Categories
Featured Articles

Gestational Diabetes can be Prevented by Dietary Changes During Early Pregnancy

by: Mariam Antony

(NaturalNews) A new study has found that it is possible to prevent the onset of Gestational Diabetes in an expectant mother by making simple changes in the mother's diet. The study, done by researchers at UCSF(University of California – San Francisco), found that a chemical called serotonin influences the onset of Gestational Diabetes in an expectant mother. Since serotonin is made from the amino acid tryptophan which is found abundantly in high-protein foods, eating foods rich in protein during early pregnancy may prevent gestational diabetes in pregnant women.

Gestational Diabetes is a condition in which insulin resistance(caused by hormonal changes) leads to high glucose levels or hyperglycemia in some women. It can have serious consequences for the mother and child, if left untreated. According to the researchers, the study "offers new insights into possible ways to reverse non-gestational diabetes in its early stages".

How Does Serotonin Prevent Gestational Diabetes?

Pregnancy can cause several changes in the mother's metabolism. The energy requirements of the fetus are met by increased levels of insulin resistance in the mother's body. Since insulin is the hormone which carries glucose molecules in the blood to the molecular cells, insulin resistance causes the nutrients to be channeled in to the growing fetus instead of going to the mother's body. The mother's body counterbalances the insulin resistance and prevents hyperglycemia by the increased production of insulin-producing beta cells.

Serotonin, a chemical produced by the body and a known neurotransmitter, is the underlying agent that signals the stimulation of beta cell proliferation during the early pregnancy. Since serotonin is made from tryptophan – an amino acid that comes from high-protein foods such as milk, eggs, meat and fish – the study shows that increased intake of high-protein foods during the early pregnancy can cause higher production of serotonin and subsequently higher levels of insulin.

According to UCSF Professor Michael German, MD, who is also the senior author of the paper, tryptophan hydroxylase (Tph1), the enzyme that produces serotonin from tryptophan increased by as much 1000-fold during the early pregnancy. The researchers found that inhibition of serotonin synthesis by restricting the intake of tryptophan in pregnant mice blocked beta cell proliferation and resulted in the development of glucose intolerance and gestational diabetes in the mice.

The research indicates that anything that affects the production of serotonin, such as drugs, diet or genetic inheritance may affect the risk of developing gestational diabetes and possibly the long-term risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

Serotonin has been widely studied as a neurotransmitter in the brain for its effects on appetite and mood, especially depression. Since it also influences the insulin production, this could explain why some patients with gestational diabetes experience depression. This would also explain the effect of some classes of psychiatric medications on diabetes.

The study will be published in the upcoming issue of "Nature Medicine" and was published online on June 27, 2010.

Categories
The Best Years In Life

Make Your Own Tasty and Healthy Raw Food Vegan Burgers

by: Tony Isaacs

(SilverBulletin) Many may believe that eating a healthy raw food or vegan diet would preclude eating such things as burgers, especially grilled burgers, unless you want to opt for one of the bland cardboard soy burgers. Such is not the case with a bit of ingenuity and the right recipe. And, as an added bonus one can make a tasty raw food substitute burger without having to resort to dangerous non-fermented GMO soy, whose dangers have been well-documented here at Natural News.

Following is an original recipe for making your own tasty and healthy raw food vegan burgers:

Quarter Pounder in the Raw Burger

Ingredients:

* 4 cups fresh or previously frozen vegetable pulp from juicing
* 1 cup raw walnuts, soaked, rinsed & drained
* 1/2 cup raw sunflower seeds, soaked, rinsed & drained
* 1/4 cup raw & shelled pumpkin seeds, soaked, rinsed & drained
* 1/2 onion, chopped
* 1/2 cup dehydrated tomatoes, soaked in 1/2 cup water until
soft
* 1 tablespoon organic non-distilled apple cider vinegar or non-pasteurized organic fermented soy sauce
* 1 teaspoon maple syrup
* 1 teaspoon sea salt
* 1 teaspoon marjoram
* 1/2 teaspoon red or white pepper
* 1/2 teaspoon dill
* 1/2 teaspoon thyme
* Pinch of cayenne or 1/2 jalapeno pepper, diced (optional)

Directions:

Put all the ingredients into a food processor or a top quality blender and blend until smooth. Slowly add just a bit of water (1/4 cup at a time) if needed to blend easily.

