When we slather up with sun tan lotion, most of us bypass our lips. We coat our arms, our legs, our foreheads and noses with a suitable SPF -- but putting lotion on the lips is a non starter. And few people use a separate protective lip balm. In fact, a recent study out of Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas found that fewer than 25 percent of Americans protect their lips from the sun.
That's a big problem, because our lips are among the most vulnerable places on our bodies -- exceptionally prone to cancers and aging damage. According to dermatologist Christine Brown, "When skin cancer occurs on the lower lip, it has the potential to be much more aggressive and metastasize to surrounding lymph nodes."
]]> If you're thinking, "Oh, but I use lip gloss, so I'm protected," the news gets worse. Shiny coatings on your lips in fact attract the rays of the sun, and so gloss and many lipsticks actually increase exposure."What most people don't realize is they're actually increasing light penetration through the lip surface by applying something clear and shiny to them," Dr. Brown says. She recommends coating the lips with an SPF 30 lotion before applying gloss or lipstick anytime you'll be exposed for 20 minutes or longer. But in fact, a number of companies now make 30 SPF protective lip balm.
Of course, Dr. Brown's advice assumes that suntan lotion and protective balms do indeed offer some protection. According to studies, it ain't necessarily so. Last year, the Environmental Working Group found that "more than 84% of suntan lotions with high SPF (sun protection factor) levels actually fail to protect sunbathers against all harmful rays -- or quickly lose effectiveness." That research found that very few products worked the way they claimed they did, with the majority protecting only against sunburn and failing to protect against harmful UVA rays -- the rays that cause aging, immune diseases, and skin cancer. Plus, the so-called "all day protection" claims touted on the bottles turned out to be largely mythological, as many of the lotions quickly broke down when exposed to sun.
Of equal concern, research confirms that most sunscreens contain toxic ingredients. Sunscreens typically contain at least 20 chemical ingredients that can get absorbed through the skin and into the bloodstream. A new study by the CDC found that the chemical oxybenzoneone, used in almost all sunscreens, can cause allergies, hormone disruption, cancer, and cell damage. Another study from Mount Sinai Medical School implicated the same chemical to low-birth weight in girls whose mothers were exposed when pregnant. The research concluded that over 97 percent of Americans have been tainted by this chemical.
Typically, zinc oxide and titanium oxide form the basis of suntan lotion, while ingredients like oxybenzoneone and octinoxate help absorb the other chemicals into the skin. Most studies show that the nanoparticles of zinc and titanium oxide in the lotion cause no real problems, but chemicals like oxybenzoneone and oxtinoxate poses serious safety concerns. Other nasty chemicals often found in suntan products include Octyl methoxycinnamate, a carcinogen, chemical fragrances, and propylene glycol, also used in antifreeze and brake fluid.
Okay, so now you're freaked out about putting suntan lotions and balms on your body and lips. And yet, your mouth -- and the rest of your body -- does need sun protection. What can you do?
Start by studying the list of comparatively safe lotions prepared by the EWG. Don't assume that the lotion is harmless or effective just because the bottle calls it "natural" or because it sits on the shelf at the health food store. As you'll see from the EWG list, some natural brands contain scary ingredients. On the other hand, some natural ingredients (green tea polyphenols, black tea gel, and broccoli extract -- no kidding) offer great protection, and again, the EWG list contains some good options. So find a safe product and cover your entire exposed body with it -- including those lips.
Also, eat well and supplement with antioxidants in order to minimize free-radical damage. Enjoy lots of tomatoes (high in lycopene), which studies have found to offer exceptional sun protection. Wear a hat, wear protective clothing, and forget the lip gloss altogether, as it contains many of the evil ingredients found in suntan lotion -- and more.
:hc
]]>Ever since the feminist revolution, debate has raged about whether it's nature or nurture that determines the behavior of young boys versus girls. Are young boys born with an urge to wheel toy trucks across the floor and crash them into walls, while young girls come equipped with a preference to cuddle Raggedy Anns -- or does socialization create these differences? Now, a new study by the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, may have the nurture (versus nature) advocates a bit rattled.
]]> The study found that male monkeys, like their human counterparts, preferred "boy toys" like trucks and wheeled things over dolls, while the females gave equal time to trucks and dolls (Danica Patrick was just less likely, not impossible). The researchers, led by animal psychologist Kim Wallen, studied 11 male and 23 female rhesus monkeys -- most of them younger than four years old. They placed two toys near each other -- one a "masculine" type of toy such as a truck, and the other something cuddly, like a Winnie the Pooh doll. They then allowed the monkeys to choose their favorites and timed how long each monkey played with each toy.Not only did the male monkeys spend more time playing with trucks, but in the little time they did spend playing with dolls, it was to bash them around, not hug them. (Come on guys, I think we may need some counseling here.) That may be of some comfort for all those progressive parents who report gifting their boys with a Barbie doll in an attempt to be non-sexist, only to find the doll decapitated ten minutes later.
Dr. Wallen asserts that the monkeys, unlike children, don't have social influences that might determine their toy preferences. "They are not subject to advertising. They are not subject to parental encouragement; they are not subject to peer chastisement," Wallen said. Interestingly, a previous study with vervet monkeys found similar results, with the boy monkeys choosing "action" toys.
The implication, of course, is that across species, the urge to nurture is a girl thing, while the Y chromosome imparts a preference for things that go zoom and bang. As upsetting as this inference might be to those who insist that we make girls into sissies and boys into Rambos by the different ways in which we treat them, the Rhesus evidence can't be monkeyed with.
