Green Living: Making Your Own Non-Toxic Cleaners

Back in 1991 I started teaching a series of classes under the broad heading of "Green Living". The classes came as the result of the naturally oriented column I was writing at that time and some local presentations in and around the Puget Sound region.

Probably one of my most popular classes from that time is one where I talk about all the ingredients in mass market cleaners and why they are not health promoting.

During this program I teach how to clean just about anything you can imagine with a select few ingredients, bought cheaply at the supermarket or in bulk if you know where to access these in your local area.

Of course now the big producers of mass market cleaners are flooding the market with their brands hoping you'll keep up their $10 billion market share. While these products aren't totally toxic, under the guise of green they still include some known irritants and toxins.

Generally most people aren't as interested as I am in reading the chemical index, a standard resource for the cleaning products and HABA crowd. You can find this in the library and you'd really be amazed and what you find. You can also look up things under MSDS (material safety data sheet) system.

The problem is that while single items may be "approved" the mixtures resulting from adding two or more ingredients together are not required to be tested for health or environmental risks.

Back at that time we prepared one of our Healthy Handouts© on the topic of making your own cleaning products. This might be something you'd like to purchase as it seems that you can save - on the average - over $400 a year doing some very simple things along these lines.

LED v. CFL: We Vote for LED

Long before you heard the mainstream push to promote CFL bulbs we warned of the mervury/hazardous waste risk that seemed to be ignored by most venues.

At the same time we've warned against CFL bulbs we've educated for the switch to LED light blubs or PAR halogen types.

Now it seems that E and Daily Green have taken our heed. Mind you we have written tro them in the past about LED, while they still were promoting CFL and not paying such close attention to the hazards.

Yes LED are more costly initially the cost should come down once more people start buying them. However, over the long term, LED blubs are much more cost effective.

As we say, we are usally well ahead of the curve on health news and its impact on you, as well as often copied but never duplicated.

Want Energy Efficient, Mercury-Free LED Light Bulbs for Your Home?
Recent Technology Lights the Way to a Greener Future

Dear EarthTalk: What's the story with LED light bulbs that are reputed to be even more energy-efficient than compact fluorescents?--

Perhaps the ultimate "alternative to the alternative," the LED (light-emitting diode) light bulb may well dethrone the compact fluorescent (CFL) as king of the green lighting choices. But it has a way to go yet in terms of both affordability and brightness.

LEDs have been used widely for decades in other applications -- forming the numbers on digital clocks, lighting up watches and cell phones and, when used in clusters, illuminating traffic lights and forming the images on large outdoor television screens. Until recently LED lighting has been impractical to use for most other everyday applications because it is built around costly semiconductor technology. But the price of semiconductor materials has dropped in recent years, opening the door for some exciting changes in energy-efficient, green friendly lighting options.

According to HowStuffWorks.com, LED bulbs are lit solely by the movement of electrons. Unlike incandescents, they have no filament that will burn out; and unlike CFLs, they contain no mercury or other toxic substances. Proponents say LEDs can last some 60 times longer than incandescents and 10 times longer than CFLs. And unlike incandescents, which generate a lot of waste heat, LEDs don't get especially hot and use a much higher percentage of electricity for directly generating light.

But as with early CFLs, LED bulbs are not known for their brightness. According to a January 2008 article in Science Daily, "Because of their structure and material, much of the light in standard LEDs becomes trapped, reducing the brightness of the light and making them unsuitable as the main lighting source in the home." LED makers get around this problem in some applications by clustering many small LED bulbs together in a single casing to concentrate the light emitted. But such LED "bulbs" still don't generate light much brighter than a 35-watt incandescent.

If LEDs are going to replace incandescents and CFLs, manufacturers will have to make them brighter. EarthLED is lighting the way with its EvoLux and ZetaLux bulbs, which use multiple LEDs in a single casing to generate light. The EvoLux delivers light equal to that of a 100-watt incandescent, the company says. But the $80/bulb price tag may be tough to swallow. The ZetaLux, which retails for $49.99, delivers light equivalent to a 50- or 60-watt incandescent, will last 50,000 hours and costs only $2/yearly to run.

Other bulb makers are working on similar designs for high-powered LED bulbs, hoping that an increase in availability will help spur demand, which will in turn lower prices across the board. Until then, consumers can find LED bulbs suitable for secondary and mood lighting purposes in many hardware and big box stores. C. Crane's 1.3-watt LED bulb, for example, generates as much light as a 15-watt incandescent bulb. Check your local hardware store for other options, as well as online vendors such as Best Home LED Lighting, Bulbster, SuperBrightLEDs.com and We Love LEDs.

Beware, genetically engineered and newer biological drugs

There is a rather well publicized issue surrounding multiple myeloma and the possibility of symptomatic treatment from a drug in this class that is approved for MS and Crohn's Disease. One of the serious side effects of the drug is that it can cause multiple myeloma and a very severe bacterial invasion of brain tissue that can be fatal. The drug is listed on the FDA's drug advisory information pages. These are reasons why the drug is so tightly controlled. Another may be that the effects of the drug really isn't known because no long term studies are completed before FDA approval and marketing.

Humira and other arthritis drugs have been worrisome for years, the risk of cancer has been raised, yet they are still plentifully prescribed.

Some forms of arthritis are well known to be associated with food allergy but this concept is absent or fleeting over (knee-jerk) consideration for promoting the drug.

Some cases of Chrohn's may be helped with more nutritional and natural approaches to revitlize the gut lining and function. Now this is a novel idea in MSM but its one I've seen work time and time again.

MS and multiply myeloma can be helped with more natural approaches too.

There just needs to be a better approach to health care.

Safety a problem for new generation drugs, tooBy LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer

He said the results simply show that doctors and patients should be aware that the drugs have many potential side effects that may not be listed on the label.

CHICAGO – Nearly a fourth of widely used new-generation biological drugs for several common diseases produce serious side effects that lead to safety warnings soon after they go on the market, the first major study of its kind found.

Included in the report released Tuesday were the arthritis drugs Humira and Remicade, cancer drugs Rituxan and Erbitux, and the heart failure drug Natrecor. All wound up being flagged for safety.

That might surprise some doctors who may have thought that these new treatments might be safer than traditional chemical-based medicines.

Researchers found that most of the warnings came within five years after these biologicals won government approval in the United States and Europe between 1995 and 2007.

Many traditional medicines wind up with safety warnings too after they go on the market. But experts said there were no similar studies of older medicines that made it possible to compare safety issues between the two groups of drugs.

The new study, by Dutch researchers, is the first comprehensive examination of these newer medicines, a driving part of the biotech revolution.

