(NaturalNews) Yes, you really can eat your way to happiness, but perhaps not in
the way you might first imagine. By "happiness," I mean lasting happiness, not
the fleeting kind of sensory happiness that might be experienced from sucking
the cream filling out of a twinkie. And that's the distinction that really
matters here: When I talk about happiness, I'm talking about sustainable
happiness, not a brief moment of spurious excitement that soon reverses
itself and leads to depression.
You see, a lot of people try to eat their way to happiness by eating the "instant joy" foods like ice cream, donuts, cookies and yes, even twinkies. Sugar can, indeed, make us momentarily uplifted because this refined molecule temporarily boosts blood sugar and actively alters brain chemistry. But like any drug, the depression after it wears off is far worse than the brief happiness it appeared to give us. And in the worst cases, we sometimes fall into a pattern of treating that mental rut with yet another hit of sugar to try to keep the happiness going.
This downward cycle of sugar dependence leads us to long-term obesity, diabetes and depression.
As author Timothy Brantley says in The Cure: Heal Your Body, Save Your Life:
"How did these foods affect their moods? Food Group A (Standard American Diet). The subjects all had radical energy fluctuations, staying in a cycle of having to manipulate to produce quick energy after a radical drop. The subjects all remarked that they never realized how addicted they were to sugar and other stimulants, like caffeine, simply to function. The roller-coaster effect on their energy swung them into high and low moods, and many of them got sick consistently."
(http://www.naturalpedia.com/book_Th...)
The Standard American Diet is obviously not the solution we're looking for. But what works better?
And I have to say that list starts with omega-3 oils. High-quality omega-3s provide one of the most powerful and sustainable boosts to healthy moods of any commonly-available food.
Read up on omega-3s at NaturalPedia: http://naturalpedia.com/omega-3s.html
You can get omega-3 oils from fish, quality marine oil supplements like Moxxor, chia seeds, flax seeds and other quality nutritional supplements.
Beware of grocery store foods that claim to be "made with omega-3s" because the actual quantity of omega-3 oils in those foods is usually so tiny that it hardly matters to your daily nutritional intake.
Other nuts can also be strongly supportive of healthy moods in the long term: Almonds, pistachios, macadamia nuts and walnuts all have powerful health-supporting properties that affect brain function and therefore mood experiences, too. Eat more raw nuts and you'll create better brain balance for the long term!
Adaptogenic herbs are also very, very good at helping your neurology better handle stress. This can often translate into an easier day, reduced stress and improved moods. Adaptogens include ginseng, ashwagandha, rhodiola, cordyceps mushroom and many others.
Learn more about adaptogens at NaturalPedia: http://www.naturalpedia.com/adaptog...
Learn more about St. John's Wort at NaturaPedia: http://www.naturalpedia.com/St_John...
Several Traditional Chinese Medicine herbal formulas are also known to help support healthy moods. Chinese herbs are always used in combination, never in isolation, but one herb that's found in many mood-supporting formulas is Bupleurum.
The history and use of this herb is quite fascinating. Check it out here: http://www.naturalpedia.com/Bupleur...
Be sure to buy organic produce wherever possible!
Seriously. If you want to maintain healthy moods, it's crucial to avoid refined sugar and caffeine from all sources. That means no caffeinated coffee, no donuts, no cookies, no Pepsi, etc.
These two chemicals do more to destroy healthy moods in the long term than probably any other chemicals in the food supply. And yet, ironically, they are precisely the two chemicals that people reach for to try to get short-term mood lifts.
They do provide short-term boosts, much like a drug. Heroin might make you feel good in the short term, too, but it's highly addictive and causes huge health problems over the long haul. Sugar and caffeine are similarly addictive and problematic; except they're legal and you don't inject them with a syringe. (Well, at least I hope not.)
If you suffer from mood swings or depression right now, the first and most important change you need to make in your diet is to eliminate refined sugars and caffeine. The second change to make is to start bringing in mood-enhancing health foods such as omega-3s, raw nuts and lots of fresh produce.
But the really important step is to find new ways to enjoy your feed by expanding your experience of all the amazing tastes to be found in the universe of foods provided by Mother Nature. If you've never tried raw food cuisine, definitely check it out at a local raw food restaurant (or find a raw food chef in your area). You'll be amazed at the new spectrum of tastes and sensory experiences provided by raw foods -- and you'll experience huge long-term health benefits from the raw foods, too!
In the long term, you'll discover that healthy foods = healthy moods.
But give it time: It may take 30 days of eating right before you really feel the full effects with improved mood. Foods are not isolated chemicals that kick in right away. Transitioning to a healthier body and brain with healthy food takes some time. But it's time well spent. After all, you get to eat your way to a more positive outlook on life. And that sounds kinda fun anyway, doesn't it?
You see, a lot of people try to eat their way to happiness by eating the "instant joy" foods like ice cream, donuts, cookies and yes, even twinkies. Sugar can, indeed, make us momentarily uplifted because this refined molecule temporarily boosts blood sugar and actively alters brain chemistry. But like any drug, the depression after it wears off is far worse than the brief happiness it appeared to give us. And in the worst cases, we sometimes fall into a pattern of treating that mental rut with yet another hit of sugar to try to keep the happiness going.
This downward cycle of sugar dependence leads us to long-term obesity, diabetes and depression.
As author Timothy Brantley says in The Cure: Heal Your Body, Save Your Life:
"How did these foods affect their moods? Food Group A (Standard American Diet). The subjects all had radical energy fluctuations, staying in a cycle of having to manipulate to produce quick energy after a radical drop. The subjects all remarked that they never realized how addicted they were to sugar and other stimulants, like caffeine, simply to function. The roller-coaster effect on their energy swung them into high and low moods, and many of them got sick consistently."
(http://www.naturalpedia.com/book_Th...)
The Standard American Diet is obviously not the solution we're looking for. But what works better?
Foods for long-term happiness
Fortunately, there are a huge number of other foods that promote long-term happiness. That's what this article is about: Sharing with you the good news on foods that can support healthy moods and promote a positive outlook on life for the rest of your life.And I have to say that list starts with omega-3 oils. High-quality omega-3s provide one of the most powerful and sustainable boosts to healthy moods of any commonly-available food.
Read up on omega-3s at NaturalPedia: http://naturalpedia.com/omega-3s.html
You can get omega-3 oils from fish, quality marine oil supplements like Moxxor, chia seeds, flax seeds and other quality nutritional supplements.
Beware of grocery store foods that claim to be "made with omega-3s" because the actual quantity of omega-3 oils in those foods is usually so tiny that it hardly matters to your daily nutritional intake.
Enjoy healthy nuts
Pecans are extremely beneficial to supporting not just healthy moods but healthy brain function as well. It's the oils in the nuts that do the trick. Read more at http://naturalpedia.com/pecans.htmlOther nuts can also be strongly supportive of healthy moods in the long term: Almonds, pistachios, macadamia nuts and walnuts all have powerful health-supporting properties that affect brain function and therefore mood experiences, too. Eat more raw nuts and you'll create better brain balance for the long term!
