Chiropractic Elk Grove

Common herbicide used on U.S. crops castrates male frogs
by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The dangers associated with pesticide and herbicide use have been receiving increased attention in the media these days. Everything from their contamination of local water supplies to their residue on food has been making headlines. But a new study has found that one popular weed killer is actually causing a certain species of frog to turn from male to female.

Atrazine, a popular weed killer used in crop fields, has recently been implicated in a similar study to cause human birth defects. Scientists have found that atrazine and other agricultural chemicals are likely responsible for the significant rise of birth defects throughout the last several decades. But a recent report from the University of California-Berkeley (UC-B), indicts atrazine even further.

Biologists from UC-B found that long-term exposure to low levels of atrazine essentially castrated about 75 percent of the male frogs on which it was tested. Frogs were exposed to the toxic herbicide at levels of 2.5 parts per billion (ppb) in water, a level that is 16 percent lower than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers safe for drinking water. One out of every ten frogs also ended up turning into a female frog.

Like other pesticides and environmental toxins, atrazine interferes with hormones. It is an endocrine disruptor that seems to replace testosterone, the primary male hormone, with estrogen, the primary female hormone. The result is a severe alteration of normal male function that can actually turn a male into a female.

“The effects of atrazine in the long term have been shown to demasculinize or chemically castrate, combined with complete feminization of some animals,” explained Tyrone Hayes, a biologist and herpetologist from UC-B that led the study.

The amazing thing about the frogs who experienced the sex change was that they actually began producing viable eggs. The male frogs who turned female were able to copulate with naturally male frogs and produce eggs. The other 90 percent of male frogs exposed to atrazine experienced decreased sperm count, lowered libidos and diminished fertility.

In typical fashion, some atrazine producers were quick to decry the findings.

“We haven’t seen these kinds of responses that Dr. Hayes reports. Some of these studies are poorly conducted and are entirely inconsistent,” explained Keith Solomon, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. Solomon also served as a consultant to Syngenta.

Syngenta’s principal scientist, Tim Pastoor, explained in a CNN interview that atrazine levels within the EPA’s guidelines are safe, and that political pressure is responsible for efforts to get atrazine re-evaluated. Syngenta’s website also purports that atrazine residue on crops and in water are not a health risk.

Yet of all the available studies on atrazine, only its manufacturers’ studies found that the pesticide is safe. All other independent studies and reviews have found significant dangers associated with it. It has been continually shown to lead to cancer, birth defects, and severe endocrine disruption.

In 2004, the European Union (EU) banned atrazine because it was finding levels of the chemical in its water supplies that consistently exceeded the 0.1 ppb established threshold. Yet in the U.S., atrazine continues to be used, and is considered to be acceptable at much higher levels.

Atrazine is most commonly used on corn crops, but is also used on sorghum and sugar cane. Many farmers love it because it eliminates the need to have to till the soil. In 2008, it was estimated that over 60 million pounds of atrazine were used on crops.

A 2006 study by the U.S. Geological Survey found atrazine in nearly three-quarters of stream water and in roughly 40 percent of all groundwater supplies. This was based on data collected between 1992 and 2001. It is difficult to say what kinds of levels would be found on samples taken today.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an advocacy group that works to protect the health of the environment, issued a report in 2009 indicating that water supplies near agriculture fields that use atrazine are the most contaminated. Particularly in some midwestern and southern states that have high agricultural land usage, atrazine levels can be particularly high.

Individuals can remove atrazine from their home water with carbon filters, and some municipal water systems use the technology as well. It is important to investigate and take proper measures to ensure that atrazine does not enter your home through your water.

Ideally, dangerous pesticides like atrazine will eventually be banned and eliminated from agricultural use. As people become more aware of the severe negative effects of such poisons on their health and well-being, not to mention on the environment, it can only be hoped that increased pressure to stop their use will ensue. And though it cannot be said for sure, atrazine likely has a similar effect on humans as it does on frogs, and should not be considered safe at any level.

Sources for this story include:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/sc…

http://www.water-research.net/atraz..

Warning: Common acid-suppressing PPI drugs are over-used and have serious health risks
by S. L. Baker, features writer

(NaturalNews) Have heartburn occasionally? Suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms? Mention your indigestion to a pharmacist and the odds are you’ll be directed to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) drugs that are now sold over the counter. Or, if you tell your doctor about your heartburn problems, you’ll most likely be given a prescription for an even stronger dose of a PPI. These Big Pharma profit making drugs (which include Prilosec, Nexium, Prevacid, Aciphex and Protonix) are pushed for indigestion because they are supposedly stronger and faster acting than other older acid suppressing and acid neutralizing meds.

But there are problems with these widely hyped drugs. According to a series of reports just published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, not only are PPIs being over-prescribed and over-used but they are fraught with health dangers.

“A staggering 113.4 million prescriptions for proton pump inhibitors are filled each year, making this class of drugs, at $13.9 billion in sales, the third highest seller in the United States,” Mitchell H. Katz, M.D., of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in an editorial accompanying the reports.

Dr. Katz pointed out that these drugs can be effective treatments for inflammation of the esophagus, ulcers and GERD — but there is evidence that between 53 percent and 69 percent of PPIs are being prescribed inappropriately. What’s more, doctors are too often pushing these drugs without considering potential adverse side effects.

