Could This Simple Habit Actually Reduce Cancer and Diabetes by 50%?

Vitamin D influences more than 200 genes. This includes genes related to cancer and autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis. Vitamin D affects your DNA through the vitamin D receptors (VDRs), which bind to specific locations of the human genome.
Reuters reports:

“Vitamin D deficiency is a well-known risk factor for rickets, and some evidence suggests it may increase susceptibility to autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes, as well as certain cancers and even dementia.”

Sources:

  Reuters August 23, 2010

  Genome Research August 23, 2010; [Epub ahead of print]

Reuter’s information is actually a bit misleading as other scientists have identified a total of nearly 3,000 genes that are upregulated by vitamin D. The particular study referenced above identified 200 genes affected, but it’s not clear if that is in addition to the ones already identified, or if they simply confirmed many of the ones found by others.
One thing’s for sure: Vitamin D is one of the major keys for disease prevention and for optimal health.

The Astonishing Power of Vitamin D to Transform Your Health

In recent years vitamin D has emerged as a star of the “vitamin” world. For example, there are currently over 800 studies showing vitamin D’s effectiveness against cancer. Optimizing your vitamin D levels can literally cut your risk of several cancers by 50 percent!
Further, middle aged and elderly people with high levels of vitamin D could reduce their chances of developing heart disease or diabetes by 43 percent.

How Does Vitamin D Do What it Does?

Vitamin D is actually a “prohormone,” which your body produces from cholesterol. Because it is a prohormone, vitamin D influences your entire body -- receptors that respond to the vitamin have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your brain to your bones.
So what modern science has now realized is that vitamin D does more than just aid in the absorption of calcium and bone formation, it is also involved in multiple repair and maintenance functions, touches thousands of different genes, regulates your immune system, and much, much more.
Just one example of an important gene that vitamin D up-regulates is your ability to fight infections, as well as chronic inflammation. It produces over 200 anti microbial peptides, the most important of which is cathelicidin, a naturally occurring broad-spectrum antibiotic.
This is one of the explanations for why it’s so effective against colds and influenza.
In addition, since vitamin D also modulates (balances) your immune response, it can prevent an overreaction in the form of inflammation, which can lead to a variety of autoimmune disorders, such as Crohn’s disease for example.
When you consider the fact that you only have about 25,000 genes in your body, and vitamin D has been shown to influence nearly 3,000 of them, the bigger picture of its true impact on your health can be easily understood.
It may, in fact, have literally thousands of health benefits!
However, it’s also very clear that unless you have taken specific measures to address it, the odds are overwhelming that you are deficient in this important nutrient.

"Healthy" Fast Food Is No Better for Your Heart

Research by the University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf in Germany found so-called “healthy” fast food alternatives to have the same effect on the cardiovascular system as standard fast food meals.

Twenty-four healthy volunteers with an average age of 32 years, ate one of three fast food meals during one week, a different meal the second week, and the remaining meal the third week. The fast food meals consisted of:

1. Beef burger, fries, ketchup, lemon-flavored carbonated drink
2. Vegetarian burger, fries, ketchup, lemon-flavored carbonated drink
3. Vegetarian burger, salad, fruit, yogurt, orange juice

Surprisingly, according to lead investigator Dr. Tanja K. Rudolph, endothelial function was adversely affected within 2 to 4 hours after eating any of these three meals, with no statistically significant differences between them.

All three meals also had negative impact on other cardiovascular disease markers.

Endothelial cells line the inside of your blood vessels. These cells control blood flow by regulating the dilation of the blood vessels. When these endothelial cells are impaired, it can lead to high blood pressure or atherosclerosis (clogging of the arteries), which increases the risk of heart disease and stroke.

According to Dr. Rudolph, "You can not prevent the harmful effects of fast food to the vascular system if you only add 'healthy components.'”

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition August, 2007 ;86(2):334-340
Reuters August 15, 2007

The Danger of Ignoring High Fructose Corn Syrup
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is the main ingredient in most soft drinks, and is one of the most commonly used sweeteners in processed food products (including fruit juices like orange juice) in general. The only way to avoid it is by focusing your diet on whole foods and, if you do purchase packaged foods, become an avid label reader.
High-fructose corn syrup increases your triglyceride levels and your LDL (bad) cholesterol. Even though they don’t specify all the ingredients in the three fast food meals provided during this study, I believe it’s fair to assume they included plenty of HFCS.
Fructose is absorbed differently than other sugars, which may have nutritional consequences. When glucose (sugar) is consumed, it increases production of insulin, which enables sugar in the blood to be transported into cells where it can be used for energy. It also increases production of leptin, a hormone that helps regulate appetite and fat storage, and suppresses production of ghrelin, a hormone made by the stomach that helps regulate food intake. Because of this reaction, it has been suggested that after eating glucose, hunger declines.
Fructose, on the other hand, does not stimulate insulin secretion, or increase leptin production, or suppress production of ghrelin. This is the mechanism explaining how consuming a lot of fructose may contribute to weight gain.
Fructose is also converted into the chemical backbone of trigylcerides more efficiently than glucose, and elevated levels of trigylcerides are linked to an increased risk of heart disease.
Since it has become such a large part of Americans’ diets -- consumption of beverages containing fructose has risen 135 percent from 1977 to 2001 -- HFCS has been linked to:

• Diabetes
• Obesity
• Metabolic Syndrome
• Cardiovascular disease

It’s unfortunate that this study made no mention of HFCS, as it may be partly to blame for why the “healthier” fares didn’t provide any protection against vascular damage.

LGMedSupply - Muscle Stimulators and TENS Unit

For those who are in pain, whether back pain, knee pain, or any type of muscle pain, LGMedSupply offers TENS Units, Muscle Stimulators, and Ultrasound Units. These LG-TEC Dual Combo TENS Unit and Muscle Stimulator will give you the benefits of both units all in one. For old or new injuries you can reduce muscle pain while increasing muscle tone. This is a lot better than taking pain killers, muscle relaxers, or even over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol and Excedrin which can harm your liver, kidneys, and stomach over time. Patients all over the globe are using the TENS Pain Relief and the Muscle Stimulator for relief of pain. You can visit LGMedSupply Online any time of the day or night. They have all items in stock, and if you find that you need more information you can simply visit their online customer blog.

How to Brand a Disease - and Sell a Cure

The manner in which prescription drugs are marketed today can be readily understood if you read the 1928 book "Propaganda," by Edward Bernays, the father of PR.

Bernays knew that public relations business was less about selling things than about creating the conditions for things to sell themselves.

Pharmaceutical marketers, following in his footsteps, sell drugs by selling diseases -- a system known as "disease branding." Illnesses such as panic disorder, restless legs syndrome, bipolar disorder, and ADHD were once considered rare until a marketing campaign transformed the brand in order to sell more drugs.
According to CNN:

"If all drugs were harmless, disease branding would be relatively harmless, too. But no drug is completely benign ... Detrol can make elderly people delirious and may cause memory problems. Paxil is associated with sexual dysfunction and dependence ... Side effects like these are a part of every drug. But they are never part of the brand."

Sources:

  CNN October 11, 2010

Drug companies are master marketers and they fully embrace the ideology that Edward Bernays' -- the father of PR -- is most known for. Instead of trying to sell their drugs on their own merit, they invest untold amounts of money into creating diseases their drugs are meant to treat.
By doing this, they create instant patients, patients who will likely go to their physicians and request the said drug by name.
It's an ingenious model and one that the PR industry has won awards over … the only problem is that it's detrimental to your health.

