Don’t let radiation therapy destroy your mouth

Volume 5, Issue 42 October 18, 2012
Don’t let radiation therapy
destroy your mouth
Conventional treatment for cancer of the throat, tongue, or neck is radiation. Everyone knows radiation has side effects. But treating this area with radiation causes real problems. Two of the common side effects are inflammation and ulcers occurring on the inside of the mouth. The technical $10 term for this problem is oral mucositis. Regardless of what you call it, it’s very irritating. The good news is that there’s a safe, easy, natural, and inexpensive way to keep this to a minimum. It’s called glutamine.

Why I call this
"natural body armor"
against inflammatory fires...

Not only does it contain 9 of the best nutrients for taming inflammation, it includes them at levels up to three times higher than other supplements.

Plus, it's the only one to include a remarkable discovery that quenches the fire in every part of your body—so you get fast relief.

Learn More

Glutamine is an amino acid that’s critical in the repair processes of the body. When you have damaged tissue, your body uses glutamine to repair and replace the tissue. Some studies have shown that patients with cancer are frequently deficient in glutamine. They just can’t get enough. I find that this is almost always the case. So I routinely supplement my patients with glutamine. It helps them maintain their weight and heal faster. It makes sense that it might aid the body to repair the damage that happens to the mouth and gums during radiation therapy. Researchers at the Department of Radiation Oncology at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital in Taiwan looked at 17 patients who were getting radiation therapy in the head and neck area. They told half of the patients to rinse their mouths four times a day with a solution of glutamine. The solution consisted of 16 grams of glutamine in 240 ml of normal saline. They gave the other half a placebo solution.
It turned out that the glutamine solution worked pretty well. The oral mucositis was about half as severe in those who used it. And it also cleared up faster. I wish that the study had also given the patients glutamine to take internally as a supplement. I’m sure it would have been even more effective. Oral glutamine works well all by itself. The usual dose that I give to adults is 4-6 grams per day. Finding your Real Cures,
Frank Shallenberger, MD

REF:
Huang EY, Leung SW, Wang CJ, et al. Oral glutamine to alleviate radiation-induced oral mucositis: a pilot randomized trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2000 Feb 1;46(3):535-9.
Subscribe now to Dr. Shallenberger's Real Cures Newsletter and Get up to 19 Free Reports

Monsanto’s Roundup, Glyphosate Linked to Parkinson’s and Similar Diseases


Monsanto’s Roundup, Glyphosate Linked to Parkinson’s and Similar Diseases

monsantoroundupglyphosate 245x153 Monsanto’s Roundup, Glyphosate Linked to Parkinson’s and Similar DiseasesWe already know the links between herbicides and sterility in men, birth defects, mental illness, obesity and possibly cancer—but now we have something new to add to the nasty effects of pesticides list — Parkinson’s disease and similar neurodegenerative conditions.
New research, published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology, indicates a connection between a component in Monsanto’s Roundup and Parkinson’s disease. Glyphosate is said to induce cell death, with frightening repercussions.
GreenMedInfo.com reports the study was investigating the links between herbicides (weed killers) and brain damage. These chemicals, the study’s authors say, “have been recognized as the main environmental factor associated with neurodegenerative disorders,” like Parkinson’s.
Parkinson’s disease is a degenerative nervous system disease. It slowly progresses as time goes on with common symptoms like tremors, rigidity, difficulty walking, poor posture, lack of movement, and slowness of movement, according to the University of Maryland Medical Center.
The CDC reports Parkinson’s as the 14th leading cause of death in the U.S. In 2010 (the last year for which data is available), there was 4.6% increase in the number of deaths attributed to this disease. One has to wonder if there is a connection between this jump and the ever-growing prevalence of herbicides like Roundup in our air, food, and water.
Studies indicate that glyphosate is toxic to human DNA “at concentrations diluted 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications.” Worded differently—the levels considered safe by our government are 450 times the levels at which glyphosate has been found to damage and destroy human DNA. Yes, it’s that serious.
One case study found a woman who was exposed to glyphosate in the workplace for 3 years at a chemical factory. She wore gloves and a face mask. She was initially a healthy, middle-aged women. But, she developed “rigidity, slowness, and resting tremor in all four limbs.” She was also experiencing severe dizziness, weakness, and blurred vision. And hers isn’t the only such case.
What’s so scary about the growing body of research on Monsanto’s Roundup, its components, and their presence in nearly everything around us, is that the federal government refuses to recognize the risk. Despite a growing concern on an international level, the powers-that-be are seemingly content to turn their eyes while the people demand accountability and safe food.
Until pesticides and herbicides are no longer used on a mass scale, the growth of these diseases will likely continue. Eat 100% organic produce whenever possible to bypass exposure to destructive pesticides and herbicides.


Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-roundup-glyphosate-parkinsons-neurodegenerative/#ixzz2AvuZtJTk

German Physicist Says CO2 Effecting Climate Change is “Sheer Absurdity”


German Physicist Says CO2 Effecting Climate Change is “Sheer Absurdity”


Susanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
May 14, 2012




A paper published in The Holocene shows that 3,200 years ago there were “extraordinary droughts and floods were parts of the [entirely natural] climate variability” in the Northwest region of China. This was during the mid-Holocene Climactic Optimum. It proves that during “safe” Co2 levels, the earth’s climate was erratic; just as it is today.
Modern day meteorologists are increasingly denying supposed evidence of global warming by alarmists. Only 19% of professional meteorologists believe in man-made climate change.
Klaus–Ekart Puls, physicist and meteorologist is one of those doubtful professionals. At the end of 2011, Puls made a presentation on sea levels at the 4th Climate Conference in Munich.
He has come forward to say that the assertion by the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that by regulating CO2, we can “regulate” climate change is “ sheer absurdity ”.
Puls recalls that he used to just parrot whatever the IPCC told him, but when he investigated the facts behind their claims, he discovered there was no scientific data to support that CO2 or humans were the cause of climate change.
Puls said: “One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements.”
According to Puls, climate change is normal as the planet goes through phases of climate warming “many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling”.
The IPCC claims that their projecting models indicate that there will be a 0.2 degrees Celsius warming trend per decade to culminate in 2 to 4 degrees Celsius rise by 2100.
Puls says that this assertion is based on “speculative model projections, so-called scenarios – and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible”.
While the CO2 debate lacks real world data entered into the projection models, the IPCC assumes that global warming is based solely on “speculative amplification mechanisms” which do not take into account actual empirical data.
CO2 levels have risen, and yet, the earth is in a cooling phase.
Puls agrees that sea levels have risen, however “it’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors”.
The IPCC says that the glaciers are melting because of climate change. Puls offers scientific observations that contradict their claims. “. . . the Antarctic ice cap has grown both in area and volume over the last 30 years, and temperature has declined. This 30-year trend is clear to see. The Amundsen Scott Station of the USA shows that temperature has been declining there since 1957. 90% of the Earth’s ice is stored in Antarctica, which is one and half times larger than Europe”.
Puls points out that when climate change alarmists cite the Wilkins-Shelf breaking off, they neglect to mention that this is a segregated area of a peninsula . The area totals less than 1% of the entirety of Antarctica. There are also massive westerly wind storms that plague this area. It is home to some of the most violent storms on the planet.
As the planet goes through cycles, ice sheets break off and reform naturally.
The Arctic ice has been measured to be melting and reforming for the past 30 years. Its lowest point was in 2007, and the sea levels were not severely affected, as climate change alarmists would have us believe.
Puls also notes that the deserts are not expanding, but actually the Sahara has been shrinking as an area the size of Germany has been lost in the Northern parts.
While there was devastating famine in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, the cause was corporation’s usurpation of the land to grow crops for biofuel for Europe. Warring factions for control over land also played a significant role.
When governments and multi-national corporations destroy land, it is convenient to blame global warming on the destruction they cause.
When asked if there is anything we can do about climate change, Puls said: “There’s nothing we can do to stop it. Scientifically it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob. Many confuse environmental protection with climate protection. It’s impossible to protect the climate, but we can protect the environment and our drinking water. On the debate concerning alternative energies, which is sensible, it is often driven by the irrational climate debate. One has nothing to do with the other”.

    Notice: Undefined variable: output in /homepages/10/d394627238/htdocs/wp-

Home remedies from herbal teas and grocery foods dissolve kidney stones and reverse renal failure Wednesday, October 31, 2012 by: JB Bardot

Home remedies from herbal teas and grocery foods dissolve kidney stones and reverse renal failure

Wednesday, October 31, 2012 by: JB Bardot
222
(NaturalNews) Kidney stones develop from waste matter hardening and becoming attached to the inside wall of the kidney. Most kidney stones remain unnoticed until becoming dislodged, getting caught in a ureter or other passageway, while moving through the body during urination. Most diseases of the kidneys remain unnoticed until the problem is severe. You can make a variety of home remedies using herbs and common foods to alleviate a wide range of kidney disorders, including dissolving stones and restoring renal activity.

Lemonade

High in the chemical citrate, the juice of fresh lemons helps dissolve certain types of kidney stones, according Dr. Roger Sur, director of the University of California, San Diego Comprehensive Kidney Stone Center. Drinking lemon water can help you take advantage of the these benefits. Mix four ounces of fresh squeezed lemon juice with two and a half quarts of water. Filtered or spring water is best. To dissolve kidney stones, drink the entire contents of this mixture spread throughout the day, every day.

Apple cider vinegar

Drinking apple cider vinegar adjusts the body's pH and helps to establish an alkaline-forming state in the urine. Uric acid, the chemical responsible for the formation of gout crystals and urate kidney stones cannot crystallize in alkaline urine. Additionally, any existing kidney stones will dissolve in alkaline urine, passing from the body during elimination. Mix two to four tablespoons of apple cider vinegar in eight to 12 ounces of filtered or spring water and drink twice daily to dissolve kidney stones. Cut back on the amount of vinegar if it's too strong, and work to build up to the full amount.

Cranberry juice

An old-time folk remedy, cranberry juice has found its place in the medical world as an effective treatment for both preventing kidney stones and relieving a variety of urinary tract disorders, according to the British Journal of Urology. It is high in nutrients such as anthocyanins, vitamin C, and antioxidants, all known to reduce inflammation. Mix one cup of unsweetened cranberry concentrate with three cups of pure water. Sweeten with honey or stevia and drink spread throughout the day, every day.