Adjust spices to your liking.

If, like some, you like it hot, add cayenne or half a jalapeno pepper. Do not use both as they are each different peppers and do not blend all that well on your palate.

Continue to blend until smooth and uniform in color. The tomatoes should allow your blend to be the same color as raw meat. Form into burger shapes about the size of a fast food burger. You ought to wind up with six burgers and one junior size, more or less.

Dehydrate until rare (thin crust), medium (mostly dried but pliable) or well (dry as a bone) done.

Serve on a lettuce leaf or on raw bread, if you have some, surrounded by a few sliced tomatoes, onions, and a scattering of micro greens.

If desired the "burgers" can be heated or even grilled slightly. Caution: cooking too fast and/or at too high heat will result in overly crunchy burgers and is not a healthy idea at any rate.

Enjoy!

Yield:

About six adult servings and one kid-sized one.

Approximate nutrition information per serving:

240 calories, 12g fat (1.5 g saturated fat), 26 g carbohydrate,
6 g protein, 9 g dietary fiber, 240 mg sodium.

Recipe contributed by Kathy at the Yahoo Oleandersoup Group from her upcoming raw food book.

Note: For more soy-free, vegan and other healthy recipes, see:

Categories
Featured Articles

First Amendment Suspended In Gulf Oil Spill Cover-up

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) As CNN is now reporting, the U.S. government has issued a new rule that would make it a felony crime for any journalist, reporter, blogger or photographer to approach any oil cleanup operation, equipment or vessel in the Gulf of Mexico. Anyone caught is subject to arrest, a $40,000 fine and prosecution for a federal felony crime.

CNN reporter Anderson Cooper says, "A new law passed today, and back by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, … will prevent reporters and photographers from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife just about any place we need to be. By now you're probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they're working for because they're afraid of losing their jobs."

The rule, of course, is designed to restrict the media's access to cleanup operations in order to keep images of oil-covered seabirds off the nation's televisions. With this, the Gulf Coast cleanup operation has now entered a weird Orwellian reality where the news is shaped, censored and controlled by the government in order to prevent the public from learning the truth about what's really happening in the Gulf.

The war is on to control your mind
If all this sounds familiar, it's because the U.S. government uses this same tactic during every war. The first casualty of war, as they say, is the truth. There are lots of war images the government doesn't want you to see (like military helicopter pilots shooting up Reuters photographers while screaming "Yee-Haw!" over the comm radios), and there are other images they do want you to see ("surgical strike" explosions from "smart" bombs, which makes it seem like the military is doing something useful). So war reporting is carefully monopolized by the government to deliver precisely the images they want you to see while censoring everything else.

Now the same Big Brother approach is being used in the Gulf of Mexico: Criminalize journalists, censor the story and try to keep the American people ignorant of what's really happening. It's just the latest tactic from a government that no longer even recognizes the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights. Because the very first right is Freedom of Speech, which absolutely includes the right to walk onto a public beach and take photographs of something happening out in the open, on public waters. It is one of the most basic rights of our citizens and our press.

But now the Obama administration has stripped away those rights, transforming journalists into criminals. Now, we might expect something like this from Chavez, or Castro or even the communist leaders of China, but here in the United States, we've all been promised we lived in "the land of the free." Obama apparently does not subscribe to that philosophy anymore (if he ever did).

So how does criminalizing journalists equate to "land of the free?" It doesn't, obviously. Forget freedom. (Your government already has.) This is about controlling your mind to make sure you don't visually see the truth of what the oil industry has done to your oceans, your shorelines and your beaches. This is all about keeping you ignorant with a total media blackout of the real story of what's happening in the Gulf.