The Fine Art of Disease Mongering

Pharmaceutical companies spend more on marketing than research -- almost twice as much. Part of these costs often go toward hiring expensive PR firms, celebrity spokespeople, and physicians and academics to pedal their wares.
As CNN reported, in order to market its antidepressant Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline hired a PR firm to create a "public awareness campaign" about an "under-diagnosed" disease.
The disease? Social anxiety disorder … previously known as shyness.
You may have seen this campaign firsthand; ads stating "Imagine being allergic to people" were distributed widely, celebrities gave interviews to the press and psychiatrists gave lectures on this new disease in the top 25 media markets.
As a result, mentions of social anxiety in the press rose from about 50 to over 1 billion in just two years … social anxiety disorder became the "third most common mental illness" in the U.S. … and Paxil skyrocketed to the top of the charts as one of the most profitable and most prescribed drugs in the United States.
Clearly there was not a rapid rise in the number of people suffering from extreme shyness during this time … there was just a masterful marketing campaign that successfully whispered into enough people's ears, "If you're shy or nervous around others, you need to take this drug."
And that's just what millions did.

Drug Companies are Seeking to Medicalize Society … and You

Drug companies would like you to believe that for every symptom you experience, there's a pill you need to treat it. This includes symptoms you might not have thought twice about, had you not seen the very same ones advertised on television in relation to an "underdiagnosed" and "undertreated" disease.
As authors of Selling Sickness: The Pharmaceutical Industry and Disease Mongering wrote in the British Medical Journal:

"There's a lot of money to be made from telling healthy people they're sick. Some forms of medicalizing ordinary life may now be better described as disease mongering: widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.
Pharmaceutical companies are actively involved in sponsoring the definition of diseases and promoting them to both prescribers and consumers. The social construction of illness is being replaced by the corporate construction of disease."

This practice has resulted in the creation of unholy alliances between drug companies, health care providers and supposed consumer groups, all working in concert to convince people they're sick and in need of drug treatment. As the British Medical Journal continued:

"Within many disease categories informal alliances have emerged, comprising drug company staff, doctors, and consumer groups. Ostensibly engaged in raising public awareness about underdiagnosed and undertreated problems, these alliances tend to promote a view of their particular condition as widespread, serious, and treatable.  
Because these "disease awareness" campaigns are commonly linked to companies' marketing strategies, they operate to expand markets for new pharmaceutical products.
Alternative approaches—emphasizing the self limiting or relatively benign natural history of a problem, or the importance of personal coping strategies—are played down or ignored."

What the drug companies don't want you to know is that ALL of their drugs carry risks of serious side effects, some worse than the alleged diseases they're meant to treat. They also don't want you to know that, more often than not, you can overcome problematic symptoms yourself by making positive dietary and lifestyle changes.
And, in fact, this latter form of "treatment" is virtually the only way to actually cure an illness, as drugs typically do absolutely nothing but temporarily mask your symptoms.

You Needn't Live in Fear …

One of the key strategies that drug companies depend on to make medicalization of society work is targeting your news media with stories designed to create fears about a condition or disease, and draw attention to the latest treatment. This has led to problems on several key levels:

• People with benign, normal symptoms end up taking dangerous drugs. Once you're convinced that natural signs of aging and common conditions are diseases or treatable symptoms, you take drugs for such things as balding, anxiety, mild bone loss and indigestion, which puts your health at risk over issues that were not true illnesses or risks in the first place.
  
  Further, many of these conditions are entirely treatable with diet and lifestyle modifications.
  
• People who are tested regularly end up undergoing unnecessary treatments with drugs and invasive surgery. Very few people after middle age can pass standard medical tests without being told that they have some sort of "risk."
  
  This risk is then turned into a pseudo-disease leading to such things as dangerous breast and colon surgery and "preventive" medications, instead of outlining natural strategies that would actually help a person's health to thrive.
  
• As a result of "disease mongering," the more the medical industry influences a nation, the sicker that nation "considers itself to be." It eats away at your self-confidence and teaches you that you're weak and incapable of staying well, and that all signs and symptoms are potentially dangerous conditions and diseases.
  
  Truly, this sort of marketing has blurred the lines of what drugs and surgery you really need to save your life, and which may end up killing you faster.
  Rather than focusing more time and attention on your health as you age, or as you see degeneration setting in, you might settle for a "diagnosis" and the latest medications. The only winners in this grand scheme are the ones who profit financially.
  

Ugly Story Proves the Media is Lying to You About Vaccines

By Barbara Loe Fisher

On October 17, 2009 I was at the Atlanta airport on my way back to Washington, D.C. when I stopped at a newsstand.

Like most weary travelers waiting for a plane, I was looking for something to read that would give me a break from my work, which included, two weeks earlier, hosting the large Fourth International Public Conference on Vaccination ¹ for an audience of 700 concerned scientists, health care professionals, journalists, legal experts, ethicists and parents from around the world.
Suddenly, my eye caught the distorted, photo-shopped image of a baby with the word FEAR in bold letters imprinted on the baby's chest.

I paged through Wired magazine ² to find out who wrote the article and discovered it was a woman named Amy Wallace, one of the many journalists I had talked with in 2009, who had contacted the National Vaccine Information Center ³, a non-profit, educational organization I co-founded with parents of vaccine injured children in 1982.

As I scanned the article to find out why it was entitled "An Epidemic of Fear: One Man's Battle Against the Anti-Vaccine Movement," I quickly realized it was a puff piece for vaccine patent holder, Dr. Paul Offit, who alleges that vaccine injuries and deaths are largely a myth.
Then, I saw my name. And then, I saw the words, "She lies."

When All Else Fails, the Name of the Game Becomes Character Assassination...

I felt a knot in the pit of my stomach as I read the unsubstantiated, unchallenged slur made by Offit against me. And in those two words "SHE LIES," I knew that the propaganda tactic of character assassination was being used to attack the credibility of my nearly 30 years ⁴ of work as a vaccine safety consumer advocate.

1. Now, I have never met Amy Wallace. We have never shaken hands or shared so much as a cup of coffee together. We had one interview on the telephone in 2009. In a sworn statement ⁵ she stated that she did not use any quotes from our telephone interview in her Wired article. No, she didn't.
2. She also did not tell Wired readers what I told her, which is that I have always encouraged everyone to become educated ⁶ about the risks of diseases and risks of vaccines and consult one or more trusted health care professionals before making an informed decision - just like every intelligent person should do before using any pharmaceutical product.
3. Instead, Ms. Wallace said she based her description of me on a speech I gave at a conference, a speech that she did not attend.
4. Nobody at Wired magazine called me while they were presumably fact checking Wallace's article to ask me point blank, "Dr. Offit said that you lie. Do you have a response?" Wouldn't a responsible journalist or editor have made some attempt to verify such a serious attack on another person's character? No, Dr. Offit's defamatory statement remained in the article, unchallenged.
5. I was left with two options: 1) I could ignore it; or (2) I could take action to defend my integrity.

Suing for Libel or Slander is Not for the Faint of Heart...