Parsley and dandelion

Both parsley and dandelion have exceptional medicinal properties that relieve urinary tract disorders. Both herbs are natural diuretics, stimulating urinary output and flushing the system of waste materials that contribute to the formation of kidney stones. They remove toxins, cleanse the kidneys, dissolve uric acid, and create an alkaline-forming environment in the kidneys and bladder, helping urine maintain a neutral or slightly alkaline pH. Use either herb as tea or chop and add fresh parsley or dandelion greens to salads. You can also throw them into a green smoothie or juice them to obtain their benefits.

Marshmallow root

Marshmallow root is known for treating urethritis and helping to flush kidney stones. It produces mucilage, a thin mucus film that coats the urinary tract as well as the entire digestive tract, protecting the lining from ongoing assaults from toxins. Best taken as an herbal tea.

Buchu

Buchu is used to relive inflammation of the urinary tract and possesses antibacterial properties. As a tea, it helps with treatment of the kidneys, relieves cystitis, and acts as a diuretic. It increases urine production and stimulates excretion. Not advised during pregnancy. This herb should be used only under supervision, as too high a dose can cause kidney irritation.

Chinese rhubarb

Making tea with Chinese rhubarb can reverse end-stage kidney disease and prolong life by slowing down the progression of renal failure. Use the herb only under supervision, as it can cause side effects and needs to be administered under strict dosage guidelines.

Sources for this article include:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/urinary-tract-000169.htm
http://www.drugs.com/npp/buchu.html

About the author:
READ MORE OF JEAN (JB) BARDOT'S ARTICLES HERE: http://www.naturalnews.com/Author1686.html

JB Bardot is trained in herbal medicine and homeopathy, and has a post graduate degree in holistic nutrition. Bardot cares for both people and animals, using alternative approaches to health care and lifestyle. She writes about wellness, green living, alternative medicine, holistic nutrition, homeopathy, herbs and naturopathic medicine. You can find her on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001364941208&ref=tn_tnmn or on Twitter at jbbardot23 https://twitter.com/#!/jbbardot23
Get breaking news alerts on GMOs, fluoride, superfoods, natural cures and more...
Join over four million monthly readers. Email privacy 100% protected. Unsubscribe at any time.

Articles Related to This Article:

Diet soda now promoted as medicine to stop kidney stones (opinion)

Obesity Causes Increased Risk of Kidney Cancer, Kidney Stones, and Stroke

Kidney stones caused by acidic soft drinks; can be reversed with nutrition and herbs such as corn silk

Sports drinks are sometimes better than water, but can also cause kidney stones and osteoporosis

Orange juice is better than lemonade at keeping kidney stones away (press release)

Painful Kidney Stones Becomes a Growing Trend in Kids

Related video from NaturalNews.TV


Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037765_kidney_stones_herbal_teas_home_remedies.html#ixzz2AtYoVYQE

Are your cosmetics giving you diabetes?

October 31, 2012
Are your cosmetics
giving you diabetes?
When you think of “side effects,” you probably think of drugs. I know I do. But it’s time to expand our understanding of what produces side effects. That’s because a new study says your cosmetics might cause some awful “side effects” as well.

In the past, I’ve told you how the bright red color of lipsticks might deliver some heavy lead levels through your skin. Now we discover that a chemical commonly found in cosmetics - phthalates - may induce diabetes in the women who use products containing this chemical.

The Type of Cholesterol
Doctors Often Ignore

Research shows this form of LDL is an even more important indicator of your heart health. Yet most doctors don't check for it... and few natural cholesterol solutions even address it!

Learn More

This study found that women with higher urine levels of specifically measured phthalates were more likely to have diabetes than women at the lowest levels. This is not a definitive study, but it is worrisome. We know that manmade chemicals can act as hormone disruptors, especially for sex hormones, in both sexes. This is the first study to expand the class of chemicals to possibly be a disruptor for a totally different type of hormone - insulin.
The government has taken notice of the damage phthalates cause in the human body. They’ve even taken some measures to regulate use of phthalates. And in 2008, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act banned the use of some phthalates in children’s toys and personal care products. But they haven’t done enough. The Europeans have banned them altogether. We need to follow suit.
If you are a woman and want to get away from chemical-laden products, I suggest that you look into a line of products called Système 41. It’s all natural and quite good for your skin.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Robert J. Rowen, MD
PS. Several weeks ago, I told you about an amazing new book that has powerful cures for your eyes. If you suffer from any eye disease - or want to avoid them - make sure you pick up a copy of Ten Essentials to Save Your Sight by my friend Dr. Ed Kondrot. This book details the key steps to preserving and protecting your precious eye tissues. Even if you have advanced eye disease, Dr. Kondrot details some wonderful healing strategies for you to consider. You can get his book by visiting http://www.healingtheeye.com/book.html or calling 800-430-9328.
Ref: Environmental Health July 13, 2012
Subscribe now to Dr. Rowen's Second Opinion Newsletter and Get up to 11 Free Reports

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Breaking News Alert! Dr. Mercola Attacked by Biotech Bullies


