Categories
Featured Articles

Antibiotics Are Not Needed For Ear Infections In Children

by: Dr. Randall Neustaedter, OMD

(NaturalNews) Ear infections represent the most common reason for antibiotic prescriptions in children, even though the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that most children with acute ear infections be observed for a period of 48 to 72 hours without antibiotics (AAP Subcommittee, 2004). They reached this conclusion because most children with ear infections will get better just doing nothing (Rosenfeld 2003).

Advanced Colloidal Silver

A study published in the November 2010 issue of JAMA confirms the wisdom of avoiding antibiotics for the treatment of ear infections. This study reviewed 125 previous studies on the effect of antibiotics vs placebo, and found that 80 percent of children with ear infections would recover within about 3 days without antibiotics. If all of the children were treated with antibiotics, then another 12 percent would improve in three days. However, 3 to 10 percent of the children would develop diarrhea (Coker 2010). The authors could not assess the long term effect of antibiotic treatment on antibiotic resistance and further infections based on the data, but some studies have shown that children treated with antibiotics tend to develop resistance to antibiotics and have more ear infections than children not treated. This makes sense because antibiotics interfere with the production of white blood cells. When white blood cells are unable to fight infections, then recurrence of an infection is more likely (Fratkin).

The modest benefit of using antibiotics for ear infections may be far outweighed by the detrimental effects, especially when other safe and effective treatments exist for resolving these acute infections.

Homeopathy and herbal medicine have been effectively treating ear infections for hundreds, even thousands, of years. A double-blind clinical study of the homeopathic treatment for ear infections showed a significant decrease in symptoms after 24 hours compared with the placebo-treated children (Jacobs 2001). Chinese herbal medicine offers especially effective treatment for ear infections in children, including formulas specifically developed for pediatric use (Neustaedter 2010; Fratkin). With these alternatives available and the evidence from numerous studies of antibiotic failure, it seems that the era of prescribing antibiotics for children's ear infections should be relegated to the past.

Categories
Featured Articles

Omega-3s Are Incredibly Potent Anti-inflammatory Supplements

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Omega-3 fatty acids are "incredibly potent" anti-inflammatories, which may explain why they have been linked with lowered rates of diabetes and heart disease, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of California-San Diego and published in the journal Cell.

Omega 3-6-9

In an experiment conducted on mice, the researchers examined how omega-3s interact with specialized white blood cells known as macrophages, which digest harmful molecules and cellular debris. As part of their operation, macrophages naturally secrete chemicals that produce an inflammatory response.

The researchers found that macrophages contain an omega-3 receptor, GPR120, that causes them to stop producing these inflammatory chemicals.

In a second experiment, the researchers genetically modified a group mice to lack a GPR120 receptor, then fed a high-fat diet to both modified and normal mice. All the mice became obese and developed diabetes. When their diets were then supplemented with omega-3s, only the non-modified mice exhibited improvement in their symptoms. In these mice, omega-3 supplementation was as effective at restoring insulin sensitivity as the drug Avandia.

"It's just an incredibly potent effect," researcher Jerrold Olefsky said. "The omega-3 fatty acids switch on the receptor, killing the inflammatory response.

"This is nature at work. The receptor evolved to respond to a natural product — omega-3 fatty acids — so that the inflammatory process can be controlled. Our work shows how fish oils safely do this, and suggests a possible way to treating the serious problems of inflammation in obesity and in conditions like diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease through simple dietary supplementation."

Omega-3 fatty acids naturally occur in fish oil and in some vegetable foods such as canola oil, flax seeds, chia, kiwifruit, and purslane. Many researchers now believe that the average Western diet contains a lower content of these oils than is necessary for optimal health.

Categories
Health & Freedom

Health Care Scheme Ruled Unconstitutional

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson dealt a severe blow to Obamacare today, ruling that the government's attempt to force citizens to buy health insurance violates the U.S. Constitution. This decision puts the enforceability of Obama's health care system in doubt.

Obama's health plan was designed around a "minimum essential coverage provision" that seeks to force every American to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014. This is essentially a Big Brother commerce requirement where the government dictates that private citizens must purchase a product or service even if they don't wish to. It also forces followers of natural medicine to buy into a system of drugs-and-surgery conventional medicine even if they have no intention of ever using it.

The Constitution limits the power of federal government
The United States Constitution, which is the document that grants the federal government powers, did not grant the federal government any right to force citizens to purchase certain products or services. Obama's health care insurance mandate, therefore, was an overreaching effort on the part of the federal government to dictate the purchasing decisions of private citizens in order to achieve a political goal.

