(NaturalNews) Weight loss drugs may result only in minor weight loss, even after long-term use, according to a new study conducted by Brazilian and Canadian researchers and published in the British Medical Journal.
Researchers conducted meta-analyses of a number of studies conducted on the weight-loss drugs orlistat (marketed as Xenical and Alli), rimonabant (marketed as Acomplia) and sibutramine (marketed as Meridia), and found that users lost an average of less than 11 pounds, even after one to four years of use. Several key indicators of cardiovascular health were improved by taking the drugs, however.
Researchers examined 16 studies on orlistat, which operates by preventing the body from digesting fats. The average long-term user of orlistat lost only 7 pounds and had reduced diabetes risk, blood pressure and cholesterol. As many as 30 percent of users experienced digestive side effects.
Ten tests on sibutramine were also examined, along with four on rimonabant. Both drugs work by interrupting neural signals in the brain.
Sibutramine was found to reduce patients' weight by an average of only 9 pounds. In up to 20 percent of patients, however, it induced side effects including insomnia, nausea, and elevated blood pressure and pulse.
Rimonabant users lost an average of 11 pounds. Six percent of users experienced an elevated rate of mood disorders, however.
After receiving reports of psychiatric side effects such as anxiety and depression, the FDA refused to approve rimonabant for U.S. sale last year. Orlistat, in contrast, is approved for over-the-counter sale in a weakened form (Alli).
The move to sell weight loss drugs over the counter has drawn substantial criticism, including in an editorial accompanying the recent study.
"Selling anti-obesity drugs over the counter will perpetuate the myth that obesity can be fixed simply by popping a pill," Dr. Gareth Williams of the University of Bristol wrote.
Showing posts with label health risk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health risk. Show all posts
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Triclosan may be harmful to health, says FDA
(NaturalNews) The FDA is reevaluating the safety of a popular chemical additive called triclosan, based on recent studies that seem to indicate it causes endocrine disruption in the body and leads to the emergence of drug-resistant "super" bacteria.
Triclosan is commonly found in liquid antibacterial hand soaps and sanitizers, dishwashing detergents, shaving gels, toothpastes, clothing and even children's toys. It was originally designed as a surgical scrub for people in the medical field, but is now used in pesticides and a variety of different consumer products to ward off pathogens.
It is so common in popular consumer goods that, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), traces of triclosan can be found in the urine of about 75 percent of the population.
Triclosan is used because it is believed to be a powerful antibacterial and antifungal agent, however other than as a treatment for gingivitis in toothpaste, there is no evidence that it provides any benefits in other consumer product applications. A 2005 advisory panel to the FDA agreed, noting that there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps with triclosan work any better than plain soap and water.
"The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is literally in almost every type of product – [it's in] most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys," explained Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who has been urging federal regulators to reevaluate the safety of triclosan in consumer products.
"It's in our drinking water, it's in our rivers and as a result, it's in our bodies, [and] I don't think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children's toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger."
The Soap and Detergent Association, a group that represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning products industry, was quick to defend the safety of triclosan, insisting that decades of research verify the chemical is safe and effective.
But many other are not buying it, including the Natural Resources Defense Council which believes that triclosan use should be restricted.
According to reports, the FDA has allegedly been working for over 38 years to establish rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed the assignment. Throughout this time the agency has continued to approve its usage, including a 1997 decision to allow its use in Colgate Total toothpaste, but is now reevaluating that decision.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...
Triclosan is commonly found in liquid antibacterial hand soaps and sanitizers, dishwashing detergents, shaving gels, toothpastes, clothing and even children's toys. It was originally designed as a surgical scrub for people in the medical field, but is now used in pesticides and a variety of different consumer products to ward off pathogens.
It is so common in popular consumer goods that, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), traces of triclosan can be found in the urine of about 75 percent of the population.
Triclosan is used because it is believed to be a powerful antibacterial and antifungal agent, however other than as a treatment for gingivitis in toothpaste, there is no evidence that it provides any benefits in other consumer product applications. A 2005 advisory panel to the FDA agreed, noting that there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps with triclosan work any better than plain soap and water.
"The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is literally in almost every type of product – [it's in] most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys," explained Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who has been urging federal regulators to reevaluate the safety of triclosan in consumer products.
"It's in our drinking water, it's in our rivers and as a result, it's in our bodies, [and] I don't think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children's toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger."
The Soap and Detergent Association, a group that represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning products industry, was quick to defend the safety of triclosan, insisting that decades of research verify the chemical is safe and effective.
But many other are not buying it, including the Natural Resources Defense Council which believes that triclosan use should be restricted.
According to reports, the FDA has allegedly been working for over 38 years to establish rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed the assignment. Throughout this time the agency has continued to approve its usage, including a 1997 decision to allow its use in Colgate Total toothpaste, but is now reevaluating that decision.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...
BPA plastics chemical now linked to asthma
(NaturalNews) The controversial chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), already linked to a wide array of health problems, may also increase the risk of asthma in children, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
BPA is an industrial chemical widely used in the manufacture of hard, clear plastics like those used in water and baby bottles, as well as in resins used to line cans of food, beverages and infant formula. Exposure has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and hormonal and reproductive problems. Its use in products for young children has been banned in a number of countries and in three U.S. states.
After years of insisting that the chemical was safe, the FDA recently changed its position and called for more research.
Researchers fed pregnant mice BPA for a week before they were due to give birth, until the mice had a body burden of BPA equivalent to that regularly found in pregnant U.S. women. They then exposed the pups of these mice to a common allergy inducer, and compared their response to that of mice who had not been exposed to BPA in utero. They found a significantly greater asthma reaction in the BPA-exposed mice.
"All four of our indicators of asthma response showed up in the BPA group, much more so than in the pups of the non-exposed mice," co-author Randall Goldblum said.
Steve Georas of the Mary Parkes Center for Asthma, Allergy and Pulmonary Care at the University of Rochester, who was not involved in the study, said he found the results compelling.
"They're using what are probably going to be reasonable estimates of human neonatal exposure, and that seems to have an effect on the developing immune system or sensitivity to asthma," he said. "If you take it together with some epidemiologic studies, I would consider it cause for concern."
Sources for this story include: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre... http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty....
BPA is an industrial chemical widely used in the manufacture of hard, clear plastics like those used in water and baby bottles, as well as in resins used to line cans of food, beverages and infant formula. Exposure has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and hormonal and reproductive problems. Its use in products for young children has been banned in a number of countries and in three U.S. states.
After years of insisting that the chemical was safe, the FDA recently changed its position and called for more research.
Researchers fed pregnant mice BPA for a week before they were due to give birth, until the mice had a body burden of BPA equivalent to that regularly found in pregnant U.S. women. They then exposed the pups of these mice to a common allergy inducer, and compared their response to that of mice who had not been exposed to BPA in utero. They found a significantly greater asthma reaction in the BPA-exposed mice.
"All four of our indicators of asthma response showed up in the BPA group, much more so than in the pups of the non-exposed mice," co-author Randall Goldblum said.
Steve Georas of the Mary Parkes Center for Asthma, Allergy and Pulmonary Care at the University of Rochester, who was not involved in the study, said he found the results compelling.
"They're using what are probably going to be reasonable estimates of human neonatal exposure, and that seems to have an effect on the developing immune system or sensitivity to asthma," he said. "If you take it together with some epidemiologic studies, I would consider it cause for concern."
Sources for this story include: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre... http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty....
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Warning: Common acid-suppressing PPI drugs are over-used and have serious health risks
(NaturalNews) Have heartburn occasionally? Suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms? Mention your indigestion to a pharmacist and the odds are you'll be directed to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) drugs that are now sold over the counter. Or, if you tell your doctor about your heartburn problems, you'll most likely be given a prescription for an even stronger dose of a PPI. These Big Pharma profit making drugs (which include Prilosec, Nexium, Prevacid, Aciphex and Protonix) are pushed for indigestion because they are supposedly stronger and faster acting than other older acid suppressing and acid neutralizing meds.
But there are problems with these widely hyped drugs. According to a series of reports just published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, not only are PPIs being over-prescribed and over-used but they are fraught with health dangers.
"A staggering 113.4 million prescriptions for proton pump inhibitors are filled each year, making this class of drugs, at $13.9 billion in sales, the third highest seller in the United States," Mitchell H. Katz, M.D., of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in an editorial accompanying the reports.
Dr. Katz pointed out that these drugs can be effective treatments for inflammation of the esophagus, ulcers and GERD -- but there is evidence that between 53 percent and 69 percent of PPIs are being prescribed inappropriately. What's more, doctors are too often pushing these drugs without considering potential adverse side effects.
Bottom line: PPIs are often used to treat plain old common indigestion (dyspepsia) in the absence of ulcers, inflammation or severe GERD. "That proton pump inhibitors relieve dyspepsia is without question, but at what cost (and I do not mean financial)?" Dr. Katz asked.
So what specifically is the downside to acid-suppressing PPIs? The new reports in the current issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine offer some disturbing answers to that question:
• Shelly L. Gray, Pharm.D., of the University of Washington and colleagues reported that PPIs increase the risk of fractured bones in women after menopause. They followed 161,806 women between ages 50 and 79 in the Women's Health Initiative Study for eight years and found those taking PPIS had an increased risk of spine and forearm or wrist fractures in addition to more total fractures.
• Michael D. Howell, M.D., M.P.H., of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School and fellow researchers studied the records of more than 100,000 patients discharged from hospitals over a five year period. Daily PPI use, they discovered, was linked to an estimated 74 percent increase in infections due to Clostridium difficile (C. difficile), a bacterium that can cause life-threatening diarrhea and inflammation of the colon.
• Another group of researchers headed by Amy Linsky, M.D., of Boston Medical Center, also found a worrisome link between C. difficile and PPIs. They investigated approximately 1,200 patients being treated for C. difficile and documented a 42 percent increased risk of recurrence with the infection if PPIs were used.
"Harm will result if these commonly used medications are prescribed for conditions for which there is no benefit, such as non-ulcer dyspepsia," Deborah Grady, M.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Rita F. Redberg, M.D., also of the University of California, San Francisco, and editor of the Archives of Internal Medicine, wrote in another editorial.
There's actually some good news related to the series of reports discussing the dangers of PPIs and their overuse. The articles are part of the prestigious medical journal's new series called "Less Is More" which is similar in some ways to the kind of articles NaturalNews has been publishing for years -- the journal is launching investigations into how health can be worse when patients receive more medical services.
"Evidence suggests that providing excessive health care service is most likely to occur in situations in which there is not strong evidence to document the benefit and harms of the service," Dr. Grady and Dr. Redberg stated in their editorial. "The Archives aims to address this deficit by publishing articles that provide evidence that performing 'more' of certain health care activities results in 'less' health."
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
hhttp://www.naturalnews.com/026361_d...
http://www.naturalnews.com/026836_h...
But there are problems with these widely hyped drugs. According to a series of reports just published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, not only are PPIs being over-prescribed and over-used but they are fraught with health dangers.
"A staggering 113.4 million prescriptions for proton pump inhibitors are filled each year, making this class of drugs, at $13.9 billion in sales, the third highest seller in the United States," Mitchell H. Katz, M.D., of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in an editorial accompanying the reports.
Dr. Katz pointed out that these drugs can be effective treatments for inflammation of the esophagus, ulcers and GERD -- but there is evidence that between 53 percent and 69 percent of PPIs are being prescribed inappropriately. What's more, doctors are too often pushing these drugs without considering potential adverse side effects.
Bottom line: PPIs are often used to treat plain old common indigestion (dyspepsia) in the absence of ulcers, inflammation or severe GERD. "That proton pump inhibitors relieve dyspepsia is without question, but at what cost (and I do not mean financial)?" Dr. Katz asked.
So what specifically is the downside to acid-suppressing PPIs? The new reports in the current issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine offer some disturbing answers to that question:
• Shelly L. Gray, Pharm.D., of the University of Washington and colleagues reported that PPIs increase the risk of fractured bones in women after menopause. They followed 161,806 women between ages 50 and 79 in the Women's Health Initiative Study for eight years and found those taking PPIS had an increased risk of spine and forearm or wrist fractures in addition to more total fractures.
• Michael D. Howell, M.D., M.P.H., of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School and fellow researchers studied the records of more than 100,000 patients discharged from hospitals over a five year period. Daily PPI use, they discovered, was linked to an estimated 74 percent increase in infections due to Clostridium difficile (C. difficile), a bacterium that can cause life-threatening diarrhea and inflammation of the colon.
