Cincinnati Holistic Hope & Answers

At least 9 Dayton VA dental patients test positive for hepatitis

2011-03-04T12:34:00.000-05:00

By Ben Sutherly, Staff WriterUpdated 11:43 AM Thursday, March 3, 2011

DAYTON — At least nine patients who received dental care at the Dayton VA Medical Center have tested positive in preliminary tests for Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C, VA officials said Tuesday.

Since Feb. 8 the Dayton VA has contacted 527 of 535 veterans seen by a dentist who failed to change latex gloves and sterilize dental instruments properly between patients. Of 375 patients tested so far, there have been seven Hepatitis C cases, two Hepatitis B cases and no cases of HIV, Director Guy Richardson said. ...more...

8000 IUs of vitamin D daily necessary to raise blood levels of "miracle" anti-cancer nutrient, declares groundbreaking new research

2011-03-03T05:14:00.000-05:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The reign of censorship and suppression against vitamin D is now coming to an end. Even though the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and many institutions leading the cancer industry (including the ACS) have intentionally tried to downplay the ability of vitamin D to prevent cancer, a new study appearing in the journal Anticancer Research lays out the simple, powerful truth about vitamin D that we've been teaching at NaturalNews for years: A typical adults needs 4,000 - 8,000 IUs of vitamin D each day to prevent cancer, MS and type-1 diabetes, not the ridiculously low 400 - 800 IUs recommended by the U.S. government.

The new research was conducted by scientists at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha. It is groundbreakingresearch because it establishes the relationship between vitamin D dosage and circulating vitamin D levels in the blood.

This is a first. It is crucial information for the health care revolution that will be necessary to save states and nations from total health care bankruptcy in the coming years. Vitamin D turns out to be one of the simplest, safest and most affordable ways to prevent degenerative disease and sharply reduce long-term health care costs.

Up to 8,000 IUs needed daily

"We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4,000 to 8,000 IU [international units] are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases -- breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes," said Dr. Cedric Garland. (http://health.ucsd.edu/news/2011/02...)

Dr. Garland is the professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. He went on to say:

"I was surprised to find that the intakes required to maintain vitamin D status for disease prevention were so high -- much higher than the minimal intake of vitamin D of 400 IU/day that was needed to defeat rickets in the 20th century."

Study reveals 90% vitamin D deficiency rate across U.S. population

This particular study involved over 3,000 volunteers who were taking vitamin D supplements. Researchers drew blood samples from them in order to determine their levels of 25-vitamin D (the common form circulating in the blood).

The results were shocking even to the study authors, revealing that 90 percent of those studied were deficient in vitamin D, falling below the 40 - 60 ng/ml range now considered healthy. (Most nutritionally-aware experts in the natural health world recommend higher ranges of 60 - 70 ng/ml, actually.)

The U.S. government's Institute of Medicine has intentionally downplayed vitamin D recommendations, seemingly in an effort to keep boosting the profits of the cancer industry by denying any real benefit to vitamin D. The IOMs most recent recommendations seemed designed to actually cause vitamin D deficiency in the U.S. population (http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_v...).

The IOM has even gone out of its way to artificially lower the threshold of vitamin D deficiency by claiming that 20 ng/ml is a sufficient level. This magically transforms a "deficient" person into a "non-deficient" person by merely changing the definition. So a person with a level of 22 ng/ml, for example, is not considered "vitamin D deficient" by the established medical system, even though their vitamin D levels are so low that they may not be able to prevent cancer, MS or type-1 diabetes.

Why the truth about vitamin D is a huge threat to the established for-profit medical system

As NaturalNews has documented and reported many times over the last several years, the medical establishment -- and especially the cancer industry -- has willfully engaged in attempts to prevent people from learning the truth about vitamin D in order to protect the lucrative profits generated from sickness and disease. Vitamin D represents a greater threat to the medical establishment than any other single nutrient for three reasons:

1) Vitamin D is FREE (you can get it from the sun, without a prescription).

2) Vitamin D prevents over a dozen high-profit diseases and health conditions (osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes, MS, and others).

3) Vitamin D is extremely safe, even when taken in supplement form, because it's a natural vitamin / hormone that the body recognizes.

Read more in our downloadable special report, "The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D" at http://www.naturalnews.com/rr-sunli...

Or watch the incredibly popular video from the Health Ranger that explains how African Americans, Asians and Latinos are being exploited by the cancer industry through vitamin Dcensorship and encouraged nutritionally deficiencies:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5A62F...

Highlights from the study

The following summary is extracted from the results of the study, available at: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/gar...

• The study examined 3,667 people and their vitamin D intake habits.

• Vitamin D intake of 10,000 IU / day had no toxicity.

• For those severely deficient in vitamin D, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 10 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.

• For those with existing blood levels above 30 ng / ml, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 8 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.

• For those with existing blood levels above 50 ng / ml, each 1,000 IU / day of increased supplementation resulted in an increase of 5 ng / ml in vitamin D blood levels.

• In other words, vitamin D supplementation has a curve of diminishing returns. Those with existing high levels of vitamin D do not experience as much benefit from vitamin D supplements as those with low levels (which is roughly 90% of the population).

• Vitamin D sales have increased 600% since 2001 (due largely to the efforts of those in both the natural health and honest science communities who are telling the truth about vitamin D).

• Vitamin D is remarkably safe! From the conclusion of the study:

"Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity."

Yes, that's 40,000 IUs per day.

See the abstract reprinted below.

Why nearly everyone in first-world nations needs more vitamin D

Thanks in large part to this remarkable research, it's now clear that all the intelligent people are going to up their vitamin D intake to something in the range of 8,000 IUs per day (or more), especially through the winter months.

Based on this study, I am personally increasing my intake to 10,000 IUs per day from October through April (in North America). And I'll be sure to get plenty of sunshine during the other months.

"Now that the results of this study are in, it will become common for almost every adult to take 4000 IU/day," said Dr. Garland. "This is comfortably under the 10,000 IU/day that the IOM Committee Report considers as the lower limit of risk, and the benefits are substantial."

"Now is the time for virtually everyone to take more vitamin D to help prevent some major types of cancer, several other serious illnesses, and fractures," said Robert P. Heaney, MD, of Creighton University, an experienced biomedical scientist.

It seems the conventional cancer industry, the IOM and even the FDA will not be able to censor the truth about vitamin D much longer. The truth is getting out, thanks in large part due to you, the NaturalNews readers who share these stories and help educate and inform your friends and family members.

Spread the news: Take more vitamin D! Please share this story on Facebook, Twitter and elsewhere. Let people know that the research is in, and vitamin D is a remarkably safe "miracle" nutrient that nearly everyone needs to be supplementing. This is especially true if they have darker skin.

(We recommend vitamin D3 from quality nutritional supplement companies. Beware of cheap "multivitamin" sources that you find at common retailers. Go for quality supplements from reputable sources.)

Here's the title and abstract of the original study:

Vitamin D Supplement Doses and Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D in the Range Associated with Cancer Prevention

CEDRIC F. GARLAND, CHRISTINE B. FRENCH, , LEO L. BAGGERLY, and ROBERT P. HEANEY,

"This paper provides a long awaited insight into a dose-response relationship between orally administered vitamin D3 and the resulting levels of serum 25(OH)D in over 3600 citizens. The results will allow new definition of high vitamin D dose safety and reduce concerns about toxicity. This is a landmark contribution in the vitamin D nutrition field!" - Anthony Norman, Distinguished Professor of Biochemistry & Biomedical Sciences, Emeritus, University of California Riverside

Abstract. Background: Studies indicate that intake of vitamin D in the range from 1,100 to 4,000 IU/d and a serum 25- hydroxyvitamin D concentration [25(OH)D] from 60-80 ng/ml may be needed to reduce cancer risk. Few community-based studies allow estimation of the dose–response relationship between oral intake of vitamin D and corresponding serum 25(OH)D in the range above 1,000 IU/d. Materials and Methods: A descriptive study of serum 25(OH)D concentration and self-reported vitamin D intake in a community-based cohort (n=3,667, mean age 51.3±13.4 y). Results: Serum 25(OH)D rose as a function of self-reported vitamin D supplement ingestion in a curvilinear fashion, with no intakes of 10,000 IU/d or lower producing 25(OH)D values above the lower-bound of the zone of potential toxicity (200 ng/ml). Unsupplemented all-source input was estimated at 3,300 IU/d. The supplemental dose ensuring that 97.5% of this population achieved a serum 25(OH)D of at least 40 ng/ml was 9,600 IU/d. Conclusion: Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.

The recent increase in interest in vitamin D by the general public has fueled a better than 200% increase in sales of over-the-counter vitamin D preparations from 2008 to 2009, and a more than 6-fold increase since 2001 (1). Additionally, products with progressively increasing content of vitamin D have been introduced with similar rapidity. There seems to have been little precedent for a change of this magnitude and duration for other nutrients (e.g., vitamins C and E) that have enjoyed brief periods of popularity among the general public. There is essentially no information on how the public uses these products or on their impact on the vitamin D status of consumers.

GrassrootsHealth (GRH), a non-profit community service organization dedicated to promoting public awareness about vitamin D, has assembled a database that includes information on supplemental vitamin D intake by a self-selected population cohort, and links these intakes to measured values for serum 25(OH)D, various demographic variables, and a variety of health status measures. GRH data include values from many individuals with daily supplemental intakes in and above the ranges often used today for cancer prevention and co-therapy (2, 3).

This study used the GRH database to describe the relationship of measured vitamin D status to vitamin D supplementation, both as practiced by health conscious individuals and as related to cancer prevention.

Read more at: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/gar...

Roundup, GMOs linked to emergence of deadly new pathogen causing spontaneous abortions among animals

2011-02-27T10:00:00.000-05:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) In a shocking warning letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, a highly experienced, ex-military pathogen researcher warns that the use of Roundup via GMO crops is resulting in the emergence of a deadly new pathogen -- previously unknown to science -- that's causing widespread spontaneous abortions among cattle. The pathogen appears in high concentrations among even non-GMO crops that are "managed" through the use of glyphosate (Roundup) for weed control.