Citizens who refused to comply with this requirement to purchase health insurance were to be punished by none other than the IRS. Fines would be issued to citizens beginning in 2014 if they failed to prove to the IRS that they had purchased health insurance. Thus, Obama's health care system put the IRS in charge of enforcing an unconstitutional mandate that private citizens buy something they did not want nor need.

This is what Judge Henry Hudson found to be unconstitutional. He found that the essential coverage provision "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power."

Tenth Amendment protections
He's right, of course. There is no such power granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment clearly states that 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."

In other words, if a specific power was never granted to the federal government, then that power remains with the States or the people. Since the Constitution never granted the federal government the power to dictate that private citizens purchase health insurance — and in fact Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and other founding fathers would have been horrified by such a power grab — that power remains solely with the States and the people.

What will the US Supreme Court rule?
With this ruling in place, the constitutionality of Obamacare will now likely move to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, of course, is the body that interprets the Constitution and decides whether modern-day laws are allowed under its provisions.

If the justices of the Supreme Court actually abide by the Constitution, they must agree with Judge Henry Hudson and strike down the minimum essential coverage provision of Obama's health care law.

But if they choose to betray the Constitution and the People, they may decide in favor of Obamacare and thereby ratchet up the power of Big Government to control the private lives and purchasing decisions of American citizens. The Supreme Court has not always respected the language of the Constitution, of course, so it's not yet certain how the court will rule on this subject. Most likely, the more conservative members of the Court will rule it unconstitutional.

Conventional health care is so bad that you have to threaten people if they don't buy it
It is especially enlightening that the U.S. health care system is such an utter failure that the government must force citizens to buy into it under the threat of IRS penalties. If health care based on conventional drugs and surgery actually worked, you wouldn't have to threaten the citizens with punishment if they chose not to use it. The only reason IRS agents have to be used to bully people into buying health insurance is because our modern sick-care system doesn't work.

Obama's dictatorial approach to health care mirrors the health care system itself, in fact: Oppressive, punitive, widely hated and ridiculously ineffective.

Instead of forcing people to buy into a system that's already broken, Obama would serve the interests of the American people far better by ending the medical racket monopoly currently being operated by Big Pharma, the FDA, the quack medical journals and corrupt doctors, and instead legalizing healing by embracing health freedom and the world of natural medicine.

It is quite fascinating that even in a system where natural medicine isn't covered by insurance, and where natural therapies are widely discredited by the FDA, the AMA and most conventional doctors, record numbers of people seek out natural therapies anyway because they are more affordable, more effective, safer and more readily compatible with human biology.

The FDA and Big Government don't want people to have a choice in the matter, you see. They want to force everyone to buy into the failed pharmaceutical system that enriches the drug companies, even while keeping the U.S. population suffering from record rates of degenerative disease.

That's why we call it a "sick care" system. It's not about health. It's about making money off a diseased population while denying them access to natural treatments and cures that could save this nation from medical bankruptcy.

Sadly, the US Supreme Court won't be ruling on all that. They're only concerned with whether Obama's attempt to force people to buy a product they don't want and don't need is allowed under the US Constitution. And the answer should be obvious to anyone who has actually read the Constitution: No such powers were ever granted to the federal government.

To force the American people to buy into this broken, corrupt system of quackery and fraud is not merely unconstitutional; it is immoral and an affront to freedom.

Obamacare is, at its core, un-American; and it demonstrates a deep-rooted hatred for the principles of freedom upon which this nation was founded.

Categories
Health & Freedom

Flyers Face Great Health Risk and Violation of Liberties

by: Christopher Babayode

(NaturalNews) The discordant three part harmony being played out in the media concerning the Transport Security Association (TSA) involves a question of security vs. health vs. civil liberties. If you are a frequent flyer, the ability of the TSA to strike a delicate balance between the three should matter to you as the implications for your health are dire without it. While the TSA fixates on security at all costs as a maximum and proven deterrent to terrorism, they are doing little to address well founded concerns of violated civil liberties and the health implications of using machines emitting ionizing radiation.
 
In the lead up to the National Opt Out day protest on the 24th of November, the Blogosphere and Twitterverse were alive with horrific reports of enhanced pat downs that were invasive and embarrassing. Enhanced pat downs were the alternative if you opted not to go through the full body back scatter scanners. Stories of travelers being asked to remove colostomy bags, leg braces, prosthetic breasts and limbs were not uncommon. As indecent as these instances may have been, they pale in comparison to the cost of what lurks on the horizon if the intent of the TSA is to nuke every passenger before they board the plane.

