Lung cancer linked to food additives

Lung cancer link to food additive

Monday, 29 December 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7798697.stm


Commonly-used food additives may fuel the growth of lung cancers, a Korean study on animals has suggested.

Processed foods including meat, cheese, and drink contain inorganic phosphates.

Researchers fed mice with lung cancer a diet with similar percentages of phosphates to those in human food, and found tumour growth accelerated.

But UK experts stressed the findings reported in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine may not be repeated in humans.

Phosphates are an essential nutrient for living organisms, and adding phosphates to food can improve its texture and ability to retain water.

But the study suggested that high levels of inorganic phosphates may be interfering with the body's cell signalling systems.

Whilst this may be a relevant observation it has never been assessed in man

Professor Stephen Spiro
British Lung Foundation
The researchers, from Seoul National University, studied mice bred to automatically develop lung tumours.

The animals were given a diet of either 0.5% or 1% phosphate, which the scientists suggested represented the levels in modern human diets.

Signalling pathways

After four weeks, lung tissue was analysed. Tumours from the 1% phosphate mice had grown faster.

Dr Myung-Haing Cho, who led the study, said: "Lung cancer is a disease of uncontrolled cell proliferation in lung tissue, and disruption of signalling pathways in those tissues can confer a normal cell with malignant properties.

"This study demonstrates that high intake of inorganic phosphates may strongly stimulate lung cancer development by altering those signalling pathways."

He said that phosphate levels in modern diets had risen even in recent years, perhaps reaching 1000mg a day in some cases.

"The average diet today is actually closer to the 1% diet and may actually exceed it," he said.

Never assessed

However, Professor Stephen Spiro, the deputy chairman of the British Lung Foundation, said that the case was far from being proven.

"Whilst this may be a relevant observation it has never been assessed in man, and any recent increase in high phosphate ingestion due to excessive phosphates in processed foodstuffs would be likely to take many years before they could affect tumour development in humans.

"This study does suggest that it may be worth while assessing phosphate ingestion in the modern diet; however, further study would be required to ascertain any link in humans."

A spokesman for the Food Standards Agency confirmed that phosphates were legally used in UK foods, but said it had not yet had the chance to assess the study.

Dogs more effective than Prozac !

Dogs More Effective Than Prozac

Friday, December 26, 2008 9:34 AM
By: Sylvia Booth Hubbard Article Font Size
http://www.newsmax.com/health/dogs_effecti.../26/165446.html


Want to cut down on doctor visits and be more active? Get a dog! University of British Columbia professor and author Stanley Coren says dogs work better at reducing stress than the antidepressant Prozac.


A recent study published in the journal “Psychosomatic Medicine” found that positive effects produced by dogs included several signs of reduced stress, including lowered blood pressure, slowed heart rate and more relaxed muscles. And those relaxing effects were attained much more rapidly than pills. Having a dog close by reduced stress in as little as five minutes, where prescription medications can take weeks before taking effect.


“The data is absolutely unambiguous,” Coren told Canada.com. “This actually works better than having a loved one next to you.”


Amazingly, research shows that dog owners visit their doctors less often and are more physically active than non-dog owners. And seniors who own dogs are four times less likely to be victims of depression.


“It’s quite an amazing statistic,” said Coren, author of several books on how humans interact with dogs including “How to Speak Dog: Mastering the Art of Dog-Human Communication.”

Vitamins intake and kidney's health

Remember to only take vitamins within Food and never supplements unless desperate.

Thiamine 'reverses kidney damage'

Monday, 29 December 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7796073.stm


Doses of vitamin B1 (thiamine) can reverse early kidney disease in people with type 2 diabetes, research shows.

The team from Warwick University tested the effect of vitamin B1, which is found in meat, yeast and grain, on 40 patients from Pakistan.

The treatment stopped the loss of a key protein in the urine, the journal Diabetologia reports.

Charity Diabetes UK called the results "very promising" - but said it was too early for any firm conclusions.

The latest findings build on earlier work by the Warwick University team, showing that many diabetes patients have a deficiency of thiamine.

According to the researchers, this cheap and readily available supplement could benefit most people with diabetes - both type 1 and type 2 - as between 70% and 90% of people with diabetes are thiamine deficient.

In diabetes the small blood vessels in the body can become damaged. We would not advise that people look to vitamin supplements to reduce their risk of kidney complications at this stage

Dr Iain Frame of Diabetes UK

When the blood vessels that supply blood to the kidneys are involved, the kidneys stop working correctly and important proteins, such as albumin, are lost from the blood into the urine.

A third of the patients in the study saw a return to normal urinary albumin excretion after being treated with high dose (300mg) thiamine taken orally each day for three months.

The experts say thiamine works by helping protect cells against the harmful effects of the high blood sugar levels found in diabetes.

Lead researcher Professor Paul Thornalley said: "This is the first study of its kind and suggests that correcting thiamine deficiency in people with diabetes with thiamine supplements may provide improved therapy for early-stage kidney disease."

They plan more work to confirm their findings.

Dr Iain Frame of Diabetes UK said: "Diabetes UK hopes a large clinical trial will be possible as results so far are very promising.

"However, we would like to stress that it's still too early to come to any firm conclusions about the role of vitamin B1 and we would not advise that people look to vitamin supplements to reduce their risk of kidney complications at this stage."

A person should be able to get all the thiamine they need from a normal healthy diet.

Problems with a new sweetener! Warning!

Problems with New Sweetener

Monday, December 22, 2008
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2008...-sweetener.html


UPDATE 3, 23 December 08: A reader coments on Erythritol as not causing her any problems as noted in our researcher's report. Just like all substances, the ingestion of a substance needs to be in the right form, the right amount, et al, and the effect and outcomes are individual. Please realize that our researcher is a former FDA investigator who has an indepth background in the sciences necessary to make such statements. Please note that the artificial sweeteners referred to, Truvia (Cargill) and PureVia(Whole Earth Sweeteners) are manufactured by these agribusness corporations with an extract of stevia (rebiana)and erythritol and are NOT whole leaf stevia or pure(whole leaf)stevia extract.

UPDATE 2, 22 December 08: Please note that contrary to other reports you may be reading, the FDA DID NOT APPROVE STEVIA. The FDA, in cahoots with Cargill and Coke, approved a synthesized product - as reported originally in this article - manufactured with rebiana (an extract from Stevia) and erythritol (a sugar alcohol).

As Dr. Evangelista states (quoted below): "DO NOT CONFUSE REBIANA (TRUVIA) WITH STEVIA"

UPDATE 1, 20 December 08: Zerose is the Cargill synthesized artificial sweetener made from stevia and erythritol. Zsweet is a similar product in UK and EU. There are numerous scientific studies presenting that this, and related products such as Truvia, may lead to calcium, potassium and phosphate loss with calcification (and lesions) in the kidneys (just like Splenda) and bowel alterations. Please read more.

As to Zevia soda, it seems to me to be quite irresponsible on the part of the company CEO (an attorney)to make the following quote, "Why not supplement a steady breast milk diet with some refreshing ZEVIA?" This quote is associated with a photo of an infant being fed soda by the mother on the company blog. I would suggest the mother is irresponsible as well. While the company web site does not state that Zerose is the sweetener used in their products it does mention that eryrithritol is an ingredient.

I am sure this fellow was not in my 'Social Responsibility of Business' class in grad school.

We suggest Just Like Sugar, unaltered Stevia (order the extract via the Starwest link on this page) and Agave.

We do not endorse the use aspartame or sucralose or any forms of these chemicals, first developed as inseticides, or any products containing them, as they are known toxins to human health, nor do we endorse the use of acesulfame K.
----------------------------------------
12-19-08
The news this morning on NPR seems to be focused on helping you be in the spin on 'rebiana'(Truvia) and how it is "just stevia".

Coke (using Truvia) and Pepsi (using PureVia) are marketing this new artificial sweetener in their beverages but apparently aren't open to presenting both sides of the story.

Even the one TV ad I saw recently for "Truvia" would lead you to believe that this is a safe and natural additive.

Zevia(a soda), because it contains erythritol, may also have similar problems.

The problem is that is may come from natural sources but it is an extracted and modified chemical when it comes out the other end.


DO NOT CONFUSE REBIANA (TRUVIA) WITH STEVIA
Do not confuse this with pure stevia, it is a combination of chemicals with a dab of the stevia plant. Stevia itself is a sweetener and yet they are using Erythritol which is a sugar alcohol known to cause such things as bloating, diarrhea and cramps. That tells you they are not using much stevia. Nor are they removing the poisonous aspartame from Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi. They are simply trying to satisfy a part of the population that knows how deadly aspartame is and wants to use something else.

