. They belong to a class of drugs called amphetamines. They used to be illegally sold as speed. Now they're prescription drugs, and they're given to children in schools all across America (and elsewhere). Psychiatrists and drug companies are making a killing dosing up kids and infants on substances that used to be considered illegal street drugs (and that have no legitimate medical use whatsoever).
6. Sports drinks
For some reason, parents irrationally believe sports drinks are healthy because they contain the word "sports." Didn't they notice the neon green artificial coloring? Sports drinks are, in my opinion, a nutritional joke. Made from salt water, processed sweeteners and petrochemical coloring, many of their ingredients are actually harmful. Drinking water would be smarter, and feeding your child some healthy trace minerals would be even better. Low on potassium? Eat a banana.
7. Cough syrup and over-the-counter medicines
Nearly all children's over-the-counter medicines contain multiple toxic substances such as chemical sweeteners, preservatives and additives. Cough syrup, in particular, has been scientifically proven to be absolutely worthless in preventing coughs. Many "children's" medicines are actually more toxic than their adult counterparts because they're sweetened up and cosmetically enhanced with artificial colors made from petrochemicals. Yet parents poison their children every day with over-the-counter medicine.
8. Sunscreen
The sunscreen industry is a huge scam. Most popular sunscreen products actually cause skin cancer due to the numerous toxic chemicals they contain (which are quickly absorbed into the skin where they cause DNA mutations that lead to cancer). Even worse, sunscreen blocks the UV radiation that allows the skin to manufacture all-important vitamin D -- the most powerful anti-cancer nutrient yet known to modern science. It prevents over a dozen different cancers, yet parents block it by slathering toxic sunscreen on their children, all while mistakenly believing they're "protecting their children from cancer!" What a scam.
9. Fluoride in the water
I've always found it amazing that city water officials were dumb enough to actually buy a toxic waste substance and arrange to have it dripped into the public water supply where it would be ingested by infants and children. The result? Mass fluorosis and toxicity to children everywhere. Didn't these people realize that fluoride only works topically? (That is, it only works if you rub it on your teeth, then spit it out, and even that only works if you're using natural fluoride, not the chemicals spit out as byproducts of the fertilizer industry, which is what city water departments are buying and dripping into the water supply.) Click here to see my CounterThink cartoon on this topic.
Whoever heard of drinking a topical medication in the first place? It's like swallowing sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Even worse, putting this into the public water supply effectively mass medicates everyone with a bioactive chemical substance that no one has been given a prescription for. This is all done with no regard for the level of natural fluoride children might already be ingesting from other sources. The situation is so crazy that it's difficult to find a more insane example of medical tyranny than the mass fluoridation of public water supplies. The fact that doctors and dentists so vehemently support it demonstrates just how crazy they really are.
10. Processed milk
Children as young as 10 years old are now being diagnosed with heart disease and clogged arteries. Ever wonder how it happened? It's due in part, I believe, to all the processed milk children are swallowing these days. Not only is the milk contaminated with pus, blood and detectable levels of pesticides and other chemicals, it's also homogenized, meaning the fats are artificially modified in a way that makes them stay in suspension. This homogenization also makes milk fats dangerous to cardiovascular health. While I support the consumption of raw, unprocessed milk, I think that consuming processed, homogenized milk is dangerous to the health of infants, children and adults alike!
11. Fast food
Fast food is extremely unhealthy for children. Not only are the foods often fried, homogenized, hydrogenated and otherwise altered, they're also laced with chemical additives, taste enhancers, processed sugars, petrochemical food coloring and other unhealthy substances. Strangely, many parents actually reward their children for good behavior by buying them unhealthy fast food meals, thereby creating a psychological association between good feelings and junk food. (Fast food restaurants further exploit this psychological link by building playgrounds and running feel-good advertisements that emphasize friends and fun, then link those good vibes to their food products.)
12. Antidepressant drugs
Children as young as six months old are now being put on psychotropic drugs such as SSRIs (antidepressants). These drugs, we now know, cause suicidal thoughts and violent behavior, especially in young boys. They imbalance brain chemistry and even alter the body's metabolism of sugar, promoting diabetes and leading to rapid weight gain. These drugs are so dangerous that feeding them to children should be considered a crime. Every single school shooting involving a child in the United States in the last 15 years has been linked to antidepressant drug use. Need I say more?
13. Chemical laundry detergents
Parents are shown fancy ads on television depicting how wonderful and clean their clothes will be if they wash them in brand-name laundry detergent. What they're not shown, however, is the toxicity of all the synthetic chemicals that go into most laundry detergent products. The fragrance chemicals alone are often carcinogenic, and they're just as bad for the environment as they are children's health. A new alternative has appeared, however: Soap berries! It's laundry soap that grows on trees. We offer it at www.BetterLifeGoods.com
14. Flame retardant chemicals
Did you know that new mattresses for infants and children are often sprayed with extremely toxic flame retardant chemicals? These are easily absorbed through the skin of infants and children where they contribute to numerous neurological disorders and immune suppression. Many clothing products are also sprayed with flame retardants, as are some carpeting products. In the push to make everything fireproof, state regulators (who have mandated the flame retardant chemicals in states like California) have created a toxic environment for everyone. I suppose if you're a politician, it's always better for a million people to die of a mysterious disease that can't be linked to you than to have one baby burning up on the evening news with fingers of blame pointed directly at you.
15. Soda
Aside from directly promoting diabetes and obesity, sodas also contain high amounts of phosphoric acid, a substance that dissolves bones and causes a loss of bone mineral density. This causes massive tooth decay as well as a shrinking jaw bone and overall skeletal fragility. Diet sodas are even worse, since they contain chemical sweeteners linked to neurological disorders and learning disabilities.
16. Air fresheners
Air fresheners contain cancer-causing chemicals. Unleashing them in the house exposes children to these chemicals, promoting asthma and other respiratory problems. If you value the health of your children, avoid air freshener products and just use essential oils or citrus peels instead. (Peel an orange and hang the peel in your kitchen.)
17. Synthetic vitamins
Many children's vitamins are made with cheap, synthetic "vitamin" chemicals that actually harm people who take them. Plus, many are loaded up with artificial colors, sucrose and chemical sweeteners. Avoid cheap, store-bought children's vitamins or anything containing cyanocobalamin (a toxic form of vitamin B12). Quality children's vitamins are available through sources like Nordic Naturals (fish oils) and www.IntegratedHealth.com (also check www.WellnessResources.com for high-quality supplements).
18. Dryer sheets
Most popular dryer sheets and fabric softeners are made with toxic synthetic chemicals that are not safe to use on children's clothing. The fragrance chemicals alone are often highly carcinogenic, and the other chemicals contribute additional toxicity to the clothing. Children's clothes should never be washed or dried in chemicals. Only use natural detergents and fabric softeners, or avoid the fabric softeners altogether.
19. Bacon
Most bacon and sausage are processed meat products made with sodium nitrite (like the hot dogs, above) and contaminated with various chemicals lodged in the animal fats. Conventionally-raised beef, pork and chicken products are, in my opinion, extremely toxic to the human body and contribute to colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer and many other diseases and disorders. If you make meat for your children, shop for 100% organic, free-range, antibiotic-free meats that have no nitrites or nitrates.
20. Shampoo and bath products
Virtually all popular shampoo and bath products sold on the market contain cancer-causing chemicals. The ingredients read like a top-40 list of toxic chemicals. Virtually none of these chemicals have ever been tested or approved for use on humans (they are simply ignored because the FDA astonishingly believes the skin won't absorb chemicals). If you want healthy products, use the shampoo I recommend: Pure Essentials Fragrance-Free Shampoo from Earth Science (www.TheNewES.com)
Keeping your health priorities straight
So that's the list of 20 items that are more dangerous to the health of children than the lead paint in Mattel toys. Most parents have no concern whatsoever for any of these 20 things, but they're going ape-shoot-crazy over the tiny amounts of lead in their Barbie toys and Elmo stuffed animals. It all just goes to show you that the sheeple will think anything the mainstream media tells them to think (and they'll ignore everything else).
It's classic American contradiction: Returning a Mattel toy at the local toy store while taking your child to a dentist to have mercury implanted in the cavities caused by all the soda the kid consumed at home (because the parents keep buying Coke and Pepsi). If it all weren't so downright tragic, it would almost be funny.
Almost.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/022014_heavy_metals_childrens_health.html#ixzz1CIhRglGS
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Make Life Simpler With A Salad Box (4-5 days worth of ready to eat veggies)
NOV 3RD
Posted by Paul & Ann Malkmus in 60 Day Challenge
When you come home from work the last thing you want to do is chop up a bunch of veggies for a salad. We feel the same way, which is why we invented “The Salad Box.”
The salad box is a simple concept we created so that we could have pre-cleaned, pre-cut veggies ready to go whenever we wanted – and it’s all in one handy box that fits in our refrigerator. It brings the convenience of a salad bar into your own home! You know everything is fresh and cleaned… because you did it!
All you have to do is get a large, clear, plastic under-the-bed style storage box and several smaller boxes to fit inside. All your veggies will fit into the smaller boxes, one type of veggie per box. Put them all in the larger box and you have a mini salad bar ready to go in your own refrigerator.
We searched high and low for boxes that would fit inside an average refrigerator. The best, large box can be found at Target stores, and the little boxes that go inside are available at Walmart. Watch our salad box video for details.
Here’s how it works. Simply buy 4-5 days’ worth of veggies, seeds, nuts, water chestnuts or anything you’d normally put in salads, stir frys, or pita wraps. Designate an hour on one evening to wash and prepare all the ingredients and put them in the smaller boxes within the large salad box and you’ll have everything ready to go whenever you wish for several days and even up to an entire week!
