Last spring I was walking in a park. A short distance ahead of me was a mom and her three-year-old daughter. The little girl was holding on to a string that was attached to a helium balloon.
All of a sudden, a sharp gust of wind took the balloon from the little girl. I braced myself for some screaming and crying.
But, no! As the little girl turned to watch her balloon go skyward, she gleefully shouted out, "Wow!
I didn't realize it at that moment, but that little girl taught me something.
Later that day, I received a phone call from a person with news of an unexpected problem. I felt like responding with "Oh no, what should we do?" But remembering that little girl, I found myself saying, "Wow, that's interesting! How can I help you?"
One thing's for sure - life's always going to keep us off balance with its unexpected problems. That's a given. What's not preordained is our response. We can choose to be frustrated or fascinated.
No matter what the situation, a fascinated "Wow!" will always beat a frustrated "Oh, no."
So the next time you experience one of life's unexpected gusts, remember that little girl and make it a "Wow!" experience. The "Wow!" response always works.
Rob Gilbert
Editor of "Bits & Pieces"
Monday, October 13, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Antioxidants Attack Cancer Cells
A New Discovery Has Been Made About How Antioxidants Attack Cancer Cells
by: Russell Johnston
http://www.naturalnews.com/024447.html
(NaturalNews) There's a new reason, and a big one, to think that we benefit
from free-radical-inhibiting antioxidants. We've long thought that by
reducing free radicals, antioxidants can help prevent cancer, of course. But
a recent experiment at Johns Hopkins and published in the March 14 issue of
Science shows how antioxidants may be doing much more: interfering with the
growth of cancers that are already established, and potentially, even
reversing them once established, by knocking out communications signals
between cancer cells that encourage cells to grow and divide. Those
communications signals turn out to be... free radicals, which the cancer
cells often produce in abundance. Runaway cell division was actually slowed
when cancer cells were introduced to the antioxidant N-acetyl-L-cysteine,
under experimental conditions. This now demonstrates the existence of a
mechanism that can allow a simple antioxidant to slow down or reverse a
cancer that's already in place.
Genetically altered connective tissue cells expressing the cancerous
H-RasV12 gene, together with non-cancerous cells were used in the study. The
cancer cells produced an abundance of superoxide, a well-known free-radical.
But cells' Ras or Rac1 genes produced proteins that blocked this signal and
kept the cell from turning cancerous, as did doses of other protein
inhibitors. However, it was considered more significant that antioxidants
could also inhibit runaway cell proliferation.
At least in the case of cancers produced by the model H-RasV12 gene, other
cells are influenced to become cancerous "at a distance" if free radicals or
protein-inhibitors aren't present in sufficient numbers to step in and stop
the process.
Kaikobad Irani cautiously summarizes his research by saying that "Control of
signaling pathways involving oxidants may explain why some antioxidants
appear to prevent development of certain cancers." If you're equally
inclined to caution, you may wish to make sure you're getting plenty of
antioxidants.
There are plenty of sources of antioxidants in a good diet, of course, but
by far the most potent and effective antioxidant known to science is as
cheap and available as a long, dark night: that is, melatonin. Turning your
light switch to the off position earlier, keeping it off longer, and making
sure that you are always sleeping in real darkness are excellent natural
ways to boost your melatonin production. Even occasional changes in your
routine, staying up for a couple of extra hours, can reduce your melatonin
for weeks, just as jet lag does.
About the author
Russell Johnston is a private health researcher and writer with a background
in the philosophy and history of science. He began DarknessHeals.com in
order to help publicize dramatic recent medical research showing the
extraordinary importance sleep and chronobiology have for everyone's health.
by: Russell Johnston
http://www.naturalnews.com/024447.html
(NaturalNews) There's a new reason, and a big one, to think that we benefit
from free-radical-inhibiting antioxidants. We've long thought that by
reducing free radicals, antioxidants can help prevent cancer, of course. But
a recent experiment at Johns Hopkins and published in the March 14 issue of
Science shows how antioxidants may be doing much more: interfering with the
growth of cancers that are already established, and potentially, even
reversing them once established, by knocking out communications signals
between cancer cells that encourage cells to grow and divide. Those
communications signals turn out to be... free radicals, which the cancer
cells often produce in abundance. Runaway cell division was actually slowed
when cancer cells were introduced to the antioxidant N-acetyl-L-cysteine,
under experimental conditions. This now demonstrates the existence of a
mechanism that can allow a simple antioxidant to slow down or reverse a
cancer that's already in place.
Genetically altered connective tissue cells expressing the cancerous
H-RasV12 gene, together with non-cancerous cells were used in the study. The
cancer cells produced an abundance of superoxide, a well-known free-radical.
But cells' Ras or Rac1 genes produced proteins that blocked this signal and
kept the cell from turning cancerous, as did doses of other protein
inhibitors. However, it was considered more significant that antioxidants
could also inhibit runaway cell proliferation.
At least in the case of cancers produced by the model H-RasV12 gene, other
cells are influenced to become cancerous "at a distance" if free radicals or
protein-inhibitors aren't present in sufficient numbers to step in and stop
the process.
Kaikobad Irani cautiously summarizes his research by saying that "Control of
signaling pathways involving oxidants may explain why some antioxidants
appear to prevent development of certain cancers." If you're equally
inclined to caution, you may wish to make sure you're getting plenty of
antioxidants.
There are plenty of sources of antioxidants in a good diet, of course, but
by far the most potent and effective antioxidant known to science is as
cheap and available as a long, dark night: that is, melatonin. Turning your
light switch to the off position earlier, keeping it off longer, and making
sure that you are always sleeping in real darkness are excellent natural
ways to boost your melatonin production. Even occasional changes in your
routine, staying up for a couple of extra hours, can reduce your melatonin
for weeks, just as jet lag does.
About the author
Russell Johnston is a private health researcher and writer with a background
in the philosophy and history of science. He began DarknessHeals.com in
order to help publicize dramatic recent medical research showing the
extraordinary importance sleep and chronobiology have for everyone's health.
Vitamin D a key player in overall health
Vitamin D a key player in overall health of several body organs, says UC
Riverside biochemist
http://www.physorg.com/news142791717.html
Essential for life in higher animals, vitamin D, once linked to only bone
diseases such as rickets and osteoporosis, is now recognized as a major
player in contributing to overall human health, emphasizes UC Riverside's
Anthony Norman, an international expert on vitamin D.
In a paper published in the August issue of the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Norman identifies vitamin D's potential for contributions to good
health in the adaptive and innate immune systems, the secretion and
regulation of insulin by the pancreas, the heart and blood pressure
regulation, muscle strength and brain activity. In addition, access to
adequate amounts of vitamin D is believed to be beneficial towards reducing
the risk of cancer.
Norman also lists 36 organ tissues in the body whose cells respond
biologically to vitamin D. The list includes bone marrow, breast, colon,
intestine, kidney, lung, prostate, retina, skin, stomach and the uterus.
According to Norman, deficiency of vitamin D can impact all 36 organs.
Already, vitamin D deficiency is associated with muscle strength decrease,
high risk for falls, and increased risk for colorectal, prostate and breast
and other major cancers.
"It is becoming increasingly clear to researchers in the field that vitamin
D is strongly linked to several diseases," said Norman, a distinguished
professor emeritus of biochemistry and of biomedical sciences who has worked
on vitamin D for more than 45 years. "Its biological sphere of influence is
much broader than we originally thought. The nutritional guidelines for
vitamin D intake must be carefully reevaluated to determine the adequate
intake, balancing sunlight exposure with dietary intake, to achieve good
health by involving all 36 target organs."
Vitamin D is synthesized in the body in a series of steps. First, sunlight's
ultraviolet rays act on a precursor compound in skin. When skin is exposed
to sunlight, a sterol present in dermal tissue is converted to vitamin D,
which, in turn, is metabolized in the liver and kidneys to form a hormone.
It was Norman's laboratory that discovered, in 1967, that vitamin D is
converted into a steroid hormone by the body.
The recommended daily intake of vitamin D is 200 international units (IU)
for people up to 50 years old. The recommended daily intake of vitamin D is
400 IU for people 51 to 70 years old and 600 IU for people over 70 years
old. Norman's recommendation for all adults is to have an average daily
intake of at least 2000 IU.
"To optimize good health you must have enough vitamin D," he said. "Vitamin
D deficiency is also especially of concern in third world countries that
have poor nutritional practices and religious customs that require the body
to be covered from head to toe. Ideally, to achieve the widest frequency of
good health by population, we need to have 90 percent of the people with
adequate amounts of vitamin D."
About half of the elderly in North America and two-thirds of the rest of the
world are not getting enough vitamin D to maintain healthy bone density,
lower their risks for fracture and improve tooth attachment.
"There needs to be a sea change by various governmental agencies in terms of
the advice they present to citizens about how much vitamin D should be
taken," Norman said. "The tendencies of people to live in cities where tall
buildings block adequate sunlight from reaching the ground, to spend most of
their time indoors, to use synthetic sunscreens that block ultraviolet rays,
and to live in geographical regions of the world that do not receive
adequate sunlight all contribute to the inability of the skin to
biosynthesize sufficient amounts of vitamin D."
Found in minute amounts in food, vitamins are organic substances that higher
forms of animals need to grow and sustain normal health. Vitamins, however,
are not synthesized in sufficient amounts to meet bodily needs. Therefore,
the body must acquire them through diet or in the form of supplements.
Because it is found in very few foods naturally, milk and other foods (often
orange juice) are fortified with vitamin D.
While deficiency of vitamin D impacts health negatively, ingestion of
extremely high doses of vitamin D can cause hypercalcemia, a condition in
which the blood's calcium level is above normal. The highest daily 'safe'
dose of vitamin D is 10,000 IU.
"More than ever we need to increase the amount of research on vitamin D,
with more funding from government agencies and pharmaceutical companies, to
meet the challenge of preserving or improving the health of everyone on the
planet," Norman said.
Source: University of California - Riverside
Riverside biochemist
http://www.physorg.com/news142791717.html
Essential for life in higher animals, vitamin D, once linked to only bone
diseases such as rickets and osteoporosis, is now recognized as a major
player in contributing to overall human health, emphasizes UC Riverside's
Anthony Norman, an international expert on vitamin D.
In a paper published in the August issue of the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, Norman identifies vitamin D's potential for contributions to good
health in the adaptive and innate immune systems, the secretion and
regulation of insulin by the pancreas, the heart and blood pressure
regulation, muscle strength and brain activity. In addition, access to
adequate amounts of vitamin D is believed to be beneficial towards reducing
the risk of cancer.
Norman also lists 36 organ tissues in the body whose cells respond
biologically to vitamin D. The list includes bone marrow, breast, colon,
intestine, kidney, lung, prostate, retina, skin, stomach and the uterus.
According to Norman, deficiency of vitamin D can impact all 36 organs.
Already, vitamin D deficiency is associated with muscle strength decrease,
high risk for falls, and increased risk for colorectal, prostate and breast
and other major cancers.
"It is becoming increasingly clear to researchers in the field that vitamin
D is strongly linked to several diseases," said Norman, a distinguished
professor emeritus of biochemistry and of biomedical sciences who has worked
on vitamin D for more than 45 years. "Its biological sphere of influence is
much broader than we originally thought. The nutritional guidelines for
vitamin D intake must be carefully reevaluated to determine the adequate
intake, balancing sunlight exposure with dietary intake, to achieve good
health by involving all 36 target organs."
Vitamin D is synthesized in the body in a series of steps. First, sunlight's
ultraviolet rays act on a precursor compound in skin. When skin is exposed
to sunlight, a sterol present in dermal tissue is converted to vitamin D,
which, in turn, is metabolized in the liver and kidneys to form a hormone.
It was Norman's laboratory that discovered, in 1967, that vitamin D is
converted into a steroid hormone by the body.
The recommended daily intake of vitamin D is 200 international units (IU)
for people up to 50 years old. The recommended daily intake of vitamin D is
400 IU for people 51 to 70 years old and 600 IU for people over 70 years
old. Norman's recommendation for all adults is to have an average daily
intake of at least 2000 IU.
"To optimize good health you must have enough vitamin D," he said. "Vitamin
D deficiency is also especially of concern in third world countries that
have poor nutritional practices and religious customs that require the body
to be covered from head to toe. Ideally, to achieve the widest frequency of
good health by population, we need to have 90 percent of the people with
adequate amounts of vitamin D."
About half of the elderly in North America and two-thirds of the rest of the
world are not getting enough vitamin D to maintain healthy bone density,
lower their risks for fracture and improve tooth attachment.
"There needs to be a sea change by various governmental agencies in terms of
the advice they present to citizens about how much vitamin D should be
taken," Norman said. "The tendencies of people to live in cities where tall
buildings block adequate sunlight from reaching the ground, to spend most of
their time indoors, to use synthetic sunscreens that block ultraviolet rays,
and to live in geographical regions of the world that do not receive
adequate sunlight all contribute to the inability of the skin to
biosynthesize sufficient amounts of vitamin D."
Found in minute amounts in food, vitamins are organic substances that higher
forms of animals need to grow and sustain normal health. Vitamins, however,
are not synthesized in sufficient amounts to meet bodily needs. Therefore,
the body must acquire them through diet or in the form of supplements.
Because it is found in very few foods naturally, milk and other foods (often
orange juice) are fortified with vitamin D.
While deficiency of vitamin D impacts health negatively, ingestion of
extremely high doses of vitamin D can cause hypercalcemia, a condition in
which the blood's calcium level is above normal. The highest daily 'safe'
dose of vitamin D is 10,000 IU.
"More than ever we need to increase the amount of research on vitamin D,
with more funding from government agencies and pharmaceutical companies, to
meet the challenge of preserving or improving the health of everyone on the
planet," Norman said.
Source: University of California - Riverside
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Vital Role of Cholesterol in Health
Byron Richards, CCN
"A significant new discovery about the importance of cholesterol to nerve and
muscle health has just been made. The researchers discovered that
cholesterol is vital to the structure of key proteins involved with nerve
transmission. The finding is groundbreaking, its implications in the
context of widespread high doses of statin drugs in the general population
is alarming.
We have known for a very long time that small fragments of cholesterol (not
HDL or LDL, which are large transport vehicles) are required for every cell
in your body to have a three dimensional structure. Scientists estimate
that you have around 6-8 ounces of this structural cholesterol in your
cells, and without it you would be flat as a pancake on the floor.
Nerve cells are known to have higher amounts of this type of cholesterol, as
nerve cells do not split and divide like other cells and so need the extra
cholesterol to liver longer. One of the very adverse side effects of statin
drugs to lower LDL cholesterol, especially when given in the now commonly
used high doses, is that the important cholesterol in cell membranes is
lowered. In the case of nerves this results in early onset nerve death,
poor function, depression, nerve symptoms, and suicide. Such nerve symptoms
will be progressive and worsen as time goes along, especially when the dose
of a statin is raised.
In the case of muscles, various mechanisms of statin toxicity have now been
identified. These factors reduce energy, muscle health, fitness, and
generally make it harder to be healthy.
The new study adds a brand new explanation for nerve and muscle related
problems from taking statins. Researchers studied the structure of a common
and important neurotransmitter receptor called the nicotinic acetylcholine
receptor. Problems with this receptor's function drastically alter nerve
transmission. Such difficulties are found in chronic inflammation,
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and
addiction issues (alcohol, nicotine and cocaine).
The new discovery is that cholesterol fragments are absolutely vital to this
receptor working correctly and are part of the protein structure of this
receptor. This is a sweeping scientific discovery. It immediately offers a
new explanation as to why statins have so many devastating nerve and muscle
side effects. It also adds clarity to the issue as to why low cholestereol
causes cancer and early risk for death.
Cholesterol is vital to the healthy function of your body, actually core to
survival. You want good levels of HDL and LDL because you are healthy, not
because you have drugged them to look better on paper. The idea of
cholesterol fitness, like physical fitness, is a proper way to look at this
issue."
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Getting rid of fears
"Most fears cannot withstand the test of careful scrutiny and analysis. When we expose our fears to the light of thoughtful examination they usually just evaporate."
Jack Canfield
Speaker and Author
See more of Jack Canfield at: http://www.reachmy2008goals.com
Jack Canfield
Speaker and Author
See more of Jack Canfield at: http://www.reachmy2008goals.com
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The secret of the achiever
"Not the maker of plans and promises, but rather the one who offers faithful service in small matters. This is the person who is most likely to achieve what is good and lasting."
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
1749-1832, Poet, Dramatist and Novelist
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
1749-1832, Poet, Dramatist and Novelist
5 Ways to Keep BPA Out of Your Food
With new studies linking bisphenol A, a chemical found in the linings
of food and beverage cans, to diabetes and heart disease, you may be
wondering what you can do to minimize your exposure. Here are some good
rules of thumb for reducing your intake of BPA:
1. Buy your tomato sauce in glass jars
Canned tomato sauce is likely to have higher levels of BPA, because
the high acidity of the tomatoes causes more of the chemical to leach from
the lining of the can.
2. Consume fresh fruits and vegetables instead of canned
In addition to their BPA-free benefit, fresh produce usually has
more nutrients, which often get lost in the process of canning.
3. Purchase beverages in plastic or glass bottles
Canned soda and juice often contain some BPA.
4. Use powdered infant formula instead of ready-to-serve liquid
An assessment from the Environmental Working Group found that liquid
formulas contain more BPA than powdered brands.