Notice this sentence: "Stevia was not approved as a food additive by U.S. regulators, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued letters to the companies on Wednesday saying it had no objections to their sweeteners, which are derived from the plant." The FDA has made themselves clear. Industry can do anything they please but they have no intention of approving something safe for the general public. They don't want to displease the aspartame industry who is powerful and takes care of those who defend their poison. Make sure you understand this is a combination of sweeteners and chemicals and not real stevia. The pop companies feel "a dab will do you, so just buy our product regardless of how its made". The public again will be the guinea pigs and lab rats. Also, see the admission that Pepsi's Purevia is being developed with Merisant, an aspartame manufacturer. Nobody should use these products until they are analyzed. Industry is constantly adding small amounts of aspartame because its addictive. If they do this to these products aspartame victims will react because aspartame is so poisonous it causes chemical hypersensitization.


Lab Tests Point to Problems with New Sweetener
Consumer group says product can increase cancer risk
September 2, 2008

A consumer group says a new commercial sweetner, said to be 200 times sweeter than sugar, may cause health problems and needs more study. Coca-Cola and Pepsi are planning to introduce new drinks made with the sweetner, rebiana, an extract of stevia leaves.

In a letter to the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says the agency should require additional tests, including a key animal study, before accepting rebiana as Generally Regarded as Safe, or GRAS.

The letter cites a new 26-page report by toxicologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, several, though not all, laboratory tests show that the sweetener causes mutations and DNA damage, which raises the prospect that it causes cancer.

"A safe, natural, high-potency sweetener would be a welcome addition to the food supply," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But the FDA needs to be as sure as possible that rebiana is safe before allowing it into foods that would be consumed by tens of millions of people. It would be tragic if the sweetener turned out to cause cancer or other problems."

One key animal study has not been conducted, according to the UCLA experts and CSPI. The FDA's guidelines advise testing prospective major new food additives on two rodent species, usually rats and mice. The new sweetener has only been tested on rats, but not mice.

The toxicologists' report said that because several studies found mutations and DNA damage, a lifetime mouse study designed to evaluate the risk of carcinogenicity and other health problems was particularly important.

The UCLA toxicologists emphasized the need for more genotoxicity tests, because of the evidence that derivatives of stevia that are closely related to rebiana damage DNA and chromosomes.

Their report noted that much of the recent research on rebiana was sponsored by Cargill and urged the FDA to obtain independently conducted tests to ensure that corporate biases don't influence the design, conduct, or results of the tests.

Rebiana is shorthand for rebaudioside A, a component of stevia. It is obtained from the leaves of a shrub native to Brazil and Paraguay. Coke, Pepsi, and other companies are excited about rebiana, because it supposedly tastes better than crude stevia, which is sold as a dietary supplement in health-food stores.

After all the controversies pertaining to saccharin, aspartame, and other artificial sweeteners, the food industry expects many calorie-conscious consumers to eagerly opt for this natural sweetener.

Two companies -- Cargill and Merisant -- have told the FDA that rebiana should be considered GRAS, a category given less scrutiny by the FDA than ordinary food additives. A third company, Wisdom Natural Brands, has declared that its stevia-based sweetener is GRAS and will market it without giving evidence to, or even notifying, the FDA. That company gave CSPI only a heavily redacted report prepared by scientists it hired to declare its stevia derivative, which is of unknown purity, is safe.

Stevia is legal in foods in Japan and several other countries, but the United States, Canada, and the European Union bar stevia in foods because of older tests that suggested it might interfere with reproduction. New tests sponsored by Cargill did not find such problems.

"I am not saying that rebiana is harmful, but it should not be marketed until new studies establish that it is safe," Jacobson said.

Cargill's version of rebiana is called Truvia and would be used by Coca-Cola. Pepsi's version is called PureVia and is produced by Merisant's Whole Earth Sweetener division. Merisant is best known for marketing the Equal brand of aspartame.

CSPI has not questioned the safety of two artificial sweeteners, sucralose (Splenda) and neotame, but says that suggestive evidence indicates that saccharin, aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), and acesulfame-K pose small risks of cancer.

"The whole issue of what gets GRAS status needs to be reviewed by Congress," Jacobson said. "It's crazy that companies can just hire a few consultants to bless their new ingredients and rush them to market without any opportunity for the FDA and the public to review all the safety evidence."

Two of the most harmful ingredients in the food supply are considered GRAS: salt, which raises blood pressure and causes thousands of unnecessary heart attacks and strokes every year, and partially hydrogenated oil, which is the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat. CSPI has long campaigned to get partially hydrogenated oil out of the food supply and to reduce salt to safe levels.
From Consumer Affairs

The truth about calories and cholesterol

The Truth About Calories And Cholesterol

By Thomas Turk
12-22-8

In this information age, one is bombarded with information and misinformation. Take the all important subject of calories and cholesterol. When one is confronted with diametrically opposed ideas on food trends, one tends to give up, and often chooses the idea that is more heavily promoted, and that is, unfortunately here, the misinformation. Where does it start? The professors of nutrition must teach whats in the `book`, ( so I have been informed, although they admit know better). From then on, doctors, dieticians, sports trainers, food writers and celebrity chefs will repeat, without any further thought, the same dogma.


Obesity is used as the first scare. The non-scientific calorific calculations of all foods removes or reduces valuable nutrient-rich food from the diet, such as eggs, butter and liver. Why don`t calories count? In human physiology, there are various homeo-stasis mechanisms. These attempt to maintain body fat and protein stores. These mechanisms probably evolved over miillions of years and some of their pathways have now been identiifed. One is thermic (Engl. thermogenic) effect. This is the rise of metabolic rate after a meal, depending partly on both what was eaten, and the bone-structure of the individual. Example. A light bone-structured individual may quaff down half a gallon of ice- cream, yet the next day they will weigh the same. Their metabolic rate rose about 50% after the meal, and burnt off the excess fuel. The body may have have needed to minimise fat stores for a hot climate. Conversely, a heavy bone structured individual, may eat a few pieces of fruit after dinner, and they gain fat. This is because their metabolic rate may rise only 25%, to allow fat stores to build up or stay high, for a colder climate. The body also prepares for famine by slowing metabolic rate as calories are reduced by eating less, and by eating less high calorie (but nutritious) foods. To further destroy the calorie myth, we have continuous vigorous exercise raising metabolic rate fifteen fold! Also, vigorous interval training it will maintain a raised metabolic rate for many hours. The oversimplifed formula of calories in equals calories out is both wrong and unhealthy.


The cholesterol scare. This is used for marketing toxic statin drugs, low fat diets and a variety of pharmaceuticals to depress appetite, block fat absorbtion etc. Stains, a 24 billion dollar fraud, block CQ10 production, (the heart-energy enzyme), cause kidney faulure and weaken muscles. There is no need to lower blood cholesterol nor to reduce dietary cholesterol, (nor take statin or other drugs), to prevent heart disease and stroke. This nonsense started with a faulty study in Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1953. The study showed that the population had slightly elevated blood cholesterol, and also slightly elevated heart disease. The study mistakenly concluded that dietary cholesterol had caused the higher blood cholesterol, and that in turn, the raised blood cholesterol caused the higher rate of heart disease. This study is the Holy Grail of the cholesterol scarers and the scams.


What raised the cholesterol levels of the subjects in the study? One or more, or any combination of... insufficient omega 3 fatty acids in the diet, lack of vigorous exercise, overweight, insufficient Viatmin B3, (niacin), post menopausal period in woman, aging in men.


What caused the heart disease to be slightly above average in the study? One or more, or any combination of... high blood triglycerides, (blood fats elevated by sugar, alcohol and carbs); high lipo-protein alpha, (lowered with vitamin C); high homocysteine, (lowered with vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid); and to a lesser extent, smoking, dog heart worm, transfats, inflamation from obesity, (a new idea, but prevented by vitamin D3), nickel. To suplement or not? YES, we do need to supplement for optimum health, even if your doctor/dietician say DONT. (A study a few years ago showed 80% of doctors in USA self-supplementing with Vitamin E) !


