Month: May 2011

Economic problems with rising energy and food costs, nuclear reactor meltdowns, unprecedented storms, floods, and earthquakes, wars and rumors of wars, it seems like the end of the world is looming over the horizon. We may not be getting ‘raptured’ out to a more heavenly dimension anytime soon …well maybe October- isn’t that the latest revised date? But for now, where do we go to get away from it all? There is one place this time of the year in Texas that might be worth considering.

(Nanowerk News) Nanoparticles of silver are being found increasingly in the environment—and in environmental science laboratories. Because they have a variety of useful properties, especially as antibacterial and antifungal agents, silver nanoparticles increasingly are being used in a wide variety of industrial and consumer products.

Advanced Colloidal Silver

By Dr. Sanjay Gupta

Just about every time I use a cell phone, I plug in my wired earpiece first. Having discussed the use of earpieces on several news shows, people expect to see me using one. If I am walking around the CNN studios, my colleagues often comment on it. In airports, people will stop me in the rare cases I forget to use the earpiece, and remind me about it. Perhaps, they are intrigued because I am a neurosurgeon who openly shows some concern about cell phones.

Truth is, it is a pretty easy thing to do – using an earpiece. Furthermore, my neck doesn’t hurt after being on the phone for a long conference call, and given that many of those calls take place in a car, an earpiece becomes a requirement. Still, though, I don’t want to dodge the obvious question: Do cell phones cause brain cancer?

It may be too early to say for sure. The latency period or time between exposure and recognition of a tumor is around 20 years, sometimes longer. And, cell phone use in the U.S. has been popular for only  around 15 years. Back in 1996, there were 34 million cell phone users. Today there are 9-10 times as many. Keeping that in mind, it is worth taking a more detailed look at the results of Interphone, a multinational study designed to try to  answer this question.

The headline from this study was there was little or no evidence to show an association between cell phones and cancer. Though, if you went to the appendix of the study, which interestingly was available only online, you found something unsettling. The data showed people who used a cell phone 10 years or more doubled the risk of developing a glioma, a type of brain tumor. And, across the board – most of the studies that have shown an increased risk are from Scandinavia, a place where cell phones have been popular since the early 1990s. For these reasons, the whole issue of latency could become increasingly important.

Cell phones use non-ionizing radiation, which is very different from the ionizing radiation of X-rays, which everyone agrees are harmful. Non-ionizing radiation won’t strip electrons or bust up DNA. It's more like very low power microwaves. Short term, these microwaves are likely harmless, but long term could be a different story. Anyway, who likes the idea of a microwave, even a low-powered one, next to their head all day?

And, what about kids? I have three of them, aged 5, 4 and 2. Fact is, they are more likely to lead to my early demise than cell phones. But, as hard as it is to believe sometimes, they actually have thinner skulls than adults, and will probably be using cell phones longer than I ever will.

The first person to encourage me to regularly wear an ear piece was Dr. Keith Black. He also is a neurosurgeon, and makes a living removing – you guessed it – brain tumors. Keith has long believed there is a link, and for some time, his was a lonely voice in this discussion. Nowadays, he has loud and prominent voices accompanying him. Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute,  sent a memo warning staffers to limit their cell phone use. One of the possible consequences, he says, is  an increased risk of brain cancer. The city of San Francisco is trying to pass an ordinance requiring radiation warning labels on all cell phones.  The European Environmental Agency has said cell phones could be as big a public health risk as smoking, asbestos and leaded gasoline. Even the makers of cell phones suggest you don’t place a device against your head, but rather advocate holding it 5/8 to a full inch away.

Many will roll their eyes at this, scoffing at the precautionary principle on display here. Fair enough. Still, I like my wired earpiece, and I don’t have to turn my life upside down to use it. I also text and email a lot more, because my kids rarely allow me to have a phone conversation. Speaking of kids, you will probably see mine using earpieces too, when my wife and I decide they are old enough to use one, which isn’t in the foreseeable future.

