Categories
Featured Articles

Omega-3s May Prevent Obesity-Related Complications

Nutritional Outlook Magazine
February 21, 2009
 
Increased consumption of omega-3 fatty acids may protect against obesity-related damage of the liver, which may lead to diabetes, says a new study published in the FASEB Journal.
Two types of lipids derived from omega-3 fatty acids – protectins and resolvins – were the cause of the protective effect, according to findings.

"Our study shows for the first time that lipids called protectins and resolvins derived from omega-3 fatty acids can actually reduce the instance of liver complications, such as hepatic steatosis and insulin resistance, in obese people," said researcher Joan Claria from the University of Barcelona.

Researchers studied four groups of mice with an altered gene making them obese and diabetic (ob/ob mice). One group of animals was given an omega-3-enriched diet, another group was given a control diet, a third group was given DHA, and the last group received only the lipid resolvin. The interventions lasted for five weeks, after which the researchers report that mice in the omega-3-rich diet group experienced less liver inflammation and improved insulin tolerance.

Further analysis showed that the omega-3s inhibited the formation of omega-6-PUFA-derived eicosanoids, related to inflammation, while the formation of omega-3-derived resolvins and protectins was also triggered.

“Taken together, these findings uncover beneficial actions of omega -3-PUFAs and their bioactive lipid autacoids in preventing obesity-induced insulin resistance and hepatic steatosis,” concluded the researchers.

Commenting independently on the research, Gerald Weissmann, MD, editor-in-chief of the FASEB Journal said,"Doctors are always looking for simple and easy ways to counter the harmful effects of obesity, and the great thing about this study is that the information can be used at dinner tonight."

"It's not unlikely that eating lots more fish or a simple switch to canola oil will make a difference."

Purchase Flax Seed Oil
Purchase Omega 3-6-9

Categories
Featured Articles

Silica Holds Great Promise For Preventing Alzheimers & Building Strong Bones

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
February 14, 2009

Silicon reduces aluminum accumulation in rats: relevance to the aluminum hypothesis of Alzheimer disease.

Bellés M, Sánchez DJ, Gómez M, Corbella J, Domingo JL.

Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health, School of Medicine, Rovira i Virgili University, Reus, Spain.

In recent years, a possible relation between the aluminum and silicon levels in drinking water and the risk of Alzheimer disease (AD) has been established. It has been suggested that silicon may have a protective effect in limiting oral aluminum absorption. The present study was undertaken to examine the influence of supplementing silicon in the diet to prevent tissue aluminum retention in rats exposed to oral aluminum. Three groups of adult male rats were given by gavage 450 mg/kg/day of aluminum nitrate nonahydrate 5 days a week for 5 weeks. Concurrently, animals received silicon in the drinking water at 0 (positive control), 59, and 118 mg Si/L. A fourth group (-Al, – Si) was designated as a negative control group. At the end of the period of aluminum and silicon administration, urines were collected for 4 consecutive days, and the urinary aluminum levels were determined. The aluminum concentrations in the brain (various regions), liver, bone, spleen, and kidney were also measured. For all tissues, aluminum levels were significantly lower in the groups exposed to 59 and 118 mg Si/L than in the positive control group; significant reductions in the urinary aluminum levels of the same groups were also found. The current results corroborate that silicon effectively prevents gastrointestinal aluminum absorption, which may be of concern in protecting against the neurotoxic effects of aluminum.

PMID: 9651136 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]

Purchase Silica

Categories
Featured Articles

Baking Soda Boosts Athletic Performance by Alkalizing the Body

by David Gutierrez

(NaturalNews) Baking soda can indeed increase athletes' speed, according to a pair of recent studies giving confirmation to a belief that scientists have long been skeptical of.

For years, professional athletes have sworn by "soda doping," the practice of taking baking soda before competitive sporting event in order to improve speed and endurance.

In the first study, researchers from Loughborough University gave baking soda to nine swimmers, finding that eight of them reduced their time in a 200 meter race by an average of 1.5 seconds.

"At the last Olympics, the top four swimmers in the men's 200 meter freestyle were separated by just 1.4 seconds," lead researcher Jonathan Folland said. "So, in theory, it could be the difference between winning a medal and not."

In the second study, researchers from the American College Sports Medicine gave either a capsule of baking soda or a placebo pill to a number of runners in an 800 meter dash. A number of those taking baking soda suffered from indigestion, a well-known side effect.

"If you took out the participants who experienced negative side-effects … you'd see an average improvement in running times of about 2.2 seconds," said lead researcher Ronald Deitrick. "For a relatively short running distance, that's very significant."

