Probiotics

February 25, 2011

Top 10 Probiotic Foods to Add to Your Diet

By Dr. Edward Group on 02/23/2011

Probiotics are beneficial forms of gut bacteria that help stimulate the natural digestive juices and enzymes that keep our digestive organs functioning properly. In addition to taking a probiotic supplement, you can also support our probiotic intake through eating foods that are hosts to these live bacterium.

We all know of the great health benefits of probiotics, however, not all of us know how to take advantage of these health benefits. Below is a list I put together to outline the best probiotic foods for you to add to your diet. I would also recommend buying the organic version of all these probiotic foods.

1. Yogurt

One of the best probiotic foods is live-cultured yogurt, especially handmade. Look for brands made from goat milk that has been infused with extra forms of probitoics like lactobacillus or acidophilus. Goat’s milk and cheese are particularly high in probiotics like thermophillus, bifudus, bulgaricus and acidophilus. Be sure to read the ingredients list, as not all yogurts are made equally. Many popular brands are filled with High Fructose Corn Syrup, artificial sweeteners and artificial flavors.

2. Kefir

Similar to yogurt, this fermented dairy product is a unique combination of goat milk and fermented grains. High in lactobacilli and bifidus bacteria, kefir is also rich in antioxidants. Look for a good, organic version at your local health food shop.

3. Sauerkraut

Made from fermented cabbage (as well as other vegetables), sauerkraut is not only extremely rich in healthy live cultures, but also aids in reducing allergy symptoms. Sauerkraut is also rich in vitamins B, A, E and C.

4. Dark Chocolate

Yes, we did say chocolate! A good, high-quality dark chocolate has four times the amount of probiotics as many forms of dairy. This is only one of the health benefits of chocolate. Remember to eat chocolate in moderation.

5. Microalgae

This refers to super-food ocean-based plants such as spirulina, chorella, and blue-green algae. These probiotic foods have been shown to increase the amount of both Lactobacillus and bifidobacteria in the digestive tract. They also offer the most amount of energetic return, per ounce, for the human system.

6. Miso Soup

Miso is one the mainstays of Japanese traditional medicine, and is commonly used in macrobiotic cooking as a digestive regulator. Made from fermented rye, beans, rice or barley, adding a tablespoon of miso to some hot water makes an excellent, quick, probiotic-rich soup, full of lactobacilli and bifidus bacteria.

Beyond its important live cultures, miso is extremely nutrient-dense and is believed to help neutralize the effects of environmental pollution, alkalinize the body and stop the effects of carcinogens in the system.

7. Pickles

Believe it or not, the common green pickle is an excellent food source of probiotics. Try making your own homemade pickles in the sun. Here’s a great set of instructions for making your own probiotic-rich dill pickles.

8. Tempeh

A great substitute for meat or tofu, tempeh is a fermented, probiotic-rich grain made from soybeans. A great source of vitamin B12, this vegetarian food can be sautéed, baked or eaten crumbled on salads. If prepared correctly, tempeh is also very low in salt, which makes it an ideal choice for those on a low-sodium diet.

9. Kimchi

An Asian form of pickled sauerkraut, kimchi is an extremely spicy and sour fermented cabbage, typically served alongside most meals in Korea. Besides from beneficial bacteria, Kimchi is also a great source of beta-carotene, calcium, iron and vitamins A, C, B1 & B2. Kimchi is one of the best probiotic foods you can add to your diet, assuming you can handle the spice, of course.

10. Kombucha Tea

This is a form of fermented tea high in healthy gut bacteria. This probiotic drink has been used for centuries and is believed to help increase your energy, enhance your wellbeing and maybe even help you lose weight. However, kombucha tea may not be the best fit for everyone, especially those that already have a problem with candida.

Other Sources of Probiotics

Besides from the list of probiotic foods above, you can also get plenty of beneficial bacteria by taking a probiotic supplement.


Dairy Products

February 25, 2011

Could a Cow Hold the Key to Beating Diabetes?

By Alice Wessendorf on 02/21/2011

Have you ever really looked a cow in the face?

Some may say that the vacant stare of the cow is a sign that there’s not much going on in the brains department. But it turns out that its blank look and quiet nature may just be hiding the secret to preventing diabetes.

Researchers have uncovered a substance in dairy fat that could drastically drop your risk of ever developing Type II diabetes. The fatty acid—called trans-palmitoleic acid—cannot be produced by your body. So the only way you can get it is by eating dairy or meat products.

