Many of the ingredients that make our foods “taste good” such as fat, salt and sugar can be extremely damaging in large amounts. On top of that, most processed foods are absolutely loaded with chemicals and preservatives. The next time you go to the grocery store, just start turning over packages and read the “ingredients” that are being put into our food. If you have never done this before, you will be absolutely amazed. In many of our most common foods there are “ingredients” that I cannot even pronounce. Sadly, most Americans have no idea that eating a steady diet of these processed foods will likely leave them massively overweight, very sick and much closer to death.

Eating healthy takes more time, more effort and more money than eating poorly does.

Unfortunately, most Americans are content to chow down on foods that are quick to make and that taste good.

In particular, Americans are absolutely addicted to foods that are loaded with sugar and high fructose corn syrup.

When you start looking at food product labels, you will find that either sugar or high fructose corn syrup is in almost everything.

For example, I was absolutely amazed when I learned that most bread sold in our grocery stores contains high fructose corn syrup.

Why in the world would they need to put that into our bread?

Today, Americans are consuming far more sugar and high fructose corn syrup than ever before, and this has many health professionals very alarmed. The following is an excerpt from an article on the website of the Mayo Clinic….

Some research studies have linked consumption of large amounts of any type of added sugar — not just high-fructose corn syrup — to such health problems as weight gain, dental cavities, poor nutrition, and increased triglyceride levels, which can boost your heart attack risk.

But it is not just sweeteners that are a concern.

There are great concerns about much of the meat that we eat as well.

Today, we grow animals much larger than we used to, but it comes at a price.

For example, we pump our cows full of growth hormones and they stand around in piles of their own manure until it is time for them to die.

If many Americans were aware of where the “cheap beef” in their grocery stores really comes from they might just change their eating habits.

Another dramatic change that has happened to our food supply in recent decades has been the rise of genetically modified crops.

In this area, there has been nothing short of a revolution.

In 1996, only about 2% of all soybeans in the United States were genetically modified. Today, about 90% of all soybeans in the United States are genetically modified.

At this point, approximately 70% of all processed foods in our grocery stores contain at least one ingredient that has been genetically modified.

This is one reason why so many Americans have shifted to an organic diet. Nobody really knows what the long-term health effects of eating all of this genetically-modified food will be on all of us.

But there are some things that we do know.

For example, if you drink large amounts of soda every day you are going to gain weight and you are likely to damage your health.

Sadly, even though we know this, the average American still consumes over 600 12-ounce servings of soda per year.

Is it any wonder that we have an obesity epidemic in America?

As I wrote about the other day, approximately 36 percent of all Americans are obese.

In fact, the United States has a higher percentage of obese people than any other major industrialized nation does.

All of this obesity helps to explain the dramatic rise that we have seen in diseases such as cancer, heart disease and diabetes in recent years.

Did you know that people living in the United States are three times more likely to have diabetes than people living in the United Kingdom?

It is not a mystery why this is happening.

It is because of our unhealthy diets.

The food we eat is killing us.

We are a nation that is becoming a little less healthy every single day, and this is causing healthcare costs to completely spiral out of control.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3%.

That is an incredible rise.

And health care costs have been rising much faster than the overall rate of inflation.

For example, health insurance premiums have risen three times faster than wages have in the United States over the past decade.

As Americans get sicker, health care will continue to be a “growth industry”.

When we all get sick, what do the doctors do?

They put us all on prescription drugs.

According to the CDC, the percentage of Americans that report that they have taken at least one prescription drug within the last 30 days has risen to almost 50 percent.

In fact, 31 percent of Americans say that they have taken at least two prescription drugs within the last 30 days and 11 percent have taken at least five prescription drugs within the last 30 days.

But what happens when you take prescription drugs?

Well, most of them have nasty little side effects that cause even more health problems.

You know, there is something to be said for going back to a much more natural approach to health. For example, a recent study found that Amish children have very low levels of asthma and allergies. The following is from a recent Reuters article….

Amish children raised on rural farms in northern Indiana suffer from asthma and allergies less often even than Swiss farm kids, a group known to be relatively free from allergies, according to a new study.

“The rates are very, very low,” said Dr. Mark Holbreich, the study’s lead author. “So there’s something that we feel is even more protective in the Amish” than in European farming communities.

What it is about growing up on farms — and Amish farms in particular — that seems to prevent allergies remains unclear.

Could the Amish teach the rest of us a thing or two about staying healthy?

That is something to think about.

Another aspect of all this is the packaging that our food comes in.

Chemicals from the packaging our food comes in can often get into our food and have serious health effects as an article by Emily Barrett recently described….

Increasingly, evidence shows that the plastics and wrappers used for packaging can inadvertently leach unwanted chemicals into food. Several recent studies found high levels of bisphenol A – an environmental chemical that can disrupt hormonal processes – in canned foods and in packaged foods for people and pets.