The problem is the little white lie we've been fed about radiation. The same lie that got you to dismiss radiation as harmless provided it was kept below a certain amount. The same lie that prevents any real solution to jet lag from being found as no remedy currently factors radiation into the problem of jet lag. It is the same lie that the late Dr John Gofman, a foremost authority on radiation, spent the latter part of his career trying to dispel. Gofman's work led him to the conclusion that there is no safe dose of radiation below which the risk of malignancy is nil.

When you take this insight and place it in the context of life in the 21st century, with technology and gadgets all using or emitting radiation, you can see how increasing exposure to radiation is not in the interest of anyone's health. Dr Gofman and other experts went on to say that doses of radiation are cumulative. Therefore frequent flyers and airline professionals are more at risk than infrequent flyers. It should come as no surprise to you then to hear that two unions of American airliners advised their pilots to opt for enhanced pat downs instead of the full body back scatter scanners.

It is time to talk about the elephant in the room – radiation as a health risk to flyers. Flyers have a right to know the truth so they can weigh up the consequences, make an informed decision, or take action to protect themselves. Maybe when radiation is factored into the problem of jet lag more enlightened solutions can be found, which go beyond the hit and miss use of melatonin. Until then the elephant dung is stinking the house out and it is not pleasant. Airlines won't take the lead in this conversation. Any talk about the impact of radiation on health could open airlines up to group action lawsuits like those seen in the occurrences of DVT's; this is a further reason for them to ignore the conversation altogether.

The final balance struck by the TSA and similar worldwide bodies will have a telling effect on the health of all flyers for a long time to come. Influencing that conversation is the duty of all flyers frequent or otherwise.

Categories
Featured Articles

Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Alzheimer`s Disease

by: John Phillip

(NaturalNews) Health conscious individuals understand the importance of maintaining proper vitamin D blood levels to dramatically lower the risk of developing heart disease, stroke, cancer and many autoimmune conditions. Researchers have now made an important connection between vitamin D status and advancing degrees of cognitive impairment. Proper levels of the sunshine vitamin are critical to maintain optimal brain health, and the risk of cognitive decline is doubled in aging adults with the lowest circulating blood readings of vitamin D. Many people have difficulty obtaining sufficient vitamin D from diet or sun exposure and must supplement to lower the risk of cognitive decline and Alzheimer`s disease.

D3-5

Study Shows That Vitamin D is Critical to Brain Health
It is a common misconception that loss of cognitive abilities is a normal part of the aging process. Fortunately a steady decline in one`s ability to learn, comprehend and develop and retain new memories is not inevitable and is well within our control. The results of a study published in the journal Neurology show that vitamin D intake is associated with a decreased incidence of cognitive impairment.

Vitamin D is shown to bond with neuronal receptors in the brain and prevents neurodegeneration. The vitamin is a powerful antioxidant and anti-inflammatory that protects cellular damage that leads to brain cell death and loss of vital cognitive abilities. The study authors concluded: "our findings showed an association between vitamin D deficiency and global cognitive impairment. These results are congruent with fundamental research and add to the growing body of evidence in favor of the neurological action of vitamin D".

Ensure Proper Vitamin D Levels Through Supplementation
Researchers conducting this study found that the degree of cognitive impairment increased dramatically in those subjects consuming less than 35 micrograms of vitamin D daily from diet. This minimal level is equivalent to 1,400 IU of the vitamin, a level that is very difficult to obtain through diet alone. Vitamin D blood levels typically decrease with age and many aging adults have been shown to be severely deficient; this deficiency leads to increased oxidative stress in the brain and is implicated in cognitive decline and dementia.

To achieve optimal protection, the vast majority of people will need to supplement with vitamin D. As we age our ability to produce vitamin D from sun exposure becomes limited and is an unreliable source. It is also very difficult to consume enough of the vitamin from food, despite our best dietary efforts. The best way to ensure you receive enough vitamin D is to supplement with an oil-based form of the vitamin to attain a blood level between 50 and 70 ng/ml.

