Rather Be Healthy

By Dr. Mercola

Serious honey bee die-offs have been occurring around the world for the past decade, which is an alarming trend considering one of every three bites of food you eat depends on the good graces of the honey bee.

They pollinate at least 130 different crops in the United States alone, including fruits, vegetables and tree nuts. Without honey bees, farmers would have to resort to pollinating their crops by hand, which would be an incredibly expensive and labor intensive undertaking, if it could even be done on the same scale.

No one knows exactly why the bees are disappearing, but the phenomenon, dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is thought to be caused by a variety of imbalances in the environment, secondary to current agricultural and industrial practices.

Bees are sensitive to the constant flood of manmade chemicals into their environment and bodies, especially pesticides, many of which accumulate over time … and now new research has provided some of the strongest evidence supporting this theory to date.

Pesticide Exposure Proven to Impact Bee Colonies

Exposure to pesticides has been associated with changes in bee behavior and reductions in colony queen production, both of which could have detrimental impacts on the life of the colony. However, the impact of pesticides on individual bee behavior, and its subsequent impact on the colony as a whole, had not yet been determined … until now.

You see, bee colonies are like living cities, and each individual bee plays a crucial role. A healthy hive is occupied by a collection of overlapping generations. Tasks are divided up according to age and colony needs via a very intricate system of communication:
•Younger worker bees (nurse bees) tend to the queen and the baby bees.
•Older worker bees forage for food and water for the colony, convert nectar into honey, construct and clean wax cells, and guard the hive from invaders. Worker bees develop stingers to defend the eggs lain by the queen.
•Drones have only one purpose—to mate with the queen. In fact, the queen will leave her hive only once in her lifetime, in order to mate with several drones and store up enough sperm to last the rest of her life.1

Researchers explained:2

“Social bee colonies depend on the collective performance of many individual workers. Thus, although field-level pesticide concentrations can have subtle or sublethal effects at the individual level, it is not known whether bee societies can buffer such effects or whether it results in a severe cumulative effect at the colony level. Furthermore, widespread agricultural intensification means that bees are exposed to numerous pesticides when foraging, yet the possible combinatorial effects of pesticide exposure have rarely been investigated.”

This is what the new study set out to determine, and it was revealed that bees given access to two commonly used agricultural pesticides were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:
•Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae
•A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest
•A higher death rate among worker bees
•An increased likelihood of colony failure

The researchers said:

“Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behaviour and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.

We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”

Leading Pesticide Makers Heading Up Bee Research?

Pesticide manufacturers are likely none too pleased about the recent accusations hurled against their products, so they’ve taken matters into their own hands and purchased leading bee research firms, ostensibly to study colony collapse disorder and other bee research.

Monsanto, which is the world leader in genetically modified (GM) crops (and the pesticides and herbicides that go along with them), recently bought Beeologics, a company whose primary goal is finding a solution to the colony collapse disorder.

Beeologics states their mission is to become the “guardian of bee health worldwide.” Monsanto bought the company in September 2011, just months before Poland announced it would ban growing of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) MON810 maize, noting, poignantly, that “pollen of this strain could have a harmful effect on bees.”3

The ongoing blight of GM crops has been implicated in CCD for many years now. In one German study,4 when bees were released in a GM rapeseed crop, then fed the pollen to younger bees, scientists discovered the bacteria in the guts of the young ones mirrored the same genetic traits as ones found in the GM crop, indicating that horizontal gene transfer had occurred.

Further, the newer systemic insecticides, known as neonicotinoids, have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. Two prominent examples, Imidacloprid and Clothianidin, are used as seed treatments in hundreds of crops. Virtually all of today’s genetically engineered Bt corn is treated with neonicotinoids.

Bee colonies began disappearing in the U.S. shortly after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowed these new insecticides on the market. Even the EPA itself admits that “pesticide poisoning” is a likely cause of bee colony collapse.

These insecticides are highly toxic to bees because they are systemic, water soluble, and very pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and generate long-term toxicity to the hive. They enter the vascular system of the plant and are carried to all parts of it, as well as to the pollen and nectar. Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Indeed, pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honey bee hives on the verge of collapse.

In addition to immune dysfunction and opportunistic diseases, the honey bees also appear to suffer from neurological problems, disorientation, and impaired navigation. These effects have great consequence, as a bee can’t survive for more than 24 hours if she becomes disoriented and unable to find her way back to the hive.

Bayer is Now Heading Up Bee Research, Too

Interestingly, Bayer CropScience – a leading manufacturer of the neonicotinoid pesticides at the heart of the CCD debate (lawsuits against Bayer from beekeepers are ongoing) – plans to open the North American Bee Care Center by July 2013. The Center is intended to be a research hub as well as promote “the active promotion of bee-responsible use of Bayer products along with communication activities worldwide.”5

Clearly, the forthcoming research from Beeologics and the North American Bee Care Center may now be tainted with regard these companies’ products and their impact on bee populations.

Already, in 2010 a study by Montana bee researcher Dr. Jerry Bromenshenk found that CCD was not caused by pesticides but rather a combination of fungus and virus, found in all collapsed colonies, may be the culprit … what was not widely reported in the media, however, was that Dr. Bromenshenk received a significant research grant from Bayer to study bee pollination – a massive conflict of interest that is likely to be carried over into any upcoming research from Bayer and Monsanto.

Losing Bees is About More Than Just Honey

When most people think of honey bees, they think honey. But honey is only a small part of the useful work bees do for us in the United States. Honey bees are critical components of U.S. agriculture, used to pollinate nuts, fruits and vegetables. The California almond crop alone requires 1.3 million colonies of bees, and bees actually add an estimated $15 billion in value to crops like these.

A full one-third of the U.S. food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated by colony collapse disorder — or whatever is causing them to die — major food shortages could result. If honey bees disappear, so, too, will all of these other innovations and any new developments that may be honey bee-inspired in the future. And that’s not all. Bees also contribute to many other areas of human health, including:
•Playing an important role in human medicine; raw honey, which has potent anti-inflammatory and anti-infective properties, is being used for wound healing and treating coughs, while “stun” chemicals from bee stings are being looked at as an effective anesthetic for humans
•Propolis, the “caulk” honey bees use to patch holes in their hives, may slow the growth of prostate cancer and has powerful immune-modulating effects, along with potent antioxidant and anti-microbial action, and healing, analgesic, anesthetic, and anti-inflammatory properties
•Bee pollen, which is often referred to as a superfood because it contains a broad range of nutrients required by your body. About half of its protein is in the form of free amino acids that are ready to be used directly by your body and can therefore contribute significantly to your protein needs.
•Honey bees have helped make scientific discoveries in many fields, including the aeronautics industry, which used the design of the six-sided honeycomb to help design aircraft wings; honeybee communication systems have even been adopted by computer programmers to help run Internet servers more efficiently6

You Can Take Action to Help Honey bees

The documentary film Vanishing of the Bees recommends four actions you can take to help preserve our honeybees:
•Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)
•Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.
•Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.
•Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

If you are interested in more information about bee preservation, the following organizations are a good place to start.
•Pesticide Action Network Bee Campaign7
•The Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees8
•American Beekeeping Federation9
•Help the Honey Bees 10
If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

The weight loss drug orlistat (known as Xenical by prescription and Alli, available over-the-counter) is one of the most popular on the market.

Alli is even known to flaunt the fact that it’s approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in its advertisements, using such slogans as “lose weight the FDA approved way,” which, to most people, makes it sound as though it’s safe…

The drug, which works by inhibiting fat absorption in your intestines, has faced problems in the past, not the least of which include cramping, gas, diarrhea, anal leakage and oily underwear stains as the result of the drug’s fat-blocking mechanism of action.

Now, a University of Rhode Island researcher uncovered a far more detrimental side effect, which is so severe it prompted him to immediately alert the FDA about his findings…

Xenical and Alli May Cause “Severe Toxicity of Internal Organs”

Orlistat was first approved in 1999 as a prescription weight loss drug, and later, in 2007, became approved for over-the-counter use. Because orlistat works in your intestines, it was thought that the drug mostly stayed in the intestines and was not absorbed by the body. This was not what was found by Professor Bingfang Yan, who conducted the study.

He noted:1

“Since it has been available over–the-counter, there has been a drastic increase of toxicity among patients using the drug. It has been linked to severe liver failure, acute pancreatic failure and acute renal (kidney) failure.”

