Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Dietary supplements marketed to provide male sexual enhancement contain undeclared erectile dysfunction drugs putting users at risk, the Food and Drug Administration warned Friday.
The agency advised consumers to stay away from Shangai Chaojimengnan supplements sold under the names Super Shangai, Strong Testis, Shangai Ultra, Shangai Ultra X, Lady Shangai and Shangai Regular. The Chinese-made supplements are packaged and distributed by Shangai Distributor Inc. of Puerto Rico.
Product testing indicates that some of these so-called supplements contain Viagra's active ingredient, sildenafil, or a compound with a chemical structure that mimics sildenafil.
These chemicals could interact with nitrates in drugs taken for disorders commonly associated with erectile dysfunction, including diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and heart disease. The result could dangerously lower a user's blood pressure, according to the FDA.
The agency also warned that the safety and purity of these illegal ingredients is unknown.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Recently on "Good Morning America," a friend of mine (and fellow A1c champion) watched author Gary Taubes talk about his new book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. My friend sent this email around: "Taubes says that exercise makes us hungry for carbohydrates and that carbohydrates cause insulin secretion, which creates fat."
One of her email recipients, a PhD medical specialist, wrote back: "There is still a lot that we don't know, but for me, eating less and moving more has led to my weight reduction. I could have dieted on birthday cake as long as I did not eat more cake calories than I spent."
It's a constant debate in this country: What's the magic formula for fast and easy weight loss? The second question, especially for us d-people, is whether carbs are good or bad. To me, the answer to both is simple: eat less and move more. And, since carbs raise blood glucose, eat fewer carbs if you want to lower your blood sugar. Why is that such a difficult notion? Seems crystal clear to me and, trust me, I'm no rocket scientist.
Carbs Arouse Fierce Debate
Around the same time that my friend's email went around, a wicked debate was playing out on the Diabetes Health website. Diabetes educator Hope Warshaw, MMSc, RD, CDE, BC-ADM, wrote a piece called "Why You Don't Want to Go Low Carb or Vegan" that garnered more comments than I've ever seen in response to an article, as well as a rebuttal article by Richard D. Feinman, PhD, Professor of Biochemistry and Director of the Nutrition and Metabolism at State University of New York Downstate Medical Center ("Low Carbohydrate Diets: Why You Don't Want the "Experts" to Tell You What to Eat").
In a big nutshell, Feinman said, "I'm astonished that experts encourage people with diabetes to eat carbohydrates and then 'cover' them with insulin. Why would anyone (let alone doctors, who advocate it every day) recommend a diet that requires more medication?" Are they all in bed with pharma companies? (Sorry, that last question is my own.)
"It strikes me as odd," said Feinman, "that what most experts know about metabolism - diabetes is, after all, a metabolic disease - they learned in medical school from somebody like me. The first thing we teach medical students is that there is no biological requirement for carbohydrate. It is truethat your brain needs glucose, but glucose can be supplied by the process of gluconeogenesis; that is, glucose can be made from other things, notably protein. This is a normal process: when you wake up in the morning, between 30 and 70 percent of your blood glucose comes from gluconeogenesis. There is no requirement for dietary glucose. And all of the metabolic syndrome ills - high triglycerides, low HDL, hypertension and obesity - are improved by low carbohydrate diets. If we had been describing a drug," Feinman went on to say, "everybody would have rushed out to buy stock in our pharmaceutical company."
My Low-Carb Experiences
I can't comment on such metabolic complexities, but I can share with you what I experienced when I changed my diet to low carb. It was five years ago, after I read Dr. Richard Bernstein's book, Diabetes Solution. For the first time, I encountered someone advocating getting rid of carbs to control blood sugar.
Dr. Bernstein advises next to no carbs in a diabetic diet. Himself a diabetic for more than 50 years, Bernstein claims he has reversed many of his early complications and gotten his blood sugar under tight control by virtually eliminating carbs. Fewer carbs means you'll be taking less insulin. By taking less insulin, Bernstein claims, there'll be less variability in its absorption time and efficacy, as well as greater predictability with your blood sugars.
After I read his book, I was so encouraged and inspired that I pretty much vacuumed the carbs out of my diet. I essentially eliminated refined carbs, such as white bread, white potatoes, rice, pasta, sweets, muffins, and starchy veggies. The result? My sugars indeed dropped. They were consistently lower, and my insulin doses dropped. Maybe best of all, I was no longer chasing high blood sugars - you know, the ones that come from refined carbs, where you just can't seem to knock them down all day. My Lantus dose went from 20 to 12.5 units, and my pre-meal Humalog was all but cut in half. The results were so dramatic and made my life so much easier that I never went back to my old ways. (I do have to add the caveat that we're all different, and your body may not respond like mine.)