Grape Seed Extract Works in Harmony with Vitamin D
Vitamin D has been shown to be essential to human health and provides a protective shield against cognitive decline. Research published in the Journal of Neuroscience demonstrates that nutrients such as grape seed extract may work in synergy with vitamin D to prevent neuronal damage and lower risk of Alzheimer`s disease. Grape seed extract blocks beta amyloid accumulation and the formation of damaging protein plaques and tangles. You can benefit from the combination of vitamin D and grape seed extract to provide multi-modal protection against cognitive decline and dementia.

Categories
Featured Articles

Treat Depression With Omega-3 Fatty Acids

by: Jonathan Benson

(NaturalNews) Researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago have confirmed that omega-3 fatty acids exhibit powerful antidepressant and brain boosting benefits that have not received the high level of attention they deserve. The team, led by Dr. John M. Davis, discovered that eicosapentenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) — two types of omega-3 fatty acids recognized for their powerful nutritional benefits — are effective enough at improving mood that they may potentially eliminate the need for many people to take antidepressant drugs.

Flax Oil

The researchers analyzed 15 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies about omega-3s and found that taking either EPA alone or EPA together with DHA helps to alleviate depression symptoms And since DHA alone did not exhibit antidepressant benefits, the team has identified EPA as the primary active compound in improving mental health.

"Our analysis clarifies the precise type of omega-3 fatty acid that is effective for people with depression and explains why previous findings have been contradictory," explained Davis. "The EPA predominant formulation is necessary for the therapeutic action to occur."

People who are deficient in omega-3s are more likely to experience depression than people have consume adequate amounts. Davis and his team found in a previous study that pregnant women deficient in omega-3s are more prone to depression during and after pregnancy than those who get enough of it.

"There is a huge amount of evidence now linking omega-3 deficiency and depression," explain Gary Null and Amy McDonald in their book The Food-Mood Connection: Nutrition-based and Environmental Approaches to Mental Health and Physical Wellbeing. "Around a quarter of the dry weight of our brains is made up of omega-3s and if you are deficient in them, the cells in your brain malfunction and you are much more likely to become depressed."

Categories
Featured Articles

Why Some People Refuse to Shampoo Their Hair

by: Cindy Jones-Shoeman

(NaturalNews) Millions of people have been led to believe that, to clean their hair, they must use shampoo. In fact, mainstream media and big business will tell consumers how a particular shampoo can make a person's hair healthier, when nothing is further from the truth. Mainstream media also insists that a daily shampoo is safe, effective, and healthy. However, the truth is shampooing one's hair is damaging to one's mane and disrupts the body's natural processes. Using shampoo strips the hair of natural oils, exposes users to toxins, and promotes consumerism.

Utopia Naturals Soap

Before shampoo products were created, people used soap to clean their hair and scalp. It was easy to sell consumers on the idea of shampoo because soap often irritated eyes and left hair looking and feeling dull. Shampoo was marketed as an improved alternative. Shampoos, however, use detergents, among other things. Detergents are generally harsh and not only clean off unwanted dirt and skin flakes, but also strip hair of natural oils that actually keep hair soft, strong, and manageable. Today, people use conditioning products (full of more problematic ingredients) to replace the natural oils that have been shampooed off.

Not only are the detergents used in shampoos questionable and toxic, but there are also other dangerous ingredients and chemicals, items that the CDC and other health agencies warn are toxic. Some of these ingredients, according to numerous sources, include seemingly innocent-sounding items like Yellow 6, thought to be a carcinogen, and other less-recognizable things like "iodopropynyl butylcarbamate." Why would anyone want to pour a chemical lab on her head that is likely dangerous to her and the environment when she can use safer alternatives?

Finally, many people avoid shampooing their hair because–like many "needed" products today–it promotes rampant consumerism. If a person feels that shampoo is a necessity, he will buy it regularly. Many simple-living advocates avoid using commercial shampoos for that reason alone.

Refusing to shampoo doesn't mean people don't clean their hair, however. Most people who don't use shampoo instead rely on safe, enviro-friendly alternatives: they use baking soda, apple cider vinegar, and lemon juice. Others use simply warm water and a brush. They do refuse the shampoo, and many are glad they do.

Categories
Health & Freedom

Nancy Pelosi Dismisses Authority of US Constitution

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson ruled that a key provision in Obama's health care plan violates the US Constitution. The "minimum essential coverage provision," Judge Hudson ruled, would force American consumers to buy a government-mandated insurance product whether they wish to buy it or not. There is no provision in the US Constitution that grants Congress the power to force consumers to buy into such a monopoly — the very idea seems ludicrous.

