Featured Articles

Cell Phone Cancer

by: Glenn Adams

AUGUSTA, Maine – A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim.

The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco, where Mayor Gavin Newsom wants his city to be the nation's first to require the warnings.

Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors' bills.

Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she's expecting a call. At issue is radiation emitted by all cell phones.

Under Boland's bill, manufacturers would have to put labels on phones and packaging warning of the potential for brain cancer associated with electromagnetic radiation. The warnings would recommend that users, especially children and pregnant women, keep the devices away from their head and body.

The Federal Communications Commission, which maintains that all cell phones sold in the U.S. are safe, has set a standard for the "specific absorption rate" of radiofrequency energy, but it doesn't require handset makers to divulge radiation levels.

The San Francisco proposal would require the display of the absorption rate level next to each phone in print at least as big as the price. Boland's bill is not specific about absorption rate levels, but would require a permanent, nonremovable advisory of risk in black type, except for the word "warning," which would be large and in red letters. It would also include a color graphic of a child's brain next to the warning.

While there's little agreement about the health hazards, Boland said Maine's roughly 950,000 cell phone users among its 1.3 million residents "do not know what the risks are."

All told, more than 270 million people subscribed to cellular telephone service last year in the United States, an increase from 110 million in 2000, according to CTIA-The Wireless Association. The industry group contends the devices are safe.

"With respect to the matter of health effects associated with wireless base stations and the use of wireless devices, CTIA and the wireless industry have always been guided by science, and the views of impartial health organizations. The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk," said CTIA's John Walls.

James Keller of Lewiston, whose cell phone serves as his only phone, seemed skeptical about warning labels. He said many things may cause cancer but lack scientific evidence to support that belief. Besides, he said, people can't live without cell phones.

"It seems a little silly to me, but it's not going to hurt anyone to have a warning on there. If they're really concerned about it, go ahead and put a warning on it," he said outside a sporting good store in Topsham. "It wouldn't deter me from buying a phone."

While there's been no long-term studies on cell phones and cancer, some scientists suggest erring on the side of caution.

Last year, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members warning of risks based on early, unpublished data. He said that children should use the phones only for emergencies because their brains were still developing and that adults should keep the phone away from the head and use a speakerphone or a wireless headset.

Herberman, who says scientific conclusions often take too long, is one of numerous doctors and researchers who have endorsed an August report by retired electronics engineer L. Lloyd Morgan. The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use.

Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, notes that many countries have issued warnings and that the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for governmental action to address concerns over health risks from mobile phone use.

But the National Cancer Institute said studies thus far have turned up mixed and inconsistent results, noting that cell phones did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s.

"Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn," according to the Cancer Institute's Web site.

Motorola Inc., one of the nation's major wireless phone makers, says on its Web site that all of its products comply with international safety guidelines for radiofrequency energy exposure.

A Motorola official referred questions to CTIA.

Featured Articles

Nine-Year-Old Girl Diagnosed With Dementia

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) A 13-year-old girl living in the United Kingdom has been suffering from early-onset dementia since the age of nine, according to British news reports.

Dementia refers to a cluster of roughly 100 different incurable diseases in which the brain's cognitive functioning progressively deteriorates. The most common form is Alzheimer's disease. Most dementia affects people over the age of 65, but early onset forms are becoming more common. One in twelve million children worldwide suffer from some form of dementia.

Isobel Jeffery began to slur words when she was nine years old, quickly developing a set of symptoms more typical or a person in their seventies. Unlike other forms of the dementia, the unknown form that Jeffery suffers from affects every aspect of her development. In addition to suffering from problems with memory and speech, Jeffery can no longer carry out a simple conversation and becomes confused easily. She needs 24-hour care because she is unable to feed or dress herself, or even walk on her own.

"Two years ago we took the painful decision to have an operation to enable her to be tube fed directly into her stomach because she was no longer able to swallow enough," said Jeffery's mother Nicola.

Jeffery's sensory processing and learning are severely impaired. She also hallucinates and suffers from chronic nightmares.

"I have to stay in Izzie's room every night; her sleep is very disturbed," her mother said. "She gets very frightened and has hallucinations. I literally have no time to myself, she is awake until I go to bed and then wakes several times during the night. She gets confused and doesn't know what time of day it is."

Complicating Jeffery's situation is the fact that she also suffers from epilepsy and a weak immune system.

Although doctors have been unable to identify any other cases of the form of dementia that Jeffery suffers from, it resembles Niemann-Pick type C disease, which affects 500 children worldwide.

Advanced Colloidal Silver
75 minerals

Featured Articles

Wave of Sickness and Disease Now Striking Baby Boomers

by: E. Huff

(NaturalNews) Research is now showing that today's "baby boomers", the generation currently eclipsing age 60, is the first generation to be less healthy than the generation before them. Those in this age group are more susceptible to debilitating diseases than in years past, stemming primarily from poor diet and lack of proper exercise.