It's common sense, though, that the fewer carbs you eat, the less your blood sugar will rise and the less medication you'll need. I don't understand how anyone can argue the logic of that. If we're still being given diets with substantial carbs in them, it's probably because the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and other authorities believe that the average diabetic would never stand for cutting carbs so drastically. Along the same lines, the ADA's A1c recommendation is as high as 7%. That correlates with 170 on your meter, even though we're advised to stay in a target blood sugar range of 80 to 120 mg/dl. Does something sound fishy?
A Typical Low-Carb Day
For those interested, here's the routine that keeps my sugars low. My one carb meal is breakfast. I figure it's healthy, high fiber, and satisfying, and since I walk in the morning, the blood sugar rise gets leveled out. Every morning I make a bowl of slow-cooked steelcut oatmeal. I know many people who make a batch every week and freeze daily portions, but I like the morning ritual. I actually eat less than a whole serving, making up the difference with a dollop of low fat plain yogurt or cottage cheese and a tablespoon of peanut or almond butter. I also add flax seed and cinnamon. For this treat (like Jerry on Seinfeld, I could eat breakfast for any meal), I need 3.5 units of Humalog, or only 3 units if I'm taking my usual hour-long walk around my local park.
Lunch is generally a spinach salad with feta cheese, tomatoes, beans and leftover veggies, or a spinach/feta omelet. For that, I need 0.5 to 1 unit. Dinner is typically fish or chicken, vegetables, and beans. If I'm having a glass or two of wine with dinner, I don't need any insulin (Alcohol lowers blood sugar for most people, unless they're drinking strawberry margaritas or Singapore slings.)
A few months ago I interviewed a fellow type 1 who had received an islet cell transplant (two, actually). For 18 months afterward, she was insulin-free. Unfortunately, as is the case for most, if not all, islet cell transplant recipients, her new cells began to fail and she had to add some insulin back to keep her blood sugars in range. She told me, though, that she's still on a very small dose - 14 units total daily. My daily dose is only about 18 units, and none of my beta cells work. Seems enough evidence for me that you can keep your insulin, or meds, to a minimum by sweeping most of the carbs out of your diet.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you in that my diet is not puritanically carb-free. Alas, I am not perfect. When out to dinner, I often nibble on the bread, and I love it dripping with olive oil. (Thank God, someone decided that olive oil ishealthy.) I indulge in an order of fried calamari or crab cakes from time to time, and if dessert comes to the table, I'll stick my fork in like everyone else for a taste. But without question, the fewer carbs I eat, the less insulin I need. For me, the control I get and the way I feel are worth it.
If you're curious about a lower carb diet, give it a try. First, hook up a Hoover to your pantry and suck out all the chips, pretzels, rice, and muffin mixes. Second, while experimenting, test, test and test. Third, see if your blood sugars and meds drop. Fourth, reward yourself with some high cocoa dark chocolate. (Lindt's 85 percent Excellence chocolate bar has only eight carbs per serving!) Good luck.
It's really true: dark chocolate makes your coronary arteries open up and increases heart blood flow. In a two-week trial, 39 adults ate either 550 milligrams per day of dark chocolate (with a cocoa content of 70 percent or greater), which is full of flavonoids, or the same amount of white chocolate, which has no flavonoids.
By the end of the study, the coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) of the dark chocolate eaters had significantly improved. If you want the same health effect, remember to go easy on the chocolate: 550 milligrams is only about 0.0194 of an ounce.
Source: MedlinePlus, November 2007
Not too long ago most of us figured that salt was the white stuff you poured out of the box that had the cute little girl with the umbrella on it. Occasionally we might have heard somebody mutter something about "sea salt" or "kosher salt," but for most of us it was all the same thing.
We know now that there's more than one kind of salt, especially as the sea and kosher varieties have made their way onto millions of spice racks. That makes it easier to prepare ourselves for the next salt that people will soon be talking about: Himalayan Pink.
The pinkish product is mined from marine salts that fossilized more than 200 million years ago as the Himalayas began rising from now long gone seabeds. People who love the mountain salt cite its rich mineral content, which includes iron, copper, calcium, magnesium and potassium, as one of its great assets.
Another benefit, proponents say, is that while much sea salt now comes from polluted waters, the Himalayan deposits are pristine and unpolluted.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
|Is Honey More Effective Than Cough Medicine?|
A research study has determined that children who get a dose of honey cough less and sleep better than those who get cough medicine with dextromethorphan (DM), the ingredient in most over-the-counter products for coughs.
DM cough medicines, which earn about $50 million in sales each year, have previously been shown to be of little benefit to children.
Honey has long been used as a natural remedy for sore throats and coughs. A common natural cure is tea with honey and lemon.Parents are advised not to give honey to any child under the age of 1 year; infants younger than that are at risk for botulism from honey.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Cut corn in your diet and stay healthy as the cereal grain is rich in sugars and calories, suggest the US health experts.