The salad box saves a lot of time and makes dinner prep a lot less stressful. Watch part 1 and part 2 of our salad box videos for all the details! We also demonstrate this concept during our 60 Days to Reclaim Your Health program.
PS – Join the Malkmus family this weekend! Join us this Friday and Saturday at Hallelujah Acres! Includes An Evening of Food Prep with Rhonda Malkmus, Rev. Malkmus’ world-famous, FREE God’s Way to Ultimate Health Seminar, plus Paul and Ann’s “Where Do I Go From Here?” class!
Watch the videos here:
http://www.hacres.com/library/videos/healthy-eating/salad-box-part-1
http://www.hacres.com/library/videos/healthy-eating/salad-box-part-2
Posted by Paul & Ann Malkmus in 60 Day Challenge
When you come home from work the last thing you want to do is chop up a bunch of veggies for a salad. We feel the same way, which is why we invented “The Salad Box.”
The salad box is a simple concept we created so that we could have pre-cleaned, pre-cut veggies ready to go whenever we wanted – and it’s all in one handy box that fits in our refrigerator. It brings the convenience of a salad bar into your own home! You know everything is fresh and cleaned… because you did it!
All you have to do is get a large, clear, plastic under-the-bed style storage box and several smaller boxes to fit inside. All your veggies will fit into the smaller boxes, one type of veggie per box. Put them all in the larger box and you have a mini salad bar ready to go in your own refrigerator.
We searched high and low for boxes that would fit inside an average refrigerator. The best, large box can be found at Target stores, and the little boxes that go inside are available at Walmart. Watch our salad box video for details.
Here’s how it works. Simply buy 4-5 days’ worth of veggies, seeds, nuts, water chestnuts or anything you’d normally put in salads, stir frys, or pita wraps. Designate an hour on one evening to wash and prepare all the ingredients and put them in the smaller boxes within the large salad box and you’ll have everything ready to go whenever you wish for several days and even up to an entire week!
The salad box saves a lot of time and makes dinner prep a lot less stressful. Watch part 1 and part 2 of our salad box videos for all the details! We also demonstrate this concept during our 60 Days to Reclaim Your Health program.
PS – Join the Malkmus family this weekend! Join us this Friday and Saturday at Hallelujah Acres! Includes An Evening of Food Prep with Rhonda Malkmus, Rev. Malkmus’ world-famous, FREE God’s Way to Ultimate Health Seminar, plus Paul and Ann’s “Where Do I Go From Here?” class!
Watch the videos here:
http://www.hacres.com/library/videos/healthy-eating/salad-box-part-1
http://www.hacres.com/library/videos/healthy-eating/salad-box-part-2
Girls Reaching Puberty As Young As Age 7
by Hallelujah Acres 1/25/11
An increasing number of girls in the United States are reaching puberty as young as the age of seven, according to a study conducted by researchers from Cincinnati Children Hospital and published in the journal Pediatrics. See:
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=641926
Researchers examined more than 1,200 girls between the ages of six and eight who were living in Cincinnati, San Francisco or East Harlem, N.Y. twice between 2004 and 2006. Each examination was conducted by a different female pediatrician, who determined the girls’ development of breast tissue.
The researchers found that 10.4% of Caucasian girls, 15% of Hispanic girls and 23.4% of African-American girls had developed breast tissue by the age of seven. By contrast, one study 10 years ago found that only 5% of Caucasian girls and 15.4% of African-American girls had developed breast tissue by that age. The prior study did not include Hispanic girls.
The new study further found that 18% of Caucasian girls, 31% of Hispanic girls and 43% of African-American girls had breast development by age eight. The prior study found breast tissue in only 10.5% of Caucasian girls and 36.6% of African-American girls at age eight.
Early onset of puberty can expose girls to both physical and social problems. It has been associated with a higher lifetime risk of breast cancer, and can expose emotionally immature young girls to sexual advances from older boys and men.
Researchers believe that rising rates of obesity and increasing exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals are the two major causes of early puberty.
EDITOR NOTE – Through the years a number of mothers who have their families on The Hallelujah Diet have written expressing concern that their 12-14 year old daughters had not as yet experienced puberty while most of their classmates had. My response has been “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad!”
With the early onset of puberty these days, most do not realize that prior to World War II, most young girls did not initiate puberty until the age of 15 or after. That is apparently the age God intended. So what has happened to cause girls as young as age seven and eight to begin puberty in this current day?
The answer is diet and lifestyle! Prior to World War II animals were not injected with growth hormones to help them reach market faster, dairy cows were not injected with growth hormones in order to increase milk production, and refined soy products (loaded with estrogen-like compounds called estrogenic isoflavones) were not available in the numbers they are today.
In a normal healthy girl, the body naturally begins producing estrogen at around the age of 15. This is what initiates puberty. But when a girl eats a diet high in animal flesh and dairy, both containing estrogen, puberty is accelerated.
Dr. Russell Blaylock (a nationally respected, nutritionally-minded neurosurgeon) tells us that it is not unusual for baby girls fed soy-based formulas to develop breast buds as young as two years of age.
As noted in the research above, obesity and just being overweight, along with lack of exercise, also contributes to the initiation of early puberty.
http://healthtip.hacres.com/index.php/2011/01/22/girls-reaching-puberty-as-young-as-age-7?utm_source=eblast&utm_medium=email&utm_content=update&utm_campaign=health-tip
An increasing number of girls in the United States are reaching puberty as young as the age of seven, according to a study conducted by researchers from Cincinnati Children Hospital and published in the journal Pediatrics. See:
http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=641926
Researchers examined more than 1,200 girls between the ages of six and eight who were living in Cincinnati, San Francisco or East Harlem, N.Y. twice between 2004 and 2006. Each examination was conducted by a different female pediatrician, who determined the girls’ development of breast tissue.
The researchers found that 10.4% of Caucasian girls, 15% of Hispanic girls and 23.4% of African-American girls had developed breast tissue by the age of seven. By contrast, one study 10 years ago found that only 5% of Caucasian girls and 15.4% of African-American girls had developed breast tissue by that age. The prior study did not include Hispanic girls.
The new study further found that 18% of Caucasian girls, 31% of Hispanic girls and 43% of African-American girls had breast development by age eight. The prior study found breast tissue in only 10.5% of Caucasian girls and 36.6% of African-American girls at age eight.
Early onset of puberty can expose girls to both physical and social problems. It has been associated with a higher lifetime risk of breast cancer, and can expose emotionally immature young girls to sexual advances from older boys and men.
Researchers believe that rising rates of obesity and increasing exposure to hormone-disrupting chemicals are the two major causes of early puberty.
EDITOR NOTE – Through the years a number of mothers who have their families on The Hallelujah Diet have written expressing concern that their 12-14 year old daughters had not as yet experienced puberty while most of their classmates had. My response has been “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad!”
With the early onset of puberty these days, most do not realize that prior to World War II, most young girls did not initiate puberty until the age of 15 or after. That is apparently the age God intended. So what has happened to cause girls as young as age seven and eight to begin puberty in this current day?
The answer is diet and lifestyle! Prior to World War II animals were not injected with growth hormones to help them reach market faster, dairy cows were not injected with growth hormones in order to increase milk production, and refined soy products (loaded with estrogen-like compounds called estrogenic isoflavones) were not available in the numbers they are today.
In a normal healthy girl, the body naturally begins producing estrogen at around the age of 15. This is what initiates puberty. But when a girl eats a diet high in animal flesh and dairy, both containing estrogen, puberty is accelerated.
Dr. Russell Blaylock (a nationally respected, nutritionally-minded neurosurgeon) tells us that it is not unusual for baby girls fed soy-based formulas to develop breast buds as young as two years of age.
As noted in the research above, obesity and just being overweight, along with lack of exercise, also contributes to the initiation of early puberty.
http://healthtip.hacres.com/index.php/2011/01/22/girls-reaching-puberty-as-young-as-age-7?utm_source=eblast&utm_medium=email&utm_content=update&utm_campaign=health-tip
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Vegetarian truths empower (the myths of going vegetarian)
Saturday, January 15, 2011 by: Duran Rivera, citizen journalist
(NaturalNews) By the day, more people are becoming aware of the dangers of a traditional diet and have taken responsibility for their diets. They do so only to be told by well-intentioned peers and "people in the know" that abstaining from meat while being an athlete is not wise. The story has been told over and over again, "Humans are meat eaters- that's what we do!" Well, we're just going to set these facts straight and put these myths to rest once and for all.
YOU CAN'T HAVE ENOUGH PROTEIN IF YOU DON'T EAT MEAT
This myth tops them all. Many believe that 1-gram of protein is needed per pound! Well, 5-8% of fruits' calories are protein; vegetables and darker greens contain 20-50%; and sprouted seeds/nuts contain 10-25%. So, Lettuce gets 34%, while Broccoli and Spinach get 45% and 49% respectfully. Beams range from 23-54%. Most people on a standard meat diet are actually protein deficient. Hemp seeds, macca powder, quinoa, flax, spirulina, greens and sprouts- all super foods are high in protein.
YOU CAN'T GAIN MUSCLE BEING ON A VEGAN/VEGETARIAN DIET
Wrong again. Actually, eating meats can slow down your metabolism because they take lots of energy to digest. Vegetarians actually grow muscle mass at a faster rate with a diet of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Vegetarian body building means being creative with meals to ensure you have plenty of vitamins and minerals.
HUMANS ARE DESIGNED TO EAT MEAT
False once again. We are more designed like herbivores than carnivores or omnivores. Our teeth, saliva, stomach acid and intestines are similar to plant-eaters. Fossil records show that our ancestors were exclusively vegetarian. Primates are 95-99% vegetarian. Their main non-plant food is termites. B12 is missing from a vegetarian diet not because we need meat. Any food that gets dirty develops B12 from bacteria. Lack of B12 comes from our cleaner modern diet. We get our B12 from meat because it's dirty. And our need for B12 is tiny, 3 micograms (not micrograms) a day- akin to four grains of rice in our lifetime. Our jaws are made to grind; carnivores' are not. Our jaws have molars like herbivores; carnivores' do not.
