Misleading Data on Breast Implant-Related Cancer Removed from Site

Toxic Breast Implants

French Warned of Toxic Implants, no one listened
More than 30,000 women have had breast implants filled with industrial silicone instead of medical-grade fillers.  Complete article.

Thousands Of Women Given Leaky, Toxic Breast Implants Complete article.

Breast Implants and Rupture Science is still debating as to whether ruptured silicone breast implants are responsible for illness and disease. What is known is that when the silicone leaches throughout the body, it wants to stay in the body. Any foreign matter, including silicone, is not easily transported out of the body. The body needs help in ridding itself of any potentially harmful agent.
DNR, Inc. has created Body Soak-Gold for those women who have experienced ruptured silicone implants. Its design is to help activate the body's own resources necessary for it to release and remove impurities resulting from leaching or ruptured implants. This can occur with each soak and for hours thereafter.
Light Energized SolutionsBody Soak GOLD Item #: 105-G
Your Price: $52.00
Stress - Cleansing - Breast Implants - Relaxing - Emotions
Posted Feb 2011

Another attempt by mainstream medicine to keep women uninformed about health risks has been stymied.
In February 2011, Public Citizen alerted the FDA that the presidents of two leading plastic surgery organizations – the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) – urged members to inaccurately downplay the significance of recent evidence about the risks of breast implant-related cancer when speaking to female patients during a recent members-only webinar posted on the ASPS and ASAPS websites. Such communications represented a deplorable attempt to trivialize the significance of the findings of increased numbers of cases of a rare form of cancer, called anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), in women with breast implants. Public Citizen called on the FDA to stop this deliberately misleading messaging campaign, the goal of which apparently was to keep women in the dark about the dangers of breast implants so they will continue to ask for them. Complete article

New Leadership:  Karuna R. Jaggar appointed Executive Director of Breast Cancer Action.
San Francisco, CA— After an exhaustive search the Breast Cancer Action board of directors announced Karuna R. Jaggar as the organization’s new executive director.  “We feel extremely proud and excited about our new Executive Director,” said BCA board president Claudia Cappio. “Karuna has worked in non-profit leadership and capacity building for 15 years advocating for women’s rights and socio-economic empowerment.  She uncompromisingly challenges inequities at every level and this will continue to be her focus as she leads Breast Cancer Action.”

Jaggar has a personal passion to end the breast cancer epidemic fueled by her commitment to social justice and her own experiences as a patient advocate.  “My closest family members have grappled with three breast cancer diagnoses during the last ten years,” Jaggar stated.  “It is not enough to educate ourselves and try to make “good” lifestyle choices. We need systemic change to end this breast cancer epidemic.”

Jaggar is driven by the reality that social injustices and environmental factors put each of us at risk of developing breast cancer, regardless of family medical history.  “Every woman affected by breast cancer should possess the power and knowledge to make informed decisions that enable them to take control of their healthcare,” Jaggar said.  “This includes a women’s right to access affordable treatment options, to create individualized treatment plans, and to make healthcare decisions centered on personal values and priorities.”

Under Jaggar’s leadership, BCA will remain uncompromising on issues of health, social and environmental justice:  “We will continue to fearlessly and relentlessly tell the truth about breast cancer,” Jaggar asserted.

Breast Cancer Action, the San Francisco based national watchdog of the breast cancer movement, is known for a commitment to understanding breast cancer through a social justice and health equity lens.  The organization demands greater corporate accountability and better treatment options for patients; pays keen attention to the social inequities that cause differences in breast cancer incidence and outcomes; secures changes at the policy level to reverse involuntary exposure to carcinogens; and works to shift  the balance of power at the FDA away from pharmaceutical companies towards patient interests. 

Prior to her role at BCA, Jaggar was the Executive Director, East Bay of the Women’s Initiative for Self Employment where she worked to reverse inequities among low-income women and women of color.  Jaggar replaces Barbara Brenner who retired at the end of 2010.

PhRMA Profit Grab

Today we learn something that every woman should speak out about: A 15000% price increase for a pharmaceutical with further pressure to close down compounding pharmacies.

This is just one example of why profiteering is the main reason your health care costs so much.