Professor Teresa Seeman, a researcher from the University of California, examined those today in their 60s, 70s, and 80s and compared her findings to people from the same age groups examined ten years ago. She came to the startling conclusion that about one in five people in their 60s today requires assistance in accomplishing daily activities. This number is 50 percent higher than it was a decade ago.

A common theme that emerged from the research is that technological advancements have played a significant role in creating poor health. As Americans have generally been weaned off of physical labor and instead placed in front of computer screens throughout the years, the level of physical activity among the population has dropped significantly.

The lack of effective exercise was emphasized by a 50 percent increase over the last ten years in people in their 60s having trouble performing simple activities such as walking a quarter-mile or climbing a small set of stairs. There was also a 40 percent increase in study subjects having trouble bending their knees to crouch, kneel, or get up from a chair.

Significant societal and technological advancements that were of great benefit to the Baby Boomers when they were younger is proving to be their downfall in their current stage of life. Those in this age group are fatter and weaker than previous generations were at the same age, and they are more susceptible to chronic ailments that severely curtail their quality of life.

Experts recommend the obvious, mainly an improved diet and increased physical activity. They also warn the current younger generations to become disciplined in living a healthy lifestyle now in order to help offset the things that are currently plaguing their parents and grandparents.

Dr. Ian Campbell, general practitioner and medical director of the charity Weight Concern, expressed concern over the growing reliance on pharmaceutical drugs rather than on lifestyle changes as the appropriate remedy for the problem. He recommends a more preventive approach in dealing with illness.

Perhaps the conditions of economic turmoil in America will drive the younger generations back to the fields where physical labor and nutritious bounty are sure to help undo some of the damage that's been done by a convenient, technology-driven lifestyle.

Advanced Colloidal Silver
75 minerals

Featured Articles

Medical Control, Medical Corruption

by: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The vested interests are sick over it: Americans are beginning, just slightly, to take charge of their own health care. Such bestsellers as the Doctor's Book of Home Remedies, the Physician's Desk Reference, and the Merck Manual can keep you out of the doctor's appropriately named waiting room, or at least help you understand what is being done to you, when an apple a day does not work.

Who is unhappy with this increased knowledge? The American Medical Association, which for almost 150 years has sought to institutionalize a rip-off and to keep sick people and their families oblivious to it. Thanks to this central committee of the medical cartel, the number of medical schools and medical students is drastically restricted, state licensure further obstructs the supply of doctors, fees are largely secret and controlled across the industry, alternative treatments and practitioners are outlawed, pharmacists and nurses are hamstrung, and the mystique of the profession rivals the priesthood, although priests have a somewhat lower income. Meanwhile, the customer pays through the nose, even if he does not go to an otolaryngologist.
Medicaid and Medicare have contributed to the problem, but the medical cartel is the original sin. Through its ability to keep incomes high by limiting supply and outlawing competition, organized medicine has punished its customers, although the word is never used so as to disguise what is, after all, an economic relationship.

Hillary Clinton's proposed merger of the medical cartel and the state seems like a radical move, and it is. It is also the logical next step in the partnership of government and medicine. That is why, in addition to opposing Hillary hammer and tongs, we should reexamine the AMA's distortion of the medical marketplace and the very idea of medical licensure.

Competition among providers ? as with any service in a market economy ? leads to rational pricing and maximum consumer choice. But this is exactly what the AMA has always sought to prevent. The American Medical Association, organized in New York in 1848, advanced two seemingly innocent propositions in its early days: that all doctors should have a "suitable education" and that a "uniform elevated standard of requirements for the degree of M.D. should be adopted by all medical schools in the U.S." These were part of the AMA's real program, which was openly discussed at its conventions and in the medical journals: to secure a government-enforced medical monopoly and high incomes for mainstream doctors.

Membership in the new organization was open only to "regular" physicians, whose therapies were based on the "best system of physiology and pathology, as taught in the best schools in Europe and America." The public had a different view, however. Official treatments of the time, such as bloodletting and mercury poisoning, harmed and sometimes murdered patients, causing mass outrage.
Emphatically not included among the "best" were the homeopaths. Homeopathy, a less invasive system that still thrives in Britain and Europe, may have done no good, but that was the worst charge lodged against it. Homeopathy did not kill people, as Orthodox medicine did. The homeopaths actually followed the Hippocratic injunction "First, do not harm" and refused to worship abstract Science. As a result, the clergy ? an important interest group in 19th-century America ? sympathized with them. As the president of the New York State Medical Society noted in 1844, "We feel severely the influence of the clergy as operating against our collective interest." One prominent pastor, for example, had called the medical establishment "an expensive vampire upon society."