QUICK COMPARISON:
Cats, who are carnivores, compared to herbivores and humans:
Cat: sharp, pointed front teeth to tear flesh.
Herbivores/Humans: no sharp, pointed front teeth.
Cat: no flat back molar teeth to grind food.
Herbivores/Humans: flat, back molar teeth to grind food.
Cat: small salivary glands in the mouth (not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits). Herbivores/Humans: well-developed salivary glands, needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Cat: acid saliva; no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains.
Herbivores/Humans: alkaline saliva; much ptyalin to pre-digest grains.
Cat: strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest tough animal muscle, bone, etc.
Herbivore/Human: stomach acid 20 times weaker than that of meat-eaters.
Cat: intestinal tract only 3 times body length, so rapidly decaying meat can pass out of body quickly.
Herbivores/Humans: intestinal tract several times body length. (4)
EATING MEAT IS GOOD FOR YOU
The medical evidence is irrefutable and builds up by the day. Medical studies show that eating meat ends up contributing to heart disease, cancer, erectile dysfunction, diabetes, and other degenerative diseases. Dean Ornish, M.D. was the first person to prove that heart disease can be reversed, and he did so by feeding his patients a vegetarian diet. So if meat is so natural to people why does it kill us? Studies after studies have shown that we are not designed to eat meat. We get sick when we do. (5)
Sources:
(1) http://www.nutritionresource.com/ar...
(2)http://www.wellsphere.com/wellpage/...
(3) http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natur...
(4) http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdo...
(5) http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/he...
About the author
Duran Rivera is a freelance writer and artist. He received a bachelors in illustration from Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City. He's also an avid health practitioner working on empowering himself mentally, physically and spiritually. You can contact him at duran.r.rivera@gmail.com or follow more of his articles at www.duranrivera.com.
Articles Related to This Article:
• Processed Meat Unsafe For Human Consumption; Cancer Experts Warn of Dietary Dangers
• Artificial meat would be a preferable alternative to the cruelty and environmental impact of factory farms
• The Energetic Contamination of Beef Products (Transcript)
• Eating Meat Kills More People Than Previously Thought
• Red meat consumption doubles risk of colon cancer, says study; is it time to go vegetarian yet?
• Why Kosher Meat Is a Healthier Alternative
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)
Related CounterThink Cartoons:
Related Articles:
• Processed Meat Unsafe For Human Consumption; Cancer Experts Warn of Dietary Dangers
• Artificial meat would be a preferable alternative to the cruelty and environmental impact of factory farms
• The Energetic Contamination of Beef Products (Transcript)
• Eating Meat Kills More People Than Previously Thought
• Red meat consumption doubles risk of colon cancer, says study; is it time to go vegetarian yet?
• Why Kosher Meat Is a Healthier Alternative
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com
Email this article to a friend
Share this article on: NewsVine | digg | del.icio.us
Permalink to this article:
Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.
Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031012_vegetarian_diet.html#ixzz1Be0VbT2n
(NaturalNews) By the day, more people are becoming aware of the dangers of a traditional diet and have taken responsibility for their diets. They do so only to be told by well-intentioned peers and "people in the know" that abstaining from meat while being an athlete is not wise. The story has been told over and over again, "Humans are meat eaters- that's what we do!" Well, we're just going to set these facts straight and put these myths to rest once and for all.
YOU CAN'T HAVE ENOUGH PROTEIN IF YOU DON'T EAT MEAT
This myth tops them all. Many believe that 1-gram of protein is needed per pound! Well, 5-8% of fruits' calories are protein; vegetables and darker greens contain 20-50%; and sprouted seeds/nuts contain 10-25%. So, Lettuce gets 34%, while Broccoli and Spinach get 45% and 49% respectfully. Beams range from 23-54%. Most people on a standard meat diet are actually protein deficient. Hemp seeds, macca powder, quinoa, flax, spirulina, greens and sprouts- all super foods are high in protein.
YOU CAN'T GAIN MUSCLE BEING ON A VEGAN/VEGETARIAN DIET
Wrong again. Actually, eating meats can slow down your metabolism because they take lots of energy to digest. Vegetarians actually grow muscle mass at a faster rate with a diet of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. Vegetarian body building means being creative with meals to ensure you have plenty of vitamins and minerals.
HUMANS ARE DESIGNED TO EAT MEAT
False once again. We are more designed like herbivores than carnivores or omnivores. Our teeth, saliva, stomach acid and intestines are similar to plant-eaters. Fossil records show that our ancestors were exclusively vegetarian. Primates are 95-99% vegetarian. Their main non-plant food is termites. B12 is missing from a vegetarian diet not because we need meat. Any food that gets dirty develops B12 from bacteria. Lack of B12 comes from our cleaner modern diet. We get our B12 from meat because it's dirty. And our need for B12 is tiny, 3 micograms (not micrograms) a day- akin to four grains of rice in our lifetime. Our jaws are made to grind; carnivores' are not. Our jaws have molars like herbivores; carnivores' do not.
QUICK COMPARISON:
Cats, who are carnivores, compared to herbivores and humans:
Cat: sharp, pointed front teeth to tear flesh.
Herbivores/Humans: no sharp, pointed front teeth.
Cat: no flat back molar teeth to grind food.
Herbivores/Humans: flat, back molar teeth to grind food.
Cat: small salivary glands in the mouth (not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits). Herbivores/Humans: well-developed salivary glands, needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Cat: acid saliva; no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains.
Herbivores/Humans: alkaline saliva; much ptyalin to pre-digest grains.
Cat: strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest tough animal muscle, bone, etc.
Herbivore/Human: stomach acid 20 times weaker than that of meat-eaters.
Cat: intestinal tract only 3 times body length, so rapidly decaying meat can pass out of body quickly.
Herbivores/Humans: intestinal tract several times body length. (4)
EATING MEAT IS GOOD FOR YOU
The medical evidence is irrefutable and builds up by the day. Medical studies show that eating meat ends up contributing to heart disease, cancer, erectile dysfunction, diabetes, and other degenerative diseases. Dean Ornish, M.D. was the first person to prove that heart disease can be reversed, and he did so by feeding his patients a vegetarian diet. So if meat is so natural to people why does it kill us? Studies after studies have shown that we are not designed to eat meat. We get sick when we do. (5)
Sources:
(1) http://www.nutritionresource.com/ar...
(2)http://www.wellsphere.com/wellpage/...
(3) http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natur...
(4) http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdo...
(5) http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/he...
About the author
Duran Rivera is a freelance writer and artist. He received a bachelors in illustration from Fashion Institute of Technology in New York City. He's also an avid health practitioner working on empowering himself mentally, physically and spiritually. You can contact him at duran.r.rivera@gmail.com or follow more of his articles at www.duranrivera.com.
Articles Related to This Article:
• Processed Meat Unsafe For Human Consumption; Cancer Experts Warn of Dietary Dangers
• Artificial meat would be a preferable alternative to the cruelty and environmental impact of factory farms
• The Energetic Contamination of Beef Products (Transcript)
• Eating Meat Kills More People Than Previously Thought
• Red meat consumption doubles risk of colon cancer, says study; is it time to go vegetarian yet?
• Why Kosher Meat Is a Healthier Alternative
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)
Related CounterThink Cartoons:
Related Articles:
• Processed Meat Unsafe For Human Consumption; Cancer Experts Warn of Dietary Dangers
• Artificial meat would be a preferable alternative to the cruelty and environmental impact of factory farms
• The Energetic Contamination of Beef Products (Transcript)
• Eating Meat Kills More People Than Previously Thought
• Red meat consumption doubles risk of colon cancer, says study; is it time to go vegetarian yet?
• Why Kosher Meat Is a Healthier Alternative
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com
Email this article to a friend
Share this article on: NewsVine | digg | del.icio.us
Permalink to this article:
Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.
Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031012_vegetarian_diet.html#ixzz1Be0VbT2n
Breast cancer breakthrough: vitamin D in combination with sun exposure is key to prevention
Tuesday, January 18, 2011 by: S. L. Baker, features writer
(NaturalNews) As NaturalNews has covered for years, researchers have found a profound link between breast cancer and low levels of vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/023264_V...). Women with the lowest blood levels have the highest breast cancer risk and those dying of metastasized disease are the most vitamin D deficient of all. Scientists have theorized vitamin D has anti-cancer properties that influence cell growth, healthy cell differentiation and programmed cell death (apoptosis).
However, when researchers have looked only at levels of dietary vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk, their findings have been sometimes inconsistent. So what is going on here? Does vitamin D definitely have the potential to prevent breast malignancies or not? A large and potentially groundbreaking French study appears to have the answer: the key to breast cancer prevention may well be taking higher amounts of vitamin D through diet and supplements combined with regular, direct sunshine exposure.
The new research, headed by Dr. Pierre Engel from INSERM (Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, which is France's equivalent to the National Institutes of Health in the U.S.), investigated data combined from a large, decade long study involving 67,721 post-menopausal French women. The analysis came up with clear, startling evidence that while vitamin D plays a role in reducing the risk of breast cancer, the addition of adequate sunshine exposure is the factor that substantially drops the risk even more.
The scientists found that women living in the sunniest places in the south of France, such as Provence, had only about half the risk of breast cancer of women residing in less sunny latitudes, such as Paris. Even women who had the lowest vitamin D intake but who got lots of sunshine had a 32 percent lower risk of breast cancer than their counterparts living in less sunny latitudes of France. What's more, the women who consumed the most dietary vitamin D from foods and supplements and who had regular, generous sun exposure had the most significant protection from developing breast cancer.