• Another group of researchers headed by Amy Linsky, M.D., of Boston Medical Center, also found a worrisome link between C. difficile and PPIs. They investigated approximately 1,200 patients being treated for C. difficile and documented a 42 percent increased risk of recurrence with the infection if PPIs were used.
"Harm will result if these commonly used medications are prescribed for conditions for which there is no benefit, such as non-ulcer dyspepsia," Deborah Grady, M.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Rita F. Redberg, M.D., also of the University of California, San Francisco, and editor of the Archives of Internal Medicine, wrote in another editorial.
There's actually some good news related to the series of reports discussing the dangers of PPIs and their overuse. The articles are part of the prestigious medical journal's new series called "Less Is More" which is similar in some ways to the kind of articles NaturalNews has been publishing for years -- the journal is launching investigations into how health can be worse when patients receive more medical services.
"Evidence suggests that providing excessive health care service is most likely to occur in situations in which there is not strong evidence to document the benefit and harms of the service," Dr. Grady and Dr. Redberg stated in their editorial. "The Archives aims to address this deficit by publishing articles that provide evidence that performing 'more' of certain health care activities results in 'less' health."
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
hhttp://www.naturalnews.com/026361_d...
http://www.naturalnews.com/026836_h...
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
If ultrasound destroys sperm, why is it safe for a fetus?
(NaturalNews) Ultrasound is extremely damaging to the health of any unborn child (fetus). The natural health community has been warning about ultrasound for years, but mainstream medicine, which consistently fails to recognize the harm it causes, insists ultrasound is perfectly safe and can't possibly harm the health of a fetus.
Now, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding a project that aims to temporarily sterilize men by blasting their scrotums with ultrasound. The burst of ultrasound energy, it turns out, disrupts the normal biological function of the testes, making the man infertile for six months.
Ultrasound, in other words, contains enough energy to temporarily deaden the testes and basically destroy sperm function for half a year. So why is it considered "safe" to blast an unborn baby with the same frequencies?
Ultrasound is loud. It no doubt causes tissue disruption and damage in a fetus, and it certainly creates stress and shock for the baby. And yet conceited yuppie parents just can't get enough of it! They want to SEE a picture of their little baby before it's even born, so they subject it to tissue damage and ultrasound trauma in order to get a snapshot they can show off to their yuppie friends. Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to medically necessary ultrasound that has a reasonable justification concerning the health of the mother of the baby. What I'm strongly opposed to is ultrasound used to take pictures of the fetus or to satisfy the curiosity of the parents. This "recreational" ultrasound is extremely selfish, conceited and may pose a very real danger to the health of the baby.
It's so American, isn't it? Damage the baby so we can get a snapshot to post on Facebook. What a way to welcome a baby into the world: Blast it with piercing high-frequency energy in order to impress your friends! Don't forget to vaccinate them, too, as soon as they are born. (And yes, some parents-to-be seriously subject their babies to ultrasound just so they can take pictures. It's demented!)
Sound is very easily transmitted through fluids, by the way, and the fetus is floating in a sac of amniotic fluid that transmits the ultrasound energy right at them.
From The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...)
Frequent ultrasound scans during pregnancy may result in growth restriction in the womb and the birth of smaller babies, according to a study of almost 3,000 Australian women, writes Liz Hunt.
The findings, reported in the Lancet, have led to calls for more research into the effects of ultrasound, and a leading obstetrician warns that 'prenatal ultrasound by itself can no longer be assumed to be entirely harmless'.
From Midwifery Today (http://www.midwiferytoday.com/artic...)
The safety issue is made more complicated by the problem of exposure conditions. Clearly, any bio-effects that might occur as a result of ultrasound would depend on the dose of ultrasound received by the fetus or woman. But there are no national or international standards for the output characteristics of ultrasound equipment. The result is the shocking situation described in a commentary in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in which ultrasound machines in use on pregnant women range in output power from extremely high to extremely low, all with equal effect. The commentary reads, "If the machines with the lowest powers have been shown to be diagnostically adequate, how can one possibly justify exposing the patient to a dose 5,000 times greater?" It goes on to urge government guidelines on the output of ultrasound equipment and for legislation making it mandatory for equipment manufacturers to state the output characteristics. As far as is known, this has not yet been done in any country.
From NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/019910_u...)
...pregnant mice exposed to ultrasound gave birth to some offspring that suffered brain abnormalities. The mice exposed to ultrasound for 30 minutes or longer experienced a small but significant migration of brain neurons to improper places in the brain.
Sources for this story include:
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8...
Now, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding a project that aims to temporarily sterilize men by blasting their scrotums with ultrasound. The burst of ultrasound energy, it turns out, disrupts the normal biological function of the testes, making the man infertile for six months.
Ultrasound, in other words, contains enough energy to temporarily deaden the testes and basically destroy sperm function for half a year. So why is it considered "safe" to blast an unborn baby with the same frequencies?
Ultrasound is loud. It no doubt causes tissue disruption and damage in a fetus, and it certainly creates stress and shock for the baby. And yet conceited yuppie parents just can't get enough of it! They want to SEE a picture of their little baby before it's even born, so they subject it to tissue damage and ultrasound trauma in order to get a snapshot they can show off to their yuppie friends. Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to medically necessary ultrasound that has a reasonable justification concerning the health of the mother of the baby. What I'm strongly opposed to is ultrasound used to take pictures of the fetus or to satisfy the curiosity of the parents. This "recreational" ultrasound is extremely selfish, conceited and may pose a very real danger to the health of the baby.
It's so American, isn't it? Damage the baby so we can get a snapshot to post on Facebook. What a way to welcome a baby into the world: Blast it with piercing high-frequency energy in order to impress your friends! Don't forget to vaccinate them, too, as soon as they are born. (And yes, some parents-to-be seriously subject their babies to ultrasound just so they can take pictures. It's demented!)
Sound is very easily transmitted through fluids, by the way, and the fetus is floating in a sac of amniotic fluid that transmits the ultrasound energy right at them.
Ultrasound harms the fetus
Here's what some other website have to say about how ultrasound harms the health of the fetus:From The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...)
Frequent ultrasound scans during pregnancy may result in growth restriction in the womb and the birth of smaller babies, according to a study of almost 3,000 Australian women, writes Liz Hunt.
The findings, reported in the Lancet, have led to calls for more research into the effects of ultrasound, and a leading obstetrician warns that 'prenatal ultrasound by itself can no longer be assumed to be entirely harmless'.
From Midwifery Today (http://www.midwiferytoday.com/artic...)
The safety issue is made more complicated by the problem of exposure conditions. Clearly, any bio-effects that might occur as a result of ultrasound would depend on the dose of ultrasound received by the fetus or woman. But there are no national or international standards for the output characteristics of ultrasound equipment. The result is the shocking situation described in a commentary in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, in which ultrasound machines in use on pregnant women range in output power from extremely high to extremely low, all with equal effect. The commentary reads, "If the machines with the lowest powers have been shown to be diagnostically adequate, how can one possibly justify exposing the patient to a dose 5,000 times greater?" It goes on to urge government guidelines on the output of ultrasound equipment and for legislation making it mandatory for equipment manufacturers to state the output characteristics. As far as is known, this has not yet been done in any country.
From NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/019910_u...)
...pregnant mice exposed to ultrasound gave birth to some offspring that suffered brain abnormalities. The mice exposed to ultrasound for 30 minutes or longer experienced a small but significant migration of brain neurons to improper places in the brain.
Sources for this story include:
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8...
Friday, May 21, 2010
Vitamin D deficiencies at epidemic levels, says new study
(NaturalNews) Vitamin D is an amazing nutrient that protect the body from all sorts of diseases and problems. Researchers continually uncover new links between lack of vitamin D and disease, illustrating the fact that it is vital to good health. However recent studies have also found that most people are deficient in vitamin D.
A team of doctors from the McGill University Health Centre in Canada was surprised to find that about 59 percent of people evaluated were deficient in vitamin D and about 25 percent were severely deficient. Published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the study is allegedly the first to illustrate a definitive link between vitamin D deficiency and an accumulation of fat in muscle tissue.
"Because it [vitamin D deficiency] is linked to increased body fat, it may affect many different parts of the body. Abnormal levels of vitamin D are associated with a whole spectrum of diseases, including cancer, osteoporosis, and diabetes, as well as cardiovascular and autoimmune disorders," explained Dr. Richard Kremer, lead investigator of the study.
The main reason why people are generally lacking in vitamin D is because people spend much more time indoors than they used to. Especially with computers, people often spend their entire days inside cubicles where they are exposed to little or no sunlight.
Vitamin D is not produced in the body on its own. It is created when skin is exposed to sunlight. Some foods contain vitamin D, but in minimal amounts compared to what can be achieved from sun exposure. Most people also do not consume enough vitamin D-rich food to obtain adequate amounts of it.
The McGill study highlights an important link between vitamin D and obesity that, until now, has been largely ignored. Vitamin D deficiency contributes to decreased muscle and increased fat, which is a condition that is increasingly common in industrialized nations. Though diet also plays a role in obesity, it is striking to see vitamin D playing a role in the condition as well.
Perhaps the reason why vitamin D deficiency is linked to all sorts of serious diseases has more to do with the increase in visceral fat that it causes, which in turn leads to such health problems. This study seems to confirm that notion.
The best way to address vitamin D deficiency is to get more sunlight. But when this is not possible, particularly throughout the winter months when the sun is at a lower angle and the ultraviolet (UV) rays are at a minimum, supplementation with vitamin D is the next best option.
The study itself did not confirm one way or another the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in reducing fat and increasing muscle, however tests have shown that supplementation does increase blood levels of vitamin D. Many people take vitamin D supplements to alleviate their deficiency and have experience good results.
Currently, the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin D is between 200 and 400 international units (IU) per day, depending on age. Recent studies are showing that these recommendations are too low to maintain optimal health. Some are suggesting that these guidelines be updated to amounts upwards of 1,000 IU per day, including the Canadian Cancer Society.
On a typical summer day, 15 to 20 minutes of sunlight exposure will result in the skin producing about 40,000 IU of vitamin D. At this point, the mechanism that produces it shuts off in order to prevent the body from making too much.
With these levels in mind, many naturopathic doctors recommend supplementing with up to 10,000 IU a day or more. Many believe it is difficult to take too much vitamin D because the safe upper limits are much higher than previously thought.
Currently, the best form of vitamin D is D3, or cholecalciferol, because it is the precursor to the type created by the body from sunlight exposure. Vitamin D3 can be safely taken at amounts much higher than the RDA guidelines.
Safe tanning beds are another option for achieving optimal vitamin D levels without taking a supplement. Despite recent reports that they are unsafe and cause skin cancer, some tanning beds can be used properly and safely to obtain UV rays when regular sunlight is not an option. These beds use electronic ballasts instead of magnetic ballasts that emit electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs), which can cause cancer and other health issues.
Dr. Mercola, another trusted source of natural health information, has a helpful directory of healthy tanning locations across the country. There are also companies that sell these tanning beds for home use.
If you are unsure about your vitamin D levels and wish to consult with your physician, a simple blood test will determine your levels. Whichever route you choose to take, just be sure to get enough vitamin D. Your body will thank you.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/s...
A team of doctors from the McGill University Health Centre in Canada was surprised to find that about 59 percent of people evaluated were deficient in vitamin D and about 25 percent were severely deficient. Published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, the study is allegedly the first to illustrate a definitive link between vitamin D deficiency and an accumulation of fat in muscle tissue.
"Because it [vitamin D deficiency] is linked to increased body fat, it may affect many different parts of the body. Abnormal levels of vitamin D are associated with a whole spectrum of diseases, including cancer, osteoporosis, and diabetes, as well as cardiovascular and autoimmune disorders," explained Dr. Richard Kremer, lead investigator of the study.
The main reason why people are generally lacking in vitamin D is because people spend much more time indoors than they used to. Especially with computers, people often spend their entire days inside cubicles where they are exposed to little or no sunlight.
Vitamin D is not produced in the body on its own. It is created when skin is exposed to sunlight. Some foods contain vitamin D, but in minimal amounts compared to what can be achieved from sun exposure. Most people also do not consume enough vitamin D-rich food to obtain adequate amounts of it.
The McGill study highlights an important link between vitamin D and obesity that, until now, has been largely ignored. Vitamin D deficiency contributes to decreased muscle and increased fat, which is a condition that is increasingly common in industrialized nations. Though diet also plays a role in obesity, it is striking to see vitamin D playing a role in the condition as well.