How the "regulars" came to crush the homeopaths and other competitors, and penalize patients in the process, is a story of deception and manipulation, of industry self-interest and state power. The organized regulars or allopaths first set out to demonstrate that the homeopaths were ill-educated and therefore should be shunned, but that was difficult to substantiate because most of them were converts from orthodox medicine.

One was William H. Holcombe. When he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania, he worried, as he wrote in his memoirs, that physicians "were blind men, striking in the dark at the disease or the patient-lucky if [we] killed the malady [instead of] the man." One day Holcombe was called by the parents of a seriously ill child, whom Holcombe subsequently set about to bleed. Bloodletting was considered especially important for children, and the younger the child, the more blood was to be drawn. But the mother clutched the baby to her breast and cried, "The blood is the life ? it shall not be taken away." When the benighted father agreed, Holcombe "explained to him candidly, and with some display of professional dignity, that my opinion was worth more than his or his wife's."

Holcombe left and returned the next day, expecting to find a dead baby. Instead, the child ? who had been treated by a homeopath ? was playing in the yard. Holcombe later wrote that "after having blistered, bled, and drugged my patients for twenty-seven years, I determined to find some more humane mode." He was charged with violating "medical ethics," whose first principle was: "A physician … should cautiously guard against whatever may injure the general respectability of his profession."
Eventually, homeopathy became almost as popular as allopathy, especially in the Northeast and Midwest. Many business leaders favored it and funded free dispensaries for the poor. This was made possible by the free market. From the early part of the century until 1850, state laws interfering in medical practice were gradually repealed. The AMA was founded to reverse the trend.

New York, for example, got rid of nearly all of its criminal legislation regarding medicine, forbidding only malpractice and immoral conduct by physicians. As one state senator said, "The people of this state have been bled long enough in their bodies and pockets." He called on them to demand medical freedom, in the tradition of "the men of the Revolution."

Most Americans were interested in non-orthodox treatments and believed they should be allowed to compete in the marketplace. Organized medicine claimed people were being fooled. But as Harris Livermore Coulter explains in his extraordinary 1969 study of the AMA's founding, "People were deserting orthodox medicine … not out of ignorance, but out of knowledge of regular practice and consequent dislike of it."

An 1848 AMA convention speaker laughed at the "mass of the community" who thought there was "a wide difference" between a physician's "Apothecary Medicine and our native medical plants." The first "they regard as almost uniformly poisonous ? the other, as harmless and healthful." He called this "an absurd idea," although virtually none of the official treatments of the time is still In use and many drugs from our "native medical plants" have proven to be effective.

Worse than absurd was the effect on doctors' incomes. "Quackery [i.e., unofficial treatments by unofficial practitioners] occasions a large pecuniary loss to us," lamented an 1846 editorial in the New York Journal of Medicine. Quacks "too frequently triumph and grow rich, where wiser and better men scarcely escape starvation." To the medical dean at the University of Michigan, the specter of free competition was a "discouragement" to "graduates in scientific medicine," rendering their work "arduous and unremunerative."
In the golden age, "the doctor could tell his patient" anything, including, "'gape, sinner, and swallow,"' wrote J.H. Nutting in 1853. Then, with his "grave look of profound wisdom," the doctor had a "reputation for almost superhuman skill." Doctors, wrote the journal of the Massachusetts Medical Society in 1848, should be "looked upon by the mass of mankind with a veneration almost superstitious." Instead, there was public contempt.

A Michigan physician reported that the profession had "fallen so low that there are few to do it reverence. Quackery and empiricism in diverse forms like the locusts and lice of Egypt, swarm over our state and are eating out the very vitals and sucking the life blood" of doctors, some of whom said they were denounced on the street for bumping off their patients.

Organized physicians argued that popular reputation meant nothing. In fact, claimed the journals, a good standing in the profession usually meant a bad one with the public. At the same time there was the complaint ? echoed by cartelizers to this day ? that there were simply too many doctors. "The profession" is "crowded," argued one journal, with "unworthy and ignorant men" who ought to be prohibited from practicing. The regulars also vilified their opponents with such works as Oliver Wendell Holmes' Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions (1842).

In 1849, the AMA worried that simply outlawing competition would not override the public's perversity. The only long-term "remedy against Quackery, is medical Reform, by which a higher standard of medical education shall be secured." As part of this drive, homeopathic physicians were expelled from state and local medical societies, even if they were trained in official schools. The AMA claimed that the public did not know what was good for it and that the medical establishment must have total control.
The organization knew it needed more than persuasion to secure a monopoly, so it also called for a national bureau of medicine to oversee state licensing and other regulations. In those limited-government days, however, the idea went nowhere. But in the statist Progressive Era after the turn of the century, anticompetitive measures became respectable, and the AMA renewed its drive for a cartel, spurred on by the popularity of self-medication and the increasing number of medical schools and doctors. (In 1902, an AMA study decried the competition that had lowered physicians' incomes.)