The nurture advocates have said all along that because we steer girls to play with dolls and boys to play with macho toys, we create gender differentiation into adulthood -- differentiation that rules career choice, for instance. Whether this is a valid point is beyond my expertise, but it's sure interesting to note how men and women differ within a particular profession. For instance, within medicine, women account for 40 percent of all psychiatrists and pediatricians according to the Financial Mail Women's Forum, a UK publication, but only 7 percent of surgeons. And so the question is -- are women routed into specific medical specialties by a boy's club hierarchy, or do their inborn preferences steer the choice?
If the monkey study does indeed tell us something about inborn gender differences, then perhaps women choose psychiatry and pediatrics because both of these specialties require physicians to display nurturing behavior, to display care and concern. At the same time, cutting up the body, as in surgery, isn't exactly a nurturing activity. Following this line of argument, perhaps scalpels are boy toys, like guns and swords. Certainly, surgery requires practitioners to employ an arsenal of hands-on tools, and according to gender folklore, boys do like tools.
Obviously, we need a follow-up study in which we give monkeys a choice between an array of tools on the one hand, and crying patients on the other.
:hc
]]>A new study of 1256 elderly people affirmed that people who have a positive outlook suffer from far less memory loss than their worried peers. At the initiation of the study, all participants completed surveys about their negative emotions. Then, every year for 12 years, they were assessed for cognitive impairment. At the conclusion of the study, the subjects who tended to maintain a negative outlook had more memory loss than the more optimistic subjects. In fact, those indicating the highest degree of distress at the outset were 48 percent more likely to develop memory loss than those subjects who were the most positive.
]]> According to Robert S. Wilson, PhD, a senior neuropsychologist at the Rush University Alzheimer's Disease Center in Chicago, "These findings suggest that, over a lifetime, chronic experience of stress affects the area of the brain that governs stress response. Unfortunately, that part of the brain also regulates memory." Dr. Wilson points out that about 10 to 15 percent of those with mild cognitive impairment will progress to Alzheimer's Disease.The obvious question that comes to mind is, "If true, how does stress damage memory?" The answer may be found buried in the introduction to another study. According to research on free radicals and lung tissue published in the Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, it has been shown that exposure to stress situations can stimulate numerous pathways leading to increased production of free radicals. It is well known that free radicals generate a cascade, producing lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation, DNA damage, and cell death, and contribute to the occurrence of pathological conditions. Stress may also impair antioxidant defenses, leading to oxidative damage, by changing the balance between oxidant and antioxidant factors. Both immobilization and variable stress are followed by an increase in lipid peroxidation, measured in plasma and in brain structures. Translation: the fats in your brain tissue go rancid.
So we see yet another reason for regular supplementation with a full spectrum antioxidant formula.
Interestingly, a previous study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that psychological stress was a definite risk factor for coronary heart disease in men. Again, from the free radical/antioxidant point of view, one might wonder if acute crises trigger the free radical cascade that subsequently damages the cardiovascular system.
What does all this mean? Will you lose your marbles if you worry all the time, or only if you have occasional bouts of hysteria? And if you do have life crises, are you automatically at risk for a heart attack? Most likely, your risk factor depends on how you handle life's inevitable difficulties. Plenty of studies, these included, make clear that you're better off staying on the sunny side no matter what, if you can do so.
Get yourself a support network to help you through stressful times -- probably one reason why women didn't have the same cardiovascular problems men did when confronted with stress. It helps to do some form of stress reduction practice, such as yoga, meditation, regular exercise -- whatever works for you --to eat an antioxidant rich diet and, absolutely, to supplement with a full spectrum antioxidant.
:hc
]]>I've had hand tremors for the last five years, but within 72 hours of taking your carnosine/acetyl-l-carnitine/dmae formula for the first time, the tremors completely stopped. Is that possible? Could this fomula do that? If so, how did it happen?
Answer:First let me explain that my carnosine/acetyl-l-carnitine/dmae formula was not designed as an anti tremor formula and is not sold to treat tremors -- or any other medical condition for that matter. It was designed to protect the body against the ravages of sugar and aldehydes in the bloodstream and to nutritionally extend the life of cells. And in that regard, it does a spectacular job. Nevertheless, over the years, I've had a number of people relate similar experiences to yours using variations of this formula. How can this be? There is an answer.
]]> Interestingly enough, I answered this question some seven years ago for a previous incarnation of the formula that I created. Since that time, I have seen that answer appear almost word for word on numerous sites on the internet. (Ya gotta love the net.) With that in mind, here it is, once again.As it turns out, one of the primary factors in the onset of tremors is ammonia toxicity. Thus decreasing ammonia levels in the body can slow down tremors.
Furthermore, ammonia increases the production of positively charged hydrogen molecules (also called protons) in the body. And it is this increase in hydrogen molecules that leads to lower pH, or increased acid levels in muscle tissue. I talk about this in some detail in "Lessons from the Miracle Doctors." So if you're interested, you can read the section in Chapter 13 on Blood pH and see how the foods you eat (specifically, meat, grains, and dairy) make your body more acid. Anyway, it's this accumulation of acid causing hydrogen molecules (resulting from increased ammonia levels) that is the primary factor in producing muscle fatigue. That means that neutralizing acid products such as ammonia can slow down muscle fatigue and reverse decreasing pH levels.