Perhaps the reason why vitamin D deficiency is linked to all sorts of serious diseases has more to do with the increase in visceral fat that it causes, which in turn leads to such health problems. This study seems to confirm that notion.
The best way to address vitamin D deficiency is to get more sunlight. But when this is not possible, particularly throughout the winter months when the sun is at a lower angle and the ultraviolet (UV) rays are at a minimum, supplementation with vitamin D is the next best option.
The study itself did not confirm one way or another the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in reducing fat and increasing muscle, however tests have shown that supplementation does increase blood levels of vitamin D. Many people take vitamin D supplements to alleviate their deficiency and have experience good results.
Currently, the recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin D is between 200 and 400 international units (IU) per day, depending on age. Recent studies are showing that these recommendations are too low to maintain optimal health. Some are suggesting that these guidelines be updated to amounts upwards of 1,000 IU per day, including the Canadian Cancer Society.
On a typical summer day, 15 to 20 minutes of sunlight exposure will result in the skin producing about 40,000 IU of vitamin D. At this point, the mechanism that produces it shuts off in order to prevent the body from making too much.
With these levels in mind, many naturopathic doctors recommend supplementing with up to 10,000 IU a day or more. Many believe it is difficult to take too much vitamin D because the safe upper limits are much higher than previously thought.
Currently, the best form of vitamin D is D3, or cholecalciferol, because it is the precursor to the type created by the body from sunlight exposure. Vitamin D3 can be safely taken at amounts much higher than the RDA guidelines.
Safe tanning beds are another option for achieving optimal vitamin D levels without taking a supplement. Despite recent reports that they are unsafe and cause skin cancer, some tanning beds can be used properly and safely to obtain UV rays when regular sunlight is not an option. These beds use electronic ballasts instead of magnetic ballasts that emit electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs), which can cause cancer and other health issues.
Dr. Mercola, another trusted source of natural health information, has a helpful directory of healthy tanning locations across the country. There are also companies that sell these tanning beds for home use.
If you are unsure about your vitamin D levels and wish to consult with your physician, a simple blood test will determine your levels. Whichever route you choose to take, just be sure to get enough vitamin D. Your body will thank you.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/s...
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Processed meat raises risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer
(NaturalNews) A new study published in the journal Circulation reveals that eating processed meat products significantly raises the risk of heart disease and diabetes. Previous research has linked processed meats to cancer as well.
The new paper involved a meta-analysis of 20 different studies covering more than one million people from 10 different countries. The study found that eating just 2 ounces of processed meat each day resulted in the following:
• A 42 percent increase in the risk of heart disease.
• A 19 percent increase in the risk of diabetes.
Interestingly, the analysis simultaneously found that eating non-processed meats was not linked to these increases in disease risk. The study authors concluded that it was the processed salt and chemical additives in the processed meat that caused increase risk of disease.
I've been warning readers about sodium nitrite for seven years, and in that time, evidence has shown the chemical to cause:
• A 67% increase in pancreatic cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/007024_G...)
• A 74% higher risk of leukemia (http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000...)
• A 40% higher risk of diabetes (http://www.naturalnews.com/027636_p...)
The USDA actually tried to ban sodium nitrite from the food supply back in the 1970's, but it was overruled by the meat industry which knew that the chemical made meat look visually more appealing and therefore increased sales of processed meat products. Despite causing cancer, sodium nitrite has remained legal in the food supply to this day.
See the Counterthink Cartoon: "Hickory Harms" at http://www.naturalnews.com/022286.html
How many children are dying of cancer each year from this toxic chemical in the food supply? The USDA doesn't want to know and the FDA doesn't seem to care. Sodium nitrite sells more meat, and food regulators apparently have no interest in the actual safety of the food supply. As long as food products are dead, the FDA considers them "safe" even if they're contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals like sodium nitrite.
I find it deplorable that the FDA is trying to outlaw raw milk but is fine to let American children continue dying from eating cancer-causing processed meats laced with sodium nitrite. It sort of tells you where the real priorities are in Washington, doesn't it?
Only those consumers who are ignorant of the true health risks are still buying (and eating) bacon, sausage, beef jerky and other processed meat products. Basically, we're talking about the processed food crowd, which includes low-income families, teenagers, low-IQ individuals who are unable to grasp basic health concepts and mainstream physicians who have yet to accept any link between foods and health.
Sources for this story include:
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8...
ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/WorldNews/...
The new paper involved a meta-analysis of 20 different studies covering more than one million people from 10 different countries. The study found that eating just 2 ounces of processed meat each day resulted in the following:
• A 42 percent increase in the risk of heart disease.
• A 19 percent increase in the risk of diabetes.
Interestingly, the analysis simultaneously found that eating non-processed meats was not linked to these increases in disease risk. The study authors concluded that it was the processed salt and chemical additives in the processed meat that caused increase risk of disease.
Why sodium nitrite is poison
What the study authors did not come right out and say is that sodium nitrite is a poison, yet it's added to virtually all processed meats as a "color fixer." It makes dead gray meat look fleshy red, in other words, and it's added to bacon, sausage, hot dogs, pepperoni and most other processed meats. It's listed right on the label under the "ingredients" section.I've been warning readers about sodium nitrite for seven years, and in that time, evidence has shown the chemical to cause:
• A 67% increase in pancreatic cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/007024_G...)
• A 74% higher risk of leukemia (http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000...)
• A 40% higher risk of diabetes (http://www.naturalnews.com/027636_p...)
The USDA actually tried to ban sodium nitrite from the food supply back in the 1970's, but it was overruled by the meat industry which knew that the chemical made meat look visually more appealing and therefore increased sales of processed meat products. Despite causing cancer, sodium nitrite has remained legal in the food supply to this day.
See the Counterthink Cartoon: "Hickory Harms" at http://www.naturalnews.com/022286.html
How many children are dying from processed meat?
Mainstream children eat a huge quantity of processed meat products, including hot dogs, sandwich meat, bacon, sausage and beef jerky. All those products are made with sodium nitrite.How many children are dying of cancer each year from this toxic chemical in the food supply? The USDA doesn't want to know and the FDA doesn't seem to care. Sodium nitrite sells more meat, and food regulators apparently have no interest in the actual safety of the food supply. As long as food products are dead, the FDA considers them "safe" even if they're contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals like sodium nitrite.
I find it deplorable that the FDA is trying to outlaw raw milk but is fine to let American children continue dying from eating cancer-causing processed meats laced with sodium nitrite. It sort of tells you where the real priorities are in Washington, doesn't it?
Ignorant consumers eat processed meat
While people are dying of cancer, heart disease and diabetes from the chemical additives intentionally put into processed meat products, those consumers who are aware of the truth about sodium nitrite are avoiding all processed meats made with sodium nitrite (look for it on the label).Only those consumers who are ignorant of the true health risks are still buying (and eating) bacon, sausage, beef jerky and other processed meat products. Basically, we're talking about the processed food crowd, which includes low-income families, teenagers, low-IQ individuals who are unable to grasp basic health concepts and mainstream physicians who have yet to accept any link between foods and health.
Sources for this story include:
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8...
ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/WorldNews/...
BPA plastics chemical damages intestines, study shows
(NaturalNews) The widespread toxin bisphenol-A (BPA) damages the intestines and may lead to a painful condition known as leaky gut syndrome, according to a study conducted by researchers from the National Institute of Agronomic Research researchers in Toulouse, France, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences.
The study "shows the very high sensitivity on the intestine of BPA," the National Institute of Agronomic Research said.
BPA is used to make hard clear plastics for products such as water and baby bottles. It is also used to make dental sealants and composites, and is in the liners food cans, beverages and infant formula. More than 130 studies have linked the hormone-mimicking chemical to a wide variety of health problems, including cancers, birth and reproductive defects, obesity, early puberty onset, behavior disorders and brain damage.
In the new study, researchers exposed both living rats and human intestinal cells to a dose of BPA 10 times lower than that currently considered safe by most governments. They found that the permeability of intestinal cells in both humans and rats decreased upon exposure to the chemical. The intestinal lining developed damage characteristic of the condition known both as "poor intestinal permeability" and "leaky gut syndrome."
Normally, a mucus lining prevents undigested substances from passing through the intestinal lining and into the bloodstream. When this lining is damaged, however, toxic substances and foreign pathogens can enter the body more easily. Because the intestinal lining also contains immunoglobin A, its disruption can affect the entire body's immune system.
People with leaky gut syndrome often experience abdominal pain, digestive upset, rashes, hampered immune function and chronic muscle pain. Damage to the intestinal lining can cause poor nutrient absorption, leading to vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
Adding to the body of evidence that BPA is particularly dangerous to developing fetuses and children, the researchers found that exposure to BPA in utero or immediately after birth significantly increased rats' risk of developing severe intestinal inflammation as adults.
Sources for this story include: sg.news.yahoo.com.
The study "shows the very high sensitivity on the intestine of BPA," the National Institute of Agronomic Research said.
BPA is used to make hard clear plastics for products such as water and baby bottles. It is also used to make dental sealants and composites, and is in the liners food cans, beverages and infant formula. More than 130 studies have linked the hormone-mimicking chemical to a wide variety of health problems, including cancers, birth and reproductive defects, obesity, early puberty onset, behavior disorders and brain damage.
In the new study, researchers exposed both living rats and human intestinal cells to a dose of BPA 10 times lower than that currently considered safe by most governments. They found that the permeability of intestinal cells in both humans and rats decreased upon exposure to the chemical. The intestinal lining developed damage characteristic of the condition known both as "poor intestinal permeability" and "leaky gut syndrome."
Normally, a mucus lining prevents undigested substances from passing through the intestinal lining and into the bloodstream. When this lining is damaged, however, toxic substances and foreign pathogens can enter the body more easily. Because the intestinal lining also contains immunoglobin A, its disruption can affect the entire body's immune system.
People with leaky gut syndrome often experience abdominal pain, digestive upset, rashes, hampered immune function and chronic muscle pain. Damage to the intestinal lining can cause poor nutrient absorption, leading to vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
Adding to the body of evidence that BPA is particularly dangerous to developing fetuses and children, the researchers found that exposure to BPA in utero or immediately after birth significantly increased rats' risk of developing severe intestinal inflammation as adults.
Sources for this story include: sg.news.yahoo.com.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Bodies of pregnant women polluted with chemicals found in consumer products
(NaturalNews) Every pregnant woman's body is probably contaminated with multiple toxic substances, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Washington Toxics Coalition, the Commonweal Biomonitoring Resource Center and the Toxic-Free Legacy Coalition.
"This study reveals that children spend their first nine months in an environment that exposes them to known toxic chemicals," said study author Erika Schreder. "Pregnant women can't avoid every exposure to these chemicals because they are in so many products. ... We need policies that keep toxic chemicals away from pregnant women and the most vulnerable -- the developing fetus."
Researchers analyzed the blood and urine of nine pregnant women and found that all of them tested positive for mercury, bisphenol-A (BPA), at least four phthalates, and two to four perfluorinated compounds.
All four substances are known to build up in human bodies and the environment. Mercury damages the nervous system, while the others interfere with the hormonal system and can produce a wide array of diseases and defects. Developing infants are especially vulnerable to damage by these toxins.
"The developing fetus is exquisitely vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals," the Washington Toxics Coalition said. "The fetus develops at a breakneck pace in the womb, and that development is easily derailed by toxic chemicals. The fetus also has a very limited ability to detoxify foreign chemicals. With chemicals like bisphenol A and the others in our tests passing easily through the placenta, there is cause for grave concern about their impacts on fetal development."
BPA is used to make hard, clear plastics, dental sealants and composites, and the liners of food containers. Phthalates are used to soften plastic and are found in everything from infant products to medical equipment. Perfluorinated compounds, also called "Teflon chemicals," are used to make nonstick cookware and certain outdoor products.
The researchers recommend that people reduce their exposure to toxic chemicals by looking for products certified BPA and phthalate free, avoiding flame retardant products, and purchasing certified organic body care products.
Of more than 80,000 chemicals used in manufacturing consumer products, only 200 or so have ever undergone safety testing.
Sources for this story include: www.organicconsumers.org; www.watoxics.org.
"This study reveals that children spend their first nine months in an environment that exposes them to known toxic chemicals," said study author Erika Schreder. "Pregnant women can't avoid every exposure to these chemicals because they are in so many products. ... We need policies that keep toxic chemicals away from pregnant women and the most vulnerable -- the developing fetus."