Habit of having corn flakes in the morning, burger in afternoon, corn soup at night and processed foods and beverages anytime, anywhere, can aggravate the obseity problem.
High-fructose corn syrup, an economical sweetener which is replacing the old plain table sugar, is equally harmful and being used in soda, energy and juice drinks.
According to a report from the Food Trust, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit organisation, from soft drinks alone teens get 15 to 20 teaspoons per day of added sugars, which is some 11 per cent of their daily total caloric intake.
Moreover, soft drinks have become the third most common breakfast, replacing milk.
Expressing concern over this increasing consumption of corn, an agricultural economist and professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, Barry Popkin said, ”If the average American could cut just one soft drink or sugared water drink a day, they would immediately cut out 10 pounds a year.” Corn is not only affecting people’s health but also the health of livestock, which is being fed on this cereal grain, the US News and World Report said.
”Corn-fed beef tends to have more artery-clogging saturated fats than grass-fed beef,” Popkin said. Also, corn feed is lower in healthful substances like Omega-3 fatty acids.
The researchers also found that cattle, which are fed mainly on corn, suffer from high stomach acidity and develop problematic E coli 0157:H7 bacteria.
Though corn is not inherently unhealthy, however, its large scale production and lower prices are leading to rise in its demand. And, ultimately its over consumption is harming the health of all.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Dr. James Howenstine, MD.
An article in the Washington Post on Jan. 26, 1988 mentioned that all cases of polio since 1979 had been caused by the polio vaccine with no known cases of polio from a wild strain since 1979. This might have created a perfect situation to discontinue the vaccine, but the vaccine is still given. Vaccines are a wonderful source of profits with no risks to the drug companies since vaccine injuries are now recompensed by the government [income tax payers]. The steady escalation in the number of vaccines administered has been followed by an identical rise in the incidence of auto-immune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, subacute lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, asthma) seen in children. While there is a genetic transmission of some of these diseases many are probably due to the injury from foreign protein particles, mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and other toxic agents injected in vaccines.
BALTIMORE - Very obese people who need a kidney transplant are far less likely to get one than normal weight people, and when they do, their wait is an average of a year to 18 months longer, a new study found.CLICK HERE FOR MORE!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Sex Your Way to Better Health: A Dozen Reasons Why You Should Have Sex Tonight
Sex – it does the body good.Yet most of us are quicker to hit the gym before hitting the sheets when it comes to taking care of ourselves. Believe it or not, huffing and puffing your way through a hot, sweat-inducing sex session may be far more beneficial to your overall health than the time you spend on the treadmill. As research confirms time and time again, good sex in a healthy, stable, monogamous relationship can only better our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well being. Sex, in this context, offers us tons of benefits, most of which aren’t touted nearly enough. Here are just a few benefits: Weight loss and weight control, Pain Management, Stress relief, Longer Life, Decreased risk of breast cancer and much more A MUST READ!!! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317189,00.html
Mutant Gene Identified As Villain In Hardening Of The Arteries
A genetic mutation expands lesions in the aorta and promotes coronary atherosclerosis, more commonly known as hardening of the arteries, according to a study by Yale School of Medicine in Cell Metabolism.
The researchers found that mice engineered without the Akt1 gene and fed a high cholesterol diet had many more signs of aortic atherosclerosis compared to their littermates. And, surprisingly, their coronary lesions were similar to humans, say the scientists.
"About 20 percent of the mice died spontaneously, perhaps due to an acute heart attack," said William Sessa, senior author of the study, professor of pharmacology, and director of Yale's vascular biology and therapeutics program.
Severe Psoriasis Linked To Increased Risk Of Death
Researchers in the US working on UK data found that severe psoriasis increased a person's risk of death by 50 per cent, whereas milder psoriasis posed no increased risk of death. The researchers suggested people with severe psoriasis die about 4 years earlier than people who do not have the inflammatory skin disease...
Monday, December 17, 2007
Who Should Get a Flu Shot?
The flu season is from November to April, with most cases occurring between late December and early March, but the vaccine is usually offered between September and mid-November (and may be given at other times of the year).
Vaccines : OPPOSING VIEWPOINT: IS the FLU VACCINE DANGEROUS?
DR. Edward F. Group III
Every year about this time doctors around the world are recommending that people go in and get their annual flu shot. What most people don’t know or understand is just how dangerous this could be, especially for children under the age of 12. When people call and say “My doctor is telling the family to go in and get a flu shot. Should I do it?”…I tell them they should learn about the side effects and decide for themselves…as a chiropractor and naturopathic physician I don’t’ have the time or energy to argue with family practitioners or family doctors who are obviously uneducated on the possible side effects or detrimental effects flu shots or vaccinations in general can have on the body.