Adaptogens and green tea
Green tea seems to provide a subtle mood lift without all the problems of typical stimulants. Just make sure you're getting decaffeinated green tea, and check your source to make sure it doesn't suffer from fluoride contamination (some green tea products grown in certain countries have been known to carry a lot of fluoride).Adaptogenic herbs are also very, very good at helping your neurology better handle stress. This can often translate into an easier day, reduced stress and improved moods. Adaptogens include ginseng, ashwagandha, rhodiola, cordyceps mushroom and many others.
Learn more about adaptogens at NaturalPedia: http://www.naturalpedia.com/adaptog...
Herbal tonics for mood support
While we're in the realm of herbs, there are several herbal tonic products that are well known to help support healthy moods. St. John's Wort has been clinically shown to work as well as antidepressant drugs to ease symptoms of depression. I usually take it with dandelion or yellow dock to provide additional liver support.Learn more about St. John's Wort at NaturaPedia: http://www.naturalpedia.com/St_John...
Several Traditional Chinese Medicine herbal formulas are also known to help support healthy moods. Chinese herbs are always used in combination, never in isolation, but one herb that's found in many mood-supporting formulas is Bupleurum.
The history and use of this herb is quite fascinating. Check it out here: http://www.naturalpedia.com/Bupleur...
Eat lots of fresh fruits and veggies
In addition to the omega-3 oils, nuts and herbs mentioned here, focus on consuming large quantities of fresh fruits and vegetables. You simply cannot over-eat fresh fruits and vegetables, so eat all you want. They're loaded with mood-lifting nutrients that can also help prevent cancer, heart disease and diabetes.Be sure to buy organic produce wherever possible!
What to avoid
This section can be summed up in just two words: Sugar, Caffeine.Seriously. If you want to maintain healthy moods, it's crucial to avoid refined sugar and caffeine from all sources. That means no caffeinated coffee, no donuts, no cookies, no Pepsi, etc.
These two chemicals do more to destroy healthy moods in the long term than probably any other chemicals in the food supply. And yet, ironically, they are precisely the two chemicals that people reach for to try to get short-term mood lifts.
They do provide short-term boosts, much like a drug. Heroin might make you feel good in the short term, too, but it's highly addictive and causes huge health problems over the long haul. Sugar and caffeine are similarly addictive and problematic; except they're legal and you don't inject them with a syringe. (Well, at least I hope not.)
If you suffer from mood swings or depression right now, the first and most important change you need to make in your diet is to eliminate refined sugars and caffeine. The second change to make is to start bringing in mood-enhancing health foods such as omega-3s, raw nuts and lots of fresh produce.
But the really important step is to find new ways to enjoy your feed by expanding your experience of all the amazing tastes to be found in the universe of foods provided by Mother Nature. If you've never tried raw food cuisine, definitely check it out at a local raw food restaurant (or find a raw food chef in your area). You'll be amazed at the new spectrum of tastes and sensory experiences provided by raw foods -- and you'll experience huge long-term health benefits from the raw foods, too!
Stay happy with healthy foods
Yes, food can make you happy, but only if you focus on consuming health-enhancing foods that are natural, non-refined and packed with nutrients. Don't compromise your mental experience of life by turning to sugar, caffeine and other short-term stimulants. Or if you're on those right now, find ways to slowly transition off them while embracing some of the healthier choices I've covered here.In the long term, you'll discover that healthy foods = healthy moods.
But give it time: It may take 30 days of eating right before you really feel the full effects with improved mood. Foods are not isolated chemicals that kick in right away. Transitioning to a healthier body and brain with healthy food takes some time. But it's time well spent. After all, you get to eat your way to a more positive outlook on life. And that sounds kinda fun anyway, doesn't it?
(NaturalNews) If you get your information about assisted reproduction
technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic
sperm injection (ICSI) from the mainstream media, you may think these are
simply wonderful ways to help infertile couples have healthy babies. In fact,
women like Nadya "Octomom" Suleman and Kate Gosselin of reality TV fame have
become stars of sort after producing broods of kids using ART. What is rarely
reported is the dark side of ART -- high tech baby making procedures result in
a significantly increased risk of congenital malformations as well a greater
chance for several diseases down the road.
Dr. Geraldine Viot, a clinical geneticist at the Maternity Port Royal hospital in Paris, France, recently addressed the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics to discuss some of these risks. She also pointed out that, at least in France, most doctors working in ART clinics only tell couples about such risks if they are asked specific questions.
The multi-billion dollar medical reproductive technology industry has resulted in the births of millions of kids around the world being conceived through non-natural procedures. In the largest study of its kind so far, Dr. Viot and her colleagues conducted a survey of all ART births -- 15,162 in all -- from 33 clinics in France to document the prevalence of malformations.
Moreover, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome --- which is marked by a larger-than-normal baby, abnormally large tongue, hypoglycemia, increased risk for cancer and other problems -- was six times higher among youngsters conceived with ART. And retinoblastoma, cancer of the eye, was 4.5 higher for ART children when compared to youngsters conceived the natural way.
Dr. Viot added that the malformations don't appear to have anything to do with the age of the parents. Instead, the causes of the abnormalities are probably multiple and related specifically to the assisted reproductive technologies. She is calling for researchers to investigate how embryo culture media, timing of embryo transfer, the effects of ovarian stimulation, the use of ICSI and the freezing of gametes and embryos could be causing these disorders.
"We estimate that in France some 200,000 children have been born after ART and therefore a malformation rate of this magnitude is a public health issue. It is important that all doctors and also politicians are informed about this," Dr. Viot emphasized. "At a time when infertility is increasing and more and more couples need to use ART to conceive, it is vitally important that we find out as much as we can about what is causing malformations in these children, not only so that we can try to counteract the problem but also in order for health services to be able to plan for their future needs."
As NaturalNews has previously reported, other researchers have found that children conceived with artificial baby-making techniques have an increased incidence of metabolic problems, such as high blood pressure, abnormally elevated fasting glucose levels and excess body fat (http://www.naturalnews.com/026863_I...). In addition, a study recently published in the journal Human Reproduction concluded that women who became pregnant with a single fetus after treatment with IVF or ICSI had a four-fold increased risk of their babies being born dead when compared to women who conceived naturally (http://www.naturalnews.com/028448_i...).
For more information:
https://www.eshg.org/13.0.html
Dr. Geraldine Viot, a clinical geneticist at the Maternity Port Royal hospital in Paris, France, recently addressed the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics to discuss some of these risks. She also pointed out that, at least in France, most doctors working in ART clinics only tell couples about such risks if they are asked specific questions.
The multi-billion dollar medical reproductive technology industry has resulted in the births of millions of kids around the world being conceived through non-natural procedures. In the largest study of its kind so far, Dr. Viot and her colleagues conducted a survey of all ART births -- 15,162 in all -- from 33 clinics in France to document the prevalence of malformations.