Now, how does that relate to tremors? The loss of muscle strength makes it more difficult to control muscle tissue, making the susceptibility to tremors greater. Decreasing ammonia levels in Parkinson's (or any tremor condition for that matter) will help maintain muscle strength longer -- thus holding off the tremors.
So how does supplementation with carnosine help? Well, carnosine, which is found in human skeletal muscle is the primary buffer for muscle tissue. In other words, carnosine prevents the build up of acid levels in muscle tissue thus prolonging the onset of fatigue and the concomitant loss of muscle control.
Think of it this way. The greater the fatigue, the less muscle control you have. The less muscle control you have, the less ability to contract and relax muscle you have. And it is the ability of your body to relax muscle tissue that gives it the ability to resist tremors. Thus supplementing with carnosine can help dramatically decrease tremors -- which in fact we are seeing.
Does that mean you have to have tremors to benefit from carnosine/acetyl-l-carnitine/dmae supplementation? Of course not! And in fact, as I said before, the formula is neither designed nor sold to treat any medical conditions. It is designed to slow down the ravages of aging in the body -- but provides a multitude of benefits beyond that.
For example, any athletes reading this are probably already asking themselves. "Well, if carnosine inhibits muscle fatigue, wouldn't it help work outs to be supplementing with a similar formula since it would allow me to work out longer without fatigue?" And the answer is yes. Supplementation with carnosine/acetyl-l-carnitine/dmae will significantly improve athletic workouts.
]]>A new study shows that high blood pressure may have even more to do with diet and how your body processes food than with genetics. The study, led by researchers at the Imperial College London, analyzed the chemicals found in the urine of 4,630 middle-aged adults in Great Britain, the US, China and Japan. They discovered significant differences between the metabolic profiles of the Eastern and Western participants even when the genetic profiles were similar. Notably, Japanese participants living in the West showed metabolic profiles closer to those of Westerners. The researchers concluded that these results indicate that lifestyle and diet determine blood pressure levels to an even greater extent than genetics. Furthermore, they found a strong link between hypertension and specific chemicals in the urine of the sample population, which gave strong indications as to what exactly triggers a rise in blood pressure.
]]> First of all, the participants with high blood pressure had elevated levels of the amino acid alanine, which is abundant in animal protein. Those with lower blood pressure showed higher levels of the compound hippurate, created when the body breaks down starches through the activity of digestive enzymes and gut bacteria such as those found in probiotics. In addition, hippurate levels decrease when you drink alcohol and increase if you eat fiber. The researchers also found the compound formate at higher levels in those with low blood pressure. Formate helps in metabolizing chloride from salt.The implications couldn't be clearer. Regular consumption of high levels of meat and dairy raises your alanine level and therefore puts you in the group at risk for high blood pressure. Drinking alcohol alone or with your meals lowers your hippurate level, which again, puts you in the at-risk group. If you eat lots of fiber on the other hand, you raise the level of hippurate, which puts you in the low-risk category. And if you optimize your balance of intestinal bacteria through good diet and supplementation, you most likely have an abundance of formate and hipurate, which again, puts you in the low-risk category.
In short, the results of the study mean you need to keep your gut healthy in order to maintain healthy blood pressure. This means eating lots of organic vegetables, fruits, and whole foods, while avoiding sugars, starches, and excessive amounts of animal protein or alcohol. It means cleansing and detoxing your colon a few times a year to give it a chance to slough off toxins, parasites, and waste and regain its proper balance of flora. It also means supplementing with a probiotic formula that contains recognized super strains of beneficial bacteria, particularly L. acidophilus and bifidobacteria. And finally, it means taking digestive enzymes with every meal.
The good news is that genetics don't necessarily condemn you to hypertension. Professor Paul Elliott, a study co-author, says: "… whereas a person can't alter their DNA, they can change their metabolic profile by changing their diet and lifestyle." Amen to that!
PS: What about the salt factor? The medical community regularly asserts a link between high-salt diets and hypertension. This new research, on the other hand, indicates that hippurate metabolizes salt, which means, since hippurate levels rise with good overall diet and healthy gut bacteria, that the effect of salt on your blood pressure is largely determined by the state of your intestinal health and by dietary factors other than the salt itself. And anyway, as I've pointed out before, the link between salt and high-blood pressure isn't that simple. There's a significant difference between unprocessed sea salt, which your body needs in moderation, and commercial, refined salt, which stresses your system.
:hc
]]>A recent study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found that pet dogs and cats have an extensive mix of toxins circulating in their systems. According to an article in the New York Times, the researchers tested the blood and urine of 20 dogs and 37 cats at a Virginia clinic and discovered high levels of mercury, as well as 48 industrial chemicals (out of 70 chemicals tested) used in manufacturing fabrics, furniture, plastics, food packaging, and electronic goods. These chemicals included a high percentage of known carcinogens, neurotoxins, and reproductive system disrupters. The toxins mirrored those found in human subjects, but many were at considerably higher levels. For instance, when compared with human subjects, the cats tested at 23 times the level of fire retardants (PBDEs), and more than five times the amounts of mercury, while the dogs showed more than double the level of perfluorochemicals, including toxic stain-retardants.