The study…conducted by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health…examined the data from the participants in the 20-year-long Cardiovascular Health Study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. It was found that those volunteers with higher levels of trans-palmitoleic acid had healthier blood-cholesterol levels, less inflammation, and more controlled insulin levels.

In addition, those with the highest level of the acid circulating in their blood were 60% less likely to develop diabetes as compared with those participants with the lowest levels of the compound.

In other words, according to the lead author on the study Dr. Mozaffarian, this essentially represents an, “…almost three-fold difference in risk of developing diabetes among individuals with the highest blood levels of this fatty acid.”

Some pretty impressive numbers, I would say!

These findings, of course, run directly contrary to the mainstream’s favorite dietary propaganda that states that to be healthy you need to drastically cut back on meat and full-fat dairy products in your diet. (Hm, the mainstream gets it wrong again…why am I NOT surprised?) This proves once again that rather than follow the mainstream down the path to whatever the latest diet fad is you are much better off eating a well-balanced diet that includes a good healthy amount of full-fat dairy and meat.

Just be sure to choose organic dairy products whenever possible. And, remember, paying a little extra for meat from locally farmed grass-fed animals is well worth the cost if you can find the money in your budget.

Now please pardon me while I go put a dollop of organic milk into my other diabetes-fighting food…coffee.

 

Reference:

“Trans-Palmitoleic Acid, Metabolic Risk Factors, and New-Onset Diabetes in U.S. Adults,” Dariush Mozaffarian, Haiming Cao, Irena B. King, Rozenn N. Lemaitre, Xiaoling Song, David S. Siscovick, and Gökhan S. Hotamisligil, Annals of Internal Medicine, December 21, 2010


Government Mafia

February 25, 2011

(NaturalNews) Have no illusions about the true nature of the so-called “War on Drugs” and the actions of the DEA. The War on Drugs has always been about protecting the profits of the drug companies which have a long and well-documented history of copying street drugs, repackaging them as “medications” and selling them to children as FDA-approved drugs (see below).

Today, yet another example emerges as the DEA moves to legalize THC in Big Pharma’s pills while simultaneously making it illegal for anyone else to grow, sell or possess THC. The DEA, you see, is working to change the classification of THC from a schedule I substance (like street heroin) to a schedule III drug (pharmaceuticals). So if Big Pharma grows its own marijuana plants, extracts the THC and puts it into a “pot pill,” those pills will be perfectly legal. They’re already FDA approved, actually, when made with the synthetic version of THC.

But if a guy grows the very same chemical in his backyard, then extracts THC from those plants — even for his own personal use — suddenly he’s guilty of committing a federal crime and will likely be subjected to an armed raid by DEA agents.

The DEA answers to its pharma slave masters

Why would the DEA decide to legalize THC only for pharmaceutical companies? Well, because Big Pharma requested it, of course! As the DEA says on the subject:

“The DEA has received four petitions from companies that have products that are currently the subject of ANDAs (abbreviated new drug applications) under review by the FDA. …While the petitioners cite that their generic products are bioequivalent to Marinol, their products do not meet schedule III current definition provided above. Therefore, these firms have requested that 21 CFR 1308.13(g)(1) be expanded to include naturally derived or synthetically produced dronabinol.”

You can read it all at the DEA’s own website: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/f…

The DEA goes on to say:

“This proposed action expands the schedule III listing to include formulations having naturally-derived dronabinol and products encapsulated in hard gelatin capsules. This would have the effect of transferring the FDA-approved versions of such generic Marinol[supreg] products from schedule I to schedule III.”

Just so you can make total sense of this, the DEA’s loopy logic is that since Marinol (an FDA-approved synthetic THC drug) is already recognized as a pharmaceutical, the DEA is saying that other generic drugs containing natural THC from marijuana plants can also be recognized as a pharmaceutical. What they fail to recognize is that even the synthetic THC is, of course, based on natural THC grown in marijuana plants!

It’s classic Big Government pseudoscientific quackery: Only “synthetic” chemicals are considered authoritative, even when those synthetics were stolen from nature in the first place.

Your doctor is your new dealer

So now, thanks to the DEA and its twisted position on THC, your doctor is now your dealer and Big Pharma steps in to take over the manufacturing and distribution of drugs that have traditionally been handled by street criminals and Mexican drug gangs. That’s what this was always about of course: Big Pharma taking over the drug trade, using its own private gang of armed enforcers known as DEA agents.

It’s a lot like Mexico, in fact: Armed enforcers, drug profits, turf wars… except in the U.S., it’s all “legal” under the monopolistic protection of the FDA — an agency that has always sought to protect Big Pharma’s market monopolies.