500% increased risk of tumors
"We found a major congenital malformation in 4.24 percent of the children compared with the 2 to 3 percent that we had expected from previous published studies. This higher rate was due in part to an excess of heart diseases and malformations of the uro-genital system. This was much more common in boys," Dr. Viot said in a press statement. "Among the minor malformations, we found a five times higher rate of angioma, benign tumors made up of small blood vessels on or near the surface of the skin."Moreover, Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome --- which is marked by a larger-than-normal baby, abnormally large tongue, hypoglycemia, increased risk for cancer and other problems -- was six times higher among youngsters conceived with ART. And retinoblastoma, cancer of the eye, was 4.5 higher for ART children when compared to youngsters conceived the natural way.
Dr. Viot added that the malformations don't appear to have anything to do with the age of the parents. Instead, the causes of the abnormalities are probably multiple and related specifically to the assisted reproductive technologies. She is calling for researchers to investigate how embryo culture media, timing of embryo transfer, the effects of ovarian stimulation, the use of ICSI and the freezing of gametes and embryos could be causing these disorders.
"We estimate that in France some 200,000 children have been born after ART and therefore a malformation rate of this magnitude is a public health issue. It is important that all doctors and also politicians are informed about this," Dr. Viot emphasized. "At a time when infertility is increasing and more and more couples need to use ART to conceive, it is vitally important that we find out as much as we can about what is causing malformations in these children, not only so that we can try to counteract the problem but also in order for health services to be able to plan for their future needs."
As NaturalNews has previously reported, other researchers have found that children conceived with artificial baby-making techniques have an increased incidence of metabolic problems, such as high blood pressure, abnormally elevated fasting glucose levels and excess body fat (http://www.naturalnews.com/026863_I...). In addition, a study recently published in the journal Human Reproduction concluded that women who became pregnant with a single fetus after treatment with IVF or ICSI had a four-fold increased risk of their babies being born dead when compared to women who conceived naturally (http://www.naturalnews.com/028448_i...).
For more information:
https://www.eshg.org/13.0.html
(NaturalNews) Weight loss drugs may result only in minor weight loss, even
after long-term use, according to a new study conducted by Brazilian and
Canadian researchers and published in the British Medical
Journal.
Researchers conducted meta-analyses of a number of studies conducted on the weight-loss drugs orlistat (marketed as Xenical and Alli), rimonabant (marketed as Acomplia) and sibutramine (marketed as Meridia), and found that users lost an average of less than 11 pounds, even after one to four years of use. Several key indicators of cardiovascular health were improved by taking the drugs, however.
Researchers examined 16 studies on orlistat, which operates by preventing the body from digesting fats. The average long-term user of orlistat lost only 7 pounds and had reduced diabetes risk, blood pressure and cholesterol. As many as 30 percent of users experienced digestive side effects.
Ten tests on sibutramine were also examined, along with four on rimonabant. Both drugs work by interrupting neural signals in the brain.
Sibutramine was found to reduce patients' weight by an average of only 9 pounds. In up to 20 percent of patients, however, it induced side effects including insomnia, nausea, and elevated blood pressure and pulse.
Rimonabant users lost an average of 11 pounds. Six percent of users experienced an elevated rate of mood disorders, however.
After receiving reports of psychiatric side effects such as anxiety and depression, the FDA refused to approve rimonabant for U.S. sale last year. Orlistat, in contrast, is approved for over-the-counter sale in a weakened form (Alli).
The move to sell weight loss drugs over the counter has drawn substantial criticism, including in an editorial accompanying the recent study.
"Selling anti-obesity drugs over the counter will perpetuate the myth that obesity can be fixed simply by popping a pill," Dr. Gareth Williams of the University of Bristol wrote.
Researchers conducted meta-analyses of a number of studies conducted on the weight-loss drugs orlistat (marketed as Xenical and Alli), rimonabant (marketed as Acomplia) and sibutramine (marketed as Meridia), and found that users lost an average of less than 11 pounds, even after one to four years of use. Several key indicators of cardiovascular health were improved by taking the drugs, however.
Researchers examined 16 studies on orlistat, which operates by preventing the body from digesting fats. The average long-term user of orlistat lost only 7 pounds and had reduced diabetes risk, blood pressure and cholesterol. As many as 30 percent of users experienced digestive side effects.
Ten tests on sibutramine were also examined, along with four on rimonabant. Both drugs work by interrupting neural signals in the brain.
Sibutramine was found to reduce patients' weight by an average of only 9 pounds. In up to 20 percent of patients, however, it induced side effects including insomnia, nausea, and elevated blood pressure and pulse.
Rimonabant users lost an average of 11 pounds. Six percent of users experienced an elevated rate of mood disorders, however.
After receiving reports of psychiatric side effects such as anxiety and depression, the FDA refused to approve rimonabant for U.S. sale last year. Orlistat, in contrast, is approved for over-the-counter sale in a weakened form (Alli).
The move to sell weight loss drugs over the counter has drawn substantial criticism, including in an editorial accompanying the recent study.
"Selling anti-obesity drugs over the counter will perpetuate the myth that obesity can be fixed simply by popping a pill," Dr. Gareth Williams of the University of Bristol wrote.
(NaturalNews) The FDA is reevaluating the safety of a popular chemical additive
called triclosan, based on recent studies that seem to indicate it causes
endocrine disruption in the body and leads to the emergence of drug-resistant
"super" bacteria.
Triclosan is commonly found in liquid antibacterial hand soaps and sanitizers, dishwashing detergents, shaving gels, toothpastes, clothing and even children's toys. It was originally designed as a surgical scrub for people in the medical field, but is now used in pesticides and a variety of different consumer products to ward off pathogens.
It is so common in popular consumer goods that, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), traces of triclosan can be found in the urine of about 75 percent of the population.
Triclosan is used because it is believed to be a powerful antibacterial and antifungal agent, however other than as a treatment for gingivitis in toothpaste, there is no evidence that it provides any benefits in other consumer product applications. A 2005 advisory panel to the FDA agreed, noting that there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps with triclosan work any better than plain soap and water.
"The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is literally in almost every type of product – [it's in] most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys," explained Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who has been urging federal regulators to reevaluate the safety of triclosan in consumer products.
"It's in our drinking water, it's in our rivers and as a result, it's in our bodies, [and] I don't think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children's toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger."
The Soap and Detergent Association, a group that represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning products industry, was quick to defend the safety of triclosan, insisting that decades of research verify the chemical is safe and effective.
But many other are not buying it, including the Natural Resources Defense Council which believes that triclosan use should be restricted.
According to reports, the FDA has allegedly been working for over 38 years to establish rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed the assignment. Throughout this time the agency has continued to approve its usage, including a 1997 decision to allow its use in Colgate Total toothpaste, but is now reevaluating that decision.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...
Triclosan is commonly found in liquid antibacterial hand soaps and sanitizers, dishwashing detergents, shaving gels, toothpastes, clothing and even children's toys. It was originally designed as a surgical scrub for people in the medical field, but is now used in pesticides and a variety of different consumer products to ward off pathogens.
It is so common in popular consumer goods that, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), traces of triclosan can be found in the urine of about 75 percent of the population.
Triclosan is used because it is believed to be a powerful antibacterial and antifungal agent, however other than as a treatment for gingivitis in toothpaste, there is no evidence that it provides any benefits in other consumer product applications. A 2005 advisory panel to the FDA agreed, noting that there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps with triclosan work any better than plain soap and water.