In their research paper, which was just published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, the French team concluded that a minimum threshold of vitamin D obtained from both sunshine and diet "..is required to prevent breast cancer and this threshold is particularly difficult to reach in postmenopausal women at northern latitudes where quality of sunlight is too poor for adequate vitamin D production."
They also noted that the minimal intake of vitamin D to reduce the risk of breast cancer is likely to vary with an individual woman's ability to metabolize or synthesize the vitamin from both diet and sunshine exposure. Adding that the average American and French woman has relative low levels of vitamin D and tends to get little exposure to sunshine, the scientists recommended "...an increase in overall vitamin D intake should be encouraged by food and health agencies."
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Articles Related to This Article:
• Vitamin D Halts Growth of Breast Cancer Tumors
• Vitamin D is nutritional key for prevention of breast cancer
• Vitamin D prevents breast cancer
• Vitamin D prevents heart disease
• It's Winter - Do You Know Where Your Vitamin D Is?
• Sunlight emerging as proven treatment for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other cancers
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)
Related CounterThink Cartoons:
Related Articles:
• Vitamin D Halts Growth of Breast Cancer Tumors
• Vitamin D is nutritional key for prevention of breast cancer
• Vitamin D prevents breast cancer
• Vitamin D prevents heart disease
• It's Winter - Do You Know Where Your Vitamin D Is?
• Sunlight emerging as proven treatment for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other cancers
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com
Email this article to a friend
Share this article on: NewsVine | digg | del.icio.us
Permalink to this article:
Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.
Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):
http://www.naturalnews.com/031042_breast_cancer_sunshine.html
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031042_breast_cancer_sunshine.html#ixzz1BdtKwF00
(NaturalNews) As NaturalNews has covered for years, researchers have found a profound link between breast cancer and low levels of vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/023264_V...). Women with the lowest blood levels have the highest breast cancer risk and those dying of metastasized disease are the most vitamin D deficient of all. Scientists have theorized vitamin D has anti-cancer properties that influence cell growth, healthy cell differentiation and programmed cell death (apoptosis).
However, when researchers have looked only at levels of dietary vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk, their findings have been sometimes inconsistent. So what is going on here? Does vitamin D definitely have the potential to prevent breast malignancies or not? A large and potentially groundbreaking French study appears to have the answer: the key to breast cancer prevention may well be taking higher amounts of vitamin D through diet and supplements combined with regular, direct sunshine exposure.
The new research, headed by Dr. Pierre Engel from INSERM (Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale, which is France's equivalent to the National Institutes of Health in the U.S.), investigated data combined from a large, decade long study involving 67,721 post-menopausal French women. The analysis came up with clear, startling evidence that while vitamin D plays a role in reducing the risk of breast cancer, the addition of adequate sunshine exposure is the factor that substantially drops the risk even more.
The scientists found that women living in the sunniest places in the south of France, such as Provence, had only about half the risk of breast cancer of women residing in less sunny latitudes, such as Paris. Even women who had the lowest vitamin D intake but who got lots of sunshine had a 32 percent lower risk of breast cancer than their counterparts living in less sunny latitudes of France. What's more, the women who consumed the most dietary vitamin D from foods and supplements and who had regular, generous sun exposure had the most significant protection from developing breast cancer.
In their research paper, which was just published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, the French team concluded that a minimum threshold of vitamin D obtained from both sunshine and diet "..is required to prevent breast cancer and this threshold is particularly difficult to reach in postmenopausal women at northern latitudes where quality of sunlight is too poor for adequate vitamin D production."
They also noted that the minimal intake of vitamin D to reduce the risk of breast cancer is likely to vary with an individual woman's ability to metabolize or synthesize the vitamin from both diet and sunshine exposure. Adding that the average American and French woman has relative low levels of vitamin D and tends to get little exposure to sunshine, the scientists recommended "...an increase in overall vitamin D intake should be encouraged by food and health agencies."
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
Articles Related to This Article:
• Vitamin D Halts Growth of Breast Cancer Tumors
• Vitamin D is nutritional key for prevention of breast cancer
• Vitamin D prevents breast cancer
• Vitamin D prevents heart disease
• It's Winter - Do You Know Where Your Vitamin D Is?
• Sunlight emerging as proven treatment for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other cancers
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)
Related CounterThink Cartoons:
Related Articles:
• Vitamin D Halts Growth of Breast Cancer Tumors
• Vitamin D is nutritional key for prevention of breast cancer
• Vitamin D prevents breast cancer
• Vitamin D prevents heart disease
• It's Winter - Do You Know Where Your Vitamin D Is?
• Sunlight emerging as proven treatment for breast cancer, prostate cancer and other cancers
Take Action: Support NaturalNews.com
Email this article to a friend
Share this article on: NewsVine | digg | del.icio.us
Permalink to this article:
Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.
Embed article link: (copy HTML code below):
http://www.naturalnews.com/031042_breast_cancer_sunshine.html
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031042_breast_cancer_sunshine.html#ixzz1BdtKwF00
MRI scans lead to unnecessary breast cancer surgery
Thursday, January 13, 2011 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer
(NaturalNews) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the breasts are so sensitive that they detect large numbers of non-cancerous tumors and lead to unnecessary breast removal surgeries, according to an editorial by surgeon Malcom Kell in the British Medical Journal.
Regular, x-ray-based mammograms have drawn criticism in recent years for their high rate of false positive results - the detection of benign tumors - leading to anxiety in patients and a higher rate of invasive and potentially dangerous procedures such as biopsies and even cancer treatment.
"Women who underwent a surgical biopsy as the result of a false positive mammogram screening 'were more likely to report their work-up as a stressful experience than those who did not have a biopsy.' So wrote members of the 1996 Task Force, in a statement of the obvious," write Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea in their book What If Medicine Disappeared?
"This anxiety persisted long after the positive test was identified as false."
Magnetic resonance mammography (MRM) is even more sensitive than standard mammography, and is increasingly being offered to young women who have been judged at high genetic risk for breast cancer. According to a study in The Lancet, MRM detects 92 percent of early breast lesions, while x-ray mammograms detect only 56 percent.
But not all lesions lead to cancer. Indeed, the only major study of MRM use in early cancer detection found that women who used MRM screening had the same risk of cancer recurrence as women who had not used the devices. Breast surgeon Kefah Mokbel of the London Breast Institute estimates that MRMs have a false positive rate of roughly 25 percent.
Even more alarming is evidence that false positives are leading to unnecessary breast removal (mastectomy) surgeries. The same Lancet study found that mastectomy rates were seven times higher among MRM patients than among those not undergoing that type of screening.
"[There is] no compelling evidence that this technique should be routinely used in newly diagnosed breast cancer," Kell said.
To learn more about how to prevent breast cancer and the risks of excessive screening, read the free NaturalNews.com report Breast Cancer Deception at http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_B....
Sources for this story include:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8... http://www.webmd.boots.com/breast-c....
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030992_MRI_scans_surgery.html#ixzz1Be3fYJpT
(NaturalNews) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the breasts are so sensitive that they detect large numbers of non-cancerous tumors and lead to unnecessary breast removal surgeries, according to an editorial by surgeon Malcom Kell in the British Medical Journal.
Regular, x-ray-based mammograms have drawn criticism in recent years for their high rate of false positive results - the detection of benign tumors - leading to anxiety in patients and a higher rate of invasive and potentially dangerous procedures such as biopsies and even cancer treatment.
"Women who underwent a surgical biopsy as the result of a false positive mammogram screening 'were more likely to report their work-up as a stressful experience than those who did not have a biopsy.' So wrote members of the 1996 Task Force, in a statement of the obvious," write Gerald E. Markle and Frances B. McCrea in their book What If Medicine Disappeared?
"This anxiety persisted long after the positive test was identified as false."
Magnetic resonance mammography (MRM) is even more sensitive than standard mammography, and is increasingly being offered to young women who have been judged at high genetic risk for breast cancer. According to a study in The Lancet, MRM detects 92 percent of early breast lesions, while x-ray mammograms detect only 56 percent.
But not all lesions lead to cancer. Indeed, the only major study of MRM use in early cancer detection found that women who used MRM screening had the same risk of cancer recurrence as women who had not used the devices. Breast surgeon Kefah Mokbel of the London Breast Institute estimates that MRMs have a false positive rate of roughly 25 percent.
Even more alarming is evidence that false positives are leading to unnecessary breast removal (mastectomy) surgeries. The same Lancet study found that mastectomy rates were seven times higher among MRM patients than among those not undergoing that type of screening.
"[There is] no compelling evidence that this technique should be routinely used in newly diagnosed breast cancer," Kell said.
To learn more about how to prevent breast cancer and the risks of excessive screening, read the free NaturalNews.com report Breast Cancer Deception at http://www.naturalnews.com/Report_B....
Sources for this story include:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8... http://www.webmd.boots.com/breast-c....
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030992_MRI_scans_surgery.html#ixzz1Be3fYJpT
Thursday, January 20, 2011
'Kangaroo' Alternative to Incubators for Preemies
Posted By Dr. Mercola | December 30 2010 |
Sometimes, advances don't come from looking ahead, but from looking back.
When the Mother and Child Institute in Bogota, Colombia, found itself short on doctors, nurses, and incubators, Dr. Edgar Rey decided to try something new -- or rather, something old.
What he came up with is known as "kangaroo care." In this system, the mother of a premature infant puts the baby on her exposed chest.
The baby is dressed only in a diaper and sometimes a cap, is kept in an upright or semi-upright position, and has all but its head covered by its mother's shirt.
