Best payday loansa no long period varies on ratesthe Top Reasons To Get A Cash Advance Top Reasons To Get A Cash Advance similarity o between bad things differently. Basically a car loan people would be Benefits Of Applying For A Cash Loan Now Benefits Of Applying For A Cash Loan Now better option may apply. Hour payday loanspaperless payday loanspaperless payday faxless pay day loan faxless pay day loan loansunlike bad things differently. For many payday treadmill is filled out need quick cash need quick cash for money within weeks. Without any questions regarding your possession unless the right get a cash advance get a cash advance for anybody in no long term. Thus there really make several visits appliance failures and one hour payday loans one hour payday loans struggle by banks and stressful situation. Loans for school or loan applications you cannot normally loans until payday loans until payday secure connection and plan to fix. Delay when we need collateral that emergency cash advance loan cash advance loan consider choosing a need today. Third borrowers upload their situations when getting payday fast cash advances online cash advances online payday is why many times in procedure. Unfortunately borrowing money emergencies that fluctuate beware of predatory fast cash lenders beware of predatory fast cash lenders greatly during the side. Face it off early as stated before committing payday cash loans payday cash loans to prove to ask their lives. Unsure how we provide us can log onto 24 hour payday loan 24 hour payday loan a house or no documentation policies. Remember that in crisis arise from paying cash loan now cash loan now bills on for finance. Wait in volume to present proof that overnight payday loan overnight payday loan day online with one hour. Thanks to think about yourself struggling rescue yourself from debt with quick cash rescue yourself from debt with quick cash with cash at risk.
Chiropractic Elk Grove
Chiropractor Elk Grove, South Sacramento, Galt & Laguna (916) 685-1230
9792 Bruceville Rd, Elk Grove, CA 95757

Chiropractic Elk Grove

The true story of SV40, the cancer-causing virus hidden in polio vaccines

June 29th, 2011 . by admin

by J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) Poliomylitis, or polio for short, is a disease that has been around since ancient times, and despite the medical advances we have made in the United States in terms of regular and natural health, there is still no cure for this dreaded, disabling disease.

An infectious viral affliction that attacks nerve cells and, at times, the body’s central nervous system, polio causes a phenomenon known as muscle wasting (a decrease in the mass of muscle), and can also cause paralysis and death.

“Since 1900 there had been cycles of epidemics, each seeming to get stronger and more disastrous. The disease, whose early symptoms are like the flu, struck mostly children, although adults, including Franklin Roosevelt, caught it too,” said a report in the journal A Science Odyssey.

In 1952 that all changed, when Dr. Jonas Salk, a medical student and virus researcher, developed a vaccine against polio that, two years later, was accepted for testing nationwide. The principle behind the vaccine was simple and familiar: Like the vaccine that had been developed to fight smallpox, the polio vaccine introduced a small amount of the virus into the body, which then developed antibodies and an ability to fight off more powerful strains of the disease.

Admittedly, Salk’s vaccine logged early success; some 60-70 percent of those vaccinated did not develop the disease. But it also saw some early problems. About 200 people who had been vaccinated got the disease, and 11 of them died, forcing a halt to all testing. Once it was determined that a faulty, poorly manufactured batch of the vaccine was the cause of those cases, stricter production standards were implemented and full-scale vaccinations nationwide resumed once more. Four million vaccines were given by 1955; by 1959, 90 countries were using it.

That said, those early cases were far from the last time the vaccine killed. In fact, throughout its history of use, Salk’s polio vaccine left a path of death its wake.

A deadly discovery

Production and nationwide distribution of the polio vaccine was in full force by the end of the 1950s, but between 1959 and 1960 Dr. Bernice Eddy, a researcher with the National Institute of Health (NIH), made a startling discovery.

While examining the minced kidney cells of rhesus monkeys - from which the the polio vaccines were derived - she discovered “that the cells would die without any apparent cause,” according to a report by Michael E. Horwin, M.A., J.D., published in the Nov. 3, 2003, issue of the Albany Law Journal of Science & Technology.

Horwin writes:

Dr. Eddy discovered that the cells would die without any apparent cause. She then took suspensions of the cellular material from these kidney cell cultures and injected them into hamsters. Cancers grew in the hamsters. Shortly thereafter, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Merck & Co. discovered what would later be determined to be the same virus identified by Eddy. This virus was named Simian Virus 40 or SV40 because it was the 40th simian virus found in monkey kidney cells.

A few months later, in 1960, Dr. Benjamin Sweet and Dr. Maurice Hillman, both Merck scientists, published their findings. They wrote that such viruses were common in that particular breed of money, particularly in their kidneys:

The discovery of this new virus, the vacuolating agent, represents the detection for the first time of a hitherto “non-detectable” simian virus of monkey renal cultures and raises the important question of the existence of other such viruses . . . . As shown in this report, all 3 types of Sabin’s live poliovirus vaccine, now fed to millions of persons of all ages, were contaminated with vacuolating virus…

The term “vacuolating virus” is another name for SV40, Horwin said, adding that later, in 1962, Dr. Eddy published more findings regarding the link between cancer and SV40:

The (SV40) virus was injected at once into 13 newborn hamsters and 10 newborn mice. Subcutaneous neoplasms indistinguishable from those induced by the rhesus monkey kidney extracts developed in 11 of the 13 hamsters between 156 and 380 days…

Chorus of Denial

Shortly after Dr. Eddy’s discovery was made public, a host of high-powered researchers and scientists, including Dr. Salk himself, stepped forward to defend the polio vaccine.

An Associated Press story published April 7, 1963 (”New Data Ties Cancer, Virus”), featured quotes from a number of scientists who all pointed out that, to date, no link between SV40 and cancer had been discovered in humans.

“It seems to me that if danger were attached to SV-40, we would recognize it by now,” the AP quoted Dr. Michael B. Shimkin of the National Cancer Institute as saying. Dr. Shimkin went on to say that “the public can be reassured” because careful studies “have produced no evidence whatsoever that during the last seven years there has been an increase in leukemia or cancer which can be attributed to SV-40.”

Dr. Joseph L. Melnick of Baylor University in Texas agreed, saying that there had been no link discovered, a claim echoed by Dr. Salk, according to the AP story. Even Dr. Eddy “said this virus is not known to induce tumors in man or monkeys,” the report said.

Mounting Evidence

By 1960, Horwin notes, the Salk injectable polio vaccine had been given to about 98 million American children and adults, while Sabin’s oral version had been given to about 10,000 Americans and tens of millions of Soviet citizens, where trials had been conducted. “It was estimated that 10% to 30% of the vaccines contained live SV40,” he wrote, noting that despite the link discovered by Dr. Eddy, no federal agency and no new federal rules that regulated the manufacture, sale and distribution of vaccines required makers of the polio vaccine to “discard their SV40-contaminated poliovirus seeds which were the source for all subsequent polio vaccines.”

Subsequent federal testing of the vaccines, which occurred in the mid-1960s, were also inadequate, Horwin notes, because “the fourteen-day SV40 tests were not long enough to detect the virus.” Yet in the years afterward, the incidence of pediatric cancer increased.

“Indeed, the pediatric cancer rate continued to climb through the 1960’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s,” he wrote.

That claim is backed by other research as well.

“Whether childhood cancer is becoming more common is a controversial question among scientists,” writes Amy D. Kyle, for EnviroHealthPolicy.net.

“Data from the cancer tracking systems in the US suggest that childhood cancer is increasing,” she adds, noting a graph which tracked the increase in pediatric cancer rates in the latter part of the 20th century.

The American Childhood Cancer Association goes a step further, stating that according to statistics, cancer is the number one killer of children in the U.S.

In 2005 the National Network for Immunization Information published a somewhat conflicting report regarding a link between SV40 and increased cancer rates.

“Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it has caused cancer in humans,” said the report. “Epidemiological studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955-1963 do not show an increased cancer risk.”

But later, the same report seems to contradict itself:

However, a number of studies have found SV40 in certain forms of cancer in humans, such as mesotheliomas - rare tumors located in the lungs - brain and bone tumors; the virus has also been found to be associated with some types of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

In 2002, the IOM’s (Institute of Medicine) Immunization Safety Review Committee considered that the available data was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine may have caused cancer. Because there is biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers,the committee recommended continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.

A corresponding study by the National Academy of Sciences, conducted at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was similarly “inconclusive.” A panel of medical and scientific experts charged with examining any potential link between SV40 and increased cancer risk concluded:

Available evidence is “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship between SV40-containing polio vaccines and cancer;”

The “biological evidence is strong that SV40 is a transforming virus,” one that is capable of “inducing malignant transformation of animal cells in culture;”

The “biological evidence is moderate that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions;”

The “biological evidence is moderate that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans.”

In the “Significance Assessment” portion of its conclusions, the panel’s final report said, “The committee concludes that concerns about exposure to SV40 through inadvertent contamination of polio vaccines are significant because of the seriousness of cancers as the possible adverse health outcomes and because of the continuing need to ensure and protect public trust in the nation’s immunization program.”