Preemie birth preventive spikes from $10 to $1,500
By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer
None of them anticipated the dramatic price hike, though — especially since most of the cost for development and research was shouldered by others in the past.
"That's a huge increase for something that can't be costing them that much to make. For crying out loud, this is about making money," said Dr. Roger Snow, deputy medical director for Massachusetts' Medicaid program.
"I've never seen anything as outrageous as this," said Dr. Arnold Cohen, an obstetrician at Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia.
"I'm breathless," said Dr. Joanne Armstrong, the head of women's health for Aetna, the Hartford-based national health insurer.
Doctors say the price hike may deter low-income women from getting the drug, leading to more premature births. And it will certainly be a huge financial burden for health insurance companies and government programs that have been paying for it.
The cost is justified to avoid the mental and physical disabilities that can come with very premature births, said KV Pharmaceutical chief executive Gregory J. Divis Jr. The cost of care for a preemie is estimated at $51,000 in the first year alone.
"Makena can help offset some of those costs," Divis told The Associated Press. "These moms deserve the opportunity to have the benefits of an FDA-approved Makena."
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is not involved in setting the price for the drugs it approves.
A KV subsidiary, Ther-Rx Corp., will market the drug. On Tuesday, it announced a patient assistance program designed to help uninsured and low-income women get the drug at little or no cost.
But Snow and others said someone is going to have to pay the higher price. Some of the burden will fall on health insurance companies, which will have to raise premiums or other costs to their other customers. And some will fall on cash-strapped state Medicaid programs, which may be forced to stop paying for the drug or enroll fewer people.
"There's no question they can't afford this," said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.
Salo and Snow said they do not know how many state Medicaid programs currently pay for Makena, which as a generic was recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Aetna will continue to pay for the drug, Armstrong said, but it will be an expensive pill to swallow. Aetna currently covers it for about 1,000 women a year, so the new federal endorsement is likely to cost an estimated $30 million more annually.
Makena is a synthetic form of the hormone progesterone that first came on the market more than 50 years ago to treat other problems. Hormone drugs came under fire in the 1970s, following reports they might damage fetuses in early pregnancy. In the 1990s, the early incarnation of Makena was withdrawn from the market.
But the drug got a new life in 2003, with publication of a study that reported it helped prevent early births to women who had a history of spontaneous preterm deliveries.
These very early births produce children who — if they survive — need months of intensive care and often suffer disabilities. The cause of sudden preterm delivery is not understood, but it occurs in black mothers at much higher rates than whites or Hispanics.
The study of women at risk for this condition found that only about 36 percent of those given the progesterone drug had preterm births, compared with 55 percent among those not on the drug.
It's believed the treatment calms the muscles of the uterus, experts said.
There is no good alternative in most cases and in the years following the study, more obstetricians, Medicaid programs and others began prescribing it. By some estimates, about 130,000 women a year might benefit from the drug. Only a fraction of them get it, but the number has been growing steadily.
One success story is Beatrice Diaz, 33, of Chapel Hill, N.C.
During her first pregnancy nine years ago, Diaz unexpectedly went into labor at about 24 weeks. She delivered a son, Garrison, who was so fragile she was not allowed to hold him for a month. Today he is in a wheelchair and has the mental capacity of a 9-month-old.
It was a shock, said Diaz, who at the time was a legal assistant in a prosecutor's office.
"Honestly I thought the only people who had 1-pound babies were crackheads," she said.
When she became pregnant again, her doctor prescribed the progesterone drug, a weekly injection that starts as early as the 16th week and may be given for as much as 20 weeks. She has since had two healthy, full-term baby girls, Hailyn and Alexa.
Diaz said she's not planning to have any more children — and that's a good thing.
"That's an insane amount of money. I don't know what I would do to get the money to afford it," she said.
The Ther-Rx patient assistance program promises free injections or much reduced prices based on income. Uninsured households making less than $100,000 are eligible for a copay of $20 or less.
Ther-Rx and its parent company became involved about three years ago and acquired rights to the drug from a Massachusetts company named Hologic Inc., said Divis, who is also Ther-Rx's president.
To get FDA approval, the company is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in additional research, including an international study involving 1,700 women, Divis said. The FDA last month signed off and gave Makena orphan drug status. That designation ensures Ther-Rx will be the sole source of the drug for seven years.
The March of Dimes, which gets hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from Ther-Rx, celebrated the approval in a press release, saying if all women eligible for the shots receive them, nearly 10,000 spontaneous premature births could be prevented each year.
"For the first time, we have an FDA-approved treatment to offer women who have delivered a baby too soon, giving them hope that their next child will have a better chance at a healthy start in life," said Dr. Alan Fleischman, the organization's medical director.
As for the cost, he said the drug maker's financial assistance program will ensure no eligible woman is denied the drug due to inability to pay.
Some doctors said they were happy getting the cheaper version from compounding pharmacies, and Aetna's Armstrong said she was unaware of any quality concerns.
Still, doctors will use the Ther-Rx brand, in part because of legal worries.
Not that they have a choice: Last month, KV sent cease-and-desist letters to compounding pharmacies, telling them they could face FDA enforcement actions if they kept making the drug.