His research, indeed, showed that orlistat, even at low levels, inhibits a major detoxification enzyme (carboxylesterase-2) in the liver, kidney and gastrointestinal track. When this occurs, it may lead to “severe toxicity of internal organs such as the liver and kidney.” The enzyme also plays a role in metabolizing a variety of medications, and as such orlistat may also alter the efficacy of certain drugs. In particular, the study found orlistat may:
•Reduce the effectiveness of certain cancer drugs; cancer cells actually multiplied faster when orlistat was taken2
•Amplify the anti-clotting effects of aspirin, which may increase your risk of internal and external bleeding

In 2010, the FDA required Xenical and Alli to include a warning on their labels about cases of severe liver injury that had been reported with the use of the drugs, although at the time it called the side effects “rare.”3

Weight Loss Drugs Have a Troubled Past

Obesity carries with it serious health risks, including cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes, and with rates increasing steadily it is a condition that needs to be taken seriously. However, potentially risking your life with dangerous weight loss drugs is a risk that is just too steep to take.

The serious side effects tied to Xenical and Alli are only the latest to emerge. In 2010, the weight loss drug Meridia (sibutramine) was taken off the market after studies showed it increased the risk of heart attack and stroke. The saddest part about the story is that Meridia showed signs of dangerous side effects ever since it was first approved in 1997, but was only taken off the market more than a decade later, after millions of people had already taken the drug.

In fact, when Meridia was approved it carried a warning on its label stating that the drug should not be used in people with a history of heart disease, heart failure, heart-rhythm problems or stroke. The drug, which worked by suppressing your appetite by altering levels of the brain chemicals serotonin and norepinephrine, was also widely known to raise blood pressure and heart rate, and an FDA advisory panel actually recommended against its approval in 1996 for this very reason.

Public Citizen later petitioned the FDA to ban the drug in 2002, alleging that it was responsible for causing dozens of deaths and hundreds of adverse patient reactions since it came to market. In 2005, the FDA again considered placing stricter warnings on the drug, and in January 2010 finally asked Abbott, the drug’s maker, to strengthen the warning following review of preliminary data from the SCOUT study.4

The SCOUT study, which ultimately led the FDA to request the drug be removed from the market entirely, found a 28 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 36 percent increased risk of stroke in patients taking Meridia compared to placebo.

Those are steep risks for a drug that only lead to an average weight loss of 9.5 pounds a year — hardly worth risking a fatal heart attack or stroke over. And this is quite typical for weight loss drugs, which generally only amount to a weight loss of anywhere from four to 22 pounds… 5

Why is the FDA Speeding Approval of More Weight Loss Drugs?

Despite the known risks of liver damage, and other health effects, from weight loss drugs already on the market, the FDA is moving full speed ahead to approve new options. In fiscal year 2012, the FDA approved 35 new drugs, the same number as were approved in fiscal year 2011, which they said was “among the highest number of approvals in the past decade, surpassed only by 2009 (37).”6, 7 This included two new weight loss drugs – the first to hit the market since 2009:

Qsymia

A combination of two FDA-approved drugs, phentermine (the “phen” of diet drug fen-phen, which was pulled from the market in 1997 after it was linked to serious heart valve damage) and topiramate, an anti-seizure epilepsy drug. After one year of treatment with the recommended and highest daily dose of the drug, patients had an average weight loss of 6.7 percent and 8.9 percent, respectively. Along with an increased risk of birth defects (such that women must have a negative pregnancy test prior to starting on the drug), Qsymia can increase heart rate and must not be used in patients with glaucoma or hyperthyroidism.

According to the FDA:8

“…This drug’s effect on heart rate in patients at high risk for heart attack or stroke is not known. Therefore, the use of Qsymia in patients with recent (within the last six months) or unstable heart disease or stroke is not recommended. Regular monitoring of heart rate is recommended for all patients taking Qsymia, especially when starting Qsymia or increasing the dose.”

Belviq

Belviq works by activating the serotonin 2C receptor in your brain, which may help you eat less or feel full after eating smaller amounts of food. Fen-Phen’s damaging effect on the heart valve was thought to be related to activation of the serotonin 2B receptor on heart tissue, and while the FDA notes that Belviq “does not appear to activate the 2B receptor” when used at the approved dose, they are already aware of serious side effects.

The FDA stated:9

“Belviq should not be used during pregnancy. Treatment with Belviq may cause serious side effects, including serotonin syndrome, particularly when taken with certain medicines that increase serotonin levels or activate serotonin receptors. These include, but are not limited to, drugs commonly used to treat depression and migraine. Belviq may also cause disturbances in attention or memory.

… Because preliminary data suggest that the number of serotonin 2B receptors may be increased in patients with congestive heart failure, Belviq should be used with caution in patients with this condition. Belviq has not been studied in patients with serious valvular heart disease. The drug’s manufacturer will be required to conduct six postmarketing studies, including a long-term cardiovascular outcomes trial to assess the effect of Belviq on the risk for major adverse cardiac events such as heart attack and stroke.”

In other words, although the drug is already approved, it still has to undergo extensive testing to make sure cardiovascular problems can be ruled out… and as for the weight loss “benefit,” patients lost, on average, just 3 percent to 3.7 percent of their body weight after one year. While regular echocardiograms were not recommended by the FDA for people taking Belviq, Dr. Eric Felner, who was a member of the FDA advisory panel that approved the drug, told Slate.com that in his opinion:10

“If you’re going to put your patient on this medication, you need to see them somewhere along the lines of every two to three months and probably get an echocardiogram at least two or three times a year.”

Tips for Losing Weight Naturally: More Fat, Fewer Carbs…

Switching from a carb-based diet to a fat- and protein-based diet will help rebalance your body’s chemistry, and a natural side effect of this is weight loss, and/or improved weight management once you’re at an ideal weight. One explanation for this is that you don’t really get fat from eating too much and exercising too little. Nor do you get fat from eating fat.

It is also vital to select healthy fats. Avoid virtually all vegetable oils that are loaded with omega-6 fats. Fried foods are also taboo. You will want to replace the lost carb calories with healthy fats like coconut oil, olives, olive oil, avocados, eggs, butter and high-fat nuts like macadamia nuts.

One researcher that has clearly established this is Dr. Richard Johnson, whose latest book, The Fat Switch, dispels many of the most pervasive myths relating to diet and obesity.

Dr. Johnson discovered the method that animals use to gain fat prior to times of food scarcity, which turned out to be a powerful adaptive benefit. His research showed that fructose activates a key enzyme, fructokinase, which in turn activates another enzyme that causes cells to accumulate fat. When this enzyme is blocked, fat cannot be stored in the cell. Interestingly, this is the exact same “switch” animals use to fatten up in the fall and to burn fat during the winter.

Fructose is the dietary ingredient that turns on this “switch,” causing cells to accumulate fat, both in animals and in humans.

In essence, overeating and excess weight could be viewed as a symptom of an improper diet. It’s not necessarily the result of eating too many calories, per se, but rather getting your calories from the wrong sources. In the blossoming new field of nutrigenomics, the study of how nutrients interact with your genes, food contains information, as well as nutrients and calories. That information can turn on or off the expression of certain genes, epigenetically, as it were. In simple terms, when you consume too many sugars and carbs, you set off a cascade of chemical and epigenetic reactions in your body that reprograms your level of hunger and craving for sweets:
•First, fructose is metabolized differently from glucose, with the majority being turned directly into fat because fructose stimulates a powerful gene-mediated “fat switch.”
•This rapidly leads to weight gain and abdominal obesity (“beer belly”), decreased HDL, increased LDL, elevated triglycerides, elevated blood sugar, and high blood pressure — i.e., classic metabolic syndrome.
•Dietary carbohydrates, especially fructose, are also the primary source of a substance called glycerol-3-phosphate (g-3-p), which causes fat to become fixed in fat tissue
•At the same time, high carb intake raises your insulin levels, which prevents fat from being released
•Fructose further tricks your body into gaining weight by turning off your body’s appetite-control system. Fructose does not suppress ghrelin (the “hunger hormone”) and doesn’t stimulate leptin (the “satiety hormone”), which together result in feeling hungry all the time, even though you’ve eaten. As a result, you overeat and develop insulin resistance, which is not only an underlying factor of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and a long list of other chronic diseases

The resulting equation is simple: fructose and dietary carbohydrates (grains, which break down into sugar) lead to excess body fat, obesity and related health issues. Furthermore, no amount of exercise can compensate for this damage because if you eat excessive “carbs,” i.e. fructose and grains — the primary ingredients NOT found in our ancestral diet — it will activate programming to cause your body to become, and remain, fat.

