Rather Be Healthy

Attention pain sufferers…

The 5 Most Dangerous Pain Medications…

Advil… Aleve… Bayer… Celebrex… Demerol… Motrin… Naproxen… Oxycontin… Percocet… Tylenol… Ultram… Vicodin…

Find Out Which Are Safe and
Which Can Be Deadly…

When you think of dangerous drugs, what comes to mind first? Heroin?… Cocaine?… LSD?…

… How about pain pills?

Pain medications and adverse drug reactions are the 4th leading cause of death in the U.S…. only behind heart disease, cancer and strokes!

What does this mean to you?

It means your risk of dying from that pain medicine in your cabinet could be higher than your chance of dying from diabetes, lung disease, or even an accident – unless you take heed to this special report.

The results of our investigation are shocking… But they could save your life.

Dangerous Pain Meds #5: Salicylates (Aspirin)

Common names: aspirin, acetylsalicylate

Think aspirin is safe? Think again!

Higher doses or prolonged use at the lower dose – even in buffered or coated form – can double your likelihood of perforated ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeding.

Research shows 90-95% of Reye’s Syndrome cases were preceded by taking aspirin. The disease devastates internal organs, particularly the brain and liver, and at least 10% of those affected will die even with early treatment.

Dangerous Pain Meds #4: Acetaminophen

Common names: Tylenol, acetaminophen

Even the “doctor’s choice” is disturbingly dangerous to take! Just check out these stats if you don’t believe me…

Every year, more than 56,000 people will visit the emergency room due to acetaminophen overdoses. It’s the leading cause of calls to Poison Control Centers.

It’s the leading cause of acute liver failure, causing nearly half of all cases!

Dangerous Pain Meds #3: Opiate-Based Pain Meds

Common names: Vicodin, Lorcet, Norco, Percocet, Percodan, hydrocodone, oxycodone

If you’ve ever had surgery, a major accident, or any other major trauma to your body… you were likely given an opiate-based pain med to knock out the pain.

Unfortunately, knocking out the pain has it’s consequences!

16,000 – That’s the number of people who died in the United States in one year from drug overdoses. Most were caused by opiates.

In 2002… deaths from prescription opiate overdoses had nearly doubled.

Dangerous Pain Medicine #2: NSAIDs

Common names: Advil, Aleve, ibuprofen, naproxen

Do you have some kind of chronic pain? Arthritis… back pain… neck pain… something else?

Chances are you’ve been taking one of the common NSAIDs like ibuprofen or naproxen to deal with the pain.

And speaking of chances…

The odds of dying from taking a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug after just two months is around 1 in 1,200.

Roughly 16,685 people die each year from NSAID related complications… making them just as dangerous as AIDS!

The biggest known risk of NSAIDs is from gastrointestinal ulcers and bleeding.

We’re not talking about a little tummy ache here, but severe bleeding and possibly death after the medicine destroys your gut. And that’s not the only known risk.

Dangerous Pain Medicine #1: Cox-2 Inhibitors

Common names: Celebrex, celecoxib

How would you like to triple your risk of heart attack?

Just pick up a prescription of Celebrex.

While studying the drug’s potential as an anti-cancer drug, the National Cancer Institute discovered that…

Those taking 400mg doses had 250% greater risk of dying from heart attack or stroke… and those taking the 800mg doses has 340% times the risk!

If you found this article informative please share it with others…

Scary, isn’t it?

The good news is, there are many pain relievers that are just as effective, but don’t come with the harsh side-effects and dangers.

After 7 years of research and development, we have uncovered 12 of the most potent and natural pain relievers in the world.

We’ve combined them into the most effective anti-inflammatory and natural pain reliever.
If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Wheat and grain-based foods are all around us. We love our bagels, pasta, bread, and breakfast cereals. For many, the thought of eliminating these staples from our diets seems wholly unreasonable, if not ludicrous. But a growing number of people are switching to wheat-free diets — and for very good reason. As science is increasingly showing, eating wheat increases the potential for a surprising number of health problems. Here’s why you should probably stop eating wheat.

Without a doubt, wheat plays a major role in our diets. It supplies about 20% of the total food calories worldwide, and is a national staple in most countries

But as is well known, some people, like those with celiac disease, need to stay away from it. The problem is that their small intestine is unable to properly digest gluten, a protein that’s found in grains. But wheat is being increasingly blamed for the onset of other health conditions, like obesity, heart disease, and a host of digestive problems — including the dramatic rise in celiac-like disorders.

So what’s going on? And why is everybody suddenly blaming wheat?

The answer, it appears, has to do with a whole lot of nastiness that’s present in grain-based foods. Wheat raises blood sugar levels, causes immunoreactive problems, inhibits the absorption of important minerals, and aggravates our intestines.

And much of this may stem from the fact that wheat simply ain’t what it used to be.

Hybridized wheat

Indeed, today’s wheat is a far cry from what it was 50 years ago.

Back in the 1950s, scientists began cross-breeding wheat to make it hardier, shorter, and better-growing. This work, which was the basis for the Green Revolution — and one that won U.S. plant scientist Norman Borlaug the Nobel Prize — introduced some compounds to wheat that aren’t entirely human friendly.

As cardiologist Dr. William Davis noted in his book, Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight and Find Your Path Back to Health, today’s hybridized wheat contains sodium azide, a known toxin. It also goes through a gamma irradiation process during manufacturing.

But as Davis also points out, today’s hybridized wheat contains novel proteins that aren’t typically found in either the parent or the plant — some of which are difficult for us to properly digest. Consequently, some scientists now suspect that the gluten and other compounds found in today’s modern wheat is what’s responsible for the rising prevalence of celiac disease, “gluten sensitivity,” and other problems.

Gluten and Gliadin

No doubt, gluten is a growing concern — and it’s starting to have a serious impact on our health, and as a result, our dietary choices.

Gluten is a protein composite of gliadin and glutenin that appears in wheat as well as other grains like rye, barley, and spelt. It’s also what gives certain foods that wonderful, chewy texture. Gluten also helps dough to rise and keep its shape.

The problem, however, is in how it’s metabolized. According to Alessio Fasano, the Medical Director for The University of Maryland’s Center for Celiac Research, no one can properly digest gluten.

“We do not have the enzymes to break it down,” he said in a recent interview withTenderFoodie. “It all depends upon how well our intestinal walls close after we ingest it and how our immune system reacts to it.” His concern is that the gluten protein, which is abundant in the endosperm of barley, rye, and wheat kernels, is setting off an aberrant immune response.

Specifically, the gliadin and glutenin are acting as immunogenic anti-nutrients. Unlike fruits, which are meant to be eaten, grains have a way of fighting back. They create an immunogenic response which increases intestinal permeability, thus triggering systemic inflammation by the immune system — what can lead to any number of autoimmune diseases, including celiac, rheumatoid arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, and so on. And this holds true for people who don’t have celiac disease.

Davis also believes that gliadin degrades to a morphine-like compound after eating, what creates an appetite for more wheat; his claim, therefore, is that wheat actually has an addictive quality to it.

Gliadin, what scientists call the “toxic fraction of gluten,” has also been implicated in gut permeability. When someone has an adverse reaction, it’s because gliadin cross talks with our cells — what causes confusion and a leak in the small intestines. Fasano explains:

Gliadin is a strange protein that our enzymes can’t break down from the amino acids (glutamine and proline) into elements small enough for us to digest. Our enzymes can only break down the gliadin into peptides. Peptides are too large to be absorbed properly through the small intestine. Our intestinal walls or gates, then, have to separate in order to let the larger peptide through. The immune system sees the peptide as an enemy and begins to attack.

The difference is that in a normal person, the intestinal walls close back up, the small intestine becomes normal again, and the peptides remain in the intestinal tract and are simply excreted before the immune system notices them. In a person who reacts to gluten, the walls stay open as long as you are consuming gluten. How your body reacts (with a gluten sensitivity, wheat allergy or Celiac Disease) depends upon how long the gates stay open, the number of “enemies” let through and the number of soldiers that our immune system sends to defend our bodies. For someone with Celiac Disease, the soldiers get confused and start shooting at the intestinal walls.

The effects of gluten and gliadin clearly vary from person to person. But as a recent study showed, nearly 1.8 million Americans have celiac disease, and another 1.4 million are likely undiagnosed. And surprisingly, another 1.6 million have adopted a gluten-free diet despite having no diagnosis.

In addition, it’s estimated that about 18 million Americans have “non-celiac gluten sensitivity,” which results in cramps and diarrhea.

High glycemic index

Wheat also raises blood sugar. As Davis notes, the glycemic index of wheat is very high (check out this chart from Harvard to see how various foods rank). It contains amylopectin A, which is more efficiently converted to blood sugar than just about any other carbohydrate, including table sugar.

Consequently, two slices of whole wheat bread increases blood sugar levels higher than a single candy bar. Overdoing the wheat, says Davis, can result in “deep visceral fat.”

Wheat can also trigger effects that aren’t immediately noticeable. Small low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles form after eating lots of carbohydrates — which are responsible for atherosclerotic plaque, which in turn can trigger heart disease and stroke. And in fact, it has been shown that a wheat-free diet can improve glucose tolerance in individuals with ischaemic heart disease.

Lectins

Lectins, which are a class of molecules, can be found in beans, cereal grains, nuts, and potatoes. And when consumed in excess, or when not cooked properly, they can be harmful.

Now, most lectins are actually quite benign, and in some cases they can even be therapeutic — like fighting some forms of HIV.

But the problem with some lectins, like the ones found in whole grains, is that they bind to our insulin receptors and intestinal lining. This increases inflammation and contributes to autoimmune disease and insulin resistance. It also facilitates the symptoms of metabolic syndrome outside of obesity.

Phytic acid

Phytates are also a problem, a compound that’s found within the hulls of nuts, seeds, and grains. Phytic acid cannot be digested by humans. And worse, it binds to metal ions like calcium, magnesium, zinc, and iron. In turn, these minerals cannot be properly absorbed after eating.

Consequently, any minerals that might be provided by consuming grain-based foods are not well metabolized. So phytates, combined with gluten, make it difficult for the body to absorb nutrients — which can lead to anemia and osteoporosis.

The Fiber myth

Lastly, a common argument in favor of continuing to eat whole grains is that they provide necessary fiber. This is actually a bit of a myth. As nutrition expert Mark Sisson has noted, “Apart from maintaining social conventions in certain situations and obtaining cheap sugar calories, there is absolutely no reason to eat grains.”

And indeed, we can get adequate amounts of insoluble fiber simply by eating plenty of fruits and vegetables.