After consulting Jonathan Emord ⁷, a constitutional and libel law attorney, I selected option number two. I sought justice in a civil court, which is my constitutional privilege as an American citizen and my responsibility as the president of a non-profit organization, whose supporters depend upon the accuracy, honesty and integrity of what I say and do, as does everyone I know.

Requesting a jury trial in a U.S. civil court to sue for slander or libel is not for the faint of heart. You have to review and be prepared to defend the truthfulness of every statement you have ever made and every action you have ever taken in your life. You, your family, friends and colleagues could be subpoenaed and drawn into a potentially very public, drawn-out battle, especially if those you are suing are wealthy, influential and politically connected.

I had never sued anyone before and I certainly never thought I would find it necessary to sue a journalist. The majority of journalists I have worked with over the years have been honest men and women, who have taken care to do their research and fairly report the facts without prejudice, including accurately describing who I am and what I do.

This was different. I had never been defamed before and I knew I had no choice but to take steps to defend my integrity.

I was confident that, if my case was presented to a jury of my peers, I would win. I had no doubt I would win on the facts because I did not lie and there was no evidence that could be produced to substantiate the defamatory statement made by Offit, amplified by Wallace, and printed by Wired magazine published by Conde Nast.

After Mr. Emord filed a Complaint with Demand for a Jury Trial ⁸ on Dec. 23, 2009 in a Virginia U.S. District Court asking for one million dollars in damages, we waited for a response from the defendants. When I read the Motion to Dismiss brief filed on Jan. 22, 2010 ⁹ by the defendants attorneys, I could not believe what I was reading.

That CYA brief is better reading material than anything I can write or say here.

Instead of providing one piece of solid evidence to support Offit's defamatory statement, Wallace claimed I could not sue her because she is a resident of California. And Offit, who has no trouble keeping a straight face when he states flatly that it is absolutely safe for a child to get 10,000 vaccines at once and 100,000 vaccines in a lifetime, claimed he was simply having an emotional meltdown when he hysterically told Wallace "flatly" that I lie. And to draw attention away from the seriousness of engaging in libel per se, the defendants' attorneys argued that "the quoted remark 'she lies' is not capable of being proven true or false" because the civil court system cannot prove whether vaccines do or do not cause harm.

In my Opposition to Motion to Dismiss brief filed on Feb. 3, 2010 ¹⁰, Jonathan Emord and his associates brilliantly outlined why it is inconceivable that the self characterized "dispassionate, objective" Dr. Offit described by Wallace in her article as a "mild mannered" rational man of "science," suddenly would have lost his mind when maliciously calling me a liar. Mr. Emord points out that it is far more logical to conclude that Dr. Offit knew exactly what he was doing.
Mr. Emord also makes a compelling argument that Ms. Wallace knew exactly what she was doing when she wrote an article "void of balanced criticism" that set me up for ridicule as a person "unworthy of any professional association."

Mr. Emord rightly stated that the libel lawsuit we filed was not about "the intellectual debate surrounding vaccination," it was about proving before a jury of my peers that Offit and Wallace defamed me in order to discredit my long, successful public record of consumer advocacy to defend the informed consent ethic in medicine ¹¹.

Did They, or Did They Not, Mean what They Said?

On February 12, 2010, the case was argued in front of Judge Claude Hilton, a Ronald Reagan federal court appointee. On March 10, 2010, a Memorandum Opinion ¹² was issued by Judge Hilton granting the defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

In his opinion, Judge Hilton explained why he would not allow me to face my accusers in a court of law in front of a jury of my peers. First, Hilton said that protection of First Amendment free speech rights are "at their zenith" in this case because Paul Offit and I are public figures debating an issue of "substantial public concern." Second, he said there would have to be a discussion about "which side of this debate has 'truth' on their side" and that would be impossible to prove based upon a "core of objective evidence."

Third, Hilton offered the opinion that Offit's allegation "cannot be reasonably understood to suggest" that I am "a person lacking honesty and integrity" and that Wallace and Wired magazine were only reporting Offit's "personal opinion" about my "views" and none of the defendants intended to make a "literal assertion of fact" that I lie. In other words, they really didn't mean it.
Seriously.

That was the substance of their main defense – they really didn't mean it – and Hilton bought it.
However, if all three defendants really didn't mean it, as they claim in their legal brief, then, ethically, all three defendants should have stated so publicly in a clarification published in Wired magazine to correct the public record. That has not happened.

I weighed the option of taking the case to the federal Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel would have reviewed Hilton's opinion and had the opportunity to overturn it, as has happened in the past. However, if Hilton's opinion were overturned on appeal, my case would have gone back to Hilton's court for a jury trial and he would have been the presiding judge with an obvious bias. So I did not appeal and moved on.

Where Did All the REAL Journalists Go?

However, Ms. Wallace continues to paint herself as the innocent victim of an unprovoked libel lawsuit, even as she becomes the shameful face of yellow journalism ¹³, a nasty, lowbrow kind of tabloid reporting that "exploits, distorts or exaggerates" to create "sensation and attract readers."

In an August 30, 2010 article ¹⁴ published on the Internet, Wallace addressed fellow journalists about the difficulties of being sued for libel and complained about being called bad names by grieving parents of vaccine injured children, whom she had cruelly demonized in her article. Casting herself as a martyr with Offit for the cause, she said "The beast doesn't tire, it seems, of taking whacks at those who dare to describe it" and suggested that she had been vindicated by Hilton's opinion and the inclusion of her Wired article in an upcoming book on Best American Science Writing edited by a doctor with financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, including vaccine manufacturers.

Sadly, Wallace is looking into a mirror when she describes the "beast." She, Offit and Wired magazine have feasted on the shattered lives of vaccine injured children and their parents to sell magazines.

They have taken delight in belittling vaccine victims and those who are trying to help them, while defending bad science and one-size-fits-all vaccine policies that create more vaccine damaged children every day.

Amy Wallace, who wrote an article full of factual errors and silly quotes from a doctor hyping vaccine mandates like a used car salesman, is a classic example of the bully who can dish it out but sure can't take it.

During the 1980's, 1990's and early 2000's, I worked with award winning,¹⁵,¹⁶ truly professional print and broadcast journalists,¹⁷,¹⁸,¹⁹,²⁰,²¹ who were committed to maintaining high journalistic standards and intelligently covering all sides of the multi-faceted vaccine safety issue. They did not sensationalize and dumb down the conversation to a black and white, "pro" and "anti" slugfest that is the hallmark of tabloid journalism.

There are fewer smart, responsible investigative journalists writing about the science, policy, law, ethics and politics of vaccination in America today. Perhaps that is because, today, health journalists are being warned by those in positions of authority to only report one side of the vaccine safety story.²²

The Need to Stand Up for What's Right

Do I regret my libel lawsuit, even though I didn't get my day in court in front of a jury of my peers to prove who is lying and who is not? Not at all.

I know I did the right thing when I stood up to those who are desperately trying to shut down all public discussion about vaccine risks, a subject that public opinion polls reveal concerns more than 50 percent of Americans today.²³ Perhaps that is because, today, nearly everybody knows somebody who was healthy, got vaccinated, and then became sick or disabled for the rest of their life.

Doctors, journalists and judges in denial cannot change that harsh reality. It is a reality that the American people are not going to tolerate for much longer before they rise up, break free, and take back their health and their choices.