]]> Given that the cancer rate in dogs far surpasses the rate for humans -- dogs have 35 times more skin cancer, four times more breast tumors, eight times more bone cancer, and twice the incidence of leukemia -- and given that 11 carcinogens were found in the dogs tested, one might suspect that there's a link between the high levels of toxic chemicals and the elevated levels of disease. In fact, numerous studies have shown such a link. In the case of cats, the researchers point out the "growing use of PBDEs in consumer products over the past 30 years has paralleled the rising incidence of feline hyperthyroidism," one of the leading causes of illness in older cats.Why do dogs and cats accumulate so much more of the poisonous stuff than humans do? For one thing, everything beloved by pets goes into their mouths. Dogs chew on plastic toys, slippers, underwear, molding; cats lick the couch or lick their fur after sitting on furniture. And these things, benign though they seem, are loaded with toxins. Plastic toys have been treated with chemical softeners. Clothing and furniture may have a fire retardant or stain repellent coating. Accumulated toxins on these surfaces go right into the pets' systems, posing risk of cancer, reproductive problems, and birth defects.
But the "uncivilized" oral behavior of dogs and cats doesn't account for all of the toxic build-up in their systems. Their flea collars spew chemicals. Canned pet food may have toxic packaging; that same pet food is relatively unregulated and may contain toxic additives; and fish products used in pet food contains mercury and PBDEs. Pet beds may be treated with stain repellents. The floor, where pets spend most of their time, may be coated with pesticide residue tracked in from outside. The bottom line is that our pets literally lie in a toxic soup.
If you love your pets -- and there are seventy percent more pets in America than children, signaling a lot of interspecies love -- certainly these findings should concern you. But you might also wonder, what do these findings mean for humans?
Make no mistake, we are equally exposed -- and only slightly less toxic than our pets. In fact, according to the report issued by the EWG, "Our pets well may be serving as sentinels for our own health, as they breathe in, ingest or absorb the same chemicals that are in our environments. Exposures that pose risks for pets pose risks for human health as well. A new system of public health protections that required companies to prove chemicals are safe before they are sold would help protect all of us, including the pets we love."
Yet another reason to detox regularly, eat organically -- and refrain from chewing on the couch, no matter how frustrating life may be at the moment. As for your pets, you might want to consider cooking for them rather than serving packaged pet foods and consulting a holistic vet for additional guidance.
:hc
]]>Scientists at Sapporo University Medical School in Japan may have developed a method to stop the progression of liver cirrhosis, and in fact, to actually reverse the disease. Until now, the disease has been considered incurable (at least by the medical community) with liver transplant the only real option.
Cirrhosis occurs when the liver becomes overtaxed by excessive consumption of alcohol or carbohydrates, or in response to certain diseases such as Hepatitis B and C. Hepatic stellate cells within the liver respond to liver damage by producing collagen, a fibrous, sticky substance, which in turn scars and hardens the surrounding tissue. To address this condition, the researchers developed molecules that actually block collagen production. They then found a way to encase the collagen-blocking molecules in vitamin A -- which the stellate cells naturally absorb -- and injected the "disguised" molecules into rats that had cirrhosis. The "tricked" stellate cells absorbed the disguised molecules, which in turn blocked continuing collagen production.
]]>Apparently, after receiving the collagen-blocking molecules, the liver started to regenerate tissue. "We were able to completely eradicate the fibrosis by injecting this agent ... we cured them of the cirrhosis," researcher Yoshiro Niitsu said. He explained that the liver both creates the collagen and creates enzymes that dissolve collagen, once the cirrhosis is cleared.
My goodness, it sounds like they've been visiting my website. As I've been saying for the last twenty years, the liver has an "astounding ability to regenerate itself -- if given a chance." Now we see "scientific" evidence that by removing diseased tissue, the liver has the amazing ability to build itself anew. This makes clear how much benefit you can reap by improving your diet and cleansing your liver, even if your self-care hasn't been exemplary until now.
As I detail in Chapter 13 of Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, the liver is the largest organ in the body and certainly one of the most important -- if not the most important. The liver is the body's primary filter, responsible for over 200 functions. It regulates fat stores, destroys toxins and removes waste, aids in digestion by producing bile, stores vitamins, maintains hormone balance, produces immune factors, and so on. When the liver becomes damaged due to poor dietary choices, or from overeating or overdrinking, by toxins or drug residues, the toll on health is disastrous.
Liver dysfunction can lead to:
To avoid these complications, give your liver a chance to heal itself. Avoid liver stressors by cleaning up your diet and exercising, cleanse and rebuild your liver by doing a couple of liver detoxes each year, and provide regular nutritional support for your liver with herbs such as milk thistle, dandelion root, the perennial herb picrorhiza kurooa (sometimes called kutkin, or "Indian milk thistle), and artichoke or beet leaf.
:hc
]]>Citizens in California expressed anger recently when state health officials denied that aerial pesticide spraying over three counties last fall had triggered 463 illness complaints filed shortly thereafter. The spray consisted of a product known as "Checkmate," intended to control brown gypsy moths. According to a report just issued by the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment, "scientists were unable to find a link between aerial spraying and illness complaints."
]]> Ironically, the report admits that, "The toxicity data on the pheromones and on microencapsulated products suggest the possibility that exposure to a sufficient amount of airborne Checkmate microcapsule particles could result in some level of eye, skin, or respiratory irritation." Considering that virtually all of the complaints filed specifically cited respiratory symptoms, it seems "interesting" that no link to the spraying was found.The report claims that causality can't be established because proper tests don't exist to diagnose effects of exposure, because the exact time of the exposure wasn't recorded in most instances, and because respiratory problems are quite common in the general population. And anyway, says the report, "Because the application rate was extremely low, it is likely that exposure occurred at levels below those that would be expected to result in health effects."
