Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Secrets of chelation revealed on NaturalNews Talk Hour

(NaturalNews) This week's NaturalNews Talk Hour presents "Beyond Chelation - How to Stop Heart Attacks". Take the steps necessary to empower yourself to go beyond the limitations of misleading dis-ease labels. It's time to start asking important questions designed to help us focus on health. We'll examine food sensitivities, infections, genetics, heavy metals and toxins.

What is Chelation?

Chelation therapy is a safe and effective method for drawing toxins and metabolic wastes from the bloodstream. Chelating agents administered intravenously have been proven to increase blood flow and remove arterial plaque. Chelation therapy can help reverse atherosclerosis, can prevent heart attacks and strokes, and is used as an alternative to bypass surgery and angioplasty.

Our show begins this Thursday evening at 6pm Pacific / 9pm Eastern, and registration is FREE. Simply enter your email address in the registration form on the right column of this page and you'll receive call-in details for the show.

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the weekly Natural News Talk Hour, where I continually learn so much from your carefully chosen, very knowledgeable, and extremely conscientious guest speakers. - Victor

Is Chelation Safe?

Chelation therapy has been used safely on more than 500,000 patients in the United States for the past forty years, but EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), the drug used during the infusions, has yet to receive FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval for anything other than lead and heavy metal toxicity. Still, there are over 1,000 physicians who recommend and use chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease and related health problems.

Dr. Gordon says, "Today's rapidly increasing levels of pollution has made continuous Zeolite or Oral Chelation-based detoxification essential for anyone hoping to reach their maximum intended useful lifespan, while enjoying optimum health. The evidence is clear - we all need to 'get the lead out'!"

The Future of Chelation

Because the patent for EDTA has expired, it is unlikely that any pharmaceutical company will invest the money necessary to fund studies for FDA approval of chelation therapy, despite the overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness. Robert Haskell, MD writes, "Of all the regimens you can use to help a patient combat degenerative disease and restore health, chelation therapy is the most powerful. It produces the greatest number of benefits to the body - far beyond those of improved blood flow. If you want to get your prescribed nutrition to those parts of the body in which they must work - chelation therapy is the way to do it."

This week's guest: Garry F. Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H)

Garry F. Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H) - "Beyond Chelation - How to Stop Heart Attacks" Thu. July 1st

Dr. Gordon received his Doctor of Osteopathy in 1958 from the Chicago College of Osteopathy in Illinois, his honorary MD degree from the University of California Irvine in 1962 and his Radiology Residency from Mt. Zion in San Francisco, California in 1964.

Recognized as the "Father of Chelation Therapy" - Dr. Gordon is an expert on nutrition, mineral metabolism, and longevity. He serves as full-time consultant for Longevity Plus, LLC – a nutritional supplement company based in Payson, Arizona where he is responsible for designing effective, natural, non-toxic alternative supplements for the treatment of every disease known to man.

Join Us! Connect with other NaturalNews readers, gain knowledge and have fun at the same time. Space is limited. Be sure to call a few minutes early to reserve your spot on the show. Register now using the email form in the right column, and you will be emailed show details. Register Now!

Gourmet 'truly raw' organic almond butter from Sicily now available at NaturalNews Store

(NaturalNews) Thanks to efforts by the USDA and the Almond Board of California, it is illegal for commercial almond producers in the United States to sell raw almonds. The almonds now have to be fumigated with chemicals or pasteurized (cooked) to meet "food safety requirements" that really have nothing to do with food safety but everything to do with killing your food. See my related CounterThink Cartoon at: http://counterthink.com/The_Killing...

Because of this unfortunate situation, health-conscious consumers in the USA who love almonds and almond products (such as almond butter) have been forced to purchase almonds from other countries. You see, almond growers in Italy can sell raw almonds to the USA without any problem. That's perfectly legal. Only U.S.-based producers are required to kill their almonds with heat or chemicals. (Just another brilliant move in Washington to destroy the livelihoods of U.S. farmers, isn't it?)

In any case, it now turns out that the best truly raw almond butters come from Sicily, Italy, where the "tuono" and "correnta" varieties are known for their robust aromas and flavors. They are the gourmet almonds of the world, and they're used quite liberally in the Mediterranean Diet.

I love almond butter. It's a delicious and highly nutritious natural nut butter that I use on everything from raw sandwiches to mouth-watering desserts. Now, through a special arrangement we've once again managed to put together for you, we've acquired a few thousand jars of raw, organic almond butter from Sicily, made from some of the finest almonds in the world. And as you've come to expect, we've managed to make this available directly to you at a ridiculously good price.

You see, since the USDA required that all California almonds be fumigated or pasteurized, the price of raw almonds has skyrocketed. A 16 oz. jar of truly raw almond butter can now set you back $25 at retail. Crazy, huh?