The number of medical schools had increased from 90 in 1880 to 154 in 1903. As an official AMA history by James Gordon Burrow puts it, the "frightening competition" showed a need for "education reform," i.e., cartelization. The state legislatures showed little interest in more restrictionist laws, so the AMA appointed the secretary of the Kentucky State Board of Health to rouse the profession to lobby.

Joseph N. McCormack spent a decade in agitprop among the doctors of more than 2,000 cities and towns, inspiring them with such speeches as "The Danger to the Public From an Unorganized and Underpaid Medical Profession." Like medical ethicists before and since, he denounced advertising (letting customers know services and prices in advance) and quackery (unapproved competition). Join our union, he said, and we will raise your pay. By 1910, about 70,000 doctors belonged to the AMA, an eight-fold increase over the previous decade.

To help bring about a higher-paid profession, the AMA in 1904 created the Council on Medical Education, which sought to shut down more than half the existing medical schools by rating them on a scale of A to C. In cooperation with state medical boards composed of what Arthur Dean Boran, head of the council, called the "right sort of men," the AMA succeeded in cutting the number of schools to 131 by 1910, from a high of 166.

Then the council's secretary N.P. Colwell helped plan (and some say write) the famous 1910 report by Abraham Flexner. Flexner, the owner of a bankrupt prep school, had the good fortune to have a brother, Simon, who was director of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. At his brother's suggestion, Abraham Flexner was hired by the Rockefeller-allied Carnegie Foundation so that the report would not be seen as a Rockefeller initiative. And Carnegie, whose main goal was to "rationalize" higher education, that is, replace religion with science, saw the AMA cartelization drive as useful. Claiming to have investigated nearly every school in the country, Flexner rated them on suitability. Schools he praised received lush grants from the Rockefeller and associated foundations, and almost all the medical schools he condemned were shut down, especially the "commercial" institutions. AMA-dominated state medical boards ruled that in order to practice medicine, a doctor had to graduate from an approved school. Post-Flexner, a school could not be approved if it taught alternative therapies, didn't restrict the number of students, or made profits based on student fees.

Why the opposition to for-profit schools? If an institution were supported by student fees rather than philanthropic donations, it could be independent of the foundations. The Rockefeller family had invested heavily in allopathic drug companies and wanted doctors to use their products.

The Flexner Report was more than an attack on free competition funded by special interests. It was also a fraud. For example, Flexner claimed to have thoroughly investigated 69 schools in 90 days, and he sent prepublication copies of his report to the favored schools for their revisions. Homeopaths noted that his authority derived solely "from an unlimited access to the pocketbook of a millionaire." Homeopaths did not use synthetic drugs, of course. John E. Churchill, president of the Board of Education of New York, called the report a "menace to the freedom of teaching." Years later, Flexner admitted that he knew nothing about medical education. But he did not need to in order to serve his employers' purposes.

Flexner's attack, stepped up by the AMA's Council on Medical Education and its state medical boards, closed 25 schools in three years, with more over the years to come, and cut the number of students attending the remaining schools in half. All non-mainstream practitioners were targeted. For example, from the early part of the century, consumers preferred optometrists to ophthalmologists on grounds of both service and price. Yet the AMA derided the optometrists as quacks, and in every state, the AMA-dominated medical boards imposed restrictions on these and other "sectarian" practitioners when they could not outlaw them entirely.

Homeopathy still had a remnant of about 13,000 practitioners, supported by a fiercely loyal customer base, but decades of well-financed attacks had taken their toll. The battle-weary homeopaths eventually gave in, conceding major parts of their doctrine, but the AMA was not satisfied with anything less than total victory, and today, American homeopaths practice mostly underground.

With its monopoly, the AMA sought to fix prices. Early on, the AMA had come to the conclusion that it was "unethical" for the consumer to have any say over what he paid. Common prices were transmuted into professional "fees," and the AMA sought to make them uniform across the profession. Lowering fees and advertising them were the worst violations of medical ethics and were made illegal. When fees were raised across the board, as they frequently could be with decreased competition, it was done in secret.

But organized medicine still feared reporters. In Illinois in 1906, the publication of secret fee increases nearly incited public violence. The secretary of the Illinois Medical Society, N.L. Barker, admonished his fellow physicians to keep their higher "fee-bills" secret, "for the people will not appreciate what was intended for kindness and justice." To collect the higher fees, the AMA recommended that state-level medical societies develop formal systems. If a patient had not paid the full amount, especially out of dissatisfaction with the treatment, his name would go on a blacklist and he would be forbidden all future treatment by doctors until he had paid up and shut up.