The real story, you see, is just too ugly. And the government has fracked up the cleanup effort to such a ridiculous extent that instead of the "transparency" they once promised, they're now resorting to the threat of arrest for all journalists who try to get close enough to cover the story.

Yes, this is happening right now in America. This isn't a hoax. I know, it sounds more like something you might hear about in Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela or some other nation run by dictators. But now it's happening right here in the USA.

As Anderson Cooper reported on CNN:

"Now the government is getting in on the act. Despite what Admiral Thad Allen promised about transparency just nearly a month ago.

Thad Allen: "The media will have uninhibited access anywhere we're doing operations…"

Anderson Cooper: The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers, reporters and anyone else from coming with 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on an island surrounded by a boom, you can't get close enough to take that picture. Shot of oil on beaches with booms? Stay 65 feet away. Pictures of oil-soaked booms uselessly laying in the water because they haven't been collected like they should? You can't get close enough to see that. Believe me, that is out there. But you only know that if you get close to it, and now you can't without permission. Violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges."

See the video yourself at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=203

Welcome to the (censored) club
All I can say to CNN is: Welcome to the club! This kind of censorship, intimidation and tyranny has been going on for decades in the field of health, where the Orwellian FDA has treated the entire U.S. public to a nationwide blackout on truthful health information about healing foods and nutritional supplements. CNN has never covered that story, by the way. Most of the mainstream media has, in fact, gone right along with censorship of truthful health information by the FDA and FTC.

Now they're suddenly crying wolf. But where was the media when the FDA was raiding nutritional supplement companies and arresting people who dared to sell healing foods with honest descriptions about how they might help protect your health? The media went right along with the cover-up and never bothered to even tell its viewers a cover-up was taking place.

You see, even CNN is willing to tolerate some Orwellian censorship, as long as its advertisers are okay with it. The only reason they're talking about censorship in the Gulf of Mexico right now is because oil companies don't influence enough of their advertising budget to yank the story.

Censorship is not okay in a free society
I like the fact that CNN is finding the courage to speak up now about this censorship in the Gulf, but I wish they wouldn't stay silent on the other media blackouts in which they have long participated. Media censorship is bad for any nation, and it should be challenged regardless of the topic at hand. When the media is not allowed to report the truth on a subject — any subject! — the nation suffers some loss as a result.

Without the light of media scrutiny, corporations and government will get away with unimaginable crimes against both humanity and nature. That's what's happening right now in the Gulf of Mexico: A crime against nature.

Obama doesn't want you to see that crime. He's covering it up to the benefit of BP. He's keeping you in the dark by threatening reporters and photographers with arrest. How's that for "total transparency?"

The only thing transparent here is that President Barack Obama has violated his own oath of office by refusing to defend the Constitution. By any honest measure, in fact, these actions, which are endorsed by the White House, stand in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. And that means this new censorship rule in the Gulf, which suspends the First Amendment, is unconstitutional. It also means those who decided on this rule are enemies of freedom.

They are the ones who should be arrested and hauled off to federal prison, not the CNN reporters who are trying to cover this story.

The seeds of tyranny
The loss of life in the Gulf of Mexico isn't the only catastrophe taking place here, you see: Now we're losing our freedoms while our government tries to intentionally blind us all from the truth of what's happening on our own public beaches.

When those who seek truth are branded criminals by the government, it is only a matter of time before that government expands its criminalization labeling to include anyone who disagrees with it. These are the seeds of tyranny, and Obama is planting them at your doorstep right now.

What BP did to the Gulf Coast, Obama is now doing to your freedom.

Categories
Featured Articles

What Mainstream Media is Not Telling You about the Gulf Oil Cleanup

by: Paul Fassa

(NaturalNews) What surface oil dispersant for oil spills is so toxic and ineffective it has been banned in England for a decade? The one that British Petroleum (BP) is using now in the Gulf of Mexico. It's loaded with 2-butoxyethanol, which kills marine and wetland wild life while causing serious lung problems to humans!