Swallowing baking soda can also cause diarrhea.

Researchers believe that baking soda increases athletes' speeds due to its well-known alkaline nature – the same nature that makes it function well as a cleaning product or antacid. Baking soda, scientists believe, prevents the buildup of the waste products of anaerobic exercise, such as lactic acid, that can lead to soreness or fatigue.

The new findings raise the question of whether baking soda should be added to the list of banned substances in sporting competitions.

"It comes down to whether or not the athlete has a competitive advantage by taking an aid," Deitrick said. "And in the case of sodium bicarbonate, I believe the answer is yes. It violates the spirit of fair play by artificially enhancing performance."

Categories
Featured Articles

Abdominal Fat may Play Role in Migraine Headaches

by Susanne Morrone

(NaturalNews) According to ScienceDaily (Feb. 13, 2009) – a new study shows overweight people between the ages of 20 and 55 may have a higher risk of experiencing migraine headaches. The author of the study is B. Lee Peterlin, DO, of Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, PA.

The study consisted of 22,211 participants who were asked by researchers to report whether they suffered from either migraine or severe headaches. In the 20 to 55 age bracket, on average, those with larger waistlines were more likely to have migraine attacks than people of the same age who had smaller waistlines.

To ascertain abdominal obesity, measurements were taken by waist circumference and with total body obesity. This was calculated by using the body mass index based on a person`s weight and height. BMI is a reliable indicator of body fatness for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may result in health problems. The study found that age, gender and the way that body fat is distributed affected the risk of migraine.

Thirty-seven percent of women between the ages of 20 to 55 with excess abdominal fat reported migraines compared to 29 percent without excess abdominal fat. Regarding men in the same age group, 20 percent of those with abdominal obesity reported migraines as compared to 16 percent of those without abdominal obesity.

In women 20 to 55 years of age with excess belly fat, the odds of migraine went up 1.3 times after adjusting for heart disease risk factors and for total body obesity. Over the age of 55, total body obesity was not associated with migraine in men or women. In women over 55 years with large waistlines, the odds of migraine actually decreased.

"These results, while still in the early stages, suggest that losing weight in the stomach area may be beneficial for younger people who experience migraine and especially so for women," said Dr Peterlin. He added, "Men and women have body tissue distributed in different ways. After puberty women show more fatty tissue deposits in the hip and thigh area while men predominantly have more fatty tissue in the belly region. After menopause, women show more fatty tissue in the belly area as well. For some diseases, including heart disease and diabetes, excess fat around the waistline appears to be a stronger risk factor than total body obesity."

Dr. Peterlin is also a member of the American Academy of Neurology and will be presenting these findings at the American Academy of Neurology`s 61st Annual Meeting in Seattle, April 25 to May 2, 2009.

Categories
Featured Articles

Big Brother Health Care Provisions Slipped Into Economic Stimulus Bill

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) The new $800 billion economic stimulus bill contains some striking new "Big Brother" health care language that should give pause to all freedom-loving Americans. For starters, the bill requires the electronic tracking of the medical records of all Americans. All your private medical data will be stored in a government database, including your history of disease, pharmaceutical treatments, surgeries and even emergency room visits.

How would you like the government knowing all the details about your drug rehab? Or alcoholism treatments? Abortion? Sexually-transmitted disease diagnosis? Pregnancy status? Blood test results?

But it gets even more interesting than that: Under the new provisions found in the bill, all U.S. doctors will now be stripped of autonomy and forced to follow the medical treatment guidelines dictated by the government.

This news should rock the medical world (once they truly understand it). It means doctors can no longer make their own decisions about patients' needs or treatment protocols. From now on, all health care decisions will be centrally planned by a dictatorial, Big Brother health care authority in the federal government.

How to turn doctors into sheeple
As Bloomberg.com reports, Tom Daschle was one of the architects of this plan, and he says that doctors "have to learn to operate less like solo practitioners."

Any doctor that deviates from that plan would be penalized by the government. That means, for example, that a local doctor who knows the patient and his family, and who is aware of specific local circumstances affecting that patient will no longer be able to apply any of that knowledge in treating the patient. All treatments will be dictated from the government, obliterating the whole point of allowing doctors to operate with some degree of autonomy in the first place.

Effectively, this bill transforms the entire U.S. medical profession into nothing more than pill-pushing puppets. It wipes out the intelligence of a local doctor and replaces it with the stupidity of Big Government.