"The proliferation of triclosan in everyday consumer products is so enormous, it is literally in almost every type of product – [it's in] most soaps, toothpaste, cosmetics, clothes and toys," explained Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who has been urging federal regulators to reevaluate the safety of triclosan in consumer products.
"It's in our drinking water, it's in our rivers and as a result, it's in our bodies, [and] I don't think a lot of additional data has to be collected in order to make the simple decisions about children's toys and soaps that people use. It clearly is something that creates a danger."
The Soap and Detergent Association, a group that represents the $30 billion U.S. cleaning products industry, was quick to defend the safety of triclosan, insisting that decades of research verify the chemical is safe and effective.
But many other are not buying it, including the Natural Resources Defense Council which believes that triclosan use should be restricted.
According to reports, the FDA has allegedly been working for over 38 years to establish rules for the use of triclosan but has not completed the assignment. Throughout this time the agency has continued to approve its usage, including a 1997 decision to allow its use in Colgate Total toothpaste, but is now reevaluating that decision.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...
(NaturalNews) The controversial chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), already linked to a
wide array of health problems, may also increase the risk of asthma in
children, according to a study conducted by researchers from the University of
Texas Medical Branch, Galveston and published in the journal Environmental
Health Perspectives.
BPA is an industrial chemical widely used in the manufacture of hard, clear plastics like those used in water and baby bottles, as well as in resins used to line cans of food, beverages and infant formula. Exposure has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and hormonal and reproductive problems. Its use in products for young children has been banned in a number of countries and in three U.S. states.
After years of insisting that the chemical was safe, the FDA recently changed its position and called for more research.
Researchers fed pregnant mice BPA for a week before they were due to give birth, until the mice had a body burden of BPA equivalent to that regularly found in pregnant U.S. women. They then exposed the pups of these mice to a common allergy inducer, and compared their response to that of mice who had not been exposed to BPA in utero. They found a significantly greater asthma reaction in the BPA-exposed mice.
"All four of our indicators of asthma response showed up in the BPA group, much more so than in the pups of the non-exposed mice," co-author Randall Goldblum said.
Steve Georas of the Mary Parkes Center for Asthma, Allergy and Pulmonary Care at the University of Rochester, who was not involved in the study, said he found the results compelling.
"They're using what are probably going to be reasonable estimates of human neonatal exposure, and that seems to have an effect on the developing immune system or sensitivity to asthma," he said. "If you take it together with some epidemiologic studies, I would consider it cause for concern."
Sources for this story include: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre... http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty....
BPA is an industrial chemical widely used in the manufacture of hard, clear plastics like those used in water and baby bottles, as well as in resins used to line cans of food, beverages and infant formula. Exposure has been linked to an increased risk of cancer, heart disease, birth defects, and hormonal and reproductive problems. Its use in products for young children has been banned in a number of countries and in three U.S. states.
After years of insisting that the chemical was safe, the FDA recently changed its position and called for more research.
Researchers fed pregnant mice BPA for a week before they were due to give birth, until the mice had a body burden of BPA equivalent to that regularly found in pregnant U.S. women. They then exposed the pups of these mice to a common allergy inducer, and compared their response to that of mice who had not been exposed to BPA in utero. They found a significantly greater asthma reaction in the BPA-exposed mice.
"All four of our indicators of asthma response showed up in the BPA group, much more so than in the pups of the non-exposed mice," co-author Randall Goldblum said.
Steve Georas of the Mary Parkes Center for Asthma, Allergy and Pulmonary Care at the University of Rochester, who was not involved in the study, said he found the results compelling.
"They're using what are probably going to be reasonable estimates of human neonatal exposure, and that seems to have an effect on the developing immune system or sensitivity to asthma," he said. "If you take it together with some epidemiologic studies, I would consider it cause for concern."
Sources for this story include: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gre... http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty....
(NaturalNews) This week's NaturalNews Talk Hour presents "Beyond Chelation -
How to Stop Heart Attacks". Take the steps necessary to empower yourself to go
beyond the limitations of misleading dis-ease labels. It's time to start asking
important questions designed to help us focus on health. We'll examine food
sensitivities, infections, genetics, heavy metals and toxins.
What is Chelation?
Chelation therapy is a safe and effective method for drawing toxins and metabolic wastes from the bloodstream. Chelating agents administered intravenously have been proven to increase blood flow and remove arterial plaque. Chelation therapy can help reverse atherosclerosis, can prevent heart attacks and strokes, and is used as an alternative to bypass surgery and angioplasty.
Our show begins this Thursday evening at 6pm Pacific / 9pm Eastern, and registration is FREE. Simply enter your email address in the registration form on the right column of this page and you'll receive call-in details for the show.
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the weekly Natural News Talk Hour, where I continually learn so much from your carefully chosen, very knowledgeable, and extremely conscientious guest speakers. - Victor
Is Chelation Safe?
Chelation therapy has been used safely on more than 500,000 patients in the United States for the past forty years, but EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), the drug used during the infusions, has yet to receive FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval for anything other than lead and heavy metal toxicity. Still, there are over 1,000 physicians who recommend and use chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease and related health problems.
Dr. Gordon says, "Today's rapidly increasing levels of pollution has made continuous Zeolite or Oral Chelation-based detoxification essential for anyone hoping to reach their maximum intended useful lifespan, while enjoying optimum health. The evidence is clear - we all need to 'get the lead out'!"
The Future of Chelation
Because the patent for EDTA has expired, it is unlikely that any pharmaceutical company will invest the money necessary to fund studies for FDA approval of chelation therapy, despite the overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness. Robert Haskell, MD writes, "Of all the regimens you can use to help a patient combat degenerative disease and restore health, chelation therapy is the most powerful. It produces the greatest number of benefits to the body - far beyond those of improved blood flow. If you want to get your prescribed nutrition to those parts of the body in which they must work - chelation therapy is the way to do it."
Dr. Gordon received his Doctor of Osteopathy in 1958 from the Chicago College of Osteopathy in Illinois, his honorary MD degree from the University of California Irvine in 1962 and his Radiology Residency from Mt. Zion in San Francisco, California in 1964.
Recognized as the "Father of Chelation Therapy" - Dr. Gordon is an expert on nutrition, mineral metabolism, and longevity. He serves as full-time consultant for Longevity Plus, LLC – a nutritional supplement company based in Payson, Arizona where he is responsible for designing effective, natural, non-toxic alternative supplements for the treatment of every disease known to man.
Join Us! Connect with other NaturalNews readers, gain knowledge and have fun at the same time. Space is limited. Be sure to call a few minutes early to reserve your spot on the show. Register now using the email form in the right column, and you will be emailed show details. Register Now!
What is Chelation?
Chelation therapy is a safe and effective method for drawing toxins and metabolic wastes from the bloodstream. Chelating agents administered intravenously have been proven to increase blood flow and remove arterial plaque. Chelation therapy can help reverse atherosclerosis, can prevent heart attacks and strokes, and is used as an alternative to bypass surgery and angioplasty.