I personally have never received a flu shot and have never been ill during the flu season. In my personal opinion I don’t think toxic chemicals and strains of different viruses growing on living tissue belong inside the body. Because of the demand, I want to share with you some of the research that we have found in the latest flu shot trend and the by-products of these supposedly sterile and non-harmful solutions.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Facts on Smoking You are Not Told, or Why George Burns Lived to 100!
by Robert R. Barney
We are running a series of articles in our YOUR HEALTH TODAY section which I think will absolutely blow most of our readers today! Over the past 40 years, we have been overwhelmed with the evils of smoking. The message has basically been, SMOKE ONE CIGARETTE and YOU WILL DIE A DAY YOUNGER! Have you ever thought of any benefits of smoking? Honestly, could there be any benefits? Well I did my own investigation and guess what? Smoking in moderation may actually be GOOD for you! I know that smacks in the face of everything science and government has been telling us, but sometimes governments LIE! Here are just a few examples of FACTS I bet you don't know:
-- Q10 is made from Tobacco
-- Smoking Reduces both Parkinson Disease AND Alzheimers!
-- Smoking increases certain hormones and can act similar to Viagra!
-- A Reduced risk in women who smoke to Colon Cancer
-- Moderate Cigar or Non-Filtered Cigarettes may actually help you live Longer
I realize that this sounds like I have gone bonkers, but friends, every statement I have made has proven science behind it and I document it below! Drinking wine can kill you. If you drink two to thee bottles of wine a day, you will probably be at a much greater risk of developing a host of diseases related to alcoholism, yet we know that those who drink a glass a day statistically live longer than tea-tottlers. The same seems to apply to smoking. Very low doses of smoking (a Cigar or two once a week or two or three NON-FILTERED cigarettes a day) actually helps our bodies. It has been documented for years that Japanese men out smoke American men yet have lower incidences of lung cancer! ( http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/10/11/1193 )
One looks at people like George Burns who lived to be 100, smoking a cigar his entire life. Would he have lived to 150 if he didn't smoke? Well, the evidence I am presenting suggests that he lived that long BECAUSE he smoked.
If you notice,whenever I mentioned cigarette smoking, I always wrote of NON-FILTERED cigarettes. Again, big businees like the tobacco companies and our government know that the filters on these cigarettes are much more harmful than the tobacco smoke! More than 90% of the cigarettes sold worldwide have a filter. Nearly all filters consist of a rod of numerous ( > 12 000) plastic-like cellulose acetate fibres. During high speed cigarette manufacturing procedures, fragments of cellulose acetate that form the mouthpiece of a filter rod become separated from the filter at the end face. The cut surface of the filter of nearly all cigarettes has these fragments. In smoking a cigarette in the usual manner, some of these fragments are released during puffing. In addition to the cellulose acetate fragments, carbon particles are released also from some cigarette brands that have a charcoal filter. Cigarettes with filters that release cellulose acetate or carbon particles during normal smoking conditions are defective. Philip Morris, Inc has known of this filter defect for more than 40 years.
results of investigations substantiating defective filters have been concealed from the smoker and the health community. The tobacco industry has been negligent in not performing toxicological examinations and other studies to assess the human health risks associated with regularly ingesting and inhaling non-degradable, toxin coated cellulose acetate fragments and carbon microparticles and possibly other components that are released from conventional cigarette filters during normal smoking. The rationale for harm assessment is supported by the results of consumer surveys that have shown that the ingestion or inhalation of cigarette filter fibres are a health concern to nearly all smokers. (From “Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for 40 years: what Philip Morris never told smokers” (Tobacco Control 2002;11:i51-i61):)
Check out a host of stories we have on this subject on http://journals.aol.com/plaintruthtoday/your-health-today
Notes and References
1) The miracle supplement (for skin, heart, brain rejuvenation) Coenzyme Q10 is extracted from tobacco leaf! http://www.ritecare.com/prodsheets/and-503000.html
Dr. Ricjard A. Kunin extols the benefits of Coenzyme Q10. He also says: The energy of oxidation in cells depends on CoQ in partnership with niacinamide (vitamin B3), riboflavin (vitamin B2), and minerals such as iron and copper to effect the movement of electrons and hydrogen protons in the power plant of cell, the mitochondrion. Incidentally, tobacco leaf is the champion source, containing 184 mg in a quarter pound. Note that the doctor follows with the disclaimer, "In fact, the Japanese companies make their CoQ from tobacco, however it is only released by means of bacterial fermentation not by smoking." The fact remains that CoQ 10 is a natural miracle for the human body and it's chief source is tobacco!
2) Smoking Reduces Parkinson's Disease: Studies world-wide has notice that smokers have a significally lower incidence of getting the disease, yet this is never mentioned in any of the anti-smoking campaigns.