The letter is authored by COL (Retired) Don M. Huber, a former Emeritus Professor at Purdue University. Huber was also the coordinator at the American Phytopathological Society, an organization that studies plant diseases and pathogens. Huber also sat on the committee for Emerging Diseases and Pathogens, chaired by an Agriculture Research Service (USDA) employee from Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Fort Detrick, you may remember, is also where the U.S. military conducts much of its biological warfare research through its United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._A...). A few years ago, deadly pathogens "went missing" from this lab (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...).

Huber, in other words, is not just some ranting civilian. He's someone who has worked around pathogens for many decades and whose warnings about pathogenic threats must be taken seriously. In his letter, Huber warns about a new pathogen, unknown to science, "...that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn -- suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup."

This pathogen appears to be link to widespread spontaneous abortions among cattle. As Huber explains, "450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers ...experienced spontaneous abortions."

That's a spontaneous abortion rate of 45 percent!

Huber goes on to say that this pathogen "...could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. ...This new organism may already be responsible for significant harm..."

Huber's letter was made available to Tom Vilsack well before the USDA's recent decision to deregulate GE alfalfa (http://www.naturalnews.com/031139_G...), meaning that the USDA deregulated GE alfalfa even after being made aware of this severe threat to human and animal health.

The threat to human health

As Huber explains, this previously unknown pathogen causes spontaneous abortions and infertility. "Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting."

That alone means this pathogen may be a huge threat to ranchers and cattle operations, but there's more to this story: The HUMAN threat.

"[The pathogen] is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas," says Huber.

Guess where soybean meal is used? Throughout the processed food supply. Both soybean meal and GMO corn are widely used in thousands of foods found in grocery stores and even health food stores like Whole Foods. This means human consumers are almost certainly being exposed to this pathogen through the food supply right now, as there are often mistakes in food processing that don't always kill the pathogens through cooking or pasteurization.

Is this part of the explanation behind human spontaneous abortions and rising rates of infertility?

More frighteningly, is this all part of a population control agenda being pursued by the U.S. government through the USDA? Given the threat that this pathogen presents to both human and animal life, why would the USDA deregulate so many Roundup Ready GMO crops unless it actually wanted to see more infertility and spontaneous abortions taking place?

Pathogen also threatens plant life

It's not just animals and humans that are threatened by this mysterious and deadly pathogen, by the way. Crops are also threatened by it.

"The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income -- sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines)."

Did you read that carefully? The pathogen caused by the use of Roundup and GMO crops drives down crop yields through plant disease! And yet, the whole selling point behind GMOs was supposed to be "increased yields!" That's why farmers have been strong-armed into using GMOs in the first place. And yet, in reality, what we see are GMO crop failures, not increased yields. See this article by Jeffrey Smith for more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031138_M...

Huber isn't the only one warning about the toxic effects of Roundup on life, by the way. A paper published in Chemical Research in Toxicology also concluded that Roundup causes birth defects in frogs and chickens: Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021...)

An emergency halt to all GMOs

Huber's letter drives home the most important point in all this: We need to STOP GMOs right now, at least until more research can be conducted. As Huber states:

"[We request] an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal / predisposing relationship with glyphosate and / or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health. It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders."

But rather than stopping GMOs, the USDA has approved three new GE crops in just the last several weeks! The USDA, it seems, has decided to risk the sustainability of life on our planet -- plant life, animal life and even human life. The USDA is now becoming as dangerous as the FDA!

The USDA, through its recent decisions, is without question a threat to life on Earth.

The coming ecological catastrophe

Mark my words, friends: We are facing dark times ahead, thanks in part to these reckless actions being taken by the USDA. We are facing the likelihood of widespread crop failureswhich will obviously lead to food riots and starvation. We're rolling the dice on the future of life on Earth, placing our bets on the profits of the biotech industry while violating the laws of nature.

Once these deadly pathogens are out in the wild, there's no recapturing them. I predict that, in the years ahead, GMOs will cause an ecological catastrophe that results in widespread suffering and death. Everybody is threatened by GMOs - cattle ranchers, dairy owners, pets, children, adults and even the crops themselves. Nothing is safe from the scourge of death and destruction now being unleashed upon our world by these evil corporations (http://www.naturalnews.com/030967_M...) working in conspiracy with corrupt, criminal-minded government all across the world -- governments that are actively conspiring against their own people to unleash spontaneous abortions, infertility and eventual starvation.

Make no mistake, all of you who read NaturalNews: Your government is conspiring with an industry of death to roll out GMOs that will result in abortions, suffering, starvation and ecological catastrophe. And they are doing this under the label of "science," claiming that any restrictions of GMOs would be "unscientific." (http://www.naturalnews.com/031093_u...)

They are claiming that GMOs will prevent starvation and "feed the world!" But the evidence reveals the far darker truth behind the scheme: It's really about poisoning the world, reducing the population, and seizing control over the production and distribution of food.

Why aren't people protesting against GMOs?

The truth about this matter is now becoming increasingly apparent to nearly everyone. But I have a question: When will the people take to the streets to protest this?

Don't you find it interesting that people in places like Madison, Wisconsin will protest threats to their incomes, but virtually nobody takes to the streets to protest GMOs and other threats to sustainable life on our planet? Why aren't the people up in arms over GMOs, marching in front of the USDA offices and demanding the arrest and prosecution of people like Tom Vilsack who have emerged as enemies of life?

It really makes you wonder where peoples' priorities are these days. While they're busy protesting their paycheck in Madison, the federal government is secretly plotting behind their backs to abort their fetuses, starve their children, contaminate their crops and destroy their ranch animals. This is the definition of EVIL, folks. The dark era of "Satanic government" is upon us, and now they're plotting with the biotech industry to literally destroy life on our planet.

You need to understand, this is no longer about mere profits or political power. This is an agenda of death now being pursued by the USDA. Government-sponsored pestilence. The four Horsemen of the Apocalypse and all that. This is downright Biblical in proportion because now we're talking about threats to life across the planet.

Below, I've reprinted the full letter from Huber:

Source: I first learned about this letter on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance website: http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-...

They verified the authenticity of this letter.

The letter to the USDA from Professor Huber

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn -- suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties

This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

Pathogen Location and Concentration

It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.

Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease

The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income -- sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).

Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure

Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.

The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

Recommendations

In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.

Sincerely,

COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)

Low Vitamin D Levels, Doubles the Risk of Stroke in Caucasians

2011-01-27T07:14:00.004-05:00

Are Your Vitamin D Levels Measuring Up?

I advise nearly everyone to get a Vitamin D checkup. Testing involves a simply blood you can order from the comfort of your home and can reveal potential life-saving information. Vitamin D is a very powerful multi-dimensional nutrient that nourishes our bodies in many unique ways. Often vitamin D is called the "Sunshine" vitamin which makes it extremely useful for those living in the colder northern climates and those who spent too much time indoors.

Why Is Vitamin D Useful for Strokes?

Vitamin D has beneficial effects far beyond the bone benefits that are typically touted. Vitamin D is the only known substrate for a potent, pleiotropic (meaning it produces multiple effects), repair and maintenance seco-steroid hormone that serves multiple gene-regulatory functions in your body.
Every cell in your body has its own DNA library that contains information needed to deal with virtually every kind of stimulus it may encounter, and the master key to enter this library is activated vitamin D. This is why vitamin D functions in so many different tissues, and affects such a large number of different diseases and health conditions. So far, scientists have found about 3,000 genes that are upregulated by vitamin D.
Not only is vitamin D known to help reduce your risk of arterial stiffness, a major risk factor for stroke, but it can also:
Increase in your body's natural anti-inflammatory cytokines
Suppress vascular calcification
Inhibit vascular smooth muscle growth
See the full story at Mercola.com.....

Captured on Tape: 60 Minutes Exposes the Maker of the #1 Most Fatal Drug of 2009

2011-01-18T06:07:00.002-05:00

Drug company whistle-blower Cheryl Eckard talks and cries her heert out while discussing her experience trying to fix problems at GlaxoSmithKline. Her discoveries about the dangerous practices of the company made her a key figure in a federal lawsuit.

See full story at Mercola.com...

Banned toxic chemicals found in 100 percent of pregnant women - new study

2011-01-17T07:26:00.000-05:00

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) A new study from the University of California, San Francisco reveals that 100 percent of expectant mothers (sample size = 268) are contaminated with highly toxic synthetic chemicals. The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, "Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women."

These chemicals are known to exhibit various harmful effects on human biology, covering everything from neurological and infertility problems to cancer and hormonal disorders. Many of the chemicals found in these women have been banned for not just years, but decades.

The poisoning of our bodies by chemical companies

Where do all these chemicals come from? Pesticides are sprayed on crops, of course, and the new so-called "Food Safety" bill passed by Congress does absolutely nothing to reduce pesticide levels of food (that's not part of their definition of "safety," apparently). In addition, S.510 actually places a new burden on U.S. farmers, shifting the competitive advantage to food importations from countries where the most toxic pesticides are still legal to use. (Yes, farms outside the U.S. can spray DDT on their crops, then import them into the USA for consumption.)

Phthalates are chemical plasticizers. Pharmaceutical pills are often coated with phthalates to give them a shiny finish. They're also used in children's toys, medical devices, personal care products, sunscreens and even sex toys. On the personal care side, phthalates are found in perfumes, eye shadow, liquid soap, nail polish and hair spray (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...).

Phthalates are known as "endocrine disruptors" because they interfere with normal endocrine system function -- potentially leading to obesity and birth defects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthal...).

Perchlorate, also known as the "rocket fuel chemical," is used in the manufacture of automobile airbags and other vehicle parts. It's also present in many fireworks, and is frequently found contaminating the water supply.

We could go on with more details, but here's the point: We live in a toxic stew of synthetic chemicals -- chemicals that the plastics industry and the American Chemistry Council tend to say are all completely harmless, of course. The FDA allows thousands of other chemicals to be used in food and personal care products, and the processed food manufacturers inject an alarming array of toxic chemicals into their foods (and food packaging materials).

The average U.S. consumer bathes their clothing in extremely toxic fabric softeners and perfumed laundry detergents that make them smell like walking fragrance factories. The exhaust air from dryer vents even pollutes the air in residential neighborhoods and apartment buildings.