Researchers analyzed the blood and urine of nine pregnant women and found that all of them tested positive for mercury, bisphenol-A (BPA), at least four phthalates, and two to four perfluorinated compounds.
All four substances are known to build up in human bodies and the environment. Mercury damages the nervous system, while the others interfere with the hormonal system and can produce a wide array of diseases and defects. Developing infants are especially vulnerable to damage by these toxins.
"The developing fetus is exquisitely vulnerable to the effects of toxic chemicals," the Washington Toxics Coalition said. "The fetus develops at a breakneck pace in the womb, and that development is easily derailed by toxic chemicals. The fetus also has a very limited ability to detoxify foreign chemicals. With chemicals like bisphenol A and the others in our tests passing easily through the placenta, there is cause for grave concern about their impacts on fetal development."
BPA is used to make hard, clear plastics, dental sealants and composites, and the liners of food containers. Phthalates are used to soften plastic and are found in everything from infant products to medical equipment. Perfluorinated compounds, also called "Teflon chemicals," are used to make nonstick cookware and certain outdoor products.
The researchers recommend that people reduce their exposure to toxic chemicals by looking for products certified BPA and phthalate free, avoiding flame retardant products, and purchasing certified organic body care products.
Of more than 80,000 chemicals used in manufacturing consumer products, only 200 or so have ever undergone safety testing.
Sources for this story include: www.organicconsumers.org; www.watoxics.org.
Psychiatric Drugs Cause Rapid Weight Gain in Kids
(NaturalNews) A new study has confirmed that atypical antipsychotic drugs can cause rapid weight gain in younger patients, as well as increasing levels of triglycerides and LDL ("bad") cholesterol in their blood.
"We are very much afraid that this will lead to diabetes and metabolic syndrome," researcher Christoph Correll said.
Antipsychotic drugs are intended primarily for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but may also be prescribed to children with autism, aggression or tics. The so-called "second generation" or "atypical" antipsychotics have become more popular than older drugs in part because doctors believed them safer. Emerging research suggests this may not be the case, however, as in a 2008 study published in The Lancet.
In 2003, the FDA warned that use of the drugs could lead to elevated blood sugar and diabetes. Numerous studies have also linked the drugs to weight gain.
"We found that obesity/weight gain, Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions were more prevalent in the treated cohort," said Jeanette M. Jerrell, a professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, of a study she published in 2008. Jerell found that the risk was even higher among children taking more than one of the drugs.
But studies linking atypical antipsychotics and weight gain have been complicated by the fact that people regularly go on and off the drugs, making it hard to pinpoint a specific drug's contribution. The new study, conducted by researchers from the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, circumvented this problem by including only participants who were receiving treatment with psychotropics for the first time.
The study included 257 people between the ages of four and 19 who were being treated for severe problems with aripiprazole (marketed as Abilify), olanzapine (marketed as Zyprexa), quetiapine (marketed as Seroquel), or risperidone (marketed as Risperdal). They were compared with 15 people in the same age group who were suffering from similar problems but had declined drug-based treatment.
Although only Abilify and Risperdal are currently approved for use in children, all four drugs are used on juveniles in practice. An FDA panel recently recommended that Seroquel and Zyprexa also be approved for some uses in children.
The researchers found that in 11 weeks of treatment, patients taking Abilify gained an average of 9.7 pounds, patients on Risperdal gained 11.7 pounds, patients on Seroquel gained 13.4 pounds and patients on Zyprexa gained 18.7 pounds.
Depending on the drug, between 10 and 36 percent of participants became overweight or obese over the course of the study. Much of the weight gained was in the belly, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
"In these kids that we studied, there was rapid and dramatic weight gain, more than has been described before," Correll said.
Patients taking Seroquel, Risperdal and Zyprexa all showed increases in blood triglyceride levels as well, and Zyprexa also increased LDL cholesterol levels. These are also characteristics of metabolic syndrome, along with central obesity and elevated fasting blood sugar. Metabolic syndrome is a serious risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Scientists greeted the findings by saying that more data are needed to understand why the drugs cause weight gain and for how long, and why some people lose weight after going off the drugs and others do not.
"Some of these kids are maintained on these medications for many years if not indefinitely, so it's definitely a concern," said Ronald T. Brown of the Temple University Health Sciences Center in Philadelphia. "For children who really don't absolutely need these drugs, they need to be doing more behavioral approaches in psychotherapy."
Sources for this story include: www.usnews.com; www.nlm.nih.gov.
"We are very much afraid that this will lead to diabetes and metabolic syndrome," researcher Christoph Correll said.
Antipsychotic drugs are intended primarily for people with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but may also be prescribed to children with autism, aggression or tics. The so-called "second generation" or "atypical" antipsychotics have become more popular than older drugs in part because doctors believed them safer. Emerging research suggests this may not be the case, however, as in a 2008 study published in The Lancet.
In 2003, the FDA warned that use of the drugs could lead to elevated blood sugar and diabetes. Numerous studies have also linked the drugs to weight gain.
"We found that obesity/weight gain, Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular conditions were more prevalent in the treated cohort," said Jeanette M. Jerrell, a professor of neuropsychiatry at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, of a study she published in 2008. Jerell found that the risk was even higher among children taking more than one of the drugs.
But studies linking atypical antipsychotics and weight gain have been complicated by the fact that people regularly go on and off the drugs, making it hard to pinpoint a specific drug's contribution. The new study, conducted by researchers from the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y. and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, circumvented this problem by including only participants who were receiving treatment with psychotropics for the first time.
The study included 257 people between the ages of four and 19 who were being treated for severe problems with aripiprazole (marketed as Abilify), olanzapine (marketed as Zyprexa), quetiapine (marketed as Seroquel), or risperidone (marketed as Risperdal). They were compared with 15 people in the same age group who were suffering from similar problems but had declined drug-based treatment.
Although only Abilify and Risperdal are currently approved for use in children, all four drugs are used on juveniles in practice. An FDA panel recently recommended that Seroquel and Zyprexa also be approved for some uses in children.
The researchers found that in 11 weeks of treatment, patients taking Abilify gained an average of 9.7 pounds, patients on Risperdal gained 11.7 pounds, patients on Seroquel gained 13.4 pounds and patients on Zyprexa gained 18.7 pounds.
Depending on the drug, between 10 and 36 percent of participants became overweight or obese over the course of the study. Much of the weight gained was in the belly, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.
"In these kids that we studied, there was rapid and dramatic weight gain, more than has been described before," Correll said.
Patients taking Seroquel, Risperdal and Zyprexa all showed increases in blood triglyceride levels as well, and Zyprexa also increased LDL cholesterol levels. These are also characteristics of metabolic syndrome, along with central obesity and elevated fasting blood sugar. Metabolic syndrome is a serious risk factor for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
Scientists greeted the findings by saying that more data are needed to understand why the drugs cause weight gain and for how long, and why some people lose weight after going off the drugs and others do not.
"Some of these kids are maintained on these medications for many years if not indefinitely, so it's definitely a concern," said Ronald T. Brown of the Temple University Health Sciences Center in Philadelphia. "For children who really don't absolutely need these drugs, they need to be doing more behavioral approaches in psychotherapy."
Sources for this story include: www.usnews.com; www.nlm.nih.gov.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Seasonal flu vaccines increase risk of pandemic H1N1 flu, stunned scientists discover
(NaturalNews) I remember the H1N1 "swine flu" season of 2009 very well. People were rushing out to get vaccinated, scared half to death by the mainstream media which was pushing false reports that the swine flu would kill tens of millions of people and that only a vaccine could save you. The CDC and health authorities were pushing a double-barreled vaccine strategy that demanded people get both a seasonal flu shot as well as an H1N1 pandemic flu shot. Those who questioned the sensibility of vaccines for fighting the flu were attacked as "baby killers" for not kow-towing to the vaccine mythology that drives Big Pharma's profits to record profits nearly every flu season.
I specifically remember writing an article here on NaturalNews, warning people that taking a seasonal flu shot actually weakened your immune system and made you more susceptible to H1N1 swine flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/027102_v...). This suggestion earned me a highly accusatory email from a CDC employee who suggested that warning people to avoid the swine flu vaccine shot was equivalent to "an act of terrorism" and that all those who questioned vaccines should be arrested and stopped from writing anything on the internet ever again.
(Hilarious, isn't it, how deeply the vaccine mythology drives these vaccine-pushing nut jobs?)
Fast forward six months (or so) and now we have a new scientific paper published in one of the few remaining honest, independent medical journals out there: BLoS Medicine. The title of this study? Check it out:
Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus?
Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259
Care to guess what the study found? In short, it found that people who received the seasonal flu vaccine shot in 2008 were up to 274% more likely to be infected by H1N1 swine flu than those who skipped the season flu shots.
In this case, "counterproductive effect" of the vaccine means that it works against you. Getting the vaccine shot appears to actually make you MORE susceptible to being infected with (and potentially killed by) a future pandemic.
If this sounds familiar, it's because we've been saying this over and over again to anyone who will listen: Flu vaccines are a medical scam, folks! A Big Pharma hoax. Getting a vaccine shot could actually result in you being killed by the next seasonal flu or pandemic outbreak that comes along. I even wrote this into the lyrics of my hip-hop song Don't Inject Me (http://www.naturalnews.com/Dont_Inj...).
According to the CDC's official figures, well over ten thousand Americans died from swine flu infections. How many of those people could have been saved if they had taken vitamin D supplements instead of a seasonal flu shot? That is the question that now hangs over the heads of all the vaccine pushers at the FDA, WHO and CDC who have yet to admit in a single public story that vitamin D could have saved lives (or that the vaccine might be harmful to anyone).
To hear these agents of Big Pharma say it, vaccines are always good for you; they always work; and they never cause harm. Those are the beliefs of their vaccine cult, and they cannot be swayed by scientific evidence or actual reality.
The spring 2009 pandemic wave was the perfect opportunity to address the association between seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) and risk of pandemic illness. In this issue of PLoS Medicine, Danuta Skowronski and colleagues report the unexpected results of a series of Canadian epidemiological studies suggesting a counterproductive effect of the vaccine [4]. The findings are based on Canada's unique near-real-time sentinel system for monitoring influenza vaccine effectiveness.
And here's the real kicker of what they found:
"...receipt of TIV [vaccine] in the previous season (autumn 2008) appeared to increase the risk of pH1N1 illness by 1.03- to 2.74-fold, even after adjustment for comorbidities, age, and geography."
In other words, those who were vaccinated with the previous seasonal flu were 103% to 274% more likely to be infected with H1N1 than those who skipped the vaccine.
And this analysis only measured the effects from one year of seasonal flu vaccines. What might the results show if they tracked consumers' vaccination patterns over the last decade?
I have no doubt that those who rejected vaccines for the greatest number of years would have the lowest rates of H1N1 infections. At the same time, those who received the greatest number of vaccine shots over the last decade would be far more likely to be infected with the H1N1 pandemic flu -- perhaps as much as 500% more likely (my guess).
See, a vaccine actually weakens your immune system from future infections. So the more vaccines you get, the more likely you are to catch the flu in subsequent years. The more you catch the flu, the more you automatically think, "Gee, I must need a flu shot" and you therefore go back to get another shot.
(Ka-Ching $!) Big Pharma scores revenue from you and sends you back out into the world with a weakened immune system yet again, perfectly positioned for endlessly repeating this cycle.
Big Pharma's high-profit medications follow the same strategy: Osteoporosis drugs, for example, actually cause bone fractures. Psychiatric drugs cause psychiatric disorders. Chemotherapy drugs cause cancer, and so on.
What the drug companies have figured out is that a patient cured is a patient lost. But a patient in which sickness can be induced by the medicine is a repeat customer! So vaccines, medications and cancer treatments actually become profit centers as they harm hundreds of millions of people who then seek out yet more medical care where they will be prescribed yet more drugs.
The whole medical cycle is absurdly sick, and yet this is the system upon which the entire system of western health care is currently based. The recent health care "reforms," in fact, are nothing more than an expansion of this system to make sure everybody gets sick rather than just those who can afford to buy health insurance.
A vaccine is a repeat business generator for the drug companies. It has absolutely nothing to do with your health, or saving the people, or halting any pandemic. It has everything to do with trapping the public in a cycle of medical dependence from which they can never escape.