Now, another study suggests that the problems go far beyond just one culprit or one health effect. Among the many toxic chemicals that can migrate from packaging into food are the endocrine disrupting phthalates and organotins and the carcinogen benzophenone. These compounds are heavily used in food packaging and have known health effects, yet are not routinely tested or regulated in food, according to the paper’s author Jane Muncke.*

Although some regulations exist to guarantee safe food packaging, the current system does not address concerns posed by endocrine disrupting chemicals, Muncke explains.* The associated health effects of exposure to hormone altering compounds are many and varied, including immune disfunction, metabolic disorders (diabetes, thyroid) and reproductive problems.

But our story is still not over.

After we are done with our food we throw the packaging in the garbage and most Americans never even think about where it eventually ends up.

Unfortunately, much of it ends up out in the ocean.

In the Pacific Ocean today, there is a toxic stew of plastic and garbage about twice the size of the continental United States that is known as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”.

According to a BBC report, there are now 100 times more small plastic fragments in the northeast Pacific Ocean than 40 years ago.

But most of us never even stop and think about how the food we eat is destroying our bodies and the world around us.

Most of us just go through our daily lives assuming that somehow everything is going to be okay.

But the truth is that our food is causing major problems.

Sadly, with each passing year the federal government and the big corporations get even more control over our system of food distribution.

Hopefully more Americans will wake up and will start rejecting the “food” that the system wants to cram down our throats.

We all need to start making better choices.

Growing a garden, eating organic foods and supporting local farmers are some good places to start.

Published at The Econimic Collapse May 10, 2012.

FAIR USE NOTICE:This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml

Neotame is officially marketed as an inexpensive artificial sweetener made by NutraSweet, which is a former division of Monsanto and original manufacturer of aspartame.

Eighty percent of all Food and Drug Administration (FDA) complaints pertain to aspartame’s adverse reactions. These reports include: grand mal seizures, brain tumors, blindness and other health-related problems, including deaths. Monsanto’s Nick Rosa stated in 1998, that Neotame is “based on the aspartame formula.”

It is up to 13,000 times sweeter than sucrose (table sugar). The product is very attractive to food manufacturers, as its use greatly lowers the cost of production compared to using sugar or high fructose corn syrup (due to the lower quantities needed to achieve the same sweetening).

Neotame is aspartame plus 3-di-methylbutyl, which can be found on the EPA’s list of most hazardous chemicals. The aspartame formula is comprised of Phenylalanine [50%], which caused seizures in lab animals and Aspartic Acid [40%], which caused “holes in the brains” of lab animals — bonded by Methyl Alcohol, or Methanol [10%] which is capable of causing blindness, liver damage and death.

Methanol, or wood alcohol in aspartame breaks down further in heat and in the body, into Formaldehyde (embalming fluid), Formic Acid (venom in ant stings) and the most deadly of all — Diketopiperazine (DKP), a brain tumor agent.

When it comes to human health, neotame is in the same dangerous category as aspartame, but it is a deadlier neurotoxin, immunotoxin and excitotoxin. The long-term effects are essentially cell-death.

Even Monsanto’s own pre-approval studies of Neotame revealed adverse reactions. Unfortunately, Monsanto only conducted a few one-day studies in humans rather than encouraging independent researchers to obtain NIH funding to conduct long-term human studies on the effects of neotame.

There were NO independent studies that found Neotame to be safe. All industry-funded studies are now being found to be based on very poorly designed, deceptive and fraudulent research.

This is no surprise given all of the problems with aspartame industry research and scientific abuse. It is clear that any neotame research that Monsanto, industry groups, or consultants of Monsanto should be rejected until which time more trustworthy, independent research can be conducted. Such experiments should include independent animals studies and especially long-term (e.g., 4-5 years+) human studies in various susceptible population groups.

Approval and Labeling
Neotame was approved by the FDA for general use in July 2002, and has now been approved by the EU. It is also is approved for use in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

The FDA loosened all labeling requirements for Neotame as part of a large-scale effort to make it a near-ubiquitous artificial sweetener, to be found on the tabletop, in all prepared foods, even in organics. It simply does not have to be included in the ingredient list. How’s that for stealth?

If you purchase processed foods, whether USDA Certified Organic or not, that food may likely contain Neotame because it is cost-effective, and since no one knows it is there, there is no public backlash.

The USDA states that their National Organic Program (NOP) does not permit the use of Neotame in products labeled certified organic, however this is likely a deceptive ploy to soothe the public’s concerns about this toxic sweetener.

Since the USDA is controlled by politicians and lobbyists, it cannot be trusted to follow through to protect any of its regulatory policies. The NOP is a division within the USDA in charge of regulating the USDA Certified Organic products, labeling, enforcement etc. Considering the size of this division in comparison to the amount of organic food they regulate, NOP standards are arguably as lax and useless as USDA’s conventional foods. The employees that enforce NOP standards know this very well.

Bottom Line: Don’t trust USDA organic foods and confide in local farms with reputable practices.

Where Do We Go From Here?
Due to corporate greed, it is becoming quite apparent that the entire food supply is becoming one toxic wasteland that none of us can rely on. We need to support local farms and move our sustenance back to sustainable farming practices that benefit the population rather than harm it.

If you’re still consuming processed foods with artificial sweeteners, you are gambling with your long-term well being. There are no corporations that serve agribusiness that can be trusted to safeguard public health, and the regulatory agencies that are officially in charge of that mandate are in bed with them. Where does that leave the safety of the food industry? I think you can figure that one out.