The baby's temperature is regulated by the sympathetic biological responses that occur when a mother and infant are in close physical contact -- the mother's breasts actually heat up or cool down.
According to the New York Times:
"Kangaroo care has been widely studied. A trial in a Bogota hospital of 746 low birth weight babies randomly assigned to either kangaroo or conventional incubator care found that the kangaroo babies had shorter hospital stays, better growth of head circumference and fewer severe infections ...
A conservative summary of the evidence to date is that kangaroo care is at least as good as conventional treatment -- and perhaps better."
In related news, the FDA has issued a warning against breast milk sharing -- breast milk obtained, often over the Internet, from mothers who have a surplus.
Sources:
New York Times December 13, 2010
CNN December 13, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Kangaroo care is a somewhat new name for a very old tradition, one that has been followed instinctively by women across the globe since the beginning of time. Namely, it refers to holding a newborn, including those born prematurely, close to its mother's bare chest, like a kangaroo holds its joey in its pouch.
Although it's been used for centuries, the modern-day method is credited to Dr. Edgar Rey, the chief of the pediatrics department at the Mother and Child Institute in Bogota, Colombia, who began using kangaroo care in the 1970s because of a shortage of incubators.
Since then, such skin-to-skin contact has proven to be incredibly beneficial for newborns, so much so that in hospitals where incubators are in short supply using kangaroo care has increased low birth weight babies' survival rates from 10 percent to 50 percent, and larger babies' survival rates from 70 percent to 90 percent.
The Benefits of Skin-to-Skin Contact for Newborns
Quite simply, skin-to-skin contact is probably one of the most important steps you can take to give your baby a healthy start right after birth. Just take a few minutes to watch the video below and you'll see that skin-to-skin contact can actually make the difference between life and death.
When a mother holds her newborn against her bare skin:
The baby's temperature is regulated by the close contact -- in fact, a woman's breasts will change in temperature depending on whether the baby needs more or less warmth.
The mother's breathing and heartbeat helps the baby's heart and respiratory rates to stabilize.
The mother produces more milk and the baby breastfeeds earlier, gaining more weight.
Emotional bonding is encouraged.
Babies who receive kangaroo care also show:
Gains in sleep time
Decreased crying
More successful breastfeeding
Improved oxygen saturation levels
More regular breathing patterns
More rapid weight gain
Earlier hospital discharge
As the New York Times reported, in one trial of nearly 750 low birth weight babies, those who received kangaroo care had shorter hospital stays, better growth of head circumference and fewer severe infections than babies placed in incubators.
A separate study also revealed that when mothers initiated skin-to-skin contact with their newborns 15 to 20 minutes after birth, the infants slept longer and more peacefully, using positions that indicated less stress.
After the contact ended, the effects of the skin-to-skin contact seemed to continue even four hours later, as the babies displayed less stressful body movements after spending several hours in the nursery.
The researchers suggested that the most dangerous and stressful events that occur during the human life cycle take place during the transition from the womb to the real world, therefore mothers who made a point of giving their infants skin-to-skin contact would help their newborn adjust to their new unfamiliar surroundings.
Kangaroo Care Encourages Breastfeeding
Outside of the temperature and breathing regulation, as well as the emotional benefits, one of the best reasons to use kangaroo care is that it increases the likelihood of successful breastfeeding.
This is important as breastfeeding offers your child lifelong health benefits, not only cutting their risk of SIDS in half, but also providing added protection against:
Heart disease
Bowel diseases such as Crohn's disease
Asthma, allergies, and respiratory infections
Type 1 and type 2 diabetes
Eczema
Moms who use kangaroo care have increased milk supply and their babies have an easier time nursing, so it's a simple way to encourage a positive, successful breastfeeding experience.
If Your Hospital Doesn't Suggest Kangaroo Care, Ask for It
Or rather, demand it. Many U.S. hospitals are now using some form of kangaroo care, even in their NICUs, but it is far from a standard of care. As a new parent, be sure you make it clear that you want to spend as much time as possible engaging in skin-to-skin contact with your newborn, including, and especially, if your baby is born premature.
Whether you are giving birth in a hospital or at home, let your obstetrician or midwife, as well as the nursing staff, know that you want the baby placed on your chest immediately after delivery. And for those who are wondering, dads can take part in kangaroo care, too.
The process is actually incredibly simple. Place the baby, wearing only a diaper and if you like a hat, on your bare chest. Then cover the baby with a blanket or gown, and enjoy the bonding time together.
And that's all there is to it. A simple and instinctive practice that will give both you and baby a warm, secure start to your new life together.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/30/kangaroo-alternative-to-dangerous-incubators-for-preemies.aspx
Sometimes, advances don't come from looking ahead, but from looking back.
When the Mother and Child Institute in Bogota, Colombia, found itself short on doctors, nurses, and incubators, Dr. Edgar Rey decided to try something new -- or rather, something old.
What he came up with is known as "kangaroo care." In this system, the mother of a premature infant puts the baby on her exposed chest.
The baby is dressed only in a diaper and sometimes a cap, is kept in an upright or semi-upright position, and has all but its head covered by its mother's shirt.
The baby's temperature is regulated by the sympathetic biological responses that occur when a mother and infant are in close physical contact -- the mother's breasts actually heat up or cool down.
According to the New York Times:
"Kangaroo care has been widely studied. A trial in a Bogota hospital of 746 low birth weight babies randomly assigned to either kangaroo or conventional incubator care found that the kangaroo babies had shorter hospital stays, better growth of head circumference and fewer severe infections ...
A conservative summary of the evidence to date is that kangaroo care is at least as good as conventional treatment -- and perhaps better."
In related news, the FDA has issued a warning against breast milk sharing -- breast milk obtained, often over the Internet, from mothers who have a surplus.
Sources:
New York Times December 13, 2010
CNN December 13, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Kangaroo care is a somewhat new name for a very old tradition, one that has been followed instinctively by women across the globe since the beginning of time. Namely, it refers to holding a newborn, including those born prematurely, close to its mother's bare chest, like a kangaroo holds its joey in its pouch.
Although it's been used for centuries, the modern-day method is credited to Dr. Edgar Rey, the chief of the pediatrics department at the Mother and Child Institute in Bogota, Colombia, who began using kangaroo care in the 1970s because of a shortage of incubators.
Since then, such skin-to-skin contact has proven to be incredibly beneficial for newborns, so much so that in hospitals where incubators are in short supply using kangaroo care has increased low birth weight babies' survival rates from 10 percent to 50 percent, and larger babies' survival rates from 70 percent to 90 percent.
The Benefits of Skin-to-Skin Contact for Newborns
Quite simply, skin-to-skin contact is probably one of the most important steps you can take to give your baby a healthy start right after birth. Just take a few minutes to watch the video below and you'll see that skin-to-skin contact can actually make the difference between life and death.
When a mother holds her newborn against her bare skin:
The baby's temperature is regulated by the close contact -- in fact, a woman's breasts will change in temperature depending on whether the baby needs more or less warmth.
The mother's breathing and heartbeat helps the baby's heart and respiratory rates to stabilize.
The mother produces more milk and the baby breastfeeds earlier, gaining more weight.
Emotional bonding is encouraged.
Babies who receive kangaroo care also show:
Gains in sleep time
Decreased crying
More successful breastfeeding
Improved oxygen saturation levels
More regular breathing patterns
More rapid weight gain
Earlier hospital discharge
As the New York Times reported, in one trial of nearly 750 low birth weight babies, those who received kangaroo care had shorter hospital stays, better growth of head circumference and fewer severe infections than babies placed in incubators.
A separate study also revealed that when mothers initiated skin-to-skin contact with their newborns 15 to 20 minutes after birth, the infants slept longer and more peacefully, using positions that indicated less stress.
After the contact ended, the effects of the skin-to-skin contact seemed to continue even four hours later, as the babies displayed less stressful body movements after spending several hours in the nursery.
The researchers suggested that the most dangerous and stressful events that occur during the human life cycle take place during the transition from the womb to the real world, therefore mothers who made a point of giving their infants skin-to-skin contact would help their newborn adjust to their new unfamiliar surroundings.
Kangaroo Care Encourages Breastfeeding
Outside of the temperature and breathing regulation, as well as the emotional benefits, one of the best reasons to use kangaroo care is that it increases the likelihood of successful breastfeeding.
This is important as breastfeeding offers your child lifelong health benefits, not only cutting their risk of SIDS in half, but also providing added protection against:
Heart disease
Bowel diseases such as Crohn's disease
Asthma, allergies, and respiratory infections
Type 1 and type 2 diabetes
Eczema
Moms who use kangaroo care have increased milk supply and their babies have an easier time nursing, so it's a simple way to encourage a positive, successful breastfeeding experience.
If Your Hospital Doesn't Suggest Kangaroo Care, Ask for It
Or rather, demand it. Many U.S. hospitals are now using some form of kangaroo care, even in their NICUs, but it is far from a standard of care. As a new parent, be sure you make it clear that you want to spend as much time as possible engaging in skin-to-skin contact with your newborn, including, and especially, if your baby is born premature.
Whether you are giving birth in a hospital or at home, let your obstetrician or midwife, as well as the nursing staff, know that you want the baby placed on your chest immediately after delivery. And for those who are wondering, dads can take part in kangaroo care, too.
The process is actually incredibly simple. Place the baby, wearing only a diaper and if you like a hat, on your bare chest. Then cover the baby with a blanket or gown, and enjoy the bonding time together.
And that's all there is to it. A simple and instinctive practice that will give both you and baby a warm, secure start to your new life together.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/12/30/kangaroo-alternative-to-dangerous-incubators-for-preemies.aspx
Probable Carcinogen in Tap Water of 31 U.S. Cities
Note from Miriam:
I have a fabulous wholehouse water filter on my house, but I still purify and revitalize the water even further. It's a must if you are not drinking pure spring water.