But YOU can escape. It's easy: Just say NO to vaccines and say YES to Vitamin D and sunlight. It's really that simple, and the same goes for your children, too. When you have vitamin D and good nutrition, you don't need vaccines and you're extremely unlikely to catch any seasonal flu.
Don't expect the CDC or WHO to leap right out and admit this, however: These people are still living in the Dark Ages of medicine. They have yet to see the (sun) light. They remain shackled to their distorted, dark beliefs in dangerous chemicals and needles, much like the Orcs were beholden to the Dark Lord Sauron in The Lord of the Rings. They are, in a very real way, creatures of deception and darkness who only seek to gain power by depriving the People access to information that could save their lives -- information about nutrients, sunlight, antioxidants, anti-viral herbs and many other remedies that make flu vaccines obsolete.
The Dark Lord Sauron, however, is very powerful, as is the CDC, WHO and FDA. They rule with intolerance for opposing views and without any regard for the value of human life. They censor scientific findings and conspire with the enemy drug companies to medicate everyone whether they need it or not. They invoke power through the spread of fear, and they take great solace in their power to dominate innocents. And yet they insist their vaccine cult is the one true belief -- their God -- and that anyone who dares step forward and question their vaccine mythology is a heretic who should be arrested or destroyed.
We are actually living out The Lord of the Rings right now in western medicine and the modern vaccine agenda. The clouds are roiling over the horizon, threatening to shadow us all in censorship and health ignorance. Meanwhile, we are being stripped of our healthy minds and immune systems through these highly neurotoxic medications and vaccines that make us less and less human with each passing day. It's almost as if the Dark Lord were expanding his own army of dark creatures by destroying the minds of innocents and reshaping them to fit his own medical domination agenda. Coincidentally, it is quite true that those are have already been vaccinated are the most likely to be vaccinated again... perhaps because the vaccine-induced brain damage has kicked in and destroyed their ability to think for themselves.
What the Dark Lords of western medicine fear the most is the truth: The truth about sunlight. The truth about vitamin D. The truth about nutrition and how natural medicine makes virtually everything in conventional medicine obsolete. The truth, in fact, is what will ultimately destroy this conspiracy of medical darkness that has blanketed our world in darkness for the last century. But there is light at the end of this tunnel, and it's sunlight!
Because as long as there are people who are willing to say NO to vaccines and medications, there will always be hope for a revolution in healing that sees the crumbling of the pharmaceutical empire and the rise of a new era of healing freedom.
Teach your children well, friends, because they will need their minds sharp and their bodies fit to rise up against the medical tyranny that now enslaves our fellow brothers and sisters. Teach your children the meaning of freedom and the skills of discernment so that they may tell the difference between tyranny versus freedom. And most of all, teach them the truth about their miraculous innate healing potential so that they will not be cowed into submitting to the tyrants of conventional medicine who prey upon weak minds.
Most importantly, feed your children well so that they will survive the next great pandemic that quietly steals the lives of those who foolishly believed in vaccines. In this way, your healthy children will inherit the earth while those who misplaced their faith by worshipping the Gods of vaccines and pharmaceuticals will quite literally perish.
We live and die by our beliefs, and those who believe in vaccines may very well die by them.
P.S. For the record, I have not been vaccinated for nearly 20 years and I take no pharmaceuticals whatsoever. I travel around the world frequently, and I'm on airplanes and in crowded public places on a regular basis. I can't even remember the last time I lost a single day sick in bed from any flu, pandemic or infection of any kind. I am not afraid of the swine flu and have almost certainly already been exposed to it, although I would never know because I never showed any symptoms. I truly and honestly believe that the next great pandemic, whenever it comes, will demonstrate a devastating mortality rate for those who depend on western medicine's vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Mark my words: The survivors will be those who rejected the vaccines. Will you be one of them?
Sources for this story include:
PLoS Medicine:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article...
Health Day:
http://www.usnews.com/health/managi...
I specifically remember writing an article here on NaturalNews, warning people that taking a seasonal flu shot actually weakened your immune system and made you more susceptible to H1N1 swine flu (http://www.naturalnews.com/027102_v...). This suggestion earned me a highly accusatory email from a CDC employee who suggested that warning people to avoid the swine flu vaccine shot was equivalent to "an act of terrorism" and that all those who questioned vaccines should be arrested and stopped from writing anything on the internet ever again.
(Hilarious, isn't it, how deeply the vaccine mythology drives these vaccine-pushing nut jobs?)
Fast forward six months (or so) and now we have a new scientific paper published in one of the few remaining honest, independent medical journals out there: BLoS Medicine. The title of this study? Check it out:
Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus?
Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259
Care to guess what the study found? In short, it found that people who received the seasonal flu vaccine shot in 2008 were up to 274% more likely to be infected by H1N1 swine flu than those who skipped the season flu shots.
Season flu vaccines have a "counterproductive effect"
This result, which virtually all the top natural health writers openly predicted last year, apparently stunned the researchers. As explained in the published study, "Danuta Skowronski and colleagues report the unexpected results of a series of Canadian epidemiological studies suggesting a counterproductive effect of the vaccine."In this case, "counterproductive effect" of the vaccine means that it works against you. Getting the vaccine shot appears to actually make you MORE susceptible to being infected with (and potentially killed by) a future pandemic.
If this sounds familiar, it's because we've been saying this over and over again to anyone who will listen: Flu vaccines are a medical scam, folks! A Big Pharma hoax. Getting a vaccine shot could actually result in you being killed by the next seasonal flu or pandemic outbreak that comes along. I even wrote this into the lyrics of my hip-hop song Don't Inject Me (http://www.naturalnews.com/Dont_Inj...).
Criminal neglect at the CDC and WHO?
So it turns out the CDC, WHO and FDA officials who all pushed these vaccines so hard were actually sending people to their graves. Meanwhile, they all engaged in what I consider to be blatant criminal neglect for not mentioning the simple, free solution for preventing virtually any widespread pandemic: Vitamin D and sunlight therapy. Vitamin D, we now know, works better than vaccines at preventing a flu infection, and the best part is that it makes your immune system stronger for the future, not weaker.According to the CDC's official figures, well over ten thousand Americans died from swine flu infections. How many of those people could have been saved if they had taken vitamin D supplements instead of a seasonal flu shot? That is the question that now hangs over the heads of all the vaccine pushers at the FDA, WHO and CDC who have yet to admit in a single public story that vitamin D could have saved lives (or that the vaccine might be harmful to anyone).
To hear these agents of Big Pharma say it, vaccines are always good for you; they always work; and they never cause harm. Those are the beliefs of their vaccine cult, and they cannot be swayed by scientific evidence or actual reality.
What the new study actually says
The preamble to the study's findings:The spring 2009 pandemic wave was the perfect opportunity to address the association between seasonal trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (TIV) and risk of pandemic illness. In this issue of PLoS Medicine, Danuta Skowronski and colleagues report the unexpected results of a series of Canadian epidemiological studies suggesting a counterproductive effect of the vaccine [4]. The findings are based on Canada's unique near-real-time sentinel system for monitoring influenza vaccine effectiveness.
And here's the real kicker of what they found:
"...receipt of TIV [vaccine] in the previous season (autumn 2008) appeared to increase the risk of pH1N1 illness by 1.03- to 2.74-fold, even after adjustment for comorbidities, age, and geography."
In other words, those who were vaccinated with the previous seasonal flu were 103% to 274% more likely to be infected with H1N1 than those who skipped the vaccine.
And this analysis only measured the effects from one year of seasonal flu vaccines. What might the results show if they tracked consumers' vaccination patterns over the last decade?
I have no doubt that those who rejected vaccines for the greatest number of years would have the lowest rates of H1N1 infections. At the same time, those who received the greatest number of vaccine shots over the last decade would be far more likely to be infected with the H1N1 pandemic flu -- perhaps as much as 500% more likely (my guess).
It's all about repeat business
Let me explain the dirty little secret of the vaccine business, because it's exactly the same dirty little secret as the pharmaceutical business: They actually WANT you to get sick so that you keep coming back for more drugs (which make you even sicker).See, a vaccine actually weakens your immune system from future infections. So the more vaccines you get, the more likely you are to catch the flu in subsequent years. The more you catch the flu, the more you automatically think, "Gee, I must need a flu shot" and you therefore go back to get another shot.
(Ka-Ching $!) Big Pharma scores revenue from you and sends you back out into the world with a weakened immune system yet again, perfectly positioned for endlessly repeating this cycle.
Big Pharma's high-profit medications follow the same strategy: Osteoporosis drugs, for example, actually cause bone fractures. Psychiatric drugs cause psychiatric disorders. Chemotherapy drugs cause cancer, and so on.
What the drug companies have figured out is that a patient cured is a patient lost. But a patient in which sickness can be induced by the medicine is a repeat customer! So vaccines, medications and cancer treatments actually become profit centers as they harm hundreds of millions of people who then seek out yet more medical care where they will be prescribed yet more drugs.
The whole medical cycle is absurdly sick, and yet this is the system upon which the entire system of western health care is currently based. The recent health care "reforms," in fact, are nothing more than an expansion of this system to make sure everybody gets sick rather than just those who can afford to buy health insurance.
How to escape the dark agenda of the vaccine pushers
The vaccine pushers have a clear agenda: They want to inject everyone -- pregnant mothers, infants, teenage girls and boys, senior citizens and even healthy adults -- with vaccines. In doing so, they can absolutely guarantee a windfall of future business (and profits) from all the people whose immune systems are compromised.A vaccine is a repeat business generator for the drug companies. It has absolutely nothing to do with your health, or saving the people, or halting any pandemic. It has everything to do with trapping the public in a cycle of medical dependence from which they can never escape.
But YOU can escape. It's easy: Just say NO to vaccines and say YES to Vitamin D and sunlight. It's really that simple, and the same goes for your children, too. When you have vitamin D and good nutrition, you don't need vaccines and you're extremely unlikely to catch any seasonal flu.
Don't expect the CDC or WHO to leap right out and admit this, however: These people are still living in the Dark Ages of medicine. They have yet to see the (sun) light. They remain shackled to their distorted, dark beliefs in dangerous chemicals and needles, much like the Orcs were beholden to the Dark Lord Sauron in The Lord of the Rings. They are, in a very real way, creatures of deception and darkness who only seek to gain power by depriving the People access to information that could save their lives -- information about nutrients, sunlight, antioxidants, anti-viral herbs and many other remedies that make flu vaccines obsolete.
The Dark Lord Sauron, however, is very powerful, as is the CDC, WHO and FDA. They rule with intolerance for opposing views and without any regard for the value of human life. They censor scientific findings and conspire with the enemy drug companies to medicate everyone whether they need it or not. They invoke power through the spread of fear, and they take great solace in their power to dominate innocents. And yet they insist their vaccine cult is the one true belief -- their God -- and that anyone who dares step forward and question their vaccine mythology is a heretic who should be arrested or destroyed.
We are actually living out The Lord of the Rings right now in western medicine and the modern vaccine agenda. The clouds are roiling over the horizon, threatening to shadow us all in censorship and health ignorance. Meanwhile, we are being stripped of our healthy minds and immune systems through these highly neurotoxic medications and vaccines that make us less and less human with each passing day. It's almost as if the Dark Lord were expanding his own army of dark creatures by destroying the minds of innocents and reshaping them to fit his own medical domination agenda. Coincidentally, it is quite true that those are have already been vaccinated are the most likely to be vaccinated again... perhaps because the vaccine-induced brain damage has kicked in and destroyed their ability to think for themselves.
What the Dark Lords of western medicine fear the most is the truth: The truth about sunlight. The truth about vitamin D. The truth about nutrition and how natural medicine makes virtually everything in conventional medicine obsolete. The truth, in fact, is what will ultimately destroy this conspiracy of medical darkness that has blanketed our world in darkness for the last century. But there is light at the end of this tunnel, and it's sunlight!
Because as long as there are people who are willing to say NO to vaccines and medications, there will always be hope for a revolution in healing that sees the crumbling of the pharmaceutical empire and the rise of a new era of healing freedom.
Teach your children well, friends, because they will need their minds sharp and their bodies fit to rise up against the medical tyranny that now enslaves our fellow brothers and sisters. Teach your children the meaning of freedom and the skills of discernment so that they may tell the difference between tyranny versus freedom. And most of all, teach them the truth about their miraculous innate healing potential so that they will not be cowed into submitting to the tyrants of conventional medicine who prey upon weak minds.