If the government says all expectant mothers must be screened for depression and put on antidepressant drugs, then all the doctors have to play along and do that if they don't want to be fined or have their medical licenses taken away. If the government says nutritional supplements are dangerous and cannot be recommended to patients, then all doctors must remain silent and avoid telling patients the truth about helpful nutritional supplements. Whatever the government dictates must now be mirrored by all practicing doctors.

Categories
Featured Articles

Cholesterol, Statins, and CoQ10

By Bob Reece

First the given: that statin drugs such as Lipitor, Mevacor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, Advicor, Crestor, and Baychol do lower cholesterol (Baychol was voluntarily removed from the market after some 112 deaths being attributed to it).  However as with all pharmacological agents, drugs often have a dark side with serious consequences to health.  Adverse effects in this case include liver damage, muscle inflammation, tiredness, gastrointestinal symptoms, rashes, blurred vision and memory loss.  The plot thickens.

Statin drugs are also known to cause myopathy which is a weakening of the muscles – as found in cardio-myopathy.  And cardio-myopathy a primary cause of congestive heart failure.

Statin drugs effectively cause the liver to quit producing cholesterol, causing levels to drop.  However the liver also manufactures Coenzyme Q10 (C0Q10) which is absolutely essential for the body to produce energy.  But by also blocking this vital source of energy, there can be disastrous consequences to health.

The most sinister effect of statins however, is that these drugs also block the liver’s ability to  produce CoQ10.  And CoQ10 deficiencies and heart failure go hand in glove.  With heart attacks increasing at ever faster numbers, Julian Whitaker, MD and numerous studies have suggested that the CoQ10  deficiencies caused by the increasing reliance on statin drugs, may be the main culprit (largely responsible).

CoQ10 is absolutely essential and it is proven that statin drugs deplete the body of CoQ10 by as much as 40 percent, slowly but surely draining the batteries that fuel the heart and other muscle groups.

The bottom line issue to the above is that back in 1990, pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co (makers of Mevacor), received two US patents for the combined use of CoQ10 and statin drugs.  The “purpose” was to treat and prevent the side effects of liver damage and myopathy caused by statin drugs’ blockage of CoQ10 production.  The first patent, patent #4,929,437 clearly states that by lowering CoQ10, the statin drugs can cause predictable elevations of liver enzymes along with liver damage.  It also states that by giving CoQ10 along with the drugs, this complication can be prevented, or easily treated if it already exists.

The second patent issued a month later also addresses use of CoQ10 to prevent, and for the treatment of, muscle pain, weakness, and myopathy.

Now for the most incredible part, that to this date Merck has never exercised either of these patents, has never made the combination CoQ10 / statin product, and even worse, has never attempted to educate physicians or patients about the very dangerous connection.  For that matter, neither have any of the drug companies bothered to share information with either doctors or patients.

Patients are informed of potential side effects of muscle weakness or soreness or liver enzyme elevations, although with very rare exceptions are they ever told that this is likely due to the drug’s reduction of CoQ10.  Nor are they told that the use of CoQ10 supplements could prevent or eliminate these problems. 

This problem is now exacerbated to a potentially huge public health disaster with lower guidelines set recently by the National Cholesterol Education Program.  These new guidelines have reduced the levels for which statin drugs can be prescribed, the end result which is that we now have an epidemic of congestive heart failure, with over 400,000 NEW cases reported every year – because of the heart’s inability to effectively pump blood.  And once again according to Dr. Whitaker, half of the 4.8 million Americans who currently have congestive heart failure will die within five years.

What to do?

If you, or a friend, or family members are taking a statin drug, you should immediately begin protecting yourself with a minimum of 100 to 200 mg of CoQ10 daily.  The product is easily found at any health food store.  It is also suggested getting a blood test to determine your CoQ10 level and increasing that dose if indicated.

PS:  We haven’t the space to give full details however CoQ10 also appears to be particularly effective in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s.  A recent study published in the Archives of Neurology involving 80 patients with early Parkinson’s disease experienced a 44 percent reduction in worsening of symptoms.  It also has a role with diabetes as per Australian scientist Jonathan Hodgson who showed that CoQ10 is normally at sub levels with diabetics and subsequently that CoQ10 supplements improved blood sugar control.

Categories
Featured Articles

Selenium-Chromium-Silica: Three Important Minerals

by Christopher C. Barr

‘Spaceballs’ is a somewhat obscure film made by the movie making giant Mel Brooks that spoofed the science fiction genre about 20 years ago. The film took the ‘Star Wars’ standby “May the force be with you” and played it for laughs with “May the Schwartz be with you”. Allow me to take off on that laugh line and convert it to a life line, “May the Schwarz be with you”.