5. Think in terms of moderation
Follow a sensible approach, eating less of those foods that are
higher in BPA.
Sources:
a.. U.S. News & World Report September 17, 2008
a.. Journal of the American Medical Association September 16, 2008;
300(11):1353-5
a.. Journal of the American Medical Association September 16, 2008;
300(11):1303-10
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
It's finally becoming more common knowledge that plastic is not
an inert substance, which is what its manufacturers would like you to
believe. Plastic contains chemicals like BPA and phthalates, which mimic
hormones in your body. Even tiny concentrations can cause problems, and you're
likely being exposed from all angles. Aside from canned goods, they're found
in reusable food containers, plastic wraps, water bottles, personal care
products, you name it.
Plastic is used everywhere.
The Many Health Hazards of Bisphenol A (BPA)
Plastic is so prevalent that according to a Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) study, BPA was detected in the urine of 95 percent of people
tested!
This is alarming when you consider the problems it's been linked
to, including:
a.. Structural damage to your brain
b.. Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired
learning
c.. Increased fat formation and risk of obesity
d.. Altered immune function
e.. Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development,
disrupted reproductive cycles, and ovarian dysfunction
f.. Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual
behavior
g.. Stimulation of prostate cancer cells
h.. Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production
I've already discussed the dangers of using plastic containers
and bottles on several occasions; anytime you eat or drink something out of
plastic, you risk exposure. Plastics that are worn out or scratched may
leach even more chemicals into your food, as do hot beverages. Just by
drinking coffee from a plastic-lined paper cup, you could be exposed to 55
times more BPA than normal.
But what's your risk when you use canned goods?
Independent laboratory tests conducted by the Environmental
Working Group (EWG) detected BPA in over half of 97 cans of name-brand
fruit, vegetables, soda, and other commonly eaten canned goods.
There are no government safety standards limiting the amount of
BPA in canned food, and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) safety
standard is 25 times the dose NOW KNOWN to cause birth defects in lab
studies. Their safety standard for BPA has not been updated for 20 years.
But studies in the past decade have shown that low-level
exposures to BPA may actually be MORE dangerous than high-level exposures!
Where traditional toxicology asserts that higher doses does
greater harm, bisphenol A tests show that low doses can be the most toxic of
all, partly because at low levels it can fall below the radar of your body's
natural detox mechanism.
For example, one study found that a low dose of BPA produced a
70 percent higher growth rate of prostate cancer cells in lab animals than
did higher doses (Wetherill et al. 2002). In another; lower doses of BPA
resulted in higher rates of breast cell growth that can precede cancer
(Markey et al. 2001).
Then again, just last month the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) published a study that found higher urinary BPA
concentrations were associated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes in
adults.
Perhaps our dependency on plastic plays a larger role than
anyone ever imagined in the rise of the big three: cancer, heart disease and
rampant diabetes?
BPA and Your Baby - What's the Risk, and What's the Solution?
As usual those most at risk are children and fetuses, which is
why it's appalling to think that these chemicals are commonly used in
everything from the infant formula, to the bottle it's served in, to the
teething rings, and the toys your baby plays with on a daily basis.
Sadly, of all foods tested, infant formula was among the top
three foods that had BPA levels of highest concern.
Just one to three servings was found to contain BPA levels that
have caused serious adverse effects in animal tests. And, for 1 in 3 cans of
infant formula, a single serving was found to contain enough BPA to expose
an infant to BPA levels more than 200 times the government's traditional
"safe" level of exposure for industrial chemicals!
Although the article above recommends using powdered infant
formula instead of ready-to-serve liquid varieties to cut down on BPA
exposure, I want to remind you that nothing beats breast feeding when it
comes to feeding your baby.
Breast milk contains antibodies, immunoglobulins, white blood
cells, lactoferrin, lysosomes, bifidus factor (which helps friendly bacteria
grow in the intestines to ensure acid environment), vitamin B12 binding
protein, and many, many other substances. It also contains essential fatty
acids that help bolster your baby's body against the impact of toxic
chemicals.
And of course, if a mother follows my dietary recommendations,
she will have the best chance of being optimally healthy, and her breast
milk will be even more nutritious.
So remember that if you want the very best by far for your
babies, breastfeed them if at all possible. But if you are going to use
commercial formulas, then using a powdered formula may reduce your baby's
exposure to BPA. According to the EWG's calculations, babies fed
reconstituted powdered formula likely receive 8 to 20 times less BPA than
those fed liquid formula from a metal can.
However, a far better option than commercial formula would be to
try the Infant Formula Fortification Protocol developed by Dr. Patricia Kane
and myself. In addition, the Weston A. Price Foundation has its own infant
feeding recommendations, which are another healthy option.
10 More Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to BPA
1. Only use glass baby bottles and dishes for your baby
2. Get rid of your plastic dishes and cups, and replace
them with glass varieties
3. Give your baby natural fabric toys instead of plastic
ones
4. Store your food and beverages in glass -- NOT plastic --
containers
5. IF you choose to use a microwave, don't microwave food
in a plastic container
6. Use glass, ceramic, or stainless steel travel coffee
mugs rather than plastic or Styrofoam coffee cups
7. Avoid using plastic wrap (and never microwave anything
covered in it)
8. If you opt to use plastic kitchenware, at least get rid
of the older, scratched-up varieties, avoid putting them in the dishwasher,
and don't wash them with harsh detergents, as these things can cause more
chemicals to leach into your food
9. Avoid using bottled water; filter your own using a
reverse osmosis filter instead
10. Before allowing a dental sealant to be applied to your, or
your children's, teeth, ask your dentist to verify that it does not contain
BPA
In the event that you do opt to use plastic containers for your
food or beverages, be sure to avoid those marked on the bottom with the
recycling label No. 7, as these varieties may contain BPA.
Containers marked with the recycling labels No. 1, No. 2, and
No. 4 do not contain BPA (however they may contain other unsavory chemicals
that you're best off avoiding by using glass instead). If in doubt, remember
this handy saying from The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy:
"With your food, use 4, 5, 1 and 2. All the rest aren't good for
you."
of food and beverage cans, to diabetes and heart disease, you may be
wondering what you can do to minimize your exposure. Here are some good
rules of thumb for reducing your intake of BPA:
1. Buy your tomato sauce in glass jars
Canned tomato sauce is likely to have higher levels of BPA, because
the high acidity of the tomatoes causes more of the chemical to leach from
the lining of the can.
2. Consume fresh fruits and vegetables instead of canned
In addition to their BPA-free benefit, fresh produce usually has
more nutrients, which often get lost in the process of canning.
3. Purchase beverages in plastic or glass bottles
Canned soda and juice often contain some BPA.
4. Use powdered infant formula instead of ready-to-serve liquid
An assessment from the Environmental Working Group found that liquid
formulas contain more BPA than powdered brands.
5. Think in terms of moderation
Follow a sensible approach, eating less of those foods that are
higher in BPA.
Sources:
a.. U.S. News & World Report September 17, 2008
a.. Journal of the American Medical Association September 16, 2008;
300(11):1353-5
a.. Journal of the American Medical Association September 16, 2008;
300(11):1303-10
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
It's finally becoming more common knowledge that plastic is not
an inert substance, which is what its manufacturers would like you to
believe. Plastic contains chemicals like BPA and phthalates, which mimic
hormones in your body. Even tiny concentrations can cause problems, and you're
likely being exposed from all angles. Aside from canned goods, they're found
in reusable food containers, plastic wraps, water bottles, personal care
products, you name it.
Plastic is used everywhere.
The Many Health Hazards of Bisphenol A (BPA)
Plastic is so prevalent that according to a Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) study, BPA was detected in the urine of 95 percent of people
tested!
This is alarming when you consider the problems it's been linked
to, including:
a.. Structural damage to your brain
b.. Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired
learning
c.. Increased fat formation and risk of obesity
d.. Altered immune function
e.. Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development,
disrupted reproductive cycles, and ovarian dysfunction
f.. Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual
behavior
g.. Stimulation of prostate cancer cells
h.. Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production
I've already discussed the dangers of using plastic containers
and bottles on several occasions; anytime you eat or drink something out of
plastic, you risk exposure. Plastics that are worn out or scratched may
leach even more chemicals into your food, as do hot beverages. Just by
drinking coffee from a plastic-lined paper cup, you could be exposed to 55
times more BPA than normal.
But what's your risk when you use canned goods?
Independent laboratory tests conducted by the Environmental
Working Group (EWG) detected BPA in over half of 97 cans of name-brand
fruit, vegetables, soda, and other commonly eaten canned goods.
There are no government safety standards limiting the amount of
BPA in canned food, and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) safety
standard is 25 times the dose NOW KNOWN to cause birth defects in lab
studies. Their safety standard for BPA has not been updated for 20 years.
But studies in the past decade have shown that low-level
exposures to BPA may actually be MORE dangerous than high-level exposures!
Where traditional toxicology asserts that higher doses does
greater harm, bisphenol A tests show that low doses can be the most toxic of
all, partly because at low levels it can fall below the radar of your body's
natural detox mechanism.
For example, one study found that a low dose of BPA produced a
70 percent higher growth rate of prostate cancer cells in lab animals than
did higher doses (Wetherill et al. 2002). In another; lower doses of BPA
resulted in higher rates of breast cell growth that can precede cancer
(Markey et al. 2001).
Then again, just last month the Journal of the American Medical
Association (JAMA) published a study that found higher urinary BPA
concentrations were associated with cardiovascular disease and diabetes in
adults.
Perhaps our dependency on plastic plays a larger role than
anyone ever imagined in the rise of the big three: cancer, heart disease and
rampant diabetes?
BPA and Your Baby - What's the Risk, and What's the Solution?
As usual those most at risk are children and fetuses, which is
why it's appalling to think that these chemicals are commonly used in
everything from the infant formula, to the bottle it's served in, to the
teething rings, and the toys your baby plays with on a daily basis.
Sadly, of all foods tested, infant formula was among the top
three foods that had BPA levels of highest concern.
Just one to three servings was found to contain BPA levels that
have caused serious adverse effects in animal tests. And, for 1 in 3 cans of
infant formula, a single serving was found to contain enough BPA to expose
an infant to BPA levels more than 200 times the government's traditional
"safe" level of exposure for industrial chemicals!
Although the article above recommends using powdered infant
formula instead of ready-to-serve liquid varieties to cut down on BPA
exposure, I want to remind you that nothing beats breast feeding when it
comes to feeding your baby.
Breast milk contains antibodies, immunoglobulins, white blood
cells, lactoferrin, lysosomes, bifidus factor (which helps friendly bacteria
grow in the intestines to ensure acid environment), vitamin B12 binding
protein, and many, many other substances. It also contains essential fatty
acids that help bolster your baby's body against the impact of toxic
chemicals.
And of course, if a mother follows my dietary recommendations,
she will have the best chance of being optimally healthy, and her breast
milk will be even more nutritious.
So remember that if you want the very best by far for your
babies, breastfeed them if at all possible. But if you are going to use
commercial formulas, then using a powdered formula may reduce your baby's
exposure to BPA. According to the EWG's calculations, babies fed
reconstituted powdered formula likely receive 8 to 20 times less BPA than
those fed liquid formula from a metal can.
However, a far better option than commercial formula would be to
try the Infant Formula Fortification Protocol developed by Dr. Patricia Kane
and myself. In addition, the Weston A. Price Foundation has its own infant
feeding recommendations, which are another healthy option.
10 More Tips to Reduce Your Exposure to BPA
1. Only use glass baby bottles and dishes for your baby
2. Get rid of your plastic dishes and cups, and replace
them with glass varieties
3. Give your baby natural fabric toys instead of plastic
ones
4. Store your food and beverages in glass -- NOT plastic --
containers
5. IF you choose to use a microwave, don't microwave food
in a plastic container
6. Use glass, ceramic, or stainless steel travel coffee
mugs rather than plastic or Styrofoam coffee cups
7. Avoid using plastic wrap (and never microwave anything
covered in it)
8. If you opt to use plastic kitchenware, at least get rid
of the older, scratched-up varieties, avoid putting them in the dishwasher,
and don't wash them with harsh detergents, as these things can cause more
chemicals to leach into your food
9. Avoid using bottled water; filter your own using a
reverse osmosis filter instead
10. Before allowing a dental sealant to be applied to your, or
your children's, teeth, ask your dentist to verify that it does not contain
BPA
In the event that you do opt to use plastic containers for your
food or beverages, be sure to avoid those marked on the bottom with the
recycling label No. 7, as these varieties may contain BPA.
Containers marked with the recycling labels No. 1, No. 2, and
No. 4 do not contain BPA (however they may contain other unsavory chemicals
that you're best off avoiding by using glass instead). If in doubt, remember
this handy saying from The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy:
"With your food, use 4, 5, 1 and 2. All the rest aren't good for
you."
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
How we take difficulties
"Nothing in life is so hard that you can't make it easier by the way you take it."
Ellen Glasgow
1874-1945, Novelist
Ellen Glasgow
1874-1945, Novelist
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Avoid Flu Shots, Take Vitamin D Instead
Taking vitamin D in these doses is safe, far safer than a flu shot with all the bad chemicals it contains.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Enthusiasm!
"Every memorable act in the history of the world is a triumph of enthusiasm. Nothing great was ever achieved without it because it gives any challenge or any occupation, no matter how frightening or difficult, a new meaning. Without enthusiasm you are doomed to a life of mediocrity but with it you can accomplish miracles."
Og Mandino
1923-1996, Speaker and Author of The Greatest Salesman in the World
Og Mandino
1923-1996, Speaker and Author of The Greatest Salesman in the World
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Focus on desire
"Focus more on your desire than on your doubt, and the dream will take care of itself. You may be surprised at how easily this happens. Your doubts are not as powerful as your desires, unless you make them so."
Marcia Wieder
Speaker and Author
Marcia Wieder
Speaker and Author
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
How we respond when bad things happen
"In the final analysis, the questions of why bad things happen to good people transmutes itself into some very different questions, no longer asking why something happened, but asking how we will respond, what we intend to do now that it happened."
Harold S. Kushner
Rabbi, Author of When Bad Things Happen To Good People
Harold S. Kushner
Rabbi, Author of When Bad Things Happen To Good People
Vitamin D again linked to breast cancer protection
By Stephen Daniells
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/Vitamin-D-again-linked-to-breast-cancer-protection
26-Sep-2008 -
Increased intake of vitamin D from the diet and from sunlight may reduce the
risk fo breast cancer by over 20 per cent, says a new study.
The potential protective effects of the vitamin were not limited by the
hormone receptor status of the tumours, according to research published
online in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
"This study suggests that vitamin D is associated with a reduced risk of
breast cancer regardless of [oestrogen-receptor (ER) positive and
progesterone-receptor (PR)] status of the tumour," wrote lead author
Kristina Blackmore from Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.
Over one million women worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer every
year, with the highest incidences in the US and the Netherlands. China has
the lowest incidence and mortality rate of the disease.
Hormone-sensitive oestrogen-receptor (ER) positive and progesterone-receptor
(PR) positive tumours are said to be the most common type diagnosed among
breast cancer patients in the US. These tumours are stimulated to grow by
the female hormones oestrogen and progesterone.
Study details
"Few epidemiologic studies have considered the association between vitamin D
and hormone-receptor-defined breast cancer," wrote Blackmore.
In order to start filling this knowledge gap, the Canadian researchers
analysed the vitamin D intakes of 759 women with breast cancer, and compared
this to the vitamin D intakes of 1,135 healthy controls.
Increased intakes of the vitamin were associated with a 24 per cent
reduction in the risk of developing ER+ and PR+ tumours, said the
researchers. Moreover, increased intakes were also associated with 26 and 21
per cent reductions in the risk of receptor-negative (ER-/PR-) and mixed
receptor (ER+/PR-) tumours. However, these last two associations were not
significant, said the researchers.
"Future studies with a larger number of receptor-negative and mixed tumours
are required," they concluded.
D and the big C
The link between vitamin D intake and protection from cancer dates from the
1940s when Frank Apperly demonstrated a link between latitude and deaths
from cancer, and suggested that sunlight gave "a relative cancer immunity".
Vitamin D refers to two biologically inactive precursors - D3, also known as
cholecalciferol, and D2, also known as ergocalciferol. Both D3 and D2
precursors are hydroxylated in the liver and kidneys to form 25-
hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), the non-active 'storage' form, and
1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D), the biologically active form that is
tightly controlled by the body.
There is growing evidence that 1,25(OH)2D has anticancer effects, but the
discovery that non-kidney cells can also hydroxylate 25(OH)D had profound
implications, implying that higher 25(OH)D levels could protect against
cancer in the local sites.
Source: American Journal of Epidemiology
Published online ahead of print, doi:10.1093/aje/kwn198
"Vitamin D From Dietary Intake and Sunlight Exposure and the Risk of
Hormone-Receptor-Defined Breast Cancer"
Authors: K.M. Blackmore, M. Lesosky, H. Barnett, J.M. Raboud, R. Vieth, J.A.
Knight
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Science-Nutrition/Vitamin-D-again-linked-to-breast-cancer-protection
26-Sep-2008 -
Increased intake of vitamin D from the diet and from sunlight may reduce the
risk fo breast cancer by over 20 per cent, says a new study.
The potential protective effects of the vitamin were not limited by the
hormone receptor status of the tumours, according to research published
online in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
"This study suggests that vitamin D is associated with a reduced risk of
breast cancer regardless of [oestrogen-receptor (ER) positive and
progesterone-receptor (PR)] status of the tumour," wrote lead author
Kristina Blackmore from Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.