Neurology. 1999 Sep 22;53(5):1158. Smoking and Parkinson's disease: a dose-response relationship Gorell JM, Rybicki BA, Johnson CC, Peterson EL
Department of Neurology, Henry Ford Health System, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center in Molecular and Cellular Toxicology with Human Applications, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA.
Also see Smoking lowers Parkinson's disease risk from Reuters (Mar 20, 2007).
From “Temporal relationship between cigarette smoking and risk of Parkinson disease” (NEUROLOGY 2007;68:764-768):
3) The by-product of smoking (Nitric Oxide) helps in opening our arteries! Nitric oxide stimulates peripheral circulation (this is the mechanism behind Viagra effect).Low concentration carbon monoxide (as found in tobacco smoke) protects cells in harsh conditions, such as low oxygen and general cell death
4) Smoking actually increases GROWTH Hormones! Like testosterone and DHEA.
source: Geriatrics & Gerontology International (Volume 6 Issue 1 Page 49-52, March 2006)Relation of age and smoking to serum levels of total testosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate in aged men in , which found these results, "Serum T did not decrease with age, and was significantly higher in smokers than for non-smokers. Serum DHEA decreased with age more sharply in non-smokers than for smokers."
5) Smoking reduces IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor 1)--at least in males for sure. In animal experiments, lowered insuline growth factor IGF-1 change extends lifespan.
6) Reduced Incidence of Colorectal Cancer--especially in women.
Cigarette Smoking and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Women (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 80, No. 16, 1329-1333, October 19, 1988) states, "Colorectal cancer incidence rates for smokers, nonsmokers living with smokers (i.e., passive smokers), and non-smokers in smoke-free households were compared in a 12-year prospective study of 25, 369 women who participated in a private census conducted in Washington County, MD, in 1963. Women who smoked had a decreased relative risk of colorectal cancer compared with the risk for nonsmokers (age-adjusted relative risk, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–1.10). The risk for passive smokers was similar to that for smokers. The relative risks were significantly reduced for older women; relative risks were 0.42 for smokers and 0.66 for passive smokers over age 65. The data suggest that older women who smoke have a lower risk of colorectal cancer than non-smokers. The effect may be mediated by an antiestrogenic effect of smoking."
7) People who smoke fare better than nonsmokers when exposed to occupational hazards.
From Lack of combined effects of exposure and smoking on respiratory health in aluminium potroom workersBritish Medical Journal, Occupational and Environmental Medicine (Vol 56, 468-472, 1999):
8) Cigarette smoking may be an independent protective factor for developing schizophrenia. These results are consistent with animal models showing both neuroprotective effects of nicotine and differential release of prefrontal dopamine in response to nicotine.
From Cancer in schizophrenia: is the risk higher or lower? in Schizophrenia Research (Volume 73, Issue 2, Pages 333-341) at http://www.schres-journal.com/article/PIIS0920996404002130/abstract :
The incidence of cancer in patients diagnosed with schizophrenia was compared with the incidence in the general population. The results showed that the cancer standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for all sites were significantly lower among men and women with schizophrenia, 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80–0.93] and 0.91 (95% CI 0.85–0.97), respectively. This reduced overall risk was clearest for those born in Europe–America, both men (SIR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74–0.97) and women (SIR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77–0.94).
Appetite Suppressant -- no citations. Common sense. Most stimulants are appetite suppressants, and nicotine does seem to be a stimulant.
9) Tobacco: the definitive link in healthy aging by Daniel John Richard Date.
Reduces incidence of Alzheimer's, among other degenerative diseases.
"A statistically significant inverse association between smoking and Alzheimer's disease was observed at all levels of analysis, with a trend towards decreasing risk with increasing consumption" (International Journal of Epidemiology, 1991)
"The risk of Alzheimer's disease decreased with increasing daily number of cigarettes smoked before onset of disease. . . . In six families in which the disease was apparently inherited . . . the mean age of onset was 4.17 years later in smoking patients than in non-smoking patients from the same family" (British Medical Journal, June 22, 1991)
"Although more data are needed . . . [an analysis of 19 studies suggests] nicotine protects against AD" (Neuroepidemiology, 1994)
Nicotine injections significantly improved certain types of mental functioning in Alzheimer's patients (Psychopharmacology, 1992).
One theory: nicotine improves the responsiveness of Alzheimer's patients to acetylcholine, an important brain chemical.
“When chronically taken, nicotine may result in: (1) positive reinforcement [it makes you feel good], (2) negative reinforcement [it may keep you from feeling bad], (3) reduction of body weight [by reducing appetite and increasing metabolic rate], (4) enhancement of performance, and protection against: (5) Parkinson's disease, (6) Tourette's disease [tics], (7) Alzheimer's disease, (8) ulcerative colitis and (9) sleep apnea. The reliability of these effects varies greatly but justifies the search for more therapeutic applications for this interesting compound." ("Beneficial Effects of Nicotine," Jarvik, British Journal of Addiction, 1991)
See more on smoking and reduced incidence of Alzheimer's disease. In this compilation of 19 studies, 15 found a reduce risk in smokers, and none found an increased risk. Also noted is the fact that acute administration of nicotine improves attention and information processing in AD patients, which adds further plausibility to the hypothesis.