Dr. Klaus Schwarz, M.D., Ph.D., is a truly obscure figure though a true giant of scientific research that sparked science non-fiction research 50 years ago. The accomplishments for life from the research of Dr. Schwarz have not been matched in all the years since that time.

Schwarz established the essentiality for life of more nutrients than any man who ever lived. Selenium and chromium were the first two while silicon was the last of the six minerals established as essential for life through his body of work.

The mineral selenium plays a greater role than any other element when it comes to prostate or breast cancer.

The mineral chromium shines more brightly than any other element when it comes to diabetes.

The mineral silicon has the most prominent role of any element when it comes to both bone and joint health.

May the Schwarz be with you.

Ironic elements of the Schwarz story

The life of this giant with accomplishments that were epic in validity has been sadly, tragically relegated to a short Schwarz story.

First, Dr. Schwarz established selenium as an essential element for life in 1957. This essentiality was determined in liver studies. Ironically selenium had previously been accused – and falsely so – of being a toxic element to the liver, and was discarded from consideration by mainstream science at large for many years before. Sadly some lummoxes of the polluted stream of mainstream science still languish lazily in that erroneous deception.

Selenium soon was noted by scientists too numerous to mention as a cancer preventative. In yet another twisted irony, prior to the landmark find by Schwarz of the essentiality for selenium in liver studies, this life essential was picked – randomly it seems – to receive blame for non-cancerous liver tumors many years before.

A pesticide study had noted the liver tumors. Rather than blame the pesticide itself that was full of all kinds of chemicals, the study authors singled out the mineral selenium — without any foundation – that was barely present in the pesticide. Though the study demonstrated non-cancerous liver tumors, and though there was no direct connection to selenium established, this study is the origin for statements by ignorant scientists that selenium may be linked as a cause for cancer.

Selenium has been studied at great length and no other item has demonstrated greater anti-cancer abilities.

Selenium has also been discovered as essential for thyroid function. This life enriching mineral is at least as important to thyroid health as the mineral iodine that receives the lion’s share of attention for thyroid health.

This vital element has also been profoundly noted for heart, joint and immune system strength.

The importance of this vitally necessary element selenium remains nearly as unknown as the name of Dr. Klaus Schwarz who established its essentiality though it is so well documented for so many health matters.

Dr. Schwarz established chromium as an essential element for life just two years after establishing selenium as essential. This essentiality was also determined in liver studies. Chromium was established as essential specifically for blood sugar metabolism. Despite the naturally inherent connection to diabetes of this vital nutrient chromium, it is also nearly as ignored as is the man who established its necessity.

Space does not permit discussion for all the other profound uses of this shining star of nutrition that is the mineral chromium. Only this brief mention is made as to its use against birth defects, for energy production, for healthy eyes, and for heart health.

Lastly, Dr. Schwarz established silicon as an essential element for life. It is the most important element for bone health and may be of no less vitality for heart and blood vessel health.

Schwarz was establishing extensive silicon studies at his federal government research position to flesh out more fully its uses when his life was cut short in the 1970s. The government dumped this research upon his death.

Selenium, chromium and silicon are very common deficiencies due to the very common consumption of refined, bleached white flour in the American diet. This standard American diet (sAd) choice has been reported as 20 per cent of the standard American diet. The whole grain source material can be an abundant source of these elements but greater than 90 per cent of these vitally essential nutrients are removed during processing into white flour.

No other three elements are more commonly deficient or profoundly important than the mineral elements selenium, chromium and silicon noted as essential by way of the stellar work of Dr. Klaus Schwarz.

Though previously a line for laughter it is herewith noted regarding these better than medicine, best options among mineral nutrients of selenium, chromium and silicon — “May the Schwarz be with you”.

Categories
Featured Articles

Is Obama Bailing Out Big Pharma’s Busting Bubble?

b y Byron J. Richards, CCN

Bubble economics has become a painful financial lesson for America and the rest of the world. Will we learn from our mistakes? Will we get smarter about recognizing bubbles before they burst, so that the air can be let out of them in a less painful manner? It appears that our new president, in his passion to provide health care for everyone, is about to pump hot air into a bubble that is ready to explode under the weight of its own fraud and lack of results. The magnitude of this problem is on par with the scope of our mortgage meltdown mess, yet the problem is quietly flying under the radar – mostly due to denial. Sound familiar?