But not to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She believes that her power to force Americans to purchase whatever products and services the government wants them to buy is somehow granted by the Constitution.

In what is now seen as a curiously instructive question-and-answer exchange, one year ago Nancy Pelosi engaged in the following dialog with CNS News:

CNSNews.com: "Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?

Pelosi: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

CNSNews.com: "Yes, yes I am."

CNS News goes on to report: (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fla…)

Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question."

"You can put this on the record," said Elshami. "That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question."

Absolute power need not explain itself

What's clear from this exchange is that Nancy Pelosi believes Congress has absolute power over the people to simply invent whatever mandates, requirements or restrictions it wants, regardless of what powers were actually granted to the Congress under the US Constitution.

It is the Constitution, after all, to which Congress owes its existence in the first place. Certain, specific powers are granted to the Congress under the Constitution, with the remainder of powers being reserved to the People or the States. Nowhere in the Constitution do the founding fathers of our nation grant Congress the power to force the American people to spend their money on government-favored monopoly service providers — and that's precisely what Obamacare mandates.

The question of where Congress gets its authority to enact such mandates is an intelligent and reasonable question that any lawmaker should be willing to answer. But instead of answering this question, Nancy Pelosi simply dismisses it as ridiculous.

Her aide says, "That is not a serious question." But I disagree. I believe it is the most serious question of all. Because if the US Congress is now acting outside its limited powers and simply rewriting the Constitution to match whatever political whims it fancies at the moment, then the freedom of our Republic is lost and we already live under tyrannical rule.

Tyrants do not answer pesky questions from the little people

Time and time again, we now see modern bureaucrats dismissing the very notion that even asking about the source of their authority is a legitimate question. To question the authority of Congress now seems to be regarded as something of an act of terrorism. How dare you question your King?

Remember, it is the duty of all free citizens to slap the hands of government when it threatens to overreach its limited authority. With yesterday's ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson slapped the hands of both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, sending them a clear message that you cannot simply steamroll over the Constitution and mandate whatever laws and rules you'd like to see realized in your own megalomaniacal fantasies.

There are protections in the Constitution that were put there precisely to protect the People from tyrants. That is, in fact, the primary purpose of the Bill of Rights — to protect the People from the inevitably expansion of power by bureaucrats who always seek to control more, regulate more, and accumulate more power in taking over more and more areas of everyday life that should be left up to free people.

Your decision of what kind of doctor you wish to choose — conventional versus naturopathic or complementary, for example — is your decision, not the government's decision. For Big Government to mandate that all people must spend thousands of dollars a year to support a failed, disastrously harmful conventional medical system that actually kills over half a million Americans a year is extremely unethical if not downright illegal.

And yet that's exactly what Obama's health care law attempts to do. It seeks to force you to participate in a government-protected sick-care monopoly. And if you choose not to participate, you'll get a little visit from IRS agents who will simply extract the required money from your bank account… by force if necessary.

That such a scheme could be advocated by Nancy Pelosi and other bureaucrats in Washington tells you just how far they've already marched down the seductive path of government tyranny.

It is up to people like you and me to resist this tyranny and stand up for our Constitutional protections so that we may live as free citizens, with our free choice intact, and without the government forcing us to participate in a failed health care system that, statistically speaking, harms far more people than it helps.

Let us hope that the US Supreme Court will also have the wisdom to recognize the constitutional violations in this health care legislation and strike it down.

We'll keep you updated on this story here at NaturalNews.com, where the US Constitution remains alive and well in our minds, hearts and souls. We will defend liberty here on NaturalNews, even if we're the last ones left standing who dare to question the King.

Categories
Featured Articles

Sunscreen Chemicals Absorbed Into Body, Found in 85 Percent of Human Milk Samples

by: S. L. Baker

(NaturalNews) Before you apply creams, lotions, cosmetics and sunscreens to your skin, it might be a good idea to find out what's really in them. What's more, you need to know those ingredients aren't necessarily just coating the outside layers of your skin. For example, as NaturalNews previously reported, UCLA scientists have recently discovered nanoparticles in cosmetics and sunscreens can enter and wander throughout the body, potentially disrupting body functions on a sub-cellular level. And now, for the first time, a study just published in the international science journal Chemospherehas shown that a group of chemicals known as UV (for ultraviolet radiation) filters are turning up in humans internally — and the phenomenon is widespread.
EDTA

 

In fact, the investigation, conducted by a Swiss National Research Program called Endocrine Disrupters: Relevance to Humans, Animals and Ecosystems, found UV filters, which are common in cosmetics and sunscreens, were present in 85 percent of human milk samples tested. What does this mean for adults, much less babies taking in this contaminated milk? The alarming truth is, no one knows.

