Month: May 2012

While most non-organic milk undergoes this pasteurization process, the majority of the organic milk in the U.S. is ultra high temperature (UHT) pasteurized. This means it is heated to a temperature of at least 280 degrees for 1-2 seconds. This type of pasteurization kills virtually all of the enzymes and bacteria to the point that the milk cannot even be cultured to make yogurt or kefir. It is commonly referred to as "dead milk". The shelf life of UHT milk is 6 to 9 months and it doesn't even need to be refrigerated. UHT pasteurization allows organic milk to be shipped long distanced and sit on warehouse and grocery shelves for months before it needs to be sold. UHT organic milk also typically costs about twice as much as regular milk.

Why is UHT pasteurized milk so bad?
The micro life that exists within milk is needed in order to properly digest and absorb the nutrients in it. Without it the body perceives the proteins in the milk as foreign and mounts an immune response. The body is unable to digest the casein proteins in milk without these necessary enzymes. The proteins themselves are also changed at temperatures this extreme. So while it is true that organic milk is produced by cows that are fed organic feed and are free of antibiotics and hormones, UHT processing eliminates most of the health benefits from milk.

Raw milk and low-temp pasteurization
The most live and active milk is raw and unpasteurized. However, this option is not available everywhere due to safety concerns and some state laws. Most people still consider drinking raw milk to be completely safe.

Outside of raw milk, the best choice for consumers is low temperature pasteurized milk that is heated to a temperature of 145 degrees for 30 minutes. This pasteurization process kills any potentially harmful bacteria while leaving the majority of the micro life in the milk untouched. Unfortunately, this low temperature pasteurization is uncommon. If you are unable to find low temperature pasteurized milk the next best choice is hormone and antibiotic free HTST milk. This option is thankfully becoming more available, particularity in health food stores, due to public demand for healthier options. If you see organic milk with the letters UHT on it, or an expiration date months in the future, you're much better off not purchasing it.

http://www.naturalnews.com/035514_cholesterol_myths_heart_doctor.html

As we age, we lose much of our supply of CoQ10, particularly in the heart. At the age of 80, for example, CoQ10 levels are cut by more than half. CoQ10 benefits and protects the heart in many ways, including helping lowering high blood pressure and preventing the oxidation of LDL cholesterol. The effectiveness and safety of CoQ10 in the treatment of congestive heart failure has been well established by numerous studies. One recent study also found that CoQ10 can improve survival after a cardiac arrest.

Other CoQ10 benefits and the dangers of CoQ10 deficiency
CoQ10 is also an important antioxidant which inhibits both the initiation and the propagation of lipid and protein oxidation. Additionally, it regenerates other antioxidants such as vitamin E. One recent study demonstrated that low doses of CoQ10 reduced oxidation and DNA double-strand breaks, and that a combination of CoQ10 and a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids leads to a longer lifespan.

Low CoQ10 levels have been observed in cancer patients, while treatment with CoQ10 has been shown to be effective against cancer. CoQ10 has also been found to be beneficial for migraine headaches and some studies have indicated that it may help provide better brain health and function.

Lack of CoQ10 can cause Rhabdomyolysis, which is the breakdown of muscle fibers that leads to the release of muscle fiber contents (myoglobin) into the bloodstream. Myoglobin often causes kidney damage. Notably, rhabdomyolysis has often been observed in patients who take statin drugs.

Inadequate CoQ10 levels have been noted in incidences of chronic heart failure, end stage AIDS and other overwhelming illnesses.

Supplementation and food sources for CoQ10
In addition to the body, CoQ10 is also found in relatively small amounts in a wide variety of foods, with the highest amounts found in organ meats such as heart, liver and kidney, as well as beef, sardines, mackerel, and peanuts. Other food items with modest amounts of CoQ10 include grapeseed oil, walnuts, hazelnuts, pistachios, parsley, spinach, sesame seeds, olive oil and avocado.

Food sources alone may not be enough for those deficient in CoQ10. To put dietary CoQ10 intake into perspective, one pound of sardines, two pounds of beef, or two and one half pounds of peanuts, provide only 30 mg of CoQ10.

Fortunately, no known toxicity or side effects have been observed in supplemental CoQ10. CoQ10 shows a moderate variability in its absorption, with some patients attaining good blood levels of CoQ10 on 100 mg per day while others require two or three times this amount to attain the same blood level.

Supplementation with CoQ10 has been studied in amounts as high as 3600 mg per day with largely only gastrointestinal side effects observed. The observed safe level (OSL) risk assessment method indicated evidence of safety is strong at intakes up to 1200 mg/day.