Over one million women worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer every
year, with the highest incidences in the US and the Netherlands. China has
the lowest incidence and mortality rate of the disease.
Hormone-sensitive oestrogen-receptor (ER) positive and progesterone-receptor
(PR) positive tumours are said to be the most common type diagnosed among
breast cancer patients in the US. These tumours are stimulated to grow by
the female hormones oestrogen and progesterone.
Study details
"Few epidemiologic studies have considered the association between vitamin D
and hormone-receptor-defined breast cancer," wrote Blackmore.
In order to start filling this knowledge gap, the Canadian researchers
analysed the vitamin D intakes of 759 women with breast cancer, and compared
this to the vitamin D intakes of 1,135 healthy controls.
Increased intakes of the vitamin were associated with a 24 per cent
reduction in the risk of developing ER+ and PR+ tumours, said the
researchers. Moreover, increased intakes were also associated with 26 and 21
per cent reductions in the risk of receptor-negative (ER-/PR-) and mixed
receptor (ER+/PR-) tumours. However, these last two associations were not
significant, said the researchers.
"Future studies with a larger number of receptor-negative and mixed tumours
are required," they concluded.
D and the big C
The link between vitamin D intake and protection from cancer dates from the
1940s when Frank Apperly demonstrated a link between latitude and deaths
from cancer, and suggested that sunlight gave "a relative cancer immunity".
Vitamin D refers to two biologically inactive precursors - D3, also known as
cholecalciferol, and D2, also known as ergocalciferol. Both D3 and D2
precursors are hydroxylated in the liver and kidneys to form 25-
hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), the non-active 'storage' form, and
1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D), the biologically active form that is
tightly controlled by the body.
There is growing evidence that 1,25(OH)2D has anticancer effects, but the
discovery that non-kidney cells can also hydroxylate 25(OH)D had profound
implications, implying that higher 25(OH)D levels could protect against
cancer in the local sites.
Source: American Journal of Epidemiology
Published online ahead of print, doi:10.1093/aje/kwn198
"Vitamin D From Dietary Intake and Sunlight Exposure and the Risk of
Hormone-Receptor-Defined Breast Cancer"
Authors: K.M. Blackmore, M. Lesosky, H. Barnett, J.M. Raboud, R. Vieth, J.A.
Knight
Thursday, September 25, 2008
How we lift ourselves
"We lift ourselves by our thought. If you want to enlarge your life, you must first enlarge your thought of it and of yourself. Hold the ideal of yourself as you long to be, always everywhere."
Orison Swett Marden
1850-1924, Author and Founder of Success Magazine
Orison Swett Marden
1850-1924, Author and Founder of Success Magazine
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Vitamin B12 Keeps Your Brain Young
Older individuals with low levels of vitamin B12 are at increased risk
of having brain atrophy or shrinkage. Brain atrophy is associated with
Alzheimer's disease and impaired cognitive function.
Vitamin B12 deficiency is a public health problem, especially among
older people.
In a study involving more than 100 volunteers aged 61 to 87, all
participants underwent annual clinical exams, MRI scans and cognitive tests,
and had blood samples taken. Individuals with lower vitamin B12 levels at
the start of the study had a greater decrease in brain volume. Those with
the lowest B12 levels had a sixfold greater rate of brain volume loss
compared with those who had the highest levels.
However, none of the participants were actually deficient in vitamin
B12 -- they just had low levels within a normal range.
Other risk factors for brain atrophy include high blood pressure,
diabetes and high cholesterol.
Sources:
a.. U.S. News & World Report September 8, 2008
a.. Neurology 2008; 71: 826-832
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
The first thing that jumped out at me about this study wasn't only the
benefits of vitamin B12, but the risk that's there if your levels are low.
Not deficient, necessarily, just within the low range of normal
"Our results suggest that rather than maintaining one's B12 at a level
that is just above the cut off for deficiency, it might be prudent to aim to
keep it higher up than normal range," the study's lead researcher said.
This is really important to hear, as most people would assume that if
their levels are within the normal range, they're fine. In reality, you
cannot always count on the "normal" reference ranges that come with your
blood tests. Vitamin D is another example of a test that lists "normal"
ranges that are not nearly adequate to keep you healthy.
This really reminds me in many ways of the story of vitamin D. For
many decades the "experts" believed that all you needed was 400 units per
day. Now we know that you need about ten times that much or the equivalent
amount of sun to produce that in your skin.
To really know if your nutrient levels are where they should be to
keep you optimally healthy, you need to do some major research of your own
(seeking out scientific studies like this one), or you need to seek the
guidance of a health care practitioner who thinks outside of the box -- and
understands that there is a major difference between "average" and
"optimal."
Getting back to vitamin B12, though, there are many important reasons
to make sure you're getting enough in your diet.
Why is Vitamin B12 so Important?
It's been estimated that 40 percent of the U.S. population is
deficient in vitamin B12, a serious public health problem when you consider
how important this vitamin is for your health. Vitamin B12:
. Is needed for proper digestion, food absorption, carbohydrate and
fat metabolism.
. Helps folic acid regulate the formation of red blood cells, and
helps your body use iron.
. Keep your nervous system healthy by assisting the nerves of your
body to function and communicate in an optimal manner.
. Helps in cell formation and cellular longevity.
. Helps support female reproductive health.
. Promote normal nerve growth and development by maintaining the fatty
sheaths. These fatty sheaths play a vital role as they cover and protect
your nerve endings.
. Is critical to your circulation and adrenal hormone production
. Helps boost your immunity.
. Supports a healthy mood and feelings of well-being, and provides
excellent support for your memory, mental clarity, and concentration.
. Helps to boost your energy levels.
Who is at Risk of Vitamin B12 Deficiency?
The group most at risk is those who do not eat meat or animal
products. Vitamin B12 deficiency is VERY common, almost universal, in strict
vegetarians and vegans, as vitamin B12 is NOT readily available, if at all,
in plants.
Vitamin B12 is found almost exclusively in animal tissues, including
foods like beef and beef liver, lamb, snapper, venison, salmon, shrimp,
scallops, poultry and eggs. And, the few plant foods that are sources of B12
are actually B12 analogs. Simply put, an analog is a substance that blocks
the uptake of true B12. The result being, your body's need for the nutrient
actually increases.
You may also be at risk of B12 deficiency if you have stomach
problems. This is because B12 needs the help of a protein in order to be
absorbed. That protein is called intrinsic factor, and if your stomach is
irritated or inflamed, it may stop producing intrinsic factor, making it
nearly impossible for your body to absorb B12.
Other factors also influence your body's B12 levels:
. Age: People over 50 tend to have a limited ability to absorb B12.
. Drinking coffee: A study in Clinical Chemistry found that people who
drank four or more cups of coffee a day had a 15 percent reduction in
multiple B vitamins compared to those who drank no coffee.
. Taking medications: Many prescription drugs diminish your body's
levels of B12, including antibiotics, anticancer medications,
anticonvulsants, anti-gout medications, antihypertensives, antiParkinson's
medications, antipsychotics, antituberculosis medications, birth control
pills, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and potassium replacements.
. Those who have undergone weight-loss surgery, which can impair your
body's ability to absorb B12 and other vitamins.
. Those exposed to laughing gas anesthesia or nitrous oxide.
If you are concerned about getting enough vitamin B12, it is important
to know that most oral vitamin B12 supplements do not work well at all.
Vitamin B12 is the largest vitamin known and it is not easily absorbed.
Ideally, you should make sure you're getting plenty of vitamin B12 by
eating animal foods that are right for your nutritional type, and follow the
advice in Take Control of Your Health to overcome any stomach issues that
may be inhibiting your absorption.
If you do choose to supplement, studies show that sublingual
(under-the-tongue) forms of vitamin B12 are better absorbed by your
bloodstream than tablet or inhaled (through your nose) versions.
of having brain atrophy or shrinkage. Brain atrophy is associated with
Alzheimer's disease and impaired cognitive function.
Vitamin B12 deficiency is a public health problem, especially among
older people.
In a study involving more than 100 volunteers aged 61 to 87, all
participants underwent annual clinical exams, MRI scans and cognitive tests,
and had blood samples taken. Individuals with lower vitamin B12 levels at
the start of the study had a greater decrease in brain volume. Those with
the lowest B12 levels had a sixfold greater rate of brain volume loss
compared with those who had the highest levels.
However, none of the participants were actually deficient in vitamin
B12 -- they just had low levels within a normal range.
Other risk factors for brain atrophy include high blood pressure,
diabetes and high cholesterol.
Sources:
a.. U.S. News & World Report September 8, 2008
a.. Neurology 2008; 71: 826-832
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
The first thing that jumped out at me about this study wasn't only the
benefits of vitamin B12, but the risk that's there if your levels are low.
Not deficient, necessarily, just within the low range of normal
"Our results suggest that rather than maintaining one's B12 at a level
that is just above the cut off for deficiency, it might be prudent to aim to
keep it higher up than normal range," the study's lead researcher said.
This is really important to hear, as most people would assume that if
their levels are within the normal range, they're fine. In reality, you
cannot always count on the "normal" reference ranges that come with your
blood tests. Vitamin D is another example of a test that lists "normal"
ranges that are not nearly adequate to keep you healthy.
This really reminds me in many ways of the story of vitamin D. For
many decades the "experts" believed that all you needed was 400 units per
day. Now we know that you need about ten times that much or the equivalent
amount of sun to produce that in your skin.
To really know if your nutrient levels are where they should be to
keep you optimally healthy, you need to do some major research of your own
(seeking out scientific studies like this one), or you need to seek the
guidance of a health care practitioner who thinks outside of the box -- and
understands that there is a major difference between "average" and
"optimal."
Getting back to vitamin B12, though, there are many important reasons
to make sure you're getting enough in your diet.
Why is Vitamin B12 so Important?
It's been estimated that 40 percent of the U.S. population is
deficient in vitamin B12, a serious public health problem when you consider
how important this vitamin is for your health. Vitamin B12:
. Is needed for proper digestion, food absorption, carbohydrate and
fat metabolism.
. Helps folic acid regulate the formation of red blood cells, and
helps your body use iron.
. Keep your nervous system healthy by assisting the nerves of your
body to function and communicate in an optimal manner.
. Helps in cell formation and cellular longevity.
. Helps support female reproductive health.
. Promote normal nerve growth and development by maintaining the fatty
sheaths. These fatty sheaths play a vital role as they cover and protect
your nerve endings.
. Is critical to your circulation and adrenal hormone production
. Helps boost your immunity.
. Supports a healthy mood and feelings of well-being, and provides
excellent support for your memory, mental clarity, and concentration.
. Helps to boost your energy levels.
Who is at Risk of Vitamin B12 Deficiency?
The group most at risk is those who do not eat meat or animal
products. Vitamin B12 deficiency is VERY common, almost universal, in strict
vegetarians and vegans, as vitamin B12 is NOT readily available, if at all,
in plants.
Vitamin B12 is found almost exclusively in animal tissues, including
foods like beef and beef liver, lamb, snapper, venison, salmon, shrimp,
scallops, poultry and eggs. And, the few plant foods that are sources of B12
are actually B12 analogs. Simply put, an analog is a substance that blocks
the uptake of true B12. The result being, your body's need for the nutrient
actually increases.
You may also be at risk of B12 deficiency if you have stomach
problems. This is because B12 needs the help of a protein in order to be
absorbed. That protein is called intrinsic factor, and if your stomach is
irritated or inflamed, it may stop producing intrinsic factor, making it
nearly impossible for your body to absorb B12.
Other factors also influence your body's B12 levels:
. Age: People over 50 tend to have a limited ability to absorb B12.
. Drinking coffee: A study in Clinical Chemistry found that people who
drank four or more cups of coffee a day had a 15 percent reduction in
multiple B vitamins compared to those who drank no coffee.
. Taking medications: Many prescription drugs diminish your body's
levels of B12, including antibiotics, anticancer medications,
anticonvulsants, anti-gout medications, antihypertensives, antiParkinson's
medications, antipsychotics, antituberculosis medications, birth control
pills, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and potassium replacements.
. Those who have undergone weight-loss surgery, which can impair your
body's ability to absorb B12 and other vitamins.
. Those exposed to laughing gas anesthesia or nitrous oxide.
If you are concerned about getting enough vitamin B12, it is important
to know that most oral vitamin B12 supplements do not work well at all.
Vitamin B12 is the largest vitamin known and it is not easily absorbed.
Ideally, you should make sure you're getting plenty of vitamin B12 by
eating animal foods that are right for your nutritional type, and follow the
advice in Take Control of Your Health to overcome any stomach issues that
may be inhibiting your absorption.
If you do choose to supplement, studies show that sublingual
(under-the-tongue) forms of vitamin B12 are better absorbed by your
bloodstream than tablet or inhaled (through your nose) versions.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Taking failures seriously
"When we can begin to take our failures seriously, it means we are ceasing to be afraid of them. It is of immense importance to learn to laugh at ourselves."
Katherine Mansfield
1888-1923, Author
Katherine Mansfield
1888-1923, Author
Monday, September 22, 2008
Learning and the learned
"In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists."
Eric Hoffer
Eric Hoffer
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Pain and quitting
"Pain is temporary. It may last a minute, or an hour, or a day, or a year, but eventually it will subside and something else will take its place. If I quit, however, it lasts forever."
Lance Armstrong
Cancer Survivor and Athlete
Lance Armstrong
Cancer Survivor and Athlete
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Past, present, and future
"One day at a time - this is enough. Do not look back and grieve over the past, for it is gone: and do not be troubled about the future, for it has not yet come. Live in the present, and make it so beautiful that it will be worth remembering."
Ida Scott Taylor
1820-1915, Author
Ida Scott Taylor
1820-1915, Author
Being Vegetarian Shrinks Brain
Becoming a vegetarian could be good for the planet, but it’s bad for your brain. Scientists at Oxford University in England have found that vegetarians are six times more likely to have brain shrinkage than those who include meats in their diets.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"If things are not going well ... "
"If things are not going well with you, begin your effort at correcting the situation by carefully examining the service you are rendering, and especially the spirit in which you are rendering it."
Roger Babson
1875-1967, Statistician and Columnist
Roger Babson
1875-1967, Statistician and Columnist
Monday, September 15, 2008
Why we read
How are you coming with your home library? Do you need some good ammunition on why it's so important to read? The last time I checked the statistics...I think they indicated that only four percent of the adults in this country have bought a book within the past year. That's dangerous. It's extremely important that we keep ourselves in the top five or six percent.
In one of the Monthly Letters from the Royal Bank of Canada it was pointed out that reading good books is not something to be indulged in as a luxury. It is a necessity for anyone who intends to give his life and work a touch of quality. The most real wealth is not what we put into our piggy banks but what we develop in our heads. Books instruct us without anger, threats and harsh discipline. They do not sneer at our ignorance or grumble at our mistakes. They ask only that we spend some time in the company of greatness so that we may absorb some of its attributes.
You do not read a book for the book's sake, but for your own.
You may read because in your high-pressure life, studded with problems and emergencies, you need periods of relief and yet recognize that peace of mind does not mean numbness of mind.
You may read because you never had an opportunity to go to college, and books give you a chance to get something you missed. You may read because your job is routine, and books give you a feeling of depth in life.
You may read because you did go to college.
You may read because you see social, economic and philosophical problems which need solution, and you believe that the best thinking of all past ages may be useful in your age, too.
You may read because you are tired of the shallowness of contemporary life, bored by the current conversational commonplaces, and wearied of shop talk and gossip about people.
Whatever your dominant personal reason, you will find that reading gives knowledge, creative power, satisfaction and relaxation. It cultivates your mind by calling its faculties into exercise.
Books are a source of pleasure - the purest and the most lasting. They enhance your sensation of the interestingness of life. Reading them is not a violent pleasure like the gross enjoyment of an uncultivated mind, but a subtle delight.
Reading dispels prejudices which hem our minds within narrow spaces. One of the things that will surprise you as you read good books from all over the world and from all times of man is that human nature is much the same today as it has been ever since writing began to tell us about it.
Some people act as if it were demeaning to their manhood to wish to be well-read but you can no more be a healthy person mentally without reading substantial books than you can be a vigorous person physically without eating solid food. Books should be chosen, not for their freedom from evil, but for their possession of good. Dr. Johnson said: "Whilst you stand deliberating which book your son shall read first, another boy has read both.
Earl Nightingale
In one of the Monthly Letters from the Royal Bank of Canada it was pointed out that reading good books is not something to be indulged in as a luxury. It is a necessity for anyone who intends to give his life and work a touch of quality. The most real wealth is not what we put into our piggy banks but what we develop in our heads. Books instruct us without anger, threats and harsh discipline. They do not sneer at our ignorance or grumble at our mistakes. They ask only that we spend some time in the company of greatness so that we may absorb some of its attributes.
You do not read a book for the book's sake, but for your own.
You may read because in your high-pressure life, studded with problems and emergencies, you need periods of relief and yet recognize that peace of mind does not mean numbness of mind.
You may read because you never had an opportunity to go to college, and books give you a chance to get something you missed. You may read because your job is routine, and books give you a feeling of depth in life.
You may read because you did go to college.
You may read because you see social, economic and philosophical problems which need solution, and you believe that the best thinking of all past ages may be useful in your age, too.
You may read because you are tired of the shallowness of contemporary life, bored by the current conversational commonplaces, and wearied of shop talk and gossip about people.