What’s astonishing about all this is the DEA’s insanity in saying that the very same chemical can be legal for corporations to sell you but illegal for you to grow yourself using a natural plant. THC is THC, after all, and if this chemical is so “incredibly dangerous” that the DEA must throw people in prison for daring to grow it, possess it or sell it, why is it suddenly okay for corporations to do the exact same thing?

You already know the answer: The DEA’s position on marijuana and hemp has always been based on the king of warped logic you only get if you’re smoking crack.

The DEA becomes armed enforcement branch of Big Pharma

The real job of the DEA, you see, is not to protect people from dangerous drugs, but rather to protect the profits of Big Pharma by shooting, arresting or otherwise destroying anything that competes with Big Pharma. Namely, street dealers of marijuana.

It’s not the first time the DEA has done this, of course. Drugs that used to be sold on the street as “speed” are now FDA-approved pharmaceutical medications for ADHD — and they’re being prescribed to children by the tens of millions!

Every successful drug operation needs henchmen who run around with guns eliminating the competition. In a drug gang, that used to be the job of “Frankie” back in the Sicilian mob days. But today, with Big Pharma, it’s the job of the DEA.

Hilariously, this announcement by the DEA was posted by their “Office of Diversion Control” (http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/f…). For once, they’re honest: It is a diversion! A diversion to prevent people from realizing the truth about the DEA, the War on Drugs and the pharmaceutical industry.

Because the DEA, of course, is the armed enforcement division of Big Pharma. It works hand in hand with the FDA, of course: The FDA legalizes Big Pharma drug dealing, and the DEA targets the competition for elimination. It’s a bang-up job, a real one-two punch to protect the world’s largest drug dealers of all… the drug companies themselves.

I wonder how long it will take before a few DEA agents will wake up and realize they are the armed mercs working for their corporate slave masters known as the pharmaceutical companies?

The real criminals, you see, are not the joint-smoking hippies getting high in their basements but rather the Big Pharma CEOs whose entire careers are dedicated to addicting people to their patented, FDA-approved pharmaceuticals… even when they’re the exact same chemicals the DEA claims are “illegal drugs” on the street.

Read more about the DEA legalizing THC for Big Pharma:

http://blog.norml.org/2011/02/10/da…
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/10/i…
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/15000…
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031489_DEA_legalized_marijuana.html#ixzz1F00Xa0so

More mainstream media nonsense

February 20, 2011

Just another reason to turn off the MSM.

Are antioxidants bad for you?

By Christine O’Brien on 02/20/2011

Maybe Newsweek should just stay away from writing about health.

I mean, could you possibly botch things up any more than they did when they published an article claiming that antioxidants “may not be good for your health”?

Their article, called “Antioxidants Fall From Grace,” was published in the January 25 issue. And of course, our very own Dr. Wright jumped on it immediately. Writing for the Alliance for Natural Health, Dr. Wright calls out Newsweek on their poor journalism and downright ignorance.

And he certainly doesn’t hold back. After he points out that the only “expert” they could dig up for the article (a science writer and blogger, not a professor who spends his life in the research lab) doesn’t really understand how antioxidants work, it’s all downhill from there.

Newsweek has the origin of free radicals partially right — they are in fact generated by normal metabolism (red meat being a primary provider) and have been from our beginnings. But they completely ignore the fact that great excesses of free radicals are generated from environmental sources that are pretty new in the grand scheme of things.

From refined carbs to artificial flavorings and colorings to preservatives to water fluoridation to electromagnetic fields, our bodies are getting more than their fair share of free radicals — far more than what is “natural.” Of course we need to balance this out with antioxidants.

Oh, but Newsweek has evidence! Three studies prove that antioxidants are bad for us! Okay, so the first one is summed up as saying antioxidants need to be reevaluated for their detrimental effect. Conveniently, Newsweek paraphrased this from the original research, which stated that the particular plant material studied functioned as both an antioxidant and a pro-oxidant and must be investigated in terms of the latter.

The second study, they say, shows that antioxidants could promote atherosclerosis. Pretty scary, until you get to the part where the researchers are actually talking about NF-E2 Related Factor 2, which has never and will never be a component of any diet or supplement — it’s produced by our vascular cells!

Finally, there’s the claim that antioxidants “might impair fertility.” In fact, this broad statement is based on a study in which two “broad-range scavengers of oxidative species” were injected into rats’ ovaries (which is not, mind you, how anyone I know takes their supplements).