Water fluoridation is a policy endorsed by numerous global health organizations, most notably the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Controversy surrounding the practice has grown in recent years, however, as an increasing number of scientists and health professionals argue that fluoride in drinking water causes many negative health effects, especially when looked at beyond dental health to the impact on the whole body. (http://impactnews.com/southwest-aus…)

Areas in the U.S. and Canada, most recently Calgary with 1.1 million people, have already stopped fluoridation and U.S. cities such as Austin, Denver, CO and Boulder, CO, which are considering the fluoridation issue currently, may follow suit. This could cause a domino effect across North America and bring water fluoridation to a halt permanently, according to Fluoride Action Network Executive Director Dr. Paul Connett, who attended Austin's meeting.

Austin's Battle
"For a year, members of the community would keep coming to [the regular City Council meetings] to talk about it," said councilmember Randi Shade. "And we would just sit there because there was no format, no opportunity for us to do anything in that situation, so my point was to take it out of that and into a place we can actually deliberate, actually get the facts, start really getting education on what the implications would be for the larger community."

The Austin City Council Health and Human Services Subcommittee invited speakers both in favor of and against fluoridation of drinking water to address specific questions from the City Council, and enable subcommittee members to determine if Austin needs to remove fluoride from the city's drinking water.

The fluoride debate
Dr. Delton Yarbrough, chair of the Council on Dental Economics, and Dr. Cecil George from the Texas Dental Association, who attended the meeting as the pro-fluoridation experts, were unable to respond to the onslaught of science from the opposing side with science that supported their pro-fluoridation views.

"[Dr. Connett] is clearly very articulate and excellent at presenting his case," Shade said. "But the issue that Dr. Connett raised is really, the United States government, who is responsible for setting health care policy for the nation, should be looking at this."

Connett, professor emeritus of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York and author of the book "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep it There," flew into Austin for the day to argue against fluoridation. Arguably the leading authority on water fluoridation, Connett responded to every point made by his opponents by quoting peer-reviewed studies, as did his associate, dentist Griffin Cole, who runs a fluoride-free practice in Austin.

"My two opponents today didn't cite one primary study indicating safety — not one study showing that fluoridation works," Connett said. "They really were not satisfactory answers. I think independent observers would find their case wanton."

Yarbrough and George instead relied heavily on endorsements of fluoride from public health organizations and anecdotal evidence.

"More than 100 national and international health, science, service, and professional organizations recognize and endorse the public health benefits of community water fluoridation," Yarbrough said. "Outside of that, as a practicing dentist in an area where the fluoride content of the water on the low end is .9 parts per million, I don't really need the benefit of science to know how effective fluoride in the water is. I see it every day at work when patients open their mouths."

Yarbrough later was dismissive of Connett's studies without backing up his claims and eschewed science in general in favor of an appeal to faith.

"They say these studies aren't validated. We say their studies aren't validated," Yarbrough said. "The studies their quoting out of China, Dr. Connett paid to have those studies translated and brought out of China and the modalities of those studies have been questioned, so it comes down to, who do you believe? Do you believe us? Do you believe them? Do you believe the gigglers in the audience?"

Laughter at the statement "Who do you believe?" was followed by a murmur of disapproval running through the audience of the mostly anti-fluoride Austin residents.

"It's not about who you believe. It's about the science," said one spectator.

Going against the recommendations of the public health organizations puts the burden of proof on the opposing side, according to Shade.

"The question that Yarbrough provided was "Who do you believe?" Shade said. "I think the majority of the community would say, if you're not going to take the recommendations of the CDC whose job it is to provide health care policy for municipalities across the country then you really have to be sure that we are going to do this."

The delicate fluoridation decision
Whether or not Austin will reverse fluoridation remains to be seen. There is no set date for future action. A change in Austin's fluoridation policy will require two councilmembers to put it on the agenda and four to vote it out.

"I'm just very nervous about making a change that goes against what the recommendations are for good public health policies from the people who are supposed to responsible for that in our nation," Shade said. "I mean it's risky."

