By Mary Elizabeth Dallas
Friday, September 30, 2011
HealthDay news image
FRIDAY, Sept. 30 (HealthDay News) -- People taking oral steroids double their risk for severe vitamin D deficiency, which can lead to bone disease or muscle weakness, a new study indicates.
Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, in New York City, said steroids might increase levels of an enzyme that inactivates the vitamin, resulting in osteomalacia (softening of the bones), rickets (softening of bones in children) or clinical myopathy (muscle weakness). They recommended that physicians monitor vitamin D levels of patients being treated with oral steroids.
"When doctors write that prescription for steroids and they're sending the patients for lab tests, they should also get the vitamin D level measured," study author Dr. Amy Skversky, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Einstein and Montefiore Medical Center, in New York City, said in a news release from the university.
In conducting the study, published in the Sept. 28 online edition of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, researchers examined information compiled on more than 31,000 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001-2006.
Roughly 1 percent of those examined reported using oral steroids in the past month. Of those taking the drugs, 11 percent had severely low levels of vitamin D (defined as levels below 10 nanograms per milliliter of blood). Meanwhile, the study revealed that only 5 percent of those not taking the steroid had this vitamin deficiency.
The researchers noted the risk was most evident among participants under 18. These children and teens were 14 times more likely to have a severe vitamin D deficiency.
The study authors said that their findings did not apply to those using inhaled steroids.
SOURCE: Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, news release, Sept. 29, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Vitamin D supplementation
Vitamin D3 supplementation is an effective alternative to UV exposure, provided adequate doses are taken.
Vitamin D needs
Vitamin D from both capsules and liquid is equally effective in treating vitamin D deficiency.
Much individual variation exists in response to supplemental vitamin D. The amount needed to raise and/or maintain blood serum levels for one person may not be enough for another. This is due to various factors such as age, weight, absorption, overall health, and amount of sun exposure. Recent research has determined that genetic variants are also a factor. 1
The only way to know for sure if a certain dosage is working for you is to have your vitamin D levels tested. Occasional monitoring of these levels will one determine what dose is right for them.
Current US Government recommended amounts
Adequate Intake for vitamin D represents the daily intake established by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) as sufficient to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism in healthy people. 2
FNB daily Adequate Intake (AI) for vitamin D
Children and adults up to the age of 70 years - 600 IU
Seniors 70+ years - 800 IU
Why these amounts are inadequate
US Government recommended Adequate Intake for vitamin D is too low to receive many of vitamin D's benefits.
The problem with current recommendations is that vitamin D influences a much wider array of physiological processes other than simply maintaining bone health and normal calcium metabolism. 3
For proper functioning, a healthy human body utilizes around 3,000-5,000 IU of vitamin D per day - indicating the current recommended intakes are not high enough to raise and/or maintain the vitamin D levels necessary for proper health. 4
Vitamin D Council recommended amounts
Based on the body's indicated daily vitamin D usage, Vitamin D Council recommends the following amounts of supplemental vitamin D3 per day in the absence of proper sun exposure. Due to the variable response discussed above, these are only estimated amounts.
Healthy children under the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU.
Healthy children over the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU per every 25 lbs of body weight.
Healthy adults and adolescents – at least 5,000 IU.
Pregnant and lactating mothers - at least 6,000 IU.
Additionally, children and adults with chronic health conditions such as autism, MS, cancer, heart disease, or obesity may need as much as double these amounts.
Tolerable Upper Intake Level
The US Government’s Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin D is set at 4,000 IU per day. While this is a step in the right direction from the previous UL at 2,000 IU per day, in some situations - such as with those who are obese - it may still be too low. An upper limit this low will also result in the prevention of adequate doses from being used in studies, greatly curtailing our understanding of vitamin D’s physiological effects as well as the true extent of its treatment potential. 5 6 7
Experts agree the Upper Limit for vitamin D should be raised to 10,000 IU per day.
Current expert consensus is that the US Government UL for vitamin D is too low and that it should be raised to 10,000 IU per day. 6 7 8 Since this is the amount one would naturally produce in their skin from sun exposure, it is considered safe. 9
Can I take more than 10,000 IU per day?
Wanting to raise vitamin D levels quickly, some people choose to supplement with amounts higher than 10,000 IU per day until target levels are achieved. When using vitamin D in these amounts, frequent monitoring of blood levels (preferably as supervised by your physician) as well as adequate magnesium intake are advised. Once blood serum levels are optimized, daily amount should be lowered to the amount necessary to sustain these levels. How much is needed will be unique to the individual, but it should be somewhere around 5,000 IU per day.
Which type of vitamin D?
Oil vs. powder
Vitamin D3 supplements come in two forms:
oil (cod liver oil-based) - fat-soluble vitamin D, includes liquid drops or gel caps.
dry powder (lanolin-based) - water-soluble vitamin D, includes capsules or tablets.
As far as we know, both water-soluble and fat-soluble vitamin D are equally absorbed and metabolized by the body, and are thus equally effective.
D2 vs D3
Read the Vitamin D Council's full position statement on vitamin D2 vs D3 here.
Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the type of vitamin D the body naturally produces in the skin in response to sun exposure. Vitamin D2 is produced naturally when fungi (yeast or mushrooms) are exposed to ultraviolet light from the sun or to artificial UV light.
Scientific studies have demonstrated the bioequivalence of vitamin D2 and D3 in forming 25(OH)D when daily consumption of either precursor occurs over a minimum of 6 weeks 10. There is other evidence that the body has preference to D3 over D2, showing in these studies that the body more readily uses D3 when it has both forms in the body, and that D3 is more potent than D2 for producing 25(OH)D 11.
Although both D2 and D3 are effective for raising blood levels of 25(OH)D, the Vitamin D Council believes that vitamin D3, as produced in human skin, is the more natural precursor, and recommends supplementing with vitamin D3. Vitamin D3 supplements are not vegetarian and are not likely to be derived from American products. If an individual has ethical concerns over D3, D2 can be an effective replacement.
How should I take my vitamin D?
Both forms of vitamin D may be taken any time of day with, or without, any other food or supplement and still remain effective. If one is concerned about absorption, they may take their vitamin D at mealtime, though there is no evidence to indicate this is more effective.
Most people take their vitamin D daily, yet there are some who opt to take it weekly at a higher dose. Since the body is designed to store vitamin D for future use, a weekly interval should produce the same results as daily use. 12
Mixing sun exposure and supplements
It is okay to use both sun exposure and intermittent supplementation to receive one's vitamin D. Simply do not take any supplemental vitamin D on the days when proper sun exposure is received. Keep in mind that vitamin D taken orally bypasses the body's built in toxicity protection with that obtained by sun exposure. As with daily use of oral vitamin D, periodic monitoring of levels is advised.
Precautions
People with the following conditions should only take vitamin D with the guidance of a knowledgeable physician:
primary hyperparathyroidism
sarcoidosis
granulomatous TB
some cancers
Those with primary hyperparathyroidism should only use vitamin D when under the care of a knowledgeable endocrinologist.
Interactions with medications
There have yet to be any documented instances of an adverse interaction of vitamin D with any medications. There are, however, medications which have been found to interfere with the body’s proper utilization of vitamin D. They are: 2
Steroids - impair vitamin D metabolism, contributing to bone loss and development of osteoporosis.
Xenical®, alli™, Questran®, LoCholest®, and Prevalite® - reduce vitamin D absorption.
Dilantin®) - increases hepatic metabolism of vitamin D to inactive compounds.
Page last edited: 31 October 2011
References
Wang T.J., et al. Common genetic determinants of vitamin D insufficiency: a genome-wide association study. Lancet. 2010 July 17; 376 (9736): 180-188.
Food and Nutrition Board Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D. ods.od.nih.gov.
Grant WB, Holick MF Benefits and requirements of vitamin D for optimal health: a review. Altern Med Rev. 2005 Jun; 10 (2): 94-111.
Heaney R.P., Davies K.M., Chen T.C., Holick M.F., Barger-Lux M.J. Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan; 77 (1): 204-10.
Hathcock, J. N. Shao, A. Vieth, R. Heaney, R. Risk assessment for vitamin D. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jan; 85 (1): 6-18.
Heaney, R. P. The Vitamin D requirement in health and disease. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Oct; 97 (1-2): 13-9.
Vieth, R. Critique of the considerations for establishing the tolerable upper intake level for vitamin D: critical need for revision upwards. J Nutr. 2006 Apr; 136 (4): 1117-22.
Vieth, R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May; 69 (5): 842-56.
Vieth, R. Vitamin D toxicity, policy, and science. J Bone Miner Res. 2007 Dec; 22 Suppl 2V64-8.
Holick MF, Biancuzzo RM, Chen TC, Klein EK, Young A, Bibuld D, Reitz R, Salameh W, Ameri A, Tannenbaum AD. Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 18/12/2008; 93 (3): 677-81.
Heaney RP, Recker RR, Grote J, Horst RL, Armas LA. Vitamin D(3) is more potent than vitamin D(2) in humans. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 22/12/10; 96 (3): 447-52.
van Groningen L., Opdenoordt S., van Sorge A., Telting D., Giesen A., de Boer H. Cholecalciferol loading dose guideline for vitamin D-deficient adults. Eur J Endocrinol. 2010 Apr; 162 (4): 805-11.
Water Successfully Turned into a Commodity by the Bottled Water Industry
It turns out that much of the population is spending almost 2000 times more for water than they normally would. The typical price of bottled water is $3.79 per gallon while the typical price of tap water is $0.002 per gallon. You may think that the extra investment is worth it for the improved quality of bottled water, but in fact many bottled water brands may be just as damaging to your health as tap water. The bottled water industry is selling water for about a 1900% markup from what you’re paying at home while successfully turning this nearly free resource into a commodity. People are virtually throwing money away, all in the name of “purity”.
Don’t Fall Victim to False Advertising
Bottled water has long been recognized for being purer and safer than tap water, but why? The research shows that this common misconception is the result of massive advertising and marketing schemes. Bottled water companies claim to be “purer” than tap water with pictures of beautiful mountains on their labels from which we’re supposed to think the water comes from. The truth is that bottled water companies almost always don’t answer at least one of three quality qualifying questions.
1). Where does the water come from?
2). Is it purified? How?
3). Have tests found any contaminants?
According to an extensive study conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) , 9/10 of the best selling water brands including Pepsi’s Aquafina, Coca-Cola’s Dasani, Crystal Geyser, and 6 of 7 Nestle brands, don’t answer any those questions.
Many bottled water companies simply refuse to disclose information regarding their “pure” product. Another study performed by the EWG showed that of the 173 brands tested:
18% fail to disclose the location of their water source
32% say nothing about the treatment or purity of the water
Over 50% flunked EWG’s transparency test
Stop Paying a Premium Price for Mystery Water
After extensive research and testing, the Environmental Working Group recommends filtered tap water over any bottled water. If you buy bottled water, you’re paying a premium price for mystery water. As shocking as it may seem, the bottled water being purchased is actually municipal tap water almost 50% of the time. Not only that, but bottled water is also less regulated than tap water and oftentimes more contaminated.
Water Successfully Turned into a Commodity by the Bottled Water Industry
Can you imagine paying $1,500 for a pack of gum, or $5,000 for a smoothie? The truth is that no one would knowingly pay 1900 times more for a product than they need to, especially if that product is in your own kitchen. It may be time to chuck the plastic bottle and make them exclusive for traveling and bike rides.
