Month: March 2010

When he isn't teaching ceramics or firing up the kiln at Slippery Rock University, where he has taught since 1968, Dick can usually be found in some corner of the Third World doing what good Samaritans do when doing nothing isn't an option.

Dick Wukich is passionate about a lot of things, but providing safe drinking water for the 1.1 billion people on the planet who don't have access to it rates higher than most. But Dick wouldn't be true to his roots in the rough-and-tumble Mon Valley if he wasn't also thinking about Braddock's role in purifying drinking water around the world.

Dick didn't invent the low-cost filtration system that resembles a weirdly tapered flower pot, but he couldn't be more excited about it if it had jumped fully formed from his own brain. Elegant in its simplicity, it has been embraced by chapters of the Rotary Club worldwide because of the low cost of producing and distributing it.

Not long ago, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper caught up with Dick in Haiti after the Jan. 12 earthquake had deposited yet another layer of misery on that island's inhabitants. Dick explained the concept behind the water filter system he hopes Braddock's chronically underemployed residents will mass produce for disaster victims and people who need clean water anywhere:

"It's made out of clay and sawdust and it's formed on a machine," Dick told the intrepid anchor. "It's made upside down. You pour dirty water in the top. As the water flows through these various cracks and crevices, it inevitably has to be passing by these particles of [colloidal] silver. [The silver] radiates and kills the bacteria. It saves lives."

Dick has been making the ceramic water filters for years and has taught his Slippery Rock students the sweet science of creating an effective bacteria-killing microfilter. He has taken the water filters to Central America, Africa and the Middle East. The success rate is the same from Nicaragua to Iraq. This is where Braddock figures into the picture.

"We're going to train people to make [the water filters] in Braddock," he said. "Braddock will be our worldwide training center to make filters to save people who are less fortunate. We're entrepreneurs. We'll get [workers in Braddock] set up, teach them the technology, quality control and marketing. We can build an industry right here."

Dick and Jeff Schwarz, an adjunct professor at Allegheny College, have already turned the basement of the Braddock Carnegie Library into a training center for teenagers and retirees eager to learn how to make the life-saving devices.

"I took 125 filters to the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Haiti," Dick told me over breakfast recently. "We need 3 million filters to satisfy Haiti. There are so many places around the world where children are dying from water-borne disease. These filters can make a difference."

Even if they could get production levels up dramatically, the molded filters only last a year, so the need will be constant until the communities most at risk from contaminated water learn how to make their own filters. Dick believes there will always be a need for the kind of life-saving industry he wants to see the people of Braddock build in their community.

"If you make one filter — just one that saves one life — that would probably be considered statistically insignificant," Dick said, "unless it was your kid."

Like one of the prophets in the Old Testament, Dick Wukich not only wants justice to roll down like water, he believes access to clean water is a fundamental human right. If you're a like-minded person and want to learn more about how he and the volunteers in Braddock are going about creating a self-sustaining business, you can reach him at rwukich@pathway.net.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10089/1046578-153.stm#ixzz0jkwywW35

In his words, “That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law, so it really doesn’t matter what a state legislature says on this.” Now that Barack Obama has signed healthcare legislation into law, almost a dozen States have filed suit against the federal government, with Idaho in the lead. Battle lines have been drawn. Unfortunately, the question of State sovereignty and the true meaning of the “supremacy clause” may be swallowed up in the ensuing debate.

Engstrom’s opinion is held by a majority of constitutional law “scholars,” but he is far from correct, and Idaho and the thirty seven other States considering similar legislation have a strong case based on the original intent of the powers of the federal government vis-à-vis the States.

The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution, found in Article 6, states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding [emphasis added].”

The key, of course, is the italicized phrase. All laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, or those clearly enumerated in the document, were supreme, State laws notwithstanding. In other words, the federal government was supreme in all items clearly listed in the document.

A quick reading of the Constitution illustrates that national healthcare is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, so obviously Engstrom’s blanket and simplistic statement is blatantly incorrect, but his distortion of the supremacy clause goes further.

The inclusion of such a clause in the Constitution was first debated at the Constitutional Convention on 31 May 1787. In Edmund Randolph’s initial proposal, called the Virginia Plan, the “national” legislature had the ability to “legislate in all cases to which the separate states are incompetent…” and “to negative all laws passed by the several states contravening, in the opinion of the national legislature, the Articles of Union….” John Rutledge, Pierce Butler, and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina challenged the word “incompetent” and demanded that Randolph define the term. Butler thought that the delegates “were running into an extreme, in taking away the powers of the states…” through such language.