The drugs are known as biologicals because they're made from living material and they typically affect the body's disease-fighting immune system. Many relieve severe symptoms by suppressing that system.
It's that same mechanism that can result in side effects often not seen with traditional chemical-based medicines, said Dr. Charles Bennett, a Northwestern University drug safety expert. These can include brain and fungal infections and cancer.

Many are genetically engineered and Bennett said that because they typically resemble naturally occurring proteins, many doctors have assumed they were safer than traditional chemical-based medicines. But he said the study shows that's not necessarily true.

"They have an important role," Bennett said. "They're really the next generation of pharmaceuticals."

He said the results simply show that doctors and patients should be aware that the drugs have many potential side effects that may not be listed on the label.

Among the drugs under examination are Genentech Inc.'s psoriasis drug Raptiva, which just last week the Food and Drug Administration warned may contribute to a life-threatening brain illness and infections; and Exubera, an inhaled insulin product, linked with lung cancer risks. Exubera was approved by the FDA in 2006 but Pfizer Inc. stopped selling it last year.

The study appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

It involved 136 biologics approved in the United States and 105 in the European Union between January 1995 and June 2007. A total of 41, or nearly 24 percent, got safety warnings issued through June 2008.

The results are a concern, and they underscore the need for closer scrutiny of drugs after their approval, said lead author Thijs Giezen of the University of Utrecht.

But he said the study also is reassuring because most problems showed up relatively soon after the drugs became available, which minimized the potential for widespread harm.

"If most issues are discovered within the first few years, then the system is working," Giezen said.

Bennett says it's unreasonable to think that the studied drugs' safety issues should have been discovered before they were marketed. That's because drug approval is based on relatively small studies with patients who generally are healthier than those in the general population. It often takes real-world experience for side effects to appear, he said.

Many biological drugs have advantages over conventional medicine, but the study shows their risks need to also be considered, said Thomas Moore of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.

For example, non-steroid arthritis medicines including ibuprofen can reduce pain by decreasing inflammation, but they can cause stomach bleeding.

Biologic rheumatoid arthritis medicines Remicade, Enbrel and Humira are designed to ease painful joints by keeping the body's immune system from attacking itself, the underlying problem in the disease. But they are much more expensive and have been linked with higher risks for potentially fatal infections. Also, the FDA is investigating possible cancer risks.

"My message to patients is that these biological products often can treat very difficult to treat diseases but may have very substantial risks and that you need to take extra care to educate yourself as to what those risks might be," Moore said.

And in another report on this timely topic -

Reports of serious drug reactions hit recordBy RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The number of serious drug reactions and deaths reported to the government shot up in the first three months of this year to set a new record, a health industry watchdog group said Wednesday.

The Food and Drug Administration received nearly 21,000 reports of serious drug reactions, including more than 4,800 deaths, said an analysis of federal data by the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.

Two drugs accounted for a large share of the latest reports. One was the blood thinner heparin. Most of the drug's problems were prompted by tainted heparin imported from China. The other was Chantix, a new kind of anti-smoking drug from Pfizer.

Chantix, which had the most reports of any medication, works directly in a smoker's brain to ease withdrawal symptoms. It also blocks the pleasurable effects of nicotine if the patient is tempted to light up again. Earlier this year, the FDA warned that Chantix may be linked to psychiatric problems, including suicidal behavior and vivid dreams. Pfizer said Wednesday it stands by Chantix, and that the volume of reports might be linked to publicity about the side effects.

"The FDA is aware of the increasing number of reports, and we take them seriously," said spokesman Christopher DiFrancesco. But officials are not sure whether reports are up because problems are getting worse, or simply due to greater awareness about drug safety issues.

The watchdog group that prepared the analysis has served hospitals and pharmacists for years as a clearinghouse for information on medication errors. Known as ISMP, the organization is now trying to reach consumers with regular reports on drug safety trends.

"We believe that one of the most important tools to promote is to monitor trends on a regular basis," said Thomas J. Moore, a senior scientist with ISMP. "Knowing which drugs are causing injuries and how many people are being hurt is the raw material we need to fashion sound measures to promote patient safety."

The FDA defines serious drug reactions as ones that cause hospitalization, require medical intervention, or place a life in jeopardy. The agency's monitoring system relies on voluntary reports from doctors and is only believed to capture a fraction of overall problems.

The 20,745 cases reported from January through March was 38 percent higher than the average for the previous four calendar quarters, and the highest for any quarter, the report said.

The number of deaths, 4,824, was a nearly threefold increase from the last calendar quarter of 2007. The FDA said heparin was largely to blame.

Previous ISMP research has shown that reports of serious drug safety problems had increased markedly since the late 1990s.

The FDA case reports provide a signal of possible problems with a drug, but a cause-and-effect connection can only be established through painstaking investigation. If the FDA were a police agency, the reports would indicate "probable cause," but not necessarily "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

The ISMP study found that heparin accounted for 779 reports of serious problems, including 102 deaths. The FDA, using data that covers a longer time period, has reported 238 deaths possibly linked to heparin.

Heparin "illustrates an example of a significant drug safety problem that was promptly and effectively resolved by the drug manufacturers and the FDA once the issue was detected and understood," the report said.

Not so with Chantix, it concluded.

The FDA should forcefully warn patients taking Chantix that they may have blackouts that could lead to accidents, the report said. Current warnings say patients may be too impaired to drive or operate heavy machinery, but such language is standard for many medications. The government has banned the drug for pilots.

The report found 15 cases of Chantix patients who appeared to have been involved in traffic accidents, and 52 additional cases involving blackouts or loss of consciousness. The FDA said it taking a second look at the Chantix warnings.

The agency received 1,001 reports of serious injuries linked to Chantix, more than for the 10 best-selling brand name drugs combined.

Chantix "continued to provide a striking signal of safety issues that require investigation and action," the report said. The authors acknowledged Pfizer's concern that publicity may be driving up the number of reports, but concluded there's enough evidence to warrant stronger FDA action.

Pfizer said the total sum of its Chantix data, including results from clinical trials, show the drug's benefits clearly outweigh its risks.

"We stand by the efficacy and safety profile of Chantix," the company said in a statement. "There are few things that provide greater health benefits than quitting smoking. Pfizer is committed to reducing the prevalence of smoking globally. As part of that mission, we want to increase peoples' understanding of the dangers of smoking and the benefits of quitting."

But then again we've mentioned Chantix in several other posts herein.
And if you've queries regarding more natural ways to approach stopping smoking, contact us.

Its the Potassium

Have you eaten your kale today?

I haven't yet but I'll be having a pear-kale-kiwi-lime smoothie later in my day with a scoop of Leaflady's Great Green Powder Blend added in (order from us, it is organic too!).

Potassium is one of the key nutrients for heart health, although it needs to be in balance with other vitamins and minerals.