Most importantly, feed your children well so that they will survive the next great pandemic that quietly steals the lives of those who foolishly believed in vaccines. In this way, your healthy children will inherit the earth while those who misplaced their faith by worshipping the Gods of vaccines and pharmaceuticals will quite literally perish.
We live and die by our beliefs, and those who believe in vaccines may very well die by them.
P.S. For the record, I have not been vaccinated for nearly 20 years and I take no pharmaceuticals whatsoever. I travel around the world frequently, and I'm on airplanes and in crowded public places on a regular basis. I can't even remember the last time I lost a single day sick in bed from any flu, pandemic or infection of any kind. I am not afraid of the swine flu and have almost certainly already been exposed to it, although I would never know because I never showed any symptoms. I truly and honestly believe that the next great pandemic, whenever it comes, will demonstrate a devastating mortality rate for those who depend on western medicine's vaccines and pharmaceuticals. Mark my words: The survivors will be those who rejected the vaccines. Will you be one of them?
Sources for this story include:
PLoS Medicine:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article...
Health Day:
http://www.usnews.com/health/managi...
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Low Vitamin D Levels Raises Blood Pressure
(NaturalNews) Vitamin D deficiency may triple a person's risk of high blood pressure, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan School of Public Health and presented at a meeting of the American Heart Association in Chicago.
"Our results indicate that early vitamin D deficiency may increase the long-term risk of high blood pressure in women at mid-life," researcher Flojaune Griffin said.
The researchers recruited 559 white women from Tecumseh, Michigan, who were between 24 and 44 years old when the study began in 1992. The participants' vitamin D blood levels were measured at the beginning of the study and once a year after that for 15 years.
At the beginning of the study, 5.5 percent of the women who were deficient in vitamin D suffered from high blood pressure, compared with only 2.8 percent of the women who had sufficient levels of the vitamin. At the end of the study in 2007, 10 percent of the women in the deficiency group had high blood pressure, compared with only 3.7 percent in the "sufficient" group.
"This is preliminary data so we can't say with certainty that low vitamin D levels are directly linked to high blood pressure," Griffin said. "But this may be another example of how what you do early in life impacts your health years later."
Vitamin D is known to play a crucial role in producing strong bones and teeth. New research increasingly suggests that it also helps regulate the immune system and protect against cancer, autoimmune disorders and heart disease.
The body naturally produces vitamin D upon exposure to sunlight. A number of factors have led to widespread deficiency, however, especially at latitudes far from the equator. These factors include less time spent outside and overuse of sunscreen. Dark-skinned people living at extreme latitudes are also especially vulnerable, as their bodies produce less vitamin D from the same amount of sun than those of lighter-skinned people.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.medicinenet.com.
"Our results indicate that early vitamin D deficiency may increase the long-term risk of high blood pressure in women at mid-life," researcher Flojaune Griffin said.
The researchers recruited 559 white women from Tecumseh, Michigan, who were between 24 and 44 years old when the study began in 1992. The participants' vitamin D blood levels were measured at the beginning of the study and once a year after that for 15 years.
At the beginning of the study, 5.5 percent of the women who were deficient in vitamin D suffered from high blood pressure, compared with only 2.8 percent of the women who had sufficient levels of the vitamin. At the end of the study in 2007, 10 percent of the women in the deficiency group had high blood pressure, compared with only 3.7 percent in the "sufficient" group.
"This is preliminary data so we can't say with certainty that low vitamin D levels are directly linked to high blood pressure," Griffin said. "But this may be another example of how what you do early in life impacts your health years later."
Vitamin D is known to play a crucial role in producing strong bones and teeth. New research increasingly suggests that it also helps regulate the immune system and protect against cancer, autoimmune disorders and heart disease.
The body naturally produces vitamin D upon exposure to sunlight. A number of factors have led to widespread deficiency, however, especially at latitudes far from the equator. These factors include less time spent outside and overuse of sunscreen. Dark-skinned people living at extreme latitudes are also especially vulnerable, as their bodies produce less vitamin D from the same amount of sun than those of lighter-skinned people.
Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.medicinenet.com.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
FINALLY: NIH takes a step to track radiation exposure from medical tests
(NaturalNews) Many Americans are exposed to atomic bomb levels of radiation (http://www.naturalnews.com/025767_R...) over their lifetimes, thanks to the medical industry's determination to push radiation imaging techniques like mammography and CT scans on the healthy as well as the ill. In fact, over the past three decades, Americans' exposure to radiation through common medical tests has soared six-fold. But although it is a well-known scientific fact that radiation exposure, which is cumulative, increases the risk of cancer, government scientists have failed to warn the public about the dangers of repeated tests involving radiation, claiming the specific risk level is unknown.
Now, finally, researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center have decided radiation dose exposure reports should be included in patients' electronic medical records. According to an article in the February issue of theJournal of the American College of Radiology (JACR), the NIH researchers hope this effort will result in an eventual accurate assessment of cancer associated with low-dose radiation exposure from medical imaging tests.
"The cancer risk from low-dose medical radiation tests is largely unknown. Yet it is clear that the U.S. population is increasingly being exposed to more diagnostic-test-derived ionizing radiation than in the past," David A. Bluemke, MD, lead author of the article and director of Radiology and Imaging Sciences at the NIH Clinical Center, said in a statement to the press. "One widely publicized appraisal of medical radiation exposure suggested that about 1.5 to 2 percent of all cancers in the USA might be caused by the clinical use of CT alone."
A new radiation reporting policy
To attempt to document the amount of radiation exposure patients receive from medical tests, the radiology and nuclear medicine experts at the NIH Clinical Center have come up with a radiation reporting policy that involves the major radiation equipment vendors, starting with keeping track of exposures from CT and PET/CT scans. "All vendors who sell imaging equipment to Radiology and Imaging Sciences at the NIH Clinical Center will be required to provide a routine means for radiation dose exposure to be recorded in the electronic medical record. This requirement will allow cataloging of radiation exposures from these medical tests," said Dr. Bluemke. In addition, the NIH will now require that vendors make sure that radiation exposure can be tracked by patients in their own personal health records.Dr. Bluemke added that this approach is consistent with the American College of Radiology's and Radiological Society of North America's official stance that "patients should keep a record of their X-ray history". You read that correctly.Patients themselves are currently supposed to keep up with how much radiation they've been bombarded with, according to the radiology industry.
What's more, the NIH's new pronouncement that requires radiation testing vendors to keep track of how much radiation they expose patients to only applies to people receiving screening or testing through the NIH. "We encourage all medical imaging facilities to include similar requirements for radiation-dose-reporting outputs from the manufacturers of radiation-producing medical equipment," Dr. Bluemke said.
So the new NIH policy does not mean other medical centers and hospitals that use medical imaging are now required to keep records of how much radiation they are zapping patients with -- the government is only encouraging these facilities to follow through on this recommendation. Bottom line: the only real protection from excessive medical radiation is for people to take control of their own health, to ask questions of any doctor who wants to order these tests, and to avoid any and all unnecessary radiation imaging testing.
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/radiatio...
http://www.jacr.org/article/S1546-1...)00362-7/ tests
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Contaminant in Fish Linked to Diabetes
(NaturalNews) Great Lakes boat captains who eat more fish have higher levels of the DDT byproduct DDE in their blood and a significantly higher risk of diabetes than other captains, according to a study conducted by researchers from the Wisconsin Division of Public Health, funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
DDE is produced when bottom feeders ingest the potent pesticide DDT and break it down slightly in their bodies. When these fish are eaten by larger fish, the toxin moves up the food chain until consumed by humans. Like DDT, DDE accumulates in the fat cells of living organisms.
Although DDT was banned from the United States in the early 1970s for its destructive effects on the reproductive systems of wildlife, residue from pesticide used decades ago still persists in lakes across the country. To make matters worse, many other countries worldwide continue to use the toxin.
"DDT gets thrown up in the atmosphere and can be deposited by rain and snow attached to particles which settle at the bottom of the lakes," said Bruce Fowler of the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. "The toxins are released by Asia and settle in North America. The jet stream carries a lot of things besides temperature and rain."
The researchers found that captains who ate more fish had higher DDE levels, and also that captains with higher DDE levels had a higher risk of diabetes. They could not determine the cause of the diabetes -- whether a chemical linked to DDE or DDE itself, or how DDE might cause the disease.
Although mercury is also found in high levels in fish and has also been linked to diabetes, the researchers noted that this could not explain the correlation between DDE levels and diabetes, as mercury and DDE travel separately.
Fish also tend to be high in another toxin known as PCBs, which can cause cancer and disrupt the endocrine system.
Sources for this story include: www.chicagotribune.com.
DDE is produced when bottom feeders ingest the potent pesticide DDT and break it down slightly in their bodies. When these fish are eaten by larger fish, the toxin moves up the food chain until consumed by humans. Like DDT, DDE accumulates in the fat cells of living organisms.
Although DDT was banned from the United States in the early 1970s for its destructive effects on the reproductive systems of wildlife, residue from pesticide used decades ago still persists in lakes across the country. To make matters worse, many other countries worldwide continue to use the toxin.
"DDT gets thrown up in the atmosphere and can be deposited by rain and snow attached to particles which settle at the bottom of the lakes," said Bruce Fowler of the CDC's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. "The toxins are released by Asia and settle in North America. The jet stream carries a lot of things besides temperature and rain."
The researchers found that captains who ate more fish had higher DDE levels, and also that captains with higher DDE levels had a higher risk of diabetes. They could not determine the cause of the diabetes -- whether a chemical linked to DDE or DDE itself, or how DDE might cause the disease.
Although mercury is also found in high levels in fish and has also been linked to diabetes, the researchers noted that this could not explain the correlation between DDE levels and diabetes, as mercury and DDE travel separately.
Fish also tend to be high in another toxin known as PCBs, which can cause cancer and disrupt the endocrine system.
Sources for this story include: www.chicagotribune.com.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Sugary soft drinks linked to pancreatic cancer
(NaturalNews) A 14-year study of 60,000 people in Singapore found that those who consume two or more sweetened soft drinks per week have an 87 percent higher risk of pancreatic cancer.
Published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the study was led by Mark Pereira of the University of Minnesota who said, "The high levels of sugar in soft drinks may be increasing the level of insulin in the body, which we think contributes to pancreatic cancer cell growth."
Nearly 38,000 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the United States each year, and over 34,000 die from the disease each year. This research points to what may be the common culprit of all those preventable deaths: Sugary soft drink consumption.
For those who consume diet sodas, the health risks may be even worse: Aspartame causes neurological side effects that include blindness, headaches and impaired cognitive function.
The beverage industry, of course, denies any links between soda consumption and negative health effects. It wants consumers to naively believe that liquid sugar, phosphoric acid and pressurized carbon dioxide are all good for you!
But experience tells us otherwise: Look at the people you know who consume the most soft drinks and ask yourself this simple question: Are they the healthiest people I know? Probably not.
Most likely, if they've been drinking sodas for many years, they're suffering from obesity, diabetes, kidney stones and perhaps even pancreatic cancer.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
Published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, the study was led by Mark Pereira of the University of Minnesota who said, "The high levels of sugar in soft drinks may be increasing the level of insulin in the body, which we think contributes to pancreatic cancer cell growth."
Nearly 38,000 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in the United States each year, and over 34,000 die from the disease each year. This research points to what may be the common culprit of all those preventable deaths: Sugary soft drink consumption.
Poison in a can
NaturalNews has warned readers for years about the dangers of consuming soft drinks. The sweetener used in most beverages -- high-fructose corn syrup -- is linked to both diabetes and obesity. The phosphoric acid found in soft drinks is highly acidic, stripping minerals from bones and promoting osteoporosis. At the same time, soft drinks can cause kidney stones, too.For those who consume diet sodas, the health risks may be even worse: Aspartame causes neurological side effects that include blindness, headaches and impaired cognitive function.
The beverage industry, of course, denies any links between soda consumption and negative health effects. It wants consumers to naively believe that liquid sugar, phosphoric acid and pressurized carbon dioxide are all good for you!
But experience tells us otherwise: Look at the people you know who consume the most soft drinks and ask yourself this simple question: Are they the healthiest people I know? Probably not.
Most likely, if they've been drinking sodas for many years, they're suffering from obesity, diabetes, kidney stones and perhaps even pancreatic cancer.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
Friday, January 22, 2010
GE Attempts to Silence Doctor Who Warned About Dangers of Medical Imaging Drug
(NaturalNews) GE Healthcare, a British subsidiary of multinational giant General Electric, is suing Henrik Thomsen, a senior radiologist and professor of radiology, for sounding the alarm about the dangers of the company's medical imaging drug, Omniscan. After witnessing kidney patients who had received the drug develop potentially fatal conditions, Thomsen publicly exposed the drug's dangers which caused a firestorm of controversy.