Smoking is Good for You: Absence, Presence, and the Ecumenical Appeal of Indian Islamic Healing Centers
In Shop owner says smoking 'doesn't cause disease' a shop owner "tells his customers that smoking calms the nerves and soothes the mind." This is in sync with what Albert Einstein stated upon becoming a lifetime member of the Montreal Pipe Smokers Club at the age of 71, "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs."
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer! (According to WHO/CDC Data)*
By: James P. Siepmann, MD
Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)
When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."
Saturday, December 15, 2007
By Robert R. Barney
It is hard for us to believe today, but much of the junk that we have been fed to us for food and fed to our minds has done more to destroy the American way of life than any other single factor. We are a nation plagued by disease. Diabetes, heart disease, cancer and every kind of unimaginable malady has destroyed millions of lives. Our leaders have blamed tobacco, booze and even the fat in your diet, but they have lied about almost everything! We are consuming deadly foods, that are promoted as being “healthy” and we are paying the cost today in higher insurance bills and medicines.
Major studies have linked corn syrup with type 2 diabetes. Food manufacturers have in the last thirty years replaced most cane and beet sugar with federally subsidized corn syrup, a sweetener that many experts claim your body just can’t digest.
My father and brother worked for the world’s largest food ingredient company for most of their lives, and I learned first hand the dangers of the additives that are being put in our foods. MSG and other chemicals are known to cause cancer. My brother jokes to this day how he worked with many of the same ingredients that I do and I manufacture automotive paint! Almost every raw ingredient that he worked with required MSDS Sheets (Material Safety Data Sheets). It’s incredible that we are being fed products which would kill us if we were to consume them by themselves.
In 1929, Dr. J.E. Crewe with the Mayo Foundation (now the Mayo Clinic) reported "uniformly excellent" success using raw milk in treatment programs for high blood pressure, heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, prostate problems and tuberculosis. He later stated that the only problem with using raw milk to treat these ailments was that it was too simple. As such, it didn't appeal to the medical profession. Only raw milk seemed to be of benefit. Pasteurized forms seemed to make most conditions worse. ( http://www.realmilk.com/milkcure.html ).
In England — Some data just released by the Medical Research Council (MRC) should create some interesting controversy among medical circles during the next several months. Peter Elwood, director of the Epidemiology Unit at Landough Hospital in Penarth, South Glamorgan, dropped a bombshell. His ongoing life-style study of 5000 men produced some startling and very unpopular findings. He discovered that men who drank the most full-fat milk and ate butter (rather than margarine) had a lower risk of suffering from heart attacks! (New Scientist 1991; 129(1759):17)
Elwood's study collected data on 5,000 British men between the ages of 45 and 59 for a period of 10 years. Of those that drank at least a pint of whole milk a day, only 1% suffered heart attacks! Some researchers are already claiming the difference is due to a healthier life-style on the part of the milk and butter consumers. Others, however, think that milk and butter may have some yet undiscovered benefits.
So what do our medical experts tell us? Raw Milk, whole milk and high fat animal products are bad for us, when the research evidence does not point that out. Research is pointing towards processed refined foods as the number one killer of Americans today. We are told to take vitamins, for example to make up for our poor diets. What is not being told to us is that 90% of all Vitamin C is made IN CHINA! Are you happy knowing that? Yet, by buying whole raw foods, unpasteurized orange juice and apple cider, we can get all the vitamins that we really need. Why? Why is our own government lying to us? Like everything else, it is all about the dollar. Large monopolies have taken over every aspect of American business. We no longer have family farms; we have mega farms owned by large corporations. These large corporations don’t have the ability to produce good wholesome foods. They can only produce foods that last for weeks without rotting. How can they do this? They do it by pasteurization, radiation and chemical preservatives. Their lobbyist makes sure that that our government protects them. This is the real reason why milk is pasteurized! Have you ever drunk raw milk? If you have, you would never want the homogenized cooked 1% stuff you are drinking today! So the large food companies have laws past to outlaw good healthy wholesome foods. It’s time to wake up and become familiar with what foods you should be consuming. I am a product of the fast food world of easy living. I have all the maladies that go along with today’s foods. I am trying to do something about it. It is very hard to do because our own government is in bed with companies trying to feed us chemical trash, which is taking away the very essence of health in America. The Plain Truth is dedicated to bring as much accurate information as possible.
by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
With the exception of butter, no other food has been subjected to such intense demonization in recent years as red meat, particularly beef. The juicy hamburger, that delicious marbled steak and the Sunday roast have been accused of terrible crimes. Beef causes heart disease, say the Diet Dictocrats. Beef causes cancer, particularly colon cancer, beef causes osteoporosis, beef causes autoimmune diseases like asthma, beef harbors E. coli leading to food-borne illness, beef causes Creutzfeldt Jakob disease.