But Lago Vista, a city less than 20 miles outside of Austin, reversed its decision to fluoridate in April 2011 without much fanfare, according to City Manager Bill Angelo.

"There were some concerns that it may not be as healthy as people once thought, and that people have other methods to get fluoride if they want it," Angelo said. "We also just realized that we didn't have the expertise to refute whether it was bad or good, so we felt the safest thing to do was remove it."

In the past few years, a handful of cities surrounding Austin that started fluoridating in the 1980's have ceased fluoridating their water supplies, including Lago Vista, Alamo Heights, Elgin and Marble Falls.

Elgin's city council voted 5-3 to take fluoride out of the water, citing reasons, including opposing putting a lead containing material in the water (http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert…), opposing forced medication on the public, an inadequate margin of safety and issues with the "additives" in the commercially produced product that is used for fluoridation (http://macsaferwater.wordpress.com/…).

"There was an ominous sign at the end [of the Austin meeting] about how risky it was bucking officialdom," Connett said. "We have these big agencies like the CDC telling them this is the best thing since sliced bread. But I think that all people that are in positions of power, have responsibility, and good leadership does require occasionally standing up against powerful forces when you have been convinced that those powerful forces are wrong."

And with the news that civil rights leaders speaking out against fluoride this past month have also been joined by Martin Luther King's daughter, Bernice, who went public with a denunciation of water fluoridation this week on Georgia's Praise 102.5 FM, Connett is hopeful about winning the fluoridation battle.

"What is happening in Atlanta is huge" Connett said. "We have known for a long time that blacks and Hispanics are more susceptible to dental fluorosis [which is the staining and pitting of teeth caused by ingesting fluoride]. But now that Andrew Young and Beatrice and other black leaders in Atlanta, right under the nose of the CDC, are coming out against this, I think the writing is on the wall."

Yarborough did not comment on the future of fluoridation from the pro-fluoride side and refused an interview with NaturalNews.

It all started back in 2006 when John Dollarhite and his wife Judy rescued two rabbits that ended up breeding. The family cared for and raised the new rabbits, and eventually began to sell them to neighbors, friends, and others for $10 or $15 each. Having started by first selling the animals for meat, and later for show, the Dollarhites carefully and humanely raised the small creatures on their three-acre homestead, all while teaching their son honest values in a business environment similar to running a small lemonade stand.

Eventually, the Dollarhites developed such a highly-respected reputation across Missouri that the popular Branson, Mo., theme park Silver Dollar City, and even a local pet store, Petland, began purchasing bunnies from the family in 2009. And according to John, individuals from both Silver Dollar City and Petland, as well as a rabbit competition judge, told him that the family's bunnies were among the best they had ever seen — healthy, beautiful, and very well-cared for.

All seemed well until a USDA inspector showed up at the family's home in the fall of 2009, and asked to do a "spot inspection" of the rabbitry. The inspector made no indication that anything was amiss, but only that she wished to see the facility. After meandering the premises, the inspector claimed that a few very insignificant aspects of the raising facility were in violation of USDA standards, even though the Dollarhites were not USDA certified, nor were they required to be. She then asked if the Dollarhites wished to be part of the voluntary USDA certification system, upon which they told her they would look into it.

After the inspector left, the Dollarhites heard nothing more from the USDA until January 2010 when a Kansas City-based USDA inspector called the family and said he needed to have a meeting with them because they sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in a single year. When the Dollarhites asked why this was a problem and what law this violated, the man refused to offer an explanation over the phone.

Upon meeting in person, the inspector said he was only there to investigate the rabbitry and take notes for a report, upon which he instructed the family to contact another USDA office if they failed to hear anything further from the USDA after six weeks. As the eighth week arrived without any communication, John called the office and was redirected to the Washington, DC, office where a lady shockingly and bluntly explained to him that she had his report, and that the USDA planned to prosecute him and his family "to the maximum that we can" in order to "make an example" out of him.