It is more toxic than the oil it purports to clean, and it simply sends the newly formed toxic globules of dispersant and oil further into the depths where it forms underwater plumes. It's like pouring paint thinner on spilled paint and letting it drip out onto the lawn and garden, except the underwater plumes of thinned oil and toxic dispersant spread onto the shore lines, wetlands and coral reefs and into the Atlantic via the Gulf Stream and beyond.

Yet there are many less toxic, even 100% green, oil spill solutions available that are more effective.

EPA and BP

It was initially reported that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had given BP 72 hours to change the current oil dispersant chemicals to something less toxic and more effective. After a sharp reply from BP, the EPA seems to have back pedaled claiming they only want BP to use less of it. It appears somebody with clout stepped in for BP!

BP is involved with a few other large international corporations. Among them is the company that makes the toxic oil dispersant banned in England containing 2-butoxyethanol, which kills what is supposedly being protected! Richard Charter, advisor for Defenders of Wildlife, says this about the chemical dispersant being used in the Gulf: "It's a chemical that the oil industry makes to sell to itself, basically."

So in addition to siphoning some of the oil pouring from the ocean floor into tankers, oil that can be separated from the water and sold later, BP execs are enjoying financially incestuous gains. (source below)

Ignored Solutions

Two Florida farmers gave a video presentation (YouTube source below) of how safe and effective hay is for grabbing up oil and being hauled away. Hay was used successfully for the Santa Barbara offshore rig oil spill of 1969. (Rense source below) And the health damage to workers and wild life was minimal. This could have given several farmers and others much needed income.

An even more effective oil spill solvent is composed of oil eating microbes, gathered from all over the world, reproduced rapidly, and then formed into powders that can be used directly or mixed with water for hosing the oil spills. The by-products of the oil eating microbes turn into edible foods for marine life. And when the microbes consume all the oil, they die off because there is nothing left to eat. (YouTube source below)

This was proven in a 1986 contained pool with marine life test by Texas Land Office Commissioner Garry Mauro and Water Commissioner Buck Wynne. The tests were so impressive that the oil eating microbes were allowed to be used successfully for millions of gallons of oil from a burning tanker off the Texas shore, and again when a barge leaked massive amounts of oil into the Texas wetlands.

In each situation, the oil was consumed rapidly and marine and wetland wild life thrived!

Why?

There are and have been other clean-up solutions offered, some a little over the top and others that have been used successfully throughout the world. Motives for BP's refusing to consider these solutions and why the U.S. Government does nothing to intervene is full of dots to connect for anyone willing to peek closely behind the curtain.

Categories
Featured Articles

OCA Exposes Phony Organic Products

by: Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) The organic products sector continues to boom, but not everything with the word "organic" on its label is truly organic. If a product does not bear the USDA organic certification seal, it is difficult to determine whether or not it is truly organic. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is working to expose phony organic products and brands through its "Coming Clean Campaign" which aims to clean up the natural and organic personal care industry.

Currently, there are no set standards for what constitutes a "natural" or "organic" personal care product, other than for those that are USDA certified organic. As opposed to food products which are better regulated, natural care products often contain the words "natural" or "organic" either in their brand names or somewhere on their labels even when their primary, active ingredients are synthetically derived from petrochemical compounds.

Last year, the USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) made formal recommendations that the National Organic Program begin to regulate personal care products as it does food products in order to ensure that products being marketed as organic receive some sort of independent certification to prove that the claim is true. OCA immediately responded to this recommendation by launching its own boycott of the major "organic cheater" brands.

Recently, OCA conducted a demonstration outside Natural Products Expo West, the largest convention of manufacturers, retailers, buyers and suppliers in the natural and organic products industry. OCA representatives held giant, five-foot-tall "sham"poo bottles at the entrance to the convention and passed out informational flyers to passersby about the products being featured at the expo that were not truly organic.