With all this going on, is anybody really surprised that 100% of pregnant women are contaminated with toxic chemicals?

The Roman Empire poisoned itself with lead in the water supply. The American empire has decided to poison itself with the "miracle of modern chemistry" as found in all the pesticides, plasticizers, additives, preservatives and other chemicals that a typical first-world consumer poisons themselves with a thousand times a day.

You just gotta love Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever and all the other consumer product companies using synthetic chemicals to manufacture personal care products. It is corporations like these, in my opinion, whose products are poisoning our bodies and contaminating our world with dangerous synthetic chemicals. That's why I personally refuse to buy any products manufactured by such companies.

Ten powerful ways to protect yourself from toxic chemicals

If you want to protect yourself from these toxic chemicals, here's how to do it:

#1) Don't put anything on your skin you wouldn't eat! Avoid all mainstream consumer skin care, cosmetics and personal care products, period! Need soap? Try natural, organic brands like Dr Bronner's, AnnMarie Gianni or Pangea Organics.

#2) Don't eat foods made with chemicals you can't pronounce. Read the ingredients labels. If the list of ingredients is too long and complex to figure out, it's probably made more with chemicals than actual food.

#3) Don't poison your body with over-the-counter drugs or prescription pharmaceuticals. If you do need to use medication for short-term emergency use, be sure to detoxify your liver afterwards.

#4) Detox your liver, kidneys and colon at least once a year. You can do this with a juice fast combined with detox supplements such as those offered by www.GlobalHealingCenter.com or www.BaselineNutritionals.com (get professional guidance from a naturopath before fasting).

#5) Drink more water. Most people simply don't consume enough water to effectively remove toxins from their bodies. If you don't like water by itself, drink fresh vegetable juices such as celery or cucumber juice (which are actually structured water).

#6) Cleanse your body with parsley, alfalfa, red clover, chlorella or chlorophyll. All these substances can help cleanse your body and eliminate toxic substances that may be detrimental to your health.

#7) Don't fill your home or apartment with products that off-gas toxic chemicals: Air fresheners, perfumed candles, particle board furniture, carpets, glues, etc.

#8) Don't cook on non-stick cookware. These are the worst! Invest in quality copper-clad stainless steel pans and use those. They'll last a lifetime and they don't contaminate your body with chemicals. Don't eat at restaurants that use non-stick cookware. (That's just about every restaurant in the world, it seems...)

#9) Buy certified organic products. In the USA, the USDA Organic Seal is a trusted seal that genuinely indicates organic quality (both in foods and personal care products). Don't be fooled by brand names that use the word "organics" in their name but aren't really organic. For example, "Bob's Organics" may or may not actually be organic. The Organic Consumers Association (www.OrganicConsumers.org) can keep you posted on what's what.

#10) Get the cancer out of your laundry! Stop washing your clothes in toxic brand-name laundry detergents, and stop using brand-name fabric softeners or dryer sheets. Do you have any idea what chemicals are used in those products? The truth would astonish you.

And, of course, keep reading NaturalNews.com to stay up to speed on what's really good for you versus things that actually threaten your health. There is absolutely no question that the average chemical contamination of NaturalNews readers is far below that of typical American consumers.

Stay healthy by staying informed. Don't become another contaminated victim of the chemical industry.

Sources for this story include:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/...

How Safe Are Your Drugs?

2011-01-11T10:09:00.001-05:00

I know many wonder if the prescriptions drugs they are taking are part of the problem or part of the solution! See which drugs made 2010's Hall of Shame.

I have see many people reach their maximum health potential by adopting of some the following:

Exercise (simply walking more)
Proper Sleep
Targeted Nutrition
Detoxing (Colon Cleansing, Heavy Metals, Environmental, Yeast/Fungus, Liver, etc.)
Drink Pure Water (avoiding sugar laden soda pop)
Address low-level infections and lingering symptoms
Vitamin D3 Supplementation
Eating more fruits and vegetables
Juicing
Probiotics

Keep an open mind as you explore options in your wellness journey; remember one gifted healer can change your life forever!

If you are stuck in a bad health rut (i.e.- their no hope for me, no one can figure this out, I have to learn to live with this the rest of my life or similar statements are signs you may have reached a health blockage!)

I encourage you to keep knocking until you obtain your desired results....yes, one more knock on a door of possible opportunity. Your opportunity may not exist in a distance place or person(which it may), it could be as close as the taking heed to the gentle prompting of a friend's advice or some recommendation was previously shared and received with excitement but became buried in your conscience by the busiest of life. What ever you do keep reaching for answers and solutions....

31 cities’ tap water has cancer-causing hexavalent chromium, study says

2011-01-07T07:15:00.000-05:00

Cincinnati joins other cities with the cancer causing agent called "hexavalent chromium" present in their public water systems. Click here to read the full article.

Hexavalent chromium is commonly discharged from steel and pulp mills as well as metal-plating and leather-tanning facilities. It can also pollute water through erosion of natural deposits.

This alarming news requires health conscience consumers to protect themselves for this onslaught of increasing chemical exposures. Consider installing a reverse osmosis water purification unit in your home.

Fosamax: TURNING BONE TO MARBLE

2007-06-08T15:58:00.000-04:00

Other non-estrogen drugs which are prescribed to supposedly reduce
the chance of osteoporosis, have serious side effects. In his video,
Dr. James Lee outlines the dangers of a very popular drug named
Fosamax. It's actually quite simple. Again, living healthy bone must
go through a constant process of old cells being replaced by new
cells, so that every few years we have an entire new skeleton.

Osteoclasts are cells that tear down bone; osteoblasts build new
cells in those spaces. Got that? OK.

The intellects behind Fosamax have decided that if they can stop the
osteoclasts from doing their normal job of tearing down bone, this
will prevent osteoporosis. How? '

By the buildup of Fosamax crystals in the bone, which just stay
there long after a normal lifespan, which artificially stops the
removal system - the osteoclasts. Now there are no spaces in which
new bone cells can form.

The Fosamax crystals cannot be broken down by the body, and remain
in the bone for 15 or 20 years, taking up space, and offering an
artificial, plastic-like composition in what should be normal
healthy bone.

Dr. Lee tells us that modern Fosamax is 1000 times more potent than
the original drug. Even the manufacturers caution against indiscriminate long term use
of this drug: on p 1657-8 of the 1998 Physicians Desk Reference we find that:

"bone formation is ultimately reduced Fosamax decreases the rate of
bone resorption [tearing down] directly, which leads to an indirect
decrease in bone formation."

Decreased bone formation? Does that sound like something that's
going to maintain normal bone and prevent osteoporosis in your
golden years? Dr. Lee and many others don't think so.

The PDR also tells us that they have no idea what effects Fosamax
may have after four years! (p1661) Here we have a prime example of the philosophical difference between allopathic and holistic medicine: they forgot that Mother Nature
Always Bats Last. You can't arbitrarily interfere with one half of a complete life process like bone synthesis and expect no adverse consequences.

With Fosamax, we have arrogantly overpowered the body's normal
system of bone building which has developed and maintained the
skeleton just fine for the person's whole life, by pretending that
one phase of that system exists in isolation from the whole rest of
the endocrine Internet, and can be omitted with no consequences.

Doctors trick women by telling them that Fosamax will increase "bone
mineral density" but what they don't tell them is that the new
mineral is not calcium and is no longer part of the living dynamic
process which has maintained their bones their entire lives.

This is not yet even mentioning the side effects of Fosamax:
- kidney disease
- ulcers
- heartburn
- joint pain
- headache
- rash

Fosamax is a risky, artificial approach to osteoporosis which
pretends like the problem can be divided up into separate, distinct
unrelated phases, like with a car. Same old idea, over and over:
another drug in search of a market.

Same old story. Osteoporosis is big business. Big business to keep
it happening, and big business to treat it. The dairy industry, the
meat industry, the soft drink industry all keep it happening. The
HRT industry, the nursing home industry, and the hospitals gain from
the treatment of osteoporosis. John McDougall explains:

"The diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis is so profitable
because millions of people unwittingly weaken their bones, making
them dependent for the rest of their life on diagnostic tests and
drug therapy that slows the disorder but never cures it."
- The McDougall Plan - p17

China has cornered the global market for vitamins

2007-06-04T06:37:00.000-04:00

By Tim Johnson
McClatchy Newspapers
(MCT)

SHIJIAZHUANG, China - If you pop a vitamin C tablet in your mouth,
it's a good bet it came from China. Indeed, many of the world's
vitamins are now made in China.

In less than a decade, China has captured 90 percent of the U.S.
market for vitamin C, driving almost everyone else out of business.

Chinese pharmaceutical companies also have taken over much of the
world market in the production of antibiotics, analgesics, enzymes and
primary amino acids. According to an industry group, China makes 70
percent of the world's penicillin, 50 percent of its aspirin and 35
percent of its acetaminophen (often sold under the brand name
Tylenol), as well as the bulk of vitamins A, B12, C and E.

In the wake of a pet food scandal, in which adulterated wheat gluten
from China led to the deaths of thousands of pets in North America,
and other instances of food and toothpaste tampering, China's vitamin
producers are reaching out to reassure U.S. consumers that their
vitamins are safe.

Whether that's true isn't clear, however. Foreign food-safety experts
say China's larger companies have reputations to protect. The question
is how they maintain quality control.