We're trying to bring that price back down to Earth with the fantastic pricing we're able to achieve due to our large reach and low overhead. While supplies lies, we've got 16 oz. glass jars of organic, raw almond butter from Sicily for just $13.95! (That's a savings of nearly 40% over the usual retail price of $22.95.)

Click here to take advantage of this special now.

This is for the good stuff! This is truly raw, truly organic, gourmet Italian almond butter made from Sicilian almonds. Raw almond butter doesn't get any better than this! (Taste it yourself and you'll see!)

The price, though, does get better: When you purchase a 3-pack of this raw almond butter, the price per jar drops to just $12.56 per jar, or a 45% discount off the usual retail price.

Click here for the 3-pack special of this raw almond butter.

As with all our store specials, this is only good while supplies last. (We received a single shipment of a few thousand fresh jars, and when they're gone, they're gone...)

While you can probably find a better price on pasteurized, non-organic almond butter, I'm confident you won't find a better price on raw, organic, non-fumigated almonds that are truly raw and nutritionally intact. This is "premium" almond butter at a non-premium price.

And unless the Almond Board of California reverses its decision requiring the fumigation of California almonds, you'll probably never see a price this low again on truly raw almond nut butter.

Historical information about almonds

Here's some interesting information about almonds, provided by our supplier of this remarkable raw almond butter:

Almonds are mentioned as far back in history as the Bible. The Bible’s “Book of Number” tells the story of Aaron’s rod that blossomed and bore almonds, giving the almond the symbolism of divine approval. Through history , almonds have maintained religious, ethnic and social significance.

They were a prized ingredient in breads reserved to Egypt’s pharaohs. Their exact ancestry in unknown, but almonds are thought to have originated in China and Central Asia. Explorers ate almonds while travelling the “Silk Road” between Asia and the Mediterranean. Before long, almonds trees flourished in the Mediterranean, especially in Spain and Italy.

Almonds were central to many cultural traditions around the world. In classical times Romans presented gifts of sugared almonds to important dignitaries as well as personal friends. At weddings they also tossed almonds to the bride and groom as a symbol of fertility. Today, Italians and Americans give guest at weddings a bag of sugared almonds, representing children, happiness, romance, good health and fortune.

In Sweden, cinnamon-flavored rice pudding with an almond hidden inside is a Christmas custom. Find it, and good fortune is yours for a year.

Cultivating almonds it’s a tradition that comes from afar. The earliest varieties of almonds were found in China carried by traders down the ancient silk road to Greece, Turkey, and the Middle East. Nestled between the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Pacific Coast Ranges is California’s fertile Central Valley, home to one of the oldest and most beautiful flowering fruit trees. Unlike other flowering fruit trees that bear edible fruit, this tree’s “pearl” is the delicious nut found inside the fruit, the almond.

Botanically, the sweet almond is considered a stone fruit, closely related to the cherry, plum, apricot, and peach. The almond's botanical name comes from the Greeks who called them "amygdalon."

Almonds are a surprisingly source of calcium: Although we would have to consume 330 calories' worth of almonds to get a significant quantity of this bone-supporting mineral, almonds are higher in calcium than all other nuts. Almonds are also a significant source of magnesium, and they supply a healthy amount of vitamin E.

These sweet, versatile nuts have the highest dietary fiber content of any nut or seed; like all nuts, almonds are a good source of protein and they are cholesterol free. Vitamin E, considered a powerful antioxidant, is plentiful in almonds. They're also high in magnesium, containing even more than spinach. They’re abundant in phosphorus, potassium, iron, zinc, copper, manganese, and trace amounts of the B vitamins thiamine and riboflavin.


Click here to see all the NaturalNews Store specials.

(And enjoy your raw almond butter!)

Low vitamin D levels linked to poor blood sugar control in type 2 diabetes

(NaturalNews) According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), almost 11 percent of Americans age 20 or older have diabetes. And the most common form of this disease, type 2 diabetes, has reached epidemic proportions. Now scientists have found a link between vitamin D deficiency and the inability of many patients with this kind of diabetes to keep their blood sugar under control. What's more, this raises the strong possibility that, along with being overweight and sedentary, a lack of vitamin D could be a major factor in triggering type 2 diabetes in the first place.

Esther Krug, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, just presented this research in San Diego at the Endocrine Society's 92nd Annual Meeting. "This finding supports an active role of vitamin D in the development of Type 2 diabetes," Dr. Krug said in a statement to the media.

Krug and her research team reviewed the medical charts of 124 people between the ages of 36 and 89 years old who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and treated at an endocrine outpatient clinic between 2003 and 2008. As part of their health evaluations, all of these patients had their serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels measured at the clinic. So the researchers looked to see how many of the patients had normal levels of the so-called "sunshine" vitamin.