A reasonable goal will be to have as much as 50-70 percent of your diet as healthy fat, which will radically reduce your carbohydrate intake. It can be helpful to remember that fat is far more satiating than carbs, so if you have cut down on carbs and feel ravenous, this is a sign that you have not replaced them with sufficient amounts of healthy fat. Sources of healthy fats that you’ll want to add to your diet include:

Olives and Olive oil (for cold dishes)

Coconuts, and coconut oil (for all types of cooking and baking)

Butter made from raw grass-fed organic milk

Raw Nuts, such as, almonds or pecans

Organic pastured egg yolks

Avocados

Pasture finished meats

Palm oil

Unheated organic nut oils

Most people will likely notice massive improvement in their health by following this approach, as they are presently consuming FAR more grain and bean carbohydrates in their diet, and any reduction will be a step in the right direction. To help you get started on the right track, review my Nutrition Plan, which guides you through these dietary changes one step at a time.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

Cosmetics giant Neutrogena, whose parent company Johnson & Johnson has allowed the use of potentially cancer-causing chemicals in their products (and only announced in August 2012 that they would be removing them by the end of 2015), has taken on an unlikely new partner: The Canadian Cancer Society (CCS).

Their goal?

To educate Canadians about reducing their risk of skin cancer, which will undoubtedly include the potentially harmful advice to slather on loads of sunscreen (preferably Neutrogena brand).

In addition to Neutrogena contributing $200,000 to support skin cancer research (over $1 million since this started), the company has even provided 200,000 sunscreen samples to be distributed at Cancer Society events and committed to executing “a national campaign to educate Canadians on the importance of using sunscreen.”1

For Neutrogena, it’s a marketing match made in heaven … but what does this mean for the public?

You can’t respect the advice that CCS provides on sun exposure, as it has been tainted by their relationship with for-profit partner Neutrogena. This is a direct conflict of interest.

A scathing 2011 CBC investigative report in Canada even found that the proportion of funding that the CCS spends on research projects has been cut in half, dropping to 22% from over 40% in 2000. Funds have been diverted from research to be used for fundraising.2

This means for every dollar donated by Canadians to the CCS, only 22 cents actually goes to research. Pitiful … and one of the lowest rates for all charitable foundations in Canada.

More Misleading Sunscreen Propaganda That May Increase Your Cancer Risk

You’ve heard the advice before: stay out of the sun or use plenty of sunscreen to block cancer-causing ultraviolet (UV) rays. But recommending that people stay out of the sun to avoid cancer is much like saying you should avoid eating, because some foods cause cancer. It’s true that excessive sun exposure, the type that makes your skin burn, may increase your cancer risk.

But all sun exposure is certainly not bad. In fact, it’s actually an essential component to staying healthy … one that can even reduce your cancer risk substantially.

And therein lies one of the chief problems with the misleading advice to use sunscreen whenever you’re out in the sun. This blocks the beneficial UVB rays – the ones that trigger your skin to produce vitamin D. Vitamin D plays a crucial role in your overall health and well-being. If you’ve spent any time on my site at all, you know that I’m a firm advocate for optimizing your vitamin D levels. For example, this healthy exposure to sunshine is known to:

Protect against cancer, including melanoma

Support healthy kidney function

Enhance your muscle strength

Promote healthy teeth

Help produce and maintain optimal blood pressure levels

Help keep your bones strong and healthy

Help maintain a healthy immune system

Support your cardiovascular health

Sun Exposure May Lower Your Cancer Risk

Several studies have already confirmed that appropriate sun exposure actually helps prevent skin cancer. In fact, melanoma occurrence has been found to decrease with greater sun exposure and can be increased by sunscreens. For example, an Italian study, published in the European Journal of Cancer,3 supported earlier studies showing improved survival rates in melanoma patients who were exposed to sunlight more frequently in the time before their melanoma was diagnosed. In Public Health Nutrition, researchers also listed a number of associations between sun exposure and melanoma found in the medical literature, such as:4
•Intermittent sun exposure and severe sunburn in childhood are associated with an increased risk of melanoma
•Occupational exposure, such as farmers and fishermen, and regular weekend sun exposure are associated with decreased risk of melanoma
•Sun exposure appears to protect against melanoma on skin sites not exposed to sun light, and melanoma occurring on skin with large UV exposure has the best prognosis
•Patients with the highest blood levels of vitamin D have thinner melanoma and better survival prognosis than those with the lowest vitamin D levels

The fact is, getting safe sun exposure every day is actually one of the best things you can do for your health. The point to remember is that once your skin turns the lightest shade of pink (if you’re Caucasian), it’s time to get out of the sun. Past this point of exposure your body will not produce any more vitamin D and you’ll begin to have sun damage.

Shocking News: Dermatologists Actually State Sunlight is Not an “Efficient” Source of Vitamin D

A news release from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)5 claims to “expose” the “truth” about the indoor tanning industry by dispelling their statement that indoor tanning is a good source of vitamin D. It is, in fact, a good source, assuming you cannot get outdoors for real sun exposure, and you use a safe tanning bed (which I’ll explain in the next section). Outrageously, AAD states:

” … dermatologists point out that UV rays are not very efficient in creating vitamin D in the skin. In addition, the American Academy of Dermatology recommends that the public obtain vitamin D safely from a healthy diet that includes food naturally rich in vitamin D, foods and beverages fortified with vitamin D, and/or dietary supplements, rather than by sun exposure or indoor tanning, which can cause skin cancer.”

How could they possibly claim that UV rays are not efficient in creating vitamin D in the skin when under optimal environmental exposures your body can produce about 20,000 IU of vitamin D per day with full body exposure, about 5,000 IU with 50 percent of your body exposed, and as much as 1,000 IU with just 10 percent of your body exposed?

In the winter months however, and/or times of the year when insufficient amounts of UVB rays reach your location, you will most likely not get enough vitamin D. In that case, I recommend using a safe tanning bed.

While you can obtain vitamin D from natural food sources or in supplement form, sunlight is by far the best way to get your vitamin D. Our ancestors optimized their vitamin D levels by sun exposure, not by swallowing it in foods. Although vitamin D is in some animal foods, it is in relatively low quantities and to my knowledge there are no known ancestral populations that thrived on oral vitamin D sources. Although we can absorb vitamin D orally because it is a fat-soluble vitamin, there is strong emerging research that suggests this lacks many of the benefits of sunlight-produced vitamin D.

Plus, you cannot overdose when getting your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, as your body has the ability to self-regulate production and only make what it needs; this is not the case with oral supplementation.

I recently did an interview with MIT Scientist Dr. Seneff who strongly believes that the majority of vitamin D’s benefit is due to the sunlight hitting the skin and forming cholesterol and vitamin D sulfate, which mediate the vast majority of the benefits of vitamin D above. Vitamin D levels may not actually produce these benefits but could be a marker for the other changes that occur as a result of exposing your skin to sunshine. This is why swallowing a pill is not as beneficial as exposing your skin to sunshine.

Tanning Beds Falsely Under Attack?

In a 2012 review of the available research into the relative risk for malignant melanoma (the most lethal form of skin cancer) and tanning bed use, the researchers concluded that tanning bed use can decrease 10 times as many cancers than they might contribute to.6

While the AAD cited data that indicate the use of tanning beds before the age of 35 is associated with a 75 percent increase in the risk of melanoma, mainstream media ignores the fact that this is the relative risk ratio. Your absolute risk of getting skin cancer from a tanning bed is less than three-tenths of one percent—and even then, this is likely only if you habitually overexpose yourself!7 And remember this data was for unsafe tanning beds, not the ones we encourage to use for alternative sun exposure.

In addition, Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, wrote a paper criticizing the reported link between tanning bed use and melanoma, as one major meta-analysis by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) used studies done in countries that had a disproportionate mix of skin type 1 people, which would raise the risk rate.8

Where tanning beds are concerned, there is some conflicting research, however, with some studies finding no detrimental impact from tanning beds on skin cancer rates while others have found that rates of skin cancer are higher in those using tanning beds than those who do not tan. The reason for these conflicting findings, the review authors speculated, could very well be due to differences in UVA/UVB ratios and intensities between different types of tanning beds.