Real Milk is Raw Milk

2011 UPDATE - March  Only 2 deaths from raw milk, that was really cheese.  Sounds like Big Dairy is in control of your food choices at CDC.
There's another related number that has been around much longer, and it's this: Between 1998 and 2008, there have been two deaths from raw milk. This number comes up repeatedly in media reporting about raw milk, courtesy of the CDC, even though I have reported that those illnesses appear to have come from queso fresco cheese, a soft fresh cheese that isn't legal under FDA regulations requiring a minimum 60 day aging period.http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2011/2/18/the-power-of-numbers-in-the-war-over-raw-dairy-how-the-cdc-c.html

UPDATE: 21 July 2010  -  War Over Raw Milk
Raw Food Raid

2 June - Remember that when milk began to be homogenized in the 1950s the rate of atherosclerosis started to skyrocket.  What we need is a return to real food, not corporate-dictated processed products.

" Milk from dairy cows that graze on pasture land rather than in feedlots might be healthier for your heart, according to a report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Dairy products are the main source of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), an unsaturated fat that some studies show could protect the heart. Pasture-grazing dairy cows have more CLA in their milk than grain-fed cows, according to the report.

In a study of 3,600 people, the researchers found that people with the highest concentration of CLAs had a 36 percent lower risk of heart attack than people with the lowest CLAs."Read more...

Real Milk Nutrition
UPDATE: 24 April, 2010 -  While I am pleased to see this judge ruled with common sense and in keeping with the law I am baffled that the "health blogger" sourced in these articles failed to refer to Dr. Frank McCoy in regard to natural healing with food, especially raw milk.  But them we are in the superficial zone these days as far as source material, too bad.
UPDATE: 18 April, 2010 - The Raw Milk Debate: Don't Have a Cow, Man
FDA Alerts Consumers of Raw Milk Danger, By Cole Petrochko, Staff Writer, MedPage Today, 23 March 09
WASHINGTON -- An outbreak of campylobacteriosis has prompted the FDA and several Midwestern state health agencies to warn consumers against drinking unpasteurized, raw milk.
The Michigan Department of Community Health had received at least 12 confirmed reports of raw milk-related illness as of March, 24, the FDA reported in its announcement of the alert.
Unpasteurized milk may contain a variety of infectious bacteria, such as Salmonella and E. Coli, which can cause illness or death, the agency noted.
Adverse events related to drinking the raw milk include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, headache, and body ache.
While most healthy patients recover quickly from milk-borne illnesses, the FDA cautioned that severe reactions may occur in some victims, particularly in pregnant women, older patients, infants, younger children, and patients with a weakened immune system.
Although the FDA has required pasteurization of almost all packaged milk products (excluding some aged cheeses) since 1987, dairy disease is still a threat, according to a Dec. 2008 report in Clinical Infectious Diseases that cited an annual average of 5.2 outbreaks per year between 1993 and 2006. (See Raw Milk Remains a Health Threat)
The FDA noted that from 1998 to 2008, 1,614 illnesses and two deaths related to raw milk were reported.
Proponents of unpasteurized milk claim it's more nutritious than treated milk and inherently antimicrobial.
Not so, the FDA asserted.
"There is no meaningful nutritional difference between pasteurized and raw milk, and raw milk does not contain compounds that will kill harmful bacteria," the agency said.
The FDA's investigation into the outbreak is aided by the Michigan Department of Community Health, the Illinois Department of Public Health, the Indiana State Board of Animal Health, and the Indiana State Health Department.© 2004-2010 MedPage Today, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
NB: High Doses of vitamin C have been shown effective in treating food borne illness.  