The answer? Almost none. In fact, an astonishing 91 percent of the patients studied had either vitamin D deficiency (defined as a level below 15 nanograms per deciliter, or ng/dL) or vitamin D insufficiency (15 to 31 ng/dL), the authors reported. When the investigators looked at the patients' levels of hemoglobin A1c (a measure of blood sugar control over the past several months), they came up with another startling fact. There was a clear relationship between uncontrolled blood sugar and low levels of vitamin D. African-Americans were found to have the highest A1c levels and were most deficient in vitamin D, when compared to Caucasians.

"Since primary care providers diagnose and treat most patients with type 2 diabetes, screening and vitamin D supplementation as part of routine primary care may improve health outcomes of this highly prevalent condition," Dr. Krug concluded.

NaturalNews has previously reported on other natural ways to treat and even prevent type 2 diabetes -- including eating Mediterranean style by consuming a diet rich in "good" fats (like Omega-3s and olive oil), veggies, fruit and whole grains. A study published last fall in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded the Mediterranean diet dramatically improved type 2 diabetes and even eliminated the need for many people to take blood glucose regulating medication (http://www.naturalnews.com/027140_d...).

For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/Type_2_d...
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pu...
http://www.endo-society.org/

95 percent of 'preventive' mastectomies offer no benefit, study finds

(NaturalNews) A new study shows that the increasingly popular practice of "preventive mastectomy" in non-cancerous breasts provides no benefit to the vast majority of women.

"It's important for women to understand that, except for one subset of breast cancer patients, they don't need to do this," said lead author Isabelle Bedrosian of University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. "Hopefully, it'll reassure patients wondering if they should."

Approximately 40,000 women die from breast cancer in the United States each year, and another 200,000 cases are diagnosed. Because cancer in one breast is known to increase the risk of cancer recurrence in the other breast, doctors are increasingly recommending that cancer survivors opt to have both breasts removed as a "preventive" measure. And women are opting for it in huge numbers, seeking the peace of mind that it is said to offer.

The number of preventive mastectomies in the United States increased two-and-a-half-fold between 1998 and 2003. Today, 11 percent of all women undergoing a mastectomy on a cancerous breast choose to have the non-cancerous breast removed as well. Analysts have attributed this increase to more advanced screening techniques that detect cancers smaller and earlier; popularization of genetic screening and the idea that some genes may predispose families to breast cancer; and wider public acceptance of plastic surgery combined with advances in reconstructive technology.

Yet while it has been strongly established that elective mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence, there has been no research to suggest that it actually lengthens a woman's life span.

"We have not had real data to guide us," Bedrosian said. "We can't sit down with a woman and say, 'If you do this, this is your expected benefit.' And when we don't have those data, then biases become the big drivers of decision making."

In the new study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Bedrosian and colleagues analyzed the records of 107,106 women in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry. All the women had undergone a mastectomy to treat breast cancer of Stage III or lower; 8,902 had chosen to have a healthy breast removed, as well.

After controlling for other risk factors, the researchers found only a small difference in survival rates between women who had chosen to have two breasts removed and women who had chosen to have only one removed. Upon further analysis, they discovered that this benefit was only present in women under the age of 50 with estrogen receptor-negative, early-stage tumors. In this group, elective mastectomy increased the survival rate by 4.8 percent, amounting to just under five lives saved for every 100 surgeries.

Elective mastectomy provided no survival benefit to women outside this demographic.

The researchers believe that even when cancers recur, most women will not be killed by them but will instead die of other causes first. Only in women whose cancers lack estrogen receptors and who would otherwise have long lives ahead of them does recurrence appear to pose a serious threat to survival.

The most effective breast cancer drugs on the market are those that lower the body's production of estrogen, which fuels the growth of many cancers. Tumors that lack estrogen receptors do not depend on the hormone for their growth, however, meaning that women with these cancers cannot use the most effective drugs and tend to have higher mortality rates.

Breast-cancer specialist Larry Norton of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City expressed skepticism about the study's methodology and cautioned against doctors and patients giving it too much weight.

"This is an observational study, and hence it is impossible to control for confounding variables," Norton said, "and should not be used for individual clinical decisionmaking."

Norton admitted, however, that ethics make it impossible to perform a true controlled study on the question, since such an experiment might end up increasing cancer mortality in one group of participants.

Bedrosian disputed Norton's criticism, noting that the researchers used rigorous statistical analysis and controlled well for interference from other variables. She believes that the conclusions are, in fact, strong enough to help women make better-informed decisions about elective mastectomy.