Our show begins this Thursday evening at 6pm Pacific / 9pm Eastern, and registration is FREE. Simply enter your email address in the registration form on the right column of this page and you'll receive call-in details for the show.
I wanted to take a moment to thank you for the weekly Natural News Talk Hour, where I continually learn so much from your carefully chosen, very knowledgeable, and extremely conscientious guest speakers. - Victor
Is Chelation Safe?
Chelation therapy has been used safely on more than 500,000 patients in the United States for the past forty years, but EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid), the drug used during the infusions, has yet to receive FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval for anything other than lead and heavy metal toxicity. Still, there are over 1,000 physicians who recommend and use chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease and related health problems.
Dr. Gordon says, "Today's rapidly increasing levels of pollution has made continuous Zeolite or Oral Chelation-based detoxification essential for anyone hoping to reach their maximum intended useful lifespan, while enjoying optimum health. The evidence is clear - we all need to 'get the lead out'!"
The Future of Chelation
Because the patent for EDTA has expired, it is unlikely that any pharmaceutical company will invest the money necessary to fund studies for FDA approval of chelation therapy, despite the overwhelming evidence of its effectiveness. Robert Haskell, MD writes, "Of all the regimens you can use to help a patient combat degenerative disease and restore health, chelation therapy is the most powerful. It produces the greatest number of benefits to the body - far beyond those of improved blood flow. If you want to get your prescribed nutrition to those parts of the body in which they must work - chelation therapy is the way to do it."
This week's guest: Garry F. Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H)
Garry F. Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H) - "Beyond Chelation - How to Stop Heart Attacks" Thu. July 1stDr. Gordon received his Doctor of Osteopathy in 1958 from the Chicago College of Osteopathy in Illinois, his honorary MD degree from the University of California Irvine in 1962 and his Radiology Residency from Mt. Zion in San Francisco, California in 1964.
Recognized as the "Father of Chelation Therapy" - Dr. Gordon is an expert on nutrition, mineral metabolism, and longevity. He serves as full-time consultant for Longevity Plus, LLC – a nutritional supplement company based in Payson, Arizona where he is responsible for designing effective, natural, non-toxic alternative supplements for the treatment of every disease known to man.
Join Us! Connect with other NaturalNews readers, gain knowledge and have fun at the same time. Space is limited. Be sure to call a few minutes early to reserve your spot on the show. Register now using the email form in the right column, and you will be emailed show details. Register Now!
(NaturalNews) Thanks to efforts by the USDA and the Almond Board of California,
it is illegal for commercial almond producers in the United States to sell raw
almonds. The almonds now have to be fumigated with chemicals or
pasteurized (cooked) to meet "food safety requirements" that really
have nothing to do with food safety but everything to do with killing your
food. See my related CounterThink Cartoon at: http://counterthink.com/The_Killing...
Because of this unfortunate situation, health-conscious consumers in the USA who love almonds and almond products (such as almond butter) have been forced to purchase almonds from other countries. You see, almond growers in Italy can sell raw almonds to the USA without any problem. That's perfectly legal. Only U.S.-based producers are required to kill their almonds with heat or chemicals. (Just another brilliant move in Washington to destroy the livelihoods of U.S. farmers, isn't it?)
In any case, it now turns out that the best truly raw almond butters come from Sicily, Italy, where the "tuono" and "correnta" varieties are known for their robust aromas and flavors. They are the gourmet almonds of the world, and they're used quite liberally in the Mediterranean Diet.
I love almond butter. It's a delicious and highly nutritious natural nut butter that I use on everything from raw sandwiches to mouth-watering desserts. Now, through a special arrangement we've once again managed to put together for you, we've acquired a few thousand jars of raw, organic almond butter from Sicily, made from some of the finest almonds in the world. And as you've come to expect, we've managed to make this available directly to you at a ridiculously good price.
You see, since the USDA required that all California almonds be fumigated or pasteurized, the price of raw almonds has skyrocketed. A 16 oz. jar of truly raw almond butter can now set you back $25 at retail. Crazy, huh?
We're trying to bring that price back down to Earth with the fantastic pricing we're able to achieve due to our large reach and low overhead. While supplies lies, we've got 16 oz. glass jars of organic, raw almond butter from Sicily for just $13.95! (That's a savings of nearly 40% over the usual retail price of $22.95.)
Click here to take advantage of this special now.
This is for the good stuff! This is truly raw, truly organic, gourmet Italian almond butter made from Sicilian almonds. Raw almond butter doesn't get any better than this! (Taste it yourself and you'll see!)
The price, though, does get better: When you purchase a 3-pack of this raw almond butter, the price per jar drops to just $12.56 per jar, or a 45% discount off the usual retail price.
Click here for the 3-pack special of this raw almond butter.
As with all our store specials, this is only good while supplies last. (We received a single shipment of a few thousand fresh jars, and when they're gone, they're gone...)
While you can probably find a better price on pasteurized, non-organic almond butter, I'm confident you won't find a better price on raw, organic, non-fumigated almonds that are truly raw and nutritionally intact. This is "premium" almond butter at a non-premium price.
And unless the Almond Board of California reverses its decision requiring the fumigation of California almonds, you'll probably never see a price this low again on truly raw almond nut butter.
Almonds are mentioned as far back in history as the Bible. The Bible’s “Book of Number” tells the story of Aaron’s rod that blossomed and bore almonds, giving the almond the symbolism of divine approval. Through history , almonds have maintained religious, ethnic and social significance.
They were a prized ingredient in breads reserved to Egypt’s pharaohs. Their exact ancestry in unknown, but almonds are thought to have originated in China and Central Asia. Explorers ate almonds while travelling the “Silk Road” between Asia and the Mediterranean. Before long, almonds trees flourished in the Mediterranean, especially in Spain and Italy.
Almonds were central to many cultural traditions around the world. In classical times Romans presented gifts of sugared almonds to important dignitaries as well as personal friends. At weddings they also tossed almonds to the bride and groom as a symbol of fertility. Today, Italians and Americans give guest at weddings a bag of sugared almonds, representing children, happiness, romance, good health and fortune.
In Sweden, cinnamon-flavored rice pudding with an almond hidden inside is a Christmas custom. Find it, and good fortune is yours for a year.
Cultivating almonds it’s a tradition that comes from afar. The earliest varieties of almonds were found in China carried by traders down the ancient silk road to Greece, Turkey, and the Middle East. Nestled between the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Pacific Coast Ranges is California’s fertile Central Valley, home to one of the oldest and most beautiful flowering fruit trees. Unlike other flowering fruit trees that bear edible fruit, this tree’s “pearl” is the delicious nut found inside the fruit, the almond.
Botanically, the sweet almond is considered a stone fruit, closely related to the cherry, plum, apricot, and peach. The almond's botanical name comes from the Greeks who called them "amygdalon."
Almonds are a surprisingly source of calcium: Although we would have to consume 330 calories' worth of almonds to get a significant quantity of this bone-supporting mineral, almonds are higher in calcium than all other nuts. Almonds are also a significant source of magnesium, and they supply a healthy amount of vitamin E.