Shortly thereafter, the Dollarhites received a letter from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ordering them to pay a fine of $90,643 for supposedly violating a mystery law that prohibits the selling of more then $500 in rabbits within a year, even though the Dollarhites were in full accordance with Missouri state law, did not sell their rabbits across state lines, and raised their rabbits humanely and in excess of minimum requirements. The letter outlined that the Dollarhites had until May 23 to pay the exorbitant fine, or else face additional fines totaling nearly $4 million — all for selling about $4,600 worth of rabbits that netted the family a mere $200 in profits.

The whole scenario proves, once again, that the USDA is nothing more than a tag-team terrorist duo with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both agencies' insatiable lust for power and control over private affairs is never satisfied, as they continue to prowl around like bloodthirsty predators seeking whoever and whatever they can devour. When will Americans finally stand up to their tyranny and say enough is enough?

It all started back in 2006 when John Dollarhite and his wife Judy rescued two rabbits that ended up breeding. The family cared for and raised the new rabbits, and eventually began to sell them to neighbors, friends, and others for $10 or $15 each. Having started by first selling the animals for meat, and later for show, the Dollarhites carefully and humanely raised the small creatures on their three-acre homestead, all while teaching their son honest values in a business environment similar to running a small lemonade stand.

Eventually, the Dollarhites developed such a highly-respected reputation across Missouri that the popular Branson, Mo., theme park Silver Dollar City, and even a local pet store, Petland, began purchasing bunnies from the family in 2009. And according to John, individuals from both Silver Dollar City and Petland, as well as a rabbit competition judge, told him that the family's bunnies were among the best they had ever seen — healthy, beautiful, and very well-cared for.

All seemed well until a USDA inspector showed up at the family's home in the fall of 2009, and asked to do a "spot inspection" of the rabbitry. The inspector made no indication that anything was amiss, but only that she wished to see the facility. After meandering the premises, the inspector claimed that a few very insignificant aspects of the raising facility were in violation of USDA standards, even though the Dollarhites were not USDA certified, nor were they required to be. She then asked if the Dollarhites wished to be part of the voluntary USDA certification system, upon which they told her they would look into it.

After the inspector left, the Dollarhites heard nothing more from the USDA until January 2010 when a Kansas City-based USDA inspector called the family and said he needed to have a meeting with them because they sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in a single year. When the Dollarhites asked why this was a problem and what law this violated, the man refused to offer an explanation over the phone.

Upon meeting in person, the inspector said he was only there to investigate the rabbitry and take notes for a report, upon which he instructed the family to contact another USDA office if they failed to hear anything further from the USDA after six weeks. As the eighth week arrived without any communication, John called the office and was redirected to the Washington, DC, office where a lady shockingly and bluntly explained to him that she had his report, and that the USDA planned to prosecute him and his family "to the maximum that we can" in order to "make an example" out of him.

Shortly thereafter, the Dollarhites received a letter from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ordering them to pay a fine of $90,643 for supposedly violating a mystery law that prohibits the selling of more then $500 in rabbits within a year, even though the Dollarhites were in full accordance with Missouri state law, did not sell their rabbits across state lines, and raised their rabbits humanely and in excess of minimum requirements. The letter outlined that the Dollarhites had until May 23 to pay the exorbitant fine, or else face additional fines totaling nearly $4 million — all for selling about $4,600 worth of rabbits that netted the family a mere $200 in profits.

The whole scenario proves, once again, that the USDA is nothing more than a tag-team terrorist duo with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Both agencies' insatiable lust for power and control over private affairs is never satisfied, as they continue to prowl around like bloodthirsty predators seeking whoever and whatever they can devour. When will Americans finally stand up to their tyranny and say enough is enough?

Phytochemicals are thought to be responsible for much of the disease protection granted by diets high in fruits, vegetables, beans, cereals, and plant-based beverages such as tea and wine, according to a University of California, Davis report (http://chnr.ucdavis.edu/content/Fac…).