I believe they’re likely correct in their speculation that the type of tanning bed may be a major factor in whether or not it can have a beneficial or detrimental impact on your cancer risk. Certain tanning beds have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while others emit more UVA than sunlight, and it is the UVA rays, which penetrate your skin more deeply than UVB, that appear to be a much more important factor in causing photoaging, wrinkles and skin cancers. In fact, the UVB rays are capable of stimulating melanocytes within the skin to produce entirely new melanin as “sunscreen,” whereas UVA rays only cause the oxidation of already existing melanin and its precursors, resulting in greater photo-damage to the exposed cells.9

Another important factor when selecting a tanning bed is the type of ballast it employs, to avoid excessive electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. Most tanning units use magnetic ballasts to generate light. These magnetic ballasts are well known sources of EMFs that can contribute to cancer.

If you hear a loud buzzing noise while in a tanning bed, it has a magnetic ballast system. I strongly recommend you avoid magnetic ballast beds, and restrict your use of tanning beds to those that use electronic ballasts. High-quality indoor tanning devices can be beneficial if you precisely follow the simple guideline of never getting burned. Your skin should only turn the lightest shade of pink after using them.

The FDA also recommends waiting 24-48 hours between doses. The reason for this is that it takes at least 24 hours for the erythema to go away. This exposure schedule can be described as CONTROLLED SUNSHINE, making it a very safe way to receive the benefits of the sun while indoors. The Joint Canadian Tanning Association often uses this explanatory quote from Dr. Reinhold Vieth:

“Dr. Reinhold Vieth from Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto said this about sunlight and tanning beds in a court affidavit; “sunbeds and summer sunshine are effective means by which to increase our serum 25(OH)D levels. The advantage of a tanning bed is that exposure to UV light can be controlled more precisely than casual sun exposure and thus can be safer than advising the public to guess at their own sun exposure from sunlight.”

Is Sunscreen Ever Necessary?

The answer is certainly yes, but only when you can’t control how much sun you are exposed to. For instance, if you work outdoors all day as part of your job, or if you need to protect sensitive areas of your face, like around your eyes, that are particularly susceptible to photoaging and not that large a surface area to impact vitamin D levels if blocked with sunscreen.

I personally prefer wearing a cap to put my face in the “shade.” This also eliminates the need for me to wear sunglasses and deprive my retina of all the healthy wavelengths of the sun. Additionally, the surface area of the skin on your face is relatively small and is not a significant producer of vitamin D, and it is also more susceptible to photoaging damage. So if you aren’t willing to wear a cap or hat and keep your eyes in the shade then I would recommend using a safe sunscreen to protect your skin from sun damage.

But you certainly don’t want to use most of the commercially available sunscreens under any condition, as they typically contain concerning toxic chemicals.

Last year, researchers at the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report that found nearly half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A and its derivatives, retinol and retinyl palmitate.10 According to EWG’s findings, 56 percent of sunscreens also contain oxybenzone, which is believed to cause hormone disruptions and the type of cell damage that can provoke cancer.

Interestingly, research has also shown that the regular use of tanning beds and the regular use of sunscreen had the same risk association for melanoma.11,12 Yet, if you ask the average person on the street what has a higher skin cancer risk, sunbeds or sunscreen use, they will virtually always say tanning beds. The higher risk of melanoma with sunscreen use has not been properly reported by the media or by the health authorities the general public relies on. We have been brainwashed into thinking that regular sunscreen use is quite safe!

For times when you do need sun protection, sunscreens available in most health food stores are often safe to use when the need arises – but for most of you who spend a great deal of your time indoors, the question isn’t how to get less sunlight but how to get enough.

Earlier this year, I compiled the most comprehensive details that I know of that will allow you to optimize your vitamin D levels by natural sun exposure.

I would strongly encourage you to have your blood level checked to confirm that your sun exposure is putting you in the right level. If it isn’t, or if sun exposure or safe tanning bed use is not a practical option for you, then you should consider supplementing with oral vitamin D3. (You want to avoid vitamin D2, as it is clearly inferior to D3.) The following chart shows the therapeutic levels of vitamin D you’ll want to reach and maintain.

Antioxidants Can Also Help Protect Your Skin From the Sun

Consuming antioxidants (and also potentially applying them topically) such as carotenoids and catechins (naturally occurring antioxidants found in tea) is one of the most overlooked forms of natural sun protection available. Carotenoids, for instance, are critical to the photosynthetic process and protect a plant or organism from damage by light and oxygen. By consuming plants or organisms that contain these pigments, you gain a similar protective benefit. In a sense, they are creating your own “internal sunscreen.” Studies have shown that consuming antioxidants may:
•Prevent UVA light-induced oxidative stress13
•Protect against alterations in human DNA induced by UVA light exposure14
•Help prevent photoaging of the skin (as measured by markers for skin damage)15

Although the exact pathway by which antioxidants help protect your skin from burning is not yet known, it is almost certain that anti-inflammatory properties are involved, as sunburn is actually an inflammatory process. So consuming a healthy diet full of natural antioxidants is an incredibly useful strategy to help avoid sun damage to your skin. In addition to the benefits noted above, fresh, raw, unprocessed foods deliver the nutrients that your body needs to maintain a healthy balance of omega-6 and omega-3 oils in your skin, which is your first line of defense against sunburn. Fresh, raw vegetables also provide your body with an abundance of powerful antioxidants that will help you fight the free radicals caused by sun damage that can lead to burns and cancer.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

With so much misinformation out there about food and how it affects human health, making healthy food choices for you and your family can be difficult and confusing. There are a number of specific foods; however, that you will want to avoid in almost every circumstance because they provide virtually no health benefits while posing plenty of health risks. Here are nine foods you should never eat again if you care about preserving your long-term health:

1) White bread, refined flours. By definition, white bread and refined flours in general are toxic for your body because they have been stripped of virtually all vitamins, minerals, fiber, and other important nutrients. Because of this, the body does not know how to properly digest and assimilate these so-called foods, which can lead to health problems. Refined white flour has also been bleached with chlorine and brominated with bromide, two poisonous chemicals that have been linked to causing thyroid and organ damage. (http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/BREAD.htm)

2) Conventional frozen meals. Most conventionally-prepared frozen meals are loaded with preservatives, processed salt, hydrogenated oils and other artificial ingredients, not to mention the fact that most frozen meals have been heavily pre-cooked, rendering their nutrient content minimal at best (especially after getting microwaved again at home). With the exception of a few truly healthy frozen meal brands such as Amy’s and Organic Bistro, most frozen meals are little more than disease in a box, so avoid them in favor of fresh foods. (http://www.4us2be.com)

3) White rice. Like white bread, white rice has been stripped of most of its nutrients, and separated from the bran and germ, two natural components that make up rice in its brown form. Even so-called “fortified” white rice is nutritionally deficient, as the body still processes this refined food much differently than brown rice, which is absorbed more slowly and does not cause the same spike in blood sugar that white rice does. (http://globalnaturopath.com)

4) Microwaveable popcorn. This processed food is a favorite among moviegoers and regular snackers alike, but it is one of the unhealthiest foods you can eat. Practically every component of microwaveable popcorn, from the genetically-modified (GM) corn kernels to the processed salt and preservative chemicals used to enhance its flavor, is unhealthy and disease-promoting. On top of this, microwaveable popcorn contains a chemical known as diacetyl that can actually destroy your lungs. If you love popcorn, stick with organic kernels that you can pop yourself in a kettle and douse with healthy ingredients like coconut oil, grass-fed butter, and Himalayan pink salt. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

5) Cured meat products with nitrates, nitrites. Deli meats, summer sausage, hot dogs, bacon, and many other meats sold at the grocery store are often loaded with sodium nitrite and other chemical preservatives that have been linked to causing heart disease and cancer. If you eat meat, stick with uncured, nitrite and nitrate-free varieties, and preferably those that come from organic, grass-fed animals. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028824_processed_meat_heart_disease.html)

6) Most conventional protein, energy bars. By the way they are often marketed, it might seem as though protein and energy bars are a strong addition to a healthy diet. But more often than not, these meal replacements contain processed soy protein, refined sugar, hydrogenated fat, and other harmful additives that contribute to chronic illness. Not all protein and energy bars are bad, of course — Thunderbird Energetica, Organic Food Bar, Boku Superfood, Vega Sport, PROBAR, and Zing all make healthy protein and energy bars. Just be sure to read the ingredient labels and know what you are buying.