The AMA, in its constant quest for higher incomes through lower competition, also battled churches and other charities that gave free medical care to the poor. Through lobbying, it attempted to stamp out what it called "indiscriminate medical charity." A model 1899 law in New York put the control of all free health care under a State Board of Charities dominated by the AMA. To diminish the amount of free care, the board imposed fines and even jail terms on anyone giving treatment without first getting the patient's address and checking on his financial status.

Then there was the problem of pharmacists selling drugs without a doctor's prescription. This was denounced as "therapeutic nihilism" and the American Pharmaceutical Association, controlled by the AMA, tried to stamp out the low-cost, in-demand practice. In nearly every state, the AMA secured laws that made it illegal for patients to seek treatment from a pharmacist. But still common were pharmacists who refilled prescriptions at customer request. The AMA lobbied to make this illegal, too, but most state legislatures wouldn't go along with this because of constituent pressure. The AMA got its way through the federal government, of course.

There were other threats that also had to be put down: "nostrums," treatments that did not require a visit to the doctor, and midwives, who had better results than doctors. Also a danger was "contracting out," a company practice of employing physicians to provide care for its workers. This was "unethical," said the AMA, and should be illegal. Fraternal organizations that contracted out for their members were put out of business with legislated price controls, and hospitals ? whose accreditation the AMA controlled ? were pressured to refuse admittance to patients of contracting-out doctors.

By the end of the Progressive Era, the orthodox profession as led by the AMA had triumphed over all of its competitors. Through the use of government power, it had come to control education, licensure, treatment, and price. Later it out-competed fraternal medical insurance with the state-privileged and subsidized Blue Cross and Blue Shield. The AMA-dominated Blues, in addition to other benefits, gave us the egalitarian notion of "community rating," under which everyone pays the same price no matter what his condition.

AMA control remains much the same, and as a result, even incompetent doctors are guaranteed high incomes. In law, a profession with much freer entry, some lawyers get rich, others make middle incomes, and others have to go into another line of work. But thanks to almost a century and a half of AMA statism, even terrible doctors get lavish incomes.

The monopoly also allows anti-customer practices to go unpunished. For example, doctors routinely schedule appointments too closely together so as to keep their waiting rooms full, for prestige and marketing reasons. With little competition, they can get away with it, and advertising on-time service would be "unethical." The next time you have to wait 45 minutes amid six-month-old People magazines, thank the AMA.

Now, if Hillary gets her way, licensing will become even more abusive. Her Health Security Act mandates racial quotas for medical students and faculties, as well as for practicing physicians in the health alliances. This is the wits' end of licensing, which began as an effort by the regulars to weed out the competition and will now force on us the spectacularly inept, scalpels in hand.

Real reform would remove the AMA's grip on the marketplace and subject the entire industry to competition. Until then, stock up on home medical books.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and editor of

Featured Articles

Toothpaste Ingredients Your Dentist Will Not Warn You About

by: Flora Stay

(NaturalNews) One of the fastest ways to absorb anything into the body is through the mouth. This is why certain drugs such as heart medication nitroglycerin and some pain relief drugs are administered under the tongue. Because of this, you should be aware that potentially toxic ingredients in your toothpaste and mouthwash could also be absorbed into your body.

Unfortunately, your dentist may think he or she knows what to recommend for you, but chances are that is not the case.

The following is a list of some potentially toxic ingredients in dental and other personal care products and of the reasons for concern that your dentist probably does not realize:

1.Fluoride – FDA warning on toothpaste/mouthwash containing fluoride reads: "WARNING, keep out of reach of children under the age of 6. If more than used for normal brushing is swallowed, contact your physician or local Poison Control Center immediately."

Children`s toothpaste often has flavors that taste like candy or bubblegum which may tempt children to swallow it. This can be a problem since the warning states that even small amounts of fluoride swallowed can cause serious health risks.

Toxic dosage of toothpaste with fluoride can cause death. For example, death could result if a 2 year old swallows 42 percent of a tube of fluoride toothpaste, a 4 year old swallows 56 percent of a tube of fluoride toothpaste or a 6 year old swallows 70 percent of the contents of a fluoride toothpaste tube.

2.Triclosan – This antibiotic/antimicrobial agent is used in many products including dishwashing soap, hand soap, deodorants, toothpaste and mouthwash. In August 2009 the Canadian Medical Association requested Canada Health to ban triclosan use in personal care products due to development of bacterial resistance. In 2006 and 2009, studies demonstrated triclosan exposure significantly impacts thyroid hormone concentrations. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports frequent use of antibiotics could lead to growth of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. We all know of the rise in `superbugs` that are resistant to most antibiotics and have resulted in deaths.

3.Sodium Lauryl Sulfate – Using toothpaste without sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) may reduce the frequency of canker sores (aphthous ulcers). Researchers speculate that SLS dries out the protective mucous lining in the mouth…making it vulnerable to irritants that lead to canker sores. SLS is a detergent that is in almost all toothpastes, dishwashing soaps and body washes.