The Anti-Cancer Diet

2007-05-08T10:34:00.000-04:00

The Anti-Cancer Diet: A Review of the Evidence
Based on the article “Nutrition and cancer: A review of the evidence for an anti-cancer diet” by Michael S. Donaldson, in Nutrition JournalEdited (with Introduction) by Dr. Don Rose, Writer, Life Alert--Nutrition, in general, is known to play a key role in fighting and preventing disease. Cancer is no exception. Taking the proper dietary steps is perhaps the best way (and the least expensive) to minimize the risk of cancer -- especially for seniors, since levels of many natural disease fighters in the body typically decrease with age. This article surveys some of the evidence for how proper nutrition can ward off many types of cancers, or help promote recovery -- advice that anyone at any age can benefit from. --Dr. Don Rose--

Introduction
It has been estimated that 30 to 40 percent of all cancers can be prevented by lifestyle and dietary measures alone. Obesity, nutrient sparse foods such as concentrated sugars and refined flour products that contribute to impaired glucose metabolism (which leads to diabetes), low fiber intake, consumption of red meat, and imbalance of omega 3 and omega 6 fats all contribute to excess cancer risk. Intake of flax seed, especially its lignan fraction, and abundant portions of fruits and vegetables will lower cancer risk. Allium and cruciferous vegetables are especially beneficial, with broccoli sprouts being the densest source of sulforophane. Protective elements in a cancer prevention diet include selenium, folic acid, vitamin B-12, vitamin D, chlorophyll, and antioxidants such as the carotenoids (α-carotene, β-carotene, lycopene, lutein, cryptoxanthin). Ascorbic acid has limited benefits orally, but could be very beneficial intravenously. Supplementary use of oral digestive enzymes and probiotics also has merit as anticancer dietary measures.When a diet is compiled according to the guidelines discussed here, it is likely that there would be at least a 60 to 70 percent decrease in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers, and even a 40 to 50 percent decrease in lung cancer, along with similar reductions in cancers at other sites. Such a diet would be conducive to preventing cancer and would favor recovery from cancer as well.

REVIEW

Background
The field of investigation of the role of nutrition in the cancer process is very broad. It is becoming clearer as research continues that nutrition plays a major role in cancer. It has been estimated by the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund that 30–40 percent of all cancers can be prevented by appropriate diets, physical activity, and maintenance of appropriate body weight [1]. It is likely to be higher than this for some individual cancers.Most of the research on nutrition and cancer has been reductionist; that is, a particular food or a nutrient has been studied in relation to its impact on tumor formation/regression or some other end point of cancer at a particular site in the body. These studies are very helpful in seeing the details of the mechanisms of disease. However, they do not help give an overall picture of how to prevent cancer on a dietary level. Even less, they tell little of how to eat when a person already has a cancer and would like to eat a diet that is favorable to their recovery.This review will focus on dietary factors which have been shown to contribute to increased risk of cancer, and then on those additional protective dietary factors which reduce cancer risk. Finally, some whole-diet studies will be mentioned which give a more complete picture of how these individual factors work together to reduce cancer risk.

Cancer risk factors
Overconsumption of energy (calories)
Eating too much food is one of the main risk factors for cancer. This can be shown two ways: (1) by the additional risks of malignancies caused by obesity, and (2) by the protective effect of eating less food.Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Sixty-four percent of the adult population is overweight or obese [2]. About 1 in 50 are now severely obese (with high Body Mass Index -- BMI > 40 kg/m2) [3]. Mokdad et al [4] found that poor diet and physical inactivity was the second leading cause of death (400,000 per year in the USA), and would likely overtake tobacco as the leading cause of death.It was estimated in a recent study, from a prospective cancer prevention cohort, that overweight and obesity accounted for 14 percent of all cancer deaths in men and 20 percent of those in women [5]. Significant positive associations were found between obesity and higher death rates for the following cancers: esophagus, colon and rectum, liver, gallbladder, pancreas, kidney, stomach (in men), prostate, breast, uterus, cervix, and ovary [5]. The authors estimated that over 90,000 cancer deaths per year could be avoided if the adult population all maintained a normal weight (BMI CRON-Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition. The basic idea is to eat a reduced amount of food (about 70–80 percent of the amount required to maintain "normal" body weight) while still consuming all of the necessary amounts of vitamins, minerals, and other necessary nutrients. The only restriction is the total amount of energy (calories) that is consumed. While being difficult to practice, this approach has a lot of scientific merit for being able to extend average lifespans of many species of animals including rats, mice, fish, and possibly primates (currently being tested). Along with this lifespan extension is a reduction in chronic diseases that are common to mankind, reviewed in Hursting et al [6]. A recent meta-analysis of 14 experimental studies found that energy restriction resulted in a 55% reduction in spontaneous tumors in laboratory mice [7]. Calorie restriction inhibited induced mammary tumors in mice [8] and suppressed implanted tumor growth and prolonged survival in energy restricted mice [9]. Among Swedish women who had been hospitalized for anorexia nervosa (definitely lower caloric intake, but not adequate nutrition) prior to age 40, there was a 23% lower incidence of breast cancer for nulliparous women and a 76% lower incidence for parous women [10]. So, too many calories is definitely counter-productive, and slightly less than normal is very advantageous.

Glucose metabolism
Refined sugar is a high energy, low nutrient food – junk food. "Unrefined" sugar (honey, evaporated cane juice, etc) is also very concentrated and is likely to contribute to the same problems as refined sugar. Refined wheat flour products are lacking the wheat germ and bran, so they have 78 percent less fiber, an average of 74 percent less of the B vitamins and vitamin E, and 69 percent less of the minerals (USDA Food database, data not shown). Concentrated sugars and refined flour products make up a large portion of the carbohydrate intake in the average American diet. One way to measure the impact of these foods on the body is through the glycemic index (GI). GI is an indication of the blood sugar response of the body to a standardized amount of carbohydrate in a food. The glycemic load (GL) takes into account the amount of food eaten. An international table of the GI and GL of a wide variety of foods has been published [11].Case-control studies and prospective population studies have tested the hypothesis that there is an association between a diet with a high GL and cancer. The case control studies have found consistent increased risk of a high GL with gastric [12], upper aero digestive tract [13], endometrial [14], ovarian [15], colon or colorectal cancers [16,17]. In multiple studies, diabetes has been linked with increased risk of colorectal cancer [34-37], endometrial cancer [38], and pancreatic cancer [35,39]. It is clear that severe dysregulation of glucose metabolism is a risk factor for cancer. Foods which contribute to hyperinsulinemia, such as refined sugar, foods containing refined sugar, and refined flour products should be avoided and eliminated from a cancer protective diet.

Low fiber
Unrefined plant foods typically have an abundance of fiber. Dairy products, eggs, and meat all contain no fiber. Refined grain products also have most of the dietary fiber removed from them. So, a diet high in animal products and refined grains (a typical diet in the USA) is low in fiber. Slattery et al [40] found an inverse correlation between vegetable, fruit and whole grain intake plant food intake and rectal cancer, while refined grains were associated with increased risk of rectal cancer. A threshold of about 5 daily servings of vegetables was needed to reduce cancer risk, and the effect was stronger among older subjects [40].

Red meat
Red meat has been implicated in colon and rectal cancer. A Medline search in February 2003 uncovered 26 reports of human studies investigating the link between diet and colon or colorectal cancer. Of the 26 reports, 21 of them reported a significant positive relationship between red meat and colon or colorectal cancer [17,41-64]. Meat and the heterocyclic amines formed in cooking have been correlated to breast cancer in a case-control study in Uruguay as well [66].

Omega 3:6 ratio imbalance
Omega 3 fats (alpha-linolenic acid, EPA, DHA) have been shown in animal studies to protect from cancer, while Omega 6 fats (linoleic acid, arachidonic acid) have been found to be cancer promoting fats. Now there have been several studies that have tested this hypothesis in relation to breast cancer. Except for the study by London et al [67], all of these studies found an association between a higher ratio of N-3 to N-6 fats and reduced risk of breast cancer. Flax seed oil and DHA (from an algae source) both can be used to increase the intake of N-3 fat, with DHA being a more efficient, sure source.
Anti-cancer arsenal: preventive agents and protective nutrients

Flax seed
Flax seed is an excellent source of dietary fiber, omega 3 fat (as alpha-linolenic acid), and lignans, and is a more potent source of phytoestrogens than soy products. Ground flax seeds have been studied for their effect on cancer. In one study, the flax seed, its lignan fraction, or the oil were added to the diet of mice who had previously been administered a chemical carcinogen to induce cancer. All three treatments reduced the established tumor load. In another study, the flax lignan SDG was fed to mice starting one week after treatment with a known carcinogen. The number of tumors per rat was reduced by 46% compared to the control group [71]. Flax or its lignan (SDG) were tested to see if they would prevent melanoma metastasis. The flax or lignan fraction were fed to mice two weeks before and after injection of melanoma cells. The flax treatment (at 2.5, 5, or 10% of diet intake) resulted in a 32, 54, and 63 percent reduction in the number of tumors, compared to the control [72]. The SDG also reduced the tumor number, from a median of 62 in the control group to 38, 36, and 29 tumors per mouse in the SDG groups, respectively [73]. More recently, Thompson's research group studied mice injected with human breast cancer cells. After the injection the mice were fed a basal diet (lab mouse chow) for 8 weeks while the tumors grew. Then one group continued the basal diet and another was fed a 10% flax seed diet. The flax seed reduced the tumor growth rate and reduced metastasis by 45% [74].Other researchers have tested flax seed and prostate cancer. In an animal model using mice, Lin et al [77] found that a diet supplemented with 5% flax inhibited the growth and development of prostate cancer. A pilot study of 25 men who were scheduled for prostatectomy surgery were instructed to eat a low-fat diet (20% or less of energy intake) and take 30 grams of ground flaxseed per day. During the follow-up (of an average of 34 days), there were significant changes in serum cholesterol, total testosterone, and the free androgen index [78]. In summary, flax seed and its lignan were able to reduce tumor growth (both in number and size of tumors), prevent metastasis, and even cause increased differentiation of mouse mammary tissue in suckling mice (making the offspring less susceptible to carcinogenesis even when not consuming any flax products). In addition, ground flax seed may be a very beneficial food for men battling prostate cancer.