Randolph replied that he “disclaimed any intention to give indefinite powers to the national legislature, declaring that he was entirely opposed to such an inroad on the state jurisdictions, and that he did not think any considerations whatever could ever change his determination [emphasis added].” James Madison, the author of the Virginia Plan, was not as forthcoming as to his sentiment. Ultimately, Madison preferred a negative over State law and wished the national legislature to be supreme in call cases. But he was not in the majority.

The Convention again broached a federal negative on State law on 8 June 1787. Charles Pinckney, who presented a draft of a constitution shortly after Randolph offered the Virginia Plan, believed a national negative necessary to the security of the Union, and Madison, using imagery from the solar system and equating the sun to the national government, argued that without a national negative, the States “will continually fly out of their proper orbits, and destroy the order and harmony of the political system.” Such symbolism made for a beautiful picture, but it belied reality.

To most of the assembled delegates, the national government was not the center of the political universe and the States retained their sovereignty. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina emphatically stated he “was against giving a power that might restrain the states from regulating their internal police.”

Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts was against an unlimited negative, and Gunning Bedford of Delaware believed a national negative was simply intended “to strip the small states of their equal right of suffrage.” He asked, “Will not these large states crush the small ones, whenever they stand in the way of their ambitious or interested views?”

When the negative power was put to a vote, seven States voted against it and three for it, with Delaware divided (and Virginia only in the affirmative by one vote). Roger Sherman of Connecticut summarized the sentiment of the majority when he stated he “thought the cases in which the negative ought to be exercised might be defined.” Since the negative did not pass, such a definition was unnecessary.

Thus, the federal government was supreme only in its enumerated powers and it did not have a negative over State law. Supremacy had limits.

By the time the Constitution was debated in the several State ratifying conventions in 1787 and 1788, the “supremacy clause” galvanized opponents of the document. The Constitution, they said, would destroy the States and render them impotent in their internal affairs. The response from proponents of ratification illuminates the true intent of the clause. William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina and proponent of the Constitution, responded to attacks levied on the “supremacy clause” by stating that:

    This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations [emphasis added].

Davie wasn’t alone in this opinion. Future Supreme Court justice James Iredell of North Carolina argued that, “This clause [the supremacy clause] is supposed to give too much power, when, in fact, it only provides for the execution of those powers which are already given in the foregoing articles….If Congress, under pretence of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution [emphasis added].”

Furthermore, in a foreshadowing of nullification, Iredell argued that, “It appears to me merely a general clause, the amount of which is that, when they [Congress] pass an act, if it be in the execution of a power given by the Constitution, it shall be binding on the people, otherwise not [emphasis added]. Other ratifying conventions had similar debates, and proponents of the Constitution continually reassured wavering supporters that the Constitution would only be supreme within its delegated authority.

Most bought their assurances, though to staunch opponents, the Constitution still vested too much power in the central authority. The States would lose their sovereignty, they argued, and as a result, these men demanded an amendment to the Constitution that expressly maintained the sovereignty of the States and placed limits on federal power. Even several moderate supporters of the Constitution embraced this idea.

Ultimately, the three most powerful States in the Union, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, demanded that a bill of rights be immediately added to the Constitution; near the top of those recommended amendments on every list, a State sovereignty resolution. These ultimately became the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Clearly the intent of this amendment was to mitigate any design the federal government had on enlarging its powers through the “supremacy clause.” If the power was not enumerated in the Constitution and the States were not prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States.

Several other constitutional “scholars” have weighed in on the debate in the last week, and each has invoked the “supremacy clause” to defend their opposition to State action against healthcare. Duke Law Professor Neil Siegel went so far as to suggest that the States are not reading the Tenth Amendment correctly. In perhaps the most outlandish statement of the debate, he also said, “Any talk of nullification bothers me because it’s talk of lawlessness.”

I guess Mr. Siegel has failed to consider that Idaho bill HO391 was passed by a legitimate legislative body elected by the people of the State. That would make it lawful.

mcclanahan-founding-fathersOf course, this debate ultimately boils down to loose interpretation verses strict construction. Thomas Jefferson had the best line on this issue. When asked to read between the lines to “find” implied powers, Jefferson responded that he had done that, and he “found only blank space.”