A free economy works well when its members roll up their sleeves and put in a hard day’s honest work. It suffers when those in leadership or control con the system for excessive personal profit or when members are lazy or seek something for nothing.

At the moment it is very popular for Americans to hate Wall Street – and with good reason. However, be careful what you wish for. Wall Street exists to coordinate investment in the private sector, leverage the power of money to expand business productivity, and consequently to produce jobs for Americans and the rest of the world – so that you can buy whatever you want in exchange for what you have produced. Investors help make this possible, and expect a piece of the pie.

A bubble is a fraudulent product with a sustained revenue source that does not produce a legitimate or desired result. It sucks up money and acts like a parasite on true productivity, eating pie that wasn’t earned. In the case of the financial products provided by Wall Street, various players created fraudulent investment products with no real value and sold them as if they were legitimate.

Investors around the world bought them, providing the bubble funding. Consumers went along with it, using the money to buy houses they couldn’t afford while acquiring additional possessions with Monopoly-money credit. The price of housing soared on the back of this fraudulent bubble, providing temporary financing to fuel real jobs for the economy. The problem with all bubbles is that there is a day of reckoning. And that day has come.

The Health Care Bubble

Many are now blaming the lack of regulation on Wall Street for the bursting economic bubble. This implies that greater amounts of regulation would solve the problem and prevent it from happening again. However, laws are typically bubble makers. This is because those with money, often obtained by a bubble in the first place, use that money to lobby for laws that lock in their bubble. And this gets me to the story of the Big Pharma health-care bubble – a story driven by the opposite problem of Wall Street – too much regulation getting in the way of health while flowing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into a black hole.

Hospitals profit only when beds are full. Last year in the beginning of February, like this year, hospitals were lamenting over the lost profits from the lack of a vigorous flu season. Yes, it’s true, unless a lot of people get really sick in the next few months hospitals will be in big financial trouble.

Doctors can only make money when people come to see them; which doesn’t happen that often when people are well. When doctors get people well they lose business. No wonder they swear by vaccination programs. And Big Pharma can only make money on drugs when people have to take them endlessly – not when people are made well by a treatment. Hundreds of billions of dollars are in play.

Most of us in the field of natural health call this the sickness industry. Yes, I know, there are legitimate health care needs and expenses. That is not my point. We have more than a slight problem on our hands, as several hundred thousand Americans are killed each year by the fraud within this industry. No war has ever taken such a toll, especially from an enemy that is not even openly identified. Regulations and laws, both state and federal, are used to buy cover for this fraudulent and murderous bubble world – sanctioning it as legal.

The problem is far worse than public health officials care to admit. Denial is always needed in order to perpetuate a bubble. Injuries and deaths are swept under the rug. They are typically blamed on the patient’s underlying health, not on the treatment that caused further problems.

The health-care bubble has been building for a century. It has reached the breaking point due to high profile disasters like Vioxx. There are currently numerous bubble-related drug scandals under investigation, causing the general public to be more afraid of bubble treatments pushed on them by their bubble-trained doctors. FDA management is most often a co-conspirator, pitting itself against the more prudent advice of its safety scientists. FDA management is a revolving door with the industry it is supposed to regulate, and FDA managers typically move on to take high-paying jobs in the health-care bubble economy.

Scientific journals have been hijacked by the bubble gangs, their integrity lost. Research universities are on the bubble payroll, as are key doctors around the country. Professional organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association are little more than organized bubble gangster mobs. Most doctors live in fear of their licensing boards. The Big Pharma bubble economy is like house building gone wild – is it too big an industry to let fail?

The problem with the health-care bubble can be summed up by asking one simple question: Where is the result of actual health produced from services and treatments? No business can survive without help when it routinely fails to produce the result or product that is expected – why should health care be any different?

This phony industry can only be sustained if the costs of its services and products are paid for by others – and these health care costs are already a major drag on productivity and competitiveness for all Americans (costing lots of jobs). Obama was told by the health care industry that it would take at least two years to try to rein in the fraud in this system before a national health care system could even have a chance – and that is just the blatant fraud – nobody is looking into how deep the rabbit hole actually goes.

Obama is not listening and is instead taking the opportunity of the financial meltdown to orchestrate his health care agenda through “stimulus” spending, locking in hundreds of billions of dollars of new yearly funding for this bubble. Republicans argue that such spending doesn’t create enough new jobs. And Democrats argue that any spending stimulates the economy. Since Democrats are now in control, they will stimulate the economy in a way that reflects their health-care objectives.