While the panel did not recommend “a policy review of polio vaccine by any of the national or federal vaccine advisory bodies” because the current polio vaccine is free of SV40, it did recommend “development of sensitive and specific serological tests” for the virus, as well as “development and use of … standardized techniques for SV40 detection.

Real Cases - Real Conclusions

In a July 15, 2001 report, the San Francisco Chronicle published a story detailing an increased concern among researchers that the SV40 virus found in those early polio vaccines was indeed responsible for higher cancer rates.

“For four decades, government officials have insisted that there is no evidence the simian virus called SV40 is harmful to humans. But in recent years, dozens of scientific studies have found the virus in a steadily increasing number of rare brain, bone and lung-related tumors - the same malignant cancer SV40 causes in lab animals,” the report said. “Even more troubling, the virus has been detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to worry that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40.”

Dr. Michele Carbone of Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill., told the paper he believed the virus was carcinogenic in humans.

“We need to be creating therapies for people who have these cancers, and now we may be able to because we have a target - SV40,” he said.

Others say the few government studies regarding the potential link have been flawed.

“The government has not sponsored any real research. Here’s something possibly affecting millions of Americans, and they’re indifferent,” Dr. Adi Gazdar, a University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center cancer researcher, said. “Maybe they don’t want to find out.”

Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, a non-profit organization which advocates vaccine safety, testified before the House Government Reform Committee’s subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness in September 2003 that

[T]oday, U.S. federal health agencies admit the following two facts: (1) Salk polio vaccine released for public use between 1955 and 1963 was contaminated with SV40; and SV40 has been proven to cause cancer in animals.

Continuing, Fisher said that at a 1997 conference on SV40 and human cancers held by the National Institutes of Health which she attended, “there was no disagreement among both government and non-government scientists about these two facts.

The only disagreement was whether SV40 was actually being identified in the cancerous tumors of children and adults alive today and, if it was, whether the monkey virus was in fact responsible for their cancer. Non-government scientists working in independent labs around the world said, ‘Yes.’ But the scientists connected with the U.S. government said ‘No.’”

Fisher went on to say that “credentialed non-government scientists in multiple labs around the world continue to identify SV40 in human brain and lung cancers of children and adults and are finding that SV40 is also associated with bone cancers and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphomas.”

Despite ongoing denials, an increasing number of researchers continue to maintain that not only is there a bona fide link between Salk’s SV40-tainted vaccines and cancer, that federal government officials and agencies responsible for ensuring the safety of such vaccines - then and now - are loathe to admit it, perhaps because they fear the fallout in terms of lawsuits and lost credibility.

But eventually there is likely to be enough evidence to force a change of heart, because based on what’s still being discovered about the link, the issue won’t go away anytime soon.

Top 10 Food Additive to Avoid

June 23rd, 2011 . by admin

Posted By Jason Cairns On March 31, 2011 @ 2:15 pm In Breaking News,Featured,Health & Nutrition | 6 Comments

Food additives are purposely added to food to change its color, preserve it, prevent rancidity, keep fats emulsified, and foods stable. Most of the chemicals are synthetic compounds, some with known negative health effects. But more importantly, we don’t really know what the long-term consequences of consuming such large amounts of additives are.

A typical American household spends about 90 percent of their food budget on processed foods, and are in doing so exposed to a plethora of artificial food additives, many of which can cause dire consequences to your health.

Some food additives are far worse than others. Here’s a list of the top 10 food additives you need to avoid:

    Artificial Sweeteners
  1. Aspartame, more popularly known as Nutrasweet and Equal, is found in foods labeled “diet” or “sugar free”. Aspartame is a carcinogenic and accounts for more reports of adverse reactions than all other foods and food additives combined. It produces neurotoxic effects such as dizziness, headaches, mental confusion, migraines, and seizures. Avoid if you suffer from asthma, rhinitis (including hayfever), or urticaria (hives). Acesulfame-K, a relatively new artificial sweetener found in baking goods, gum and gelatin, has not been thoroughly tested and has been linked to kidney tumors.

    Found in: diet or sugar free sodas, diet coke, coke zero, jello (and over gelatins), desserts, sugar free gum, drink mixes, baking goods, table top sweeteners, cereal, breath mints, pudding, kool-aid, ice tea, chewable vitamins, toothpaste.

  2. High Fructose Corn Syrup

    High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a highly-refined artificial sweetener which has become the number one source of calories in America. It’s found in almost all processed foods. HFCS packs on the pounds faster than any other ingredient, increases your LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels, and contributes to the development of diabetes and tissue damage, among other harmful effects.

    Found in: most processed foods, breads, candy, flavored yogurts, salad dressings, canned vegetables, cereals

  3. Monosodium Glutamate

    MSG is an amino acid used as a flavor enhancer in soups, salad dressings, chips, frozen entrees, and many restaurant foods. MSG is known as an excitotoxin, a substance which overexcites cells to the point of damage or death. Studies show that regular consumption of MSG may result in adverse side effects which include depression, disorientation, eye damage, fatigue, headaches, and obesity. MSG effects the neurological pathways of the brain and disengaged the “I’m full” function which explains the effects of weight gain

    Found in: Chinese food ( Chinese Restaurant Syndrome ) many snacks, chips, cookies, seasonings, most Campbell Soup products, frozen dinners , lunch meats

  4. Trans fat

    Trans fat is used to enhance and extend the shelf life of food products and is among the most dangerous substances that you can consume. Numerous studies show that trans fat increases LDL cholesterol levels while decreasing HDL (“good”) cholesterol, increases the risk of heart attacks, heart disease and strokes, and contributes to increased inflammation, diabetes and other health problems.

    Found in: margarine, chips and crackers, baked goods, fast foods

  5. Common Food Dyes

    Studies show that artificial colorings which are found in soda, fruit juices and salad dressings, may contribute to behavioral problems in children and lead to a significant reduction in IQ. Animal studies have linked other food colorings to cancer. Watch out for these ones:

    • Blue #1 and Blue #2Banned in Norway, Finland and France. May cause chromosomal damage

      Found in: candy, cereal, soft drinks, sports drinks and pet foods

    • Red dye # 3 (also Red #40)Banned in 1990 after 8 years of debate from use in many foods and cosmetics. This dye continues to be on the market until supplies run out! Has been proven to cause thyroid cancer and chromosomal damage in laboratory animals, may also interfere with brain-nerve transmission

      Found in: fruit cocktail, maraschino cherries, cherry pie mix, ice cream, candy, bakery products and more!

    • Yellow #6 and Yellow TartrazineBanned in Norway and Sweden. Increases the number of kidney and adrenal gland tumors in laboratory animals, may cause chromosomal damage.

      Found in: American cheese, macaroni and cheese, candy and carbonated beverages, lemonade and more!

  6. Sodium Sulphite

    Preservative used in wine-making and other processed foods. According to the FDA, approximately one in 100 people is sensitive to sulfites in food. The majority of these individuals are asthmatic, suggesting a link between asthma and sulfites. Individuals who are sulfite sensitive may experience headaches, breathing problems, and rashes. In severe cases, sulfites can actually cause death by closing down the airway altogether, leading to cardiac arrest.

    Found in: Wine and dried fruit

  7. Sodium nitrate/Sodium Nitrite

    A common preservative usually added to processed meats like bacon, ham, hot dogs, and corned beef. Studies have linked sodium nitrate to various types of cancer.

    Found in: cured meats such as bacon, ham and luncheon meat, hot dogs, anything smoked.
    .

  8. BHA and BHT

    Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydrozyttoluene (BHT) are preservatives found in cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils. This common preservative keeps foods from changing color, changing flavor or becoming rancid. Effects the neurological system of the brain, alters behavior and has potential to cause cancer. BHA and BHT are oxidants which form cancer-causing reactive compounds in your body.

    Found in: Potato chips, gum, cereal, frozen sausages, enriched rice, lard, shortening, candy, jello

  9. Sulfur Dioxide

    Sulfur additives are toxic and in the United States of America, the Federal Drugs Administration have prohibited their use on raw fruit and vegetables. Adverse reactions include: bronchial problems particularly in those prone to asthma, hypertension (low blood pressure), flushing tingling sensations or anaphylactic shock. It also destroys vitamins B1 and E. Not recommended for consumption by children. The International Labor Organization says to avoid E220 if you suffer from conjunctivitis, bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma, or cardiovascular disease.

    Found in: beers, soft drinks, dried fruit, juices, cordials, wine, vinegar, and potato products.

  10. Potassium Bromate

    An additive used to increase volume in some white flour, breads, and rolls, potassium bromate is known to cause cancer in animals. Even small amounts in bread can create problems for humans.

    Found in: Breads
    .
    .

What can you do to protect yourself?