Dr. Bahram H. Arjmandi’s most recent research is the first to evaluate the long-term cardio-protective effects of daily consumption of apples in postmenopausal women.

This USDA-funded study randomly assigned 160 women ages 45-65 to one of two dietary intervention groups: one received dried apples daily (75g/day for 1 year) and the other group ate dried prunes every day for a year. Blood samples were taken at 3, 6 and 12-months.
Apples and Cholesterol

The results surprised Dr. Arjmandi, who stated that "incredible changes in the apple-eating women happened by 6 months – they experienced a 23% decrease in LDL cholesterol," which is known as the "bad cholesterol."* At the same time, HDL or "good cholesterol" increased by 4%.

The daily apple consumption also led to a lowering of lipid hydroperoxide levels (or oxidation of fats, a risk factor in adverse cardiovascular events) and C-reactive protein in those women.

Previous animal studies had already shown that polyphenols in apples improve fat metabolism and lower the production of pro-inflammatory molecules.

Polyphenols are antioxidants in plants that work by eliminating free radicals which can lead to premature aging, cancer and other diseases.  Flavonoids are a class of polyphenols found in fruits and vegetables.  Another class consists of tannins, which are found in wines, teas and fruits.
Apples and Weight Loss

Another advantage to eating apples is weight loss according to the researchers.  Despite the extra 240 calories per day consumed from the dried apples, the women in the study did not gain weight, and in fact, they lost on average 3.3 pounds.

Part of the reason for the weight loss could be the fruit’s pectin, a water-soluble fiber, which is known to create a feeling of satiety.  Pectin is a thickening agent used in cooking and in addition to apples, is found in plums and pears.

In the body, pectin helps regulate the flow of water in between cells and keeps them rigid. It is very helpful for people suffering with irritable bowel syndrome or diarrhea because it provides a thickening agent in the gut.

Prior studies had already shown many amazing qualities for ordinary apples.

In particular, they:

    contain quercetin which reduces the amount of C-reactive protein in the blood;
    slow down carbohydrate digestion helping to regulate blood sugar; and
    have been associated with lower lung cancer risk.

All in all, great reasons to have your apple today.  Or even two.

*the notion that there is "bad" and "good" blood lipids has been heavily contested and is also known as the "lipid hypothesis," or "cholesterol myth."  The underlying causes of cardiovascular disease are likely more related to inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, nutritional deficiencies and/or incompatibilities and injurious dietary components, infections and environmental exposures.

    Now, nearly four decades later researchers have again revealed that “the normalization of serum vitamin 25(OH)D [vitamin D] level has an anticonvulsant [anti-seizure] effect.”iii

Improving Vitamin D Levels Reduces Seizures by 40%

    In the latest study, researchers administered a one-time 40,000-200,000 IU dose of vitamin D3 to patients with epilepsy in order to bring their vitamin D levels out of a deficiency state.

    The participants, who ranged in age from 10-42, had vitamin D levels ranging from 4 ng/ml to 34 ng/ml, with a median level of 11.8. This is an absolutely dangerously low level. As you can see in the chart below, anything below 50 ng/ml is a deficiency state.

    vitamin d levels

    After the treatment dose of vitamin D, the participants’ vitamin D levels did improve to a range of 23-45 ng/ml, with a median of 38 ng/ml. It’s important to note that this is still low according to the latest science … but the improvement still resulted in a decrease in their number of seizures. If their levels were optimized further, it’s likely the results would improve even more.

    After increasing their vitamin D levels, the results showed:

        10 of the 13 subjects had a decrease in number of seizures
        Overall, there was a median seizure number reduction of 40%
        A seizure reduction of greater than 50% was experienced in five patients

    The most revealing result, however, occurred among the person whose vitamin D was a dangerously low 4 ng/ml at the start of the study. This person had 450 seizures in a three-month period, but after raising vitamin D level to 43.1 ng/ml, the seizures dropped to 30 in three months! The study did have some limitations, namely the small number of subjects and the lack of a placebo to compare to, but it still highlighted the importance of correcting vitamin D deficiency in epilepsy patients.

Epilepsy Patients are at Increased Risk of Vitamin D Deficiency

    The findings are even more important given that people with epilepsy face an even greater risk of vitamin D deficiency than the general population (and even the general population is vastly vitamin D deficient). The reasons are two-fold, with the first being that having frequent seizures may interfere with your ability to get outdoors and stay active.