Whatever your dominant personal reason, you will find that reading gives knowledge, creative power, satisfaction and relaxation. It cultivates your mind by calling its faculties into exercise.
Books are a source of pleasure - the purest and the most lasting. They enhance your sensation of the interestingness of life. Reading them is not a violent pleasure like the gross enjoyment of an uncultivated mind, but a subtle delight.
Reading dispels prejudices which hem our minds within narrow spaces. One of the things that will surprise you as you read good books from all over the world and from all times of man is that human nature is much the same today as it has been ever since writing began to tell us about it.
Some people act as if it were demeaning to their manhood to wish to be well-read but you can no more be a healthy person mentally without reading substantial books than you can be a vigorous person physically without eating solid food. Books should be chosen, not for their freedom from evil, but for their possession of good. Dr. Johnson said: "Whilst you stand deliberating which book your son shall read first, another boy has read both.
Earl Nightingale
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Behave yourself
"Believe there is a great power silently working all things for good, behave yourself and never mind the rest."
Beatrix Potter
1866-1943, Author and Illustrator
Beatrix Potter
1866-1943, Author and Illustrator
Study adds colon cancer to list for trans fats' harm
10-Sep-2008 -
Increased intakes of trans fatty acids may increase the risk of colorectal
tumours by about 86 per cent, suggests new research from the US.
The study followed almost 622 North Carolinians who underwent complete colon
exams between 2001 and 2002 and found significant colorectal cancer risk
increases for higher intakes of trans fatty acids.
The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, looks set to
heap more pressure on the food industry to remove and reformulate products
without trans fats, one of the industry's bêtes noires.
"These results suggest that consumption of high amounts of trans-fatty acid
may increase the risk of colorectal neoplasia [abnormal cell growth in the
colon and rectum], and they provide additional support to recommendations to
limit trans-fatty acid consumption," wrote lead author Lisa Vinikoor from
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Though trace amounts of trans fats are found naturally in dairy and meats,
the vast majority are formed during the partial hydrogenation of vegetable
oil that converts the oil into semi-solids for a variety of food
applications.
Trans fatty acids have been useful in foods due to their extended shelf life
and flavour stability, and displaced natural solid fats and liquid oils in
many areas of food processing.
But scientific reports that trans fatty acids raise serum levels of
LDL-cholesterol, reduce levels of HDL-cholesterol, can promote inflammation,
can cause endothelial dysfunction, and influence other risk factors for
cardiovascular diseases (CVD), has led to a well-publicised bans in New York
City and Philadelphia restaurants, and other cities, like Boston and
Chicago, considering similar measures.
The new study adds to a small number of previous studies reporting that
increased levels of markers of trans-fat intake are associated with an
increase risk of cancer of the colon and rectum.
Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer in the US, according to
the American Cancer Society. About 150,000 new cases will be diagnosed in
the US this year, says the society, with an almost 50-50 split between men
and women.
Study details
Vinikoor and co-workers recruited over 600 people from the University of
North Carolina Hospitals. Dietary, lifestyle and other demographic details
about them were achieved via interview, while colorectal health was verified
using results of complete colonoscopies.
The highest trans fatty acid consumption was associated with an 86 per cent
increase in colorectal cancer risk, compared to the lowest consumption.
Further analysis of the colorectal area suggested that trans fatty acid
consumption did not influence the location, size or number of benign tumours
(adenoma).
While further studies are required to verify the results, it is clear that
the study may heap more pressure on the food industry to reformulate and
remove trans fatty's from products.
Alternatives to trans fats
The food industry as a whole has expressed its commitment to removing trans
fatty acids from its products, but such reformulation is not straightforward
and presents challenges.
Paul Wassell and Niall Young from Danisco's Multiple Food Application Group
reviewed the options available to formulators and stated that designing
foods with trans-fat alternatives must be a "multidisciplinary' approach"
(International Journal of Food Science and Technology, Vol. 42, pp 503-517).
"Successful replacements of trans fatty acids is not easily achieved by
simply removing the trans isomer, because of a host of beneficial functional
characteristics that are readily attributable to trans fatty acids," wrote
Wassell and Young, pointing out that the presence of the trans isomer
influences melting behaviour, oxidative stability and textural properties.
At last year's IFT in Chicago, Walter Willett from Harvard School of Public
Health said that limiting and labelling trans fatty acids in food is not
enough, and they should be banned.
Professor Willett told food manufacturers and food professionals in Chicago
that Denmark had taken the right approach to the trans fatty acid issue -
the Scandinavian country introduced legislation in 2004 that required
locally and imported foods to contain less than two per cent industrially
made trans fatty acids, a move that effectively abolished the use of
partially hydrogenated vegetable oils in the country.
Source: American Journal of Epidemiology
Volume 168, Issue 3, Pages 289-297; doi:10.1093/aje/kwn134
"Consumption of trans-Fatty Acid and Its Association with Colorectal
Adenomas"
Authors: L.C. Vinikoor, J.C. Schroeder, R.C. Millikan, J.A. Satia, C.F.
Martin, J. Ibrahim, J.A. Galanko, R.S. Sandler
Increased intakes of trans fatty acids may increase the risk of colorectal
tumours by about 86 per cent, suggests new research from the US.
The study followed almost 622 North Carolinians who underwent complete colon
exams between 2001 and 2002 and found significant colorectal cancer risk
increases for higher intakes of trans fatty acids.
The study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, looks set to
heap more pressure on the food industry to remove and reformulate products
without trans fats, one of the industry's bêtes noires.
"These results suggest that consumption of high amounts of trans-fatty acid
may increase the risk of colorectal neoplasia [abnormal cell growth in the
colon and rectum], and they provide additional support to recommendations to
limit trans-fatty acid consumption," wrote lead author Lisa Vinikoor from
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Though trace amounts of trans fats are found naturally in dairy and meats,
the vast majority are formed during the partial hydrogenation of vegetable
oil that converts the oil into semi-solids for a variety of food
applications.
Trans fatty acids have been useful in foods due to their extended shelf life
and flavour stability, and displaced natural solid fats and liquid oils in
many areas of food processing.
But scientific reports that trans fatty acids raise serum levels of
LDL-cholesterol, reduce levels of HDL-cholesterol, can promote inflammation,
can cause endothelial dysfunction, and influence other risk factors for
cardiovascular diseases (CVD), has led to a well-publicised bans in New York
City and Philadelphia restaurants, and other cities, like Boston and
Chicago, considering similar measures.
The new study adds to a small number of previous studies reporting that
increased levels of markers of trans-fat intake are associated with an
increase risk of cancer of the colon and rectum.
Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer in the US, according to
the American Cancer Society. About 150,000 new cases will be diagnosed in
the US this year, says the society, with an almost 50-50 split between men
and women.
Study details
Vinikoor and co-workers recruited over 600 people from the University of
North Carolina Hospitals. Dietary, lifestyle and other demographic details
about them were achieved via interview, while colorectal health was verified
using results of complete colonoscopies.
The highest trans fatty acid consumption was associated with an 86 per cent
increase in colorectal cancer risk, compared to the lowest consumption.
Further analysis of the colorectal area suggested that trans fatty acid
consumption did not influence the location, size or number of benign tumours
(adenoma).
While further studies are required to verify the results, it is clear that
the study may heap more pressure on the food industry to reformulate and
remove trans fatty's from products.
Alternatives to trans fats
The food industry as a whole has expressed its commitment to removing trans
fatty acids from its products, but such reformulation is not straightforward
and presents challenges.
Paul Wassell and Niall Young from Danisco's Multiple Food Application Group
reviewed the options available to formulators and stated that designing
foods with trans-fat alternatives must be a "multidisciplinary' approach"
(International Journal of Food Science and Technology, Vol. 42, pp 503-517).
"Successful replacements of trans fatty acids is not easily achieved by
simply removing the trans isomer, because of a host of beneficial functional
characteristics that are readily attributable to trans fatty acids," wrote
Wassell and Young, pointing out that the presence of the trans isomer
influences melting behaviour, oxidative stability and textural properties.
At last year's IFT in Chicago, Walter Willett from Harvard School of Public
Health said that limiting and labelling trans fatty acids in food is not
enough, and they should be banned.
Professor Willett told food manufacturers and food professionals in Chicago
that Denmark had taken the right approach to the trans fatty acid issue -
the Scandinavian country introduced legislation in 2004 that required
locally and imported foods to contain less than two per cent industrially
made trans fatty acids, a move that effectively abolished the use of
partially hydrogenated vegetable oils in the country.
Source: American Journal of Epidemiology
Volume 168, Issue 3, Pages 289-297; doi:10.1093/aje/kwn134
"Consumption of trans-Fatty Acid and Its Association with Colorectal
Adenomas"
Authors: L.C. Vinikoor, J.C. Schroeder, R.C. Millikan, J.A. Satia, C.F.
Martin, J. Ibrahim, J.A. Galanko, R.S. Sandler
Hearing Loss and the Hearing Function
"Hearing impairment" or "hearing loss" is thought to be a consequence
of age, but from an up-to-date investigation, it became clear that
there are other causes other than age. While in China, they believe
that the hearing function has something to do with smell.
Do you know that the sound of music you hear may be different when
heard by others? Why will it be heard differently depending on the
person?
Suppose that before we play music, we inform the listeners that there
shall be a word or noise saying "New York, New York", and ask the
listeners how many times they heard it? Probably 70-80% of them will
say, "Yes, yes, we heard that". But then, there was not even a
word "New York" at all but we just inserted scratching noise.
From this experiment, we understand that the Chinese was right to say
that the hearing function has something to do with smell. We really
do not hear sounds by our ears alone. We hear sounds both by smell
and vision, too. Our brain is made to fill up the portions where
objects are blank or hidden.
Now let's take another case. Let's say you saw a bomb blasting photo
and you did not hear any sound. But by means of seeing the blasted
bomb, you will imagine a "Big Bang" or illusion of sounds that exists
in your brain. The brain recalls or restores the sounds lacking in
the photo. You can call it "Phonological restoration".
We also conducted experiments of hearing impairment with the elders
and young people. As expected, in a certain accustomed short Japanese
words, the elders can hear more than the younger ones. However,
English-related short words were heard by younger people. From this
experiment, we truly conclude that hearing is not only by ear but by
individual memories, too. Memories in the brain can repair or fix the
part where sounds are not heard and remain blank. And they can
understand it as if they heard it right.
It's just like the illustrations below. The sights are obstructed or
blocked by lattice doors or windows. Yet, you can imagine the
unviewed portions and repair it to see or imagine the entire sight.
It is just the same with the hearing function.
http://www.pyroenergen.com/articles08/images/window-grills.jpg
http://www.pyroenergen.com/articles08/images/door-grills.jpg
The way this repair capability works varies on the subject among
young and old people. Although it is true that the hearing function
weakens with age, there are ways to restore it artificially. Also,
there are elders whose hearing function is greater than young stars.
Do you notice that elderly people can gather easily and talk to each
other and gossips go around without end? There appears to be no
problem of hearing loss among them. Why?
It is because when the subject of their conversation is favorable
among them, they can fix or repair unknowingly where they were not
able to hear by means of action or movement of each lip. It is just
like the grill window illustrations shown above.
Of course, it is true that when most of us get old, our hearing
senses deteriorate due to hardening of eardrums.
Well, what is the main reason of hearing loss? Our studies show that
there are many elderly who have good hearing just like young people.
We tried to analyze more conclusively on what can cause hearing loss.
At first, we came to understand that people who have hyperlipidemia
(excessive fats in blood), diabetes, and kidney disease are more at
risk of hearing loss or deafness.
In the case of hyperlipidemia, cholesterol deposits form on the inner
surfaces of the arteries obstructing blood flow, and will easily clog
the capillaries in the ear. In addition, diabetes can cause raised
capillary pressure. And when kidney function fails, the ability to
discharge the wastes that formed in the ear capillaries will also
fail. Improvement in lifestyle such as moderate exercise and healthy
diet will help prevent hearing impairment or deafness.
There are families that have misunderstanding or troubles among the
elderly and young generations even in various companies because of
hearing loss.
Try to make subjects to talk about at the same level with young and
old generations. In this way, you can avoid frequent
misunderstandings or misinterpretations from each other.
Let's start just like gossip-gathering.
----------------------------------------------------------
About the Author:
Junji Takano is a Japanese health researcher involved in
investigating the cause of various diseases since 1960. In 1968, he
invented Pyro-Energen, the first electromedicine device that
eradicates viral diseases, cancer, and diseases of unknown cause
effectively without side effects.
Free newsletter: http://www.pyroenergen.com/newsletter.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
of age, but from an up-to-date investigation, it became clear that
there are other causes other than age. While in China, they believe
that the hearing function has something to do with smell.
Do you know that the sound of music you hear may be different when
heard by others? Why will it be heard differently depending on the
person?
Suppose that before we play music, we inform the listeners that there
shall be a word or noise saying "New York, New York", and ask the
listeners how many times they heard it? Probably 70-80% of them will
say, "Yes, yes, we heard that". But then, there was not even a
word "New York" at all but we just inserted scratching noise.
From this experiment, we understand that the Chinese was right to say
that the hearing function has something to do with smell. We really
do not hear sounds by our ears alone. We hear sounds both by smell
and vision, too. Our brain is made to fill up the portions where
objects are blank or hidden.
Now let's take another case. Let's say you saw a bomb blasting photo
and you did not hear any sound. But by means of seeing the blasted
bomb, you will imagine a "Big Bang" or illusion of sounds that exists
in your brain. The brain recalls or restores the sounds lacking in
the photo. You can call it "Phonological restoration".
We also conducted experiments of hearing impairment with the elders
and young people. As expected, in a certain accustomed short Japanese
words, the elders can hear more than the younger ones. However,
English-related short words were heard by younger people. From this
experiment, we truly conclude that hearing is not only by ear but by
individual memories, too. Memories in the brain can repair or fix the
part where sounds are not heard and remain blank. And they can
understand it as if they heard it right.
It's just like the illustrations below. The sights are obstructed or
blocked by lattice doors or windows. Yet, you can imagine the
unviewed portions and repair it to see or imagine the entire sight.
It is just the same with the hearing function.
http://www.pyroenergen.com/articles08/images/window-grills.jpg
http://www.pyroenergen.com/articles08/images/door-grills.jpg
The way this repair capability works varies on the subject among
young and old people. Although it is true that the hearing function
weakens with age, there are ways to restore it artificially. Also,
there are elders whose hearing function is greater than young stars.
Do you notice that elderly people can gather easily and talk to each
other and gossips go around without end? There appears to be no
problem of hearing loss among them. Why?
It is because when the subject of their conversation is favorable
among them, they can fix or repair unknowingly where they were not
able to hear by means of action or movement of each lip. It is just
like the grill window illustrations shown above.
Of course, it is true that when most of us get old, our hearing
senses deteriorate due to hardening of eardrums.
Well, what is the main reason of hearing loss? Our studies show that
there are many elderly who have good hearing just like young people.
We tried to analyze more conclusively on what can cause hearing loss.
At first, we came to understand that people who have hyperlipidemia
(excessive fats in blood), diabetes, and kidney disease are more at
risk of hearing loss or deafness.
In the case of hyperlipidemia, cholesterol deposits form on the inner
surfaces of the arteries obstructing blood flow, and will easily clog
the capillaries in the ear. In addition, diabetes can cause raised
capillary pressure. And when kidney function fails, the ability to
discharge the wastes that formed in the ear capillaries will also
fail. Improvement in lifestyle such as moderate exercise and healthy
diet will help prevent hearing impairment or deafness.
There are families that have misunderstanding or troubles among the
elderly and young generations even in various companies because of
hearing loss.
Try to make subjects to talk about at the same level with young and
old generations. In this way, you can avoid frequent
misunderstandings or misinterpretations from each other.
Let's start just like gossip-gathering.
----------------------------------------------------------
About the Author:
Junji Takano is a Japanese health researcher involved in
investigating the cause of various diseases since 1960. In 1968, he
invented Pyro-Energen, the first electromedicine device that
eradicates viral diseases, cancer, and diseases of unknown cause
effectively without side effects.
Free newsletter: http://www.pyroenergen.com/newsletter.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Clinging to what doesn't work
"See that any time you feel pained or defeated, it is only because you insist on clinging to what doesn't work. Dare to let go and you won't lose a thing except for a punishing idea."
Guy Finley
Author of The Secret of Letting Go
Guy Finley
Author of The Secret of Letting Go
Cholesterol Pill Taken by Thousands Causes Cancer
A pill intended to lower cholesterol levels has been linked to
an increased risk of cancer.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing data from a
trial which found a "larger percentage" of patients treated with the drug
Inegy died of cancer. The FDA is expected to issue its conclusions within
six months.
Inegy combines the widely-used statin drug simvastatin with a
new medication called ezetimibe. Ezetimibe works in a different way from
statins. Statins block cholesterol made in the liver, while ezetimibe blocks
the absorption of cholesterol in the gut.
Sources:
a.. The Daily Mail August 22, 2008
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Back in 2004, the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education
Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce
their LDL (bad) cholesterol to very low levels. It's been a health disaster
ever since.
Before 2004, a 130-milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered
healthy. The updated guidelines, however, recommended levels of less than
100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.
These updated guidelines instantly increased the market for
cholesterol-lowering drugs.
Not surprisingly, eight of the nine doctors who were on the approval
panel for these absurdly low guidelines had been making money from the
companies of the cholesterol-lowering drugs they were suddenly pushing onto
a much larger (oftentimes healthy) segment of the population.