The original intent of both the “supremacy clause” and the Tenth Amendment indicate that Idaho and the other States challenging Obamacare are justified and correct and that the legal profession is either in the tank for the federal government or has not read either the debates of the Constitutional Convention and/or the State ratifying debates. This should make people like Engstrom and Siegel, rather than legitimate State law directed at unconstitutional authority, irrelevant.

Brion McClanahan holds a Ph.D in American history from the University of South Carolina and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009).

International Treaties and the Supremacy Clause

by: Aaron Turpen

(NaturalNews) Recently, most of the scientific fraud accusations have been aimed at China, but they rarely (if ever) point towards the medical establishment or the pharmaceutical industry. Here on NaturalNews, of course, exposing the transgressions of Big Med and Big Pharma are commonplace. Scientific fraud, however, is rampant amongst nearly all of the sciences and no "peer review" is immune. In fact, peer review is the problem.

In 2002, Jon Rappaport interviewed an insider at a major pharmaceutical and vaccine company. In that interview, the insider revealed the inner workings of Big Pharma and how they work hand-in-hand with the Food and Drug Administration to get their chemicals promoted as medicines.¹

Hundreds of other cases have been found, many of those reported here at NaturalNews.²

This brings into question the so-called scientific process of peer review that is often cited as if it were holy writ and the end-all, be-all of truth. "It`s peer reviewed," they scream when anyone questions their research or evidence. The rejoinder should ask, "Peer reviewed by whom?"

An editorial by the Editor in Chief of Medical Hypotheses, Professor Bruce G. Charlton at the University of Buckingham³ says:

"Anyone who has been a scientist for more than 20 years will realize that there has been a progressive decline in the honesty of communications between scientists, between scientists and their institutions, and between scientists and their institutions and the outside world."

In his editorial, Professor Charlton notes the tendency for today`s scientists to pursue "trivial or bogus" research because it will progress their careers. Most of the lies and commissions of fraud scientists, he says, are not to make money, but rather to promote their colleagues, superiors, or institutions in order to gain favor and advancement.

So what is to blame for the rampant dishonesty in science today? Is dishonesty being taught in schools? Is it because there`s too much money at stake? Or is it a fundamental shift that`s taken place in how science itself is conducted?

The blame lies in the way that science is conducted with all other reasons emanating from this core paradigm change. You see, just a few decades ago, "peer review" rarely occurred and was not considered real scientific proof. During science`s golden age, the term and method used was "peer usage."

Scientific journals would publish anything that appeared to have merit and would let the readers and other scientists try to recreate, debunk, or otherwise test the hypotheses at hand. This allowed non-scientists like the young Mr. Einstein to get papers published because, well, their papers had merit and the journals were willing to let them be tested. Rebuttals, counter-papers, and other tests were common in those journals as well.

Peer usage meant that validity was judged in hind sight by those who`d read the original hypothesis and were willing to test it and write their own views on it. Usually this was done by researchers in a similar field who would use the new hypothesis to further their own experiments and find out if it panned out in their own studies.

Peer review, however, has no such requirements. It is merely the opinion of the reviewing scientists who read the original work and give an editorial on it. No tests or double-checking of facts or methods are required. Basically, with peer review, someone writes a study paper and it is then sent to a group of scientific critics to either blast or praise it.

Professor Charlton is right. Peer review is bunk and is just editorializing in the name of science. It is because of this practice that the rampant fraud and misleading conclusions of scientific research is so prevalent today.

by: David Gutierrezn

(NaturalNews) Women who breastfeed their infants have a significantly lower risk of breast cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

In addition to providing significant advantages to the infants themselves, breastfeeding has also been linked to improved long-term health for mothers, including lower risks of ovarian cancer, osteoporosis, high blood pressure and heart disease.

Researchers examined the health records of 60,075 nurses who had provided detailed information about their medical history and breastfeeding habits for the second Harvard Nurses' Health Study in 1997. Breastfeeding history was compared with cancer risk after eight years, in June 2005.

In contrast to prior studies, which have repeatedly shown a connection between breastfeeding and lower cancer risk, the current study found little effect for pre-menopausal women. This could be due to the fact that 87 percent of the women in the study had breastfed, or due to some other confounding factor.

When the researchers looked only at women with a history of breast cancer in their immediate family, however, they found a remarkably strong trend: Women who had breastfed had a 59 percent lower risk of breast cancer than women who had not, making their risk comparable to that of women without a family history of the cancer.