Breaking News Alert! Dr. Mercola Attacked by Biotech Bullies

October 31 2012 | 7,948 views | + Add to Favorites
By Dr. Mercola
We all know that labeling genetically engineered foods is a common sense right that is enjoyed by over 50 other countries, including China, India, and Russia.
But for Americans, that right has been taken away from us. The chemical companies and the junk food companies have done everything possible to hide the truth from Americans for the sake of their profits.
I knew going into this battle, that it would be a significant challenge and risk to me personally. You see, when you fight against major chemical companies like Monsanto, you're sure to get a little dirty along the way.
The processed food and chemical companies have paid over $40 million to hide the science experiment that has secretly ended up on the dinner plates of hundreds of millions of unknowing Americans. These multinational corporations are worried, and will do anything to keep you in the dark.
Keep in mind that the top six funders of "No on 37" are also the six largest pesticide companies in the world! That alone should tell you that their stance has nothing to do with your health and well-being.
This was just one of the ads that Monsanto & company have been sending voters to discredit me with lies. This is no surprise, considering how many people - inlcuding farmers, Monsanto has attacked in the past.
Prop 37's Sponsors Stand to Profit

False Claims and Misrepresentations Used to Mislead Voters

The "No on 37" campaign has been caught misinforming voters again and again over the past several months. For example, on October 18, the "California Right to Know Yes on 37" campaign requested the U.S. Department of Justice conduct a criminal investigation of the "No on 37" campaign "for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." According to the press release:1
"The Justice Department should investigate this fraudulent dirty trick perpetrated by the 'No on 37' campaign," said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager of 'California Right to Know Yes on 37'. "They are running a campaign of lies, deceit and trickery, and some of it may be criminal."
The 'No on 37' campaign affixed the FDA's seal to one of the campaign's mailers. Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code states: "Whoever... knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
The letter also provides evidence that the 'No on 37' campaign falsely attributed a direct quote to the FDA in the campaign mailer. The quoted attribution, which appears below, is entirely false and fabricated. The FDA did not make this statement and does not take a position on Prop 37."
FDA on Prop 37
Other unethical transgressions employed to confuse voters who are still on the fence include:
  • The repeated misrepresentation of their lead spokesman, the long-time front man for the tobacco industry, Dr. Miller. In campaign advertisements, Dr. Miller has been presented as being affiliated with Stanford University, when in fact he has NO such affiliation. The misrepresentation is in direct violation of the University's policy, and when Stanford learned about the false use of its name, they demanded that the 'No on 37' campaign change the ad.
  • According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the world's largest organization for food and nutrition professionals), No on 37 misled the public about the Academy's stance on genetically engineered foods in the Secretary of State's Official California Voter Information Guide. The press release2 issued by the Academy reads in part:
    "...the California Official Voter Information Guide regarding Proposition 37... inaccurately states that the Academy 'has concluded that biotech foods are safe.' The statement is false... We are concerned that California voters are being misled... Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice."

Fuzzy Logic Used to Confuse You on the Basic Issues

The anti-choice campaign likes to claim that Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers in order to hit small grocers and growers with lawsuits. The truth is that the "Yes on Prop 37" is a grassroots effort, started by a concerned California grandmother who saw that there was no way of avoiding genetically engineered foods even if we wanted to, since they didn't have to be labeled.
The labeling campaign is about having the right to know what's in your food – just like you're informed about the nutritional content, and the presence of peanuts (important for those with allergies) and other food additives. Whether genetically engineered ingredients are good or bad for your health is really beside the point. Aspartame is not good for you, yet it's on the label, and people have the right to consume it as they please. That's all this is about – just state what it is on the label.
The Monsanto campaign claims Prop 37 is "anti-science" and would ban safe foods. This is nonsense, as Prop 37 doesn't ban anything. It simply requires the label to state whether the food contains genetically engineered ingredients or not. You're still free to sell it and buy it.
The only thing it prohibits is the mislabeling of GE foods as "all natural," a term that many tend to associate with more organic standards – which GE crops cannot comply with. You're currently paying a premium for "all-natural" foods that actually use GE ingredients, thinking you're getting something better than conventional! THAT'S hurting your wallet. Accurately labeling these foods will not.
As for their argument that genetically engineered foods have been around for many years without health problems, this is another nonsensical claim, as there's no way of tracing any potential health problems back to the food without labelling! The potential truthfulness of their claim in fact hinges on GE foods remaining unlabeled. Without labeling there's simply no way to know, because there's no way to track or trace side effects like people can now do with aspartame, or any other food allergy.

It's "Do or Die" Time...

While these chemical companies claim their genetically engineered seeds will one day feed the world, they lie to us and create massive amounts of patented genetically engineered sugar beets, soy, and corn for high fructose corn syrup.
These crops are not fit to feed cattle, much less humans. How can anyone ignore the fact these companies are producing products that are devastating human health while monopolizing our entire agriculture and food system?
The junk food grocery association has indicated Prop 37 is their #1 initiative to stop, and they are spending tens of millions to prove it. You'd think if they would be using genetically engineered foods to save the starving people around the world, labeling them should be a great way to advertise. So why do they want to prevent labeling genetically engineered foods so badly?
The LA Times has just reported the "Yes On 37" campaign still narrowly leads in the polls 44 percent to 42 percent.
We are at the crossroads and a win is within reach, but we cannot ignore the fact these chemical companies are buying votes with tens of millions of dollars by spreading lies.
So now is the time for the final push to win the Right To Know Genetically Engineered Foods by simply labeling them like over 50 other countries around the world including Russia and China.
We need to reach many Americans who don't know these genetically engineered foods have been introduced into our food supply.
Our message is simple, just like Prop 37. A few words on a label to inform consumers if products contain genetically engineered ingredients. Let's allow consumers to decide, and not the chemical companies or junk food industry.
Prop 37: Right to Know
Donate Today! Donate Today!