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

In an interview with ElectromagneticHealth.org, Magda Havas, PhD, associate professor of Environment & Resource Studies at Trent University,1 Canada shares many of the deceptions surrounding cell phone science.2
As an expert in radiofrequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity and ground current, she is uniquely qualified to shed light on why it may appear as though cell phones are perfectly safe, when in fact the science itself shows the radiation cell phones emit is anything but …
Deception Apparent at All Levels of the Scientific Process
Deception starts even before a study begins, as soon as the funding source is determined. If it’s an industry-funded study, the results are likely to overwhelmingly favor industry. And if they don’t, confidentiality agreements typically have been signed that prevent the research from ever seeing the light of day.
What this means is that even if you scour the scientific literature to determine what the consensus is on any given health topic, what you’ll find is an overwhelming preponderance of data in favor of the industry that in no way, shape or form reflects the reality of what the empirical results of the scientific investigation that went into that specific product actually revealed. “No Risk Found” might be the message, when significant risk was found.
Havas notes research by Dr. Henry Lai, a University of Washington scientist in cellular and molecular engineering, who reviewed 85 papers on the DNA-damaging effects of the type of microwave radiation that comes from cell phones. Seventy-five percent of the studies that showed no genotoxic effects were funded by the wireless industry or the military, while 80 percent of those that showed a connection were not.
In reality, only university researchers who are not beholden to industry funding are technically “free” to share and report their science, but even then, many are harassed if they attempt to do so. As TIME reported:3
“… independent studies on cell phone radiation found dangers at more than twice the rate of industry-funded studies — though because the cell phone industry is the source of much of the funding of cell phone studies, there are far more of the latter.
… Time and again … industry has been able to twist science just enough to stave off the possibility of any regulation — and finds that researchers are afraid of challenging the status quo, lest they find themselves suddenly out of a job, denied the lifeblood of research money.
Most of the few brave researchers who challenge the prevailing wisdom on cell phone radiation — like the electrical engineer Om Gandhi or the bioengineer Henry Lai — are senior scientists, secure in their positions and their tenure. But a young researcher just starting out is far more vulnerable to industry pressure. Science isn’t as pristine as we imagine it.”
Study Designs Often Knowingly Deceive
There are numerous ways to “rig” a trial so that it produces the desired results. In the cell phone realm, for instance, studies have found an increased risk of tumors after a period of 10 years of use among moderate to heavy users, levels that would be considered very light users by today’s standards. In order to water down this finding, industry-funded research may focus on light cell phone users only.
For example, defining a ‘regular user’ as someone who used cell phone once a week), or limit the study to a shorter period of time where one would not expect to find risk, or exclude business users of cell phones (usually the heaviest users) from the analysis, usually the heaviest users, as in the Danish Cellphone Subscriber Cohort study, which was roundly criticized by scientists worldwide.4 The end result is a study appears to show that cell phones are “safe,” when in reality it has intentionally removed the variables that would show harm.
Of the Danish Cellphone Subscriber Cohort study, which continues to be paraded out with updates repeating the same flawed conclusions, Don Maisch, PhD of EMF Facts in Australia says:
“How could the glaring error of excluding corporate subscribers from the analysis be overlooked and the fact that all new subscribers post 1995 were relegated to being considered as non-users. As the old saying goes, ‘rubbish in rubbish out.'”
According to Swedish investigative journalist Mona Nilsson, the Danish study is now being put forth as the “gold standard of epidemiology” in efforts to reverse the IARC decision that classified RF as a ‘Possible Carcinogen,’ along with claims that the Interphone study found no risk, which, she said, “clearly showed increased risks for today’s normal users.”
Nilsson says:
“The most striking deception in EMF science I know of is the CEFALO study, and calling the results ‘reassuring.’ Not only did the results indicate the opposite, increasing risks for children using mobile phones, but the study was clearly manipulated by the treatment of the cordless phone exposures.”
The CEFALO study, a four-country, industry-funded study, “Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumors in Children and Adolescents: A Multicenter Case–Control Study,” published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute,5 is a clear example where the study’s conclusions and the PR are contradicted by the study’s results, says Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org.
“It showed a 274% increased risk of brain cancer from cell phones, in children ages 7-19; that children have nearly 4x the risk compared to adults; that younger children have greater risk of brain cancer than older children; and that girls have greater risk of brain cancer than boys”.
The spin included:
• “The authors found little or no evidence that mobile phones increase brain tumor risk, and the single positive association could be explained by bias or chance”…when in fact the data show multiple positive associations.
• “The lack of genotoxicity of mobile phone radiation has been confirmed by experimental animal and laboratory studies” (citing only 2 papers from 1999 and 2001 vs. the multiplicity of papers showing genotoxicity published in the last decade.)
• No conflict of interest statements from the authors were included, while many of the study’s authors are known to be linked to industry and to other research supporting industry’s interests.
The Interphone study, which cost more than $30 million to carry out (part of which was funded by the mobile phone industry) and was intended to provide the final word about cell phone brain tumor risks, is one of the most notorious examples of this.
When the results initially came out, they ignited a lightening storm of media headlines, many claiming, falsely, that the study found no link, or unclear evidence, linking cell phones to brain cancer. But when you look at Interphone’s results in light of its design flaws, and include the information contained in two appendices, they paint a very dangerous picture for the health future of regular, every day cell phone users.
ElectromagneticHealth.org reports:
“Note that two Appendices in the International Journal of Epidemiology show very different results than those published in the article, “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the Interphone international case control study.”
How is it that in the very same journal results from the same study can appear so different? Appendix 1 shows an 84% increased risk of meningioma for those who used a digital phone 1,640 or more hours. And those who used both digital and analog phones, or if the type of phone was unknown, had a 343% increased risk of meningiomas. But the original article published on Interphone results showed a decreased risk of meningiomas, or no risk at all, from cell phone use.
Appendix 2 shows much higher risk of gliomas than what was published in the original article. There is no good explanation for the very different results published for gliomas and meningiomas, nor any sense to publishing the appendices separately from the study itself unless one wanted to lower the reader’s chances of seeing them. A video of the Interphone study design flaws featuring Lloyd Morgan can be found at ElectromagneticHealth.org.6
While certain media outlets continue to claim that regular cell phone use is unlikely to cause brain cancer, you should know that Interphone found “heavy users” of cell phones–aka very light users today–were found to have an approximately doubled risk of glioma, a life threatening and often-fatal brain tumor, after 10 years of cell phone use.
In other words, depending on your cell phone use you may be doubling your risk of a potentially fatal brain tumor. If you’re a heavy user, your risk is likely much higher. A team of international EMF activists — the International EMF Collaborative – even released a report detailing 15 serious design flaws of the Interphone study, “Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern,” highlighting what they call a ‘systemic-skew’ in the design that underestimated brain tumor risk (calculated subsequently to be a 25% underestimation).7 Among them:
1. Categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones) as ‘unexposed’
2. Excluding many types of brain tumors
3. Excluding people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed as a consequence of their brain tumor
4. Excluding children and young adults, who are more vulnerable to the effects of radiation and who now use cell phones heavily
The Interphone study also has data on two other tumor types, acoustic neuromas and salivary gland tumors, which have been associated with cell phone use in the past. But the information was mysteriously left out of the published results, and some of the most damning results of what was published were only published in an Appendix to the study only available online, results that were not to be found in the study’s abstract or media headlines. After closely reviewing the facts and the flaws of Interphone, the report concluded:
• There is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use
• Telecom-funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors
• Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors
A subsequent mathematical analysis, “Re-evaluation of the Interphone Study: Application of a Correction Factor,” presented at the Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting in Seoul, Korea in 2010 by Lloyd Morgan, calculated there was at least an approximately 25% underestimation of risk in the Interphone study’s results.8
Even the Way Science Is Published and Reported Makes a Major Difference in Perception
Research journals tend to be more likely to publish studies that show dramatic results, positive results, or results from “hot” competitive fields. Some journal editors also get money from industry to act as consultants or expert witnesses in hearings, and this obviously poses a conflict of interest regarding which studies end up being published.
Even then, once a study makes it into a journal, a study may leave crucial data out of the abstract (which is the only part most people read), making it appear favorable when it’s not. Then the media will pick up on the study, and continue to further spread the misleading information. Typically, when the media reports a study about the risks of cell phones, they will counter it with input from an industry “expert” who reaffirms that cell phones are safe. This goal of ‘balancing the coverage’ gives the impression that the jury is still out regarding cell phone risks, when in reality there are now too many studies showing harm to ignore, and the long-term trend data is starting to accumulate.
For example, in a presentation recently in San Francisco at the American Public Health Association conference, a poster by Yueh-Ying Hab, PhD et al presented evidence showing that in the years 1990-2009 in the U.S. the incidence of gliomas in people less than 50 years of age is increasing for males and females. In all the age groups considered (<20 yrs, 20-29, 30-39 and 40-49) the increases were statistically significant or very near significant. We have also recently seen a doubling of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), the worst kind of brain cancer, in Denmark, in the last 10 years, and similar findings in Australia.9 It would certainly be more helpful if journalists would read and ponder the evidence, and then draw their own conclusions, instead of merely enabling a public forum (i.e. "he said, she said") that only helps to publicize what manipulators of the information would like people to believe — that there is no consensus and no certainty about risks. An excellent book on how industries with commercial interests can manipulate science, manufacture perceptions about risks, and influence policy is "Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health." Sometimes, due to design flaws in EMF studies, the results can be fantastical, even showing RF exposure has protective effect for brain tumors, as was found in certain Interphone studies. If the flaw systematically underestimates the risk of brain cancer, as the Interphone study does, this pushes down the risk to where it becomes protection. Of course, this is just an artifact of the design flaws. Yet, despite the design flaws, the Interphone study found a more than doubled risk of brain tumors among the highest users of cell phones. Because of the systemic underestimation of risk, the more than doubled risk found is higher than was published. This is especially noteworthy, given Lin is an ICNIRP Commissioner. Once, a study assessing risk of lymphoma from GSM mobile phone radiation exposure in mice actually showed increased weight gain in mice that had already died. James C. Lin, a Commissioner of International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), described this observation in The Radio Science Bulletin.10 He said: "There are also some rather glaring inconsistencies in the published data. For example, some or all of the mice were dead after 18 or 20 months, but had weight gains up to 26 months." The "Non-Replication Replication" Study Common, according to Lloyd Morgan, are these "non-replication replication studies," or studies that pretend to "improve" the initial study that found adverse health effects. An 'improved" study is by definition not a replication, thus it become a non-replication, replication study. The most egregious example of this was the non-replication, replication study that reported mice that had died continued to gain weight." The journal that published the study, Radiation Research, has been called "The Cult of Negative Results" in a lengthy expose by Microwave News that is well worth reading.11 Morgan says: "Many years ago at a Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) meeting there was a study that purported to find no expression of stress genes from exposure to 50 Hz electromagnetic fields. Following the presentation, I asked the presenter if he had used a pure 50 Hz sine wave. He replied, 'Of course.' I responded, 'I guarantee you that if you had turned the sine wave off and on once a minute you would have found an effect.' His reply was all telling. He said 'But Reba Goodman, says it must be turned off and on every 20 minutes.' It was all telling because he knew the literature and had designed the study to not find an effect, which is what he was reporting. This is but one of many techniques used to not find anything." Another book on deceptions in science is "Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research." The authors explain both financial and legal tactics political and corporate advocates use to discredit or suppress research on potential human health risks, such as scientists finding "their research blocked, or themselves threatened with financial ruin." Sadly, not just corporations, but their attorneys, government agencies and think tanks have evidently been caught suppressing or mis-communicating science on matters of public health and safety. Misleading Information Often Spread by the Media Sometimes the media itself is responsible for spreading inaccurate and misleading information, such as occurred with an article published in The Economist last year,12 which included such statements as "Concerns about the danger posed to human health by radio waves are misplaced — and increasingly irrelevant." A team of more than two-dozen international experts in the field rebutted the article and gave extensive corrections to the technical errors and misleading statements in the article,13 but it appears no correction was ever published, though it was distributed widely to editorial staff and management at The Economist. As for why The Economist chose to publish such a misleading and incompletely researched article in the first place, the experts questioned:14 "Readers are left to wonder whether the significant advertising revenues generated from cellphones may account for The Economist's lopsided and misleading editorial. One analysis of U.S. newspaper advertising conducted by ElectromagneticHealth.org in 2010 showed that print ad space from telecommunications businesses was estimated to be between 1.77% and 11.40% of total print advertising space during the sample period. How much advertising revenue does The Economist and its related entities receive from telecommunications advertising, and what steps has The Economist taken to ensure balanced reporting on this vitally important industry?" The highly misleading information in The Economist article, with no byline on the article, circulated globally to Economist readers, who are located in 90 countries, and in 30 languages. It is hard to undo this kind of damage. Forbes magazine, too, has recently been showing its stripes, with the article, "How Activism Distorts The Assessment Of Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabat.15 The author tries to make the case that the landmark International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decision to classify RF radiation as a Class 2B Possible Carcinogen overstates the risk. According to Lloyd Morgan: "Geoffrey Kabat is a well known tobacco 'scientist' who published papers funded by the tobacco industry. Could his attack on the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer be a continuation of his history?" EMF Facts Consultancy in Australia says:16 "Kabat's connections with the tobacco industry over the years have been well documented. A search of internal industry documents finds Kabat's name listed as an industry resource more than 7,000 times, showing his involvement with, among others, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, American Tobacco Company, and CIAR … The data and design of the Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study has been widely criticized. Even the British Medical Association, the publisher of the journal that printed the study, described the research as being "fundamentally flawed." The misuse of data and flawed methodology are two very significant faults in the study." Kabat's book, "Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology," featured on the Columbia University Press website, says Kabat: " …shows that a variety of factors can contribute to the inflating of a hazard. These include skewed reporting by the media, but also, surprisingly, the actions of researchers who may emphasize certain findings while ignoring others; regulatory and health agencies eager to show their responsiveness to the health concerns of the public; and politicians and advocates with a stake in a particular outcome." Interesting. This is an example of masterful spin — accusing others of the things of which industry itself is guilty. In the case of tobacco, we all know the industry was guilty of lying. It may have taken decades to work through the courts, but finally, in November 2012, a court ruled the tobacco industry must publically admit they lied. According to Reuters: 17 "Major tobacco companies that spent decades denying they lied to the U.S. public about the dangers of cigarettes must spend their own money on a public advertising campaign saying they did lie, a federal judge ruled … " We expect to ultimately see similar punishment for the telecom industry, and its executives, who knowingly blanketed the population in radiation that was impossible for billions of people to avoid. Around the same time that the Forbes article was published, Epimonitor.net published an article18 mentioning that article and one other in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, "False Positives in Cancer Epidemiology," both reinforcing the same themes. The article in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention19 was authored by Joseph McLaughlin and Robert Tarone. They are founders of the International Epidemiology Institute (IEI), according to Lloyd Morgan, and the architects of what became the Danish Cellphone Subscriber Cohort Study, widely criticized for its deceptions (see "British Medical Journal's Upcoming Cell Phone Study Deeply Flawed"20), and prior to creating the for-profit IEI, were long-term staffers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which references the deeply flawed and widely criticized Danish Cohort study as evidence of 'no risk'. According to Morgan: "This appears (the Forbes Magazine article and the 'epimonitor' article) to be an orchestrated campaign to challenge the IARC finding that RF radiation is a 'Possible Carcinogen.' One can only wonder if this constellation of spin has been funded by the reported hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to refute the IARC results." Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org says: "The IARC was the first instance providing an official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents could legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices. A backlash on the IARC decision from the cell phone industry was to be expected, and we are now seeing it getting underway." She adds,"But what people need to remember is that some scientists say the IARC classification is still not strong enough, and that RF should have been classified as a 'Probable Human Carcinogen' (Class 2A) based the existing science." Credible Cell Phone Studies Being Wrongly Attacked Dr. Franz Adlkofer, who led the landmark REFLEX study, conducted by 12 institutes in seven countries, that confirmed the likelihood of long-term genetic damage in the blood and brains of users of mobile phones, and other sources of electromagnetic fields, and who was initially accused of fraud by Professor Alexander Lerchl of the German Commission on Radiological Protection, and then totally exonerated, had the opportunity recently to present on institutional corruption at Harvard Law School's Safra Center for Ethics, in a presentation called "Protection Against Radiation is in Conflict with Science."21 "In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified high frequency electromagnetic fields including cell phone radiation as merely "possibly carcinogenic" for humans, Adlkofer said, but he pointed out that studies such as REFLEX were not taken into account in reaching that determination. Had they been, he said, the classification likely would have changed from "possibly" carcinogenic to "probably." In addition to attacking Dr. Adlkofer, Professor Lerchl has of late been proactively attacking studies by Lennart Hardell from Orebro University in Sweden. These high-quality independent studies show an increased risk for brain tumors in long-term users of mobile and cordless phones and were an important basis on which IARC classified RF radiation as a 'Possible Carcinogen.' Dr. Hardell has responded in "A fairy tale by Alexander Lerchl and Mikko Paunio without scientific credibility."22 At the Harvard Safra Center for Ethics, Dr. Adlkofer said:23 "The practices of institutional corruption in the area of wireless communication are of enormous concern, if one considers the still uncertain outcome of the ongoing field study with five billion participants. Based on the unjustified trivializing reports distributed by the mass media by order and on account of the wireless communication industry, the general public cannot understand that its future wellbeing and health may be at stake. The people even distrust those scientists who warn. In democracies, it is a basic principle that above power and their owners are laws, rules, and regulations. Since in the area of wireless communication this principle has been severely violated it is in the interest of a democratic society to insist on its compliance." Fast forward to current efforts to disparage the validity of the IARC findings. "We come full circle," says Lloyd Morgan," when we become aware of the paper, "Boffetta P, McLaughlin JK, LaVecchia C, Tarone RE, Lipworth L, Blot WJ. False-positive results in cancer epidemiology: a plea for epistemological modesty. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:988-995 (2008)." Are we surprised that we have come full circle to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the Institute where McLaughlin and Tarone (authors of "False Positives in Cancer Epidemiology") decided to found IEI, which has been identified by "Doubt is Their Product's" author, David Michaels, as one of the myriad "product protection firms" for hire to create doubt for industrial clients? " Much of the long history of deceptions in science regarding electromagnetic fields can be found in "Warning: Your Cell Phones May Be Hazardous to Your Health" by Christopher Ketcham, and in the book "Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family," by Devra Davis, PhD. The hidden and important influence of the telecommunications industry on radiofrequency standard setting around the world has been exhaustively researched by Don Maisch, PhD of EMF Facts Consultancy in Australia, in the interest of establishing biologically relevant exposure standards, published as "The Procrustean Approach Setting Exposure Standards for Telecommunications Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation."24 Itexamines, says Maisch, "the manipulation of telecommunications standards by political, military, and industrial vested interests at the expense of public health protection." The U.S. Government is Not Protecting You from Cell Phone Dangers Despite the shenanigans, which we expect we'll see more of, the link between brain damage and cell phone use has become too strong to deny. Last year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), reviewed relevant studies and declared that cell phones are possible cancer-causing agents because of the radiofrequency radiation (RF) they emit, in the same category as diesel engine exhaust, some pesticides, and some heavy metals. The expert panel ruled that there was some evidence that regular cell phone use increased the risk of two types of tumors – brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas. A cell phone is a two-way microwave-radiating device whose long-term use has been associated with not only brain tumors but seven cancers in all, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, salivary gland tumors, eye cancer, testicular cancer and leukemia, along with a wide range of other biological effects. Dr. Martin Blank of Columbia University, at the annual conference of the Institute for Bau (Building) Biology and Ecology, said that while there is not yet epidemiological data linking cell phone radiation to breast cancer, there is evidence from cell studies showing inhibition of the effects of Tamoxifen in electromagnetic fields, as well as evidence of tumors where women have placed cell phones in their bras, news that was featured recently on KTVU in the San Francisco Bay Area.25 Can this ruling potentially lead to future litigation in the U.S. and elsewhere? Can it somehow alter the insurance landscape? Yes, it can."26 The cell phone industry, however, is one of the fastest growing and strongest global industries in the world today and may be even stronger than the pharmaceutical industry. As a multi-trillion dollar industry whose advertising dollars support and heavily influence media around the world, this industry is capable of wielding great power by making sizable political donations and through persistent lobbying efforts that influence and sometimes even directly shape government policies. So while the dangers of cell phones will one day be as well known as tobacco dangers, and perhaps the companies will have to publically admit their deceit, there's going to be a window when people are extremely vulnerable. That window is right now. Around the world, many countries are already adopting the Precautionary Principle. Russian officials have issued the recommendation that all children under the age of 18 should avoid using cell phones entirely. The UK, Israel, Belgium, Germany, India, France and Finland also urge citizens to err on the side of caution with respect to their children's use of cell phones. How to Protect Yourself In the United States, public warnings are not yet commonplace, but it's still important to protect yourself. You can minimize your exposure, and that of your loved ones, to electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless devices by heeding the following advice: • Children Should Always Avoid Using Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. • Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call. If you're pregnant, avoiding or reducing your cell phone use, and keeping it away from your body, is critically important. • Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness. SKYPE offers an online, portable number, with voicemail one can access via any Ethernet port while traveling, or via wireless access if necessary. • Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them as often as you do. And most importantly, do not even consider having any electronic or wireless devices in the bedroom that will interfere with the quality of your sleep, and if there is a wireless router, make sure it is turned off at night. If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are not safer during calls, but at least many of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers. Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, they may be less damaging to your health. Another option is to just simply turn the portable phone off, only using it when you specifically need the convenience of moving about while on a call. Ideally it would be helpful to turn off your base station every night before you go to bed. EcoDect portable phones, which only transmit radiation when being used, have been introduced in Germany, where we are encouraged to learn that country's Environmental Minister, Peter Altmaier, has named 'Improving Protection from Electromagnetic Fields' # 6 of his 10-Point Plan. We expect in time to see similar portable phones here. You can find RF meters as well as remediation supplies at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology. • Use Your Cell Phone Only Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception. • Avoid Carrying Your Phone on Your Body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility. A new App for Android, "Too Close," has been developed by a California company, Green Swan, designed to issue an alert any time a cellphone is too close to your head. • Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another: There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone. This is particularly true when it comes to SAR ratings, which are virtually useless in measuring the true potential biological danger as most all of the damage is not done by heat transfer, which SAR measures. • Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area, nor near a cell phone that is 'On' for lengthy periods. • Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children. If you are using the Pong case, which redirects the cell phone radiation away from the head and successfully lowers the SAR effect, realize that in redirecting the radiation away from your head this may be intensifying the radiation in another direction, perhaps toward the person next to you, or, if in your pocket, increasing radiation intensity toward your body. Caution is always advised in dealing with any radiation-emitting device. We recommend cell phones be kept 'Off' except for emergencies. • Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded – and most of them are not – the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded. The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head. If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

Diabetes has increased more than 700 percent in the last 50 years. Today, more than one in four Americans are either pre-diabetic or have full-blown diabetes.

The conventional treatment route includes a variety of diabetes drugs, some of which have been found to do far more harm than good. Rosiglitazone, sold under the names of Avandia, Avandamet and Avaglim, is perhaps the most well-known in this category of unmitigated disasters.

Avandia Part of Worst Drug Fraud in History

This past summer, drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to a record-breaking $3 billion settlement over the sales and marketing practices of several of its drugs, including the dangerous diabetes drug Avandia. The payment is the largest fraud settlement in U.S. history, and the largest fine ever paid by a drug company.

Avandia was found to be profoundly dangerous — a fact hidden by GSK for over 10 years, as they knew it would adversely affect sales1.

This was revealed in a Senate Finance Committee report, released by Max Baucus and Charles E. Grassley in February 2010. The report also asked why the FDA allowed a clinical trial of Avandia to continue even after the agency estimated the drug had caused an estimated 83,000 heart attacks between 1999 and 20072.

Avandia hit the market in 1999 and quickly became a blockbuster drug. By 2006 its annual revenue was $3.2 billion. A year later, a damning study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) linked it to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death than patients treated with other methods3.

This is a steep price, to say the least, for a disease that does not require drugs to begin with.

There were many articles and reviews published about Avandia following the New England Journal of Medicine study, but research from the Mayo Clinic revealed that 90 percent of scientists who wrote favorable articles about the drug had financial ties to GlaxoSmithKline4. Unfortunately, a committee of independent experts still recommended that Avandia remain on the market, despite its many risks, and a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight board voted 8 to 7 to accept the advice.

On September 23, 2010, the FDA restricted access to Avandia5, but it didn’t take it off the market. Under the ruling, the drug is still available to patients not already taking it, but only if they are unable to achieve glycemic control using other medications and, in consultation with their health care professional, decide not to take a different drug for medical reasons.

Shockingly, current users of Avandia were told to continue using the medication if they appeared to be benefiting from it and they acknowledged that they understood the risks. Doctors had to attest to and document their patients’ eligibility and patients had to review statements describing the cardiovascular safety concerns.

Unlike the US FDA, British regulators ruled that the benefits of Avandia no longer outweighed the risks, and so, in late September 2010, they told 90,000 British diabetes patients to stop taking it.

DPP-4 Inhibitors — Another Disastrous Diabetes Drug

Here, I want to address another potential disaster-in-the-making, namely that of Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors6 (DPP-4 inhibitors), also known as gliptins (specifically, gliptins decrease the breakdown of glucagon-like peptide-1, or GLP-1). These belong to a class of hypoglycemic drugs used to treat type 2 diabetes. DPP-4 inhibitors work by reducing glucagon and blood glucose levels7 (inhibiting glucagon release results in increased insulin secretion and decreased blood glucose).

The first drug in this class — Sitagliptin, manufactured by Merck and sold under the name Januvia8,9 — received FDA approval in 200610. Saxagliptin (Onglyza), another DPP-4 inhibitor, was approved in July 2009, followed by Linagliptin (Trajenta) in 2011. A number of additional DPP-4 inhibitors are currently under development.

I was among the first to publicly warn that another of Merck’s drugs, Vioxx, would kill thousands from heart disease. The drug indeed wound up killing over 60,000 people before Merck removed it from the market in 2004.

To compound this problem even further, Merck has announced that it has successfully completed a Phase II trial of a once-a-week version of a DPP-4 inhibitor. In pharma announcements and in its own company literature, Merck indicates that the once-a-week version is also being tested in combination with certain statin drugs, such as Lipitor and Simvastatin. The reasoning for these drug combinations is that diabetics fall under the guidelines of being statin candidates because they have a higher cardiovascular risk, but 40 percent of diabetics don’t take them.

The idea is to create a combination drug containing both a DPP-4 inhibitor and a statin. So one drug will radically increase your risk of cancer, and the other increase your risk of heart failure. These are virtually guaranteed side effects from these drugs when taken individually, but what has not even been studied is the synergistic toxicity of taking these dangerous drugs together.

So far, Merck has discussed the alleged efficacy of their once-a-week DPP-4 inhibitor. However, clinicaltrials.gov indicates that the SAFETY trial isn’t until Phase III, which is just now beginning. Still, with or without company-performed (read biased) safety trials, there’s plenty of reason to suspect these drugs can, and probably will, spell severe trouble for diabetics who take them. For example, Sitagliptin, sold under the names Januvia11 and Janumet, has a number of admitted side effects, including:
•Low blood sugar
•Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis (rash, hives, swelling of face, lips, tongue and/or throat)
•Acute pancreatitis
•Death

Anaphylaxis is in fact such a grave hazard with this drug that it actually carries a black box warning for lactic acidosis: “If acidosis is suspected, discontinue Janumet and hospitalize the patient immediately” According to diatetesselfmanagement.com12:

“… DPP-4 was discovered through its association with the immune system, and some researchers thought that inhibiting it might impair the immune system. So far, data from clinical studies have not demonstrated a serious immunosuppresive effect. They do indicate, though, that sitagliptin increases the risk of upper respiratory infections and nasopharyngitis (inflammation of the nose and pharynx), found in 6.3% and 5.2% of study subjects, respectively, who took sitagliptin versus 3.3% and 3.4% for placebo.

The most worrying side effects are those reported since the drug came onto the market.

These reactions seem to be allergic in nature and include anaphylaxis, a bodywide reaction that results in low blood pressure, and angioedema, a swelling of the tongue, face, and throat. Both of these may be life-threatening. The reactions have occurred anytime from immediately after taking the first dose until three months after starting the drug. There have also been reports of skin reactions, including a very severe type of drug reaction called Stevens–Johnson syndrome. Other diabetes drugs are not typically associated with Stevens–Johnson syndrome.”

The Science You Don’t Hear About — DPP-4 Inhibitors Repeatedly Linked to Cancer…

Another potential side effect of this class of drugs that you won’t see in any drug advert or hear from your doctor is its potential link to cancer… Upon review of the medical literature, a number of studies have already indicated a connection of pancreatic, thyroid, colon, melanoma, and prostate cancer with DPP-4 inhibitors. Such studies include:
•A 2006 study13 found that “the use of DPPIV inhibitors together with GLP-2 led to increased proliferation as well as elevated migratory activity. Therefore, the use of DPPIV inhibitors could increase the risk of promoting an already existing intestinal tumor and may support the potential of colon cancer cells to metastasize”
•One 2008 study14 found that DPP-4 inhibitors may proteolytically inactivate local mediators involved in gliomagenesis (the formation and development of brain tumors). Another study published that same year15 linked the drug to prostate cancer
•In 201016, researchers concluded that “although the data on the effects of DPP-IV inhibitors in humans are scarce, the increased risk of infections and the tendency towards a higher incidence of some tumors fall in line with experimental evidence suggesting the possibility of their adverse immunological and oncological effects”
•According to a 2011 study in the journal Gastroentorology17,18: “data are consistent with case reports and animal studies indicating an increased risk for pancreatitis with glucagon-like peptide-1 based therapy. The findings also raise caution about the potential long-term actions of these drugs to promote pancreatic cancer, and DPP-4 inhibition to increase risk for all cancers”
•Earlier this year, researchers warned19 DPP-4 “is implicated in regulation of malignant transformation, promotion and further progression of cancer, exerting tumor-suppressing or even completely opposite – tumor-promoting activities.
This study indicates the need for exploring the cause and the importance of the disturbances in the serum DPP-4 activity and in the CD26 expression on immunocompetent cells in complex molecular mechanisms underlying the development and progression of melanoma. Significant decline in serum DPP-4 activity found in melanoma patients compared to healthy controls might indicate its possible role in development and progression of melanoma, but further research needs to be done in order to fully elucidate the cause and the importance of observed changes in DPP-4 activity”

Logic Quiz: DPP-4 is a Tumor Suppressor, So What Happens When You Continuously Inhibit DPP-4?

A 2008 blog post on DiabetesUpdate20 spells out the concerns I have about this class of diabetes drugs:

“Two new studies grabbed my attention and should be of great interest to anyone taking Januvia. These studies looked at the impact of inhibiting DPP-4 on the growth of two different kinds of cancers. This is important because the way Januvia lowers blood sugar is by inhibiting DPP-4. It does this because DPP-4 is a protease (an enzyme that chops up protein chains) that, among other things, destroys a hormone, GLP-1, that helps control blood sugar levels. When you inhibit DPP-4, GLP-1 levels to rise and blood sugars drop.

But none of the drug industry-sponsored testing for the safety of Januvia looked at the other things that DPP-4 does. Fortunately, some academic researchers not-funded by drug makers are doing this and what they are finding should make any sane person stop taking Januvia. Because it turns out that DPP-4 is also a tumor suppressor. And when you inhibit it, cells that have become cancerous get a ‘get out of jail free’ card.”

Just think about the logic (or rather, the lack thereof) of taking a drug that continuously inhibits one of your body’s natural cancer suppressing mechanisms! According to Januvia’s drug information, the drug inhibits the DPP-4 enzyme for 24 hours, and you take it daily, effectively permanently blocking the activity of a tumor suppressor gene. Yet none of the safety studies on Januvia addressed its impact on tumor growth!

Is this wise? I don’t see how it can be — especially for a disease that doesn’t require drug treatment to be resolved. The blogger received the following emailed note21 from a researcher who worked on one of the studies listed above (the author and study in question was not identified, and probably for good reason):

“… Inhibiting DPPIV function in general (according to ours and others research) may not be a great idea. I believe that decrease or loss of DPPIV may be associated with cancer initiation or progression. We have shown that loss of DPPIV is indeed associated with melanoma, prostate and lung cancers. Importantly our work has shown that restoring DPPIV can suppress the tumor growth…”

In a 2010 article in the journal Diabetes Care22 entitled “GLP-1–Based Therapy for Diabetes: What You Do Not Know Can Hurt You,” the authors state:

“In conclusion, we believe it is premature to conclude that the GLP-1 class of drugs has been established as having a good safety profile and is appropriate for a relatively early choice of therapy for type 2 diabetes.

There are grounds for concern that the GLP-1 class of drugs [which includes DPP-4 inhibitors] may induce asymptomatic pancreatitis and, over time in some individuals, induce pancreatic cancer… [T]he implications of the data are sufficiently serious that continuing to promote this class of drugs without establishing clear experimental evidence to permit the concern to be rejected is irresponsible. Moreover, arguably patients prescribed these drugs should be made aware of the potential risks of pancreatic cancer.”

“Researchers” Who Debunk Cancer Link are Paid Spokespersons for Big Pharma

Not surprisingly, some researchers have spoken out against studies linking DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists (such as Byetta, which was approved in 2009) with various cancers, calling such findings “flawed.” Alas, it may be wise to look at who these people are, and who pays them. In an IBJ.com article published last year23, Dr. Michael Nauck, head of the Diabeteszentrum Bad Lauterberg in Harz, Germany said, with regards to studies linking GLP-1 agonist drugs Byetta and Victoza with increased risk of cancer:

“The bulk of findings tends to speak against such an association… There is no general agreement.”

According to the article:

“Nauck debated Peter Butler of the University of California at Los Angeles at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes meeting Friday on whether so-called GLP-1 therapies increase cancer risk. Sales of the drugs may be hurt should Butler’s view prevail that there are signs of increased cancer from the drugs. He and other UCLA researchers said in a study this year that a review of a database of side effects showed patients taking Byetta and a Merck & Co. drug [Januvia] had a higher chance of developing pancreatic or thyroid tumors. The treatments are safe and there’s no evidence of a higher cancer risk, according to the manufacturers of the drugs.”

Who is Michael Nauck 24? While his biography may not spell it out, Professor Nauck has been a speaker and consultant25 for a long list of pharmaceutical companies, including Amylin Pharmaceuticals (the maker of Byetta), Novo Nordisk (maker of Victoza), Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly & Co, and GlaxoSmithKline, just to rattle off a few. Note the first two I listed are the very makers of the very drugs he’s arguing the safety of. So much for an independent opinion. He’s also received grants and financial research support from a number of drug companies.

According to Peter Butler26, co-author of the Gastroenterology study listed earlier, the GLP-1 drug class “could have serious unintended and unpredicted side effects.” His research discovered that patients taking Byetta and Januvia had a:
•Six-fold increased chance of pancreatitis, and
•Nearly three times greater rate of pancreatic cancer

In a September 2011 article in Bloomberg27, Matteo Monami, a physician at the University of Florence and Carreggi Teaching Hospital in Italy called Butler’s study “an erroneous analysis,” stating that its results “are really not reliable at all.” Monami countered Butler’s findings with a meta-analysis28 of his own, which not only found no increase in cancer or pancreatitis for DPP-4 inhibitors like Januvia, but also “possible protection from cardiovascular events.”

What the media failed to report was that Monami is a paid spokesperson for Merck (the maker of Januvia — the drug at the center of the controversy), Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli. Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Takeda. Knowing he’s a paid Big Pharma spokesperson, surely no one can be surprised that Monami’s analysis and “professional opinion” clears his employers’ drugs of any potential cancer links…

Billions of Dollars at Stake…

When Merck and the FDA finally agree that DPP-4 inhibitors are linked to cancer, it will kill several of the most recent drug developments for diabetes. Untold hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars have already been invested in getting these new drugs to market. And the profits from these drugs are expected to be in the tens of billions at minimum..

According to Merck, Januvia is now the number one best-selling drug in the oral diabetes market. Should such a blockbuster drug be proven to be connected to cancer, it would be a HUGE loss not only to Merck, but several other major pharmaceutical companies that have developed similar drugs.

One of the most horrific parts of this is the fact that cancer can take decades to form — unless the drug dramatically speeds up the process by inhibiting your body’s ability to suppress tumor growth. Merck’s lethal drug Vioxx was only withdrawn from the market after its lethality became too obvious to ignore. Ditto for the dangerous diabetes drug Avandia. Those drugs caused heart attacks and stroke. Cancer, on the other hand is not something that will tend to make people keel over after a relatively short period of time.

They could make MASSIVE amounts of money from these clearly dangerous drugs while cancer slowly and quietly grows in patients taking them, while biased shills maintain that the science is still “unclear.” I for one would urge you to reconsider taking any kind of DPP-4 inhibitor. Why risk cancer for an ailment you can effectively address without ANY drug at all?

Type 2 Diabetes is Nearly 100 Percent Preventable… and Reversible Without Drugs

There is simply no doubt in my mind that these drugs will be removed from the market, but not after many years, potentially decades, and likely after they have killed tens of thousands of people. But you don’t have to needlessly suffer and wait till they are formally removed. You can stop taking them now. Reversing type 2 diabetes is one of the simplest and most straight-forward treatments in all of medicine.

It’s important to understand that many of the conventional recommendations for treating diabetes are not only flawed but dead wrong, and I discussed the reasons why in this previous article. To reverse the disease, you need to recover your body’s insulin and leptin sensitivities – the ones that are so badly upset by eating a poor diet. The ONLY way to accomplish this is through proper diet and exercise. There is NO drug that can correct leptin signaling and insulin resistance.

It will be absolutely crucial to eliminate ALL sugars and virtually all grains from your diet. You want to strive for an ultra-low carbohydrate diet seeking to restrict your carbs to high fiber vegetables only. You can replace the missing carbs with high quality fats like coconut oil, which are rapidly broken down and consumed as fuel so you won’t feel as tired or fatigued when you make the transition to fat burning mode. Using intermittent fasting and restricting all your calories to a 6-8-hour window will also radically help your ability to transition to fat burning mode and improve your insulin and leptin signaling.

Adhering to the following guidelines can help you do at least three things that are essential for successfully treating, and reversing, diabetes: recover your insulin/leptin sensitivity, help normalize your weight, and normalize your blood pressure:
•Severely limit or eliminate sugar and grains in your diet, especially fructose, which is far more detrimental than any other type of sugar. Following my Nutrition Plan will help you do this without too much fuss. Likely long before you work your way up to the Advanced Section, your type 2 diabetes will be under control without any drugs.
•Exercise regularly. Exercise is an absolutely essential factor, and without it, you’re unlikely to get this devastating disease under control. It is one of the fastest and most powerful ways to lower your insulin and leptin resistance. I recommend reviewing my exercise program for tips and guidelines. It is also critical to work your way up to include some Peak Fitness exercises.
•Avoid trans fats.
•Get plenty of omega-3 fats from a high quality, animal-based source, such as krill oil.
•Optimize your vitamin D levels. Recent studies have revealed that getting enough vitamin D can have a powerful effect on normalizing your blood pressure.
•Optimize your gut flora. Your gut is a living ecosystem, full of both good bacteria and bad. Multiple studies have shown that obese people have different intestinal bacteria than lean people. The more good bacteria you have, the stronger your immune system will be and the better your body will function overall.

Fortunately, optimizing your gut flora is relatively easy. You can reseed your body with good bacteria by eating fermented foods (like natto, kefir, raw organic cheese, miso, and fermented vegetables) or by taking a high-quality probiotic supplement.
•Address any underlying emotional issues and/or stress. Non-invasive tools like the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) can be extremely helpful and effective.
•Get enough high-quality sleep every night.
•Monitor your fasting insulin level. This is every bit as important as your fasting blood sugar. You’ll want your fasting insulin level to be between 2 and 4. The higher your level, the worse your insulin sensitivity is.

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 United States uses nearly 30 million pounds of antibiotics annually in food production. Livestock antibiotic use accounts for 80 percent of the total antibiotics sold in the US, and unnecessary use of antibiotics in food animals (cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys) is a major driving force behind the rampant development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Compare this to the 6 million pounds of antibiotics that are used for every man, woman and child in the US combined. But unlike human use, in which antibiotics are prescribed to treat serious infection, in animals, drugs such as penicillins and tetracyclines are routinely added to animal feed as a cheap way to make the animals grow faster.

The primary reason why concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs) are such hotbeds for breeding antibiotic-resistant bacteria is because of the continuous feeding of low doses of antibiotics to the animals, which allows pathogens to survive, adapt, and eventually, thrive.

In short, American food producers are trading slightly reduced production costs (i.e. more meat per animal) for more lethal illnesses — both in animals and humans. Just one of several now resistant pathogens, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), is responsible for more than 94,000 infections and 18,000 deaths in the US each year!

Food Producers Now Responsible for Rapid Increase in Lethal Diseases

To combat the dramatic rise in antibiotic-resistant disease, the most important step is to curb the misuse of antibiotics in food production. Sure, we need to start prescribing antibiotics more judiciously in the medical setting as well, but when you consider that medical use of antibiotics accounts for just 20 percent of all the antibiotics sold each year, it makes sense to restrict the primary culprit the hardest, or else we’ll never make a dent in this problem.

Alas, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has continually fallen short in this regard. Instead of enforcing stricter regulations, the agency has simply asked food producers to voluntarily limit their use of certain antibiotics. In fact, on December 22, 2011, the agency quietly posted a notice in the Federal Register1 that it was effectively reneging on its plan to reduce the use of antibiotics in agricultural animal feed – a plan it has been touting since 1977!

According to the Federal Register:

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is withdrawing two 1977 notices of opportunity for a hearing (NOOH), which proposed to withdraw certain approved uses of penicillin and tetracyclines intended for use in feeds for food-producing animals based in part on microbial food safety concerns.”

FDA Sued for Withholding Drug Data

But that’s not all. The FDA now stands accused of wrongfully withholding data regarding the sale of antibiotics for use in food animals — a move that makes it virtually impossible to evaluate the extent to which these drugs are causing harm. On December 5, the Government Accountability Project (GAP) filed a lawsuit against the FDA after the agency refused to release data on the amount of antibiotics sold for use in food animals in 2009.

According to the featured report by foodwhistleblower.org2:

“Drug companies are required to report basic information about antibiotic sales to the FDA under the Animal Drug User Fee Act (ADUFA). Such information includes how much of each drug is sold; whether the drugs are formulated for use in feed, water, or by injection; and the animals for which each drug is approved. FDA publicly releases a limited summary of ADUFA data each year, but withholds almost all of what companies report.

This lawsuit comes after FDA’s failure to respond properly to GAP’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the agency, which sought data concerning the amount of antibiotics sold for use in food animals in 2009, classified by animal type and dosage information.

The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF), an academic research center based at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, approached GAP for help obtaining these data almost two years ago. GAP made the request in February 2011, and has exhausted all other steps to get the information, short of litigation. In the end, the agency denied GAP’s request, claiming that the requested data is “confidential commercial information.”

That’s just not good enough, according to GAP Food Integrity Campaign Director Amanda Hitt, who pointed out that “the agency’s job is to protect the public’s health, not industry secrets.” As usual, there’s also the issue of financial conflicts of interest at work. According to Tyler Smith, Senior Research and Policy Associate with the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF)3:

“Why is FDA so lethargic? Its inaction appears to result from a major conflict of interest centered on ADUFA. The main purpose of this law is to collect millions of dollars in “user fees” from drug companies to speed review and approval of applications for new animal drugs submitted by drug companies. The agency collected $18 million under ADUFA last year.

ADUFA will expire next year unless Congress reauthorizes it. FDA is desperate for industry support for reauthorization — without ADUFA, the agency clearly would lose a great deal of money… FDA will not bite the hand that feeds it by enhancing ADUFA’s reporting requirements. Indeed, in recommendations to Congress on how ADUFA should be amended when it’s reauthorized, the agency did not even mention the requirements. FDA just swept them under the rug.”

What is the Government Accountability Project (GAP)?

The Government Accountability Project4 (GAP) is a non-partisan, non-profit public interest group that works to empower citizen activists and to protect whistleblowers by promoting corporate and government accountability. Some of the group’s areas of interest include monitoring drug safety, environmental agencies, government affairs and food integrity, and acting as a watchdog over national security and human rights, international reform, legislative issues, and public health5.

GAP also is a founding member of the Safe Food Coalition, which works closely with Congress and food safety agencies to ensure the integrity of our food supply.

According to GAP’s website, numerous whistleblowers and clients have risked their careers to help the organization pursue extraordinary projects that have resulted in legislative changes and/or lawsuits. It does all this with a $2.5 million a year budget, with funds coming from more than 10,000 individual donors and foundations, legal fees, settlement awards, and services provided. Some of its donors include the Carnegie Foundation, CS Fund, Ford Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and Rockefeller Family Fund.

New Legislation Seeks to End the Secrecy on Livestock Drug Use

In related news, on October 16, California Representative Henry Waxman, ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, announced he is introducing legislation6 to “increase information on the amount and use of antibiotics in animals raised for human consumption.”

The bill, “Delivering Antibiotic Transparency in Animals (DATA) Act,” would require drug manufacturers to issue comprehensive reports to the FDA on how their drugs are actually used. It would also for the first time require feed mills to report how they use the drugs. Data reporting would include the types, purposes and quantities of antibiotics being added to animal feed.

“We need this information so scientists and Congress can stop the spread of drug-resistant infections from farm animals to humans,” Waxman said at a Santa Monica press conference.

CAFO’s May Be Cost Effective, But at What Price?

Ultimately, the root of the problem stems from our modern food production practices. Confined animal feeding operations (CAFO’s) are a far cry from the traditional farm, and the excessive use of antibiotics and other veterinary drugs in CAFO’s has arisen both from need and misuse.

CAFO animals do require more drugs as disease is rampant due to cramped and unsanitary living conditions. It’s a natural side effect of raising thousands, or tens of thousands of animals on one farm. You simply cannot raise 30,000 chickens on pasture for example. For the sake of efficiency, CAFO animals are crammed into tiny spaces and treated in ways that are truly shocking to most people who are just learning about how CAFO’s are run. Due to these living conditions, a variety of drugs, including antibiotics, are routinely administered to all animals, whether they’re sick or well, in order to keep as many of them as possible alive until it’s time for slaughter.

However, drugs are also routinely used to boost growth of the animal, and this is purely a financial concern. Larger, fatter animals equates to greater profits. The ultimate price, of course, is that you end up getting a dose of antibiotics and other drugs in each and every steak and chicken wing.

An even lesser-known issue is the problem with antibiotic-laden manure from conventional farms further contaminating the rest of your food supply. That’s right — even your lettuce may contain antibiotics! These are all powerful reasons for choosing organically-raised, drug-free, grass-fed or pastured animal products.

Other countries have also realized the inherent hazards of antibiotic overuse and have opted for a healthier approach to the raising of livestock. For example, Denmark stopped the widespread use of antibiotics in their pork industry 14 years ago. The European Union has also banned the routine use of antibiotics in animal feed over concerns of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

After Denmark implemented the antibiotic ban, it was later confirmed the country had drastically reduced antibiotic-resistant bacteria in their animals and food. Furthermore, the Danish experiment proved that removing antibiotics doesn’t have to hurt the industry’s bottom line. In the first 12 years of the ban, the Danish pork industry grew by 43 percent — making it one of the top exporters of pork in the world. But the American Pork Industry doesn’t want to curb antibiotic use, as it raises the cost of producing pork by an estimated $5 for every 100 pounds of pork brought to market…

What Types of Bacteria are Resistant to Antibiotics?

Antibiotic resistance is not isolated to a few obscure bacteria. It is a very real and growing problem. Antibiotic-resistant infections now claim more lives each year than the “modern plague” of AIDS, and cost the American health care system some $20 billion a year7,8. The table below shows various bacteria that are already resistant to many commonly prescribed antibiotics9:

Acinetobacter: A bacteria found in soil and water that often causes infections in seriously ill hospital patients.

Anthrax: Spread by infected animals or potentially bioterrorist weapons.

Gonorrhea: A sexually transmitted disease.

Group B streptococcus: A common bacteria in newborns, the elderly and adults with other illnesses.

Klebsiella pneumonia: A bacteria that can lead to pneumonia, bloodstream infections, wound and surgical site infections and meningitis.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): A superbug that can be so difficult to treat, it can easily progress from a superficial skin infection to a life-threatening infection in your bones, joints, bloodstream, heart valves, lungs, or surgical wounds.

Neisseria meningitides: One of the leading causes of bacterial meningitis in children and young adults.

Shigella: An infectious disease caused by Shigella bacteria.

Streptococcus pneumoniae: A leading cause of pneumonia, bacteremia, sinusitis, and acute otitis media (AOM).

Tuberculosis (TB): Both “multi-drug resistant” and “extensively drug-resistant” forms of TB are now being seen.

Typhoid fever: A life-threatening illness caused by the Salmonella Typhi bacteria.

Vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE): Infection with the enteroccocci bacteria that often occurs in hospitals and is resistant to vancomycin, an antibiotic.

Vancomycin-Intermediate/Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VISA/VRSA): Various strains of staph bacteria that are resistant to vancomycin.

Campylobacter: A pathogen common to chicken products.

You Can Help Stop Antibiotic Overuse

You take a stand against antibiotic overuse every time you avoid using an antibiotic for a minor infection, and every time you opt to buy antibiotic-free, organically raised meat.

If you live in the United States and want to get involved on a national level, Food Democracy Now! has created a petition against the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production. If you care about this issue, I suggest you use this petition to make your voice heard.

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

Over a million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer this year. Most patients don’t succumb to the initial tumor, but rather to metastatic (spread to another body site) tumors, or drug side effects. For instance, melanoma comprises four percent of skin cancers, but 80 percent of skin cancer deaths, due to its metastatic potential. Keeping cancer from spreading starts with a healthy anti-inflammatory diet.

Most cancers can be traced to environmental and lifestyle factors, like smoking, alcohol, sunburn, pollution, infection, stress and obesity. Good nutrition serves to counteract these risk factors. Micronutrients prevent initiation and survival of mutations, reduce tumor size, and keep tumor cells from entering the bloodstream. Diets high in fruits and vegetables, herbs and spices are linked to reduced cancer rates and spread. It also helps to avoid processed, factory-farmed and overheated foods, restrict calories, opt for organic, fresh foods and take high-quality supplements.

Cancer loves sugar. High blood sugar and insulin increase inflammation, which promotes cancer spread. Conversely, low-carb diets suppress cancer growth. The damage by sugar and other toxins are mitigated by antioxidant and anti-inflammatory foods, including fiber-rich foods, mushrooms, green tea, turmeric, ginger, omega-3 (fish, walnuts, flax), cruciferous vegetables, thyme, celery, rosemary, berries, whole citrus, red wine and dark chocolate. High quality fish oil, vitamin D and curcumin are the best supplements for inflammation. High-dose vitamin D may reduce cancer incidence by more than 70 percent.

Blood clots, which are linked to inflammation, provide havens for tumor cell attachment and spread. Micronutrients intervene at all stages of cancer, through a wide range of mechanisms, including anti-oxidation (carotenoids, selenium, vitamin C and E), differentiation (vitamins A, D, calcium), and immunity (vitamins A, C, selenium, zinc). Natural anti-blood clotting agents include magnesium, vitamin E complex, garlic, and omega-3 fatty acids. Dietary fiber and healthy gut microbes also play vital roles in cancer prevention by neutralizing toxins. Metastasis is also promoted by stress, which is relieved with magnesium, B and C complex vitamins, calming herbs, and high-quality protein.

Wandering tumor cells are eliminated by a healthy immune system, which requires many nutrients. Garlic inhibits cancer cell proliferation and migration. Cumin and turmeric spices suppress metastasis in animal research models, and are linked to lower cancer rates. Broccoli lowers invasiveness and metastasis in cancer cells. Pomegranate inhibits cancer cell movement and attraction to bone. Selenium and vitamin D promote glutathione, the major cellular antioxidant. Copper, zinc and manganese activate enzymes like catalase and superoxide dismutase, which devour free radicals that damage DNA. Spices like rosemary help neutralize cancer-causing toxins in the body, on the shelf, and when frying foods. Vitamin K is a potent inhibitor of tumor colony formation. Indeed, a wealth of nutrients are involved.

Don’t worry much about how nutrients and phytochemicals affect anti-cancer drug therapy. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, including 50 human studies involving thousands of patients, have consistently shown that these food substances do not interfere with therapy for cancer. Instead, they enhance cancer drugs, decrease their side effects, and protect normal tissue. In 15 human studies, thousands of patients taking antioxidants and other nutrients actually showed increased survival. Diet is paramount to preventing cancer and metastasis.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.sciencedaily.com
http://www.indiadivine.org
http://www.raysahelian.com/melanoma.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://cancertreatmentmx.com
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17283738
http://books.google.com
Klement RJ. Nutrition & Metabolism 2011, 8:75
http://www.dimfaq.com/index.htm)

About the author:
Dr. Phil Domenico is a nutritional scientist and educator with a research background in biochemistry and microbiology. Formerly an infectious disease research scientist, he now works as a consultant for supplement companies and the food industry. Visit Dr. Phil’s blog at:

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

Organic foods are required by U.S. federal law to be produced in ways that promote ecological sustainability, without common toxic and genetically engineered ingredients.

But organic products are increasingly being forced to compete with products that are labeled as “natural.” There are no restrictions on the term “natural”, and it often constitutes nothing more than meaningless marketing hype. Most disturbing of all, many foods labeled as “natural” actually contain genetically engineered ingredients, and breakfast cereals are particularly guilty of this.

California’s Proposition 37, which would have required GE foods to be labeled as such and prevented GE foods from being mislabeled as “natural,” was defeated back in November due to massive donations from multinational corporations that hide GE ingredients behind natural labels and “wholesome” advertising.

One such company was General Mills, which donated more than $1.1 million to the No on Prop. 37 campaign to defeat the GE labeling law. I recently told you this betrayal of consumers’ trust will backfire, and General Mills just got a taste of the backlash.

Good Business 101: Do Not Deceive Your Customers

At the beginning of December, General Mills’ Cheerios brand released a Facebook app asking “fans” to “show what Cheerios mean to them.” The app allowed users to create their own placards using Cheerios’ trademarked black font on a yellow background, where dots and periods featured little cheerios. One day later, the app was abruptly pulled after thousands of angry “fans” expressed their disgust over the company’s betrayal. According to Activist Post1:

“You could literally spend all day looking at ‘Recent Posts by Others’ on Cheerios’ Facebook page – they are nearly all complaints about GMOs and declarations of boycotts.”

Cheerios diligently deleted posts as quickly as they could, and most have now been removed, along with the app. But screenshots of some of the creations have been preserved on Cheeseslave2 and the Happy Place3 website.

Examples include:
•Occupy Food
•Poison
•Science Experiment
•Cheerigmos
•Caution GMOs

Photos by ActivistPost.com

As stated in the featured article4:

“General Mills has drawn their line in the sand, spent over a million to deceive paying customers, and is now trying to hide the backlash from other customers who do not yet know the damaging nature of genetic modification. It just goes to show that the fight for truth about GMOs in the face of deception by Monsanto, DuPont, and large food corporations is far from over. And consumers are winning without needing millions for a failed hushmoney campaign.”

Parents are Waking Up to the Dangers of Genetically Engineered Foods

In a recent press release 5, Alisa Gravitz, CEO and president of Green America, stated:

“The sheer volume of comments on Cheerios’ Facebook page raising concerns around genetically engineered ingredients is incredibly inspiring. It is also amazing to see the creativity that visitors to Cheerios’ Facebook page use to call out Cheerios on using their customers as a science experiment for GMO consumption. Cheerios is a cereal that is frequently fed to children, and many of the comments are from concerned parents who are worried about the fact that they have been feeding a cereal with genetically engineered ingredients to their children.”

One such parent posted a comment on Cheerios Facebook page saying,

“So sorry that the food my kids loved as toddlers is one I can’t support anymore. I can’t believe that General Mills has the well-being of its customers in mind when it contributes to movement against labeling of GMOs.”

She expresses exactly what so many people are now waking up to — the fact that there are an ever growing number of genetically engineered ingredients in our food that we had no idea were there. As far as Cheerios goes, you’d never get the impression there might be anything unnatural about their cereal. According to its website6:

“Cheerios has been a family favorite for years — with good reason! Its wholesome goodness is perfect for toddlers to adults and everyone in between. Made from whole grain oats, Cheerios has no artificial colors or flavors. Those wholesome little O’s have only one gram of sugar. They’re low in fat, have no saturated fat and are naturally cholesterol free. Cheerios are also an excellent source of folic acid and a good source of fiber.

Maybe that’s why parents feel so good about serving Cheerios to their families. It’s a healthy way to start the day, a perfect snack, and tastes great in a recipe. You can trust Cheerios for a lifetime of wholesome goodness for your whole family.”

However, two of the first three ingredients in Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios are corn starch and sugar — two ingredients that might be genetically engineered (a majority of corn-based ingredients and sugar from sugar beets on the US market is now GE). The thing is we can’t know since they don’t have to disclose whether they’re using GE ingredients or not on the label. But the fact that General Mills chose to cough up well over a million dollars to avoid GE labeling definitely leads one to believe that, most likely, these (and/or other ingredients) of Cheerios ARE indeed the genetically modified versions. If that’s the case, then there goes the “trust” for “a lifetime of wholesome goodness.”

The fact that General Mills would rather pay millions to hide that their products contain GE ingredients rather than give you the choice to buy something else, or reformulate their product without GE ingredients (which would be the sensible thing to do if they were really concerned about children’s long-term health and well-being) is quite telling. And fortunately, people are now starting to see through these shady tactics where actions do not match their words.

Sugar Doesn’t Need to Be Genetically Modified to Be Hazardous to Your Child’s Health

Besides the issue of whether the sugar in your favorite processed food is genetically engineered or not, it’s important to remember that sugary breakfast cereals are bad news for your child’s health no matter what.

Many are utterly fooled by advertisements promising “wholesome goodness,” when it’s really very little difference between many popular breakfast cereals and a candy bar. The following video illustrates this quite effectively. Honey Nut Cheerios contains the equivalent of four added teaspoons of sugar in each bowl compared to the original Cheerios. Few parents would allow their child to heap four teaspoons of sugar onto their cereal. Yet they fail to understand just how much sugar is hidden in the processed foods they serve their kids each day.

Are You Being Misled by Your Favorite “All-Natural” Brand?

Last year, a report from the Cornucopia Institute titled Cereal Crimes7 exposed how most “natural” brands are actually just charging you more for what often amounts to genetically engineered ingredients. This is in all likelihood part of the reason why so many “natural” brands spent millions of dollars to defeat California’s GMO labeling campaign.

According to the report:

“[There is a] vast differences between organic cereal and granola products and so-called natural products, which contain ingredients grown on conventional farms where the use of toxic pesticides and genetically engineered organisms is widespread… Our analysis reveals that “natural” products — using conventional ingredients — often are priced higher than equivalent organic products. This suggests that some companies are taking advantage of consumer confusion.”

This is significant, because surveys have shown that more consumers pay attention to the “100% Natural” claim than the “100% Organic” label. In one such survey, 31 percent of respondents said the “100% Natural” label was the most desirable eco-friendly product claim, compared to just 14 percent who chose “100% Organic.” Food companies clearly know this, and they’re cashing in on your confusion. The truth is, synthetic ingredients and additives, toxic pesticides, fumigants and solvents frequently show up in products bearing the “natural” label, while these are strictly prohibited in organic production. But the most disturbing finding presented in the Cereal Crimes report related to the presence of genetically engineered ingredients found in so-called all-natural foods:

“The Cornucopia Institute sent samples of breakfast cereal to an accredited and highly reputable GMO testing laboratory. Samples were tested for the exact percentage of genetically engineered corn or soybeans, using the most sophisticated and accurate tests commercially available.

The results were stunning. Several breakfast cereal manufacturers that market their foods as “natural,” even some that claim to avoid genetically engineered ingredients and are enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, contained high levels of genetically engineered ingredients.”

Natural products found to contain 100 percent genetically engineered grains included:

Kashi®

Mother’s®

Nutritious Living®

General Mills Kix®

GoLean®

Bumpers®

Hi-Lo®

Remember: “Natural” Label Does NOT Prohibit Genetically Modified Ingredients

The USDA certified organic label is your best guarantee that the food was produced without:
•Toxic pesticides
•Genetically engineered (GE) ingredients
•Carcinogenic fumigants
•Chemical solvents

This peace of mind is something the “100% Natural” label will NOT give you. Genetically engineered (GE) ingredients are of particular concern when it comes to food products like breakfast cereals and granola bars, because, in the US, the vast majority of the most common ingredients in these products — corn, soy, and canola — are genetically modified. Unfortunately, more than 60 percent of consumers erroneously believe that the “natural” label implies or suggests the absence of GE ingredients, according to a 2010 Hartman Group poll. If you’re one of the 60 percent, please understand that at the current time, the ONLY label that can protect you against GE ingredients is the USDA 100% Organic label.

In Lieu of GMO Labeling, 100% Organic is Your Only Assurance

Once you realize that much of the “natural” claims are hype, it becomes easier to navigate around the deception. To find brands that are committed to sustainable organic agriculture and avoiding genetically engineered ingredients use Cornucopia’s Cereal Scorecard8.

Another factor to consider is the fact that many small family farms actually adhere to fully organic practices even though they may not have gone through the expense of obtaining organic certification. So labels aren’t everything when it comes to healthful food. But if you’re going to shop by the label, make sure it’s the certified 100% organic label. Until or unless we get GMO labeling in the US, the 100% USDA Certified Organic label is the only assurance you have that the food you buy does NOT contain genetically engineered ingredients.

Keep Fighting for GMO Labeling in North America

With the defeat of Prop. 37 in California, the field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients.

As stated on LabelWA.org9:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve.

I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

The initiative reports having regional leaders across the state. In order to get I-522 on the 2013 ballot, they need to collect 241,153 valid signatures by December 31, 2012. I urge you to share this information with everyone you know in Washington State, and ask them to sign the petition.

Vermont has also created a Right to Know Campaign10, and is also gathering signatures.

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, these are people’s initiatives, and they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the ‘No on 37’ camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies — including General Mills. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•If you live in Vermont, please sign the VT Right to Know GMO’s petition.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington and Vermont initiatives

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

You don’t hear much about magnesium, yet an estimated 80 percent of Americans are deficient in this important mineral and the health consequences of deficiency are significant. One reason could be because magnesium, like vitamin D, serves so many functions it’s hard to corral.

As reported by GreenMedInfo1, researchers have now detected 3,751 magnesium binding sites on human proteins, indicating that its role in human health and disease may have been vastly underestimated.

Magnesium is also found in more than 300 different enzymes in your body, which are responsible for:

Creation of ATP (adenosine triphospate), the energy molecules of your body

Proper formation of bones and teeth

Relaxation of blood vessels

Action of your heart muscle

Promotion of proper bowel function

Regulation of blood sugar levels

The Health Benefits of Magnesium have Been Vastly Underestimated

A number of studies have previously shown magnesium can benefit your blood pressure and help prevent sudden cardiac arrest, heart attack, and stroke. For example, one meta-analysis published earlier this year in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition2 looked at a total of seven studies collectively covering more than 240,000 participants. The results showed that dietary magnesium intake is inversely associated with risk of ischemic stroke.

But its role in human health appears to be far more complex than previously thought, and—like vitamin D—its benefits may be more far-reaching than we’ve imagined. GreenMedInfo.com’s database project has indexed over 100 health benefits of magnesium so far, including therapeutic benefits for:

Fibromyalgia

Atrial fibrillation

Type 2 diabetes

Premenstrual syndrome

Cardiovascular disease

Migraine

Aging

Mortality

According to the featured report3:

“The proteome, or entire set of proteins expressed by the human genome, contains well over 100,000 distinct protein structures, despite the fact that there are believed to be only 20,300 protein-coding genes in the human genome. The discovery of the “magneseome,” as its being called, adds additional complexity to the picture, indicating that the presence or absence of adequate levels of this basic mineral may epigenetically alter the expression and behavior of the proteins in our body, thereby altering the course of both health and disease.”

Magnesium also plays a role in your body’s detoxification processes and therefore is important for helping to prevent damage from environmental chemicals, heavy metals and other toxins. Even glutathione, your body’s most powerful antioxidant that has even been called “the master antioxidant,” requires magnesium for its synthesis.

Signs You May Not be Getting Enough Magnesium

There’s no lab test that will give you a truly accurate reading of the magnesium status in your tissues. Only one percent of magnesium in your body is distributed in your blood, making a simple sample of magnesium from a blood test highly inaccurate. Other tests that your doctor can use to evaluate your magnesium status include a 24-hour urine test, or a sublingual epithelial test. Still, these can only give you an estimation of your levels, and doctors typically need to evaluate them in conjunction with the symptoms you exhibit. An ongoing magnesium deficiency can lead to more serious symptoms, including:

Numbness and tingling

Muscle contractions and cramps

Seizures

Personality changes

Abnormal heart rhythms

Coronary spasms

With that in mind, some early signs of magnesium deficiency to keep an eye out for include:
•Loss of appetite
•Headache
•Nausea and vomiting
•Fatigue and weakness

One of the Best Ways to Optimize Your Magnesium Levels

If you suspect you are low in magnesium one of the best ways to consume this mineral is through organically bound magnesium, found in whole foods. As explained in the featured article:

“Chlorophyll, which enables plants to capture solar energy and convert it into metabolic energy, has a magnesium atom at its center. Without magnesium, in fact, plants could not utilize the sun’s light energy. ”

In many ways chlorophyll is the plant’s version of our hemoglobin as they share a similar structure but have magnesium plugged in the middle rather than iron. Green leafy vegetables like spinach and Swiss chard are excellent sources of magnesium, as are some beans, nuts and seeds, like almonds, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds and sesame seeds. Avocados are also a good source. Juicing your vegetables is an excellent option to ensure you’re getting enough of them in your diet.

In order to ensure you’re getting enough, you first need to be sure you’re eating a varied, whole-food diet like the one described in my nutrition plan. But there are other factors too, that can make you more prone to magnesium deficiency, including the ailments listed below. If any of these conditions apply to you, you may want to take extra precautions to make sure you’re getting a sufficient amount of magnesium in your diet, or, if needed, from a magnesium supplement, in order to avoid magnesium deficiency.

An unhealthy digestive system, which impairs your body’s ability to absorb magnesium (Crohn’s disease, leaky gut, etc.)

Alcoholism — up to 60 percent of alcoholics have low blood levels of magnesium4

Unhealthy kidneys, which contribute to excessive loss of magnesium in urine

Age — older adults are more likely to be magnesium deficient because absorption decreases with age and the elderly are more likely to take medications that can interfere with absorption

Diabetes, especially if it’s poorly controlled, leading increased magnesium loss in urine

Certain medications — diuretics, antibiotics and medications used to treat cancer can all result in magnesium deficiency

Foods with the Highest Amounts of Magnesium

Most people can keep their levels in the healthy range without resorting to supplements, simply by eating a varied diet, including plenty of dark-green leafy vegetables. One important point to mention though is that the levels of magnesium in your food are dependent on the levels of magnesium in the soil where they’re grown. Organic foods may have more magnesium, as most fertilizer used on conventional farms relies heavily on nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium instead of magnesium.

The featured article lists more than 20 specific foods that are exceptionally high in magnesium, including the following (for the full list, please see the original report5). All portions are listed equate to 100 grams, or just over three ounces:

Seaweed, agar, dried (770 mg)

Spices, basil, dried (422 mg)

Spice, coriander leaf, dried (694 mg)

Flaxseed (392 mg)

Dried pumpkin seeds (535 mg)

Almond butter (303 mg)

Cocoa, dry powder, unsweetened (499 mg)

Whey, sweet, dried (176 mg)

Different Types of Magnesium Supplements

If for whatever reason you decide you need a supplement, be aware that there are a wide variety of magnesium supplements on the market, courtesy of the fact that magnesium must be bound to another substance. There’s simply no such thing as a 100% magnesium supplement. The substance used in any given supplement combination can affect the absorption and bioavailability of the magnesium, and may provide slightly different, or targeted, health benefits:

Magnesium glycinate is a chelated form of magnesium that tends to provide the highest levels of absorption and bioavailability and is typically considered ideal for those who are trying to correct a deficiency

Magnesium oxide is a non-chelated type of magnesium, bound to an organic acid or a fatty acid. Contains 60 percent magnesium, and has stool softening properties

Magnesium chloride / Magnesium lactate contain only 12 percent magnesium, but has better absorption than others, such as magnesium oxide, which contains five times more magnesium

Magnesium sulfate / Magnesium hydroxide (milk of magnesia) are typically used as a laxative. Be aware that it’s easy to overdose on these, so ONLY take as directed

Magnesium carbonate, which has antacid properties, contains 45 percent magnesium

Magnesium taurate contains a combination of magnesium and taurine, an amino acid. Together, they tend to provide a calming effect on your body and mind

Magnesium citrate is magnesium with citric acid, which has laxative properties

Magnesium threonate is a newer, emerging type of magnesium supplement that appears promising, primarily due to its superior ability to penetrate the mitochondrial membrane, and may be the best magnesium supplement on the market

Balance Your Magnesium with Calcium, Vitamin K2 and D

One of the major benefits of getting your nutrients from a varied whole food diet is that you’re far less likely to end up with too much of one nutrient at the expense of others. Foods in general contain all the cofactors and needed co-nutrients in the proper amounts for optimal health, which takes out the guess work. When you’re using supplements, you need to become a bit more savvy about how nutrients influence and synergistically affect each other.

For example, it’s important to maintain the proper balance between magnesium, calcium, vitamin K2, and vitamin D. Lack of balance between these nutrients is why calcium supplements have become associated with increased risk of heart attacks and stroke, and why some people experience vitamin D toxicity.

Part of the explanation for these adverse side effects is that vitamin K2 keeps calcium in its appropriate place. If you’re K2 deficient, added calcium can cause more problems than it solves, by accumulating in the wrong places. Similarly, if you opt for oral vitamin D, you need to also consume it in your food or take supplemental vitamin K2. Taking mega doses of vitamin D supplements without sufficient amounts of K2 can lead to vitamin D toxicity symptoms, which includes inappropriate calcification.

While the ideal or optimal ratios between vitamin D and vitamin K2 have yet to be elucidated, Dr. Kate Rheaume-Bleue (whom I’ve interviewed on this topic) suggests that for every 1,000 IU’s of vitamin D you take, you may benefit from about 100 micrograms of K2, and perhaps as much as 150-200 micrograms (mcg). The latest vitamin D dosing recommendations, which call for about 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D3 per day if you’re an adult, means you’d need in the neighborhood of 800 to 1,000 micrograms (0.8 to 1 milligram/mg) of vitamin K2.

Now, getting back to magnesium…

Magnesium may actually be more important than calcium if you are going to consider supplementing. However, maintaining an appropriate calcium-to-magnesium ratio is important regardless. Research on the paleolithic or caveman diet has shown that the ratio of calcium to magnesium in the diet that our bodies evolved to eat is 1-to-16. Americans in general tend to have a higher calcium-to-magnesium ratio in their diet, averaging about 3.5-to-1.

Magnesium will also help keep calcium in your cells so they can do their job better. In many ways it serves as nutritional version of the highly effective class of drugs called calcium channel blockers, used in the treatment of high blood pressure, angina, and abnormal heart rhythms. Magnesium and vitamin K2 also complement each other, as magnesium helps lower blood pressure, which is an important component of heart disease.

So, all in all, anytime you’re taking any of the following: magnesium, calcium, vitamin D3 or vitamin D2, you need to take all the others into consideration as well, since these all work synergistically with each other.

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

The beauty of the natural world extends far beyond just the aesthetic characteristics that make plants and shrubs visually appealing. Some of the most powerful healing and immune-boosting agents in existence can actually be found growing unassumingly in fields, forests, and jungles around the world — and many of them have yet to be fully realized for their therapeutic potential. Still, there are plenty of herbs we do already know about that have demonstrable, scientifically-proven health benefits you can begin taking advantage of today.

Here are five such herbal tinctures you and your family can take for their powerful immune-boosting properties:

1) Astragalus. A powerful tonic long used in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), astragalus (Astragalus membranaceus), also known as milk-vetch and locoweed, is one of the most potent and restorative food plants you can consume to improve your immunity and “strengthen the exterior,” as the ancient Chinese would say. Said to tonify the spleen, blood, and “chi,” astragalus herbs help boost energy levels; restore damaged immunity; regenerate tissue; inhibit the growth and spread of cancer; and strengthen the heart, liver, and lungs, among other functions. (http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/astragalus-000223.htm)

“Astragalus is a powerful ‘non-specific’ immune system stimulant,” says the website Blessed Maine Herbs. “Instead of activating our defense system against a specific disease organism, astragalus nourishes immunity by increasing the numbers and activity of roving white blood cells, the macrophages. As an immunostimulant, astragalus engages and activates every phase of our immune system into heightened activity.”

2) St. John’s Wort. Commonly used as a treatment for mild depression, chronic fatigue syndrome, and pain, St. John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum) is another immune-boosting herb that contains an array of antioxidants, flavonoids, essential oils and other compounds that work synergistically to reduce inflammation and promote healing and wellness. Because of its strong antiviral and antibacterial properties, St. John’s Wort is an effective “bug” cleanser that eases the overall burden on the immune system.

Interestingly, researchers have learned that St. John’s Wort both increases and decreases immunity depending on the function, which is why it is also considered to be an adaptogen, or tonic, just like astragalus. When fighting harmful pathogens or viruses, St. John’s Wort boosts immune capacity in order to wards off disease. But when it comes to wounds and other injuries that typically elicit an inflammatory response, St. John’s Wort minimizes this response as much as possible to protect the body against further damage. (http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2005/10/18/st-johns-wort/)

3) Sage. You might not think of it as much more than a common cooking spice, but sage (Salvia officinalis) contains a unique combination of disease-fighting compounds that make it a powerful immune protector. According to Blessed Maine Herbs, sage contains an impressive array of antioxidants, trace minerals, essential oils, and other nutrients the help reduce stress, which is a common cause of disease, as well as fight the aging process.

Native American tribes actually used to chew the leaves of sage as a strengthening tonic because the herb is both a broad-spectrum, all-natural antibiotic and a powerful immune stimulant. If you suffer from frequent sore throats, upper respiratory illnesses, or infections, sage is a great option for not only overcoming these conditions, but also building up your own innate immunity so that these conditions do not come back in the future (or at least not as often).

4) Garlic. Garlic (Allium sativum) gets a lot of attention here at Natural News, and this is not an accident, as this powerful herb possesses so many health benefits that it is almost impossible to list them all in one article. But if vibrant immunity is something you are serious about, incorporating garlic into your health arsenal is essential, as it fights harmful bacteria and viruses; targets detrimental parasites and fungi, and boosts immune function.

“Garlic is rich in antibiotic powers and strengthens the immune system,” states Blessed Maine Herbs. “Garlic is also active against herpes simplex, influenza B, HIV and many other serious illnesses,” adds the site, noting that garlic is also rich in organic sulfur, or methylsulfonylmethane (MSM), a necessary nutrient for regenerating cells; maintaining proper organ function; regulating blood sugar; and resisting disease. (http://www.naturalnews.com/026797_sulfur_organic.html)

5) Hyssop. Numerous passages in the Bible’s Old Testament refer to hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis) as a ceremonial cleansing herb, which is where many people will likely recall hearing about the plant, if they have even heard of it at all. But this ritualized use is not an accident, as hyssop really does contain a variety of healing agents such as caffeic acid, camphor-like constituents, essential oils, and other compounds that strengthen immunity and protect the body against foreign invaders.

Patients with AIDS symptoms, for instance, have experienced incredible success and recovery as a result of taking hyssop, as the herb cleanses the blood. Hyssop also rids infected cells of other common viral diseases such as herpes and influenza, as well as treats colds, coughs, congestion, asthma, and sore throats, among other conditions.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.blessedmaineherbs.com/herforhealim.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038368_herbal_tinctures_immune_system_astragalus.html#ixzz2FIUTgrne

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

By Dr. Mercola

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs, there may be good reason to carefully consider your decision to include pork as a regular part of your diet, because despite advertising campaigns trying to paint pork as a “healthy” alternative to beef, research suggests it may be hazardous to your health on multiple levels. One of the most potentially acute hazards is contamination with pathogenic bacteria.

According to a surprising new investigation by Consumer Reports1, 69 percent of all raw pork samples tested — nearly 200 samples in total — were contaminated with the dangerous bacteria Yersinia enterocolitica, which causes fever and gastrointestinal illness with diarrhea, vomiting, and stomach cramps.

Ground pork was more likely than pork chops to be contaminated.

The pork also tested positive for other contaminants, including the controversial drug ractopamine, which is banned in many parts of the world, including China and Europe. The drug, which was found in more than 20 percent of the samples, is used to boost growth in the animal while leaving the meat lean. Worst of all, many of the bacteria found in the pork were resistant to multiple antibiotics, making treatment, should you fall ill, all the more problematic and potentially lethal.

According to the featured report:

“We found salmonella, staphylococcus aureus, or listeria monocytogenes, more common causes of foodborne illness, in 3 to 7 percent of samples. And 11 percent harbored enterococcus, which can indicate fecal contamination and can cause problems such as urinary-tract infections.”

While Nutritionally Sound, Pork is Probably Still Best Avoided

Pork is an arguably “healthy” meat from a biochemical perspective, and if consumed from a humanely raised pastured hog like those on Joel Salatins’ farm and prepared properly, there is likely minimal risk of infection. However, virtually all of the pork you’re likely to consume do not fit these criteria.

So for most all industrially raised pork, I believe there is enough scientific evidence to justify the reservations or outright prohibitions in many cultures against consuming it. Nearly all pigs raised in the U.S. come from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFO’s. These inhumane environments are typically toxic breeding grounds for pathogens.

These animals spend their short, miserable lives on concrete and steel grates. Antibiotics are given liberally with their feed, making their massive waste even more toxic.

This is why you can smell a CAFO swine operation miles before you see it. At an operation like Joel Salatin’s, you couldn’t smell any sign of pigs. These pigs were raised humanely and organically, where both animal and land are managed symbiotically.

Unfortunately, raising animals in CAFO’s is the standard for Americans. For many of us, CAFO pork is the only option available.

This is why my nutrition plan recommends consciously avoiding pork whenever possible unless you can assure yourself that the hogs were raised like the video above. Granted, the occasional consumption of pork might be fine, but it’s a risk, and the more you consume it the more likely it is that you will eventually acquire some type of infection. The pork and swine industry has been continually plagued, and continues to be so to this day, by a wide variety of hazardous infections and diseases, including:
•PRRS — A horrendous disease, which I first reported on in 2001, but which had been a nightmare for many nations since the mid-1980s, is still alive and kicking today. At one point referred to as “swine mystery disease,” “blue abortion,” and “swine infertility,” the disease was finally named “Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome” (PRRS), and may afflict about 75 percent of American pig herds.

The PRRS virus primarily attacks the pig’s immune system, leaving its body open to a host of infections, particularly in the lungs. Initial research revealed that the virus was transmitted via semen, saliva and blood, leaving pigs herded closely together and transported in close quarters by trucks more susceptible to infection. However, according to research presented at the 2007 International PRRS Symposium, the disease is also airborne, making eradication efforts very difficult.
•The Nipah Virus – Discovered in 1999, the Nipah virus has caused disease in both animals and humans, through contact with infected animals. In humans, the virus can lead to deadly encephalitis (an acute inflammation of your brain). I originally reported on this virus in 2000, but according to CDC data, the Nipah virus reemerged again in 20042.
•Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus (PERV) – According to a study in the journal Lancet, this virus can spread to people receiving pig organ transplants, and according to test tube studies, PERV strains do have the ability to infect human cells3. PERV genes are scattered throughout pigs’ genetic material, and researchers have found that pig heart, spleen and kidney cells release various strains of the virus.
•Menangle Virus – In 1998, it was reported that a new virus infecting pigs was able to jump to humans. The menangle virus was discovered in August 1997 when sows at an Australian piggery began giving birth to deformed and mummified piglets.

Pork is NOT Advisable in a Raw Diet

As explained by Consumer Reports, thoroughly cooking your pork is important for safety, so if you’re on a raw diet (which can include raw meats), pork should definitely NOT be part of your menu… Again, while I don’t recommend it, if you DO opt to eat pork, it would be wise to follow these safe handling tips and guidelines, issued by Consumer Reports4:
•When cooking pork, use a meat thermometer to ensure that it reaches the proper internal temperature, which kills potentially harmful bacteria: at least 145° F for whole pork and 160° F for ground pork.
•Keep raw pork and its juices separate from other foods, especially those eaten raw, such as salad.
•Wash your hands thoroughly after handling raw meat.
•Choose pork and other meat products that were raised without drugs. One way to do that is to buy certified organic pork, from pigs raised without antibiotics or ractopamine.
•Look for a clear statement regarding antibiotic use. “No antibiotics used” claims with a USDA Process Verified shield are more reliable than those without verification. Labels such as “Animal Welfare Approved” and “Certified Humane” indicate the prudent use of antibiotics to treat illness.
•Watch out for misleading labels. “Natural” has nothing to do with antibiotic use or how an animal was raised. We found unapproved claims, including “no antibiotic residues,” on packages of Sprouts pork sold in California and Arizona, and “no antibiotic growth promotants” on Farmland brand pork sold in several states. We reported those to the USDA in June 2012, and the agency told us it’s working with those companies to take “appropriate actions.” When we checked in early November, Sprouts had removed the claim from its packages.
•If your local supermarket doesn’t carry pork from pigs raised without antibiotics, consider asking the store to carry it. To find meat from animals that were raised sustainably — humanely and without drugs — go to eatwellguide.org. To learn about the Consumers Union campaign aimed at getting stores to sell only antibiotic-free meat, go to NotinMyFood.org.

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