Vegetables are the real powerhouse for minerals and vitamins along with protein when it comes to boosting your intake of these health promoting nutrients.

Fruit is good but more in moderation because of the sugar content, especially bananas. Fruit is great for fiber and it promotes cleansing. Its also best to keep from mixing fruit with vegetables, especially as found in a lot of green powder products.

Another one of my favorite things is kale salad with avocado, nori seaweed, raisins, lime juice and hemp seed oil.

Greens, greens, they're good for your heart: study
by Karin Zeitvogel

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Diets worldwide that are rich in fried and salty foods increase heart attack risk, while eating lots of fruit, leafy greens and other vegetables reduces that risk, a groundbreaking study showed.

The study, called INTERHEART, looked at 16,000 heart attack patients and controls between 1999 and 2003 in countries on every continent, marking a shift from previous studies which have focussed on the developed world.

The patients and controls filled in a "dietary risk score" questionnaire based on 19 food groups, which contained healthy and unhealthy items and were tweaked to include dietary preferences of each country taking part in the study.

The researchers found that people who eat a diet high in fried foods, salty snacks, eggs and meat -- the "Western Diet" -- had a 35 percent greater risk of having a heart attack than people who consumed little or no fried foods or meat, regardless of where they live.

People who ate a "Prudent Diet" -- high in leafy green vegetables, other raw and cooked vegetables, and fruits -- had a 30 percent lower risk of heart attack than those who ate little or no fruit and veg, the study showed.

The third dietary pattern, called the "Oriental Diet" because it contained foods such as tofu and soy sauce which are typically consumed in Asian societies, was found to have little impact on heart attack risk.

Although some items in the Oriental diet might have protective properties such as vitamins and anti-oxidants, others such as soy sauce have a high salt content which would negate the benefits, the study said.

The study was groundbreaking in its scope and because previous research had focussed mainly on developed countries, according to Salim Yusuf, a senior author of the study.

"We had focussed research on the West because heart disease was mainly predominant in western countries 25-30 years ago," Yusuf, who is a professor of medicine at McMaster University in Canada, told AFP.

"But heart disease is now increasingly striking people in developing countries. Eighty percent of heart disease today is in low- to middle-income countries" partly because more people around the world are eating western diets, he said.

"This study indicates that the same relationships that are observed in western countries exist in different regions of the world," said Yusuf, who is also head of the Population Health Research Institute at Hamilton Health Sciences in Ontario.

Patients who had been admitted to coronary care units in 262 centers around the world, and at least one control subject per patient, took part in the study.

The INTERHEART results were published Monday in Circulation, the journal of the American Heart Association.

The main countries in the study were Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia in South America; Canada and the United States in North America; Sweden in western Europe; Croatia, Poland and Russia for eastern Europe; and Dubai, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait and Qatar for the Middle East.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the main countries were Cameroon, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe; while nearly all the South Asian countries -- India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka -- took part, as did Southeast Asian countries including the Philippines and Singapore, Yusuf told AFP.

Copyright © 2008 Agence France Presse

Food Allergy on the Rise

The increase in food allergy is good to make note of because of several factors.

One of course is the ever increasing level of environmental toxicity in air, water and food.

Food coloring, additives and flavorings also are known to contribute to this health concern. Over processed foods (including cereals and dairy) and the increased use of highly allergenic or GMO soy in formula, pesticide use and other GMO foods must be considered.

One issue that for the most part that is overlooked is the effect of the myriad of vaccines forced on children from birth to the teen years, on GI problems and allergy.

Over and over again I am amazed at just how the gut issues in infants and small children become more prevalent, how troubling acid antagonist drugs are thrown at them (leading to many more serious problems over time), and how the use of simple remedies like real food, enzymes and probiotics are ignored.

Even children's prescription drugs include many colorings, flavorings and artificial sweeteners - all known to impact developing gastrointestinal and immune systems.

I wonder when common sense will return to health care and mainstream medicine.

Food allergies increasing in US kids, study says By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer

ATLANTA – Food allergies in American children seem to be on the rise, now affecting about 3 million kids, according to the first federal study of the problem.

But experts said that might be because parents are more aware and quicker to have their kids checked out by a doctor.

About 1 in 26 children had food allergies last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Wednesday. That's up from 1 in 29 kids in 1997.

The 18 percent increase is significant enough to be considered more than a statistical blip, said Amy Branum of the CDC, the study's lead author.

Nobody knows for sure what's driving the increase. A doubling in peanut allergies — noted in earlier studies — is one factor, some experts said. Also, children seems to be taking longer to outgrow milk and egg allergies than they did in decades past.

But also figuring into the equation are parents and doctors who are more likely to consider food as the trigger for symptoms like vomiting, skin rashes and breathing problems.

"A couple of decades ago, it was not uncommon to have kids sick all the time and we just said 'They have a weak stomach' or 'They're sickly,'" said Anne Munoz-Furlong, chief executive of the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, a Virginia-based advocacy organization.

Parents today are quicker to take their kids to specialists to check out the possibility of food allergies, said Munoz-Furlong, who founded the nonprofit in 1991.

The CDC results came from an in-person, door-to-door survey in 2007 of the households of 9,500 U.S. children under age 18.

When asked if a child in the house had any kind of food allergy in the previous 12 months, about 4 percent said yes. The parents were not asked if a doctor had made the diagnosis, and no medical records were checked. Some parents may not know the difference between immune system-based food allergies and digestive disorders like lactose intolerance, so it's possible the study's findings are a bit off, Branum said.

However, the study's results mirror older national estimates that were extrapolated from smaller, more intensive studies, said Dr. Hugh Sampson, a food allergy researcher at the Mount Sinai School of medicine.

"This tells us those earlier extrapolations were fairly close," Sampson said.

The CDC study did not give a breakdown of which foods were to blame for the allergies. Other research suggests that about 1 in 40 Americans will have a milk allergy at some point in their lives, and 1 in 50 percent will be allergic to eggs. Most people outgrow these allergies in childhood.

About 1 in 50 are allergic to shellfish and nearly 1 in 100 react to peanuts, allergies that generally persist for a lifetime, according to Sampson.

Some people have more than one food allergy, he said, explaining why the overall food allergy prevalence is about 4 percent.

Children with food allergies also were more likely to have asthma, eczema and respiratory problems than kids without food allergies, the CDC study found, confirming previous research.

The study also found that the number of children hospitalized for food allergies was up. The number of hospital discharges jumped from about 2,600 a year in the late 1990s to more than 9,500 annually in recent years, the CDC results showed.

Also, Hispanic children had lower rates of food allergies than white or black children — the first such racial/ethnic breakdown in a national study.

The reason for that last finding may not be genetics, said Munoz-Furlong. She is Hispanic and said people in her own family have been unwilling to consider food allergies as the reason for children's illnesses. "It's a question of awareness," she said.