Although it has become widely accepted that a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains reduces the risk of cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses, scientists have only recently begun researching the effects of the different phytonutrients those foods contain.

Previous evidence has come from observations of cultures that eat plant-based diets and have lower rates of certain types of cancer and heart disease. The relatively low rates of breast and endometrial cancers in some Asian cultures, for example, are credited partly to dietary habits. These cancers are much more common in the United States, possibly because the typical American diet is higher in fat and lower in fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains, according to American Cancer Society.

Many experts suggest that people can reduce their risk of cancer significantly by eating the foods that contain phytonutrients, according to American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre…). Evidence shows that they may work by helping to prevent the formation of potential carcinogens, blocking the action of carcinogens on their target organs or tissue, or acting on cells to suppress cancer development.

Research suggests that flavonoids, the most diverse group of phytochemicals, may be a key phytochemical group that contributes to the reduced mortality rates observed in people consuming high levels of plant-based foods, according to the UC Davis report. In the Zutphen Elderly Study, myocardial infarction was found to decrease as falvonoid intake increased. Similarly, the Seven Countries Study, which compared the diets of men living in various Western countries including the U.S., suggested that consumption of flavonoids was responsible for 25 percent of the observed difference in mortality rates in the different countries.

University of Minnesota Hormel Institute researchers say phytonutrients could be used in effective cancer prevention therapy, so much so that they eventually aim to develop phytochemical-derived anticancer drugs, Dr. Sigang Dong told The Austin Daily Herald (http://www.austindailyherald.com/20…).

"In the future, personalized prevention methods using photochemical could have a crucial role in cancer prevention, especially in high-risk populations," Dong said. "We will continue our rigorous research in identifying molecular targets and aim for conducting human studies with phytocehemicals – this would provide the path for an enhanced approach to personalized cancer prevention."

FDA monopoly on health
Evidence favoring the health benefits of phytonutrients is growing every day, so much so that the biotech industry is already researching transgenic and non-transgenic ways to vastly increase the phytonutrient levels in plants that already contain high levels of the chemicals, according the 2009 book Recent Advances in Biotechnology (http://books.google.com/books?id=Sl…).

Yet, even as the science bounds ahead, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration refuses to allow food producers to put the facts on their labels.

The agency has structured the rules to categorize anything that treats or prevents disease as a drug. If you eat walnuts, which are shown to lower high cholesterol — according to Natural News, the FDA declares your walnuts to be a drug. Furthermore, if anything is advertised as providing health benefits without FDA approval, it's automatically considered to be an "unapproved drug", even if it's a common, everyday food like walnuts, cherries, grapes or orange (http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enforcemen…).

Shockingly, even references to peer-reviewed scientific studies are a no-no without FDA permission. So if you sell walnuts, and your website merely links to such studies, then you can be threatened, arrested, imprisoned and fined millions of dollars by the FDA for selling "unapproved drugs." (http://www.naturalnews.com/027750_G…)

The Alliance for Natural Health, a non-profit organization committed to protecting integrative medicine, is fighting these FDA mandates with The Free Speech About Science Act. The congressional bill, HR 4913, is designed to stop government censorship of truthful, scientific health claims about natural foods and herbs, and restore free speech to natural health (http://www.naturalnews.com/028879_c…). If the bill passes, it will allow manufacturers and producers to reference peer-reviewed, scientific studies that highlight the health benefits of food products that they grow or sell.

Understanding Phytonutrients
Some researchers estimate up to 40,000 phytonutrients will someday be fully catalogued and understood. In just the last 30 years, many hundreds of these compounds have been identified and are currently being investigated for their health-promoting qualities, according to The George Mateljan Foundation for the World's Healthiest Foods.

Phytonutrients are classified by their chemical structure and categorized into families based on the similarities in their structures. The phenols, or polyphenols is one family that has received attention in the scientific literature. They include the anthocyanidins, which give blueberries and grapes their dark blue and purple color, and the catechins, found in tea and wine, which provide the bitter taste as well as the tawny coloring in these foods (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?…).