One of the Worst Parenting Mistakes You Can Make

No matter how physically active a child is, time spent in front of the computer or television screen is associated with psychological problems.
In other words, children can't make up for TV time by spending extra hours exercising.
The findings also suggest that the way children spend their sedentary time, in addition to how much time they spend being sedentary in the first place, matters for their mental health.
According to Live Science:

"... [R]esearchers asked 1,013 British 10- and 11-year-olds how much time each day they spent in front of a computer or TV. The children also wore accelerometers around their waists for a week to track their physical activity and sedentary time ...
The study found that ... more than two hours a day in front of a TV or computer was associated with more emotional and behavioral difficulties."

Sources:

  Live Science October 11, 2010

  Pediatrics October 11, 2010 [Epub ahead of print]

 

Many 'All Natural' Foods Are Actually Heavily Processed

If you think a food is "all natural" just because the label says it is, think again. So which foods really aren't as natural as they claim they are?

When it comes to ice cream, as reported by Change.org, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has outed Ben & Jerry's as having ingredients that are hardly natural, but Edy/Dreyers, Breyers, and Turkey Hill do, too.

"And it's not just ice-cream makers who mislead consumers with an 'all natural' label," Change.org said.

"Food products from cookies to yogurts to sauces to cereals come with glowing, 'all natural' labels, but actually contain ingredients that are decidedly man-made in a weird science-type of way."

While CSPI has asked Ben & Jerry's to remove the "all natural" from their labels, Change.org has gone one step further, with an online petition that it's asking visitors to sign.

Sources:

  Change.org September 29, 2010

Ben & Jerry's ice cream was recently singled out by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) for listing "all-natural" on their labels, even when the product contained ingredients like corn syrup and maltodextrin, which are not natural.
The company responded quickly and decided to voluntarily remove the all-natural label from ice creams that contain processed or artificial ingredients, but many other manufacturers have not followed suit.
The news likely came as a surprise to many Ben & Jerry's devotees, however, as they're a company with a decidedly green and natural image.

Even "Green" and "Natural" Companies Use Highly Processed Ingredients

In all fairness, Ben & Jerry's is leaps and bounds ahead of other companies in terms of its corporate responsibility. They support family farmers, make their containers from paper that comes from sustainably managed forests, and get all their milk from dairies that have pledged not to inject their cows with Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH).
Plus, most people know when picking up a pint of Ben & Jerry's that it's meant to be a treat, not a health food (and with upwards of 16 grams of sugar per serving, it's more like a health disaster). Still, that doesn't change the fact that they were passing their ice cream off as all-natural when at least 36 of their flavors are not.
It just goes to show you that just as you can't judge a book by its cover, you often cannot judge a food solely based on its label claims. Even Ben & Jerry's, which is again one of the more forward-thinking companies out there, is owned by parent company Unilever, a food giant that also sells margarine and MSG-ridden bouillons.
So you've got to be a bit of a sleuth when it comes to deciphering what food labels really mean … especially if you value your health.

The FDA Does Not Check Food Label Accuracy

Food labels fall very closely into the realm of "anything goes" in the food-processing world. While the FDA does check food labels, they only check to see whether or not the Nutrition Facts panel is present, rather than whether or not it is true and accurate.
They do not look for deceptive "0 trans-fat" claims and misleading "made with real fruit" or "all natural" statements.
The FDA estimates that roughly one out of every 10 food product labels contain inaccuracies. Additionally, you need to be aware of the fact that a food label must be more than 20 percent off in order for it to violate federal law, and government food labs have a 10 percent margin of error.
This means that an item labeled as having 400 calories can legally have up to 480 calories, and the 10 percent margin of error can bring it up to over 500.
Likewise, blueberry muffins can be called "blueberry muffins" even if they do not contain actual blueberries, but rather artificial blueberry-flavored bits. Other products that list milk on their label may actually contain non-fat powdered milk, palm oil, sugar and additives -- the chemical "equivalent" of milk -- instead.
This is true even when a food claims to be "all natural" …

What Does an "All Natural" Label Claim Really Mean?

Zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip.
The natural food label on a processed food has no standard definition and really no meaning at all. The term is only regulated on meat and poultry, for which an item labeled natural may not contain any artificial flavors, colors or chemical preservatives.
But in the processed food arena, a "natural" product can be virtually anything -- genetically modified, full of pesticides, made with corn syrup, additives, preservatives and artificial ingredients. Most are also heavily processed.
It is because of this very vagueness that 7-Up is able to claim it's "100% natural" and still be within its legal rights. It's also due to this misleading nature that many consumers are fooled into buying foods labeled as "natural" in the belief they're better for their health, when in reality they can be complete junk.
But you can expect that food manufacturers will continue to use natural label claims for as long as possible. Products labeled as "natural" or "sustainable" account for $50 billion annually, or 8 percent of total retail grocery sales, so don't expect them to disappear from your grocery store anytime soon.

U.S. Ranks 49th in Life Expectancy, First in Health Care Costs

America ranks 49th in life expectancy worldwide, putting it lower than a dozen other developed nations. However, researchers determined that obesity, traffic accidents and a high murder rate may not be the main causes -- the U.S. didn't stand out as doing any worse in these areas than any of the other countries studied.

Instead, poor health care may be to blame. Factors such as costly specialized and fragmented care are likely playing a large role in the nation's poor performance.
Commenting on the study in Salon, Glenn Greenwald noted:

"It's easy to say and easy to document, but quite difficult to really internalize, that the United States is in the process of imperial collapse. Every now and then, however, one encounters certain facts which compellingly and viscerally highlight how real that is."

Sources:

  MSNBC October 7, 2010

  Salon October 11, 2010

  Health Affairs October 7, 2010

The U.S. health care system is in a downward spiral and showing no indications of slowing down or reversing. I've been warning people about this tragic state of affairs for more than two decades, and now the evidence is becoming even more obvious.
Virtually every measurable index indicates that despite the ever-increasing amounts of money invested, if you live in the US, your chances of achieving optimal health through the medical system is only getting worse.

Americans Spend More for Health Care to Live Shorter Lives

The latest study published in Health Affairs revealed that the United States now ranks 49th for male and female life expectancy worldwide, a ranking that has fallen sharply from fifth place in 1950. At the same time that life expectancy has been declining at faster rates than many other industrialized nations, per capita health spending has been on the rise.
Specifically, U.S. per capita health spending rose at nearly twice the rate of other developed countries between 1970 and 2002, which means the U.S. spends more than twice the amount on health care as other developed nations.
What's more, three of the "big killers" -- obesity, traffic accidents and murder -- cannot explain the United States' dismal life expectancy data, as other countries have similar death rates from these factors.
What they may not have, however, is a health care system as poor as the one in the United States … as the study researchers told MSNBC:
"The U.S. doesn't stand out as doing any worse in these areas [obesity, traffic accidents and murder] than any of the other countries we studied, leading us to believe that failings in the U.S. health care system, such as costly specialized and fragmented care, are likely playing a large role in this relatively poor performance on improvements in life expectancy."
Among the most likely suspects for Americans' declining health, the researchers noted in Health Affairs, were unnecessary medical procedures and an uncoordinated system with fragmented care, where patients rely on numerous providers to treat various bits and pieces of a problem, rather than seeking out one provider who will treat them as a whole:

" … unregulated fee-for-service reimbursement and an emphasis on specialty care may contribute to high US health spending, while leading to unneeded procedures and fragmentation of care. Unneeded procedures may be associated with secondary complications.
Fragmentation of care leads to poor communication between providers, sometimes conflicting instructions for patients, and higher rates of medical errors. For example, two separate physicians are probably more likely than a single primary care provider to prescribe two incompatible drugs to a single patient."