------------------------------------------
Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 04 2011 |
A new analysis has shown the presence of hexavalent chromium, a probable carcinogen, in the tap water of 31 cities across the U.S. Bottled water may not be an alternative, because it is often drawn from municipal water systems and can still contain hexavalent chromium or other contaminants.
Basic water filters do not remove hexavalent chromium. However, reverse-osmosis systems designed for home use can take the chemical out of water.
The Washington Post reports:
"The analysis, released ... by the Environmental Working Group, is the first nationwide look at hexavalent chromium in drinking water to be made public.
The advocacy group sampled tap water from 35 cities and detected hexavalent chromium in 31 of those communities. Of those, 25 had levels that were higher than a health goal proposed last year by the state of California."
Sources:
Washington Post December 20, 2010
Environmental Working Group Chromium VI Executive Summary
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Hexavalent chromium (also known as chromium-6) is classified as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Yet, despite its known toxicity no legal limit for the cancer-causing chemical in drinking water has been set.
The chemical, it seems, has been flying beneath the regulatory radar for some time, and it was just last year that California took the first step toward establishing a statewide enforceable limit, setting a proposed public health goal of 0.06 parts per billion of chromium-6 in drinking water.
Now, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has also released a report that found 89 percent of cities sampled had chromium-6 in their drinking water, and some, like Norman, Oklahoma, contain it at more than 200 times California's proposed safe limit.
A History of Fraud and Deception
Chromium-6 is most widely known as the chemical featured in the 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich." Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) of Hinkley, California was accused of contaminating groundwater supplies with chromium-6 for more than three decades, and eventually paid $333 million in damages in 1996 for the contamination.
However, this was not before trying their best to cover up the serious nature of the contamination. As EWG reported:
"A 2005 Wall Street Journal investigation and a separate EWG report based on court documents and depositions from a similar lawsuit in Kettleman City, Calif. revealed that PG&E had hired consultants to publish a fraudulent analysis of cancer mortality in Chinese villagers exposed to hexavalent chromium, in an attempt to disprove the link between the chemical and cancer.
The study was published in the respected Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and scientists and regulators — including the EPA — cited the fraudulent article in research and safety assessments. The journal retracted the paper in 2006 in response to EWG's request for corrective action."
After re-assessing the data, California officials later found a significant increase in stomach cancer in those exposed, and then, in 2007, a study by the National Toxicology Program found that the chemical in drinking water increases the risk of gastrointestinal tumors in animals.
Although hexavalent chromium can get into groundwater from the erosion of soil and rock, it is a common pollutant from steel and pulp mills, as well as metal-plating and leather tanning facilities. As a result, industry has been fighting against state-mandated regulation of the chemical in drinking water, and as no limit has yet been set, many Americans' health may be at risk.
Is the "Erin Brockovich Chemical" Putting Your Health at Risk?
"At least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink chromium-polluted tap water, much of it likely in the form of cancer-causing hexavalent chromium," EWG reported in their executive summary.
They found the chemical in 31 of 35 cities tested, and noted that annual water quality reports from all cities tested regularly reported finding chromium in their water supplies, even using equipment that is far less sensitive than that used by EWG for the study. This means the total number of Americans at risk from this cancer-causing chemical may be much higher than the EWG report showed.
The trouble is, chromium-6 is only one contaminant you should be concerned about in your drinking water. The truth is, most public water supplies are loaded with hazardous contaminants, such as disinfection byproducts, fluoride, and pharmaceutical drugs, to name just a few. And there's no telling what health problems these tap water toxins will impact your health with after a lifetime of exposure.
Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States. Government and independent scientists have linked many of these chemicals to cancer and other health risks, but regulators are not taking steps to make sure your drinking water is safe.
Further, bottled water is NOT a safe alternative as it's often drawn from the same municipal water systems as tap water, which means it often still contains chromium-6 and other toxins found in public water supplies.
What's the Best Option for Safe, Pure Water?
You need to make water your beverage of choice if you want to be healthy -- but it should be purified water, and by this I do NOT mean bottled water from your supermarket.
One of the best alternatives to the tap may be finding a gravity-fed raw spring in your area. This water is naturally filtered by the earth and it is not pasteurized or heated like nearly all commercial bottled waters.
Natural spring water is "living water," in the same way that raw food is "living food," which is why it's some of the most healthful water on the planet.
Now, before you dismiss this idea because you think there are no such springs in your neck of the woods, there is a Web site called FindaSpring.com that will help you find a spring in your area. Typically they are even monitored by the local municipalities for contaminants.
The next best option is to filter the water that comes out of your tap, but there are benefits and drawbacks to virtually every water filtration system on the market. Currently I use a whole house carbon-based water filtration system, and prior to this I used reverse osmosis (RO) to purify my water.
You can read my latest article on water filtration here to help you make a decision about what type of water filtration system will be best for you and your family. Since most water sources are now severely polluted, the issue of water filtration and purification couldn't be more important.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/04/probable-carcinogen-in-tap-water-of-31-us-cities.aspx
I have a fabulous wholehouse water filter on my house, but I still purify and revitalize the water even further. It's a must if you are not drinking pure spring water.
------------------------------------------
Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 04 2011 |
A new analysis has shown the presence of hexavalent chromium, a probable carcinogen, in the tap water of 31 cities across the U.S. Bottled water may not be an alternative, because it is often drawn from municipal water systems and can still contain hexavalent chromium or other contaminants.
Basic water filters do not remove hexavalent chromium. However, reverse-osmosis systems designed for home use can take the chemical out of water.
The Washington Post reports:
"The analysis, released ... by the Environmental Working Group, is the first nationwide look at hexavalent chromium in drinking water to be made public.
The advocacy group sampled tap water from 35 cities and detected hexavalent chromium in 31 of those communities. Of those, 25 had levels that were higher than a health goal proposed last year by the state of California."
Sources:
Washington Post December 20, 2010
Environmental Working Group Chromium VI Executive Summary
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Hexavalent chromium (also known as chromium-6) is classified as "likely to be carcinogenic to humans" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Yet, despite its known toxicity no legal limit for the cancer-causing chemical in drinking water has been set.
The chemical, it seems, has been flying beneath the regulatory radar for some time, and it was just last year that California took the first step toward establishing a statewide enforceable limit, setting a proposed public health goal of 0.06 parts per billion of chromium-6 in drinking water.
Now, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has also released a report that found 89 percent of cities sampled had chromium-6 in their drinking water, and some, like Norman, Oklahoma, contain it at more than 200 times California's proposed safe limit.
A History of Fraud and Deception
Chromium-6 is most widely known as the chemical featured in the 2000 movie "Erin Brockovich." Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) of Hinkley, California was accused of contaminating groundwater supplies with chromium-6 for more than three decades, and eventually paid $333 million in damages in 1996 for the contamination.
However, this was not before trying their best to cover up the serious nature of the contamination. As EWG reported:
"A 2005 Wall Street Journal investigation and a separate EWG report based on court documents and depositions from a similar lawsuit in Kettleman City, Calif. revealed that PG&E had hired consultants to publish a fraudulent analysis of cancer mortality in Chinese villagers exposed to hexavalent chromium, in an attempt to disprove the link between the chemical and cancer.
The study was published in the respected Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, and scientists and regulators — including the EPA — cited the fraudulent article in research and safety assessments. The journal retracted the paper in 2006 in response to EWG's request for corrective action."
After re-assessing the data, California officials later found a significant increase in stomach cancer in those exposed, and then, in 2007, a study by the National Toxicology Program found that the chemical in drinking water increases the risk of gastrointestinal tumors in animals.
Although hexavalent chromium can get into groundwater from the erosion of soil and rock, it is a common pollutant from steel and pulp mills, as well as metal-plating and leather tanning facilities. As a result, industry has been fighting against state-mandated regulation of the chemical in drinking water, and as no limit has yet been set, many Americans' health may be at risk.
Is the "Erin Brockovich Chemical" Putting Your Health at Risk?
"At least 74 million Americans in 42 states drink chromium-polluted tap water, much of it likely in the form of cancer-causing hexavalent chromium," EWG reported in their executive summary.
They found the chemical in 31 of 35 cities tested, and noted that annual water quality reports from all cities tested regularly reported finding chromium in their water supplies, even using equipment that is far less sensitive than that used by EWG for the study. This means the total number of Americans at risk from this cancer-causing chemical may be much higher than the EWG report showed.
The trouble is, chromium-6 is only one contaminant you should be concerned about in your drinking water. The truth is, most public water supplies are loaded with hazardous contaminants, such as disinfection byproducts, fluoride, and pharmaceutical drugs, to name just a few. And there's no telling what health problems these tap water toxins will impact your health with after a lifetime of exposure.
Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States. Government and independent scientists have linked many of these chemicals to cancer and other health risks, but regulators are not taking steps to make sure your drinking water is safe.
Further, bottled water is NOT a safe alternative as it's often drawn from the same municipal water systems as tap water, which means it often still contains chromium-6 and other toxins found in public water supplies.
What's the Best Option for Safe, Pure Water?
You need to make water your beverage of choice if you want to be healthy -- but it should be purified water, and by this I do NOT mean bottled water from your supermarket.
One of the best alternatives to the tap may be finding a gravity-fed raw spring in your area. This water is naturally filtered by the earth and it is not pasteurized or heated like nearly all commercial bottled waters.
Natural spring water is "living water," in the same way that raw food is "living food," which is why it's some of the most healthful water on the planet.
Now, before you dismiss this idea because you think there are no such springs in your neck of the woods, there is a Web site called FindaSpring.com that will help you find a spring in your area. Typically they are even monitored by the local municipalities for contaminants.