If you live outside of the United States, you can still donate! For International Donations, please call (218) 353-7651!

Supplements not on an FDA approved list could disappear


October 30, 2012

Supplements not on an FDA approved list could disappear


leaves and pills 300x199 Supplements not on an FDA approved list could disappear

by Alliance for Natural Health
Supplements not on an FDA “approved” list could disappear.
The NDI guidance interprets the rules for new supplements. After your protests got the first draft scrubbed, work on a second draft continues at FDA. A second meeting between FDA and “stakeholders”—mostly trade groups, with ANH-USA once again the only grassroots consumer group present—took place on October 16.
As we reported after the first meeting, the New Dietary Ingredients guidelines still pose a major threat. This is because FDA is trying to reaffirm the policies of the original guidance, particularly the elements that could remove huge numbers of supplements from the market.
Much of the meeting was dedicated to a discussion about how to create a list of “grandfathered” dietary ingredients (supplements). These supplements would have been sold prior to 1994, the year the underlying law, DSHEA, was passed and therefore would not require jumping through further regulatory hoops before being sold. The question was: what evidence would be required to show that a supplement was sold prior to 1994?
FDA says such a list won’t necessarily be final, and won’t be the only supplements allowed to be sold. But we could easily conceive of that being the outcome if left to the agency. We are also concerned that FDA wants to set the evidentiary bar so high that many supplements which were definitely sold prior to 1994 still won’t pass.
According to FDA, any of the following is sufficient to prove that a supplement was marketed before DSHEA was passed: an invoice, a bill of lading, a product label, or a catalog, provided it clearly indicates a date. But many companies don’t have this kind of documentation from eighteen years ago! For example, pyridoxamine (a B6 vitamin) was marketed before DSHEA, but no one in the industry has been able to provide the documentation required by FDA. Even signed affidavits from industry members have been inadequate in FDA’s eyes.
What if a dietary ingredient is, and has always been, in our food? Doesn’t that mean it was “marketed” before 1994? Not to the FDA. The supplement must have been separated out of the food, and sold for its own properties. Human beings have consumed the antioxidant resveratrol for millennia because it’s found naturally in the skin of grapes. But no one in the industry has yet been able to prove that resveratrol was marketed as a separate ingredient or was found on the label of a food or supplement before 1994.
The problem is a little different with P5P. P5P is the only form of vitamin B6 that the body can use directly. It’s produced naturally in the body: all other forms of B6, whether in food or in supplement form, must be converted to P5P first; without it we die. Most of us don’t get enough B6 in our diet, and some people lack the enzymes needed to convert pyridoxine into P5P.
There shouldn’t be any problem grandfathering P5P since there is no question that B6 was sold prior to 1994. But the FDA says no. If the form of B6 sold earlier was not P5P, if the label didn’t say P5P, they won’t grandfather it.
As we have previously reported, a drug company, Medicure Pharma, wants sole use of P5P and has petitioned the FDA to ban its use as a supplement entirely. Although Medicure has yet to market a drug made from P5P, it has already petitioned FDA to have the supplement banned now.
This idea of taking what we cannot live without and turning it into a controlled prescription drug is shocking. But this could only be the beginning. We are concerned this new “approved” list of supplements will be used by drug companies to knock out competition from other supplements effortlessly.
For a supplement to get on the grandfathered list, the FDA says it cannot be “chemically altered”—and the definition of that term was another bone of contention at the meeting. Many grandfathered ingredients, because they now go through different (and often safer) manufacturing processes than they did before 1994, could therefore be considered “chemically altered” by the FDA. So either supplement producers would have to revert to pre-DSHEA manufacturing processes, or else they would no longer be on the grandfathered list! Consumers would get the short end of the stick either way, but the FDA doesn’t care.
As we pointed out when the first draft of the guidance was issued, FDA’s stance is so extreme that a ripe apple would be considered “chemically altered” when compared to an unripe apple! Logic would suggest that the production process should not matter if the end ingredient is basically the same.
In all of this, FDA seems to be targeting new, improved, or technologically advanced supplements, presumably because they see them as potential competitors to drugs. If they keep cutting-edge supplements off the market, drug companies can also make big money by selling the older version of the supplement, as Pfizer does with its Centrum multivitamin that we discussed last week.
Here’s another example of why this question of a grandfathered list is so important. Vitamin E is a powerful antioxidant that prevents cell structure damage, boosts the immune system, reduces cholesterol, lowers the risk of developing cancer, thins the blood, helps skin repair itself, and even strengthens your hair. And everyone “knows” that vitamin E was sold prior to 1994. It currently appears on a trade association’s list of grandfathered dietary ingredients. However, this has not yet been vetted or approved by the FDA. If the proper documentation can’t be found, either vitamin E would be off the grandfathered list, or else some forms of E might be listed and others might not. This is important because different forms of the vitamin work very differently. Vitamin E in the form of mixed tocopherols may prevent breast cancer, among other benefits, whereas the common alpha-tocopherol form may not. Some researchers and integrative doctors actually warn against taking alpha-tocopherol alone because it may interfere with the body’s use of the other forms of vitamin E.
Unfortunately, this information has been buried by the media. All of the research on vitamin E that the media has been reporting—and badmouthing—has used alpha-tocopherols instead of mixed tocopherols, as Dr. Jonathan Wright points out in the current issue of his Nutrition and Healing newsletter.
We are pleased that the FDA is including stakeholders at the NDI guidance redraft meetings. We are pleased that consumers were included by inviting us. But there are reasons to be very watchful. We don’t want a grandfathered list that will not only exclude many supplements actually sold before 1994, but will also make it easier to reject all newer supplements. With vigilance and your help, we won’t let that happen.
Read the full article here: http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-grandfathered-ingredients-rule-and-vitamin-e/

Older males beget more mutations.