[I’ve always known that the FDA is a crooked outfit, and this is just more ammunition to prove it. Alan Babin]

Henry Kissinger said they need to reduce the world population to ½ Billion. He said “The wars have not killed enough people, and AIDS has not killed enough people, but we have a trick up our sleeves, and we will get it done.”

Written by Marco Torres for DiseasePrevention.com, March 16, 2012.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml

Despite the dismissive stand of aspartame producers that aspartame is safe for human consumption, various studies over the years have shown that aspartame is actually linked to headaches, migraines, dizziness, tumors and even cancer. The U.S. FDA made public 92 symptoms attributed to aspartame from submitted complaints. Despite its questionable effect, aspartame was approved for use in 1981 and still continues to be so today. Ironically, aspartame was never tested in humans before its approval. Its use in over 6,000 products and by 250 million people has made the public its unwitting guinea pig in a grand experiment 40 years in the making.

Key to health: Low-Sugar, not sugar-free

Stocking up on diet foods is the best way to gain weight. Latest research on aspartame has revealed that it actually increases the risk of weight gain. Being 200 times sweeter than sugar, aspartame appears to be the perfect answer to dieting since it contains only a few calories while still having the sweet taste of sugar. Unfortunately, phenylalanine and aspartic acid, major components of aspartame, trigger the release of insulin and leptins. The latter are hormones that stimulate storage of body fat.

Moreover, large doses of phenylalanine lower serotonin levels and lead to food cravings. Since both real and artificial sweeteners stimulate the taste buds, they affect the same taste and pleasure pathways in the brain. Artificial sweeteners, however, merely activate but do not satiate the pleasure-related region of the brain, proving to be an inferior system in preventing sugar cravings. In the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, researcher Qing Yang – a faculty at the Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology – published findings that revealed artificial sweeteners more likely to cause weight gain than weight loss.

This is over and above the fact that aspartame is also highly addictive. The phenylalanine and methanol components increase the dopamine levels in the brain and cause a certain high. This further creates an addiction that is only made worse by the release of methyl alcohol or methanol, which is considered a narcotic. Keeping this in mind, it’s time we reconsider the “health benefits” aspartame is supposed to give.

Products containing aspartame

The following are well-known products that use aspartame:

• Diet sodas

• Yogurts

• Chewing gum

• Cooking sauces

• Crisps

• Tabletop sweeteners

• Drink powders

• Flavored water

• Sugar-free products

• Cereals

The above mentioned popular products are just a few of many that contain aspartame. Despite the rising reports of aspartame’s toxicity, a re-investigation by the FDA as well as of key regulatory bodies worldwide doesn’t seem to be coming anytime soon. We can only protect ourselves by making a conscious choice to check the label of every product we buy at the grocery store.

If you have complaints regarding aspartame, don’t be shy in making your complaint known. The last thing you want to be is a face in a crowd lining up before a government office that doesn’t have your interest at heart.

Written by Aurora Geib for NaturalNews.com, March 4, 2012.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml

Can aspartame be addictive?

Yes, according to Dr. Betty Martini, popular anti-aspartame advocate. She explains that it is an “addictive, exitoneurotic, carcinogenic, genetically engineered drug and adjuvant that damages the mitochondria.” Moreover, Dr. Janet Hall, another famous advocate against aspartame, shares on her website that all artificial sweeteners create an artificial need for more sweetness. She goes on to add that forced sweetness, being a class of altered food, is a trap that cause people to become addicted to sweeter tasting food with no nutritional value.

Recent studies have shown that aspartame is addictive because it affects the absorption of dopamine in the brain.

Side Effects of Aspartame

Aspartame is made up of 3 components: phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol. Understanding the effects of aspartame will require us to look into its genetic make up.

In its website, manufacturers of aspartame continue to assure the public that low-calorie sweeteners are effective for weight reduction, weight maintenance, reduction of tooth decay, management of diabetes and reduction of risks associated with obesity. They claim that consumers of low-calorie, sugar-free beverages were able to incorporate these products into a healthy lifestyle not because they need to manage their weight (since a majority of people use low-calorie foods and beverages for reasons other than dieting) but because use of low-calorie products is part of a healthy lifestyle.

Despite the benefits cited in the aspartame website, independent studies have been shown that aspartame is not as safe as it appears to be. In a recent study conducted by researchers from the University Of Miami Miller School Of Medicine and at Columbia University Medical Center, it was discovered that those who drank diet soft drinks on a daily basis were more likely to contract vascular diseases compared to those who took none.

Supporters of aspartame insist that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are found in many foods. What they have conveniently left out, however, is that the said neurotoxins are harmless only when consumed with other nutrients like fats, amino acids (protein) and carbohydrates. On their own, they are absorbed by the nervous system in large concentrations causing the stimulation of brain neurons and cell death. Symptoms of the conditions include headaches, confusion, balance problems and seizures.

Methanol, on the other hand, is also a highly toxic substance. It is released in the small intestine gradually with the assistance of chymotrypsin and then broken down into formaldehyde: a chemical used for embalming which is a carcinogen that causes birth defects, retinal damage and DNA replication.