This system, as you may have experienced first-hand, is becoming known throughout the world not for its technology or advances but for its alarming rates of medical errors and poor results in relation to its astronomical costs.

The U.S. Medical System is Responsible for Countless Deaths Every Year

That other countries manage to achieve longer life expectancies than the United States while paying a mere fraction of the U.S. health care cost per capita is a major clue that something is sorely amiss in the United States, and that something comes down to the very fundamental core of the system, which relies on drugs and surgery to treat illness, rather than focusing on prevention and wellness.
The U.S. now ranks LAST out of 19 countries for unnecessary deaths -- deaths that could have been avoided through timely and effective medical care.
For example, more than 2 million Americans are now affected by hospital-acquired infections every year, and 100,000 people die as a result. It is all too common for people to go into the hospital for a "routine" surgery or medical procedure, only to contract a severe hospital-acquired infection or succumb to an adverse drug reaction or other completely preventable medication mishap.
According to one study, "patient safety incidents," which is a nice way of saying "preventable medical mistakes," are so common in U.S. hospitals that over the years 2006-2008 there were nearly 1 million incidents among Medicare patients, and one in 10 of them were deadly.
A HealthGrades report also pointed out that "the incidence rate of medical harm occurring is estimated to be over 40,000 each and EVERY day according to the Institute for Healthcare Improvement!"
Ten years ago, Professor Bruce Pomerance of the University of Toronto also concluded that properly prescribed and correctly taken pharmaceutical drugs were the fourth leading cause of death in the US.
More recently, Johns Hopkins Medical School refined this research and discovered that medical errors and prescription drugs together may actually be the LEADING cause of death.
So the primary form of "health care" and treatment in the United States may actually prematurely kill more people than any disease plaguing our society!

Unthinkable Surgery Mix-Ups are All Too Common

Surgical errors, such as operating on the wrong patient or amputating the wrong limb, are unacceptably high in the United States. A new study in the Archives of Surgery found that Colorado doctors alone operated on the wrong patient 25 times and on the wrong body part 107 times!
These catastrophic "wrong patient" and "wrong site" procedures accounted for 0.5 percent of the medical mistakes analyzed in the study, which is a much higher percentage than expected.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Martin Makary, M.D., a professor of surgery and public health at Johns Hopkins University, went so far as to say that "almost every surgeon has seen one."
These entirely preventable, and unacceptable, incidents were often the result of errors in diagnosis, judgment and communication -- or in other words human error.
Surgical teams are also encouraged to have a "time out" prior to surgery to double check that they have the correct patient and surgical site -- but in wrong-site errors, a time-out procedure was not performed 72 percent of the time.

U.S. Health Care Gets a Failing Grade

If you're like most people, you probably have certain expectations about the quality of the products you buy. You probably expect your laptop computer to make it through at least a year or two before crashing, or your car to operate smoothly for a certain number of miles before needing to pay for additional repairs, for example. 
So, what do you expect to get when you're faced with an ailment or disease and your physician -- or worse yet, a slick advertisement -- "sells" you on a particular surgical procedure or drug treatment? 
You probably expect it to solve your problem, improve your health, or, at the very least, live up to its advertised ideals. But in the United States this is, sadly, expecting too much.
American medical care is the most expensive in the world, and for this "price" Americans get:

• A maternal mortality rate that is 13.3 maternal deaths for every 100,000 births -- over four times the U.S. government's 2010 goal of 3.3.
• A premature birth rate that is higher than that of most other developed nations, and rose 36 percent between the early 1980s and 2006.
• Ranked second-to-last out of rich countries for measures of child well-being.
• Ranked 30th in global infant mortality rates, behind most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Israel.
• Falling life expectancy rates relative to 12 other countries over the past 30 years.

So please understand that if you live in the United States, your health is not safe in the hands of the conventional medical system. The entire paradigm of conventional medicine is flawed, and finding health care providers that aren't trapped within this paradigm will require effort on your part -- but it can be done.

Ultrasound Scans Linked to Brain Damage in Babies

By Robert Matthews
Evidence suggesting that ultrasound scans on pregnant women cause brain damage in their unborn babies has been uncovered by scientists.
In the most comprehensive study yet on the effect of the scanning, doctors have found that men born to mothers who underwent scanning were more likely to show signs of subtle brain damage.
During the 1990s, a number of studies hinted that ultrasound scanning affected unborn babies. Research has suggested that subtle brain damage can cause people who ought genetically to be right-handed to become left-handed. In addition, these people face a higher risk of conditions ranging from learning difficulties to epilepsy.
Now a team of Swedish scientists has confirmed the earlier reports on the effects of ultrasound with the most compelling evidence yet that unborn babies are affected by the scanning. They compared almost 7,000 men whose mothers underwent scanning in the 1970s with 170,000 men whose mothers did not, looking for differences in the rates of left- and right-handedness.
The team found that men whose mothers had scans were significantly more likely to be left-handed than normal, pointing to a higher rate of brain damage while in the womb. Crucially, the biggest difference was found among those born after 1975, when doctors introduced a second scan later in pregnancy. Such men were 32 per cent more likely to be left-handed than those in the control group.
Reporting their findings in the journal Epidemiology, the researchers warned that scans in late pregnancy were now routine in many countries.
The present results suggest a 30 per cent increase in risk of left-handedness among boys pre-natally exposed to ultrasound. If this association reflects brain injury, this means as many as one in 50 male fetuses pre-natally exposed to ultrasound are affected.
Other doctors and scientists caution that until further studies are carried out, scanning should still be regarded as safe by mothers-to-be. If confirmed, however, the findings would mean that ultrasound scans are causing slight brain damage in thousands of babies in Britain each year.
Ultrasound scans, which were introduced in the 1960s, have long been regarded as a safe means of checking on the health of unborn children. The scanners use high-frequency sound waves to give X-ray-like images of the inside of the womb, but without using radiation, which carries a risk of causing cancer. Between the 1960s and today, the number of pregnant women having scans in western Europe has increased from a handful to virtually all of them.
Normally, left-handedness is genetic: the likelihood of two left-handed parents having a left-handed child is 35 per cent, while for two right-handed parents, it is only nine per cent. It is when the incidence of left-handedness begins to rise above these normal rates that scientists become concerned that brain damage of some kind could be a factor.
Other surveys have shown that premature babies are five times more likely than normal to be left-handed. According to the Swedish researchers, the human brain undergoes critical development until relatively late in pregnancy, making it vulnerable to damage. In addition, the male brain is especially at risk, as it continues to develop later than the female brain.
The growing evidence that ultrasound affects unborn babies may cast new light on the puzzling rise in left-handedness over recent years.
In Britain, the rate has more than doubled, from five per cent in the 1920s to 11 per cent today. Researchers have estimated that only 20 per cent of this rise can be put down to the suppression of left-handedness among the older generation.
Dr Francis Duck of the British Medical Ultrasound Society will chair a discussion of the results at the international meeting of ultrasound experts being held this week in Edinburgh. "When the first study suggesting a link came out, it was possible to ignore it, but now this is the third," he said. "What it demonstrates is the need to investigate the link further, and to look at possible mechanisms."
Dr Duck cautioned, however, that ultrasound scanning has saved the lives of countless babies: "This research must be seen in context, and it should not deter anyone from having an antenatal scan."
Beverley Beech, the chairman of the Association for Improvements in Maternity Services, criticized doctors for insisting for years that ultrasound was totally safe.
"I am not sure at all that the benefits of ultrasound scans outweigh the downsides," said Ms Beech. "We should be advising women to think very, very carefully before they have scans at all."