Fruits and vegetables
One of the most important messages of modern nutrition research is that a diet rich in fruits and vegetables protects against cancer; in fact, this same diet protects against almost all other diseases, too, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes. There are many mechanisms by which fruits and vegetables are protective, and an enormous body of research supports the recommendation for people to eat more fruits and vegetables.Block et al [80] reviewed about 200 studies of cancer and fruit and vegetable intake. A statistically significant protective effect of fruits and vegetables was found in 128 of 156 studies that gave relative risks. For most cancers, people in the lower quartile (1/4 of the population) who ate the least amount of fruits and vegetables had about twice the risk of cancer compared to those who in the upper quartile who ate the most fruits and vegetables. Even in lung cancer, after accounting for smoking, increasing fruits and vegetables causes an estimated reduction of an additional 20 to 33 percent [1].Steinmetz and Potter reviewed the relationship between fruits, vegetables, and cancer in 206 human epidemiologic studies and 22 animal studies [81]. They found "the evidence for a protective effect of greater vegetable and fruit consumption is consistent for cancers of the stomach, esophagus, lung, oral cavity and pharynx, endometrium, pancreas, and colon." Vegetables, particularly raw vegetables, were found to be protective; 85% of the studies that queried raw vegetable consumption found a protective effect. Allium vegetables, carrots, green vegetables, cruciferous vegetables, and tomatoes also had a fairly consistent protective effect [81]. Allium vegetables (garlic, onion, leeks, and scallions) are particularly potent and have separately been found to be protective for stomach and colorectal cancers [82,83] and prostate cancer [84].There are many substances that are protective in fruits and vegetables, so that the entire effect is not very likely to be due to any single nutrient or phytochemical. Steinmetz and Potter list possible protective elements, including allium compounds, isoflavones, protease inhibitors, phytosterols, inositol hexaphosphate, vitamin C, lutein, folic acid, beta carotene (and other carotenoids), lycopene, selenium, vitamin E, flavonoids, and dietary fiber [81].A joint report by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research found convincing evidence that a high fruit and vegetable diet would reduce cancers of the mouth and pharynx, esophagus, lung, stomach, and colon and rectum; evidence of probable risk reduction was found for cancers of the larynx, pancreas, breast, and bladder [1].

Cruciferous vegetables
Cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts) contain sulforophane, which has anti-cancer properties. A case-control study in China found that intake of cruciferous vegetables, measured by urinary secretion of isothiocyanates, was inversely related to the risk of breast cancer; the quartile with the highest intake only had 50% of the risk of the lowest intake group [89]. In the Nurses' Health Study a high intake of cruciferous vegetables (5 or more servings/week vs less than two servings/week) was associated with a 33% lower risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma [90]. In the Health Professionals Follow-up Study bladder cancer was only weakly associated with low intake of fruits and vegetables, but high intake (5 or more servings/week vs 1 or less servings/wk) of cruciferous vegetables was associated with a statistically significant 51% decrease in bladder cancer [91]. Also, prostate cancer risk was found to be reduced by cruciferous vegetable consumption in a population-based case-control study carried out in western Washington state. Three or more servings per week, compared to less than one serving of cruciferous vegetables per week, resulted in a statistically significant 41% decrease in prostate cancer risk [92]. Similar protective effects of cruciferous vegetables were seen in a multi-ethnic case-control study [93]. A prospective study in Shanghai, China found that men with detectable amounts of isothiocyanates in their urine (metabolic products that come from cruciferous vegetables) had a 35% decreased risk of lung cancer. Among men that had one or two genetic polymorphisms that caused them to eliminate these isothiocyanates slower, there was a 64% or 72% decreased risk of lung cancer, respectively [94].Broccoli sprouts have a very high concentration of sulforophane since this compound originates in the seed and is not made in the plant as it grows [95,96]. One sprout contains all of the sulforophane that is present in a full-grown broccoli plant. So, if sulforophane is especially cancer-protective, it would seem reasonable to include some broccoli sprouts in an anti-cancer diet.

Selenium
Selenium is a mineral with anti-cancer properties. Many studies in the last several years have shown that selenium is a potent protective nutrient for some forms of cancer. The Arizona Cancer Center posted a selenium fact sheet listing the major functions of selenium in the body [97]:1. Selenium is present in the active site of many enzymes which catalyze oxidation-reduction reactions; these reactions may encourage cancerous cells to undergo apoptosis (death). 2. Selenium is a component of the antioxidant enzyme glutathione peroxidase; 3. Selenium improved the immune system’s ability to respond to infections; 4. Selenium causes the formation of natural killer cells; 5. P450 enzymes in the liver may be induced by selenium, leading to detoxification of some carcinogenic molecules; 6. Selenium inhibits prostaglandins that cause inflammation; 7. Selenium enhances male fertility by increased sperm motility; 8. Selenium can decrease the rate of tumor growth.A serendipitous randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of a 200 μg/day selenium supplement in the southeastern region of the USA (where soil selenium levels are low) found that the primary endpoints of skin cancer were not improved by the selenium supplement, but that other cancer incidence rates were decreased by selenium [98,99]. There was a significant reduction in total cancer incidence (105 vs 137 cases, P = 0.03), prostate cancer (22 vs 42 cases, P = 0.005), a marginally significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence (9 vs 19 cases, P = 0.057), and a reduction in cancer mortality, all cancer sites (40 vs 66 deaths, P = 0.008) (selenium versus control group cases reported, respectively) [98]. The selenium supplement was most effective in ex-smokers and for those who began the study with the lowest levels of serum selenium. Several prospective studies have also examined the role of selenium in cancer prevention, particularly for prostate cancer.Overall, it appears that poor selenium levels, especially for men, are a cancer risk. If a person has low selenium levels and other antioxidant defenses are also low, the cancer risk is increased even further. Women do not appear to be as sensitive to selenium, as breast cancer has not been found to be influenced by selenium status in several studies [100-104], although both men and women were found to be protected by higher levels of selenium from colon cancer [100] and lung cancer [105,106]. Good vegetarian sources of selenium are whole grains and legumes grown in selenium-rich soil in the western United States, brazil nuts (by far the most dense source of selenium), nutritional yeast, brewers yeast, and sunflower seeds.

Chlorophyll
All green plants contain chlorophyll, the light-collecting molecule. Chlorophyll and its derivatives are very effective at binding polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (carcinogens largely from incomplete combustion of fuels), heterocyclic amines (generated when grilling foods), aflatoxin (a toxin from molds in foods which causes liver cancer), and other hydrophobic molecules. The chlorophyll-carcinogen complex is much harder for the body to absorb, so most of it is swept out as waste. The chemoprotective effect of chlorophyll and its derivatives has been tested in laboratory cell cultures and animals [107,108]. There is much compelling evidence for the anti-carcinogenic effects of chlorophyll. For example, a 55% reduction in aflatoxin-DNA compounds were found in the group that took 100 mg of chlorophyllin three times a day [109].

Vitamin B-12
Vitamin B-12 has not been proven to be an anti-cancer agent, but there is some evidence indicating that it could be beneficial. The form of administered vitamin B-12 may be important.Laboratory evidence for the effects of vitamin B12 was seen in a study with vitamin B-12 deficient rats. Choi et al [116] found that the colonic DNA of the B-12 deficient rats had undergone changes that could increase risk of carcinogenesis. In two studies, a relation between lower vitamin B12 status (but not deficiency) and statistically significant higher risk of breast cancer was found [117,118]. So, there is evidence from lab studies, prospective cohort studies, and mechanistic studies showing that vitamin B-12 is an important nutrient for genetic stability, DNA repair, carcinogenesis, and cancer therapy.

Folic Acid
Folic acid (folate) is the dark green leafy vegetable vitamin. Many studies have found a significant reduction in colon, rectal, and breast cancer with higher intakes of folic acid and their related nutrients (vitamin B-6 and B-12). Alcohol is an antagonist of folate, so drinking alcoholic beverages greatly magnifies the cancer risk of a low-folate diet. Cravo et al [124] used 5 mg of folic acid a day in a study of 20 patients with colonic adenoma polyps, and found that the folic acid could reverse DNA hypomethylation (that is, enhance cancer suppression) in 7 of 12 patients who had only one polyp.The cancer risk associated with low folate intake is probably higher for colon cancer than for breast cancer. Most of the breast cancer studies only found a protective effect of folate among women who consumed alcohol. However, among women residents of Shanghai who consumed no alcohol, no vitamin supplements and ate unprocessed, unfortified foods, there was a 29% decreased risk of breast cancer among those with the highest intake of folate [125]. So, there may be a true protective effect that is masked in the Western populations by so many other risk factors. Two studies showed that the risk of cancer due to family history can be modified by high folate intake, so a prudent anti-cancer diet would be high in dark green leafy vegetables. The mean intake of folic acid on the Hallelujah Diet was 594 μg/day for men and 487 μg/day for women [88].

Vitamin D
Vitamin D is produced primarily from the exposure of the skin to sunshine. Even casual exposure of the face, hands, and arms in the summer generates a large amount of vitamin D. In fact, simulated sunshine, equivalent to standing on a sunny beach until a slight pinkness of the skin was detected, was equivalent to a 20,000 IU oral dose of vitamin D2 [126]. (Note that the RDA is 400 IU for most adults.) It has been estimated that 1,000 IU per day is the minimal amount needed to maintain adequate levels of vitamin D in the absence of sunshine [126], and that up to 4,000 IU per day can be safely used with additional benefit [127].The concentration of the active hormonal form of vitamin D is tightly regulated in the blood by the kidneys. This active hormonal form of vitamin D has the potent anti-cancer properties. It has been discovered that various types of normal and cancerous tissues, including prostate cells [128], colon tissue [129], breast, ovarian and cervical tissue [130], pancreatic tissue [131] and a lung cancer cell line [132] all have the ability to convert the major circulating form of vitamin D, 25(OH)D, into the active hormonal form, 1,25(OH)2D. So, there is a local mechanism in many tissues of the body for converting the form of vitamin D in the body that is elevated by sunshine exposure into a hormone that has anticancer activity.Indeed, 25(OH)D has been shown to inhibit growth of colonic epithelial cells [133], primary prostatic epithelial cells [134], and pancreatic cells [131]. So, the laboratory work is confirming what had been seen some time ago in ecological studies of populations and sunshine exposure.The mortality rates for colon, breast, and ovary cancer in the USA show a marked north-south gradient [135]. In ecological studies of populations and sunlight exposure (no individual data), sunlight has been found to have a protective effect for prostate cancer [136], ovarian cancer [137], and breast cancer [138]. Recently Grant found that sunlight was also protective for bladder, endometrial, renal cancer, multiple myeloma, and Non-Hodgkins lymphoma in Europe [139] and bladder, esophageal, kidney, lung, pancreatic, rectal, stomach, and corpus uteri cancer in the USA [140].