    If you spend most of your time inside, you’ll miss out on regular sun exposure, which is key for the natural production of vitamin D. Even exposing your skin to sunlight through a windowpane will prevent the entry of the UVB rays, which are the specific wavelength that produces vitamin D in your skin. So, it is crucial that you get outside and experience direct skin contact with the sunlight instead of sunning in a sunroom, for instance.

    Second, anti-epileptic drugs that are often given to epilepsy patients can interfere with vitamin D metabolism, leading to deficiency. If you take these drugs, it is especially crucial that you actively monitor your vitamin D levels to avoid this side effect.

    Why might vitamin D have such a significant impact on epileptic seizures? Epilepsy is a disorder of the central nervous system, particularly your brain. Vitamin D is not "just" a vitamin; it's actually a neuroregulatory steroidal hormone that influences nearly 3,000 different genes in your body. Vitamin D receptors can be found in your brain, spinal cord, and central nervous system, and may enhance the amount of important chemicals in your brain needed to protect brain cells, for starters.

The Study Used Supplements, But Sunshine is Better

    Researchers used a one-time large dose of vitamin D3 to boost the participants’ vitamin D levels. If you’re going to supplement, vitamin D3 is certainly far superior to the vitamin D2 researchers used back in the 1970s.

    Today, however, vitamin D2 is still the form typically prescribed by doctors, so be aware of this if you’re taking this nutrient in prescription form. A meta-analysis of 50 clinical trials looking at mortality rates for “doctor recommended” synthetic vitamin D2 supplements versus natural vitamin D3 shows a 6 percent risk reduction among those who used D3, compared to a 2 percent increased risk among those who used D2.

    Research also shows vitamin D3 is approximately 87 percent more potent in raising and maintaining vitamin D concentrations and produces 2- to 3-fold greater storage of vitamin D than does D2. D3 is also converted into its active form 500 percent faster. So by all means use vitamin D3 if you’re going to supplement, not D2 – but even better, simply get out in the sun, or use a safe tanning bed.

    The IDEAL way to optimize your vitamin D levels is through appropriate sun or safe tanning bed exposure. While your skin does create vitamin D3 in response to sunlight, which is theoretically the same as the D3 you get from an oral supplement, there's cause to believe that the vitamin D created from sun exposure may have additional health benefits. Plus, you cannot overdose when getting your vitamin D from sun exposure, as your body has the ability to self-regulate and only make what it needs. You do, however, need to be cautious and avoid burning.

    If you cannot get your vitamin D requirements from sun exposure, I recommend using a safe tanning bed (one with electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, to avoid unnecessary exposure to EMF fields). Safe tanning beds also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. It will certainly be better than no vitamin D at all, but you will need to monitor your levels via blood testing to ensure you stay within the therapeutic range.

    You can learn more about maximizing your vitamin D from safe sun exposure in the video below. If you have epilepsy, it’s possible that doing so could help you decrease seizure drugs (a very good thing, since all seizure drugs can increase your risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and some of these drugs can make you lose your memory and your hair)

This research confirms the protective effect of Vitamin D for many types of cancer. No other known factors in sun exposure would account for these findings. This provides more evidence that sun exposure is protective and that the routine use of sunscreens is counterproductive. Sunscreen should be used to prevent sunburn during prolonged exposure to bright sun at midday. Otherwise sun exposure and ultraviolet radiation promote health. Similarly, in parts of the world and times of the year with limited sun exposure taking a vitamin D supplement in adequate amounts is beneficial to the immune system, promotes bone growth, prevents cardiovascular disease, and reduces the incidence of cancer.

Grant WB. An ecological study of cancer mortality rates in California, 1950-64, with respect to solar UVB and smoking indices. Dermatoendocrinol., epub April 2012.

Lin SW, Wheeler DC, Park Y, Cahoon EK, Hollenbeck AR, Michal Freedman D, Abnet CC. Prospective study of ultraviolet radiation exposure and risk of cancer in the U.S. Int J Cancer. 2012 Apr 26. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27619

The report focused on the findings of The Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Centre at the University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust published last month (March, 2012), which discovered five paraben esters in human breast tissue samples collected from 40 mastectomies from women with primary breast cancer.[2] The report revealed three things:

1) The ester form of parabens found within the breast tissue samples indicated a dermal route of exposure, as would occur through skin care products and underarm deodorants.

2) The paraben residues were found at concentrations up to 1 million times higher than the estrogen (estradiol) levels naturally found in human breast tissue.  