UPDATE: 28 March, 2010 
The Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) that was first proposed in 1924 by the United States Public Health Service has been adopted, in its 2003 revision, by 46 out of 50 states. (The four non-adopting states have passed similar ordinances of their own.) The PMO calls for the pasteurization of milk as a way of killing any potentially disease-causing bacteria in the milk, including Campylobacter, Escherichia, Listeria, Salmonella, Yersinia, and Brucella. I would also like to note that in 32 states, it is legal to sell and distribute raw, non-pasteurized milk and that both forms of milk exist in the majority of states.
Today there are more pasteurization options in the marketplace than there were in 1924; these options include high-temperature, short-time methods as well as low-temperature, longer time methods. The goal of all methods is the same: to kill potentially pathogenic bacteria that may be present in the milk or milk product (like cheese or yogurt).
TemperatureTimePasteurization Type
63ºC (145ºF)*30 minutesVat Pasteurization
72ºC (161ºF)*15 secondsHigh temperature short time Pasteurization (HTST)
89ºC (191ºF) 1.0 secondUltra Pasteurization (UP)
90ºC (194ºF)0.5 secondsUltra Pasteurization (UP)
94ºC (201ºF)0.1 secondsUltra Pasteurization (UP)
96ºC (204ºF)0.05 secondsUltra Pasteurization (UP)
100ºC (212ºF)0.01 secondsUltra Pasteurization (UP)
138ºC (280ºF)2.0 secondsUltra-high temperature (UHT) sterilization
Note: * = These temperatures and times are appropriate if the milk does not contain added sweeteners, and if it has not been condensed. If either of those changes applies, then the temperature must be increased by 3ºC (5ºF). In addition, eggnog is an exception to these rules and must be pasteurized according to a different set of times and temperatures.
There's no debate about the effectiveness of pasteurization for killing unwanted bacteria. There's also no doubt that pasteurization gives dairy products a longer shelf life by lowering the presence of bacteria that cause spoilage. But pasteurization also kills desirable bacteria found in fresh milk, and it denatures milk enzymes that may be active in the human digestive tract when fresh milk is consumed.
There is little research, however, to determine what nutritional benefits are lost when milk is pasteurized. I've seen speculation about changes in protein structure, calcium, amino acid, and vitamin C bioavailability all being triggered by pasteurization, but I have not seen research that confirms or rejects these occurrences.
As I mentioned earlier, in the majority of states, dairy farms are free to produce raw (unpasteurized) milk as long as they adhere to the conditions and restrictions set out in state law. The safety of unpasteurized milk depends on the quality of the cow's life,
including the immediate environment and feeding. It also depends on the quality of handling facilities once the cow has been milked. For these reasons, I recommend a very careful look at any dairy farm's procedures, track record, and publicly available information before becoming a regular consumer of its unpasteurized milk. Producers of raw milk should be carefully monitoring the milk for the presence of microorganisms and will be able to certify that the milk meets all federal and state regulations in this regard.
Because freshness is at a premium, and the product shelf life is greatly shortened (which is not necessarily bad) the dairy should be within driving distance of your residence so you can visit it in person. In some states, like Indiana, where it is illegal for a local dairy to sell unpasteurized milk, cows from the dairy may be leased in order for consumers to obtain a regular supply of raw milk.
In the absence of a very high-quality dairy farm in driving distance from your residence, I recommend purchase of pasteurized milk. Even though it's one step further from natural milk (which I would prefer), the health risks-however small-don't seem like a worthwhile trade-off in exchange for the potential benefits. If a high quality dairy farm, producing certified organic milk in unpasteurized form is available in your area, I would recommend considering this option. Courtesy: WHFOODS.ORG
Original Post 23 March 2009 :
A few years ago I was able to get some delicious raw milk from a cow down the road. I loved it each time I received my big glass gallon jar of this liquid. It brought back memories when I saw the rich, uncooked, deep yellow cream floating on top.

Some years ago I drove down the big long hill from my home back then and stopped at the Wagon Wheel to buy raw milk.

Before that I drove out to Willapa Valley for fresh liquid delight from Verna Kuttle's cows.

Before Washington, when my children were quite young, I walked next door to the farm each afternoon at milking time and drew a gallon of freshly collected raw milk from the big stainless steel cooler.

And even before that, as a small child I recall in delight on a day out at the farm, getting fresh creamy milk, still warm from the cow.

I am happy to say that my children probably had more raw, uncooked and non-homogenized milk than I did. None of us are the worse for it.

Sadly over the years Washington has been under the Olympia gestapo for any effort to have access to raw milk.

For year's you had to find a farmer to sell it too you and even then it was only sold as "pet" milk. I'm glad I had pets.

It's just the insanity of lack of knowledge that government workers seem to fall into, lock step.

No one dare ask if it might be good for you.

Funny too because one of the very first books I had when I was studying naturopathy in the 1960s had pages of treatments based on consuming raw milk.

Maybe times are changing.
Got Raw Milk?By Jennifer Adler M.S., C.N.

Welcome to the largest underground food revolution—the raw milk movement. As a nutritionist I have been a part of this underground movement since 1999 and have been amazed at how this creamy-colored substance has brought together Republicans and Democrats, as well as liberals and fundamental Christians—all for a common cause. Who knew that milk, that stuff that you put on your cereal, could have such power?

Since ancient times, an exclusive raw-milk diet has been used to cure many diseases. In the early 1900s, the “Milk Cure” was used at the Mayo clinic to successfully treat cancer, weight loss, kidney disease, allergies, skin problems, urinary tract problems, prostate problems, chronic fatigue and many other chronic conditions. However, after 1947, raw milk became very difficult to obtain due to pasteurization laws.