"Bogus!" cry area environmental groups in response, pointing out that the health officials didn't even bother to measure contamination levels in the soil, water, or air of the affected regions after spraying. Nor did they interview any of the affected people or their physicians. Environmental attorney Stephen Volker says, "It is a sad commentary on the agency that is supposed to 'watchdog' pesticide spray that, instead of interviewing the spray victims and following up on their leads, OEHHA issued a press release dismissing their illnesses because the forms on which their reports were submitted do not provide enough information to establish causation. Yet these are OEHHA's own forms …"
The entire debacle brings back memories of malathion spraying in the 80's and 90's, when the government also downplayed public concerns. At that time,malathion was sprayed by helicopter over thousands of square miles in order to control fruit flies. In California, as elsewhere throughout the country, health officials issued reassurances: ''This stuff has been around for 40 years and study after study has shown it doesn't harm people,'' said Gera Curry, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Food and Agriculture in a New York Times article. Eight years later, in Florida, entomologist John Capinera issued a similar statement after malathion was widely sprayed throughout several local counties: "Malathion has been used for medfly eradication before, and we know it can be done with no long-term effect," he said.
In spite of the head patting from the government, many citizens and environmental groups expressed concern back then. But predictably, the state retorted with the familiar, "it's too small a dose to do any harm" argument." The dosage is the important thing and the amount we use is so small it's almost infinitesimal," said Gera Curry, another California Food and Agriculture department agent.
Do we now have déjà vu all over again? Let's hope not, because malathion has recently been strongly linked to a host of serious illnesses, including Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, endocrine disorders, developmental and nervous system disorders, kidney issues, cancers, and immune disorders. So much for governmental reassurances! Unfortunately, governments tend to ignore public outcry about the health effects of pesticides until widespread damage has been done.
The moral of the story here is that it's up to you to protect yourself against public spraying. As we head into bug season, the toxins will no doubt start flying from the spray trucks and overhead helicopters, wherever you live. If you don't want clouds of spray covering your street, check www.nospray.org for ideas on how to proceed. And if there's nothing you can do to stop the public spray programs, at least stay inside with windows closed during spraying episodes, and remember to detox regularly to rid your body of toxic residue.
:hc]]>If you think you're being a model of dental virtue because you brush your teeth vigorously after every meal, here's something to chew on. Dental erosion -- the loss of the protective enamel coating on the teeth -- has increased in the US, according to a new study. When the enamel diminishes, nerves become exposed, causing victims pain and increased sensitivity. Plus, the teeth yellow and become brittle, more likely to decay, and they develop ugly V-shaped notches.]]>
What does dwindling enamel have to do with your excellent brushing hygiene? Apparently, friction can cause dental erosion -- and that includes hard brushing, picking at your teeth with a toothpick, or wearing a retainer. But the rise in erosion is more likely due to our ever-increasing consumption of acid-based drinks and medications that eat away the enamel. Chemicals found in soda, citrus fruits, tea, coffee, and sports drinks can be factors. So can taking certain drugs such as aspirin and having medical conditions that bring stomach acid into the mouth, such as gastric reflux and bulimia.
The bad news is that the condition has become quite common among very young people. The study found that 30 percent of students ranging from ages 10 to 14 have tooth erosion -- a solid indicator that soda consumption is the primary culprit, as kids that age haven't had years enough to brush the enamel off their teeth, nor aspirin enough to melt it away.
It may not be life-threatening, but those who wince every time they eat something hot or cold know how debilitating the condition can be, as do those whose smiles have gone Medieval and those who are losing teeth due to decay.
Until now, the primary prescription for protecting teeth from erosion has been fluoride -- both in toothpaste and our drinking water. But lest we forget, fluoride has been implicated in:
Oh yeah, and in addition to all the above, it doesn't work.
But now someone is proposing a "better" alternative. According to an article in the Daily Mail, Arm & Hammer has released a new toothpaste that contains liquid calcium that purportedly plugs microscopic gaps in the enamel. The product is being introduced in Great Britain, with an intro in the US market to follow.
Unfortunately, what Arm & Hammer giveth with one hand, it taketh away with the other. The company boasts that in addition to liquid calcium, their new toothpaste also has "fluoride to fight cavities" and a "subtle minty taste."
Ah, well! I guess we'll have to wait until Arm & Hammer realizes that there's a large market for something that actually "replaces" fluoride rather than just adds to it. Until such time as A&H wakes up and produces a non-fluoride version, best to cut back on the fizzy drinks and save your teeth.
:hc
]]>A new study out of Duke University recently found that approximately 5.2 million seniors -- or 22 percent of those over age 71 -- showed symptoms of mental decline. Although the subjects did not have full-blown dementia, they did have difficulty remembering things, making decisions, and communicating. If you add to these numbers to the 3.1 to 4.5 million people who either have fully developed dementia or Alzheimer's, then at least 34 percent of the aged population suffers from mental deterioration.
]]> Apparently, these large numbers surprised even the researchers. According to study director Brenda L. Plassman, "…the number of people with cognitive impairment is likely to increase significantly as the baby boomers age." In fact, projections tell us that the numbers of those with full-blown Alzheimer's will triple by 2050, to 13.2 million. In addition, Plassman notes that about 12-percent of those with mild cognitive impairment degenerate to dementia each year.It's not a pretty outlook -- knowing that you have a one-in-three chance of ending up senile. What can you do to help swing those odds?