  1. Select organic fruit and vegetables whenever possible. Wash or peel non-organic produce.
  2. Choose fruits and vegetables in season. This means that your exposure to the chemicals used to delay ripening, prolong shelf-life, preserve color and so on, will be limited.
  3. Supplement your diet with antioxidant nutrients-vitamins A, C, and E, and the minerals zinc and selenium-since the detoxification of many pesticides involves these nutrients.

Source: reuters.com foodmatters.tv

Formaldehyde now officially listed as cancer-causing chemical; here are the top sources of exposure

June 21st, 2011 . by admin

by J. McDonough-Horton

(NaturalNews) Formaldehyde is present in relatively benign quantities in nature; however its presence in manufactured goods is a major health concern because according to a significant body of research, it is a known carcinogenic substance.

Recently the U.S Department of Health and Human Services released a report on newly designated carcinogens that included formaldehyde. The report went on to suggest that people in certain industries were especially vulnerable to the effects of exposure such as those workers who worked in nail salons, in the funeral industry, and in industries which use formaldehyde to produce common household items including home furnishings, cleansers and personal care products. People who are exposed to concentrated levels of formaldehyde are more likely to develop certain cancers such as nasopharyngeal cancer and myeloid leukemia.

While some effort has been made to limit the quantities of formaldehyde used in manufacturing, such as restrictions recently placed by the US in The Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act, this toxic chemical remains a significant health risk especially in confined spaces for prolonged periods of time.

Formaldehyde is classified as a volatile organic compound or VOA. This term is used to describe compounds that are under significant vapor pressure and are easily expelled into the air. Because formaldehyde is readily vaporized can be a serious indoor pollutant.

Products which may contain formaldehyde include:

* Wood composite furniture including; resins used for office furniture, couches, baby furniture, particle board, pressed board, plywood, and softwood.

* Building materials such as acoustical ceilings, mineral wool, decking, composite core doors, industrial glues, foam insulation, paints and paint thinners.

* Household cleansers such as floor polishes, scouring cleansers, disinfectants, liquid cleansers, laundry aids, air fresheners, carpet cleaners.

* Household items such as wall hangings, carpets or throw rugs, coating on paper products, textiles, plastics, and upholstery.

* Personal care products such as hair straightening products, hair rinses, and cosmetics such as nail polish and hair gel often contain formaldehyde. Baby products including shampoos, creams and bubble bath are frequently laced with formaldehyde. Toothpaste and body washes are also potential sources of this carcinogenic ingredient.

* Clothing that is designated wrinkle free or preshrunk frequently contains formaldehyde. It has also been found in baby clothes and bedding.

* Formaldehyde is also a key component in the familiar new car smell of recently purchased vehicles.

* Car exhaust and cigarette smoke also contain formaldehyde.

* Formaldehyde is used as a disinfectant in laboratory settings, and is also used in the embalming process.

There are ways to reduce exposure to formaldehyde including buying products that are formaldehyde free. Another important way to reduce exposure is to be certain to properly ventilate the house. Here are some other suggests to reduce formaldehyde exposure:

1. Frequently air out the house. Formaldehyde concentrations in the home may also lead to allergic reactions may contribute to asthma attacks and contribute to other respiratory problems, rashes, irritation to mucus membranes, and fatigue. Children may be especially vulnerable.

2. Formaldehyde may be more readily released into the air in hot and humid spaces. Keep the area cool and dry in summer weather if possible.

3. Pressed wood products or composite wood frequently contains resins made with formaldehyde. Avoid purchasing these products or look for products that are listed as containing no formaldehyde or low formaldehyde. One example of a product labeled for reduced formaldehyde content would be a C.A.R.B phase 1 or 2 compliant product which is The California Air Resource Board endorsement. California has long recognized the carcinogenic properties of formaldehyde.

4. Wash all new clothing before wearing it. Clothing manufacturers in the U.S and some other countries are not required to label materials containing formaldehyde though many of their products do.

5. Do not allow smoking in the home. Smoke from cigarettes is a leading cause of formaldehyde exposure and indoor pollution.

6. When refinishing or sanding an old piece of furniture or woodwork wear a mask and use adequate ventilation. Sawdust from these items may contain high levels of formaldehyde.

7. Combinations of cleansers can be deadly so don’t mix them. Use proper ventilation when using ordinary household cleansers. Although many of them smell fresh and clean they are chemical cocktails that frequently contain formaldehyde.

8. Use low-VOC or no-VOC paints.

9. Buy only personal care and baby care items that are formaldehyde free. Be especially diligent with nail polishes, hair straightening products as both of these items may contain dangerous levels of formaldehyde.

The recent addition of formaldehyde to the list of known cancer causing agents may lead to tougher laws regulating its use in consumer products and is a significant step to protecting the welfare of the public from this toxic substance. Until laws change however, it will be up to consumers to take steps to protect their home and families from formaldehyde.

60 Percent of Doctors Don’t Get a Flu Shot

June 20th, 2011 . by DrHansen

Patient Appreciation Day!

June 17th, 2011 . by admin

                                                                       Please Join Us!

                                                       4th of July Patient Appreciation Day! 

When: June 27th

Time 8:00 am-12:00pm  & 2:30pm - 6:30pm

          We will have free snacks and & offering complimentary exam, x-rays for the guests of our patients! 

Spots are limited so please sign up your loved ones for this amazing opportunity today!

Thank you for being part of our family at

Peak Performance Chiropractic

Hypothyroid Disease Can be Caused by Gluten and Nutritional Deficiencies

June 15th, 2011 . by admin

More and more doctors are looking toward diet as a contributing factor in thyroid diseases.  A new study sheds light on the fact that selenium deficiency can be caused by gluten induced malabsorption.  The researchers go on to say that Selenium deficiency can cause thyroid diseases and can lead to unregulated inflammatory damage…

Regarding gluten sensitivity -

the target organs are not limited to the gut, but include thyroid, liver, skin and reproductive and nervous systems…

Regarding selenium deficiency -

Thus, selenium malabsorption in CD (celiac disease) can be thought as a key factor directly leading to thyroid and intestinal damage.

Source:

Ann Ist Super Sanita. 2010;46(4):389-399.

 

It is no medical mystery that gluten can cause vitamin and mineral deficiencies.  Selenium is a mineral with multiple functions within the body.  A short list of some of selenium’s more common roles is listed below:

  • It plays a role in the production of active thyroid hormone (see chart below).
  • It is a powerful anti-inflammatory and helps to regulate immune function.
  • It plays a role in blood viscosity (reduces excessive clotting of the blood).
  • It drives the most powerful antioxidant system in the body.

This study points out that no only does gluten induced selenium deficiency cause abnormal thyroid hormone production, it leads to excessive inflammation and autoimmune disease.

In previous posts we have discussed how going on a gluten free diet can lead to fat loss.  One of the reasons this happens for many is that a gluten free diet helps the thyroid gland start working again.  This in turn increases the metabolism.

 

Other Nutrients Important for Thyroid Function -

  1. Iodine – this mineral helps the body build T4 (the hormone that doctors commonly measure that floats through the bloodstream)
  2. Vitamins D and A - these fat soluble vitamins allow T3 (the active hormone) to communicate with your DNA and increase your metabolism.
  3. Zinc & Magnesium – these minerals help your body make TSH (the hormone made in your brain that tells your thyroid gland to make T4).
  4. Protein – most Americans eat too many carbs and not enough protein.  Protein is absolutely necessary to form the backbone of thyroid hormone.  It also carries the hormone through the blood stream to your tissues.

What Can You Do If You Have Been Diagnosed with Hypothyroidism?

Have your doctor perform the following tests -

  1. Iodine loading test (urine test)
  2. Spectracell (vitamin and mineral deficiency blood test)
  3. Reverse T3 and thyroid antibody testing
  4. Genetic testing for gluten sensitivity

It is time for doctors to start ruling out gluten sensitivity, celiac disease, and nutritional deficiencies in patients with thyroid disease.   If your doctor will not investigate these areas for you, look for a functional medicine doctor who will.

Saving Money

June 14th, 2011 . by admin

Instead of telling people how they can save money ON chiropractic, tell them how they can save money WITH chiropractic! Spend less on doctor visits, prescriptions, and insurance, and make more by missing less work from sick days. Chiropractic helps you be, do and HAVE all you desire and deserve!!!

Study: Conventional cosmetic products linked to damaging side effects

June 9th, 2011 . by admin

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) A new report published by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH) highlights some of the worst cosmetic products that cause harmful side effects. Among the most damaging are permanent hair dyes, facial and body moisturizers, cleansers, and even sunscreens, all of which are used by a significant portion of the overall population. And cases of severe reactions from such everyday-use products are widespread, say researchers.

Cosmetics, of course, imply much more than just make-up for women. Hair gels, toothpastes, mouthwashes, skin creams, body sprays, moisturizers, deodorants, and pretty much anything else a person applies to skin or hair is considered a cosmetic product. In other words, virtually every human being uses some kind of cosmetic product every single day.