Some of the brands and products exposed by OCA as being "organic cheaters" include:

Jason Pure, Natural & Organic
Avalon Organics
Kiss My Face Obsessively Organic
Nature's Gate Organics
Stella McCartney 100% Organic
Giovanni Organic Hair Care
Head Organics
Desert Essence Organics
Ilike Organic Skin Care
Eminence Organic
Organic Wear
Sapien Certified Organic
Organic Bath Co.
Goodstuff Organics

Though some of these brands and their respective product lines contain a few items that are USDA certified organic, the vast majority are labeled "organic" despite the fact that they are composed of synthetic and petrochemical ingredients rather than truly organic, agricultural material. Companies are selling these phony "organic" products at a premium and deceiving consumers.

OCA has also prepared a spreadsheet outlining "organic cheater" brands and how they rate on the Hazard Ranking scale designed by the Environmental Working Group's "Skin Deep" Cosmetic Safety Database.

OCA also performed tests on products labeled "natural" and "organic" to see if they contained the toxic 1,4-dioxane contaminant commonly found in conventional consumer products. The results of that study were released in a recentConsumer Alert.

Categories
Featured Articles

Deet Finally Exposed as Neurotoxic

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) New research shows that the insect-repelling chemical deet actually functions in the same way as deadly nerve gases and dangerous pesticides, by attacking the nervous systems of both insects and mammals.

"These findings question the safety of deet, particularly in combination with other chemicals," said researcher Vincent Corbel of Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement in Montpellier.
The chemical known as deet (for N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is found in nearly every commonly used mosquito repellent in the world, and eight billion doses have been applied since its introduction to the consumer market in 1957. The chemical was originally developed as an insect repellent by the U.S. Army in 1946, following experience with jungle warfare in World War II.

Deet's popularity comes largely from its effectiveness in repelling a variety of medically significant insects over longer periods of time than more natural repellents (such as certain vegetable-based oils), and the fact that it can be incorporated into sprays, liquids or lotions. Yet although researchers have long insisted that the chemical is safe, they still recommend that consumers use the minimum amount of repellent necessary to cover exposed skin or clothing, and that deet repellents not be applied directly to any irritated or injured skin. While the United States allows the sale of 100 percent deet repellents, many other countries limit maximum concentrations of the chemical to 30 or 50 percent.

In spite of the chemical's long use, researchers are unsure exactly how deet functions to repel mosquitoes. It has long been believed to affect mosquito behavior without harming the insects, probably by interfering with their sense of smell and their ability to find human prey.

Yet the new study, published in the journal BioMed Central Biology, suggests that deet may function by interfering directly with insects' nervous systems.

"We've found that deet is not simply a behavior-modifying chemical but also inhibits the activity of a key central nervous system enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, in both insects and mammals," the researchers said.

In experiments performed in cockroaches and rats, the researchers found that deet blocked the action of the neurological enzyme acetylcholinesterase. This is the same mechanism that causes the toxic effects of popular carbamate and organophosphate pesticides, as well as chemical weapons such as sarin and VX nerve gas. This may mean that deet repellants are actually insecticides and could damage the human nervous system.

Organophosphates are among the pesticides most commonly implicated in pesticide poisoning worldwide, and are also a commonly used suicide method in agricultural areas. Like nerve gases, organophosphates irreversibly inactivate acetylcholinesterase, leading to excessive salivation and eye watering at low doses, and muscle spasms or death at higher doses. Although carbamates are not as toxic as organophosphates, their effects can be just as severe at high enough doses.

Strong evidence also links these pesticides to dangerous health effects caused by long-term exposure even at low doses.

Previous studies have implicated deet in causing seizures in children, but the current study is the first to uncover how the chemical acts directly on the nervous system.

The researchers also found that the effects of deet were enhanced when it was used in combination with organophosphates or carbamates, as in mixed repellent-insecticide products.

Bahie Abou-Donia of the Duke University Medical Center said that the new findings are consistent with previous research into the risks of deet.

"Deet is a good chemical for protection against insects," Abou-Donia said. "But prolonged exposure results in neurological damage, and this is enhanced by other chemicals and medications."

The researchers in the new study suggested that pregnant women and children under the age of six avoid using deet-containing mosquito repellents. Abou-Donia went farther, calling for such products to carry warning labels about deet's potential to cause neurological harm.