Antioxidants
Alpha and Beta Carotene and other Carotenoids
There is a large body of literature indicating that dietary carotenoids are cancer preventative. Alpha-carotene has been found to be a stronger protective agent than its well-known isomer beta-carotene. Studies tend to agree that overall intake of carotenoids is more protective than a high intake of a single carotenoid. So, a variety of fruits and vegetables is still a better anti-cancer strategy than just using a single vegetable high in a specific carotenoid.The richest source of alpha-carotene is carrots and carrot juice, with pumpkins and winter squash as a second dense source. There is approximately one μg of alpha-carotene for every two μg of beta-carotene in carrots.

Lycopene
Of the various carotenoids, lycopene has been found to be very protective, particularly for prostate cancer. The major dietary source of lycopene is tomatoes, with the lycopene in cooked tomatoes being more bioavailable than that in raw tomatoes. Several prospective cohort studies have found associations between high intake of lycopene and reduced incidence of prostate cancer, though not all studies have produced consistent results [144,145]. In the Health Professionals Follow-up Study there was a 21% decrease in prostate cancer risk, comparing the highest quintile of lycopene intake with the lowest quintile. Combined intake of tomatoes, tomato sauce, tomato juice, and pizza (which accounted for 82% of the lycopene intake) were associated with a 35% lower risk of prostate cancer. Furthermore, lycopene was even more protective for advanced stages of prostate cancer, with a 53% decrease in risk [146]. In addition, another study with 450 cases and controls found an inverse relation between plasma lycopene and prostate cancer risk among older subjects (over 65 years of age) without a family history of prostate cancer [148]. Among younger men, high plasma beta-carotene was associated with a statistically significant 64% decrease in prostate cancer risk. So, the results for lycopene have been found for dietary intakes as well as plasma levels.In a placebo-controlled study of aspirin and beta-carotene, there was a 60% reduction in advanced prostate cancer risk for those subjects in the placebo group with the highest plasma lycopene levels, compared to the lowest quintile. The beta-carotene also had a protective effect, especially for those men with low lycopene levels [149].In addition to these observational studies, two clinical trials have been conducted to supplement lycopene for a short period before radical prostatectomy. In one study, 30 mg/day of lycopene were given to 15 men in the intervention group while 11 men in the control group were instructed to follow National Cancer Institute recommendations to consume at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily. Results showed that the lycopene slowed the growth of prostate cancer. Subjects that took the lycopene for 3 weeks had smaller tumors [150]. In another study before radical prostatectomy surgery, 32 men were given a tomato sauce based pasta dish every day, which supplied 30 mg of lycopene per day. After 3 weeks, serum and prostate lycopene levels increased 2-fold and 2.9-fold, respectively. PSA levels (prostate-specific antigens in the blood that warn of higher cancer risk) decreased 17%, as seen also by Kucuk et al [150]. Oxidative DNA damage was 21% lower in subjects' leukocytes and 28% lower in prostate tissue, compared to non-study controls.

Vitamin C
Vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, has been studied in relation to health and is the most common supplement taken in the USA. Low blood levels of ascorbic acid are detrimental to health and vitamin C is correlated with overall good health and cancer prevention [153]. Use of vitamin C for cancer therapy was popularized by Linus Pauling. At high concentrations, ascorbate is preferentially toxic to cancer cells. There is some evidence that large doses of vitamin C, either in multiple divided oral doses or intravenously, have beneficial effects in cancer therapy [154-156].While vitamin C is quite possibly an effective substance, the amounts required for these therapeutic effects are obviously beyond dietary intakes. However, intravenous ascorbate may be a very beneficial adjuvant therapy for cancer with no negative side effects when administered properly.

Other Antioxidants
There are many more substances that have some benefit for cancer therapy. Most of these substances are found in foods, but their effective doses for therapy are much higher than the normal concentration in the food. For example, grape seed extract contains proanthocyanidin, which shows anticarcinogenic properties (reviewed by Cos et al [157]). Also, green tea contains ingredients that might be of benefit.

Probiotics
The bacteria that reside in the intestinal tract generally have a symbiotic relationship with their host. Beneficial bacteria produce natural antibiotics to keep pathogenic bugs in check and produce some B vitamins in the small intestine where they can be utilized. Beneficial bacteria help with food digestion by providing extra enzymes, such as lactase, in the small intestine. Beneficial bacteria help strengthen the immune system right in the gut, where much of the interaction between the outside world and the body goes on, and can help prevent food allergies. These good bacteria also help prevent cancer at various stages of development. Lactobacillus species and Eubacterium aerofaciens, both producers of lactic acid, were associated with lower risk of colon cancer, while Bacteroides and Bifidobacterium species were associated with higher risk of colon cancer [160].There is a solid theoretical basis for why probiotics should help prevent cancer (especially of the colon), and even reverse cancer. Probiotics produce short chain fatty acids in the colon, which acidify the environment. Lower colon pH is associated with lower incidence of colon cancer. Probiotic bacteria reduce the level of procarcinogenic enzymes such as beta-glucuronidase, nitroreductase, and azoreductase [161].L. casei was used in two trials of patients with superficial bladder cancer. In the first trial, the probiotic group had a 50% disease free time of 350 days, compared to 195 days for the control group [162]. The second trial also showed that the probiotics worked better than the placebo, except for multiple recurring tumors [163].Except for the two studies noted above, most of the research of probiotics and cancer has been done in animals. Studies have looked at markers of tumor growth or at animals with chemically induced tumors. Studies in rats have shown that probiotics can inhibit the formation of aberrant crypt foci, thought to be a pre-cancerous lesion in the colon. Rats fed Raftilose, a mixture of inulin and oligofructose, or Raftilose with Lactobacilli rhamnosus (LGG) and Bifidobacterium lactis (Bb12) had a significantly lower number of tumors compared to the control group [165]. A probiotic mixture, without any prebiotic, given to rats fed azoxymethane reduced colon tumors compared to the control (50% vs 90%), and also reduced the number of tumors per tumor-bearing rat [166].The research on probiotics and disease is still an emerging field. There is a high degree of variation of health benefits between different strains of bacteria. As new methods for selecting and screening probiotics become available, the field will advance more rapidly.

Oral Enzymes
Many people diagnosed with cancer have digestion or intestinal tract disorders as well. Impaired digestion will greatly hinder a nutritional approach to treating cancer. If the nutrients cannot be released from the food and taken up by the body, then the excellent food provided by healthy diets will go to waste. Digestive enzyme supplements are used to ensure proper and adequate digestion of food. Even raw foods, which contain many digestive enzymes to assist in their digestion, will be more thoroughly digested with less of the body's own resources with the use of digestive enzymes. So, the enzymes taken with meals do not have a direct effect upon a tumor, but assist the body in getting all of the nutrition out of the food for healing and restoring the body to normal function. Enzymes, especially proteases, can have direct anti-tumor activity. Wald et al [170] reported on the anti-metastatic effect of enzyme supplements. Mice inoculated with the Lewis lung carcinoma were treated with a proteolytic enzyme supplement. The primary tumor was cut out, so that the metastatic spread of the cancer could be measured. After surgical removal of the primary tumor (day 0), 90% of the control mice died by day 18 due to metastasized tumors. In the first group, which received the enzyme supplement from the time of the tumor-removal surgery, 30% of the mice had died from metastasized cancer by day 25. In the second group, which received the enzymes from 6 days prior to removal of the primary tumor, only 10% showed the metastatic process by day 15. In the third group, which received the enzyme treatment since the initial inoculation of the Lewis lung carcinoma, no metastatic spread of the tumor was discernible. 100-day survival rates for the control, first, second, and third groups were 0, 60%, 90%, and 100%.In a similar experiment, an enzyme mixture of papain, trypsin, and chymotrypsin was given to mice inoculated with melanoma cells. Survival time was prolonged in the test group (38 days in the enzyme group compared to 24 days in the control mice) and 3 of the 10 enzyme-supplemented mice were cured. Again, a strong anti-metastatic effect of the proteolytic enzymes was seen [171].Further evidence of the efficacy of oral enzyme supplementation is available from Europe. Two different studies demonstrated that two different oral proteolytic enzyme supplements could reduce high levels of transforming growth factor-β, which may be a factor in some cancers [172,173]. In another study, an oral enzyme supplement was tested on multiple myeloma; control group survival was 47 months, compared to 83 months (a 3 year gain) for patients who took the oral enzymes for more than 6 months [174].Enzyme supplements have also been shown to reduce side effects of cancer therapy. In a large study in Germany, women undergoing conventional cancer therapy were put into a control group or a group that received an oral enzyme supplement. Disease and therapy related symptoms were all reduced, except tumor pain, by the enzyme supplement. Also, survival was longer with less recurrence and less metastases in the enzyme group [178].It is clear that there are some circumstances that will be helped by enzyme supplementation, with very little danger of negative side effects. At the least, enzymes will improve digestion and lessen the digestive burden on the body, leaving more reserves for disease eradication. However, as the research indicates, the effect may be much greater than that, with the potential for direct anti-tumor activity.

Whole Diet Studies
A diet-based cancer therapy, the Gerson Therapy, was used to treat melanoma cancer. The five-year survival rates from their therapy compared very favorably to conventional therapy reported in the medical literature, especially for more advanced stages of melanoma [179].8,984 women were followed for an average of 9.5 years, with 207 incident cases of breast cancer during that time. Their diets were analyzed by patterns – salad vegetables (raw vegetables and olive oil), Western (potatoes, red meat, eggs and butter), canteen (pasta and tomato sauce), and prudent (cooked vegetables, pulses, and fish). Only the salad vegetable diet pattern was associated with a significantly lower risk of breast cancer, about 35% lower. For women of normal weight (BMI under 25) the salad vegetable pattern was even more protective, about a 61% decreased risk of breast cancer [180]. The overall dietary pattern does make a very significant difference.In US-based studies the "prudent" diet has been shown to be protective for colon cancer, while the "Western" diet has been shown to be detrimental. The "Western" dietary pattern, with its higher intakes of red meat and processed meats, sweets and desserts, French fries, and refined grains, was associated with a 46% increase relative risk of colon cancer in the Nurses' Health Study [45]. Slattery et al [17] found a two-fold increase in relative risk of colon cancer associated with a "Western" dietary pattern, and a 35–40% decrease in relative risk associated with the "prudent" pattern, especially among those diagnosed at an earlier age (less than 67 years old). The "salad vegetable" pattern is still more likely to be protective compared to the prudent dietary pattern, but this pattern did not exist in this study population.In an analysis of the colon cancer data from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, Platz et al [56] found that there was a 71% decrease in colon cancer risk when men with none of six established risk factors were compared to men with at least one of these risk factors (obesity, physical inactivity, alcohol consumption, early adulthood cigarette smoking, red meat consumption, and low intake of folic acid from supplements). If all men had the same health profile as these healthier 3% of the study population, colon cancer rates would have been only 29% of what they measured.