4.Abrasives – Tooth sensitivity is caused by many factors. A term used for certain types of tooth sensitivity is known as `abfractions` and may be caused by abrasive toothpaste. Some toothpaste including teeth whitening pastes and tartar control brands may contain stronger abrasives. A test available, but not used by most brands is called the RDA rating. This determines the abrasiveness of toothpaste to dentin, the middle layer of teeth. Unless the RDA (Relative Dentin Abrasivity) of a brand is known, the consumer or dentist may not know if tooth abrasion was caused on some level by the toothpaste used.

5.Artificial sweeteners – The FDA has vacillated over the years about the safety of artificial sweeteners such as saccharin. Canada Health has still not approved saccharin as safe.

6.Botanical ingredients – Drugs come from plants, and many herbs including the popular tea tree oil have side effects and drug interactions. NIH along with MedlinePlus website have an excellent source to check herbal ingredients for their false vs true indications and potentially harmful side effects; you can find which ones pregnant women and children should specially avoid.

Advanced Colloidal Silver
75 minerals

Featured Articles

10 Reasons Why The Health Care Bill Must Be Killed

1.       It still covers abortion. This is an affront to millions of Americans who believe that abortion is murder.

2.       It still mandates that everyone purchase health insurance. This is anti-American. Small businesses will be required to pay up to 72% of an employee’s health care coverage or face an 8% tax penalty. Individuals will be fined up to $250,000 or jailed for refusing to buy insurance. Millions of Americans will not go along with this program and thus it will criminalize innocent Americans. If abortion is still covered many Christians will refuse to buy insurance which supports killing babies. This is a nightmare scenario waiting to unfold. It will also destroy small businesses and will do nothing to stimulate the economy.

3.       It still leaves people uninsured. Estimates project that even under the best circumstances at least 24 million Americans will be left uncovered. Remaking and reshaping 1/6 of our economy is supposedly being done to leave no one uninsured. There must be a deeper political agenda to ramming this legislation through since it will not achieve what the American people are told it will accomplish.

4.       It still mandates a National ID and microchip implant. At least 23 Billion dollars was approved back in the spring for information technology in the stimulus bill that was specifically designed to be used for health care. Companies like VeriChip and Applied Digital Solutions which specialize in RFID chips and microchip implants were just a few of the companies who received these funds. The framework for a National ID has already been passed and the mandate for everyone in the country to be part of a national healthcare database is still in this Bill. No one in America will be allowed treatment in the future unless they are carrying a new medical ID card with an RFID chip in it or have a microchip implant in their body. The biblical overtones to this are significant. Why hasn't more light been shed on this aspect of health care reform?

5.       It still covers illegal immigrants. Allowing millions of immigrants who entered this country illegally to have access to health care will open the floodgates for millions of others to flock into this country. California and other States are sinking into bankruptcy because of this problem and this health care reform bill will further destroy this nation. No one fully grasps the consequences of what covering illegals will do to this nation.

6.       It still has end of life counseling. The President and those pushing for this bill can try and deny this reality but the truth is this bill intends to deny the elderly coverage and help usher in their death should they be in a bad state of health. Tom Daschle made the following quote in the book “Critical: What We Can Do about the Health-Care Crisis” — “. . . The elderly have a responsibility to die, knowing that they are not going to survive their chronic illnesses, so that society can save money and pump funds into care for the younger, more worthy recipients.”  —

7.       It still lacks bipartisan support. This is the most important piece of legislation in American history since our nation’s founding. Something of this magnitude should have broad bi-partisan support and the support of the American people. There are ZERO Republicans in the Senate and only 1 in the House that supports this bill in its present form. On top of that well over 60% of the American people don’t want this bill. Congress is supposed to represent the people, not the other way around. Despite all the town hall protests most have decided they don’t care what the people think.

8.       It still leads to rationed care. There is no way around the fact that this bill will lead to rationed care, long lines, and long waits. There is no possible way that millions of new patients can be put into the current system without causing a back-log. Many doctors practicing medicine will simply retire or call it quits under this new system because they won’t want to be a part of a federally controlled, federally regulated, federally mandated system. This fact alone will cause delays and rationed care because there will be an immediate shortage of doctors. Socialized medicine is a failure in every country. Why should we follow a failed system in this great country?

9.       The true cost of the bill is grossly underestimated. There is not one government program anyone can point to that is being run the way it was originally intended to operate. Social Security and Medicare are just two examples. The government always underestimates costs so they can get bills passed. The real cost of this bill is going to far exceed anything being forecast and will most definitely destroy what is left of our failing economy.