7) Margarine. Hidden in all sorts of processed foods, margarine, a hydrogenated trans-fat oil, is something you will want to avoid at all costs for your health. Contrary to popular belief, butter and saturated fats in general are not unhealthy, especially when they are derived from pastured animals that feed on grass rather than corn and soy. And if animal-based fats are not for you, stick with extra-virgin coconut oil or olive oil rather than margarine. (http://www.naturalnews.com/027865_saturated_fat_health.html)

8) Soy milk and soy-based meat substitutes. One of the biggest health frauds of modern times, the soy craze is a fad that you will want to skip. Besides the fact that nearly all non-organic soy ingredients are of GM origin, most soy additives are processed using a toxic chemical known as hexane, which is linked to causing birth defects, reproductive problems, and cancer. Soy that has not been fermented is also highly estrogenic, which can throw your natural hormone balance out of whack. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026303_soy_protein_hexane.html)

9) “Diet” anything. Many so-called “diet” products on the market today contains artificial sweeteners like aspartame (Equal) and sucralose (Splenda), both of which are linked to causing neurological damage, gastrointestinal problems, and endocrine disruption. Many diet products also contain added chemical flavoring agents to take the place of fat and other natural components that have been removed to artificially reduce calorie content. Instead, stick with whole foods that are as close to nature as possible, including high-fat foods grown the way nature intended, and your body will respond surprisingly well. (http://www.naturalnews.com)

Sources for this article include:

http://www.rd.com/slideshows/15-foods-you-should-never-buy-again

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038467_foods_avoid_processed_meat.html#ixzz2GHjxqmur

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

How to build healthy bones at any age without prescription drugs

The key to maintaining healthy, strong bones does not necessarily involve taking high-dose calcium supplements or medicating yourself with osteoporosis drugs. Both of these approaches, in fact, can cause more harm than good if used indiscriminately, especially when other dietary and lifestyle factors that involve the root causes of bone loss remain unaddressed. Here are five nutrition and lifestyle-based approaches that will help correct and prevent bone loss at any age without the need for prescription drugs or mega-doses of calcium:

1) Balance your hormone levels. Even though their composition includes the calcium mineral, your bones do not become stronger simply by downing calcium pills every day. According to Dr. Al Sears, M.D., one of the primary causes of weak bones and age-related bone loss is actually hormone imbalance. It turns out that estrogen, testosterone, and other natural hormones are key regulators of bone health and breakdown, which means getting these hormones in proper balance is the first step towards long-term bone health.

“Bone building is hormonal,” wrote Dr. Sears in a 2009 paper on bone health. “In women, estrogens are the main regulators of bone health and breakdown. Progesterone controls the rate of new bone deposition. But the most powerful bone builder in both men and women is testosterone. Testosterone is central for achieving maximal bone mass and strength.” (http://www.alsearsmd.com/calcium-supplements-bones/)

2) Supplement with magnesium, zinc, iodine, and trace minerals. One of the best ways to balance your hormones and boost testosterone levels naturally is to avoid estrogenic foods like soy that tend to disrupt proper hormone balance, as well as supplement with synergistic, hormone-balancing nutrients like magnesium, zinc, iodine, and trace mineral complexes. Most Americans are grossly deficient in iodine because, with the exception of iodized salt (which contains very little usable iodine anyway), most foods in the modern American diet lack this important element. And without enough iodine, your thyroid gland, which is responsible for producing thyroid hormones and regulating calcium balance, fails to function as it should. (http://www.umm.edu/endocrin/thygland.htm)

Many people are also deficient in both magnesium and zinc, two vitally important minerals for the appropriate production of hormones. Magnesium is absolutely vital for your body to properly metabolize food and generate usable energy, as well as facilitate proper digestion and the development of bone tissue. Likewise, zinc is essential for the proper function of the endocrine system, as well as the balanced and sustained production of necessary hormones. These two minerals taken in conjunction with iodine and essential trace minerals are a recipe for healthy hormones and healthy bones. (http://www.charlespoliquin.com)

3) Engage in weight-bearing exercises regularly. Physical inactivity is another major contributing factor to weak bones and bone loss. In order for your body to know that it needs to continue producing more bone tissue, you have to actually use your body. This means regularly engaging in weight-bearing activities that put pressure not only on your bones but also on your muscles. This pressure actually trains your body to fortify bone mass naturally, and it works especially well when combined with the other dietary suggestions outlined here.

Dr. Sears suggests doing weight-bearing calisthenics exercises like pushups, pullups, and lunges, as well as resistance training, two or three times a week to promote stronger bones. Studies also show that walking, cycling, and playing sports can help strengthen bones and discourage bone fractures. Physical movement, in other words, is always a good thing when it comes to bone health.

4) Get plenty of vitamin D from the sun, tanning beds, or supplements. If vitamin D got the same media attention as calcium supplements do with regards to bone health, osteoporosis and other related bone conditions would be much more rare. Vitamin D, it turns out, is the primary vehicle through which the body is able to absorb not only calcium, but also phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, and the many other nutrients your body needs to build strong and healthy bones. (http://www.denverpost.com/food/ci_10711873)

Many people are deficient in vitamin D; however, which means their bodies are missing one of the key ingredients for healthy bones. Supplementing with daily doses of vitamin D3 around 10,000 international units (IU), and even as high as 20,000 IU, or making sure to regularly expose your skin to natural sunlight without sunscreen, will help ensure you maintain optimal vitamin D levels (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org). The Vitamin D Council has a vitamin D test kit that will help you determine whether or not your vitamin D levels are in a healthy range. (https://vitamindcouncil.zrtlab.com/)

5) Supplement with bone herbs, bone-building tea. If all this is not enough, you can also supplement with bone herbs like the “Strong Bones” formula developed by Ron Teeguarden’s Dragon Herbs. This particular blend contains 10 unique seeds, roots, bark, and bone that together help fortify bone structure. You can also steep and drink bone-building teas like the one created by Mother Earth Living. (http://www.motherearthliving.com)

Sources for this article include:

Calcium Supplements Don't Build Strong Bones

http://www.dragonherbs.com/prodinfo.asp?number=137

11 Herbs for Strong Bones

http://www.denverpost.com/food/ci_10711873

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

A new study, published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, a peer-reviewed journal indexed by the National Library of Medicine, analyzed more than 38,000 reports of infant hospitalizations and deaths following vaccinations.[1] Researchers found statistically significant correlations between the number of vaccine doses administered to infants and infant hospitalization and mortality rates: babies who receive the most vaccines tend to have higher (worse) hospitalization and death rates.

Infants who received 2 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 3 or more vaccines at the same time. Infants who received 3 vaccines simultaneously were significantly less likely to be hospitalized than infants who received 4 or more vaccines at the same time. Babies who received 6, 7, or 8 vaccines during a single pediatric well-baby visit were the most likely to be hospitalized following their injections. In fact, the hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for infants receiving 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for infants receiving 8 vaccine doses.

The authors of the study, Dr. Gary Goldman and Neil Z. Miller, also discovered that younger infants were significantly more likely to be hospitalized after receiving vaccinations than older infants. In addition, infants who received 5-8 vaccines simultaneously were significantly more likely to die following their shots than infants who received 1-4 vaccines simultaneously.

Several factors could contribute to whether an infant will have an adverse reaction to vaccines, including a genetic predisposition, illness (which may be a contraindication to vaccine administration), quality of vaccines (which can vary by manufacturing methods), and sensitivity to one or more vaccine components. Some infants might be more likely to experience an adverse reaction due to biochemical or synergistic toxicity associated with concurrent administration of multiple vaccines.

In 1990, infants received a total of 15 vaccine doses prior to their first year of life. By 2007, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended 26 vaccine doses for infants: 3 DTaP, 3 polio, 3 Hib, 3 hepatitis B, 3 pneumococcal, 3 rotavirus, and 2 influenza vaccines.

The CDC’s Childhood Immunization Schedule Was Not Tested for Safety, Lacks Scientific Veracity:

While each childhood vaccine has individually undergone clinical trials to assess safety, studies have not been conducted to determine the safety (or efficacy) of combining vaccines during a single physician visit as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) guidelines. For example, 2-, 4-, and 6-month-old infants are expected to receive vaccines for polio, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, rotavirus, Haemophilus influenzae type B, and pneumococcal, all during a single well-baby visit — even though this combination of 8 vaccines was never tested in clinical trials.