Milk Thistle

Outside of this BLOG I write a regular column that appears in several print media venues and sometimes seems to end up on the net.

I notice in review of my web site stats that often people are looking for information about liver health and gall bladder health.

While the two are very closely related, they also have different functions and sometimes what is good for one may or may not be good for the other.

This month my article was about milk thistle. To my surprise, as I was perusing articles on the Rense website, I cam across a headline that interested me.

I clicked on the link only to find the article I had just written for the specific print publication at the other end of the link.

Of course I was surprised. I also wonder who it might be in Latah County, Idaho that listens to or reads Rense.

If you aren't familiar with Idaho or Latah County, you might want to ask me off line. I lived there for a while and I have to say that life in a "Red state"is certainly more like being in a third world country. It is isolated, closed-minded, and so strange to any one who has lived elsewhere that I dubbed it "The Idaho Way". Happily there are a few folks who do understand what I mean.

Anyway, politics aside, if you'd like to read the article, Milk Thistle - A Great Friend For Your Liver, please see it here.

If it disappears and you'd like to read it, we'll be adding it to the articles on leaflady.org in the future.

I was also surprised when I received a complement from someone who writes on similar topics for another web site that has had a history of using my work for resources without giving proper credit.

He appreciated the information and told me he learned new information. I was happy he learned something, but as a health care colleague's wife often says, "Gayle forgets more than most people will ever know."

Over fifty years of a love for natural healing might give me a slight edge.

Using your mind to heal

The release of this recent repeat of older studies is very worthwhile to see reported in mainstream media.

Years ago when I worked in neuro-icu from time to time and subsequently throughout my career as a health professional I have always maintained that neurons can be regenerated. It is the basis for the effectiveness of the therapy for stroke victims to regain use of effected limbs in association with restraining the unaffected limb for short period twice daily ( you are hearing me cringe when I think of all the after effects of CVAs and head injury that are preventable with proper care).

The mind is indeed a powerful tool in healing. Many of us on the avant garde edge of health care have always believed this and integrated the teachings into our care for patients and clients. There is no reason why specific healing techniques cannot be taught to patients to encourage them to rely more on the body's inherent ability to heal. It is also an effective tool that already has been shown to assist the injured with sexual issues.

Many more applications are there, waiting for the door to open.

Perhaps this report will encourage others still relying on Newtonian thinking to burst out of the chains.

Mind power moves paralysed limbs By Michelle Roberts, Health reporter, BBC News

Scientists have shown it is possible to harness brain signals and redirect them to make paralysed limbs move.

The technology bypasses injuries that stop nerve signals travelling from the brain to the muscles, offering hope for people with spinal damage.

So far the US team from the University of Washington have only tested their "brain-machine interfaces" in monkeys.

The hope is to develop implantable circuits for humans without the need for robotic limbs, Nature reports.

Wired up

Spinal cord injuries impair the nerve pathways between the brain and the limbs but spare both the limb muscles and the part of the brain that controls movement - the motor cortex.

Similar techniques could be applied to stimulate the lower limb muscles during walking
Lead researcher Dr Chet Moritz

Recent studies have shown that quadriplegic patients - people who have paralysis in all four limbs - can consciously control the activity of nerve cells or neurons in the motor cortex that command hand movements, even after several years of paralysis.

Using a gadget called a brain-machine interface, Dr Chet Moritz and colleagues re-routed motor cortex control signals from the brains of temporarily paralysed monkeys directly to their arm muscles.

The gadget, which is the size of a mobile phone, interprets the brain signals and converts them into electrical impulses that can then stimulate muscle to contract.

By wiring up artificial pathways for the signals to pass down, muscles that lacked natural stimulation after paralysis with a local anaesthetic regained a flow of electrical signals from the brain.

Life-changing

The monkeys were then able to tense the muscles in the paralysed arm, a first step towards producing more complicated goal-directed movements, such as grasping a cup or pushing buttons, say the researchers.

Lead researcher Dr Chet Moritz said: "This could be scaled to include more muscles or stimulate sites in the spinal cord that could activate muscles in a coordinated action.

"Similar techniques could be applied to stimulate the lower limb muscles during walking."

The scientists found the monkeys could learn to use virtually any motor cortex nerve cell to control muscle stimulation - it did not have to be one that would normally controlled arm movement. And their control over the muscles improved with practice.

The researchers say they need to do trials in humans, meaning a treatment could be decades away.

Dr Mark Bacon, head of research at the UK charity Spinal Research, said: "This is clearly a step in the right direction and proves the principle that artificially transducing the will to move generated in the brain with relevant motor activity can be achieved.

"However, these results have been produced in experimental models where there is no injury per se."

He said injury-induced changes to the nerve circuits might hinder the technology's application in real life.

Also, brain-machine interfaces communicate in only one direction - in this case from the brain to the muscle.

"Sensory feedback, so important for fine control of movements and dexterity, is still some way away," he said.

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7669159.stm
Published: 2008/10/15 17:02:32 GMT © BBC MMVIII

Pfizer hedging its bets? UPDATE

Today Pfizer agrees to pay out $894 million to settle lawsuits over Celebrex and Bextra. Other NSAIDS still show a link to heart disease but this is one of the most readily preventable health conditions we know of and other posts on this blog give you some of that data. For pain and inflammation there are many excellent natural remedies as well as one of the natural products I use from time to time that has been tested at Dana Farber.

$894 million deal ends pain of Pfizer's lawsuitsBy Linda A. Johnson, Ap Business Writer
17 October, 2008
TRENTON, N.J. – Drug giant Pfizer Inc. has reached an $894 million deal to end most of the lawsuits over its two prescription pain relievers, the popular Celebrex and a similar drug, Bextra, no longer on the market.

The world's biggest drugmaker said Friday it has agreements in principle to end more than 90 percent of personal injury lawsuits brought by people claiming the pills caused heart attacks, strokes or other harm.

The settlement includes roughly 7,000 personal injury cases, mainly plaintiffs who took since-withdrawn Bextra, said plaintiff attorney Perry Weitz. He represents nearly 2,000 claimants, about 10 percent of them relatives of people who died.

"It gives Pfizer closure and the claimants their money sooner, rather than later or never at all," Weitz said.

Pfizer hopes to finalize claims covered by the settlement, which now includes up to 92 percent of plaintiffs, by year's end. It also hopes to include many of the remaining claimants in the settlement and will fight any remaining personal injury suits with court motions or at trial, General Counsel Amy Schulman told The Associated Press.

"I don't think either side has an interest in protracting this," Schulman said in an interview.

Weitz said plaintiff lawyers will "have issues" with Pfizer "if their claimants aren't paid before the end of the year."