Lets examine the benefits of some high calorie and high cholesterol foods. Butter contains the omegas in perfect proportion, arichidonic acid, short and medium chain fatty acids, and conjugated linoleic acids . All good. Also present are selenium, iodine, manganese zinc, chromium, and lecithin. Butter synthesises Vitamin B6 through the friendly intestinal bacteria, thus reducing heart-disease causing homocysteine. This was shown in a large scale study in Lancet, whereby those on a very high ghee, (clarified butter) diet had one tenth the heart disease of the pure vegetarians. Eggs contain l-cysteine and selenium, powerful heart-protecting anti-oxidants. A study by Drs Cayley and Hammond of the American Cancer Society, showed that those that ate more than 5 eggs a week had less heart disease. Beef fat contains conjugated linoleic acid. Beef and beef liver are a rich souce of protein, minerals and B vitamins. All these nutrients protect.



Several diverse groups of people consume a very high saturated fat diet, but have no heart disease history. These are the Masai and Samburu in East Africa, the Eskimo, the Benedicitine Monks, the Irish in America, and various Pacific Islanders. The Amish in America is another group, but scientists now claim they have a special gene to combat the high fat diet, but that is just a smokescreen.


The so called Mediterranean diet, reputed to prevent heart disease, as it would be low in saturated fat, in reality does NOT exist. Italians traditionally cook with butter, goose fat and lard, depending on the region. The Greeks eat large amounts of high saturated fat feta goat cheese daily. The Spanish and Portuguese loads of fatty pork, beef and eggs. The French cook with butter and cream, and consume so much cheese. Less heart disease yes, but not from that mythical fish and olive oil diet.



The good (HDL) and the bad (LDL) cholesterol are risk indicators and not the causes. High fat diets, such as Atkins, showed improvement in these indicators.



The food pyramid. This is also designed to keep you away from nutritious foods. It is NOT science based, with its recommended high carbohydrate intake from fruit, (fructose) and grains (carbs and plant chemicals lectins and leptins), that cause heart disease, obesity, and diabetes risk.


If you already have narrowed arteries, EDTA, with its 20 beneficial side effects, cleans them out, despite desperate denial by the mainstream.


The cancer scare. High saturated fat foods have been implicated as possible cancer causes for the colon etc., this based on statistical studies. As science has moved ahead and we today have the identified causes and pathways of all cancers, these vague and inaccurate statistics no longer apply. (The Cure and Prevention of All Cancers. 2007. H R Clark PhD ND). You will not hear of the cancer cure from mainstream medicine for a long time, keeping in mind that it took them four hundred years to accept that Vitamin C cures scurvy.


Why have we been misinformed? Is it because the Universities, being mainly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, need to control information in order to keep the population sickly, so as to drive up profits? I suspect so.


Dont dismiss alternative ideas. Research well. Your health depends on these simple health choices.





Thomas Turk



thomascturk@hotmail.com



45 Years in the Fitness industry and the author of gthairrejuvenation.com.

Moderate alcohol consumption shrinks the brain!

(NaturalNews) We have been told that moderate use of alcohol is good for the heart. However, reports from the Framingham Study show that moderate to heavy alcohol use is associated with damage to brain tissue. Such damage to the brain may lead to higher risk of stroke or dementia.

The Framingham Study began in 1948 to follow the residents of Framingham, Massachusetts and their offspring. The study is now following a third generation of participants. The goal of the study is to follow people over a long period of time, documenting their state of cardiovascular disease.

At the beginning of the study, subjects have no evidence of heart disease. The subjects are put through a series of tests every two years. Over time, medical records are analyzed to determine risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Much of the information published about risk factors for heart disease and stroke comes from this study.

The American Academy of Neurology presented evidence in 2007 from Wellesley College, Massachusetts. Carol Ann Paul M.S. and her associates reported that even moderate amounts of alcohol are associated with brain atrophy and possibly an increased risk of dementia or stroke.

Researchers performed MRI scans on 1,839 people aged 34 to 88 to compare the volume of brain tissue to their cranial size. Subjects were classified as non-drinkers, former drinkers, low drinkers (1 to 7 drinks per week), moderate drinkers (8 to 14 drinks per week), or high drinkers (more than 14 drinks per week). Brain shrinkage numbers increased by .25 percent as amount and frequency of drinking increased. People who consumed more than 14 drinks per week had brains which averaged 1.6 percent smaller than those who did not drink alcohol. For women, especially those in their 70's, the change was more dramatic than for men. Researchers speculated that the differences may be associated with the smaller body mass of women. In addition, those who had a longer history of heavy alcohol consumption also had more brain atrophy. The team noted that men were more likely to become heavy drinkers than women.

The same group reported again in 2008 in the Journal of the American Medical Association: "The public health effect of this study gives a clear message about the possible dangers of drinking alcohol," the authors write. "... This study suggests that, unlike the associations with cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption does not have any protective effect on brain volume." They suggest further, longer term studies to determine the full impact of these findings.

In general, brain volume decreases with age at an estimated rate of 1.9 percent every ten years. At the same time white matter lesions replace grey matter. Lower brain mass and white lesions are associated with problems in movement, thinking, learning, and memory.

A 2006 study from the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam observed that people who developed dementia decreased in brain volume between 5 and 17 percent during the eight year study. Those who were diagnosed with Alzheimer's had a decrease up to 40 percent. People with atrophy in parts of the brain known as the amygdala and hippocampus had the highest risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer's disease.

The accelerated loss of grey matter under the influence of alcohol is worth considering before you down that second (or third) serving of spirits.

Resources

JAMA and Archives Journals (2008, October 14). Drinking Alcohol Associated With Smaller Brain Volume. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...

Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School Of Public Health (2003, December 5). Moderate Alcohol Consumption Linked To Brain Shrinkage. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...

American Academy of Neurology (2007, May 3). Drinking Heavy Amounts Of Alcohol Shrinks Your Brain. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...

http://www.abstracts2view.com/aan2007bo...

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/347...

What you should know about labels for natural products

(NaturalNews) If you think that the labels on food packaging tell you everything you need to know about the food inside, you'd better think again. Food labels are Greek and Latin to most people. And that is an understatement. Recently, there has been a growing population interested in the food they eat, for a number of reasons, none the least of which is a concern for health.

If you walk through super market aisles, you will notice more and more people flip the food packet to look at the fine print. These people are obviously curious about what goes into the food, but not just that, they are eager to pack in some healthfulness into their diet as well. However, research shows that not all inquisitive shoppers pick the healthiest option. The reasons could vary from idle curiosity to a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about what truly lies beneath the façade of fancy names, pictures and labels that appear to tell all.

Consider this, for example: A food package that says "no added sugar" or "fat-free" could be very misleading. Especially to the eager beaver on a dieting spree, it would sound deliciously attractive. This is just a clever disguise to keep the artificial sweetener or the excess sugar (as in the case of fat-free) under wraps. There are umpteen cases of misinformation or more accurately, of revealing only partial truths, where consumers think they are buying good, clean, healthy, chemical-free food, only to later find out that they were royally fooled.

When a juice bottle, for instance, claims to have "no added sugar or color", please do yourself a favor and look on the back of the bottle. In all probability, you will see aspartame or some other artificial sweetener in there. Keep it back on the shelf. Although there is a huge lobby that defends the use of aspartame in food, there is an equally vociferous one that says, "do not consume" because it has disastrous consequences for health. Better err on the side of caution and steer clear of food that has it.

The next thing you need to look for is the "E" followed by a number on the label, also commonly known as the E Number in food. What is the E Number? Again, nobody knows exactly what that is, but it's supposedly additives and chemicals (including food coloring) that are "safe" to consume. Take that with a pinch of salt. A little bit of suspicion will go a long way. Food additives such as coloring in particular have been associated with ADHD in children. And when combined with synthetic preservatives, they can be lethal. Furthermore, there is no law that binds food manufacturers to declare the use of preservatives on the label.

Another thing that should raise the red flag is High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), a sugar substitute used to sweeten a product excessively.

Dr. Andrew Weil, pioneer in the field of integrative medicine, has written extensively about food and the chemicals and additives that go into processing and packaging them. He has spoken out vehemently against HFCS, which is supposedly used in soft drinks and colas. The term "all natural" in labels is unacceptable if there is high fructose corn syrup in the list of ingredients. HFCS are not natural because of the high level of processing and the use of genetically modified enzymes required to produce it. And if that is not enough, HFCS are known to cause obesity as well.

Also, another significant health deterrent to watch out for is partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which are high in trans-fat, and synonymous with coronary heart disease. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are used in food in order to increase shelf life and yes, you guessed it, it is a cheaper alternative to semi-solid oils. The dangers of consuming trans-fat are too many to ignore and it is widely accepted (with scientific evidence and all) that trans-fat has disastrous consequences for health: coronary heart disease, liver dysfunction, diabetes, obesity and even Alzheimer's disease.