Although the CDC’s recommended childhood immunization schedule a) requires infants to receive up to 8 vaccines simultaneously, b) affects millions of infants annually, and c) was never scientifically tested for safety, the CDC had prior knowledge that combining chemical substances, including prescribed pharmaceuticals, “can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures.”[2]

Administering 6, 7, or 8 vaccine doses to an infant during a single physician visit may certainly be more convenient for parents — rather than making additional trips to the doctor’s office — but evidence of a positive association between infant adverse reactions and the number of vaccine doses administered confirms that vaccine safety must remain the highest priority.

The findings in this study show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). (The VAERS database is an important postmarketing safety surveillance tool that is periodically analyzed by the CDC, FDA, and other vaccine researchers to discover potentially adverse vaccination trends.) In addition, younger infants were significantly more likely than older infants to be hospitalized or die after receiving vaccines. These trends not only have a biological plausibility but are supported by evidence from case reports, case series, and other studies using entirely different methodologies and unique population cohorts. For example, in 2011, Miller and Goldman collaborated on another study showing that among developed nations infant mortality increased with an increase in the number of vaccine doses.[3]

Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority.

You may download the complete study here: Goldman-Miller Vaccine Study (PDF) or here: Goldman-Miller Vaccine Study

Funding Acknowledgment: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) donated $2500 for open access to the journal article (making it freely available to all researchers). NVIC is dedicated to preventing vaccine injuries and deaths through public education.

References:

1. Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990-2010. Hum Exp Toxicol October 2012; 31(10): 1012-1021.

2. Mixed exposures research agenda: a report by the NORA Mixed Exposures Team. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); DHHS (NIOSH) 2004. December 2005. p.106: vi.

3. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Hum Exp Toxicol September 2011; 30(9): 1420-1428. [Read this study here: Miller-Goldman Vaccine Study (PubMed)]

About the author:
Neil Z. Miller is a medical research journalist and the Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. He has devoted the last 25 years to educating parents and health practitioners about vaccines, encouraging informed consent and non-mandatory laws. He is the author of several books on vaccines, including
Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners; Make an Informed Vaccine Decision for the Health of Your Child (with Dr. Mayer Eisenstein); and Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? Past organizations that he has lectured for include the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association, the International College of Integrative Medicine, Autism One/Generation Rescue, the Hahnemann Academy of North America, and Dr. Gabriel Cousens’ Tree of Life Rejuvenation Center. Mr. Miller is a frequent guest on radio and TV talk shows, has a degree in psychology, and is a member of Mensa

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

How to Maximize Your Skin’s “Youth Quotient”

Startling Facts You Must Know About Anti-Aging Skincare Products Before You Buy Another One

“Hope in a jar”—that’s what most anti-aging creams are often called—because most of them sell just one thing … hope.

If you’re like most women or men between the ages of 30 to 80 (or beyond), you may have tried many anti-aging creams in an effort to …

==> reduce the look and feel of wrinkles and lines on your face …
==> recapture the look of your skin’s lost youth, or
==> put a stop to the signs of aging on your skin.

But most likely, once you started using the various anti-aging creams, you may have come to the realization (as most people have) that … they just don’t work—or they have marginal benefits at best.

Therefore, the question remains: Is there hope for perpetually youthful skin?

The fact is, you can significantly reduce your existing facial wrinkles … halt your skin’s aging … extend the life span of your skin … and maintain the look of youth for as long as you live. You simply have to avoid the pitfalls that sabotage your efforts—and learn how to identify the highest-performing anti-aging products that enable you to maximize your skin’s “youth quotient.”
Warning: Beware of These Common “Tricks”
Anti-Aging Skincare Companies Use to Fool You

Many anti-aging skincare companies use sneaky tricks to sell you products that could never accomplish what they promise. Here are just 3 ways they secretly fool you:

1) Ineffective Concentration of Anti-Aging Ingredients – Most anti-aging cream brands use the lowest concentration of active ingredients—instead of the concentration that has been shown in clinical studies to produce the anti-aging effects.

For example: One of the most celebrated anti-aging ingredients to emerge in recent years is Argireline® NP, which people have nicknamed “Topical Botox” because it mimics the wrinkle-reducing effect of Botox without the use of painful injections. What most people don’t realize is that many of the products that contain Argireline® NP only have a 3% concentration—even though it takes a 10% concentration to produce the phenomenal anti-aging effect.

In contrast, a top-tier anti-aging product like Transformation Skin Rejuvenating Crème contains the maximum 10% concentration, which is the only concentration that has been clinically proven to …

==> reduce the depth of wrinkles an average of 17% in 15 days; and
==> reduce the depth of furrows an average of 32% in 28 days.

Why do some skincare companies use low concentrations of active ingredients that clearly don’t deliver anti-aging results? Obviously, the reason is to minimize costs and maximize profits.

Another annoying practice that is quite common in the skincare industry is to put the least amount of an active ingredient in a product—just to be legally allowed to list it on their ingredient label. Needless to say, putting an insignificant amount of an ingredient into a product will also yield insignificant results.

2) A Delivery System That Does Not Deliver—Let’s face it. An anti-aging product that just sits on top of the skin—and isn’t delivered into the deep layers of the skin—is practically worthless. That’s just like pouring oil over water, expecting the oil to be absorbed by the water (which will never happen).

Unfortunately, the majority of anti-aging products do utilize a poor delivery system—one that does not get the active ingredients of the product into the layers of the skin where they can do the most good. Consequently, you get little to none of the product’s benefits. It’s no wonder why most anti-aging creams deliver only marginal results.

What’s more alarming is that some delivery systems are potentially unsafe.

A Skincare Delivery System
Banned by the FDA?

In recent years, delivery systems based on encapsulated nanoparticles have become a buzzword in skincare. Since nanoparticles are tiny enough to penetrate the skin cells, they were initially thought to be an excellent way to deliver active ingredients into the skin. That was until the FDA became concerned that nanoparticles alter the structure of the skin cells in ways that cannot be predicted—and this could pose potential health risks.

Although the skincare delivery system based on nano-technology is not yet banned, the FDA is actively investigating these real concerns.

The skincare delivery system that may quite possibly be the best on the market is one based on … oleosomes.

Oleosomes are little reservoirs present in the seeds of all crops, botanicals and nuts—and they protect the seed’s oil content. They consist of a core of vegetable oil and Vitamin E, surrounded by a phospholipid membrane and protein coat. Oleosomes are a next-generation encapsulation system that presents this trio of skincare benefits upon contact with the skin:

an excellent delivery system that releases the active ingredients,
the emollient oil and vitamin E deep into the skin
outstanding emulsification; and
long-lasting moisturization.

The best thing about oleosomes is that they perform their multi-functions in a completely natural way—and they provide a difference you can feel.

3) Incompatible Ingredients—Just because an anti-aging skincare product has ingredients that appear to be good doesn’t mean the product works. Almost anyone can formulate a product with impressive ingredients—but those ingredients need to be compatible and have synergistic action with each other in order for them to produce stunning anti-aging results. Just one drop more—or less—of any single ingredient in a skincare formula could cause the product not to be effective.

More importantly, an anti-aging product needs to have a track record of verifiable success in the form of real-life case studies of real people who have obtained the results that the product promises. Favorable word-of-mouth recommendations and repeat purchases are also an important benchmark of a product’s effectiveness … and definitely provide an indication of the users’ level of satisfaction.

Are These People Aging Backwards?

“Transformation has made my face smoother and more supple than it has been in years. I saw a handsome male friend I hadn’t seen in nearly 4 years. Within minutes of seeing me, he said, ‘I don’t know what you’re doing, but keep it up. You’re the only person I know who’s aging backwards.'” — Wendy K., Malibu, California, age 47

“I have been using skin creams since I was 12 and in the last 33 years have tried many products, from drug store brands, to department store brands to dermatologist-recommended skin creams. And none of them can compare to Transformation Skin Rejuvenating Crème. It is by far the best product that I have every tried for my skin. I’ve just ordered 3 more jars. The results have been amazing!” — Christine J., Jupiter, Florida, age 45

“I truly believe in this cream and love it! I never put an approval on something that I don’t truly believe in. This is a fantastic product. It makes my skin feel so soft and velvety. I can already see, in just a month, some of my wrinkles not so visible. It just feels richer, creamier than other skin creams I have used. I am 70 years old and this is making a big difference in my skin. It makes my skin feel like it is comparable to the Hollywood stars’ skin – very smooth and silky. Can you tell I really love this product? I told my friend about it and she is going to try it. I am telling all my friends about it.” — Judy D., Orem, Utah, age 70

“I absolutely love Transformation Skin Rejuvenating Crème. I have been using it for about 2 months and my sagging jaw line has definitely tightened and firmed up. My deeper lines between my eyes are getting better also. No other skin care product has given me these results, and I have purchased many, many brands.” — Julie M., Lake Havasu City, Arizona

Although there’s nothing you can do to stop the hands of time, there’s something you can do to stop the havoc that time wreaks on your skin. Instead of looking progressively older with every passing day—you could maximize your skin’s “youth quotient” and make your skin look 5, 10, or even 20 years younger—as though you’re aging in reverse—without cosmetic procedures or surgery.