One of the two was N-acetylcysteine, which has components that are actually GOOD for fertility (when, of course, taken in the usual way). The other was butylated hydroxyanisole, a food additive that is anticipated to be a human carcinogen.

Of course, as always, Dr. Wright’s recommendation is that nature’s way is the best way. Antioxidants rarely appear in nature alone — rather, they are most often grouped in foods. The best source for them, then, is whole foods, with supplementation as needed.

Oh, and if you’re looking for good health advice, don’t pick up a copy of Newsweek!

If you’re not a subscriber but want to stay on top of Dr. Wright’s mainstream call-outs (not to mention the very best natural health solutions around), go to www.wrightnewsletter.com to learn how you can start receiving his monthly newsletter, Nutrition & Healing.


Fascism

February 20, 2011

Yet another example of the cozy corrupt relationship of corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

Feds fund new lab for drug companies

By Dr. William Campbell Douglass on 02/20/2011

The feds are setting up an expensive new taxpayer-funded facility that will develop and research new drugs — but it won’t be for your benefit.

No, this one’s a gift for Big Pharma, more welfare for some of the world’s most profitable companies.

The billion-dollar new facility, to be called the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, will do all the early research — including the identification of chemicals that could turn into treatments, animal tests to ensure they’re safe, and even human clinical trials to prove they’re effective (as safe and effective as drugs usually are, anyway).

Put it all together, and that’s the most difficult and expensive part of the drug-development process… all being done on your dime, even as your taxes rise to obscene new levels.

And once that promising new treatment makes it through those early tests and trials, the feds plan to giftwrap it, put a bow on it, and deliver it right to the front door of your favorite drug company.

Big Pharma’s billion-dollar gift

It’s a billion dollar present — out of your pocket and into theirs, plus they get to keep the patent and the profits.

And I’ll bet they won’t even send you a thank-you card.

The feds say the new facility is necessary because drug makers have been too slow to develop new treatments, especially in the field of mental health.

But get this: Even some Big Pharma insiders think this plan is totally bonkers.

Dr. William Potter, former vice president of translational neuroscience at Merck, says we still don’t even know what causes many mental health problems — and that makes it impossible to find new treatments.

“We still don’t even understand how lithium works,” Dr. Potter told the New York Times. “So how do people think we can find drugs systematically for mental illness?”

I’m guessing his former employer wasn’t too happy to hear him say that — but since Merck enjoyed nearly $13 billion in profits (just profits!) in 2009 alone, somehow I don’t think they really need your billion dollars anyway.

But you can bet the company’s greedy little hand will be out just the same.

Write your Congressman now… not that I expect it to make a difference, but they at least need to know you’re paying attention.


Flouride Scam

February 20, 2011

(NaturalNews) This scam starts as follows: the CDC (Centers For Deceit Control and Procrastination) in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of August 17, 2001/Vol 50/ No. RR-14 entitled “Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, says on page 4, 5th paragraph, “that fluoride’s predominant effect is after the tooth comes into the mouth and on the surface of the tooth”.

The question posed to the CDC, the EPA, and the Public Health officials of “why then do we have to ingest it?” NEVER gets answered.

Then there’s the issue of INFORMED CONSENT. Every doctor knows that they can’t force any medication on an individual without their informed consent. The doctor has to tell the patient of the benefits and of any side effects of a prescribed medication. This puts the final decision to take or not take the medication in the hands of the patient. In addition, the patient has the right to question any treatment so as to make a better decision.

Fluoridation clearly violates this principle.

One of the arguments presented by those that push this crap is to say that no one is forced to drink the water. Yes, the fluoride comes to the tap but ultimately it’s the individual’s choice to open the tap and drink the water. Please stop laughing. This is their serious argument.

Another argument is that fluoride is not a drug but rather it is a nutrient. So when the question of since when is the toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry or the aluminum or steel industry a nutrient? They usually look at their watches and tell you that they hear their mother calling them and they have to go.

If it is indeed a nutrient why then do the CDC and the ADA (American Dimwit Association), the major pushers of fluoridation in the U.S., say that tooth decay is a “chronic infectious disease” and recommend fluoride to combat this disease? And why does the Fraud and Drug Administration call fluoride an “unapproved” drug? What a classic example of blatant hypocrisy and the anything goes mentality to make money for the pimp.