Again, supporters of aspartame insist that methanol is safe because it is found in vegetables and fruit juices. What they neglect to mention, however, is that methanol in vegetables and fruit juices is bound with pectin and the body does not possess the digestive enzyme to break down pectin and release ethanol into the body. Furthermore, ethanol, the methanol toxicity antidote, is found in natural sources of methanol, inhibiting the metabolism of methanol and giving the body sufficient time, through the lungs and kidneys, to clear it. Methanol found in aspartame is easily absorbed because it is in a free form.

Aspartic acid, methanol and phenylalanine and their breakdown in the body are cumulative because of their fast absorption and slow excretion.

In 1984, studies conducted revealed that the toxicity of NutraSweet (aspartame) to living organisms. The State of Arizona arrived at findings which showed that aspartame in carbonated drinks can break down into free methanol in temperatures of 99 degrees Fahrenheit. On May 13, 1998, the University of Barcelona also arrived at results revealing that aspartame was transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living creatures, and on later examination formaldehyde had spread through the vital parts of the body.

“Artificial sweetener disease”

The US Food and Drug Administration has received reports of 92 medical health problems resulting from aspartame, ranging from abdominal pain to migraines, dizziness and hives. Aspartame poisoning is often misdiagnosed because its symptoms mock other syndromes. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, lowering or blocking levels of hormones like dopamine and tyrosine that are necessary for bodily function.

Since aspartame cannot be detected through lab tests and x-rays, these diseases and disorders may actually be a toxic load. Below are some specific health conditions that are associated with aspartame you might want to recall next time you open a can of diet soda:

1. Cancer – The Ramazzine Foundation, a European Cancer Research Center, conducted a study on aspartame which revealed that aspartame increases the risk of cancers (lymphoma, leukemia and breast cancers). Despite the National Cancer Institute’s stand that no such connection was ever firmly established between aspartame and cancer, it might well be worth thinking that what is harmful to rats is also harmful to humans. Moreover, the dismissive stand of regulatory bodies concerning aspartame is merely based on the absence of data that can conclusively support such a connection and NOT on a finding that establishes that aspartame does not cause cancer.

2. Mental disorders and degeneration of brain cells – Excessive ingestion of artificial sweeteners, according to researchers from the University of Praetoria and the University of Limpopo, may lead to various mental disorders and the degeneration of the brain. Publishing in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers noted that aspartame appeared to cause excessive signals, damage and even death to nerve cells. Since aspartame disrupts the functioning of the cell’s energy source, it will lead to a cascade of effects on the whole system.

3. Headaches - As early as 1994, a study conducted published on PubMed.gov showed that ingestion of aspartame was associated with headaches. Subjects in the study revealed that they experienced headaches 33 percent of the time when taking aspartame compared to 24 percent when on placebo treatment. Moreover, Dr. Robert Milne and Blake More in their book “Headaches” report that headaches are the most reported side effect given by those who take products containing aspartame. They add that in a University of Parkinson’s at Florida study, it was found out that the incidences of migraines doubled for a majority of test subjects who took aspartame. Their headaches lasted longer and were marked by significant signs of shakiness and diminished vision.

4. Weight gain and increased blood sugar – Aspartame is not a healthy alternative for diabetics or those wanting to lose weight. Contrary to popular belief, a recent study has shown that regular consumption of diet soft drinks is strongly connected with abdominal obesity and that aspartame can increase blood sugar. Researchers from the University of Texas Health Center San Antonio reported in a study that, as a group, 70 percent of those who drank diet soft drinks gained weight as opposed to those who did not. Moreover, those who drank 2 or more diet sodas regularly experienced an increase in their waist circumference by 500 percent more than those who did not drink them.

In another related study that analyzed a possible relationship between intake of aspartame and fasting glucose and insulin levels among 40 diabetes-prone mice, one of the researchers in the study, Dr. Gabriel Fernandes, revealed that heavy aspartame exposure might potentially contribute to the associations noticed between soda consumption and the risk of diabetes in humans.

The above health conditions are just some of the 92 reported medical health problems reportedly associated with aspartame. Despite the stand of aspartame manufacturers that their product has been declared safe for human consumption, it is still strange that there are still reports from sectors who do not stand to benefit from such declarations that aspartame is not safe. Prudence would dictate that avoiding a product may be better in the long run than to discover firsthand that all that was said about it was true. Why? Because you happen to be living proof of it.

How to protect yourself

To keep yourself safe from contracting “artificial sweetener syndrome,” it is suggested that you stop taking all products containing this chemical.

If you have brought or stocked up on products containing aspartame, you can arrange to return the products so you can get a refund of your money. If you feel that you may need professional help in getting over the disease, please see your doctor as soon as possible. Take a proactive approach to being healthy.

Finally, for those taking aspartame simply because they want to observe a healthy diet, replace your aspartame habit with real sugar. Although it may have more calories, it offers a far better solution than being poisoned. Those who want to manage their weight problems are advised to seek a healthier course of action like eating more whole foods, vegetables and fruits and getting regular exercise. True and sustainable weight loss cannot be achieved through a quick fix without a change in lifestyle. Set a personal example to be healthy and watch yourself regain your life.