In early trading, Pfizer shares were down 47 cents, or 2.8 percent, at $16.50.

Schulman said the deal comes after two important court rulings — one by a New York state judge overseeing many of the state-level personal injury cases and the other by a federal judge in San Francisco coordinating pretrial steps in federal lawsuits over the drugs.

"We teed up some pretrial motions for a court ruling on whether there was significantly reliable evidence that would allow an expert to testify as to whether there was an increased risk of heart attack and stroke at the most common dose," 200 milligrams, Schulman said. Both judges ruled that was not the case, she said.

The proposed deal also would end suits by insurers and patients seeking to recover what they spent on Bextra and Celebrex, as well as claims by 33 states and the District of Columbia that Pfizer improperly promoted Bextra.

Out of the total settlement, $745 million will go to settle personal injury cases, $60 million will cover settlements with attorneys general in the 33 states and the District of Columbia, and $89 million will cover consumer fraud class action cases over reimbursement for money spent on the two drugs. Two additional states, Louisiana and Mississippi, still have pending cases regarding Pfizer's promotion of the drugs.

New York-based Pfizer withdrew Bextra from the market in 2005, a year after Merck & Co. withdrew its Vioxx, a similar drug.

The Vioxx withdrawal, which triggered an avalanche of lawsuits against Merck, also raised concerns about the safety of other medicines in the same class, called Cox-2 inhibitors. They were heavily touted by their makers as superior to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, because they block an enzyme involved in promoting inflammation but — unlike NSAIDs — don't block an enzyme that protects the stomach from bleeding and other side effects.

Other NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen and naproxen, have also been linked to increased heart risks.

Celebrex is the only Cox-2 inhibitor that the Food and Drug Administration has allowed to remain on the U.S. market.

Attorney Christopher Seeger, a member of the plaintiffs steering committee, said he'll "have no problem recommending" the settlement to the roughly 400 clients he represents.

"We're very satisfied with the deal," Seeger said.

Schulman said the company's negotiations with opposing lawyers had been under way for some time but picked up in the late summer.

"Litigation can be distracting, and putting these matters behind us helps our shareholders and, most importantly, patients and doctors," Schulman said.

Weitz noted that it took four or five years to get through trials for less than 20 cases in the massive Vioxx litigation, because the court system can only handle a limited number of cases at a time.

Pfizer will take a pretax charge of $894 million to its third-quarter earnings, which it is scheduled to report on Tuesday.

Merck, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., has begun paying a $4.85 billion settlement to end about 50,000 lawsuits brought by people claiming Vioxx cause heart attacks, ischemic strokes or death. It still faces other litigation over the former blockbuster arthritis treatment.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

Pfizer to Drop Development of Certain Drugs
by Shelley Wood, Heartwire 2008. © 2008 Medscape

October 3, 2008 (New York, NY) — Pfizer is getting out of the cholesterol-lowering game to focus on what it perceives to be more lucrative diseases, according to an internal memo obtained by Forbes [1]. And for the most part, the chosen "disease areas" don't include the heart.

In the memo, Martin Mackay, president of Pfizer Global Research & Development (R&D), informed his staff that the company plans to "exit" the fields of atherosclerosis/hyperlipidemia, heart failure, obesity, and peripheral arterial disease.

Instead, the company, whose cholesterol-lowering drug atorvastatin (Lipitor) is the world's top-selling drug, says it is turning its attention and R&D dollars to cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, pain remedies, and mental health as its "higher-priority areas."

The news comes in the wake of the flop of Pfizer's hoped-for new flagship, torcetrapib, a CETP inhibitor that was widely predicted to be the company's next blockbuster drug. While CV drugs have been the major moneymakers for Pfizer in recent years, those days are drawing to a close. In addition to Lipitor, which will lose patent protection in 2011, Pfizer's other major player in the CV drug arena is Norvasc (amlodipine), which came off patent in 2007.

Among the lower-priority "disease areas" where the company says it will continue working are thrombosis and transplant, the memo notes.

Contacted by heartwire, a handful of leaders for some of the major Pfizer-sponsored trials in cardiovascular disease over the past decade declined to comment on the company's announcement or speculate on what it might mean to the field of CV drug development--with one exception. Dr John Kastelein (Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), who was an investigator in the Pfizer-sponsored ASAP, TNT, and IDEAL trials, called Pfizer "a real powerhouse" in the CV drug arena.

"I kind of knew this was coming, but when you see it in print, it still hits hard," he told heartwire. "I think this is very, very significant both for the company itself and for the whole field of CV drug development. Pfizer had truly excellent people in the development arm of their company for CV and metabolic drugs, and they've contributed to this whole notion that you need more robust LDL lowering and that that's better than mild LDL lowering, which has become one of the axioms of CV prevention. And if they're stepping out now, that not only signifies their own problems, but it also signifies the problems in CV drug development, and how incredibly difficult and costly it has become to bring new drugs forward. And that's not good for patients."

Kastelein predicts that drug companies, having "lost faith" somewhat in HDL-raising therapies, will need to look more closely at anti-inflammatory drugs in the setting of coronary artery disease. "But there, the problem is, if you have no biomarkers whatsoever to do even dose-finding studies, you need to move from relatively small phase 2 trials to incredibly large, hard-outcome studies, which is taking quite a risk," he said. And that, at least for Pfizer, is too much risk.

"Everyone, not just Pfizer, is realizing that the days of the really big blockbuster drugs are over. And what is going to replace that are drugs in a class that are 10 times or 100 times more difficult to develop, so the risks are much higher. And these days, after Avandia and ezetimibe, everything is about safety. This means the FDA is forced, by public and colleague pressure, to demand even larger databases before drugs are going to market, which is of course making it more expensive. It's a cycle that's very hard to break."

Calls to Pfizer were not returned before this story was published.

Herper M. The Pfizer memo. Forbes, September 30, 2008. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/09/30/pfizer-drug-agenda-biz-bizhealth-cx_mh_0930pfizermemo.html.

The complete contents of Heartwire, a professional news service of WebMD, can be found at www.theheart.org, a Web site for cardiovascular healthcare professionals.

Requests for Information Regarding Sucralose

I notice that there are many people searching for information about the side effects of sucralose (Splenda). As I am in the tedious process of updating one of my web sites I just happened to locate some information I have had there for quite a few years about sucralose. There are links to more information as well. This BLOG has a number of posts on sucralose and aspartame dangers.

And from another source:

Is Splenda Really As Safe As They Claim It to Be?

As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda (sucralose). Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption. The two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.

36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse, only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing and here is the real killer: The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

Rash Report, not just CFL bulbs or Splenda: It is your cell phone

The issue of rash being caused by sell phone use is not a new report. This type of reaction has been known for many years but this new study shows - once again - that what you don't know about using a cell phone can and will hurt you.