Flavonoids are also commonly considered phenols, although the term "flavonoids" can refer to many phytonutrients. Isoflavones are usually categorized as members of this family. They are found in soy, kudzu, red clover, flax and rye, and have been researched extensively for their ability to protect against hormone-dependent cancers, such as breast cancer.

Other phytonutrients include the organosulfur compounds, such as the glucosinolates and indoles from brassica vegetables like broccoli, and the allylic sulfides from garlic and onions, all of which have been found to support our ability to detoxify noxious foreign compounds like pesticides and other environmental toxins.

Integrating phytonutrients into your diet
A recommended intake of phytochemicals does not exist today, according to the UC Davis report. The Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes and its Panel on Dietary Antioxidants and Related Compounds chose not to create a Dietary Reference Intake due to the lack of food composition data and a true understanding of the absorption and metabolism of phytonutrients. In the absence of such a DRI, many health authorities such as the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association recommend consuming a diet high in fruits and vegetables to
ensure that people get an adequate amount of phytochemical compounds.

Available scientific evidence does not support claims that taking phytochemical supplements is as helpful as consuming the fruits, vegetables, beans, and grains from which they are taken, according to the American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/Tre…). So, the best choice, according to O Magazine, is to head to the local farmers' market for the season's freshest produce packed with those precious chemicals. Typically, fruit travels more than 675 miles before hitting your table and it is leeching phytonutrients all the way.

And don't forget to look beyond produce to the other phytonutrient-dense foods like beans and spices.

Beans are a miracle food, according to The Daily Times. They lower cholesterol, regulate blood sugar and insulin production, promote digestive health, and protect against cancer. If you think of fiber, protein, and antioxidants and immediately think whole grains, meat, and fruit, think again – beans offer all three in a single package.

Turmeric, ginger, coriander, cumin and fennel are just a few of the spices containing phytonutrients, according to The Detroit News. Cinnamon has been found to help control blood sugar and improve insulin resistance in diabetics. Paprika may help raise good cholesterol, and ginger, coriander and cumin may promote healthy digestion.

Hormones secreted by the thyroid gland are critically important to health because they affect the metabolism of every cell in the body. Thyroid hormones regulate the metabolism of glucose to release energy, as well as affecting protein synthesis and metabolism of fats.

Because the body creates thyroid hormones by using iodine, a healthy level of iodine in the diet is important. In addition to the importance of iodine for general metabolism, there is also evidence that iodine in the diet can help in avoiding cancer.

The British Medical Journal study was done at the Women's College Research Institute in Toronto, where researchers looked at 213,500 people aged 70 or over. Patients in the study received at least one prescription for levothyroxine (the synthetic hormone) between 2002 and 2007. Results showed a significantly increased risk of fracture in people who were either taking or had recently taken levothyroxine.

As people grow older, there is a greater likelihood of diminished levels of thyroid hormones, with possibly as many as 20% of older people receiving treatment for hypothyroidism. But as doctors treat the disease by administering hormones, one of the possible side effects is a decrease in bone density. In some cases, bone density may reach the point that broken bones become more likely.

A researcher from the British Medical Journal study said that the condition needs more study, as not enough is known about the link between thyroid hormone and bone density in the elderly. A study published in 2010 on the link in elderly men did not find a decrease in bone density, but a study the same year in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism did find such a link in postmenopausal women. A 2010 review article looking at drug-induced osteoporosis also noted high doses of thyroxine as a possible cause of low bone density in postmenopausal women.

Patients who are receiving hormone therapy should have hormone levels checked regularly, to see that levels do not grow too high, or for that matter too low. Some patients may not wish to take hormones acquired from animals, but the synthetic form of the hormone, levothyroxine, like any artificial drug, has the potential for side effects.

One of the researchers, Dr Lorraine Lipscombe, said the study showed a need to more closely monitor medical levels "in this vulnerable population".