    2012 Oct 29;44(11):1174-6. doi: 10.1038/ng.2448.

    Older males beget more mutations.

    Source

    The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK.

    Abstract

    Three papers characterizing human germline mutation rates bolster evidence for a relatively low rate of base substitution in modern humans and highlight a central role for paternal age in determining rates of mutation. These studies represent the advent of a transformation in our understanding of mutation rates and processes, which may ultimately have public health implications.

    Monday, October 29, 2012

    “Expert” Detractors on California Prop 37 are Shills for Big Biotech


    Previous Article Next Article

    Story at-a-glance

    • A common corporate tactic, well-honed by the tobacco industry, is to hire “third-party experts” to bring their message to you, especially through the media.
    • The "No on Prop 37" campaign has many academics on its side at the University of California at Davis, which is not surprising considering the fact that the school enjoys millions of dollars in research grants and other largesse from the biotech industry
    • A related tactic is to corral hired “experts” for your cause into a really important sounding organization. The Tobacco Institute was an arm of Big Tobacco, the mission of which was “publicizing scientific research funded by the industry which produces counter evidence to unfavorable findings or, at least, helps to keep the question open”
    • The Science Media Centre of UK and USA provides news desks a list of scientists available to comment on emerging scientific findings, and trains those scientists on how to respond to media questions by downplaying problems. Funding for this “media centre” comes from the biotech industry
    What if Losing Weight Could be as Easy as Flipping a Switch?

    Right to Know GMO Prop 37

    “Expert” Detractors on California Prop 37 are Shills for Big Biotech

    October 30 2012 | 3,110 views | + Add to Favorites
    By Dr. Mercola
    All eyes are on California where Proposition 37, which, if passed, would require labeling of foods produced using genetic engineering. It will be put to voters on November 6th. In recent weeks, the battle over GMO labeling has taken an ugly turn. In a true David versus Goliath battle, the opposition will apparently stop at nothing to defeat the measure.
    What are they so afraid of?
    A common corporate tactic, well-honed by the tobacco industry, is to hire "third-party experts" to bring your message to the public, especially through the media. The idea is that academic types carry much more credibility than the likes of Monsanto when it comes to defending genetically engineered food.

    University of California at Monsanto?

    It's no accident that the "No on Prop 37" campaign has many academics on its side at the University of California at Davis. The school enjoys millions of dollars in research grants and other largesse from the biotech industry.
    A 2004 story in the Sacramento Bee1 describes UC Davis as a research incubator for Big Biotech:
    "You name it, and biotechnology companies help pay for it at UC Davis: laboratory studies, scholarships, post-doctoral students' salaries, professors' travel expenses, even the campus utility bill."
    According to Bill Liebhardt, former director of the UC system's sustainable farming program:
    "'The public is having a hard time figuring out where the corporate door ends and where the university door begins.' And UC Davis cell biologist Eduardo Blumwald says that biotech companies 'are influencing the way we do research.'"
    That would certainly explain why so many UC Davis professors profess support for the "No on 37" campaign.
    One article, co-authored by University of California at Davis professor Colin Carter,2 not only defends genetically engineered (GE) foods, but also makes unsubstantiated claims while mischaracterizing the language of Prop 37, as Tufts professor Parke Wilde pointed out in August.3 Another pair of UC Davis professors were paid by the "No on 37" campaign, which released their report4 with this dramatic headline:
    "UC Davis Professors of Agricultural Economics Release New Report that Shows Proposition 37 Will Increase Costs for California Farmers and Food Processors by $1.2 Billion."
    The Los Angeles Times5 reported that the No campaign paid UC Davis professors Julian Alston and Daniel Sumner at least $30,000.
    "This article would never stand to peer-review scrutiny, which explains why the report isn't published anywhere but on the 'No on 37' website,"6 he says.
    Professor Alston is no stranger to Monsanto largesse. According to the Sacramento Bee:7
    "In July 2002, UC Davis farm economics professor Julian Alston found a patron in the private sector: Monsanto, one of the world's five largest crop biotechnology firms. The official announcement came in the form of a letter. 'Dear Dr. Alston,' it read. 'Please find enclosed a check for $40,000 that represents an unrestricted gift in support of your research program.'"
    Next, UC Davis Professor Kent Bradford penned a curious op-ed in the Woodland Daily Democrat8 opposing Prop 37 that listed talking points bearing striking resemblance to the "No on 37" campaign's arguments.9 That similarity just might be explained by Bradford's deep ties to Monsanto. According to the Sacramento Bee,10 Branford is "director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at UC Davis, and a leader of Seed Central, a university-led initiative to attract seed industry to the Davis area." He recently trumpeted Monsanto's $31 million expansion at the Woodland, California campus, saying the investment, "capitalizes on UC Davis and the research capacity of the companies."
    Most recently, two UC Davis professors appeared on an episode of the Dr. Oz show defending genetically engineered foods.11 One of them, Martina Newell-McGloughlin is director of the University of California Biotechnology Research and Education Program,12 while the other, Alison L. Van Eenennaam, has worked for Monsanto.13
    It's no wonder the funders of "No on Prop 37" would keep dipping into the UC Davis deep well of alleged academic experts. They obviously made an excellent investment, and it's payback time.