Pasteurization, heating foods to a minimum of 161.5∝F and holding that temperature for at least fifteen seconds, is done to kill bacteria. Currently, many raw foods are viewed as dangerous and laws enacted in the name of public health and safety require more foods to be sterilized by pasteurization. Pasteurization was implemented in the 1920s to combat tuberculosis, infant diarrhea and other diseases caused by poor animal nutrition and dirty production methods. However, refrigerated trucks, stainless steel tanks, milking machines and inspection methods make pasteurization unnecessary for today’s world. As Sally Fallon states in Nourishing Traditions, pasteurization destroys the enzymes needed to digest dairy and diminishes vitamin content, denatures fragile milk proteins, destroys vitamins C, B12 and B6, and kills beneficial bacteria. Pasteurized milk can promote pathogens because the beneficial bacteria naturally found in milk provide protection against invading pathogens. When milk is pasteurized, the protective bacteria is destroyed.

What is happening locally?

In Washington, due in a large part to the efforts of local activist, Emmy McAllister, raw milk sales are legal on the farm, through home delivery and retail stores, if local health ordinances permit. So take advantage of being one of only eleven states that allow raw milk to be sold retail, taste the magic and feel the difference for yourself.

Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures, the largest raw dairy in the United States, boasts about his company’s safety record. McAfee has inoculated pathogenic contaminants such as E. coli 0157:H7, Listeria and Salmonella into his raw milk and pasteurized milk. In the raw milk, none of the pathogens survive because the natural bacteria protect the milk. In the pasteurized milk, in which the bacteria and enzymes have been destroyed, the pathogens take over. Even Louis Pasteur, the man credited with inventing pasteurization, in his later years stated that pasteurization was not the panacea once touted. In addition, raw milk never goes rancid, it just changes from milk to curds and whey and so on. Pasteurized milk goes dangerously rancid without refrigeration.

Is raw milk dangerous? It can be. Food can be the perfect vehicle for pathogens and disease. However, the reason pathogens in food are so prevalent may have more to do with factory farming and industrial food. Raw milk is not inherently dangerous. As Sandor Ellix Katz puts it in his book The Revolution will not be Microwaved, food is most often contaminated in the course of its processing, handling and storage, or as a result of diseased animals. Healthy plants and animals produce safe, healthy food worthy of a revolution.

Why has raw milk become such a huge health movement? The reasons range from culinary to health to political. On the health side, I have seen numerous incidences of people with dairy sensitivities finding themselves able to consume raw dairy without problems. Raw dairy contains the enzymes necessary for digestion; amazing how brilliant nature is. On the culinary side, raw milk tastes like real milk: delicious, creamy and satisfying on a core level. I have gone to great lengths over the years to procure raw dairy because once exposed the real stuff, I can’t go back. Politically, I along with many other activists, use my dollar to vote for the world I want to see. My vision is a land that promotes sustainable, small-scale farms with healthy, happy animals grazing freely on the grass they were meant to eat. Where I can go to a farmer I know by name to pick up my milk, along with other culinary delights. Where I can compare the milk from Iris to the milk that Lupita provides to see which suits my palate. Pasteurization laws conveniently put milk in the hands of large, industrialized, faceless, dairy operations that provide less than excellent living accommodations for their four-legged inhabitants.

US Health Care: Why We Rank Low

I have yet to see the AMA do anything that has stopped or changed these obstructions.

What's wrong with U.S. healthcare

NEW YORK, March 8 (UPI) -- U.S. healthcare is determined by a myriad of large and powerful interconnected organizations that have dictated the "rules of the game," researchers said. 

Study authors Salinder Supri of Anderung Consulting in New York and Karen Malone of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey in Newark, characterize the U.S. institution of medicine as not as a single, comprehensive and cohesive system of healthcare, but instead, a myriad of powerful organizations. 

The researchers said these powerful organizations have determined the rules of the game:

-- Insurance companies have set the rule "restrict choice and coverage" by using an elaborate system of co-payments and deductibles, exclusion clauses and loopholes.

-- HMOs have set the rule "manage care" to limit the number of treatments patients receive, the days spent in a hospital and their choice of provider. 

-- The pharmaceutical industry has set the rule "charge as much as we want, because insurance will pay," resulting in prescription drug prices nearly 60 percent higher than in Canada and patients being prescribed sometimes "unnecessary, often useless and even potentially dangerous drugs."

-- Corporate hospital chains have set the rule "test (patients) as much as we want because insurance will pay," even when excessive or unnecessary.

"The sum of the 'rules of the game' devised by these organizations has resulted in a fragmented, haphazard and broken system of healthcare," the authors said. 

The article is published in The American Journal of Medicine.

Value in What You Read On Line

I subscribe to a very informative and helpful resource that evaluates health news based on sound, professional journalism standards.