The Environmental Protection Agency has a review of deet's safety planned for 2012.

Categories
The Best Years In Life

Industry Funded Cell Phone Study Ignores Evidence, Whitewashes Results

by: Tony Isaacs

(SilverBulletin) A funny thing happened on the way to publication of a WHO sponsored study on cell phones and cancer risks. First the study was delayed for four years. Then a news embargo was placed on study participants. And finally, instead of reporting proof of cell phone dangers as had been reported all the way up until just days before the study was finally released, the study instead reported that it found no evidence of cell phone dangers, contradicting the study's evidence as well as the opinions of some study scientists.

IP-6
OPC

IntraMax

In actuality, the Interphone Study did discover that long-term usage increased the chance of glioma by 40 per cent, but dismissed the risk because of possible biases and errors. Six of eight Interphone studies found increased risks of glioma, the most common brain tumor, with one study finding a 39 per cent increase.

An Israeli study found heavy users were about 50 per cent more likely to suffer tumors of the parotid salivary gland. Two studies into acoustic neuroma, a tumor of a nerve between the ear and brain, reported a higher risk after using mobiles for 10 years. A Swedish report reported the risk as being 3.9 times higher.

Contradicting the study's conclusions, Dr Elisabeth Cardis of the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona who led the study said: "Overall, my opinion is that the results show a real effect." Bruce Armstrong, another Interphone researcher from the University of Sydney, said: "There is evidence that there may be a risk; Interphone has made that a little stronger."

Interphone has been rife with controversy almost from the day it was set up in 2000. Some of the criticism stems from the fact that mobile phone manufacturers partly funded the project to the tune of around 5.5 million euros, and there were concerns that such funding compromised the study's independence. The scope of the project was also questioned, as it had left out children and adolescents, which are the groups most vulnerable and most susceptible to brain tumors. In addition, many observers and commentators have suspected that the four year delay was due to disagreements among the researchers. Based on what has transpired, such concerns appear to have been valid.

Until an embargo was placed on all news about the study, all indications had been that the study would conclude that there was evidence of dangers from cell phones and recommend measures to decrease the danger. Last year the Daily Telegraph reported that a major WHO study will finally announce later this year that "long-term use of mobile phones can cause brain tumors."

Only last month, the London Times was reporting similar information. Then came the industry spin that should have provided a strong clue that something was afoot. On May 16th, a news release from the Mobile Manufacturers Forum group which helped fund the study reported that the new study "provides significant further reassurance about the safety of mobile phones. The overall analysis is consistent with previous studies and the significant body of research, reporting no increased health risk from using mobile phones."

While several other countries have strengthened warnings about cell phones, Britain's Department of Health continues to maintain that "the current balance of evidence does not show health problems caused by using mobile phones" and suggests only that children be "discouraged" from making "non-essential" calls while adults should "keep calls short".

Given the Interphone Study's conclusions, it does not appear likely that Britain will be strengthening their guidelines soon. One can only conclude that the mobile phone manufacturers got their 5.5 million Euros' worth.

Categories
Featured Articles

Forget Filling Cavities: Regrow Your Teeth Instead

by: Kim Evans

(NaturalNews) If you've got a cavity, maybe you want to try regrowing your own teeth before heading for a filling. Our bodies are constantly renewing themselves and although it isn't commonly known, we can regrow our teeth too. In fact, regrowing our teeth is highly preferable to having them filled because most fillings these days either contain mercury (a known toxin that damages the brain and nervous system) or are estrogenic (white fillings release estrogen and contribute to hormonal problems.)

 

Besides, regrowing your teeth is simple. You'll just need two things: comfrey root and organic eggshells. Eggshells are used because they contain 27 minerals and loads of calcium, so they contain the ideal building materials to regrow your teeth. In fact, the composition of eggshells is very similar to the composition of our teeth and bones. Comfrey root is used because it accelerates bone, teeth and tissue growth. In fact, another name for comfrey root is knitbone, primarily because of its ability to knit – or regrow – bone together so quickly.