The Very Unappetizing Truth About McDonald's Chicken Meals

Tens of thousands are crushed together, each confined to a tiny space. They will live for just 40 days before hitting the genetically-engineered slaughter weight -- if they don’t die before then.

McDonald's has tried to relaunch itself as a chain that cares about the provenance of its food and its relationship with farmers. But the majority of their chickens come frozen from Brazil or Thailand.
The Daily Mail reports:

“... having assumed the moral high ground, [McDonald's] customers will no doubt be all the more surprised to learn that when it comes to its ever-growing range of chicken products there has been no such transformation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is something McDonald's largely glosses over.”

Sources:

  The Daily Mail May 15, 2010

McDonalds’ restaurants in the UK, where they serve free-range eggs and organic milk, are already leaps and bounds ahead of those in the United States, not that that is saying much. In the UK, the company has undergone a green-washing campaign where they boast of their wholesome suppliers and ethically sourced foods.
This has happened to some extent in the United States as well, with their Web site talking of animal welfare, sustainability and, of all things, “nutrition & well-being.” But in Britain people are being led to believe that the fast-food chain has really cleaned up their act, and they experienced a double-digit increase in sales in 2009 as a result.
And then, the truth comes out.

McDonalds’ Chicken is Not Good for You or the Planet

The chicken used at UK McDonalds’ is not raised with concern for animal welfare or sustainability, and it is certainly not good for anyone’s nutrition and well-being.
Instead, as the Mail Online exposed, it is imported frozen, largely from Brazil, where the chickens were raised in cramped, deplorable conditions. They write:

“One of tens of thousands, each bird is allowed the floor space equivalent to a sheet of A4 paper and will live for just 40 days before it hits its genetically-engineered slaughter weight. That's if it doesn't perish along the way.
Five per cent or so will be unable to cope with the conditions and die even before then.
Those that survive will be plucked and butchered in an industrial process the likes of which this planet has never before seen.”

There is no way that this qualifies McDonald’s to boast of any type of regard for animal welfare, no more than they could boast that their food is actually good for your health.

How Many Ingredients are in a Chicken McNugget?

While we’re on the topic of McDonald’s chicken, these food conglomerations are out of the realm of any food that naturally occurs on Earth, and the Chicken McNugget really takes the cake.
In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan pointed out that McNuggets contained 38 ingredients, among them tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), a petroleum-derived chemical sprayed onto the "food" or inside the box to preserve freshness.
In high doses, TBHQ has caused precursors to stomach tumors and DNA damage in lab animals. A number of studies have also shown that TBHQ can be carcinogenic with prolonged exposure.
Other McNuggets’ ingredients include sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate, hydrogenated vegetable oils (trans fats), modified food starch (often a name for MSG, and listed as the third ingredient!), and dimethylpolysiloxane.
Sound appetizing?

What Happens When You Eat Too Much McDonald’s Food?

Morgan Spurlock wanted to find out, and did just that in his 2004 documentary Super Size Me.
This movie should be required viewing for all children and their parents.
Prior to his experiment, Spurlock was a highly fit and athletic individual weighing in around 185 pounds. He went on a month-long binge eating only McDonald's food and in that time gained 25 pounds and began suffering from health complaints like fatigue, headaches and indigestion.
His cholesterol levels also became high and he even suffered from a mild chemical hepatitis. It is truly amazing what massive amounts of “fake food” will do to you in only a month, but unfortunately many Americans are experiencing this in their own lives.
I’m not intending to single out only McDonald’s … all fast food restaurants are equally damaging to your health. Eating fast food:

• Exponentially increases your risk of obesity and diabetes
• Is loaded with dangerous additives like trans fats, high-fructose corn syrup and MSG
• Contains genetically modified ingredients
• Lacks the nutrients your body needs to thrive, let alone maintain itself

It takes very little effort to pull up to a drive through and get a meal for your family (albeit a disastrous one) from a fast-food chain, but please don’t exchange this convenience for a bed in the ICU or an early ticket out of this life.
Your health -- your energy levels, your appearance, your mood and so many other factors -- will improve when you eat the foods your body was designed for. Returning to a diet of locally grown, fresh whole foods is really the only way to reach optimal health -- and no matter what their advertisements may say, you won’t find this at McDonald’s.

Good News – Evil Monsanto Finally Reaping Its Just Desserts

Monsanto, the giant biotechnology agriculture company that created genetically modified corn, soybeans and herbicides, isn't riding so high this year in the stocks department, as news comes in that its products aren't working like they'd hoped.
According to the New York Times, weeds are becoming immune to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and its latest genetically modified, 8-gene corn is a flop, producing yields no higher than the company's less expensive corn, which contains only three foreign genes.

"Monsanto has already been forced to sharply cut prices on SmartStax and on its newest soybean seeds, called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, as sales fell below projections," the Times said. "And the Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for possible antitrust violations."
"Until now, Monsanto's main challenge has come from opponents of genetically modified crops, who have slowed their adoption in Europe and some other regions. Now, however, the skeptics also include farmers and investors who were once in Monsanto's camp."

Monsanto was named "company of the year" by Forbes Magazine in December. Last week, television stock market commentator Jim Cramer said it "may be the worst stock of 2010," the Times said.

Sources:

  New York Times October 5, 2010

Use this Common Device and Double Your Risk of Brain Cancer

An epidemiologist and toxicologist who is an expert in environmental health has found evidence linking cell phone usage to an increased rate of certain kinds of brain tumors in young people who were heavy cell phone users.
In her book, Disconnect, Dr. Devra Davis talks about how she found evidence of studies, some decades old, showing that the radio-frequency radiation used by cell phones could have biological effects -- enough to damage DNA and potentially contribute to brain tumors.

As reported by Time, Davis also found that many of the studies debunking a link between cell phone usage and adverse events were mostly funded by the industry. According to Time:

"She found that other countries—like France and Israel—had already acted, discouraging the use of cell phones by children and even putting warning signs on handsets. …

"This is about the most important and unrecognized public health issues of our time," says Davis. "We could avert a global catastrophe if we act."

"Davis also said that industry resistance would make regulation "harder and harder," but that the good news is "simply using a wired headset should significantly cut down on radiation exposure to the brain, although Davis recommends that children—whose thinner skulls can absorb higher levels of radiation—avoid using phones altogether."