CONCLUSIONS
What is the result when all of these things are put together? What if all of the factors reviewed here were taken into account and put into practice? The resultant anti-cancer diet would feature the following elements:

adequate, but not excessive calories,
10 or more servings of vegetables a day, including cruciferous and allium vegetables (vegetable juice could meet part of this goal),
4 or more servings of fruits a day,
high fiber,
no refined sugar,
no refined flour,
low total fat, but containing necessary essential fatty acids (EFAs),
no red meat,
a balanced ratio of omega 3 and omega 6 fats, and DHA,
flax seed as a source of phytoestrogens,
about 200 μg/day selenium,
1,000 μg/day methylcobalamin (B-12),
high intake of folic acid (from dark green vegetables),
adequate sunshine to get vitamin D (or a 1,000 IU/day supplement),
high intake of antioxidants and phytochemicals from fruits and vegetables, including alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, beta-cryptoxanthin, vitamin C (from foods), vitamin E (from foods),
high intake of chlorophyll,
beneficial probiotics,
oral enzymes.

As reviewed above, reductions of 60 percent in breast cancer rates have already been seen in human diet studies, and a 71 percent reduction in colon cancer for men without the known modifiable risk factors. These reductions are without taking into account many of the other factors considered in this review, such as markedly increased fruit and vegetable intake, balanced omega 3 and 6 fats, vitamin D, reduced sugar intake, probiotics, and enzymes – factors which are all likely to have an impact on cancer. Certainly cancer prevention would be possible, and cancer reversal in some cases is quite likely.

REFERENCES
This article is based on an article entitled “Nutrition and cancer: A review of the evidence for an anti-cancer diet” by Michael S Donaldson, available on the Nutrition Journal website. Michael Donaldson is a research scientist at the Hallelujah Acres Foundation, a foundation for investigations pertaining to the Hallelujah Diet.Donaldson referenced over 200 other works in his original article – some of which are cited above. Instead of reprinting the long list of references here, we refer readers to the original article.
The information provided here is, to the best of our knowledge, reliable and accurate. However, while Life Alert always strives to provide true, precise and consistent information, we cannot guarantee 100 percent accuracy. Readers are encouraged to review the original article, and use any resource links provided to gather more information before drawing conclusions and making decisions.The article on this Life Alert website and the content it is based on are covered by a BioMed Central Open Access license agreement: anyone is free
to copy, distribute, and display the work,
to make derivative works,
to make commercial use of the work,under the following conditions: Attribution -- the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are; any of these conditions can be waived if the authors gives permission. Statutory fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above. For full terms of this license agreement, please see http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/license. Dr. Don Rose writes books, papers and articles on computers, the Internet, AI, science and technology, and issues related to seniors.
For more information about Life Alert and its many services and benefits for seniors – available in New York, California, Florida, and other states nationwide -- please visit the following websites:http://www.lifealert.net/http://www.seniorprotection.com/http://www.911seniors.com/

Can We Talk?

2007-05-04T10:24:00.000-04:00

The following is excerpted from a communication by Dicken Dicken Weatherby, N.D.
Weatherby & Associates, LLC
7000 Little Applegate Road
Jacksonville, OR 97530

Looking at your stool can save your life.My interest in having my patients check for changes in their stool is quite personal. A friend was recently diagnosed with colon cancer. He is only 43. He has a family and he had been having blood in his stool for a few months but didn't think that it was important enough to report to his physician. He thought it was just a bleeding hemorrhoid and "would go away". It was only when the water in the toilet bowl was bright red after a bowel movement that he realized something was not right and took it seriously enough to go to the doctor. In a matter of days he was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer.

If you are not looking at your stools I urge you to begin. I believe that my friend would not be in the situation he is in if he had been educated by his physician to watch for changes in stool color. Here are some of the important things that I think you should pay attention to:

*** Blood on/in stool *** This is always an abnormal state. Blood streaked on outer surface usually indicates hemorrhoids or anal abnormalities; blood present in the stool usually comes from higher in the colon and may be the first sign of bowel cancer; if the bowel transit time is rapid, the blood can be from stomach or duodenum and will appear as bright or dark red. I urge you to take this sign seriously and evaluate for the cause of the bleed.

*** Undigested food *** This may indicate insufficient HCL and/or pepsin production. An insufficiently acidic bolus of chyme moving into the intestines from the stomach may not trigger sufficient cholecystokinin release and a decrease in pancreatic enzyme production causing pancreatic insufficiency. Also consider you are not chewing your food appropriately.

*** Mucous on stool *** Mucous on the stool is usually due to gastrointestinal irritation (colitis, food sensitivity, pancreatitis). Translucent gelatinousmucus clinging to the surface of formed stool occurs in: spastic constipation;mucous colitis; emotionally disturbed patients; excessive straining at stool.

*** Loose stool *** Loose but not watery stool is associated with mild intestinal irritation and malabsorption.

*** Hard stool *** This is usually due to increased absorption of fluid as a result of prolonged contact of luminal contents with the mucosa of the colon because of delayed transit time (lack of fiber, dehydration, hypochlorhydria).

*** Floating stool *** Consider malabsorption (esp. fats), reduced tract time due to anxiety or irritation, and a high fiber diet. The stool may also be described as slippery or greasy looking.

*** Ribbon-like shape *** A ribbon-like stool suggests a possibility of spastic bowel, rectal narrowing or stricture (pencil shaped), decreased elasticity, or partial obstruction (uterus malposition, prostatitis, polyp, tumor).

*** Small, round and hard *** A condition called scybala this is found with habitual or moderate constipation. Severe fecal retention can produce a large amount of impacted masses in the colon with a small, round and hard stool as overflow.

*** Brown *** A brown colored stool is probably due to Sterobilin (urobilin), abile " pigment derivative resulting from the action of reducing bacteria in bilirubin. It is a normal finding.

*** Dark brown *** A consistently dark brown stool is associated with an excessively alkaline colon that may indicate dysbiosis. A dark brown stool can be a normal finding indicating good bile flow and elimination of fat-soluble toxins.

*** Yellow *** Usually seen with severe diarrhea, may be due to lack of intestinal flora and will also occur from antibiotic use. Consider excessive bile secretions due to over stimulation or irritation to the small intestine.

*** Black *** This is usually a result of bleeding into upper GI tract (ulcer,Crohn's, Colitis, cancer); also the use of drugs, iron, bismuth, charcoal or a heavy meat diet.

*** Tan or clay colored *** This is associated with a blockage of the common bile duct (lack of bile pigments) as well as pancreatic insufficiency, which produces a pale, greasy acholic stool. Consider gall bladder insufficiency or hepatobiliary obstruction.

*** Offensive odor *** Indole and Skatole, intestinal toxins formed from intestinal putrefaction and fermentation by bacteria, are primarily responsible for odor. If the stool usually has an offensive odor then consider that it maybe due to malabsorption, food decay, or dysbiosis . lf the stool is occasionally offensive then consider intermittent malabsorption with food decay and dysbiosis.

I hope you have found this useful and can begin to educate yourself and family members on this sometimes embarrassing but, I think, essential topic!

Almonds and the FDA & More Chemicals

2007-04-17T08:47:00.000-04:00

http://www.cornucopia.org/Almond_FactSheet.pdf http://www.cornucopia.org/Almond_SampleLetter.doc

USDA Says "Raw" Almonds, Including Organic, Must Soon be Steam-Heated or Treated with Toxic Chemical
Press Release USDA and Agribusiness Conspire to Mislead Consumers By Mark Kastel The Cornucopia Institute, April 6, 2007 Straight to the Source
Contact: Mark Kastel, 608-625-2042

CORNUCOPIA, WI: Small-scale farmers, retailers, and consumers are outraged over a new federal regulation that will require all almonds grown in California to be sterilized with various "pasteurization" techniques. The rule, which the USDA quietly developed in response to outbreaks of Salmonella in 2001 and 2004, traced to raw almonds, mandates that all almonds undergo a sterilization process that includes chemical and/or high-temperature treatments.

Although the final rule was just published in the Federal Register, The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group, is asking the USDA to reopen the proceeding for public comment. Cornucopia contends that the rule was never effectively announced to the public, and that the reasoning behind both the necessity and safety of the sterilization processes should be questioned before the rule goes into effect this September.

"The new rule is unwarranted and could have many harmful impacts," said Mark Kastel, senior farm policy analyst at Cornucopia. "The costs of the chemical and heat treatments, in addition to the costs of transporting and recording the new procedures, will be especially onerous on small-scale and organic farmers, and could force many out of business."

The only exemption to these new regulations will be organic "raw" almonds that will not be fumigated, but will undergo the steam-heat treatment, and small-scale growers who can sell truly raw almonds but only direct to the public from farm stands.

Although foodborne illnesses have garnered headlines in recent years, including contamination of California-grown spinach and lettuce, raw produce and nuts are not inherently risky foods. Contamination occurs when livestock manure or fecal matter is inadvertently transferred to food through contaminated water, soil, or transportation and handling equipment. Raw foods can also be infected by poor employee sanitation either on the farm or in processing facilities.
Glenn Anderson, a small-scale organic almond farmer in the central valley of California, worries that "This could be one more way for the big companies and the government to put us small farmers out of business."