Written by Aurora Geib for NaturalNews.com, March 2, 2012.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml

The findings cannot prove that radiation from the imaging caused the tumors, and the results are based on people who were likely exposed to higher levels of radiation during dental X-rays than most are today.

“It’s likely that the exposure association we’re seeing here is past exposure, and past exposure levels were much higher,” said Dr. Elizabeth Claus, the study’s lead author and a professor at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut.

Claus and her colleagues write in the journal Cancer that dental X-rays are the most common source of exposure to ionizing radiation — which has been linked to meningiomas in the past — but most research on the connection is based on people who were exposed to atomic bombs or received radiation therapy.

There have been some studies that looked at dental X-rays, but they were from years ago and included fewer people than the current study, Claus noted. Still, they were generally in agreement with the new findings.

For her study, Claus’ team recruited 1,433 people diagnosed with intracranial meningioma — a tumor that forms in the tissues lining the brain — between May 2006 and April 2011. All of the participants were diagnosed when they were between 20 and 79 years old and they were all from Connecticut, Massachusetts, North Carolina or the Houston or San Francisco Bay areas.

A volunteer dentist holds up a tooth x-ray at the Remote Area Medical clinic in Los Angeles, April 29, 2010. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

For comparison, the researchers also followed 1,350 people who were similar in age, sex and state of residence as the study group, but who had not been diagnosed with a tumor.
The study looked at how often people had three different types of dental X-rays. They included a focused image of one area, a number of images of the full mouth and a single panoramic view of the entire mouth. These are known in dentistry parlance as bitewing, full-mouth and panorex films, respectively.

Each person was interviewed by someone trained to administer a questionnaire that asked about demographic details, family history of cancer, pregnancy and medical history. The interviewers also asked — among other things — about the person’s history of dental work and the number of times they had the three types of dental x-rays taken throughout their life.

The researchers found that those diagnosed with meningiomas were more than twice as likely as the comparison group to report ever having had bitewing images taken.
And regardless of the age when the bitewings were taken, those who had them yearly or more frequently were at between 40 percent and 90 percent higher risk at all ages to be diagnosed with a brain tumor.

To put that in perspective, Dr. Paul Pharoah, a cancer researcher at the University of Cambridge said in a statement the results would mean an increase in lifetime risk of intracranial meningioma in the U.K. from 15 out of every 10,000 people to 22 in 10,000 people.

Panoramic X-rays taken at a young age, especially if done yearly or more often before age 10, also raised the risk of meningiomas by up to five times.

There was no association between full-mouth X-rays and the tumors, although the authors note they saw a trend similar to that seen for the bitewing X-rays.

The lack of association with full-mouth X-rays led one expert to question the connection.
“They found a small risk (from) a pair of bitewings, but not a full mouth series, which is multiple bitewings. That inconsistency is impossible to understand to me,” said Dr. Alan Lurie, president of the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology.

Lurie also echoed Claus’ caution that radiation levels from dental X-rays when some of the participants were younger was much greater than is used now.

He does warn, however, patients shouldn’t assume it’s fine for the dentist to take X-rays.
“They should ask why are (dentists) taking this image and what is the benefit to me,” he said.

The American Dental Association put out a statement in response to the study noting that the interviews relied on participants’ memories of how often they had different types of X-rays years earlier.

The statement added, “The ADA’s long-standing position is that dentists should order dental X-rays for patients only when necessary for diagnosis and treatment. Since 1989, the ADA has published recommendations to help dentists ensure that radiation exposure is as low as reasonably achievable.”

Dr. Sanjay Mallya, an assistant professor the UCLA School of Dentistry in Los Angeles, said that patients should be concerned whenever they are exposed to radiation, but “it’s important to emphasize that this concern should not mean that we shouldn’t get X-rays at all.”

According to the researchers, “while dental X-rays are an important tool in well selected patients, efforts to moderate exposure to (ionizing radiation) to the head is likely to be of benefit to patients and health care providers alike.”

Published at FoxNews.com, April 10, 2012.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/17/107. shtml

The following are 18 crazy facts which show that no nation on earth is more doped up on prescription drugs than America is….

#1 According to the CDC, the percentage of Americans that say that they have taken a prescription drug within the last month has risen to almost 50 percent.

#2 The percentage of Americans that say that they have taken two or more prescription drugs within the last month has risen to 31 percent, and the percentage of Americans that say that they have taken five or more prescription drugs within the last month has risen to 11 percent.

#3 If you can believe it, the CDC also says that approximately 9 out of every 10 Americans that are at least 60 years of age say that they have taken at least one prescription drug within the last month.

#4 According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 25 percent of all kids and teens in the United States take prescription drugs on a regular basis.

#5 One brand new study has found that more than 20 percent of all American adults are taking at least one drug for “psychiatric” or “behavioral” disorders.

#6 A recent Government Accountability Office report shockingly discovered that approximately one-third of all foster children in the United States are on at least one psychiatric drug.

In fact, the report found that many states seem to be doping up foster children as a matter of course. Just check out these stunning statistics….