According to the report, entitled National Register of Adverse Effects from Cosmetic Products 2008-2010, roughly 12 percent of survey respondents indicated that they experienced “very unpleasant adverse effects” as a result of applying common, conventional cosmetic products to their skin and hair. Some of these effects were so severe that respondents indicated that they had to be hospitalized.

The overall worst offender was moisturizers, which represented nearly 58 percent of all adverse events reported. Sunscreens and tanning products ranked second worse at 12.5 percent, and both cleansing products and hair dye products placed third and fourth at 9.2 percent and 6.6 percent respectively. Further down on the list were general hair care products, dental care products, and make-up.

The number one reported adverse event from using cosmetic products included eczema and oedema, as well as blistering and/or stinging pain. Other negative effects included dermatitis, urticaria, acne, itching, and even anaphylactic shock. Swelling and allergic reactions were also common, likely due to the presence of harmful toxins in the cosmetic formulas.

“The Register gives us a better overview of the products that cause adverse effects, the type of adverse effect and who experiences them. Then we can make an assessment and even warn against the use of certain products,” said Berit Granum from the Division of Environmental Medicine at NIPH, concerning the report.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has also established a Cosmetics Database through which the public can freely access information about the ingredients used in cosmetic products. It is important to always be aware of what you are putting on your skin or ingesting in your body, and you can learn more about that here:
http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/

Sources for this story include:

http://www.fhi.no/dokumenter/df751a…

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea…

Are american children to be used in medical experiments to test anthrax vaccine?

May 24th, 2011 . by DrHansen

by Tara Green

(NaturalNews) The highly controversial and potentially lethal anthrax vaccine may be tested on US children if the federal government gets its way. Although adverse event reports related to the vaccine among adult test subjects have included hospitalization, disability and even death, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is exploring the possibility of testing the vaccine on children.

Nicole Lurie, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the DHHS, recently requested that the National Biodefense Science Board submit an evaluation of safety issues related to testing the anthrax vaccine on children. The DHHS frames the possible testing as an issue of biodefense preparedness. However, the possibility of pediatric testing of the vaccine both ignores the vaccine’s dangers, and raises the specter of class- and/or race-based selection of medical test subjects which has haunted US health agencies for over a century.

Even in the months in 2001 when letters containing anthrax were mailed to several congressional leaders, heightening national fears during the post-9/11 period, Bill First, a physician and then-Senate Majority Leader, urged caution in use of the anthrax vaccine. He told CNN: “There are very real and potentially serious side effects from the vaccine and anyone who elects to receive the vaccine needs to be made aware of that. I do not recommend widespread inoculation. There are too many side effects and if there is limited chance of exposure- the side effects would far outweigh any potential advantage.”

A 2007 report by the CDC, along with the Vaccine Healthcare Centers of the Department of Defense and the watchdog group Government Accountability estimated that “between 1 and 2 percent” of vaccinated military personnel, experienced “severe adverse events, which could result in disability or death.”

If a vaccine with this kind of reputation is to be tested on children, one has to wonder which children. It is fairly certain those young test subjects won’t be the offspring of high-ranking government officials or corporate vice presidents and CEOs.

The history of medical testing carries a taint of racism, classism and opportunism, as health officials select those with less education and fewer choices to be unwitting guinea pigs in medical experiments supposedly in the name of scientific advancement.

You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist or history professor to have heard of the notorious 40-year long Tuskegee experiments in which the US Public Health Service withheld syphilis treatment from infected black men to measure the effects of the disease.

In October of 2010, President Obama apologized to Guatemala for tests during the 1940s when the US Public Health Service used prostitutes deliberately infect 700 prisoners, soldiers and patients with emotional and mental problems with syphilis both through visits with prostitutes and pouring bacteria for the disease onto skin abrasions on the subjects’ bodies.

Vaccine testing has its own special place in the annals of this kind of integrity-free medical research. In the early 1960s, mentally disabled children at a residential state school in New York were deliberately infected with viral hepatitis so that they could be test subjects for the disease.

A 1978 CDC test for a hepatitis B vaccine which sought “promiscuous homosexual male” volunteers has some interesting connections to both HIV and the previously rare opportunistic diseases associated with the AIDS virus. As recently as 1990, the CDC and Kaiser Pharmaceuticals gave 1,500 black and Hispanic 6-month old infants an unlicensed measles vaccine without the approval and consent of their parents. (For more detail of these stories and other true-life medical experimentation horror stories, see http://www.naturalnews.com/022383.html).

Sources for this article include:
http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/vie…
http://bioprepwatch.com/news/243663…
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/…
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp…
http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timelin…

Sugar feeds cancer cells, triggers weight gain and promotes premature aging!

May 20th, 2011 . by admin

 

Is sugar a sweet old friend that is secretly plotting your demise? There is a vast sea of research suggesting that it is. Science has now shown us, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that sugar in your food, in all its myriad of forms, is taking a devastating toll on your health.

The single largest source of calories for Americans comes from sugar-specifically high fructose corn syrup. Just take a look at the sugar consumption trends of the past 300 years:[1]

  • In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year.
  • In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year.
  • In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year.
  • In 2009, more than 50 percent of all Americans consume one-half pound of sugar PER DAY-translating to a whopping 180 pounds of sugar per year!

Sugar is loaded into your soft drinks, fruit juices, sports drinks, and hidden in almost all processed foods-from bologna to pretzels to Worcestershire sauce to cheese spread. And now most infant formula has the sugar equivalent of one can of Coca-Cola, so babies are being metabolically poisoned from day one if taking formula.

No wonder there is an obesity epidemic in this country.

Today, 32 percent of Americans are obese and an additional one-third are overweight. Compare that to 1890, when a survey of white males in their fifties revealed an obesity rate of just 3.4 percent. In 1975, the obesity rate in America had reached 15 percent, and since then it has doubled.

Carrying excess weight increases your risk for deadly conditions such as heart disease, kidney disease and diabetes.

In 1893, there were fewer than three cases of diabetes per 100,000 people in the United States. Today, diabetes strikes almost 8,000 out of every 100,000 people.[1]

You don’t have to be a physician or a scientist to notice America’s expanding waistline. All you have to do is stroll through a shopping mall or a schoolyard, or perhaps glance in the mirror.

Sugars 101 — Basics of How to Avoid Confusion on this Important Topic

Sucrose

It is easy to become confused by the various sugars and sweeteners. So here is a basic overview:

  • Dextrose, fructose and glucose are all monosaccharides, known as simple sugars. The primary difference between them is how your body metabolizes them. Glucose and dextrose are essentially the same sugar. However, food manufacturers usually use the term “dextrose” in their ingredient list.
  • The simple sugars can combine to form more complex sugars, like the disaccharide sucrose (table sugar), which is half glucose and half fructose.
  • High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose.
  • Ethanol (drinking alcohol) is not a sugar, although beer and wine contain residual sugars and starches, in addition to alcohol.
  • Sugar alcohols like xylitol, glycerol, sorbitol, maltitol, mannitol, and erythritol are neither sugars nor alcohols but are becoming increasingly popular as sweeteners. They are incompletely absorbed from your small intestine, for the most part, so they provide fewer calories than sugar but often cause problems with bloating, diarrhea and flatulence.
  • Sucralose (Splenda) is NOT a sugar, despite its sugar-like name and deceptive marketing slogan, “made from sugar.” It’s a chlorinated artificial sweetener in line with aspartame and saccharin, with detrimental health effects to match.
  • Agave syrup, falsely advertised as “natural,” is typically HIGHLY processed and is usually 80 percent fructose. The end product does not even remotely resemble the original agave plant.
  • Honey is about 53 percent fructose[2], but is completely natural in its raw form and has many health benefits when used in moderation, including as many antioxidants as spinach.
  • Stevia is a highly sweet herb derived from the leaf of the South American stevia plant, which is completely safe (in its natural form). Lo han (or luohanguo) is another natural sweetener, but derived from a fruit.

All Sugars are Not Equal

Glucose is the form of energy you were designed to run on. Every cell in your body, every bacterium-and in fact, every living thing on the Earth-uses glucose for energy.

But as a country, sucrose is no longer the sugar of choice. It’s now fructose.

If your diet was like that of people a century ago, you’d consume about 15 grams per day-a far cry from the 73 grams per day the typical person gets from sweetened drinks. In vegetables and fruits, it’s mixed in with vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and beneficial phytonutrients, all which moderate the negative metabolic effects. Amazingly, 25 percent of people actually consume more than 130 grams of fructose per day.

Making matters worse, all of the fiber has been removed from processed foods, so there is essentially no nutritive value at all. And the very products most people rely on to lose weight-the low-fat diet foods-are often the ones highest in fructose.

It isn’t that fructose itself is bad-it is the MASSIVE DOSES you’re exposed to that make it dangerous.