"I was sort of stunned," lead author Alison M. Stuebe said. "It's an impressive reduction in risk. Other studies either hadn't looked at this or didn't include enough women with a family history to find a statistically significant difference."

Because women who breastfeed also tend to be better educated and have higher incomes than women who do not, the researchers said that more studies are needed to determine how directly the practice contributes to decreased cancer risk, and how much it is a mere effect of correlation.

Stuebe noted, however, that if the study's findings hold up, breastfeeding may reduce cancer risk as effectively as the drug Tamoxifen, which reduces estrogen activity in the body and is often prescribed to women with a family history of cancer.

Colostrum

by: Jeffry John Aufderheide

(NaturalNews) The golden calf of public health was smashed in this recent flu season as many in the United States outright rejected the H1N1 vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies are now holding the bag, as millions of doses of the vaccine are rotting on shelves or being discarded as hazardous waste. Or are they? The manufacturer may find it more cost effective to dump them into the arms of our public school systems.

Parents would revolt if they knew that the pharmaceutical industry, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Centers for Disease Control have allocated millions of dollars in funding to establish vaccine clinics in the public schools. Pumping children with experimental vaccines in public school is about to be pursued as a matter of policy.

Denver Public Schools the Target
Recently, a news article (http://www.denverpost.com/commented…) in the Denver Post highlighted two grants issued by the Centers for Disease Control totaling $1.6 million dollars to vaccinate students attending Denver Public Schools (http://communications.dpsk12.org/an…).

One grant (http://communications.dpsk12.org/an…) funds an effort to establish a sustainable school-based vaccination program utilizing the yearly influenza and experimental H1N1 vaccine. The hope is to create a partnership between public health (Denver Health), school personnel (Denver Public Schools), and an entity (Kaiser Permanente) that would bill third party payers.

The second grant (http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/I…) provides cash for vaccinating children with the newly approved diphtheria toxoid and acellular pertussis vaccine (Tdap), meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4), and human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV). The new vaccines for adolescents are among the most expensive vaccines (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/program…) recommended today for any age group.

Lead investigator of Denver In-School Immunization Project, Dr. Judith Shlay, of Denver Health, readily admits that if all goes well, plans are in place to implement school-base vaccine clinics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHji… ) nation-wide (a high level overview of this plan (http://www.nasbhc.org/site/c.jsJPKW…) was presented to the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care by Dr. Shlay).

School Based Health Clinics As the Conduit
The Denver In-School Immunization Project (http://denverhealth.org/portal/Serv…) has long been in the works. It was paved in the late 1970s and early 1980s by incrementally creating School-Based Health Clinics (SCHC). In 1978, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), a non-profit organization funded by the Pharmaceutical Company, Johnson and Johnson (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d…), contributed $2.3 million dollars to the state of Colorado, (http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/032…) making SBHCs a reality.

Illnesses such as ADD/ADHD, Cervical Cancer, diabetes, asthma, obesity, and learning disabilities were of little consequence in the '70s. However, these disabling syndromes and the medications aimed at treating them have all reached epidemic proportions and astronomically profitable sales.

In the past, parents have discovered challenging a school-based medical model can be extremely dangerous. In September, 2000, Ms. Patti Johnson, a former Colorado State education board member, testified before Federal Congress (http://www.politicalwatchdog.com/ps…) concerning Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). In the 1990s, the much-hyped drug, Ritalin, was maneuvered into public schools to address the growing epidemic of hyperactivity. Mrs. Johnson testimony was prophetic and foreshadowed a future scenario where parents could be charged with medical neglect if they refused to medicate their child per the school's request.

Vaccines for All School Children is the Goal
If School Based Health Clinics are being used as the conduit to vaccinate children, the federally-funded Vaccines For Children (VFC) (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/program…) program and third party insurance coverage provide the finances. According to the grant approved by the CDC, the VFC program would provide "free" vaccines to an estimated forty percent of children in the United States who are not covered by third party insurance plans.

"The goal is for this (Denver In-School Immunization Project) to be a sustainable program that can immunize all children in the schools regardless of their insurance. And we need to see at the end of the day, when all the dust settles at the end of this school year, whether the amount that was reimbursed for all these different insurance companies, adds up to the amount of time and effort it took to actually have the clinic." (Emphasis added)

Dr. Matthew Daley
Evaluator of the Denver In-School Immunization Project
Kaiser Permanente
Colorado Public Radio Interview
February 17th, 2010
(http://www.kcfr.org/index.php?optio…)

Put into context, the implications of the Denver In-School Immunization Project are enormous. We are speaking of a captured market for vaccine manufacturers (guaranteed purchase of vaccines), insurance companies (guaranteed rise in premiums), and government funding (VFC) all footed by taxpayer dollars. The total price per vaccinated adolescent in the private sector is approximately $500 (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/au…). That's a lot of cash.