In Texas, foster children were 53 times more likely to be prescribed five or more psychiatric medications at the same time than non-foster children. In Massachusetts, they were 19 times more likely. In Michigan, the number was 15 times. It was 13 times in Oregon. And in Florida, foster children were nearly four times as likely to be given five or more psychotropic medications at the same time compared to non-foster children.

#7 The percentage of women taking antidepressants in America is higher than in any other country in the world.

#8 Children in the United States are three times more likely to be prescribed antidepressants than children in Europe are.

#9 The total number of Americans taking antidepressants doubled between 1996 and 2005.

#10 According to the CDC, approximately three quarters of a million people a year are rushed to emergency rooms in the United States because of adverse reactions to pharmaceutical drugs.

#11 It has been reported that approximately 200,000 Americans a year are killed by prescription drugs.

#12 According to the Los Angeles Times, drug deaths (mostly caused by prescription drugs) are climbing at an astounding rate….

Drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, years for which more detailed data are available. Deaths more than tripled among people aged 50 to 69, the Times analysis found. In terms of sheer numbers, the death toll is highest among people in their 40s.

#13 According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 36 million Americans have abused prescription drugs at some point in their lives.

#14 A survey conducted for the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that more than 15 percent of all U.S. high school seniors abuse prescription drugs.

#15 The CDC says that spending on prescription drugs more than doubled between 1999 and 2008.

#16 Prescription drugs cost about 50% more in the United States than they do in other countries.

#17 Each year, tens of billions of dollars is spent on pharmaceutical marketing in the United States alone.

#18 There were more than two dozen pharmaceutical companies that made over a billion dollars in profits during 2008.

But of course prescription drugs are only part of the reason why most of us in America walk around like a bunch of zombies.

Sadly, many of us are addicted to other kinds of drugs as well….

• The United States has the highest rate of illegal drug use on the entire planet.

• According to a recent Gallup poll, alcohol consumption in the United States has hit a 25 year high.

• In this country, many of us are also highly addicted to entertainment. In fact, the United States is tied with the U.K. for the most hours of television watched per person each week.

So if it seems like many of us in America can’t think real clearly, now you know why.

A song by Chris Rene that was been viewed more than 9 million times on YouTube asks this question….

“Hey, young homie what you trippin’ on?”

Well, it turns out that almost everyone in America is “trippin” on something.

We have become a nation of addicts.

Instead of stepping up and dealing with life, many of us would rather just “check out” and find something that will make us “feel better” right away.

The saddest thing of all is what we are doing to our children. We are raising an entire generation that just thinks that it is “normal” to be doped up on prescription drugs.

Yes, a lot of people are becoming very wealthy by peddling all of this junk, but at what cost?

As noted earlier, every single year prescription drug use in America increases. At what point will we become so doped up that we won’t even be able to function properly as a nation any longer?

Published on End of the American Drewam, December 5, 2011.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Irritability and aggression can now be added to the long list of ill effects that have previously been linked to unsaturated fat consumption, like increased risk for coronary heart disease, obesity, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, liver dysfunction, infertility in women and major depressive disorder.

Fast foods are high in trans fat.

Researchers at University of California in San Diego analyzed surveys from 945 men and women about their history of aggression, conflict tactics, self-rated impatience, irritability, and overt aggression and adjusted for other factors such as sex, age, education, and use of alcohol or tobacco products.

They found that greater consumption of trans fatty acids were significantly associated with greater aggression, and that the level of unsaturated fat consumption was “consistently predictive of aggression and irritability, across the measures tested, than the other known aggression predictors that were assessed,” said lead researcher Dr. Beatrice Golomb, associate professor in the UC San Diego Department of Medicine, in a statement released on Monday.

Dietary unsaturated fats are rare in nature, but are found in many processed products of hydrogenation, and are solid at room temperature. They are found in high level in margarines, shortenings for frying and packaged and prepared foods like fast and snack foods.
Like us on Facebook

Adverse health effects of these fats have been found in lipid levels, metabolic function, insulin resistance, oxidation, inflammation, and cardiac health.

Photo: Lucy Nicholson/Reuters Trans fats are used in shortenings for deep-frying in restaurants, as they can be used for longer than most conventional oils before becoming rancid. In the early 21st century, non-hydrogenated vegetable oils that have lifespans exceeding that of the frying shortenings became available. As fast-food chains routinely use different fats in different locations, trans fat levels in fast food can have large variations.

The new study, published online in PLoS ONE, was the first that linked dTFAs with adverse behaviors that may impact others, and researchers said that the latest findings add to the list of reasons why these fats should be avoided.

“If the association between trans fats and aggressive behavior proves to be causal, this adds further rationale to recommendations to avoid eating trans fats, or including them in foods provided at institutions like schools and prisons, since the detrimental effects of trans fats may extend beyond the person who consumes them to affect others,” Golomb said.

In 2002,a panel of experts from the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the only safe intake of trans fat is ‘zero,’ and because it would be impractical for people to eliminate all trans fat from their diet, the panel recommended that people consume as little of it as possible.

The panel’s advice was supported by a 2006 New England Journal of Medicine scientific review that said “from a nutritional standpoint, the consumption of trans fatty acids results in considerable potential harm but no apparent benefit.”