First, it helps to avoid common prescription drugs such as sleep aids, anti-anxiety drugs, antidepressants, allergy drugs, and even cold remedies, which can cause dementia as a side effect. How much mental decline do these things account for? According to many in the alternative health community, such as Mike Adams of NaturalNews.com, it represents the vast majority of people diagnosed with Alzheimer's. More traditional authorities, of course, say side effects from prescription drugs are responsible for only a minority of such cases, but even according to these same conservative sources, such side effects may still represent 15-30% of all dementia diagnoses. So even at the lowest estimates, reducing prescription drugs can dramatically decrease your chances of mental decline.
But that leaves true dementia. Can anything be done to change the odds for those of us who seem destined for this terrible fate?
And the answer is yes. Dementia is not an automatic. It is the result of a combination of risk factors that contribute to mental impairment, primarily deteriorating conditions linked to the aging process. According to the Duke study mentioned above, heart problems are among the leading causes of Alzheimer's. "Our current belief is that the things that are good for our hearts are good for our brains," Plassman says. Lowering blood pressure and cholesterol appear to help stave off mental decline.
Diabetes also has been implicated in the development of mental deterioration. Studies show that those with type 2 diabetes -- the type related to obesity -- are more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's. In fact, one study showed that borderline diabetics had a 70 percent increased risk of developing Alzheimer's, with even higher risk among those who also had high blood pressure.
And belly fat has turned out to be a surprising predictor of future mental decline -- separate from overall weight. People who have big bellies in their 40s are much more likely to get Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia in their 70s according to a new study out of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, CA. The study found that the more fat people had in their guts in their early to mid-40s, the greater their chances of becoming forgetful and confused and showing other signs of senility as they aged. Those who had the most expansive midsections faced more than twice the risk of the leanest.
Other risk factors include systemic inflammation, the presence of heavy metals, and lack of exercise -- both physical and mental. Studies have shown that people who do four crossword puzzles a week have a 47% reduced risk of Alzheimer's.
The bottom line is that dementia is not necessarily foreordained. As we've seen above, your odds can be changed -- dramatically. How? If you're following the Baseline of Health Program, you're already covered. For those of you not familiar with the program, you can download a free copy of Lessons from the Miracle Doctors. It lays everything out in step-by-step detail.
For those of you in a rush and looking for specific recommendations, check out Alzheimer's and Dementia Bullets.
:hc
]]>A new study just published in BMC Neurology confirms that exposure to pesticides increases the likelihood of developing Parkinson's Disease -- and that risk increases with long-term, repeated exposure. Previous studies have turned up similar results.
In this most recent research, a team from Duke University, the University of Miami, and the Parkinson's Disease Research Center tracked 600 subjects who had been exposed to pesticides and compared them with their non-exposed close relatives, with whom they shared genetic and environmental backgrounds. The subjects who had used pesticides had an increased risk factor of 61 percent compared to their relatives who had not been exposed. Risk increased significantly with increased exposure. Those directly exposed to pesticides 10 or more days a year were more than twice as likely to develop Parkinson's. And again, risk increased with long-term exposure over a course of years.
]]> Although the researchers point out that genetic factors can play a role in the development of the disease, the correlation actually increases among those without a family history. Patients who developed Parkinson's but had no genetic factors were 3.25 times more likely to report high cumulative pesticide-exposure levels, a sure indicator that exposure to pesticides plays a very key role in causing the disease. It's worth noting that among the worst offenders were some products in common use: the home-and-garden insecticide chlorpyrifos, the household insecticide diazinon, and the agricultural insecticide malathion (the stuff California chose to spray over vast numbers of its citizens during the 1980's to control fruit flies).Unfortunately, even if you don't garden or spray your home to keep out the creepy crawlers, you're not necessarily safe. If you live in an area that sprays along the roadways or in vacant lots, you're at risk. If you drink groundwater that contains traces of herbicides or pesticides, you're at risk. If your fruits and vegetables have been sprayed, you're at risk. And if you inadvertently walk into a store or building that just had a visit from the bug-man, you're at risk, too. Plus, you're at risk not only for Parkinson's—but also for Alzheimer's, Multiple Sclerosis, birth defects, a host of cancers, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma -- all linked to pesticide exposure.
But direct exposure to pesticides isn't the most critical issue -- it's that environmental contamination of all sorts has become omnipresent in daily life. It's not just pesticides; it's 100,000 other industrial chemicals released into the environment over the last 50 years. We need to be aware that we're at risk even if we eat organic and live far away from obvious sources of pollution. Basically, we're living in an environment where we experience constant, low-levels of exposure to a toxic mix of chemicals in our food, our water, our building materials, our clothing, our personal care products, our cleaning fluids, and our air -- essentially, in every place we turn. As the Parkinson's study shows, cumulative exposure to these chemicals causes more harm than a single event, and you can bet that the harm increases even more when that long-term exposure involves multiple combination of toxins, even at very low levels.
And so, the next time some government official tells you that releasing a chemical into the environment is safe because the levels are so small, take it with a grain of salt -- or better yet, take it with a dose of your favorite detox formula.
:hc
]]>A recent Associated Press article picked up by the international media reports how a sick 11-year-old girl died after her parents opted to pray for her recovery rather than take her to the hospital. The child had an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes, and the article implied that had she been rushed to emergency, she would have been fine. Meanwhile, her parents insist that since God is the healer, they did the right thing.