It is important to remember that while bottled water may be ridiculously glorified above its own contamination, tap water is not so safe either. That is why it is essential to purchase a high quality water filter that can remove contaminants such as fluoride from your water. When filtering tap water, reverse osmosis is one preferred method in removing toxic substances such as fluoride and heavy metals. While reverse osmosis filters remove toxic substances from the water, it also removes natural minerals and nutrients. Luckily a simple solution to this would be to add certain minerals to the water, use a mineral filter, or even add apple cider vinegar to restore the natural nutrients back into the water.
Be careful of the bottled you choose to drink. Again the best option is to drink filter water or reverse osmosis tap water. You'll save yourself a bundle and take in to your body a healthier substance.
Don’t Fall Victim to False Advertising
Bottled water has long been recognized for being purer and safer than tap water, but why? The research shows that this common misconception is the result of massive advertising and marketing schemes. Bottled water companies claim to be “purer” than tap water with pictures of beautiful mountains on their labels from which we’re supposed to think the water comes from. The truth is that bottled water companies almost always don’t answer at least one of three quality qualifying questions.
1). Where does the water come from?
2). Is it purified? How?
3). Have tests found any contaminants?
According to an extensive study conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) , 9/10 of the best selling water brands including Pepsi’s Aquafina, Coca-Cola’s Dasani, Crystal Geyser, and 6 of 7 Nestle brands, don’t answer any those questions.
Many bottled water companies simply refuse to disclose information regarding their “pure” product. Another study performed by the EWG showed that of the 173 brands tested:
18% fail to disclose the location of their water source
32% say nothing about the treatment or purity of the water
Over 50% flunked EWG’s transparency test
Stop Paying a Premium Price for Mystery Water
After extensive research and testing, the Environmental Working Group recommends filtered tap water over any bottled water. If you buy bottled water, you’re paying a premium price for mystery water. As shocking as it may seem, the bottled water being purchased is actually municipal tap water almost 50% of the time. Not only that, but bottled water is also less regulated than tap water and oftentimes more contaminated.
Water Successfully Turned into a Commodity by the Bottled Water Industry
Can you imagine paying $1,500 for a pack of gum, or $5,000 for a smoothie? The truth is that no one would knowingly pay 1900 times more for a product than they need to, especially if that product is in your own kitchen. It may be time to chuck the plastic bottle and make them exclusive for traveling and bike rides.
It is important to remember that while bottled water may be ridiculously glorified above its own contamination, tap water is not so safe either. That is why it is essential to purchase a high quality water filter that can remove contaminants such as fluoride from your water. When filtering tap water, reverse osmosis is one preferred method in removing toxic substances such as fluoride and heavy metals. While reverse osmosis filters remove toxic substances from the water, it also removes natural minerals and nutrients. Luckily a simple solution to this would be to add certain minerals to the water, use a mineral filter, or even add apple cider vinegar to restore the natural nutrients back into the water.
Be careful of the bottled you choose to drink. Again the best option is to drink filter water or reverse osmosis tap water. You'll save yourself a bundle and take in to your body a healthier substance.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Vitamins Are safe; Drugs Are Not
Anthony Gucciardi
Over the past 27 years — the complete time frame that the data has been available — there have been 0 deaths as a result of vitamins and over 3 million deaths related to prescription drug use. In fact, going back 54 years there have only been 11 claims of vitamin-related death, all of which provided no substantial evidence to link vitamins to the cause of death. The news comes after a recent statistically analysis found that pharmaceutical drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the US.
In 2009, drugs exceeded the amount of traffic-related deaths, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide.
The findings go against the claims of mainstream medical ‘experts’ and mainstream media outlets who often push the idea that multivitamins are detrimental to your health, and that prescription drugs are the only science-backed option to improving your health. While essential nutrients like vitamin D are continually being shown to slash your risk of disease such as diabetes and cancer, prescription pharmaceuticals are continually being linked to such conditions. In fact, the top-selling therapeutic class pharmaceutical drug has been tied to the development of diabetes and even suicide, and whistle blowers are just now starting to speak out despite studies as far back as the 80s highlighting the risks.
Mainstream medical health officials were recently forced to speak out over the danger of anti-psychotic drugs, which millions of children have been prescribed since 2009. U.S. pediatric health advisers blew the whistle over the fact that these pharmaceuticals can lead to diabetes and even suicide, the very thing they aim to prevent. What is even more troubling is that half of all Americans will be diagnosed with a mental condition during their lifetime thanks to lack of diagnosis guidelines currently set by the medical establishment, of which many cases will lead to the prescription of anti-psychotics and other similar medications.
Covering up the side effects
In order to protect sales, the link between suicide and ant-psychotic drugs was completely covered up by Eli Lilly & Co, the makers of Prozac. Despite research stretching as far back as the 1980s finding that Prozac actually leads to suicide, the company managed to hide the evidence until a Harvard psychiatrist leaked the information into the press. The psychiatrist, Martin Teicher, stated that the American people were being treated like guinea pigs in a massive pharmaceutical experiment.
Greedy and often times prescription-happy doctors are handing out anti-psychotic medication like candy to adults and young children alike. In 2008, anti-psychotics became the top-selling therapeutic class prescription drug in the United States and grossing over $14 billion in sales.
Anti-psychotic drugs are not the only dangerous pharmaceuticals. The average drug label contains 70 side effects, though many popular pharmaceuticals have been found to contain 100 to 125. Some drugs, prescribed by doctors to supposedly improve your health, come with over 525 negative reactions.
Ritalin, for example, has been linked to conditions including:
Increased blood pressure
Increased heart rate
Increased body temperature
Increased alertness
Suppressed appetite
Perhaps the hundreds of negative side effects is part of the reason why the FDA announced last year that it is pulling more than 500 cold and allergy off the market due to health concerns. Prescription drugs kill more people than traffic accidents, and come with up to 525 negative side effects. Avoiding these drugs and utilizing high quality organic alternatives like whole food-based multivitamins and green super foods will lead to a total health transformation without harsh side effects and an exponentially increased death risk.
Sources:
Most recent year: Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Giffin SL. 2009 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 27th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology (2010). 48, 979-1178. The full text article is available for free download at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2009%20AR.pdf
Over the past 27 years — the complete time frame that the data has been available — there have been 0 deaths as a result of vitamins and over 3 million deaths related to prescription drug use. In fact, going back 54 years there have only been 11 claims of vitamin-related death, all of which provided no substantial evidence to link vitamins to the cause of death. The news comes after a recent statistically analysis found that pharmaceutical drug deaths now outnumber traffic fatalities in the US.
In 2009, drugs exceeded the amount of traffic-related deaths, killing at least 37,485 people nationwide.
The findings go against the claims of mainstream medical ‘experts’ and mainstream media outlets who often push the idea that multivitamins are detrimental to your health, and that prescription drugs are the only science-backed option to improving your health. While essential nutrients like vitamin D are continually being shown to slash your risk of disease such as diabetes and cancer, prescription pharmaceuticals are continually being linked to such conditions. In fact, the top-selling therapeutic class pharmaceutical drug has been tied to the development of diabetes and even suicide, and whistle blowers are just now starting to speak out despite studies as far back as the 80s highlighting the risks.
Mainstream medical health officials were recently forced to speak out over the danger of anti-psychotic drugs, which millions of children have been prescribed since 2009. U.S. pediatric health advisers blew the whistle over the fact that these pharmaceuticals can lead to diabetes and even suicide, the very thing they aim to prevent. What is even more troubling is that half of all Americans will be diagnosed with a mental condition during their lifetime thanks to lack of diagnosis guidelines currently set by the medical establishment, of which many cases will lead to the prescription of anti-psychotics and other similar medications.
Covering up the side effects
In order to protect sales, the link between suicide and ant-psychotic drugs was completely covered up by Eli Lilly & Co, the makers of Prozac. Despite research stretching as far back as the 1980s finding that Prozac actually leads to suicide, the company managed to hide the evidence until a Harvard psychiatrist leaked the information into the press. The psychiatrist, Martin Teicher, stated that the American people were being treated like guinea pigs in a massive pharmaceutical experiment.
Greedy and often times prescription-happy doctors are handing out anti-psychotic medication like candy to adults and young children alike. In 2008, anti-psychotics became the top-selling therapeutic class prescription drug in the United States and grossing over $14 billion in sales.
Anti-psychotic drugs are not the only dangerous pharmaceuticals. The average drug label contains 70 side effects, though many popular pharmaceuticals have been found to contain 100 to 125. Some drugs, prescribed by doctors to supposedly improve your health, come with over 525 negative reactions.
Ritalin, for example, has been linked to conditions including:
Increased blood pressure
Increased heart rate
Increased body temperature
Increased alertness
Suppressed appetite
Perhaps the hundreds of negative side effects is part of the reason why the FDA announced last year that it is pulling more than 500 cold and allergy off the market due to health concerns. Prescription drugs kill more people than traffic accidents, and come with up to 525 negative side effects. Avoiding these drugs and utilizing high quality organic alternatives like whole food-based multivitamins and green super foods will lead to a total health transformation without harsh side effects and an exponentially increased death risk.
Sources:
Most recent year: Bronstein AC, Spyker DA, Cantilena LR Jr, Green JL, Rumack BH, Giffin SL. 2009 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison Data System (NPDS): 27th Annual Report. Clinical Toxicology (2010). 48, 979-1178. The full text article is available for free download at http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2009%20AR.pdf
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Flu Vaccine Pushed Despite Nerve Disease Link
Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety
August 22, 2011
The push for the H1N1-loaded 2011 flu vaccine has begun, with the CDC calling on healthcare workers and citizens around the world to become vaccinated. The call comes almost a full year after government health chiefs confirmed a link between the H1N1-containing seasonal flu vaccination and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome (see quoted article below for sourcing). Oftentimes leading to partial paralysis and death, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the link following a report that 50% of doctors were refusing the swine flu vaccine over health concerns.
Organizations around the world have been speaking out against the H1N1 vaccine, speaking out against the risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Even the mainstream media was forced to report on the association between the vaccine and GBS, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a ‘death link’. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
“The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Here is the report that I wrote on October 18, 2010 warning readers about the link between the flu shot and Guillain-Barre Syndrome:
Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.
“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”
Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.
The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.
Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.
“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”
Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.
The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.
Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.
NaturalSociety
August 22, 2011
The push for the H1N1-loaded 2011 flu vaccine has begun, with the CDC calling on healthcare workers and citizens around the world to become vaccinated. The call comes almost a full year after government health chiefs confirmed a link between the H1N1-containing seasonal flu vaccination and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome (see quoted article below for sourcing). Oftentimes leading to partial paralysis and death, The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the link following a report that 50% of doctors were refusing the swine flu vaccine over health concerns.
Organizations around the world have been speaking out against the H1N1 vaccine, speaking out against the risk of Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS). Even the mainstream media was forced to report on the association between the vaccine and GBS, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a ‘death link’. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
“The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.Here is the report that I wrote on October 18, 2010 warning readers about the link between the flu shot and Guillain-Barre Syndrome:
Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.
“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”
Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.
The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.