When you're regrowing your teeth, aim to eat one organic eggshell each day. Blending your shells into fresh fruit smoothies is a great way to consume them because blending breaks them into tiny particles that are easily consumed. Smoothies with bananas are ideal because the banana will keep the shell particles suspended instead of allowing them to sink to the bottom of your glass. After cracking the egg, just boil your shells in water for five minutes to kill any pathogens before use.

While you're re-mineralizing and adding plenty of calcium to your body with eggshells, you'll also want to use comfrey root on your teeth and gums. Either fresh or dried comfrey root will do the trick, but if it's dried, boil the root lightly for ten minutes to rehydrate it. Then, blend a square inch of the root with a few tablespoons of water to make a liquid – and swish the liquid in your mouth and between your teeth for about 20 minutes. When you're finished, just spit it out.

Using comfrey in this manner is best done once a day, and you'll likely see progress within a few weeks. Many cavities can be completely regrown within a month or two with regular use. The best part is: you can heal your teeth without leaving toxic metals or hormone disruptors in your mouth for the rest of your life.

As a note, comfrey root can be a little hard on your liver so if you have liver problems, you'll want to avoid using comfrey. After your teeth have regrown, you'll also want to end the use of comfrey so as not to over do it.

Categories
Featured Articles

95 % of “Preventive” Mastectomies Offer No Benefit, Study Finds

by: David Gutierrez

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

IP-6
OPC

IntraMax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
The Best Years In Life

New Cancer Causing Agent from Household Products Found in our Water

by: Tony Isaacs

(NaturalNews) Scientists have long known about carcinogens in common household items such as cosmetics and cleansers and the dangers they represented when people are exposed to them. Now, a new study is reporting that most of us are also being exposed to a new cancer causing compound in our water supplies which is being created by household items washed down the drain.

IP-6

OPC

IntraMax

In the new study, Yale researchers found evidence that common household items such as cleaners, shampoos and detergents are creating a chemical cocktail. These products are combining with a chlorine compound and resulting in a new cancer causing agent in water supplies that comes from sewage treatment plants. The compound is NDMA, which is a nitrosamine. Nitrosamines are known to be highly carcinogenic and have been especially linked to bladder cancers.

The new study was conducted by researchers at the Yale Department of Chemical Engineering and was published earlier this year in Environmental Science and Technology. Thus far scientists know little about the new nitrosamine compound other than that it causes cancer. Though the scientists are not sure exactly how NDMA forms, they suspect that the combination of compounds found in common household items lead to the formation of NDMA when water is chlorinated.

Researcher William Mitch and colleagues noted that scientists have known that NDMA and other nitrosamines can form in small amounts when wastewater and water are disinfected with chlorine. Although nitrosamines are found in a wide variety of sources, such as processed meats and tobacco smoke, scientists have known little about their precursors in water. Previous studies with cosmetics have found that substances called quaternary amines, which are also ingredients in household cleaning agents, may play a role in the formation of nitrosamines. Quaternary amine monomers are widely used in antibacterial soaps and mouthwashes, while polymers are used in shampoos, detergents, and fabric softeners.

In the study, the researchers collected treated waste water from waste water treatment facilities in three Connecticut cities. The researchers also examined the effects of adding common household cleansers, shampoos and detergents.

Their laboratory research showed that when mixed with chloramine, household cleaning products including shampoo, dishwashing detergent and laundry detergent formed NDMA. The researchers' report noted that sewage treatment plants may remove some of the quaternary amines that form NDMA. However, quaternary amines are used in such large quantities it is believed that some still persist and have a potentially harmful effect in the water treated at sewage treatment plants.

Notably, the same group of researchers previously found high levels of nitrosamine disinfection byproducts in swimming pools, hot tubs and aquariums that had been disinfected with chlorine. The highest nitrosamine detected in chlorinated swimming pools and hot tubs reached levels up to 500-fold greater than the drinking water concentration of nitrosamines associated with a one in one million lifetime cancer risk.