These sweet, versatile nuts have the highest dietary fiber content of any nut or seed; like all nuts, almonds are a good source of protein and they are cholesterol free. Vitamin E, considered a powerful antioxidant, is plentiful in almonds. They're also high in magnesium, containing even more than spinach. They’re abundant in phosphorus, potassium, iron, zinc, copper, manganese, and trace amounts of the B vitamins thiamine and riboflavin.
Click here to see all the NaturalNews Store specials.
(And enjoy your raw almond butter!)
Because of this unfortunate situation, health-conscious consumers in the USA who love almonds and almond products (such as almond butter) have been forced to purchase almonds from other countries. You see, almond growers in Italy can sell raw almonds to the USA without any problem. That's perfectly legal. Only U.S.-based producers are required to kill their almonds with heat or chemicals. (Just another brilliant move in Washington to destroy the livelihoods of U.S. farmers, isn't it?)
In any case, it now turns out that the best truly raw almond butters come from Sicily, Italy, where the "tuono" and "correnta" varieties are known for their robust aromas and flavors. They are the gourmet almonds of the world, and they're used quite liberally in the Mediterranean Diet.
I love almond butter. It's a delicious and highly nutritious natural nut butter that I use on everything from raw sandwiches to mouth-watering desserts. Now, through a special arrangement we've once again managed to put together for you, we've acquired a few thousand jars of raw, organic almond butter from Sicily, made from some of the finest almonds in the world. And as you've come to expect, we've managed to make this available directly to you at a ridiculously good price.
You see, since the USDA required that all California almonds be fumigated or pasteurized, the price of raw almonds has skyrocketed. A 16 oz. jar of truly raw almond butter can now set you back $25 at retail. Crazy, huh?
We're trying to bring that price back down to Earth with the fantastic pricing we're able to achieve due to our large reach and low overhead. While supplies lies, we've got 16 oz. glass jars of organic, raw almond butter from Sicily for just $13.95! (That's a savings of nearly 40% over the usual retail price of $22.95.)
Click here to take advantage of this special now.
This is for the good stuff! This is truly raw, truly organic, gourmet Italian almond butter made from Sicilian almonds. Raw almond butter doesn't get any better than this! (Taste it yourself and you'll see!)
The price, though, does get better: When you purchase a 3-pack of this raw almond butter, the price per jar drops to just $12.56 per jar, or a 45% discount off the usual retail price.
Click here for the 3-pack special of this raw almond butter.
As with all our store specials, this is only good while supplies last. (We received a single shipment of a few thousand fresh jars, and when they're gone, they're gone...)
While you can probably find a better price on pasteurized, non-organic almond butter, I'm confident you won't find a better price on raw, organic, non-fumigated almonds that are truly raw and nutritionally intact. This is "premium" almond butter at a non-premium price.
And unless the Almond Board of California reverses its decision requiring the fumigation of California almonds, you'll probably never see a price this low again on truly raw almond nut butter.
Historical information about almonds
Here's some interesting information about almonds, provided by our supplier of this remarkable raw almond butter:Almonds are mentioned as far back in history as the Bible. The Bible’s “Book of Number” tells the story of Aaron’s rod that blossomed and bore almonds, giving the almond the symbolism of divine approval. Through history , almonds have maintained religious, ethnic and social significance.
They were a prized ingredient in breads reserved to Egypt’s pharaohs. Their exact ancestry in unknown, but almonds are thought to have originated in China and Central Asia. Explorers ate almonds while travelling the “Silk Road” between Asia and the Mediterranean. Before long, almonds trees flourished in the Mediterranean, especially in Spain and Italy.
Almonds were central to many cultural traditions around the world. In classical times Romans presented gifts of sugared almonds to important dignitaries as well as personal friends. At weddings they also tossed almonds to the bride and groom as a symbol of fertility. Today, Italians and Americans give guest at weddings a bag of sugared almonds, representing children, happiness, romance, good health and fortune.
In Sweden, cinnamon-flavored rice pudding with an almond hidden inside is a Christmas custom. Find it, and good fortune is yours for a year.
Cultivating almonds it’s a tradition that comes from afar. The earliest varieties of almonds were found in China carried by traders down the ancient silk road to Greece, Turkey, and the Middle East. Nestled between the Sierra Nevada mountains and the Pacific Coast Ranges is California’s fertile Central Valley, home to one of the oldest and most beautiful flowering fruit trees. Unlike other flowering fruit trees that bear edible fruit, this tree’s “pearl” is the delicious nut found inside the fruit, the almond.
Botanically, the sweet almond is considered a stone fruit, closely related to the cherry, plum, apricot, and peach. The almond's botanical name comes from the Greeks who called them "amygdalon."
Almonds are a surprisingly source of calcium: Although we would have to consume 330 calories' worth of almonds to get a significant quantity of this bone-supporting mineral, almonds are higher in calcium than all other nuts. Almonds are also a significant source of magnesium, and they supply a healthy amount of vitamin E.
These sweet, versatile nuts have the highest dietary fiber content of any nut or seed; like all nuts, almonds are a good source of protein and they are cholesterol free. Vitamin E, considered a powerful antioxidant, is plentiful in almonds. They're also high in magnesium, containing even more than spinach. They’re abundant in phosphorus, potassium, iron, zinc, copper, manganese, and trace amounts of the B vitamins thiamine and riboflavin.
Click here to see all the NaturalNews Store specials.
(And enjoy your raw almond butter!)
(NaturalNews) According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), almost 11
percent of Americans age 20 or older have diabetes. And the most common form of
this disease, type 2 diabetes, has reached epidemic proportions. Now scientists
have found a link between vitamin D deficiency and the inability of many
patients with this kind of diabetes to keep their blood sugar under control.
What's more, this raises the strong possibility that, along with
being overweight and sedentary, a lack of vitamin D could be a major factor in
triggering type 2 diabetes in the first place.
Esther Krug, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, just presented this research in San Diego at the Endocrine Society's 92nd Annual Meeting. "This finding supports an active role of vitamin D in the development of Type 2 diabetes," Dr. Krug said in a statement to the media.
Krug and her research team reviewed the medical charts of 124 people between the ages of 36 and 89 years old who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and treated at an endocrine outpatient clinic between 2003 and 2008. As part of their health evaluations, all of these patients had their serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels measured at the clinic. So the researchers looked to see how many of the patients had normal levels of the so-called "sunshine" vitamin.
The answer? Almost none. In fact, an astonishing 91 percent of the patients studied had either vitamin D deficiency (defined as a level below 15 nanograms per deciliter, or ng/dL) or vitamin D insufficiency (15 to 31 ng/dL), the authors reported. When the investigators looked at the patients' levels of hemoglobin A1c (a measure of blood sugar control over the past several months), they came up with another startling fact. There was a clear relationship between uncontrolled blood sugar and low levels of vitamin D. African-Americans were found to have the highest A1c levels and were most deficient in vitamin D, when compared to Caucasians.
"Since primary care providers diagnose and treat most patients with type 2 diabetes, screening and vitamin D supplementation as part of routine primary care may improve health outcomes of this highly prevalent condition," Dr. Krug concluded.