Now, in order to get to these outrageous and dangerous low levels
usually requires multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs, such as Inegy, which
combines two cholesterol-lowering drugs into one.
Folks, it is VERY rare for anyone to need a cholesterol-lowering drug,
let alone multiples.
Among the more than 20,000 patients who have come to my clinic, only
four or five of them truly needed these drugs, as they had genetic
challenges that required it. But if you or someone you know is taking them,
odds are very high -- greater than 100 to 1 -- that you or they don't need
them, and they may even create more health challenges than what you started
out with.
Statins Actually INCREASE Your Risk of Heart Disease
Inegy combines two different medications -- simvastatin and
ezetimibe -- into one pill.
Although the Daily Mail article above claims statins "should lead to a
drop in heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems," that is not
necessarily the case.
Statin drugs can actually increase your risk of heart disease because
they deplete your body of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which can lead to heart
failure. They have also been linked to:
a.. Weakness
b.. Muscle aches
c.. An increase in cancer risk
d.. Immune system suppression
e.. Serious degenerative muscle tissue condition (rhabdomyolysis)
f.. Potential increase in liver enzymes so patients must be
monitored for normal liver function
Statins Have Been Linked to Increased Cancer Risk for More Than a
Decade
I reported that statins were linked to raised cancer risk as far back
as 2000, when research indicated that besides lowering levels of harmful
cholesterol, the drugs could also promote the growth of new blood vessels.
And, although this effect may help to prevent heart attacks and other forms
of heart disease, it may have the potential to promote cancer as well by
increasing the growth of blood vessels in cancerous tumors.
Additionally, back then, tests in human cell samples and in rabbits,
showed that simvastatin (Zocor) seemed to activate a pathway through which
cells communicate and act very similar to a naturally-occurring growth
factor.
But the statin-cancer connection had been discussed even prior to
that. A review published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical
Association in 1996 stated:
All members of the two most popular classes of lipid-lowering drugs
(the fibrates and the statins) cause cancer in rodents, in some cases at
levels of animal exposure close to those prescribed to humans. ...
Longer-term clinical trials and careful postmarketing surveillance during
the next several decades are needed to determine whether
cholesterol-lowering drugs cause cancer in humans. In the meantime, the
results of experiments in animals and humans suggest that lipid-lowering
drug treatment, especially with the fibrates and statins, should be avoided
except in patients at high short-term risk of coronary heart disease.
Is "Bad" Cholesterol Really Bad?
It's important to remember that you actually NEED cholesterol in your
body - including LDL, or so-called "bad" cholesterol -- in order to maintain
your health. There is actually no such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol.
Both HDL and LDL cholesterol perform vital functions in your body, which is
why it's actually dangerous to bring your LDL levels down too low.
HDL (high density lipoprotein) and LDL (low density lipoprotein) are
actually proteins that transport the cholesterol to and from your tissues.
Cholesterol in turn is a precursor to steroid hormones. For example, you can't
make testosterone or estrogen, cortisol, DHEA or pregnenolone, or a
multitude of other steroid hormones that are necessary for health, without
cholesterol.
Even more importantly, you can't make new cell membranes without
cholesterol.
So, the major reasons your body makes cholesterol in the first place,
and why you have LDL, is to take the cholesterol to the tissue so you can
make new cells or repair old damaged ones.
Why is High Cholesterol Equated with High Heart Disease Risk?
If your arteries are being damaged on a chronic basis your cholesterol
levels will remain chronically elevated. This is NOT the problem in and of
itself. Rather, this is your body's natural and purposeful response to
healing.
The REAL problem is what's causing the damage in the first place, such
as having chronically elevated blood sugar. The sugar molecule, in fact,
causes far more damage than any other molecule.
If you decide to take cholesterol-lowering drugs instead of addressing
the underlying problem of excess sugar in your blood stream, you are not
only stopping your body's natural healing process, you are also exposing
yourself to drugs that are loaded with side effects, such as those mentioned
earlier.
The chronic damage being done to your arteries in turn leads to
inflammation. This is how your body responds to invaders. However, when
inflammation becomes chronic, your body is in a constantly irritated state,
and aside from likely having elevated cholesterol levels, you're also going
to have elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP).
CRP is a marker of inflammation in your body, and it's also a very
good indicator of your risk of heart disease.
What Drug Companies Don't Want You to Know About LDL
Now, it's important to realize that there are different sizes of LDL
cholesterol particles, and it's the LDL particle size that is relevant, as
small particles get stuck easily and causes more inflammation.
Unfortunately, most people don't hear about that part, and very
rarely, if ever, get it tested. Naturally, the drug companies really don't
want you to know that part of the science, because it would severely limit
the number of people going on cholesterol-lowering drugs, since statins do
not modulate the size of the particles.
The only way to make sure your LDL particles are large enough to not
get stuck and cause inflammation and damage is through your diet.
In fact, it's one of the major things that insulin does. If you eat
properly, which is really the only known good way to regulate LDL particle
size, then it does the right thing; it takes the cholesterol to your
tissues, the HDL takes it back to your liver, and nothing gets stuck causing
damage.
So rather than worry about your cholesterol levels, you really need to
work lowering inflammation, which can be caused by numerous things,
including:
a.. Oxidized cholesterol (cholesterol that has gone rancid, such as
that from overcooked, scrambled eggs)
b.. Eating lots of sugar and grains
c.. Eating foods cooked at high temperatures
d.. Eating trans fats
e.. A sedentary lifestyle
f.. Smoking
g.. Emotional stress
So, as you can see, when you get to the bottom of it, the real
"villain" is often an unhealthy lifestyle, characterized by a heavy reliance
on sugars, processed, highly cooked foods, and insufficient amounts of
exercise - not "high cholesterol."
an increased risk of cancer.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is reviewing data from a
trial which found a "larger percentage" of patients treated with the drug
Inegy died of cancer. The FDA is expected to issue its conclusions within
six months.
Inegy combines the widely-used statin drug simvastatin with a
new medication called ezetimibe. Ezetimibe works in a different way from
statins. Statins block cholesterol made in the liver, while ezetimibe blocks
the absorption of cholesterol in the gut.
Sources:
a.. The Daily Mail August 22, 2008
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Back in 2004, the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education
Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce
their LDL (bad) cholesterol to very low levels. It's been a health disaster
ever since.
Before 2004, a 130-milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered
healthy. The updated guidelines, however, recommended levels of less than
100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.
These updated guidelines instantly increased the market for
cholesterol-lowering drugs.
Not surprisingly, eight of the nine doctors who were on the approval
panel for these absurdly low guidelines had been making money from the
companies of the cholesterol-lowering drugs they were suddenly pushing onto
a much larger (oftentimes healthy) segment of the population.
Now, in order to get to these outrageous and dangerous low levels
usually requires multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs, such as Inegy, which
combines two cholesterol-lowering drugs into one.
Folks, it is VERY rare for anyone to need a cholesterol-lowering drug,
let alone multiples.
Among the more than 20,000 patients who have come to my clinic, only
four or five of them truly needed these drugs, as they had genetic
challenges that required it. But if you or someone you know is taking them,
odds are very high -- greater than 100 to 1 -- that you or they don't need
them, and they may even create more health challenges than what you started
out with.
Statins Actually INCREASE Your Risk of Heart Disease
Inegy combines two different medications -- simvastatin and
ezetimibe -- into one pill.
Although the Daily Mail article above claims statins "should lead to a
drop in heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems," that is not
necessarily the case.
Statin drugs can actually increase your risk of heart disease because
they deplete your body of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which can lead to heart
failure. They have also been linked to:
a.. Weakness
b.. Muscle aches
c.. An increase in cancer risk
d.. Immune system suppression
e.. Serious degenerative muscle tissue condition (rhabdomyolysis)
f.. Potential increase in liver enzymes so patients must be
monitored for normal liver function
Statins Have Been Linked to Increased Cancer Risk for More Than a
Decade
I reported that statins were linked to raised cancer risk as far back
as 2000, when research indicated that besides lowering levels of harmful
cholesterol, the drugs could also promote the growth of new blood vessels.
And, although this effect may help to prevent heart attacks and other forms
of heart disease, it may have the potential to promote cancer as well by
increasing the growth of blood vessels in cancerous tumors.
Additionally, back then, tests in human cell samples and in rabbits,
showed that simvastatin (Zocor) seemed to activate a pathway through which
cells communicate and act very similar to a naturally-occurring growth
factor.
But the statin-cancer connection had been discussed even prior to
that. A review published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical
Association in 1996 stated:
All members of the two most popular classes of lipid-lowering drugs
(the fibrates and the statins) cause cancer in rodents, in some cases at
levels of animal exposure close to those prescribed to humans. ...
Longer-term clinical trials and careful postmarketing surveillance during
the next several decades are needed to determine whether
cholesterol-lowering drugs cause cancer in humans. In the meantime, the
results of experiments in animals and humans suggest that lipid-lowering
drug treatment, especially with the fibrates and statins, should be avoided
except in patients at high short-term risk of coronary heart disease.
Is "Bad" Cholesterol Really Bad?
It's important to remember that you actually NEED cholesterol in your
body - including LDL, or so-called "bad" cholesterol -- in order to maintain
your health. There is actually no such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol.
Both HDL and LDL cholesterol perform vital functions in your body, which is
why it's actually dangerous to bring your LDL levels down too low.
HDL (high density lipoprotein) and LDL (low density lipoprotein) are
actually proteins that transport the cholesterol to and from your tissues.
Cholesterol in turn is a precursor to steroid hormones. For example, you can't
make testosterone or estrogen, cortisol, DHEA or pregnenolone, or a
multitude of other steroid hormones that are necessary for health, without
cholesterol.
Even more importantly, you can't make new cell membranes without
cholesterol.
So, the major reasons your body makes cholesterol in the first place,
and why you have LDL, is to take the cholesterol to the tissue so you can
make new cells or repair old damaged ones.
Why is High Cholesterol Equated with High Heart Disease Risk?
If your arteries are being damaged on a chronic basis your cholesterol
levels will remain chronically elevated. This is NOT the problem in and of
itself. Rather, this is your body's natural and purposeful response to
healing.
The REAL problem is what's causing the damage in the first place, such
as having chronically elevated blood sugar. The sugar molecule, in fact,
causes far more damage than any other molecule.
If you decide to take cholesterol-lowering drugs instead of addressing
the underlying problem of excess sugar in your blood stream, you are not
only stopping your body's natural healing process, you are also exposing
yourself to drugs that are loaded with side effects, such as those mentioned
earlier.
The chronic damage being done to your arteries in turn leads to
inflammation. This is how your body responds to invaders. However, when
inflammation becomes chronic, your body is in a constantly irritated state,
and aside from likely having elevated cholesterol levels, you're also going
to have elevated levels of C-reactive protein (CRP).
CRP is a marker of inflammation in your body, and it's also a very
good indicator of your risk of heart disease.
What Drug Companies Don't Want You to Know About LDL
Now, it's important to realize that there are different sizes of LDL
cholesterol particles, and it's the LDL particle size that is relevant, as
small particles get stuck easily and causes more inflammation.
Unfortunately, most people don't hear about that part, and very
rarely, if ever, get it tested. Naturally, the drug companies really don't
want you to know that part of the science, because it would severely limit
the number of people going on cholesterol-lowering drugs, since statins do
not modulate the size of the particles.
The only way to make sure your LDL particles are large enough to not
get stuck and cause inflammation and damage is through your diet.
In fact, it's one of the major things that insulin does. If you eat
properly, which is really the only known good way to regulate LDL particle
size, then it does the right thing; it takes the cholesterol to your
tissues, the HDL takes it back to your liver, and nothing gets stuck causing
damage.
So rather than worry about your cholesterol levels, you really need to
work lowering inflammation, which can be caused by numerous things,
including:
a.. Oxidized cholesterol (cholesterol that has gone rancid, such as
that from overcooked, scrambled eggs)
b.. Eating lots of sugar and grains
c.. Eating foods cooked at high temperatures
d.. Eating trans fats
e.. A sedentary lifestyle
f.. Smoking
g.. Emotional stress
So, as you can see, when you get to the bottom of it, the real
"villain" is often an unhealthy lifestyle, characterized by a heavy reliance
on sugars, processed, highly cooked foods, and insufficient amounts of
exercise - not "high cholesterol."
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Finding happiness day-to-day
"I am more and more convinced that our happiness or our unhappiness depends far more on the way we meet the events of life than on the nature of those events themselves."
Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt
1767-1835, German Statesman
Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt
1767-1835, German Statesman
Monday, September 8, 2008
The great secret of success.
"The exercise of the visualizing faculty keeps your mind in order, and attracts to you the things you need to make life more enjoyable in an orderly way.
If you train yourself in the practice of deliberately picturing your desire and carefully examining your picture, you will soon find that your thoughts and desires proceed in a more orderly procession than ever before.
Having reached a state of ordered mentality, you are no longer in a constant state of mental hurry. Hurry is Fear, and consequently destructive.
In other words, when your understanding grasps the power to visualize your heart's desire and hold it with your will, it attracts to you all things requisite to the fulfillment of that picture by the harmonious vibrations of the law of attraction.
You realize that since Order is Heaven's first law, and visualization places things in their natural order, then it must be a heavenly thing to visualize.
Everyone visualizes, whether he knows it or not. Visualizing is the great secret of success.
The conscious use of this great power attracts to you multiplied resources, intensifies your wisdom, and enables you to make use of advantages which you formerly failed to recognize."
From Your Invisible Power by Genevieve Behrend
If you train yourself in the practice of deliberately picturing your desire and carefully examining your picture, you will soon find that your thoughts and desires proceed in a more orderly procession than ever before.
Having reached a state of ordered mentality, you are no longer in a constant state of mental hurry. Hurry is Fear, and consequently destructive.
In other words, when your understanding grasps the power to visualize your heart's desire and hold it with your will, it attracts to you all things requisite to the fulfillment of that picture by the harmonious vibrations of the law of attraction.
You realize that since Order is Heaven's first law, and visualization places things in their natural order, then it must be a heavenly thing to visualize.
Everyone visualizes, whether he knows it or not. Visualizing is the great secret of success.
The conscious use of this great power attracts to you multiplied resources, intensifies your wisdom, and enables you to make use of advantages which you formerly failed to recognize."
From Your Invisible Power by Genevieve Behrend
Friday, September 5, 2008
Curing Victimitis
Watch your thoughts; they lead to attitudes.
Watch your attitudes; they lead to words.
Watch your words; they lead to actions.
Watch your actions; they lead to habits.
Watch your habits; they form your character.
Watch your character; it determines your destiny.
These words of unknown origin tell us that our silent and often subconscious choices shape our future. Every aspect of our lives, at home and at work, can be improved if we use our power to think, reflect, and make conscious choices about our thoughts, attitudes, words, actions, and habits.
Instead, many of us think of ourselves as victims. We complain about our circumstances and what others did to us. Whatever psychological comfort there is in feeling powerless and blameless when things aren't going right, in the end, victims lead unsatisfied lives.
We're most vulnerable to victimitis when we're under the influence of powerful emotions like fear, insecurity, anger, frustration, grief, or depression. These feelings are so powerful, we believe our state of mind is inevitable. Our only hope is they will go away on their own. Yet it's during times of emotional tumult that using our power to choose our thoughts and attitudes is most important. We can't make pain go away, but we can refuse to suffer.
Even when we don't like any of our choices, we do have some -- once we realize we can take control. It isn't easy, but what we do and how we choose to feel about ourselves has a profound impact on the quality of our lives. Victims may get sympathy for a while, but that isn't enough.
Taking personal responsibility for our happiness and success can be scary, but the payoff is enormous. Although we can't make our lives perfect, we can make them better -- usually a lot better.
Watch your attitudes; they lead to words.
Watch your words; they lead to actions.
Watch your actions; they lead to habits.
Watch your habits; they form your character.
Watch your character; it determines your destiny.
These words of unknown origin tell us that our silent and often subconscious choices shape our future. Every aspect of our lives, at home and at work, can be improved if we use our power to think, reflect, and make conscious choices about our thoughts, attitudes, words, actions, and habits.
Instead, many of us think of ourselves as victims. We complain about our circumstances and what others did to us. Whatever psychological comfort there is in feeling powerless and blameless when things aren't going right, in the end, victims lead unsatisfied lives.
We're most vulnerable to victimitis when we're under the influence of powerful emotions like fear, insecurity, anger, frustration, grief, or depression. These feelings are so powerful, we believe our state of mind is inevitable. Our only hope is they will go away on their own. Yet it's during times of emotional tumult that using our power to choose our thoughts and attitudes is most important. We can't make pain go away, but we can refuse to suffer.
Even when we don't like any of our choices, we do have some -- once we realize we can take control. It isn't easy, but what we do and how we choose to feel about ourselves has a profound impact on the quality of our lives. Victims may get sympathy for a while, but that isn't enough.
Taking personal responsibility for our happiness and success can be scary, but the payoff is enormous. Although we can't make our lives perfect, we can make them better -- usually a lot better.
Vytorin Linked to Cancer; Prominent Medical Journal Reverses Stance
(NaturalNews) In an unprecedented change of posture, the New England Journal
of Medicine has reversed itself on the issue of whether Vytorin causes
cancer. In the initial release of data back in July, NEJM stood by Merck and
Schering-Plough, who hired an Oxford consultant to rule that a 50%
statistically significant increased risk of cancer was by chance. I pointed
out in an earlier posting that such statistical manipulation, based
primarily on the opinion of the Oxford reviewer, was ridiculous. NEJM has
had a sudden change of heart and now agrees with me.