What Does Pharma Know?
Dr. Matthew Daley is very aware that a paltry 1/3rd of adolescents receive their yearly influenza vaccine, for example. In a semi-recent presentation, (http://www.preventinfluenza.org/NIV…) Dr. Daley shows obtaining parental consent is a barrier to mass vaccination in a school setting. Furthermore, the presentation suggests improved financial incentives for providing influenza vaccinations. Dr. Daley must be sharing his notes with RAND Corporation because it is almost the exact message RAND pitched to the pharmaceutical giant, Sanofi Pasteur.

In 2007, a study performed by RAND Corporation, funded by Sanofi Pasteur, investigated the most efficient way to vaccinate (http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented…) low-income adolescents. Nicole Lurie,(http://www.opensecrets.org/revolvin…) one authors of the white paper, is now an adviser to Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Human Health Services (HHS). Mrs. Lurie has a long history of traversing the revolving door between private industry, government duties, and academic appointments (there is no difference from the former head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, (http://vactruth.com/2010/01/04/juli…) becoming President of Merck Pharmaceuticals Vaccine Division).

RAND's report identifies barriers that would obstruct "alternative vaccination campaigns," otherwise known as "in-school vaccination programs." The list of legal issues includes parental consent laws, absence of a reliable medical home (where an adolescent receives medical treatment such as a doctor's office), and access to vaccine registration information.

That's right, mom and dad. Your current ability to refuse vaccines, which is protected by most state laws, is considered a barrier to Pharmaceutical Interests!

*As a side note, many states are taking steps to move parents out of the way and allow public officials the right to vaccinate children, without parental consent. By example, legislation is being considered in New York that would give absolute authority to health professionals to vaccinate children under 18 years old without the parental consent. Another bill in New York (http://vactruth.com/2010/02/12/new-…) seeks to mandate the controversial HPV vaccine (Gardasil) for school entry.

With Public Relations at the foreground, The RAND paper further recommends that Sanofi Pasteur create "Vaccine Champions" or "Registration Champions." Vaccine champions are "ardent supporters of a cause … They can bring about change by educating those around them and spurring others into action through local events, meetings, or publications." Coincidentally, non-profit organizations such as The Immunization Partnership are following lockstep with the RAND Corporation's group-think. It also has "Immunization Champions." (http://www.immunizeusa.org/iz-champ…)

If vaccines are mandated for public school attendance, and most likely they will be, you can bet that it won't matter whether the vaccine is experimental or not. With rising awareness of the chronic effects of mass vaccination, public skepticism and outcries will likely be countered with fear mongering (http://www.scribd.com/doc/19212191/…) by fanatical vaccine advocates and lobbying groups funded by Big Pharma interests. The only real way to protect the safety of our children is to fiercely safeguard state exemption laws that uphold parents' freedom to choose whether to vaccinate or not.

Yet, by blending society's Federal Educational Framework with a superficial medical model, vaccine proponents have a road map to overcome any damaging future resistance to experimental vaccines. Could it be any clearer that if left unchecked, the pharmaceutical industrial complex soon will be calling the shots instead of parents?

About the author: Jeffry John Aufderheide is the father of a child injured as a result of vaccination. As editor of the website www.vactruth.com he promotes well-educated pediatricians, informed consent, and full disclosure and accountability of adverse reactions to vaccines.

Advanced Colloidal Silver

by: Fleur Hupston

(NaturalNews) It is normal to shed hair each day but sometimes hair loss may be exacerbated by stress, a poor diet or illness. Hereditary hair loss is known as alopecia, which affects men more often than women. Many men turn to cures that promise amazing results in preventing hair loss, but usually these are nothing more than expensive scams that can damage health over time. There are, however, homeopathic and herbal treatments available that can slow down hair loss and encourage hair to grow naturally.

Causes of Hair Loss and Baldness in Men

Baldness, or alopecia, is total or partial loss of hair. This is often a hereditary condition that occurs more frequently in males than females because it depends on the influence of the male hormone testosterone. Pattern baldness is the most prevalent instance of hair loss in men.