]]> I'm certainly not qualified to say whether or not prayer heals or whether the parents acted irresponsibly, and that's not the point, anyway. The point is that the media made a big fuss about one child who died because her parents opted not to go to the doctor -- but there was no mention of the hundreds of thousands of children who die because their parents did seek medical help.You've seen the stats in previous posts here. Within hospitals, as many as 98,000 patients each year die from preventable medical errors -- with most of those errors occurring in emergency departments, intensive care units, and operating rooms -- precisely the units where a very sick child would end up. The fatal errors most frequently cited include faulty diagnosis, flawed delivery of treatment, equipment failure, delays in delivering treatment, inadequate follow-up, and mistakes in the dose or delivery of a drug.
Then, of course, there are pharmaceutical drugs, which cause an overwhelming number of deaths and emergencies -- even when administered correctly. Almost seven percent of all hospitalized patients in the US -- or 770,000 patients--have serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs) within hospitals each year. Over a hundred thousand hospitalized patients die annually from drug reactions, and an additional 1.5 million need hospitalization after suffering an adverse drug reaction outside the hospital. In fact, ADRs comprise the fourth leading cause of death in the US, and children aren't exempt, with 2.09% of all pediatric hospitalizations resulting from reactions to pharmaceuticals. This means that 79,000 children annually get rushed to hospitals because of adverse drug reactions. And, the problem continues to get worse. A British study found that the number of ADRs shot up 155% in the 10 years from 1996 to 2006.
And add to these numbers the fact that one out of every 20 patients in the US gets a hospital-induced infection each year, which works out to over six-million patients annually. But it gets worse. Studies now show that over 70 percent of the bacteria that cause hospital-induced infections have become resistant to treatment with drugs, meaning that these infections will cause escalating emergencies and fatalities in coming years.
The bottom line is that before we join the worldwide press in demonizing the little girl's parents as foolish religious fanatics for not rushing her to a hospital, let's consider -- for all of the reasons cited above -- that it's not so illogical for parents to be concerned about rushing an ill child to the hospital. Medical treatments certainly are an option when faced with emergencies, but given the realities of hospitalization safety rates, a parent would be imprudent to disregard possible complications associated with any hospital visit.
By the way, although the results are not conclusive, there have definitely been some studies that indicate that healing prayer made indeed work. In fact, even if you do opt for medical care, it just might be worth a little prayer asking the gods to protect your child from the menace of the medical demons.
:hc
]]>Talk about going retro! A recent article in Access Hollywoodreveals that Demi Moore uses leeches to purify her blood. Apparently, while in Austria doing a cleanse, she had "highly trained" leeches applied to her bare skin in order to detoxify her blood. The actress waxes enthusiastic about the health benefits, as if bloodletting was the best thing to be revived from the past since Steve Martin practiced medicine as Theodoric Barber of York.
]]> In fact, bloodletting was practiced by the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Mayans, Aztecs, and Mesopotamiaians. It also is referenced in the Talmud and in Islamic and Ayurvedic texts. In the Middle Ages, barber/surgeons bled their patients to cure and prevent disease. Bloodletting still had advocates right up to the 19th century in the Western World, when cupping and leeches were the bleeding techniques of choice. But in modern times, healers rely on drugs and "advanced surgeries" to do what bleeding once attempted to do, and most of us now think of leech therapy as a form of primitive barbarism.So is Demi's foray into bloodletting mere Beverly Hills insanity, or is there actually something to it? In fact, recent studies show that planned bleeding might have curative effects, after all.
For one thing, bleeding seems to have a protective effect on the heart. David Meyers, a cardiologist at Kansas University Medical Center, undertook research to understand the relationship between blood loss and heart disease. He noted that pre-menopausal women, who still menstruate monthly, have fifty percent fewer heart attacks than men their age, whereas they equal men in the rate of heart attacks after menopause. Noting that men with high iron content in their blood have double the heart attack rate of those with normal iron levels, he had some of his male subjects donate blood and discovered that the blood donors lowered their heart attack risk by 30 percent.
His conclusion: menstruation helps women reduce the amount of iron in their blood. Since excess iron binds to cholesterol and causes oxidation, which can lead to plaque build-up in the arteries, bleeding (and thus lowering the amount of available iron) possibly does lead to lowered heart disease risk.
Iron has another disease-promoting property say researchers out of the University of Chicago. They recently found that the Staphylococcus aureus bacteria (or "staph") -- which causes infections of the blood, bones, and lungs (pneumonia) -- feeds on iron. It particularly likes the form of iron found in blood. The less available iron in the system, the less likelihood that a staph infection will survive, which may explain why bleeding purportedly worked in curing pneumonia and other infections.
"Bloodletting in the pre-antibiotic era may have been an effective mechanism for starving bacterial pathogens of iron and slowing bacterial growth," writes Dr. Tracey Rouault, Head of the research team. Given that staph has become increasingly antiobiotic resistant, perhaps bloodletting will also be called on in the post-antiobiotic era -- although scientists are trying to develop new drugs that kill the bacteria's quest for iron.
Finally, bleeding has potential benefits in pain management and in controlling hypertension. According to acupuncturist Roslyn Motter, letting out a little blood from swollen, painful areas can release stagnant, coagulated matter and relieve pain. She says that withdrawing, "old, stagnant, overheated and often black blood… allows the body to replace it with new, clean blood. Just a few drops of blood squeezed out makes a profound difference to the blood flow in the entire body." The benefits of acupuncture in the treatment of high blood pressure are well known in the alternative community, especially when the process involves removal of a small amount of blood.