"We looked at this in multiple different ways, and we got the same answer every time. And the results make good clinical sense. That adds another level of reassurance," she said. "Our hope is that when women hear the numbers, they will take a second look and decide not to go forward with a preventive mastectomy [in their healthy breast] if it won't give them a survival benefit."

Victor Vogel, national vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, said the results suggest that women should wait a full year before going through with the removal of a healthy breast.

"In a younger woman with [estrogen receptor]-negative disease, an [elective} mastectomy may be considered," he said. "In the vast majority of women older than 50 with ER-positive disease, prudent waiting is probably the most appropriate."

Bedrosian said that the point of the study was not to impose "a uniform mandate" that women should never get the procedure, but that their decisions must be well informed.

"This is still a decision to be made by the patient after talking with her doctor," Bedrosian said.

"We hope this study helps women make better decisions [and] provides some reassurance that perhaps a [preventive] mastectomy is not necessary, perhaps overly aggressive and perhaps a bit too much."

Sources for this story include: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art... http://www.time.com/time/health/art....

Nutrition labels could be mandated on package fronts

(NaturalNews) According to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Kathleen Sebelius, the FDA is working on a plan that would require food manufacturers to print nutrition information on the front of their packaging rather than on the back. The alleged goal of the proposed new mandate is to help busy shoppers quickly decipher nutrition information without having to look at the back of a product.

"Busy shoppers will be able to go into grocery stores and have some easy-to-understand information on the front of packages, giving them quick data on what is a healthier choice," she explained.

While it may seem like a good proposal that would help to improve nutrition transparency, many manufacturers are concerned that the requirement could end up needlessly costing them millions of dollars. Since packaging changes are typically very expensive, many smaller producers might be put out of business by the mandate.

James McCarthy, president and CEO of the Snack Food Association (SFA), expressed opposition to the mandate and instead proposed that the change be made voluntary. Because his organization represents 400 snack food manufacturers and suppliers worldwide, many of which are small- or medium-sized operations, he understands the incredible burden that would be placed on them by the requirement.

And his argument is a rational one, considering the fact that nutrition information can easily be found on products as they currently are. Forcing manufacturers to redesign their packages at a tremendous cost to them hardly seems beneficial. If someone is unwilling to turn the package around to read the nutrition information on the back, it is highly unlikely that he or she will bother reading it off the front.

Others disagree, insisting that the mandate would help to combat childhood obesity. Yet it is unclear precisely how the plan will actually accomplish this, and critics see the plan as nothing more than attack on American business.

The FDA is also seeking to establish universal guidelines for how health information is displayed on product packages. The agency would like to eliminate all self-labeling, or labels that indicate that a product is a "healthy choice" or that it benefits "heart health".

According to Sebelius, all labeling should have a "scientific background" and should be tested through an "evidence-based approach." Therefore her agency made recommendations to the FDA that a "national standard" be developed to accommodate such an approach.

Sources for this story include:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63959

Doctors test cure for peanut allergy

(NaturalNews) Doctors from Cambridge University are testing a technique that they believe may functionally cure people who suffer from inconvenient and dangerous peanut allergies, researcher Andrew Clark announced at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego.

Clark and colleagues have had success in a pilot study of their technique, which involves giving children slowly increasing doses of peanut flour. They emphasized that trials are only in an early stage, however, and that people should not try the technique at home without the supervision of a doctor.

More than 1.5 million people in the United States suffer from peanut or other tree nut allergies, and the number appears to be rising. These allergies can be so severe that exposure to even trace amounts can send some sufferers into potentially fatal anaphylactic shock, in which their air passages close up and make it impossible to breathe.

In their initial study, the researchers gave 23 people suffering from peanut allergies a daily dose of peanut flour, starting at about 1 milligram and increasing a little each day. When the participants could tolerate 800 milligrams per day (equivalent to five nuts), the researchers instructed them to maintain this daily dose for another six weeks.

After a year, twenty of the participants were able to safely tolerate doses of 32 peanuts a day, meaning they no longer had to read food labels or worry about trace nut contamination in their environments. In a followup study, the researchers will now test the technique on 104 British children between the ages of seven and 17.

"This is going to be the largest trial of its kind in the world and it should give us a definitive idea of whether the approach works and whether it's safe," Clark said.

The "cure" works on a principle called desensitization, in which the body becomes used to progressively higher doses. It does not actually eliminate the allergy. If successful, however, it would provide an important technique for managing a potentially debilitating condition.

Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8527530.stm ; www.examiner.com/x-11648-DC-Parenti....

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder

(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."

But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").

Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is "normal" when it comes to foods?

I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."

Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!

Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green

It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.

That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.

But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.

Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.

In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.

This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.

But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.

But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.

If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.

But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.

Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.

In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...

Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...