According to an article titled "Trans-fat: Avoid this cholesterol double whammy" from the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER):

"In fact, the consumption of trans-fats increases one's risk of coronary heart disease by raising levels of "bad" LDL cholesterol and lowering levels of "good" HDL cholesterol."

And again, according to an article titled "Trans Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Disease" in the New England Journal of Medicine 354, by Mozaffarian D, Katan MB, Ascherio A, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC (April 2006: "Health authorities worldwide recommend that consumption of trans-fat be reduced to trace amounts. Trans-fats from partially hydrogenated oils are more deleterious than naturally occurring oils."

According to Dr. Weil sugar, starch, refined carbohydrates and trans-fat are far more threatening to health than saturated fats.

The list of negatives in our food is beyond the scope of this article. However, the main aim of this article is to give consumers a peep into what those labels are really saying and to provide some insight into what to look for and stay away from. You could even say it is an exhortation to consumers to look before they eat. After all, it's your body, your health. Don't let them control it.

It is now imperative that we change our eating habits and look for food that is friendly to the body and the earth. As the old saying goes, you are what you eat. Whether we believe that or not, a change in the way we approach food could well mean the difference between lasting wellness and disease.

Saturn's Christmas !

Saturn's Crazy Christmas Tilt

12.22.2008
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/22dec_crazytilt.htm


Dec. 22, 2008: You look through the telescope. Blink. Shake your head and look again. The planet you expected to see in the eyepiece is not the one that's actually there. Too much eggnog?

No, it's just Saturn's crazy Christmas tilt.

All year long, the rings of Saturn have been tilting toward Earth and now they are almost perfectly edge-on. The opening angle is a paper-thin 0.8o. Viewed from the side, the normally wide and bright rings have become a shadowy line bisecting Saturn's two hemispheres--a scene of rare beauty.

Amateur astronomer Efrain Morales Rivera of Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, has been monitoring Saturn and he created this composite image to show how the geometry has changed:



Astronomers call the phenomenon a "ring plane crossing." As Saturn goes around the sun, it periodically (once every 14 to 15 years) turns its rings edge-on to Earth. Because the rings are so thin, they can actually disappear when viewed through a backyard telescope. At the precise moment of crossing, Saturn undergoes a startling metamorphosis. The ringed planet becomes a lonely ball of gas, almost unrecognizable: Hubble photo.

(Historical note: Shortly after Galileo discovered Saturn's rings in 1610, they disappeared in precisely this fashion. Galileo didn't understand the nature of the rings and the vanishing act confused him mightily. Nevertheless, his physical intuition prevailed. "They'll be back," he predicted, and without ever knowing why, he was correct.)

Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery

We're not quite there yet. The opening angle won't be precisely 0o until Sept. 4, 2009. Don't bother marking your calendar, though. Saturn will be so close to the sun, no one will be able to see the rings wink out.

The best time to look is now.

The 0.8o opening angle of Christmas 2008 is the minimum for some time to come. In January 2009 the rings begin to open up again, a temporary reversal caused by the orbital motions of Earth and Saturn. By the time narrowing resumes in summer 2009, Saturn will be approaching the sun; looking through a telescope then could actually be dangerous. The next ring plane crossing that's easy to watch won't come until 2038.

So wake up before sunrise on Dec. 25th, point your telescope at the golden "star" in Leo, and behold Saturn's crazy Christmas tilt: sky map.

Happy holidays from Science@NASA!

The DREAM- John Lennon

Imagine
by John Lennon

Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will live as one
———————-

Yoy to the world ! HOW

New research shows that in a social network, happiness spreads
among people up to three degrees removed from one another. That means
when you feel happy, a friend of a friend of a friend has a slightly
higher likelihood of feeling happy too.


The lesson is that
taking control of your own happiness can positively affect others, says
James Fowler, co-author of the study and professor of political science
at the University of California in San Diego.

“We get this
chain reaction in happiness that I think increases the stakes in terms
of us trying to shape our own moods to make sure we have a positive
impact on people we know and love,” he said.


I have nothing much to add here, just that; In order to make your neighbors happy, tell your brother and sister that you love them.

I love you ALL !

The Dying World- The Healing methods are failing

(NaturalNews) What happened to the world? Where did we go wrong? Is it as hopeless as it is beginning to appear? This article will illuminate the increasing failure rate of all forms of medicine and healing and will isolate four possible reasons why this might be happening in spite of all we know and all we are learning. This article concludes with a discussion of the division occurring among people of the world today: those consumed by said failure and those motivated by it.

Only a few years ago, the tonality of those who engaged in healthy eating and living was one of certainty that they were avoiding the plagues of those who were on the SAD. They started abandoning clearly harmful behaviors and experienced a surge in health and very often spontaneous healing. That tonality has changed today. It has become plain that even the healthiest people, by such standards as are commonly known today, are not substantially healthier than the general population.

This factoid is known as an "elephant in the room." This means that it is something everyone can see, but no one wants to acknowledge for fear that it means they are not as smart as they thought they were. To avoid mentioning this point, however, is somewhere between irresponsible and plain dishonest. The reality is that without vigorous care to keep each system healthy as it gets out of balance, even the most healthy person in general terms, will be sick and struggling and may even get sicker than their un-conscientious counterparts. While this is good news…sort of…to naturopaths, chiropractors and other hands-on clinical natural healing practitioners who get paid by the visit, it is a sobering picture when viewed objectively. It means that we may not know nearly as much as we pompously propose to.

There are no standards quite clean enough to really make disease disappear and never return. This is not to say that standards are not effective, for example, the person on a basically healthy program will respond far better and faster to natural therapies. Still, many people are finding that they do not respond quite like they once did, which highlights the subject of this article.

Something is desperately wrong! It is creeping in rather subtly as we fight against it. We generally think that it is caused by this or that outrage from the corrupt drug company world or from governmental conspiracies, but if we look at the actual incline of strange diseases and the population which they are really affecting, we find a picture that looks far scarier than one where we know all the causes of everything and are happily pointing fingers and gossiping about the sins of the government and medical doctors! Indeed, the fearfulness of reality today is that we really have no clue where it is coming from and the explanations we have are grossly inadequate.

Most practitioners are forced to admit that it takes a good deal more effort and vigil today to keep even themselves healthy. Clients and patients who are not self-correcting are feeling it even more. Many who would once have just gone to their local naturopath, are now seeing five or more natural healing practitioners regularly and are not necessarily better than they were ten years ago. They are working harder for less.

This article offers no one solution to this problem, but does offer some possibilities that should be considered:

1.That the cumulative affect of heavy metals, processed food, toxicity, agriculture chemicals, environmental chemicals, EM radiation, etc. is far greater than 1+1
2.That the impact of increasing stress and discontent on individuals is leading to reduced digestion and therefore increased problems with food reactions, toxic residues and sensitivities to many, many foods that would otherwise be perfectly healthy. Even raw foodists might have to be vigilant, rotate foods and take enzyme supplements.
3.That unknown factors exist which impact the elements of the body in ways that disrupt health. This might be coming from a wide variety of intentional or unintentional sources. For a culture that understands how to use EM radiation vibrations that destroy pathogens, create homeopathic healing, do chiropractic adjustments and heal disease, we seem startlingly unconcerned about the vibration of negative thought and criticism and focus on the negative that is broadcast via EM waves over virtually the entire populated globe today.
4.That at no time in the history of the world as it is recorded in orthodox documents has there been less spiritual discipline, including moral anchors. It is at least conceivable, if not likely or certain, that moral anchors affect our health and decide our tendency toward healthier or sicker choices in all other aspects of life. Such a point is not immune from attack, but it simply appears that it is elemental to humans to worship a Higher Power who demands that they use their abilities, superior to animals as they are, for channeling "good" and resisting deviations from that "good." The interpretation of this is certain to invite debate, but perhaps the abandonment of it is equally certain to invite disease and eventual implosion.

There are two camps in the world:

First, there are those caught wholly in the wake of the ship described above. These are frustrated, confused and suffering, but unwilling to look at their real conditions and are therefore wholly taken with the trend. They sometimes want to be healthy, but they watch the news, read trash, do wantonly immoral acts, eat at fast food restaurants or eat processed food, live in traditional houses, drive traditional cars and waste in every corner of their lives. Some in the wake do nothing, and, ironically, are healthier than those who feign healthy practices, but are uncommitted to them. This may be because at least they are grateful for what they have and are living without fighting constantly.