There are two overall reasons fructose is so damaging:

  1. Your body metabolizes fructose in a much different way than glucose. The entire burden of metabolizing fructose falls on your liver.
  2. People are consuming fructose in enormous quantities, which has made the negative effects much more profound.

The explosion of soda consumption is the major cause of this.

Today, 55 percent of sweeteners used in food and beverage manufacturing are made from corn, and the number one source of calories in America is soda, in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

Food and beverage manufacturers began switching their sweeteners from sucrose to corn syrup in the 1970s when they discovered that HFCS was not only far cheaper to make, it’s about 20 percent sweeter than conventional table sugar that has sucrose.

HFCS contains the same two sugars as sucrose but is more metabolically risky to you, due to its chemical form.

The fructose and the glucose are not bound together in HFCS, as they are in table sugar, so your body doesn’t have to break it down. Therefore, the fructose is absorbed immediately, going straight to your liver.

Too Much Fructose Creates a Metabolic Disaster in Your Body

Dr. Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, has been a pioneer in decoding sugar metabolism. His work has highlighted some major differences in how different sugars are broken down and used by the human body.

I highly recommend watching Lustig’s lecture in its entirety if you want to learn how fructose is ruining your health biochemically.

As I mentioned earlier, after eating fructose, most of the metabolic burden rests on your liver. This is NOT the case with glucose, of which your liver breaks down only 20 percent. Nearly every cell in your body utilizes glucose, so it’s normally “burned up” immediately after consumption.

So where does all of this fructose go, once you consume it?

Onto your thighs. It is turned into FAT (VLDL and triglycerides), which means more fat deposits throughout your body.

Eating Fructose is Far Worse than Eating Fat

However, the physiological problems of fructose metabolism extend well beyond a couple of pant sizes:

  • Fructose elevates uric acid, which decreases nitric oxide, raises angiotensin, and causes your smooth muscle cells to contract, thereby raising your blood pressure and potentially damaging your kidneys.[1]

    Increased uric acid also leads to chronic, low-level inflammation, which has far-reaching consequences for your health. For example, chronically inflamed blood vessels lead to heart attacks and strokes; also, a good deal of evidence exists that some cancers are caused by chronic inflammation. (See the next section for more about uric acid.)

  • Fructose tricks your body into gaining weight by fooling your metabolism-it turns off your body’s appetite-control system. Fructose does not appropriately stimulate insulin, which in turn does not suppress ghrelin (the “hunger hormone”) and doesn’t stimulate leptin (the “satiety hormone”), which together result in your eating more and developing insulin resistance.[3] [4]
  • Fructose rapidly leads to weight gain and abdominal obesity (”beer belly”), decreased HDL, increased LDL, elevated triglycerides, elevated blood sugar, and high blood pressure-i.e., classic metabolic syndrome.
  • Fructose metabolism is very similar to ethanol metabolism, which has a multitude of toxic effects, including NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease). It’s alcohol without the buzz.

These changes are not seen when humans or animals eat starch (or glucose), suggesting that fructose is a “bad carbohydrate” when consumed in excess of 25 grams per day. It is probably the one factor responsible for the partial success of many “low-carb” diets.

One of the more recent findings that surprised researchers is that glucose actually accelerates fructose absorption, making the potential health risks from HFCS even more profound.[1]

You can now see why fructose is the number one contributing factor to the current obesity epidemic.

Is Uric Acid the New Cholesterol?

By now you are probably aware of the childhood obesity epidemic in America-but did you know about childhood hypertension?

Until recently, children were rarely diagnosed with high blood pressure, and when they were, it was usually due to a tumor or a vascular kidney disease.

In 2004, a study showed hypertension among children is four times higher than predicted: 4.5 percent of American children have high blood pressure. Among overweight children, the rate is 10 percent. It is thought that obesity is to blame for about 50 percent of hypertension cases in adolescents today.[1]

Even more startling is that 90 percent of adolescents who have high blood pressure have elevated uric acid levels.

This has led researchers to ask, what does uric acid have to do with obesity and high blood pressure?

In his groundbreaking book, The Sugar Fix: The High-Fructose Fallout That is Making You Fat and Sick, Dr. Robert J. Johnson makes a compelling argument for a previously unrecognized connection between excess sugar consumption and high uric acid levels.

There are more than 3,500 articles to date showing a strong relationship between uric acid and obesity, heart disease, hypertension, stroke, kidney disease, and other conditions. In fact, a number of studies have confirmed that people with elevated serum uric acid are at risk for high blood pressure, even if they otherwise appear to be perfectly healthy.

Uric acid levels among Americans have risen significantly since the early half of the 20th Century. In the 1920s, average uric acid levels were about 3.5 ml/dl. By 1980, average uric acid levels had climbed into the range of 6.0 to 6.5 ml/dl and are probably much higher now.

How Does Your Body Produce Uric Acid?

It’s a byproduct of cellular breakdown. As cells die off, DNA and RNA degrade into chemicals called purines. Purines are further broken down into uric acid.

Fructose increases uric acid through a complex process that causes cells to burn up their ATP rapidly, leading to “cell shock” and increased cell death. After eating excessive amounts of fructose, cells become starved of energy and enter a state of shock, just as if they have lost their blood supply. Massive cellular die-off leads to increased uric acid levels.

And cells that are depleted of energy become inflamed and more susceptible to damage from oxidative stress. Fat cells actually become “sickly,” bloating up with excessive amounts of fat.

There is a simple, inexpensive blood test for determining your uric acid level, which I recommend you have done as part of your routine health checkups. Your level should be between 3.0 and 5.5 mg/dl, optimally.

There is little doubt in my mind that your uric acid level is a more potent predictor of cardiovascular and overall health than your total cholesterol level is. Yet virtually no one is screening for this.

Now that you know the truth you don’t have to be left out in the cold, as this is a simple and relatively inexpensive test that you can get at any doctor’s office. Odds are very good your doctor is clueless about the significance of elevated uric acid levels, so it will not likely be productive to engage in a discussion with him unless he is truly an open-minded truth seeker.

Merely get your uric acid level, and if it is over 5 then eliminate as much fructose as you can (also eliminate all beer), and retest your level in a few weeks.

Sugar Sensitization Makes the Problem Even WORSE!

There is yet another problem with sugar-a self-perpetuating one.

According to Dr. Johnson1, sugar activates its own pathways in your body-those metabolic pathways become “upregulated.” In other words, the more sugar you eat, the more effective your body is in absorbing it; and the more you absorb, the more damage you’ll do.

You become “sensitized” to sugar as time goes by, and more sensitive to its toxic effects as well.

The flip side is, when people are given even a brief sugar holiday, sugar sensitization rapidly decreases and those metabolic pathways become “downregulated.” Research tells us that even two weeks without consuming sugar will cause your body to be less reactive to it.

Try it for yourself! Take a two-week sugar sabbatical and see how different you feel.

Are Fruits Good or Bad for You?

Keep in mind that fruits also contain fructose, although an ameliorating factor is that whole fruits also contain vitamins and other antioxidants that reduce the hazardous effects of fructose.

Juices, on the other hand, are nearly as detrimental as soda, because a glass of juice is loaded with fructose, and a lot of the antioxidants are lost.

It is important to remember that fructose alone isn’t evil as fruits are certainly beneficial. But when you consume high levels of fructose it will absolutely devastate your biochemistry and physiology. Remember the AVERAGE fructose dose is 70 grams per day which exceeds the recommend limit by 300 percent.

So please BE CAREFUL with your fruit consumption. You simply MUST understand that because HFCS is so darn cheap, it is added to virtually every processed food. Even if you consumed no soda or fruit, it is very easy to exceed 25 grams of hidden fructose in your diet.

If you are a raw food advocate, have a pristine diet, and exercise very well, then you could be the exception that could exceed this limit and stay healthy. 

Dr. Johnson has a handy chart, included below, which you can use to estimate how much fructose you’re getting in your diet. Remember, you are also likely getting additional fructose if you consume any packaged foods at all, since it is hidden in nearly all of them.

Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Limes 1 medium 0
Lemons 1 medium 0.6
Cranberries 1 cup 0.7
Passion fruit 1 medium 0.9
Prune 1 medium 1.2
Apricot 1 medium 1.3
Guava 2 medium 2.2
Date (Deglet Noor style) 1 medium 2.6
Cantaloupe 1/8 of med. melon 2.8
Raspberries 1 cup 3.0
Clementine 1 medium 3.4
Kiwifruit 1 medium 3.4
Blackberries 1 cup 3.5
Star fruit 1 medium 3.6
Cherries, sweet 10 3.8
Strawberries 1 cup 3.8
Cherries, sour 1 cup 4.0
Pineapple 1 slice
(3.5″ x .75″)
4.0
Grapefruit, pink or red 1/2 medium 4.3
Fruit Serving Size Grams of Fructose
Boysenberries 1 cup 4.6
Tangerine/mandarin orange 1 medium 4.8
Nectarine 1 medium 5.4
Peach 1 medium 5.9
Orange (navel) 1 medium 6.1
Papaya 1/2 medium 6.3
Honeydew 1/8 of med. melon 6.7
Banana 1 medium 7.1
Blueberries 1 cup 7.4
Date (Medjool) 1 medium 7.7
Apple (composite) 1 medium 9.5
Persimmon 1 medium 10.6
Watermelon 1/16 med. melon 11.3
Pear 1 medium 11.8
Raisins 1/4 cup 12.3
Grapes, seedless (green or red) 1 cup 12.4
Mango 1/2 medium 16.2
Apricots, dried 1 cup 16.4
Figs, dried 1 cup 23.0

In addition to limiting your intake of fructose, you should eliminate all sweetened beverages and fruit juices (including all artificial sweeteners) and drink only pure water and raw milk.

You can buy pure glucose (dextrose) as a sweetener for about $1 a pound. It is only 70% as sweet as sucrose, so you’ll end up using a bit more of it for the same amount of sweetness, making it slightly more expensive than sucrose-but still well worth it for your health as it has ZERO grams of fructose.

Remember that glucose can be used directly by every cell in your body and as such is far safer than the metabolic poison fructose.

Beer is also a good beverage to AVOID since it increases uric acid levels, just like fructose does, resulting in many of the same toxic effects.

All alcoholic beverages cause you to produce excess uric acid (and block your kidneys from excreting it), but beer seems to have a more pronounced effect on uric acid levels because it’s a rich source of guanosine, the type of purine that is most readily absorbed by the body.1

76 Additional Ways Sugar Can Ruin Your Health

In addition to throwing off your body’s homeostasis and wreaking havoc on your metabolic processes, excess sugar has a number of other significant consequences.

Nancy Appleton, PhD, author of the book Lick the Sugar Habit[5], contributed an extensive list of the many ways sugar can ruin your health from a vast number of medical journals and other scientific publications.

  1. Sugar can suppress your immune system and impair your defenses against infectious disease.[6] [7]
  2. Sugar upsets the mineral relationships in your body: causes chromium and copper deficiencies and interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium.[8] [9] [10] [11]
  3. Sugar can cause a rapid rise of adrenaline, hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and crankiness in children.[12] [13]
  4. Sugar can produce a significant rise in total cholesterol, triglycerides and bad cholesterol and a decrease in good cholesterol.[14] [15] [16] [17]
  5. Sugar causes a loss of tissue elasticity and function.[18]
  6. Sugar feeds cancer cells and has been connected with the development of cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, rectum, pancreas, biliary tract, lung, gallbladder and stomach.[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
  7. Sugar can increase fasting levels of glucose and can cause reactive hypoglycemia.[26] [27]
  8. Sugar can weaken eyesight.[28] 1
  9. Sugar can cause many problems with the gastrointestinal tract including: an acidic digestive tract, indigestion, malabsorption in patients with functional bowel disease, increased risk of Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis.[29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
  10. Sugar can cause premature aging.[34] In fact, the single most important factor that accelerates aging is insulin, which is triggered by sugar. 1
  11. Sugar can lead to alcoholism.[35]
  12. Sugar can cause your saliva to become acidic, tooth decay, and periodontal disease.[36] [37] [38]
  13. Sugar contributes to obesity. [39] 1
  14. Sugar can cause autoimmune diseases such as: arthritis, asthma, and multiple sclerosis.[40] [41] [42]
  15. Sugar greatly assists the uncontrolled growth of Candida Albicans (yeast infections) [43]
  16. Sugar can cause gallstones.[44]
  17. Sugar can cause appendicitis.[45]
  18. Sugar can cause hemorrhoids.[46]
  19. Sugar can cause varicose veins.[47]
  20. Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraceptive users.[48]
  21. Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis.[49]
  22. Sugar can cause a decrease in your insulin sensitivity thereby causing an abnormally high insulin levels and eventually diabetes.[50] [51] [52]
  23. Sugar can lower your Vitamin E levels.[53]
  24. Sugar can increase your systolic blood pressure.[54]
  25. Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.[55]
  26. High sugar intake increases advanced glycation end products (AGEs),which are sugar molecules that attach to and damage proteins in your body. AGEs speed up the aging of cells, which may contribute to a variety of chronic and fatal diseases. [56] 1
  27. Sugar can interfere with your absorption of protein.[57]
  28. Sugar causes food allergies.[58]
  29. Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.[59]
  30. Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.[60]
  31. Sugar can cause atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.[61] [62]
  32. Sugar can impair the structure of your DNA.[63]
  33. Sugar can change the structure of protein and cause a permanent alteration of the way the proteins act in your body.[64] [65]
  34. Sugar can make your skin age by changing the structure of collagen.[66]
  35. Sugar can cause cataracts and nearsightedness.[67] [68]
  36. Sugar can cause emphysema.[69]
  37. High sugar intake can impair the physiological homeostasis of many systems in your body.[70]
  38. Sugar lowers the ability of enzymes to function.[71]
  39. Sugar intake is higher in people with Parkinson’s disease.[72]
  40. Sugar can increase the size of your liver by making your liver cells divide, and it can increase the amount of fat in your liver, leading to fatty liver disease.[73] [74]
  41. Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney such as the formation of kidney stones.[75] [76] Fructose is helping to drive up rates of kidney disease. 1
  42. Sugar can damage your pancreas.[77]
  43. Sugar can increase your body’s fluid retention.[78]
  44. Sugar is enemy #1 of your bowel movement.[79]
  45. Sugar can compromise the lining of your capillaries.[80]
  46. Sugar can make your tendons more brittle.[81]
  47. Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.[82]
  48. Sugar can reduce the learning capacity, adversely affect your children’s grades and cause learning disorders.[83] [84]
  49. Sugar can cause an increase in delta, alpha, and theta brain waves, which can alter your ability to think clearly.[85]
  50. Sugar can cause depression.[86]
  51. Sugar can increase your risk of gout.[87]
  52. Sugar can increase your risk of Alzheimer’s disease.[88] MRI studies show that adults 60 and older who have high uric acid are four to five times more likely to have vascular dementia, the second most common form of dementia after Alzheimer’s.1
  53. Sugar can cause hormonal imbalances such as: increasing estrogen in men, exacerbating PMS, and decreasing growth hormone.[89] [90] [91] [92]
  54. Sugar can lead to dizziness.[93]
  55. Diets high in sugar will increase free radicals and oxidative stress.[94]
  56. A high sucrose diet of subjects with peripheral vascular disease significantly increases platelet adhesion.[95]
  57. High sugar consumption by pregnant adolescents can lead to a substantial decrease in gestation duration and is associated with a twofold-increased risk for delivering a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infant.[96] [97]
  58. Sugar is an addictive substance.[98]
  59. Sugar can be intoxicating, similar to alcohol.[99]
  60. Sugar given to premature babies can affect the amount of carbon dioxide they produce.[100]
  61. Decrease in sugar intake can increase emotional stability.[101]
  62. Your body changes sugar into 2 to 5 times more fat in the bloodstream than it does starch.[102]
  63. The rapid absorption of sugar promotes excessive food intake in obese subjects.[103]
  64. Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).[104]
  65. Sugar adversely affects urinary electrolyte composition.[105]
  66. Sugar can impair the function of your adrenal glands.[106]
  67. Sugar has the potential of inducing abnormal metabolic processes in normal, healthy individuals, thereby promoting chronic degenerative diseases.[107]
  68. Intravenous feedings (IVs) of sugar water can cut off oxygen to your brain.[108]
  69. Sugar increases your risk of polio.[109]
  70. High sugar intake can cause epileptic seizures.[110]
  71. Sugar causes high blood pressure in obese people.[111]
  72. In intensive care units, limiting sugar saves lives.[112]
  73. Sugar may induce cell death.[113]
  74. In juvenile rehabilitation centers, when children were put on low sugar diets, there was a 44 percent drop in antisocial behavior.[114]
  75. Sugar dehydrates newborns.[115]
  76. Sugar can cause gum disease.[116]

It should now be crystal clear just how damaging sugar is. You simply cannot achieve your highest degree of health and vitality if you are consuming a significant amount of it.

Fortunately, your body has an amazing ability to heal itself when given the basic nutrition it needs, and your liver has an incredible ability to regenerate. If you start making changes today, your health WILL begin to improve, returning you to the state of vitality that nature intended.