    Monsanto Expert, Henry Miller: "I am Not a Stanford Professor, But I Play One on TV"

    "No on Prop 37" has been putting Henry Miller front and center of its campaign. Miller has a long and sordid history14 of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to working for Big Tobacco. He also tends to misrepresent himself quite a bit. As the Los Angeles Times15 reported, a "No on 37" ad had to be pulled off the air because Miller was identified as, "Dr. Henry I. Miller M.D., Stanford University, founding dir. FDA Office of Technology." Behind him in the shot was Stanford's recognizable vaulted campus walkway.
    Just one problem: Miller is not a Stanford professor but a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank that happens to be housed on the Stanford campus. Adding insult to injury, Stanford has a policy to not take positions on candidates or ballot measures, and does not allow political filming on campus.
    Oops. The campaign admitted its error and edited the ad.
    But the Stanford deception did not end there. Recently, the "Yes on 37" campaign complained16 that Stanford's policy was being violated once again, this time in at least two different "No on 37" flyers sent to California voters that identify Miller as, "Henry Miller, MD, Stanford University." The campaign claimed it wouldn't happen again... Right.

    False Claims and Misrepresentations Used to Mislead Voters

    The "No on 37" campaign has been caught using fraudulent misinformation to confuse voters again and again over the past several months. For example, on October 18, the "California Right to Know Yes on 37" campaign requested the U.S. Department of Justice conduct a criminal investigation of the "No on 37" campaign "for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." According to the press release:17
    "'The Justice Department should investigate this fraudulent dirty trick perpetrated by the 'No on 37' campaign,' said Gary Ruskin, campaign manager of 'California Right to Know Yes on 37.' 'They are running a campaign of lies, deceit and trickery, and some of it may be criminal.'
    The 'No on 37' campaign affixed the FDA's seal to one of the campaign's mailers. Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code states: 'Whoever... knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description... shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'
    The letter also provides evidence that the 'No on 37' campaign falsely attributed a direct quote to the FDA in the campaign mailer. The quoted attribution, which appears below, is entirely false and fabricated. The FDA did not make this statement and does not take a position on Prop 37."
    FDA on Prop 37
    According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the world's largest organization for food and nutrition professionals), "No on 37" also misled the public about the Academy's stance on genetically engineered foods in the Secretary of State's Official California Voter Information Guide.
    The press release18 issued by the Academy reads in part:
    "...the California Official Voter Information Guide regarding Proposition 37... inaccurately states that the Academy 'has concluded that biotech foods are safe.' The statement is false... We are concerned that California voters are being misled... Voters need accurate information in order to make an informed choice."

    Fuzzy Logic Used to Confuse You on the Basic Issues

    The anti-choice campaign likes to claim that Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers in order to hit small grocers and growers with lawsuits. The truth is that "Yes on Prop 37" is a grassroots effort, started by a concerned California grandmother who saw that there was no way of avoiding genetically engineered foods even if we wanted to, since they didn't have to be labeled.
    The labeling campaign is about having the right to know what's in your food – just like you're informed about the nutritional content, and the presence of peanuts (important for those with allergies) and other food additives. Whether genetically engineered ingredients are good or bad for your health is really beside the point. Aspartame is not good for you, yet it's on the label, and people have the right to consume it as they please. That's all this is about – just state what it is on the label.
    The Monsanto campaign claims Prop 37 is "anti-science" and would ban safe foods. This is nonsense, as Prop 37 doesn't ban anything. It simply requires the label to state whether the food contains genetically engineered ingredients or not. You're still free to sell it and buy it.
    The only thing it prohibits is the mislabelling of GE foods as "all-natural," a term that many tend to associate with more organic standards – which GE crops cannot comply with. You're currently paying a premium for "all-natural" foods that actually use GE ingredients, thinking you're getting something better than conventional! THAT'S hurting your wallet. Accurately labeling these foods will not.
    As for their argument that genetically engineered foods have been around for many years without health problems, this is another nonsensical claim, as there's no way of tracing any potential health problems back to the food without labelling! The potential truthfulness of their claim in fact hinges on GE foods remaining unlabeled. Without labelling there's simply no way to know, because there's no way to track or trace side effects like people can now do with aspartame, or any other food allergy.