10.   It establishes a medical dictatorship and tramples on Alternative Medicine. Millions of Americans are avid believers and followers of a Naturopathic, organic, whole food lifestyle and don’t use or trust mainstream medical treatments for disease. This bill grants monopoly power to pharmaceutical companies and crushes alternative health care. No non-medical, AMA approved, doctor recommended treatments that fall under the category of alternative medicine will be covered and the system is being set up to drive out all competition. Most alternative medicine and natural health is slated to be outlawed or severely restricted in the future.
These are just a fraction of concerns that many Americans have. If this 2000+ page monstrosity were thoroughly examined the American people would be horrified. The full impact of this bill will be catastrophically destructive to this country. Just because there is a push to make history with this bill doesn’t mean it should be passed. Until there is bi-partisan support in Washington and broad support from the American people this bill should be killed, period, end of story!

Featured Articles

What Is a Right?

by: Andrew Napolitano

In the continually harsh public discourse over the President's proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.

What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process — fairness — from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn't give them to us and the government doesn't pay for them and the government can't take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else's rights.

What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good. Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.

Now, when you look at health care for what it is, when you look at the US Constitution, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.

When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with… well, if people don't have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don't let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that's charity.

They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else's money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that's not charity, that's welfare. When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that's not charity, that's theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can't or won't care for themselves, that's not charity, that's slavery. That's why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago.

Laughter, The Best Medicine

Proofreading is a Dying Art


Man Kills Self Before Shooting Wife and Daughter  
This one I caught in the SGV Tribune the other day and called the Editorial Room and asked who wrote this.  It took two or three readings before the editor realized that what he was reading was impossible!!!  They put in a correction the next day.


Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says  
No kidding, really? Ya think?  
Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers   
 Now that's taking things a bit far!  

Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over  

What a guy!    

Miners Refuse to Work after Death  

No-good-for-nothing' lazy so-and-so's!  

Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant   

See if that works any better than a fair trial!  
War Dims Hope for Peace   
 I can see where it might have that effect!  
 If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last Awhile  
Ya think?!  

Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures 
 Who would have thought!  

Enfield ( London ) Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide    
They may be on to something!  

Red Tape Holds Up New Bridges   

 You mean there's something stronger than duct tape?  
Man Struck By Lightning: Faces Battery Charge   

 He probably IS the battery charge!  

New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group   
Weren't they fat enough?!  

Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Spacecraft   

That's what he gets for eating those beans!  
Kids Make Nutritious Snacks   
Do they taste like chicken?
Local  High School Dropouts Cut in Half   

 Chainsaw Massacre all over again!  
Hospitals are Sued by 7 Foot Doctors   
Boy, are they tall!

And the winner is….

Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead     
Did I read that right?


Featured Articles

Aspartame Alert: Diet Soda Destroys Kidney Function

by: E. Huff

(NaturalNews) Scientists from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston have revealed results from a study outlining some of the effects of artificial sweeteners on the body. Conducted on a group of 3,000 women, the results indicated that those who drank two or more artificially-sweetened beverages a day doubled their risk of more-rapid-than-normal kidney function decline.

The study accounted for various other risk factors including the woman's age, her blood pressure, if she smoked, and if she had any other pre-existing conditions such as heart disease or diabetes. The 11-year study evaluated the effects of all sweetened drinks on progressive kidney decline and discovered that two or more diet drinks leads to a two-fold increase in rapid kidney decline incidences.

Though study results did not show any correlation between sugar- or corn syrup-sweetened drinks and the onset of rapid kidney decline, these ingredients are implicated in causing diabetes and obesity and should not be perceived as safe merely because they did not have a direct correlation in this particular study topic.

High sodium intake was also implicated in the study as promoting progressive kidney decline. Since diet soda contains excessive amounts of sodium, higher than sugar soda, it is no surprise that diet sodas were the primary offenders in the study. However it is unclear from this particular study which ingredient plays the larger role in progressive kidney decline, the artificial sweeteners or the sodium content.

Studies on aspartame
When aspartame was first approved in the 1970s under the name "NutraSweet", studies were submitted as supposed proof that the artificial chemical was safe. The FDA initially approved the chemical in 1974 for use in a limited number of foods based upon the studies submitted by G.D. Searle Co., the company that invented aspartame.

Following a discovery made shortly thereafter by a research psychiatrist who found that aspartic acid, a primary ingredient in aspartame, caused holes to form in the brains of mice, the FDA decided to form its own internal task force to investigate the initial claims made by the Searle Co.

What the agency discovered was a series of falsified claims, compromised study results, and missing information. The claims made in favor of aspartame were so dubious and the evidence so faulty that the FDA decreed that a grand jury should investigate Searle Co.'s claims. Unfortunately, the case failed to move forward when U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan and Assistant U.S. Attorney William Conlon failed to initiate any legal action. Conlon was later hired by the law firm that represented Searle Co.