Earl Baldwin, a member of the British House of Lords and one of the advisory board members for the York Review, the UK sponsored review of fluoridation had this to say: “What physician do you know, who in his or her right mind, would treat someone he does not know and has never met, with a substance that’s meant to do change in their bodies, with the advice: ‘Take as much, or as little, as you like, but take it for a lifetime because it may help someone’s teeth’?”

With fluoridation there is no control over who gets the “medication” or the dosage. What if someone is particularly sensitive to the substance? Tough! What if you’re an athlete and drink a gallon of water a day? Tough!

When a person consumes a medication, say aspirin for example, isn’t the dose for an infant or a child different that that for an adult? Obviously. With fluoride it’s a one-fits-all mentality.

Let’s say for a moment that the ingestion of fluoride is a good thing. Who gets more? Your body or your dishes when you wash them, your car when you wash it, your lawn when you water it, or the environment when you flush the toilet? You answer that one and then let me know if mandated fluoridation is a good thing or a bad thing.

Should you raise the issue of reduced tooth decay it has already be proven and documented that those living in unfluoridated communities have virtually the same rates of tooth decay as those living in fluoridated communities. But, there is one profound difference: those living in fluoridated communities have a much, much greater risk of dental fluorosis, which is symptomatic of the discoloration and eventual mottling of the teeth leading to a lifetime of cosmetic veneers or living with the disfiguration.

As if ruining your teeth isn’t enough there has been credible documentation showing other debilitating effects. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix proved that fluoride had an adverse effect on the brain. As a result she was told that her work “was no longer relevant to dentistry” and fired. Peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects on the thyroid gland were ignored as were studies linking fluoride to damage of the pineal gland. The pineal gland is located between the two hemispheres of the brain and is responsible for the synthesis and secretion of melatonin. Melatonin affects jet lag, sleep patterns and aging and by the time old age hits, the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland is in very high concentrations.

But wait, there’s more. There is also a profound connection between fluoride and bone damage. With symptoms almost identical to arthritis beginning with aching bones and joints. But the best cover-up had to come out of Harvard University. Elise Bassin, as part of her 2001 doctoral thesis for her dental degree, found a connection between fluoride and bone cancer in adolescent boys. When she submitted her finding to Dr. Chester Douglas, the head of Harvard’s Dental School, he omitted that finding when releasing her thesis. Why would he do this? Maybe the fact that he was on the payroll of the Colgate-Palmolive Company had something to do with it. Somehow, years later, Bassin’s finding were found and released causing Harvard to do a complete investigation on Dr. Douglas. During the investigation Dr. Douglas made a $2 million donation to Harvard and was eventually exonerated.

One other finding was an adverse effect on the kidneys. It was found that fluoride can damage the kidneys at high levels and that someone with poor kidney function would have limitations clearing fluoride from the body making that person especially vulnerable to fluoride’s other toxic effects.

With all this adversity is there any group, organization or government agency accepting any responsibility? No, No, No! One would think that of the entities heavily involved in fluoridation someone would take charge or accept liability. The American Dental Association does not. The CDC does not. The EPA does not. The FDA does not. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services does not. The National Sanitation Foundation does not. Yet, all these government agencies pass the buck to the National Sanitation Foundation who in turn accepts no liability for the safe levels or the safety of the chemicals it recommends. Pimps, hookers and tricks!

So what started out as an experimental program in 1945, without any health studies done whatsoever, turned out to be a “cash cow” for industries that previously had to dispose of this toxic waste to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

There is a book out there entitled, Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle means that if there is uncertainty, yet credible scientific evidence or concern of threats to health, precautionary measures should be taken.

Applying the Precautionary Principle to fluoridation the following questions and answers arise:

1. Is the risk of harm plausible? Yes.
2. Is the evidence of harm supported by a number of peer-reviewed published studies? Yes.
3. Is the potential harm serious? Yes.
4. Are the effects reversible? Many are not.
5. Is the public being fully informed of the potential health risks? No.
6. Does the proposed intervention achieve the desired benefit? No.
7. How significant are the consequences if the practice is halted? Not very.
8. Are there alternatives? Yes.

Joel Tickner and Melissa Coffin, two scientists that examined the water fluoridation controversy in the context of The Precautionary Principle, raised the following questions in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice.

*Whether there are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply.
*Whether fluoride needs to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay.
*Whether tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with and without water fluoridation.
*Whether people are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply.
*Whether studies indicate fluoride’s potential to cause a range of adverse systemic health effects.
*Whether, since fluoridation affects so many people, one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventative actions.

It should be noted that even if you are not living in a fluoridated community you are ingesting fluoride. When you eat foods and drink beverages that are not produced in your community you are likely ingesting substances that were produced with fluoridated water.