NaturalNews has previously reported on other natural ways to treat and even prevent type 2 diabetes -- including eating Mediterranean style by consuming a diet rich in "good" fats (like Omega-3s and olive oil), veggies, fruit and whole grains. A study published last fall in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded the Mediterranean diet dramatically improved type 2 diabetes and even eliminated the need for many people to take blood glucose regulating medication (http://www.naturalnews.com/027140_d...).
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/Type_2_d...
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pu...
http://www.endo-society.org/
Esther Krug, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and an endocrinologist at Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, just presented this research in San Diego at the Endocrine Society's 92nd Annual Meeting. "This finding supports an active role of vitamin D in the development of Type 2 diabetes," Dr. Krug said in a statement to the media.
Krug and her research team reviewed the medical charts of 124 people between the ages of 36 and 89 years old who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and treated at an endocrine outpatient clinic between 2003 and 2008. As part of their health evaluations, all of these patients had their serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels measured at the clinic. So the researchers looked to see how many of the patients had normal levels of the so-called "sunshine" vitamin.
The answer? Almost none. In fact, an astonishing 91 percent of the patients studied had either vitamin D deficiency (defined as a level below 15 nanograms per deciliter, or ng/dL) or vitamin D insufficiency (15 to 31 ng/dL), the authors reported. When the investigators looked at the patients' levels of hemoglobin A1c (a measure of blood sugar control over the past several months), they came up with another startling fact. There was a clear relationship between uncontrolled blood sugar and low levels of vitamin D. African-Americans were found to have the highest A1c levels and were most deficient in vitamin D, when compared to Caucasians.
"Since primary care providers diagnose and treat most patients with type 2 diabetes, screening and vitamin D supplementation as part of routine primary care may improve health outcomes of this highly prevalent condition," Dr. Krug concluded.
NaturalNews has previously reported on other natural ways to treat and even prevent type 2 diabetes -- including eating Mediterranean style by consuming a diet rich in "good" fats (like Omega-3s and olive oil), veggies, fruit and whole grains. A study published last fall in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded the Mediterranean diet dramatically improved type 2 diabetes and even eliminated the need for many people to take blood glucose regulating medication (http://www.naturalnews.com/027140_d...).
For more information:
http://www.naturalnews.com/Type_2_d...
http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pu...
http://www.endo-society.org/
(NaturalNews) A new study shows that the increasingly popular practice of
"preventive mastectomy" in non-cancerous breasts provides no benefit to the
vast majority of women.
"It's important for women to understand that, except for one subset of breast cancer patients, they don't need to do this," said lead author Isabelle Bedrosian of University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. "Hopefully, it'll reassure patients wondering if they should."
Approximately 40,000 women die from breast cancer in the United States each year, and another 200,000 cases are diagnosed. Because cancer in one breast is known to increase the risk of cancer recurrence in the other breast, doctors are increasingly recommending that cancer survivors opt to have both breasts removed as a "preventive" measure. And women are opting for it in huge numbers, seeking the peace of mind that it is said to offer.
The number of preventive mastectomies in the United States increased two-and-a-half-fold between 1998 and 2003. Today, 11 percent of all women undergoing a mastectomy on a cancerous breast choose to have the non-cancerous breast removed as well. Analysts have attributed this increase to more advanced screening techniques that detect cancers smaller and earlier; popularization of genetic screening and the idea that some genes may predispose families to breast cancer; and wider public acceptance of plastic surgery combined with advances in reconstructive technology.
Yet while it has been strongly established that elective mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence, there has been no research to suggest that it actually lengthens a woman's life span.
"We have not had real data to guide us," Bedrosian said. "We can't sit down with a woman and say, 'If you do this, this is your expected benefit.' And when we don't have those data, then biases become the big drivers of decision making."
In the new study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Bedrosian and colleagues analyzed the records of 107,106 women in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry. All the women had undergone a mastectomy to treat breast cancer of Stage III or lower; 8,902 had chosen to have a healthy breast removed, as well.
After controlling for other risk factors, the researchers found only a small difference in survival rates between women who had chosen to have two breasts removed and women who had chosen to have only one removed. Upon further analysis, they discovered that this benefit was only present in women under the age of 50 with estrogen receptor-negative, early-stage tumors. In this group, elective mastectomy increased the survival rate by 4.8 percent, amounting to just under five lives saved for every 100 surgeries.
Elective mastectomy provided no survival benefit to women outside this demographic.
The researchers believe that even when cancers recur, most women will not be killed by them but will instead die of other causes first. Only in women whose cancers lack estrogen receptors and who would otherwise have long lives ahead of them does recurrence appear to pose a serious threat to survival.
The most effective breast cancer drugs on the market are those that lower the body's production of estrogen, which fuels the growth of many cancers. Tumors that lack estrogen receptors do not depend on the hormone for their growth, however, meaning that women with these cancers cannot use the most effective drugs and tend to have higher mortality rates.
Breast-cancer specialist Larry Norton of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City expressed skepticism about the study's methodology and cautioned against doctors and patients giving it too much weight.
"This is an observational study, and hence it is impossible to control for confounding variables," Norton said, "and should not be used for individual clinical decisionmaking."
Norton admitted, however, that ethics make it impossible to perform a true controlled study on the question, since such an experiment might end up increasing cancer mortality in one group of participants.
Bedrosian disputed Norton's criticism, noting that the researchers used rigorous statistical analysis and controlled well for interference from other variables. She believes that the conclusions are, in fact, strong enough to help women make better-informed decisions about elective mastectomy.
"We looked at this in multiple different ways, and we got the same answer every time. And the results make good clinical sense. That adds another level of reassurance," she said. "Our hope is that when women hear the numbers, they will take a second look and decide not to go forward with a preventive mastectomy [in their healthy breast] if it won't give them a survival benefit."
Victor Vogel, national vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, said the results suggest that women should wait a full year before going through with the removal of a healthy breast.
"In a younger woman with [estrogen receptor]-negative disease, an [elective} mastectomy may be considered," he said. "In the vast majority of women older than 50 with ER-positive disease, prudent waiting is probably the most appropriate."
Bedrosian said that the point of the study was not to impose "a uniform mandate" that women should never get the procedure, but that their decisions must be well informed.
"This is still a decision to be made by the patient after talking with her doctor," Bedrosian said.
"We hope this study helps women make better decisions [and] provides some reassurance that perhaps a [preventive] mastectomy is not necessary, perhaps overly aggressive and perhaps a bit too much."
Sources for this story include: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art... http://www.time.com/time/health/art....
"It's important for women to understand that, except for one subset of breast cancer patients, they don't need to do this," said lead author Isabelle Bedrosian of University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. "Hopefully, it'll reassure patients wondering if they should."
Approximately 40,000 women die from breast cancer in the United States each year, and another 200,000 cases are diagnosed. Because cancer in one breast is known to increase the risk of cancer recurrence in the other breast, doctors are increasingly recommending that cancer survivors opt to have both breasts removed as a "preventive" measure. And women are opting for it in huge numbers, seeking the peace of mind that it is said to offer.