Second, there are those who have recognized the pattern of a downward spiral and who have made the choice to swim away. These, if they totally sever their attachment to the drowning crowd, can sometimes break free and begin to triumph by altering every facet of life to be wholly incompatible with the agents of disease prominent today. These, if they neglect nothing, enjoy the peace of one who has made his or her decision and is unwilling to reconsider. They are not fighting against the world's disease agents, but are giving themselves totally to the cause of harmonious living. A Christian promise applies here, that the "meek shall inherit the earth." Meekness is most synonymous with harmonious living. Such will not be killed by the destructive forces for they are incompatible with them. They suffer only until they are clear of the wake and in the meanwhile they enjoy the peace of knowing their personal identity.

In conclusion, this article offers only an invitation to candid, open and honest readers, whether authors, practitioners or interested consumers, to look at what is really happening and judge if the above postulation is correct. If so, a change in thinking and trend must become more imminent than the crash we are partying toward so lustily.

Thank you for reading,

Kal Sellers, MH

Healthy marriages the key to partners' health

(NaturalNews) Wise men throughout the ages have taught us the value of giving and sharing. And, on our wedding day, we vow to take care of our spouses "in sickness and in heath, till death do us part". Now, a recent study has given us a piece of empirical evidence in support of the wisdom of the seemingly paradoxical phrase, "when you give, you receive". The interesting study, conducted at the University of Michigan, found that older people who spent at least 14 hours each week taking care of a disabled spouse lived longer than their counterparts who did not.

Details of Study

For the study, researchers looked at 7 years of data collected from the University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study, which was funded by the National Institute on Aging and covered Americans aged 70 and higher. In all, the habits and lifespan of 1,688 couples who lived on their own were analyzed.

The study started in 1993. At that point, the study participants reported on how much help they got from their spouse with regard to daily activities. These included eating, dressing, bathing, preparing meals, managing money and taking medications. 81% or so said they did not receive any help, 9% said they got less than 14 hours of help per week, while the remaining 10% reported getting 14 hours or more of help every week.

Findings of Study

In the course of the study, 909 of the subjects, about a quarter of the group, passed on. After factors such as health, age, race, gender, education and employment status were accounted for, the research team found that those who cared for their spouses the most (quantitatively, in terms of the number of hours) were significantly less likely to have passed on during the period of the study.

"These findings suggest that caregivers may actually benefit from providing care under some circumstances. Previous studies have documented negative health effects of caregiving. But the current results show that it is time to disentangle the presumed stress of providing help from the stress of witnessing a loved one suffer," said Stephanie Brown, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School as well as a faculty associate at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR), who was the leader of the study.

The Benefits of Giving and Caring for Those Around Us

According to Brown, these findings add to growing evidence on the positive effects on health of caregiving, helping and altruism. Earlier, she had shown in other research that the provision of social support to friends and relatives has beneficial effects on mortality as well as coping with the loss of a spouse.

She has a theory on this – that human beings may not necessarily be that selfish and governed by self-interest, but that the forces of evolution may actually favor altruistic motivation between interdependent individuals. "There is growing recognition that economic decisions may be influenced by complex motivations, not limited to self-interest. We don't know yet exactly how caregiving motivation and behavior might influence health, but it could be that helping another person - especially someone you love - relieves some of the harmful stress effects of seeing that person suffer," she said.

Brown will be furthering her research on this area, looking into how altruistic and helpful behavior, which includes caregiving, actually enhances wellbeing. Due to start in 2009, this study's focus is on the neuro-affective mechanisms of such behavior.

As though tending to the needs of the spouse we vowed to go through thick and thin with as well as loving and caring for those around us needed any more reasons, the findings of this study has now given us hope of one very tangible and measurable benefit – a longer life!

Main Source

In Sickness And Health: Caring For Ailing Spouse May Prolong Your Life (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...)

Mutants vs.non-mutants

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, December 19, 2008
Key concepts: EPA, Phthalates and Toxic chemicals

An EPA panel has issued a startling decision today. It concluded that the toxic effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals like phthalates need to be studied in combination with other chemicals in order to assess the true impact on human health.

What's so startling about this decision? That it took so long for scientists to figure out!

The natural health community has been warning consumers over the toxicity of the cocktail of environmental chemicals for well over a decade, but government regulators have insisted these chemicals only needed to be tested on at a time. For each chemical, the U.S. government established a "safe exposure" limit. You could eat so many milligrams of chemical A per day, plus a few milligrams of chemical B every day, and yet more milligrams of chemical C, and so on.

That's been the position of the U.S. government regulators like the FDA, which coincidentally uses the same screwy logic to declare that babies can safely eat melamine, Bisphenol-A, MSG, aspartame, mercury and any number of other toxic chemicals as long as the daily limit isn't exceeded for each chemical.

This "safety in isolation" approach has been a convenient way for these regulators to make dangerous chemicals look surprisingly safe. In isolation, one such chemical may not be so dangerous, but in the real world, consumers are being contaminated by hundreds of different chemicals all at once. And nobody -- absolutely nobody -- knows the actual resulting combined toxicity of these hundreds of chemicals that are now circulating through the blood of infants, children and adults.

So now, the EPA has remarkably reached the same conclusion everybody from the green living community has known for years: These chemicals need to be studied in combination to see what the combined effects on human health might be.

Interestingly, if they apply this same logic to medications, they would also find that pharmaceuticals become highly toxic when taken in combination, too. But that topic is off limits at the EPA due to political pressure. The EPA won't even declare HRT drugs to be an environmental hazard, much less actually study the environmental harm caused by pharmaceuticals. (Which just goes to show you, by the way, that even the EPA is still run by politics, not science.)

HRT drugs are showing up in the water supply, by the way, in case you're wondering whether they really are an environmental pollutant (of course they are!).

The chemical companies that make pesticides, food additives, plastics products and consumer care products are horrified at the thought of the EPA subjecting their products to real-world testing that could highlight the dangers of combining their chemicals. They will protest this, no doubt, and the EPA will be under intense pressure to limit its testing to only a few chemicals.

But if they manage to somehow resist the political pressure and actually do their jobs to protect consumers, I can already predict what these chemical combination tests will reveal: A massive increase in toxicity when such chemicals are combined. And not just generic toxicity, but infertility and genetic mutations caused by the chemicals.

The coming Genopocalypse

I've already publicly predicted the genetic wipeout of conventional consumers. People who eat conventional foods and use conventional personal care products are destroying their own genetic future by taking on gene mutations that are trans-generational (they pass from one generation to the next).

Many families living today are only 1-2 generations away from outright infertility due to the accumulation of genetic mutations in their sperm or eggs. I'm guessing that within 20 - 50 years, infertility in the western world will reach levels of 75%, and we will begin to see the laws of natural selection kicking in aggressively, removing infertile individuals from the human gene pool and delivering the future of human life on Earth to those couples that lived a healthful, green living lifestyle, free from exposure to toxic chemicals.

I call this phenomenon the "Genopocalypse."

If the EPA does the hard science on these toxic chemicals, it's going to come to the same conclusion I have: That the majority of western consumers are already too polluted to create healthy offspring, and the future of the human race on Earth is about to be seriously reconfigured.

I'll write more about the Genopocalypse in upcoming articles on NaturalNews. It doesn't mean the end of the human race, it just means the end of fertility for those consumers who bathe their bodies in toxic chemicals. Because remember this: The future of life on Earth belongs to those who can protect their DNA.

Most humans are destroying their DNA through the use of toxic chemicals in foods, medicines, body care products and other environmental sources. Those people will become victims of the Genopocalypse. While they won't die off, they won't be unable to reproduce, because any fetus that begins to grow in the womb will contain DNA mutations that result in the automatic abortion of the fetus by the woman's body (this is what most miscarriages really are; the woman's body detecting a genetic flaw in the fetus and aborting it).

Thus, we are about to enter an era of rapidly rising miscarriages, greatly reduced infertility and perhaps even an increase in the birth of mutant children who suffer from debilitating gene mutations but still managed to be carried to full term.

Mutants, it seems, will soon be walking the western world. But these are no X-Men. These mutations grant no super powers. They only cause suffering and death.

We are about to enter a new era of human life on Earth where people will be divided into two classes: Mutants and non-mutants. The mutants will be the offspring of all the conventional consumers choking down toxic chemicals right now. The non-mutants will be the babies born of green-living parents who fed their children superfoods, protected them from vaccines and used only natural, non-chemical products in their homes.

Watch for more articles about this in 2009

Study on placenta can give cancer

Folks why do these Institutes try to make everything so complicated? The Placenta is actually Cancer. You'll notice it start to deminish once the childs PANCREAS starts to form. Why? Because the Pancrea gives out Proteolytic Enzymes. It is these Enzymes along with an Immune, never one only which destroy Cancer. Study the work of John Beard of Scotland!