The goal of this resource is to help eliminate puff pieces and raise the bar.

At Natural Health News we try to do the same in the direction of natural health.

I've been in journalism since 1968 when I worked at the Chicago Tribune while living in the Chicago area.  Later in 1991 my original natural health and green living column "Health Matters" first appeared in a publication owned by The Washington Post Company. I've also taught writing and been an editor.

I try to have a style manual close at hand too. I guess this is like relying on Turabian from grad school days.

I suppose now anyone can fancy themselves as a "journalist" or an "editor", without any real understanding of the art.  There may be little or no consideration that what they are circulating, in their highly hyped SEO web sites, has meaning or value in the content.

One such article caught my attention last week.

This blog is dispersed widely, and in a recent syndicated version that carries other articles as well, I noted one that I took time to read.

I thought the basic concept of this piece was OK, but in general the material was too superficial.  It showed little understanding by the writer of what the facts are regarding  in regard to four things he listed as helpful to immunity.

What makes it worse is that he is one of those "citizen journalists" promoted by a SEO site backed by unknown Taiwanese.  This SEO operation relies on hundreds, if not thousands, of back linked sites to raise position.  Many of the "dummy sites" have been copied and/or plagiarized from other reputable sites.  I think of it as WalMart of the Amazon on the SEO web site industry.

Of the four items listed in this article, deemed worthy of being featured by the SEO "editor" one stood out.

This one item stood out because of the verbiage following the name of the food.  The food listed was 'almond'.  The write hung on the insane and ill-understood physiological importance of blood pH.  Claiming, with no backup, that being 'alkaline' boosts your immunity is clear dis-information.

For some people, depending on their physiology, moving to a blood pH that is closer to 7.35-7.45 is good.  For others it may not be so good. For some being alkaline is a doorway to very poor health.

In the discussion of almonds, nothing was mention that it would be important to know if you are allergic to almonds.  Nothing was mentioned about how important it is to avoid using irradiated almonds, or any type but raw or organic.

There was no mention that it is important to soak almonds in pure water over night so that you will be better able to absorb the protein from these nuts (seeds).  

And this "writer" failed to mention any information about the fact that you must have a very high acid pH in your stomach if you want to be able to digest this food.

Some time ago there was a commercial with the punch line, "It'll cost ya". In this case, " it'll cost ya" if you don't get the information you need.  This will put your health at risk and you'll just be another groupie to the Pied Piper.Thinking optional!

Your word for today: Discernment.

Electromagnetic Radiation Kills Thyroid Cells

Several years ago I was invited to speak to a group of breast cancer patients and survivorsMany in this group had their pink cell phone, and everyone owned a cell phone.

When it came to speak about the risks of EMF, thyroid, and cell phone use all of these women look at me as if they had walked into a fog.

The sad part of this is that as soon as I was leaving I noticed they all started making some kind of use of their cellphone.

While it is hard to change, it seems that if you have good information you might just want to think about it.

In some case though you rely on glitzy web sites that muddle the facts, just like the Pied Piper and his flute.
Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Dec;86(12):1106-16. Epub 2010 Sep 1.
Pulse modulated 900 MHz radiation induces hypothyroidism and apoptosis in thyroid cells: a light, electron microscopy and immunohistochemical study.
Eşmekaya MA, Seyhan N, Ömeroğlu S. Department of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine & Gazi Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (GNRP) Center, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. mericarda@yahoo.com http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20807179
PURPOSE: In the present study we investigated the possible histopathological effects of pulse modulated Radiofrequency (RF) fields on the thyroid gland using light microscopy, electron microscopy and immunohistochemical methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two months old male Wistar rats were exposed to a 900 MHz pulse-modulated RF radiation at a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 1.35 Watt/kg for 20 min/day for three weeks. The RF signals were pulse modulated by rectangular pulses with a repetition frequency of 217 Hz and a duty cycle of 1:8 (pulse width 0.576 ms). To assess thyroid endocrine disruption and estimate the degree of the pathology of the gland, we analysed structural alterations in follicular and colloidal diameters and areas, colloid content of the follicles, and height of the follicular epithelium. Apoptosis was confirmed by Transmission Electron Microscopy and assessing the activites of an initiator (caspase-9) and an effector (caspase-3) caspases that are important markers of cells undergoing apoptosis.
RESULTS: Morphological analyses revealed hypothyrophy of the gland in the 900 MHz RF exposure group. The results indicated that thyroid hormone secretion was inhibited by the RF radiation. In addition, we also observed formation of apoptotic bodies and increased caspase-3 and caspase-9 activities in thyroid cells of the rats that were exposed to modulated RF fields.
CONCLUSION: The overall findings indicated that whole body exposure to pulse-modulated RF radiation that is similar to that emitted by global system for mobile communications (GSM) mobile phones can cause pathological changes in the thyroid gland by altering the gland structure and enhancing caspase-dependent pathways of apoptosis.
As an aside, Diagnoses of cancer in this gland in the neck are increasing about 6% a year, faster than cancers found anywhere else, according to one National Cancer Institute analysis. Data on increase in thyroid and neck cancer from http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2009-08-16-yourhealth17_N.htm .
Selections from 30+ posts found on Natural Health News
Feb 16, 2008
Sadetzki, a physician, epidemiologist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University, published the results of a study recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology, in which she and her colleagues found that heavy cell phone users were subject ...
Jan 30, 2010
In this instance nothing in her campaign addresses the increased risk of breast cancer associated with cell phone use as well as the damage it can do to your thyroid gland, your heart, adrenal glands, kidneys, and your bones. ...
Oct 11, 2010
Several years ago I was working with a fellow who had been in the construction industry and was an early-on cell phone user. He developed a parotid tumour on the side of his face that was exposed to his cell phone. ...
Dec 27, 2010
The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use. Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, . ...
Feb 25, 2011
Remember too that cell phone and other wireless devices that are so popular contribute to this problem by creating electrolytically charged pollen and pollutant particles which makes it easier for these to stick to the mucous membrane ...
Jun 26, 2010
VADODARA/ANAND: While scientists across the globe are still debating whether usage of cell phones results in heart diseases, a new study carried out by scientists at Charotar University of Science and Technology (CHARUSAT) has revealed ...