Before you schedule a Botox injection or get an appointment with a cosmetic surgeon, find out how to maximize your skin’s ability to behave like it did when you were a decade or two younger. Discover the proprietary formula that a Beverly Hills company developed, which has the maximum concentration of anti-aging ingredients that work synergistically together … and which uses the revolutionary oleosome delivery system which helps make human skin look biologically younger.

Go to the following webpage to get the full story, and to experience the anti-aging effects of this DNA-based anti-aging formula for yourself:

http://www.on2url.com/app/adtrack.asp?MerchantID=199595&AdID=620375

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

An estimated 26 million Americans suffer with migraines. Approximately 80 percent of them are women. All in all, about one in five women get migraines while only one in 16 men get them, according to migraines.org.1 About 60 percent of women affected have menstrual-related migraines, meaning it tends to coincide with their menstrual cycle.

A migraine headache is characterized as an intense throbbing or pulsing headache, typically in one area or side of your head, and is commonly accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and extreme sensitivity to light and sound.

Those who have never had a migraine before can be very frightened with the neurological symptoms. The visual problems are most problematic as a migraine can simulate a stroke where you start to have disturbed vision and even short term visual loss and flashing lights.

Migraine attacks can cause debilitating pain for several hours to several days. Some migraineurs experience “aura” sensations before an attack. These are sensory warning symptoms, such as flashes of light, blind spots, or tingling in your arm or leg.

The featured article2 recently brought up the dietary links to migraines – specifically how the grain- and dairy-free Paleo diet appears to help banish the pain for many people. This is not entirely surprising, considering that milk and wheat are two major food allergens.

Are Food Allergies Causing Your Migraines?

Searching the medical literature in PubMed.gov using the search terms “migraine” and “food allergies” will provide you with more than 150 different studies.3 Some of the top migraine-inducing foods identified include:

Wheat

Cow’s milk

Grain cereals

Cane sugar

Yeast

Corn

Citrus

Eggs

Processed foods in general can also contribute to allergies for a number of different reasons, and most processed foods contain a variety of food colorings, flavors, preservatives, and other additives that may also promote headaches and migraines. Both aspartame and MSG are notorious for causing headaches and triggering migraines. Besides noting whether or not your migraines typically occur after eating a specific food, additional questions that can help you determine whether or not you might have a food sensitivity or allergy are:
•Do you experience bloating after meals, gas, frequent belching, or any kind of digestive problems?
•Do you have chronic constipation or diarrhea?
•Do you have a stuffy nose after meals?
•Do you have low energy or feel drowsy after eating?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, you may want to investigate further. Keeping a detailed food diary is the easiest way to start tracking down potentially migraine-inducing foods, as well as foods that cause other symptoms of sensitivity. Keep in mind that eliminating your migraines is not the only health benefit you can reap from identifying food allergies or sensitivities. Eliminating food antigens is also critical for gut health. I’ve written extensively on this topic, as medical science is now beginning to realize just how important your gut is, not just for physical health, but emotional and psychological health as well.

Elimination Diets Shown Helpful in Reducing or Eliminating Migraines

In a 1979 study published in the Lancet,4 60 migraineurs with food antigen immunoreactivity who were put on an elimination diet experienced profound relief. According to the author:

“The commonest foods causing reactions were wheat (78 percent), orange (65 percent), eggs (45 percent), tea and coffee (40 percent each), chocolate and milk (37 percent) each), beef (35 percent), and corn, cane sugar, and yeast (33 percent each).

When an average of 10 common foods were avoided there was a dramatic fall in the number of headaches per month, 85 percent of patients becoming headache-free. The 25 percent of patients with hypertension became normotensive. Chemicals in the home environment can make this testing difficult for outpatients. Both immunological and non-immunological mechanisms may play a part in the pathogenesis of migraine caused by food intolerance.”

A randomized, double blind, cross-over study published in 20105 also found that a six-week long diet restriction produced a statistically significant reduction in migraines in those diagnosed with migraine without aura. If you notice your migraines start up shortly after eating a specific food, then that’s a good place to start. Keep in mind that you can also be sensitive to food additives like artificial colors, preservatives, flavor enhancers (MSG), and aspartame so read the food labels, and note the ingredients in your food journal.

One of the best things you can do if you believe you are suffering from a food allergy is to do a diet elimination challenge. Simply remove all foods that contain what you believe you are allergic to and see if your symptoms improve over the next several days. Keep in mind that depending on your typical migraine frequency, you may need to avoid the suspected food for a few weeks in order to evaluate whether it had an effect or not.

To confirm the results, you’ll want to reintroduce the food or drink (on an empty stomach). If the suspected food is the culprit you will generally be able to feel the allergy symptoms return within an hour, although migraines can sometimes have a longer lag time than, say, bloating or drowsiness.

Diet for Migraine Relief

Quite a few people report ridding themselves of migraines on the Paleo diet, which can be summarized as “any food that can be eaten without being processed.” That means no grains, bread or pasta, and no pasteurized dairy, but does include lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, some nuts and oils along with wild caught fish, organic poultry and grass-fed lean meats. You can easily mold your diet around the principles of Paleo eating by following my nutrition plan. The full details are described in the plan, but generally speaking, the following key factors apply to any “healthy diet”:
•Eliminate all gluten products
•Eliminate the other 10 common foods that the Lancet study found helpful in making 85 percent of participants headache free
•Eliminate all artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame. My sister is one of many who will get a guaranteed migraine if she consumes any aspartame. Obviously, even if you don’t have migraines, there simply is no reason to ever consume aspartame
•Unprocessed whole foods
•Often raw or only lightly cooked (ideally, try to eat at least one-third of your food raw, or as much as you can manage)
•Organic or grass-fed, and free from additives and genetically modified ingredients
•Come from high-quality, local sources
•Carbohydrates primarily come from vegetables (except corn and potatoes, which should typically be avoided). Dramatically lowering your intake of non-vegetable carbs could improve leptin and insulin signaling which could also improve migraines

I believe a return to “real food” is one of the most profound interventions for the 21st century. We’ve strayed so far from the foods we are designed to eat, going back to basics and refocusing your diet on fresh, whole, unprocessed, “real” food can improve just about anyone’s health, regardless of what health issues you need to address.

Helpful Supplements and More

In terms of supplements that might be helpful for migraines, one of the most critical is ubiquinol (the reduced form of Coenzyme Q10). According to experts like Dr. Robert Barry, an underlying problem involved with migraines is mitochondrial dysfunction. Ubiquinol plays a vital role in ATP production, which is the basic fuel for your mitochondria. Your body does produce ubiquinol naturally, in fact it is the predominant form in most healthy cells, tissues and organs, however, with rampant pollution and poor diet, mitochondrial dysfunction has become increasingly common.

A 2005 study published in Neurology6 found that CoQ10 was superior to a placebo in preventing migraines and reducing severity. Of the patients who received 100 mg of CoQ10 three times a day, 50 percent reported significantly reduced frequency of headaches compared to only 14 percent of those who took the placebo. Ubiquinol is the reduced form of CoQ10, and studies have repeatedly demonstrated that it is far more effective than CoQ10 due to its superior bioavailability.

Other dietary supplements that can be helpful for migraines include:
•Magnesium. This is probably the most important one as it contributes to relaxing the brain blood vessels that cause the pain. The best magnesium supplement I know of is magnesium threonate as it penetrates cell membranes, including the mitochondria, and no other magnesium supplement does this. Interestingly, some of the best drugs used to treat migraines are calcium channel blockers, and that is how magnesium works. Supplemental magnesium would be FAR safer than a calcium channel blocker
•Vitamin B2 (riboflavin)
•Vitamin B6
•Vitamin B12
•Folic acid

A 2009 study7 evaluated the effect of 2 mg of folic acid, 25 mg vitamin B6, and 400 micrograms of vitamin B12 in 52 patients diagnosed with migraine with aura. Compared to the placebo group, those receiving these supplements experienced a 50 percent reduction in migraine disability over a six-month period. Previous studies, such as a 2004 study in the European Journal of Neurology,8 have also reported that high doses of B2 (riboflavin) can help prevent migraine attacks.