Bottom line: PPIs are often used to treat plain old common indigestion (dyspepsia) in the absence of ulcers, inflammation or severe GERD. “That proton pump inhibitors relieve dyspepsia is without question, but at what cost (and I do not mean financial)?” Dr. Katz asked.

So what specifically is the downside to acid-suppressing PPIs? The new reports in the current issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine offer some disturbing answers to that question:

• Shelly L. Gray, Pharm.D., of the University of Washington and colleagues reported that PPIs increase the risk of fractured bones in women after menopause. They followed 161,806 women between ages 50 and 79 in the Women’s Health Initiative Study for eight years and found those taking PPIS had an increased risk of spine and forearm or wrist fractures in addition to more total fractures.

• Michael D. Howell, M.D., M.P.H., of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School and fellow researchers studied the records of more than 100,000 patients discharged from hospitals over a five year period. Daily PPI use, they discovered, was linked to an estimated 74 percent increase in infections due to Clostridium difficile (C. difficile), a bacterium that can cause life-threatening diarrhea and inflammation of the colon.

• Another group of researchers headed by Amy Linsky, M.D., of Boston Medical Center, also found a worrisome link between C. difficile and PPIs. They investigated approximately 1,200 patients being treated for C. difficile and documented a 42 percent increased risk of recurrence with the infection if PPIs were used.

“Harm will result if these commonly used medications are prescribed for conditions for which there is no benefit, such as non-ulcer dyspepsia,” Deborah Grady, M.D., of the University of California, San Francisco, and San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Rita F. Redberg, M.D., also of the University of California, San Francisco, and editor of the Archives of Internal Medicine, wrote in another editorial.

There’s actually some good news related to the series of reports discussing the dangers of PPIs and their overuse. The articles are part of the prestigious medical journal’s new series called “Less Is More” which is similar in some ways to the kind of articles NaturalNews has been publishing for years — the journal is launching investigations into how health can be worse when patients receive more medical services.

“Evidence suggests that providing excessive health care service is most likely to occur in situations in which there is not strong evidence to document the benefit and harms of the service,” Dr. Grady and Dr. Redberg stated in their editorial. “The Archives aims to address this deficit by publishing articles that provide evidence that performing ‘more’ of certain health care activities results in ‘less’ health.”

For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…
hhttp://www.naturalnews.com/026361_d…
http://www.naturalnews.com/026836_h…

By Dr. Bowden, MD

Many people see diet soda is an innocuous, harmless beverage that can’t possibly cause any harm to their waistline since it doesn’t have any calories. Think again.

Research published this summer in the medical journal Circulation shows that people who drink more than one soda a day — whether it’s regular or diet — have an almost 50 percent increased risk for metabolic syndrome, which doubles their risk for heart disease and diabetes.

Two years ago, a study at the University of Texas Health Science Center found that there was a 41% increase in the risk for being overweight for every single can of diet soda a person consumed daily.

But how can something with no calories increase the risk for obesity and heart disease?

There are several possible ways.

First, my own theory is that the sweet taste works in the brain to create a conditioned response. The body responds as it usually does to normal sugar — with insulin, the fat-storing hormone. Those
circuits in the brain are pretty primitive and ancient, and they can’t immediately distinguish chemical fakery. As far as your brain is concerned, sweet means sugar. It’s entirely possible that physiologically, you would respond to aspartame in the same way as you would to table sugar. It’s only a theory, but it makes sense to me.

Second, sugar creates its own cravings. Just as a taste of rum creates an unstoppable craving in an alcoholic, it’s entirely possible that the taste of sweet, even if it’s fake, creates the same cascade of cravings in a carb addict that regular sugar does, leading to overeating and binging and all the rest of the reasons people put on weight.

Third, many people think that by drinking diet beverages they’re “saving” calories. They subconsciously allow themselves to eat more, figuring it’s not doing as much harm since they’re drinking a diet drink. The diet drink gives them subconscious “permission” to eat more.

What’s worse than making you fat, aspartame may be toxic. Aspartame is made primarily from three ingredients: aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol. Methanol, an alcohol, breaks down in the body to formaldehyde, a poison if there ever was one. Apologists for aspartame say that it doesn’t create enough formaldehyde in the body to cause any damage, but I’m not so sure. Exposing children to formaldehyde levels as low as .75 mg daily for several months has been shown to cause gradual toxicity. Plus, diet soda is frequently stored in hot warehouses, causing chemical breakdowns that went undetected in the original safety studies that looked at “ideal” conditions.

Soda is bad news, whether regular or diet. Period.

Note: Dr. Bowden is a nationally known expert on weight loss, nutrition and health. He’s a board certified nutrition specialist with a Master’s degree in psychology. Visit: www.jonnybowden.com

By Doctor Meade

The movie Supersize Me has probably had more of an effect than the producers anticipated. Since then, in the fast food industry, there has been a market trend promoting menu items that appear to be healthy. But most of these menu items have ingredients that health conscious consumers would prefer to avoid.

Most health conscious consumers consider healthy foods to be things like raw fruits and vegetables, whole grains, raw nuts and seeds, and clean meats like wild Alaskan salmon, or free-range chicken or turkey.

Some ingredients that health conscious consumers consider unacceptable are MSG (or free glutamate, or free glutamic acid, including anything hydrolyzed or autolyzed), trans fats (hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils [3]), artificial colors, artificial flavors, and most preservatives.