In an effort to muzzle Thomsen, GE Healthcare has already spent more than 380,000 British pounds, or about $610,000, in legal fees pursuing litigation against him. Utilizing loopholes in Britain's libel laws, the company is alleging that Thomsen falsely accused GE of suppressing sensitive information about the drug's risks at an Oxford scientific congress presentation in 2007.
Investigation into these claims has shown that Thomsen accurately described his clinical experience and that no such misrepresentation took place. When questioned about this fact, GE spokesmen had no response other than to suggest that Thomsen indirectly slandered the company through insinuation.
Many in the scientific community have expressed outrage over the blatant misuse of British libel laws to silence honest and open debate and dissemination of unbiased information about medical procedures and drugs. Scientists and clinicians who act on behalf of patient safety by highlighting the facts rather than corporate talking points should not be gagged by powerful corporations who leverage their influence and money to manipulate the legal system for their own gain, say those who support libel reform.
Hundreds of people in both the U.K. and the U.S. have died from the side effects of Omniscan and two other similar medical imaging drugs. Filled with toxic contrasting agents like gadolinium, a toxic heavy metal, Omniscan is implicated in causing nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, a skin condition that can cripple a person and possibly cause death.
Legal action is being taken against the companies that produce these drugs by patients in both the U.S. and the U.K. ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit news organization in the U.S. whose purpose is to serve the public interest, has been closely watching the effects of medical imaging drugs, divulging the truth about the dangers they pose.
Nevertheless, GE Healthcare is holding its ground in the fight against Thomsen. As it stands, the company has achieved success in silencing Thomsen as he now refuses to discuss the risks associated with Omniscan in public forums. Until libel reform is enacted, officials believe that companies will continue to misuse the courts to silence the truth and achieve their own ends.
Sources for this story include: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...
In an effort to muzzle Thomsen, GE Healthcare has already spent more than 380,000 British pounds, or about $610,000, in legal fees pursuing litigation against him. Utilizing loopholes in Britain's libel laws, the company is alleging that Thomsen falsely accused GE of suppressing sensitive information about the drug's risks at an Oxford scientific congress presentation in 2007.
Investigation into these claims has shown that Thomsen accurately described his clinical experience and that no such misrepresentation took place. When questioned about this fact, GE spokesmen had no response other than to suggest that Thomsen indirectly slandered the company through insinuation.
Many in the scientific community have expressed outrage over the blatant misuse of British libel laws to silence honest and open debate and dissemination of unbiased information about medical procedures and drugs. Scientists and clinicians who act on behalf of patient safety by highlighting the facts rather than corporate talking points should not be gagged by powerful corporations who leverage their influence and money to manipulate the legal system for their own gain, say those who support libel reform.
Hundreds of people in both the U.K. and the U.S. have died from the side effects of Omniscan and two other similar medical imaging drugs. Filled with toxic contrasting agents like gadolinium, a toxic heavy metal, Omniscan is implicated in causing nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, a skin condition that can cripple a person and possibly cause death.
Legal action is being taken against the companies that produce these drugs by patients in both the U.S. and the U.K. ProPublica, an independent, nonprofit news organization in the U.S. whose purpose is to serve the public interest, has been closely watching the effects of medical imaging drugs, divulging the truth about the dangers they pose.
Nevertheless, GE Healthcare is holding its ground in the fight against Thomsen. As it stands, the company has achieved success in silencing Thomsen as he now refuses to discuss the risks associated with Omniscan in public forums. Until libel reform is enacted, officials believe that companies will continue to misuse the courts to silence the truth and achieve their own ends.
Sources for this story include: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/t...
New study confirms bisphenol A found in plastic is linked to heart disease
(NaturalNews) According to the American Heart Association, cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the U.S. Various forms of the disease take the lives of over 80 million Americans a year. And while we've all heard about the risk factors for cardiovascular disease -- including smoking, being overweight, high cholesterol and lack of exercise -- it appears it's time to add bisphenol A, better known as BPA, to that list.
This chemical has been used for decades in polycarbonate plastic products including refillable drink containers, plastic eating utensils and baby bottles as well as the epoxy resins that line most food and soft-drink cans. Now a new study just published in the journal PLoS ONE provides the most compelling evidence so far that BPA exposure is dangerous to the cardiovascular system.
Using 2006 data from the US government's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), researchers from the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter in the UK studied urinary BPA concentrations and found a significantly strong link between BPA exposure and heart disease. In 2008, these same scientists discovered that higher urinary BPA concentrations were associated with a long list of medical problems in adults, including liver dysfunction, diabetes and obesity. This research team was also the first to report evidence that BPA was linked to cardiovascular disease -- and their new research offers further confirmation of a strong connection between BPA and heart ailments.
Despite the fact the new study found that urinary BPA concentrations were one third lower than those measured from 2003 to 2004, higher concentrations of BPA were still associated with heart disease. "This is only the second analysis of BPA in a large human population sample. It has allowed us to largely confirm our original analysis and exclude the possibility that our original findings were a statistical 'blip'," David Melzer, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Peninsula Medical School and the research team leader, said in a statement to the media.
"We now need to investigate what causes these health risk associations in more detail and to clarify whether they are caused by BPA itself or by some other factor linked to BPA exposure. The risks associated with exposure to BPA may be small, but they are relevant to very large numbers of people. This information is important since it provides a great opportunity for intervention to reduce the risks," added scientist Tamara Galloway, Professor of Ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter and senior author of the paper.
As NaturalNews has previously reported, BPA exposure has been shown in other studies to be associated with neurological problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/025801_B...), diabetes and aggressive behavior in little girls (http://www.naturalnews.com/027382_B...). Unfortunately, the FDA has demonstrated little ability or interest in taking decisive measures to protect consumers from this chemical (http://www.naturalnews.com/024593_t...).Your best strategy to avoid BPA? Eat natural, fresh foods and stay away from cans, bottles and other plastic containing products that are not certified BPA-free.
For more information:
http://www.pms.ac.uk/news.php?id=85
http://www.naturalnews.com/BPA.html
This chemical has been used for decades in polycarbonate plastic products including refillable drink containers, plastic eating utensils and baby bottles as well as the epoxy resins that line most food and soft-drink cans. Now a new study just published in the journal PLoS ONE provides the most compelling evidence so far that BPA exposure is dangerous to the cardiovascular system.
Using 2006 data from the US government's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), researchers from the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter in the UK studied urinary BPA concentrations and found a significantly strong link between BPA exposure and heart disease. In 2008, these same scientists discovered that higher urinary BPA concentrations were associated with a long list of medical problems in adults, including liver dysfunction, diabetes and obesity. This research team was also the first to report evidence that BPA was linked to cardiovascular disease -- and their new research offers further confirmation of a strong connection between BPA and heart ailments.
Despite the fact the new study found that urinary BPA concentrations were one third lower than those measured from 2003 to 2004, higher concentrations of BPA were still associated with heart disease. "This is only the second analysis of BPA in a large human population sample. It has allowed us to largely confirm our original analysis and exclude the possibility that our original findings were a statistical 'blip'," David Melzer, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Peninsula Medical School and the research team leader, said in a statement to the media.
"We now need to investigate what causes these health risk associations in more detail and to clarify whether they are caused by BPA itself or by some other factor linked to BPA exposure. The risks associated with exposure to BPA may be small, but they are relevant to very large numbers of people. This information is important since it provides a great opportunity for intervention to reduce the risks," added scientist Tamara Galloway, Professor of Ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter and senior author of the paper.
As NaturalNews has previously reported, BPA exposure has been shown in other studies to be associated with neurological problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/025801_B...), diabetes and aggressive behavior in little girls (http://www.naturalnews.com/027382_B...). Unfortunately, the FDA has demonstrated little ability or interest in taking decisive measures to protect consumers from this chemical (http://www.naturalnews.com/024593_t...).Your best strategy to avoid BPA? Eat natural, fresh foods and stay away from cans, bottles and other plastic containing products that are not certified BPA-free.
For more information:
http://www.pms.ac.uk/news.php?id=85
http://www.naturalnews.com/BPA.html
Friday, January 15, 2010
Merck Sat on Data Showing Vioxx Risks for Years Before Pulling Drug
(NaturalNews) A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine has revealed that information about heart risks from pharmaceutical giant Merck's Vioxx drug was available in 2000, four years before the Merck pulled the drug from the market. Because the information was not published and made public, Merck sat on it until a later clinical trial openly revealed that the drug was causing strokes and heart attacks.
Dr. Harlan Krumholz, study author from the Yale University School of Medicine, noted that he obtained pertinent safety data about Vioxx only after a lawsuit was filed against Merck by those who had been injured by the drug. It was discovered that out of the 30 studies conducted by Merck prior to when Vioxx was withdrawn, only 18 of them had been published. Six were published after the drug was withdrawn and six were never published at all.
After mulling through the study data, one trial at a time, Krumholz and his team clearly identified a link between Vioxx usage and increased heart attacks and strokes in patients. Based on when the studies were conducted, the connection was visible as early as December of 2000.
Ron Rogers, a Merck spokesman, denied the claims that any link could be observed and decried the methods used by researchers to come to this conclusion, despite acceptance of the findings following a rigorous peer review process. Rogers stated that the company's own extensive analysis showed no connection between Vioxx usage and increased cases of heart attack and stroke prior to the time when it was removed from the market, emphasized that the company had no prior knowledge of Vioxx's dangers.
However in 2004, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that it had seen internal Merck emails exchanged between company executives that expressed concern over Vioxx's tendency to increase the risk of heart attack. The entire series of emails clearly indicated that Merck knew about the dangers of Vioxx and was doing its best to conceal the information.
Dating back to the late 1990s, early emails contained dialogues about how to craft a study that would minimize the truth about Vioxx. An email from March of 2000 sent by Merck's research chief, Edward Scolnick, expressed clear affirmation that heart problems associated with Vioxx were "clearly there" and that it was a "shame."
When questioned about the emails, Merck once again denied the allegations, claiming that the emails were taken out of context. Merck never provided an explanation as to what the emails were referring to in their supposed proper context.
Thousands of injured patients and company shareholders filed a class action lawsuit against Merck following its removal of Vioxx from the market. Merck appealed the lawsuit on the grounds that "sufficient" information about the drug's risks were available when the drug hit the market. Merck succeeded in convincing a U.S. district judge to dismiss the lawsuit because it was filed after the two-year statute of limitations ended.
However an appeals court in Philadelphia reversed the decision on behalf of the many shareholders who lost a great deal when Vioxx was suddenly removed from the market, which caused Merck's stock values to plummet. Since it was determined that shareholders could not have known what was coming based on the information that was made publicly available, the Supreme Court is going to evaluate the case and make a decision on it next year.
Merck also agreed to a $4.85 billion settlement, one of the largest in history, on behalf of the thousands who filed personal injury lawsuits against the company due to serious injuries caused by Vioxx. (These cases were different from the ones included in the initial class action suit). The drug giant said it agreed to the settlement because the litigation process would have taken countless years to resolve, most likely hurting the company's reputation even further.
At the very least, drug safety tracking once receiving approval from the FDA to go to market needs a major overhaul. Dr. Krumholz and his colleagues stressed this point following their Vioxx discoveries. When fraud and criminal behavior are involved, as has shown to be the case with Merck, justice must be served.
The Vioxx scandal illustrates an important fact about the drug industry in general. Big Pharma continually gets away with massive impropriety. Its business practices, from research and development to marketing, are wrought with dishonesty, manipulation and downright fraud. There is arguably no other industry that gets away with its crimes as much as the pharmaceutical industry does. The consequences are also the most severe, costing millions of people their health and oftentimes their lives.
Bringing the issue to light as often and loudly as possible will only go so far. Massive reform, in some way, shape, or form, must be implemented if there is ever going to be an end to the madness.
Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS... http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/01/new...
Dr. Harlan Krumholz, study author from the Yale University School of Medicine, noted that he obtained pertinent safety data about Vioxx only after a lawsuit was filed against Merck by those who had been injured by the drug. It was discovered that out of the 30 studies conducted by Merck prior to when Vioxx was withdrawn, only 18 of them had been published. Six were published after the drug was withdrawn and six were never published at all.