Despite the recommended ingestion of fluoride at 1.2 ppm, the reality is that people are ingesting fluoride at at least 8 ppm.

To solve the issue of tooth decay the proponents of fluoridation say more fluoride is necessary. The opponents of fluoridation say that more education is necessary. Education is needed about better diets, better dental habits and the dangers of sugar in relation to the teeth.

People with open minds need to get involved. Letters to Editors need to be written. City and state politicians need to be inundated with requests to discontinue the practice of water fluoridation. Pressure of non-reelection needs to be thrust upon them if they do not introduce bills to discontinue the practice.

Remember there are more tricks than pimps and hookers and we need to solidify to end this health damaging practice. The life you save and the health you restore may be your own.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031335_water_fluoridation.html#ixzz1EXIbVXjQ

Fermented wheat safe for Celias

February 20, 2011

Fermented Wheat Safe for Celiacs Sufferers?

posted by: Sabrina Modelle 7 hours ago
Fermented Wheat Safe for Celiacs Sufferers?

sender info:

recipient info:

personal message

Fermented Wheat Safe for Celiacs Sufferers?

Care2.com

send

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
9 comments

People with celiacs disease must avoid wheat in all of its forms- from bulgur to semolina, even soy sauce and some sausages have gluten. But news that fermented wheat flour may be safe for celiacs is spreading fast.
According to a new study, the results of which are published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, patients showed no gluten toxicity after 60 days of eating 200 grams per day of baked goods containing the fermented wheat flour.

For the purposes of this study, the wheat was fermented with sourdough lactobacilli and fungal proteases–thus decreasing the gluten.
This fermented wheat becomes hydrolyzed wheat flour.

  • Six of the patients were fed foods containing natural (unfermented)  flour, which contains roughly 80,000 ppm gluten.
  • Two were fed foods containing extensively hydrolyzed flour with a residual gluten content of about 2,500 ppm.
  • Five were fed foods containing fully hydrolyzed flour containing only 8 ppm residual gluten.

Two of the patients from the first, natural flour, group stopped the study due to adverse reactions.  The two who ate the extensively hydrolyzed die had no clinical complaints, but biopsy revealed intestinal damage. The last group, the fully hydrolyzed flour patients, had no clinical complaints and there was no intestinal damage.

“This is the first time that a wheat flour-derived product is shown to not be toxic after being given to celiac patients for 60 days,” said Dr Luigi Greco, of the University of Napes, Italy, lead author of the study.

Although this is very promising news for many people who have celiacs, more research must be done. Though 60 days has been the standard for evaluating gluten-toxicity for most patients, the study authors acknowledge that it is not long enough for all. Longer trials are in the works now.

Do you have celiacs? Are you rushing off to make sourdough or sticking with oat and sorghum loaf?


Overuse of meds.

February 20, 2011
(NaturalNews) They survived live fire, explosive devices, terror attacks and grueling desert conditions. But upon returning home to seek treatment for the mental anguish that too often accompanies war, U.S. soldiers are now being killed by the pharmaceutical industry in record numbers.

A recent example is found with the late Senior Airman Anthony Mena, who returned home from Baghdad only to be killed by a toxic cocktail of prescription medications in his apartment in the USA. As the New York Times reports, a toxicologist found eight prescription medications in his blood (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/u…).

Those drugs included painkillers, sleeping pills, antidepressants and a sedative. The medical examiner concluded that Anthony Mena died of multiple pharmaceutical toxicity. He was only 23 years old.

Big Pharma killing more soldiers than enemy combatants?

Anthony Mena is just one of a fast-rising number of U.S. soldiers who are being drugged to death by psychiatrists and physicians who dish out painkillers and psychotropic drugs with virtually no regard to their chemical interactions.

Those interactions are never tested in clinical trials (yes, never!). The position of the FDA and Big Pharma seems to be that the more drugs a person takes, the better they’ll get, and doctors are trained in med schools to keep prescribing pills with virtually no concern about the extreme toxicity of various pharmaceutical combinations. Their motto is, “For every ill, there’s another pill.”

Now the body count is rising. Today, one-third of the U.S. Army is on at least one prescription medication, and many of those are psychiatric meds used to treat PTSD.

Think about that astounding statistic for a moment: One-third of the U.S. Army is on synthetic chemicals! Some of those chemicals, by the way, have been linked to suicides and violent behavior, especially in young males. What kind of formula for warfare is that, anyway? Take a young male, put a rifle in his hands and a psychiatric medication in his head, then let him loose on the front lines and see what happens?

