30 October 2010

Gulf Oil Syndrome: coughing up blood (video)

BP LogoImage via Wikipedia
Milllions of Americans have been convinced by the mainstream media that the BPhttp://upload.wik
imedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e7/BP_Logo.svg/75px-BP_Logo.svg.png Oil crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is behind us. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's just that the truth is being hidden and has been taken from the front pages and buried. People who are getting sick are also being buried. Here is a cleanup worker describing what happened to him...

Enhanced by Zemanta

29 October 2010

The Animation of a Cell (video)

Have ever wondered about the mechanics of life? How life actually occurs on its most basic level? How each of the trillions of cells in your body are able to be individually alive and then synergistically impart a higher level and function of life to the whole? Even if you haven't asked such questions, here is a beautiful video depicting life on the smallest scale- it will amaze you!

Enhanced by Zemanta

27 October 2010

The Brain in Your Gut (video)

The Coconut Oil Miracle

Confused about fats and oils in your diet? Most people are due to the conflicting information swirling about for a few decades now. Point number one is fats and oils of the right sort are essential to good health. A no fat or low fat diet is dangerous and unhealthy. But what are the right fats and oils? Here is my personal list:  raw butter, ghee (clarified butter for cooking), extra virgin olive oil to be used raw and coconut oil for high heat cooking. That's it- end of list. It's that simple to get the right fats in the diet to build healthy brain cells, have a ready source of energy, aid weight reduction, prevent and cure infections, reduce inflammation and avoid joint stiffness among many other benefits.

The Coconut Oil Miracle
You've no doubt noticed that for about the last 60 years the majority of health care officials and the media have been telling you saturated fats are bad for your health and lead to a host of negative consequences, like elevated cholesterol, obesity, heart disease and Alzheimer's disease.

Meanwhile during this same 60 years the American levels of heart disease, obesity, elevated serum cholesterol and Alzheimer's have skyrocketed compared to our ancestors, and even compared to modern-day primitive societies using saturated fat as a dietary staple.

Did you know that multiple studies on Pacific Island populations who get 30-60% of their total caloric intact from fully saturated coconut oil have all shown nearly non-existent rates of cardiovascular disease?[1]

Clearly, a lot of confusion and contradictory evidence exists on the subject of saturated fats, even among health care professionals.
But I'm going to tell you something that public health officials and the media aren't telling you.
The fact is, all saturated fats are not created equal.

The operative word here is "created", because some saturated fats occur naturally, while other fats are artificially manipulated into a saturated state through the man-made process called hydrogenation.

Hydrogenation manipulates vegetable and seed oils by adding hydrogen atoms while heating the oil, producing a rancid, thickened oil that really only benefits processed food shelf life and corporate profits.

The medical and scientific communities are now fairly united in the opinion that hydrogenated vegetable and seed oils should be avoided.

These manipulated saturated fats are also called trans fats, and no doubt you've heard about them lately. Some cities and states have now outlawed their use. There is no controversy anymore regarding the health dangers of these artificially saturated fats.

And guess what?

These are the same damaged trans fats that have been touted as "healthy" and "heart-friendly" for the last 60 years by the vegetable and seed oil interests!

But the truth finally came out. Trans fat was rebuked, debunked, and revealed as the true enemy to good health that it has always been, regardless of what the seed- and vegetable oil shills told the American public for the last half century.

Unfortunately, this rightful vilification of hydrogenated saturated fats has created a lot of confusion regarding naturally occurring saturated fats, including coconut oil.

If one form of saturated fat is bad for you, the argument goes, then all saturated fat must be bad.

Nothing could be further from the truth!
The Truth about Coconut Oil
The truth about coconut oil is obvious to anyone who has studied the health of those who live in traditional tropical cultures, where coconut has been a nutritious diet staple for thousands of years.
Back in the 1930's, a dentist named Dr. Weston Price traveled throughout the South Pacific, examining traditional diets and their effect on dental and overall health. He found that those eating diets high in coconut products were healthy and trim, despite the high fat concentration in their diet, and that heart disease was virtually non-existent.
Similarly, in 1981, researchers studied populations of two Polynesian atolls. Coconut was the chief source of caloric energy in both groups. The results, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,[2] demonstrated that both populations exhibited positive vascular health.
In fact, no evidence exists that the naturally occurring high saturated fat intake had any kind of harmful effect in these populations!
That's not what you expected, is it? Based on 60 years of negative public policy towards naturally occurring saturated fats, you would expect these cultures to be rife with clogged arteries, obesity and heart disease.
It may be surprising for you to realize that the naturally occurring saturated fat in coconut oil actually has some amazing health benefits, such as:
Promoting your heart health[3]
Promoting weight loss, when needed[4]
Supporting your immune system health[5]
Supporting a healthy metabolism[6]
Providing you with an immediate energy source[7]
Keeping your skin healthy and youthful looking
Supporting the proper functioning of your thyroid gland[8]

But how is this possible?
Does coconut oil have some secret ingredients not found in other saturated fats?
The answer is a resounding "yes".

Coconut Oil's Secret Ingredient
50 percent of the fat content in coconut oil is a fat rarely found in nature called lauric acid. If you're a frequent reader of my newsletter you already know that I consider lauric acid a "miracle" ingredient because of its unique health promoting properties.
Your body converts lauric acid into monolaurin, which has anti-viral, anti-bacterial and anti-protozoa properties.[9]
Monolaurin is a monoglyceride which can actually destroy lipid coated viruses such as:
HIV, herpes
Influenza virus
Various pathogenic bacteria
Protozoa such as giardia lamblia.

Lauric acid is a powerful virus and gram-negative bacteria destroyer, and coconut oil contains the most lauric acid of any substance on earth!

Capric acid, another coconut fatty acid present in smaller amounts, has also been added to the list of coconut's antimicrobial components.
monolaurin in our diet. But the health benefits of coconut oil don't stop there.

The Benefits of Medium-Chain Fatty Acids
Coconut oil is about 2/3 medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs), also called medium-chain triglycerides or MCTs. These types of fatty acids produce a whole host of health benefits.

Coconut oil is nature's richest source of these healthy MCFAs.

By contrast, most common vegetable or seed oils are comprised of long chain fatty acids (LCFAs), also known as long-chain triglycerides or LCTs.

Let me tell you why these long-chain fatty acids are not as healthy for you as the MCFAs found in coconut oil[10] :

LCFAs are difficult for your body to break down -- they require special enzymes for digestion.

LCFAs put more strain on your pancreas, liver and your entire digestive system.

LCFAs are predominantly stored in your body as fat.

LCFAs can be deposited within your arteries in lipid forms such as cholesterol.

In contrast to LFCAs, the MCFAs found in coconut oil have many health benefits, including the following beneficial qualities:

MCFAs are smaller. They permeate cell membranes easily, and do not require special enzymes to be utilized effectively by your body.

MCFAs are easily digested, thus putting less strain on your digestive system.

MCFAs are sent directly to your liver, where they are immediately converted into energy rather than being stored as fat.

MCFAs actually help stimulate your body's metabolism, leading to weight loss.

Coconut Oil Helps Fight Diabetes
Your body sends medium-chain fatty acids directly to your liver to use as energy. This makes coconut oil a powerful source of instant energy to your body, a function usually served in the diet by simple carbohydrates.

But although coconut oil and simple carbohydrates share the ability to deliver quick energy to your body, they differ in one crucial respect.
Coconut oil does not produce an insulin spike in your bloodstream. You read that correctly, Coconut oil acts on your body like a carbohydrate, without any of the debilitating insulin-related effects associated with long-term high carbohydrate consumption!

Diabetics and those with pre-diabetes conditions (an exploding health epidemic in America), should immediately realize the benefit of a fast acting energy source that doesn't produce an insulin spike in your body. In fact, coconut oil added to the diets of diabetics and pre-diabetics has actually been shown to help stabilize weight gain, which can dramatically decrease your likelihood of getting adult onset type-2 Diabetes.[11]

Cococut Oil, the Friend to Athletes and Dieters
If you live in the United States, you have an almost 70 percent chance of being overweight.
And, by now, I'm sure you're well aware that obesity affects your quality of life and is linked to many health concerns.
One of the best benefits of coconut oil lies in its ability to help stimulate your metabolism.
Back in the 1940s, farmers found out about this effect by accident when they tried using inexpensive coconut oil to fatten their livestock.
It didn't work!
Instead, coconut oil made the animals lean, active and hungry.
However, many animal and human research studies have demonstrated that replacing LCFAs with MCFAs results in both decreased body weight and reduced fat deposition.
In fact, the ability of MCFAs to be easily digested, to help stimulate the metabolism and be turned into energy has entered the sports arena. Several studies have now shown that MCFAs can enhance physical or athletic performance.[12]
Additionally, research has demonstrated that, due to its metabolic effect, coconut oil increases the activity of the thyroid. And you've probably heard that a sluggish thyroid is one reason why some people are unable to lose weight, no matter what they do.
Besides weight loss, there are other advantages to boosting your metabolic rate. Your healing process accelerates. Cell regeneration increases to replace old cells, and your immune system functions better overall.
Coconut Oil on Your Skin
Besides the mounting medical and scientific evidence that coconut oil has powerful positive health benefits when eaten, it has also been used for decades by professional massage therapists to knead away tight stressed muscles.
However, you don't have to be a professional massage therapist to gain the skin and tissue support benefits of coconut oil. Just use coconut oil as you would any lotion.
Coconut oil is actually ideal for skin care. It helps protect your skin from the aging effects of free radicals, and can help improve the appearance of skin with its anti-aging benefits.
In fact, physiologist and biochemist Ray Peat, Ph.D. considers coconut oil an antioxidant[13] , due to its stability and resistance to oxidation and free radical formation. Plus, he believes it reduces our need for the antioxidant protection of vitamin E.
Like Dr. Peat, many experts believe coconut oil may help restore more youthful-looking skin. When coconut oil is absorbed into your skin and connective tissues, it helps to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles by helping to keep your connective tissues strong and supple, and aids in exfoliating the outer layer of dead skin cells, making your skin smoother.

Coconut Oil and Your Heart
Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the U.S. And heart disease is often a silent killer. The first sign of cardiovascular disease is commonly a heart attack, and sadly, over one third of heart attacks are fatal.
And despite the propaganda, the truth is this: it is UNSATURATED fats that are primarily involved in heart disease, not the naturally occurring saturated fats, as you have been led to believe.[14]
Plus, the polyunsaturated fats in vegetable and seed oils encourage the formation of blood clots by increasing platelet stickiness. Coconut oil helps to promote normal platelet function.

Coconut Oil in Your Kitchen
I only use two oils in my food preparation.
The first, extra-virgin olive oil, is a better monounsaturated fat that works great as a salad dressing.
However, it should not be used for cooking. Due to its chemical structure, heat makes it susceptible to oxidative damage.

And polyunsaturated fats, which include common vegetable oils such as corn, soy, safflower, sunflower and canola, are absolutely the worst oils to use in cooking. These omega-6 oils are highly susceptible to heat damage because of their double bonds.
I strongly urge you to throw out those omega-6 vegetable oils in your cabinets.

Reason # 1: Most people believe that frying creates trans-fat. That is not the major problem, in my opinion. Although some are created, they are relatively minor. There are FAR more toxic chemicals produced by frying omega-6 oils thantrans-fat.
Frying destroys the antioxidants in oil and as a result oxidizes the oil. This causes cross-linking, cyclization, double-bond shifts, fragmentation and polymerization of oils that cause far more damage than trans-fat.

Reason # 2: Most of the vegetable oils are GMO. This would include over 90 percent of the soy, corn and canola oils.

Reason # 3: Vegetable oils contribute to the overabundance of damaged omega-6 fats in your diet, which creates an imbalance in the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3. As you know from my extensive writing on this subject, I believe that excessive consumption of damaged omega-6 fats contributes to many health concerns.

They are all highly processed and consumed in amounts that are about 100 times more than our ancestors did a century ago. This causes them to distort the sensitive omega-6/omega-3 ratio which controls many delicate biochemical pathways which results in accelerating many chronic degenerative diseases.

There is only one oil that is stable enough to resist mild heat-induced damage, while it also helps you promote heart health and even supports weight loss and thyroid function -- coconut oil.

So, whenever you need an oil to cook with, use coconut oil instead of butter, olive oil, vegetable oil, margarine, or any other type of oil called for in recipes. Even though I don't fully recommend frying foods, if you must fry, by all means use coconut oil -- it's your smartest choice.

Coconut Oil Safety
The medium-chain fats in coconut oil are considered so nutritious that they are used in baby formulas, in hospitals to feed the critically ill, those on tube feeding, and those with digestive problems. Coconut oil has even been used successfully by doctors in treating aluminum poisoning.[15]

Coconut oil is exceptionally helpful for pregnant women, nursing moms, the elderly, those concerned about digestive health, athletes (even weekend warriors), and those of you who just want to enhance your overall health.

Enhanced by Zemanta

26 October 2010

Vitamin D Slashes Cancer Rate 77%

Vitamin D Slashes Cancer Rate 77%
Exciting new research conducted at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Nebraska has revealed that supplementing with vitamin D and calcium can reduce your risk of cancer by an astonishing 77 percent. This includes breast cancer, colon cancer, skin cancer and other forms of cancer. This research provides strong new evidence that vitamin D is the single most effective medicine against cancer, far outpacing the benefits of any cancer drug known to modern science.

The study involved 1,179 healthy women from rural Nebraska. One group of women was given calcium (around 1500 mg daily) and vitamin D (1100 IU daily) while another group was given placebo. Over four year, the group receiving the calcium and vitamin D supplements showed a 60 percent decrease in cancers. Considering just the last three years of the study reveals an impressive 77 percent reduction in cancer due to supplementation. (The full press release of this study is included below. It provides more details about the findings.)

Note that these astonishing effects were achieved on what many nutritionists consider to be a low dose of vitamin D. Exposure to sunlight, which creates even more vitamin D in the body, was not tested or considered, and the quality of the calcium supplements was likely not as high as it could have been (it was probably calcium carbonate and not high-grade calcium malate, aspartate or similar forms). What does all this mean? It means that if you take high-quality calcium supplements and get lots of natural sunlight exposure or take premium vitamin D supplements (such as those made from fish oil), you could easily have a greater reduction than the 77 percent reduction recorded in this study.

American Cancer Society opposes vitamin D

This research on vitamin D is such good news that the American Cancer Society, of course, had to say something against it. An ACS spokesperson, Marji McCullough, strategic director of nutritional epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, flatly stated that nobody should take supplements to prevent cancer.

If it seems surprising to you that the American Cancer Society -- which claims to be against cancer -- would dissuade people from taking supplements that slash their cancer risk by 77 percent, then you don't know much about the ACS. In my opinion, the ACS is an organization that actually prevents prevention and openly supports the continuation of cancer as a way to boost its power and profits. The ACS is the wealthiest non-profit in America and has very close ties to pharmaceutical companies, mammography equipment companies and other corporations that profit from cancer. Notice the name, too: It isn't the American Anti-Cancer Society, it's the American Cancer Society! What they really stand for is right in the name!

The cancer industry is a multi-billion dollar industry, and I've written extensively about the criminal organizations that protect and promote the industry. Just about everything the public is told about cancer by these cancer institutions is a lie. Those "race for the cure" cancer walks are a complete scam (they really aren't searching for any way to prevent cancer or cure cancer, they're only searching for new patented drugs to profit from cancer).

This research on vitamin D is a huge threat to the cancer industry profit mongers because it reveals a way to prevent cancer for free -- by seeking natural sunlight exposure and letting your skin manufacture your own powerful anti-cancer medicine (vitamin D). The idea that the cancer industry could lose 80% of its patients due to widespread education about vitamin D and sunlight scares the living daylights out of the cancer industry. Billions of dollars in cancer profits are at stake here, so the pro-cancer groups have to do everything they can to discredit vitamin D by creating doubt and confusion. The degree of dishonesty at work here is almost unbelievable to those who don't really know what's happening in the cancer industry.

Ten questions to ask yourself about the cancer industry
Consider these questions:

#1: Why does the cancer industry refuse to educate people about cancer prevention?

#2: If people keep donating money for the "search" for a cancer cure, why won't drug companies pledge to "open source" their patents on cancer drugs to benefit the people whose donations funded them in the first place? In other words, why do people donate money for cancer research but then get charged for cancer drugs?

#3: Why does the entire cancer industry so strongly dissuade people from using sunlight exposure to dramatically reduce their cancer risk? (Hint: Follow the money to the sunscreen industry...)

#4: Why have all the really good cancer supplements, clinics and naturopaths been banned, arrested or run out of the country? (Look up the FDA's oppression of Lane Labs over MGN-3 for a fascinating review of this...)
5: The U.S. has poured billions of dollars into the cancer industry over the last three decades. Cancer cures were promised in the 1970's. Why are cancer rates still essentially the same today as they were in the 1970's?

#6: Why does the cancer industry continue to use chemotherapy, radiation and other toxic procedures to "kill tumors" when the latest science clearly shows that cancer tumors are only the symptoms, not the cause, of cancer? Chemotherapy destroys immune function and causes permanent damage to the heart, brain and liver...

#7: The World Health Organization says that 70% of all cancers are easily preventable through dietary and lifestyle changes. This latest research shows that sunlight and low-cost calcium supplements can slash cancer risk by 77% in women. Why won't conventional medicine embrace this low-cost, safe and highly effective method for preventing cancer?

#8: The cancer industry routinely attacks anti-cancer herbs, superfoods and supplements. Why is the cancer industry opposed to anti-cancer nutrition? Why does it believe that only man, not nature, can manufacture anti-cancer medicines?

#9: Dark skin pigmentation blocks ultraviolet radiation, meaning that people with black skin need far more time under the sun to generate the same amount of vitamin D as someone with white skin. Not surprisingly, black women suffer extremely high rates of breast cancer while black men show similarly high levels of prostate cancer. The white-dominated medical industry pretends to be "mystified" by all this. Why won't conventional medicine simple tell black people the truth about vitamin D, skin pigmentation and cancer? Why do oncologists try to keep black people ignorant about their vitamin D deficiencies?

#10: Why is it illegal for nutritional supplement manufacturers to tell the truth about the anti-cancer effects of their products? Broccoli, garlic, onions and sprouts all have powerful anti-cancer effects, as do dozens of rainforest herbs (Cat's Claw, for example), Chinese herbs and Western herbs. But the FDA threatens and censors any company that dares to mention cancer prevention on its supplement products. Why is the FDA enforcing a policy of nutritional ignorance with U.S. consumers? Why does the federal government want people to remain ignorant of methods for preventing or treating cancer?

You probably already know the answer to all these questions, because the answer is the same for each one: Corporate profits. Cancer is hugely profitable to treat. Substantially preventing cancer would result in a loss of billions of dollars in profits for the oncologists, drug companies, hospitals and clinics that currently prey upon the finances of cancer victims.

The cancer industry is operated like a criminal racket, using false information, intimidation, political pressure and propaganda to protect its power base and keep its corporations profitable. And that, my friends, is exactly why the industry is against the use of sunlight to prevent cancer. Free medicine from the sky? The very thought of it makes the cancer industry cringe. Sunlight doesn't even need a prescription, you see, and it can't be patented, either.

Preventing cancer the healthy way
Let me tell you how I prevent cancer. I take long walks in the desert with no shirt on, and I don't wear sunscreen. I soak up the sun's rays for many hours each week, and I never get a sun burn because I eat lots of antioxidant-rich superfoods, berries and fresh produce.

I drink a raw superfood smoothie each morning, made of fresh produce and superfoods. My two favorite recipes are chocolate (with raw cacao, coconut oil or macadamia nut oil, raw avocado, spirulina, quinoa, banana and almond milk) and super berry (fresh berries, freeze-dried berries, egg white protein, stevia, aloe vera gel, fresh cucumber or watermelon, celery).
I put no personal care products on my skin whatsoever: No deodorants, no fragrance, no skin creams, no cosmetics and no sunscreen. This alone saves me from exposure to hundreds of cancer-causing toxic chemicals added to personal care products. I refuse to use chemical laundry detergent and, instead, use natural laundry soap that grows on trees: Natural soap berries that we sell as a replacement for chemical laundry detergents.

Corporate-controlled U.S. government doesn't want to prevent cancer

The U.S. government doesn't want the population to be free of cancer. That's a strong statement, so let me offer you an undeniable piece of strong evidence to back that up: The artificially low RDA numbers for vitamin D.

One of the best ways to keep the population suffering from cancer is to enforce long-term nutritional deficiencies that lead to cancer. The US government accomplishes this by keeping the recommendations for vitamin D artificially low, practically guaranteeing that anyone who follows the recommendations will eventually be diagnosed with cancer. Vitamin D deficiency is the leading cause of breast cancer.

Most educated nutritionists agree that the daily dose of vitamin D for an adult should be at least 1000 IUs, perhaps as high as 1400. But the U.S. Institute of Medicine (IoM), which controls the recommendations on these things, currently states that adults under 50 only need 200 IUs of vitamin D a day. This policy is, in my opinion, an organized conspiracy to keep the American people diseased by making sure they stay deficient in anti-cancer nutrients. It serves the interests of all the powerful corporations and non-profits that run Washington. And yes, it is a conspiracy. I've documented it in far more detail in my book, Natural Health Solutions and the Conspiracy to Keep You From Knowing About Them, which reveals shocking details, documents and photographs showing how modern medicine is a system that's literally designed to keep the people in a state of chronic disease.

The FDA doesn't want people to prevent cancer either. That's why they've aggressively attacked companies offering anti-cancer nutrients, and completely censored the very mention of the word "cancer" by supplement companies. In fact, the only reason I can print the information you're reading right now is because I sell no food or supplements and my free speech writing is not regulated by the FDA. If I were selling supplements and writing these same words you're reading right now, I would be arrested, charged with federal crimes, and put out of business by state and federal authorities. That's the reality of the oppressive medical environment under which we live today: Health is outlawed, and only disease is allowed to be promoted.

The cancer industry, you see, is not merely incompetent; it is criminal. Intentionally keeping a population sick so that you can profit from disease is a crime against humanity. And yet this is business as usual in America's modern cancer industry.

Discrediting simple, free and safe cancer prevention strategies is also criminal, and yet this is what the American Cancer Society seems to do at every opportunity.

Plotting to profit from the suffering of other humans beings is evil. And yet the entire revenue base of the cancer industry is based on precisely that: Keeping people alive long enough to "treat" them with overpriced toxic chemicals that can be billed to Medicare at 50,000% markups over their manufacturing cost.

Cancer is big, big business. And curing cancer is a threat to all the criminals participating in that industry: The non-profit employees, oncologists, doctors, federal regulators, drug company executives, med school propaganda teachers, pharmaceutical reps and many others. These people cannot allow cancer to be prevented or cured. Their jobs and careers are at stake.

Another outstanding source for learning more about the evils of the cancer industry is G. Edward Griffin. Click here to read our article about Griffin or click here for his website.

Personally, I believe we could create a world virtually free of cancer. We could accomplish it in two generations by taking tough action to outlaw cancer-causing chemicals and investing in genuine cancer prevention education. Drug companies would lose trillions of dollars in profits, hospitals would lose huge amounts of patients, and pro-cancer non-profit groups would lose power, money and prestige. But guess what? We'd all be better off without cancer.

Here's a startling statistic: Did you know that reducing the cancer death rate by just 1% would be worth almost $500 billion to the U.S. economy over the next hundred years or so? (Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Drop the cancer rate by 10% and it's worth $5 trillion dollars to the economy. (These gains are due to increased productivity and life spans of working, contributing people.)

We know right now that vitamin D and calcium can slash cancer rates by 77 percent. Do the math on that, and you realize that sunlight and calcium could result in a $38.5 trillion boost to the U.S. economy over the next century.

That's enough economic productivity to pay off our entire national debt, build new schools in every town and city in the country, provide free college educations to all young people who wish to go to college, invest billions in new energy technologies and even fund massive health education campaigns to keep our population healthy. $38 trillion is a lot of money. With that kind of increased abundance, we could build a whole new society of health, wealth and education.

But guess what? The cancer industry won't let that happen. There's too much short term profit to be made in keeping everybody sick. The cancer industry is so evil that it will sell out our future in order to maintain power, profits and control over the people today. The cancer industry doesn't want cancer rates to go down, regardless of the benefits to society or individual lives. The cancer industry wants there to be MORE cancer, which is exactly why it opposes commonsense prevention strategies that would reduce cancers. (It's true, this industry actually opposes removing cancer-causing chemicals from the workplace...)

Read more at Dr. Sam Epstein's website: http://www.preventcancer.com

The bottom line in all this? New research shows us that using low-cost calcium and vitamin D supplements (or just natural sunlight), we could slash cancer rates by an astonishing 77 percent. The cancer industry opposes this and is firmly positioned as an opponent of cancer prevention. The industry depends on cancer to grow its own power and profits, and it will invest in the de-education of the public in order to maximize its own revenues.

Cures for cancer exist all around us: Sunlight, rainforest herbs, anti-cancer foods and superfoods, etc. The causes of cancer are well known: Toxic chemicals in foods, cosmetics, personal care products, home cleaning products, and so on. So why don't we, as a nation, take steps to outlaw the things that cause cancer while promoting the things that prevent cancer?

The reason, once again, is because there's too much money at stake here. The corporations are in charge, and as long as they're running the show, cancer cures or prevention strategies that really work will simply not be tolerated.

Creighton press release

Here's the original press release about the new findings on vitamin D and cancer prevention:

OMAHA, Neb., June 8 -- Most Americans and others are not taking enough vitamin D, a fact that may put them at significant risk for developing cancer, according to a landmark study conducted by Creighton University School of Medicine.
The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women from rural eastern Nebraska.* Participants taking calcium, as well as a quantity of vitamin D3 nearly three times the U.S. government's Recommended Daily Amount (RDA) for middle-age adults, showed a dramatic 60 percent or greater reduction in cancer risk than women who did not get the vitamin.

The results of the study, conducted between 2000 and 2005, were reported in the June 8 online edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

"The findings are very exciting. They confirm what a number of vitamin D proponents have suspected for some time but that, until now, have not been substantiated through clinical trial," said principal investigator Joan Lappe, Ph.D., R.N., Creighton professor of medicine and holder of the Criss/Beirne Endowed Chair in the School of Nursing. "Vitamin D is a critical tool in fighting cancer as well as many other diseases."

Other Creighton researchers involved in the study included Robert Recker, M.D.; Robert Heaney, M.D.; Dianne Travers-Gustafson, M.S.; and K. Michael Davies, Ph.D.

Research participants were all 55 years and older and free of known cancers for at least 10 years prior to entering the Creighton study. Subjects were randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or placebos. National Institutes of Health funded the study.

Over the course of four years, women in the calcium/vitamin D3 group experienced a 60 percent decrease in their cancer risk than the group taking placebos.

On the premise that some women entered the study with undiagnosed cancers, researchers then eliminated the first-year results and looked at the last three years of the study. When they did that, the results became even more dramatic with the calcium/vitamin D3 group showing a startling 77 percent cancer-risk reduction.

In the three-year analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in cancer incidence between participants taking placebos and those taking just calcium supplements.

Through the course of the study, 50 participants developed nonskin cancers, including breast, colon, lung and other cancers.
Lappe said further studies are needed to determine whether the Creighton research results apply to other populations, including men, women of all ages, and different ethnic groups. While the study was open to all ethnic groups, all participants were Caucasian, she noted.

There is a growing body of evidence that a higher intake of vitamin D may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of cancer, high blood pressure, fibromyalgia, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis and other diseases.
Humans make their own vitamin D3 when they are exposed to sunlight. In fact, only 10-15 minutes a day in a bright summer sun creates large amounts of the vitamin, Lappe said. However, people need to exercise caution since the sun's ultraviolet B rays also can cause skin cancer; sunscreen blocks most vitamin D production.
In addition, the latitude at which you live and your ancestry also influence your body's ability to convert sunlight into vitamin D. People with dark skin have more difficulty making the vitamin. Persons living at latitudes north of the 37th parallel -- Omaha is near the 41st parallel -- cannot get their vitamin D naturally during the winter months because of the sun's angle. Experts generally agree that the RDA** for vitamin D needs to be increased substantially, however there is debate about the amount. Supplements are available in two forms -- vitamin D2 and vitamin D3. Creighton researchers recommend vitamin D3, because it is more active and thus more effective in humans.
* Study participants came from the Nebraska counties of Douglas, Colfax, Cuming, Dodge, Saunders, Washington, Sarpy, Burt and Butler. ** RDA recommendations for vitamin D are 200 IU/d, birth-age 50; 400 IU/d, 50-70 years; and 600 IU/d, 70 years and older.
Enhanced by Zemanta

22 October 2010

Why Flu Shots Don't Work

Flu Shots For The Elderly Are Ineffective

(OMNS, October 23, 2008) Have the elderly people in your family missed their flu shot? If so, they may have made the right decision. The New York Times recently reported that "A growing number of immunologists and epidemiologists say the vaccine probably does not work very well for people over 70," and that previous studies may have shown "not any actual protection against the flu virus but a fundamental difference between the kinds of people who get vaccines and those who do not . . . simply because they went to the doctor more often." (1)

Influenza vaccination has been widely touted even though evidence of effectiveness is lacking. One large scientific review looked at 40 years' worth of influenza vaccine studies. It found that flu shots were ineffective for elderly persons living in the community, and flu shots were "non-significant against influenza" for elderly living in group homes. (2) The authors of another major review "found no correlation between vaccine coverage and influenza-like-illness attack rate." (3) Author Dr. Thomas Jefferson said, "The vaccine doesn't work very well at all. Vaccines are being used as an ideological weapon. What you see every year as the flu is caused by 200 or 300 different agents with a vaccine against two of them. That is simply nonsense." (4) Indeed, he commented, "What you see is that marketing rules the response to influenza, and scientific evidence comes fourth or fifth." (5)

Some still claim that flu vaccinations, even though they do not prevent the flu, may help prevent more serious complications such as pneumonia, so dreaded and so often deadly for the elderly. But the authors of the study discussed in the NY Times article specifically noted that "influenza vaccination was not associated with a reduced risk of community-acquired pneumonia." (6)
As with all immunizations, flu shots can have harmful side effects. Vaccines may contain, among other things, ingredients such as mercury and aluminum, which are widely regarded as toxic. The elderly are more likely to be injured by, or even die from, flu vaccine side effects. Such incidents may remain unreported by hospitals or physicians. One man, aged 76, had a flu shot and immediately had to be hospitalized for a week. When family members suggested to the hospital staff and physicians that it was probably a reaction to the shot, their views were disregarded. Two years later the man had another flu shot, and was promptly hospitalized a second time. Family members once again said it was a reaction to the flu shot. The hospital said it was a low-grade infection, probably a bladder infection. The man died.

There are indications that vaccination side effects are underreported. The US Food and Drug Administration's Vaccine Adverse Effect Reporting System receives around 11,000 serious adverse reaction reports each year, mostly from doctors. (7) FDA states that "VAERS tracks serious vaccine reactions, not common fevers and soreness from shots. Serious reactions include death, life-threatening illness, hospitalization, and disability resulting from a vaccine." (8) However, FDA admits that they probably receive reports for only about 10 percent of all adverse vaccine reactions. (9) The National Vaccine Information Center estimates the reporting percentage to be far lower, perhaps under 3 percent. (10)

The exact contents of each year's flu shot is an educated guess. Sometimes this guess is wrong, as it was for 2008, where the vaccine "doesn't match two of the three main types of flu bugs now in circulation. . . . The predominant type A flu virus this year is the H3N2 strain; 87% are the "Brisbane" strain. And 93% of this year's type B flu bugs are from the "Yamagata" lineage. The current flu vaccine's H3N2 component is the "Wisconsin" strain; the type B component is from the "Victoria" lineage." (11) Even when the guess is correct, flu viruses frequently mutate and become resistant all over again.

The flu vaccine, notes the NY Times, has not been double-blind, placebo-control tested. Faith in vaccination appears to be greater than the scientific evidence to justify vaccination. Senior citizens already take far more medications than any other segment of the population. The elderly have weaker immune systems. The risk of immunization adverse effects rises accordingly. Increased side effect danger, along with low effectiveness, is a bad combination.

Is their an available alternative? Yes, there may be: give the elderly more nutrients, rather than more needles. Older people often have inadequate diets. With ageing and illness, their bodies' need for vital nutrients goes up, yet frequently their intake actually goes down.

Nutritional supplements help fight the flu. Vitamins and minerals have been shown to significantly reduce incidence and duration of influenza. This was already known back when many of today's elderly were still middle-aged. 32 years ago, twice Nobel-Prize winner Linus Pauling reviewed the nutritional literature and determined that high doses of vitamin C reduce the frequency and shorten the severity of influenza. (12) Orthomolecular (nutritional) physicians have repeatedly confirmed this. Robert F. Cathcart, MD, successfully treated thousands of viral-illness patients with massive doses of vitamin C. (13) Vitamin D also increases resistance to influenza (14), as do the minerals selenium and zinc. (15)

With good nutrition bolstered with supplemental vitamin and mineral intake, the human body's natural defenses are strengthened and can rapidly adapt to resist new flu strains. Clinical evidence indicates that nutrition is more significant that vaccination. Malnutrition is far more dangerous than not getting vaccinated.

No, there is not a vaccination for every illness. It might be nice if there were, but no shot can make up for poor nutrition.

Over-reliance on vaccinating the elderly ignores their fundamental problems of poor diet and vitamin/mineral deficiencies. These are underlying reasons for a susceptible immune system. Supplemental nutrition is the "other" immune system booster. It is time to use it.


(1) Goodman B. Doubts grow over flu vaccine in elderly. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/health/02flu.html September 2, 2008.

(2) Rivetti D, Jefferson T, Thomas R et al. Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Jul 19;3:CD004876.

(3) Jefferson T, Rivetti D, Rivetti A et al. Efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccines in elderly people: a systematic review. Lancet. 2005 Oct 1;366(9492):1165-74.

(4) Gardner A. Flu vaccine only mildly effective in elderly. HealthDay Reporter, Sept 21, 2005.

(5) Rosenthal E. Flu vaccination and treatment fall far short. International Herald Tribune, September 22, 2005.

(6) Jackson ML, Nelson JC, Weiss NS, Neuzil KM, Barlow W, Jackson LA. Influenza vaccination and risk of community-acquired pneumonia in immunocompetent elderly people: a population-based, nested case-control study. Lancet. 2008 Aug 2;372(9636):398-405.

(7) National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, 703-487-4650, 703-487-4600.

(8) http://www.fda.gov/fdac/reprints/vaccine.html

(9) KM Severyn in the Dayton Daily News, May 28, 1993 cited at http://www.chiropracticresearch.org/NEWSVaccinations.htm

(10) "Investigative Report on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System." National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), 512 Maple Ave. W. #206, Vienna, VA 22180.

(11) DeNoon DJ. Most influenza strains do not match current vaccine. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/570050 February 11, 2008. Also: Joe Bresee, MD, chief, epidemiology and prevention branch, CDC Influenza Division, Atlanta. CDC news conference, Feb. 8, 2008.

(12) Pauling L. Vitamin C, the Common Cold, and the Flu. Freeman, 1976.

(13) Cathcart RF. Vitamin C, titrating to bowel tolerance, anascorbemia, and acute induced scurvy. Med Hypotheses. 1981 Nov;7(11):1359-76. http://www.doctoryourself.com/titration.html

(14) Cannell JJ, Vieth R, Umhau JC, Holick MF, Grant WB, Madronich S, Garland CF, Giovannucci E. Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. Epidemiol Infect. 2006. Dec;134(6):1129-40.

(15) Girodon F, Galan P, Monget AL et al. Impact of trace elements and vitamin supplementation on immunity and infections in institutionalized elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial. MIN. VIT. AOX. geriatric network. Arch Intern Med. 1999 Apr 12;159(7):748-54.

For more information:
Video questioning influenza vaccine: http://www.thinktwice.com/flu_show.htm

A humorous look at flu vaccine: http://www.thinktwice.com/Flu_Farce.mov

16 October 2010

Great Salad Recipe (video)

This text will be replaced by the player

14 October 2010

The First Nuclear War (video)

The use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq, Serbia and Afghanistan, to name a few of the battlefields in the worlds first nuclear war, has devastating consequences for all of us, but especially those troops deployed and using these weapons. The criminally insane policy that sanctions the illegal use of such munitions puts the whole population of the world at risk as we breath in air with every breath that contains nano-particles of depleted uranium blown around the world from various battlefields and test ranges in which these weapons are being used. When you discover who is behind this you will have discovered who the real Satan is. The half-life of depleted uranium? 4.5 billion years!

Creamy Avocado Dressing/ Dip (video recipe)

Here's another easy dressing/dip recipe to help you avoid the store bought stuff that you can't trust...

This text will be replaced by the player

Watercress Stops Breast Cancer

Watercress is a micro-green used to garnish salads and other dishes and is very delilcious. Now it turns out that this simple salad green can prevent cancer. Watercress is one of the easiest herbs to grow in the hoop house system of aquaponics pioneered by Will Allen of Growing Power: fish below, and two levels of watercress above, planted in a gravel bed.

NaturalNews) As a cancerous tumor develops, it quickly outgrows its existing blood supply. So a protein called Hypoxia Inducible Factor (HIF) is released that sends out signals causing surrounding normal tissues to grow new blood vessels into the tumor -- and that provides the cancer with oxygen and nutrients. This plays a critical role in the development and spread of breast and other cancers. But now comes word from University of Southampton researchers in the United Kingdom that they've discovered something which interferes with and actually "turns off" the ability of HIF to function -- a natural plant compound dubbed phenylethyl isothiocyanate (PEITC) found in the herb watercress.

aquaponics system
"This research takes an important step towards understanding the potential health benefits of this crop since it shows that eating watercress may interfere with a pathway that has already been tightly linked to cancer development," molecular oncologist Professor Packham, who headed the two year study, said in a statement to the media. "Knowing the risk factors for cancer is a key goal and studies on diet are an important part of this."

Working with Barbara Parry, Senior Research Dietician at the Winchester and Andover Breast Unit, Professor Packham performed a study involving a group of breast cancer survivors who underwent a period of fasting. Then the research subjects ate 80g of watercress (about the equivalent of a cereal bowl full of the herb). Next, a series of blood samples were taken over the next 24 hours.

The blood tests revealed significant levels of the plant compound PEITC in the blood of the participants following the watercress meal. But, most importantly, the tests showed that the function of the protein HIF was also measurably affected and "turned off" in the blood cells of the women who had eaten the watercress. The results of this research, which were just published in the British Journal of Nutrition and Biochemical Pharmacology, provide new insight and hope that simply eating watercress regularly may protect against and perhaps help treat cancer.

"This is not a cure for cancer but it may well help to prevent the disease," said Professor Packham. "We carried out this study with a handful of breast cancer survivors but it has the potential to have the same effect with other cancers too."

For more information:


Articles Related to This Article:
• The mineral selenium proves itself as powerful anti-cancer medicine
• Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism (Book Excerpt)
• Healing Illness - A Natural Anti-Cancer Protocol
• New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent; cancer industry refuses to support cancer prevention
• Mammograms cause breast cancer (and other cancer facts you probably never knew)
• Exposed: 10 Facts about the Breast Cancer Industry You're Not Supposed to Know (opinion)
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Enhanced by Zemanta

13 October 2010

Raw Ginger Dressing (video recipe)

Here's the video...

This text will be replaced by the player

Raw Ginger Dressing (video recipe)

Many people who have a great diet have a weak point when it comes to salad dressing. They eat the healthiest salad in the world, but then they ruin it with that store bought salad dressing with the canola oil, sugar and other unknowns. You may be surprised at just how easy it is to make your own dressing. That way you know what you are getting as you further perfect your diet.

This text will be replaced by the player

12 October 2010

How To See AURAs

Here's a more practical follow up to yesterday's video on the human energy field. 
This one shows how you can see someone's (yours)aura.

11 October 2010

The Human Energy Field (3 part video)

This is the best video I have ever seen on the human aura or energy field and the chakras. 
Very informative and I am sure you will enjoy it thoroughly as it portrays a very difficult and somewhat mysterious subject in a way that is clear and unambiguous.

10 October 2010

Monsanto's Hard Fall (video and article)

Jimmy Cliff sang "The harder they come, the harder they fall..."  The mega-chemical food giant Monsanto came harder than hard. But once farmers started to notice that Monsanto's chemicals were no longer working against weeds and pests, Monsanto's stock plummeted. It's not clear what the future holds for the huge multinational company whose aim has been to control everything that grows on the planet through its 'patented seeds' that produced genetically modified plants. 
Now they may file for bankruptcy. How ya like them apples!

After Growth, Fortunes Turn for Monsanto

Published: October 4, 2010
As recently as late December, Monsanto was named “company of the year” by Forbes magazine. Last week, the company earned a different accolade from Jim Cramer, the television stock market commentator. “This may be the worst stock of 2010,” he proclaimed.
Bags of Asgrow Roundup Ready soybean seeds sit inside a Monsanto lab in St. Louis. Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed company, plans to complete most of its $800 million stock buyback plan more than a year ahead of schedule after the shares dropped to the lowest since 2007.
Monsanto, the giant of agricultural biotechnology, has been buffeted by setbacks this year that have prompted analysts to question whether its winning streak of creating ever more expensive genetically engineered crops is coming to an end.
The company’s stock, which rose steadily over several years to peak at around $140 a share in mid-2008, closed Monday at $47.77, having fallen about 42 percent since the beginning of the year. Its earnings for the fiscal year that ended in August, which will be announced Wednesday, are expected to be well below projections made at the beginning of the year, and the company has abandoned its profit goal for 2012 as well.

The latest blow came last week, when early returns from this year’s harvest showed that Monsanto’s newest product, SmartStax corn, which contains eight inserted genes, was providing yields no higher than the company’s less expensive corn, which contains only three foreign genes.

Monsanto has already been forced to sharply cut prices on SmartStax and on its newest soybean seeds, called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, as sales fell below projections.

But there is more. Sales of Monsanto’s Roundup, the widely used herbicide, has collapsed this year under an onslaught of low-priced generics made in China. Weeds are growing resistant to Roundup, dimming the future of the entire Roundup Ready crop franchise. And the Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for possible antitrust violations.
Until now, Monsanto’s main challenge has come from opponents of genetically modified crops, who have slowed their adoption in Europe and some other regions. Now, however, the skeptics also include farmers and investors who were once in Monsanto’s camp.

“My personal view is that they overplayed their hand,” William R. Young, managing director of ChemSpeak, a consultant to investors in the chemical industry, said of Monsanto. “They are going to have to demonstrate to the farmer the advantage of their products.”
Brett D. Begemann, Monsanto’s executive vice president for seeds and traits, said the setbacks were not reflective of systemic management problems and that the company was moving to deal with them.
“Farmers clearly gave us some feedback that we have made adjustments from,” he said in an interview Monday.

Mr. Begemann said that Monsanto used to introduce new seeds at a price that gave farmers two-thirds and Monsanto one-third of the extra profits that would come from higher yields or lower pest-control costs. But with SmartStax corn and Roundup Ready 2 soybeans, the company’s pricing aimed for a 50-50 split.

That backfired as American farmers grew only six million acres of Roundup Ready 2 soybeans this year, below the company’s goal of eight million to 10 million acres, and only three million acres of SmartStax corn, below the goal of four million.

So now Monsanto is moving back to the older arrangement. SmartStax seed for planting next year will be priced about $8 an acre more than other seeds, down from about a $24 premium for this year’s seeds, Mr. Begemann said. The company will also offer credits for free seed to farmers who planted SmartStax this year and were disappointed.
Monsanto has also moved to offer farmers more varieties with fewer inserted genes. Some farmers have said they often have to buy traits they do not need — such as protection from the corn rootworm in regions where that pest is not a problem — to get the best varieties. This issue has surfaced in the antitrust investigation.

Monsanto’s arch rival, DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred, has also capitalized on the lack of options under a campaign called “right product, right acre.”

“If they don’t have a need for rootworm then we won’t have that trait in that product,” Paul E. Schickler, the president of Pioneer, said in an interview.
After years of rapidly losing market share in corn seeds to Monsanto, Pioneer says it has gained back four percentage points in the last two years, to 34 percent. Monsanto puts its market share at 36 percent in 2009 and says it has remained flat this year. In soybeans, Pioneer puts its share at 31 percent, up seven percentage points over the last two years; Monsanto puts its share at 28 percent last year and said it had dropped some this year.

Monsanto had a similar problem with lower-than-expected yields on Roundup Ready 2 soybeans last year, when the crop was first planted commercially, forcing it to slash its premium.

But this year, the yield appears to be meeting expectations, said OTR Global, a research firm that surveys farmers and seed dealers. That could bode well for SmartStax next year.

One reason is that the Roundup Ready 2 gene is now offered in more varieties, making it better suited to more growing conditions. The yield of a crop is mainly determined by the seed’s intrinsic properties, not the inserted genes. An insect protection gene will not make a poor variety a high yielder any more than spiffy shoes will turn a slow runner into Usain Bolt. In the first year of a new product, few varieties contain the new gene.

Still, Monsanto is bound at some point to face diminishing returns from its strategy of putting more and more insect-resistant and herbicide-resistant genes into the same crop, at ever increasing prices. Growth might have to eventually come from new traits, such as a drought-tolerant corn the company hopes to introduce in 2012.

“Technologically, they are still the market leader,” said Laurence Alexander, an analyst at Jefferies & Company. “The main issue going forward is do they get paid for the technology they deliver. The jury is still out on that one. It’s going to take a year or two of data to reassure people.”
Enhanced by Zemanta

09 October 2010

GI’s Brains Fried by Depleted Uranium (video and article)

The brain damage caused by depleted uranium enters through the nose of anyone who breathes air in the vicinity of DU weapons being detonated - the cities and battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and of course at Ground Zero in New York- the result being the same, regardless to the uniform or lack of uniform worn at the time. Here are the studies that show why all of us are at risk for brain damage, not just the troops and first responders who are the human guinea pigs in the hands of their sadistic Anglo-American commanders and war lords.
As Michael sang it: "They don't really care about Us!"

GI’s Brains Fried by Military Dispensed Nose Candy
 by Bob Nichols

(San Francisco) – Now it is official. Researchers have shown that uranium oxide, or DU, “travels the nerves from the nose to the brain,” in the words of a University of Chicago doc and researcher.

A tiny amount (a milligram) of this radioactive poison quick marches up your smelling nerves right into your brain and keeps firing 1.2 Million bullets a day – forever. That’s a bunch.

850 Rounds a Minute

The radioactive 850 rounds a minute automatic weapon is about as big as the period at the end of this sentence, never needs reloading and never jams. It’s a perfect killing machine for brain cells and other cells. The range is about 20 cells, after that there is what the famous British physicist Dr. Chris Busby calls the “bystander effect.” He discovered it, he gets to name it.

These radioactive automatic weapons are so small they can float right through your clothes, evade your skin’s defenses and invade your body. Wherever the weapons alight inside, there is trouble as they never stop firing and there is no limit to their number. In a soldiers brain, trouble shows up in a noticeable way to others.

As for the 20 cell radius ball within Range, think of these powerful Bullets each as a 100 car, 100 mph, or 160 kmh, fully loaded freight train obliterating a small dog tied to the railroad tracks. Right, for the 20 cells that are within range – in all directions, it ain’t pretty.

To me, this means these 20 cell radius spheres in Soldiers and Vets brains turn to jelly or mush, weird diseases or cancers, or all of the above. No wonder VA Secretary and former General Eric Shinseki has noted the big increase in the VA’s contract Psychiatric services.

Olfactory Nerve to Brain, The Free Dictionary

This radioactive bullet explanation for Vets unusual behaviors holds water and makes perfect sense to me. The Vets are under attack internally. Actually inside their skulls and in their brains. Worse, there’s nothing they can do about it. The huge VA system is also helpless. There is no cure and no treatment.

The VA knows it and is stonewalling. They fired the only doc who stood up to them on DU. Word travels fast among the cowed medical staffs.

So, the Vets get slapped with some fake diagnosis and sent to the shrink or told there is nothing wrong with them. No way the spineless docs are going to call it like it is. They grab their 250K and slink home, comfortable every night.

That ain’t no way to run an Army; but, it IS a way to run the world’s most lethal Armed Force right into the ground.

Major Doug Rokke, Ph.D, Ret., former Director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project, puts it succinctly “It [DU] is killing our own troops.”

General Eric Shinseki, Head of VA

Since no less than Gen Shinseki has pointed out the huge increases in contract psychiatric services, let’s all take note of it and ask real loud “Why is this happening to Vets? They are not the enemy!” It’s way past time to take names and kick ass in DC. That means changing the President as s/he appoints the head of the DOD. Not so hard to do, really. It is simply what is required.

No wonder DU in the brain drives Vets nuts. The suffering these Vets must go through is unimaginable.

OK. Here’s the targeted science, make up your own minds. I did.

Uranium travels nerves from nose to brain.

Jul 31, 2009

Tournier, BB, S Frelon, E Tourlonias, L Agez, O Delissen, I Dublineau, F Paquet, and F Petitot. 2009. Role of the olfactory receptor neurons in the direct transport of inhaled uranium to the rat brain. Toxicology Letters doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2009.05.022.

Synopsis by Paul Eubig, DVM

Radioactive uranium that is inhaled by soldiers on the battlefield and by workers in factories may bypass the brain’s protective barrier by following nerves from the nose directly to the brain.

Nerves can act as a unique conduit, carrying inhaled uranium from the nose directly to the brain, finds a study with rats. Once in the brain, the uranium may affect task and decision-related types of thinking.

This study provides yet another example of how some substances can use the olfactory system – bypassing the brain’s protective blood barrier – to go directly to the brain. Titanium nanoparticles and the metals manganese, nickel, and thallium have been shown to reach the brain using the same route.

Military personnel and people who work in uranium processing plants are exposed to the weak radioactive element via wounds or by breathing. Exposure may affect brain function; cognitive skills are lowered in soldiers who carry uranium-laced shrapnel.

Uranium has various industrial and military uses. A form of uranium called depleted uranium is very dense and is used in armor-piercing ammunition and military vehicle armor.

Battlefield exposure can occur through wounds – such as with some US military personnel who were injured during the Gulf War. These exposures can be higher than with civilians who work with the element. A study of Gulf War veterans who have uranium shrapnel in their bodies showed that they perform more poorly on general brain cognitive tests of performance efficiency and accuracy.

Uranium can also be inhaled. Soldiers in vehicles hit by uranium rounds and workers in uranium-processing facilities can breathe it in.

The researchers – taking advantage of the fact that uranium can exist in different forms, or isotopes – used rats to compare how the element travels through the body if it is inhaled or injected into the blood. The animals breathed in one isotope at levels similar to those encountered on a battlefield where depleted uranium weapons are used. They were also injected with a different isotope. Researchers compared the levels of the two isotopes in different regions of the brain.

The inhaled isotope accumulated at 2 to 3 times higher levels than the injected isotope in the olfactory (smell) paths from the nose to the brain and in the frontal cortex and hypothalamus of the brain. This is concerning because the front part of the brain controls executive function, which is the broad ability to gather information, make decisions and initiate action.

The scientists then chemically damaged the olfactory nerves in the nose. The rats with the damaged nerves had three times less uranium in the olfactory system than the rats with intact olfactory nerves.

These finding suggests that inhaled uranium can travel directly from the nose along the olfactory nerves to the front of the brain. The olfactory pathway, then, plays an important role in inhaled uranium reaching the brain.

It is not known from this study if soldiers and civilian workers that breathe uranium could be at an even higher risk for cognitive effects or if inhaled uranium may affect brain function in similar ways as when it is carried through the blood. It is also unclear if these findings would hold true for the human brain since the rat brain is much more developed for smelling than the human brain.

Assessing these possible risks and determining if people’s relatively underdeveloped sense of smell could protect the brain would require further studies of people exposed to uranium through inhalation.

No 2.
Uranium presents numerous industrial and military uses and one of the most important risks of contamination is dust inhalation. In contrast to the other modes of contamination, the inhaled uranium has been proposed to enter the brain not only by the common route of all modes of exposure, the blood pathway, but also by a specific inhalation exposure route, the olfactory pathway. To test whether the inhaled uranium enter the brain directly from the nasal cavity, male Sprague–Dawley rats were exposed to both inhaled and intraperitoneally injected uranium using the 236U and 233U, respectively, as tracers. The results showed a specific frontal brain accumulation of the inhaled uranium which is not observed with the injected uranium. Furthermore, the inhaled uranium is higher than the injected uranium in the olfactory bulbs (OB) and tubercles, in the frontal cortex and in the hypothalamus. In contrast, the other cerebral areas (cortex, hippocampus, cerebellum and brain residue) did not show any preferential accumulation of inhaled or injected uranium. These results mean that inhaled uranium enters the brain via a direct transfer from the nasal turbinates to the OB in addition to the systemic pathway. The uranium transfer from the nasal turbinates to the OB is lower in animals showing a reduced level of olfactory receptor neurons (ORN) induced by an olfactory epithelium lesion prior to the uranium inhalation exposure. These results give prominence to a role of the ORN in the direct transfer of the uranium from the nasal cavity to the brain.

The Notes are an integral part of the article. Include when distributing. CopyRight by Bob Nichols 2010. Feel free to distribute with attribution and Notes.

Related Articles.

“PTSD, infertility and other consequences of war,” April 27, 2010, Bob Nichols, VeteransToday dot com http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/04/27/ptsd-infertility-and-other-consequences-of-war/ Or, http://tinyurl.com/22w8qpy
“Uranium travels nerves from nose to brain.”

Synopsis by Paul Eubig, DVM Jul 31, 2009, Environmental Health News.

Role of the olfactory receptor neurons in the direct transport of inhaled uranium to the rat brain, Benjamin B. Tourniera, Sandrine Frelona, Elie Tourloniasa, Laurence Ageza, Olivia Delissena, Isabelle Dublineaub, François Paqueta and Fabrice Petitot, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Laboratoire de Radiotoxicologie Expérimentale, IRSN/DRPH/SRBE/LRTOX, Site du Tricastin, B.P. 166, 26702 Pierrelatte Cedex, France, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Laboratoire de Radiotoxicologie Expérimentale, IRSN/DRPH/SRBE/LRTOX, 92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses Cedex, France, Received 27 March 2009; revised 26 May 2009; accepted 27 May 2009. Available online 9 June 2009, Toxicology Letters Volume 190, Issue 1, 8 October 2009, Pages 66-73

“Sublethal Effects of Waterborne Uranium Exposures on the Zebrafish Brain: Transcriptional Responses and Alterations of the Olfactory Bulb Ultrastructure,” Ad†, Jean-Paul Bourdineaud‡, Karlijn van der Ven§, Tine Vandenbrouck§, Patrice Gonzalez‡, Virginie Camilleri†, Magali Floriani†, Jacqueline Garnier-Laplace† and Christelle Adam-Guillermin, Laboratoire de Radio

Environ. Sci. Technol., 2010, 44 (4), pp 1438–1443, DOI: 10.1021/es902550x, Publication Date (Web): January 20, 2010, Copyright © 2010 American Chemical Society

Google: uranium + olfactory For 102,000 responses with uranium and olfactory on the same page, Bob Nichols, Sep 29, 2010. Many will apply.

A second source for: “Role of the olfactory receptor neurons in the direct transport of inhaled uranium to the rat brain.” Toxicol Lett. 2009 Oct 8;190(1):66-73. Epub 2009 Jun 6.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19501638 http://tinyurl.com/24fljoc
Enhanced by Zemanta