On September 2, 2008 NEJM published the full study in question, along with
the Oxford report, and its own editorial now stating "Whether the increased
mortality risk is due solely to the play of chance is uncertain. Ezetimibe
[the Zetia portion of Vytorin] interferes with the gastrointestinal
absorption not only of cholesterol, but also of other molecular entities
[fat soluble antioxidants and isoprenoids] that could conceivably affect the
growth of cancer cells. Physicians and patients are unfortunately left for
now with uncertainty about the efficacy and safety of the drug." This rare
reversal of opinion has sent a shock wave through Big Pharma's world, like
having your stamp of approval withdrawn at the last minute.
Vytorin is the controversial cholesterol lowering drug that is the center of
a major advertising fraud that netted Merck and Schering-Plough over 10
billion dollars in sales in the past two years. Merck and Schering-Plough
are facing congressional investigation, various state attorney general
investigations, and plaintiff class action lawsuits. All the negative
publicity has caused sales to fall off, yet the questionable drug is still a
top seller for Merck and Schering-Plough in 2008.
Cholesterol Disease Mongering Based on Outright Fraud
Underneath the advertising fraud is a far more damaging prospect from the
Big Pharma point of view, that the theory of lowering LDL cholesterol with
drugs to prevent heart disease is itself a major fraud that has been
perpetrated on the American public for the past decade. Indeed, while
Vytorin is the most effective drug combination of all time in terms of
lowering LDL, doing so does not produce cardiovascular health or reduce
cardiovascular mortality.
The current study that uncovered cancer risk, called the SEAS trial, was
supposed to prove that patients whose heart valves were partially blocked
would benefit from Vytorin and not need valve replacement therapy or have
heart failure. In this regard, the SEAS trial showed that Vytorin is
worthless, despite lowering LDL cholesterol. This finding is consistent with
another unrelated study (GISSI-HF trial) just published in The Lancet that
showed fish oil could save lives in patients with heart failure, while the
statin drug Crestor could not. The researchers in this study concluded that
"patients with heart failure should not be treated with statins."
Adding more alarm to the statin industry's safety is another article
published in the NEJM just last week. It reported on a detailed analysis of
the human genome in those with statin-induced muscle damage. Scientists
uncovered an alteration in a gene that causes statin drugs to be more
readily absorbed by the liver, thereby making the drugs very toxic. Fifteen
percent of our population has the risk-related gene variant. At this time no
screening is done to see who is at potential risk, meaning that 1 in 6
patients taking statins are likely to be damaged to a greater or lesser
degree based on this one variable alone. Whatever happened to "first do no
harm?"
Low cholesterol now linked to disease
Adding fuel to the low cholesterol and cancer link was another study
recently published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that found a
33% increased risk of cancer and mortality in type II diabetic patients when
their LDL cholesterol reached 107 and a 50% increase when their LDL reached
87. This is particularly alarming because type II diabetic patients (like
the late Tim Russert) are aggressively treated with statins to lower their
cholesterol to the very numbers that are now associated with increased
cancer risk and death from any cause.
Pathetically, various forces in the Big Pharma world are recommending that
children as low as 7 months of age have their LDL cholesterol levels
maintained at 50 for their entire lives (which obviously will require statin
drugs since such levels are highly abnormal). Big Pharma is always looking
to expand their market share - focusing now on our children - a truly sad
state of affairs.
Statin drugs do not produce cardiovascular health. The lower your
cholesterol goes, the more likely you are to develop cancer and/or die from
any cause. This is massive public health fraud on a grand scale.
Additional comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
I strongly agree with this timely assessment of the Vytorin cancer risk. As
Richards has rightly pointed out, the original findings linking Vytorin to
cancer appear to have been fraudulent swept under the rug by typical Big
Pharma fraud and misrepresentation.
The NEJM's reversal on this issue is sending shockwaves through the
industry. It's also reminding consumers that you cannot trust the medical
journals because they will willingly participate in pharmaceutical fraud,
and then they'll later reverse themselves when the truth comes out through
other channels. At any given point in time, there is no way to know if a
particular study appearing in a drug-funded medical journal is in the
"fraud" phase or the "reversal" phase. Today's highly-touted "miracle" drug
may become next year's poison.
Can you imagine the outcry by the FDA if it were found that an HERB
increased the risk of cancer by a whopping 50 percent? The FDA would ban the
herb and denounce it as dangerous at any dose. Curiously, when an
FDA-pharmaceutical achieves the same negative distinction, the FDA remains
utterly silent. There is no drug too dangerous for public consumption, it
seems, and there is no clinical trial that cannot be warped and reshaped to
adhere to the evil designs of drug companies.
Folks, if you are currently taking statin drugs, you have been duped. The
disease is fictitious (there is no such thing as "high cholesterol" disease)
and the drugs are deadly. Besides, you can achieve the same cholesterol
balancing effects with red yeast rice, garlic supplements, B vitamins,
blueberries and mineral supplementation. You don't need drugs to have a
healthy cardiovascular system; all you need is some good nutrition and
regular exercise. Come to think of it, Byron Richards' company
(www.WellnessResources.com) manufactures some of the highest-quality
nutritional supplements in the world, and they protect cardiovascular health
phenomenally well.
Resources
Links to NEJM articles:
Change of opinion: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful...
Full SEAS Vytorin trial: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful...
Gene damage study: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abs...
Links to Lancet articles on fish oil and Crestor:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...
Links to Canadian Medical Association Journal article:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179...
Link to a fully referenced version of this article:
http://www.wellnessresources.com/conten...
Link to more health articles by this author:
http://www.wellnessresources.com/health...
About the author: Byron J. Richards, Board-Certified Clinical Nutritionist,
nationally-renowned nutrition expert, and founder of Wellness Resources is a
leader in advocating the value of dietary supplements as a vital tool to
maintain health. He is an outspoken critic of government and Big Pharma
efforts to deny access to natural health products and has written
extensively on the life-shortening and health-damaging failures of the
sickness industry. www.wellnessresources.com askbyron@wellnessresources.com
of Medicine has reversed itself on the issue of whether Vytorin causes
cancer. In the initial release of data back in July, NEJM stood by Merck and
Schering-Plough, who hired an Oxford consultant to rule that a 50%
statistically significant increased risk of cancer was by chance. I pointed
out in an earlier posting that such statistical manipulation, based
primarily on the opinion of the Oxford reviewer, was ridiculous. NEJM has
had a sudden change of heart and now agrees with me.
On September 2, 2008 NEJM published the full study in question, along with
the Oxford report, and its own editorial now stating "Whether the increased
mortality risk is due solely to the play of chance is uncertain. Ezetimibe
[the Zetia portion of Vytorin] interferes with the gastrointestinal
absorption not only of cholesterol, but also of other molecular entities
[fat soluble antioxidants and isoprenoids] that could conceivably affect the
growth of cancer cells. Physicians and patients are unfortunately left for
now with uncertainty about the efficacy and safety of the drug." This rare
reversal of opinion has sent a shock wave through Big Pharma's world, like
having your stamp of approval withdrawn at the last minute.
Vytorin is the controversial cholesterol lowering drug that is the center of
a major advertising fraud that netted Merck and Schering-Plough over 10
billion dollars in sales in the past two years. Merck and Schering-Plough
are facing congressional investigation, various state attorney general
investigations, and plaintiff class action lawsuits. All the negative
publicity has caused sales to fall off, yet the questionable drug is still a
top seller for Merck and Schering-Plough in 2008.
Cholesterol Disease Mongering Based on Outright Fraud
Underneath the advertising fraud is a far more damaging prospect from the
Big Pharma point of view, that the theory of lowering LDL cholesterol with
drugs to prevent heart disease is itself a major fraud that has been
perpetrated on the American public for the past decade. Indeed, while
Vytorin is the most effective drug combination of all time in terms of
lowering LDL, doing so does not produce cardiovascular health or reduce
cardiovascular mortality.
The current study that uncovered cancer risk, called the SEAS trial, was
supposed to prove that patients whose heart valves were partially blocked
would benefit from Vytorin and not need valve replacement therapy or have
heart failure. In this regard, the SEAS trial showed that Vytorin is
worthless, despite lowering LDL cholesterol. This finding is consistent with
another unrelated study (GISSI-HF trial) just published in The Lancet that
showed fish oil could save lives in patients with heart failure, while the
statin drug Crestor could not. The researchers in this study concluded that
"patients with heart failure should not be treated with statins."
Adding more alarm to the statin industry's safety is another article
published in the NEJM just last week. It reported on a detailed analysis of
the human genome in those with statin-induced muscle damage. Scientists
uncovered an alteration in a gene that causes statin drugs to be more
readily absorbed by the liver, thereby making the drugs very toxic. Fifteen
percent of our population has the risk-related gene variant. At this time no
screening is done to see who is at potential risk, meaning that 1 in 6
patients taking statins are likely to be damaged to a greater or lesser
degree based on this one variable alone. Whatever happened to "first do no
harm?"
Low cholesterol now linked to disease
Adding fuel to the low cholesterol and cancer link was another study
recently published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that found a
33% increased risk of cancer and mortality in type II diabetic patients when
their LDL cholesterol reached 107 and a 50% increase when their LDL reached
87. This is particularly alarming because type II diabetic patients (like
the late Tim Russert) are aggressively treated with statins to lower their
cholesterol to the very numbers that are now associated with increased
cancer risk and death from any cause.
Pathetically, various forces in the Big Pharma world are recommending that
children as low as 7 months of age have their LDL cholesterol levels
maintained at 50 for their entire lives (which obviously will require statin
drugs since such levels are highly abnormal). Big Pharma is always looking
to expand their market share - focusing now on our children - a truly sad
state of affairs.
Statin drugs do not produce cardiovascular health. The lower your
cholesterol goes, the more likely you are to develop cancer and/or die from
any cause. This is massive public health fraud on a grand scale.
Additional comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
I strongly agree with this timely assessment of the Vytorin cancer risk. As
Richards has rightly pointed out, the original findings linking Vytorin to
cancer appear to have been fraudulent swept under the rug by typical Big
Pharma fraud and misrepresentation.
The NEJM's reversal on this issue is sending shockwaves through the
industry. It's also reminding consumers that you cannot trust the medical
journals because they will willingly participate in pharmaceutical fraud,
and then they'll later reverse themselves when the truth comes out through
other channels. At any given point in time, there is no way to know if a
particular study appearing in a drug-funded medical journal is in the
"fraud" phase or the "reversal" phase. Today's highly-touted "miracle" drug
may become next year's poison.
Can you imagine the outcry by the FDA if it were found that an HERB
increased the risk of cancer by a whopping 50 percent? The FDA would ban the
herb and denounce it as dangerous at any dose. Curiously, when an
FDA-pharmaceutical achieves the same negative distinction, the FDA remains
utterly silent. There is no drug too dangerous for public consumption, it
seems, and there is no clinical trial that cannot be warped and reshaped to
adhere to the evil designs of drug companies.
Folks, if you are currently taking statin drugs, you have been duped. The
disease is fictitious (there is no such thing as "high cholesterol" disease)
and the drugs are deadly. Besides, you can achieve the same cholesterol
balancing effects with red yeast rice, garlic supplements, B vitamins,
blueberries and mineral supplementation. You don't need drugs to have a
healthy cardiovascular system; all you need is some good nutrition and
regular exercise. Come to think of it, Byron Richards' company
(www.WellnessResources.com) manufactures some of the highest-quality
nutritional supplements in the world, and they protect cardiovascular health
phenomenally well.
Resources
Links to NEJM articles:
Change of opinion: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful...
Full SEAS Vytorin trial: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful...
Gene damage study: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abs...
Links to Lancet articles on fish oil and Crestor:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance...
Links to Canadian Medical Association Journal article:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179...
Link to a fully referenced version of this article:
http://www.wellnessresources.com/conten...
Link to more health articles by this author:
http://www.wellnessresources.com/health...
About the author: Byron J. Richards, Board-Certified Clinical Nutritionist,
nationally-renowned nutrition expert, and founder of Wellness Resources is a
leader in advocating the value of dietary supplements as a vital tool to
maintain health. He is an outspoken critic of government and Big Pharma
efforts to deny access to natural health products and has written
extensively on the life-shortening and health-damaging failures of the
sickness industry. www.wellnessresources.com askbyron@wellnessresources.com
When Should You Go Out in the Sun?
New research shows that to get an optimal vitamin D supplement from
the sun at a minimal risk of getting cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), the
best time of sun exposure is noon.
That means that common health recommendations given by authorities in
many countries -- that sun exposure should be avoided for three to five
hours around noon and postponed to the afternoon -- could be wrong and may
even promote CMM.
This is in part because the action spectrum for CMM is likely to be
centered at longer wavelengths than that of vitamin D generation.
Sources:
a.. Advanced Experiments in Medical Biology 2008; 624: 86-88
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This is an update for my own personal knowledge as for many
years I have advised people to avoid the sun from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. if they
were at risk of sunburn. Well it turns out that this is the case where a
little bit of knowledge can actually be dangerous.
Cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is the most serious form of
skin cancer, accounting for about three-quarters of all skin cancer deaths.
New research now supports that while avoiding the sun at mid-day
will decrease your risk of painful sunburn it will actually increase your
cancer risk.
How can this be?
If you are a member of my Mercola Inner Circle, and you listened
to last month's expert interview with Dr. William Grant, internationally
recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, you already have your
answer.
Though he was not an author of the study above, his research
found the same findings: that going out in the sun at mid-day is best for
your health.
"Our recommendation, this is based on work in England and
Norway, and the United States, that the optimal time to be in the sun for
vitamin D production is near to solar noon as possible. That would be
between say 10:00am and 2:00pm.
The reason is two-fold.
First of all, you need a shorter exposure time because the UVB
is more intense.
Now, the second reason is that when the sun goes down towards
the horizon, the UVB is filtered out much more than the UVA. And it turns
out that the long wave of ultraviolet called UVA, which runs from about 320
to 400 nanometers, is highly correlated with melanoma -- where the UVB is
the one that produces the vitamin D, and that's from 290 to 315 nanometers,"
Dr. Grant explains.
This is truly a profound concept, and one that is just beginning
to permeate through the mainstream media.
For instance, U.S. News & World Report featured an article on
time in the sun, and in it Robyn Lucas, an epidemiologist at Australian
National University, agreed with these findings.
"I believe we all need a little unprotected time in the sun
during the middle hours of the day when the sun is at its highest and UV-B
rays can penetrate the atmosphere," she said.
So let me restate this crucial new information:
If you want to get out in the sun to maximize your vitamin D
production, and minimize your risk of malignant melanoma, the middle of the
day is the best time and safest time to go.
"Squamous cell carcinoma is linked to lifetime ultraviolet B
irradiants, whereas melanoma is linked to lifetime UVA irradiants, or
sporadic sun burning in youth and things like that," Dr. Grant says. "And so
dermatologists, by telling people to put on sunscreen and avoid the mid-day
sun, were actually giving recommendations that led to increased melanoma.
And it's because they didn't carefully look at the wavelength dependents
related to melanoma. And so they just didn't figure out that they were
giving bad advice."
Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB
does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply
than UVB, and is thought to be a much more important factor in photoaging,
wrinkles and skin cancers.
Going Out in the Sun Will Lower Your Cancer Risk . NOT Increase
It
Getting about 2,000 IU to 4,000 IU a day of vitamin D can help
you to reduce your cancer risk by up to 50 percent!
And according to Dr. Grant, about 30 percent of cancer deaths --
which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States --
could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D.
However, most people only get 250-300 IU a day from their diet,
so another source -- ideally the sun -- is essential.
How Long You Spend in the Sun is Also Critical
A common myth, aside from that of avoiding the mid-day sun, is
that occasional exposure of your face and hands to sunlight is "sufficient"
for obtaining healthy vitamin D levels. For most of us, this is an miserably
inadequate exposure to move vitamin levels to the healthy range.
You need to expose large portions of your skin to the sun, and
you need to do it for more than a few minutes.
In Caucasian skin, an equilibrium occurs within 20 minutes of
ultraviolet exposure. It can take three to six times longer for darkly
pigmented skin to reach the equilibrium concentration of skin vitamin D. So,
bearing in mind that you need to gradually increase your time, starting in
the spring, you should be aiming toward exposing large areas of your skin to
the sun, anywhere from 20 minutes at a time to two hours at a time,
depending on your skin type and environmental factors.
Longer exposures will be needed if sunbathing occurs at off-peak
times for ultraviolet light (before 12 p.m. or after 3 p.m.) or at the
beginning or end of the summer (April or September).
You're probably wondering, now that fall and winter are
approaching in the United States, what to do when it's too cold for sun
exposure.
In the winter months, if you've had your vitamin D levels tested
and found them to be low, a vitamin D3 supplement (cholecalciferol), which
is the type of vitamin D found naturally in foods like eggs, organ meats,
animal fat, cod liver oil, and fish, can be used. Continue to have your
vitamin D levels monitored during this time, though, so you don't overdose.
To learn more about how to use sunlight for your health -- and
the dangers of not getting enough -- keep an eye out for my new book, Dark
Deception, which is coming out shortly.
the sun at a minimal risk of getting cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), the
best time of sun exposure is noon.
That means that common health recommendations given by authorities in
many countries -- that sun exposure should be avoided for three to five
hours around noon and postponed to the afternoon -- could be wrong and may
even promote CMM.
This is in part because the action spectrum for CMM is likely to be
centered at longer wavelengths than that of vitamin D generation.
Sources:
a.. Advanced Experiments in Medical Biology 2008; 624: 86-88
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This is an update for my own personal knowledge as for many
years I have advised people to avoid the sun from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. if they
were at risk of sunburn. Well it turns out that this is the case where a
little bit of knowledge can actually be dangerous.
Cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) is the most serious form of
skin cancer, accounting for about three-quarters of all skin cancer deaths.
New research now supports that while avoiding the sun at mid-day
will decrease your risk of painful sunburn it will actually increase your
cancer risk.
How can this be?
If you are a member of my Mercola Inner Circle, and you listened
to last month's expert interview with Dr. William Grant, internationally
recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, you already have your
answer.
Though he was not an author of the study above, his research
found the same findings: that going out in the sun at mid-day is best for
your health.
"Our recommendation, this is based on work in England and
Norway, and the United States, that the optimal time to be in the sun for
vitamin D production is near to solar noon as possible. That would be
between say 10:00am and 2:00pm.
The reason is two-fold.
First of all, you need a shorter exposure time because the UVB
is more intense.
Now, the second reason is that when the sun goes down towards
the horizon, the UVB is filtered out much more than the UVA. And it turns
out that the long wave of ultraviolet called UVA, which runs from about 320
to 400 nanometers, is highly correlated with melanoma -- where the UVB is
the one that produces the vitamin D, and that's from 290 to 315 nanometers,"
Dr. Grant explains.
This is truly a profound concept, and one that is just beginning
to permeate through the mainstream media.
For instance, U.S. News & World Report featured an article on
time in the sun, and in it Robyn Lucas, an epidemiologist at Australian
National University, agreed with these findings.
"I believe we all need a little unprotected time in the sun
during the middle hours of the day when the sun is at its highest and UV-B
rays can penetrate the atmosphere," she said.
So let me restate this crucial new information:
If you want to get out in the sun to maximize your vitamin D
production, and minimize your risk of malignant melanoma, the middle of the
day is the best time and safest time to go.
"Squamous cell carcinoma is linked to lifetime ultraviolet B
irradiants, whereas melanoma is linked to lifetime UVA irradiants, or
sporadic sun burning in youth and things like that," Dr. Grant says. "And so
dermatologists, by telling people to put on sunscreen and avoid the mid-day
sun, were actually giving recommendations that led to increased melanoma.
And it's because they didn't carefully look at the wavelength dependents
related to melanoma. And so they just didn't figure out that they were
giving bad advice."
Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB
does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply
than UVB, and is thought to be a much more important factor in photoaging,
wrinkles and skin cancers.
Going Out in the Sun Will Lower Your Cancer Risk . NOT Increase
It
Getting about 2,000 IU to 4,000 IU a day of vitamin D can help
you to reduce your cancer risk by up to 50 percent!
And according to Dr. Grant, about 30 percent of cancer deaths --
which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States --
could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D.
However, most people only get 250-300 IU a day from their diet,
so another source -- ideally the sun -- is essential.
How Long You Spend in the Sun is Also Critical
A common myth, aside from that of avoiding the mid-day sun, is
that occasional exposure of your face and hands to sunlight is "sufficient"
for obtaining healthy vitamin D levels. For most of us, this is an miserably
inadequate exposure to move vitamin levels to the healthy range.
You need to expose large portions of your skin to the sun, and
you need to do it for more than a few minutes.
In Caucasian skin, an equilibrium occurs within 20 minutes of
ultraviolet exposure. It can take three to six times longer for darkly
pigmented skin to reach the equilibrium concentration of skin vitamin D. So,
bearing in mind that you need to gradually increase your time, starting in
the spring, you should be aiming toward exposing large areas of your skin to
the sun, anywhere from 20 minutes at a time to two hours at a time,
depending on your skin type and environmental factors.
Longer exposures will be needed if sunbathing occurs at off-peak
times for ultraviolet light (before 12 p.m. or after 3 p.m.) or at the
beginning or end of the summer (April or September).
You're probably wondering, now that fall and winter are
approaching in the United States, what to do when it's too cold for sun
exposure.
In the winter months, if you've had your vitamin D levels tested
and found them to be low, a vitamin D3 supplement (cholecalciferol), which
is the type of vitamin D found naturally in foods like eggs, organ meats,
animal fat, cod liver oil, and fish, can be used. Continue to have your
vitamin D levels monitored during this time, though, so you don't overdose.
To learn more about how to use sunlight for your health -- and
the dangers of not getting enough -- keep an eye out for my new book, Dark
Deception, which is coming out shortly.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Doing right
"Every time I've done something that doesn't feel right, it's ended up not being right."
Mario Cuomo
Lawyer and Former Governor of New York
Mario Cuomo
Lawyer and Former Governor of New York
Cell Phones Cause Sleepless Nights
By: Sylvia Booth Hubbard
http://www.newsmax.com/health/cell_phones_sleepless/2008/09/03/127272.html
Can't sleep, or you're not sleeping well? A joint U.S./Swedish study
says your cell phone's the culprit. Scientists from Wayne State University
in Michigan and from two Swedish universities say cell phone radiation
hinders the ability to enter the deep stages of sleep.
The study involved about 70 men and women between the ages of 18 and
45. Half of the subjects were exposed to wireless signal radiation identical
to that sent out by cell phones, while the other half received no radiation.
The group that wasn't exposed experienced normal sleep, but the group that
got the radiation took longer to reach deep stages of sleep and spent less
time in deep sleep once they reached it.
Swedish scientist Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says there's no
doubt cell phones "have measurable effects on the brain." He thinks cell
phones trigger the brain's stress system, making it hard to relax and sleep.
"And bear in mind, when you're talking on the phone, there is a mental
stimulus from the conversation itself, in addition to the radiation," Arnetz
said. "The combination makes it doubly hard to relax into deep sleep."
Previous European studies corroborate the study, such as one which
followed about 1,600 Belgian teenagers for a year. It showed that most of
the teenagers talked in bed at night before falling asleep, and that those
who did so more than one night a week were five times as likely to report
being tired as non-phone users.
The new U.S./Swedish study was funded by a trade association that
represents the largest European cell phone companies. After it was published
by MIT, the association tried to play down the results as "inconclusive."
http://www.newsmax.com/health/cell_phones_sleepless/2008/09/03/127272.html
Can't sleep, or you're not sleeping well? A joint U.S./Swedish study
says your cell phone's the culprit. Scientists from Wayne State University
in Michigan and from two Swedish universities say cell phone radiation
hinders the ability to enter the deep stages of sleep.
The study involved about 70 men and women between the ages of 18 and
45. Half of the subjects were exposed to wireless signal radiation identical
to that sent out by cell phones, while the other half received no radiation.
The group that wasn't exposed experienced normal sleep, but the group that
got the radiation took longer to reach deep stages of sleep and spent less
time in deep sleep once they reached it.
Swedish scientist Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says there's no
doubt cell phones "have measurable effects on the brain." He thinks cell
phones trigger the brain's stress system, making it hard to relax and sleep.
"And bear in mind, when you're talking on the phone, there is a mental
stimulus from the conversation itself, in addition to the radiation," Arnetz
said. "The combination makes it doubly hard to relax into deep sleep."
Previous European studies corroborate the study, such as one which
followed about 1,600 Belgian teenagers for a year. It showed that most of
the teenagers talked in bed at night before falling asleep, and that those
who did so more than one night a week were five times as likely to report
being tired as non-phone users.
The new U.S./Swedish study was funded by a trade association that
represents the largest European cell phone companies. After it was published
by MIT, the association tried to play down the results as "inconclusive."
Calcium and Vitamin D Can Cut Stress Fractures
As you know, our body needs calcium to build and repair bones, and at
the same time calcium needs vitamin D for it to be effectively
absorbed by the body.
We know that vitamin D is produced when our skin absorbs sunlight.
Today, however, we fear that sunlight might cause skin cancer and
other complicated diseases due to strong ultraviolet ray and unknown
light beam created by optical pollutants.
Yes, some foods contain lots of vitamin D and other supplements are
available for that purpose.
Our studies show that young men active in sports who took higher
doses of calcium and vitamin D supplements for about two months had
fewer "stress fractures". Although we do not know more details of its
clinical data, yet, at least it is somewhat an encouraging outcome.
Of course, we need more studies to know its real benefits to us.
http://www.pyroenergen.com/articles08/images/stress-fractures.jpg
Stress fractures usually occur among young students during their
heavy sports activities. Of course, we are trying to find the
simplest prevention techniques.
The body uses calcium to build and repair bones. Vitamin D helps the
body absorb calcium.
Usually, doctors recommend about 1,000 milligrams of calcium and 200
IUs of vitamin D each day for adults of at least above 16 years old.
According to data received from athletes who took nearly 2,000
milligrams of calcium and 700 IUs of vitamin D every day had much
less stress fractures.
On the side note, we notice that people who expose their body to
sunlight have better physical built than those wearing clothes.
Try to get vitamin D from the sunlight. It's free. Of course,
athletes who practice in fields have a higher risk of stress
fractures. We really recommend taking calcium and vitamin D from
foods in their diets, sunlight, and supplements to avoid injuries.
----------------------------------------------------------
About the Author:
Junji Takano is a Japanese health researcher involved in
investigating the cause of various diseases since 1960. In 1968, he
invented Pyro-Energen, the first electromedicine device that
eradicates viral diseases, cancer, and diseases of unknown cause
effectively without side effects.
Free newsletter: http://www.pyroenergen.com/newsletter.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
the same time calcium needs vitamin D for it to be effectively
absorbed by the body.
We know that vitamin D is produced when our skin absorbs sunlight.
Today, however, we fear that sunlight might cause skin cancer and
other complicated diseases due to strong ultraviolet ray and unknown
light beam created by optical pollutants.
Yes, some foods contain lots of vitamin D and other supplements are
available for that purpose.
Our studies show that young men active in sports who took higher
doses of calcium and vitamin D supplements for about two months had
fewer "stress fractures". Although we do not know more details of its
clinical data, yet, at least it is somewhat an encouraging outcome.
Of course, we need more studies to know its real benefits to us.
http://www.pyroenergen.com/articles08/images/stress-fractures.jpg
Stress fractures usually occur among young students during their
heavy sports activities. Of course, we are trying to find the
simplest prevention techniques.
The body uses calcium to build and repair bones. Vitamin D helps the
body absorb calcium.
Usually, doctors recommend about 1,000 milligrams of calcium and 200
IUs of vitamin D each day for adults of at least above 16 years old.
According to data received from athletes who took nearly 2,000
milligrams of calcium and 700 IUs of vitamin D every day had much
less stress fractures.
On the side note, we notice that people who expose their body to
sunlight have better physical built than those wearing clothes.
Try to get vitamin D from the sunlight. It's free. Of course,
athletes who practice in fields have a higher risk of stress
fractures. We really recommend taking calcium and vitamin D from
foods in their diets, sunlight, and supplements to avoid injuries.
----------------------------------------------------------
About the Author:
Junji Takano is a Japanese health researcher involved in
investigating the cause of various diseases since 1960. In 1968, he
invented Pyro-Energen, the first electromedicine device that
eradicates viral diseases, cancer, and diseases of unknown cause
effectively without side effects.
Free newsletter: http://www.pyroenergen.com/newsletter.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The key to failure
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."
Bill Cosby
Actor and Comedian
Bill Cosby
Actor and Comedian
Trans Fats Linked to Pre-Cancerous Colon Growths
A high intake of trans fats could increase colon cancer risk, according to
new research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
People who ate the most trans fatty acids were more likely to have
pre-cancerous growths or polyps in their colons than those who consumed the
least, Dr. Lisa C. Vinikoor of the University of North Carolina in Chapel
Hill and colleagues found. "These results provide further support for
recommendations to limit consumption of trans-fatty acids," they conclude.
Trans fats are formed by processing vegetable oils to increase their
shelf-life, and are found in many baked goods, crackers, snacks and other
packaged foods. Eating them increases levels of "bad" LDL-cholesterol, and
hence heart disease risk. US food producers are now required to list the
amount of trans fat contained in their products, and health authorities
recommend people avoid eating trans fats entirely.
While there has been little research on whether trans fats boost colorectal
cancer risk, there are many possible ways that they could do so, for example
by changing the normal balance of fatty or bile acids in the colon, Vinikoor
and her colleagues say.
To investigate a possible link, they looked at 622 people who had
colonoscopies at University of North Carolina Hospitals in 2001 and 2002.
Study participants were interviewed about their diet, physical activity and
other health issues within 12 weeks of having the screening test.
People in the top fourth based on trans-fatty acid consumption, most of whom
took in 6.54 grams daily, were 86 percent more likely to have colon polyps
than those in the bottom quartile for trans fat intake, for whom median
intake was 3.63 g, the researchers found. There appeared to be a threshold
effect, with no increased risk seen for people in the bottom three quarters
of fatty acid consumption.
Among the 38.5 percent of study participants found to have colon polyps,
average trans fatty acid intake was 4.97 g, while most consumed 4.12 g.
Average intakes for people who were free of the colon growths was 4.42 g,
while the median was 3.61 g.
These results suggest that consumption of high amounts of trans-fatty acid
may increase the risk of colorectal polyps, the researchers write, adding
that the findings also back current recommendations to limit trans fat
intake.
SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, August 1, 2008.
Copyright Reuters
new research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
People who ate the most trans fatty acids were more likely to have
pre-cancerous growths or polyps in their colons than those who consumed the
least, Dr. Lisa C. Vinikoor of the University of North Carolina in Chapel
Hill and colleagues found. "These results provide further support for
recommendations to limit consumption of trans-fatty acids," they conclude.
Trans fats are formed by processing vegetable oils to increase their
shelf-life, and are found in many baked goods, crackers, snacks and other
packaged foods. Eating them increases levels of "bad" LDL-cholesterol, and
hence heart disease risk. US food producers are now required to list the
amount of trans fat contained in their products, and health authorities
recommend people avoid eating trans fats entirely.
While there has been little research on whether trans fats boost colorectal
cancer risk, there are many possible ways that they could do so, for example
by changing the normal balance of fatty or bile acids in the colon, Vinikoor
and her colleagues say.
To investigate a possible link, they looked at 622 people who had
colonoscopies at University of North Carolina Hospitals in 2001 and 2002.
Study participants were interviewed about their diet, physical activity and
other health issues within 12 weeks of having the screening test.
People in the top fourth based on trans-fatty acid consumption, most of whom
took in 6.54 grams daily, were 86 percent more likely to have colon polyps
than those in the bottom quartile for trans fat intake, for whom median
intake was 3.63 g, the researchers found. There appeared to be a threshold
effect, with no increased risk seen for people in the bottom three quarters
of fatty acid consumption.
Among the 38.5 percent of study participants found to have colon polyps,
average trans fatty acid intake was 4.97 g, while most consumed 4.12 g.
Average intakes for people who were free of the colon growths was 4.42 g,
while the median was 3.61 g.
These results suggest that consumption of high amounts of trans-fatty acid
may increase the risk of colorectal polyps, the researchers write, adding
that the findings also back current recommendations to limit trans fat
intake.
SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology, August 1, 2008.
Copyright Reuters
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
What wrinkles the soul
"Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up enthusiasm wrinkles the soul."
Samuel Ullman
1840-1924, Educator, Writer and Poet
Samuel Ullman
1840-1924, Educator, Writer and Poet
Friday, August 29, 2008
Staying In Touch
My usual routine on a Sunday morning is to go for bicycle ride. Today I wanted to do something different so I stopped at the cemetery where my grandparents are buried. I rode only a mile to where their headstone is and cleaned it up a little and reflected. I have only one memory from each of my grandparents that stands out. I remember my grandfather walking me to the corner store one morning for bread. He let me carry the money we were going to spend, and I even got to hand it to the clerk.
My grandmother would often be found on the couch with her eyes closed as if she were sleeping. I asked one day why she always had her eyes closed, her response was that she was resting them. Nothing profound about either memory, but I am glad I have them.
As I continued around the cemetery I noticed small groups of people scattered throughout staring at the grave markers at their feet. I would imagine they too were reflecting.
One man bid me good morning as I rode by, so I stopped to wish him a good morning as well. He replied, 'yes it is a wonderful morning'. With that enthusiastic answer I felt an invitation to talk.
"Sir, I noticed you on the hill up the road, now you are down here. Can I ask you what you are doing?"
"Sure." He replied, as if he had something to tell me. "I come here every Sunday to visit my wife up on the hill, then I come down here to visit my life-long buddy. We were in three wars together you know."
We talked for about 30 minutes, then I asked him. "John, (we exchanged names) what advice would you have to give people as we all grow old?"
"Well, Larry, we don't always have control over our health, or even our wealth. But we have control of keeping in touch with our friends. So, I say stay in touch. Whether you're sick or poor, healthy or wealthy, you can always stay in touch."
My eyes began to swell with tears as I looked at this old man and knew he was right. We talked a little longer then wished each other a good day, we shook hands and left.
My early morning bicycle ride made an impression on me today. I hope you got something out of this as well.
Larry D. Schultz
My grandmother would often be found on the couch with her eyes closed as if she were sleeping. I asked one day why she always had her eyes closed, her response was that she was resting them. Nothing profound about either memory, but I am glad I have them.