The problem that neither political party seems to be addressing is: What happens when stimulus spending is fueling another major bubble that is about ready to burst?

Obama is Likely to Expand the Health Bubble

During the McCain and Obama debates the question was asked, “Is health care a right or a privilege.” Obama said it was a right.

It is of course very admiral for a wealthy society to do whatever it can to help its members in need – there obviously must be some form of a safety net based on a country’s ability to pay. Accidents, serious acute illness, and many health problems beyond an individual’s control should be the priorities for such care.

Health care expenses are never discussed in a meaningful way because there are too many politically incorrect elephants in the room. No politician, Republican or Democrat, will ever get elected or re-elected actually talking about the real issues as they alienate large blocks of voters who want something for nothing.

The noose around the neck of democracy comes at the point when the non-productive reach such numbers that they realize they can vote themselves a free handout – redistributing wealth from the productive into a bottomless pit. We are now on that doorstep.

For example: our obesity epidemic is causing a diabetes and heart disease epidemic – with unbelievable health costs that are scheduled to skyrocket in the coming years – not to mention lost productivity. Yet, this problem is self-induced in the majority of cases. And it is more often self-induced by the low income sector of society – meaning those that don’t pay taxes in the first place. Who is going to pay for their care? Result: class and race warfare.

Then we have seniors addicted to the Big Pharma medication bubble, many of whom are already on fixed incomes. The medications they think they need do little more than suppress symptoms while making their health worse over time. Who is going to pay for their care? Result: generation warfare.

Then we have the new entry to the health bubble – super expensive biotech drugs that manipulate gene switches that buy time, but, like their predecessors, don’t cure anything. Big Pharma is betting the house on this future. These drugs can extend the life of a cancer patient four-six months – just long enough to bilk the families of their life savings. Who is going to pay for this type of care? Result: certain national economic ruin.

Even if society could reach consensus on such issues, it still comes back to the question of who will pay for it. How can that question be answered when the current health care system is a major bubble of fraud getting ready to blow its gasket? How can we pour money into health care when the current system is perverted – profiting from people being sick and staying sick? While treatments can change numbers on paper, they often fall far short of producing health.

Is Your Health Based on a Sub-Prime Mortgage?

Economists tell us that we must spend, spend, spend to get out of the current mess. In the next breath they tell us that if we had saved more in the first place and hadn’t become a plastic nation of spenders we wouldn’t be having such a hard time right now. And at some magical time in the future we are supposed to stop spending so much and start saving. Moral of the story: if we all would have spent more prudently, saving more as we went along, and bought only what we could afford, then we wouldn’t have helped fuel the current economic bubble.

Apply this idea to your personal health. You should have health reserves – is there anything in them? You should have energy reserves, structural reserves, antioxidant reserves, and an overall state of fitness. Do you? Or have you spent everything into a state of wear and tear, inflammation, fatigue, and declining health? And whose fault would that be?

The more this latter question is answered by pointing the finger away from oneself, the greater our collective problem with health as a society. The more people count on a “free” quick-fix medication that must now be taken forever, the greater our problems.

In my view, rights are earned. Their foundation is hard work, honesty, personal integrity, and doing what you know is right as often as you can. When these concepts are applied to being healthy then individuals eat better, exercise more, enjoy a healthier lifestyle, and manage stress better. They are also much more able to be productive and add value to the financial prosperity of the collective group – while incurring less health care costs.

As a health writer I do what I can to help those who want to follow such a path. I am constantly exposing the fraud within the Big Pharma bubble. I spend many hours trying to explain natural health options to those who want to know. I appreciate all those who are trying to do the same. And we all hope there will be enough of us to weather the coming storm.

Health Freedom in Jeopardy

Natural options for health are in direct competition with the forces that are driving the Big Pharma bubble. It is David vs. Goliath. The natural health forces have little political lobbying clout – it’s mostly a grassroots effort that could be blown away at any time if not for the will and resolve of its members.

While there are individual politicians in both parties (not many) who are allies of natural health – politicians are overall not in tune with the people on this issue and are locked into bubble economics and consequent law making.

Republicans don’t rally behind natural health because they are handsomely paid by Big Pharma to sustain its profits as the priority. Democrats don’t rally behind natural health because the concepts of freedom and choice are at odds with socialized medicine and strict control over public health policy and treatments – key principles of health care for everyone.

Democrats, like Republicans, are also influenced by the Big Pharma bubble lobby and its band of affiliate organizations. And Democrats like regulation to accomplish their objectives. Key Democratic members of Congress have routinely expressed a desire to increase cumbersome regulations for natural health.