Study of Placenta Unexpectedly Leads to Cancer Gene

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pr/news/story.cfm?id=2318

SENP2 gene expression


University of Rochester Medical Center scientists discovered a gene mutation that impairs the placenta and also is influential in cancer development, according to a study published online December 16, 2008, in the journal PLoS (Public Library of Science) Biology.

The investigation is the first to link the key placental gene, SENP2, to the well-known p53 protein, which is defective in 50 percent of all cancers.

Until now, the SENP2 gene’s role in early embryo development was not known. As a result of making the connection between SENP2 and the potent cancer stimuli, it will be possible to gain more insight into the complex genetic network involved in cancer, and to develop new therapies, said lead author Wei Hsu, Ph.D., associate professor of Biomedical Genetics and Oncology, of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Center.


Hsu and former graduate student Shang-Yi Chiu, currently a postdoctoral fellow at Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute at Harvard University, have been investigating how cellular signaling triggered by gene mutations affect embryo development in mice. The goal is to better understand the genetic causes and possible treatments for a number of diseases.


“What we discovered was an unexpected interaction between an old player, p53, and a new player, SENP2,” said Hsu, who also has an appointment in the URMC Center for Oral Biology.


SENP2 (SUMO-specific protease 2) is highly expressed in trophoblast cells, which are the stem cells required to form the placenta. The placenta surrounds, protects and nourishes the developing fetus. While investigating disruption of placental formation in a mouse model, Hsu’s team observed that embryos lacking SENP2 failed to properly make placental tissue.


The failure occurred, researchers discovered, because the cells that give rise to the placental tissues had undergone cell cycle arrest, and were trapped in a state of suspended growth. Next, researchers set out to find SENP2 target proteins that could be involved in arresting cell growth.


In the journey, they discovered that p53 – or proteins that modify p53 activity – were harmed by the SENP2 deficiency.The consequence was that p53 could no longer perform its vital job as a tumor suppressor. When p53 is functioning normally, it acts as a crucial guardian of the genome, or a checkpoint, by fixing genetic mistakes as they arise.


But when the p53 molecule is aberrantly regulated, either by an outside virus or an inherited genetic abnormality, the risk of cancer is higher because p53 cannot perform its job.


Researchers also found that SENP2 indirectly regulates p53 activity through another protein called Mdm2, which was already known to be involved in some cancers. In cells lacking SENP2, the Mdm2 becomes trapped in the nucleus, and is unable to halt p53, allowing it to accumulate within the cell. This disruption leads to distinct problems in cell cycle progression and normal gene replication.


The National Cancer Institute funded the research.


# # #


For more media inquiries, contact:
Leslie Orr
(585) 275-5774
leslie_orr@urmc.rochester.edu

Radiated drugs for prostatic cancer

Drugs with radiation best for prostate cancer
Maria Cheng, Associated Press
Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Treating advanced prostate cancer with radiation and hormone-blocking drugs cut the death rate in half in a study of Scandinavian men, researchers report.

In the United States, the combination has been standard care since the 1990s. But in Europe, many doctors have avoided the combo treatment and used hormone drugs alone, thinking the pair would be too harsh for most patients.

"What this study shows is that men with prostate cancer do benefit from more aggressive therapy," said Dr. Howard Sandler of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles and a spokesman for the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, and usually strikes after age 50.

The Scandinavian researchers tracked 875 men with advanced prostate cancer in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

About half were given hormone-blocking drugs while the other half got the same treatment plus radiation. The drugs block production of testosterone, which feeds cancer cells.

After nearly eight years, 79 men in the hormone only group had died of prostate cancer, compared with 37 in the group that had hormone therapy plus radiation.

The study was published online today by the British medical journal Lancet. It was paid for by various Scandinavian cancer groups, Umea University and the makers of the drugs used in the study, Schering-Plough Corp. (Lupron) and Abbott Laboratories Inc. (Eulexin).

Adding radiation to patients' treatment did come at a cost. After five years, men receiving hormones and radiation reported higher rates of side effects including fatigue, insomnia and sexual problems.

Warning over colon cleansing OTC drugs

Stick to Water/Salt, Cascara Sagrada, Aloes, Senna, Garlic, Turkey Rhubarb Root, Alfalfa Leaves.

FDA puts black box warning on bowel-clearing drugs

December 11, 2008
by Matthew Perrone
AP
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2900.htm#004


WASHINGTON - Federal health officials said Thursday they will add the sternest safety warnings available to drugs used before colonoscopies, following reports of kidney damage in several patients.

The Food and Drug Administration said it has received more than 20 reports of a serious form of kidney failure among patients taking the bowel-cleansing drugs, known as oral phosphate products.

The new boxed warning label will apply to Visicol and OsmoPrep - both prescription tablets made by Salix Pharmaceuticals. The label warns that the drugs should be used with caution in patients older than 55, those who suffer from dehydration and kidney disease, and those who take medications that affect the kidneys.

Regulators said they are also concerned about the risks of over-the-counter bowel cleansers, such as Fleet Phospho-soda, made by C.B. Fleet Company Inc.

"There are many people who use these and use them fine," said Charles Ganley, who heads FDA's office of nonprescription products. "But there are people who are developing severe kidney injury, and it's important we try and identify who is at risk."

FDA officials said some patients are not following directions outlined on the drugs, which instruct patients to drink up to half a gallon of water with the tablets.

"The question is one of getting people to drink enough fluids," said Dr. Joyce Korvick, director of FDA's digestive products. "Some patients that take these pills feel perhaps you don't need to drink as much as you really do to avoid these side effects."

Korvick said kidney damage can occur within days or weeks of using the drugs, but symptoms - such as lethargy, drowsiness and swelling - may not appear until much later.

FDA is requiring Salix to distribute a medication guide warning patients about the risks of the drugs. The company also must conduct a follow-up study looking at which patients are most vulnerable to kidney damage.

Shares of the Morrisville, N.C.-based company fell $1.05, or 12 percent, to $7.56 in afternoon trading. Combined sales of OsmoPrep and Visicol totaled more than $27 million in 2007, according to the company's earnings report.

The U.S. market for prescription bowel-cleansing drugs is roughly $191 million, according to the company.

Salix's tablets compete against a number of liquid bowel cleansers, known as polyethylene glycol solutions. Products in that family include Braintree Laboratories' GoLytely and Schwarz Pharma's Colyte.

Regulators stopped short of recommending those medications as safer options, noting that they also require patients to flush their systems with large amounts of water.

"It's basically a question of patient tolerability," Korvick said. "To take the polyethylene glycolated products you need to drink two to three gallons of water, depending on what product you choose. So the patient may not be able to comply with that."

FDA officials also highlighted the risks of over-the-counter bowel cleansers, though all the problems reported to the agency were connected with prescription products. FDA said many over-the-counter phosphate products are labeled only to treat constipation, but patients use them at higher doses to clear the colon.

"When used for bowel cleansing, these products have the same risks as prescription" drugs, the FDA said in a statement.

The agency advised consumers not to use any of the over-the-counter products for bowel cleansing. While nonprescription products cannot receive boxed warnings, FDA officials said they hope to update labeling on the dozens of over-the-counter phosphate drugs by next spring.

The FDA first warned doctors and patients about potential kidney risks with the medications in 2006. A petition submitted to the agency last September called on regulators to place a boxed warning on the drugs.

Child food adverts misleading

Child food adverts 'misleading'

Sunday, 14 December 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7779438.stm


Manufacturers are making misleading claims about fatty and sugary foods aimed at children, a report says.

The British Heart Foundation said ads for brands including Kellogg's, Dairylea and Nestle gave a "wholesome" image for unhealthy products.

It called for tougher government regulations on food marketing.

The Food and Drink Federation, which represents manufacturers, branded the claims "nonsense", saying advertising was already tightly controlled.

The report was prepared by the Food Commission, a body which campaigns for better food, and looked at the advertising of children's breakfast and lunchbox foods. It's clear that some food companies are preying on parents' concerns to actively market children's food that is high in sugar, salt and fat.

Peter Hollins
British Heart Foundation

It suggested that companies used a variety of "misleading" techniques to make them seem healthier than they actually are.

One example it gave was Kellogg's "Coco Pops" Cereal Bars, which are marketed as the "best choice for a lunchbox treat".

Images of grapes and wholemeal bread are used on the packaging, and the adult rather than the child guideline amounts of sugar are printed, which could confuse parents, said the report.

Packaging for the cheese product Dairylea said it had "no artificial colours, flavours or preservatives", but the report said that just one portion had nearly a third of a child's recommended daily saturated fat intake.