    Science Media Centre aka Big Biotech Spin Control

    A related tactic to hiring academic experts one at a time to do your bidding is to corral them all into one really important sounding organization; often, an "institute." The Tobacco Institute was an arm of Big Tobacco that according to its own description,19 acted "as official spokesman for the industry, always reflecting official [strategy] position agreed upon by all members."
    Moreover, spinning science through a sophisticated public relations campaign was paramount. The institute's main mission was:
    "[P]ublicizing scientific research funded by the industry which produces counter evidence to unfavorable findings or, at least, helps to keep the question open."
    Sounds unbelievable now, but for decades this strategy was so effective that it delayed policy action while millions died. Enter the Science Media Centre.20 Headquartered in the UK, there is also a US-based outlet.21 Their mission (like their name), sounds innocuous enough:22
    "Our aim is to ensure that when a major science story breaks, we can quickly offer news desks a list of scientists available to comment, a summary of the main scientific points involved and details of which press officers or web sites to go to for further information."
    They also provide handy tips in this document23 called, "Communicating risks in a soundbite: A guide for scientists," on how to respond to media questions by downplaying problems. For example, if a reporter asks, "Is it risky?" the scientist should get the journalist to instead ask about the benefits by replying, "the benefits outweigh the risks." Another suggested answer: "It is a very small risk. So small that I believe it is safe."
    Why would a "science media center" put words into scientists' mouths?
    Just take a look at the sources of funding, which include:24
    • BASF
    • Bayer
    • Biotechnology & Biological Sciences and Research Council
    • CropLife (pesticide and biotech trade group)
    • Monsanto
    • Novartis
    • Syngenta
    Not exactly players with an objective view of science. This might explain why the center pounced25 on the recent French study showing organ damage and massive cancer tumors in rats fed GE corn. This was the first lifetime feeding study that has ever been conducted with GE food, so it was sure to be a major embarrassment to Big Biotech.
    The very same day the French report was published came a press release26 from the Science Media Centre claiming "anomalies throughout the paper" despite the authors having been through the usual peer review process.
    The main statement from the center was authored by Professor Maurice Moloney, head of Rothamsted Research, which was the target of a protest earlier this year.27 (A counter group formed at the time, calling itself "Sense about Science." This is a common tactic, to portray those who object to tinkering with nature as anti-science luddites.) Moloney is certainly not an objective scientist when it comes to genetically engineered foods, as his Porsche license plate with the letters GMO indicates. His bio28 includes working at biotech incubator Calgene (which was later bought by Monsanto), "where he developed the first transgenic oilseed plants using canola as the model crop," which became the basis of Monsanto's Roundup Ready and Liberty Link canola products."
    How nice. So the man who gave us Monsanto's premiere product – Roundup Ready – doesn't think an independent study demonstrating harm from eating genetically engineered food is valid? Why am I not shocked?

    Have You Fallen for Falsehoods?

    Here is what should be shocking: that it's so easy for opponents of GMO labeling to insert such obviously biased scientific spin into the public discourse. According to GM Watch,29 Moloney's critique was picked up in numerous media outlets, at times, just attributed to unnamed "independent scientists." Mission accomplished.
    In addition to using experts for hire as spokespeople, the "No on 37" campaign has engaged in numerous other underhanded tactics, getting caught each time.
    For example, the "Yes on 37" campaign recently sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a criminal investigation for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.30 "No on 37" included the FDA logo on a mailer31 sent to California voters, along with a quote falsely attributed to FDA saying the agency was opposed to Prop 37.
    "No on 37" has also misrepresented the positions of several health and nutrition organizations,32 even going so far as to deceive Californians in the official voter guide.
    How sad that Monsanto and friends must stoop so low to keep consumers in the dark about what they are eating. What are they trying to hide?

    Passing Prop 37 is Key to Expanding Sustainable Agriculture in North America

    It's quite evident that we have no real champions for food safety and labeling of genetically engineered foods within the federal government. As I recently reported, the last three U.S. Presidents and Presidential-hopeful Mitt Romney all have something health related in common – they all insist on 100% organic diets for their own families while promoting unlabeled GE foods on the rest of us.
    But right now we do have a great opportunity to change this situation by circumventing Monsanto's posse entirely. Americans are becoming very aware of a significant problem with our food, and that starts with transparency.
    Although many organic consumers and natural health activists already understand the importance of Proposition 37, it cannot be overemphasized that winning the battle over Prop 37 is perhaps the most important food fight Americans – not just Californians – have faced so far.
    But in order to win this fight for the right to know what's in our food, we need your help. Please remember, the failure or success of this ballot initiative is wholly dependent on your support and funding! There are no major industry pockets funding this endeavor. In order to have a chance against the deep pockets of Big Biotech and transnational food corporations, it needs donations from average citizens.
    So please, I strongly encourage you to make a donation to this cause. You can also contact EVERY person you know that lives in California and encourage them to view some of these videos and get educated on the issues so they can avoid succumbing to the propaganda, as Monsanto and company are paying tens of millions of dollars to deceive the voters in California. We need EVERY vote we can to win on November 6.
    It's important to realize that getting this law passed in California would have the same overall effect as a national law, as large companies are not likely going to label their products as genetically engineered when sold in California (the 8th largest economy in the world), but not when sold in other states. Doing so would be a costly PR disaster. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
    • Whether you live in California or not, please donate money to this historic effort, through the Organic Consumers Fund.
    • If you live in California and want to get involved, please contact CARightToKnow.org. They will go through all volunteer requests to put you into a position that is suitable for you, based on your stated interests and location.
    • No matter where you live, please help spread the word in your personal networks, on Facebook, and Twitter. For help with the messaging, please see CARightToKnow.org.
    • Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the California Ballot. It may be the only chance we have to label genetically engineered foods.
    For timely updates, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
    Donate Today! Donate Today!