The equipment to sterilize almonds is very expensive. A propylene oxide chamber costs $500,000 to $1,250,000, and a roasting line can cost as much as $1,500,000 to $2,500,000.
Anderson also questions the scientific logic behind the rule. He and some other growers believe that the sustainable farming methods they use, such as mowing and mulching, rather than controlling weeds by chemical herbicide applications, protect biodiversity and naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more effectively than the artificial process of pasteurization (sterilization)-which attempts to mitigate contamination after the fact. According to growers practicing sustainable farming methods, the USDA plan ignores the root causes of food contamination-the dangerous and unsustainable farming practices on industrial farms.
Consumers who oppose the new regulation also worry about its impact on the quality and nutrition of pasteurized almonds, since the Almond Board of California (a marketing arm of the USDA) has conducted the only study on the practice. Their research concluded that "there was no significant degradation in the quality" of the almonds. "The validity of these findings is questionable given the vested interests of the research panel," Kastel stated.

The most common method of sterilizing almonds is by propylene oxide fumigation. Propylene oxide is a genotoxic chemical and is listed as a possible carcinogen by the International Agency on Cancer Research. In lab experiments, the chemical leads to gene mutation, DNA strand breaks, and neoplastic cell transformation. It is listed as a "possible" carcinogen because no long-term studies have been done with humans. Its use for treating food for human consumption is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico, and most other countries.

It is The Cornucopia Institute's contention that even if independent research concludes that treated almonds are in fact safe, labeling them as "raw" is misleading and deceptive to consumers, many of whom wish to purchase truly raw, unprocessed almonds. "Raw foods are increasingly in demand. The new rule is another case of the public being deprived the opportunity to intelligently choose their food supply," said Jimbo Someck, who owns and operates four of the country's leading independent natural food stores, in the San Diego area.
The new regulation to sterilize almonds coincides with the recent announcement by the Food and Drug Administration that it intends to relax its labeling requirements for irradiated food. The FDA proposal will also allow irradiation, the controversial ionization process, to be called pasteurization-a reference that is troubling many food safety watchdogs.

"Consumers deserve to know how their food has been processed," said Food and Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "Mislabeling irradiated food as 'pasteurized' or treated food as 'raw' is an industry attempt to make consumers buy products that they otherwise might avoid."

In light of heightened public concern, the Cornucopia Institute has appealed to USDA Secretary Mike Johannes to postpone implementation of the new regulatory requirements and reopen the almond docket to public comment. Only 18 public comments-all from the almond industry-were received on the proposal. Unlike consumers, retailers, or other organizations concerned with food safety, all almond handlers received a personal letter or fax from the USDA alerting them to the sterilization proposal and inviting them to comment.

"The industry and the USDA tried to slip this through quietly, under the radar, without adequate public scrutiny," Cornucopia's Kastel lamented. "We are asking the Secretary of a unit of government that Abraham Lincoln referred to as the 'People's Department' to intervene so concerned citizens can have a say. The close collaboration, away from the eyes of the citizens and the media, we are sure, is not something the Secretary will feel good about."

An action alert with instructions for contacting the USDA, and a sample letter interested consumers can send to the USDA and California Almond Board, can be found on the Cornucopia Institute Website. http://www.cornucopia.org/ .

MORE: According to Andrew Kimbrell, the Director of the Center for Food Safety, "The decision to foist fumigants on unsuspecting almond consumers is just another example of an agency out of control." Adds Kimbrell, "USDA is being run lock, stock, and barrel by agribusiness and has abandoned its duty to protect the public and the farming community. This USDA decision, along with FDA's long-standing refusal to label genetically engineered food, and its recent decision to attempt to label irradiated foods as "pasteurized," is a conscious effort by the Administration to leave consumers in the dark about the dangers lurking in their food."

FDA regulations currently require that all single-ingredient foods that have been irradiated and are sold by retailers must be labeled as "treated with irradiation" and must display the radura symbol.

A comprehensive fact sheet on the almond issue can be viewed at http://www.cornucopia.org/Almond_FactSheet.pdf and a sample letter for interested individuals to send to the USDA can be found at http://www.cornucopia.org/Almond_SampleLetter.doc .

New Website

2007-03-17T12:21:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

I'm finally accomplishing one of my long-term goals for the store of setting up our new website.
This is something I wanted to bring on-line over a year ago; however, now is that time.

Visit Us at! www.herbshopcincy.com

Sent your comments and testimonials.

Thanks, Shelton

New Saturday Hours

2007-03-17T12:16:00.000-04:00

Starting in April 2007, we will change our store hours on Saturday's.

New hours on Saturday: 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Current hours:

Monday - Thursday 10am - 7pm
Friday 10am - 5pm
Saturday 10am - 4pm

Saturday's
(starting April 2007) 10am - 2pm

Sunday CLOSED

Other Hours by Appointment

Wash Away All Your Health

2005-07-18T06:19:00.000-04:00

Wash Away All Your Health
(excrepts from Dr. Flanagan's Health Secrets newletter date July 2005)
email: newsletter@phisciences.com

I suppose you can say that water is my, well, thing. As an advocate for the nutritional benefits of water, as well as the health implications associated from there-lack-of, I feel obligated to highlight the darker side of the substance that is needed as much as the air that we breathe. This saddens me greatly, although I suppose I should just be resigned to the fact by now, but I still fail to fully understand how people continue to pollute, corrupt, and destroy something that is so vital to all of our lives. Still less plausible even, is the knowledge that people still drink this water, then wonder how and why their health has decreased immeasurably and almost unexplainably.
The water that you drink, bathe in, shower in, do laundry in, and otherwise completely function in, has a dark enemy within it that craves a healthy body, such as yours, to corrupt and nestle inside. It may sound dramatic, but if people truly knew what was in their water, they would feel more violated than if they were robbed and then later sued by the assailant after he/she fell and broke their leg. The chemicals in tap water have been a growing concern for many years, and although there are groups and organizations that make it their work and passion to inform the public, their voices seem to fall on naïve and unassuming ears.

Water Way

70-80% of the human body is composed of water. It is the ultimate solvent and mixes with almost everything biological or chemical. Our bodies are mostly water and, like you, I'm careful about what I drink. Yet today there are over 2,100 known toxins that cause cancer in U.S. drinking water. I used to think, "Come on! If harmful chemicals were really in drinking water, the city or state would do something." But then one day I simply bought a home water testing kit and sampled some of my tap water. I was shocked and appalled at what I found. Just type "home water testing kit" into your favorite search engine for your own kit.
In the U.S. alone, there are over 100,000 toxins present within the environment. In U.S. drinking water, there are over 2100 toxic chemicals that are known to cause cancer. Women have a one in three chance of contracting some form or cancer, while men have a one in two chance. Currently, there are 19 major U.S. cities, including San Francisco, San Diego, New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit, Denver, Phoenix, and others, that have highly polluted drinking water that is not fit for human consumption.
This is a warning you are used to hearing when you travel within exotic locations, but now the threat has made its way into your home. According to the Washington, D.C. based Environmental Working Group (EWG), manufacturers dumped more than one billion pounds of toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water between 1990 and 1994. EWG also estimates that manufacturers contributed about 450 million additional pounds via sewage. (1)
1000 contaminants are added every year and only 100 are addressed. 1/10 of 1 year's amount of toxins is not sufficient. Just one example is the fish in the UK now reportedly contaminated by Prozac due to so many prescriptions while the sewer systems have no way of breaking down this non-organic chemical. That's just one example.
Pesticides are an entirely other problem. Two billion pounds of pesticides are used every single year. That's eight pounds for every American. These pesticides enter water systems via disposal sites, animal waste, runoff, sewage, etc. After reviewing published (but not publicized) State data and conducting its own tests, EWG found that a single glass of Midwestern tap water has three or more pesticides in it at any given time.

Comments: (Shelton H.)

Water utilities are only required to test for 86 chemicals in which the EPA has set standards for maximum contaminants levels(MCLs). Nobody knows for sure how many toxic chemicals are in drinking water. According to the Ralph Nader Research Group, after reviewing thousands of pages of EPA documents acquired through the Freedom on Information Act, more than 2100 toxic chemicals have alrready been detected in U.S. water supplies. In a recent report from the National Cancer Institute to the Surgeon General it was stated that "No level of exposure to a chemical carcinogen should be considered toxicologically insignificant to humans"; this statement represent a hard truth!

Research Unveils a Potent Natural Cancer Fighter

2005-07-13T12:27:00.000-04:00

Jerry L. McLaughlin, Ph.D., an Emeritus Professor of Pharmacognosy from Perdue University, has extensively studied cancer and related treatments. For 20 years he obtained and screened more than 3,500 species of plants during a study supported by the National Cancer Institute. During this time he came across the North American paw paw tree and began to focus his research on the unique qualities of this plant and the effect it has in stopping the progression of cancer.

Dr. McLaughlin discovered that paw paw contains a group of plant chemicals called annonaceous acetogenins. There are over 50 of these long chain fatty acids in paw paw. Research has established that these acetogenins:

Slow and stop the production of cell energy in cells by blocking the production of ATP.
Prevent the growth of new blood vessels in or near tumors.
Deplete DNA and RNA building blocks needed for abnormal cell division.
Kill even those cells that are resistant to chemotherapy drugs.
Prevent cells from activating ATP-fueled metabolic pumps that may reject chemotherapy drugs.(Allows chemotherapy to work better)
Is up to 300 times more potent than Taxol, without inducing weight loss.

Note: The acetogenins which are found in the paw paw tree can vary from plant to plant and month to month by a factor of 1000. So, the only way to guarantee that you’re getting an adequate amount is to use the standardized extract, available only through Nature’s Sunshine.

Some of the most encouraging paw paw results are coming from doctors who suggest that patients add paw paw to their current health regimens. One of these doctors is Dr. James Forsythe, an oncologist who practices in Nevada. He is seeing improvements in stage four patients:

“One participant named Anna has stage four breast cancer. Within just six weeks of taking the paw paw she saw a 50 percent reduction in tumor markers as measured by blood tests. Also the size of the tumor was reduced significantly. Since she did not change any other treatment protocol, I was convinced that the paw paw was instrumental in improving the condition of her cancer.”

Please remember to discuss any changes to your cancer program with your physician. While we have seen incredible results in pets and in humans and the research is very impressive, it is very important to work closely with your health care provider in such an extreme situation.

New Lanch of the E-Blog

2005-07-13T03:18:00.000-04:00

Greetings,

All Herb Shop customers and friends. Welcome to our first attempt to establish a communications presence on the Web. So bear with us as this will be a work in progress.