Sources:

  Time.com September 27, 2010

The Research is Loud and Clear … Cell Phones are Dangerous

Devra Davis, PhD, professor, Department of Epidemiology at the Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh has written a new book -- Disconnect -- in which she exposes research showing that radiation from cell phones has been linked to:

• DNA damage
• Memory loss
• Alzheimer's disease
• Cancer
• Break down of your brain's defenses
• Reduced sperm count

The 2009 special EMF issue of the Journal of Pathophysiology also contains over a dozen different studies on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and wireless technology.
In addition, a review of 11 long-term epidemiologic studies published in the journal Surgical Neurology revealed that using a cell phone for 10 or more years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same side of the head where the cell phone is typically held.
This is really only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to delve into the "meat" of the issue even further, look into the results of the Interphone study. It cost more than $30 million (funded in part by the mobile phone industry) to carry out, and involved nearly 50 scientists from 13 countries, along with more than 14,000 people.
It was meant to finally give definitive evidence on the safety, or lack thereof, of cell phones, but now that the data has finally been released (years after its scheduled completion date), there are more questions than answers, as the study is seriously flawed.
But one disturbing finding that can be gleaned from the Interphone data is that "heavy users" of cell phones have an approximately doubled risk of glioma, a life threatening and often-fatal brain tumor, after 10 years of cell phone use.
Now here's the important part: their definition of a "heavy" user was someone who used a cell phone about two hours … a month!
What this means is that if you use your cell phone for two hours a month or more, you may be doubling your risk of a potentially fatal brain tumor. Use your cell phone significantly more than that, and your risk is likely much, much higher.

An Industry of Deception

Even more revealing in Davis' new book is her assessment of the "dark side" of the cell phone industry, and their attempts to keep cell phone dangers quiet. As TIME magazine reported:

"As Davis argues in some of the best passages of Disconnect, it could be that we haven't established the dangers of cell phone use because we haven't asked the right questions—and that might be on purpose.
"If you don't want to know the answer," Davis says, "don't ask the question." Much of the research into the biological effects of cell phone radiation has been underwritten by the... cell phone industry, and you don't have to be a raging paranoiac to wonder whether that money might have an impact on the conclusions of those thousands of studies."

It's worth remembering that the telecommunication industry is even BIGGER than Big Pharma, and they have far more influence than the drug companies. They're also mirroring many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry to pedal their wares.
This includes attempting to discredit researchers who publish unfavorable cell phone studies. TIME reported:

"Davis shows that independent studies on cell phone radiation found dangers at more than twice the rate of industry-funded studies—though because the cell phone industry is the source of much of the funding of cell phone studies, there are far more of the latter.
… Time and again, she [Davis] shows the way that industry has been able to twist science just enough to stave off the possibility of any regulation—and finds that researchers are afraid of challenging the status quo, lest they find themselves suddenly out of a job, denied the lifeblood of research money.
Most of the few brave researchers who challenge the prevailing wisdom on cell phone radiation—like the electrical engineer Om Gandhi or the bioengineer Henry Lai—are senior scientists, secure in their positions and their tenure. But a young researcher just starting out is far more vulnerable to industry pressure. Science isn't as pristine as we imagine it."

Many Warnings Have Already Been Issued: Have You Heard Them?

You may be wondering why, if there is so much data showing the risks of cell phone use, no warnings are being made. Well, there actually are warnings out there, but they are not being widely publicized.
Several countries, including Finland, Israel and France, have already issued guidelines for safer cell phone use. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), while distancing itself from any claims that cell phones cause health problems, also recently released steps you can take to reduce your exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones.
Witnesses before a Senate Committee also testified this year about research into cell phone use and its potential impact on human health, as well as the potential side effects such as brain and salivary gland tumors.
In San Francisco, meanwhile, warning labels and radiation emission numbers will be required for every cell phone -- in a font at least as big as the printed price. In addition to the city being required to purchase cell phones emitting the lowest possible radiation, schools will be required to educate students and parents about cell phone radiation.
Andrea Boland, the Maine State Representative, also wanted warnings especially for children and pregnant women to keep cellular devices away from their head and body, but unfortunately a Maine legislative committee rejected her proposal, citing "inconclusive studies" and a concern about "raising fear in people."
In 2008, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, also issued a warning to his faculty and staff urging them to limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer. So there are plenty of warnings out there … the cell phone industry has just done a fairly good job at making sure they're not widely heard.

Practical Tips for Protection

The damage from cell phone exposure will take many years to surface and there are rarely any initial symptoms, just like smoking and lung cancer. So it's important to take action now, before any health symptoms arise.
At this point, you cannot completely avoid wireless radiation from all sources since they're so pervasive (WI-FI, cell phone towers, etc.), but getting rid of your cell phone altogether can help protect you.
If you don't want to take that step, you can still minimize your exposure and reduce your risks by following these commonsense guidelines:

• Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones and other factors.
• Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters.
• Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
• Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time. Even portable home phones, including the older kind that operate at 900 MHz, can be a problem. The lesson from the field is that all DECT portable phones are a problem.
  
  If you do not know if you have a DECT phone (as many are not labeled as such), the ONLY way to know for sure is to measure. You can learn about measuring instrumentation at www.emfsafetystore.com.
  For "hands free" calls at home, I recommend getting the old-fashioned speaker phone (either attached to the phone or separate) or using SKYPE on your computer on speaker mode, which is terrific.
  
• Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
  
  Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag.
  
• Turn Your Cell Phone Off When Not in Use: As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.
• Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is near the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body near this area and proximity is everything. The closer the phone is to your body, the worse the exposure -- with the exposure falling off dramatically with distance. Thus, using the speaker mode, the farther you can keep the phone away from your body and still hear the call, the better.
• Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded -- and most of them are not -- the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain and your body, for example over your heart.
  
  Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
  The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
  

Breast Cancer Rates Fell When Regular Hormone Therapy Decreased

Breast cancer rates dropped by half in tandem with the discontinuation of hormone replacement therapy, according to a study published online in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. The study was reported in the Telegraph in the United Kingdom.
The Telegraph said:

"Dr Prithwish De, of the Canadian Cancer Society, and colleagues, found that use of HRT dropped from 12.7 per cent in 2002 to 4.9 per cent in 2004.
During the same period breast cancer rates dropped by 9.6 per cent even though the same number of women were having mammography tests.
Between 2004 and 2006 use of HRT remained stable at around five per cent of women aged 50 to 59 but breast cancer rates began to increase again.
Dr De wrote: 'The results support the hypothesised link between the use of hormone replacement therapy and invasive breast cancer incidence and indicate that the sharp decline in breast cancer incidence in 2002 is likely explained by the concurrent decline in the use of hormone replacement therapy among Canadian women.'"

The study's authors said these numbers support existing evidence of the link between HRT and breast cancer.

Sources:

  Telegraph UK September 24, 2010

  Journal of the National Cancer Institute October 6, 2010; 102(19):1489-95

 

Sleep The Weight Off

If you're trying your best to eat right and exercise, it might be worth it to make sure you get the proper amount of sleep each night, according to a new study that suggests lack of sleep can throw off a diet. According to CNN Health, research from the University of Chicago showed that dieters who slept for 8.5 hours lost 55 percent more body fat than dieters who slept 5.5 hours

"The dieters who slept less reported feeling hungrier throughout the course of the study," CNN said, even though "they ate the same diet, consumed multivitamins and performed the same type of work or leisure activities."

The study authors concluded that "Lack of sufficient sleep may compromise the efficacy of typical dietary interventions for weight loss and related metabolic risk reduction," CNN said. The study was released October 4 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Sources:

  CNN Health October 4, 2010

Good sleep is a cornerstone of good health, yet is probably, by and large, the most ignored factor.
According to the 2010 "Sleep in America Poll" by The National Sleep Foundation, only about 40 percent of respondents reported getting a good night's sleep every night, or almost every night, of the week.
There are many likely reasons for this. But part of the problem may be that many have bought into the fallacy that you can safely make do with less than eight hours of sleep a day. Modern society has more or less brainwashed us into thinking that sleeping is for wimps, or a sign of lazy luxury that most cannot afford.
This, as it turns out, is not true, and studies have linked poor or insufficient sleep with a wide range of health problems -- including weight gain and obesity.
This latest study again confirms that if you do not take your sleep needs seriously, you could be unknowingly sabotaging your weight, not to mention your overall health.