Recently a vegetarian group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals placed billboard ads warning men not to eat beef because it causes impotence! Red meat is an acid-forming food, say the vegetarians, which putrefies in the gut because humans can't digest meat. Beef production destroys the environment, according to the zealots, and takes away land that could be dedicated to grain for starving millions. Let's examine these accusations one at a time.
read the rest:
by Tom Cowan, MD
As I'm sure most of you know by now, there are very few subjects as emotionally charged as the choice of one's diet. Sexual relations, marriage and finances come to mind as similarly charged subjects and, like diet, we are all sure we know all we need to know about each of these subjects. The subject of milk, as I have discovered during the past four years, when properly viewed will challenge every notion you currently have about what is good food and what isn't. The story of milk is complex and goes something like this.
Back in the preprocessed food era (that is before about 1930 in this country) milk was considered an important food, especially for children. Not only was there an entire segment of our economy built up around milk but, as I remember, each house had its own milk chute for the delivery of fresh milk directly to the house. It was unquestioned that milk was good for us and that a safe, plentiful milk supply was actually vital to our national health and well-being. It was also a time (now I'm referring to the early part of the century) when many of the illnesses which we currently suffer from were rare. As an example, family doctors would often go their whole careers without ever seeing a patient with significant coronary artery disease, breast or prostate cancer, whereas current doctors can hardly go one month without encountering a patient with such an illness. Furthermore, as scientists such as Weston Price, DDS discovered, there were pockets of extremely healthy, long-lived people scattered about the earth who used dairy products in various forms as the staple of their diets — further evidence that milk and its by-products were amongst the most healthful foods man has ever encountered.
If we fast forward to the 1980's, we now find an entirely different picture. For one thing, there have been numerous books written in the past decade about the dangers of dairy products — the most influential being a book by Frank Oski, MD, the current chairman of pediatrics of Johns Hopkins University and perhaps the most influential pediatrician in this country. It's called Don't Drink Your Milk. In it Oski pins just about every health problem in children to the consumption of milk, everything from acute and chronic ear infections, constipation, asthma, eczema, and so on. Secondly, just about all patients I have now in their initial visit proudly announce that they have a good diet and that, specifically, they don't eat dairy (which they pronounce with such disdain).
One might well ask where the truth in this picture. Perhaps the experiments of Dr. Francis Pottenger in the 1940's can help to solve this mystery. In these experiments Dr. Pottenger fed one group of cats a diet consisting of raw milk, raw meat and cod liver oil. Other groups were given pasteurized milk, evaporated milk or sweetened condensed milk instead of raw milk. The results were conclusive and astounding. Those that ate raw milk and raw meat did well and lived long, happy, active lives free of any signs of degenerative disease. Those cats on pasteurized milk suffered from acute illnesses (vomiting, diarrhea) and succumbed to every degenerative disease now flourishing in our population, even though they were also getting raw meat and cod liver oil. By the 3rd generation a vast majority of the cats were infertile and exhibited "anti-social" behavior — in short, they were like modern Americans.
Since the 40's the "qualities" of milk have been extensively studied to try to find an explanation for these dramatic changes. Studies have shown that before heating, milk is a living food rich in colloidal minerals and enzymes necessary for the absorption and utilization of the sugars, fats and minerals in the milk. For example, milk has an enzyme called phosphatase that allows the body to absorb the calcium from the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that allows for the digestion of lactose.
Butterfat has a cortisone-like factor which is heat sensitive (destroyed by heat) that prevents stiffness in the joints. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria as well as lactic acids that allow these beneficial bacteria to implant in the intestines. All of these qualities are destroyed during pasteurization. Once heated, milk becomes rotten, with precipitated minerals that can't be absorbed (hence osteoporosis), with sugars that can't be digested (hence allergies), and with fats that are toxic.
Raw milk has been used as a therapy in folk medicine — and even in the Mayo Clinic — for centuries. It has been used in the pre-insulin daysto treat diabetes (I've tried it — it works), as well as eczema, intestinal worms, allergies, and arthritis, all for reasons which can be understood when we realize just what is in milk — such as the cortisone-like factor for allergies and eczema.
Another way we ruin milk is by feeding cows high protein feed made from soybeans and other inappropriate foodstuffs. Rarely is anyone truly allergic to grass-fed cow's milk.
Fresh raw milk, from cows eating well-manured green grass is a living unprocessed whole food. Compare this to the supposedly "healthy" soy milk which has been washed in acids and alkalis, ultrapasteurized, then allowed to sit in a box for many months.