The Big Pharma bubble will burst, as all bubbles eventually do. It won’t go down without a fight. Be ready to defend your rights. The coming years will be a battle as Big Pharma tries to obliterate any and all competition in a last ditch effort to retain its false power and profits.

It certainly would be nice if Obama didn’t inadvertently help Big Pharma perpetuate its crimes, but the handwriting is on the wall. Even if Obama understood the nature and scope of the Big Pharma bubble, addressing the issue would delay any movement towards national health care in the foreseeable future. That would appear to be too high a political price tag. What we are seeing is an effort to prop up the Big Pharma bubble with enough spending to keep it going long enough to implement drastic health care reform. Unfortunately, the reform is not based on any financially sustainable model of quality care. The question is not will the bubble burst, the question is when.

Categories
Featured Articles

MRSA: A Severely Underreported Epidemic In The U.S.

From the December 2008 Idaho Observer:

What is MRSA? According to the CDC, methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) refers to types of staph that are resistant to treatment with methicillin, an antibiotic. MRSA is often resistant to other antibiotics as well. While 25 to 30 percent of the population is colonized with staph (meaning bacteria are present, but not causing an infection with staph), approximately one percent is colonized with MRSA.

Staphylococcus aureus or "staph" is a type of bacteria commonly carried on the skin or in the nose of healthy people. However, the CDC also states that staph bacteria are one of the most common causes of skin infections in the United States. An intelligent person might ask, why do healthy people carry this bacteria and not experience skin infections?

On November 16, 2008, The Seattle Times published an article claiming that Washington hospitals, through lack of basic testing and safety protocols being followed, have unleashed a MRSA epidemic in that state. The Times did an investigation that analyzed millions of computerized hospital records and state files that revealed 672 previously undisclosed deaths attributable to MRSA. They found that, over the past decade, the numbers of hospital patients infected with MRSA jumped from 141 cases to a whopping 14,723 cases annually.

One federally-funded study conducted from July, 2004, through December, 2005, on nine "program sites" with a total estimated population of 16,439,000 revealed 8,987 MRSA cases just in that 18-month time period. If we consider their population sample as about 5 percent of the total U.S. population of 300 million people and then multiply the cases in their study to account for the rest of the people in the U.S. during that time frame, we get an estimate of 164,006 cases. According to this study, 20 percent of those infected with MRSA, or approximately 32,800 from July, 2004, through December, 2005, die in the hospital [See Journal of the American Medical Association, October 2007;298(15):1763-1771].

Dr. Joseph Mercola stated, "To put that number into perspective, HIV/AIDS killed 17,000 people that year. The numbers are even more staggering when you include ALL hospital infections, not just MRSA, as approximately 1.7 million Americans contracted infections during hospital stays in 2007, and a subsequent 100,000 people perished from these infections, according to the CDC."

Categories
Featured Articles

Buying Organic is Well Worth the Cost even When Times are Tough

by Barbara Minton

(NaturalNews) Organic food is now the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture. In 2007, the value of retail sales from organic food was estimated at more than $20 billion. According to the Food Marketing Institute, more than half of Americans now buy some organic food product at least once a month. The industry is expected to grow at a rate of 18 percent per year until 2010, making organic food sales one of the fastest growing sectors in the generally sagging U.S. economy. Cutting organic food from their budgets is just not an option for many people who are struggling to make ends meet.

What does it mean to be organic?

According to the National Organic Standards Board:

"Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.

"The word organic is a labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the Organic Foods Production Act. The principal guidelines for organic production are to use materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole.

"Organic agriculture practices cannot ensure that products are completely free of residues; however, methods are used to minimize pollution from air, soil and water.

"Organic food handlers, processors and retailers adhere to standards that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products. The primary goal of organic agriculture is to optimize the health and productivity of interdependent communities of soil life, plants, animals and people."

This definition gently shades the meaning most people associate with the term, such as the use of non-chemical fertilizers and pesticides as the food is being grown. Canada`s recently instituted organic regulations specifically prohibit synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically-modified organisms (GMO).

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) puts it this way: "Organic crops are raised without using most conventional pesticides, petroleum-based fertilizers, or sewage sludge-based fertilizers. Animals raised on an organic operation must be fed organic feed and given access to the outdoors. They are given no antibiotics or growth hormones."