Also singled out for criticism was Nestle, with a promotion for their cereals and "magic straws" describing their benefits for children's bones, but not the fact that more than half of the weight of a "magic straw" is sugar.

'Dodgy dossier'

British Heart Foundation chief executive Peter Hollins suggested firms were exploiting "legal loopholes" to market products to children.

He said: "It's clear that some food companies are preying on parents' concerns to actively market children's food that is high in sugar, salt and fat. It is complete nonsense to suggest that manufacturers are exploiting legal loopholes in the marketing regulations

Julian Hunt, Food and Drink Federation

"We are calling on the UK government to rigorously limit the marketing of unhealthy foods and make sure labels are clear and consistent."

However, Julian Hunt, from the Food and Drink Federation, described the report as a "dodgy dossier" and insisted that regulations were being followed.

"When it comes to the marketing of food and drink products, we know that the UK is one of the most strictly regulated countries in Europe.

"It is complete nonsense to suggest that manufacturers are exploiting legal loopholes in the marketing regulations - a report published by the Advertising Standards Authority only this week shows that 99% of advertising in all media is fully compliant with the rules now in place.

"It is also highly spurious to allege that nutrition and health claims are not regulated; they are, thanks to a strict EU regulation covering all nutrition and health claims on food and drink products."

'No rules broken'

The manufacturers themselves said clear information about "guideline daily amounts" was carried on packs.

A spokesman for Nestle said: "None of the marketing techniques listed in the report are in breach of current UK and European marketing and advertising rules."

Kellogg's described the suggestion they were exploiting regulatory loopholes as "rubbish", adding: "Our on-pack claims are rigorous and all our marketing reflects the latest advertising codes."

Kraft, the makers of Dairylea, said the amount of fat in a portion was actually 16%, rather than a third.

A spokesman said: "Parents tell us that no artificial ingredients are important to them, so that's what we highlight."

Scientists report over global warming vs.global cooling!

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?3...f5-eb517991319f

More Than 650 Scientists Dissent Over Warming Claims
231-Page Report Now Available
By Marc Morano, 12/11/2008 7:52:15 AM

INTRODUCTION:

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernemntal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.

This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

See the full report here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...5b-2a1411df5804

This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007

Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the "science is settled" and there is a "consensus." On a range of issues, 2008 proved to be challenging for the promoters of man-made climate fears. Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviwed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland; Mount Kilimanjaro; Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Floods; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; lack of atmosphieric dust; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted.

In addition, the following developments further secured 2008 as the year the “consensus” collapsed. Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exist. An International team of scientists countered the UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

This new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the GOP Ranking Member is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition challenging significant aspects of the claims of the UN IPCC and Al Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & see: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008 article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears, and added that the “science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.” Canada’s Financial Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, "As we all know, climate science is not a numbers game (there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue)," Revkin wrote. In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."

Skeptical scientists are gaining recogniction despite what many say is a bias against them in parts of the scientific community and are facing significant funding disadvantages. Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” Briggs, in a March 4, 2008, report, described the behavior as “really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked.” [Note: An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK and a July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

Highlights of the Updated 2008 Senate Minority Report featuring over 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical. “The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh. “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO. (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

This Senate report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, quotes and of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Criteria for selecting the REAL Healthy clay

(NaturalNews) More and more, people are realizing the dangers of side-effect-riddled traditional medicines and they scour the Internet to find an all-natural solution, such as Bentonite Clay. Certain Bentonite Clays are recognized for their effectiveness in drawing out impurities and excess oils from the skin, as well as binding with toxins and with no dangerous side-effects. Search results for Bentonite Clay have increased from 5,000 to 618,000 in a span of 10 years. While the Internet provides a wealth of information at your fingertips, some companies are more concerned with making money, rather than providing a pure and quality healing clay.

As with anything that grows too fast, the lack of education and knowledge about clays can pose a danger to society. Kitchens and garages become launch pads for home grown businesses and new domain names flood the Internet with eager entrepreneurs in search of financial freedom. Common sense and safety in handling are ignored in eagerness to capture a corner of the market. With this in mind, it is extremely important to know your clays, what the law requires, and what the clay companies should provide in the way of service and information. Therefore, it is imperative that customers should educate themselves prior to purchasing just any clay.

Clays are inert trace minerals tightly bound together that evolved over millions of years from volcanic ash deposits. They have a high negative electromagnetic ionic charge. This negative charge allows clays to draw positive ionic charged particles such as toxins, pathogens, impurities, heavy metals and viruses. Some clays are used in products such as antacids, toothpaste, cosmetics and in wine and beer making to filter out impurities (Iran Mineral Import and Export). Clays can now be found in health food stores as a Detox Cleanse, a cleansing clay mask and in clay detox baths.

However, all clays are different, making it complicated to understand the many differences in clay families. They differ in composition of minerals, colors, textures, swelling capacity, taste, odor, grittiness and purity. For an inexperienced clay person the choices can be overwhelming.

For this article, let's focus on the Smectite Family of clays known commonly as Bentonites. A definable trait of the Smectite Family of clays is the ability to adsorb, as well as absorb. Its unique ability to grow and change (adsorb) is the reason for its classification and recognition as a "Living Clay". Smectite Clays hold positive ionic charged particles within the structural layers of the clay molecule. It not only draws out, but binds with the toxins, eliminating them from the body. Because of this exceptionally strong drawing power, Smectites are known as detoxing agents. In the Smectite Family of clays, there are predominately Sodium and Calcium Bentonites.

Sodium Bentonites are naturally high in salt – as high as 14%. They are the swelling or expanding clays, taking on more water when hydrated. These have been used primarily for industrial purposes (e.g., liner materials for landfills, binders for iron ore processing, suspension agents in oil well drilling, and water-proofing products for building materials). Some are gradually being introduced in the alternative health field for external uses. The high salt content makes them questionable for internal use.

The clean, pure, all natural Calcium Bentonites are highly regarded for their healing properties. Popular for internal as well as external uses, they are more widely known for detoxing, cleansing, and drawing out impurities. In addition, Calcium Bentonite Clay's high pH levels balance acidity. When taken as a preventative, a high quality Calcium Bentonite will capture and remove newly ingested toxins on a daily basis. Used as an internal cleanser, it aids the colon's ability to absorb vitamins, minerals and other nutrients; thus giving the body more energy. Used externally, clay's electromagnetic ionic charge increases blood flow, circulation, lymphatic stimulation, and speeds cellular rejuvenation and repair. For more information on the healing properties of Calcium Bentonite Clays go to www.aboutclay.com.

These clays are carving a significant niche in the natural health world. One of the major problems is that clays have primarily been used for industrial purposes and therefore are not mined with attention to purity and cleanliness. For industrial purposes clays are scooped up, bagged, and stored with little care given to sanitary handling procedures.

The FDA has given all Bentonite clays a certification as GRAS: Generally Regarded as Safe. This refers to the exposure to clays during the milling process and for external uses. This does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that you can make health claims about clays LEGALLY. A clay company selling clay cannot legally say it will stop the pain of an insect bite, a Jellyfish sting, a tooth ache, clear up Acne, accelerate wound healing, stop Acid Reflux, diarrhea, or detox heavy metals until it has undergone one of the million dollar tests performed to FDA specifications and gets the FDA Approval. Since Clays have been known to help 50- 100 ailments, you would need a test for each ailment, and I think you can do the math on that one. Basically, clay has positive effects on so many ailments, it would take billions to get it approved for all the health claims.

Clay companies making healing claims are riding on the edge of serious trouble as clays become more and more popular. It is only a matter of time before the FDA rears its head and starts investigating the healing claims and shuts them down and/or issues serious fines. Today, the FDA has other fish to fry, so they have not messed with these up-and-coming clay companies.

There are companies that sell clays for internal use legally, but they have had to have their clay processed to meet FDA requirements. When clays are processed by FDA standards, whether by heat, sterilization or irradiation, the efficacy (strength) of the clay has been greatly reduced. Most companies making clay health claims have a disclaimer stating they are not FDA approved or tested.

So if you can't make healing claims, what can a company legally say about the clay they sell? They can legally say clay relieves, detoxes (can't say what), soothes, draws impurities, stimulates, and a few other very safe generic terms with no real meaning. Though this is a limitation, public excitement and word-of-mouth sharing on chat groups are spreading the real truth about the healing powers of clays.

Anytime a good thing comes along, there are those who recognize it as an opportunity to make money and will jump in and take advantage by pushing the rules. The misuse of the internet is a good example. More and more clay companies popping up are pushing the edge of truth. Some are copying information verbatim from other sites and claiming it as their own.