For the study, during the fall and summer of 2004, 2005 and 2006, human milk was sampled from mothers who had given birth at the University Women's Hospital in Basel, Switzerland. The research participants also answered detailed questionnaires in order to document their use of different types of cosmetic products and sunscreens.

When the women's breast milk was analyzed, tests revealed the milk samples contained a huge list of chemicals including persistent organic pollutants (POPs), synthetic musk fragrances, pesticides, phthalates, parabens, flame retardants (polybrominated diphenylethers), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) — and cosmetic UV filters. What's more, the UV filter chemicals were surprisingly widespread; they were comparable in concentrations to PCBs, which have long been known to contaminate the environment.

"Research on the effects of endocrine disrupters (chemicals interfering with hormone actions) has shown that it is of utmost importance to obtain information on simultaneous exposure of humans to different types of chemicals because endocrine active chemicals can act in concert. Information on exposure is particularly important for the developing organism at its most sensitive early life stages. Human milk was chosen because it provides direct information on exposure of the suckling infant and indirect information on exposure of the mother during pregnancy," research team leaders Margret Schlumpf and Walter Lichtensteiger said in a media statement.

The analyzed data of the milk samples obtained from individual mothers were then compared with the information collected through the questionnaire about cosmetic and sunscreen use. While exposure patterns differed between individuals, Dr. Schlumpf, who is a scientist at the University of Zurich, pointed out that the total reported use of products containing UV filters was significantly correlated with the presence of those chemicals in breast milk.

In all, a total daily intake of each individual chemical found in the breast milk tests was calculated for each baby who was fed with breast milk. The results showed some infants were taking in daily amounts of PCBs and several pesticides that were far above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reference for supposed "acceptable" levels. Little is known about the health significance of babies drinking in UV filters through their mothers' milk.

In a statement to the media, the scientists noted that information on the relationship between the exposure of human populations to ingredients in cosmetics and sunscreens and the presence of these constituents in the human body has been sorely limited. And before the new Swiss research findings, the data on UV filters being present inside the human body was virtually non-existent.

"This study once again emphasizes the importance of global research on the impact of contaminants in the human environment and the need for continuous critical assessment of our priorities in environmental health and consumer habits. I am sure that this investigation will also spark debate at the upcoming first Environmental Health conference in Brazil, February 2011", Gert-Jan Geraeds, Executive Publisher of Chemosphere said in a press statement.

Categories
Featured Articles

Moms Who Don’t Breastfeed Have Much Higher Risk of Type-2 Diabetes

by: David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Mothers who do not breastfeed their infants may be significantly increasing their risk of developing Type 2 diabetes, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of Pittsburgh and published in the American Journal of Medicine.

Chromium GTF

Breast-feeding is already known to provide such important health benefits to infants that medical professionals universally recommend that all mothers who are capable of doing so breast-feed exclusively for at least the first month of life, and ideally quite a bit longer.

"Dr. Ruth Lawrence, author of Breastfeeding: A Guide for the Medical Profession, says that, depending on the mother's wishes, breast-feeding should continue for at least a year, along with other foods as they are introduced, and even longer if the mother feels it is best for her and her child," writes Phyllis A. Balch in the book Prescription for Nutritional Healing, 4th Edition.

"Our study provides another good reason to encourage women to breastfeed their infants, at least for the infant's first month of life," researcher Eleanor Schwarz said. "Clinicians need to consider women's pregnancy and lactation history when advising women about their risk for developing type 2 diabetes."

Researchers surveyed 2,233 women between the ages of 40 and 78. They found similar diabetes rates between women who had never given birth and mothers who had breast-fed their infants for at least one month (58 breast-fed). Women who had not breast-fed for that long (27 percent) were significantly more likely than either other group to develop the disease, however. These differences remained significant even after adjusting for other diabetes risk factors such as age, alcohol and tobacco use, ethnicity and physical activity level.

Women who supplemented breast milk with formula were also more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes than women who fed their infants with breast-milk alone.

"We have seen dramatic increases in the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes over the last century," Schwarz said. "Diet and exercise are widely known to impact the risk of Type 2 diabetes, but few people realize that breast-feeding also reduces mothers' risk of developing the disease later in life by decreasing maternal belly fat."