Patients received 400 mg riboflavin per day. Headache frequency was reduced from four days per month at baseline to two days per month after three months. Headache duration and intensity did not change significantly however. Keep in mind that prophylactic supplement regimens may take several weeks to produce results, so don’t give up too soon. Typically, if the supplement is the right one, you’ll notice results in about three to six months.

Exercise is something that should also be considered as an enormously useful strategy.

Last but not least, the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) often provides results for migraine headache relief. Newcomers who use this simple process by themselves tend to achieve relief 50 percent to 80 percent of the time. EFT is a very profound intervention that can be used in addition to the above strategies, it can also be useful for helping compliance to the lifestyle changes recommended.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Indigestion has many aspects, from simply feeling bloated and too full to full blown IBS (irritable bowel syndrome) or IBD (inflammatory bowel disease). The latter includes both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease.

Basic eating habits can prevent simple indigestion and keep gastrointestinal disorders away or minimize them if they already exist. Start with a good eating environment that’s without stress, bad feelings, or talking about stressful activities. Actually, too much of any gabbing interferes with good digestion.

That’s because digestion begins with enzymes and beneficial bacteria from the saliva in the mouth. Cramming in to much food with each bite and swallowing after only two or three chews overwhelms the beginning of digestive function.

It’s also a good idea to avoid cold beverages while eating. Liquids should not be cooler than room temperature. Ayurveda and Chinese medicine point respect to what they call the fire of digestion that begins in the stomach. Also, drink sparingly while eating, lest you drown the fire of digestion.

The foundation for proper food mixing is based on not mixing foods that require different time spans for complete digestion. Animal foods, especially meats, take the longest. Next comes complex carbohydrates, such as whole grains. Then simple carbohydrates, refined grains, etc.

Fruits are digested the quickest. That’s why they should be eaten away from main meals. The same goes for processed carbohydrate or sugary desserts. When slower digesting foods mix into the faster digesting foods, fermentation can occur leading to indigestion.

It’s also a good idea to include soluble fiber foods with insoluble fiber foods, with an attempt toward eating soluble fiber foods first. For example, your main dish with rice or potatoes (soluble fiber) should precede salad (insoluble fiber). Source [1] below contains lists of soluble and insoluble fiber foods.

Herb and spice remedies for indigestion
(1) Aloe vera juice is great for digestive problems and healthy in so many other ways. It can be regarded as a miracle plant juice. Look for unadulterated, unsweetened, unpasteurized, and non-irradiated aloe vera juice, whether pressed from whole leaves or the fileted gel within the leaf.

The whole leaf versus gel only controversy is one you should explore to decide what makes sense to you. Aloe vera is anti-inflammatory, anti-viral, anti-oxidant, and anti-cancer. It requires only a little aloe vera consumption to handle digestive problems, but much more to cure cancer. It also facilitates detoxification.

Aloe vera has been clinically proven (though not publicized by MSM) to handle both extremes and a lot of health issues in between. (http://www.naturalnews.com/021858_aloe_vera_gel.html)

(2) A simple technique of thoroughly chewing a handful of dry fennel seeds after eating can facilitate good digestion. These are usually available in Indian restaurants the way mints are up for grabs in many western eateries. But you can have them on hand at home cheaply. Some swear by fennel tea for indigestion.

(3) Ginger and coriander aid digestion. Ginger powder or ground ginger root can be used as a spice. Ginger tea or capsules soothes many digestive disorders or upset stomachs from motion sickness or other causes.

Coriander seeds or powders are used in Indian and Chinese cuisine. Their additions are great for promoting good digestion. Using the coriander anti-inflammatory plant leaves, commonly known as cilantro, helps remove heavy metals from your system. (http://www.naturalnews.com/035741_heavy_metals_cilantro_detox.html)

(4) Fermented foods contain naturally produced probiotic beneficial bacteria. They should be eaten often. They include sauerkraut, miso, kimchi, pickles, aged cheese, “live” yogurts, and fresh sourdough bread baked without bromine and without preservatives.

Making your own milk or water kefir helps you maintain the proper beneficial to pathogenic balance of 85 to 15 in your gut. (http://www.naturalnews.com/036419_probiotics_immunity_bacteria.html)

Reversing or reducing this optimum ratio leads to Candida overgrowth and a plethora of weird symptoms too difficult to diagnose for most MDs.

Less sugar and fewer refined carbs in your diet will also help maintain that intestinal flora balance. Avoid antibiotics. Be prepared to take heavy doses of probiotic supplements if you’re forced into antibiotic use.

Sources for this article include:

[1] Souble fiber foods http://www.helpforibs.com/diet/fiber1.asp and Non-soluble fiber foods http://www.helpforibs.com/diet/fiber2.asp

http://www.healthandyoga.com/html/product/fennel.aspx

http://www.herballegacy.com/Baldwin_Medicinal.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038434_indigestion_home_remedies_spices.html#ixzz2FxX0vsSS

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

McDonald’s serving up ‘restructured meat technology’ – you want fries with that?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038442_McDonalds_McRib_sandwich_restructured_meat_technology.html#ixzz2FxUGWquq

Well, it’s that time of year again when McDonald’s rolls out its venerable McRib sandwich. Tens of millions of Americans will purchase one – or, judging by the nation’s ever-widening belt line, several – but most will do so without knowing all they should know about this popular sandwich.

Besides high caloric content, there are several other reasons why you should avoid the McRib, a boneless pork product smothered in BBQ sauce that famously resembles a rack of ribs, as much as you avoid most of the other “delicacies” served by this fast-food behemoth. In addition, The Blaze reports, there are several “fun facts” about the sandwich you may not have known:

A sandwich ‘built’ from scratch?: The McRib is a product of Rene Arend, who came up with the idea and design of the sandwich. That said, Richard Mandigo, a professor from the University of Nebraska, who developed the “restructured meat product” that the McRib is actually made of.

According to Chicago magazine, citing a 1995 article by Mandigo, “restructured meat product” is described thusly:

Restructured meat products are commonly manufactured by using lower-valued meat trimmings reduced in size by comminution (flaking, chunking, grinding, chopping or slicing). The comminuted meat mixture is mixed with salt and water to extract salt-soluble proteins. These extracted proteins are critical to produce a “glue” which binds muscle pieces together. These muscle pieces may then be reformed to produce a “meat log” of specific form or shape. The log is then cut into steaks or chops which, when cooked, are similar in appearance and texture to their intact muscle counterparts. … Such products as tripe, heart, and scalded stomachs are high in protein, completely edible, wholesome, and nutritious, and most are already used in sausage without objection.

Still hungry?

Packed with calories – and ingredients: In a time of labeling, when government entities and the public are pushing for more disclosure, the package for the McRib would have to grow just to list all of its ingredients.

According to the current box labeling, the sandwich consists of just five basic components – a pork patty and BBQ sauce with pickle slices, onions and a sesame bun.

But, as Time magazine points out, a closer examination of McDonald’s own list of ingredients reveals that the sandwich contains a total of 70 ingredients, including azodicarbonamide, a flour-bleaching component that is often used to produce foamed plastics (think gym mats and the soles of shoes). In fact, “the compound is banned in Europe and Australia as a food additive,” says Time. Other ingredients include ammonium sulfate and polysorbate 80.

Besides, the sandwich itself contains an incredible amount of calories – 500 at least – along with 26 grams of fat, 44 grams of carbohydrates and 980 milligrams of sodium, nearly half the recommended daily amount of about 2,400 milligrams.

Not a good choice for your heart: The ingredients, combined with a dose of 10 mg of saturated fat (nearly half of the recommended daily allowance), make the McRib an enemy of a healthy heart, say the experts.

“Think about that for a second: When you eat a McRib, you’re eating the same chemical ingredients and compounds in those disgusting yoga mats at the gym. And that’s on top of the fact that it tastes terrible in the first place,” writes Rick Paulas, food editor for KCET, a public television network in southern California. “Which means it’s time to ask: Why are we still eating this?”

That’s a very valid question. In the meantime, that sound you hear is the further tightening of the nation’s belt line.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.