An Army report says that 101 soldiers have died from toxic pharmaceutical combinations in 2006 – 2009, but that report almost certainly vastly underestimates the true numbers. Most deaths are traditionally written off as organ failure of one kind or another. Very few pharmaceutically-induced deaths are ever accurately tracked back to the drugs involved… unless you’re Michael Jackson, of course.

It makes you wonder: Are more soldiers being killed by Big Pharma than by enemy combatants?

It’s not out of the question. The 9/11 terrorist attacks killed just over 3,000 Americans. Yet, according to well-researched estimates based on published scientific studies, FDA-approved prescription drugs currently kill anywhere from 98,000 – 250,000 Americans a year (http://www.naturalnews.com/009278.html). Remember, that’s every year!

Big Pharma’s link to Nazi concentration camps

Over the last decade, then, FDA-approved prescription drugs have likely killed at least one million Americans and probably many more. That’s approaching the level of a chemical holocaust. The last time so many people were killed with chemicals was in the Nazi era of World War II, when Nazi war criminals gassed Jews to death by the millions.

It’s no coincidence, by the way, that the very same chemical companies that worked for the Nazi war machine are now some of the world’s top pharmaceutical manufacturers. That’s not an internet myth, by the way: It’s an historical fact. Just Google the history of Bayer and Nazi Germany if you want to learn more: http://www.google.com/search?q=baye…

Or check out the role of IG Farben / Bayer in Auschwitz and other German concentration camps, where this pharmaceutical company relied on slave labor to churn out chemical weapons and experimental drugs used in human medical experiments: http://archive.corporatewatch.org/p…

(You won’t read that in the New York Times, most likely…)

Fast forward to the present. Now the pharmaceutical industry is killing our young soldiers in record numbers. Much of it is due to the insanity that’s inbred throughout the psychiatric industry, which has a long and disturbing history of torturing and maiming patients in the name of “medicine.”

I strongly urge you to learn about the true history of psychiatry through the Citizens Commission on Human Rights: http://www.cchr.org/quick-facts/the…

I have walked through their museum in Los Angeles, and I’ve seen what psychiatric medicine has done to destroy the lives of countless children, adults and even soldiers. What’s happening today with psychiatric medicine is, by any honest assessment, a crime against humanity that makes the casualties of war in Iraq seem tiny by comparison.

And now, even the mainstream media is beginning to see this truth. It’s hard to deny it when young, healthy soldiers start dropping dead from following doctors’ orders and taking FDA-approved medications. These are not overdoses, folks. These are soldiers following orders and “taking their medicine” as directed.

And they’re dying from it.

The New York Times article on this issue is a great read. It’s an example of stunningly good journalism from the mainstream media, and I recommend you read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/u…

The NYT, of course, probably won’t go into the history of Bayer and the Nazi war crimes connection, but you can only expect the mainstream media to go so far on these stories. For the whole truth on issues like this, you have to turn to internet sites like NaturalNews which simply aren’t driven by pharmaceutical advertising money. That’s where you’ll find out the rest of the story that the MSM isn’t likely to ever report.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031379_soldiers_psychiatric_drugs.html#ixzz1EXAm5Ba5

Injectable Vitamin C

February 20, 2011

Small minds, big oppression

By Jenny Thompson on 02/17/2011

Okay…who woke up the FDA?

Suddenly these good little bureaucrats are powering up their hive-mind in order to “protect” us from safe, non-drug treatments.

Recently I told you about new FDA actions that will severely limit access to intravenous ascorbic acid (IAA), a proven cancer-fighter that has been shown to neutralize virtually any pathogenic organism.

Apparently the FDA has decided that IAA is an unapproved drug. And because it’s obviously NOT a drug and can’t be patented, they’ve basically found a way to make therapeutic doses of vitamin C illegal.

When it comes to being small-minded and petty, these FDA drones are extremely effective.

But IAA isn’t the only item on their hit list. Now they’re zeroing in on niacin. Which just HAPPENS to be a direct competitor of Big Pharma’s cash cow: statin drugs.

You can’t say that

Last month, FDA officials told Upsher Smith, a small Minnesota pharmaceutical company, that they couldn’t reference niacin studies in their marketing of SLO-NIACIN–a supplement with sustained-release to reduce the warm, tingling effect that niacin sometimes causes.

So it’s basically just niacin.