Push for Statin Use Unfounded

I can remember over a decade ago when I first started alerting people to the severe risk of statin drugs.   Even so Big PhRMA has continued to blur your vision in more ways than one.  In their effort to boost profit over health, while aiming its marketing to an end with everyone taking these sometimes deadly drugs.

Just last week I talked with a neighbor who had been taking statins for a decade, and suffering terrible leg cramps. He added that no one can figure out what is causing his complaint.

I tried to explain muscle cell wasting and kidney failure as it is associated with statins.  He said he would ask his doctor when he went in soon to go over his 24 drugs.

Then today I learn from another troubled person pushed on to the statins stairway by her cardiologist. She has no history of heart disease and a cholesterol on 210 (not worth a wink).  Meanwhile she complains of back pain, asthma, sinus infections, skin problems, and allergies.

She'd heard many times about the problems and side effects of statins.  Once off them she has no more of these troubling symptoms.

Perhaps it is time for you to think about whether or not you too might not want to be taking these drugs.

Uffe Ravnskov MD PhD has a book that reviews the medical studies which supposedly show that cholesterol is the cause of heart disease.  He shows that they do no such thing. This is a medical myth.  Neither cholesterol consumption nor cholesterol blood levels cause heart disease.  Similarly, many medical studies demonstrate that anti-cholesterol drugs work very well to reduce blood cholesterol levels, however, this treatment does not prolong life and makes most people sick with adverse side effects.  See "Fat and Cholesterol Are Good for You" 

Statins and All-Cause Mortality in High-Risk Primary PreventionA Meta-analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65 229 Participants
Kausik K. Ray, MD, MPhil, FACC, FESC;Sreenivasa Rao Kondapally Seshasai, MD, MPhil;
Sebhat Erqou, MD, MPhil, PhD;Peter Sever, PhD, FRCP, FESC; J. Wouter Jukema, MD, PhD;
Ian Ford, PhD; Naveed Sattar, FRCPath 
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1024-1031.
Background  Statins have been shown to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality among individuals with clinical history of coronary heart disease. However, it remains uncertain whether statins have similar mortality benefit in a high-risk primary prevention setting. Notably, all systematic reviews to date included trials that in part incorporated participants with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline. Our objective was to reliably determine if statin therapy reduces all-cause mortality among intermediate to high-risk individuals without a history of CVD.
Data Sources  Trials were identified through computerized literature searches of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases (January 1970-May 2009) using terms related to statins, clinical trials, and cardiovascular end points and through bibliographies of retrieved studies.
Study Selection  Prospective, randomized controlled trials of statin therapy performed in individuals free from CVD at baseline and that reported details, or could supply data, on all-cause mortality.
Data Extraction  Relevant data including the number of patients randomized, mean duration of follow-up, and the number of incident deaths were obtained from the principal publication or by correspondence with the investigators.
Data Synthesis  Data were combined from 11 studies and effect estimates were pooled using a random-effects model meta-analysis, with heterogeneity assessed with the I2 statistic. Data were available on 65 229 participants followed for approximately 244 000 person-years, during which 2793 deaths occurred. The use of statins in this high-risk primary prevention setting was not associated with a statistically significant reduction (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.01) in the risk of all-cause mortality. There was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 23%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-61% [P = .23]).
Conclusion  This literature-based meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.