Last year, you would be considered a medical “fraud” if you were to say that the swine flu vaccine may lead to Guillain-Barre Syndrome, a deadly autoimmune disorder that can lead to partial paralysis and death. Now, however, even the government is admitting that the swine flu vaccine may cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a statement regarding the link between Guillain-Barre and the swine flu vaccine.
“Given the uncertainties in the available information and as with seasonal flu vaccines, a slightly elevated risk of GBS following H1N1 vaccines cannot be ruled out. Epidemiological studies are ongoing to further assess this possible association.”
Unfortunately, this announcement has come far too late. Thousands of vaccines have been given worldwide, with 14,000 children in Oklahoma as test subjects for the experimental first wave of the swine flu vaccines in 2009. There was no shortage of warnings regarding the vaccine, however, with about 50% of doctors refusing to be injected. Citizens and doctors alike were also warned numerous times that the swine flu vaccine had a direct link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Even mainstream media was forced to pick up on the link, with the Times Online offering warning that the vaccine had a “death link”. Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use, she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
Of course the government was quick to claim that the vaccinations were completely safe, and had met all of the safety requirements.
The department of health was quick to go against Professor Miller and claim that the vaccines had passed all of the required tests: Appropriate trials to assess safety and immune responses have been carried out on vaccines very similar to the swine flu vaccine. The vaccines have been shown to have a good safety profile.
If the government was confident regarding the safety of the vaccination, then why were manufacturers given complete legal immunity? This legal immunity made it impossible to sue the manufacturers of the swine flu vaccine. Even if the vaccines were safe to begin with, wouldn’t this enhance carelessness of the manufacturers? With complete legal immunity, the makers could get away with anything.
Why then, would anyone receive the swine flu vaccine? The simple answer is that the swine flu scare drove some citizens to run in fear, with the vaccine as their advertised salvation. In reality, swine flu did not turn out to be the pandemic that it was propagated to be. Citizens would be better off improving their immune system naturally through proper nutrition than to receive a deadly swine flu vaccine.
Monday, October 3, 2011
3 Reasons to Avoid the Flu Shot
Anthony Gucciardi
GreenMedInfo.com
October 1, 2011
Flu shots are becoming the most widely recommended vaccine on the planet, with The Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changing their flu shot recommendation from children between 6 months and 5 years old demographic to virtually everyone except those between the ages of 19-49 who are in perfectly good health. Even within this category there is a barrage of organizations warning against avoiding the ubiquitous flu shot.
The fact of the matter is that seasonal flu shots are simply not backed by reputable science, and a number of major studies have even shown that the seasonal flu shot is not effective at all in preventing the flu. Adding fuel to the fire, this ineffective shot comes with pages of nasty side effects that will certainly make you reconsider getting one this year. Here are 3 major reasons you, your family, and the medical establishment should reconsider flu shots as effective flu prevention tools:
1. Seasonal flu vaccines have been found to only be 1% effective
A new major study has numerically determined the effectiveness of the flu shot to be 1%. This means that despite the H1N1-loaded flu jab, there is still a 99% chance that you will not be protected against the flu. The reason for this, despite the faulty science behind the development of the vaccine, has to do with flu strains. It is extremely challenging, to the point of guessing, which flu strain will affect your area. With such a wide selection, it is very rare (about 1%, according to the study), for it to be the correct strain.
The researchers from the study stated:
“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors. In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.
The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:
“Vaccination had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
“Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
“The analysis howed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
“There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” — Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
“In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”
2. Flu shots have been linked to killer nerve disease
Even government health officials have confirmed the link between the H1N1-containing flu shot and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A government agency known as The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the connection following the phony swine flu pandemic. The news came after mainstream media reported on the fact that even 50% of doctors were refusing the H1N1 vaccine over health concerns.
Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
3. Vitamin D is over 800% more effective with no side effects
A major clinical trial performed at the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective in preventing and reversing influenza. Led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the study involved 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. This is actually a very low amount of vitamin D, with many natural health experts recommending around 5,000 IUs per day for most individuals. If the researchers used a higher amount like 5,000 IUs, the findings and subsequent percentage would most likely be even more profound.
What the study found was that 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the 4 month duration of the study, while only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This is in comparison to the flu shot being effective in 1 out of 100 participants, with countless side effects.
This means that vitamin D is 800% more effective in preventing the flu than vaccines at 1200 IUs daily. The percentage could likely climb into the thousands if the dosage was upped to the recommended 5,000 IUs per day, and perhaps even higher beyond that.
There is simply no reason to receive a flu shot when natural alternatives like vitamin D exist. Deadly nerve disease, narcolepsy, and overall ineffectiveness are but a few of the negative aspects of the flu shot. Spread the word about flu shots during Vaccine Information Week, starting October 1st.
GreenMedInfo.com
October 1, 2011
Flu shots are becoming the most widely recommended vaccine on the planet, with The Federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) changing their flu shot recommendation from children between 6 months and 5 years old demographic to virtually everyone except those between the ages of 19-49 who are in perfectly good health. Even within this category there is a barrage of organizations warning against avoiding the ubiquitous flu shot.
The fact of the matter is that seasonal flu shots are simply not backed by reputable science, and a number of major studies have even shown that the seasonal flu shot is not effective at all in preventing the flu. Adding fuel to the fire, this ineffective shot comes with pages of nasty side effects that will certainly make you reconsider getting one this year. Here are 3 major reasons you, your family, and the medical establishment should reconsider flu shots as effective flu prevention tools:
1. Seasonal flu vaccines have been found to only be 1% effective
A new major study has numerically determined the effectiveness of the flu shot to be 1%. This means that despite the H1N1-loaded flu jab, there is still a 99% chance that you will not be protected against the flu. The reason for this, despite the faulty science behind the development of the vaccine, has to do with flu strains. It is extremely challenging, to the point of guessing, which flu strain will affect your area. With such a wide selection, it is very rare (about 1%, according to the study), for it to be the correct strain.
The researchers from the study stated:
“The corresponding figures [of people showing influenza symptoms] for poor vaccine matching were 2% and 1% (RD 1, 95% CI 0% to 3%)” announced the study authors. In other words, you would have to vaccinate 100 people to reduce the number of people affected by the influenza virus by just one.
The findings do not stop there. The researchers also highlighted other findings about the flu vaccine, which topple the mainstream concept of their safety and effectiveness:
“Vaccination had…no effect on hospital admissions or complication rates.”
“Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalized or working days lost.”
“The analysis howed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions…”
“There is no evidence that [influenza vaccines] affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission.” — Meaning vaccines do not affect transmission of disease, what they are designed for.
“In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms.”
2. Flu shots have been linked to killer nerve disease
Even government health officials have confirmed the link between the H1N1-containing flu shot and the killer nerve disease known as Guillain-Barre Syndrome. A government agency known as The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a warning over the connection following the phony swine flu pandemic. The news came after mainstream media reported on the fact that even 50% of doctors were refusing the H1N1 vaccine over health concerns.
Neurologists around the world were even warned about the safety of the vaccine by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization department for UK’s Health Protection Agency.
The vaccines used to combat an expected swine influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were withdrawn from use,” she wrote in a letter to neurologists.
3. Vitamin D is over 800% more effective with no side effects
A major clinical trial performed at the Division of Molecular Epidemiology in the the Department of Pediatrics at the Jikei University School of Medicine Minato-ku in Tokyo found that vitamin D was extremely effective in preventing and reversing influenza. Led by Mitsuyoshi Urashima, the study involved 334 children, half of which were given 1200 IUs per day of vitamin D3. This is actually a very low amount of vitamin D, with many natural health experts recommending around 5,000 IUs per day for most individuals. If the researchers used a higher amount like 5,000 IUs, the findings and subsequent percentage would most likely be even more profound.
What the study found was that 31 of 167 children in the placebo group contracted influenza over the 4 month duration of the study, while only 18 of 168 children in the vitamin D group did. This is in comparison to the flu shot being effective in 1 out of 100 participants, with countless side effects.
This means that vitamin D is 800% more effective in preventing the flu than vaccines at 1200 IUs daily. The percentage could likely climb into the thousands if the dosage was upped to the recommended 5,000 IUs per day, and perhaps even higher beyond that.
There is simply no reason to receive a flu shot when natural alternatives like vitamin D exist. Deadly nerve disease, narcolepsy, and overall ineffectiveness are but a few of the negative aspects of the flu shot. Spread the word about flu shots during Vaccine Information Week, starting October 1st.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Is Your Multivitamin Toxic?
by Sayer Ji, founder of GreenMedInfo.com
[previously published in the Well Being Journal and Mercola.com]
In episode #11 (season 2) of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, a woman poisons her husband with the chemical sodium selenite. Strange as it may sound, this exotic murder weapon, and it’s close cousin, sodium selenate, are listed as “nutrients” on the labels of most mass-marketed vitamins. Even though both sodium selenite and selenate are classified as dangerous and toxic to the environment by regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union, they are the primary forms of this mineral - selenium - sold on the mass market today. In fact, most mass-market vitamins contain chemicals that the EPA does not allow in our public drinking water at levels above 50 parts per billion per liter. According to the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards, the highest allowable level of selenium in public drinking water is 50 parts per billion (equivalent to 50 micrograms, dry weight). To get a sense of how small an allowable limit this is, 50 parts per billion is equivalent to a tablespoon of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
How can vitamin manufacturers advertise something as being a “nutrient” when the EPA—out of concern for our health—has barred it from our drinking water at all but exceedingly minute levels? Have sodium selenite/selenate really been shown to be toxic? A brief perusal of toxicology reports from the Hazardous Substances Databank (toxnet.nlm.nih.gov) and PUBMED (pubmed.gov) shows that both forms can be carcinogenic and genotoxic and may contribute to reproductive and developmental problems in animals and humans. The question is not whether these minerals have toxicity, but rather at what level they overwhelm our capacity for their detoxification and/or biotransformation into non-toxic metabolites?
A word should be said here about the differences that exist between inorganic minerals and biologically active ones:
The selenium that is found in foods like brazil nuts, mustard seeds, and fresh produce grown in selenium-rich soil is infinitely different from the biologically inert forms being put in some multivitamins. In fact, sodium selenite/selenate can cause cancer, whereas the selenium found within food, or laboratory chelated forms like selenomethionine, have all been shown to prevent and combat cancer.
The basic principle that explains this difference is that when you isolate a nutrient or vitamin out of the food complex within which it is naturally found, and where it is inseparably bound to thousands of known and unknown food factors (e.g., enzymes, protein chaperones, glyconutrients, etc.) it is no longer as beneficial to life. This is especially true in the case of vertebrate mammals who are equipped to get their minerals from the plants they ingest or through the biotransformation of inorganic minerals to organic ones by microflora in their gastrointestinal tracts.
The primary reason that sodium selenite/selenate are preferred by some vitamin manufacturers over safer, more beneficial forms like chelated or yeast-grown selenium is because it is more profitable to use raw materials of lower quality.
“You get what you pay for” is a saying that almost always rings true for dietary supplements. Buying industrial waste products, or chemicals that are considered hazardous waste, and repackaging them as “dietary supplements” can be extremely profitable.
Indeed, this is not the first time in American history that such a hoax has been perpetrated on the public. The FDA-approved use of fluoride in our drinking water and the use of radioactive cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors for the IRRADIATION of conventional food illustrates how industrial waste products with known toxicity are eventually converted into commodities or technologies “beneficial to health.” Whereas initially these substances have very high disposal costs for the industries that excrete them into our environment, the liability is converted — through the right combination of lobbying, miseducation and “checkbook science” –- back into a commodity, with the environment and consumer suffering health and financial losses as a result.