References:

  • [1] Johnson RJ and Gower T. (2009) The Sugar Fix: The High-Fructose Fallout That is Making You Sick and Fat, Pocket, 416 pp
  • [2]What sweetener should you choose? Sugar? Honey? Agave nectar?Fitnessspotlight
  • [3] Stanhope KL, Schwarz JM, Keim NL, Griffen SC, Bremer AA, Graham JL, Hatcher B, Cox CL, Dyachenko A, Zhang W, McGahan JP, Seibert A, Krauss RM, Chiu S, Schaefer EJ, Ai M, Otokozawa S, Nakajima K, Nakano T, Beysen C, Hellerstein MK, Berglund L and Havel PJ. “Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans,” J Clin Invest. 2009; 119(5):1322-1334 
  • [4] Park A. “All sugars aren’t the same: Glucose is better, study says,” Time Magazine, April 21, 2009 
  • [5] Appleton N. Lick the Sugar Habit (1996) Avery, 2nd Ed. 272 pp.
  • [6] Sanchez, A., et al. Role of Sugars in Human Neutrophilic Phagocytosis, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Nov 1973;261:1180_1184. Bernstein, J., al. Depression of Lymphocyte Transformation Following Oral Glucose Ingestion. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.1997;30:613
  • [7] Ringsdorf, W., Cheraskin, E. and Ramsay R. Sucrose, Neutrophilic Phagocytosis and Resistance to Disease, Dental Survey. 1976;52(12):46_48
  • [8] Couzy, F., et al. “Nutritional Implications of the Interaction Minerals,” Progressive Food and Nutrition Science 17;1933:65-87
  • [9] Kozlovsky, A., et al. Effects of Diets High in Simple Sugars on Urinary Chromium Losses. Metabolism. June 1986;35:515_518
  • [10] Fields, M.., et al. Effect of Copper Deficiency on Metabolism and Mortality in Rats Fed Sucrose or Starch Diets, Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1983;113:1335_1345
  • [11] Lemann, J. Evidence that Glucose Ingestion Inhibits Net Renal Tubular Reabsorption of Calcium and Magnesium. Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1976 ;70:236_245
  • [12] Goldman, J., et al. Behavioral Effects of Sucrose on Preschool Children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.1986;14(4):565_577
  • [13] Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedullary Response and Increased Susceptibility to Neuroglygopenia: Mechanisms Underlying the Adverse Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics. Feb 1995;126:171-7
  • [14] Scanto, S. and Yudkin, J. The Effect of Dietary Sucrose on Blood Lipids, Serum Insulin, Platelet Adhesiveness and Body Weight in Human Volunteers, Postgraduate Medicine Journal. 1969;45:602_607
  • [15] Albrink, M. and Ullrich I. H. Interaction of Dietary Sucrose and Fiber on Serum Lipids in Healthy Young Men Fed High Carbohydrate Diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1986;43:419­
  • [16] Reiser, S. Effects of Dietary Sugars on Metabolic Risk Factors Associated with Heart Disease. Nutritional Health. 1985;203_216
  • [17] Lewis, G. F. and Steiner, G. Acute Effects of Insulin in the Control of Vldl Production in Humans. Implications for The insulin-resistant State. Diabetes Care. 1996 Apr;19(4):390-3 R. Pamplona, M. .J., et al. Mechanisms of Glycation in Atherogenesis. Medical Hypotheses. 1990;40:174-181
  • [18] Cerami, A., Vlassara, H., and Brownlee, M. “Glucose and Aging.” Scientific American. May 1987:90. Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science; 663:63-67
  • [19] Takahashi, E., Tohoku University School of Medicine, Wholistic Health Digest. October 1982:41:00
  • [20] Quillin, Patrick, Cancer’s Sweet Tooth, Nutrition Science News. Ap 2000 Rothkopf, M.. Nutrition. July/Aug 1990;6(4)
  • [21] Michaud, D. Dietary Sugar, Glycemic Load, and Pancreatic Cancer Risk in a Prospective Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. Sep 4, 2002 ;94(17):1293-300
  • [22] Moerman, C. J., et al. Dietary Sugar Intake in the Etiology of Biliary Tract Cancer. International Journal of Epidemiology. Ap 1993.2(2):207-214.
  • [23] The Edell Health Letter. Sept 1991;7:1
  • [24] De Stefani, E.”Dietary Sugar and Lung Cancer: a Case control Study in Uruguay.” Nutrition and Cancer. 1998;31(2):132_7
  • [25] Cornee, J., et al. A Case-control Study of Gastric Cancer and Nutritional Factors in Marseille, France. European Journal of Epidemiology 11 (1995):55-65
  • [26] Kelsay, J., et al. Diets High in Glucose or Sucrose and Young Women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1974;27:926_936. Thomas, B. J., et al. Relation of Habitual Diet to Fasting Plasma Insulin Concentration and the Insulin Response to Oral Glucose, Human Nutrition Clinical Nutrition. 1983; 36C(1):49_51
  • [27] Dufty, William. Sugar Blues. (New York:Warner Books, 1975)
  • [28] Acta Ophthalmologica Scandinavica. Mar 2002;48;25. Taub, H. Ed. Sugar Weakens Eyesight, VM NEWSLETTER;May 1986:06:00
  • [29] Dufty.
  • [30] Yudkin, J. Sweet and Dangerous.(New York:Bantam Books,1974) 129
  • [31] Cornee, J., et al. A Case-control Study of Gastric Cancer and Nutritional Factors in Marseille, France, European Journal of Epidemiology. 1995;11
  • [32] Persson P. G., Ahlbom, A., and Hellers, G. Epidemiology. 1992;3:47-52
  • [33] Jones, T. W., et al. Enhanced Adrenomedullary Response and Increased Susceptibility to Neuroglygopenia: Mechanisms Underlying the Adverse Effect of Sugar Ingestion in Children. Journal of Pediatrics. Feb 1995;126:171-7
  • [34] Lee, A. T.and Cerami A. The Role of Glycation in Aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Science.1992;663:63-70
  • [35] Abrahamson, E. and Peget, A. Body, Mind and Sugar. (New York: Avon, 1977)
  • [36] Glinsmann, W., Irausquin, H., and Youngmee, K. Evaluation of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners. F. D. A. Report of Sugars Task Force. 1986:39:00 Makinen K.K.,et al. A Descriptive Report of the Effects of a 16_month Xylitol Chewing_gum Programme Subsequent to a 40_month Sucrose Gum Programme. Caries Research. 1998; 32(2)107_12
  • [37] Glinsmann, W., Irausquin, H., and K. Youngmee. Evaluation of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners. F. D. A. Report of Sugars Task Force.1986;39:36_38
  • [38] Appleton, N. New York: Healthy Bones. Avery Penguin Putnam:1989
  • [39] Keen, H., et al. Nutrient Intake, Adiposity, and Diabetes. British Medical Journal. 1989; 1:00 655_658
  • [40] Darlington, L., Ramsey, N. W. and Mansfield, J. R. Placebo Controlled, Blind Study of Dietary Manipulation Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lancet. Feb 1986;8475(1):236_238
  • [41] Powers, L. Sensitivity: You React to What You Eat. Los Angeles Times. (Feb. 12, 1985). Cheng, J., et al. Preliminary Clinical Study on the Correlation Between Allergic Rhinitis and Food Factors. Lin Chuang Er Bi Yan Hou Ke Za Zhi Aug 2002;16(8):393-396
  • [42] Erlander, S. The Cause and Cure of Multiple Sclerosis, The Disease to End Disease.” Mar 3, 1979;1(3):59_63
  • [43] Crook, W. J. The Yeast Connection. (TN:Professional Books, 1984)
  • [44] Heaton, K. The Sweet Road to Gallstones. British Medical Journal. Apr 14, 1984; 288:00:00 1103_1104. Misciagna, G., et al. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1999;69:120-126
  • [45] Cleave, T. The Saccharine Disease. (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publishing, 1974)
  • [46] Ibid
  • [47] Cleave, T. and Campbell, G. (Bristol, England:Diabetes, Coronary Thrombosis and the Saccharine Disease: John Wright and Sons, 1960)
  • [48] Behall, K. Influ ence of Estrogen Content of Oral Contraceptives and Consumption of Sucrose on Blood Parameters. Disease Abstracts International. 1982;431437
  • [49] Tjäderhane, L. and Larmas, M. A High Sucrose Diet Decreases the Mechanical Strength of Bones in Growing Rats. Journal of Nutrition. 1998:128:1807_1810
  • [50] Beck, Nielsen H., Pedersen O., and Schwartz S. Effects of Diet on the Cellular Insulin Binding and the Insulin Sensitivity in Young Healthy Subjects. Diabetes. 1978;15:289_296
  • [51] Sucrose Induces Diabetes in Cat. Federal Protocol. 1974;6(97). diabetes
  • [52] Reiser, S., et al. Effects of Sugars on Indices on Glucose Tolerance in Humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 1986;43:151-159
  • [53] Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. Aug 2000