I first reported on this in 2002 and added the report in the ElectroSmog section on mey web site.

"Can mobile phones give you bad skin?"
Radiation from mobile phones could trigger skin allergies, according to new findings. Scientists have found evidence that microwaves from handsets can worsen allergic reactions to dust mites & pollen, by "exciting" antigens - substances which cause allergies - in the bloodstreams of susceptible people.
Dr. Hajime Kimata from Unitika Hospital, Kyoto, carried out research on 52 people with a history of eczema & dermatitis. Researchers in Sweden claimed earlier this year that mobile phones could damage key brain cells & trigger early onset Alzheimer's. 2002

Perhaps if you read, hear and see this kind of information often enough you will allow the facts to get into your sense of reality. Consider the choice offered here.

Doctors warn of rash from mobile phone use
LONDON (Reuters) - Doctors baffled by an unexplained rash on people's ears or cheeks should be on alert for a skin allergy caused by too much mobile phone use, the British Association of Dermatologists said on Thursday.

Citing published studies, the group said a red or itchy rash, known as "mobile phone dermatitis," affects people who develop an allergic reaction to the nickel surface on mobile phones after spending long periods of time on the devices.

"It is worth doctors bearing this condition in mind if they see a patient with a rash on the cheek or ear that cannot otherwise be explained," it said.

The British group said many doctors were unaware mobile phones could cause the condition.

Safety concerns over mobile phones has grown as more people rely on them for everyday communication, although the evidence to date has given the technology a clean bill of health when it comes to serious conditions like brain cancer.

"In mobile phone dermatitis, the rash would typically occur on the cheek or ear, depending on where the metal part of the phone comes into contact with the skin," the group said in a statement.

"In theory it could even occur on the fingers if you spend a lot of time texting on metal menu buttons."

Nickel is a metal found in products, ranging from mobile phones to jewelry to belt buckles and is one of the most common causes of allergic contact dermatitis, according to the Mayo Clinic in the United States.

Earlier this year Lionel Bercovitch of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island and colleagues tested 22 popular handsets from eight different manufacturers and found nickel in 10 of the devices.

(Reporting by Michael Kahn; Editing by Opheera McDoom, October 2008)

Reducing Breast Cancer, Naturally

NSAIDS have risks as mentioned by Dr. Sarah Rawlings who participated in this study.

Aspirin has its own set of side effects that can lead to silent bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract or other locations in the body. Eventually this can impact the integrity of the cell wall membrane. Aspirin also can raise the risk of allergy in some people and it can cause poisoning along with damage to the eighth cranial nerve that relates to your ability to hear.

Ibuprofen is known to cause serious kidney problems and also can effect the liver. Liver health is closely associated with hormone recycling and also interacts with your immune system to boost immunity.

Anti-inflammatory herbs and supplements may be more helpful because they are not burdened by the toxic side effect issues of pharmaceutical products. Contact us to learn of and purchase our wide variety of effective professional formulae, herbs and supplements to reduce inflammation.

A secondary warning might be heeded if you have been prescribed an anti-depressant as part of your medical treatment, for cancer or other ill-health conditions, as studies report that SSRIs in combination with NSAIDS can create a lethal combination.

An article written by an ND colleague of mine for many years concludes that "Combining SSRIs with NSAIDs, aspirin or corticosteroids is the equivalent of playing a game of gastrointestinal Russian roulette. For anyone taking SSRIs, a combination of natural pain relievers that includes DL-phenylalanine, turmeric, Boswellia serrata, and nattokinase can prove to be a safe alternative. Furthermore, using a supplement that contains glutamine, deglycyrrhizinated licorice (DGL), N-acetyl glucosamine, marshmallow, berberine, cabbage, slippery elm, phosphatidylcholine, and gamma oryzanol is an effective way to strengthen the GI tract for individuals who continue with SSRI treatment. Individuals planning to stop SSRI treatment should always discuss their plans with their physician before doing so."
Read more here-

Painkillers 'cut breast cancer'
By Emma Wilkinson, Health reporter, BBC News

Regular use of common painkillers such as aspirin and ibuprofen reduces the risk of breast cancer, according to an international study.

The research, which looked at information from 2.7 million women, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

Aspirin cut the risk by 13%, while ibuprofen lowered it by a fifth.

However, experts warned long-term use of painkillers can have serious side-effects.

"Anti-inflammatory drugs can have potentially very serious side-effects when taken over a long period."
Dr Sarah Rawlings, Breakthrough Breast Cancer

There have been many studies looking at the role of painkillers in breast cancer, and the latest is a review of 38 of these, combining their results to give a more reliable picture.

Both aspirin and ibuprofen are Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs), and it is their ability to interfere with inflammation in the human body which appears to be key.

Two body chemicals which help produce inflammation, COX1 and 2, are thought to play roles in the development of cancer by influencing how cells divide and die, the production of new blood vessels that can "feed" tumours, and influence the body's immune responses.

It appears NSAIDS inhibit these chemicals.

Women taking either aspirin or ibuprofen regularly had a 12% lower chance of developing breast cancer compared to those who did not use them at all, while regular ibuprofen use appeared to have the biggest effect.

Drug warning

Dr Mahyar Etminan, from the University of British Columbia, who led the research, said the results were "encouraging", and could help scientists trying to understand the complex origins of breast cancer.

However, he warned against women adopting painkillers as part of a cancer prevention lifestyle.

"We don't recommend the routine use of NSAIDs for breast cancer prevention until large randomised trials confirm these findings." He said results from a trial of this type would be available next year.

The regular use of painkillers is problematic because, in some people, they can cause serious side-effects, including stomach ulcers, increased risk of stroke, asthma and heart, liver and kidney problems.

The potential benefits of reducing breast cancer risk would have to be balanced against these.

This advice was echoed by Breakthrough Breast Cancer, which urged women worried about breast cancer risk to talk to their GP rather than simply take painkillers.

Head of policy Sarah Rawlings said: "The potential of anti-inflammatory drugs, such as aspirin, to lower the chances of developing breast cancer is very interesting, but as the researchers say, large scale trials are needed to confirm these findings.

"Anti-inflammatory drugs can have potentially very serious side-effects when taken over a long period."

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/7658472.stm
Published: 2008/10/08 09:09:35 GMT
© BBC MMVIII

St. John's Wort treats major depression

Over many years of clinical and educational work in the areas of medicine and natural health care I have seen very good results from using properly prepared extracts of St. John's Wort. This has been in contrast to so many so-called studies about this herb in an effort to downplay effectiveness.

In 2003 I wrote on this issue.

In 2005 I reported on this issue.

And for those of us who now, in the northern hemisphere, are heading into the darker, colder months, I mention St. John's Wort (SJW) in this article from 2004.