The Pottenger cat studies provide a simple but profound lesson for all Americans: Processed, dead foods don't support life or a happy well-functioning society. We must return to eating pure, wholesome, unprocessed foods, including whole raw milk from pasture fed cows.
In my practice I ALWAYS start there — I encourage, insist, even beg people to eat real foods— no matter what the problem. Often with just this intervention the results are gratifying. SO, find a cow, find a farmer, make sure the cow (or goat, llama, or whatever) is healthy and start your return to good health!
by Sally Fallon
We have been taught that pasteurization is a good thing, a method of protecting ourselves against infectious diseases, but closer examination reveals that its merits have been highly exaggerated. The modern milking machine and stainless steel tank, along with efficient packaging and distribution, make pasteurization totally unnecessary for the purposes of sanitation. And pasteurization is no guarantee of cleanliness. All outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades — and there have been many — have occurred in pasteurized milk. This includes a 1985 outbreak in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Illinois that struck 14,316 people causing at least one death. The salmonella strain in that batch of pasteurized milk was found to be genetically resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline. Raw milk contains lactic-acid-producing bacteria that protect against pathogens. Pasteurization destroys these helpful organisms, leaving the finished product devoid of any protective mechanism should undesirable bacteria inadvertently contaminate the supply. Raw milk in time turns pleasantly sour while pasteurized milk, lacking beneficial bacteria, will putrefy.
But that's not all that pasteurization does to milk. Heat alters milk's amino acids lysine and tyrosine, making the whole complex of proteins less available; it promotes rancidity of unsaturated fatty acids and destruction of vitamins. Vitamin C loss in pasteurization usually exceeds 50%; loss of other water-soluble vitamins can run as high as 80%; the Wulzen or anti-stiffness factor is totally destroyed. Pasteurization alters milk's mineral components such as calcium, chlorine, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and sulphur as well as many trace minerals, making them less available. There is some evidence that pasteurization alters lactose, making it more readily absorbable. This, and the fact that pasteurized milk puts an unnecessary strain on the pancreas to produce digestive enzymes, may explain why milk consumption in civilized societies has been linked with diabetes.
Last but not least, pasteurization destroys all the enzymes in milk— in fact, the test for successful pasteurization is absence of enzymes. These enzymes help the body assimilate all bodybuilding factors, including calcium. That is why those who drink pasteurized milk may suffer, nevertheless, from osteoporosis. Lipase in raw milk helps the body digest and utilize butterfat. After pasteurization, chemicals may be added to suppress odor and restore taste. Synthetic vitamin D2 or D3 is added — the former is toxic and has been linked to heart disease while the latter is difficult to absorb. The final indignity is homogenization which has also been linked to heart disease.
Powdered skim milk is added to the most popular varieties of commercial milk— one-percent and two-percent milk. Commercial dehydration methods oxidize cholesterol in powdered milk, rendering it harmful to the arteries. High temperature drying also creates large quantities of nitrate compounds, which are potent carcinogens.
Modern pasteurized milk, devoid of its enzyme content, puts an enormous strain on the body's digestive mechanism. In the elderly, and those with milk intolerance or inherited weaknesses of digestion, this milk passes through not fully digested and can clog the tiny villi of the small intestine, preventing the absorption of vital nutrients and promoting the uptake of toxic substances. The result is allergies, chronic fatigue and a host of degenerative diseases.
All the healthy milk-drinking populations studied by Dr. Price subsisted on raw milk, raw cultured milk or raw cheese from normal animals eating fresh grass or fodder. It is very difficult to find this kind of milk in America. In California and Georgia, raw milk was formerly available in health food stores. Intense harassment by state sanitation authorities has all but driven raw milk from the market in these states, in spite of the fact that it is technically legal. Even when available, this milk suffers from the same drawbacks as most supermarket milk — it comes from freak-pituitary cows, often raised in crowded barns on inappropriate feed. In some states you can buy raw milk at the farm. If you can find a farmer who will sell you raw milk from old fashioned Jersey or Guernsey cows, allowed to feed on fresh pasturage, then by all means avail yourself of this source. Some stores now carry pasteurized, but not homogenized, milk from cows raised on natural feed. Such milk may be used to make cultured milk products such as kefir, yoghurt, cultured buttermilk and cultured cream. Traditionally cultured buttermilk, which is low in casein but high in lactic acid, is often well tolerated by those with milk allergies, and gives excellent results when used to soak whole grain flours for baking. If you cannot find good quality raw milk, you should limit your consumption of milk products to cultured milk, cultured buttermilk, whole milk yoghurt, butter, cream and raw cheeses. Raw cheese ia available in all states. Much imported cheese is raw — look for the words "milk" or "fresh milk" on the label — and of very high quality.
Reprinted from Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges
Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats
Available from NewTrends Publishing (877) 707-1776