The FDA issued a labeling rule requiring all manufacturers to list trans fat on the Nutrition Facts panel of foods and some dietary supplements, which became effective at the start of 2008.

Written by Christine Hsu and published by Medicaldaily.com, March 13, 2012.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

The metal already has a wide range of medicinal uses and is a common antiseptic, antibiotic and means of purifying water in the third world.

And British researchers now say that silver compounds are as effective at killing certain cancer cells as a leading chemotherapy drug, but with potentially far fewer side-effects.

They compared it to Cisplatin, currently used to treat a wide variety of cancers, but known to have harsh side effects including nausea, vomiting and even kidney damage.

Silver is used already in everyday products such as deodorant with no known side-effects, and could make for a potentially cheaper alternative to platinum-based Cisplatin.

Good news: Silver can kill some cancers as effectively as chemotherapy and with potentially fewer side effects, new research has claimed.

Researchers from the University of Leeds conducted lab tests which exposed breast and colon cancer cells to various silver-based chemicals over a six day period.

Results, published in journal Dalton Transactions, showed that these silver-compounds were ‘as effective as Cisplatin’ at killing cancer with potentially fewer side effects.

While the team are still unsure about how exactly silver battles cancer, they think its effectiveness may be caused by the structure surrounding silver atoms, known as its ligand.

They think this may help release the silver ion into cells when it enters the body, killing any cancer.

Study author Dr Charlotte Willans plans to spend the next year looking closely at what effect silver has on both cancerous and healthy cells, and whether it could be a safe and effective new anti-cancer drug.

She said: ‘It’s certainly an exciting discovery, although I think we have a lot of work to do in the future. It opens the doors in terms of what we can do and investigate.

‘Getting these results also gives us the opportunity we need to apply for funding to take the research further.

‘This could lead to a cheaper, less toxic alternative to current treatments for cancer.’

Explaining the research in greater detail, Dr Willans added: ‘As many are unfortunately aware, chemotherapy can be a very gruelling experience for the patient.

‘Finding effective, yet non-toxic drugs is an ongoing problem, but these preliminary results are an important step in solving it.

‘Our research has looked at the structure which surrounds a central silver atom. This “shrubbery” is what determines how reactive it is and what it will interact with.

‘Our research has used different types of these ligands to see which is the most effective against cancer cells.’

Written by Anthony Bond and published by The MailOnLine, February 2, 2012.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Insider smashes medicine’s big taboo.: From the Mail’s GP, a deeply provocative confession…

Should I discover tomorrow that I have advanced, life-threatening cancer, I won’t go rushing to the doctors for a heavily invasive course of medical treatment. No, I will shut up my London surgery, head to my home in Norfolk, stock up on gin and tonic and have a jolly good time until I meet my end.

Like most doctors, I understand that much of the care we offer patients who have serious, life-threatening illnesses is ultimately futile.

Worse, it can involve many months of gruelling treatments that might possibly extend the length of one’s life, but do nothing for its quality.

But while we give that care to patients, the vast majority of doctors I know would not want this for themselves. Yet this fact has long been taboo in the medical world. The silence has been shattered by Ken Murray, professor of family medicine at the University of Southern California.

He hit the headlines worldwide last month after publishing an essay in the online magazine Zocalo Public Square, which argues that most practising doctors would not put themselves through ‘life-saving’ interventions that are big on promises, but small on success, and involve great pain and distress.

The doctors won’t tell this to their patients, though. Instead, they encourage them to take the treatments.

Why is this so? Years of practising medicine make doctors realistic about their chances, and they know that having illnesses such as advanced pancreactic cancer means there’s only a tiny chance of survival.

But most people — patients and their relatives — have hugely unrealistic expectations about what modern medicine can do to help those with life-threatening illnesses.

With pancreatic cancer, for example, which is often diagnosed late, the average length of time between diagnosis and death is usually less than six months.

If I had the disease, I would not attempt any of the treatments for it, such as chemotherapy, because it can be gruelling and misery-making, and the success rate is extremely low. I would rather have painkilling palliative care, which can do great things in helping to make you feel comfortable while you are dying.

The vast majority of doctors would know it was time to throw in the towel if they were told by a specialist that they had advanced, aggressive cancer, and that their treatment could, at best, improve their chances of surviving for five years by five per cent.

I can think of only one doctor among all my medical acquaintances who has had cancer and fought it with medicine all the way to their death.

Medics’ scepticism about the worth of their own ‘lifesaving’ interventions has long been suspected. In one poll, around half of German specialists admitted that they would not undergo the operations they recommended to their patients.
Dr Eckart Fiedler, of the German health insurance company Barmer Ersatzkasse, said the 1996 survey showed that doctors felt many patients would be better off foregoing operations and instead taking their chances without the surgeon’s knife.

In similar fashion, a survey of nurses at a Massachusetts hospital found that nearly half of them would refuse treatment if they developed a serious illness at the age of 85 after having been in good health.

Doctors who hear bad news about themselves will walk away and concentrate on enjoying what is left of their lives. But people who aren’t in the know will often decide that they could be the one patient who has the therapy and gets cured.