Amidst all the work that has shown SJW to be effective for depression and mood elevation among its other benefits I was subjected to a substantial amount of verbal attacks for my position from psychologists and others in mainstream medicine who have a vested interest in promoting drugs, while denigrating natural therapies.

Needless to say, SJW is not fluoride based like the majority of SSRI anti-depressants and it has few if any of the serious side effects similar to these pharmaceuticals. The herb did not push tryptophan out of favor either.

Additionally SJW is a nervous system nutritive and it acts as a very potent form of natural interferon which reinforces its anti-viral benefits.

For excellent quality spagyrically prepared SJW extract please contact us.

St. John's Wort effective for depression
Tue Oct 7, 2008

The herbal remedy St. John's Wort effectively treats symptoms of major depression, an analysis of previous studies found on Wednesday.

St. John's Wort extracts tested in the different trials were better than placebos and as effective as standard antidepressants with fewer side effects, the researchers reported in the Cochrane review, a journal that analyses medical and scientific studies.

"The studies came from a variety of countries, tested several different St. John's Wort extracts, and mostly included patients suffering from mild to moderately severe symptoms," Klaus Linde of the Center for Complementary Medicine in Munich, Germany wrote.

The herb works in a similar way to some prescription antidepressants by increasing the brain chemical serotonin, involved in controlling mood.

The Cochrane review analyzed 29 studies that together included 5,489 men and women with symptoms of major depression and compared the remedy's effectiveness with placebos and standard treatments.

The researchers found that St. John's Wort extracts were not only effective but that fewer people taking them dropped out of the trials due to adverse side effects.

They also noted that results were more favorable in German-speaking countries where doctors often prescribe the remedy and cautioned against using the remedy without medical advice because the extracts can affect other drugs' work.

In Germany such herbal treatments are also more controlled for content, unlike in many other markets where the quality and content of herbal products may vary considerably.

"Using a St. John's Wort extract might be justified, but products on the market vary considerably, so these results only apply to the preparations tested," Linde said.

Depression is a leading cause of suicide and affects about 121 million people worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Standard treatments include Prozac, which U.S. drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co introduced in 1987.

The treatment, which belongs to a class of compounds called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), is now off patent and widely available generically as fluoxetine.

(Reporting by Michael Kahn; Editing by Maggie Fox)
Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited.

Flu deaths? Now really

The argument proferred here makes little sense.

Flu is caused by a virus. Pneumonia is more likely than not bacterial in origin. Staph aureus is a bacteria.

The "hard-to-treat complications" are not eneumerated so we cannot determine what might connect these to flu virus. I also don't quite follow the connection from flu to staph infection. Perhaps this is from wrongly administered antibiotics that do not treat a virus.

There are many serious problems with flu vaccines and this is a poor argument to convince you to take this jab.

You should be asking many more questions rather than follow blindly.

More vitamin C, vitamin A and home made chicken soup with garlic, onions, and carrots just might give you more of a healthy boost than a drug. Years ago it was proven that chicken soup did fight colds and flu because of the amino acid cysteine found in goodly amounts in the soup.

The idea of chicken soup must be a good one because its being given to some young pandas in china to help them boost their immune systems.

Jump seen in staph-linked flu deaths in kids
By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer, Mon Oct 6, 2008

More children have died from flu because they also had staph infections, according to a new government report that urges parents to have their kids get the flu shot.

The number of deaths wasn't high — 73 during the 2006-07 flu season — but there was more than a fivefold increase in hard-to-treat complications. And preliminary figures indicate deaths rose again during this past winter's flu season.

Public health officials say the numbers underscore the importance of a brand new recommendation that all children, from 6 months through 18 years, get routine flu shots. Before this year, shots were recommended for kids under 5 years.

More than half the children who died were between ages 5 and 17 and had been healthy until they got the flu.

Parents shouldn't panic, "but it's an important message to say even healthy children develop complications and die almost before anything much can be done for them," said Dr. Gregory Poland, a Mayo Clinic infectious disease specialist. He was not involved in the federal study, but has worked with a federal vaccine advisory committee and has consulted for vaccine makers.

Flu season is just beginning, and this year's vaccine should be widely available this month.

While few children die from the flu virus, it puts about 20,000 U.S. kids in the hospital each year.

Only 6 percent of the children studied who died had been fully vaccinated against the flu. Two doses are recommended each flu season for children ages 6 months to 8 years who have not been vaccinated previously; for older kids, just one dose a year is needed.

The study, appearing in the October edition of Pediatrics for release Monday, is based on an analysis of reported flu deaths from the 2004-05 through 2006-07 seasons. Flu deaths in children during those seasons totaled 47, 46 and 73, respectively.

The percentage of those who also had bacterial infections jumped from 6 percent to almost 36 percent. Most had staph infections, and 60 percent of those involved the dangerous MRSA bug, which is resistant to antibiotics.

More recent data suggest flu deaths among children have continued to rise, with 86 tallied for the 2007-08 season in a preliminary report last month, said Lyn Finelli, the study's lead author, who is a researcher for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Preliminary information also suggests there has been no drop in fatal flu-staph cases in children, and those could still be on the rise too, she said.

Staph germs commonly live in the nose or skin without causing illness; more than one-fourth of U.S. children and adults carry them.

These bugs can become deadly when they get into the bloodstream, sometimes through wounds. The flu is thought to make people more susceptible to bacterial infections like staph, Finelli said.

Details on how children in the study died were not available, but some developed bacterial pneumonia, seizures and shock.

Finelli said parents should take children to the doctor when they have flu symptoms and signs of other complications. These could include extreme fatigue, no thirst, or in older children complaints about feeling very ill.
___

On the Net: American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www.aap.org
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.

Highly promoted energy drinks and Lance Armstrong

Advertising and marketing pays, but is the price worth the cost?

Please see other posts in this blog on energy drinks via the search box and read my response to this latest celebrity campaign.

October Pink Promotions

I am on overload with all the pink stuff being pushed at shoppers these days. I guess it will be all month long as we again are bombarded with Race for the Cure.

I happened to watch Oprah yesterday, which is not on my regular schedule. Some of the comments were good, but so much was left out of the discussion. Too often ignored is information that is helpful to people dealing with this very stressful health issue.

We at Creating Health Institute would be very grateful if we could get donations for our year-long women's health initiative from Komen or other corporate programs that promote Komen. Donations for this effort go a long way to help women learn what their rights are, how to ask key questions, and also how to prevent cancer or recover faster, and many related issues.

We are for women supporting other women, but we aren't for false hope and mis-information. We are also for women understanding that they often overlook nurturing themselves and this lack of nurturing self is a key factor in the development of breast cancer according to Louise Hay. (Recall that Oprah often has Louise as a guest.) This is a spiritual link to disease and one almost non-existent in industrialized health care.