The number of preventive mastectomies in the United States increased two-and-a-half-fold between 1998 and 2003. Today, 11 percent of all women undergoing a mastectomy on a cancerous breast choose to have the non-cancerous breast removed as well. Analysts have attributed this increase to more advanced screening techniques that detect cancers smaller and earlier; popularization of genetic screening and the idea that some genes may predispose families to breast cancer; and wider public acceptance of plastic surgery combined with advances in reconstructive technology.
Yet while it has been strongly established that elective mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast-cancer recurrence, there has been no research to suggest that it actually lengthens a woman's life span.
"We have not had real data to guide us," Bedrosian said. "We can't sit down with a woman and say, 'If you do this, this is your expected benefit.' And when we don't have those data, then biases become the big drivers of decision making."
In the new study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Bedrosian and colleagues analyzed the records of 107,106 women in the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry. All the women had undergone a mastectomy to treat breast cancer of Stage III or lower; 8,902 had chosen to have a healthy breast removed, as well.
After controlling for other risk factors, the researchers found only a small difference in survival rates between women who had chosen to have two breasts removed and women who had chosen to have only one removed. Upon further analysis, they discovered that this benefit was only present in women under the age of 50 with estrogen receptor-negative, early-stage tumors. In this group, elective mastectomy increased the survival rate by 4.8 percent, amounting to just under five lives saved for every 100 surgeries.
Elective mastectomy provided no survival benefit to women outside this demographic.
The researchers believe that even when cancers recur, most women will not be killed by them but will instead die of other causes first. Only in women whose cancers lack estrogen receptors and who would otherwise have long lives ahead of them does recurrence appear to pose a serious threat to survival.
The most effective breast cancer drugs on the market are those that lower the body's production of estrogen, which fuels the growth of many cancers. Tumors that lack estrogen receptors do not depend on the hormone for their growth, however, meaning that women with these cancers cannot use the most effective drugs and tend to have higher mortality rates.
Breast-cancer specialist Larry Norton of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City expressed skepticism about the study's methodology and cautioned against doctors and patients giving it too much weight.
"This is an observational study, and hence it is impossible to control for confounding variables," Norton said, "and should not be used for individual clinical decisionmaking."
Norton admitted, however, that ethics make it impossible to perform a true controlled study on the question, since such an experiment might end up increasing cancer mortality in one group of participants.
Bedrosian disputed Norton's criticism, noting that the researchers used rigorous statistical analysis and controlled well for interference from other variables. She believes that the conclusions are, in fact, strong enough to help women make better-informed decisions about elective mastectomy.
"We looked at this in multiple different ways, and we got the same answer every time. And the results make good clinical sense. That adds another level of reassurance," she said. "Our hope is that when women hear the numbers, they will take a second look and decide not to go forward with a preventive mastectomy [in their healthy breast] if it won't give them a survival benefit."
Victor Vogel, national vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, said the results suggest that women should wait a full year before going through with the removal of a healthy breast.
"In a younger woman with [estrogen receptor]-negative disease, an [elective} mastectomy may be considered," he said. "In the vast majority of women older than 50 with ER-positive disease, prudent waiting is probably the most appropriate."
Bedrosian said that the point of the study was not to impose "a uniform mandate" that women should never get the procedure, but that their decisions must be well informed.
"This is still a decision to be made by the patient after talking with her doctor," Bedrosian said.
"We hope this study helps women make better decisions [and] provides some reassurance that perhaps a [preventive] mastectomy is not necessary, perhaps overly aggressive and perhaps a bit too much."
Sources for this story include: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art... http://www.time.com/time/health/art....
(NaturalNews) According to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS),
Kathleen Sebelius, the FDA is working on a plan that would require food
manufacturers to print nutrition information on the front of their packaging
rather than on the back. The alleged goal of the proposed new mandate is to
help busy shoppers quickly decipher nutrition information without having to
look at the back of a product.
"Busy shoppers will be able to go into grocery stores and have some easy-to-understand information on the front of packages, giving them quick data on what is a healthier choice," she explained.
While it may seem like a good proposal that would help to improve nutrition transparency, many manufacturers are concerned that the requirement could end up needlessly costing them millions of dollars. Since packaging changes are typically very expensive, many smaller producers might be put out of business by the mandate.
James McCarthy, president and CEO of the Snack Food Association (SFA), expressed opposition to the mandate and instead proposed that the change be made voluntary. Because his organization represents 400 snack food manufacturers and suppliers worldwide, many of which are small- or medium-sized operations, he understands the incredible burden that would be placed on them by the requirement.
And his argument is a rational one, considering the fact that nutrition information can easily be found on products as they currently are. Forcing manufacturers to redesign their packages at a tremendous cost to them hardly seems beneficial. If someone is unwilling to turn the package around to read the nutrition information on the back, it is highly unlikely that he or she will bother reading it off the front.
Others disagree, insisting that the mandate would help to combat childhood obesity. Yet it is unclear precisely how the plan will actually accomplish this, and critics see the plan as nothing more than attack on American business.
The FDA is also seeking to establish universal guidelines for how health information is displayed on product packages. The agency would like to eliminate all self-labeling, or labels that indicate that a product is a "healthy choice" or that it benefits "heart health".
According to Sebelius, all labeling should have a "scientific background" and should be tested through an "evidence-based approach." Therefore her agency made recommendations to the FDA that a "national standard" be developed to accommodate such an approach.
Sources for this story include:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63959
"Busy shoppers will be able to go into grocery stores and have some easy-to-understand information on the front of packages, giving them quick data on what is a healthier choice," she explained.
While it may seem like a good proposal that would help to improve nutrition transparency, many manufacturers are concerned that the requirement could end up needlessly costing them millions of dollars. Since packaging changes are typically very expensive, many smaller producers might be put out of business by the mandate.
James McCarthy, president and CEO of the Snack Food Association (SFA), expressed opposition to the mandate and instead proposed that the change be made voluntary. Because his organization represents 400 snack food manufacturers and suppliers worldwide, many of which are small- or medium-sized operations, he understands the incredible burden that would be placed on them by the requirement.
And his argument is a rational one, considering the fact that nutrition information can easily be found on products as they currently are. Forcing manufacturers to redesign their packages at a tremendous cost to them hardly seems beneficial. If someone is unwilling to turn the package around to read the nutrition information on the back, it is highly unlikely that he or she will bother reading it off the front.
Others disagree, insisting that the mandate would help to combat childhood obesity. Yet it is unclear precisely how the plan will actually accomplish this, and critics see the plan as nothing more than attack on American business.
The FDA is also seeking to establish universal guidelines for how health information is displayed on product packages. The agency would like to eliminate all self-labeling, or labels that indicate that a product is a "healthy choice" or that it benefits "heart health".
According to Sebelius, all labeling should have a "scientific background" and should be tested through an "evidence-based approach." Therefore her agency made recommendations to the FDA that a "national standard" be developed to accommodate such an approach.
Sources for this story include:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63959
Navigate
Feeds
Latest Activity
added a new blog entry.
20 months ago
20 months ago
added a new blog entry.
20 months ago
20 months ago
added a new blog entry.
20 months ago
20 months ago
added a new blog entry.
20 months ago
20 months ago
added a new blog entry.
20 months ago
20 months ago
Top Contributors
Share
Powered by