Not long ago, someone I was close to developed unusual symptoms of breathlessness while we were on holiday together. When we got home, she was X-rayed and found to have a lung filled with liquid. It was lung cancer.

That was in the month of August. She died the following April. She tried one session of chemotherapy and declared that she was not going to go through that any more. The specialists said that if she undertook the chemotherapy, it was likely to add, on average, two months to her life.

My friend could not see the point of going through several months of chemo-induced sickness in order to have two months more chemo-induced sickness. Instead, she tried to enjoy her remaining life without having to suffer from medical interventions.

Her death was as good as it could be, given what was happening to her. She quietly slid away.

But among most patients, there are hugely raised expectations of what doctors can do.

‘Often, the patients themselves would like their treatment stopped, but feel they can’t say this because of the pressure from relatives to keep fighting’
For example, the actual success rate of resuscitation among people who have had full cardiac arrests is only two per cent, and the resuscitation process itself is often brutal and distressing.

But the effect of hospital dramas such as Holby City is to make most people think it is magically successful and that patients can walk away within minutes, fully recovered.

‘Of course doctors don’t want to die — they want to live,’ wrote Dr Murray. ‘But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits … They want to be sure that they will never experience, during their last moments on Earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that’s what happens if CPR is done correctly).

‘Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.

‘If a patient suffers from severe illness, old age or a terminal disease, the odds of a good outcome from CPR are infinitesimal, while the odds of suffering are overwhelming.

Almost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people,’ Murray continued. ‘That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life.

‘The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines and assaulted with drugs. I cannot count the number of times that physicians have told me: “Promise me, if you find me like this, you’ll kill me.” ’

The problem of overtreatment is most intense when young people are suffering from very serious illnesses. You get their wives, mothers and other relatives fighting all the way and demanding the doctors do ‘all that they can’.

But often, those relatives are fighting for their own sakes rather than the good of the patient. They can’t bear the thought of the loved one dying, so they blind themselves to the futile trauma they are putting them through.

Often, the patients themselves would like their treatment stopped, but feel they can’t say this because of the pressure from relatives to keep fighting. So they end up doing everything they can to stay alive, in order to keep everyone happy.
In this, they are assisted by medical specialists, whose reflex response is to give one more last dose of drugs or radiation just in case it somehow does do the trick, no matter how unlikely.

One case I know involves a 91-year-old man who has been completely demented and bed-ridden for four years. Every time he gets a temperature, I think: ‘Oh, thank God,’ and hope that he will die quietly and peacefully from pneumonia.
But every time it happens, his 89-year-old wife calls their doctor and gets given antibiotics.

‘I had terminally-ill patients admitted to my hospice who asked me: “When does my treatment begin?” No-one had told them that they were actually dying’

Doctors are not very good at telling people when it is time to throw in the towel. For us, it is like admitting defeat. Our whole training and instincts tell us to keep promising people that we can do something for them.

As Dr Murray says: ‘Doctors play an enabling role here, too. Some are stronger communicators than others.

‘When I faced circumstances involving end-of-life choices, I adopted the approach of laying out only the options that I thought were reasonable. If patients or families still insisted on treatments I considered pointless or harmful, I would offer to transfer their care to another doctor or hospital.’

I ran a hospice for eight years. On several occasions I had terminally-ill patients admitted to the unit who asked me: ‘When does my treatment begin?’ No one had told them that they were actually dying. Their hospital consultants had not wanted to admit that they had let them down.

Yet if people were told straight, then I think they would actually cope better psychologically and even physically.

Last summer I saw a patient who had a immune-system illness that was medically related to lupus. He was only 48 but had suffered heart problems earlier in life and his outlook was very bad.

I sat his 38-year-old wife down and said: ‘You do know that he probably won’t survive this and probably won’t be alive in a year?’ She said that no one had told them that.

Sadly, he died in November, but his wife thanked me for telling them the truth in time. It meant that they did not go on hoping against hope.

Instead, they used their remaining time together as best they could. They even drove to Rome together in a Bentley to make a wish of his come true.

As a profession, doctors are very poor at giving bad news. Specialists, particularly, tend to disappear when it is time to deliver the stark truth. GPs are generally the best at telling patients in a realistic and truthful manner.

‘We need to get much more frank about what is medically possible and what is not’

We should be working towards making this communication better — but I fear that it is instead getting poorer, as we are ever more pressed for time when talking with patients.

But this has to be re-thought, because honest communication is key to addressing people’s unrealistic expectations — and it cannot be done in a hurry.

We also need to get much more frank about what is medically possible and what is not. But that is very difficult when our health service’s ability to achieve things is so often used in Parliament by ministers and MPs to make political points.

The problem may even get worse if the Government’s proposed NHS changes drive a wedge between GPs and their patients.

This is because, under the proposals, GPs will not only be deciding what treatments their patients need, they will also hold the budget for funding their care.

I have already had patients say to me that the only reason I have told them there is no further treatment I can give them is because I want to save money.

It is hard enough to tell someone that there is nothing more you can realistically do to save them. If the proposed changes make patients suspect that you have financial motives, it can only make this most difficult of tasks even more fraught.

Written by Martin Scurr and published by The MailOnLine, February 14, 2012.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml