Cancer, Diet and Global Warming with the Producer of Healing Cancer from the Inside Out

December 4, 2008

Cancer, Diet and Global Warming with the Producer of Healing Cancer from the Inside Out

This interview is an excerpt from Kevin Gianni’s Renegade Roundtable, which can be found at In this excerpt, Mike Anderson shares on cancer, diet and global warming.

Renegade Water Secrets with Mike Anderson, who is a medical researcher, author of The Rave Diet and film maker/producer of “Eating” and “Healing Cancer from the Inside Out.”

Kevin: So, Mike. If all this stuff isn’t working, what is?

Mike: Food. I site some studies in the film… the Office of Technology Assessment funded the Gerson Therapy. It beat the pants off conventional treatments. This was in different stages of melanoma. It just beat the pants off of conventional treatments. They don’t like these studies. They don’t want to fund them. It’s very hard.

Macrobiotics went in front of the NIH, National Institute of Health and they tried to get funding because they presented six terminal cases, cancer cases, where the cancers were totally reversed. They were all biopsied and they were all confirmed and everything. Now, wouldn’t you think that people should be interested in this? That they should fund more studies? No, they can’t get any money for anymore funding for any.

You know allopathic medicine doesn’t, their history is to shut down any nutritional approach because they are so threatened by it. Even, this was around the turn of the century, 2001 or so. It’s on the website, the Sushi Institute. Anyway, they’re totally threatened because it does work. It is more effective. Instead of destroying the body, you’re trying to build it up.

I specifically included Macrobiotics because they have a long history, 100- year history. In fact, the founder of Macrobiotics reversed cancer. But they have a long history of reversing cancers. So I look at Macrobiotics and that’s almost 100% cooked. Then I look at raw, and that’s 100% raw, uncooked. And I think the bottom line here is that, the common ground is that they are all plant-based, 100% plant-based. They are all organic. Organic is very, very important because organic food is much higher in micronutrients, the anti-oxidant families. Those are the ones that are going to fight cancer effectively. It’s a whole-foods organic diet and that’s it. Whether it’s raw or whether it’s cooked is partly personal preference, in terms of case and stuff.

Kevin: You knew that this film was going to cause some waves. So, one, how did you prepare for it? Two, what kind of feedback have you gotten from people who were not happy?

Mike: I actually did not prepare very much for it. What I did was try and make it
as credible as I can and close the loop on all the arguments. To make it as tight as possible. I’ll tell you a story. I don’t know if Brian Clement wants me to tell this or not, he was interviewed in the film, but he and his wife watched it for seven hours, seven hours looking for a loophole. They were primarily looking at some angle conventional doctors could use to attack me and they couldn’t find it. So my approach was just make it as tight as possible and as credible as possible. As a result of that, I haven’t had much negative feedback except that people don’t want to talk to me.

I have been on KPFK, they are a nonprofit, local station here in L.A. I’ve been on there and they were very receptive and so was the audience. I mean, people are hungry for this new. But getting it out there is very, very difficult.

People will say, “Oh, my gosh. You should be on major news shows,” and stuff like that. And I say, “Well, have you looked at the sponsors of those news shows? They’ll never have me on.” You know, you’ve got meat and dairy and drugs and I’m preaching against all of those. So, it’s difficult to get it out, but word of mouth is extraordinarily strong; it’s pushing this whole thing. And thanks to shows like your and others, more and more people are getting on the bandwagon.

I was at the Raw Spirit Festival in Sedona this weekend and I had a lady and her husband come out, specifically to see me. They flew out from Tampa. And it was because they saw “Healing Cancer” a month ago. Her father started off with colon cancer, it spread to his liver, now it’s in his lungs. He’s had one round of chemo; he couldn’t take it anymore. So they were looking for something. They put him on the diet and within a month all of his cancer markers had dropped dramatically. They were just thrilled by the whole thing. They wanted to fly out and just thank me because of it.

The strange thing is most people they have it in their mind that cancer is this dreaded disease that kills people. Well, you know, cardio vascular disease kills over twice as many people a cancer, that’s a pretty scary disease. But people have it in their minds that cancer is more scary, but it’s not. It can be controlled through food. People have this idea that, well, gee, cancer’s a dangerous disease you need strong medicine. You need something that will make people’s hair fall out and make them throw up all day for days on end and make them just sick. That’s strong medicine. You need just the opposite. You need something that’s going to build up the body. People, if they’ll get off this toxic diet they’re on and get on a good diet, they’ll see miraculous things happening. Not just with cancer, but the whole body will be healing.

Kevin: Let’s talk a little bit about the Rave diet. There’s a lot of people who are
on this call who don’t know what that is. So, let’s give a little bit of information on that and…

Mike: OK. I wrote the book primarily because people were asking me for something to accompany the “Eating” DVD. Because after they see the “Eating” DVD, they’ll say, “OK, I’m ready to change my diet, but what do I do?” And even though I list, at the end of the film, all kinds of books, and on the website even more, they wanted something from me. So, I put it together primarily as a very short, it reads very easily, very short guide, if you will, to how to change to this diet.

I have a transitional diet, too, because sometimes it’s difficult for people to go on the full Rave diet. So I have an easier transitional diet so they can evolve into it. One guy, for example, it was too much for him because he had been eating processed foods all of his life and he had horrendous gas because of all the fiber. So I tell people, “Ease up on it. You can go slowly,” you know, unless you have some terrible disease you’re fighting. But what it stands for, Rave is an acronym, it means no refined foods. The A is no animal foods, the V, which gets me in trouble with most people all the time, means no vegetable oils; the E means no exceptions and exercise. There are a number of sub-rules within that. It’s not just that acronym alone. Like, eat at least half of your food uncooked type of thing. Also ingredients lists, it’s got a whole explanation of how to read ingredient lists and so forth. But it’s done very well.

Kevin: No oil. Let’s talk about that.

Mike: OK. I got this primarily, started out if you look at Ornish, Essylstyn, Furman, a lot of doctors who actually reversed heart disease and have studies to prove it; they all specifically exclude vegetable oils. There are clinical studies, it tears up the arteries. Essylstyn says it’s as good for your arteries as roast beef. If you look at nutrient scales, the key to a good diet is getting the maximum amount of nutrients per calorie that you can. If you look at vegetable oils, they have the lowest nutrient value of any food on the planet. It’s all fat, very few nutrient values per calorie on it.

It’s a refined food, on top of it; the molecules in vegetable oils are unstable. They produce free radicals. It’s a promoter of some cancers, particularly skin cancers, and on and on and on. So, I just say there are substitutes for it. If you’re cooking and you want to brown potatoes or something, use applesauce or apple juice or vegetable broth or something. You have to cook it slower, but it browns just as good. So, that’s the schtook on vegetable oils. I’m telling people in the beginning with this, “Hey, you get on this you can reverse your heart disease.” I’m not going to go against all the doctors who have proven successfully through tests that you can reverse heart disease. They all exclude the vegetable oils.

Kevin: Yeah, I think it makes sense to follow the research of people that you have mentioned, like Furman and Essylstyn and these guys, instead of recreating the wheel on a theory.

Mike: Right, right. I have to follow; these guys are my heroes. I can’t challenge them and I want to, if someone comes out with a study of heart disease reversal which specifically includes vegetable oils, then I’ll take a second look at it, as will they. But so far that hasn’t happened.

Kevin: Who do you think you’ve learned the most from?

Mike: Geez, I don’t know. That’s hard. Everyone’s saying the same thing, essentially, in different ways and they’re doing their own thing. In the beginning, there were John Robbins, the emotional aspect of it, environmental, in particular. He was huge. McDougall, he was huge, too. He was giving all this reinforcement to the health. Then, of course, Fuhrman and Ornish and a number of others, Esselston. I would say probably McDougall and, in the very beginning, McDougall and John Robbins.

Kevin: Great. You mentioned global warming, again, and I think we should probably talk about that because it was an added portion of the film, “Eating.” What are some of the implications of the way we eat, as related to global warming and the environment?

Mike: It’s methane, that’s the major thing that’s been overlooked. I’m no expert in it, but what I did was summarize what the experts have said. It’s hard for people to visualize this, but there are hundreds of millions of cows, and other livestock out there, that emit methane, both through the mouths and their rear ends. It goes into the atmosphere and methane is a powerful heat-trapper, much more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide will stay in the atmosphere much longer, but methane really traps heat. Studies have shown that, in fact, methane has caused nearly half of the global warming to-date. The number one source of methane is the animals we raise and eventually eat. So, the good thing about methane is that it only stays in the atmosphere for eight years. If people would cut back on their consumption of animal products, you could recycle out very quickly. There could be a more immediate impact on global warming, on cooling. That’s not going to happen, but, say, everyone in the world cut back 1/3 of their meat consumption and reduced the livestock accordingly. That could have a major impact on global warming, and quite soon. Whereas carbon dioxide that stays in the atmosphere for so long. It’s not going to have such an immediate impact on it and that’s what we need is an immediate impact, because we’re right there, as they call the tipping point.



In depth knowledge on cell phone effects

December 2, 2008

Click here to learn more. I think this is a must read/watch.

India’s growing pains

December 1, 2008

India’s growing pains
CNN) — To the litany of challenges that confront India’s path to a better life, we can now add subdued economic growth as a result of the global financial crisis.
A banana vendor stands on a flooded street as he waits for customers in Amritsar, India, on August 13.

A banana vendor stands on a flooded street as he waits for customers in Amritsar, India, on August 13.

After three spectacular years of 9 percent-plus annual growth, India will reach just 6.3 percent next year, according to the latest forecast by the International Monetary Fund in early November. The Reserve Bank of India is forecasting a more optimistic 7.5 to 8 percent.

While 7.5 percent may still sound a good result, it is barely enough for the economy to keep pace with the 10 million-plus young people who will join the Indian job market in 2009.

India’s major shortcomings in infrastructure, education, health care and environmental protection are well known, as are the constant problems of corruption, poor governance, rural poverty, communalism, domestic terrorism, child labor, discrimination against women and natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes.

But at least in recent years India could point to a strong economy as the platform on which it was making its push for higher living standards, social modernization and economic reform. Since May 2004, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Finance Minister P. Chidambaram took on the reins of government, India’s economy has had a charmed run.

Strong growth in business sectors such asinformation technology, pharmaceuticals, automotive, financial services and retail have coincided with a better performing agricultural sector, and a housing and consumption boom driven by easier credit.

India’s young working men and women — more than half the country’s 1.15 billion people are aged 25 or less — have shown a much greater propensity to spend, compared to their thrifty, risk-averse parents and grandparents.

This willingness to go into debt rather than save has seen a massive rise in sales of consumer goods such as mobile phones, flat screen TVs, refrigerators, household utensils, motorcycles and cars. The same goes for spending on services, from tourism to healthcare to self-improvement.

Now the halcyon days appear to be over, as the international credit crunch flattens demand everywhere. Already the downturn is seeing job losses in sectors such as aviation, financial services, retailing and export industries, as companies tighten their belts and put expansion plans on hold.

The government admits things will get tougher, with Singh telling the nation on October 20 that “we must be prepared for a temporary slowdown in the Indian economy.”

Earlier that day, the Reserve Bank of India cut its key repurchase (short-term lending) rate by 100 basis points to 8 percent, saying it needed to ease the pressure on India’s credit markets and maintain financial stability. It followed that with another cut to 7.5 percent on November 1.
Don’t Miss

* Start me up: Setting up business in India
* CNN/Money: The case for emerging markets
* Vijay Mallya: The king of Kingfisher

RBI Governor Dr. D. Subbarao noted the global downturn could be deeper and the recovery might take longer than earlier expected. “Consequently, the adverse implications through trade and financial channels for emerging economies, including India, have amplified,” he said.

Economists and analysts have welcomed the central bank’s moves, which have included a 350-basis point reduction in the cash reserve ratio — the amount of money Indian banks must keep on hand — between July and November.

Tushar Poddar, head of Asian economic research at investment bank Goldman Sachs, said the RBI’s October 20 action was “well ahead of market expectations” and showed a bias towards growth and financial stability, against inflation.

Goldman Sachs had earlier cut its growth outlook for the 2009-10FY to 7 percent and has warned the figure could go lower if the international financial turmoil continues over the next few months.

But Poddar believes that India’s export drive — which has seen exports triple since 2003 to about $163 billion in 2007-08FY — may not suffer too greatly.

In a recent study, he found that about two-thirds of India’s exports go outside the United States and the European Union (the two trade areas most affected by the downturn) to China, Southeast Asia, West Asia and Africa. While Indian exports would slow, “the downside is limited,” he said. A lower Indian rupee would also help.

Foreign investment is slowing in line with the downturn. Morgan Stanley’s India economist Chetan Ahya noted recently that “adverse global circumstances” are weighing on India’s ability to attract overseas money. Unless there is a dramatic turnaround in the global credit markets, Ahya believes capital inflows could slow to $40-50 billion in the year ahead, compared with $110 billion in 2008.

On the broader political front, India has to deal with a range of internal and external risks that include domestic communalism-cum-terrorism and the constant threat of conflict with Pakistan over the disputed Kashmir territory.

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and Sri Lanka all add to a difficult neighborhood, while India’s relations with China are cool at best, even as trade ties grow. Territorial disputes linger from the 1962 border war between the two.

That helps explain why India was named recently by Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) as the Asia-Pacific country with the highest political and social risk for 2009.

A report by PERC in late October assessed 16 countries in the Asia Pacific region, and assigned India the highest risk rating of 6.87, ahead of Thailand with 6.28. China was seventh with 5.33, behind Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Cambodia.

PERC cited uncertainties surrounding India’s coming general election — due to be held by May 2009 — along with rising communal violence and incidents of terrorism.

“The biggest risk is that a deterioration in political and economic conditions in neighboring Pakistan could aggravate social unrest in India further, and hurt national security,” it noted.

But it said India’s underlying attractions to foreign investors should remain, “no matter who wins the next election.

Prime Minister Singh, with six months of his government to run, is putting on a brave face. “It is when India is challenged that the Indian people rise to the occasion and convert the challenge into an opportunity. There is no place for fear,” he told the nation late last month.


IBM Predicts Talking Web, Solar-Powered Cell Phones, More

November 29, 2008

IBM Predicts Talking Web, Solar-Powered Cell Phones, More
A talking Web, solar technology embedded in windows and cell phones, and the end of forgetting will all come in the next five years, IBM predicts in its third annual Next Five in Five list.
Here, IBM detailed innovations that could change our lives in the next half-decade.
The other predictions: We will all have digital shopping assistants and, separately, “crystal balls” to predict our future health.

“The Next Five in Five is based on market and societal trends expected to transform our lives, as well as emerging technologies from IBM’s Labs around the world that can make these innovations possible,” IBM says.
Here’s a look at IBM’s five predictions announced this week:

1. Solar power will be built into asphalt sidewalks, driveways, siding, paint, rooftops and windows. New thin-film solar cells will be cost-effective and incredibly thin, allowing them to be applied just about anywhere.

“Until now, the materials and the process of producing solar cells to convert into solar energy have been too costly for widespread adoption,” IBM says. “These new thin-film solar cells can be ‘printed’ and arranged on a flexible backing, suitable for not only the tops but also the sides of buildings, tinted windows, cell phones, notebook computers, cars and even clothing.”

2. You will have a crystal ball for your health — not a real crystal ball, but sophisticated analyses of your own DNA will tell you what types of health risks you face in your lifetime and the specific steps you can take to prevent them. DNA analyses will cost less than $200 (about Rs. 9000), IBM says, making them affordable for many. In addition to predicting health risks, IBM says the technology will tell us what we’re not at risk for, perhaps enabling certain people to enjoy foods like French fries and potato chips without guilt. Besides personal health profiles, DNA mapping will help drug companies design new, more effective medicine.

“Ever since scientists discovered how to map the entire human genome, it has opened new doors in helping to unlock the secrets our genes hold to predicting health traits and conditions we may be predisposed to,” IBM says.

3. “You will talk to the Web . . . and the Web will talk back.” Someday soon you will surf the Internet using just your voice, a development that will make the Web more widely accessible worldwide, particularly for those who cannot read or write.

“In places like India, where the spoken word is more prominent than the written word in education, government and culture, ‘talking’ to the Web is leapfrogging all other interfaces, and the mobile phone is outpacing the PC,” IBM says. “Imagine being within a phone call’s reach from the ability to post, scan and respond to e-mails and instant messages — without typing. You will be able to sort through the Web verbally to find what you are looking for and have the information read back to you — as if you are having a conversation with the Web.”

4. Digital technology will enhance your in-store shopping experience, with “digital shopping assistants” inside fitting rooms, touchscreen and voice-activated kiosks that will help you choose clothing items to complement or replace what you’ve already chosen. Store employees will be automatically notified and bring you the items you’ve requested. With rapidly improving mobile technology, shoppers will also read product ratings from other consumers, download coupons and take photos of themselves to send to friends and family and instantly get their opinions.

5. “Forgetting will become a distant memory,” IBM says in its final prediction. Remembering all the little things you forget will become easier because everyday details will be recorded, analyzed and “provided at the appropriate time and place by both portable and stationary smart appliances.” IBM predicts that microphones and video cameras will record everyday activities and conversations, whether those conversations happen with family members or doctors. GPS-enabled smartphones can then remind us, for example, to pick up groceries or prescriptions if we pass by the supermarket or pharmacy.

IBM makes no mention of laws that in some states forbid recording of conversations without the consent of all parties, so we’ll have to see how the legality of this one plays out.


Mumbai Siege Over!

November 28, 2008

I pray for all the lives lost.

The Mumbai siege is said to be over. Let us hope it really is.

Watch CNN-IBN’s live coverage of the Mumbai massacre

6 Ways to Save More Than $12,000 on Taxes in 2009 A look at the new renewable energy and energy efficient incentives for individuals

November 27, 2008

6 Ways to Save More Than $12,000 on Taxes in 2009
A look at the new renewable energy and energy efficient incentives for individuals

By Dan Shapley

Updated: 10/20/2008 2:26:17 PM

It’s been widely noted that the passage of the financial bailout bill included $150 billion in additional “sweeteners” to gain passage in the House of Representatives. It’s true that only in Washington could the solution to an overly expensive bill be an even more expensive bill, but it’s also true that one of the provisions – energy efficiency and renewable energy tax credits – was among the important sweeteners to win passage.

The tax bill is filled with important incentives that will keep the solar and wind power industries competitive, and that means they should continue to innovate, producing more power at ever more affordable prices. That’s critical for the U.S., and the world, as we confront the challenge of global warming.

But what about homeowners and other regular taxpayers? There are several important provisions anyone can take advantage of:

1. $500 for energy efficiency
If you can, wait until Jan. 1 to install new insulation, energy-efficient windows or an energy-efficient furnace, boiler or air conditioner.

* Green Jobs More Money Saving Tips on MSN Green:
– 5 Simple Money-Saving Green Remodeling Ideas
– Drive Smart: 10 Ways to Save Gas and Money
– Energy costs killing you? Conduct a home energy audit
– Which Green Upgrades Are Worth the Extra Expense?

A tax credit of up to $500 that expired in 2007 has been renewed for 2009. It covers up to 10% of the cost of a range of projects that meet certain specifications. Do $5,000 worth of qualifying work, and you not only get a $500 rebate, but also savings on energy bills for years to come.

Why wait? Of course, the heating season begins before Jan. 1, giving homeowners facing a northern winter reason to invest now – but because Congress let the tax credit lapse, work done in 2008 doesn’t qualify.

Also note these important limits, which cap the amount you can claim for any particular project:
– Windows: $200
– Exterior doors, roofing or insulation: $500
– Most heating, ventilation and air-conditioning improvements: $300
– Furnaces or hot water heaters: $150

Remember, your overall tax credit is capped at $500, so if you install $5,000 worth of exterior doors and $2,000 worth of new windows, for a total of $7,000, you can still only claim $500 – even though 10 percent of all qualifying work equals $700. Also, the tax credit applies only to equipment, not labor.

Find more information at the Alliance to Save Energy or Energy Star or Department of Energy Web sites. Note that much of this information reflects the tax incentives in place in 2006 and 2007; for the most part, the 2009 tax credits are identical, but updated criteria for which products qualify, for instance, will be published soon.

Click here to read more

Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? Scientific American Answers

November 26, 2008

Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer? Scientific American Answers
Nov. 24, 2008, 4:55 pm


The answer is, nobody really knows. Caution has been advised by some experts.

Scientific American

“There is plenty of anecdotal evidence out there claiming a link between cell phone use and cancer: Keith Black, chairman of neurosurgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, says that the brain cancer (malignant glioma) that killed O. J. Simpson’s attorney, Johnnie Cochran, was the result of frequent cell phone use, based on the fact that the tumor developed on the side of the head against which he held his phone. And in May, a week after Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy was diagnosed with a glioma, The EMR Policy Institute, a Marshfield, Vt.–based nonprofit organization that supports research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation, released a statement linking his tumor to heavy cell phone use. But the NCI maintains that there is no definitive evidence that cell phones increase cancer risk.

“In other words, the verdict is still out. “We can’t rule out the possibility of risk,” Nottingham’s Challis says. “There hadn’t been as much work in this area as is now demanded.”

Source: Scientific American, November 21, 2008

Vitamin Sun

November 25, 2008

The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D: an exclusive interview with Dr. Michael Holick
Dr. Michael Holick is the world’s foremost authority on vitamin D and the healing power of natural sunlight. He’s the author of The UV Advantage, and in this interview, Dr. Holick reveals fascinating facts on how vitamin D is created and used in the human body to ward off chronic diseases like cancer, osteoporosis, mental disorders and more. This is one of the most eye-opening interviews you’ll ever read on health.

Here’s some of what you’ll find inside:

* Why and how your body manufactures vitamin D.
* How your body automatically regulates proper levels of vitamin D, even with excessive sunlight exposure.
* Why vitamin D deficiencies are now epidemic in the American population (and what it means to their health).
* How vitamin D deficiencies cause prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, osteoporosis, rickets and other diseases.
* The true cause of asthma and why antihistamines only conceal the symptoms of the disease rather than treating its cause.
* Why African Americans and Hispanics are especially susceptible to vitamin D deficiencies due to skin pigmentation.
* Why the sunscreen industry doesn’t want you to read this information and has tried to discredit Dr. Holick.
* Why milk and orange juice are poor sources for vitamin D. Revealed: a much better nutritional supplement that provides a vitamin D boost!
* Why where you live on the planet ultimately determines how much sunlight you need.
* How dermatologists misinform people about the real risks of sun exposure.
* Seasonal Affective Disorder: how to treat it with sunlight exposure.
* Revealed: a simple, five-second test that reveals whether you’re suffering from severe vitamin D deficiency.
* Why vitamin D defiencies impair your body’s ability to absorb calcium!
* Fifteen facts you probably never knew about vitamin D.
* A complete list of diseases and disorders caused by vitamin D deficiencies.


Seems to be an interesting little book.

Microwave Oven Radiation Destroys Food!

November 24, 2008

Microwave Oven Radiation Destroys Food!
Microwave oven radiation doesn’t cook your food-it destroys it!

This excerpt from Tom Valentine’s Search For Health describes just what happens to food when it gets zapped in a microwave oven.

“…The same violent friction and athermic deformations that can occur in our bodies when we are subjected to radar or microwaves happens to the molecules in the food cooked in a microwave oven. In fact, when anyone microwaves food the oven exerts a power input of about 1000 watts or more. This radiation results in destruction and deformation of molecules of food and in the formation of new compounds(called radiolytic compounds) unknown to man and nature. Today’s established science and technology argues forcefully that microwaved food, an irradiated foods, do not have any significantly high “radiolytic compounds” than do broiled, baked or other conventionally cooked foods-but microwaving does produce more of these critters. Curiously, neither established science nor our ever protective government has conducted any tests of the effects of eating the various kinds of cooked foods on the blood of eaters…something is amiss and larger studies should be funded.”

While we don’t recommend using a microwave oven to cook your food, if you do have one-or your office or roommate uses one- we recommend using a Star 3-Hole to neutralize the microwave radiation that it emits.


Hope for the Jobless

November 23, 2008

Bush signs bill to extend jobless benefits
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush on Friday morning signed a measure to extend unemployment benefits by at least seven weeks in every state, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
The Senate passed a bill Thursday that extends unemployment benefits.

The Senate passed a bill Thursday that extends unemployment benefits.

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved the bill, which also calls for benefits to be extended by 13 weeks in states with an unemployment rate of at least 6 percent.

The bill was approved by the House in October.

Perino said in a statement that Bush will sign the legislation “because of the tight job market.”

In September, Bush threatened to veto a broader stimulus bill that included the extension of jobless benefits.

In most states, unemployment benefits are paid for a maximum of 26 weeks.

The Senate vote came on the same day the U.S. Department of Labor reported that the number of people filing for unemployment insurance had reached a 16-year high.
Don’t Miss

* CNNMoney: Unemployed? More help for you
* CNNMoney: Auto bailout: Not now, maybe later
* New Congress members meet big-money donors

Initial filings for state jobless benefits increased by 27,000 to 542,000 for the week ended November 15. This marks the third time since 1992 that initial claims have exceeded 500,000.

Claims reached the highest total since the week ending July 25, 1992, when 564,000 initial claims were filed.

Bob Brusca, an economist at FAO Economics, said the week’s sharp uptick in claims and the fact that claims have held above 500,000 indicate that the figures are in worse shape than those of the most recent recessions of 1991 and 2001.

“The level itself is very disturbing,” he said. “I would guess that the job market will get worse.”

Economists surveyed by expected 503,000 claims. Last year, the figure stood at 333,000.

The number of people continuing to collect benefits for one week or more neared a 26-year high. The number surged by 109,000 to 4,012,000 for the week ended November 8, the most recent data available. The last time the figure was this high was for the week of December 12, 1982, when it reached 4,381,000.

The four-week moving average of unemployment claims, used to smooth fluctuations in the data, increased by 15,750 to 506,500 from 490,750 the week before. During the past two recessions, the four-week moving average has held above 400,000. This is the 18th week the four-week moving average has exceeded that benchmark.

U.S. job losses have been mounting for months. This month, the Department of Labor reported that the economy lost 240,000 jobs in October, bringing the total number of jobs shed in 2008 to nearly 1.2 million. The unemployment rate rose to 6.5 percent, a 14-year high, last month.

Companies reporting layoffs in the past week include Citigroup, which slashed 20 percent of its work force, or 50,000 jobs, the biggest cut by a corporation in 15 years. Financial services firm Fidelity Investments announced that it will cut 1,700 jobs, and Sun Microsystems reported that it would lay off 6,000 people, or 18 percent of its work force.


Breast Cancer Industry A Scam? Support Education, Not Medication

November 22, 2008

Breast Cancer Industry A Scam? Support Education, Not Medication
This is the second annual publication of NaturalNews’s “Education, Not Medication” program designed to teach women the truth about how to prevent and even cure breast cancer. This disease is 90 percent preventable, mostly using completely free therapies. The breast cancer industry does not want women to be made aware of these free therapies because most of the better-known non-profits in the area of breast cancer are, themselves, dependant on revenues from the companies that profit from the disease.

The breast cancer industry is now run by corporations that profit from women who receive breast cancer treatments. With nearly all breast cancer nonprofits being subjugated by drug companies, the FDA censoring alternative cancer solutions, and the mainstream media wildly exaggerating the benefits of near-useless cancer drugs like Herceptin, there’s hardly a message heard about breast cancer today that doesn’t have a profit motive behind it.

“Breast cancer has been transformed into a market-driven industry. It has become more about making money for corporate sponsors than funding innovative ways to treat breast cancer.” – Health Studies researcher Samantha King, author of Pink Ribbons Inc.

The emphasis on breast cancer “screening,” and the circus of holding breast cancer awareness months is, of course, all about recruiting more women into a system of treatment that generates profits for drug companies. Using fear-based tactics of recruitment (like telling women, “You’ll die in six months if you don’t undergo chemotherapy…”), the breast cancer industry manages to corral women of all races and ages into treatments that actually harm far more women than they help. New research, for example, shows that certain classes of chemotherapy drugs are so dangerous to human health that they cause heart failure in many women who use them. The drugs are called anthracyclines, and the research was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (October, 2007).

Chemotherapy is so dangerous to the heart, liver, kidneys and brain that the very act of screening for cancer tumors with mammography machines ultimately causes harm to most patients. Find that hard to believe? Researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Denmark studied 500,000 women to determine the results of breast cancer screening programs. They found that for every one woman helped by breast cancer screening, ten were harmed through false diagnosis or unnecessary treatments that devastated their health.

“What seems like good and obvious advice in everyday life is not always scientifically or medically sound”, said Peter Gotzsche, MD, director of the center. “So we might say there is a benefit of one but a harm of 10 from screening for breast cancer.” You can read more about that story at

In other words, breast cancer screening is surprisingly harmful to women. That’s partly because the procedure itself irradiates the breast tissue and actually causes cancer, but also because practically any screening result producing a questionable blur on the final image may result in a woman being manipulated through fear into undergoing aggressive, toxic cancer treatments even when they never had breast cancer in the first place. (False positives are extremely common in breast cancer screening, and in some cases, the machinery is incorrectly calibrated and doesn’t even meet radiology standards.)

Preventing prevention
And yet breast cancer screening is the only form of “prevention” offered by the cancer industry. But it isn’t prevention, it’s detection. Breast cancer screening does nothing to educate women how to really prevent breast cancer, nor does it teach women how to change their diets and lifestyles so that breast cancer never develops in the first place. In fact, the strategy of the cancer industry today can be best described as waiting for women to get cancer, then treating it with toxic drugs that just happen to generate huge profits for pharmaceutical companies.

While tens of millions of women are developing undetectable, early-stage breast cancer right now, the cancer industry does nothing. They will not tell these women how to halt the growth of cancer tumors; they will only wait until the cancer becomes large enough to see on a screening test, and then they will scare the women to death with harmful, authoritative medical demands and toss them into chemotherapy — a treatment that causes permanent, irreversible harm to the brain, heart, liver, kidneys and other organs.

Yet even the World Health Organization admits that 70 percent of all cancers can be prevented through simple changes in food and lifestyle. That number is probably conservative, though. My own opinion is that 90 percent of all cancers can be prevented through simple food and lifestyle changes. Yet no one in the cancer industry seems interested in teaching any of these strategies to women. In the cancer industry, there is no incentive to teach women how to avoid breast cancer, because to do so would eliminate a future customer! Billions of dollars in revenue are at stake here, and the cancer industry is banking on the continuation of this disease among the population.

That’s why I started the Education Not Medication program. It is a humble effort to teach women how to prevent their own breast cancer through scientifically-supported natural health strategies that are easy to understand and simple to follow. They include things like eating more broccoli and garlic, getting more natural sunlight on your skin (to generate the anti-cancer nutrient Vitamin D, which has recently been shown to prevent an astonishing 77 percent of ALL cancers!) and avoiding cancer-causing chemicals in manufactured foods (such as sodium nitrite, found in bacon, sausage and virtually all packaged meats). A more detailed list is offered below.

The cancer industry depends on more cancer
The cancer industry remains silent about these cancer prevention solutions. Ever wonder why? It’s because the livelihood of the industry depends on more cancer! If cancer rates plummeted by 70 percent or more, the industry would be devastated. The incomes, egos and power positions of cancer industry operators depend entirely on the continued spread of cancer among the population.

Ever notice that cancer centers are not called, “Anti-Cancer Centers?” You see them in virtually every city and state across the country: The Washington Cancer Center, or the San Francisco Cancer Center. Here in Arizona, we have a massive, new building being constructed, and it’s named the Arizona Cancer Center. These are all monuments to cancer, and they are usually for-profit businesses constructed for the purpose of making money from a woman’s disease. They turn cancer into profit, and they depend on the continuation of cancer to stay in business.

That’s why there’s no real effort underway to teach women how to prevent breast cancer. There’s no program in place to teach women about the anti-cancer effects of sunlight and vitamin D (in fact, cancer industry groups like the American Cancer Society run public service ads warning people about sunlight!), there’s no honest effort to teach women about the natural anti-cancer medicine founds in certain foods, and no one is telling women the truth about the cancer-causing chemicals in perfumes, laundry detergent, cosmetics and personal care products. Recent research shows that even air fresheners are contaminated with phthalates, and new details about cancer-causing chemicals in household products seem to emerge every week.

But when it comes to preventing cancer, the cancer industry is silent. Why should they say anything, anyway? If they teach women how to prevent breast cancer, they lose customers. Besides, the scheme they’re running right now is working brilliantly. They maximize revenues and profits by preventing prevention and waiting for women to get cancer, then treating them with high-profit pharmaceuticals, radiation and surgical procedures. They have the easiest business model in the world: All they have to do is keep their mouths shut about what causes cancer, and wait for new customers to fill the cancer centers. And to help them out, corporations, media organizations and volunteers (many are women!) actually help them raise more money!

Women raising money for cancer industry non-profit groups makes about as much sense as Jews raising money for Hitler. The cancer industry is exploiting these women, using their bodies to generate profits!

It’s time to teach genuine cancer prevention to women
The cancer industry has been getting away with this scam for years, but I say enough is enough. It’s time to declare, “The Emperor has no clothes!” and that the best way to help protect the lives of women is to teach them how to avoid breast cancer rather than waiting for them to get it.

And doing so is surprisingly simple. All you have to do is raise awareness about the things that cause breast cancer vs. the things that prevent breast cancer. This can be done through public service announcements, information handouts, or even internet campaigns like this one.

I also suggest that all these cancer treatment centers donate 100 percent of their profits to cancer prevention campaigns. It’s wrong to profit from a woman’s cancer, is it not? If these businesses really cared about stopping cancer, they’d refuse to profit from the disease and, instead, use the money to help stop cancer in future generations of women (and men, for that matter).

What an idea, huh? That these ultra-wealthy non-profits and billion-dollar corporations might spend some money on teaching women how to prevent cancer…

If it ever really happens, of course, it will only be as a cover-your-ass reaction to public awareness about the corporatization of the breast cancer industry. As word spreads, these non-profits will have to do something to save their reputation, so they’ll start running tiny “prevention” campaigns to save face. But underneath the facade, make no mistake: cancer is big, big business, and the cancer industry is driven by profiting from a woman’s body, not protecting it from cancer.

“[The cancer industry is] a market-driven industry that feeds off breast cancer survivors.” – Health Studies researcher Samantha King, author of Pink Ribbons Inc.

The real answers to breast cancer prevention
Here, for the benefit of women everywhere, is a partial list of the things that cause cancer and things that don’t. You’re not going to find full descriptions and citations here, as that would require an entire book all by itself, but this is a very useful reference list that tells the truth about what causes or prevents cancer in the human body.

18 things that CAUSE cancer: (in no particular order)

* Smoking cigarettes
* Mammography radiation – see articles on mammograms
* Chemotherapy and radiation
* Perfumes and fragrance products
* Cosmetics and personal care products – see articles on personal care products
* Home cleaning products, including laundry detergent, dryer sheets, etc.
* Drinking non-organic milk or eating non-organic dairy products
* Hydrogenated oils and trans fatty acids – See Poison In the Food or articles on hydrogenated oils
* Plastic food containers – includes plastic lining inside food cans
* Sodium nitrite – found in most processed meats, see articles on sodium nitrite
* Pesticides, PCBs, chlorine and other chemicals
* Acrylamides (formed during high-heat food processing such as frying)
* Watching television / lack of exercise
* Severe emotional distress or relationship stress
* Refined sugars / refined grains
* Dry cleaning chemicals
* Hair color chemicals
* Nail polish remover

22 things that PREVENT cancer:

* Vitamin D and sunshine – see the Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D
* Anti-cancer foods – see articles about anti-cancer foods
* Medicinal mushrooms – reishi, shiitake, agaricus blazei, etc. See or
* Green tea – see articles about green tea
* Broccoli and cruciferous vegetables – see articles about broccoli
* Lycopene and tomatoes
* Infra-red saunas and sweat lodges – because sweating expels toxins
* Chlorella – see articles on chlorella, or check out a recommended chlorella product: Rejuvenate! From (product to be launched soon)
* Pomegranate seeds – see artiles on pomegranate or
* Omega-3 oils / chia seeds – available from
* Rainforest herbs – There are many anti-cancer rainforest herbs, including graviola and Cat’s Claw (Una de Gato). Recommended sources is Terry Pezzi of the high-integrity Amazon Herb Company (also helping to preserve the Amazon rainforest) – Another great source of rainforest herbs is Rain Tree with Leslie Taylor
* Juice detoxification – Read books by Dr. Gabriel Cousens or visit his retreat in Southern Arizona
* Acupuncture – helps move blood and chi (body’s energy)
* Sprouts – ALL sprouts are anti-cancer. Best sprouting machine is the EasyGreen Automatic Sprouter (use any search engine to find resellers)
* Red clover – Helps cleanse the blood. Find from any supplement maker.
* Deep breathing / oxygenation / stress reduction – Best product is called Stress Eraser (highly recommended)
* Yoga, Tai Chi or Pilates – These all boost lymph circulation
* Cacao – (real chocolate) – Good sources are or
* Therapeutic massage – helps move lymph, boost circulation
* Mint – grow your own (the easiest plant to grow)
* Apricot pits / laetrile / vitamin B17 – View this World Without Cancer video featuring G. Edward Griffin
* Blackberries – Most berries contain some form of anti-cancer medicine

The cancer industry attacks nearly all genuine cancer solutions
After examining this list, it’s not difficult to notice something quite curious: The cancer industry promotes many things that cause cancer while attacking most things that prevent cancer. Naturopathic doctors who once prescribed laetrile for cancer patients, for example, have been run out of the country or arrested. Herbal product companies have been censored to such a degree that none dare tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their own products, and even broccoli growers and marketers are scared into remaining silent about the remarkable, scientifically-proven anti-cancer effects of broccoli.

In other words, if you want to know what the cancer industry supports or attacks, just check to see which list it’s on. If it’s on the list of things that prevent cancer, the cancer industry (including most of its doctors, oncologists, non-profits and government regulators) will be against it. If it’s on the list of things that cause cancer, they will likely promote it. The cancer industry, you see, isn’t interested in stopping cancer. It depends on the disease!

The exception to this is, of course, tobacco. That’s a substance that doctors once gladly promoted in magazine advertisements, claiming that smoking was good for your health and even improved your teeth! But today, the tobacco scam has long since been revealed, and even conventional medicine is now squarely against this substance that they once strongly promoted.

The American Medical Association, by the way, used to actually run ads for cigarettes in its flagship medical journal, JAMA. Doctors can always be bought off and made to promote whatever poison is making the most money this decade (these people have no shame). In the 1950’s, it was cigarettes. Today, it’s pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. Different drugs, same scam. But money was always — and IS always — the bottom line for conventional medicine. Today, doctors promote chemotherapy, which is far more toxic than smoking!


Cell Phone Use Endangers Boneheads

November 21, 2008

Cell Phone Use Endangers Boneheads
he jury is still out on the relationship between cell phone use and brain tumors. But the American Association of Neurological Surgeons has issued a statement to remind people that cell phones present lots of other risks to your brain. Of course, we all know about yapping while driving. A Harvard study finds that 2,600 people die each year in accidents related to cell distraction and 12,000 more are injured. Canadian research shows that you’re four times more likely to be in an accident while on the phone.

But here are some other emergency room cases that show the dangers of talking or texting while on the move: Guy talking on cell phone on an escalator falls backward, lacerating his head, where his brain lives. Guy talking on cell phone walks into street sign, also lacerating his head. Guy texting while bicycling crashes into a tree and suffers head injury. Guy texting walks right into a telephone poll and knocks himself cold. Sir, back away from the phone. It could save your life. Or at least your dignity.


Chemotherapy Kills 27% of Sick Patients; Doctors Urged to Stop Killing People with Chemo

November 20, 2008

Chemotherapy Kills 27% of Sick Patients; Doctors Urged to Stop Killing People with Chemo

Doctors ‘rely on chemo too much’
Patient having chemotherapy
Some 80,000 patients undergo chemotherapy each year

Doctors are being urged to re-think their approach to giving chemotherapy during care at the end of life.

A review of 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of treatment found that in more than a quarter of cases it actually hastened or caused death.

The report by the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death said doctors should consider reducing doses or not using chemotherapy at all.

England’s cancer tsar Professor Mike Richards said he was “very concerned”.

The group of patients the independent group was looking at represents 2% of the 80,000 people who receive chemotherapy each year.

This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer
Professor Jane Maher, of Macmillan Cancer Support

They were all severely-ill patients for which the chemotherapy was mostly being used to manage their condition rather than in an attempt to cure the cancer.

After examining case notes, the group said that 35% of patients received good care.

But it found that in 27% of cases it hastened or caused death – the toxic nature of the treatment can lead to a range of problems, the most serious of which is an infection called neutropenic sepsis.

Report co-author Dr Diana Mort said doctors should be more “cautious in prescribing chemotherapy for very sick patients”.

And she added: “The process of consent may require more than one discussion.

“Patients must be made aware of the risks and side-effect of chemotherapy as well as the potential benefits.”

Transfer arrangements

The report also criticised the facilities made available to patients with nearly half being admitted to general medicine wards during the last 30 days of life rather than a specialist cancer unit.

The authors recommended where hospitals did not have specialist units they should put in place transfer arrangements to centres that did.

Professor Jane Maher, chief medical officer at Macmillan Cancer Support, said: “This report provides very disturbing information about the safety of treatment for incurable cancer.

“It shows that doctors and nurses need to be much better at helping patients understand the pros and cons of such powerful treatments in the last year of life.”

Professor Richards said he was “very concerned”.

“I am asking all chemotherapy service providers to consider these reports urgently and to reassess their own services immediately against the measures we have set nationally.”

But Dr Peter Clark, of the Royal College of Physicians, said while lessons could be learnt it was important to remember that chemotherapy carried “substantial short and long-term benefit” for the majority who undergo the treatment.


Boeing Teams with New Zealand Airline to Test Biofuel-Powered Trans-Continental Jet Flights

November 19, 2008

Boeing Teams with New Zealand Airline to Test Biofuel-Powered Trans-Continental Jet Flights

Boeing and Air New Zealand will fly a jumbo jet powered partly by biofuel next month, the two companies announced today.

An Air New Zealand jet will leave Auckland on December 3 with a 50-50 mix of jet fuel and oil from jatropha trees, in one of its four engines on a flight designed to show that jatropha biofuel is suitable for use in aviation as well as economical to produce .

“This flight strongly supports our efforts to be the world’s most environmentally responsible airline,” said Rob Fyfe, chief executive of Air New Zealand. “Introducing a new generation of sustainable fuels is the next logical step in our efforts to further save fuel and reduce aircraft emissions.”

The jatropha nuts, which contain 40% oil, were harvested from trees in Mozambique, Malawi and Tanzania.

Friends of the Earth’s biofuels campaigner, Kenneth Richter, welcomed the move to get the aviation industry to reduce the environmental footprint of its planes, but he raised concerns about the impact of biofuels. “Even jatropha is being linked to food price rises and habitat destruction. Current rates of growth in air travel mean it is not enough to switch to biofuels.”

Robin Oakley, head of Greenpeace UK’s climate change campaign, said: “We need a dose of realism here, because this test flight does not mean an end to the use of kerosene in jet engines. The amount of jatropha that would be needed to power the world’s entire aviation sector cannot be produced in anything like a sustainable way, and even if large volumes could be grown, planes are an incredibly wasteful way of using it.”

Boeing said their trees were grown on marginal land not required for food in India and south-east Africa.

Billy Glover, Boeing’s managing director of environmental strategy, said that to prepare for the test flight, his team had tried to source biofuel reliably and economically for commercial aviation.

“The processing technology exists today, and based on results we’ve seen, it’s highly encouraging that this fuel not only met but exceeded three key criteria for the next generation of jet fuel: higher than expected jet fuel yields, very low freeze point and good energy density. That tells us we’re on the right path to certification and commercial availability.”

Air travel contributes up to 5.5% of UK carbon dioxide emissions and the search for a greener alternative to kerosene jet fuel has been fraught with difficulty. Airlines cannot use standard biofuels such as ethanol because this would freeze at high altitude. Testing for the Air New Zealand flight showed that the jatropha-based biofuel was more suitable for flying since it froze at -47C and burned at 38C.

Chris Lewis, a fuels specialist at Rolls-Royce, which tested the jatropha biofuel, said: “The blended fuel meets the essential requirement of being a drop-in fuel, meaning its properties will be virtually indistinguishable from conventional fuel which is used in commercial aviation today.”

Last month, Darrin Morgan, an environmental expert at Boeing, said biofuel-powered aircraft could be carrying millions of passengers around the world within three years, much sooner than most experts thought.

The Air New Zeland plane is not the first to use biofuels. In February, Virgin Atlantic successfuly tried a mixture of 80% jet fuel and 20% biofuel (made from coconut oil and babassu palm oil) in one engine of a Boeing 747 on a flight between London and Amsterdam.

Oakley said that technological advances in jet engines could only make a difference if there was a limit to the “massive expansion of the airline industry around the world.”

“If Boeing were really serious about reducing their impact on the environment they would end their vocal support for a third runway at Heathrow and put some of their billions into high-speed rail technology instead,” he said.

Gulf War illness is real, new federal report says

November 18, 2008

Gulf War illness is real, new federal report says

WASHINGTON (CNN) — An extensive federal report released Monday concludes that roughly one in four of the 697,000 U.S. veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf War suffer from Gulf War illness.

A U.S. soldier wears protection against chemical weapons during the Gulf War in a February 1991 photo.

A U.S. soldier wears protection against chemical weapons during the Gulf War in a February 1991 photo.

That illness is a condition now identified as the likely consequence of exposure to toxic chemicals, including pesticides and a drug administered to protect troops against nerve gas.

The 452-page report states that “scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans.”

The report, compiled by a panel of scientific experts and veterans serving on the congressionally mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses, fails to identify any cure for the malady.

It also notes that few veterans afflicted with Gulf War illness have recovered over time.

“Today’s report brings to a close one of the darkest chapters in the legacy of the 1991 Gulf War,” said Anthony Hardie, a member of the committee and a member of the advocacy group Veterans of Modern Warfare.

“This is a bittersweet victory, [because] this is what Gulf War veterans have been saying all along,” Hardie said at a news conference in Washington. “Years were squandered by the federal government … trying to disprove that anything could be wrong with Gulf War veterans.”

The committee’s report, titled “Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans,” was officially presented Monday to Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peak.

Noting that overall funding for research into Gulf War illness has declined dramatically since 2001, it calls for a “renewed federal research commitment” to “identify effective treatments for Gulf War illness and address other priority Gulf War health issues.” Video Watch CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen report more on Gulf War illness »

According to the report, Gulf War illness is a “complex of multiple concurrent symptoms” that “typically includes persistent memory and concentration problems, chronic headaches, widespread pain, gastrointestinal problems, and other chronic abnormalities.”

The illness may also be potentially tied to higher rates of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) — more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease — among Gulf War veterans than veterans of other conflicts.

The illness is identified as the consequence of multiple “biological alterations” affecting the brain and nervous system. Do you know someone affected by Gulf War illness?

While it is sometimes difficult to issue a specific diagnosis of the disease, it is, according to the report, no longer difficult to identify a cause.

The report identifies two Gulf War “neurotoxic” exposures that “are causally associated with Gulf War illness.” The first is the ingestion of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills, given to protect troops from effects of nerve agents. The second is exposure to dangerous pesticides used during the conflict.

The report does not rule out other possible contributors to Gulf War illness — including low-level exposure to nerve agents and close proximity to oil well fires — though it fails to establish any clear link.

The report concludes there is no clear link between the illness and a veteran’s exposure to factors such as depleted uranium or an anthrax vaccine administered at the time.

“Gulf War illness isn’t some imaginary syndrome,” said Ken Robinson, the senior intelligence officer for the initial Department of Defense investigation into Gulf War illness in 1996-97.

“This is real, and it has devastated families. Now is the time to restore the funding cuts that have been made in the Veterans Administration. Our mission has to be to ensure that these veterans get help and become whole again.”

Robinson noted that soldiers in the field today are not at risk for Gulf War illness, because the military is no longer using the PB pills or pesticides that led to the illness in 1990 and 1991.

The report backs Robinson’s conclusion, noting that no problem similar to Gulf War illness has been discovered among veterans from the conflict in Bosnia in the 1990s or in the current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The committee report also backs Robinson’s call for more effective treatments among veterans suffering from Gulf War illness.


Noting that overall funding for research into Gulf War illness has declined dramatically since 2001, it calls for a “renewed federal research commitment” to “identify effective treatments for Gulf War illness and address other priority Gulf War health issues.”

Specifically, the report calls for at least $60 million in new annual federal funding on research committed to improving the health of Gulf War veterans.


Eating bananas for breakfast? Beware!

November 17, 2008
OAS_url =’’;
OAS_listpos = ‘Position1’;
OAS_query = ‘?’;
OAS_sitepage = ‘’;
//end of configuration
OAS_version = 10;
OAS_rn = ‘001234567890’; OAS_rns = ‘1234567890’;
OAS_rn = new String (Math.random()); OAS_rns = OAS_rn.substring (2, 11);
function OAS_NORMAL(pos) {
document.write(‘<A HREF=”‘ + OAS_url + ‘’ + OAS_sitepage + ‘/1’ + OAS_rns + ‘@’ + OAS_listpos + ‘!’ + pos + OAS_query + ‘” TARGET=_top>’);
document.write(‘<IMG SRC=”‘ + OAS_url + ‘’ + OAS_sitepage + ‘/1’ + OAS_rns + ‘@’ + OAS_listpos + ‘!’ + pos + OAS_query + ‘” BORDER=0 ALT=”Click!”></A>’);

OAS_version = 11;
if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf(‘Mozilla/3’) != -1)
OAS_version = 10;
if (OAS_version >= 11)
document.write(‘<SC’+’RIPT LANGUAGE=JavaScript1.1 SRC=”‘ + OAS_url + ‘’ + OAS_sitepage + ‘/1’ + OAS_rns + ‘@’ + OAS_listpos + OAS_query + ‘”><\/SCRIPT>’);

function OAS_AD(pos) {
if (OAS_version >= 11 && typeof(OAS_RICH)!=’undefined’)


Eating bananas for breakfast? Beware!

An American nutritionist says that the morning banana diet can be a recipe for disaster for most


Morning banana diet can be a recipe for disaster for most people (Getty images)


Kerri Glassman, a contributor to the programme ‘The Early Show’, says that Japanese people are particularly crazy about the morning diet of bananas. According to her, people there are suggested that they eat as many as bananas with warm water for breakfast. After that, they can have a basic lunch that can include pizza and fries and a mid-afternoon meal of snacks, which can even be a sweet. And the dinner, which has to be before 8 pm, can include anything an individual wants.

People are asked not to have anything after dinner and to go to bed before midnight. “(You can have) as many bananas as you want (for breakfast). Maybe the idea is that you get so full, you don’t want to eat a big lunch, or a big dinner?” said a skeptical Maggie Rodriguez, co-anchor of the show.

Kerri, however, said, “That’s part of it. Bananas do have fibre, and they’re going to help fill you up to some extent. But still, many people we know, no matter how many bananas you have for breakfast, (if) they’re told you can have whatever you want for lunch and dinner – you could be having a turkey sandwich, trying to lose weight, and then all of a sudden, you switch to pizza and fries – you’re gonna gain weight.”

The nutritionist added, “It’s a recipe for disaster for most people. However, for some people, if you’re eating, let’s say, lots of sweets throughout the day, and now you’re told you can’t have any sweets except for one small sweet at three pm, you might lose some weight. Also, for some people, if you’re an emotional eater and you over-consume thousands of calories at night, you’re gonna cut calories (with this diet). So, for some people, you may lose a little bit of weight, but for most people, it’s a recipe for disaster.”

She agreed that it appeared to be a good idea to have warm water with breakfast. “Some people believe it helps with digestion. And it’s common for some people to have the warm water in the morning. You’re increasing your fluid intake in the morning, but this diet gives no explanation why (the warm water helps),” she added.

She, however, insisted that the morning banana diet could not be regarded as the stuff of a roadmap for lifetime eating.
“For the most people, bananas are not a magical food. They’re just not. They have fibre. They have protein. They have potassium. They’re an excellent food that should be incorporated into your diet but, just like the grapefruit diet or cabbage soup diet, there” no magical food,” she said.

Kerri further said that bananas “have some resistant starch. That is a type of fibre that passes through your system into your colon without being digested. There is some new research that shows it might actually help burn fat. Now, even if that’s true and, let’s say, it does help do that, there are other resistant starches out there, in potatoes, in beans. You still can’t over-consume as many bananas as you want, and you still can’t eat whatever you want, including steak and fries every day for lunch.

“Incorporate bananas into a healthy diet. That’s the way to go. But we still need whole grains and vegetables,” among many other types of food, she added.


Cell Phone/Brain Tumor Connection Remains Inconclusive But They Pose Neurological Health Risks

November 16, 2008

Cell Phone/Brain Tumor Connection Remains Inconclusive But They Pose Neurological Health Risks

There has been much speculation over the last few years about whether cell phones increase the risk of developing a brain tumor. Research has not conclusively answered this question, which has left consumers confused. The majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals do not have sufficient evidence to show that cell phones increase the risk of brain tumors. The problem is that cell phone technology is in its infancy, so none of these studies could analyze long-term risks. This unknown is a particular issue for children, who will face a lifetime of cell phone usage. While the cell phone/brain tumor connection remains inconclusive, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) cautions that cell phones present plenty of other risks to people’s neurological health, as illustrated by these few real-life scenarios:

~A 29-year-old male was talking on his cell phone while on an escalator, fell backwards, and lacerated his head.

~A 25-year-old male was talking on his cell phone and walked into a street sign, lacerating his head.

~A 43-year-old female fell down 13-14 steps while talking on her cell phone, after drinking alcohol. She suffered a neck sprain and contusions to her head, back, shoulder, and leg.

~A 50-year-old female suffered nerve damage which was related to extensive cell phone usage. She felt pain in her fingers and the length of her arm while holding her cell phone, and was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy.

~A 39-year-old man suffered a head injury after crashing into a tree on his bicycle while texting

~A 16-year-old boy suffered a concussion because he was texting and walked into a telephone pole.

Several studies show cell phones are a leading cause of automobile crashes. It is estimated that drivers distracted by cell phones are four times more likely to be in a motor vehicle accident. The following are some sobering statistics:

~According to a Harvard University study, an estimated 2,600 people die and 12,000 suffer serious to moderate injuries each year in cell phone-related accidents.

~A Canadian study analysis of 26,798 cell phone calls made during the 14-month study period showed that the risk of an automobile accident was four times higher when using a cell phone.

~National statistics indicate that an estimated 50,000 traumatic brain injury-related deaths occur annually in the United States, 25,000-35,000 of which are attributed to motor vehicle accidents.

Cell Phone Injury Prevention Tips

~Talk hands free by using an earpiece or on speaker mode whenever possible.

~Follow all cell phone laws applicable to your city and state these vary greatly.

~Use your cell phone only when safely parked, or have a passenger use it.

~Do not dial the phone or take notes while driving, cycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, etc.

~Never text message while driving, walking, cycling, skateboarding, rollerblading, etc.

~Never text message or use a cell phone while performing any physical activities that require attention.

~If your phone rings while driving, let the call go into voice mail and respond later when you are safely parked.

For more information on injury prevention, visit the AANS Web site at:

Founded in 1931 as the Harvey Cushing Society, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) is a scientific and educational association with more than 7,400 members worldwide. The AANS is dedicated to advancing the specialty of neurological surgery in order to provide the highest quality of neurosurgical care to the public. All active members of the AANS are certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons (Neurosurgery) of Canada or the Mexican Council of Neurological Surgery, AC. Neurological surgery is the medical specialty concerned with the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of disorders that affect the entire nervous system, including the spinal column, spinal cord, brain and peripheral nerves.

American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS)
5550 Meadowbrook Dr.
Rolling Meadows
IL 60008
United States


Equipment to reduce your cell phone’s radiation

November 15, 2008

What many cell phone users may not know is that cell phones send electromagnetic waves into users’ brains. In fact, every cell phone model sold in the United States has a specific measurement of how much microwave energy from the phone can penetrate the brain. Depending on how close the cell phone antenna is to the head, as much as 60 percent of the microwave radiation is absorbed by and actually penetrates the area around the head, some reaching an inch to an inch-and-a-half into the brain.

To see the radiation emitted by your phone see our Cell phone radiation chart

“This is the first generation that has put relatively high-powered transmitters against the head, day after day,” says Dr. Ross Adey, who has worked for industry and government for decades studying microwave radiation, and is one of the most respected scientists in the field. Tests conducted by the ABC show 20/20 have found that some of the country’s most popular cell phones can – depending on how they’re held – exceed the radiation limit. 20/20 reported that government-testing guidelines are so vague that a phone can pass the Federal Communications Commission’s requirements when tested in one position and exceed those maximum levels when held in another position.

Experts say it’s particularly hard to predict the long-term impact of a product that’s just two decades old, especially since most of the 95 million Americans who now have cell phones began using them in the past five years.


Top 5 Raw Food Health Benefits

November 14, 2008

Top 5 Raw Food Health Benefits

Top 5 Raw Food Health Benefits
By Alicia M. Davis

The raw food diet is exploding in popularity. It’s estimated that the phenomenon is growing at the rate of approximately 100% per year! And when you examine the health benefits of the lifestyle, it’s not hard to see why. Living foods are the healthiest option for humans, and it’s the diet our bodies were designed to eat.

Let’s look at the top 5 reasons raw is best:

1. Enzymes – Enzymes are necessary for many bodily functions. Enzymes are necessary for digesting food. Raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains contain all of the enzymes needed for digesting them. When those foods are cooked, they lose many of those enzymes, and your body has to provide them. There is evidence that the body only produces a finite amount of enzymes in its lifetime, and aging may accelerate rapidly once the supply begins to dry up. By consuming foods in their living state, you can protect your body’s natural supply and potentially live a longer, healthier life.

2. Vitamins – You probably only know that the vitamin content is significantly reduce when food is cooked. By eating foods raw, you will preserve the vitamin content and get far more bang for your buck from the foods you consume. Because the cooking process destroys much of a food’s vitamin content, those 5 servings of vegetables the food pyramid recommends may not be enough.

3. Calories – Raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and grains are generally lower in calories than meats and other foods people usually consume. Although there are a few higher-calorie raw foods, most of them can be enjoyed in mostly unlimited quantities without the fear of gaining weight.

4. Antioxidants – Although some antioxidants, like lycopene, may be more effective in foods that are cooked, others may be destroyed during the cooking process. Antioxidants are believed to play a role in fighting cancer and slowing the aging process, and may have may other health benefits that haven’t yet been discovered.

5. Additives – Processed foods often have dangerous chemicals and additives that can cause all kinds of health problems. Many processed foods contain chemicals and additives like saccharine, BHA and BHT, MSG, Potassium Bromate, Aspartame, and nitrates and nitrites among others. Hydrogenated vegetable oil is another very dangerous additive. These things should be avoided, and you can easily avoid all of them by simply sticking to a natural diet like the raw food diet.

Many other health benefits can be received from this lifestyle. Some people have reported having minor changes in their appearance, like seeing gray hair turn dark again or seeing their skin clear up dramatically. Others have seen effects such as weight loss, normalized blood sugar levels, lower cholesterol, improvements in arthritis and bursitis, and many others. For many, the diet seems like a miracle. In reality, it’s just the type of food humans were meant to eat. We are the only species who cooks their food, and we also have more natural health issues than any other species. It may be a coincidence, but it’s one humans probably shouldn’t leave up to chance.

Find tons of FREE raw food recipes with photos, raw food weight loss menus, and plenty of information about the raw food diet at Alicia’s Raw Food Blog. If you’re interested in losing weight or you just want to improve your health, the raw food diet is just what you’ve been looking for!


Court ruling allows regulation of cell towers

November 13, 2008

Bad news!

Court ruling allows regulation of cell towers

A federal appeals court reversed itself Thursday and said cities and counties can regulate the location and appearance of wireless towers and poles, a ruling that could revive a dormant San Francisco ordinance.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld San Diego County’s limits on the placement, size and design of towers and poles that are needed for companies to provide cell phone service and wireless Internet connections. The court also voted 11-0 to discard a standard it had established in 2001 that barred local governments from adopting any restrictions that “may have the effect of prohibiting” wireless services.
Federal courts in the nine-state circuit have relied on the 2001 ruling to overturn restrictions on telecommunications structures in several communities, including San Francisco and Berkeley. The court said Thursday that it had misinterpreted federal law when it issued the earlier ruling, and that local governments can regulate wireless towers and poles as long as they don’t actually prohibit wireless service within their borders or create a “significant gap in service coverage.”
San Diego County’s 2003 ordinance was intended to keep unsightly structures out of neighborhoods. It required poles to be camouflaged in residential areas, set height limits, required companies to submit a “visual impact analysis,” and allowed a zoning board to deny an application if it was inconsistent with the character of the community. Two courts had overturned the ordinance, based on the 2001 appellate standard, before Thursday’s ruling reinstated it.

EMF News

How harmful is the Packaged Meat

November 12, 2008

How harmful is the Packaged Meat

Maneka Gandhi

tyroo_pub = “11392”;
tyroo_ad_width = “160”;
tyroo_ad_height = “600”;
tyroo_adtype = “160x600_both”;
tyroo_chnl =”1002″;
tyroo_ads_frame = “tyrooads”;
tyroo_ad_output = “html”;
tyroo_table_bgcolor = “ffffff”;
tyroo_table_headlinecolor = “006699”;
tyroo_table_Desc_color = “000000”;
tyroo_table_DisplayUrlcolor = “999999”;
tyroo_outer_table_bordercolor = “ffffff”;
tyroo_font_color = “999999”;

.adHeadline {font: bold 10pt Arial; text-decoration: underline; color: #CC0000;} .adText {font: normal 10pt Arial; text-decoration: none; color: #000000;}

(Bihar Times) When people go looking for meat, they usually look at the colour and the smell. If the colour is red and it doesn’t smell, they think that the meat is wholesome, fresh and of good quality. This is not true.

What is packaged meat ? meat that is in cellophane or any other wrapping, Sausages , ham , bacon, hamburgers, mince, frankfurters, smoked meat, heat-and-eat items such as precooked roast, cold cuts and meat containing sandwiches. This includes chicken and fish.

After the animal is killed in the slaughterhouse, the packaged meat that reaches your table is often days old because it has been processed, distributed and stored, and all this takes a long time. It undergoes deterioration from chemical and microbiological processes and the bacteria that enters all dead flesh .

But , on the shelf, it still looks red and doesn’t smell. How much is nature and how much art ? All of it is manmade , made possible by use of chemical and gas additives used for preserving the “appearance” of the meat – if not its actual composition. The additives make the meat look as if the animal was killed yesterday when in fact it is full of ecoli, salmonella and other bacteria that comes into decomposing flesh,
The following are some of the major additives:
1) Carbon Monoxide: One of the ways in which the red ,fresh look of meat is obtained is by infusing carbon monoxide into the meat before packaging it. The use of carbon monoxide to keep packaged meat looking fresh is forbidden in Europe due to food safety concerns . Carbon monoxide makes meat appear fresher than it actually is by reacting with the meat pigment myoglobin to create carboxymyoglobin, a bright red pigment that masks the natural aging and spoilage of meats. Meats containing carboxymyoglobin will continue to appear pink or reddish well beyond the point at which they begin to spoil. The presence of carbon monoxide also suppresses bad odors and the presence of slime, other telltale signs that meat is spoiled.

Packaged meat does not have this on the label as meat companies are strongly opposed to labeling that any process has been used which consumers associated with the smelly and dangerous exhaust system of their cars.

2) Nitrities and Nitrates: Sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate are used in the curing process of different meats. The purpose is to inhibit the growth of food poisoning micro organisms like clostridium botulinum.  These preservatives also give cured meat its fresh pink color. However , when cooked at high temperatures they combine with the amino acids in the meat to form nitrosamines which are carcinogenic.

In order to reduce their carcinogenic activity and slow the conversion , more chemicals are added –  ascorbate and  erythorbate. But in all meat products exposed to high heat, nitrites are formed very quickly ( frankfurters, hot dogs, bacon, sausages). Attempts to reduce nitrite levels in meat by adding potassium sorbate for instance have not found favour with the industry as this chemical changes the flavour of the meat.
Another chemical that is being used as a preservative  is  35 ppm encapsulated dinitrosyl ferrohemochrome as a colouring agent and 3000 ppm sodium hypophosphate as an antimicrobial agent .

3) Phosphates: Different types of phosphate are used by the industry. The most common is tripolyphosphate which acts as a detergent and has been allowed as a dip since 1992, for removing bacteria from chicken meat that is sold with its skin on.

4) AntiOxidants: Food decays when it is exposed to oxygen. Fatty acids in oils and lipids such as those found in flesh are especially susceptible to oxidation and will take on a rancid flavor and odour. Chemicals known as antioxidants hinder the chemical reaction in fats and oils between oxygen and other chemicals, slowing the aging process.  Some natural antioxidants and processes are:  salt, sugar, vinegar, freezing, smoking, pickling, citric and ascorbic acid. But none of these are used in meat as they change the flavour and texture. So to enhance the colour in processed meats, chemical  antioxidants are used such as butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Propyl Gallate is also used to prevent rancidity. BHT and Propyl Gallate have been found to be carcinogenic.
5) Among the newest meat additives are the following:
·         A blend of citric acid and sorbic acid for “soaker pads:” to reduce the bacteria microbial load in packages of meat and poultry.
·         Lauramide arginine ethyl ester: Approved as an antimicrobial agent for use on ready-to-eat ground meat products, such as sausages.
·         Trisodium phosphate: Approved as a component of phosphate blends, and used to decrease the amount of juices in meat products.

When you eat any kind of packaged or tinned meat , you get all these chemicals for free ! The governments and meat industry may claim that the food additives are safe, but they said that the color additive Violet No. 1 used on beef was safe and this had to be withdrawn because it was found to be a cancer causer. Many additives have been approved and withdrawn over the years.
As a meat buyer, you are the victim of the ultimate consumer deception by the meat industry. Cooking meat cannot eliminate the health problems that occur when toxins are present, but not readily apparent, because of carbon monoxide. Even when contaminated meats are properly cooked, some toxins can survive. And meats are not always thoroughly cooked. No meat mentions that it has a chemical colour additive that hides the natural discoloration associated with spoilage. So every bite you take becomes a Russian Roulette bullet.


Turmeric health benefits

November 11, 2008


November 10, 2008


A WOMAN allergic to 21st century life is being evicted from the Bishop’s Stortford flat she claims is her “safe haven”.

Lesley Moylette, who suffers from electrosensitivity, has been given two weeks to leave her home in Windhill after she was taken to court by housing association South Anglia.

Her condition, which sufferers believe is due to electromagnetic fields emitted by electrical appliances, causes symptoms including insomnia and migraines.

However, since moving to her daughter Sam’s two-bedroom flat 47-year-old Lesley’s health has improved as she believes the property is relatively free from electro-waves. She keeps it free from mod cons such as telephones, computers and TVs.

Three months ago she was served with an eviction notice by East Herts District Council and South Anglia, which claimed she was ineligible to live there because it is rented by Sam.

The Observer was barred by the judge from yesterday’s (Wednesday September 24) public hearing at Harlow county court after solicitors representing South Anglia objected.

Lesley tearfully said afterwards: “He said he can’t change the law and that they want the building back. All they care about is what the law says, never mind the human costs. I’m utterly devastated and just don’t know what to do.”
• Read Lesley’s amazing story in this week’s Observer

Lesley needs a home – can anyone help her!
please contact her if you have anywhere suitable:

This tragic story illustrates how vulnerable all electro sensitives are. We encourage a wide distribution of this story which might help find a suitable home for Lesley Moylette.

Taken from: EMF news

Cell Phone Radiation Effects, Brain Tumors and Chidren

November 8, 2008

Cell Phone Radiation Effects, Brain Tumors and Chidren

With 3 billion cell phone users worldwide and more than 260 million in the United States alone—among them 46% of U.S. children aged 8–12, according to Nielsen Mobile figures released 10 September 2008—human exposure to low-energy radiation in the 800- to 2,000-megahertz range is at an all-time high. The most recent attempt to systematically review the epidemiologic evidence for increased risk of brain tumors related to cell phone use indicates that repercussions from this global experiment are coming to light. In a meta-analysis published in the May 2008 issue of the International Journal of Oncology, Swedish researchers found significant associations between long-term cell phone use and brain tumor risk. In July 2008 market research firm MultiMedia Intelligence reported that more than 16 million U.S. teens use cell phones.

“We found that cell phone use is linked to gliomas [malignant brain tumors] and acoustic neuromas [benign tumors of the brain’s auditory nerve] and are showing up after only ten years,” says lead author Lennart Hardell, an oncologist and cancer epidemiologist at University Hospital in Örebro, Sweden. Specifically, for studies that included at least 10 years of exposure, there was a doubling in the risk of gliomas for ipsilateral (same-side) but not contralateral (opposite-side) exposures to the head (as reflected by which hand the subject typically used to hold his/her cell phone). A 2.4-fold increase in risk was seen for acoustic neuromas due to ipsilateral exposures, whereas no increased risk occurred for meningiomas (tumors that occur in the membranes covering the brain and spinal cord).

Economic Woes

November 7, 2008

Forecast 2009: Your savings and credit

The prediction: Continued low interest rates on savings – but slightly easier credit

// Uses both the shortcut for $(document).ready()
// and the argument to write failsafe jQuery code
// using the $ alias, without relying on the global alias.
jQuery(function($) {
// Your code using failsafe $ alias here…
$(this).toggleClass( ‘selected’ );
return false;
return false;
$(this).toggleClass( ‘selected’ );
return false;
var myFeedURL = ‘’; // UPDATE THIS
var myFeedTitle = ‘Personal Finance’; // UPDATE THIS
var myFeedDomain = ‘http:\/\/’ + location.hostname;
var storyPath = myFeedDomain + location.pathname;
var headline=document.title;
var description=”;
function cnnClickability(cnnClick) {
switch(cnnClick) {
case ‘Digg’:
var clickURL = ‘http:\/\/\/\/’+storyPath+’&title=’+escape(headline)+’&bodytext=’+escape(description)+’&media=news&topic=business_finance’;
case ‘Facebook’:
var clickURL = ‘http:\/\/’+storyPath;
case ‘Del’:
var clickURL = ‘http:\/\/’+storyPath+’&title=’+escape(headline);
case ‘reddit’:
var clickURL = ‘http:\/\/’+storyPath+’&title=’+escape(headline);
case ‘stumble’:
var clickURL = ‘http:\/\/’+storyPath+’&title=’+escape(headline);
case ‘myspace’:
var clickURL = ‘http:\/\/’+escape(headline)+’&c=’+escape(description)+’&u=’+storyPath+’&title=’+escape(headline);
case ‘mixxit’:
var clickURL = ‘http:\/\/’+storyPath+’&title=’+escape(headline)+’&description=’+escape(description);
function feedURL(serviceURL){
switch(serviceURL) {
case ‘google’:
var service = ‘http:\/\/’;
case ‘aol’:
var service = ‘http:\/\/’;
case ‘msn’:
var service = ‘http:\/\/’;
case ‘yahoo’:
var service = ‘http:\/\/’;
case ‘netvibes’:
var service = ‘http:\/\/’;
var feedURL = service + myFeedURL;
function getFeedData() {
var feedTitle = document.getElementById(‘rssSubs’)
feedTitle.innerHTML = ‘Subscribe to ‘ + myFeedTitle;
var feedData = document.getElementById(‘feedLink’)
feedData.innerHTML = ‘<a href=”http:\/\/’ + myFeedURL + ‘”><img src=”http:\/\/” alt=”” width=”28″ height=”13″ border=”0″></a> <b>feed:\/\/’ + myFeedURL + ‘</b>’;
var yahooBuzzArticleId = ‘cnnmoneycom521:http:\/\/’+location.pathname;
var yahooBuzzBadgeType = ‘text’;
var yahooBuzzShowBranding = false;

window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;}
if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;

Subscribe to Personal Finance
google my aol my msn my yahoo! netvibes
Paste this link into your favorite RSS desktop reader
See all RSS FEEDS (close)


By Ismat Sarah Mangla, Money Magazine staff reporter

.cc10 { font:normal 11px Arial; padding:3px;} .cc11 { font:normal 11px Arial; padding:3px;} .sm10 { font-size: 10px; }

Where your rates are headed in 2009
Interest you’ll earn on savings will likely be a bit lower…
Bank money-market deposit accounts
Money-Market funds (taxable)
One-year CDs
…but you’ll pay lower rates on most of what you borrow.
New-car loans
Home-equity loans
Credit cards
Note: Rates are 2009 projections.
Source:Money Magazine estimates,, Crane Data, HSH Associates
Type Overall avgs
wrtBankRateLinkCdMma(‘mma’);MMA 2.44%
wrtBankRateLinkCdMma(‘mma10k’);$10K MMA 2.73%
wrtBankRateLinkCdMma(‘cd6mo’);6 month CD 3.03%
wrtBankRateLinkCdMma(‘cd1yr’);1 yr CD 3.50%
wrtBankRateLinkCdMma(‘cd5yr’);5 yr CD 3.89%
Find personalized rates:

(Money Magazine) — The good news: The government bailout plan that injects banks with capital will “help make credit somewhat easier to get” in 2009, says Mesirow Financial’s Diane Swonk.

The bad news: The difference likely won’t be dramatic. So don’t expect tough rules for getting the best interest-rate deals and the highest credit limits to ease up next year.

As for interest rates, the federal funds rate has dropped to 1%. That’s likely to slightly lower average yields on savings accounts, money-market funds and certificates of deposit.

On the bright side, the best rates available on credit cards and car loans are likely to fall a bit too (see the chart to the right). The exception: rates on home-equity loans (vs. lines of credit). HSH Associates projects them to rise from 7.9% to 8.3%.

In order to pay the bigger insurance premiums they now face, many banks will increase the fees they charge you for things like overdrafts and ATM withdrawals, predicts economist Mike Moebs of research firm Moebs Services.

By the way, more banks will almost certainly fail next year. Those most at risk are smaller ones that don’t benefit from the bailout, say experts.

The wild card
  • Consumer distress

Overwhelmed by mortgage and credit-card debt, Americans could default in droves. That could make banks even more skittish about lending.

The action plan
  • Check your coverage

No matter how shaky your bank is, remember that so long as your deposits are FDIC-insured (the new limit is typically $250,000 per institution), you’re protected.

To check, use the Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator at

  • Shop for the best bank deals

Just because average rates on savings will be low next year doesn’t mean some places won’t offer slightly better ones.

Top-yielding savings and money-market deposit accounts provide returns that should almost keep up with inflation. GMAC Bank, for example, recently offered 3.75% on a savings account.

To find the best rates – and check for the lowest bank fees while you’re at it – click on the rate finder to the right.

  • Nab a good credit-card deal now

With more stringent regulation likely on its way and conditions tighter for lenders all around, dazzling offers like low-balance transfer rates for the life of the loan will all but disappear in 2009, says founder Curtis Arnold. “Take advantage of those while they’re still around,” he advises.

  • Shore up your credit

If you plan to borrow next year, see “Improve Your Credit Score.

From: CNN Business

MSG – Dangerous Food additive

November 6, 2008

Battling the “MSG Myth”

Welcome to our Web Site

You have reached us because you or someone you care about is suffering from puzzling chronic conditions such as headaches, stomach disorders, fatigue, depression, and many other problems. Tests have come up negative and you want answers.

What you will find out at this time will most likely be the missing piece of the puzzle. What we discovered helped our family and thousands of others. Some skeptics will think, “It’s too simple an explanation”, but the truth is, most of us are suffering needlessly because of so-called “safe” food additives, namely excitatory neuro-transmitters (nicknamed excitotoxins). The main ones are monosodium glutamate (MSG), aspartame, and L-cysteine. You may think that you are actually avoiding MSG if you avoid Chinese restaurants, but this factory created flavor enhancer is in almost every bottled, bagged, frozen, or canned processed food on super market shelves. But since MSG is often a component of a formulation, it is not labeled as such. You’ve seen words like autolyzed yeast, hydrolyzed protein, and whey protein. Each of these substances contain a percentage of glutamate, the harmful component of MSG.

I didn’t correlate my headaches and diarrhea to the food I was eating for years. Most of us don’t because reactions to these excitatory substances can occur from ten minutes to 48 hours after ingestion. But when my 19 year old son began to develop debilitating headaches, my search for answers led me to the culprit: MSG. See if you suffer from any of these commonly reported symptoms and disorders.
Debby Anglesey

Have you been tested for, suffer from, and found little relief from any of the following conditions?

1. Severe headache 12. Shortness of breath, chest pains, asthma 23. Slowed speech
2. Nausea, diarrhea, vomiting 13. Swelling, pain, or numbness of hands, feet, jaw 24. Chronic bronchitis-like symptoms, allergy reactions, dry cough, hoarseness or sore throat
3. Irregular heart beat or blood pressure, racing heart 14. Pain in joints or bones 25. Heavy, weak feeling in arms and legs
4. Depression or mood change, bipolar, SAD 15. Flushing or tingling in face, chest, pressure behind eyes 26. Irritable bowel or colitis
5. Abdominal pain, cramps, bloating, colitis, IBS 16. Gagging reflex or difficulty swallowing 27. Attention deficit disorder, anxiety attacks, rage, panic attacks
6. Balance problems, dizziness, or seizures, mini-strokes 17. Hyperactivity, behavioral problems 28. Neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s, fibromyalgia, MS, Parkinson’s
7. Tenderness in localized areas, neck, back, etc. 18. Chronic post nasal drip 29. Pressure behind eyes or on head, neck, shoulders
8. Sleep disorders 19. Skin rash, itching, hives 30. ADD, ADHD, Rage Disorder
9. Blurred vision or difficulty breathing 20. Bloated face, dark circles under strained eyes 31. Asthma
10. Chronic fatigue or sleepiness 21. Extreme thirst or dry mouth 32. Weight problems, obesity, hypoglycemia
11. Excessive perspiring or shuddering and chills 22. Difficulty concentrating and poor memory

If any of these conditions plague you, you may be a victim of the myth that monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a safe food additive. The truth is that the average person eats much more glutamate than what is considered to be a safe and normal amount in the typical American diet. MSG is in everything from crackers and soda pop to vitamins and toothpaste.

Battling the MSG Myth

A Survival Guide and Cookbook

By Debby AngleseyAfter suffering for 21 years from several chronic conditions caused by MSG, and finally finding relief for both herself and her son, Debby spent one and a half years researching and writing a book to help other victims. This highly informative book is recommended for people who suspect or know their migraines, stomach disorders, or other chronic conditions are caused by Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) and Aspartame. It offers over 400 recipes and several chapters devoted to educate the wary consumer. Many doctors and clinics use and recommend this book for their sensitive patients. Since glutamate is hidden under many aliases in processed foods, avoiding it is tricky without the facts. This book will educate and guide you to a new world of health as you learn how to substitute your present MSG tainted foods for healthy ones.


Expert View: Why white powder can be a great danger

November 5, 2008

Expert View: Why white powder can be a great danger

THE problem of melamine contamination of milk in China is the most recent example of the deliberate adulteration of food for commercial gain.

And once again it is analytical chemists who are at the forefront in the fight against unscrupulous profiteers.

At first glance melamine might seem to be a strange additive for food. In most British homes products made from melamine are more often found in the furniture than the fridge.

For instance, kitchen work surfaces are commonly made from melamine resin, a polymer which combines melamine and formaldehyde.

Melamine itself is a white crystalline powder, chemical name 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, and is not even very soluble.

So why is it added to milk?

The uses of melamine arise from an unusual aspect of its chemical composition; it is two-thirds nitrogen by weight. Its uses depend on that high proportion of nitrogen.

It is used as a fire-retardant in polymers because, on decomposing in fire, it releases nitrogen gas, which smothers the fire.

It is added to fertilisers as a source of nitrogen and now it seems it is illegally added to milk as a source of nitrogen to fool the tests of the milk’s quality.

Milk is analysed for constituents including fat, protein and carbohydrates. Protein is a measure of the quality of the milk and indicative of whether it has been diluted with water. Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids and a feature of amino acids is that they contain nitrogen.

The standard analytical test for protein has been around for a long time. In the 1880s the Carlsberg Brewery in Copenhagen wanted to be able to test the protein content of the grain they used to ensure the quality of the brewing process.

Their chief chemist, Johan Kjeldahl, came up with the solution. He realised that he could work out the amount of protein by simply measuring the nitrogen content. The method bears his name and is still widely used today.

With such a large proportion of nitrogen, although the cost of melamine is 10 times the cost of milk, adding even tiny amounts boosts the test result for the protein content of the milk and hence the price that is paid for the milk.

Addition of small amounts can boost the value of the milk by 100 times the cost of the melamine and allows someone, somewhere, along the supply chain from cow to home to dilute the milk.

But the problem is more serious than just one of greed and dishonesty.

Melamine can cause permanent damage to the body when ingested over a period of months. It, or possibly an impurity in the melamine, leads to the formation of crystals in the kidneys, which give rise to kidney stones and ultimately kidney damage.

Tragically, it is babies, fed with milk formula contaminated with melamine, who were most affected in the recent incidents in China, where at least four deaths have been reported.

This is not the first major incidence of melamine adulteration, which has been reported to have been a problem in China for some time.

Last year thousands of cats and dogs died in the US from pet food imported from China and contaminated with melamine.

While Kjeldahl analysis is carried out regularly on milk it is only now that authorities around the world are looking specifically for melamine and related compounds.

Since October the Food Standards Agency in Britain has enforced the testing of all dairy products from China that are sold here.

Traces of melamine have shown up in Britain in a novelty chocolate product which has now been recalled. Elsewhere, most reported cases of melamine contamination have been in South East Asia.

Perhaps more worryingly melamine has been found in other Chinese farm products such as eggs suggesting that the problem of contamination in China is more widespread than just milk.

In Britain we have been protected since the second half of the 19th century, when the first legislation was enacted and the public analysts were established to ensure food safety.

Before this the use of additives in food was common and sometimes dangerous. Examples included the use of poisonous lead compounds such as red lead to colour cheese and yellow lead chromate in custard powders and the poison strychnine used as an alternative to hops for bitterness in beer.

Nowadays the FSA, using results from analytical chemists, acts quickly to ensure that hazardous products are removed from the shelves.

This was shown in 2003 when the prohibited red dye Sudan I was found to have been added to imported chilli powder, used in products nationally.


More Cell Phone Cancer Correlation

November 4, 2008

More Cell Phone Cancer Correlation

More Cell Phone Cancer Correlation

By Conor | November 2, 2008


A major concern here at GreenTaxi is the long term risk of cell phones causing cancer or any other risk to our bodies.  Walking around all day with a device sending out radio waves directly into our head seems like it must be a risk of some sort longer term.

We’ve discussed this previously and continue to wait for the WHO’s massive study results if and when they are ever released.  But any new research or opinions are always interesting.

An article out of a Baltimore TV station reports on views from a leading oncologist who has been studying this for a while.  I do not think her findings are anything new, but some of the points the article brings up in regards to the use of cellphones by children are particularly scary.

Davis said it takes 10 years for most brain cancers to develop. Pictures from cell phone companies show the electromagnetic signal goes about two inches into the adult brain — halfway through the brain of a 10-year-old and completely through the brain of a 5-year-old. Yet children are one of the fastest growing markets for cell phones.

Davis said children’s’ brains are the most vulnerable.

“Many children sleep with them under their pillow on vibrate, so the signal gets right into their head while they’re sleeping,” she said.

Studies out of Sweden are pointing to risk in youths using cellphones for more than 10 years.  Sweden has been using cellphones actively for more than 20 years, so their data goes back a bit more than other countries.

An epedimiologist there, “has told colleagues that he has findings that people who started to use cell phones as teens, by the time they reached their late 20s, had five times more gliomas.”

Please keep your eye out for further studies and information.  I will continue to post anything I can find here.

from: Green Taxi

Election news

November 3, 2008

Palin costing McCain, poll suggests

  • Story Highlights
  • NEW: McCain would do better if vice presidential vote was separate, poll suggests
  • NEW: Fifty-three percent say Palin doesn’t agree with them on important issues
  • McCain warns an Obama win could give Dems complete control
  • Dems currently have 235-199 majority in the House; 51-49 advantage in the Senate

By Paul Steinhauser WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new national poll suggests Sarah Palin may be hurting Republican presidential nominee John McCain more than she’s helping him.

Fifty-seven percent of likely voters say Sarah Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have.

Fifty-seven percent of likely voters say Sarah Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have.

Click to view previous image
1 of 3
Click to view next image

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Sunday indicates McCain’s running mate is growing less popular among voters and may be costing him a few crucial percentage points in the race for the White House.

Fifty-seven percent of likely voters questioned in the poll said Palin does not have the personal qualities a president should have. That’s up 8 points since September.

Fifty-three percent say she does not agree with them on important issues. That’s also higher than September.

“Just after the GOP convention in early September, 53 percent said they would vote for Palin over Joe Biden if there were a separate vote for vice president. Now, Biden would beat Palin by 12 points if the running mates were chosen in a separate vote,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

And what if voters were allowed to vote for president separately?

“It would be a 4-point edge for Barack Obama, 52 percent to 48 percent. Since the McCain-Palin ticket is currently getting 46 percent in a match-up against the Obama-Biden ticket, it looks like Palin’s presence on the GOP ballot is taking 2 percentage points away from McCain. In a close race, that might represent the margin of victory,” Holland said.

The unfavorable numbers for Palin, Alaska’s governor, also have been growing. They are 8 points higher in the current poll than in early October, and they’re twice as high as they were when McCain announced his running mate in late August.

“John McCain has also been suspect with conservatives, the base of the Republican Party, and they were never enthusiastic about his candidacy. Palin was a unusual pick. She was well known with conservative insiders but unknown outside. When she was named, there was a rush of enthusiasm among conservatives and everyone was impressed by McCain’s unusual and unexpected choice,” said Bill Schneider, CNN’s senior political analyst .

“The more many Americans have found out about Palin, the less they like her.”

Meanwhile, the poll also suggests Americans may not be as concerned as McCain about one-party rule if Obama is elected president.

One of McCain’s closing arguments has been that the Democrats are poised to increase their majorities in Congress, and that Obama — the Democratic presidential nominee — is “working out the details” with Democratic leaders to raise taxes, increase spending and “concede defeat in Iraq.”

But in the poll, 50 percent of likely voters said if Obama wins the White House, Congress should be controlled by Democrats, with 48 percent saying it should be controlled by Republicans.

Fifty-nine percent said if McCain wins the presidential election, Congress should be controlled by Democrats, with 39 percent saying Republicans should control it.

Democrats currently have a 235 to 199 majority in the House of Representatives and a 51 to 49 majority in the Senate — the chamber’s two independent senators are allied with the Democrats.

One of Obama’s closing points is that McCain would carry out George Bush’s policies if elected, saying the Arizona senator has “ridden shotgun” with the president on economic policy.

The poll suggests that 53 percent think McCain would mostly carry out Bush’s policies, with 45 percent saying he would not.

Only 28 percent approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

Likely voters questioned in the poll were also asked whether Obama will win the election. Video Watch more on the final days of campaigning »

“Nine in 10 think it’s likely; nearly half say it is very likely. Only 1 in 10 say it is very likely that McCain will win, while half say a McCain victory is unlikely,” Holland said.

How will Obama supporters react if he does not win on Tuesday? According to the poll, one in five will be angry; one in four will be upset but not angry. Most Obama supporters, however, say they will be disappointed but not angry or upset if McCain wins.

The poll also suggests the Democrats are much more excited about this election than Republicans. Forty-five percent of Democrats questioned said they are extremely enthusiastic about voting this year, compared to 28 percent of Republicans.

“The economy remains the No. 1 issue to most voters. But although 8 in 10 say that economic conditions are poor now, 62 percent say that the economy will be in good shape a year from now,” Holland said. “The economy, which is already a strong issue, jumped even further in importance after the financial crisis hit in September.

“And since the public tends to blame the Republicans more than the Democrats for that crisis, that event provided a boost not just to Barack Obama but to Democratic candidates across the country. Democratic congressional candidates have a 9-point lead in the ‘generic ballot’ question.”


The generic ballot asks voters their preference for U.S. House without naming the candidates running in each district.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Thursday through Saturday, with 1,017 adult Americans, including 950 registered voters and 716 likely voters, questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error ranges from plus or minus 3 percentage points to plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, depending on the question

Source: CNN

Refined Sugar – The Sweet Killer

November 2, 2008

Refined Sugar – The Sweetest poison of All…

In 1957, Dr. William Coda Martin tried to answer the question: When is a food a food and when is it a poison? His working definition of “poison” was: “Medically: Any substance applied to the body, ingested or developed within the body, which causes or may cause disease. Physically: Any substance which inhibits the activity of a catalyst which is a minor substance, chemical or enzyme that activates a reaction.”1 The dictionary gives an even broader definition for “poison”: “to exert a harmful influence on, or to pervert”.

Dr. Martin classified refined sugar as a poison because it has been depleted of its life forces, vitamins and minerals. “What is left consists of pure, refined carbohydrates. The body cannot utilize this refined starch and carbohydrate unless the depleted proteins, vitamins and minerals are present. Nature supplies these elements in each plant in quantities sufficient to metabolize the carbohydrate in that particular plant. There is no excess for other added carbohydrates. Incomplete carbohydrate metabolism results in the formation of ‘toxic metabolite’ such as pyruvic acid and abnormal sugars containing five carbon atoms. Pyruvic acid accumulates in the brain and nervous system and the abnormal sugars in the red blood cells. These toxic metabolites interfere with the respiration of the cells. They cannot get sufficient oxygen to survive and function normally. In time, some of the cells die. This interferes with the function of a part of the body and is the beginning of degenerative disease.”2

Refined sugar is lethal when ingested by humans because it provides only that which nutritionists describe as “empty” or “naked” calories. It lacks the natural minerals which are present in the sugar beet or cane.

In addition, sugar is worse than nothing because it drains and leaches the body of precious vitamins and minerals through the demand its digestion, detoxification and elimination makes upon one’s entire

system. So essential is balance to our bodies that we have many ways to provide against the sudden shock of a heavy intake of sugar. Minerals such as sodium (from salt), potassium and magnesium (from vegetables), and calcium (from the bones) are mobilized and used in chemical transmutation; neutral acids are produced which attempt to return the acid-alkaline balance factor of the blood to a more normal state.

Sugar taken every day produces a continuously overacid condition, and more and more minerals are required from deep in the body in the attempt to rectify the imbalance. Finally, in order to protect the blood, so much calcium is taken from the bones and teeth that decay and general weakening begin. Excess sugar eventually affects every organ in the body. Initially, it is stored in the liver in the form of glucose (glycogen). Since the liver’s capacity is limited, a daily intake of refined sugar (above the required amount of natural sugar) soon makes the liver expand like a balloon. When the liver is filled to its maximum capacity, the excess glycogen is returned to the blood in the form of fatty acids. These are taken to every part of the body and stored in the most inactive areas: the belly, the buttocks, the breasts and the thighs.

When these comparatively harmless places are completely filled, fatty acids are then distributed among active organs, such as the heart and kidneys. These begin to slow down; finally their tissues degenerate and turn to fat. The whole body is affected by their reduced ability, and abnormal blood pressure is created. The parasympathetic nervous system is affected; and organs governed by it, such as the small brain, become inactive or paralyzed. (Normal brain function is rarely thought of as being as biologic as digestion.) The circulatory and lymphatic systems are invaded, and the quality of the red corpuscles starts to change. An overabundance of white cells occurs, and the creation of tissue becomes slower. Our body’s tolerance and immunizing power becomes more limited, so we cannot respond properly to extreme attacks, whether they be cold, heat, mosquitoes or microbes.

Excessive sugar has a strong mal-effect on the functioning of the brain. The key to orderly brain function is glutamic acid, a vital compound found in many vegetables. The B vitamins play a major role in dividing glutamic acid into antagonistic-complementary compounds which produce a “proceed” or “control” response in the brain. B vitamins are also manufactured by symbiotic bacteria which live in our intestines. When refined sugar is taken daily, these bacteria wither and die, and our stock of B vitamins gets very low. Too much sugar makes one sleepy; our ability to calculate and remember is lost.


Shipwrecked sailors who ate and drank nothing but sugar and rum for nine days surely went through some of this trauma; the tales they had to tell created a big public relations problem for the sugar pushers. This incident occurred when a vessel carrying a cargo of sugar was shipwrecked in 1793. The five surviving sailors were finally rescued after being marooned for nine days. They were in a wasted condition due to starvation, having consumed nothing but sugar and rum. The eminent French physiologist F. Magendie was inspired by that incident to conduct a series of experiments with animals, the results of which he published in 1816. In the experiments, he fed dogs a diet of sugar or olive oil and water. All the dogs wasted and died.3

The shipwrecked sailors and the French physiologist’s experimental dogs proved the same point. As a steady diet, sugar is worse than nothing. Plain water can keep you alive for quite some time. Sugar and water can kill you. Humans [and animals] are “unable to subsist on a diet of sugar”.4 The dead dogs in Professor Magendie’s laboratory alerted the sugar industry to the hazards of free scientific inquiry. From that day to this, the sugar industry has invested millions of dollars in behind-the-scenes, subsidized science. The best scientific names that money could buy have been hired, in the hope that they could one day come up with something at least pseudoscientific in the way of glad tidings about sugar.

It has been proved, however, that (1) sugar is a major factor in dental decay; (2) sugar in a person’s diet does cause overweight; (3) removal of sugar from diets has cured symptoms of crippling, worldwide diseases such as diabetes, cancer and heart illnesses. Sir Frederick Banting, the codiscoverer of insulin, noticed in 1929 in Panama that, among sugar plantation owners who ate large amounts of their refined stuff, diabetes was common. Among native cane-cutters, who only got to chew the raw cane, he saw no diabetes. However, the story of the public relations attempts on the part of the sugar manufacturers began in Britain in 1808 when the Committee of West India reported to the House of Commons that a prize of twenty-five guineas had been offered to anyone who could come up with the most “satisfactory” experiments to prove that unrefined sugar was good for feeding and fattening oxen, cows, hogs and sheep.5

Food for animals is often seasonal, always expensive. Sugar, by then, was dirt cheap. People weren’t eating it fast enough. Naturally, the attempt to feed livestock with sugar and molasses in England in 1808 was a disaster. When the Committee on West India made its fourth report to the House of Commons, one Member of Parliament, John Curwin, reported that he had tried to feed sugar and molasses to calves without success. He suggested that perhaps someone should try again by sneaking sugar and molasses into skimmed milk. Had anything come of that, you can be sure the West Indian sugar merchants would have spread the news around the world. After this singular lack of success in pushing sugar in cow pastures, the West Indian sugar merchants gave up.

With undaunted zeal for increasing the market demand for the most important agricultural product of the West Indies, the Committee of West India was reduced to a tactic that has served the sugar pushers for almost 200 years: irrelevant and transparently silly testimonials from faraway, inaccessible people with some kind of “scientific” credentials. While preparing his epochal volume, A History of Nutrition, published in 1957, Professor E. V. McCollum (Johns Hopkins university), sometimes called America’s foremost nutritionist and certainly a pioneer in the field, reviewed approximately 200,000 published scientific papers, recording experiments with food, their properties, their utilization and their effects on animals and men. The material covered the period from the mid-18th century to 1940. From this great repository of scientific inquiry, McCollum selected those experiments which he regarded as significant “to relate the story of progress in discovering human error in this segment of science [of nutrition]”.

Professor McCollum failed to record a single controlled scientific experiment with sugar between 1816 and 1940. unhappily, we must remind ourselves that scientists today, and always, accomplish little without a sponsor. The protocols of modern science have compounded the costs of scientific inquiry. We have no right to be surprised when we read the introduction to McCollum’s A History of Nutrition and find that “The author and publishers are indebted to The Nutrition Foundation, Inc., for a grant provided to meet a portion of the cost of publication of this book”. What, you might ask, is The Nutrition Foundation, Inc.? The author and the publishers don’t tell you. It happens to be a front organization for the leading sugar-pushing conglomerates in the food business, including the American Sugar Refining Company, Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, Curtis Candy Co., General Foods, General Mills, Nestlé Co., Pet Milk Co. and Sunshine Biscuits-about 45 such companies in all. Perhaps the most significant thing about McCollum’s 1957 history was what he left out: a monumental earlier work described by an eminent Harvard professor as “one of those epochal pieces of research which makes every other investigator desirous of kicking himself because he never thought of doing the same thing”.

In the 1930s, a research dentist from Cleveland, Ohio, Dr. Weston A. Price, traveled all over the world-from the lands of the Eskimos to the South Sea Islands, from Africa to New Zealand. His Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects,6 which is illustrated with hundreds of photographs, was first published in 1939. Dr. Price took the whole world as his laboratory. His devastating conclusion, recorded in horrifying detail in area after area, was simple. People who live under so-called backward primitive conditions had excellent teeth and wonderful general health. They ate natural, unrefined food from their own locale. As soon as refined, sugared foods were imported as a result of contact with “civilization,” physical degeneration began in a way that was definitely observable within a single generation. Any credibility the sugar pushers have is based on our ignorance of works like that of Dr. Price.

Sugar manufacturers keep trying, hoping and contributing generous research grants to colleges and universities; but the research laboratories never come up with anything solid the manufacturers can use. Invariably, the research results are bad news. “Let us go to the ignorant savage, consider his way of eating and be wise,” Harvard professor Ernest Hooten said in Apes, Men, and Morons.7 “Let us cease pretending that toothbrushes and toothpaste are any more important than shoe brushes and shoe polish. It is store food that has given us store teeth.” When the researchers bite the hands that feed them, and the news gets out, it’s embarrassing all around. In 1958, Time magazine reported that a Harvard biochemist and his assistants had worked with myriads of mice for more than ten years, bankrolled by the Sugar Research Foundation, Inc. to the tune of $57,000, to find out how sugar causes dental cavities and how to prevent this. It took them ten years to discover that there was no way to prevent sugar causing dental decay. When the researchers reported their findings in the Dental Association Journal, their source of money dried up. The Sugar Research Foundation withdrew its support. The more that the scientists disappointed them, the more the sugar pushers had to rely on the ad men.


When calories became the big thing in the 1920s, and everybody was learning to count them, the sugar pushers turned up with a new pitch. They boasted there were 2,500 calories in a pound of sugar. A little over a quarter-pound of sugar would produce 20 per cent of the total daily quota. “If you could buy all your food energy as cheaply as you buy calories in sugar,” they told us, “your board bill for the year would be very low. If sugar were seven cents a pound, it would cost less than $35 for a whole year.” A very inexpensive way to kill yourself. “Of course, we don’t live on any such unbalanced diet,” they admitted later. “But that figure serves to point out how inexpensive sugar is as an energy-building food. What was once a luxury only a privileged few could enjoy is now a food for the poorest of people.”

Later, the sugar pushers advertised that sugar was chemically pure, topping Ivory soap in that department, being 99.9 per cent pure against Ivory’s vaunted 99.44 per cent. “No food of our everyday diet is purer,” we were assured. What was meant by purity, besides the unarguable fact that all vitamins, minerals, salts, fibers and proteins had been removed in the refining process? Well, the sugar pushers came up with a new slant on purity. “You don’t have to sort it like beans, wash it like rice. Every grain is like every other. No waste attends its use. No useless bones like in meat, no grounds like coffee.” “Pure” is a favorite adjective of the sugar pushers because it means one thing to the chemists and another thing to the ordinary mortals. When honey is labeled pure, this means that it is in its natural state (stolen directly from the bees who made it), with no adulteration with sucrose to stretch it and no harmful chemical residues which may have been sprayed on the flowers. It does not mean that the honey is free from minerals like iodine, iron, calcium, phosphorus or multiple vitamins. So effective is the purification process which sugar cane and beets undergo in the refineries that sugar ends up as chemically pure as the morphine or the heroin a chemist has on the laboratory shelves.

What nutritional virtue this abstract chemical purity represents, the sugar pushers never tell us. Beginning with World War I, the sugar pushers coated their propaganda with a preparedness pitch. “Dietitians have known the high food value of sugar for a long time,” said an industry tract of the 1920s. “But it took World War I to bring this home. The energy-building power of sugar reaches the muscles in minutes and it was of value to soldiers as a ration given them just before an attack was launched.” The sugar pushers have been harping on the energy-building power of sucrose for years because it contains nothing else. Caloric energy and habit-forming taste: that’s what sucrose has, and nothing else. All other foods contain energy plus. All foods contain some nutrients in the way of proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins or minerals, or all of these. Sucrose contains caloric energy, period.

The “quick” energy claim the sugar pushers talk about, which drives reluctant doughboys over the top and drives children up the wall, is based on the fact that refined sucrose is not digested in the mouth or the stomach but passes directly to the lower intestines and thence to the bloodstream. The extra speed with which sucrose enters the bloodstream does more harm than good. Much of the public confusion about refined sugar is compounded by language. Sugars are classified by chemists as “carbohydrates”. This manufactured word means “a substance containing carbon with oxygen and hydrogen”. If chemists want to use these hermetic terms in their laboratories when they talk to one another, fine. The use of the word “carbohydrate” outside the laboratory-especially in food labeling and advertising lingo-to describe both natural, complete cereal grains (which have been a principal food of mankind for thousands of years) and man-refined sugar (which is a manufactured drug and principal poison of mankind for only a few hundred years) is demonstrably wicked. This kind of confusion makes possible the flimflam practiced by sugar pushers to confound anxious mothers into thinking kiddies need sugar to survive.

The use of the word “carbohydrate” to describe sugar is deliberately misleading. Since the improved labeling of nutritional properties was required on packages and cans, refined carbohydrates like sugar are lumped together with those carbohydrates which may or may not be refined. The several types of carbohydrates are added together for an overall carbohydrate total. Thus, the effect of the label is to hide the sugar content from the unwary buyer. Chemists add to the confusion by using the word “sugar” to describe an entire group of substances that are similar but not identical. Glucose is a sugar found usually with other sugars, in fruits and vegetables. It is a key material in the metabolism of all plants and animals. Many of our principal foods are converted into glucose in our bodies. Glucose is always present in our bloodstream, and it is often called “blood sugar”. Dextrose, also called “corn sugar”, is derived synthetically from starch. Fructose is fruit sugar. Maltose is malt sugar. Lactose is milk sugar. Sucrose is refined sugar made from sugar cane and sugar beet. Glucose has always been an essential element in the human bloodstream. Sucrose addiction is something new in the history of the human animal.

To use the word “sugar” to describe two substances which are far from being identical, which have different chemical structures and which affect the body in profoundly different ways compounds confusion. It makes possible more flimflam from the sugar pushers who tell us how important sugar is as an essential component of the human body, how it is oxidized to produce energy, how it is metabolized to produce warmth, and so on. They’re talking about glucose, of course, which is manufactured in our bodies. However, one is led to believe that the manufacturers are talking about the sucrose which is made in their refineries. When the word “sugar” can mean the glucose in your blood as well as the sucrose in your Coca-Cola, it’s great for the sugar pushers but it’s rough on everybody else.

People have been bamboozled into thinking of their bodies the way they think of their check accounts. If they suspect they have low blood sugar, they are programmed to snack on vending machine candies and sodas in order to raise their blood sugar level. Actually, this is the worst thing to do. The level of glucose in their blood is apt to be low because they are addicted to sucrose. People who kick sucrose addiction and stay off sucrose find that the glucose level of their blood returns to normal and stays there. Since the late 1960s, millions of Americans have returned to natural food. A new type of store, the natural food store, has encouraged many to become dropouts from the supermarket. Natural food can be instrumental in restoring health. Many people, therefore, have come to equate the word “natural” with “healthy”.

So the sugar pushers have begun to pervert the word “natural” in order to mislead the public. “Made from natural ingredients”, the television sugar-pushers tell us about product after product. The word “from” is snot accented on television. It should be. Even refined sugar is made from natural ingredients. There is nothing new about that. The natural ingredients are cane and beets. But that four-letter word “from” hardly suggests that 90 per cent of the cane and beet have been removed. Heroin, too, could be advertised as being made from natural ingredients. The opium poppy is as natural as the sugar beet. It’s what man does with it that tells the story. If you want to avoid sugar in the supermarket, there is only one sure way. Don’t buy anything unless it says on the label prominently, in plain English: “No sugar added”. use of the word “carbohydrate” as a “scientific” word for sugar has become a standard defense strategy with sugar pushers and many of their medical apologists. It’s their security blanket.


Whether it’s sugared cereal or pastry and black coffee for breakfast, whether it’s hamburgers and Coca-Cola for lunch or the full “gourmet” dinner in the evening, chemically the average American diet is a formula that guarantees bubble, bubble, stomach trouble. unless you’ve taken too much insulin and, in a state of insulin shock, need sugar as an antidote, hardly anyone ever has cause to take sugar alone. Humans need sugar as much as they need the nicotine in tobacco. Crave it is one thing-need it is another. From the days of the Persian Empire to our own, sugar has usually been used to hop up the flavor of other food and drink, as an ingredient in the kitchen or as a condiment at the table. Let us leave aside for the moment the known effect of sugar (long-term and short-term) on the entire system and concentrate on the effect of sugar taken in combination with other daily foods.

When Grandma warned that sugared cookies before meals “will spoil your supper”, she knew what she was talking about. Her explanation might not have satisfied a chemist but, as with many traditional axioms from the Mosaic law on kosher food and separation in the kitchen, such rules are based on years of trial and error and are apt to be right on the button. Most modern research in combining food is a labored discovery of the things Grandma took for granted. Any diet or regimen undertaken for the single purpose of losing weight is dangerous, by definition. Obesity is talked about and treated as a disease in 20th-century America. Obesity is not a disease. It is only a symptom, a sign, a warning that your body is out of order. Dieting to lose weight is as silly and dangerous as taking aspirin to relieve a headache before you know the reason for the headache.

Getting rid of a symptom is like turning off an alarm. It leaves the basic cause untouched. Any diet or regimen undertaken with any objective short of restoration of total health of your body is dangerous. Many overweight people are undernourished. (Dr. H. Curtis Wood stresses this point in his 1971 book, Overfed But undernourished.) Eating less can aggravate this condition, unless one is concerned with the quality of the food instead of just its quantity. Many people-doctors included-assume that if weight is lost, fat is lost. This is not necessarily so. Any diet which lumps all carbohydrates together is dangerous. Any diet which does not consider the quality of carbohydrates and makes the crucial life-and-death distinction between natural, unrefined carbohydrates like whole grains and vegetables and man-refined carbohydrates like sugar and white flour is dangerous. Any diet which includes refined sugar and white flour, no matter what “scientific” name is applied to them, is dangerous.

Kicking sugar and white flour and substituting whole grains, vegetables and natural fruits in season, is the core of any sensible natural regimen. Changing the quality of your carbohydrates can change the quality of your health and life. If you eat natural food of good quality, quantity tends to take care of itself. Nobody is going to eat a half-dozen sugar beets or a whole case of sugar cane. Even if they do, it will be less dangerous than a few ounces of sugar. Sugar of all kinds-natural sugars, such as those in honey and fruit (fructose), as well as the refined white stuff (sucrose)-tends to arrest the secretion of gastric juices and have an inhibiting effect on the stomach’s natural ability to move. Sugars are not digested in the mouth, like cereals, or in the stomach, like animal flesh. When taken alone, they pass quickly through the stomach into the small intestine. When sugars are eaten with other foods-perhaps meat and bread in a sandwich-they are held up in the stomach for a while.

The sugar in the bread and the Coke sit there with the hamburger and the bun waiting for them to be digested. While the stomach is working on the animal protein and the refined starch in the bread, the addition of the sugar practically guarantees rapid acid fermentation under the conditions of warmth and moisture existing in the stomach. One lump of sugar in your coffee after a sandwich is enough to turn your stomach into a fermenter. One soda with a hamburger is enough to turn your stomach into a still. Sugar on cereal-whether you buy it already sugared in a box or add it yourself-almost guarantees acid fermentation.

Since the beginning of time, natural laws were observed, in both senses of that word, when it came to eating foods in combination. Birds have been observed eating insects at one period in the day and seeds at another. Other animals tend to eat one food at a time. Flesh-eating animals take their protein raw and straight. In the Orient, it is traditional to eat yang before yin. Miso soup (fermented soybean protein, yang) for breakfast; raw fish (more yang protein) at the beginning of the meal; afterwards comes the rice (which is less yang than the miso and fish); and then the vegetables which are yin. If you ever eat with a traditional Japanese family and you violate this order, the Orientals (if your friends) will correct you courteously but firmly. The law observed by Orthodox Jews prohibits many combinations at the same meal, especially flesh and dairy products. Special utensils for the dairy meal and different utensils for the flesh meal reinforce that taboo at the food’s source in the kitchen.

Man learned very early in the game what improper combinations of food could do to the human system. When he got a stomach ache from combining raw fruit with grain, or honey with porridge, he didn’t reach for an antacid tablet. He learned not to eat that way. When gluttony and excess became widespread, religious codes and commandments were invoked against it. Gluttony is a capital sin in most religions; but there are no specific religious warnings or commandments against refined sugar because sugar abuse-like drug abuse-did not appear on the world scene until centuries after holy books had gone to press.

“Why must we accept as normal what we find in a race of sick and weakened human beings?” Dr. Herbert M. Shelton asks. “Must we always take it for granted that the present eating practices of civilized men are normal?… Foul stools, loose stools, impacted stools, pebbly stools, much foul gas, colitis, hemorrhoids, bleeding with stools, the need for toilet paper are swept into the orbit of the normal.”8

When starches and complex sugars (like those in honey and fruits) are digested, they are broken down into simple sugars called “monosaccharides”, which are usable substances-nutriments. When starches and sugars are taken together and undergo fermentation, they are broken down into carbon dioxide, acetic acid, alcohol and water. With the exception of the water, all these are unusable substances-poisons. When proteins are digested, they are broken down into amino acids, which are usable substances-nutriments. When proteins are taken with sugar, they putrefy; they are broken down into a variety of ptomaines and leucomaines, which are nonusable substances-poisons. Enzymic digestion of foods prepares them for use by our body. Bacterial decomposition makes them unfit for use by our body. The first process gives us nutriments; the second gives us poisons.

Much that passes for modern nutrition is obsessed with a mania for quantitative counting. The body is treated like a check account. Deposit calories (like dollars) and withdraw energy. Deposit proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins and minerals-balanced quantitatively-and the result, theoretically, is a healthy body. People qualify as healthy today if they can crawl out of bed, get to the office and sign in. If they can’t make it, call the doctor to qualify for sick pay, hospitalization, rest cure-anything from a day’s pay without working to an artificial kidney, courtesy of the taxpayers. But what does it profit someone if the theoretically required calories and nutrients are consumed daily, yet this random eat-on-the-run, snack-time collection of foods ferments and putrefies in the digestive tract? What good is it if the body is fed protein, only to have it putrefy in the gastrointestinal canal? Carbohydrates that ferment in the digestive tract are converted into alcohol and acetic acid, not digestible monosaccharides. “To derive sustenance from foods eaten, they must be digested,” Shelton warned years ago. “They must not rot.” Sure, the body can get rid of poisons through the urine and the pores; the amount of poisons in the urine is taken as an index to what’s going on in the intestine. The body does establish a tolerance for these poisons, just as it adjusts gradually to an intake of heroin. But, says Shelton, “the discomfort from accumulation of gas, the bad breath, and foul and unpleasant odors are as undesirable as are the poisons”.9


In the Dark Ages, troubled souls were rarely locked up for going off their rocker. Such confinement began in the Age of Enlightenment, after sugar made the transition from apothecary’s prescription to candymaker’s confection. “The great confinement of the insane”, as one historian calls it,10 began in the late 17th century, after sugar consumption in Britain had zoomed in 200 years from a pinch or two in a barrel of beer, here and there, to more than two million pounds per year. By that time, physicians in London had begun to observe and record terminal physical signs and symptoms of the “sugar blues”.

Meanwhile, when sugar eaters did not manifest obvious terminal physical symptoms and the physicians were professionally bewildered, patients were no longer pronounced bewitched, but mad, insane, emotionally disturbed. Laziness, fatigue, debauchery, parental displeasure-any one problem was sufficient cause for people under twenty-five to be locked up in the first Parisian mental hospitals. All it took to be incarcerated was a complaint from parents, relatives or the omnipotent parish priest. Wet nurses with their babies, pregnant youngsters, retarded or defective children, senior citizens, paralytics, epileptics, prostitutes or raving lunatics-anyone wanted off the streets and out of sight was put away. The mental hospital succeeded witch-hunting and heresy-hounding as a more enlightened and humane method of social control. The physician and priest handled the dirty work of street sweeping in return for royal favors.

Initially, when the General Hospital was established in Paris by royal decree, one per cent of the city’s population was locked up. From that time until the 20 century, as the consumption of sugar went up and up-especially in the cities-so did the number of people who were put away in the General Hospital. Three hundred years later, the “emotionally disturbed” can be turned into walking automatons, their brains controlled with psychoactive drugs. Today, pioneers of orthomolecular psychiatry, such as Dr. Abram Hoffer, Dr. Allan Cott, Dr. A. Cherkin as well as Dr. Linus Pauling, have confirmed that mental illness is a myth and that emotional disturbance can be merely the first symptom of the obvious inability of the human system to handle the stress of sugar dependency. In Orthomolecular Psychiatry, Dr. Pauling writes: “The functioning of the brain and nervous tissue is more sensitively dependent on the rate of chemical reactions than the functioning of other organs and tissues. I believe that mental disease is for the most part caused by abnormal reaction rates, as determined by genetic constitution and diet, and by abnormal molecular concentrations of essential substances. Selection of food (and drugs) in a world that is undergoing rapid scientific and technological change may often be far from the best.”11

In Megavitamin B3 Therapy for Schizophrenia, Dr. Abram Hoffer notes: “Patients are also advised to follow a good nutritional program with restriction of sucrose and sucrose-rich foods.”12 Clinical research with hyperactive and psychotic children, as well as those with brain injuries and learning disabilities, has shown: “An abnormally high family history of diabetes-that is, parents and grandparents who cannot handle sugar; an abnormally high incidence of low blood glucose, or functional hypoglycemia in the children themselves, which indicates that their systems cannot handle sugar; dependence on a high level of sugar in the diets of the very children who cannot handle it. “Inquiry into the dietary history of patients diagnosed as schizophrenic reveals the diet of their choice is rich in sweets, candy, cakes, coffee, caffeinated beverages, and foods prepared with sugar. These foods, which stimulate the adrenals, should be eliminated or severely restricted.”13

The avant-garde of modern medicine has rediscovered what the lowly sorceress learned long ago through painstaking study of nature. “In more than twenty years of psychiatric work,” writes DR Thomas Szasz, “I have never known a clinical psychologist to report, on the basis of a projective test, that the subject is a normal, mentally healthy person. While some witches may have survived dunking, no ‘madman’ survives psychological testing…there is no behavior or person that a modern psychiatrist cannot plausibly diagnose as abnormal or ill.”14 So it was in the 17th century. Once the doctor or the exorcist had been called in, he was under pressure to do something. When he tried and failed, the poor patient had to be put away. It is often said that surgeons bury their mistakes. Physicians and psychiatrists put them away; lock ’em up.

In the 1940s, DR John Tintera rediscovered the vital importance of the endocrine system, especially the adrenal glands, in “pathological mentation”-or “brain boggling”. In 200 cases under treatment for hypoadrenocorticism (the lack of adequate adrenal cortical hormone production or imbalance among these hormones), he discovered that the chief complaints of his patients were often similar to those found in persons whose systems were unable to handle sugar: fatigue, nervousness, depression, apprehension, craving for sweets, inability to handle alcohol, inability to concentrate, allergies, low blood pressure. Sugar blues!

DR Tintera finally insisted that all his patients submit to a four-hour glucose tolerance test (GTT) to find out whether or not they could handle sugar. The results were so startling that the laboratories double-checked their techniques, then apologized for what they believed to be incorrect readings. What mystified them was the low, flat curves derived from disturbed, early adolescents. This laboratory procedure had been previously carried out only for patients with physical findings presumptive of diabetes. Dorland’s definition of schizophrenia (Bleuler’s dementia praecox) includes the phrase, “often recognized during or shortly after adolescence”, and further, in reference to hebephrenia and catatonia, “coming on soon after the onset of puberty”. These conditions might seem to arise or become aggravated at puberty, but probing into the patient’s past will frequently reveal indications which were present at birth, during the first year of life, and through the preschool and grammar school years. Each of these periods has its own characteristic clinical picture.

This picture becomes more marked at pubescence and often causes school officials to complain of juvenile delinquency or underachievement. A glucose tolerance test at any of these periods could alert parents and physicians and could save innumerable hours and small fortunes spent in looking into the child’s psyche and home environment for maladjustments of questionable significance in the emotional development of the average child. The negativism, hyperactivity and obstinate resentment of discipline are absolute indications for at least the minimum laboratory tests: urinalysis, complete bloodcount, PBI determination, and the five-hour glucose tolerance test. A GTT can be performed on a young child by the micro-method without undue trauma to the patient. As a matter of fact, I have been urging that these four tests be routine for all patients, even before a history or physical examination is undertaken. In almost all discussions on drug addiction, alcoholism and schizophrenia, it is claimed that there is no definite constitutional type that falls prey to these afflictions.

Almost universally, the statement is made that all of these individuals are emotionally immature. It has long been our goal to persuade every physician, whether oriented toward psychiatry, genetics or physiology, to recognize that one type of endocrine individual is involved in the majority of these cases: the hypoadrenocortic.15 Tintera published several epochal medical papers. Over and over, he emphasized that improvement, alleviation, palliation or cure was “dependent upon the restoration of the normal function of the total organism”. His first prescribed item of treatment was diet. Over and over again, he said that “the importance of diet cannot be overemphasized”. He laid out a sweeping permanent injunction against sugar in all forms and guises.

While Egas Moniz of Portugal was receiving a Nobel Prize for devising the lobotomy operation for the treatment of schizophrenia, Tintera’s reward was to be harassment and hounding by the pundits of organized medicine. While Tintera’s sweeping implication of sugar as a cause of what was called “schizophrenia” could be confined to medical journals, he was let alone, ignored. He could be tolerated-if he stayed in his assigned territory, endocrinology. Even when he suggested that alcoholism was related to adrenals that had been whipped by sugar abuse, they let him alone; because the medicos had decided there was nothing in alcoholism for them except aggravation, they were satisfied to abandon it to Alcoholics Anonymous.

However, when Tintera dared to suggest in a magazine of general circulation that “it is ridiculous to talk of kinds of allergies when there is only one kind, which is adrenal glands impaired…by sugar”, he could no longer be ignored. The allergists had a great racket going for themselves. Allergic souls had been entertaining each other for years with tall tales of exotic allergies-everything from horse feathers to lobster tails. Along comes someone who says none of this matters: take them off sugar and keep them off it.

Perhaps Tintera’s untimely death in 1969 at the age of fifty-seven made it easier for the medical profession to accept discoveries that had once seemed as far out as the simple oriental medical thesis of genetics and diet, yin and yang. Today, doctors all over the world are repeating what Tintera announced years ago: nobody, but nobody, should ever be allowed to begin what is called “psychiatric treatment”, anyplace, anywhere, unless and until they have had a glucose tolerance test to discover if they can handle sugar. So-called preventive medicine goes further and suggests that since we only think we can handle sugar because we initially have strong adrenals, why wait until they give us signs and signals that they’re worn out? Take the load off now by eliminating sugar in all forms and guises, starting with that soda pop you have in your hand. The mind truly boggles when one glances over what passes for medical history. Through the centuries, troubled souls have been barbecued for bewitchment, exorcised for possession, locked up for insanity, tortured for masturbatory madness, psychiatrised for psychosis, lobotomised for schizophrenia. How many patients would have listened if the local healer had told them that the only thing ailing them was sugar blues?


Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign

November 1, 2008

Study: Media coverage has favored Obama campaign

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., throws a bottle of AP – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., throws a bottle of water to a supporter …

NEW YORK – John McCain supporters who believe they haven’t gotten a fair shake from the media during the Republican’s candidacy against Barack Obama have a new study to point to.

Comments made by sources, voters, reporters and anchors that aired on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts over the past two months reflected positively on Obama in 65 percent of cases, compared to 31 percent of cases with regards to McCain, according to the Center for Media and Public Affairs.

ABC’s “World News” had more balance than NBC’s “Nightly News” or the “CBS Evening News,” the group said.

Meanwhile, the first half of Fox News Channel‘s “Special Report” with Brit Hume showed more balance than any of the network broadcasters, although it was dominated by negative evaluations of both campaigns. The center didn’t evaluate programs on CNN or MSNBC.

“For whatever reason, the media are portraying Barack Obama as a better choice for president than John McCain,” said Robert Lichter, a George Mason University professor and head of the center. “If you watch the evening news, you’d think you should vote for Obama.”

The center analyzed 979 separate news stories shown between Aug. 23 and Oct. 24, and excluded evaluations based on the campaign horse race, including mention of how the candidates were doing in polls. For instance, when a voter was interviewed on CBS Oct. 14 saying he thought Obama brought a freshness to Washington, that was chalked up as a pro-Obama comment.

When NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported Oct. 1 that some conservatives say that Sarah Palin is not ready for prime-time, that’s marked in the negative column for McCain.

ABC recorded 57 percent favorable comments toward the Democrats, and 42 percent positive for the Republicans. NBC had 56 percent positive for the Democrats, 16 percent for the Republicans. CBS had 73 percent positive (Obama), versus 31 percent (McCain).

Hume’s telecast had 39 percent favorable comments for McCain and 28 percent positive for the Democratic ticket.

It was the second study in two weeks to remark upon negative coverage for the McCain-Palin ticket. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded last week that McCain’s coverage has been overwhelmingly negative since the conventions ended, while Obama’s has been more mixed.

Meanwhile, another survey issued Friday by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press showed that television continues to be Americans’ main source for campaign news, particularly the cable news networks.

But there were clear partisan differences in where people turned.

For instance, of the people who said they got most of their campaign news from Fox News Channel, 52 percent identified themselves as Republican, 17 percent as Democrats and 30 percent as independents, the Pew center said.

MSNBC viewers interested in campaign news identified themselves at 11 percent Republican, 50 percent Democratic and 36 percent independent. The breakdown for CNN: 13 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, 38 percent independent.

The study was based on a survey of 2,011 people taken Oct. 17-20 and 24-27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

from: Yahoo News

Avoid dyes used in treats that play tricks on kids

October 31, 2008

Avoid dyes used in treats that play tricks on kids

As a child, on a night of serious trick-or-treating, I never cared for those “sensible” houses whose owners handed out erasers, rulers or nickels. It’s Halloween, for goodness sake, and some candy was the optimal demand of choice.

As a parent, I, too, turned a blind eye to healthy eating on Halloween, stocking up on mini Snickers bars or packets of M&M’s. I allowed my boys a good share of their Halloween loot, excusing the indulgence as a once-a-year folly.

Even as a mother who normally valued nutritional snacks and a balanced diet of fresh fruits and veggies, I would make the exception for this special night of treats. I didn’t want to be a spoiler and always felt a little indulgence in the way of candy and other treats wouldn’t harm either of my sons.

The evidence today counters my thinking and suggests that the dyes used in some candy are linked to serious behavioral problems. In fact, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has petitioned the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to ban these dyes altogether, calling these dyes the “secret shame” of the food industry.



Dr. Jim Stevenson, a professor at the University of Southampton and the lead researcher of a British study on artificial food dyes, has concluded that these dyes may not only cause hyperactivity and attention disorders but may deleteriously affect children’s IQ levels as much as gasoline!

This is nothing new to parents of children with disorders ranging from autism to ADHD. They have long-claimed that preservatives worsen the symptoms and exacerbate the condition. CPSI suggests the purpose of these dyes is to increase the appeal of low-nutrition products to children. According to the CPSI, Americans consume twice as much food dye as they did 50 years ago.

Amazingly, due to a large push in Great Britain, food manufacturers have removed artificial dyes from their foods. Mars uses only natural colorings in its Starburst and Skittles candy and McDonald’s has removed synthetic dyes from its strawberry milk shakes; the color for its strawberry sundaes is derived from strawberries, but in the States, it comes from Red Dye # 40!

Although the dyes are listed on the labels of food products in America, the FDA does not engage independent testing of artificial dyes but leaves it to food manufacturers to do testing. Not surprisingly, the food industry remains skeptical of any linkage between synthetic dyes and behavioral problems.

Indeed, a Columbia University study on the linkage between hyperactivity and food dyes found that domestic production of artificial dyes had quadrupled between 1995 and 1998. The number of American children diagnosed with Attention Deficit and hyperactivity disorders has also increased exponentially.

I’m not sure I’d leave it to the candy manufacturers to restrict potentially harmful food additives before making a decision about their impact on our kids. It’s been said that parents can achieve the results of reducing hyperactivity in their kids by cutting out artificial dyes from the diets of their children.

To be cautious, take a look at the fine print on the candy wrappers. If items such as Yellow #40, Red # 40 or Blue #2 are listed, avoid giving them to children. You will be side-stepping potential danger associated with these artificial dyes.

This Halloween, you may wish to think twice before handing out candy with artificial dyes in them. You also may wish to scrutinize your kids’ haul of goodies and engage in some negotiation over what your children can consume.

You may be telling yourself, but it’s only Halloween — a once-a-year extravagance — so what’s the harm? Fair enough and even dentists understand this holiday puts a strain on normal dental hygiene practices. But with a little creativity, you don’t have to take all the fun — or candy — out of Halloween.

Just try to exercise some prudence and a little restraint by being aware of the risks these chemical additives have. With a little planning, you can still make your little goblins enjoy their special treats without the real scare of dangerous dyes lurking in their goodies.

Metro Parent offers more suggestions for a safe, additive free Halloween on its Web site,

Taken From: Detnews

Financial Crisis

October 29, 2008
A Pakistani money changer counts Pak rupees in Karachi, Pakistan on Friday, Oct. 24, 2008. Pakistan.

Emerging Economies Hit Hard by the Financial Crisis

A Pakistani money changer counts Pak rupees in Karachi, Pakistan on Friday, Oct. 24, 2008. Pakistan.
Shakil Adil / AP

Earlier this year, one of the great hopes for the world economy dodging the bullet of America’s subprime mortgage meltdown was the robust growth in developing economies — and the hope that the consumer markets they generated at home would take up the slack as Western consumers were forced to tighten their belts. But the financial crisis that started with homeowners walking away from mortgages on Main Street, U.S.A., has begun to roil the teeming bazaars of Islamabad, the old-world neighborhoods of Budapest and the gleaming office towers of São Paulo. Countries are now lining up, tin cups in hand, seeking bailouts from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). And the line is lengthening. Iceland got $2 billion; Ukraine, $16.5 billion. Hungary needs $12.5 billion, and then there’s nuclear-armed Pakistan, perhaps the world’s most combustible country, which needs up to $15 billion to stave off potential financial collapse. So dangerous is the situation in Pakistan that the government has to hold negotiations with IMF officials in Dubai — the IMF declared Pakistan off-limits for its personnel after a bomb ripped through the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad last month. Pakistan has just six days before its dwindling foreign-exchange reserves run out, the Foreign Minister told his German counterpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, on Tuesday. Steinmeier helpfully suggested that because the situation in Pakistan was so difficult, the IMF ought to expedite negotiations over the bailout that are set to conclude next month.

The massive global flight from anything but the safest investment — if, in this market, such a thing exists — started late in the summer, and has now crippled emerging markets. The speed with which this has happened has been extraordinary, and it took the IMF very much by surprise, fund insiders say. “A year ago, it was the emerging markets that were carrying the world,” says an IMF official. “Boy is that over.” In fact, countries like Russia and Kazakhstan that just six months ago were fat and happy on a diet of petro dollars are now burning through national “rainy day” funds and bailing out banks that had only peripheral exposure to subprime mortgages. Their problem now is foreign-equity investors — hedge funds in particular — stampeding for the exits.

But it’s not only sophisticated investors driving the crisis as they unwind their positions all over the world in order to repatriate dollars and meet margin calls. Consider the so-called yen carry trade, in which anyone could borrow money in the Japanese currency at extremely low interest rates (the key policy rate at the Bank of Japan is still just 0.5%) and invest in higher-yielding currencies like the New Zealand dollar, where interest rates were 6% or higher, and then pocket the difference. Unfortunately, the allure of the low-yielding yen also appealed to prospective home buyers in Hungary, where in the first quarter of this year, according to Budapest’s central bank, 5% to 10% of all new mortgages were yen-based loans. (You read that correctly: 5% to 10% of all mortgages written in Hungary earlier this year were yen-based loans.) Since then, the yen has soared in value against the dollar — reaching a 13-year high on Monday — as well as against most other currencies. That’s because investors all over the world are repaying yen loans or, in Wall Street’s jargon, “unwinding the yen carry trade,” as the flight to cash continues. That in turn has made the cost of a yen-based mortgage much higher for Hungarians, whose salaries are paid in forints, the local currency that has plunged more than 15% against the yen in the past six months, to produce a classic example of financial-sector turmoil trickling down to the real economy.

The financial crisis is now beginning to slow real economic activity — in some cases quite dramatically — all over the world. Consumer sentiment in Seoul, the capital of South Korea, has plunged to its lowest level in eight years, as the won, the local currency, has weakened sharply and stocks have plunged. Park Yung Tae is an office worker who was laid off earlier this year and invested his severance pay in the KOPSI, the Korean stock market. Big mistake. His life savings of $50,000 has been trimmed to just $10,000. Ship owners in Hong Kong say the rates for hiring the large container vessels that ship consumer electronics, toys and clothes to the West have fallen 40% in the past two months, amid a drastic slowdown in international trade. And across what had been the booming economies of Eastern Europe, growth has slowed sharply, economists say.

The real economic pain in emerging markets matters immensely to the economic prospects of the U.S. and other developed countries. Indeed, to the extent that that there was growth in the U.S. earlier this year, it was buttressed by strong exports. Now that prop underneath the world’s economy has buckled. Jonathan Lipsky, first deputy managing director at the IMF, says 100% of the global growth forecast by the fund for 2009 was to have occurred in emerging markets. “Now,” he says, “we have to make sure that potential is protected.” That’s plainly going to be an expensive proposition. The IMF is now ladling out cash as fast as suddenly bankrupt economies line up for it. The fund has $200 billion on hand and access to about another $50 billion to manage the intensifying global emergency. Chances are it will need all of those funds, and a lot more besides, before this is over.

With reporting by Stephen Kim / Seoul and Andrew Downie / São Paulo

From: Time

Sugar: The biggest impediment to good health

October 28, 2008

Sugar’s effect on your health

The average American consumes an astounding 2-3 pounds of sugar each week, which is not surprising considering that highly refined sugars in the forms of sucrose (table sugar), dextrose (corn sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup are being processed into so many foods such as bread, breakfast cereal, mayonnaise, peanut butter, ketchup, spaghetti sauce, and a plethora of microwave meals.

In the last 20 years, we have increased sugar consumption in the U.S. 26 pounds to 135 lbs. of sugar per person per year! Prior to the turn of this century (1887-1890), the average consumption was only 5 lbs. per person per year! Cardiovascular disease and cancer was virtually unknown in the early 1900’s.

The “glycemic index” is a measure of how a given food affects blood-glucose levels, with each food being assigned a numbered rating. The lower the rating, the slower the absorption and digestion process, which provides a more gradual, healthier infusion of sugars into the bloodstream. On the other hand, a high rating means that blood-glucose levels are increased quickly, which stimulates the pancreas to secrete insulin to drop blood-sugar levels. These rapid fluctuations of blood-sugar levels are not healthy because of the stress they place on the body.

One of sugar’s major drawbacks is that it raises the insulin level, which inhibits the release of growth hormones, which in turn depresses the immune system. This is not something you want to take place if you want to avoid disease.

An influx of sugar into the bloodstream upsets the body’s blood-sugar balance, triggering the release of insulin, which the body uses to keep blood-sugar at a constant and safe level. Insulin also promotes the storage of fat, so that when you eat sweets high in sugar, you’re making way for rapid weight gain and elevated triglyceride levels, both of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease. Complex carbohydrates tend to be absorbed more slowly, lessening the impact on blood-sugar levels.

Sugar depresses the immune system.

We have known this for decades. It was only in the 1970’s that researchers found out that vitamin C was needed by white blood cells so that they could phagocytize viruses and bacteria. White blood cells require a 50 times higher concentration inside the cell as outside so they have to accumulate vitamin C.

There is something called a “phagocytic index” which tells you how rapidly a particular macrophage or lymphocyte can gobble up a virus, bacteria, or cancer cell. It was in the 1970’s that Linus Pauling realized that white blood cells need a high dose of vitamin C and that is when he came up with his theory that you need high doses of vitamin Cicon to combat the common cold.
sugar and lymphocytes

We know that glucose and vitamin C have similar chemical structures, so what happens when the sugar levels go up? They compete for one another upon entering the cells. And the thing that mediates the entry of glucose into the cells is the same thing that mediates the entry of vitamin C into the cells. If there is more glucose around, there is going to be less vitamin C allowed into the cell. It doesn’t take much: a blood sugar value of 120 reduces the phagocytic index by 75%. So when you eat sugar, think of your immune system slowing down to a crawl.

Here we are getting a little bit closer to the roots of disease. It doesn’t matter what disease we are talking about, whether we are talking about a common cold or about cardiovascular disease, or cancer or osteoporosis, the root is always going to be at the cellular and molecular level, and more often than not insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally controlling it.

The health dangers which ingesting sugar on an habitual basis creates are certain. Simple sugars have been observed to aggravate asthma, move mood swings, provoke personality changes, muster mental illness, nourish nervous disorders, deliver diabetes, hurry heart disease, grow gallstones, hasten hypertension, and add arthritis.

Because refined dietary sugars lack minerals and vitamins, they must draw upon the body’s micro-nutrient stores in order to be metabolized into the system. When these storehouses are depleted, metabolization of cholesterol and fatty acid is impeded, contributing to higher blood serum triglycerides, cholesterol, promoting obesity due to higher fatty acid storage around organs and in sub-cutaneous tissue folds.

Because sugar is devoid of minerals, vitamins, fiber, and has such a deteriorating effect on the endocrine system, major researchers and major health organizations (American Dietetic Association and American Diabetic Association) agree that sugar consumption in America is one of the 3 major causes of degenerative disease.

A good source of supplies for diabetics is They offer healthy eating diabetic food, hard to find sugar free candy and medical alert jewelry for diabetes care.

Honey is a simple sugar

There are 4 classes of simple sugars which are regarded by most nutritionists as “harmful” to optimal health when prolonged consumption in amounts above 15% of the carbohydrate calories are ingested: Sucrose, fructose, honey, and malts.

Some of you may be surprised to find honey here. Although honey is a natural sweetener, it is considered a refined sugar because 96% of dry matter are simple sugars: fructose, glucose and sucrose. It is little wonder that the honey bear is the only animal found in nature with a problem with tooth-decay (honey decays teeth faster than table sugar). Honey has the highest calorie content of all sugars with 65 calories/tablespoon, compared to the 48 calories/tablespoon found in table sugar. The increased calories are bound to cause increased blood serum fatty acids, as well as weight gain, on top of the risk of more cavities.
sugar and honey

Pesticides used on farm crops and residential flowers have been found in commercial honey. Honey can be fatal to an infant whose immature digestive tracts are unable to deal effectively with Botulinum Spore growth. What nutrients or enzymes raw honey does contain are destroyed by manufacturers who heat it in order to give it a clear appearance to enhance sales. If you are going to consume honey, make sure it is raw, unheated honey. Good to use in special cures, but not as an every day food. It is not much better than white or brown sugar.

Here is a list of ways sugar can affect your health:

  • Sugar can suppress the immune system.
  • Sugar can upset the body’s mineral balance.
  • Sugar can contribute to hyperactivity, anxiety, depression, concentration difficulties, and crankiness in children.
  • Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.
  • Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.
  • Sugar can reduce helpful high density cholesterol (HDLs).
  • Sugar can promote an elevation of harmful cholesterol (LDLs).
  • Sugar can cause hypoglycemia.
  • Sugar contributes to a weakened defense against bacterial infection.
  • Sugar can cause kidney damage.
  • Sugar can increase the risk of coronary heart disease.
  • Sugar may lead to chromium deficiency.
  • Sugar can cause copper deficiency.
  • Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.
  • Sugar can increase fasting levels of blood glucose.
  • Sugar can promote tooth decay.
  • Sugar can produce an acidic stomach.
  • Sugar can raise adrenaline levels in children.
  • Sugar can lead to periodontal disease.
  • Sugar can speed the aging process, causing wrinkles and grey hair.
  • Sugar can increase total cholesterol.
  • Sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity.
  • High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
  • Sugar can contribute to diabetes.
  • Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.
  • Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity.
  • Sugar leads to decreased glucose tolerance.
  • Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease.
  • Sugar can increase systolic blood pressure.
  • Sugar causes food allergies.
  • Sugar can cause free radical formation in the bloodstream.
  • Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.
  • Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.
  • Sugar can overstress the pancreas, causing damage.
  • Sugar can cause atherosclerosis.
  • Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries.
  • Sugar can cause liver cells to divide, increasing the size of the liver.
  • Sugar can increase the amount of fat in the liver.
  • Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney.
  • Sugar can cause depression.
  • Sugar can increase the body’s fluid retention.
  • Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance.
  • Sugar can cause hypertension.
  • Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.
  • Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha and theta brain waves, which can alter the mind’s ability to think clearly.
  • Sugar can increase blood platelet adhesiveness which increases risk of blood clots and strokes.
  • Sugar can increase insulin responses in those consuming high-sugar diets compared to low sugar diets.
  • Sugar increases bacterial fermentation in the colon.


Sugar and cancer

Of the over 4 million cancer patients being treated in the U.S. today, almost none are offered any scientifically guided nutrition therapy other than being told to “just eat good foods.” Many cancer patients would have a major improvement in their conditions if they controlled the supply of cancer’s preferred fuel: GLUCOSE. By slowing the cancer’s growth, patients make it possible for their immune systems to catch up to the disease. Controlling one’s blood-glucose levels through diet, exercise, supplements, meditation and prescription drugs – when necessary – can be one of the most crucial components to a cancer treatment program. The saying “Sugar feeds cancer” is simple. The explanation is a little more involved.

German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., the 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The gist of his Nobel thesis was this: malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in “anaerobic glycolysis” – a process whereby glucose is used by cancer cells as a fuel with lactic acid as an anaerobic by-product – compared to normal tissues.(1) The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from the cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate creates a lower, more acidic PH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid build-up.(2,3) Therefore, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic PH.(4)
anaerobic glycolysis

Hence, cancer therapies should attempt to regulate blood-glucose levels through diet, supplements, exercise, medication when necessary, gradual weight loss and stress reduction. Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, the goal is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates entirely from the diet but rather to control blood-glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer cells and boost immune function.


Yacon- The Enemy of Diabetes

October 27, 2008

I thought it would be helpful to post about this little root which has helped my grandparents, aunts and uncles lower their blood sugar and blood pressure.

Diabetes Natural Treatment
based on Yacon (smallantus sonchifolius)

Natural treatment for Diabetes and Liver Problems as well to reduce high blood pressure.

The Yacon roots its an excellent natural product actually used for the Diabetes and Liver treament.

Yacon Leaves are actually used for Hypertension natural treatment as well as a powerful antioxidant natural source learn more green teas.

The Peruvian Yacón (Llacon) grows at altitudes under 9,300 feet high, in climates that are warmer and more humid than those in which other tubers usually grow. Yacón usually grows in small farm orchards in mountains valleys. The area of the crop has not expanded much in recent decades. In some Andean valleys, yacón is sold at market fairs

The Peruvian Yacon has a crunchy texture like a water chestnut and is,refreshingly sweet and juicy. Left in the sun, its sweetness intensifies, and it can be eaten as a fruit, consumed in drinks, syrups, cakes or pickles or instir-fries.Though packed with sugar, its principal appeal to the health conscious lies in the fact that the sugar in question is mainly oligofructose, which cannot be absorbed by the body.That means yacon is naturally low-calorie — a jar of yacon syrup contains half the calories as a same-sized jar of honey — and its sugar does not raise blood glucose levels. In addition, oligofructose promotes beneficial bacteria in the colon. Certain modern health products, such as so-called bio-yogurts, have oligofructose added to achieve the same effect, but yacon already has that quality naturally. “It’s a diet food and a diabetic food.

Yacon — the root of a tall, leafy plant with tiny yellow sunflowers that Inca “chasquis,” or messengers, pulled from the pathside to slake their thirst is thought to have originated in a Andean region of Peru.

The root contains 86-90% water and only traces of protein and lipids. It is high in oligofructose (also called fructo-oligosaccharide), a dietary sugar, which the human body does not metabolize, hence its potential use for diabetics and in body weight control. Moreover, increased intake of oligofructose has been associated with improved gut health because of the stimulation of (beneficial) bifidus bacteria in the colon.
Uses. Yacón can be eaten raw, just like a fruit. Once the roots have been dried in the sun, they become sweeter. In Cusco, Peru, during the Inti Raymi festivities in June, yacón is traditionally sold under the name of “cocashka.”

Varieties. This root has little variability. It mainly has white or yellowish transparent flesh. Peru has the greatest number of varieties, and is the world’s biggest producer with an estimated 1,480 acres under cultivation.

Yacon is the ideal product for diabetics. The fructose in in the Yacon root consist of 35% free and 25% bonded fructose. Thus carbohydrates can be supplied even when the concentration of blood sugar is low. That prevents diabetics from hyperglycaemia (over-activity).

That means yacon is naturally low-calorie — a jar of yacon syrup contains half the calories as a same-sized jar of honey — and its sugar does not raise blood glucose levels.In addition, oligofructose promotes beneficial bacteria in the colon (prebiotics). Certain modern health products, such as so-called bio-yogurts, have oligofructose added to achieve the same effect, but yacon already has that quality naturally.“It’s a diet food and a diabetic food,” said yacon expert Michael Hermann, Research Project leader of the Andean roots and tubers

The effects :

The yacon’s oligofructose properties were discovered. by ancient peruvians but the modern medicine found out that if the leaves are used in tea, it has the effect of avoiding the peaks that you have when eating sugary or starchy food, when your blood sugar level goes up violently, one of the biggest problems of a diabetics person. who have high blood sugar levels and whose bodies do not produce or properly use insulin, a hormone that would normally be released to process food.

It appears that the tea lessens the (sugary) peaks.


Research has proven that is beneficial for those with hypertension. By thinning the blood Yacon can lower blood pressure by 5 to 10 percent. It can also lower cholesterol and discourage clot formation. Unfortunately, Yacon has a reputation for being a Diabetes but it is also excellent to reduce the hypertension problems..

Dr. H Brams said yacon roots themselves had not been proven to have the same palliative effect as the Yacon leaves. Even so, yacon is now popularly associated in Peru with diabetes, though other benefits such as its laxative quality and ability to help prevent colon cancer and osteoporosis are less well known.


Several carbohydrates: fructose, glucose, sucrose, low polymerization degree (DP) oligosaccharides (DP 3 to 10 fructans), and traces of starch and inulin (Asami et al. 1989; Ohyama et al. 1990). Oligofructans with a lower DP (average 4.3) may account for up to 67% of the dry matter content at harvest (Asami et al. 1991). Oligosaccharides purified from yacon have been identified as beta-(2 1)-fructooligosaccharides with terminal sucrose (inulin type oligofructans; Goto et al. 1995).

The root contains 86-90% water and only traces of protein and lipids. It is high in oligofructose (also called fructo-oligosaccharide), a dietary sugar, which the human body does not metabolize, hence its potential use for diabetics and in body weight control. Moreover, increased intake of oligofructose has been associated with improved gut health because of the stimulation of (beneficial) bifidus bacteria in the colon.

A jar of yacon syrup contains half the calories as a same-sized jar of honey and its sugar does not raise blood glucose levels. In addition, oligofructose promotes beneficial bacteria in the colon.

Certain modern health products, such as so-called bio-yogurts, have oligofructose added to achieve the same effect, but yacon already has that quality naturally.It’s a diet food and a diabetic food, said yacon expert Joel Kirsh,Research leader of the Andean roots and tubers project at the Potato Research Center.

showed potent free radical-scavenging activity and inhibitory effects on lipid peroxidation in rat brain homogenate. The most potent antioxidative activity focused on the 50% MeOH-eluted fraction on DIAION HP-20 column chromatography. The structure of the major component in the fraction was identified as 2,3,5-tricaffeoylaltraric acid (TCAA). The antioxidative activity of TCAA is superior to that of natural antioxidants such as (+/-)-catechin, alpha-tocopherol, and ellagic acid,. As the hypoglycemic activity of Yacon extract was described in a previous report, the present results showing that the aerial part of Yacon has strong antioxidative activity may encourage its potential use as a food supplement to prevent type II diabetes.

Radical scavenging and anti-lipoperoxidative activities of Smallanthus sonchifolius – yacon – leaf extracts.
J Agric Food Chem. 2005 Jul 13;53(14):5577-82.
Radical scavenging and anti-lipoperoxidative effects of two organic fractions and two aqueous extracts from the leaves of a neglected Andean crop- yacon (Smallanthus sonchifolius Poepp. & Endl., Asteraceae) were determined using various in vitro models. The extracts’ total phenolic content was 10.7-24.6%. These results make yacon leaves a good candidate for use as a food supplement in the prevention of chronic diseases involving oxidative stress.

Subchronic 4-month oral toxicity study of dried Smallanthus sonchifolius (yacon) roots as a diet supplement in rats.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2005 Nov;43(11):1657-65.
The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of subchronic (4-months) oral consumption of dried yacon root flour as a diet supplement using normal Wistar rats. Two daily yacon intake levels were used, equivalent to 340 mg and 6800 mgFOS/body weight, respectively. Yacon administered as a diet supplement was well tolerated and did not produce any negative response, toxicity or adverse nutritional effect at both intake levels used. Yacon root consumption showed no hypoglycemic activity in normal rats and resulted in significantly reduced post-prandial serum triacylglycerol levels in both doses assayed. Conversely, serum cholesterol reduction was not statistically significant. Cecal hypertrophy was observed in rats fed only the high dose. Our results indicating lack of yacon toxicity and a certain beneficial metabolic activity in normal rats warrant further experiments with normal subjects and patients suffering metabolic disorders.

The effect of Smallanthus sonchifolius ( yacon ) leaf extracts on rat hepatic metabolism.Cell Biol Toxicol. 2004 Mar;20(2):109-20.
Smallanthus sonchifolius ( yacon ), originating from South America, has become popular in Japan and in New Zealand for its tubers which contain beta-1,2-oligofructans as the main saccharides. The yacon plant is also successfully cultivated in Central Europe in the Czech Republic in particular. Its aerial part is used in Japan and in Brazil as a component in medicinal teas; while aqueous leaf extracts have been studied for their hypoglycemic activity in normal and diabetic rats. We have already demonstrated the high content of phenolic compounds in yacon leaf extracts and their in vitro antioxidant activity. In this paper, we present the effects of two organic fractions and two aqueous extracts from the leaves of S. sonchifolius on rat hepatocyte viability, on oxidative damage induced by tert-butyl hydroperoxide (t-BH) and allyl alcohol (AA), and on glucose metabolism and their insulin-like effect on the expression of cytochrome P450 (CYP) mRNA. All the extracts tested exhibited strong protective effect against oxidative damage to rat hepatocyte primary cultures in concentrations ranging from 1 to 1000 microg/ml, reduced hepatic glucose production via gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis at 1000 microg/ml. Moreover, the effects of the organic fractions (200 and 250 microg/ml) and to a lesser extent, the tea infusion (500 microg/ml) on rat CYP2B and CYP2E mRNA expression, were comparable to those observed with insulin. The combination of radical scavenging, cytoprotective and anti-hyperglycemic activity predetermine yacon leaves for use in prevention and treatment of chronic diseases involving oxidative stress, particularly diabetes.

Yacon is a tender perennial, meaning that it lives for many years but needs to be protected from frost. Other tender perennials are potatoes
(which, along with Yacon, originates from the high Andes) and Dahlias.
Yacon is grown in nearly the same way as Dahlias, and if you’ve ever grown them before you’ll know how easy that is.

Yacon. It is a root vegetable looks like a Potato, that grows underground, and it has a very high inulin content..the Inulin is a non-assimilable sugar so products sweetened with yacon are suitable for diabetics.

Yacon is intensely sweet, with as much as 4,000kg of inulin resulting from a hectare of production. ‘We extract the inulin mechanically, then heat the extracted juice for five or six hours at 70°C,’


Sweet and Dangerous

October 26, 2008

The Sugar-Coated Truth
Posted on Friday 24 October 2008

It is believed that cane sugar was discovered before the birth of Christ. As early as 500 B.C., India was said to have a “reed which gives honey without bees.” This reed would later become known as sugar cane.

The invasion of Arabs into India nearly 1,000 years later in 642 A.D. led to the spread of sugar cane to the rest of the world. The Arabs discovered sugar cane and learned how it was processed by the Indians. They brought the cane with them as they conquered much of Europe, introducing it to lands such as North Africa and Spain. For many years, however, the rest of Europe was stuck with honey, because sugar did not make it to the west until the crusades. The first record of sugar in England occurs in the year 1099.

Sugar was brought to the Americas by Christopher Columbus. At the time, sugar was processed by boiling the cane juice and then harvesting the crystals left behind after the water evaporated. These crystals contained protein, fiber, vitamins, and minerals. While they were calorie dense, they provided essential nutrients. It was not until a few centuries later that the process of refining sugars, and stripping out many of these nutrients, was perfected and sugar became a profitable industry.

It is interesting to note that raw sugar is already refined. Only evaporated cane juice is truly “raw” sugar (of the cane variety – sugars can come from other sources as well, such as beets and fruit). Once the cane juice crystals are harvested, they are washed, boiled, centrifuged, filtered, and dried. The purpose of this is to remove all of the original plant materials (stalk, fiber, etc.) to produce the pure sugar. This process removes most of the fiber and nutrients that existed in the original crystals. The sugar then becomes refined, and is now a food high in calories with little nutritional value.

Several centuries ago, refined sugars were expensive to produce, and were also taxed at a higher rate. Therefore, only the affluent could afford them. Refined goods became a symbol of status. People who had access to these foods were called “refined” people. Interestingly, this affluent sector of the population also had a disproportionate rate of disease and illness as compared to the lower classes that only had access to unrefined, natural foods. There appear to be references to the evils of sugar as early as the 1800s when rations in the military were compared to standard civilian meals and it was determined that refined foods had a potentially negative impact on health.

Sugar has received a bad reputation lately – not just refined sugars, but all sugars. Many people go out of their way to avoid sugar in the diet, without understanding how sugar affects health. Artificial sweeteners are a common substitute for sugars, but are these synthetic chemicals truly safe? For many people, sugar-free and fat-free food is an artificial “crutch” – comforted in the knowledge that their food contains no sugar or fat, they over consume this “safe” food. In the end, sugar may not turn out to be the enemy that many people claim it is.

There are a few reasons why sugar has a bad reputation. For one, refined sugars provide easy food for oral bacteria, and can promote cavities and the accumulation of plaque. There is also a prevalent belief that all simple carbohydrates are bad. In reality, the digestive system is very complex and there is more to consider than just the number of molecules chained together in a food – one must consider enzymes, where the food is processed in the body, and what changes take place to the food before the body utilizes it.

All carbohydrates are technically sugar. Before your body will use the carbohydrate in table sugar, a baked potato, or a green bean, it must break this carbohydrate down to glucose, the form of sugar that your body can “burn” for energy. Glucose is also stored as glycogen in the muscle cells. So, since all carbohydrates eventually end up as a sugar, the mere fact that they begin as sugars is irrelevant. So what is relevant? The rate at which the sugar enters the bloodstream, which is exactly what the glycemic index measures.

Another concern some people express is the “ease” at which sugars are converted to fat. I read one “system” for getting into shape that did not offer scientific evidence, but claimed that in working with extremely lean body builders, the author figured out that sugars cause fat to be stored quickly and easily. Other books simply state that sugar is quickly and easily converted to fat. Again, we have to understand our biological systems to analyze those statements. How does a sugar get stored as a fat? The liver processes the glucose molecule and turns it into a triglyceride, or fat molecule. This, again, complicates matters: whether or not you eat table sugar or a green bean, guess what? By the time your liver “sees” it, it has been broken down to a glucose molecule. There is no practical way that your liver somehow “knows” that the glucose molecule came from a green bean instead of a grain of table sugar, except that your entire body benefits from additional nutrients when you consume the green bean.

The only real way the sugar may be more readily stored as fat is if it impacts blood sugar or creates some environment that would promote the conversion of glucose to triglycerides. Theoretically, a huge surge in blood sugar due to a rapidly ingested carbohydrate would cause the liver to convert most of that sugar to fat, regardless of whether or not you required it for energy.

The glycemic index demonstrates that refined sugars are indeed dangerous – they have some of the highest indexes on the list. Many manufacturers use a “complex carbohydrate” called maltodextrin to sweeten shakes. They can state “no sugar” or “low sugar” on the nutrition label because maltodextrin is a complex carbohydrate, but it will impact blood sugar more than table sugar (table sugar is sucrose, which, by the way, is not a simple sugar – it is two molecules, glucose and fructose, bonded together). How do natural sugars fare? Fructose, the type of sugar commonly found in fruit; lactose, the sugar found in milk; and honey, the sugar produced from nectar by bees, all fare very well. In fact, if you are simply concerned about blood sugar, these three sugars will affect it less than brown rice, whole wheat bread, and baked potatoes!

We’ve determined that simply avoiding a sugar because it is a sugar has no real scientific foundation. One problem with sugars, however, is that many products add an extremely high amount of sugar to sweetener the products. This, in turn, causes the product to be higher in calories. Because consuming more calories means you must expend more calories to reduce or manage your weight, this can be of concern. The alternative to using a natural or refined sugar is to use a reduced calorie sweetener. There are five major reduced calorie sweeteners on the market today. These are Acesulfame Potassium (Acesulfame-K), Aspartame, Saccharin, Stevia, and Sucralose. Are these products the answer to your woes?

Acesulfame-K was introduced in 1967. It is 200 times sweeter than table sugar (sucrose). According to studies, this sweetener is not absorbed in the body but passes through unchanged. How many studies? Around 90 studies have been conducted on this sweetener, with no documented health risks. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), however, reports that the product can break down to acetoacetamide. This chemical has been shown to affect the thyroid in rats, rabbits, and dogs. Administration of 1% and 5% acetoacetamide in the diet for three months caused benign thyroid tumors in rats.

Aspartame was introduced in 1965. It is a low-calorie sweetener that is also 200 times sweeter than sucrose. Aspartame is made from two amino acids (the building blocks of protein): L-phenylalanine and L-aspartic acid. More than 200 studies have been performed and the only documented health risks are to people who suffer from phenylketonuria (PKU), who cannot metabolize the L-phenylalanine. This is why there is a PKU warning on any product that contains aspartame. While there are no conclusive, formal, documented cases of adverse health affects, many people report headaches after consuming products that contain aspartame. Other adverse affects that consumers have reported (but have not been independently verified) include seizures, dizziness, tremors, migraines, memory loss, slurring of speech, confusion, fatigue, depression, nausea, and worse. Because children lack a “barrier” of protection that prevents the wrong nutrients from entering the brain (which adults have), some doctors have recently suggested that aspartame should not be given to children.

Saccharin was discovered 100 years ago. It is a low calorie sweetener. It is one of the most studied ingredients in the food supply. More than 30 human studies have been conducted with saccharin, and no adverse health effects have been reported. In 1997, a study using rodents reported a rise in bladder tumors, although this may be related to an increase in sodium and other products that were contained in the experimental diet. The CSPI reports several studies that may indicate a rise in tumor activity that correlates to saccharin intake.

Stevia is a plant that originated in the rainforests of Paraguay. It is up to 300 times sweeter than sugar, does not impact blood sugar and has zero calories. The leaves have been used for over 1,500 years by the Guarini Indians of Paraguay. It was discovered and introducd to Europe by M. S. Bertoni in 1899. While Stevia has since become a very popular sweetener because it is “natural,” the FDA has yet to approve it as a food source – it remains classified as a dietary supplement.

Sucralose is a non-caloric sweetener made from sugar. It was discovered in 1976. A sugar molecule is modified to replace a hydroxyl (water) group with a chloride (chlorine) group. This creates a product on average 600 times sweeter than table sugar, which theoretically will pass through the body without being metabolized. Over 100 studies have been conducted using sucralose in order to approve it as a food additive.

Are these sweeteners really worth it? While there are many anecdotal reports of negative side effects, none of these have been confirmed through scientific investigation. In contrast, there is no anecdotal evidence whatsoever linking consumption of natural sugars such as fructose, honey, lactose, etc. with cancers, tumors, headaches, or other problems other than diabetes. Many diabetics use the glycemic index to control their food intake, and virtually many natural (unrefined) sugars fall within acceptable ranges for consumption based on those guidelines.

Do sugar free foods really help to control calories? I know many people who will avoid sugar like the plague, then purchase a box of sugar-free brownies and eat the entire box. What are they trying to achieve? Sugar-free may imply “reduced calorie” but when you over consume reduced calorie foods, you still create a problem! Do sugar-free brownies fit into a lifestyle, or are these a quick fix?

Adding one teaspoon of natural sugar to a bowl of oatmeal will add four grams of sugar or 16 calories and barely impact the rate at which that food is digested and released to the bloodstream (remember, your liver won’t know if the glucose molecule it is processing came from the oatmeal or the teaspoon of sugar). Remember the glycemic load? This would have a low load! Adding one teaspoon of an artificial sweetener won’t add any calories – but will introduce a new realm of possible side effects. On the other hand, if you avoid healthy food choices such as fruit due to the sugar content, you also miss out on thousands of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals that don’t exist in any tablet or pill on the market – and have documented health benefits rather than risks! Oranges can reduce the risk of stroke. Bananas promote heart health by providing a tremendous amount of natural potassium. The list goes on and on.

What sugars are considered natural? A few natural sweeteners include: stevia (a herbal extract that is naturally sweet with no calories), barley malt, evaporated cane juice before it is refined (refined sugar is derived from cane juice, but is extremely processed with many of the natural enzymes, vitamins, minerals, and fiber removed), fruit juice (fructose), rice syrup, honey, and sugar alcohols. All-natural maple syrup is not only flavorful, but rich with iron and other micronutrients. Sugar alcohols have a “sweet” taste but are processed by the body as alcohol. This means that they are typically burned for energy and have a minimal impact on insulin and blood sugar, according to the latest studies. They are not known to be toxic like non-sugar alcohols.

I also recommend a product called Sucanat® that contains sugar cane molasses.

There is some confusion about what high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) actually is. You will find that the majority of processed foods contain this as a main ingredient. It is difficult to find bread in the supermarket that isn’t made with HFCS, and most sodas, treats, and non-natural juices contain this as well. HFCS is much sweeter than table sugar, which is one reason for its popularity in the food industry. HFCS can be misleading to consumers who are aware of natural sugars and the glycemic index. Knowing that fructose is a natural fruit sugar and low on the glycemic index, they may assume the HFCS falls under the same category. HFCS is actually hydrolyzed cornstarch, which means that cornstarch is mixed with enzymes and broken down. A chemical in the cornstarch converts some of the sugar in glucose form to fructose. The end result only contains 14% fructose – the rest is dextrose and other sugars and carbohydrates (so it is hardly “high” fructose, it is only “higher” in fructose than other corn products). HFCS has a glycemic index of 89, which is only slightly less than that of table sugar (92). In contrast, milk sugar (lactose) is 65 and natural fructose is 32, or almost 1/3 that of HFCS.

Sugar is certainly not your enemy. Refined and processed sugars are! Consume a protein and a whole, unprocessed carbohydrate with every meal, and add healthy fats to your diet. If these meals happen to contain some natural honey or cane juice, don’t sweat it! Eat 4 – 5 servings of fruit and or vegetables each day – there are far too many healthy compounds in these foods to pass them up out of fear of the natural sugar contained within. Make your own choice about artificial sweeteners, but keep in mind that you can easily control your portion sizes and use natural sweeteners instead. Are the potential risks worth the small benefit you may or may not be receiving from artificial sweeteners? Learn to let sugar work with you, not against you!
EzineArticles Expert Author Jeremy Likness

Jeremy Likness is an International Health Coach and motivational speaker. After losing 65 pounds of fat, he discovered his true vision to coach thousands around the world to better health. A Certified Fitness Trainer and Specialist in Performance Nutrition, Jeremy is the author of the internationally-selling e-Book, Lose Fat, Not Faith and the companion 5-CD set. Jeremy has been published in major online publications including Tom Venuto’s Fitness Renaissance and Jeremy’s approach is unique because he focuses on fitness from the inside out. Visit Jeremy online at Natural Physiques.


Waiting your life away… for Doctors

October 24, 2008

Waiting for the doctor… and waiting and waiting

By Elizabeth Cohen
CNN Medical Correspondent
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

To kill time in the obstetrician’s waiting room, Lora Jacobsen and her husband, Dustin, discuss names for their future child. Then they read old parenting magazines left in the waiting room. As the minutes tick by — 30 then 45 then more than 60 — they play games and check e-mail on their cell phones.
Dustin and Lora Jacobsen (with Maya) endured long waits at their OB’s office but chose to stay with the practice.

Dustin and Lora Jacobsen (with Maya) endured long waits at their OB’s office but chose to stay with the practice.

“One day I got so bored I took a video of myself circling around in the chair,” says Dustin, who posted the video and blogged about his wait.

“Really, what else are you going to do?”

His daughter Maya recently celebrated her first birthday, but Jacobsen, who lives in Leawood, Kansas, can still recall in vivid detail how maddening it was to spend so much time, month after month, waiting to see the doctor — and he isn’t the only one seething at the doctor’s office. Others have posted videos of their long waits, like one woman who documents her three-hour wait in an exam room, and this man who declares, “This sucks. I hate doctors’ offices.”

Long waits are also a common complaint on our weekly Empowered Patient “sound-offs.”

“Why has it become routine to make patients wait two to three hours to be seen?” asked one Empowered Patient reader.

“First, you wait in the main waiting area, then the nurse takes you into a small room, takes your vitals, and you are left in a holding pattern for another hour. You are treated rudely if you even dare to utter a complaint.”

“Am I seriously supposed to believe that every single one of my doctors have so many ’emergencies’ during the day that they are forced to be late seeing me?” asked another Empowered Patient reader. “Get real. It’s called over-booking.”
Don’t Miss

* Empowered Patient archive

One patient got so mad he even sued his doctor for being late — and won $250 in small claims court. By being four hours late, Aristotelis Belavilas says, his physician was giving the message that “I’m God and you’re not and I do whatever I want.”

It’s probably fair to say none of us ever wants to sit so long in a doctor’s waiting room that we resort to filing a lawsuit or videotaping ourselves. But there are strategies you can use to try and prevent frustrating waits. Video Learn how to avoid long waits at the doctor’s office »

1. Stage a revolt

“I ended up waiting two hours to see my gynecologist once, and I just went nuts,” says Joanna Lipari, who lives in Santa Monica, California. “I’m a New York Italian, and we don’t go well for this kind of stuff. I was so irritated that I gathered together the other eight ladies in the room and joked, ‘Let’s stage a revolt.’ ”

The other women took her seriously, and wrote letters to the doctor. “I told her she’s a wonderful doctor, but this really wasn’t cool. I told her it was inconvenient, uncomfortable and spoke badly for an otherwise exceptional medical practice,” says Lipari. “I was trying to change her behavior, and it worked. They changed the way they scheduled appointments.”

Lipari, a psychologist who herself works in a large medical practice, says sometimes doctors don’t even realize how long their patients have been waiting. She adds that her gynecologist still is late sometimes (after all, she does deliver babies), but when she is, the office calls Lipari ahead of time to alert her.

A letter from you might be the wake-up call your doctor needs, Dr. L. Gordon Moore, a family practice doctor in Seattle, Washington. “We’ve seen hundreds of practices turn things around,” says Moore, who’s on the faculty of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, which has some of these “improvement stories” listed on their Web site.

2. Ditch your doctor

Ditch your doctor and try one on this map from the Ideal Medical Practices Project. Moore is the director and says the physicians on this map are working towards being on time for their patients.

Unfortunately, there’s a limited number of doctors on this site, but you can always ask your friends if they have a doctor who doesn’t make them wait.

3. Don’t wait more than 15 minutes

When you’re in the waiting room, speak up sooner rather than later. “After 15 minutes, max, ask the receptionist what’s happening and if you’ve been forgotten,” Moore says.

4. Be a smart scheduler

Sean Kelley has diabetes and spends more than his fair share of time in doctors’ waiting rooms. In a recent blog for Health magazine, he offered these scheduling tips:

• Book the first appointment in the morning, or the first appointment after lunch

• Ask the scheduler to book you on the lightest day of the week (Kelley says for some reason his doctor’s office is nearly empty on Wednesdays).

• Avoid school holidays if your doctor or dentist sees kids.

For some more scheduling strategies from Lipari, read her blog.
Health Library

* Health library

Kelley’s pet peeve: Drug reps who waltz into the doctor’s office when he’s been waiting for two hours. “They just wave at the receptionist and walk right in. And you can always spot a drug rep because they’re dragging luggage behind them and they’re always cute,” Kelley says. “They can see the doctor whenever they want. How’d they get the keys to the kingdom?”

5. Shut up and wait

This was the Jacobsens’ decision. They liked their obstetrician and didn’t want to switch in the middle of her pregnancy.

During my third pregnancy, I made the same decision. I had several ridiculously long waits for my obstetrician, and learned to bring a good book and my laptop computer.

To their credit, during one three-hour-long wait, a nurse came out and apologized, explaining the doctor had run to the hospital to deliver a baby. Not wanting to incur the wrath of a roomful of hungry pregnant women, she brought us granola bars and bottles of water. I forgave them instantly, and went to him again for baby number four.

Hidden dangers in your food

October 23, 2008

Hidden Dangers in Food – Buyer Beware
Linda Hegstrand, MD, PhD

The evidence is compelling and conclusive that at least two specific food additives are poisons. Russell Blaylock, MD, a neurosurgeon, has dedicated his life to educating the public on the dangers of food additives. His book Excitotoxins The Taste that Kills is electrifying and well-researched – a must read to understand fully the impact of poisonous food additives on ourselves and our children. The two food additives I am speaking about are monosodium glutamate (MSG) and Aspartame – NutraSweet/Equal. Glutamate and aspartate are naturally occurring amino acids used in building proteins and also function as excitatory neurotransmitters. When they are present in excessive amounts, they stimulate neurons until they die which is why they are called excitotoxins.

MSG is a flavor enhancer causing cravings that contribute directly to obesity and diabetes. Worse yet it can damage your child¹s brain by effecting the development of the nervous system so that years later they may have learning and emotional difficulties (ADD/ADHD/Autism), and/or hormonal problems.

Aspartame is an artificial sweetener that may cause brain tumors and causes sugar cravings. It breaks down to form aspartate, an excitotoxin that can cause the same brain damage as MSG.

Furthermore excitotoxins can aggravate and possibly precipitate many neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer¹s, Parkinson¹s, ALS, and Huntington¹s. These excitotoxins are a risk if you have ever had a stroke, brain injury, brain tumor, seizure, or have suffered from hypertension, diabetes, meningitis, or viral encephalitis.

What can we do to protect ourselves and our children? There are Natural Solutions:
1. Read food labels. MSG is often present in foods that are not labeled as containing MSG, but do. Examples are hydrolyzed protein, gelatin (yes, commonly served in hospitals as a healthy dessert), yeast extract, textured protein, and more. For more information, go to If a food is labeled low fat, it almost certainly contains MSG in some form for flavor. Low carbohydrate processed foods most likely contain Aspartame.
2. Minimize consumption of processed foods – canned, boxed, bagged, and frozen.
3. Minimize restaurant foods, not just Chinese. They often contain MSG even though the waiter/waitress is not aware of it because MSG is often present in items listed that do not appear to contain MSG. When eating out tips: choose broiled, grilled, or steamed foods with butter, herbs, lemon, etc; oil and vinegar or lemon juice for salad dressing; and fresh fruits or sorbets for dessert.
4. Use stevia as a natural low calorie sweetener rather than Aspartame. Stevia can be purchased at health food stores as liquid or powder.
5. Increase your body¹s defense against excitotoxins.

Ways to defend against excitotoxins include:
1. Increasing cellular energy, ATP, improves the ability of specialized cells to take up excess glutamate and aspartate preventing these excitatory neurotransmitters from causing nerve cell death. ATP production is facilitated by supplementing with both carnitine and acetyl-l-carnitine.

2. Vitamin B6 lowers brain and blood glutamate. Glutamate receptors are blocked by Vitamin B12, pyruvate, and malate. The latter two also increase cellular energy.
3. Essential omega 3 fatty acids improve the health of mitochondria, the energy producing subcellular organelle, and cell membranes.
4. Antioxidants fight against this increase in free radicals formed by excess excitotoxins. There are three classes of antioxidants that form a network, all of which are essential in defending against free radicals: 1.) The Vitamin, Mineral, Flavonoid Network which includes Carotenoids; Vitamins C, D, E, and K; manganese, magnesium, selenium, zinc, and plant flavonoids. 2.) The Enzyme Network which includes superoxide dismutase, glutathione reductase, glutathione peroxidase, and catalase. 3.) The Thiol (sulfur containing) Antioxidants which include albumin, alpha-lipoic-acid, and glutathione.
5. As Linus Pauling said: ³You can trace every illness, every disease, and every ailment to a mineral deficiency.² Having an appropriate blend of absorbable minerals including essential trace minerals is protective.
6. The ill effects of MSG and aspartate can be blocked by specific energetic frequencies.

Chronic conditions or symptoms may be MSG and/or Aspartame related. If the above suggestions do not improve your health, a visit to your natural health care provider is apt to help you optimize your health.

Continuing to allow MSG and Aspartame to be added to our foods with all the research that documents their ill effects is disturbing. It is clear that we must be conscientious in our food choices for ourselves and for our families.

From: Complete Wellness Center

Health, How to Naturally Boost Energy Levels

October 22, 2008

Health, How to Naturally Boost Energy Levels
October 22nd, 2008 by admin

Eat Across the Color Scheme of Fruits and Vegetables – The beneficial color pigments in fruits and vegetables protect these living foods from oxidative stress. When we consume these fruits and vegetables, these same pigments protect our bodies form oxidative stress and provide a natural energy boost. Become aware of the color schemes you are eating in fruits and vegetables and eat as many different colors as you can every day. Some of the most powerful colors are your reds [organic apples, red peppers, berries], greens [broccoli, spinach, green vegetables], purples [blueberries and other purple-toned berries], and oranges [oranges, peppers]. There is also now just starting to be scientific evidence that shows organically grown fruits and vegetables contain higher amounts of these powerful color pigments. This makes sense if you think about it. Organically grown fruits and vegetables encounter greater oxidative stresses, particularly in the form of insects (no herbicides and pesticides used). To combat these environmental stresses they have developed higher levels of these defensive compounds, which ultimately benefit us when we eat organic fruits and vegetables. Eat Organic – An excerpt from Kevin Trudeau’s book The Weight Loss Cure says it best, “If food is not 100% organic, the food is loaded with herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, antibiotics, and over 15,000 man-made chemicals. This is unique to America. American produced food absolutely, positively, 100% will make you fat” and adversely affect your health. Many experts believe all of the artificial additives, hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides we put in our food are responsible for everything from cancer, depression, obesity, and a multitude of other degenerative diseases. So how do you protect yourself from these dangerous poisons? It’s not as difficult as you might have thought. Change where you shop and know what you’re putting into your body. Consider shopping at grocery stores like Whole Foods, Wild Oats, and Trader Joe’s. These grocers have made a name for themselves by carrying exclusively all natural and organic products. 12 Short Food Rules from Michael Pollan – 1. Don’t eat anything your grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. 2. Avoid foods containing ingredients you can’t pronounce. 3. Don’t eat anything that wouldn’t eventually rot. 4. Avoid food products that carry health claims. 5. Shop the peripheries of the supermarket; stay out of the middle. 6. Better yet, buy food somewhere else: the farmer’s market or CSA (Community Supported Agriculture). 7. Pay more, eat less. 8. Eat a wide diversity of species. 9. Eat food from animals that eat grass. 10. Cook and, if you can, grow some of your own food. 11. Eat meals and eat them only at tables. 12. Eat deliberately, with other people whenever possible, and always with pleasure. Anthony DiClementi is an internationally recognized health and fitness expert and the co-creator of SociaTropin – The Social Wellness Nutritional Supplement. For more articles from Anthony DiClementi including the most current information on natural energy boosters and herbal supplements for stress relief visit

From Health Or Disease

Taipei Times: Are health officials fumbling again?

October 21, 2008

EDITORIAL: Are health officials fumbling again?

Monday, Oct 20, 2008, Page 8
News that the toxic chemical melamine was discovered in yet another food product imported from China, although shocking, should come as no surprise to consumers, given that country’s track record on food safety.

In light of this latest scare, in which imports of ammonium bicarbonate — a leavening agent used in cookies and pastries — were found to contain worryingly high levels of the industrial chemical, health authorities should take quick and effective action.

Instead of asking which other products may be contaminated, health authorities should be asking which products aren’t affected and how many other dangerous industrial chemicals in foodstuffs imported across the Taiwan Strait are being unwittingly consumed by shoppers.

A chemical industry report by Dutch company DSM states that China is one of the world’s largest producers and the world’s biggest exporter of melamine. There is a serious surplus of the chemical in China, the report notes, so it should come as no surprise that unscrupulous food manufacturers — of which there are obviously many — are coming up with innovative ways to use it.

The Chinese government clearly has little or no control over domestic food safety standards and cannot guarantee the safety of products its manufacturers export overseas.

It is therefore up to the Department of Health to guarantee the safety of imported foods from Chinese manufacturers. If it cannot do so, then all such imports from China should be banned regardless of the cost to local companies. Public health must be the first priority.

The government’s reaction to the tainted-milk scandal was woefully inadequate, but this was partly dictated by its new, low-key approach to the cross-strait relationship.

Hamstrung by its desire to curry favor with Beijing and its policy of denying Taiwanese statehood, it has been afraid to criticize China outright. Instead it has resorted to shady company-to–company dealings at the behest of Beijing, while holding meaningless international conferences to set non-binding and effectively useless “action levels” on safe quantities of melamine in food.

Speaking on the melamine scandal, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) recently said “it is absolutely impermissible to sacrifice people’s lives and health in exchange for temporary economic development.”

It comes to something when it is the Chinese premier, rather than the Taiwanese president, who says what people here have been waiting to hear: that companies should not put profits before people. But then five months in, this is what people have come to expect from our increasingly fumbling and unpopular administration.

Baking industry sources have said that health authorities knew about this latest scandal for several days before releasing the information. If this is true, this means the new administration has already lowered itself to the level of the Chinese communists, notorious for holding back news of health scandals.

The government has been in the news recently over its apparent attempts to limit the Central News Agency’s negative reports about China.

Any process that involves a democratically elected government holding back crucial information at the expense of its own people is a sign that the authorities are in dire trouble and need to rethink their priorities.

Summary of American Legal Actions Regarding Mobile Phones and Health Effects

October 20, 2008

Summary of American Legal Actions Regarding Mobile Phones and Health Effects– quite an interesting video to watch here. Very insightful that’s for sure.

Study: Google does a brain good

October 19, 2008

I thought this article was pretty interesting…

Study: Google does a brain good
(CNN) — Can Google make you smarter? Is the more you Yahoo, the better? A new study suggests that searching online could be beneficial for the brain.
Searching online triggers areas of the brain that control decision-making and complex reasoning.

Searching online triggers areas of the brain that control decision-making and complex reasoning.

A study at the University of California, Los Angeles, measured brain activity of older adults as they searched the Web.

“There’s so much interest in exercising our minds as we age,” said the researcher, Dr. Gary Small, a professor at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA. “One result of this study is that these technologies are not all bad. They may be good in keeping our brains active.”

To study what brains look like when people are searching the Internet, Small recruited two groups of people: one that had minimal computer experience and another that was Web savvy.

Members of the technologically advanced group had more than twice the neural activation than their less experienced counterparts while searching online. Activity occurred in the region of the brain that controls decision-making and complex reasoning, according to Small’s study, which appears in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

Small said he can’t pinpoint why there was more brain activity in the experienced users.

“The way I theorized is that when we are confronted with new mental challenges, we don’t know how to deal with it,” he said. “We don’t engage neural circuits. Once we figure out a strategy, we engage those circuits. ”

In the study, 24 people were divided into the two groups, who were similar in age ranging from 55 to 78 years old, sex and educational achievement. Their only difference was their technological experience.

The number of people in the study was small, “but adequate to see a difference between the groups. It was so significantly different,” Small said.

The subjects went into the magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scanner, which is like a large tunnel. The MRI monitored their brain activity while the subjects strapped on goggles, through which they saw a book page or an Internet search page.

They were given search tasks such as finding out how to choose a car or looking up the benefits of eating chocolate or drinking coffee. They had buttons and keyboards to conduct a simulated online search.

Their other task was to read pages laid out like a book.

“The bottom line is, when older people read a simulated book page, we see areas of the brain activated that you’d expect, the visual cortex, and areas that control language and reading,” he said. “When they search on the Internet, they use the same areas, but there was much greater activation particularly in the front part, which controls decision-making and complex reasoning. But it was only for the people who had previous experience with the Internet.” Interactive: See MRIs of study participants’ brain activity »

Liz Zelinski, a professor of gerontology and psychology at the University of Southern California, said the findings about the brain activity differences aren’t surprising and offered this analogy: “If you wanted to study how hard people can exercise, and you take people that already exercise and people that don’t exercise, aren’t they going to be different to start out?”

Research has shown that as the brain ages, its structure and function also changes. Such changes have been linked to declines in brain speed, control and working memory and other cognitive abilities.

Taking on mentally challenging tasks could improve brain health, according to recent studies. Brain teasers, such such as Nintendo’s Brain Age game and computer programs are geared towards boomers and aging adults. And everyone has different recommendations from crossword puzzles to Sodoku to video games as ways to keep the brain sharp, Zelinski said.

Her recommendation: “Do something hard and challenging that’s fairly unusual for them to do, something they haven’t done before. The idea is it should be difficult. If you do a crossword puzzle all your life, it’s not going to be challenging for you.”

For many aging Americans, learning how to use a computer is a challenge.
Health Library

* Brain and Nervous System
* Senior’s Health

The barrier for most seniors is the disinterest and intimidation, said Tobey Gordon Dichter, the founder of a nonprofit group, Generations on Line, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based organization that provides instructions and encourages seniors to get on the Web.

“It does so much for the mind,” Dichter said about searching online. “It allows for the mind to take where you where you want to go. It’s on-demand information.”

But it’s difficult at first, she added. “When you’re undertaking new frustrating tasks, like learning a language or how to use a computer, you’re pushing those neurons.”

The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported in a 2006 sample survey that about 32 percent of people who are 65 and older used the Internet.

Jewel Hall, 71, surfs the net on her laptop every other day. The Maryland resident said searching online forces her to think.

“It’ll make you think, ‘Do I have the right thing in there?’ ” Hall said. “Should I try to put something else in there? It makes you think, “What can I put in there to make the right things come up?’ You do use your brain a lot.”

Small has written a book, “iBrain,” which examines the impact of technology on the human brain and said he wants to conduct further studies on the effects of technology on the organ.

Small encourages older adults to learn how to use search engines and said, “This could be exercising their brain and their neural circuitry in a way that’s helpful.”


More on Radiation dangers

October 18, 2008

Cell Tower Protection
Cell Phone Ebook Cell Phone Ebook
I have been an active researcher on biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) for over twenty five years at Columbia University. I was also one of the organizers of the 2007 online Bioinitiative Report on the subject. Because of this background, I have been asked to provide background information regarding current discussions about the proposed cell tower.

There is now sufficient scientific data about the biological effects of EMF, and in particular about radiofrequency (RF) radiation, to argue for adoption of precautionary measures. We can state unequivocally that EMF can cause single and double strand DNA breakage at exposure levels that are considered safe under the FCC guidelines in the USA. As I shall illustrate below, there are also epidemiology studies that show an increased risk of cancers associated with exposure to RF. Since we know that an accumulation of changes or mutations in DNA is associated with cancer, there is good reason to believe that the elevated rates of cancers among persons living near radio towers are probably linked to DNA damage caused by EMF. Because of the nature of EMF exposure and the length of time it takes for most cancers to develop, one cannot expect ‘conclusive proof’ such as the link between helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcer. (That link was recently demonstrated by the Australian doctor who proved a link conclusively by swallowing the bacteria and getting the disease.) However, there is enough evidence of a plausible mechanism to link EMF exposure to increased risk of cancer, and therefore of a need to limit exposure, especially of children.
EMF Protection Products
Airtube Headsets


There’s a video to watch on the site too..

Mobile Phone Use Causes Skin Problems

October 17, 2008

Mobile phone use causes skin problems
Press Trust of India
Friday, October 17, 2008, (New Delhi)
AdsSpy: 29 sites by this AdSense ID

Mobiles have become the ultimate necessity in our lives today. But researchers have warned that cell phone users are at risk of getting an itchy skin problem.

A team from the British Association of Dermatologists has found that mobile users are increasingly developing rashes on their faces and ears caused by an allergic reaction to the nickel on handsets.

And, according to the researchers, the phenomenon is being seen in people who do spend long periods of time on the phone, the British media reported.

As a large number of people are sensitive to nickel, which is used extensively in cell phone handsets, including buttons and surround of the screen, the team has dubbed the phenomenon “mobile phone dermatitis” where the skin becomes red, inflammed, blistered, dry and cracked.

Moreover, according to the researchers, women have a higher risk of developing mobile phone dermatitis, as they are more likely to have been previously sensitised to the metal following an allergic reaction to nickel-coated jewellery.

“The allergy results from frequent skin contact with nickel-containing objects. Prolonged or repetitive contact with a nickel-containing phone is more likely to cause a skin reaction in those who are allergic.

“If you’ve had a previous reaction to a nickel-coated

belt-buckle or jewellery, for example, you are at greater risk

of reacting to metal phones.

“In mobile phone dermatitis, the rash would typically

occur on the cheek or ear, depending on where the metal part

of the phone comes into contact with the skin. In theory, it

could even occur on fingers if you spend a lot of time texting

on metal menu buttons,” the Association’s Dr Graham Lowe was

quoted as saying. PTI MOT 

Worst Food Additives

October 16, 2008

Worst Food Additives

Wed, Oct 15, 2008


Worst Food Additives

google_ad_client = “pub-5479925413534279”;
google_alternate_color = “FFFFFF”;
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = “468x60_as”;
google_ad_type = “text”;
google_ad_channel =””;
google_color_border = “ffffff”;
google_color_link = “0066CC”;
google_color_bg = “ffffff”;
google_color_text = “000000”;
google_color_url = “000000”;
google_ui_features = “rc:6”;

Here is a list of some of the worst food additives. Check food labels to make sure that what you buy doesnot contain these ingredients.

  • Acesulfame-K – “Sunette”; may cause low blood sugar attacks; causes cancer, elevated cholesterol in lab animals.
  • Artificial colors – contribute to hyperactivity in children; may contribute to learning and visual disorders, nerve damage; may be carcinogenic
  • Artificial sweeteners – associated with health problems; see specific sweetener.
  • Aspartame – may cause brain damage in phenylketonurics; may cause central nervous system disturbances, menstrual difficulties; may affect brain development in unborn fetus.
  • BHA – can cause liver and kidney damage, behavioral problems, infertility, weakened immune system, birth defects, cancer; should be avoided by infants, young children, pregnant women and those sensitive to aspirin.
  • BHT – see BHA; banned in England.
  • Blue No. 1 – see FD&C colors.
  • Blue No. 2 – see FD&C colors.
  • Brominated vegetable oil – linked to major organ system damage, birth defects, growth problems; considered unsafe by the FDA, can still lawfully be used unless further action is taken by the FDA .
  • BVO – see brominated vegetable oil.
  • Caffeine – psychoactive, addictive drug; may cause fertility problems, birth defects, heart disease, depression, nervousness, behavioral changes, insomnia, etc.
  • Citrus Red No. 2 – see FD&C colors.
  • FD&C colors – colors considered safe by the FDA for use in food, drugs and cosmetics; most of the colors are derived from coal tar and must be certified by the FDA not to contain more than 10ppm of lead and arsenic; certification does not address any harmful effects these colors may have on the body; most coal tar colors are potential carcinogens, may contain carcinogenic contaminants, and cause allergic reactions.
  • Free glutamates – may cause brain damage, especially in children; always found in autolyzed yeast, calcium caseinate, enzymes, flavors & flavorings, gelatin, glutamate, glutamic acid, hydrolyzed protein, hydrolyzed soy protein, plant protein extract, protease, protease enzymes, sodium caseinate, textured protein, yeast extract, yeast food and yeast nutrient; may be in barley malt, boullion, broth, carrageenan, malt extract, malt flavoring, maltodextrin, natural flavors, natural chicken flavoring, natural beef flavoring, natural pork flavoring, pectin, seasonings, soy protein, soy protein concentrate, soy protein isolate, soy sauce, soy sauce extract, stock, whey protein, whey protein concentrate, whey protein isolate, anything that is enzyme modified, fermented, protein fortified or ultrapasteurized and foods that advertise NO MSG; see MSG.
  • Green No. 3 – see FD&C colors.
  • Hydrogenated vegetable oils – associated with heart disease, breast and colon cancer, atherosclerosis, elevated cholesterol.
  • MSG – may cause headaches, itching, nausea, brain, nervous system, reproductive disorders, high blood pressure; pregnant, lactating mothers, infants, small children should avoid; allergic reactions common; may be hidden in infant formula, low fat milk, candy, chewing gum, drinks, over-the-counter medications, especially children’s, binders and fillers for nutritional supplements, prescriptiona nd non-prescription drugs, IV fluids given in hospitals, chicken pox vaccine; it is being sprayed on growing fruits and vegetables as a growth enhancer; it is proposed for use on organic crops.
  • Neotame – similar to aspartame, but potentially more toxic; awaiting approval.
  • Nitrates – form powerful cancer-causing agents in stomach; can cause death; considered dangerous by FDA but not banned because they prevent botulism.
  • Nitrites – may cause headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness; see nitrates.
  • Nutrasweet – see aspartame.
  • Olean – see olestra.
  • Olestra – causes gastrointestinal irritation, reduces carotenoids and fat soluble vitamins in the body.
  • Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils – see hydrogenated vegetable oil.
  • Potassium bromate – can cause nervous system, kidney disorders, gastrointestinal upset; may be carcinogenic.
  • Red No. 3 – see FD&C colors.
  • Saccharin – delisted as a carcinogen in 1997, however, studies still show that saccharin causes cancer.
  • Sulfites – destroys vitamin B1; small amounts may cause asthma, anaphylactic shock; dangerous for asthma, allergy sufferers; has caused deaths; banned on fresh fruits and vegetables, except potatoes.
  • Sweet ‘N Low – contains saccharin.
  • Yellow No. 6 – see FD&C colors.

The list can go on but for now these are the ones which I have summarised…..

Taken From: Nutrihealth


October 14, 2008

Upgrading the Stress Levels

Mark Lennihan/Associated Press

Security checks, delayed flights and a souring economic climate contribute to heightened stress for frequent fliers.

function getSharePasskey() { return ‘ex=1381723200&en=a2b3dc8e38dc5802&ei=5124’;}
function getShareURL() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘;);
function getShareHeadline() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘Upgrading the Stress Levels’);
function getShareDescription() {

return encodeURIComponent(‘Economic chaos is adding to stress for frequent fliers, who are more in need than ever of relaxation techniques.’);
function getShareKeywords() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘Stress (Human),Business Travel’);
function getShareSection() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘business’);
function getShareSectionDisplay() {

return encodeURIComponent(‘Itineraries’);
function getShareSubSection() {
return encodeURIComponent(”);
function getShareByline() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘By PAUL BURNHAM FINNEY’);
function getSharePubdate() {
return encodeURIComponent(‘October 14, 2008’);

function submitCCCForm(){
PopUp =”, ‘_Icon’,’location=no,toolbar=no,status=no,width=650,height=550,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes’);
// –>

Published: October 13, 2008

As if the shoes-off routine, charges for checked bags and missed flight connections were not enough, business travelers now have to cope with a global financial crisis that is diverting their attention as well as rattling their contacts here and abroad.

It all adds up to a spike in the unusual stresses that plague business travel, from unfamiliar hotels to sudden switches in travel plans. Experts at the Mayo Clinic and Harvard Medical School along with independent psychologists agree that road life now is more stressful than in the past.

“Back in the 1980s, you could drive to the airport and walk to the gate without thinking of terrorist threats or banks collapsing,” said Rex P. Gatto, a business psychologist based in Pittsburgh. “Now there’s only anxiety.”

In its latest annual “Stress in America” survey, based on 2,507 online interviews in September, the American Psychological Association found that the crisis on Wall Street was the No. 1 cause of anxiety. And participants in the survey said the places where they felt most vulnerable to stress were in the office and on a business trip.

Researchers have uncovered links between the stress experienced by frequent business travelers and dozens of physical ailments, including some cancers and heart disease. A landmark study of some 10,800 employees at the World Bank in 1997 found that those who traveled accounted for 80 percent more medical claims than nontravelers.

In the current economic turmoil, Nancy Molitor, a psychologist in Wilmette, Ill., an affluent Chicago suburb, said that many more of her clients had problems related to stress. “In my 20 years of practice I’ve never seen such anxiety among my banking and business patients,” she said.

The globalization of business had already added to the stresses of business travel.

“When you travel in another country with another culture and try to get multitask projects done to meet deadlines, you can feel overwhelmed,” said Dr. Abinash Virk, director of the Mayo Clinic’s travel program.

Several of the experts said technological advances might be adding to the troubles. “Technology is not the best friend of business travelers,” Mr. Gatto said. “Getting e-mails all day. Doing a deal on your cellphone while trying to beat the long lines at an airport. Frequent fliers just take on too much.”

Dr. Mary FitzPatrick, associate professor at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, said she believed “the Internet keeps people in touch more than they should,” adding: “And there’s the CNN phenomenon — a constant, 24-hour barrage of disturbing news.”

Of course, stress is not all bad. It can make workers more productive and resourceful. The physiologist Hans Selye, called the father of stress research, identified “good” stress — the adrenaline rush that helps people overcome obstacles — and “chronic” stress, which may easily turn into distress.

Some travelers are better able to deal with the travails of business trips than others. Take a flight delay of several hours, for example.

“When the word comes over the loudspeaker, some passengers take it in stride — watching TV, browsing the shops — while others can’t stop running up to the counter for the latest update,” said Howard Glazer, associate attending psychologist at New York Presbyterian Hospital. “There you have it — two personality types dealing with the same event. One takes it as a small bump in the road while the other considers it exasperating.”

Stress, he added, “clearly is in the eye of the beholder.”

Backstopped by many medical studies, cognitive behavior therapists are generally confident that there are effective ways for business travelers to handle stress.

One of the most popular treatments is the stress management system developed in the 1970s by Dr. Herbert Benson, director emeritus of the Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine in Boston. His techniques for easing stress range from “meditation on the go” to deep breathing and massages, all described in the book “The Relaxation Response.”

Dr. Virk, of the Mayo Clinic, said she favored taking time out each day to relax. “Go for a walk,” she said. “Think about something unrelated to what you’re doing on your business trip. Wherever you are — here or in Cambodia — exercise.”

“There are executives who travel a lot and can sleep four hours and still be calm,” she said. “Discipline is the key to coping with stress. Veteran travelers know how to break the daily mental process and look at things with a different perspective.”

Are some business travelers getting better at handling stress?

“You have to be,” Dr. Virk replied. “The world now is not how it was. Everything happens at a faster pace.”

Taken from: New York Times

Cell Phone Risk Awareness

October 13, 2008

A Call for Public Cell Studies


TIBURON, California — It’s time to stop squabbling about the possible health risks of wireless communication and to start doing credible public research, health advocates say.”We are stuck in a rut,” said Gordon Miller, one of the speakers at a weekend forum on the effects of microwave radiation on humans. “Fifteen years ago, we were saying the research is inconclusive, we need more research…. We’re still saying that.”

Pockets of researchers worldwide have been examining the health effects of “nonionizing radiation,” the kind generated by signals from cell phones and wireless transmitters. But, so far, no publicly funded studies have produced definitive results.

“Research, and their regulation, are heavily influenced by ‘mission agencies,'” said Miller, who is chairman of the California EMF Stakeholders’ Group. “So long as that continues, people are going to doubt the research, they’re going to doubt the regulations, and this controversy will go on indefinitely.”

As the market for cell phones has grown in the United States, wireless providers have targeted schools and churches as sites for wireless antennae. Annual payments to churches — attractive for their high steeples — can reach US$100,000 per year.

Saturday’s forum was held at Westminster Presbyterian Church, where plans had been made to allow the installation of a wireless transmitter in its steeple. Church member Libby Kelley approached church leaders suggesting research to demonstrate the potential health effects. Her questions prompted the church to reverse its decision, and an activist was born.

Kelley sits on the steering committee of the California Council on Wireless Technology Impacts, which sponsored the forum. She is also trying to pressure the Federal Communications Commission into researching the public health effects of wireless phones and transmitters.

Miller said that after years of alarming findings and counterfindings by the wireless industry, it’s time for research that will enable government bodies to address wireless issues at the national level.

Publicly funded research and oversight are key, according to Miller, “so the researchers and their agencies can understand where the money is coming from.”

Last week, England’s Minister for Public Health ordered an inquiry into health effects of mobile phones. The move followed a report in Britain’s New Scientist, which detailed the wide-ranging effects that cell-phone signals have on living tissue.

At Saturday’s forum, researchers from the United States and New Zealand summarized current findings regarding the neurological effects of wireless communications, which have prompted worldwide initiatives supporting more research.

Neil Cherry, a biophysicist who is a member of New Zealand’s parliament, said studies showed that nonionizing radiation causes everything from cancer in lab rats to neurological changes in humans.

Ideally, for Cherry, telephone users would rely on land-line communications alone.

“We [humans] are very good conductors [of cellular transmissions], so most of the cell-phone signal goes through us, and very little actually goes to the cell site,” Cherry said. “That’s why we should design cell phones not to radiate into us, but to radiate toward the cell site.”

Forum moderator Linda Evans said it’s regrettable that, unlike Europe, the United States has no system for informing consumers about the risks inherent in cell-phone use.

“The European Parliament has said we need to carry a warning label [of health risks on cell phones] because it’s part of the process of informed consent,” Evans said. “If you don’t know the risks, that’s not informed consent.”

High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Diabetes: What the Experts Say

June 21, 2009

High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Diabetes: What the Experts Say

(NaturalNews) According to the Corn Refiners Association, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is no worse for you than any other dietary carbohydrate. Many health experts, however, disagree, warning consumers that HFCS is strongly correlated with diabetes and obesity.

Today, we bring you selected quotes about HFCS and obesity from noted natural health authors. Feel free to quote these in your own work provided you give proper credit to both the original author quoted here and this NaturalNews page.

Here are the quotes:

Roughly $40 billion in federal subsidies are going to pay corn growers, so that corn syrup is able to replace cane sugar. corn syrup has been singled out by many health experts as one of the chief culprits of rising obesity, because corn syrup does not turn off appetite. Since the advent of corn syrup, consumption of all sweeteners has soared, as have people’s weights. According to a 2004 study reported in the American journal of Clinical Nutrition, the rise of Type-2 diabetes since 1980 has closely paralleled the increased use of sweeteners, particularly corn syrup.
– There Is a Cure for Diabetes: The Tree of Life 21-Day+ Program by Gabriel Cousens
– Available on

Since the fructose in corn syrup does neither stimulate insulin secretion nor reduce the hunger hormone ghrelin, you will continue to feel hungry while the body converts the fructose into fat. The resulting obesity increases the risk of diabetes and other diseases. Since you obviously cannot expect to receive much help from those who only know how to treat the effects of illness and not its causes, you may need to take your health into you own hands.
– Timeless Secrets of Health & Rejuvenation: Unleash The Natural Healing Power That Lies Dormant Within You by Andreas Moritz
– Available on

More than half of the carbohydrates being consumed are in the form of sugars (sucrose, corn syrup, etc.) being added to foods as sweetening agents. High consumption of refined sugars is linked to many chronic diseases, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Generally, the term “dietary fiber” refers to the components of plant cell wall and non-nutritive residues. Originally, the definition was restricted to substances that are not digestible by the endogenous secretions of the human digestive tract.
– Textbook of Natural Medicine 2nd Edition Volume 1 by Michael T. Murray, ND

Cancer Drug Makes Fingerprints Disappear; Patient Detained At Border

May 28, 2009

Cancer Drug Makes Fingerprints Disappear; Patient Detained At Border

Imagine being treated like a suspected criminal or terrorist by immigration officials all because you have cancer and your doctor gave you a drug that causes a strange side effect — your fingerprints have disappeared into thin air. Does that sound like a novel or movie plot? Unfortunately for one 62-year-old cancer patient, and possibly others, this was anything but fiction.

In a letter just published in the cancer journal Annals of Oncology, Dr Eng-Huat Tan, a cancer specialist in the medical oncology department at the National Cancer Centre in Singapore, reported on a perplexing case of missing fingerprints due to the cancer drug capecitabine. And he has warned that other people taking the drug should start carrying a doctor’s letter with them if they want to travel to the U.S.

Here’s what happened: Dr. Tan’s 62-year-old patient (known only as Mr. S., due to privacy considerations) was suffering from metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma — a head and neck cancer that had spread. Fortunately, the malignancy had responded well to treatment and, in hopes of preventing a recurrence of the malignancy, the patient was put on capecitabine, the generic name for the drug sold in the U.S. as Xeloda. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in some people, capecitabine stops cancer cells from growing and decreases the size of tumors. But it also can produce a host of adverse side-effects including severe diarrhea, life-threatening bleeding and hand-foot syndrome. The latter problem is a condition that stems from chronic inflammation of the palms and/or soles of the feet. It makes the skin peel, bleed and develop ulcers or blisters. “This can give rise to eradication of finger prints with time,” Dr. Tan stated in his letter.

Dr. Tan’s patient had taken capecitabine for three years and developed a mild case of hand-foot syndrome. But he didn’t realize it had robbed him of his fingerprints until, in December of 2008, the cancer survivor went to the U.S. to visit his relatives. Foreign visitors have been required to provide fingerprints at U.S. airports for several years where the prints are compared to millions of visa holders’ prints in a database in order to detect whether a new visa applicant has a visa under a different name. The fingerprints are also matched via a computer base to check for criminals and people who are supposedly security threats.

“He (the patient) was detained at the airport customs for four hours because the immigration officers could not detect his fingerprints. He was allowed to enter after the custom officers were satisfied that he was not a security threat. He was advised to travel with a letter from his oncologist stating his condition and the treatment he was receiving to account for his lack of fingerprints to facilitate his entry in future,” Dr. Tan wrote to the Annals of Oncology.

According to the oncologist, several other cancer patients taking capecitabine have also experienced a loss of fingerprints and have discussed this strange drug side effect on their blog sites. Some have also related that they, too, have had problems entering the U.S. due to their lack of fingerprints.

“In summary, patients taking long-term capecitabine may have problems with regards to fingerprint identification when they enter United States’ ports or other countries that require fingerprint identification and should be warned about this. It is uncertain when the onset of fingerprint loss will take place in susceptible patients who are taking capecitabine. However, it is possible that there may be a growing number of such patients as Mr. S. who may benefit from maintenance capecitabine for disseminated malignancy. These patients should prepare adequately before traveling to avert the inconvenience that Mr. S. was put through,” Dr. Tan wrote.

He recommended that patients on capecitabine carry a doctor’s letter with them and noted that his patient was able to subsequently travel again with a letter from his oncologist which helped him get through immigration and security much easier.

Travel warning with capecitabine. Annals of Oncology, doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp278

For more information:…………

Forensic Scientists Working on Technology to Render Face Photos Solely from DNA Left At Crime Scene

May 24, 2009

Forensic Scientists Working on Technology to Render Face Photos Solely from DNA Left At Crime Scene Forensic scientists are working on a way to reconstruct a person’s face based on their DNA, allowing police to identify people more effectively from something as simple as a piece of hair or flake of skin, according to research presented at the conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.

Currently, researchers can compare DNA samples taken from suspects with those found at a crime scene to help secure convictions, but this is only useful if authorities already have a suspect.

Researchers from Pennsylvania State University are hoping to take this ability one step further with the field of “forensic molecular photofitting,” which uses knowledge about how certain genes influence skin pigmentation, facial structure and other characteristics that lead to the individual appearance of a person’s face. Geneticists already know enough to identify a number of specific traits, although full facial mapping is still a ways off.

“We know enough to estimate hair color, eye color, the presence of moles, skin color, hair texture, body size — even if someone’s ear wax is wet or dry,” said researcher Mark Shriver. “We can even determine a whole host of behavioral traits like handedness — is someone left- or right-handed — all of which can help police narrow down the suspect they’re looking for.”

It’s still much easier to identify certain general characteristics — such as skin pigmentation — than others. It was this ability to determine skin color from DNA that led Louisiana police to shift their search for a Baton Rouge serial killer from a white man, who witnesses had reported seeing, to a black man. Eventually a black man, Derek Todd Lee, was arrested and convicted.

Shriver hopes to make this investigative ability even more powerful. He believes that it would only take information from a total of 1,000 genes — “maybe 500 facial markers and 500 ancestry markers” — to construct an accurate picture of a person’s face.

“We’re working with facial images to better understand which genes determine which superficial traits,” he said.

Sources for this story include:;

The Quackery of Chemotherapy, Gunpoint Medicine and the Disturbing Fate of 13-Year-Old Daniel Hauser

May 23, 2009

The Quackery of Chemotherapy, Gunpoint Medicine and the Disturbing Fate of 13-Year-Old Daniel Hauser

You see it in newspapers and websites across the ‘net: People insisting that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser must be injected with chemotherapy in order to “save his life,” and that anyone refusing to go along with that is a criminal deserving of arrest and imprisonment.

What’s most astonishing about the mainstream reaction to the forced chemotherapy of Daniel Hauser is not merely that they believe states now own the children, but that they believe in the entire world there exists but one single treatment for cancer, and it happens to be the one that makes pharmaceutical companies the most money. The arrogance (and ignorance) of that position is mind boggling.

There was once a time when western medical doctors believed that the heavy metal mercury was a medicine, too. They methodically used mercury to treat hundreds of different diseases and conditions, oblivious to the fact that they were actually poisoning people with this toxic heavy metal.