Many so-called healthy fast food menu items, upon closer inspection, do not live up to the health hype. Most of the meat from any of the major chains has anything but a simple ingredients list. They add emulsifiers, preservatives, MSG, artificial colors, trans fats, and hidden ingredients under generic labels such as spices, or natural and artificial flavors.

Some of these food additives are not foods at all, but are chemicals that are generally recognized as safe. Most of these additives cannot be found at your local grocery store, probably because they aren’t food. But some can be found at your local hardware store, though in inedible products like low tox antifreeze, silicone caulk, soap, sunscreen, and play sand.

The ingredient information in this article came straight from the various fast food restaurants’ web sites.

McDonald’s

The egg’s reputation is recovering, but scrambled eggs as a part of McDonald’s breakfast include much more than egg. Their pasteurized whole eggs have sodium acid pyrophosphate, citric acid, and monosodium phosphate (all added to preserve color), and nisin, a preservative. To top it off, the eggs are prepared with liquid margarine: liquid soybean oil, water, partially hydrogenated cottonseed and soybean oils (trans fats), salt, hydrogenated cottonseed oil (trans fat), soy lecithin, mono- and diglycerides, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate (preservatives), artificial flavor, citric acid, vitamin A palmitate, and beta carotene (color). Though not all bad, these added chemicals may be the reason why homemade scrambled eggs taste so much better than McDonald’s.

For coffee drinkers, it would seem fairly safe to just grab a quick cup of coffee at McDonald’s on the way to work. But many health conscious people would object to it also including this list of ingredients: sodium phosphate, sodium polyphosphate, Di-Acetyl Tartrate Ester of Monoglyceride, sodium stearoyl lactylate, tetra sodium pyrophosphate, sodium hexametaphosphate, sodium citrate, and carrageenan. Do health nuts still drink coffee?

Salads can usually be counted on to be a “what you see is what you get” item. But McDonald’s adds some interesting ingredients. The salads with grilled chicken also have liquid margarine.

Several salads have either cilantro lime glaze, or orange glaze added. Along with many of McDonald’s sauces, both the cilantro lime glaze and the orange glaze contain propylene glycol alginate. While propylene glycol is considered “GRAS” for human consumption, it is not legal for use in cat food because the safety hasn’t been proven yet [10]. Propylene glycol is also used “As the killing and preserving agent in pitfall traps, usually used to capture ground beetles” [10].

The chili lime tortilla strips that are included in the southwest salads have several ingredients used to hide MSG. They also contain two ingredients that advertise the presence of MSG: disodium inosinate, and disodium guanylate.

The chicken has sodium phosphates (of an unspecified variety). It could be trisodium phosphate (a cleanser), monosodium phosphate (a laxative), or disodium hydrogen phosphate [11]. Why would McDonald’s add sodium phosphates (a foaming agent), anddimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent in their crispy chicken breast fillets? It isn’t dishwasher detergent.

Burger King

It’s interesting to note that the BK Veggie Burger has six ingredients commonly used to hide free glutamate (MSG): calcium caseinate, hydrolyzed corn, yeast extract, soy protein isolate, spices, and natural flavors. At the end of the ingredients list, it states This is NOT a vegan product. The patty is cooked in the microwave. Was that a warning statement?

Burger King has three salads to choose from. The TENDERCRISP Garden Salad, the TENDERGRILL Garden Salad, and the Side Garden Salad.

A salad may be a little boring without a dressing like Ken’s Fat Free Ranch Dressing which includes titanium dioxide (an artificial color, or sunscreen, depending on use), preservatives, and the ingredient seemingly mandatory in all ranch dressings: monosodium glutamate.

Once again, as is typical with the fast food industry, they took a simple thing like chicken, and added a long list of ingredients.

TENDERGRILL® CHICKEN BREAST FILET
Chicken Breast with Rib Meat, Water, Seasoning (Maltodextrin, Salt, Sugar, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Garlic Powder, Spices, Natural Flavors, Onion Powder, Modified Corn Starch, Chicken Fat, Chicken Powder, Chicken Broth, Disodium Guanylate and Disodium Inosinate, Citric Acid, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Dehydrated Garlic, and Artificial Flavors.), Modified Corn Starch, Soybean Oil, Salt, Sodium Phosphates. Glazed with: Water, Seasoning [Maltodextrin, Salt, Sugar, Methylcellulose, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Partially Hydrogenated Sunflower Oil, Modified Potato Starch, Fructose, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Garlic Powder, Onion Powder, Dehydrated Garlic, Spices, Modified Corn Starch, Xanthan Gum, Natural Flavors, Disodium Guanylate and Disodium Inosinate, Chicken Fat, Carmel Color, Grill Flavor (from Partially Hydrogenated Soybean and Cottonseed Oil), Chicken Powder, Chicken Broth, Turmeric, Smoke Flavor, Annatto Extract, and Artificial Flavors], Soybean Oil. [12]

Taco Bell

Taco Bell’s website didn’t have much emphasis on health. Under the nutrition guide, at the bottom was a link to Keep it Balanced, a token nod to health. It had no serious information on how to really eat healthy. They recommend foods like pizza and tacos (no surprise) because they may include ingredients from several food groups at once. Including several food groups does not necessarily mean it’s a healthy food.

The seasoned beef, carne asada steak, spicy shredded chicken, and even the rice all include autolyzed yeast extract (hidden MSG). Disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate are flavor enhancers used in synergy with MSG [7,8]. Therefore, menu items with disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate also contain MSG. This includes the avocado ranch dressing, southwest chicken, citrus salsa, creamy jalapeno sauce, creamy lime sauce, lime seasoned red strips, pepper jack sauce, and seasoned rice.

According to Wikipedia, dimethylpolysiloxane is optically clear, and is generally considered to be inert, non-toxic, and non-flammable. It is used in silicone caulk, adhesives, and as an anti-foaming agent [6]. Appetizingly enough, it’s also included in Taco Bell’s rice.

Wendy’s

At Wendy’s, there are several tempting salads. The mandarin chicken salad seems healthy at first glance. It has diced chicken, mandarin oranges, almonds, crispy noodles, your choice of dressings, and five different varieties of lettuce. Then reality takes a bite when you check the ingredients list. The almonds are roasted and salted. The crispy noodles are not whole grain. The mandarin orange segments are not freshly peeled oranges; most likely canned. The diced chicken has added autolyzed yeast extract (MSG), disodium inosinate, disodium guanylate, sodium phosphates (soap?), salt, more salt, sugar, modified cornstarch (sic)[1], and the universal umbrella ingredient list: spices, natural flavors, and artificial flavors.

In the ingredients lists for the salad dressings, one surprise was titanium dioxide in the Low Fat Honey Mustard Dressing and the Reduced Fat Creamy Ranch Dressing. It’s a very versatile chemical. It can be used to manufacture paint, sunscreen, semiconductors, and food coloring [2].

Wendy’s Southwest Taco Salad is a salad with Wendy’s chili. Once again, the chili has hidden MSG: autolyzed yeast extract, spices, artificial flavors, natural flavorings, disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate (MSG give-aways). It’s puzzling to try to understand why their chili would need to include an anti-caking agent such as silicon dioxide (also known as sand, or glass powder).

See if you can spot the sunscreen, MSG, and soap in this Wendy’s ingredient:

Seasoned Tortilla Strips
Whole Corn, Vegetable Oil (contains one or more of the following: corn, soybean or sunflower oil), Salt, Buttermilk Solids, Spices, Tomato, Sweet Cream, Dextrose, Onion, Sugar, Cheddar Cheese (cultured milk, salt, enzymes), Corn Starch, Modified Corn Starch, Maltodextrin, Nonfat Dry Milk, Garlic, Torula Yeast, Citric Acid, Autolyzed Yeast, Natural and Artificial Flavor, Artificial Colors (including extractives of paprika, turmeric and annatto, titanium dioxide, red 40, yellow 5, blue 1), Disodium Phosphate, Lactic Acid, Soy Lecithin. CONTAINS: MILK.

Apparently, taste really is all that matters at Wendy’s.

Subway

If a sandwich is advertised as healthy, one would expect that the bread would be whole grain. Not so with Subway’s wheat bread. While it does have some whole wheat flour, it’s the third ingredient, listed just before high fructose corn syrup [4]. None of Subway’s breads are whole grain. Ammonium sulfate (a fertilizer) is also added. Unfinished sandwiches may be composted. The bread also contains azodicarbonamide. From Wikipedia,

Use of azodicarbonamide as a food additive is banned in Australia. In the UK, the Health and Safety Executive has identified azodicarbonamide as a respiratory sensitiser (a possible cause of asthma) and determined that products should be labeled with May cause sensitisation by inhalation [5].

Most of the meats at Subway contain MSG and/or sodium nitrite.

KFC

The chicken, the gravy, and even the rice all have monosodium glutamate added. Not surprisingly, the chicken in the salads also has MSG. For a healthy menu item, the House Side Salad without dressing has nothing more than iceberg lettuce, romaine lettuce, and tomatoes.

KFC claims 0g trans fat per serving for all their fried chicken. But The Extra Crispy Chicken, Colonel’s Crispy Strips, HBBQ Wings, Boneless HBBQ Wings, Fiery Buffalo Wings, and more have partially hydrogenated soybean oil listed in the ingredients. So if the trans fat content is below 0.5g per serving, they can round down to zero and claim zero grams per serving.

In Closing

The salad a la carte may be the only healthy thing to eat at a fast food place. The side salads offered at the fast food places are hardly a meal, and hardly what one would consider a real salad.

Regarding MSG, it is helpful to remember this statement from Wikipedia when reading food labels.
Under current FDA regulations, when MSG is added to a food, it must be identified asmonosodium glutamate in the label’s ingredient list. If however MSG is part of a spice mix that is purchased by another company, the manufacturer does not have to list the ingredients of that spice mix and may use the words flavorings or spices. Even food that uses the no msg label may therefore have MSG that is added from a spice mix from another company under current FDA regulations.[9]

As with most meat products in fast food restaurants, consider any meat, including on salads, to include MSG, chemical preservatives, and trans fats. Even seemingly simple items like rice can have ingredients like anti-foaming agents.
References

[1] http://www.wendys.com/food/Nutrition.jsp

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fats

[4] http://subway.com/subwayroot/MenuNutrition/Nutrition/frmUSIngredients.aspx

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azodicarbonamide

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylpolysiloxane

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disodium_inosinate

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disodium_guanylate

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_phosphates

[12] http://www.bk.com/#menu=3,-1,-1

The Original Article can be found on Naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/022194.html

By now, you probably know that what you eat has a profound impact on your health. The mantra, “You are what you eat” is really true.

But you need to consider not only WHAT you buy, but how you cook it.

Eating most of your food raw is ideal. But most of us are not going to be able to accomplish a completely raw diet, and we’ll end up cooking some percentage of our food.

Smart food preparation starts with high quality foods and food preparation and that means saying sayonara to your microwave oven. Need to sterilize a dishcloth? Use your microwave. But zapping your casserole is a BAD idea if you are interested in preparing healthy food.

Why the no nukes policy?

When it comes to microwave ovens, the price for convenience is to compromise your health. In this article, I will review what we know about the effects microwaves on your food and on your body.

Sad State of Our Soils

Over the past century, the quality of fresh food has declined due to soil depletion, unsustainable farming practices, overproduction of crops, and the use of pesticides and herbicides. You can no longer assume you’re getting all of the vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and phytonutrients you need by eating a multitude of fresh produce—even if you’re eating organically.

Not surprisingly, a calorie today will provide you less nutrition than a calorie from 100, or even 50 years ago.

Three recent studies of historical food composition have shown 5 to 40 percent declines in some of the minerals in fresh produce, and another study found a similar decline in our protein sources.[1]

So now, more than ever, you must be careful to maximize the “bang for your buck” when it comes to the foods you eat.

Research shows that your microwave oven will NOT help you in these efforts—and in fact will threaten your health by violently ripping the molecules in your food apart, rendering some nutrients inert, at best, and carcinogenic at its worst.

Convenience Comes at Significant Toxic Threat to You and Your Family

Microwaves heat food by causing water molecules in it to resonate at very high frequencies and eventually turn to steam which heats your food. While this can rapidly heat your food, what most people fail to realize is that it also causes a change in your food’s chemical structure.

There are numerous issues that have emerged since microwave ovens were first introduced to consumers more than 40 years ago, besides depleting your food’s nutritional value, which will be addressed a bit later.

The first thing you probably noticed when you began microwaving food was how uneven the heating is.

“Hot spots” in microwaved food can be hot enough to cause burns—or build up to a “steam explosion.” This has resulted in admonitions to new mothers about NOT using the microwave to heat up baby bottles, since babies have been burned by super-heated formula that went undetected.

Another problem with microwave ovens is that carcinogenic toxins can leach out of your plastic and paper containers/covers, and into your food.

The January/February 1990 issue of Nutrition Action Newsletter reported the leakage of numerous toxic chemicals from the packaging of common microwavable foods, including pizzas, chips and popcorn. Chemicals included polyethylene terpthalate (PET), benzene, toluene, and xylene. Microwaving fatty foods in plastic containers leads to the release of dioxins (known carcinogens) and other toxins into your food. [8] [2]

One of the worst contaminants is BPA, or bisphenol A, an estrogen-like compound used widely in plastic products. In fact, dishes made specifically for the microwave often contain BPA, but many other plastic products contain it as well.

Microwaving distorts and deforms the molecules of whatever food or other substance you subject to it. An example of this is blood products.

Blood is normally warmed before being transfused into a person. Now we know that microwaving blood products damages the blood components. In fact, one woman died after receiving a transfusion of microwaved blood in 1991 , which resulted in a well-publicized lawsuit.

Microwave Radiation Leakage

You may have heard that there is some danger of microwaves escaping from your microwave while it’s operating. This was more of a risk with earlier models than with recent ones, which undergo more rigorous testing.

Theoretically, there are very small amounts of radiation leakage through the viewing glass, but the FDA reports these levels are “insignificant” and “well below the level known to harm people.”

The FDA has been regulating microwave ovens since 1971 through its electronic product radiation control program, which is mandated by the Electronic Product Radiation Control provisions of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act[3] .

The FDA limits the amount of microwaves that can leak from an oven throughout its lifetime to 5 milliwatts (mW) per square centimeter at approximately 2 inches from the oven surface. Because microwave energy decreases dramatically as you move away from the source of the radiation, a measurement made 20 inches from your oven would be approximately one-hundredth of the value measured at 2 inches.[2]

The federal standard also requires all ovens to have “two independent interlock systems that stop the production of microwaves the moment the latch is released or the door is opened.”

And a monitoring system is also required, which stops the operation if one or both interlock systems fail.

You would think, with all these tests and regulations, that you’d be safe. However, according to Powerwatch, a non-profit independent organization with a central role in the microwave radiation debate:

“Even when the microwave oven is working correctly, the microwave levels within the kitchen are likely to be significantly higher than those from any nearby cellular phone base-stations. Remember also that microwaves will travel through walls if the microwave oven is against an inside wall.”

Powerwatch also states that we don’t really know if the current regulations about leakage are truly safe and recommends ovens be checked at least annually, since microwave emissions can change with normal use.

You might also consider purchasing a $20 testing device that allows you to check the radiation in your home.

Make sure that, if you are going to use your microwave for cleaning sponges or for any use at all, regularly examine the door and hinges to make sure they are sealing properly. If the door doesn’t close correctly, or if it’s warped, bent, or otherwise damaged, don’t use it at all!

Since your eyes are known to be particularly susceptible to microwave radiation (high microwave exposures are known to cause cataracts), I recommend stepping away from your microwave while it’s in use.

New Study Confirms Microwaves Affect Your Heart

A recent study examining the effects 2.4 GHz radiation (which is the frequency of radiation emitted by Wifi routers and microwave ovens) on the heart was just completed. The study found “unequivocal evidence” that microwave frequency radiation affects the heart at non-thermal levels that are well below federal safety guidelines, according to Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University[4] .

Dr. Havas says:

“This is the first study that documents immediate and dramatic changes in both heart rate and heart rate variability caused by an approved device that generates microwaves at levels well below (0.3 percent) federal guidelines in both Canada and the United States.”

No longer can skeptics claim that microwaves produce no immediate biological effects at ordinary household levels!

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The utter worthlessness of Big Pharma’s cholesterol drugs was demonstrated recently by a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine which showed that niacin (a low-cost B vitamin) out-performs Merck’s drug Zetia for preventing the build-up of arterial plaque, a symptom of cardiovascular disease.

As the study reveals, Zetia failed miserably. Patients taking niacin showed a “significant shrinkage” in artery wall thickness, while those on Zetia showed no such improvement. At the same time, the rate of “cardiovascular events” in the niacin group was only one-fifth that in the Zetia group, demonstrating that niacin is far more effective at preventing heart attacks and other similar events than Zetia.

But curiously, as soon as niacin started to show a real benefit over Zetia, researchers cancelled the study. The premature ending of the clinical trial stopped the process by which even more useful information about the benefits of niacin might have been learned.

5,800% higher price than niacin
Merck, the maker of Zetia, was likely horrified to learn that a low-cost B vitamin out-performed its blockbuster drug. Sales of its Zetia drug are reportedly over $5 billion. It’s no wonder: Zetia sells for as much as $3.89 per pill.

Niacin, on the other hand, costs as little as 6.7 cents per pill, even in a “no-flush” time-release formula from a quality source like the NSI brand from Vitacost: http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-No-Flus…

These price differences make Zetia 5,800% more expensive than niacin. And yet niacin works better.

So if niacin works better, and if modern medicine claims to be serving patients instead of profits, why don’t doctors recommend B vitamins instead of expensive cholesterol drugs? As you have already guessed, the reason is because Zetia earns all kinds of ridiculous profits for Big Pharma and B vitamins don’t.

The fact that doctors continue to prescribe Zetia, in fact, demonstrates how thoroughly our modern medical system has failed to recognize and embrace things that work to help patients rather than things that make the most money for powerful drug companies. If our modern system were actually based on what works, doctors would be prescribing various vitamins, minerals, herbs, superfoods and nutritional supplements (including anti-cancer mushroms).

But no… our system isn’t based on what helps patients. It’s based on what makes the most money, and so patients are put on dangerous (even deadly) pharmaceuticals that can cost 5,800% more than low-cost natural remedies that actually work better!

The big question: Does modern medicine help society at all?
It really makes you wonder: Beyond emergency treatments and critical care, does modern medicine offer any net benefit to society at all? More and more people are now coming to the conclusion that no, modern medicine harms far more people than it helps.

The key question to ask is this: What if our medical system disappeared tomorrow? Would we be better off or worse off?

The startling (but true) answer is that we would be better off. Without cancer screening, for example, breast cancer rates would plummet (because screening causes cancer). Without cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs and chemotherapy, people would live far longer, with less liver damage, kidney damage and brain damage.

In all, pharmaceuticals do not save lives. They destroy lives while making huge profits for drug companies. And yet much of western medicine is based on the administration of these dangerous, over-priced chemicals.

There’s a fascinating book entitled What if Medicine Disappeared? by Gerald Markle and Frances McCrea. (http://www.amazon.com/What-Medicine…)

This book explains why modern medicine does far more harm than good. It doesn’t explain, however, why doctors who think they’re so smart continue to prescribe a patented medication that’s 5,800% more expensive than a nutritional solution that works better.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst…

http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacr…

http://www.biojobblog.com/2007/12/a…
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The utter worthlessness of Big Pharma’s cholesterol drugs was demonstrated recently by a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine which showed that niacin (a low-cost B vitamin) out-performs Merck’s drug Zetia for preventing the build-up of arterial plaque, a symptom of cardiovascular disease.

As the study reveals, Zetia failed miserably. Patients taking niacin showed a “significant shrinkage” in artery wall thickness, while those on Zetia showed no such improvement. At the same time, the rate of “cardiovascular events” in the niacin group was only one-fifth that in the Zetia group, demonstrating that niacin is far more effective at preventing heart attacks and other similar events than Zetia.

But curiously, as soon as niacin started to show a real benefit over Zetia, researchers cancelled the study. The premature ending of the clinical trial stopped the process by which even more useful information about the benefits of niacin might have been learned.

5,800% higher price than niacin
Merck, the maker of Zetia, was likely horrified to learn that a low-cost B vitamin out-performed its blockbuster drug. Sales of its Zetia drug are reportedly over $5 billion. It’s no wonder: Zetia sells for as much as $3.89 per pill.

Niacin, on the other hand, costs as little as 6.7 cents per pill, even in a “no-flush” time-release formula from a quality source like the NSI brand from Vitacost: http://www.vitacost.com/NSI-No-Flus…

These price differences make Zetia 5,800% more expensive than niacin. And yet niacin works better.

So if niacin works better, and if modern medicine claims to be serving patients instead of profits, why don’t doctors recommend B vitamins instead of expensive cholesterol drugs? As you have already guessed, the reason is because Zetia earns all kinds of ridiculous profits for Big Pharma and B vitamins don’t.

The fact that doctors continue to prescribe Zetia, in fact, demonstrates how thoroughly our modern medical system has failed to recognize and embrace things that work to help patients rather than things that make the most money for powerful drug companies. If our modern system were actually based on what works, doctors would be prescribing various vitamins, minerals, herbs, superfoods and nutritional supplements (including anti-cancer mushroms).

But no… our system isn’t based on what helps patients. It’s based on what makes the most money, and so patients are put on dangerous (even deadly) pharmaceuticals that can cost 5,800% more than low-cost natural remedies that actually work better!

The big question: Does modern medicine help society at all?
It really makes you wonder: Beyond emergency treatments and critical care, does modern medicine offer any net benefit to society at all? More and more people are now coming to the conclusion that no, modern medicine harms far more people than it helps.

The key question to ask is this: What if our medical system disappeared tomorrow? Would we be better off or worse off?

The startling (but true) answer is that we would be better off. Without cancer screening, for example, breast cancer rates would plummet (because screening causes cancer). Without cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs and chemotherapy, people would live far longer, with less liver damage, kidney damage and brain damage.

In all, pharmaceuticals do not save lives. They destroy lives while making huge profits for drug companies. And yet much of western medicine is based on the administration of these dangerous, over-priced chemicals.

There’s a fascinating book entitled What if Medicine Disappeared? by Gerald Markle and Frances McCrea. (http://www.amazon.com/What-Medicine…)

This book explains why modern medicine does far more harm than good. It doesn’t explain, however, why doctors who think they’re so smart continue to prescribe a patented medication that’s 5,800% more expensive than a nutritional solution that works better.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandst…

http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacr…

http://www.biojobblog.com/2007/12/a…

Recalled children’s Tylenol products were knowingly contaminated, says FDA
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) The other day I wrote a story about the massive recall by McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, of its infants’ and children’s line of Tylenol products. An FDA inspection report found these drugs to be contaminated with dangerous bacteria (they did not disclose the actual type) as well as “foreign materials” that were visible as “dark or black specks”. But a recent story published by USA Today has revealed that McNeil actually knew about the bacterial contamination and kept shipping the products anyway.

Only the drug industry could get away with this type of careless, reckless behavior with nothing more than a slap on the wrist from the FDA. In fact, the FDA did not even require McNeil to issue a recall after discovering the problem; McNeil did so voluntarily over “theoretical concerns” that were expressed by Deborah Autor, an FDA official who was quick to emphasize that the risk to consumers from the tainted products “is remote”.

So let me get this straight. An FDA report finds that a pharmaceutical company is knowingly using contaminated raw materials to make children’s and infants’ medicines in a factory that is failing to maintain its equipment, properly train its employees and correctly measure and weigh drug ingredients, and FDA officials consider the problem to be “theoretical”?

Can you imagine what would happen if an herbal product manufacturer were found to engage in the same behavior? The FDA would pounce on them, seize their products, issue a public warning and probably fine the company for its reckless behavior. But when Big Pharma pulls the same stunt, it’s just business as usual.

To the FDA, it’s all just “theoretical”
My favorite part about this is the FDA’s reliance on the word “theoretical” to try to imagine that somehow no actual safety problem existed. According to my thesaurus, some other words for theoretical include unsubstantiated and hypothetical. In other words, the FDA is saying it does not actually believe that a real risk even exists!

And yet FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, at the same time as the agency is saying there really is no risk and that the whole thing is just a hypothetical situation, advises parents to “discontinue using any of the name-brand products being recalled.”

Overdosing on acetaminophen, especially in children, is a serious issue. The Mayo Clinic website warns parents that overdosing on the drug, even a little bit, can lead to “life-threatening liver problems.”

The FDA report specifies that McNeil’s had not been properly formulating the drug dosages in its children’s and infants’ medicines, which is part of the reason for the recall. Improper concentrations of active ingredients in these products potentially puts millions of children at risk. But apparently this is no big deal to the FDA which sees it as nothing more than a “hypothetical” problem.

Yet, just prior to its expression of “theoretical” concern in the current recall, FDA officials met with McNeil back in February to express “serious concerns” about the company’s poor manufacturing processes and failures to follow good manufacturing practices. So which is it?

This kind of double-speak is typical of the FDA when a case involves a beloved drug company. If this had been a supplement that was “hypothetically” thought to be contaminated (even if conclusive evidence revealed there was no threat at all), health food stores everywhere would be ordered to strip it from their shelves. But when drug company negligence leads to the contamination of children’s medicines with bacteria, unknown particles and improper drug dosage levels, the FDA leaves it to the company to “voluntarily” recall their own products. There will probably be no fine levied against the company, either.

The FDA may not even hold McNeil responsible for its gross negligence
According to a recent Los Angeles Times article, the FDA has not even decided what corrective action it is going to take. According to the story, “options range from sending a warning letter to seeking criminal penalties.”

So in essence, the options include doing nothing or actually holding McNeil responsible for putting the lives of millions of children at risk. To me, only one of these is a really a viable option. But based on the FDA’s track record in dealing with McNeil (and all other drug companies, for that matter), the agency is likely to just sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Never mind that a warning letter had already been sent to a McNeil plant in Puerto Rico several months ago over wooden shipping pallet chemicals that had been found in other McNeil drugs, causing 70 people to became ill with digestive problems. When it comes to regulating drug companies, the FDA has a very short memory.

Can any children’s medicines be trusted?
Johnson & Johnson is one of the world’s largest companies, and is consistently rated by both Harris Interactive’s National Corporate Reputation Survey and Barron’s Magazine as being one of the top, most well respected companies in the world.

If the world’s most respected company, a “family company”, is operating a subsidiary that is knowingly manufacturing contaminated children’s medicines in factories that are in violation of numerous safety protocols, what does that say about the entire drug industry? If the safety and quality of children’s medicines from one of the world’s most respected companies cannot be trusted, then what over-the-counter medicines can you really trust?

Most children’s medicines are filled with chemical toxins anyway
Bacterial contamination and poor manufacturing procedures are not the only problems with popular over-the-counter (OTC) children’s medicines. Even if McNeil had been operating up to proper standards, many of its children’s formulations are still filled with questionable chemical ingredients like aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, sucralose (Splenda), artificial colors and preservatives, and even parabens, all of which are approved by the FDA for use in children’s and infants’ formulas. (Seriously.)

The shocking truth is that, even in their approved and “safe” forms, most OTC children’s medicines are nothing more than dangerous chemical cocktails being peddled as medicine. They’re filled with so much harmful garbage that they can hardly be considered beneficial. Most of them are outright useless. These OTC children’s medicines are the quackery of modern medicine.

Back in 2004, I wrote a story about a U.K. study which found that children’s cough syrup is medically ineffective. In tests, it proved to be just as effective as corn syrup at alleviating a cough, so basically it did nothing at all.

Most cough syrup is composed primarily of corn syrup anyway, so it is no surprise that the stuff causes the same effect on the body — basically just a sugar overload.

Pharmaceutical drugs are almost never a good choice for children. Not only do the active ingredients cause serious side effects and liver problems, but the chemical additives make them even more harmful. I think if more parents became informed about what’s really in children’s medicine, they would never willingly give it to their children.

All these things really just illustrate the FDA’s corruption and behind-the-scenes protection of drug company interests. Even when a serious problem arises above and beyond the known risks, the agency acts as if it is no big deal. The health and well-being of millions of children is put at risk but it’s all just make-believe to the FDA.

To them, all risks and side effects of pharmaceuticals are merely “theoretical.” But in their (warped) minds, the dangers of herbs and vitamins are all “very real!”

It raises a very important question: How many children need to be harmed or even killed by the Big Pharma / FDA conspiracy before the American people will demand real FDA reform?

Eat brown rice to prevent high blood pressure, lower heart attack risk

From Natural News:

The rate of cardiovascular disease is much lower in Japan than in the U.S. and now scientists at the Cardiovascular Research Center and Department of Physiology at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia think they know why. People in Japan eat rice virtually every day and rice — especially the brown and only partially “polished” varieties — contains a natural compound that appears to guard against high blood pressure and heart disease.

Brown rice is already well known as a healthy food choice because it’s a good source of fiber, B vitamins and other nutrients. But new research just presented by Temple University researcher Satoru Eguchi at the American Physiological Society’s Experimental Biology conference held in Anaheim, California, reveals another powerful health benefit. A specific natural compound found in a layer of tissue surrounding grains of brown rice inhibits an endocrine protein known as angiotensin II. In excess, angiotensin II can trigger serious cardiovascular problems.

This is enormously significant news because angiotensin II is a well documented culprit in the development of hypertension and atherosclerosis. Angiotensin II constricts arteries, increases blood pressure and forces the heart to work harder. It also thickens and stiffens the walls of the heart and blood vessels.

Big Pharma has created a huge industry producing angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) — prescription drugs that lower blood pressure by putting the brakes on angiotensin II. Sold under brand names such as Atacand, Teveten, Avapro and Cozaar, the medications are designed to block angiotensin II, thereby relaxing blood vessels so blood pressure is lowered.

But the side effects of these drugs can be serious and even deadly. They include fetal harm (possibly death) if the drugs are taken during pregnancy, dizziness, blurred vision, fainting, decreased sexual ability, infection, chest pain, swelling, trouble breathing and more.The new discovery about rice indicates brown rice or even half-milled rice could be a natural, side-effect free angiotensin II blocker.

Dr. Eguchi, an associate professor of physiology, and his colleagues investigated the subaleurone layer of Japanese rice. Located between the white center of the grain and the brown fibrous outer layer, this sub-layer of rice is loaded with oligosaccharides (complex carbohydrates known to benefit the digestive system) and dietary fibers. But when brown rice is polished to turn it into white rice, this subaleurone layer is ripped off, taking away some of the nutrients. However, the subaleurone layer is preserved not only in brown rice but also in two types of rice popular in Japan — half-milled (Haigamai) rice or incompletely-milled (Kinmemai) rice.

The Temple research team, working with conjunction with scientists at the Wakayama Medical University Department of Pathology and the Nagaoka National College of Technology Department of Materials Engineering in Japan, removed subaleurone tissue from Kinmemai rice and ran a variety of lab tests that demonstrated the components of this rice layer inhibited angiotensin II activity in cultured vascular smooth muscle cells. Bottom line: the subaleurone rice layer could offer powerful protection against high blood pressure and atherosclerosis by blocking the endocrine protein that can trigger those conditions.

“Our research suggests that there is a potential ingredient in rice that may be a good starting point for looking into preventive medicine for cardiovascular diseases,” Dr. Eguchi said in a media statement. “We hope to present an additional health benefit of consuming half-milled or brown rice (as opposed to white rice) as part of a regular diet.”