But above and beyond bloodletting, leeches have some special healing properties. Their saliva is known to contain at least 15 enzymes with proven palliative properties. One is hirudin, a fast-acting anticoagulant that keeps blood clots from forming while the leech is feeding. Another, hyaluronidase, is a histamine-like substance that has a dilating effect on blood vessels. Other leech enzymes act against pain and swelling. And so, in spite of the grotesque appearance of the slimy slug-like creatures sucking blood from the flesh, leeches probably do less harm than many modern-day pharmaceuticals, and might do more good.
Personally, though, I think I'll stick with a good detox program and blood cleanse formula and forego the leeches -- thanks.
:hc
]]>Labor can be damned inconvenient. It commences when it will -- and that can mean at some very inopportune times: when the doctor is out of town, for instance, or when the husband is away on a business trip or the Thanksgiving meal spread out on the table, or the mother-in-law too busy to lend a hand.
Back in 1990, fewer than 10 percent of pregnancies culminated with induced labor, but these days, up to 55 percent of all pregnant women in the US choose to have labor induced at some expedient, pre-scheduled time. While labor sometimes needs to be induced to ensure maternal or fetal safety -- such as when the fetus grows too large or when the mother has an acute illness -- at least half of all induced labors have nothing to do with medical necessity; they're simply the product of doctor/patient preference.
]]> Dr. Dana Stone, an obstetrician/gynecologist at Lakeside Women's Hospital in Oklahoma City, says in an article in the Oklahoman, "[Elective induction is] becoming more and more accepted. People's lives are so busy. So much of having babies and taking care of babies is unpredictable -- [women] kind of like to predict as much as they can."According to studies, induced labor increases the likelihood of cesarean delivery by two to three times. As an article in Childbirth Instructor Magazine points out, "Problems with inductions stem from two sources: the physiology of initiating labor and the side effects of the procedures and drugs." In order to "ripen" an unready cervix, patients typically receive prostaglandins, which can over stimulate the uterus, causing violent labor, with intense pain for the mother and distress for the fetus. There's also an increased risk of uterine rupture and severe bleeding. Labor averages nine hours in a first-time pregnancy when the cervix has been dilated sufficiently, but when dilation is induced, labor averages 22 hours.
When the cervix is ready but contractions haven't started, induction involves steps such as manually rupturing the placenta, which increases the risk of abnormal fetal heart rate and maternal infection. Ideally, rupturing will bring on labor, but if it doesn't, the woman will most likely be given the drug oxytocin, which strengthens contractions. The potential complications include severe maternal pain, extended labor, increased maternal bleeding, blood loss, jaundice, and greater likelihood that pain drugs and epidurals will be administered and that forceps or vacuum-assisted delivery will be necessary. And again, when these complications occur, there's a greater chance that cesarean will become necessary. The bottom line is that sometimes convenience can turn out to be damned inconvenient.
Look, nature has ensured that in most cases, labor begins when both fetus and mother are ready -- when the cervix has dilated, when the fetus has finished developing, when the mother's body is biologically prepared -- and as the astrologically inclined would say, when the stars are in alignment. Forcing the process can lead to ramifications that far outweigh the convenience -- not to mention wrecking havoc with your child's astrological charts.
:hc
]]>Until now, there's been lots of anecdotal evidence that men and women have distinctly different food preferences. You wouldn't expect salad for lunch at an Elks Club meeting, nor ham and fries at the Women's Club. Now, a new study of 14,000 Americans confirms that it's true -- men really do prefer meat, and women prefer veggies. According to the research, conducted by Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet), veal, ham, and duck, and shellfish such as shrimp and oysters rank high on the list for men. Women, on the other hand, tend to opt for carrots, tomatoes, and fruits--especially strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, and apples.
]]> Oddly, men seem to prefer frozen hamburgers (sorry Wendys) while women like them fresh. Men also have more of an affinity for frozen pizzas, frozen Mexican dinners, asparagus, Brussels sprouts, peanuts, and risky foods such as undercooked meats and eggs. Women, on the other hand, prefer dry foods such as cereals, walnuts, and almonds, and they consume more eggs and yogurt than men.The study didn't explore reasons for the berry/duck divide, but you can be reasonably certain that it goes deeper than men having macho taste buds. What's interesting is that many of the foods that men gravitate towards have testosterone-producing effects, whereas women prefer foods high in phytoestrogens. You've got to wonder if we're biologically programmed to eat foods that support gender differentiation.
For instance, it's uncanny that men choose Brussels sprouts considering that the little green globules have a high content of indole-3-carbinol (I3C), a phyto-chemical that converts "bad" estrogens into testosterone-stimulating "good estrogens." Most vegetables and berries, on the other hand, are phytoestrogenic -- and preferred by women. And peanuts, beloved by guys, are high in monosaturated fat and zinc, both of which boost testosterone production. Same with meat, which also contains large amounts of zinc and fat, and so theoretically, it should raise testosterone levels -- but that's where the irony begins. Yes, meat, in its unadulterated natural state does indeed boost testosterone, but the modern supermarket variety, chock full of estrogenic hormones, certainly does not. In fact, most commercial meat actually raises estrogen levels. That means that over time, men who eat too much commercial meat end up with "man boobs" -- not bigger muscles.
Ah, life's conundrums!
]]>