Unfortunately, inorganic forms of selenium are not the only problem with mass-market vitamins. Take the multivitamin Centrum, for instance, whose manufacturer Wyeth is one of the most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world. This vitamin contains the following chemicals:
Chemical: Amount Found in Centrum/ EPA Maximum Allowed Limit in 1 Liter of Drinking Water
1) Sodium selenite : 55 mcg/ 50 mcg
2) Nickelous sulfate: 5 mcg/ 100 mcg
3) Stannous chloride (tin): 10 mcg/ 4 mcg
4) Ferrous fumarate (iron): 18 mg/ .3 mg
5) Manganese sulfate: 2.3 mg/ .05 mg
6) Cupric sulfate: .5 mg/ 1.3 mg
In the left hand column above you will see the quantities of inorganic minerals found within each dose of Centrum. In the right hand column are the maximum quantity allowed by the EPA in one liter of drinking water. In the case of stannous chloride (tin), ferrous fumarate (iron) and manganese sulfate there are significantly higher doses in Centrum than are considered safe for human consumption in a liter of water. Although the others listed are at levels well under the EPA’s allowable limit, it is simply amazing that they are found in a product for human consumption at any quantity given their known toxicity.
So, if these chemicals are toxic, how can they be marketed as beneficial to our health?
As of today no law forbids the use of these substances in dietary supplements, despite laboratory research demonstrating their toxicity in animals, and epidemiological and occupational data demonstrating their actual or potential toxicity in humans. This is due to the widespread acceptance in the U.S. of a chemical and drug industry-friendly “weight of evidence” standard for toxicological risk assessment. Rather than using the “precautionary principle,” which dictates that a substance that is suspected of being harmful should be duly regulated in order to minimize the public’s exposure, the “weight of evidence” paradigm requires that a panel of government appointed experts must evaluate all available toxicological data, and must come up with a consensus that the evidence, unequivocally, demonstrates the substance in question poses a serious health risk. Until such an assessment can be made, a number of substances with obvious toxicity are “innocent until proven guilty” and can be portrayed by irresponsible and/or uneducated manufacturers as being beneficial to human health. It is sad and ironic that at a time when smaller dietary supplement manufacturers are being accused of being “unregulated” and having poor quality standards (even when they are incurring great costs by using vastly superior ingredients) that massive pharmaceutical companies, who have every resource at their disposal, are allowed to market toxic chemicals to consumers under the banner of USP (United States Pharmacopeia) or “pharmaceutical grade” quality, and get away with it.
Ultimately, we need to use common sense in our purchasing decisions and realize that sometimes companies will intentionally mislead the public—with the complicity of regulatory bodies like the FDA—and will advertise a product that has no health benefits; or worse, may actually detract from our health. The fact that Centrum may or may not be “the #1 doctor multivitamin brand” is irrelevant, considering that one does not ordinarily go to a doctor to seek wise counsel on nutrition. It is simply not their specialty.
The irony is that billions of dollars in health care cost —and the suffering these costs represent— could be saved every year if Americans took the simple step of taking a good multivitamin every day. It is advisable to look for product manufacturers that use high quality ingredients, including those from whole foods, as they are easier for our bodies to absorb and to utilize and therefore contribute more significantly to filling the voids in our diet.
[previously published in the Well Being Journal and Mercola.com]
In episode #11 (season 2) of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, a woman poisons her husband with the chemical sodium selenite. Strange as it may sound, this exotic murder weapon, and it’s close cousin, sodium selenate, are listed as “nutrients” on the labels of most mass-marketed vitamins. Even though both sodium selenite and selenate are classified as dangerous and toxic to the environment by regulatory bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union, they are the primary forms of this mineral - selenium - sold on the mass market today. In fact, most mass-market vitamins contain chemicals that the EPA does not allow in our public drinking water at levels above 50 parts per billion per liter. According to the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standards, the highest allowable level of selenium in public drinking water is 50 parts per billion (equivalent to 50 micrograms, dry weight). To get a sense of how small an allowable limit this is, 50 parts per billion is equivalent to a tablespoon of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.
How can vitamin manufacturers advertise something as being a “nutrient” when the EPA—out of concern for our health—has barred it from our drinking water at all but exceedingly minute levels? Have sodium selenite/selenate really been shown to be toxic? A brief perusal of toxicology reports from the Hazardous Substances Databank (toxnet.nlm.nih.gov) and PUBMED (pubmed.gov) shows that both forms can be carcinogenic and genotoxic and may contribute to reproductive and developmental problems in animals and humans. The question is not whether these minerals have toxicity, but rather at what level they overwhelm our capacity for their detoxification and/or biotransformation into non-toxic metabolites?
A word should be said here about the differences that exist between inorganic minerals and biologically active ones:
The selenium that is found in foods like brazil nuts, mustard seeds, and fresh produce grown in selenium-rich soil is infinitely different from the biologically inert forms being put in some multivitamins. In fact, sodium selenite/selenate can cause cancer, whereas the selenium found within food, or laboratory chelated forms like selenomethionine, have all been shown to prevent and combat cancer.
The basic principle that explains this difference is that when you isolate a nutrient or vitamin out of the food complex within which it is naturally found, and where it is inseparably bound to thousands of known and unknown food factors (e.g., enzymes, protein chaperones, glyconutrients, etc.) it is no longer as beneficial to life. This is especially true in the case of vertebrate mammals who are equipped to get their minerals from the plants they ingest or through the biotransformation of inorganic minerals to organic ones by microflora in their gastrointestinal tracts.
The primary reason that sodium selenite/selenate are preferred by some vitamin manufacturers over safer, more beneficial forms like chelated or yeast-grown selenium is because it is more profitable to use raw materials of lower quality.
“You get what you pay for” is a saying that almost always rings true for dietary supplements. Buying industrial waste products, or chemicals that are considered hazardous waste, and repackaging them as “dietary supplements” can be extremely profitable.
Indeed, this is not the first time in American history that such a hoax has been perpetrated on the public. The FDA-approved use of fluoride in our drinking water and the use of radioactive cobalt-60 culled from nuclear reactors for the IRRADIATION of conventional food illustrates how industrial waste products with known toxicity are eventually converted into commodities or technologies “beneficial to health.” Whereas initially these substances have very high disposal costs for the industries that excrete them into our environment, the liability is converted — through the right combination of lobbying, miseducation and “checkbook science” –- back into a commodity, with the environment and consumer suffering health and financial losses as a result.
Unfortunately, inorganic forms of selenium are not the only problem with mass-market vitamins. Take the multivitamin Centrum, for instance, whose manufacturer Wyeth is one of the most powerful pharmaceutical companies in the world. This vitamin contains the following chemicals:
Chemical: Amount Found in Centrum/ EPA Maximum Allowed Limit in 1 Liter of Drinking Water
1) Sodium selenite : 55 mcg/ 50 mcg
2) Nickelous sulfate: 5 mcg/ 100 mcg
3) Stannous chloride (tin): 10 mcg/ 4 mcg
4) Ferrous fumarate (iron): 18 mg/ .3 mg
5) Manganese sulfate: 2.3 mg/ .05 mg
6) Cupric sulfate: .5 mg/ 1.3 mg
In the left hand column above you will see the quantities of inorganic minerals found within each dose of Centrum. In the right hand column are the maximum quantity allowed by the EPA in one liter of drinking water. In the case of stannous chloride (tin), ferrous fumarate (iron) and manganese sulfate there are significantly higher doses in Centrum than are considered safe for human consumption in a liter of water. Although the others listed are at levels well under the EPA’s allowable limit, it is simply amazing that they are found in a product for human consumption at any quantity given their known toxicity.
So, if these chemicals are toxic, how can they be marketed as beneficial to our health?
As of today no law forbids the use of these substances in dietary supplements, despite laboratory research demonstrating their toxicity in animals, and epidemiological and occupational data demonstrating their actual or potential toxicity in humans. This is due to the widespread acceptance in the U.S. of a chemical and drug industry-friendly “weight of evidence” standard for toxicological risk assessment. Rather than using the “precautionary principle,” which dictates that a substance that is suspected of being harmful should be duly regulated in order to minimize the public’s exposure, the “weight of evidence” paradigm requires that a panel of government appointed experts must evaluate all available toxicological data, and must come up with a consensus that the evidence, unequivocally, demonstrates the substance in question poses a serious health risk. Until such an assessment can be made, a number of substances with obvious toxicity are “innocent until proven guilty” and can be portrayed by irresponsible and/or uneducated manufacturers as being beneficial to human health. It is sad and ironic that at a time when smaller dietary supplement manufacturers are being accused of being “unregulated” and having poor quality standards (even when they are incurring great costs by using vastly superior ingredients) that massive pharmaceutical companies, who have every resource at their disposal, are allowed to market toxic chemicals to consumers under the banner of USP (United States Pharmacopeia) or “pharmaceutical grade” quality, and get away with it.
Ultimately, we need to use common sense in our purchasing decisions and realize that sometimes companies will intentionally mislead the public—with the complicity of regulatory bodies like the FDA—and will advertise a product that has no health benefits; or worse, may actually detract from our health. The fact that Centrum may or may not be “the #1 doctor multivitamin brand” is irrelevant, considering that one does not ordinarily go to a doctor to seek wise counsel on nutrition. It is simply not their specialty.
The irony is that billions of dollars in health care cost —and the suffering these costs represent— could be saved every year if Americans took the simple step of taking a good multivitamin every day. It is advisable to look for product manufacturers that use high quality ingredients, including those from whole foods, as they are easier for our bodies to absorb and to utilize and therefore contribute more significantly to filling the voids in our diet.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Sub-Arachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)
by J. Michael Pece
I am recovering from a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. What is a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage you ask? Its when a blood vessel underneath the skull and the membrane and the brain ruptures. Thus leading to bleeding in the brain . Bleeding in the brain can destroy brain tissue causing a variety of problems for the patient.
Mine occurred August 4, 20011. I was walking around my front yard, near an ditch, in the early morning when suddenly I fell unconscious and hit my head, apparently on a rock. I do not remember the incident. It was during a heat wave, here where we live, and the temperature was around 110 degrees. I lay unconscious for about three hours in the blazing sun, until a neighbor, who lives about 1/4 mile away noticed our dogs were loose and in his workshop. Since we never let our dogs loose, he immediately came over to see why they were loose. He found the front door opened and a man separated from our yard by a 10 foot fence screaming for him to help me. He then found me lying on the top of the ditch unconscious and bleeding from the back of the head.
My neighbor called 911 and soon the EMT's and the fire truck were on the scene attending me. Thank God for neighbors.
I was taken to the nearest hospital and immediately had a CT scan done. It showed bleeding in the brain. I was still unconscious and had no idea what was going on, I've only been told later. My wife was called by the EMT's at work and she immediately came to the Hospital ER to see me. The Emergency Department doctors tried to stop the bleeding and stabilized me, but could not. They then told my wife that I would need to go to a hospital which treated brain hemorrhages and had a Neurosurgical team on board.