The next best option is to filter the water that comes out of your tap, but there are benefits and drawbacks to virtually every water filtration system on the market. Currently I use a whole house carbon-based water filtration system, and prior to this I used reverse osmosis (RO) to purify my water.
You can read my latest article on water filtration here to help you make a decision about what type of water filtration system will be best for you and your family. Since most water sources are now severely polluted, the issue of water filtration and purification couldn't be more important.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/04/probable-carcinogen-in-tap-water-of-31-us-cities.aspx
How to Solve Nearly Any Illness - Without Drugs (with list of worst drugs)
Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 11 2011 |
Writing in Counterpunch, Martha Rosenberg lists the drugs which made 2010's Hall of Shame. Here are just a few of them:
Yaz and Yasmin
Soon after Bayer launched the pill Yaz, 18 year olds started coming down with blood clots, gall bladder disease, heart attacks and even strokes.
Chantix
After cases of possible psychosis, reports of suicidal behaviors and actual suicides, the government banned pilots, air-traffic controllers and interstate truck and bus drivers from taking this antismoking drug.
Ambien
Law enforcement officials say this sleep drug has increased traffic accidents from people who drive in a black out.
Tamoxifen
For every case of breast cancer prevented by Tamoxifen, there is a life-threatening case of blood clots, stroke or endometrial cancer caused by it.
Lipitor and Crestor
All statins can cause muscle breakdown. Crestor is so linked to the side effect, the FDA's David Graham named it one of the five most dangerous drugs at a Congressional hearing.
Gardasil and Cervarix Vaccines
The Gardasil HPV vaccine doesn't work for all viral strains, requires a booster and is linked to 56 girls' deaths as of September in the U.S. alone.
Singulair and Accolate, leukotriene receptor antagonists
These leukotriene receptor antagonists never looked safe. And Singulair, Merck's top selling drug, is now suspected of producing aggression, hostility, irritability, anxiety, hallucinations and night-terrors in kids.
To see the full list of dangerous drugs, click on the link below.
Sources:
Counterpunch December 24, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Rosenberg does a fine job pinning down some of the most dangerous drugs on the market today. It's a tough call, simply because there are so many to choose from. For a truly eye-opening list of "defective drugs," just take a look at drug litigators' Parker Waichman Alonso's web site. It's a sobering lineup!
Even commonly used over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are not as benign as most people assume.
The fact that we're now faced with such an onslaught of problematic drugs is a testament to the inadequacies, not to mention criminal behavior, of the pharmaceutical industry.
Studies are frequently biased, results are skewed, and drugs are put on a fast-track to be approved long before anyone knows whether they're safe. And it's quite clear that a large number of drugs are not at all safe, and many do not even work as advertised, giving you the absolute worst of both worlds.
In essence, any time you resort to taking a drug, you're taking a gamble because there are NO 100 percent safe drugs. And the more drugs you combine, the greater the risk that you'll suffer serious and/or potentially lethal side effects.
Are You on Any of these Dangerous Drugs?
In addition to the drugs listed above, here are several more that may jeopardize your health:
Advair– This asthma medicine contains the long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) salmeterol, which can make your asthma deadly by increasing the severity of asthma attacks. It is estimated that salmeterol-containing drugs cause about 5,000 asthma-related deaths each year in the US alone.
Avandia (rosiglitazone)– This diabetes drug has been linked to increased risk of heart attack. Confidential government reports claim about 6,000 heart attacks and 3,600 cases of heart failure would be averted each year if patients switched away from Avandia. The drug was recently banned in Europe, but the US FDA has chosen only to monitor the drug, rather than ask for a recall.
Celebrex-- This painkiller has been linked to increased risks of stomach bleeding, kidney trouble, and liver damage. Additionally, one 2005 study found that people taking 200 mg of Celebrex twice a day more than doubled their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease. Those on 400 mg twice a day more than tripled their risk.
Ritalin – This drug is commonly prescribed to children diagnosed with ADHD, despite the fact it has the same pharmacological profile as cocaine. By definition, Ritalin stimulates your central nervous system, leading to side effects such as increased blood pressure and heart rate.
When taken over a period of years, as Ritalin often is, the drug can cause severe health problems, including cancer. Short-term, it can still lead to chromosomal damage.
Lyrica, Topomax and Lamictal -- These epilepsy seizure drugs increase your risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and all three drugs can cause both hair- and memory loss.
TNF Blockers -- Biologics like Humira and Prolia are made from genetically engineered hamster cells, and suppress your immune system. Other side effects include tuberculosis, lethal infections, melanoma, lymphoma and "unusual cancers in children and teenagers". Humira also carries a warning that it may cause or worsen psoriasis -- a condition it is supposed to treat.
Bisphosphonate drugs – This dangerous class of drugs include Fosamax, Actonel and Boniva, prescribed to prevent osteoporosis. Fosamax in particular has been linked to thigh bone fractures, jaw bone rot, serious eye problems, liver damage and renal failure, just to name a few potential side effects.
Fosamax users are also nearly twice as likely to develop atrial fibrillation (quivering of your heart’s upper chambers), which is the most common kind of chronically irregular heartbeat.
Statin drugs—This class of drugs, used to lower your cholesterol, have been linked to an array of devastating side effects, including muscle pain and weakness, muscle atrophy, rhabdomyolysis, increased plaque deposits, increased cancer risk, immune system suppression, decreased liver function, CoQ10 depletion, and death.
Proton pump inhibitors—Drugs like Prevacid, Prilosec, and Nexium are commonly used for heartburn. However, their side effects may be far more problematic and dangerous than your original problem.
Side effects include increased risk of fractures of your hip, wrist and spine (the risk of a bone fracture has been estimated to be over 40 percent higher in patients who use these drugs long-term), increased risk of food poisoning, pneumonia and infection with Clostridium difficile, a harmful intestinal bacteria.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Clearly, there are many others. However, many of these drugs are used for ailments that respond favorably to lifestyle changes alone!
Health Problems that are Better Treated Without Drugs
In more recent years, a growing body of studies shows that simple lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise are effective remedies for many common health problems. At the same time, we're seeing more and more evidence of the lethal harm being brought by poorly tested drugs.
To me, the choice is clear.
But many people still do not realize just how effective lifestyle changes can be in treating their disease. Many diabetics, for example, are convinced they need drugs, and resist the idea that treating or even curing their disease is entirely within their own control.
The truth is, type 2 diabetes is virtually 100 percent avoidable and treatable entirely without drugs. If you're still in the dark about how to accomplish this, please see this link.
Other common conditions that can be managed without medication include:
Osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease)
High cholesterol
Depression
High blood pressure
Osteoporosis
Heart disease
Insomnia
Do Your Research Before Taking ANY Drug
For all the problems modern society has caused, it also brings benefits that were previously unimaginable. One of them is the ease with which you can conduct your own research. And I urge you to thoroughly investigate each drug before taking it.
The truth is that doctors are no longer the sole authority on all matters relating to health. And don't believe for one minute that your physician will have all the answers and all the latest research findings at his or her fingertips. They won't.
Most of their recent knowledge about drug treatments comes directly from the lips of drug reps, and if you believe drug reps will put your health and safety before profits, think again.
So, as a general rule, always make sure to read up on the potential side effects of the drug. Read the package insert, and remember that even if it lists a side effect as rare, it can happen to you.
Then decide whether the potential benefits truly outweigh the potential risks.
Drugs are Band-Aids. They Do NOT Address the Cause of Disease
If you want to take a step in the right direction, make drugs your last option.
This sounds easy enough, but actually requires a massive thought shift for some people. Many still have a very hard time accepting the idea that your body can heal itself, and that drugs oftentimes will only hinder the process.
I can't stress enough the importance of the most basic principle for resolving an illness: Find the underlying cause of the problem, and address THAT!
Masking it with a drug that lessens your symptoms does not fix anything. Disease can only be resolved by addressing its root cause.
What many people fail to realize is that it is entirely possible to maintain optimal health simply by:
Avoiding unnecessary drugs, and
Understanding the fundamentals of proper nutrition and exercise
What DOES Make You Healthy?
There are certain basic tenets of optimal health that have always remained permanent truths, and by consistently adhering to them, you give yourself the best chance at a long and healthy life.
These 10 strategies promote overall health, as opposed to chasing and watering down various symptoms:
Eat a healthy diet that’s right for your nutritional type (paying very careful attention to keeping your insulin levels down) -- This aspect is so important for optimal health; I now offer my entire online nutritional typing program for free.
Drink plenty of clean water
Manage your stress
Exercise regularly -- I actually view exercise as a drug with regard to being properly prescribed and having proper dosage, And it's one that you can readily substitute for some of the most common drugs used today for things like diabetes, heart disease and depression.
High-intensity, burst-type exercises like Peak 8 are particularly beneficial for optimal health, as it effectively boosts fat loss, improves muscle strength, tone and endurance, and causes your body to produce human growth hormone (HGH).
Optimize your vitamin D levels by getting appropriate amounts of sun exposure, or by taking an oral vitamin D3 supplement
Limit exposure to toxins
Consume healthy fats such as omega-3 fat, coconut oil and pure butter
Eat plenty of raw food
Optimize your insulin and leptin levels
Get plenty of sleep
Remember, leading a common sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to produce a healthy body and mind, and increase your longevity.
Unfortunately, both the pharmaceutical industry and the food industry won't make it easy for you to avoid the garbage that ruins your health.
The drug industry spends about $15 billion a year manipulating and distorting your perceptions about the proper solutions for your health challenges. The answer is to take self-responsibility and educate yourself so that you can make better, healthier choices.