Sleep Less, Weigh More

In this latest study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, dieters who slept for 8.5 hours lost 55 percent more body fat than dieters who only got 5.5 hours of shut-eye.
They also reported feeling less hungry throughout each day compared with those who slept less.
These results were echoed in another recent study published earlier this year, in which subjects who slept less than six hours per night had a 32 percent gain in visceral fat, compared to a 13 percent gain among those who slept six or seven hours per night, and a 22 percent increase among men and women who got at least eight hours of sleep each night. This is the type of fat linked to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, strokes and other chronic diseases.
But why would lack of sleep lead to increased weight?
It is believed that insufficient amounts of sleep affect your hunger-regulating hormones, leptin and ghrelin. This and other studies have shown that when you are sleep deprived, your body decreases production of leptin (whose job it is to tell your brain when you're full and should stop eating), while at the same time increasing levels of ghrelin, a hormone that triggers hunger.
Lack of sleep also appears to affect glucose and fat utilization in your body, as well as energy metabolism – all of which can lead to a decreased ability to lose weight.
Although none of the studies mentioned in this article can prove that a lack of sleep directly causes fat gain, they all support the proposed link between sleep duration -- particularly a lack of sleep – and weight gain, as well as an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Your Hormones Depend on Your Body Clock to Set the Pace...

It's important to realize just how vital a function your internal body clock serves, because in many ways it helps regulate your overall health.
The physiological functions of virtually all organisms are governed by 24-hour circadian rhythms. Your circadian clock is an essential time-tracking system, which your body uses to anticipate environmental changes and adapt to the appropriate time of day.
When operating normally, this 'internal clock' is what wakes your body in the morning and makes you get sleepy once darkness falls.
However, if you deprive yourself of sleep, or eat meals at odd hours (times at which your internal clock expects you to be sleeping), you send conflicting signals to your body that can confuse and unbalance this internal system.
In one study, researchers found that people who got four hours of sleep a night for just two nights in a row experienced:

• 18 percent reduction in leptin
• 28 percent increase in ghrelin

As described earlier, these hormonal alterations basically instruct your body to "be hungry," and "store fat."
In addition, previous research has also shown that subjects tend to crave more sweet and starchy foods opposed to vegetables and dairy products when getting less than six hours of sleep.
One possible explanation for this is that your brain is fueled by glucose (blood sugar); therefore, when you're sleep deprived, your brain searches for carbohydrates.
Regardless of the exact mechanisms, it's clear that sleep deprivation can push your body into a pre-diabetic state and make you feel hungry, even if you've already eaten – both of which can lead to weight problems.

Other Health Risks Linked to Poor or Insufficient Sleep

In addition to impaired weight control, poor sleep is associated with a number of other potentially serious health risks.
For example, interrupted or impaired sleep can:

• Dramatically weaken your immune system
• Seriously impair your memory; even a single night of poor sleep—meaning sleeping only 4 to 6 hours—can impact your ability to think clearly the next day
• Impair your performance on physical or mental tasks, and decrease your problem solving ability
• Raise blood sugar levels and increase your risk of diabetes
• Accelerate aging -- Sleep deprivation prematurely ages you by interfering with your growth hormone production, normally released by your pituitary gland during deep sleep (and during certain types of exercise, such as Peak 8 exercises). Growth hormone helps you look and feel younger.
• Lead to hypertension (high blood pressure)
• Cause or worsen depression
• Increase your risk of cardiovascular disease – One recent study found that sleeping fewer than five hours a day more than doubles your risk of being diagnosed with angina, coronary heart disease, heart attack or stroke.
  
  But sleeping more than seven hours also increased the risk of cardiovascular disease; more than nine hours of sleep resulted in a 50 percent increase in risk.
  Although a direct causative relationship between certain amounts of sleep and cardiovascular disease has yet to be found, researchers believe it is related to your endocrine and metabolic functions. In addition, sleep deprivation can impair your glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, and can raise your blood pressure -- all of which are associated with hardening of your arteries.
  
• Increase your risk of cancer and accelerate tumor growth by altering the balance of hormones in your body. (Tumors grow two to three times faster in laboratory animals with severe sleep dysfunctions).
  
  One explanation for this is related to your production of melatonin, which is both a hormone and an antioxidant. When your circadian rhythms are disrupted, your body produces less melatonin, which reduces your body's ability to fight cancer since melatonin helps suppress free radicals that can lead to cancer. This is also why tumors grow faster when you sleep poorly.
  
• Increase your risk of dying from any cause – According to one study, people with chronic insomnia have a three times greater risk of dying from any cause.

So, What's the Ideal Amount of Sleep?

Interestingly, excessive sleeping is not the answer to any of these problems because sleeping more than nine hours has also been linked to a number of health issues, including weight gain, back pain, headaches, depression and heart disease.
So, what is the ideal amount of sleep?
It appears the Goldilocks' zone can be found somewhere between six to eight hours per night for most adults.
Keep in mind that your age and activity level will influence your sleep needs to some extent. Children and teens, for instance, need more sleep than adults.
However, your sleep needs are individual to you. You may require more or less sleep than someone of the same age, gender and activity level. Part of the reason for the difference has to do with what the National Sleep Foundation (NSF) calls your basal sleep need and your sleep debt:

• Basal Sleep Need: The amount of sleep you need on a regular basis for optimal performance
• Sleep Debt: The accumulated sleep lost due to poor sleep habits, sickness, environmental factors and other causes

Studies suggest that healthy adults have a basal sleep need of seven to eight hours each night, corresponding nicely with all the research findings discussed above.
Your best bet?
Listen to your body!
If you still feel tired and fuzzy headed when the alarm goes off, you probably aren't getting sufficient sleep.

Can't Sleep? Try Something New...

If you have trouble sleeping, take advantage of some of the many practical solutions I've outlined in my 33 Secrets to a Good Night's Sleep, which include:

• Avoid before-bed snacks, particularly grains and sugars. This will raise blood sugar and inhibit sleep. Later, when blood sugar drops too low (hypoglycemia), you might wake up and not be able to fall back asleep.
• Sleep in complete darkness or as close as possible. If there is even the tiniest bit of light in your room it can disrupt your circadian rhythm and your pineal gland's production of melatonin and serotonin.
• No TV right before bed. Even better, get the TV out of the bedroom or even out of the house, completely. It is too stimulating to your brain and it will take longer to fall asleep.
• Wear socks to bed. Due to the fact that they have the poorest circulation, your feet often feel cold before the rest of your body. A study has shown that wearing socks reduces night wakings
• Get to bed as early as possible. Our systems, particularly our adrenals, do a majority of their recharging or recovering during the hours of 11PM and 1AM.
• Keep the temperature in the bedroom no higher than 70 degrees F. Many people keep their homes and particularly the upstairs bedrooms too hot.
• Eat a high-protein snack several hours before bed. This can provide the L-tryptophan need to produce melatonin and serotonin.