After mulling through the study data, one trial at a time, Krumholz and his team clearly identified a link between Vioxx usage and increased heart attacks and strokes in patients. Based on when the studies were conducted, the connection was visible as early as December of 2000.
Ron Rogers, a Merck spokesman, denied the claims that any link could be observed and decried the methods used by researchers to come to this conclusion, despite acceptance of the findings following a rigorous peer review process. Rogers stated that the company's own extensive analysis showed no connection between Vioxx usage and increased cases of heart attack and stroke prior to the time when it was removed from the market, emphasized that the company had no prior knowledge of Vioxx's dangers.
However in 2004, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that it had seen internal Merck emails exchanged between company executives that expressed concern over Vioxx's tendency to increase the risk of heart attack. The entire series of emails clearly indicated that Merck knew about the dangers of Vioxx and was doing its best to conceal the information.
Dating back to the late 1990s, early emails contained dialogues about how to craft a study that would minimize the truth about Vioxx. An email from March of 2000 sent by Merck's research chief, Edward Scolnick, expressed clear affirmation that heart problems associated with Vioxx were "clearly there" and that it was a "shame."
When questioned about the emails, Merck once again denied the allegations, claiming that the emails were taken out of context. Merck never provided an explanation as to what the emails were referring to in their supposed proper context.
Thousands of injured patients and company shareholders filed a class action lawsuit against Merck following its removal of Vioxx from the market. Merck appealed the lawsuit on the grounds that "sufficient" information about the drug's risks were available when the drug hit the market. Merck succeeded in convincing a U.S. district judge to dismiss the lawsuit because it was filed after the two-year statute of limitations ended.
However an appeals court in Philadelphia reversed the decision on behalf of the many shareholders who lost a great deal when Vioxx was suddenly removed from the market, which caused Merck's stock values to plummet. Since it was determined that shareholders could not have known what was coming based on the information that was made publicly available, the Supreme Court is going to evaluate the case and make a decision on it next year.
Merck also agreed to a $4.85 billion settlement, one of the largest in history, on behalf of the thousands who filed personal injury lawsuits against the company due to serious injuries caused by Vioxx. (These cases were different from the ones included in the initial class action suit). The drug giant said it agreed to the settlement because the litigation process would have taken countless years to resolve, most likely hurting the company's reputation even further.
At the very least, drug safety tracking once receiving approval from the FDA to go to market needs a major overhaul. Dr. Krumholz and his colleagues stressed this point following their Vioxx discoveries. When fraud and criminal behavior are involved, as has shown to be the case with Merck, justice must be served.
The Vioxx scandal illustrates an important fact about the drug industry in general. Big Pharma continually gets away with massive impropriety. Its business practices, from research and development to marketing, are wrought with dishonesty, manipulation and downright fraud. There is arguably no other industry that gets away with its crimes as much as the pharmaceutical industry does. The consequences are also the most severe, costing millions of people their health and oftentimes their lives.
Bringing the issue to light as often and loudly as possible will only go so far. Massive reform, in some way, shape, or form, must be implemented if there is ever going to be an end to the madness.
Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS... http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/01/new...
Friday, December 11, 2009
Sugary cola drinks found to be a huge risk for gestational diabetes during pregnancy
(NaturalNews) According to the American Diabetes Association, approximately 4% of all pregnant women (about 135,000 expectant moms) in the U.S. develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) each year. These are women who have never had diabetes before but suddenly have high blood sugar (glucose) levels during the later part of pregnancies. And if not well controlled, the condition can hurt their babies -- causing newborns to be so extremely large and heavy their shoulders can be damaged during birth. The babies born to women with GDM often have very low blood glucose levels at birth and may likely have breathing problems, too. What's more, babies born with excess insulin due to their mother's GDM often become obese in childhood and they frequently grow into adults who are at risk for type 2 diabetes.
So what causes gestational diabetes? That has remained unclear -- but now scientists have discovered what appears to be one cause. A new study, published in the December issue of the journal Diabetes Care, has found for the first time that drinking more than 5 servings of sugar-sweetened cola drinks weekly prior to becoming pregnant significantly raises the risk of developing diabetes during pregnancy.
"Compared with women who consumed less than 1 serving per month, those who consumed more than 5 servings per week of sugar-sweetened cola had a 22% greater GDM risk," Dr. Liwei Chen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Louisiana State University (LSU) Health Sciences Center in the New Orleans School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in a statement to the press.
Although scientists have not yet unraveled the precise underlying mechanism resulting in gestational diabetes, they have some strong clues. Previous studies strongly suggested that the main defect in the development of GDM is diminished secretion of insulin combined with pregnancy-induced insulin resistance.
So how do sugar-laden soft drinks fit into this? The research team behind the new study has suggested several explanations for their findings. For one thing, the high sugar intake associated with the drinks may lead to impaired pancreatic cell function. Drinking a large amount of sugar-sweetened beverages contributes to a high glycemic load (GL). The large amounts of rapidly absorbable sugars cause levels of glucose in the body to spike -- and this can result in insulin resistance and impaired function of pancreatic beta cells, which make insulin.
In their paper, the scientists noted that the only significant association they found between sweet drinks and gestational diabetes involved sugar-sweetened colas. They did not find that other sweet beverages, including fruit drinks, raised the risk of GDM. Dr. Chen suggests that the explanation may simply be that sugar-sweetened colas are tremendously popular in the U.S. and, unfortunately, widely consumed in excess by women of child-bearing years.
For more information:
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-ba...
So what causes gestational diabetes? That has remained unclear -- but now scientists have discovered what appears to be one cause. A new study, published in the December issue of the journal Diabetes Care, has found for the first time that drinking more than 5 servings of sugar-sweetened cola drinks weekly prior to becoming pregnant significantly raises the risk of developing diabetes during pregnancy.
"Compared with women who consumed less than 1 serving per month, those who consumed more than 5 servings per week of sugar-sweetened cola had a 22% greater GDM risk," Dr. Liwei Chen, MD, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Louisiana State University (LSU) Health Sciences Center in the New Orleans School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in a statement to the press.
Although scientists have not yet unraveled the precise underlying mechanism resulting in gestational diabetes, they have some strong clues. Previous studies strongly suggested that the main defect in the development of GDM is diminished secretion of insulin combined with pregnancy-induced insulin resistance.
So how do sugar-laden soft drinks fit into this? The research team behind the new study has suggested several explanations for their findings. For one thing, the high sugar intake associated with the drinks may lead to impaired pancreatic cell function. Drinking a large amount of sugar-sweetened beverages contributes to a high glycemic load (GL). The large amounts of rapidly absorbable sugars cause levels of glucose in the body to spike -- and this can result in insulin resistance and impaired function of pancreatic beta cells, which make insulin.
In their paper, the scientists noted that the only significant association they found between sweet drinks and gestational diabetes involved sugar-sweetened colas. They did not find that other sweet beverages, including fruit drinks, raised the risk of GDM. Dr. Chen suggests that the explanation may simply be that sugar-sweetened colas are tremendously popular in the U.S. and, unfortunately, widely consumed in excess by women of child-bearing years.
For more information:
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-ba...
Friday, December 4, 2009
Medical imaging tests expose patients to dangerous amounts of unnecessary radiation
(NaturalNews) A University of Wisconsin (UW) study has found that patients who receive computed tomography (CT) scans for various abdominal and pelvic conditions often receive a slew of additional scans that are unnecessary and that expose them to excess radiation. The findings were presented at the meeting of the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).
A typical CT scan involves taking images of the patient using an intravenous injection of an imaging chemical in order to contrast the image. Occasionally it is helpful to take more than one image, but many times doctors will order multiple images unnecessarily.
In many cases, doctors are not being careful to assess the doses of radiation they are administering to patients. Though they are supposed to take certain measures to accurately ensure that the radiation dosages are as minimal as possible while still achieving successful scans, Kristie Guite, M.D., of UW emphasized that many doctors do not follow this principle.
Study coauthor J. Louis Hinshaw, M.D., backed up this point by explaining that CT protocols are meant to be custom-tailored to a patient's specific condition. In a great majority of cases, a one-size-fits-all approach is taken that puts the patient at increased risk.
Dr. Hinshaw suggests that patients who are prescribed CT scans should ask their doctors about the risks involved. They should also find out from the CT facility how many image exposures will need to be taken and if a lesser amount would suffice for their particular conditions.
Western medicine is strangely preoccupied with the desire to visually map physical tissues in the body as part of a diagnostic process. Why is this so strange? Because most modern illnesses have nothing to do with the physical structure of tissues. Instead, they are expressions of the function of the body's tissues and organs.
Some systems of medicine focus more on the functional relationship between organs than the physical, compartmentalized appearance of those organs, and they have far more success in helping patients without harming them. For example, I know a Chinese Medicine doctor who can tell you more about your heart, liver and kidneys by simply feeling your pulse than a whole hospital full of CT scans and MRI machines. Imaging your body is rarely necessary unless you've suffered some sort of acute physical trauma such as being struck by a flying pitchfork or hit upside the head with a heavy stack of health insurance forms. For most health conditions that exist today, medical imaging tests are not merely unnecessary, they are dangerous!
Medical imaging radiation isn't good for you. Just one CT scan exposes you to as much radiation as 100 chest X-rays. Shockingly, many doctors don't know this! And they fail to take medical imaging radiation into account when prescribing these procedures for patients.
The next time a doctor wants to subject you to medical imaging tests, ask WHY you need the test and WHAT the test might reveal that could be helpful to your physician. You might also ask if there's a safer alternative that could provide the same diagnostic information without the radiation shower.
And if you don't believe me, just ask yourself this: How come every time you get a chest X-ray, a mammogram or a CT scan, the doctor flees the immediate area and only returns after the imaging is done? The reason, of course, is because they're not stupid enough to hang out in the radiation zone and be exposed to the very same radiation they've ordered for you.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
A typical CT scan involves taking images of the patient using an intravenous injection of an imaging chemical in order to contrast the image. Occasionally it is helpful to take more than one image, but many times doctors will order multiple images unnecessarily.
In many cases, doctors are not being careful to assess the doses of radiation they are administering to patients. Though they are supposed to take certain measures to accurately ensure that the radiation dosages are as minimal as possible while still achieving successful scans, Kristie Guite, M.D., of UW emphasized that many doctors do not follow this principle.
Study coauthor J. Louis Hinshaw, M.D., backed up this point by explaining that CT protocols are meant to be custom-tailored to a patient's specific condition. In a great majority of cases, a one-size-fits-all approach is taken that puts the patient at increased risk.
Dr. Hinshaw suggests that patients who are prescribed CT scans should ask their doctors about the risks involved. They should also find out from the CT facility how many image exposures will need to be taken and if a lesser amount would suffice for their particular conditions.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
These last few weeks have been huge for revelations about the dangers of medical imaging tests. It's not just CT scans, either: Mammograms are also under fire for exposing women to excess radiation and actually causing cancer.Western medicine is strangely preoccupied with the desire to visually map physical tissues in the body as part of a diagnostic process. Why is this so strange? Because most modern illnesses have nothing to do with the physical structure of tissues. Instead, they are expressions of the function of the body's tissues and organs.
Some systems of medicine focus more on the functional relationship between organs than the physical, compartmentalized appearance of those organs, and they have far more success in helping patients without harming them. For example, I know a Chinese Medicine doctor who can tell you more about your heart, liver and kidneys by simply feeling your pulse than a whole hospital full of CT scans and MRI machines. Imaging your body is rarely necessary unless you've suffered some sort of acute physical trauma such as being struck by a flying pitchfork or hit upside the head with a heavy stack of health insurance forms. For most health conditions that exist today, medical imaging tests are not merely unnecessary, they are dangerous!
Medical imaging radiation isn't good for you. Just one CT scan exposes you to as much radiation as 100 chest X-rays. Shockingly, many doctors don't know this! And they fail to take medical imaging radiation into account when prescribing these procedures for patients.
The next time a doctor wants to subject you to medical imaging tests, ask WHY you need the test and WHAT the test might reveal that could be helpful to your physician. You might also ask if there's a safer alternative that could provide the same diagnostic information without the radiation shower.
And if you don't believe me, just ask yourself this: How come every time you get a chest X-ray, a mammogram or a CT scan, the doctor flees the immediate area and only returns after the imaging is done? The reason, of course, is because they're not stupid enough to hang out in the radiation zone and be exposed to the very same radiation they've ordered for you.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