The USDA allows a sliding scale that reduces some of the rigors of their own definition. According to this scale, only goods that are made entirely of certified organic materials and methods are labeled as "100 percent organic", while those whose makeup is only 95 percent pure are labeled organic. Both categories provide a USDA seal. Salt and water are exempted from consideration as ingredients.

Then there is another category that permits the use of up to 30 percent non-organic materials and methods in production, but which may be legally labeled "made with organic ingredients". Products that are less than 70 percent organic are not allowed to call themselves organic in any way. However, organic ingredients may be listed as such.

Just reading these definitions and finding out what cannot be included in a product labeled as organic is a powerful inducement to buy only organic products.

Organic farming offers a difference

In the U.S. alone, more than one billion pounds of pesticides are released into the environment as a result of non-organic practices. Some of these are very persistent and remain in the environment long after application. Extensive pesticide residue testing by the USDA found that conventionally produced fruits and vegetables are three to over four times more likely to contain pesticide residues than organic produce, and these are eight to eleven times more likely to contain multiple residues and residues at levels three to ten times higher than corresponding residues found in organic samples.

A recent study reported in Environmental Health Perspectives found that by substituting organic fresh fruits and vegetables for corresponding conventional food items, the median urinary metabolite concentrations of malathion and chlorpyrifos pesticides could be reduced from a high level to a level of non-detected or close to non-detected.

Conventional agricultural methods can cause water contamination. Beginning in 1995, a network of environmental organizations, including the Environmental Working Group, began testing tap water for herbicides across the Corn Belt, and in Louisiana and Maryland. The results revealed widespread contamination of tap water with many different pesticides at levels that present serious health risks. In some cities, herbicides in tap water exceeded federal lifetime health standards for weeks or months at a time. The elimination of polluting chemicals and nitrogen leaching by the use of organic farming methods, in combination with soil building, works to prevent contamination and to protect and conserve water resources.

The term "natural" has no real meaning

The parameters of the word "organic" are fairly well defined and specified. Many other food producers wish to gain the appeal and higher price tag of organic foods without going through the rigors to obtain organic certification. Instead, they label their food products as "natural". This term does not in any way mean that the product meets the criteria met by organic products.

If it seems like there are more products labeled as natural, it is not your imagination. Almost everyone who is not an organic producer wants to cash in on American`s desire to eat healthier. One-third of all new U.S. food and beverage products in 2008 highlighted claims of being "natural" or otherwise healthy. But terms like these have nothing to do with the nutritive value of the final product. Even the term "organic" simply refers to how the product was grown or raised, and does not refer to the nutritional value of the product.

The USDA, the regulating body for meat and poultry, says those products can be labeled as "natural" if they do not contain any artificial ingredients or added color, and are only minimally processed (a vague requirement). But if the term is used, the label must also give an additional explanation, such as "no added colorings or artificial ingredients".

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows the term "natural" to be used on food labels when the food contains no added colors, artificial flavors or synthetic substances. This leaves a large gray area. When asked in 2005 to be more specific in its definition of "natural", the FDA declined. Soon after, the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued Kraft Foods because of an "all natural" claim for its Capri Sun drinks. The suit was dropped when Kraft agreed to take the claim off the label. The makers of 7 Up tried to make the same claim but removed the term from its label under threat of court action.

Why does organic food cost so much?

Prices for organic foods reflect many of the same costs as conventional items in terms of growing, harvesting, transportation and storage. Organically produced foods must also meet stricter regulations governing all of these steps, resulting in a more labor and management intensive process. Organic farming is usually on a smaller scale. Mounting evidence shows that if all the indirect costs of conventional food production, like the cleanup of polluted water, replacement of eroded soils, costs of health care to farmers and farm workers, were factored into the price of food, organic foods would cost the same or even less than conventionally grown foods.

A July, 2008 survey found that among customers who reported buying organic products, 56 percent had household incomes of more than $100,000, and 36 percent had incomes of less than $25,000. This data shows that the decision to shop organically is a matter of priorities.

Although the organic industry is predicted to grow at 18 percent a year through 2010, the sagging economy may tempt some Americans to cut back on organic purchases they perceive as costing more. But in the long run this choice is clearly not cost effective considering the damage to health and productivity losses associated with a conventionally grown diet, as well as the hidden costs of buying conventional. And then, there`s the taste to think about.

Sources:

Organic Trade Association, www.ota.com.

Gregory McNamee, Just What Does Organic Mean, Anyway? Encyclopedia Britannica Blog.

Martha Filipic, Chow Line: `Natural`often means little on label, Ohio State University Extension.