Investigation revealed that aspartame had caused tumors, seizures, brain holes, and death in many of the studies. All negative findings had been altered or scrubbed from the final reports delivered to the FDA when aspartame was first reviewed.

Time and time again the question over whether aspartame is safe has led to investigations that never go anywhere. Studies are continually released in support of the chemical's safety even though they fail to address the results of other studies that show it to be harmful.

Other artificial sweeteners
A study published in the January, 2008 issue of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health revealed that the newer artificial sweetener, sucralose, alters gut microflora and inhibits the assimilation of dietary nutrients.

Commonly marketed as being "made from sugar", sucralose had undergone no long-term human studies to verify its safety in humans. Like aspartame, initial studies revealed negative reactions by lab animals on whom it was tested, indicating that there could be the same potential problems in humans.

The EU Food Commission, Canadian health officials, and the U.S. FDA all rejected the initial studies submitted by McNeil Nutritionals, the marketers of sucralose, because of the negative results. However they encouraged the company to continue researching until they "got it right". McNeil simply lowered the levels of sucralose used in their studies until an acceptable limit was found. After several tries, sucralose was finally approved.

Stevia, A Safe Alternative

A great many varieties of artificial sweeteners have been approved, many scandalously, despite the fact that safe, natural alternatives exist. Stevia, for instance, is a sweet herb from South America that is up to 300 times sweeter than sugar. Claiming inadequate safety research, the FDA has long refused the herb from being included on the "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) list.

Up until last year, all forms of stevia could only be sold as dietary supplements. The extract could not be labeled as a "sweetener" and it could not be included in any food items.

Once the parent companies of both Pepsi and Coca-Cola discovered how to manipulate and patent a segment of stevia, however, it suddenly became safe to use as a sweetener and is now sold on grocery store shelves in packets similar to the artificial sweeteners. The FDA reluctantly added the natural stevia extract to the GRAS list as well.

Stick with natural and unprocessed
When it comes to health, a person's best bet is to avoid artificial sweeteners altogether. There are plenty of preferable, safe alternatives such as stevia which will allow for a little extra sweetness without all the harmful side effects.

Featured Articles

New research: Long-term Physical Activity Slows Aging on The Cellular Level

by: S. L. Baker

(NaturalNews) Telomeres, regions of DNA which protect the ends of chromosomes from destruction, have made big news in 2009. In fact, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded this year to researchers who investigated the nature of telomeres. Why all the interest? It appears telomeres hold the key to why we age because when a cell becomes old and dies, it's due to the shortening of chromosomal telomeres. So, if you could keep the length of telomeres from changing, that might literally halt aging. And now comes research showing there is a natural way to impact telomeres and produce an anti-aging effect — long-term physical activity.

According to research just reported in the journal Circulation, intensive exercise can prevent a shortening of telomeres. That, the scientists found, results in a protective effect against aging on a cellular level and could be especially important in keeping the cardiovascular system healthy. So, while you can slather on expensive creams and opt for plastic surgery, if you want to actually slow down aging, your best bet is to get moving and exercise regularly.

A research team from Saarland University in Homburg, Germany, measured the length of telomeres in blood samples from a group of 32 professional runners with an average age of 20 who were on the German National Team of Track and Field. The young men regularly trained by running about 73 kilometers (km) — a little over 45 miles — each week. The scientists also measured the length of telomeres from the blood of middle-aged athletes (average age 51) who had participated in continuous endurance exercise since their youth and who ran about 80 km, or almost 50 miles, per week. These findings were then compared to the telomere lengths found in a group of healthy non-smokers, matched for age with the athletes, who didn't exercise regularly.

The results? The scientists discovered that long-term exercise training activated an enzyme known as telomerase which reduces telomere shortening in human leukocytes (white blood cells). Telomere loss was found to be far lower in the older, master athletes who had been exercising for decades. Bottom line: the rate of telomere loss that is assumed to be normal as we grow older and that leads to the physical signs of aging can, in fact, be dramatically slowed through long term, vigorous exercise.

"This is direct evidence of an anti-aging effect of physical exercise. Physical exercise could prevent the aging of the cardiovascular system, reflecting this molecular principle," Ulrich Laufs, M.D., the study's lead author and professor of clinical and experimental medicine in the department of internal medicine at Saarland University, said in a statement to the media. "The most significant finding of this study is that physical exercise of the professional athletes leads to activation of the important enzyme telomerase and stabilizes the telomere."

What's more, previous animal studies by Dr. Laufs and colleagues have shown that exercise exerts effects on proteins that not only stabilize telomeres but also protect cells from deterioration and programmed cell death. "Our data improves the molecular understanding of the protective effects of exercise on the vessel wall and underlines the potency of physical training in reducing the impact of age-related disease," Dr. Laufs concluded.