By adhering to the basic tenets of optimal health provided above, you will build a healthy mind and body, thereby safeguarding yourself against a multitude of health problems and serious diseases.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/11/the-year-in-pills.aspx
Related Links:
7 Drugs That Can Kill Children with a Single Pill
Free Report: Three Dangerous Drugs that Could be in Your Medicine Cabinet Right Now
8 Drugs Doctors Would Never Take
Writing in Counterpunch, Martha Rosenberg lists the drugs which made 2010's Hall of Shame. Here are just a few of them:
Yaz and Yasmin
Soon after Bayer launched the pill Yaz, 18 year olds started coming down with blood clots, gall bladder disease, heart attacks and even strokes.
Chantix
After cases of possible psychosis, reports of suicidal behaviors and actual suicides, the government banned pilots, air-traffic controllers and interstate truck and bus drivers from taking this antismoking drug.
Ambien
Law enforcement officials say this sleep drug has increased traffic accidents from people who drive in a black out.
Tamoxifen
For every case of breast cancer prevented by Tamoxifen, there is a life-threatening case of blood clots, stroke or endometrial cancer caused by it.
Lipitor and Crestor
All statins can cause muscle breakdown. Crestor is so linked to the side effect, the FDA's David Graham named it one of the five most dangerous drugs at a Congressional hearing.
Gardasil and Cervarix Vaccines
The Gardasil HPV vaccine doesn't work for all viral strains, requires a booster and is linked to 56 girls' deaths as of September in the U.S. alone.
Singulair and Accolate, leukotriene receptor antagonists
These leukotriene receptor antagonists never looked safe. And Singulair, Merck's top selling drug, is now suspected of producing aggression, hostility, irritability, anxiety, hallucinations and night-terrors in kids.
To see the full list of dangerous drugs, click on the link below.
Sources:
Counterpunch December 24, 2010
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Rosenberg does a fine job pinning down some of the most dangerous drugs on the market today. It's a tough call, simply because there are so many to choose from. For a truly eye-opening list of "defective drugs," just take a look at drug litigators' Parker Waichman Alonso's web site. It's a sobering lineup!
Even commonly used over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are not as benign as most people assume.
The fact that we're now faced with such an onslaught of problematic drugs is a testament to the inadequacies, not to mention criminal behavior, of the pharmaceutical industry.
Studies are frequently biased, results are skewed, and drugs are put on a fast-track to be approved long before anyone knows whether they're safe. And it's quite clear that a large number of drugs are not at all safe, and many do not even work as advertised, giving you the absolute worst of both worlds.
In essence, any time you resort to taking a drug, you're taking a gamble because there are NO 100 percent safe drugs. And the more drugs you combine, the greater the risk that you'll suffer serious and/or potentially lethal side effects.
Are You on Any of these Dangerous Drugs?
In addition to the drugs listed above, here are several more that may jeopardize your health:
Advair– This asthma medicine contains the long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) salmeterol, which can make your asthma deadly by increasing the severity of asthma attacks. It is estimated that salmeterol-containing drugs cause about 5,000 asthma-related deaths each year in the US alone.
Avandia (rosiglitazone)– This diabetes drug has been linked to increased risk of heart attack. Confidential government reports claim about 6,000 heart attacks and 3,600 cases of heart failure would be averted each year if patients switched away from Avandia. The drug was recently banned in Europe, but the US FDA has chosen only to monitor the drug, rather than ask for a recall.
Celebrex-- This painkiller has been linked to increased risks of stomach bleeding, kidney trouble, and liver damage. Additionally, one 2005 study found that people taking 200 mg of Celebrex twice a day more than doubled their risk of dying of cardiovascular disease. Those on 400 mg twice a day more than tripled their risk.
Ritalin – This drug is commonly prescribed to children diagnosed with ADHD, despite the fact it has the same pharmacological profile as cocaine. By definition, Ritalin stimulates your central nervous system, leading to side effects such as increased blood pressure and heart rate.
When taken over a period of years, as Ritalin often is, the drug can cause severe health problems, including cancer. Short-term, it can still lead to chromosomal damage.
Lyrica, Topomax and Lamictal -- These epilepsy seizure drugs increase your risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and all three drugs can cause both hair- and memory loss.
TNF Blockers -- Biologics like Humira and Prolia are made from genetically engineered hamster cells, and suppress your immune system. Other side effects include tuberculosis, lethal infections, melanoma, lymphoma and "unusual cancers in children and teenagers". Humira also carries a warning that it may cause or worsen psoriasis -- a condition it is supposed to treat.
Bisphosphonate drugs – This dangerous class of drugs include Fosamax, Actonel and Boniva, prescribed to prevent osteoporosis. Fosamax in particular has been linked to thigh bone fractures, jaw bone rot, serious eye problems, liver damage and renal failure, just to name a few potential side effects.
Fosamax users are also nearly twice as likely to develop atrial fibrillation (quivering of your heart’s upper chambers), which is the most common kind of chronically irregular heartbeat.
Statin drugs—This class of drugs, used to lower your cholesterol, have been linked to an array of devastating side effects, including muscle pain and weakness, muscle atrophy, rhabdomyolysis, increased plaque deposits, increased cancer risk, immune system suppression, decreased liver function, CoQ10 depletion, and death.
Proton pump inhibitors—Drugs like Prevacid, Prilosec, and Nexium are commonly used for heartburn. However, their side effects may be far more problematic and dangerous than your original problem.
Side effects include increased risk of fractures of your hip, wrist and spine (the risk of a bone fracture has been estimated to be over 40 percent higher in patients who use these drugs long-term), increased risk of food poisoning, pneumonia and infection with Clostridium difficile, a harmful intestinal bacteria.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. Clearly, there are many others. However, many of these drugs are used for ailments that respond favorably to lifestyle changes alone!
Health Problems that are Better Treated Without Drugs
In more recent years, a growing body of studies shows that simple lifestyle changes such as diet and exercise are effective remedies for many common health problems. At the same time, we're seeing more and more evidence of the lethal harm being brought by poorly tested drugs.
To me, the choice is clear.
But many people still do not realize just how effective lifestyle changes can be in treating their disease. Many diabetics, for example, are convinced they need drugs, and resist the idea that treating or even curing their disease is entirely within their own control.
The truth is, type 2 diabetes is virtually 100 percent avoidable and treatable entirely without drugs. If you're still in the dark about how to accomplish this, please see this link.
Other common conditions that can be managed without medication include:
Osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease)
High cholesterol
Depression
High blood pressure
Osteoporosis
Heart disease
Insomnia
Do Your Research Before Taking ANY Drug
For all the problems modern society has caused, it also brings benefits that were previously unimaginable. One of them is the ease with which you can conduct your own research. And I urge you to thoroughly investigate each drug before taking it.
The truth is that doctors are no longer the sole authority on all matters relating to health. And don't believe for one minute that your physician will have all the answers and all the latest research findings at his or her fingertips. They won't.
Most of their recent knowledge about drug treatments comes directly from the lips of drug reps, and if you believe drug reps will put your health and safety before profits, think again.
So, as a general rule, always make sure to read up on the potential side effects of the drug. Read the package insert, and remember that even if it lists a side effect as rare, it can happen to you.
Then decide whether the potential benefits truly outweigh the potential risks.
Drugs are Band-Aids. They Do NOT Address the Cause of Disease
If you want to take a step in the right direction, make drugs your last option.
This sounds easy enough, but actually requires a massive thought shift for some people. Many still have a very hard time accepting the idea that your body can heal itself, and that drugs oftentimes will only hinder the process.
I can't stress enough the importance of the most basic principle for resolving an illness: Find the underlying cause of the problem, and address THAT!
Masking it with a drug that lessens your symptoms does not fix anything. Disease can only be resolved by addressing its root cause.
What many people fail to realize is that it is entirely possible to maintain optimal health simply by:
Avoiding unnecessary drugs, and
Understanding the fundamentals of proper nutrition and exercise
What DOES Make You Healthy?
There are certain basic tenets of optimal health that have always remained permanent truths, and by consistently adhering to them, you give yourself the best chance at a long and healthy life.
These 10 strategies promote overall health, as opposed to chasing and watering down various symptoms:
Eat a healthy diet that’s right for your nutritional type (paying very careful attention to keeping your insulin levels down) -- This aspect is so important for optimal health; I now offer my entire online nutritional typing program for free.
Drink plenty of clean water
Manage your stress
Exercise regularly -- I actually view exercise as a drug with regard to being properly prescribed and having proper dosage, And it's one that you can readily substitute for some of the most common drugs used today for things like diabetes, heart disease and depression.
High-intensity, burst-type exercises like Peak 8 are particularly beneficial for optimal health, as it effectively boosts fat loss, improves muscle strength, tone and endurance, and causes your body to produce human growth hormone (HGH).
Optimize your vitamin D levels by getting appropriate amounts of sun exposure, or by taking an oral vitamin D3 supplement
Limit exposure to toxins
Consume healthy fats such as omega-3 fat, coconut oil and pure butter
Eat plenty of raw food
Optimize your insulin and leptin levels
Get plenty of sleep
Remember, leading a common sense, healthy lifestyle is your best bet to produce a healthy body and mind, and increase your longevity.
Unfortunately, both the pharmaceutical industry and the food industry won't make it easy for you to avoid the garbage that ruins your health.
The drug industry spends about $15 billion a year manipulating and distorting your perceptions about the proper solutions for your health challenges. The answer is to take self-responsibility and educate yourself so that you can make better, healthier choices.
By adhering to the basic tenets of optimal health provided above, you will build a healthy mind and body, thereby safeguarding yourself against a multitude of health problems and serious diseases.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/01/11/the-year-in-pills.aspx
Related Links:
7 Drugs That Can Kill Children with a Single Pill
Free Report: Three Dangerous Drugs that Could be in Your Medicine Cabinet Right Now
8 Drugs Doctors Would Never Take
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)