An ambulance was called and I was taken to another hospital renown for their neurological department and actually was where I had gone as an outpatient for 2 1/2 years after my previous traumatic brain injury.They took and MRI and CT scan and saw the bleeding and began working to stop the bleeding. The choice was to use a coagulating drug to try and stop it or do surgery. They tried the drug first. I became conscious enough that I could tell the doctors that my head hurt tremendously.
And they began giving me morphine and when that did not work they gave me a combination of painkillers which immediately knocked me out again.my wife went home to tend to the dogs after the doctors told he they wouldn't know anything until early morning.
The next morning my wife called the hospital at 6:30 am, and was told by the nursing staff that the bleeding had been stopped by the drugs, but I was still unconscious.
I have absolutely no recollection of August 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th. On the fifth day I began to remember consciousness. On the sixth day the hospital sent me to an in-house
rehabilitation clinic. There I underwent Occupational therapy (how to dress,, brush your teeth, comb your hair, etc), Speech therapy, and physical therapy.
My main lasting effect was dizziness. I was extremely dizzy.After an brain hemorrhage after effects can be things such as dizziness, loss of speech, loss of movement, headaches, loss of memory, and loss of self. Luckily I just suffered from dizziness, loss of memory and difficulty speaking certain polysyllable words. I left rehab with a walker to help me get around and a shower chair for taking showers without falling.
This week I went to the Neurosurgeon for my 6 week follow up and he said my most recent CT scan did not show any bleeding and he felt relatively sure that the chances of a re-occurrence was as close to zero as possible provided I did not fall and hit my head again.
Today my speech is almost back to normal, my dizziness is getting better as time goes on, and I have no head aches. I was lucky.
I was lucky the first hospital was only 10 minutes away and they recognized they could not help me besides stabilizing me, and transferring me to the best Neurological Hospital in the city where we live. I was lucky a neighbor found me when he did or I would have died of exposure to the heat, I was lucky that I was transferred to the best Neurological hospital in our city, I was lucky I will have no lasting effects from this brain hemorrhage. For all of this I am thankful. Most of all I am lucky to be married to such a wonderful wife who nursed me back to health and cautioned me against doing "too much" or doing the wrong things.
Having a brain bleed is nothing to be shy about. Signs are headache, stiff neck, confusion, inability to speak, inability to walk and total confusion. If you ever have these symptoms get help at a hospital immediately. In my case having a brain hemorrhage caused by a head trauma there is a 46 - 75% chance of permanent vegetative state, or mental deficits or death. Luckily I was in that 25% that recover.
If you want to learn more about Sub-arachnoid Hemorrhage or other brain bleed strokes Google PubMed,WebMD, or Medscape and learn about this potentially deadly experience.
I am recovering from a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. What is a sub-arachnoid hemorrhage you ask? Its when a blood vessel underneath the skull and the membrane and the brain ruptures. Thus leading to bleeding in the brain . Bleeding in the brain can destroy brain tissue causing a variety of problems for the patient.
Mine occurred August 4, 20011. I was walking around my front yard, near an ditch, in the early morning when suddenly I fell unconscious and hit my head, apparently on a rock. I do not remember the incident. It was during a heat wave, here where we live, and the temperature was around 110 degrees. I lay unconscious for about three hours in the blazing sun, until a neighbor, who lives about 1/4 mile away noticed our dogs were loose and in his workshop. Since we never let our dogs loose, he immediately came over to see why they were loose. He found the front door opened and a man separated from our yard by a 10 foot fence screaming for him to help me. He then found me lying on the top of the ditch unconscious and bleeding from the back of the head.
My neighbor called 911 and soon the EMT's and the fire truck were on the scene attending me. Thank God for neighbors.
I was taken to the nearest hospital and immediately had a CT scan done. It showed bleeding in the brain. I was still unconscious and had no idea what was going on, I've only been told later. My wife was called by the EMT's at work and she immediately came to the Hospital ER to see me. The Emergency Department doctors tried to stop the bleeding and stabilized me, but could not. They then told my wife that I would need to go to a hospital which treated brain hemorrhages and had a Neurosurgical team on board.
An ambulance was called and I was taken to another hospital renown for their neurological department and actually was where I had gone as an outpatient for 2 1/2 years after my previous traumatic brain injury.They took and MRI and CT scan and saw the bleeding and began working to stop the bleeding. The choice was to use a coagulating drug to try and stop it or do surgery. They tried the drug first. I became conscious enough that I could tell the doctors that my head hurt tremendously.
And they began giving me morphine and when that did not work they gave me a combination of painkillers which immediately knocked me out again.my wife went home to tend to the dogs after the doctors told he they wouldn't know anything until early morning.
The next morning my wife called the hospital at 6:30 am, and was told by the nursing staff that the bleeding had been stopped by the drugs, but I was still unconscious.
I have absolutely no recollection of August 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th. On the fifth day I began to remember consciousness. On the sixth day the hospital sent me to an in-house
rehabilitation clinic. There I underwent Occupational therapy (how to dress,, brush your teeth, comb your hair, etc), Speech therapy, and physical therapy.
My main lasting effect was dizziness. I was extremely dizzy.After an brain hemorrhage after effects can be things such as dizziness, loss of speech, loss of movement, headaches, loss of memory, and loss of self. Luckily I just suffered from dizziness, loss of memory and difficulty speaking certain polysyllable words. I left rehab with a walker to help me get around and a shower chair for taking showers without falling.
This week I went to the Neurosurgeon for my 6 week follow up and he said my most recent CT scan did not show any bleeding and he felt relatively sure that the chances of a re-occurrence was as close to zero as possible provided I did not fall and hit my head again.
Today my speech is almost back to normal, my dizziness is getting better as time goes on, and I have no head aches. I was lucky.
I was lucky the first hospital was only 10 minutes away and they recognized they could not help me besides stabilizing me, and transferring me to the best Neurological Hospital in the city where we live. I was lucky a neighbor found me when he did or I would have died of exposure to the heat, I was lucky that I was transferred to the best Neurological hospital in our city, I was lucky I will have no lasting effects from this brain hemorrhage. For all of this I am thankful. Most of all I am lucky to be married to such a wonderful wife who nursed me back to health and cautioned me against doing "too much" or doing the wrong things.
Having a brain bleed is nothing to be shy about. Signs are headache, stiff neck, confusion, inability to speak, inability to walk and total confusion. If you ever have these symptoms get help at a hospital immediately. In my case having a brain hemorrhage caused by a head trauma there is a 46 - 75% chance of permanent vegetative state, or mental deficits or death. Luckily I was in that 25% that recover.
If you want to learn more about Sub-arachnoid Hemorrhage or other brain bleed strokes Google PubMed,WebMD, or Medscape and learn about this potentially deadly experience.
High-Fructose Corn Syrup Propaganda
By Dr. Alan R. Gaby
I received a packet of glossy brochures and a small booklet the other day from the Corn Refiners Association, along with a Dear Doctor cover letter. The purpose of the mailing was to explain to me, the doctor, that much of the negative press surrounding high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) lacks scientific merit, and that this "versatile sweetener" is pretty much the same as sucrose.
The cover letter started off comically enough: "Because you are a trusted source of information about nutrition . . . ", like nobody knows that medical doctors are considered so uninformed and so biased regarding nutrition that nearly three-quarters of patients won’t even tell their doctor what nutrients and herbs they are taking.
But, flattery is like a foot in the door, so I read on. The letter was signed by the president of the Corn Refiner’s Association and also by a cardiologist/professor with a university affiliation. The letter did not disclose the cardiologist’s conflicts of interest, but a Medline Search revealed that he has received research funding and consulting fees from PepsiCo, one of the biggest users of HFCS in the world.
The main point of the information packet was that HFCS is nutritionally the same as sucrose (table sugar). Emphasizing that point was considered so important that it was stated at least 17 times in the mailing.
As discussed below, HFCS and sucrose are not the same, which might be why so much effort was made to convince doctors otherwise. As a corollary to the main point, the packet sought to dispel the "myth" that "sugar is healthier than HFCS." The use of the word "healthier" is particularly amusing, since almost no one on the planet considers sugar to be a health food.
A more appropriate framing of the argument would have been to claim that HFCS is no more likely to give you diabetes, make you fat, raise your triglyceride and uric acid levels, cause nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or give you stomach aches and diarrhea than sucrose is. While there is a great deal of research that contradicts such claims (as discussed, for example, in my review article on the adverse effects of dietary fructose), at least those would have been claims that could have been debated honestly.
The Corn Refiner’s Association argues that HFCS and sucrose are pretty much the same, because they both consist of about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.
In actuality, HFCS consists of 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose consists of 100% sucrose (which can be converted by intestinal enzymes to 50% fructose and 50% glucose). The difference in the relative proportions of fructose and glucose in these two sweeteners (1.31:1 versus 1:1) may not be insignificant. Fructose malabsorption is a common cause of gastrointestinal symptoms that mimic irritable bowel syndrome.
Fructose malabsorption tends to occur primarily when the fructose concentration of a meal exceeds that of glucose, because glucose enhances the intestinal absorption of fructose. HFCS, which contains fructose in excess of glucose, is more likely to cause gastrointestinal symptoms than is sucrose, which is converted to equal parts fructose and glucose.
The fact that HFCS consists mainly of two monosaccharides, while sucrose is a disaccharide, may also not be insignificant. In order to be absorbed as its constituent monosaccharides, sucrose must first be hydrolyzed by intestinal mucosal disaccharidase enzymes. Thus, the absorption of fructose from sucrose might be considerably slower than the absorption of the free fructose present in HFCS. That possibility is supported by studies in which serum fructose concentrations increased to a greater extent after feeding free fructose than after feeding the same amount of fructose in the form of sucrose.
Fructose is the most powerful reducing sugar of all of the edible sugars. Reducing sugars promote the glycosylation of tissue proteins, which is a factor both in the complications of diabetes and in the aging process.
The human body has elaborate mechanisms to prevent serum fructose concentrations from rising to any great extent, but these mechanisms can be overwhelmed by feeding large quantities of free fructose. Exposure to the large amounts of free fructose that are currently being consumed is unprecedented in human evolution, and there is no reason to believe that humans are equipped to handle this new stressor.
There are still significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the consequences of consuming large amounts of free fructose. According to my reading of the scientific literature, the effects of HFCS are somewhere between slightly worse than the effects of sucrose and seriously horrible.
Alan R. Gaby, M.D., is an internationally recognized authority on nutritional therapies. Dr. Gaby has recently completed a 30-year project, a textbook of Nutritional Medicine.
Dr. Gaby received his undergraduate degree from Yale University, his M.S. in biochemistry from Emory University, and his M.D. from the University of Maryland. He is a contributing medical editor for Alternative Medicine Review. Dr. Gaby was a professor of nutrition at Bastyr University in Washington.
I received a packet of glossy brochures and a small booklet the other day from the Corn Refiners Association, along with a Dear Doctor cover letter. The purpose of the mailing was to explain to me, the doctor, that much of the negative press surrounding high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) lacks scientific merit, and that this "versatile sweetener" is pretty much the same as sucrose.
The cover letter started off comically enough: "Because you are a trusted source of information about nutrition . . . ", like nobody knows that medical doctors are considered so uninformed and so biased regarding nutrition that nearly three-quarters of patients won’t even tell their doctor what nutrients and herbs they are taking.
But, flattery is like a foot in the door, so I read on. The letter was signed by the president of the Corn Refiner’s Association and also by a cardiologist/professor with a university affiliation. The letter did not disclose the cardiologist’s conflicts of interest, but a Medline Search revealed that he has received research funding and consulting fees from PepsiCo, one of the biggest users of HFCS in the world.
The main point of the information packet was that HFCS is nutritionally the same as sucrose (table sugar). Emphasizing that point was considered so important that it was stated at least 17 times in the mailing.
As discussed below, HFCS and sucrose are not the same, which might be why so much effort was made to convince doctors otherwise. As a corollary to the main point, the packet sought to dispel the "myth" that "sugar is healthier than HFCS." The use of the word "healthier" is particularly amusing, since almost no one on the planet considers sugar to be a health food.
A more appropriate framing of the argument would have been to claim that HFCS is no more likely to give you diabetes, make you fat, raise your triglyceride and uric acid levels, cause nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, or give you stomach aches and diarrhea than sucrose is. While there is a great deal of research that contradicts such claims (as discussed, for example, in my review article on the adverse effects of dietary fructose), at least those would have been claims that could have been debated honestly.
The Corn Refiner’s Association argues that HFCS and sucrose are pretty much the same, because they both consist of about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.
In actuality, HFCS consists of 55% fructose and 42% glucose, while sucrose consists of 100% sucrose (which can be converted by intestinal enzymes to 50% fructose and 50% glucose). The difference in the relative proportions of fructose and glucose in these two sweeteners (1.31:1 versus 1:1) may not be insignificant. Fructose malabsorption is a common cause of gastrointestinal symptoms that mimic irritable bowel syndrome.
Fructose malabsorption tends to occur primarily when the fructose concentration of a meal exceeds that of glucose, because glucose enhances the intestinal absorption of fructose. HFCS, which contains fructose in excess of glucose, is more likely to cause gastrointestinal symptoms than is sucrose, which is converted to equal parts fructose and glucose.
The fact that HFCS consists mainly of two monosaccharides, while sucrose is a disaccharide, may also not be insignificant. In order to be absorbed as its constituent monosaccharides, sucrose must first be hydrolyzed by intestinal mucosal disaccharidase enzymes. Thus, the absorption of fructose from sucrose might be considerably slower than the absorption of the free fructose present in HFCS. That possibility is supported by studies in which serum fructose concentrations increased to a greater extent after feeding free fructose than after feeding the same amount of fructose in the form of sucrose.
Fructose is the most powerful reducing sugar of all of the edible sugars. Reducing sugars promote the glycosylation of tissue proteins, which is a factor both in the complications of diabetes and in the aging process.
The human body has elaborate mechanisms to prevent serum fructose concentrations from rising to any great extent, but these mechanisms can be overwhelmed by feeding large quantities of free fructose. Exposure to the large amounts of free fructose that are currently being consumed is unprecedented in human evolution, and there is no reason to believe that humans are equipped to handle this new stressor.
There are still significant gaps in our knowledge regarding the consequences of consuming large amounts of free fructose. According to my reading of the scientific literature, the effects of HFCS are somewhere between slightly worse than the effects of sucrose and seriously horrible.
Alan R. Gaby, M.D., is an internationally recognized authority on nutritional therapies. Dr. Gaby has recently completed a 30-year project, a textbook of Nutritional Medicine.
Dr. Gaby received his undergraduate degree from Yale University, his M.S. in biochemistry from Emory University, and his M.D. from the University of Maryland. He is a contributing medical editor for Alternative Medicine Review. Dr. Gaby was a professor of nutrition at Bastyr University in Washington.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Could zinc be a cure for the common cold? Taking supplements could shorten illness length by 40 per cent
By Jenny Hope
It is medicine’s holy grail, eluding doctors and scientists for centuries.
But remarkably, the cure for the common cold could be no more complicated than a mineral supplement.
Taking high doses of zinc can cut the length of colds by almost half, according to research. The evidence emerged from the combined results of 13 trials which tested the ability of zinc lozenges, which dissolve in the mouth and are widely available, to fight off colds.
But zinc supplements could help shorten the symptoms of the common cold
Three of the studies showed taking daily doses of zinc acetate higher than 75 milligrams – seven times more than is generally recommended – as soon as symptoms began, shortened colds by an average of 42 per cent.
Five others, using other types of zinc salt at doses greater than 75mg, resulted in a 20 per cent reduction. But five studies of doses lower than 75mg showed no benefit at all.
Zinc supplements can cause side effects such as a bad taste in the mouth, stomach upsets and nausea in some people. But the researchers found no evidence that the lozenges caused any long-term harm. In the EU, the recommended daily dose of zinc is 10mg for adults.
Zinc supplements: The mineral's health benefits have long been known, but its effects on the common cold have not been clear until now.
Zinc is important for the immune system and eating too little in the diet is known to increase the risk of infection. The latest findings confirm research at Cardiff University’s Common Cold Centre into whether non-medical remedies are effective.
These studies also showed zinc may shorten the duration of symptoms. More than 200 viruses are capable of causing the common cold, which is why it is almost impossible to gain complete immunity.
Colds strike an average of 930,000 Britons on any day in winter. People typically suffer at least 200 colds over their a lifetime – amounting to around two to three years of coughing and sneezing.
The idea that zinc lozenges might be effective against colds stems from an accidental observation in the early 1980s. Doctors saw that the cold of a three-year-old girl with leukaemia vanished when she dissolved a zinc tablet in her mouth.
Since then a number of studies have looked at zinc’s effects on colds, with inconclusive results.
Pugh
The latest findings, reported in the Open Respiratory Medicine Journal, point to mixed results caused by hugely different doses in the previous studies. The researchers, led by Dr Harri Hemila, of the University of Helsinki in Finland, wrote: ‘Many trials with daily zinc doses of over 75mg have found significant reduction in the duration of colds.
‘Since a large proportion of participants remained without adverse effects, zinc lozenges might be useful as a treatment option for the common cold. More research is needed to find optimal compositions and treatment strategies.’
Zinc deficiency is very common, with less than half of Britain’s population eating even half the recommended daily allowance.
It is not stored in the body, although can be found in tissue and bones. It aids the immune system, helps wounds heal, is important for proper taste and smell, and vital for male fertility. It may slow sight loss caused by age-related macular degeneration.
Rich sources include shellfish, lamb, liver, steak, pumpkin seeds and whole grains.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2018987/Common-cold-cure-Zinc-supplements-shorten-illness-length-40.html#ixzz1TL3eBsDv
It is medicine’s holy grail, eluding doctors and scientists for centuries.
But remarkably, the cure for the common cold could be no more complicated than a mineral supplement.
Taking high doses of zinc can cut the length of colds by almost half, according to research. The evidence emerged from the combined results of 13 trials which tested the ability of zinc lozenges, which dissolve in the mouth and are widely available, to fight off colds.
But zinc supplements could help shorten the symptoms of the common cold
Three of the studies showed taking daily doses of zinc acetate higher than 75 milligrams – seven times more than is generally recommended – as soon as symptoms began, shortened colds by an average of 42 per cent.
Five others, using other types of zinc salt at doses greater than 75mg, resulted in a 20 per cent reduction. But five studies of doses lower than 75mg showed no benefit at all.
Zinc supplements can cause side effects such as a bad taste in the mouth, stomach upsets and nausea in some people. But the researchers found no evidence that the lozenges caused any long-term harm. In the EU, the recommended daily dose of zinc is 10mg for adults.
Zinc supplements: The mineral's health benefits have long been known, but its effects on the common cold have not been clear until now.
Zinc is important for the immune system and eating too little in the diet is known to increase the risk of infection. The latest findings confirm research at Cardiff University’s Common Cold Centre into whether non-medical remedies are effective.
These studies also showed zinc may shorten the duration of symptoms. More than 200 viruses are capable of causing the common cold, which is why it is almost impossible to gain complete immunity.
Colds strike an average of 930,000 Britons on any day in winter. People typically suffer at least 200 colds over their a lifetime – amounting to around two to three years of coughing and sneezing.
The idea that zinc lozenges might be effective against colds stems from an accidental observation in the early 1980s. Doctors saw that the cold of a three-year-old girl with leukaemia vanished when she dissolved a zinc tablet in her mouth.
Since then a number of studies have looked at zinc’s effects on colds, with inconclusive results.
Pugh
The latest findings, reported in the Open Respiratory Medicine Journal, point to mixed results caused by hugely different doses in the previous studies. The researchers, led by Dr Harri Hemila, of the University of Helsinki in Finland, wrote: ‘Many trials with daily zinc doses of over 75mg have found significant reduction in the duration of colds.
‘Since a large proportion of participants remained without adverse effects, zinc lozenges might be useful as a treatment option for the common cold. More research is needed to find optimal compositions and treatment strategies.’
Zinc deficiency is very common, with less than half of Britain’s population eating even half the recommended daily allowance.
It is not stored in the body, although can be found in tissue and bones. It aids the immune system, helps wounds heal, is important for proper taste and smell, and vital for male fertility. It may slow sight loss caused by age-related macular degeneration.
Rich sources include shellfish, lamb, liver, steak, pumpkin seeds and whole grains.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2018987/Common-cold-cure-Zinc-supplements-shorten-illness-length-40.html#ixzz1TL3eBsDv
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Walnuts Are Drugs, Says FDA
Written by Michael Tennant
Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:10
Seen any walnuts in your medicine cabinet lately? According to the Food and Drug Administration, that is precisely where you should find them. Because Diamond Foods made truthful claims about the health benefits of consuming walnuts that the FDA didn’t approve, it sent the company a letter declaring, “Your walnut products are drugs” — and “new drugs” at that — and, therefore, “they may not legally be marketed … in the United States without an approved new drug application.” The agency even threatened Diamond with “seizure” if it failed to comply.
Diamond’s transgression was to make “financial investments to educate the public and supply them with walnuts,” as William Faloon of Life Extension magazine put it. On its website and packaging, the company stated that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer. These claims, Faloon notes, are well supported by scientific research: “Life Extension has published 57 articles that describe the health benefits of walnuts”; and “The US National Library of Medicine database contains no fewer than 35 peer-reviewed published papers supporting a claim that ingesting walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce heart attack risk.”
This evidence was apparently not good enough for the FDA, which told Diamond that its walnuts were “misbranded” because the “product bears health claims that are not authorized by the FDA.”
The FDA’s letter continues: “We have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.” Furthermore, the products are also “misbranded” because they “are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes.” Who knew you had to have directions to eat walnuts?
“The FDA’s language,” Faloon writes, “resembles that of an out-of-control police state where tyranny [reigns] over rationality.” He adds:
This kind of bureaucratic tyranny sends a strong signal to the food industry not to innovate in a way that informs the public about foods that protect against disease. While consumers increasingly reach for healthier dietary choices, the federal government wants to deny food companies the ability to convey findings from scientific studies about their products.
Walnuts aren’t the only food whose health benefits the FDA has tried to suppress. Producers of pomegranate juice and green tea, among others, have felt the bureaucrats’ wrath whenever they have suggested that their products are good for people.
Meanwhile, Faloon points out, foods that have little to no redeeming value are advertised endlessly, often with dubious health claims attached. For example, Frito-Lay is permitted to make all kinds of claims about its fat-laden, fried products, including that Lay’s potato chips are “heart healthy.” Faloon concludes that “the FDA obviously does not want the public to discover that they can reduce their risk of age-related disease by consuming healthy foods. They prefer consumers only learn about mass-marketed garbage foods that shorten life span by increasing degenerative disease risk.”
Faloon thinks he knows why this is the case. First, by stifling competition from makers of more healthful alternatives, junk food manufacturers, who he says “heavily lobb[y]” the federal government for favorable treatment, will rake in ever greater profits. Second, by making it less likely that Americans will consume healthful foods, big pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers stand to gain by selling more “expensive cardiac drugs, stents, and coronary bypass procedures” to those made ill by their diets.
But people are starting to fight back against the FDA’s tactics. “The makers of pomegranate juice, for example, have sued the FTC for censoring their First Amendment right to communicate scientific information to the public,” Faloon reports. Congress is also getting into the act with a bill, the Free Speech About Science Act (H.R. 1364), that, Faloon writes, “protects basic free speech rights, ends censorship of science, and enables the natural health products community to share peer-reviewed scientific findings with the public.”
Of course, if the Constitution were being followed as intended, none of this would be necessary. The FDA would not exist; but if it did, as a creation of Congress it would have no power to censor any speech whatsoever. If companies are making false claims about their products, the market will quickly punish them for it, and genuine fraud can be handled through the courts. In the absence of a government agency supposedly guaranteeing the safety of their food and drugs and the truthfulness of producers’ claims, consumers would become more discerning, as indeed they already are becoming despite the FDA’s attempts to prevent the dissemination of scientific research. Besides, as Faloon observed, “If anyone still thinks that federal agencies like the FDA protect the public, this proclamation that healthy foods are illegal drugs exposes the government’s sordid charade.”
Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:10
Seen any walnuts in your medicine cabinet lately? According to the Food and Drug Administration, that is precisely where you should find them. Because Diamond Foods made truthful claims about the health benefits of consuming walnuts that the FDA didn’t approve, it sent the company a letter declaring, “Your walnut products are drugs” — and “new drugs” at that — and, therefore, “they may not legally be marketed … in the United States without an approved new drug application.” The agency even threatened Diamond with “seizure” if it failed to comply.
Diamond’s transgression was to make “financial investments to educate the public and supply them with walnuts,” as William Faloon of Life Extension magazine put it. On its website and packaging, the company stated that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts have been shown to have certain health benefits, including reduced risk of heart disease and some types of cancer. These claims, Faloon notes, are well supported by scientific research: “Life Extension has published 57 articles that describe the health benefits of walnuts”; and “The US National Library of Medicine database contains no fewer than 35 peer-reviewed published papers supporting a claim that ingesting walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce heart attack risk.”
This evidence was apparently not good enough for the FDA, which told Diamond that its walnuts were “misbranded” because the “product bears health claims that are not authorized by the FDA.”
The FDA’s letter continues: “We have determined that your walnut products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs because these products are intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.” Furthermore, the products are also “misbranded” because they “are offered for conditions that are not amenable to self-diagnosis and treatment by individuals who are not medical practitioners; therefore, adequate directions for use cannot be written so that a layperson can use these drugs safely for their intended purposes.” Who knew you had to have directions to eat walnuts?
“The FDA’s language,” Faloon writes, “resembles that of an out-of-control police state where tyranny [reigns] over rationality.” He adds:
This kind of bureaucratic tyranny sends a strong signal to the food industry not to innovate in a way that informs the public about foods that protect against disease. While consumers increasingly reach for healthier dietary choices, the federal government wants to deny food companies the ability to convey findings from scientific studies about their products.
Walnuts aren’t the only food whose health benefits the FDA has tried to suppress. Producers of pomegranate juice and green tea, among others, have felt the bureaucrats’ wrath whenever they have suggested that their products are good for people.
Meanwhile, Faloon points out, foods that have little to no redeeming value are advertised endlessly, often with dubious health claims attached. For example, Frito-Lay is permitted to make all kinds of claims about its fat-laden, fried products, including that Lay’s potato chips are “heart healthy.” Faloon concludes that “the FDA obviously does not want the public to discover that they can reduce their risk of age-related disease by consuming healthy foods. They prefer consumers only learn about mass-marketed garbage foods that shorten life span by increasing degenerative disease risk.”
Faloon thinks he knows why this is the case. First, by stifling competition from makers of more healthful alternatives, junk food manufacturers, who he says “heavily lobb[y]” the federal government for favorable treatment, will rake in ever greater profits. Second, by making it less likely that Americans will consume healthful foods, big pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers stand to gain by selling more “expensive cardiac drugs, stents, and coronary bypass procedures” to those made ill by their diets.
But people are starting to fight back against the FDA’s tactics. “The makers of pomegranate juice, for example, have sued the FTC for censoring their First Amendment right to communicate scientific information to the public,” Faloon reports. Congress is also getting into the act with a bill, the Free Speech About Science Act (H.R. 1364), that, Faloon writes, “protects basic free speech rights, ends censorship of science, and enables the natural health products community to share peer-reviewed scientific findings with the public.”
Of course, if the Constitution were being followed as intended, none of this would be necessary. The FDA would not exist; but if it did, as a creation of Congress it would have no power to censor any speech whatsoever. If companies are making false claims about their products, the market will quickly punish them for it, and genuine fraud can be handled through the courts. In the absence of a government agency supposedly guaranteeing the safety of their food and drugs and the truthfulness of producers’ claims, consumers would become more discerning, as indeed they already are becoming despite the FDA’s attempts to prevent the dissemination of scientific research. Besides, as Faloon observed, “If anyone still thinks that federal agencies like the FDA protect the public, this proclamation that healthy foods are illegal drugs exposes the government’s sordid charade.”
Today is My Birthday
Today is my birthday. I was born under the sign of Leo. Today I am sixty years of age. My seventh decade of life. Some days I feel like I'm in my thirties some days I feel like I'm in my seventies.
But I'm thankful to be alive at sixty.
I've learned much in my sixty years and want to give back as much as I can to others.
This past year has been especially tough for me. My father passed away at age 84, last July 1st. I was hospitalized for my blood sugar being out of control in January, for Pulmonary embolisms, last July, and diverticulitis in December/ January of this year. Each of which took something out of me.
My father lived a full life and taught me much, both good and not so good. But each with it's own lesson to be learned.
My illnesses made me wiser, and to appreciate how fragile our health really is.
I am re-dedicating myself to try and teach what I have learned and to listen to learn from others. To learn to appreciate what life offers us in all of its glory.
To see the beauty in the world and the people around us and to listen in the quietness of life to God as he whispers his words to live by.
Yes today is my birthday. I will use this day as a new beginning to love life, to appreciate more, to complain less, too see more, to feel more and to live more.
But I'm thankful to be alive at sixty.
I've learned much in my sixty years and want to give back as much as I can to others.
This past year has been especially tough for me. My father passed away at age 84, last July 1st. I was hospitalized for my blood sugar being out of control in January, for Pulmonary embolisms, last July, and diverticulitis in December/ January of this year. Each of which took something out of me.
My father lived a full life and taught me much, both good and not so good. But each with it's own lesson to be learned.
My illnesses made me wiser, and to appreciate how fragile our health really is.
I am re-dedicating myself to try and teach what I have learned and to listen to learn from others. To learn to appreciate what life offers us in all of its glory.
To see the beauty in the world and the people around us and to listen in the quietness of life to God as he whispers his words to live by.
Yes today is my birthday. I will use this day as a new beginning to love life, to appreciate more, to complain less, too see more, to feel more and to live more.
Monday, July 25, 2011
The Whole Wheat Hoax
By Jim Healthy on 07/22/2011
Is whole wheat bread more healthful than white bread?
The vast majority of shoppers — including those with a high "health IQ" — think so. And that’s just what food marketers want you to believe. But the truth may knock you for a loop.
You see, many “whole wheat” products are just as bad as white bread — and some are even worse.
Keep reading and I’ll blow away the smoke that may be clouding your eyes so you can “hokum-proof” your whole grain purchases and bring home the real McCoy.
Why whole grains are better for you
True whole grain foods and products are bursting with nutty, chewy flavor and loaded with health-protective fiber. They’re so much better for you than the familiar white bread and white flour baked goods most of us grew up with.
Did you realize that munching white bread and foods baked from it have the same effect on your blood sugar as eating table sugar straight from the sugar bowl? Both break down into glucose as soon as they are digested, which requires extra insulin to get them out of your bloodstream.
Whole-grain bread, on the other hand, digests far more slowly because its natural fiber slows the conversion of carbohydrates into glucose, so your blood sugar remains stable and receives a steady energy release instead of a sudden spike-and-drop.
In a study published in Diabetes Care, Italian researchers noted that diets high in refined carbs throw blood sugar and metabolism into chaos. But the problem is resolved when refined carb foods are swapped out for whole grain.
Improve your blood sugar by 600%
Researchers at the Creighton Diabetes Center in Nebraska found that when people ate a breakfast cereal made from fiber-rich barley, their blood sugar remained 600% lower than when they ate oatmeal — which is thought to be one of the best "slow carbs" you can eat. Reason? Barley is high in a particular type of fiber called beta-glucan that’s super-effective at slowing the conversion of carbs to glucose.
Consuming too many refined carbohydrates is the number one cause of weight gain and Type 2 diabetes. And with a whopping 30% of the US population predicted to develop diabetes very soon, everyone should take steps to protect themselves.
Choosing whole grain foods and products can really help. In fact, you can reduce your diabetes risk by 40% just by replacing some of the fast carbs in your diet with whole grains, a recent Harvard study showed. And if you’re already experiencing blood sugar problems, whole grain foods are some of the best medicine in Nature’s pantry.
But how can you make sure the “whole grain” products you’re buying are the genuine article? It isn’t always easy. Let me illustrate…
Can you ace this quiz?
Three shoppers walk into a grocery store looking for the most healthful bread.
One sees a loaf labeled “Whole Wheat Bread” and drops it in her cart.
The second shopper spots a loaf of “Multigrain Bread” and heads to the checkout register.
The third shopper picks a loaf of bread that’s “Made with whole grains” and decides she’s made a smart choice.
So which shopper left the store with the truly healthy loaf?
The answer: None of the above.
This isn’t a trick question. Rather, it illustrates the trickiness of food marketers who intentionally create confusion about what’s healthful in your supermarket.
Take it with “a grain of truth”
You see, food manufacturers are well aware you want to make healthier choices when shopping. They also know that white bread is falling out of favor with consumers.
But the economics of the supermarket haven’t changed. It’s still very expensive to put a true whole-grain loaf of bread on the shelf. Why? It spoils much faster than baked goods made with white flour. Here’s why…
Whole-grain products use the whole grain, including the germ, bran, and the oil. These elements are where the vitamins, minerals, and life-sustaining nutrition reside — and also what attract insects during transport and storage. By spoiling so quickly on the shelf, whole-grain baked goods require frequent replacement.
This was a big problem for millers and bakers in the old days until they came up a solution: Refine away these “problem” aspects and: “Voila!” The flour and bread resisted spoiling. Insects and weevils didn’t bother with them. Even mice weren’t interested because they couldn’t live on them.
This bizarre effect was demonstrated by Dr. Roger J. Williams, the noted biochemist who discovered pantothenic acid (vitamin B5). In late 1960s, Dr. Williams fed white flour to one group of rats and whole-grain flour to another. The white flour rats became malnourished, sickly, and two-thirds of them died, while the whole-grain rats flourished.
Good for profits; bad for health
Refining whole grains into white flour removes 80% of their 20 known nutrients. And while baked goods made from white flour won’t sustain health or life, they do stick around on grocery shelves longer. This makes them great for profits, but a poor source of nutrition.
After Dr. Williams’ rat experiment made headlines, consumers began to shun white bread in favor of loaves made from whole grains. Food manufacturers sniffed the trend and responded by adding brown coloring and a little bran to white flour and labeling the resulting bread “whole wheat.”
To this day, many consumers remain confused. But commercial bakers couldn’t fool Dr. Williams’ rats. In a follow-up experiment, he fed 33 different brands of refined-flour bread — including rye, pumpernickel, and ersatz “whole wheat” — to another group of rats. They didn’t fare any better than the white bread group.
Don’t fall for the “health food hype”
Some food marketers seek to profit from health trends by making a quick buck from confused consumers. So here’s how to crack the “code words” they use on the labels of bread and baked goods. When they say their bread is…
“Whole wheat bread.” Translation: This bread’s flour may or may not be made from whole grain wheat. Don’t rely on the product name. Look at the ingredients list. If the first ingredient is whole wheat flour, that means the flour is legally required to be ground from whole grains of wheat. It’s not refined or enriched. It’s the good stuff.
If the ingredient is listed simply as wheat flour or flour, then it’s refined flour, according to the standard of identity for flour — and refined flour has been denuded of its nutritional benefits. Refined white flour may have brown food coloring and a bit of bran added to make it appear healthful.
If the ingredient is listed as enriched flour, the bran and germ have been removed and other nutrients have been added, but it’s not anywhere near as healthful as true whole wheat flour.
“Multigrain.” Translation: This means there’s more than one type of grain in the product, but this is no guarantee that any of those grains are in fact “whole.”
“Made with whole grain.” Translation: There’s an insignificant amount of whole grains in the product, but they want you to believe it’s enough to be an actual health benefit. It usually isn’t.
Whole-grain shopping savvy
Here are some helpful tips when shopping for whole grain products…
Choose bread and other products labeled “whole grain.” Even better: Look for products labeled “100% whole grain.” We love Ezekiel bread products made by Food for Life. You’ll often find them in the freezer section because they are indeed a “whole” food.
Search the packaging for the “100% Whole Grain” stamp from the Whole Grains Council.
But be careful: Products emblazoned with the Whole Grain Council’s “basic” stamp only provide half a serving of whole grains, so pass them by.
Why not go “whole” hog?
While you’re tracking down the superior health benefits of whole grains in the bread aisle, why not go “whole grain” throughout the entire store?
You can easily incorporate whole grains at any (or every) meal to improve your blood sugar … control your weight … and improve your cardiovascular health.
Enjoy old favorites such as oats, barley, and brown rice often — and don’t hesitate to experiment with adventurous “new” whole-grain foods. For starters:
Quinoa is a complete protein.
Teff is gluten-free, and high in fiber.
Amaranth is high in iron.
Farro has twice the fiber and protein of whole wheat.
Millet is high in manganese, magnesium and phosphorus.
They all cook up in water just like oatmeal, and each one offers unique nutritional benefits. The variety of whole grains is so great that you may need a lifetime to get to know them all. But my guess is that you’ll love them at first bite.
For convenience, cook up a large batch of whole grains and freeze portions individually for later use.
The “whole” truth — and nothing but
One thing you can count on: As soon as American consumers change their illin’ ways and decide to eat more healthfully, some huckster will always figure out a way to make a buck off shoppers’ best intentions.
By remembering the key concepts explained above, you can outsmart these marketeers and bring home whole grain goodness time and again.
Happy shopping — and eating!
Is whole wheat bread more healthful than white bread?
The vast majority of shoppers — including those with a high "health IQ" — think so. And that’s just what food marketers want you to believe. But the truth may knock you for a loop.
You see, many “whole wheat” products are just as bad as white bread — and some are even worse.
Keep reading and I’ll blow away the smoke that may be clouding your eyes so you can “hokum-proof” your whole grain purchases and bring home the real McCoy.
Why whole grains are better for you
True whole grain foods and products are bursting with nutty, chewy flavor and loaded with health-protective fiber. They’re so much better for you than the familiar white bread and white flour baked goods most of us grew up with.
Did you realize that munching white bread and foods baked from it have the same effect on your blood sugar as eating table sugar straight from the sugar bowl? Both break down into glucose as soon as they are digested, which requires extra insulin to get them out of your bloodstream.
Whole-grain bread, on the other hand, digests far more slowly because its natural fiber slows the conversion of carbohydrates into glucose, so your blood sugar remains stable and receives a steady energy release instead of a sudden spike-and-drop.
In a study published in Diabetes Care, Italian researchers noted that diets high in refined carbs throw blood sugar and metabolism into chaos. But the problem is resolved when refined carb foods are swapped out for whole grain.
Improve your blood sugar by 600%
Researchers at the Creighton Diabetes Center in Nebraska found that when people ate a breakfast cereal made from fiber-rich barley, their blood sugar remained 600% lower than when they ate oatmeal — which is thought to be one of the best "slow carbs" you can eat. Reason? Barley is high in a particular type of fiber called beta-glucan that’s super-effective at slowing the conversion of carbs to glucose.
Consuming too many refined carbohydrates is the number one cause of weight gain and Type 2 diabetes. And with a whopping 30% of the US population predicted to develop diabetes very soon, everyone should take steps to protect themselves.
Choosing whole grain foods and products can really help. In fact, you can reduce your diabetes risk by 40% just by replacing some of the fast carbs in your diet with whole grains, a recent Harvard study showed. And if you’re already experiencing blood sugar problems, whole grain foods are some of the best medicine in Nature’s pantry.
But how can you make sure the “whole grain” products you’re buying are the genuine article? It isn’t always easy. Let me illustrate…
Can you ace this quiz?
Three shoppers walk into a grocery store looking for the most healthful bread.
One sees a loaf labeled “Whole Wheat Bread” and drops it in her cart.
The second shopper spots a loaf of “Multigrain Bread” and heads to the checkout register.
The third shopper picks a loaf of bread that’s “Made with whole grains” and decides she’s made a smart choice.
So which shopper left the store with the truly healthy loaf?
The answer: None of the above.
This isn’t a trick question. Rather, it illustrates the trickiness of food marketers who intentionally create confusion about what’s healthful in your supermarket.
Take it with “a grain of truth”
You see, food manufacturers are well aware you want to make healthier choices when shopping. They also know that white bread is falling out of favor with consumers.
But the economics of the supermarket haven’t changed. It’s still very expensive to put a true whole-grain loaf of bread on the shelf. Why? It spoils much faster than baked goods made with white flour. Here’s why…
Whole-grain products use the whole grain, including the germ, bran, and the oil. These elements are where the vitamins, minerals, and life-sustaining nutrition reside — and also what attract insects during transport and storage. By spoiling so quickly on the shelf, whole-grain baked goods require frequent replacement.
This was a big problem for millers and bakers in the old days until they came up a solution: Refine away these “problem” aspects and: “Voila!” The flour and bread resisted spoiling. Insects and weevils didn’t bother with them. Even mice weren’t interested because they couldn’t live on them.
This bizarre effect was demonstrated by Dr. Roger J. Williams, the noted biochemist who discovered pantothenic acid (vitamin B5). In late 1960s, Dr. Williams fed white flour to one group of rats and whole-grain flour to another. The white flour rats became malnourished, sickly, and two-thirds of them died, while the whole-grain rats flourished.
Good for profits; bad for health
Refining whole grains into white flour removes 80% of their 20 known nutrients. And while baked goods made from white flour won’t sustain health or life, they do stick around on grocery shelves longer. This makes them great for profits, but a poor source of nutrition.
After Dr. Williams’ rat experiment made headlines, consumers began to shun white bread in favor of loaves made from whole grains. Food manufacturers sniffed the trend and responded by adding brown coloring and a little bran to white flour and labeling the resulting bread “whole wheat.”
To this day, many consumers remain confused. But commercial bakers couldn’t fool Dr. Williams’ rats. In a follow-up experiment, he fed 33 different brands of refined-flour bread — including rye, pumpernickel, and ersatz “whole wheat” — to another group of rats. They didn’t fare any better than the white bread group.
Don’t fall for the “health food hype”
Some food marketers seek to profit from health trends by making a quick buck from confused consumers. So here’s how to crack the “code words” they use on the labels of bread and baked goods. When they say their bread is…
“Whole wheat bread.” Translation: This bread’s flour may or may not be made from whole grain wheat. Don’t rely on the product name. Look at the ingredients list. If the first ingredient is whole wheat flour, that means the flour is legally required to be ground from whole grains of wheat. It’s not refined or enriched. It’s the good stuff.
If the ingredient is listed simply as wheat flour or flour, then it’s refined flour, according to the standard of identity for flour — and refined flour has been denuded of its nutritional benefits. Refined white flour may have brown food coloring and a bit of bran added to make it appear healthful.
If the ingredient is listed as enriched flour, the bran and germ have been removed and other nutrients have been added, but it’s not anywhere near as healthful as true whole wheat flour.
“Multigrain.” Translation: This means there’s more than one type of grain in the product, but this is no guarantee that any of those grains are in fact “whole.”
“Made with whole grain.” Translation: There’s an insignificant amount of whole grains in the product, but they want you to believe it’s enough to be an actual health benefit. It usually isn’t.
Whole-grain shopping savvy
Here are some helpful tips when shopping for whole grain products…
Choose bread and other products labeled “whole grain.” Even better: Look for products labeled “100% whole grain.” We love Ezekiel bread products made by Food for Life. You’ll often find them in the freezer section because they are indeed a “whole” food.
Search the packaging for the “100% Whole Grain” stamp from the Whole Grains Council.
But be careful: Products emblazoned with the Whole Grain Council’s “basic” stamp only provide half a serving of whole grains, so pass them by.
Why not go “whole” hog?
While you’re tracking down the superior health benefits of whole grains in the bread aisle, why not go “whole grain” throughout the entire store?
You can easily incorporate whole grains at any (or every) meal to improve your blood sugar … control your weight … and improve your cardiovascular health.
Enjoy old favorites such as oats, barley, and brown rice often — and don’t hesitate to experiment with adventurous “new” whole-grain foods. For starters:
Quinoa is a complete protein.
Teff is gluten-free, and high in fiber.
Amaranth is high in iron.
Farro has twice the fiber and protein of whole wheat.
Millet is high in manganese, magnesium and phosphorus.
They all cook up in water just like oatmeal, and each one offers unique nutritional benefits. The variety of whole grains is so great that you may need a lifetime to get to know them all. But my guess is that you’ll love them at first bite.
For convenience, cook up a large batch of whole grains and freeze portions individually for later use.
The “whole” truth — and nothing but
One thing you can count on: As soon as American consumers change their illin’ ways and decide to eat more healthfully, some huckster will always figure out a way to make a buck off shoppers’ best intentions.
By remembering the key concepts explained above, you can outsmart these marketeers and bring home whole grain goodness time and again.
Happy shopping — and eating!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