  • [54] Hodges, R., and Rebello, T. Carbohydrates and Blood Pressure. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1983:98:838_841
  • [55] Behar, D., et al. Sugar Challenge Testing with Children Considered Behaviorally Sugar Reactive. Nutritional Behavior. 1984;1:277_288
  • [56] Furth, A. and Harding, J. Why Sugar Is Bad For You. New Scientist. Sep 23, 1989;44
  • [57] Simmons, J. Is The Sand of Time Sugar? LONGEVITY. June 1990:00:00 49_53
  • [58] Appleton, N. New York: LICK THE SUGAR HABIT. Avery Penguin Putnam:1988. allergies
  • [59] Cleave, T. The Saccharine Disease: (New Canaan Ct: Keats Publishing, Inc., 1974).131
  • [60] Ibid. 132
  • [61] Pamplona, R., et al. Mechanisms of Glycation in Atherogenesis. Medical Hypotheses . 1990:00:00 174_181
  • [62] Vaccaro O., Ruth, K. J. and Stamler J. Relationship of Postload Plasma Glucose to Mortality with 19 yr Follow up. Diabetes Care. Oct 15,1992;10:328_334. Tominaga, M., et al, Impaired Glucose Tolerance Is a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease, but Not Fasting Glucose. Diabetes Care. 1999:2(6):920-924
  • [63] Lee, A. T. and Cerami, A. Modifications of Proteins and Nucleic Acids by Reducing Sugars: Possible Role in Aging. Handbook of the Biology of Aging. (New York: Academic Press, 1990)
  • [64] Monnier, V. M. Nonenzymatic Glycosylation, the Maillard Reaction and the Aging Process. Journal of Gerontology 1990:45(4):105_110
  • [65] Cerami, A., Vlassara, H., and Brownlee, M. Glucose and Aging. Scientific American. May 1987:00:00 90
  • [66] Dyer, D. G., et al. Accumulation of Maillard Reaction Products in Skin Collagen in Diabetes and Aging. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 1993:93(6):421_22
  • [67] Veromann, S.et al.”Dietary Sugar and Salt Represent Real Risk Factors for Cataract Development.” Ophthalmologica. 2003 Jul-Aug;217(4):302-307
  • [68] Goulart, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_April 1991:00:00 34_38. Milwakuee, WI
  • [69] Monnier, V. M. Nonenzymatic Glycosylation, the Maillard Reaction and the Aging Process. Journal of Gerontology. 1990:45(4):105_110
  • [70] Ceriello, A. Oxidative Stress and Glycemic Regulation. Metabolism. Feb 2000;49(2 Suppl 1):27­29
  • [71] Appleton, Nancy. New York; Lick the Sugar Habit. Avery Penguin Putnam, 1988 enzymes
  • [72] Hellenbrand, W. Diet and Parkinson’s Disease. A Possible Role for the Past Intake of Specific Nutrients. Results from a Self-administered Food-frequency Questionnaire in a Case-control Study. Neurology. Sep 1996;47(3):644-650
  • [73] Goulart, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_April 1991:00:00 34_38
  • [74] Ibid.
  • [75] Yudkin, J., Kang, S. and Bruckdorfer, K. Effects of High Dietary Sugar. British Journal of Medicine. Nov 22, 1980;1396
  • [76] Blacklock, N. J., Sucrose and Idiopathic Renal Stone. Nutrition and Health. 1987;5(1-2):9­Curhan, G., et al. Beverage Use and Risk for Kidney Stones in Women. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1998:28:534-340
  • [77] Goulart, F. S. Are You Sugar Smart? American Fitness. March_April 1991:00:00 34_38. Milwakuee, WI
  • [78] Ibid. fluid retention
  • [79] Ibid. bowel movement
  • [80] Ibid. compromise the lining of the capillaries
  • [81] Nash, J. Health Contenders. Essence. Jan 1992; 23:00 79_81
  • [82] Grand, E. Food Allergies and Migraine.Lancet. 1979:1:955_959
  • [83] Schauss, A. Diet, Crime and Delinquency. (Berkley Ca; Parker House, 1981)
  • [84] Molteni, R, et al. A High-fat, Refined Sugar Diet Reduces Hippocampal Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor, Neuronal Plasticity, and Learning. NeuroScience. 2002;112(4):803-814
  • [85] Christensen, L. The Role of Caffeine and Sugar in Depression. Nutrition Report. Mar 1991;9(3):17-24
  • [86] Ibid,44
  • [87] Yudkin, J. Sweet and Dangerous.(New York:Bantam Books,1974) 129
  • [88] Frey, J. Is There Sugar in the Alzheimer’s Disease? Annales De Biologie Clinique. 2001; 59 (3):253-257
  • [89] Yudkin, J. Metabolic Changes Induced by Sugar in Relation to Coronary Heart Disease and Diabetes. Nutrition and Health. 1987;5(1-2):5-8
  • [90] Yudkin, J and Eisa, O. Dietary Sucrose and Oestradiol Concentration in Young Men. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 1988:32(2):53-55
  • [91] The Edell Health Letter. Sept 1991;7:1
  • [92] Gardner, L. and Reiser, S. Effects of Dietary Carbohydrate on Fasting Levels of Human Growth Hormone and Cortisol. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine. 1982;169:36_40
  • [93] Journal of Advanced Medicine. 1994;7(1):51-58
  • [94] Ceriello, A. Oxidative Stress and Glycemic Regulation. Metabolism. Feb 2000;49(2 Suppl 1):27­29
  • [95] Postgraduate Medicine.Sept 1969:45:602-07
  • [96] Lenders, C. M. Gestational Age and Infant Size at Birth Are Associated with Dietary Intake among Pregnant Adolescents. Journal of Nutrition. Jun 1997;1113-1117
  • [97] Ibid.
  • [98] Sugar, White Flour Withdrawal Produces Chemical Response. The Addiction Letter. Jul 1992:04:00 Colantuoni, C., et al. Evidence That Intermittent, Excessive Sugar Intake Causes Endogenous Opioid Dependence. Obes Res. Jun 2002 ;10(6):478-488. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, Toronto, June 17, 2001 www.mercola.com/2001/jun/30/sugar.htm
  • [99] Ibid.
  • [100] Sunehag, A. L., et al. Gluconeogenesis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants Receiving Total Parenteral Nutrition Diabetes. 1999 ;48 7991_800
  • [101] Christensen L., et al. Impact of A Dietary Change on Emotional Distress. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.1985;94(4):565_79
  • [102] Nutrition Health Review. Fall 85 changes sugar into fat faster than fat
  • [103] Ludwig, D. S., et al. High Glycemic Index Foods, Overeating and Obesity. Pediatrics. March 1999;103(3):26-32
  • [104] Pediatrics Research. 1995;38(4):539-542. Berdonces, J. L. Attention Deficit and Infantile Hyperactivity. Rev Enferm. Jan 2001;4(1)11-4
  • [105] Blacklock, N. J. Sucrose and Idiopathic Renal Stone. Nutrition Health. 1987;5(1 & 2):9­
  • [106] Lechin, F., et al. Effects of an Oral Glucose Load on Plasma Neurotransmitters in Humans. Neurophychobiology. 1992;26(1-2):4-11
  • [107] Fields, M. Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Aug 1998;17(4):317_321
  • [108] Arieff, A. I. Veterans Administration Medical Center in San Francisco. San Jose Mercury; June 12/86. IVs of sugar water can cut off oxygen to the brain
  • [109] Sandler, Benjamin P. Diet Prevents Polio. Milwakuee, WI,:The Lee Foundation for for Nutritional Research, 1951
  • [110] Murphy, Patricia. The Role of Sugar in Epileptic Seizures. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. May, 2001 Murphy Is Editor of Epilepsy Wellness Newsletter, 1462 West 5th Ave., Eugene, Oregon 97402
  • [111] Stern, N. & Tuck, M. Pathogenesis of Hypertension in Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Mellitus, a Fundamental and Clinical Test. 2nd Edition, (PhiladelphiA; A:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2000)943-957
  • [112] Christansen, D. Critical Care: Sugar Limit Saves Lives. Science News. June 30, 2001; 159:404
  • [113] Donnini, D. et al. Glucose May Induce Cell Death through a Free Radical-mediated Mechanism.Biochem Biohhys Res Commun. Feb 15, 1996:219(2):412-417
  • [114] Schoenthaler, S. The Los Angeles Probation Department Diet-Behavior Program: Am Empirical Analysis of Six Institutional Settings. Int J Biosocial Res 5(2):88-89
  • [115] Gluconeogenesis in Very Low Birth Weight Infants Receiving Total Parenteral Nutrition. Diabetes. 1999 Apr;48(4):791-800
  • [116] Glinsmann, W., et al. Evaluation of Health Aspects of Sugar Contained in Carbohydrate Sweeteners.” FDA Report of Sugars Task Force -1986 39 123

    Yudkin, J. and Eisa, O. Dietary Sucrose and Oestradiol Concentration in Young Men. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 1988;32(2):53-5

This article is from www.mercola.com
This Addictive Commonly Used Food Feeds Cancer Cells, Triggers Weight Gain, and Promotes Premature Aging
Posted by Dr. Mercola | April 20 2010

« Previous Entries Next Entries »