Cancer Risk Higher with Diabetes

Many people know that with diabetes comes a higher risk of many health problems.  This new report adds to that.  It tell us that we MUST prevent - reverse - and cure diabetes.

Natural Health and good nutrition tell us this has to be a priority.  This is much more urgent as Congress attempts to cut funding drastically for diabetes.

During The Longest Walk we are posting more information here each day during the week, weekends excluded.

Just a not to say that Lantus insulin is carcinogenic.  It is a genetically engineered drug.

Diabetics have higher risk of death from cancer

By Kate Kelland and Gene Emery
LONDON (Reuters) - Doctors know that diabetics have a higher than normal risk of dying of heart attacks or strokes, but new research on Wednesday showed that having diabetes also ups the risk of dying from many cancers and other diseases.
The findings shed light on the potential burden of disease that will build in the future as the number of cases of diabetes is predicted to rise dramatically in coming decades.
"These findings highlight even more the need to prevent diabetes and to understand it better," said Emanuele Di Angelantonio of Britain's Cambridge University, who worked on the study as part of an international collaboration.
"They show that diabetes is not only a cardiovascular risk factor, but is linked as well to other conditions."
The research, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), collated and analyzed data from 97 previous studies involving more than 820,000 people worldwide.
It found that being a diabetic hiked the odds of dying from cancer by 25 percent, and also heightened the risk of death from infection, kidney and liver disease.
The risk of death was only higher in people with poorly controlled diabetes, however, as indicated by high blood sugar levels after a fast.
Among the biggest cancer risks for diabetics were liver and pancreatic cancer, colorectal or bowel cancer, and lung cancer.
Diabetes is reaching epidemic levels with an estimated 280 million people, or 6.4 percent of the world's population, suffering from it and numbers predicted to rise further as obesity rates also increase.
The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says up to a third of U.S. adults could have diabetes by 2050 they continue to gain weight and shun exercise.
Another study published this week found that millions of people with diabetes are undiagnosed or poorly treated, raising their risk of early death from heart disease and of serious complications like blindness and chronic kidney disease.
The Cambridge-led study found that aside from cancer and vascular diseases such as stroke, diabetes was also associated with deaths from many other causes including renal disease, liver disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mental disorders, pneumonia, other infectious diseases.
"A 50-year-old with diabetes died, on average, six years earlier than a counterpart without diabetes," said Cambridge University's John Danesh, who also worked on the study.
The study did not look at why these death rates were higher among diabetics, so the researchers could not say whether diabetes link was simply a proxy for generally poorer health.
"Preventing diabetes becomes that much easier when we have a complete picture of the debilitating effect it has across the body and we know what steps to take to mitigate the damage," said Stephen Holgate of Britain's Medical Research Council, which part-funded the study.
SOURCE:  bit.ly/g5guqz The New England Journal of Medicine, online March 2, 2011. 

Good Heart Health

Good Heart and Cardiovascular Health are important to everyone, especially people with diabetes. This is especially an urgent issue
The outcome of a study published in the American Heart Association (AHA) journal Circulation on February 14, 2010 has resulted in the dismal conclusion that only one in 1,933 Americans may be meeting the American Heart Association's criteria for good heart health.
University of Pittsburgh vice chancellor for clinical research Steven E Reis, MD and his associates analyzed data from 1,933 men and women aged 45 to 75 who participated in the community-based Heart Strategies Concentrating on Risk Evaluation (Heart SCORE) study. Surveys, physical examinations and blood test results provided information concerning the presence of the following factors: not smoking, meeting physical activity and healthy diet goals, and having a body mass index lower than 25, untreated cholesterol level of less than 200, blood pressure of lower than 120/80 and fasting glucose below 100.
Only one participant met all seven criteria of ideal heart health and fewer than 10 percent of participants had five or more components. African-Americans had an 82 percent lower chance of having five or more components compared to subjects of European ancestry.
"Of all the people we assessed, only one out of 1,900 could claim ideal heart health," stated Dr Reis, who is affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh's Cardiovascular Institute. "This tells us that the current prevalence of heart health is extremely low, and that we have a great challenge ahead of us to attain the AHA's aim of a 20 percent improvement in cardiovascular health rates by 2020."
"Many of our study participants were overweight or obese, and that likely had a powerful influence on the other behaviors and factors," he observed. "Our next step is to analyze additional data to confirm this and, based on the results, try to develop a multifaceted approach to improve health. That could include identifying predictors of success or failure at adhering to the guidelines."