As I continued around the cemetery I noticed small groups of people scattered throughout staring at the grave markers at their feet. I would imagine they too were reflecting.
One man bid me good morning as I rode by, so I stopped to wish him a good morning as well. He replied, 'yes it is a wonderful morning'. With that enthusiastic answer I felt an invitation to talk.
"Sir, I noticed you on the hill up the road, now you are down here. Can I ask you what you are doing?"
"Sure." He replied, as if he had something to tell me. "I come here every Sunday to visit my wife up on the hill, then I come down here to visit my life-long buddy. We were in three wars together you know."
We talked for about 30 minutes, then I asked him. "John, (we exchanged names) what advice would you have to give people as we all grow old?"
"Well, Larry, we don't always have control over our health, or even our wealth. But we have control of keeping in touch with our friends. So, I say stay in touch. Whether you're sick or poor, healthy or wealthy, you can always stay in touch."
My eyes began to swell with tears as I looked at this old man and knew he was right. We talked a little longer then wished each other a good day, we shook hands and left.
My early morning bicycle ride made an impression on me today. I hope you got something out of this as well.
Larry D. Schultz
Thursday, August 28, 2008
What we expect
"If we are basically positive in attitude, expecting and envisioning pleasure, satisfaction and happiness, we will attract and create people, situations, and events which conform to our positive expectations."
Shakti Gawain
Author
Shakti Gawain
Author
Bisphenol A Chemical in Plastic Bottles Harms Children, Feds Conclude
(NaturalNews) For the first time, a branch of the U.S. government has
admitted that the common industrial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) may pose a
health risk.
BPA is a crucial ingredient in the hard, clear polycarbonate plastic found
in water and baby bottles. It is also used to make liners for food and
infant formula cans. BPA has been shown to seep out of these containers and
into food or liquids, and 90 percent of U.S. residents carry it in their
bodies.
The National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health
concluded in April that there is "some concern" that BPA may cause problems
in fetuses, babies and children, including breast or prostate cancer, early
onset of female puberty, attention deficit disorder and other problems of
the reproductive and neurological systems.
"Some concern" is the middle of five rankings available to the National
Toxicology Program, with none at one end and extreme at the other.
The National Toxicology Program's findings "[reflect] a significant body of
science showing that BPA may play a larger role than previously thought in a
host of common health problems, including prostate cancer, breast cancer and
early puberty," said Anila Jacob, senior scientist at Environmental Working
Group.
"More research is needed to better understand [BPA's] implications for human
health," the report reads. "However, because these effects in animals occur
at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the
possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be
dismissed."
In spite of the report's cautious wording, BPA expert Frederick vom Saal
said that it is "very, very much in line" with a statement signed by 38
scientists in 2007, warning that BPA could be harming infant development.
"This is going to ripple around the world," vom Saal said. "The bottom line
is there really is a convergence of opinion that is occurring."
Sources for this story include: www.latimes.com.
admitted that the common industrial chemical bisphenol A (BPA) may pose a
health risk.
BPA is a crucial ingredient in the hard, clear polycarbonate plastic found
in water and baby bottles. It is also used to make liners for food and
infant formula cans. BPA has been shown to seep out of these containers and
into food or liquids, and 90 percent of U.S. residents carry it in their
bodies.
The National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health
concluded in April that there is "some concern" that BPA may cause problems
in fetuses, babies and children, including breast or prostate cancer, early
onset of female puberty, attention deficit disorder and other problems of
the reproductive and neurological systems.
"Some concern" is the middle of five rankings available to the National
Toxicology Program, with none at one end and extreme at the other.
The National Toxicology Program's findings "[reflect] a significant body of
science showing that BPA may play a larger role than previously thought in a
host of common health problems, including prostate cancer, breast cancer and
early puberty," said Anila Jacob, senior scientist at Environmental Working
Group.
"More research is needed to better understand [BPA's] implications for human
health," the report reads. "However, because these effects in animals occur
at bisphenol A exposure levels similar to those experienced by humans, the
possibility that bisphenol A may alter human development cannot be
dismissed."
In spite of the report's cautious wording, BPA expert Frederick vom Saal
said that it is "very, very much in line" with a statement signed by 38
scientists in 2007, warning that BPA could be harming infant development.
"This is going to ripple around the world," vom Saal said. "The bottom line
is there really is a convergence of opinion that is occurring."
Sources for this story include: www.latimes.com.
Low Cholesterol Increases Cancer and Death Risk
(NaturalNews) In a major shot fired across the bow of the statin marketing
machine, the levels of LDL cholesterol that are the artificial targets of
"health" promoted by the American Heart Association (AHA) are now found to
be associated with a significant increased risk of cancer and death.
The AHA recommends an LDL level of 100 for prevention and 70 for high risk
patients. In the new study an LDL level of 107 was associated with a 33%
increased risk of cancer and death, an LDL level of 87 was associated with a
50% increased risk. As the LDL goes lower the risk keeps getting worse.
These arbitrary AHA levels for LDL cholesterol were established by "experts"
with direct financial ties to the statin industry, who knew full well that
reaching their artificially low target levels for LDL would require double
and triple doses of statin drugs, thus dramatically increasing sales (which
has indeed happened).
The Vytorin fraud has pointed out quite clearly that lowering LDL
cholesterol to very low levels does not reduce cardiovascular disease.
Another Vytorin study also shows doing so increases cancer risk by 64%. The
new study paints the clear picture that lowering LDL too low actually
increases the rate of death from any cause. This new study also points out
the statistical shenanigans that the statin industry uses to hide the actual
risks of these drugs in the studies that have been published.
The data was so alarming that the researchers called for a statistical
reanalysis of the data from all existing cholesterol studies, using better
statistical models that actually reflect true risk. The results of this new
research led the authors to conclude "A low LDL cholesterol level is not
necessarily associated with optimal clinical outcomes but is a predictor of
cancer and death."
We have known for many years that individuals who maintain an LDL
cholesterol level of 130 as they enter their 40s and 50s have much less
heart disease as they grow older. This is because they are healthy and have
maintained fitness in their cholesterol function and metabolism. There is no
credible data to show that lowering LDL numbers with statins actually
produces a similar level of health, especially to artificially low numbers.
There is a huge difference between having good cholesterol numbers because
you are healthy and drugging your body's synthesis of cholesterol with
statins.
In the current study the ideal LDL cholesterol level was 126. The
researchers were able to identify a bell shaped curve, in terms of a
departure in either direction from this ideal number. LDL over 146 or less
than 107 was associated with 33% increased risk of cancer. LDL over 164 of
less than 87 was associated with a 50% increased risk. The risk keeps
getting worse the higher or lower the number progresses away from the ideal
of 126. LDL in the range of 108 - 145 had no statistically significant
cancer risk, although being in the center of this range is clearly best.
There have been a number of studies in the past that link low cholesterol
and cancer risk. However, these studies could not prove that the cancer was
not already there prior to the start of the study - which has been the main
argument used (besides statistical manipulation) by the statin industry to
deny the association. In the new study this issue was taken into account by
eliminating participants with less than 2.5 years follow up after the start
of the study, thus demonstrating that the results were not due to
pre-existing cancer.
Needless to say, this study was not part of the marketing machine propaganda
that is rampant in universities and "scientific" journals that have been
used to promote the statin scam around the world, while actively
blackmailing and blacklisting any authors, institutions, or journals that
dare to step on Big Pharma's statin toes. This study was published on August
26, 2008 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It was carried out in
Hong Kong with Chinese patients who had type II diabetes - the exact patient
who is forced onto aggressive cholesterol lowering with statin drugs in
America.
It is quite clear that scientific knowledge and advanced statistical
analysis are no longer under the control of Big Pharma and its legions of
scientists, universities, and medical journals that are on the take,
misrepresenting data, and actively suppressing negative findings. The truth
is coming out because Big Pharma is targeting the citizens of the world as a
new market for statin sales. And they are also targeting our children,
wanting infants seven months of age to have LDL levels of 50 and keep them
at that level their whole life (with drugs, since such levels are totally
abnormal).
The insanity must stop. Americans have been conned. Big Pharma and the
American Heart Association should be held responsible for past crimes and
future intended crimes against the health of our citizens under the false
pretense of improved cardiovascular health.
Sources:
Link to full Canadian Medical Association Journal article:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179...
Link to fully referenced version of this article:
http://www.wellnessresources.com/health...
About the author: Byron J. Richards, Board-Certified Clinical Nutritionist,
nationally-renowned nutrition expert, and founder of Wellness Resources is a
leader in advocating the value of dietary supplements as a vital tool to
maintain health. He is an outspoken critic of government and Big Pharma
efforts to deny access to natural health products and has written
extensively on the life-shortening and health-damaging failures of the
sickness industry. www.wellnessresources.com askbyron@wellnessresources.com
machine, the levels of LDL cholesterol that are the artificial targets of
"health" promoted by the American Heart Association (AHA) are now found to
be associated with a significant increased risk of cancer and death.
The AHA recommends an LDL level of 100 for prevention and 70 for high risk
patients. In the new study an LDL level of 107 was associated with a 33%
increased risk of cancer and death, an LDL level of 87 was associated with a
50% increased risk. As the LDL goes lower the risk keeps getting worse.
These arbitrary AHA levels for LDL cholesterol were established by "experts"
with direct financial ties to the statin industry, who knew full well that
reaching their artificially low target levels for LDL would require double
and triple doses of statin drugs, thus dramatically increasing sales (which
has indeed happened).
The Vytorin fraud has pointed out quite clearly that lowering LDL
cholesterol to very low levels does not reduce cardiovascular disease.
Another Vytorin study also shows doing so increases cancer risk by 64%. The
new study paints the clear picture that lowering LDL too low actually
increases the rate of death from any cause. This new study also points out
the statistical shenanigans that the statin industry uses to hide the actual
risks of these drugs in the studies that have been published.
The data was so alarming that the researchers called for a statistical
reanalysis of the data from all existing cholesterol studies, using better
statistical models that actually reflect true risk. The results of this new
research led the authors to conclude "A low LDL cholesterol level is not
necessarily associated with optimal clinical outcomes but is a predictor of
cancer and death."
We have known for many years that individuals who maintain an LDL
cholesterol level of 130 as they enter their 40s and 50s have much less
heart disease as they grow older. This is because they are healthy and have
maintained fitness in their cholesterol function and metabolism. There is no
credible data to show that lowering LDL numbers with statins actually
produces a similar level of health, especially to artificially low numbers.
There is a huge difference between having good cholesterol numbers because
you are healthy and drugging your body's synthesis of cholesterol with
statins.
In the current study the ideal LDL cholesterol level was 126. The
researchers were able to identify a bell shaped curve, in terms of a
departure in either direction from this ideal number. LDL over 146 or less
than 107 was associated with 33% increased risk of cancer. LDL over 164 of
less than 87 was associated with a 50% increased risk. The risk keeps
getting worse the higher or lower the number progresses away from the ideal
of 126. LDL in the range of 108 - 145 had no statistically significant
cancer risk, although being in the center of this range is clearly best.
There have been a number of studies in the past that link low cholesterol
and cancer risk. However, these studies could not prove that the cancer was
not already there prior to the start of the study - which has been the main
argument used (besides statistical manipulation) by the statin industry to
deny the association. In the new study this issue was taken into account by
eliminating participants with less than 2.5 years follow up after the start
of the study, thus demonstrating that the results were not due to
pre-existing cancer.
Needless to say, this study was not part of the marketing machine propaganda
that is rampant in universities and "scientific" journals that have been
used to promote the statin scam around the world, while actively
blackmailing and blacklisting any authors, institutions, or journals that
dare to step on Big Pharma's statin toes. This study was published on August
26, 2008 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It was carried out in
Hong Kong with Chinese patients who had type II diabetes - the exact patient
who is forced onto aggressive cholesterol lowering with statin drugs in
America.
It is quite clear that scientific knowledge and advanced statistical
analysis are no longer under the control of Big Pharma and its legions of
scientists, universities, and medical journals that are on the take,
misrepresenting data, and actively suppressing negative findings. The truth
is coming out because Big Pharma is targeting the citizens of the world as a
new market for statin sales. And they are also targeting our children,
wanting infants seven months of age to have LDL levels of 50 and keep them
at that level their whole life (with drugs, since such levels are totally
abnormal).
The insanity must stop. Americans have been conned. Big Pharma and the
American Heart Association should be held responsible for past crimes and
future intended crimes against the health of our citizens under the false
pretense of improved cardiovascular health.
Sources:
Link to full Canadian Medical Association Journal article:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/179...
Link to fully referenced version of this article:
http://www.wellnessresources.com/health...
About the author: Byron J. Richards, Board-Certified Clinical Nutritionist,
nationally-renowned nutrition expert, and founder of Wellness Resources is a
leader in advocating the value of dietary supplements as a vital tool to
maintain health. He is an outspoken critic of government and Big Pharma
efforts to deny access to natural health products and has written
extensively on the life-shortening and health-damaging failures of the
sickness industry. www.wellnessresources.com askbyron@wellnessresources.com
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Dealing with troubling people
"Whenever encountering a troublesome person, do not identify him as being cruel or stupid or rude or anything else like that. Instead, see him as a frightened person."
Vernon Howard
Author
Vernon Howard
Author
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
What kindness is
"Genuine kindness is not what we do. It is what we are."
Vernon Howard
Author of Psycho-Pictography
Vernon Howard
Author of Psycho-Pictography
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Amazing Power of the Human Will
"My mother taught me very early to believe I could achieve any accomplishment I wanted to. The first was to walk without braces."
Wilma Rudolph
The human will is the most incredible thing. I believe it is the human will that keeps us going, when everyone else expects us to sit, or even quit.
I have always been fascinated by the heroes and sheroes who have made indelible marks in world history; and illustrated distinguished triumphs over seemingly, insurmountable adversity.
I can vividly recall reading about Wilma Rudolph when I was in grade school. Her life epitomized, "breaking through limitations." Over the last three decades, I have thought about Wilma when so-called, "limitations" presented themselves in my own life. I think of Wilma, and I am passionately reminded of the amazing power of the human will.
Wilma Rudolph was born prematurely and weighed only 4.5 pounds. Most of her childhood was spent in St. Bethlehem, Tennessee. There, she was bedridden as she battled double pneumonia, scarlet fever and polio. At six years old, she lost the use of her left leg. Subsequently, she was fitted with leg braces. Later on in life, she was often quoted as saying: "I spent most of my time trying to get them off. (I had an uncompromising resolve) to be a normal kid."
At the age of 16, when she was only a sophomore in high school, the 5' 11" Wilma Rudolph won a bronze medal at the Olympic Games in Melbourne, Australia. And, in the 1960 Rome Olympics, Rudolph became "the fastest woman in the world." She also was the first American woman to win three gold medals in one Olympics. She won the 100 and 200 meter races; and also anchored the U.S. team to victory in the 4 X 100 meter relay, breaking records along the way.
Wilma Rudolph is remembered by family and admirers alike, for her incredible calm and graceful demeanor when under pressure. Valiantly and brilliantly, she removed all of her "struggles" during the course of her lifetime.
She once said: "The most important aspect is to be yourself and have confidence in yourself...triumph can't be had without a struggle."
In 1994, Wilma Rudolph died of brain cancer at the age of 54. Few would argue that she lived a full, purposeful, and triumphant life. Rudolph expected victory when just about everyone else would have understood if she'd just lay down, sit or even quit. Thank you, Wilma, for being the contrary.
Fran Briggs
Wilma Rudolph
The human will is the most incredible thing. I believe it is the human will that keeps us going, when everyone else expects us to sit, or even quit.
I have always been fascinated by the heroes and sheroes who have made indelible marks in world history; and illustrated distinguished triumphs over seemingly, insurmountable adversity.
I can vividly recall reading about Wilma Rudolph when I was in grade school. Her life epitomized, "breaking through limitations." Over the last three decades, I have thought about Wilma when so-called, "limitations" presented themselves in my own life. I think of Wilma, and I am passionately reminded of the amazing power of the human will.
Wilma Rudolph was born prematurely and weighed only 4.5 pounds. Most of her childhood was spent in St. Bethlehem, Tennessee. There, she was bedridden as she battled double pneumonia, scarlet fever and polio. At six years old, she lost the use of her left leg. Subsequently, she was fitted with leg braces. Later on in life, she was often quoted as saying: "I spent most of my time trying to get them off. (I had an uncompromising resolve) to be a normal kid."
At the age of 16, when she was only a sophomore in high school, the 5' 11" Wilma Rudolph won a bronze medal at the Olympic Games in Melbourne, Australia. And, in the 1960 Rome Olympics, Rudolph became "the fastest woman in the world." She also was the first American woman to win three gold medals in one Olympics. She won the 100 and 200 meter races; and also anchored the U.S. team to victory in the 4 X 100 meter relay, breaking records along the way.
Wilma Rudolph is remembered by family and admirers alike, for her incredible calm and graceful demeanor when under pressure. Valiantly and brilliantly, she removed all of her "struggles" during the course of her lifetime.
She once said: "The most important aspect is to be yourself and have confidence in yourself...triumph can't be had without a struggle."
In 1994, Wilma Rudolph died of brain cancer at the age of 54. Few would argue that she lived a full, purposeful, and triumphant life. Rudolph expected victory when just about everyone else would have understood if she'd just lay down, sit or even quit. Thank you, Wilma, for being the contrary.
Fran Briggs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)