Upsher Smith has temporarily taken the SLO-NIACIN info off their website. But the FDA warning letter lists several studies that pose a problem. One study, published in the American Journal of Cardiology in 1992 is titled, “Marked benefit with sustained-release niacin therapy in patients with ‘isolated’ very low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and coronary artery disease.”

Now, just think about that. There’s a study in a major medical journal that shows a “marked benefit” in artery disease patients who take sustained-release niacin.

But the FDA doesn’t want you to read about that on the Upsher Smith site. (Or maybe they don’t want you to read about it at all…)

But either way, does the suppression of this information serve artery disease patients?

Other studies (which may or may not have been on the site) show that niacin also helps reduce triglycerides, and may help prevent dementia, arthritis, and anxiety.

When Dr. Spreen sent me an article about this new FDA action, he noted that niacin is also listed in the Physicians’ Desk Reference as a therapeutic agent to lower cholesterol. It’s right there in the medical mainstream’s public record–the source ALL doctors turn to when treating patients.

But if you make and sell niacin, you can’t mention this PROVEN benefit to your prospective customers?

Something is really WRONG with this picture!

Years ago, suffragette Crystal Eastman said, “Tyranny goes by the name of protection.”

I can’t imagine how much stronger a statement she would make today if she saw the workings of the FDA…especially if she were faced with heart disease.


Yet another reason not to drink colas…and soda in general

February 20, 2011

Below is an interesting article by naturalnews.com:

(NaturalNews) The “caramel coloring” used to color all the top cola brands isn’t natural caramel coloring at all. Instead, it’s made by reacting sugars with ammonia and sulfites at high temperatures. This reaction results in the formation of 2-methylimidazole and 4-methylimidazole, both of which are chemicals documented by the U.S. government to cause cancer in mammals.

This is all coming to light thanks to an effort by the CSPI, which has now filed a regulatory petition to ban these chemicals from colas (http://www.cspinet.org/new/20110216…).

The National Toxicology Program has conducted animal studies on these toxic chemicals found in colas, concluding there is “clear evidence” that 2-MI and 4-MI are animal carcinogens.

The call to ban these chemicals from use in foods was joined by five carcinogenesis experts who said, “The American public should not be exposed to any cancer risk whatsoever as a result of consuming such chemicals, especially when they serve a non-essential, cosmetic purpose.” (http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/experts-…)

That letter explains:

4-methylimidazole (4-MI) causes lung tumors in male and female mice and mononuclear cell leukemia in female rats. Other NTP studies found that 2-methylimidazole caused liver tumors in male and female mice, thyroid tumors in male mice, and precancerous thyroid changes in female mice. In rats, 4-MI caused an increased rate of tumors in thyroid follicular cells in females and an increased rate of hyperplasia in thyroid follicular cells in males.

Even the term “caramel coloring” is extremely misleading to consumers, because most people think it’s related to caramel candy, which is made by browning sugar under heat. But the “caramel coloring” used in colas is made by exposing sugars to industrial chemicals (ammonia and sulfites), resulting in a cocktail of cancer-causing chemicals.

Coke and Pepsi products may soon bear cancer warnings in California

California’s Proposition 65 law limits the consumption of 4-MI to no more than 16 micrograms per day from a single product. Yet colas contain roughly 200 micrograms of 4-MI in a 20-ounce bottle.

That’s over 12 times the allowable limit under Proposition 65, and that’s in every bottle! Many people drink several bottles a day, further multiplying their exposure to this potential carcinogen.

If cola companies are going to continue to sell their products in California, then, they must now carry cancer warning labels in order to be in compliance with Prop 65. You can bet that a desperate effort is now under way by the cola industry to lobby California regulators and make sure 4-MI gets removed from any enforcement of Prop 65.

The cola industry wants everybody to think its products are wholesome and natural while forgetting about the health effects of phosphoric acid, aspartame and high-fructose corn syrup. Now, with 2-methylimidazole and 4-methylimidazole in the picture, there’s yet another potentially cancer-causing chemical to worry about in colas.

Obviously, 2-MI and 4-MI can be avoided by drinking non-colored soft drinks, but those still contain phosphoric acid, high-fructose corn syrup, caffeine and even aspartame in diet sodas.

It turns out, there’s no such thing as a perfectly safe soda. All sodas and soft drinks carry health risks related to their ingredients. I have no doubt that this era of diabetes, obesity and cancer we’re living through right now is due in large part to the widespread consumption of sodas and soft drinks.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031383_caramel_coloring_cola.html#ixzz1EX92Bmpl

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 40 other followers