Sudden, temporary hair loss sometimes occurs as a result of stress, flu, pneumonia or typhoid fever. Temporary baldness can also be the result of exposure to nuclear radiation, X-rays, anti-cancer drugs or a severe nutritional deficiency.

Natural Treatments for Hair Loss in Men

Herbal and homeopathic treatments can stimulate and encourage hair growth, as well as support good blood circulation, hormonal balance and correct thyroid functioning.

Homeopathic – A homeopath may prescribe Aurum metallicum for an individual who is losing hair and also suffers from headaches and/or boils on the scalp. Phosphoric acid is generally recommended for hair loss following grief and exhaustion. Selenium is said to help an individual with a painful scalp combined with loss of hair. Visit a qualified homeopath to get a proper diagnosis and treatment plan.

Herbal – An herbalist may suggest a daily intake of rosemary tea or nettle tea. Equisetum arvense (field horsetail), Avena sativa (oats) and Echinacea are effective in combating hair loss and nourishing hair follicles. Visit an herbalist first before deciding on these treatments.

Aromatherapy – A scalp massage with essential oils such as fenugreek, ginger, cypress, lavender and rosemary are suggested to help with hair loss. Blend 2 drops of essential oil to 15ml (1 tablespoon) of carrier oil, such as jojoba.

Vitamins and Minerals – Vitamin B complex, Vitamin E, calcium, magnesium, choline and inositol should be taken regularly by men whose hair is receding or falling out.

Cutting down on alcohol and sugar and eliminating nutritionally deficient junk food from the diet can slow down hair loss. Stick to a natural, healthy diet that includes good fats, protein, whole grains and plenty of organically grown fruits and vegetables in order to prevent hair loss or thinning hair.

Selenium
Utopia Naturals Soaps
Stress B Complex
75 Minerals
Membrane Complex
IP-6

by: S. L. Baker

(NaturalNews) Kansas State University (K-State) researchers have joined a growing number of scientists who say a relatively new medical field known as nutrigenomics could change the future of public health forever. How? By tailoring strategies to prevent diseases before they can happen — diseases that might otherwise be in a person's future because of his or her genetic makeup.

The key to this revolutionary stop-disease-before-it-happens strategy isn't a new drug, vaccine or sophisticated gene therapy. Instead, it is eating specific foods.

K-State researchers recently published an academic journal article in Food Technology outlining the potential for nutrigenomics, a field that studies the effects of food on gene expression. Simply put, scientists could eventually recommend specific foods for an individual based on his or her genetics that will prevent future diseases — especially those that tend to "run in families", such as certain cancers, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and even obesity.

"Nutrigenomics involves tailoring diets to someone's genetic makeup," Koushik Adhikari, K-State assistant professor of sensory analysis, said in a statement to the media. "I speculate that in five to 10 years, you would go to a genetic counselor or a physician who could help you understand your genetic makeup, and then a nutritional professional could customize your diet accordingly."

Nutrigenomics combines molecular biology, genetics and nutrition to pinpoint how gene expression can be regulated through specific nutrients. That's important because nutrients have been shown to affect gene expression through transcription factors (biochemical entities that bind to DNA and either promote or inhibit transcription of genes).

Nutrigenomics does not involve genetically modifying a food's DNA by splicing and adding genes. Instead, nutrigenomics focuses on using foods' natural phytochemicals, nutrients and other components to promote better health. And while current mainstream medicine's preventive recommendations that involve diet — such as eat plenty of fruits and vegetables to lower the risk of cancer — are generalities for the overall population, nutrigenomics research involves developing specific health recommendations that can be modified to an individual's needs.

"Scientists are looking at the molecular mechanisms in the body," Adhikari explained in the media statement. "At the molecular level, you can look at what specific nutrients can do to your body that would trigger genes to act properly, in a healthy way."

"That is where I think the main focus of nutrigenomics is going to be in the future," Adhikari said. "It could tell you that you have the propensity for certain chronic diseases so that you could modify your diet accordingly." He added, for example, that with a better understanding of how nutrients alter gene expression, there is a potential that food could be used instead of medication to combat problems like high cholesterol.

K-State researchers in human nutrition are currently working on these kinds of studies. For example, they are investigating the impact plant chemicals have on preventing different types of cancers. They are also studying how the Chinese fruit known as wolfberry could be used to improve vision. These research projects are designed to not only answer whether specific nutrients prevent a disease, but also how they exert their health benefits.

IntraMax
LL Complete