One man claimed to be selling Dead Sea mud that actually was Illinois dirt laced with cornstarch. Another clay with supposed healing powers contained toxic concentrations of arsenic at 500 times the level approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.

This is another interesting statement: "Vegetables are not attacked by pests when grown with Brand X clay in the soil." No proof was provided for this statement. If you have a concern with a statement made by a clay company, question it and ask for an explanation.

While clay may or may not decrease pest attacks on plants, clays added to the right composition of soil mixes can enhance plant growth. Agronomy is a chemical study of soil compositions: one mineral can affect the release of another mineral's absorption and it is about finding the right formula for the results you want.

In general, plants have enzymes that are capable of breaking down the trace minerals in clays to synthesize them and absorb them as nutrients vital to living plants' growth.

Clays not only help plants, but animals, too. For example, the shrimp study by Louis Kervran, the French scientist, world-famous for his provocative work on Biological Transmutations, is about a shrimp that lives in clay (Abehsera 1977, 7):

"It has been known for a long time that living organisms inhabit clay without any organic supply of food from the outside…the Niphargus shrimp… lives in the clay of caves…. Experiments have shown that it grows normally in pure clay to which nothing has been added. Research workers therefore thought that the shrimp lived on clay and nothing but clay, an impossibility according to the laws of biochemistry. Actually, it cannot live thus in clay alone, but this clay contains microorganisms which work for the shrimp, making vitamins, various mineral products, nitrogen, phosphorous, and calcium, etc."

So can you see if you irradiated or heat processed clays to clean out ALL of the microorganisms, you are damaging the efficacy of the NATURAL elements as they are meant to be? Check the clay for dangerous elements by all means; that means no Escherichia Coli, Salmonella, Staphylococcus Aureus, Pseudomonas Aeruginosa or fecal contamination.

A great concern with the influx of new clays is the lack of clay knowledge and the harm it will bring to the good reputation of quality clays.

There are many confusing and misleading statements to lure you to a particular clay. KNOW YOUR CLAY. Do your due diligence by asking the company questions and for a lab test as to the purity, cleanliness and an analysis of the primary minerals.

Below are criteria for selecting a quality clay what to expect from a reliable clay source:

*A natural calcium Bentonite clay pure and free of contaminants.
*A pH of 8.7 or above.
*Provides a mineral analysis sheet.
*Provides a certified laboratory microbial test.
*A Montmorillonite-Smectite Clay that Absorbs and Adsorb.
*So pure it is odorless and tasteless.
*It is an all natural vs. processed clay.
*Has professional packaging (no Ziploc bags or hand-written labels) with labels showing directions and ingredients.
*A non – gritty clay
*A company that gives you direct contact information - a phone number, physical address and an e-mail address.
*A company available to answer questions about their clay.
*A reliable company that has been in business for several years.
*A clay that does not stain material.

Continue to ask for the proof and do your due diligence. Educate yourself and use common sense. If you cannot speak to a person from that company, considerate it a red flag.

Now go find your perfect clay!

References

Abehsera, Michel. 1977. The Healing Clay: Amazing Cures from the Earth Itself. Brooklyn: Swan House Publishing Company.

Iran Mineral Import and Export. Bentonite. Iranian Mineral World. http://www.mineralco.net/bentonite/inde...

Stay away from hidden MSG !

(NaturalNews) The safety of MSG is a controversial issue that deserves much more attention, debate and discussion within the health industry, the mainstream media and the public. Independent researchers, experts and whistle-blowers claim that MSG functions not only as a flavor enhancer, but as a harmful neurotoxin that has adverse effects in the short term and long term for much more than 2% of the public. However, the FDA regards MSG as generally safe and claims that only 2% of the public suffers from adverse reactions to it. They allow many companies, such Kraft, Pringles and Campbell's Soup, to hide it in seemingly benign ingredients without including it on the label. In many ways, the FDA has been part of a cover-up of hidden MSG in many food and beverage products as well as a cover-up of MSG's potential health risks. The public deserves the right to have proper labeling of MSG and to be completely aware of its many health risks in order to make fully informed decisions.

The terms "MSG" and "Processed Free Glutamic Acid" can be used interchangeably because they`re essentially and functionally equivilant. Sodium has no function in MSG other than to turn it into the salt form commonly known as monosodium glutamate. The only way a smart consumer can avoid it is by knowing the list of ingredients that contain or result in MSG.

Food and beverage companies often use Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG) as a cheap flavor enhancer. However, according to independent studies and researchers/insiders such as neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, ex-food processing scientist and engineer Carol Hoernlein (www.msgtruth.org), consumer advocate Debbie Anglesey (www.msgmyth.com), Dr. John W. Olney, and MSG activists and investigators Jack Samuels & Dr. Adrienne Samuels, the founders of the Truth in Labeling Campaign (www.truthinlabeling.org), Processed Free Glutamic Acid is also a harmful neurotoxin and excitotoxin that leads to and/or worsens many health problems ranging from headaches, migraines, mood change, nausea, pains in joints/bones, sleep disorders, chronic post nasal drip, heart irregularities and excessive perspiration to Asthma, ADD, Depression, Obesity and many more. It is also implicated in neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig`s (ALS), Parkinson`s and Alzheimer`s.

According to the FDA and The Glutamate Association (see www.msgfacts.com), MSG is regarded as natural and generally safe. The FDA`s wordy rules and regulations treat bound glutamate and free glutamate as one despite that free glutamate is processed and more harmful to your health than bound glutamate, which is found in protein that had not been processed by manufacturers or through fermentation. Jack Samuels commented that "the staff at the FDA are unbelievably fantastic in their ability to write in a way that deceives the public, but loosely based on fact. We refer to such writing as half truths. Read the FDA points carefully and you will see how MSG can be hidden in foods." The FDA has not returned phone calls to comment about this important matter yet.

Please feel free to watch this 60 Minutes segment about hidden MSG from 1991.

The FDA allows companies to hide Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG) in many seemingly benign ingredients without disclosing its presence or precise quantity on labels. Moreover, the FDA considers all of those ingredients to be natural even though they contain the artificial chemical, Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG).

The following ingredients always contain various amounts of unlabeled Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG):

Autolyzed yeast
Calcium caseinate
Dry milk powder
Dry mily protein
Gelatin
Glutamate
Glutamic acid
Hydrolyzed corn gluten
Hydrolyzed soy protein
Hydrolyzed wheat protein
Monopotassium glutamate
Monosodium glutamate
Natrium glutamate
Sodium caseinate
Textured protein
Yeast food
Yeast nutrient

The following ingredients often contain or result in various amounts of unlabeled Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG):

Barley malt
Bouillon
Broth
Carrageenan
Citric acid
Corn Starch
Corn Syrup
Enzymes
Flavors/Flavoring
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Maltodextrin
Malt extract
Malted Barley
Malt flavoring
Natural chicken flavoring
Natural beef flavoring
Natural flavors/flavor
Natural pork flavoring
Pectin
Protein fortified food
Seasonings
Soy protein isolate
Soy protein or soy protein concentrate
Soy sauce
Stock
Ultra-pasteurized
Whey
Whey protein
Whey protein concentrate
Whey protein isolate

Regardless of whether or not Processed Free Glutamic Acid (MSG) is safe, why doesn`t the FDA require companies to disclose it on food/beverage labels? Why does the FDA consider MSG to be natural? Why isn`t the list of ingredients that contain MSG fully exposed to the public, students, doctors and the mainstream media? Why are food and drugs regulated by the same administration and not separate ones? What will it take to bring accountability and democracy into the health industry?

When asked whether the public has the right to know all sides of the issue of MSG so that they can make fully informed decisions, Heidi Rebello, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Public Affairs at the FDA, replied, "Yes, of course. Why wouldn`t they?" In reality, though, the public doesn`t know all sides of the issue given the cover up of hidden MSG and all of its health hazards. Recall that the FDA had once were part of the cover-up claiming that cigarettes were safe for the public.

Please feel free to continue consuming McDonald`s, Burger King, Dorito`s, Pringles, Pepsi, Entenmann`s, Snapple, Glaceau Vitamin Water and Campbell`s Soup if you desire to, but at least consume it while knowing all of the risks to your health. Do you trust independent studies/researchers or the FDA? Would you take the health risks to consume a food or beverage that has MSG, a controversial, potentially toxic ingredient, even if it`s allowed to be hidden on labels? Do you believe that the FDA is truly living up to its mission statement (click here)? Decide for yourself, do the research, and, most importantly, ask questions.