One overlooked piece of information you did not hear on Oprah is that you do not have to lose your hair if you are taking chemo. This can be prevented with the addition of specific supplements to your program just several days before each treatment.

Another issue that was excluded, and most likely because it is outside the standard - one-size-fits-all cancer protocols. This screening tool is much more effective than all of the options discussed (mammogram-MRI-ultrasound) on the program, and it is not based on radiation or radio frequency (RF), most promoting cancer, with ultrasound the lesser of the three.

Surely you did not hear that mammography does not save or extend lives and is not a justifiable practice. For some reason mammography-centric medicine has completely overlooked the much safer thermal and infrared imaging technologies. And further, no comments are made regarding the dangers of X-RAY exposure (mammogram and MRI).

So how much money do insurance companies and consumers pay out for radiation treatment of breast cancer? This practice results in only a less than 1% chance of improving survival. Is this worth such a large investment when so many medical claims are denied and there is virtually zero coverage of preventive practices? from the Lancet 2000; 355: 129-134. Source

Do you know that it takes 8-12 years for a "tumor" to be detected by mammogram?

The screening tool you need to know about is THERMOGRAPHY.

You should also know - something we have written about before - is that commercial yogurt is not a health food. These products are loaded with additives and the light types contain aspartame which is known to be carcinogenic. So are pink lids worth the price or the risk?

In your effort to not be swayed by massive marketing of pink lids on toxic products join the campaign to stop Yoplait from using rGBH hormone laced milk to make their synthetic goop.

Yoplait touts its yogurt as being healthy for women, but what's inside is anything but.

The reality is that Yoplait yogurt is made with milk from cows that have been injected with a synthetic hormone called recombinant bovine growth hormone (called rBGH or rBST). Research indicates that there are numerous health concerns linked to the consumption of dairy from cows injected with rBGH - and breast cancer is one of them.

The bottom line is that rBGH is unsafe - and unnecessary. In fact, the use of rBGH has already been banned in Australia, Canada, Japan, and all 27 countries in the European Union. In addition to the many companies that offer rBGH-free products, big-box stores and food and beverage chains like Wal-Mart, Publix, Kroger, Starbucks, and Chipotle have committed to reducing or completely eliminating dairy products made with rBGH from their stores. If these companies can do it, Yoplait can too.

In support of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and in solidarity with millions of women, ask Yoplait to do the right thing and put a lid on rBGH.

And then of course there is the reality of exactly what cold, processed cereal is (which I have on my nutrition pages) and how it degrades health. How many cereal brands on the grocery aisle are displaying pink ribbons on the box this month?

We liked the mention of SELF-EXAM which you should do monthly.

We didn't like the exclusion of the impact of the high use of hormonally based products like birth control pills and the increase in cancer in young women. Perhaps this is part of the hormonal roulette played by these pharmaceuticals given for too many reasons and the severe nutritional deficiencies they cause.

We also didn't like the fact that 'cure rates' haven't changed substantially over the years, and as some say, "the evidence points to the fact that it takes 1200 women being screened for 14 years to save one life from breast cancer while scores suffer."

Yes, do stand up to breast cancer, but stand up for your rights and demand better prevention and much safer screening.

Our "Pink Fact Sheet" is available with your donation. All funds are tax deductible and solely support our women's health education programs.

"Conflict of Interest in Sponsoring Breast Cancer Awareness Month?

Screening mammography critic, Samuel Epstein MD, irritates the establishment every time he points out that in 1984, the American Cancer Society created the October National Breast Cancer Awareness Month sponsored by money from the Astra-Zeneca Company, the maker of Tamoxiphen, the best selling breast cancer drug. In addition, Astra-Zeneca also manufactures industrial chemicals that cause breast cancer. Some consider this a conflict of interest.

Epstein also points out that past ACS advertisement promised early detection results in a cure nearly 100% of the time. Even more seriously, the Awareness Month advertisements avoid any reference to information on avoidable causes and prevention of breast cancer." Read full article.

We also offer a wonderful bath salts blend that many women undergoing chemo and radiation use to reduce stress of the treatments.

And don't forget, vitamins do help! Just make sure you are purchasing non-soy based synthetic vitamin E such as is sold at Costco, Walmart, or other chain stores, or even in health stores. The same goes for B complex vitamins. Other supplements that help in prevention are selenium, iodine and thyroid support.

20% Reduction in Breast Cancer Risk Associated with Vitamin E Supplementation was observed by researchers among women that used vitamin E supplements and had a low dietary intake of vitamin E. Researchers also noted a 20% risk reduction in breast cancer risk in women who used supplemental vitamin B and had low dietary vitamin B intake.

The Shanghai Breast Cancer Study was conducted in Shanghai, China from 1996-1998 (Phase I) and 2002-2004 (Phase II). Study participants in phase I were aged 25 to 64 years old and in phase II 20 to 70 years old. It was a large population-based, case control study with 3,454 incident breast cancer cases and 3,474 controls. Researchers used unconditional logistic regression models to determine adjusted odds ratios for breast cancer risk associated with vitamin supplement use.

The researchers stated, "This study suggests that vitamin E and B supplements may confer protection against breast cancer among women who have low dietary intake of those vitamins."

Dorjgochoo, T., et al. “Vitamin Supplement Use and Risk for Breast Cancer: the Shanghai Breast Cancer Study” Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 2007, Oct. 5;

This report included references to green tea and soy. These are two items that I find from my research that should not be used in very large quantity. There are reports that green tea is linked with pancreatic cancer. Many reports regarding soy tel of its impact on lowering thyroid function (and immunity) and promoting breast cancer because it is so very estrogenic. The processing also does not add to its benefits, especially soy milk that is replete with toxic additives or the question of GMO ingredients. Just say NO to 'Silk'.

New Scientific Options for Preventing Breast Cancer
* Vitamin D, pomegranate, and curcumin may help promote breast health and reduce breast cancer risk.
* These foods contain an abundant variety of polyphenols, healthful compounds that regulate cell growth and metabolism.
* These compounds may act synergistically to promote breast health, so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.
* Research suggests that some of these compounds may even enhance the effects of chemotherapy and other drugs and treatments used for breast cancer.
* Although the mechanisms of action are not fully understood, most of these compounds are potent antioxidants and appear to promote apoptosis, or programmed cell death. Some of them also block inflammation, new blood vessel growth to the tumor, and even metastasis or tumor spread.
* Because of their long history of use as foods and supplements, these compounds appear to be safe, although more studies are needed to determine optimal combinations, dosages, and mechanisms of action.
* Several experts consulted encourage increased intake of these foods to promote breast health as well as overall health.