3) Propylparaben was found in the highest concentration in the underarm area (axilla), where underarm deodorants are most used and breast cancer prevalence is at its highest.   

While the World Health Organization considers the estrogenic properties of parabens to be a low toxicological risk due to it being 10,000-100,000 less potent than estradiol (E2), the 1 million-fold higher levels found within breast tissue sampled clearly indicate the magnitude of exposure more than compensates for the reduction in potency.

Also noted in the new study was a highly disturbing possibility: "For exposures in children, concern has already been raised that 'the estrogenic burden of parabens and their metabolites in blood may exceed the action of endogenous estradiol in childhood and the safety margin for propylparaben is very low when comparing worst-case exposure’ (Boberg et al., 2010)."

In other words, synthetic hormones from chemicals like parabens may actually be eclipsing the activity of endogenously produced (natural) hormones in our children.  Given that 99.1% of the US population's urine samples (ages 6 or older) contain methylparaben, this issue has broad-ranging implications.

Presently, European regulations allow for the use of parabens in cosmetics at up to 0.4% by volume.  The limits in the US are much less restricted. According to the FDA’s website: "The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) reviewed the safety of methylparaben, propylparaben, and butylparaben in 1984 and concluded they were safe for use in cosmetic products at levels up to 25%. Typically parabens are used at levels ranging from 0.01 to 0.3%." Parabens are also FDA-approved for use as food preservatives.

Given the fact that modern-day toxicological risk assessments do not account for the adverse effects of chronic, low-dose exposures, nor the reality of synergistic toxicities, i.e. the reality that a chemical's adverse effects may be amplified when present alongside other chemicals, this new research points to a disturbing possibility: commonly used preservatives may be contributing greatly to the burden of disease in exposed populations — especially infants and children, whose body burden is higher (lower body weight vs. chemical dose), susceptibility to chemically-induced genotoxicity higher (because their cells replicate more rapidly), and detoxification systems are less developed than adults.

It is becoming increasingly clear that in order to protect ourselves and especially our offspring from avoidable chemical exposures this country needs to implement the precautionary principle in its toxicological risk assessments: if there is indication that a chemical could do harm (based on cell and animal studies), it should be treated as if it does do harm, and be regulated accordingly. Until then, we are effectively a living and breathing nation of guinea pigs.

For additional research on paraben toxicity visit our research page on the topic. Also, view four studies on ginger's ability to reduce paraben toxicity.

Case in point….
Monsanto-Funded "Research" Reveals Monsanto Products Are Safe

A review on glyphosate (Monsanto's invention and key ingredient in their Roundup herbicide formulation) titled, "Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis," was published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health late last year which claimed the following: "[T]he available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations."

The review authors included a thank you to Monsanto for funding their work: "The authors acknowledge the Monsanto company for funding and for providing its unpublished glyphosate and surfactant toxicity study reports."

Their report aimed to discredit the work of a French research group at the Institut Jaques Monod who published five articles indicating glyphosate’s wide-ranging potential for environmental and human harm.[1]  [2] [3] [4] [5]

In their newly published rebuttal titled, "LETTER TO THE EDITOR: TOXICITY OF ROUNDUP AND GLYPHOSATE," the French research team pointed out several serious flaws in the Monsanto-friendly scientist’s criticism of their work.

The first major flaw was their total disregard for the scientific context within which their glyphosate research was performed, namely, the DNA-damaging and carcinogenic potential of the chemical.

The second flaw was the claim that their results were "not environmentally relevant" (repeated 5 times in the article), despite the fact that the French researchers were able to demonstrate toxicity in 100% of the individual cells at short exposure time below the usage concentration (20 mM) of the herbicide in present agricultural applications. They elaborated on this point further:

    "Therefore, regarding the considerable amount of glyphosate-based product sprayed worldwide, the concentration of Roundup in every single micro droplet is far above the threshold concentration that would activate the cell cycle checkpoint. (2) The effects we demonstrate were obtained by a short exposure time (minutes) of the cells to glyphosate-based products, and nothing excludes that prolonged exposure to lower doses may also have effects. Since glyphosate is commonly found present in drinking water in many countries, low doses with long exposure by ingestion are a fact. The consequences of this permanent long term exposure remain to be further investigated but cannot just be ignored."

In the interest of countervailing the mis- and disinformation, we are indexing research on the under-reported, adverse effects of glyphosate (the active ingredientwhich now include 20 toxic properties associated with 30+ diseases or disease symptoms.