And yet, imagine if authorities had arrested parents for not treating their children with mercury. Imagine if they threw parents in prison for refusing their “mercury medicine.” That would be equivalent to today’s arrogant, misguided and extremely dangerous campaign to outlaw saying “no” to chemotherapy.

A brief history of medical quackery
It was mercury, in fact, that led to the term “quack.” Mercury is called “quicksilver,” and those doctors who prescribed it were eventually discovered to be pushing toxic chemicals rather than any real medicine. They were initially called “quicks” and then later “quacks.”

The quackery of those doctors prescribing mercury wasn’t hard to miss: People taking the mercury would get extremely ill. Their hair would fall out. They would lose their appetite and experience extreme loss of body weight. Many would simply die from the toxicity.

Remarkably, these are the same side effects produced by chemotherapy. And today, chemotherapy doctors describe these side effects in precisely the same terms as the mercury quacks of a century ago, claiming the effects are “part of the healing process” and encouraging patients to find the courage to “just go through with it.”

But let’s pull our heads out of the muck here and acknowledge the obvious: Poisoning patients — whether with mercury or chemotherapy — will never produce healing. And the prescribing of such toxic chemicals to patients is little more than sophisticated quackery, backed by seemingly convincing data (which is actually based on scientific fraud) along with the urgings of cancer doctors who rely on highly manipulative fear tactics to corral patients into treatments that will only harm them.

Do parents have the right to protect their children from poison?
Today, the mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser is on the run, having skipped out on the Minnesota court that ordered her to poison her own child. She is now considered criminally negligent by the state — a parent who belongs behind bars and will likely be imprisoned when she is arrested at gunpoint.

And yet, I ask you this: What else could she have done? To appear in court and submit her child to chemical injections of a toxic substance would amount to child abuse. She is doing what any sensible parent would do: She’s protecting her child from the poisons of the world, and standing up against the tyrants of modern medicine who so desperately seek to exploit her child for profit that they have actually turned to enforcing their business at gunpoint in order to do so.

It is interesting that pharmaceutical medicine is the only industry in America that’s forced to recruit its patients at gunpoint.

I call it Gunpoint Medicine, and it is exactly as it sounds: The enforcing of medical quackery at gunpoint.

Looking for New Uses for Spices — in the Medical Lab

May 20, 2009

Looking for New Uses for Spices — in the Medical Lab

18 May 2009


This is SCIENCE IN THE NEWS, a program in VOA Special English. I’m Bob Doughty.


And I’m Faith Lapidus. Herbs and spices help to sharpen the taste of many foods. Today, we tell about these food additives.



Spices in a market
Spices in a market

People have used herbs and spices in food for thousands of years. Some of these substances are valued for their sharp taste. Others are chosen for their smell.

Generally, herbs come from the green leaves of plants or vegetables. Spices come from other parts of plants and trees. For example, cinnamon comes from the hard outer cover of cinnamon plants. The spice ginger comes from the part of the ginger plant that grows underground.


Herb and spice plants grow in many countries. For example, the Molucca Islands in Indonesia are famous for producing spices like cloves, nutmeg or mace. Vanilla comes from plants growing in South America.

Many people grow herb and spice plants near their homes. Then they dry the plants for later use. Some spices can even be grown in a house if they are placed in sunny areas next to windows.


Christopher Columbus arrived in the New World while seeking a new trade passage to Asia and its spices
Christopher Columbus arrived in the New World while seeking a new trade passage to Asia and its spices

Spices have influenced world history. For example, the Goth people of Europe defeated Roman forces in battle more than sixteen centuries ago. After the fighting ended, the leader of the Goths is said to have demanded five thousand pounds of gold and three thousand pounds of pepper.

More recently, Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus discovered new lands while seeking to expand trade with spice-growing areas in Asia. The Italian cities of Genoa and Venice became powerful because they were at the center of the spice trade. The trade was so important to national economies that rulers launched wars in their struggle to control spices.


Herbs and spices are commonly used because they can make food taste better. Several years ago, two American researchers reported another reason for spice use in cooking.

Researchers Paul Sherman and Jennifer Billing worked at Cornell University when their study was published in nineteen ninety-eight. They said spices contain substances that kill or slow the growth of dangerous bacteria in food. Some spices destroy bacteria. Spices have long been used to keep food safe to eat. In the past, spices also helped to prevent the wasting away of dead bodies.



A more recent study found that adding spices to meat before cooking at high temperatures may reduce harmful chemicals. Researchers from Kansas State University reported last year on their experiments with steaks.

The researchers found a major decrease in unwanted chemicals by preparing the meat with spice and herb marinades. The study showed that this may decrease formation of heterocyclic amines, also known as HCAs. The researchers say these chemicals may cause cancer in some people.


America’s National Cancer Institute says cooking meat at very high temperatures produces the most HCAs. The chemicals form when amino acids react with creatine, a chemical found in muscles. But meats from organs and non-meat protein sources have little or no HCA.

Research on HCAs has made some people afraid to prepare meat on a grill – the place where meat is cooked on hot coals or an open fire. Cooking meat this way is a traditional favorite of many Americans during warm weather.


Grilled beef marinated with peppercorns
Grilled beef marinated with peppercorns

The Kansas State University study, however, may show a way that reduces risk for people who grill on high heat. The K.S.U. researchers placed some steaks in already prepared spice mixes, or marinades. The meat then was grilled for five minutes on each side at a temperature of more than two hundred degrees Celsius. The researchers also cooked steaks marinated without spices, and steaks that were not marinated. They were prepared at the same temperature as meat with the marinade mixes.

The researchers compared levels of the HCAs in all the steaks. They found the HCAs in the meat marinated in spices had decreased up to eighty-eight percent. The study appeared in the publication Journal of Food Science.


The Mayo Clinic operates three medical centers in the United States. Its Health Letter publication of November two thousand seven provided more evidence that herbs and spices can aid health.

For example, Mayo Clinic experts said people could reduce salt use by using herbs and spices instead. Too much salt is a problem for people with health problems like high blood pressure.

The experts said some plant chemicals are high in antioxidants — substances that remove harmful chemicals from the body. These plants include allspice, cloves, cinnamon, ginger, oregano, sage, thyme and turmeric.



The experts also said antioxidants like garlic, rosemary, saffron and turmeric have qualities that could fight cancer. And, it said limited evidence shows that cinnamon, fenugreek and turmeric may affect blood sugar levels in people with diabetes.

Not all studies agree that spices could help diabetes patients. But some studies have suggested they could because of a suspected link between inflammation and diabetes. Inflammation is the body’s way of reacting to infection or other attack. Cinnamon may help reduce the inflammation in people with diabetes.



Last year, researchers from the University of Georgia reported that cinnamon could help reduce blood sugar. The researchers tested twenty-four common herbs and spices. The tests showed that many of the substances contained high levels of antioxidant chemicals known as polyphenols.

The researchers found that ground clove had the most polyphenols. Cloves were the most effective at calming inflammation of any spice or herb they tested. Cinnamon was second. But K.S.U. scientist James Hargrove noted that cinnamon gets more use in cooking than ground cloves. He said that means it could affect the health of more people. But the Mayo Clinic warns that cinnamon cannot replace proven medicines for diabetes.


Curry is used to add taste to many foods
Curry is used to add taste to many foods

Other studies also note possible health effects from curry, a seasoning or sauce. Many people like to use curry to sharpen the taste of foods like meat, fish, rice and potatoes.

Several years ago, scientists in Singapore investigated curcumin, from the curry spice turmeric. The scientists based their study on earlier evidence that turmeric has strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory qualities. They said turmeric also has been shown to reduce evidence of damage in the brains of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. But they said evidence was lacking about cases of Alzheimer’s in curry users, compared with people who did not use curry.


For that reason, the researchers designed a study that examined results from a mental-performance test of older Asian adults. The people in the study were sixty to ninety three years old. None had severe memory losses. Those who sometimes ate curry, or ate it often or very often, did better than individuals who rarely or never ate curry. The American Journal of Epidemiology published a report about the study. The writers suggested that more studies were needed.


Black cohosh is an herb that comes from the root or underground stems of a tall plant in the buttercup family. Black cohosh is sometimes called bugbane.  American Indians used it for a number of women’s health conditions, including monthly menstrual pain.Add New Post ‹ Sunil Khemaney @ wordpress — WordPress

Some women today have continued the tradition. They use the herb to help fight unpleasant conditions at the end of their reproductive years. These include difficulty sleeping at night and hot flashes, or sudden hot sweats.

Millions of people have used black cohosh without problems. However, the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institutes of Health notes that pregnant women may want to avoid it. The same is true of women with breast cancer and patients with liver problems. Should signs of liver disease develop, people should stop taking black cohosh and contact a doctor.

Spinach Knocks Out Cancer and Boosts Brain Power

May 15, 2009

Spinach Knocks Out Cancer and Boosts Brain Power

Popeye was the poster boy for spinach, at least in the cartoons. He could swallow down a can and be able to knock out Bluto who was twice his size. Popeye was probably pretty healthy too, avoiding the pitfalls of aging and disease that come from a diet lacking in flavonoids and other nutrients found in spinach. Recent research has highlighted how well these nutrients work to safeguard health.

Spinach gives a knock out punch to cancer

Scientists in Japan recently studied some of the glyconutrients from spinach and found they inhibited destruction of DNA, cancer cell growth, and tumor growth. They used the nutrients to suppress the growth of colon adenocarcinoma in mice. After a two week period of ingesting the nutrients, a 56.1% decrease in solid tumor volume occurred without any side effects. And the nutrients reduced the ability of tumors to supply themselves with blood which they need to fuel their growth. Markers of cell proliferation were drastically reduced. (Lipids, August, 2008)

Spinach is good for combating ovarian cancer too. A newly released study from the Harvard Medical School evaluated the association between dietary flavonoid intake and ovarian cancer risk. Of all the flavonoids they tested, apigenin found in spinach as well as parsley, showed the highest correlation. (International Journal of Cancer, April)

In another study, Harvard researchers calculated flavonoid intake in 66,940 women participating in the Nurses Health Study that ended in 2002. Their work revealed that women eating diets rich in the flavonoid kaempferol had a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer risk compared to women who ate the least amount of food containing the flavonoid. In addition to spinach, foods high in kaempferol include kale, tea, and blueberries. (Journal of Cancer, November 15, 2007)

Prostate cancer responds to a carotenoid found in spinach and other green leafy vegetables. Researchers have found that this carotenoid, neoxanthin, induces death in prostate cancer cells. Then it converts to a different compound in the intestinal tract. In that state, it lulls prostate cancer cells into a state of rest, preventing their replication. (Journal of Nutrition, September, 2004)

Researchers at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences studied the correlation between breast cancer risk and diets high in beta carotene and vitamin A. They found that eating spinach and carrots more than twice weekly compared to not eating them at all was associated with an odds ratio of .56. This means that the risk of having breast cancer was reduced by 44% in the women who consumed spinach and carrots. (Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, November, 1997)

Spinach is great brain food

All those flavonoids that help prevent cancer also act as potent antioxidants that slow the effects of aging on the brain. Researchers have found that spinach helps protect the brain from free radical damage and slow age-related declines in brain power. Feeding spinach to aging laboratory animals significantly improved their learning capacity and their motor skills.

Diets rich in spinach, as well as spirulina and blueberries have been shown to reduce neurodegenerative changes in aged animals. To study whether these diets have neuroprotective ability when blood supply to the brain is limited, animals were fed one of the three dietary components and studied for the effects. Animals receiving each of the supplements had significant reductions in the volume of infarction in the cerebral cortex and an increase in post-stroke locomotor activity. (Experimental Neurology, May, 2005)

The Chicago Health and Aging Project, reported by World’s Healthiest Foods, suggested that eating just three servings of green leafy, yellow, and cruciferous vegetables each day could slow down cognitive decline by 40%. This equates to about five years of younger age, according to researchers at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago.

This cohort study used 3,718 participants. Their mental functions were assessed on several tests at the beginning of the study, after three years, and again after six years. Researchers found that consuming an average of 2.8 servings of vegetables each day was what it took to produce the 40% decrease in cognitive decline. Of the different type of vegetables, green leafy ones such as spinach had the strongest association. There was no relationship found between fruit consumption and cognitive decline, perhaps because vegetables contain high amounts of vitamin E. Since they are often eaten with fats such as olive oil or dressing, the body’s ability to absorb fat soluble vitamin E is increased.

Spinach improves and protects eyesight

Another important carotenoid from spinach, lutein, is a major fighter against eye diseases such as macular degeneration and cataracts. Spinach is loaded with lutein as are blueberries. Although egg yolks do not contain nearly as much lutein as spinach, the absorption of the amount they do have is intensified by cholesterol and choline. Since lutein is fat soluble like vitamin E, it should be eaten with fat. This makes a spinach salad dressed with olive oil a great idea. Spinach added to quiche or omelets is another winner.

Spinach is an excellent source of the iron often needed by women. Iron is an integral part of hemoglobin, which transports oxygen from the lungs to all body cells. When cells are well oxygenated there can be no cancer. Iron is a key part of an enzyme necessary for energy production and metabolism.

Spinach is packed with high quality nutrition

Spinach is one of the best sources of Vitamin K, which functions in retaining calcium in the bone matrix where it promotes bone mineralization. Other minerals in spinach include manganese, copper, magnesium, zinc, and phosphorus. This combination makes spinach a great fighter of osteoporosis. It’s an excellent source of Vitamin B1, B2, and B6, and a good source of B3. Spinach is also rich in mood relaxing tryptophan, and cancer fighting fiber. One cup of boiled spinach contains over 5 grams of protein, and a decent amount of omega 3 fatty acids. And of course a load of Vitamin A.

What else you need to know about spinach

Spinach is among the 12 foods on which pesticides have been most frequently found. If you want to avoid the health risks posed by pesticides, buy only organic spinach.

Spinach contains goitrogens which are naturally occurring substances in some foods that can interfere with the functioning of the thyroid gland. Cooking helps to inactivate the goitrogenic compounds, but the risk to those with thyroid problems is not fully known.

Spinach contains another naturally occurring substance, purine. Excessive consumption of spinach can lead to excessive accumulation of uric acid in the body. Gout and kidney stones from uric acid are two examples of problems related to excessive consumption of purine-containing foods.

Spinach contains measurable amounts of naturally occurring oxalates. When oxalates become overly concentrated in body fluids, they can crystallize and cause problems with kidneys and gall bladder.

This all means that spinach should be a part of a diet that is composed of a wide variety of foods.

Using spinach

There are three widely available types of spinach. Savoy is a kind of spinach that has curly leaves that are springy to the touch. The smooth, flat leaf variety is great for eating or using in a juicer. Baby spinach is usually found in salads because it is the most delicately flavored.

Even if your spinach comes in a bag, it should be washed. Sand and soil tend to cling to the leaves making washing spinach a bit of a chore. Serve with stems on or off.

There’s a reason Popeye’s girl friend was named Olive Oyl

Spinach and olive oil belong together. The fat in the oil releases the nutrients in the spinach and makes them more bioavailable, and the two create a terrific taste when used together.

Saute spinach leaves in olive oil, and top with fresh pressed garlic, lemon juice and sea salt. Or saute in olive oil and add pine nuts and dried cranberries.

For more information:…

Radiation Treatment for Breast Cancer Causes Cancer in the Other Breast

May 13, 2009

Radiation Treatment for Breast Cancer Causes Cancer in the Other Breast on Treatment for Breast Cancer Causes Cancer in the Other BreastYoung women who receive radiation treatment after breast cancer surgery are significantly more likely to later develop cancer in the other breast than women who did not undergo such radiation.

The findings come from a study, published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, on more than 7,000 women who were treated for breast cancer in Netherlands between the years of 1970 and 1986. All study participants were diagnosed with breast cancer before the age of 71.

Among study participants in general, the risk of developing cancer in the opposite breast (contralateral breast cancer) after treatment in the first breast was three to four times higher than the rate for new cases of breast cancer. This risk only went up with a number of other risk factors, including family predisposition or treatment with radiation or chemotherapy.

Researchers from the Erasmus Medical Center Daniel den Hoed Cancer Center in Rotterdam examined the cancer risk in women based on whether they were treated with radiation after a lumpectomy (partial breast removal) or mastectomy (complete breast removal). They found that women under the age of 45 who received radiation treatment after a lumpectomy were 1.5 times more likely to develop contralateral cancer than women who received post-mastectomy radiation treatment.

Similarly, the risk of contralateral breast cancer among all patients under the age of 45 increased by 9 percent if they had received radiation treatment. Among women treated before the age of 35, the increase in risk associated with radiation therapy was far higher — 78 percent.

When the participants were examined all together and not divided by age, there was no correlation between radiation treatment and increased cancer risk.

Radiation treatment is commonly used after the surgical removal of cancerous breast tissue in order to kill any cancerous cells that might remain. It is used most often after any lumpectomy, after any mastectomy of a breast that contained a tumor larger than five centimeters, or in any cancer that has spread to the lymph nodes.

The chemotherapy drugs cyclophosphamide, fluorouracil and methotrexate also increased the risk of contraleteral cancer, but only after five years. Within the first five years after treatment, there was no difference in contralateral cancer rates between those who had received the drugs and those who had not.

To date, many researchers have assumed that high rates of contralateral breast cancer can be mostly attributed to the risk factors that contributed to the original cancer, such as genetic predisposition. This study is one of the first to suggest that cancer treatment itself might also increase risk.

That family predisposition affects breast cancer risk is fairly well accepted by researchers, and scientists have identified two genetic mutations in particular (BRCA1 and BRCA2) that seem to play a role. In the current study, the highest risk of contralateral cancer was seen among women who had three or more relatives who had already had breast cancer. But such predispositions appear to have the greatest effect in the presence of environmental risk factors.

In the current study, young women who had received post-lumpectomy radiation treatment and who also had a strong history of breast cancer in their family had their risk of contralateral cancer increased by 3.5 times.


Diet Soda Is Poison

May 7, 2009

Diet Soda Is Poison
I was on a long road trip last week and, feeling rather drowsy, stopped at a convenience store for some coffee and refreshments. As I walked up and down the aisles to find something to munch on for the next leg of the trip, I discovered nothing that seemed to be real food on any of the shelves. So I thought I would at least buy some chewing gum, something I used to do decades ago when gum only cost a penny a stick. I fondly remembered the refreshing taste of Wrigley’s Doublemint, Juicy Fruit or Spearmint gum.

Reading the fine print on the gum labels (a habit I always urged my patients to adopt whenever making purchases in grocery stores), I was annoyed and a bit alarmed to find that NONE of the 20 flavors had good old dextrose or sucrose in them. Instead, 100 percent of the choices contained, as their sweetener, a synthetic chemical called aspartame, a.k.a. NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful.

Now I have read the book Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills, written by Russell Blaylock, MD, one of the neuroscientists who has thoroughly studied the toxicities of the common food additives aspartame and monosodium glutamate (MSG). I have also seen the sobering video documentary about aspartame poisoning entitled: Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, which proves without any doubt how dangerous this synthetic sweetener can be. (You can order a copy by emailing

Aspartame, which is in thousands of processed food products that are usually labeled “lite” or “diet” products, was synthesized in 1965 by a G. D. Searle chemist who, when he was trying to create an anti-ulcer drug, combined two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine and found that the resulting dipeptide (a molecule consisting of two amino acids) had an intensely sweet taste to the tongue. Searle soon saw aspartame as a product that could compete in the low calorie food industry and obtained, in 1974, FDA approval for its use in dry foods. However the FDA approval was rescinded within six months because of toxic reactions and widespread concerns by a number of scientists.

These scientists knew that aspartame was a lethal poison! In fact, in a 1996 report compiled from 10,000 consumer complaints obtained during the pre-marketing testing period, the FDA listed 92 aspartame-related symptoms, ranging from seizures to death!

Still, the tenacious Searle, led by its cunning management team, refused to give up its effort to obtain FDA approval and denied that they had a sweet poison on their hands.

Interestingly, Searle’s CEO at the time was Donald Rumsfeld (which is why some prefer to call Aspartame Disease Rumsfeld’s Disease).

Here is an excerpt from an article entitled: Aspartame (NutraSweet): Something Evil This Way Comes written by Betty Martini, of Mission Possible World Health International, an organization devoted to exposing aspartame as the dangerous substance it is:

“Listen to Attorney James Turner who, with famed Dr. John Olney, tried to prevent aspartame’s approval. Turner tells what it took to get a deadly poison approved. The FDA attempted to have Searle indicted for fraud and making false statements. Both U.S. prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. For 16 years, the FDA refused to allow it on the market. When Reagan was elected, Don Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, said he’d call in his markers to get aspartame approved. This is documented by a UPI investigation and congressional record. The day after Reagan took office Arthur Hayes was appointed as FDA Commissioner to get it approved.

“Reagan knew it might take 30 days to get Hayes installed, so he wrote an Executive Order making the outgoing FDA Commissioner powerless to act against aspartame before he departed. Then the FDA set up a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) that revoked Reagan’s petition for approval because it had not been proved safe and causes brain tumors. Hayes overruled the PBOI and let slip the hounds of disease, disability and death on an innocent, unwarned population. Soon he became a consultant for the NutraSweet Company’s public relations outfit on a 10-year contract at $1,000/day. Hayes then refused to talk to the press.”

In 1981, the Reagan FDA approved aspartame in dry food and in 1983, aspartame was approved for use in soda pop. In 1985 Rumsfeld’s Searle was acquired by Monsanto, making Rumsfeld rich and Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries! And the rest, as they say, is history.

Suffice it to say, I passed on the chemically-contaminated chewing gum. I have learned to avoid swallowing synthetic flavor enhancers (or other chemicals in food) whenever I am able, preferring to use natural, unrefined and unbleached table sugar if I feel the need to sweeten tea or coffee. Understanding the chemical breakdown products of aspartame informed my decision long ago and will help the readers to try to break their diet pop habits also. It is my professional duty to warn.

Each molecule of NutraSweet, when it reaches a temperature of 86 degrees F (recall that the body’s normal temperature is 98.6 and warehouses in the summer’s sun can reach temperatures far higher than that)) breaks down into its two amino acids (a molecule each of phenylalanine and aspartic acid, both excitotoxins) and a molecule of methanol (wood alcohol!) which then metabolizes into formaldehyde (embalming fluid and a known carcinogen), formic acid (the acid that causes the intense itching from the prickles of burning weed) and diketopiperazine (a known carcinogen).

Perhaps a small amount of any of these toxins can be tolerated by some people, especially those who are well nourished, but I wouldn’t want to take the chance, for there is too much evidence for its being a poison. The long list of neurodegenerative, psychological and other health problems aspartame can cause can be found here. They include seizures, multiple sclerosis, headaches, lupus, insomnia, fibromyalgia, arthritis, depression, anxiety and dozens more.

If that isn’t enough to convince readers to gradually withdraw (diet soda is also addictive) from your NutraSweet habit, it might give you extra motivation if you recall the list of evil geniuses listed above that have played a part in this tragedy.

There, you’ve been warned.

(Coming up soon, an expose on another toxic artificial sweetener that is in a lot of food products, the trichlorinated sucrose molecule sucralose (Splenda), once marketed as a pesticide in Japan.)

For more on the health-destroying properties of aspartame, check out these resources: Dorway to Discovery ASPARTAMEKILLS.COM

Gary G. Kohls. MD, is a retired family practitioner, who specialized in holistic and preventive mental health care in Duluth, Minnesota.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

What’s Missing From Every Media Story about H1N1 Influenza

May 4, 2009

What’s Missing From Every Media Story about H1N1 Influenza

If you read the stories on H1N1 influenza written by the mainstream media, you might incorrectly think there’s only one anti-viral drug in the world. It’s name is Tamiflu and it’s in short supply.

That’s astonishing to hear because the world is full of anti-viral medicine found in tens of thousands of different plants. Culinary herbs like thyme, sage and rosemary are anti-viral. Berries and sprouts are anti-viral. Garlic, ginger and onions are anti-viral. You can’t walk through a grocery store without walking past a hundred or more anti-viral medicines made by Mother Nature.

And yet how many does the mainstream media mention? Zero.

The totality of influenza preparedness is defined by the mainstream media as the number of doses of Tamiflu a nation has stockpiled. You see it in stories like this one at the Wall Street Journal:;

Tamiflu comes from an herb
To live in a world that’s saturated with natural anti-viral medicine and then not even acknowledge it in the media is beyond bizarre. It’s Twilight Zone-like. It’s like we’ve been teleported to an alternate universe where anti-viral plants have disappeared… or at least everyone is pretending they have.

Where do you think Tamiflu comes from, by the way?

It’s extracted from the Traditional Chinese Medicine herb called Star Anise. It’s one of hundreds of different anti-viral herbs found in Chinese Medicine, not to even mention anti-viral herbs from South America, North America, Australia, Africa and other regions.

I find it downright comedic that Big Pharma and the world’s health authorities extract their “champion” anti-viral drug Tamiflu from a Chinese Medicine herb, and then they go out of their way to announce to people that herbs and natural remedies are useless against influenza. If that’s the case then why are they using herbs to make their own medicine?

How many stories have you read that bother to tell you Tamiflu is made from the star anise herb that’s been used for over 5,000 years in Traditional Chinese Medicine? Virtually none. The powers that be don’t want anybody to know they could actually grow their own medicine in a garden or a windowsill. If you can grow cilantro, you can grow medicine. If everybody figured that out, Big Pharma wouldn’t be reaping the enormous profits it’s making right now from Tamiflu sales, and the governments of the world wouldn’t be able to scare and control people by promising to distribute Tamiflu (but only if you behave).

The Tamiflu scam is global
H1N1 influenza is not a hoax. But the way it’s being reported by health authorities and the mainstream media certainly is. The scam in all this is what they leave out of the stories — the fact that human beings live among a huge natural medicine chest of anti-viral drugs found in every city park, every forest, every swamp and every open field.

You cannot walk across any patch of natural land in America and NOT find anti-viral medicine. It’s everywhere! It’s in the weeds growing in the cracks in the sidewalks; it’s in weeds on the side of the stream; and it’s growing in the small patch of dirt left remaining in the median between highway lanes.

In the deserts of the American Southwest, you can’t even drive to work without passing mile after mile of abundant anti-viral medicine grown by Mother Nature and just waiting for humans to wake up and be smart enough to recognize it.

I have a sobering prediction about H1N1 influenza (formerly “swine flu”): If it does become a global pandemic, many of those people who refuse to recognize the anti-viral medicine provided by Mother Nature will die. Their misplaced faith in Big Pharma will literally cost them their lives. In contrast, those who have the wisdom to get their medicine from Mother Nature will not only survive the pandemic, they’ll thrive even as others around them are dying. It is those who embrace Mother Nature’s powerful, synergistic and living medicines who will weather any pandemic storm, and they will emerge as the DNA holders of the future of human civilization.

Attorney: Leukemia caused by additive

May 3, 2009

Attorney: Leukemia caused by additive

Poultry companies added dangerous arsenic to chicken feed, but they never warned poultry growers, people who spread chicken litter or children at schools, an attorney told jurors in Washington County Circuit Court on Friday.

Fayetteville attorney Jason Hatfield said the bags containing the arsenic-laced feed additives contain danger warnings, but poultry companies chose not to pass it along.

“Only the companies knew the dangers,” said Hatfield, who represents a Prairie Grove man who is suing Tyson Foods, George’s Farms, Peterson Farms and Simmons Foods.

The lawsuit filed in 2003 by the parents of Michael “Blu” Green, who was diagnosed with leukemia in 1999, alleges poultry producers used chicken feed with Roxarsone, a feed additive that includes arsenic, which led to cancercausing litter.

Attorneys for the poultry companies argued Roxarsone has been safely mixed with feed for 50 years to help keep chickens healthy and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. They claim the testimony of worldclass scientists will show that the plaintiff’s case is based on faulty science.

Green lost his previous case against the feed additive maker, but this second trial is against the poultry companies, which were dismissed from the last case before it went to the jury for deliberation.

After a three-week trial in 2006, a jury took 21 minutes to reach its verdict in favor of feed additive maker Alpharma.

However, an Arkansas Supreme Court decision last May ruled that poultry producers can go to trial in the lawsuit, reversing the judge’s granting of a pre-trial motion that eliminated poultry producers as defendants.

Hatfield told jurors Friday poultry litter was spread on pastures near the Prairie Grove schools during the 1990s and that this caused Green and three others to develop leukemia.

Hatfield dismissed the poultry companies’ claim their FDA approved feed additive is safe.

“It’s not FDA approved to dump on children,” he said. “You have to bring common sense in the jury box. When you dump carcinogens on children, some of them will get sick.”

He said dust samples taken from the attics of homes show high levels of arsenic, which he said experts will testify can be linked to Roxarsone contained in the chicken feed.

Steven Quattlebaum, an attorney for Tyson Foods, agreed with Hatfield that high exposure levels of arsenic is known to cause cancers, but he said the studies show that it increases the risk of cancers of the lung, kidney, bladder and skin – not leukemia.

Quattlebaum noted that arsenic is everywhere. It’s the 28th most common element in the earth’s crust and is safe at low levels.

A gag order prevents the parties and the attorneys from making any comments to the media about this case.