Vitamin D and Colon Cancer Link (News-Medical.net)

Association between vitamin D and risk of colorectal cancer identified

January 2010 00:04

Research: Association between pre-diagnostic circulating vitamin D concentration and risk of colorectal cancer in European populations: A nested case-control study.

High blood levels of vitamin D are associated with a lower risk of colon cancer finds a large European study published on today. The risk was cut by as much as 40% in people with the highest levels compared with those in the lowest. Several previous studies have already suggested a link between vitamin D and colorectal cancer, but the evidence has been inconclusive with limited information from European populations.

So, researchers from across Europe set out to examine the association between circulating vitamin D concentration as well as dietary intakes of vitamin D and calcium with colorectal cancer risk in Western European populations.

Their findings are based on the European Prospective Investigation into a study of over 520,000 subjects from 10 Western European countries.

Between 1992 and 1998, participants completed detailed dietary and lifestyle questionnaires and blood samples were collected. The subjects were then tracked for several years, during which time 1,248 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed and these were matched to 1,248 healthy controls.

Participants with the highest levels of blood vitamin D concentration had a nearly 40% decrease in colorectal cancer risk when compared to those with the lowest levels.

However, some recent publications have suggested maintenance of blood vitamin D levels at 50 nmol/l or higher for colorectal cancer prevention.

Thus, the authors also compared low and high levels of blood vitamin D concentration to a mid-level of 50-75 nmol/l. This comparison showed that while levels below the mid-level were associated with increased risk, those above 75 nmol/l were not associated with any additional reduction in colon cancer risk compared to the mid-level.

Although the results support a role for vitamin D in the etiology of colorectal cancer, the authors caution that very little is known about the association of vitamin D with other cancers and that the long term health effects of very high circulating vitamin D concentrations, potentially obtained by taking supplements and/or widespread fortification of some food products, have not been well studied.

With respect to colorectal cancer protection, it is still unclear whether inducing higher blood vitamin D concentration by supplementation is better than average levels that can be achieved with a balanced diet combined with regular and moderate exposure to outdoor sunlight, they say.

The findings of previous randomised trials have been inconsistent. As such, new trials should be carried out to evaluate whether increases in circulating vitamin D concentration can effectively reduce colorectal cancer risk without inducing serious adverse events, they conclude. Currently, the best recommendation to reduce ones risk of colorectal canceris to stop smoking, increase physical activity, reduce obesityand abdominal fatness, and limit intakes of alcohol and red and processed meats.

Source: BMJ-British Medical Journal

New Bood Test May Spot Early Colon Cancer (WebMD)

New Blood Test May Spot Early Colon Cancer

Study Shows Measuring Levels of CD24 Protein Can Detect Colon Cancer

By Charlene Laino
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Jan 20, 2010 -- A new blood test has potential for detecting -- and even preventing -- colon cancer, a study shows.

The test spots a protein called CD24 that is elevated in the presence of both colon cancer and growths that are destined to become colon cancer. In contrast, levels of the protein are low in healthy tissue.

CD24 is produced early in colorectal cancer development and may be involved in the spread of tumor cells, says researcher Sarah Kraus, PhD, of the Tel Aviv Souraski Medical Center in Israel.

"Colon cancer is often diagnosed at a late stage, when it has a poor prognosis. The idea of the new test is to detect the cancer earlier when it is more curable," she tells WebMD.

The test may also prove useful for identifying patients who would benefit most from colonoscopy, Kraus says.

The findings were released today in advance of the annual Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, being held later this week in Orlando, Fla.

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer, diagnosed in more than 150,000 people each year in the U.S. Although colonoscopy can detect the disease at an early stage when it is most curable -- and even prevent it by finding polyps before they become cancerous -- many people shun the procedure because of discomfort, pain, and a small risk of complications.

There are other noninvasive tests for colorectal cancer, such as the fecal occult blood test, which looks for blood in the stool. But occult, or hidden, blood is also found in the stool of people with a host of other conditions, such as hemorrhoids, resulting in a high rate of false-positive results.

CD24 not only predicts the presence of the cancer with a low false-positive and false-negative rate, but also can detect high-risk precancerous growths, Kraus says.

Removing them can prevent colon cancer from developing, she explains.

In the new study, Kraus and colleagues first measured levels of the CD24 protein in 63 people with colon cancer, 19 people with adenomas, or precancerous colon growths, and 68 healthy people.

"CD24 was [dramatically] elevated in colon cancer and adenoma patients, compared with healthy subjects," Kraus says.

Then, they further tested the accuracy of the CD24 blood test in 73 people: 11 had colon cancer, 24 had adenomas, and 38 showed no signs of colon cancer.

The researchers found that the test accurately detected colorectal cancer in 92% of cases; only 8% of colon cancers were missed. It gave false-positive results to 8% of people who didn't have the cancer.

As for adenomas, the test accurately caught 84% of growths. The false-positive rate was 11%.

The next step is to validate the findings in studies of larger groups of people, Kraus says.

The test is expected to cost less than $50, she says.

This isn't the first time researchers have reported they're a step closer to developing a blood test for colon cancer. Just last year, two teams of European investigators said they had developed tests that look for genetic fingerprints of tumor growth and spread in the blood, for example.

Which tests will eventually make it out of the lab and into the clinic is still anyone's guess, doctors concede.

"People are putting a lot of thought into developing blood tests that are highly accurate and can detect colon cancer at an early stage," says Robert P. Sticca, MD, of the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences and moderator of a news briefing.

"The research is very preliminary, but [if it pans out], it will be a very useful tool given how common colon cancer is," he tells WebMD

 

 

How Adults Achieve Happiness (Mercola)

How Adults Achieve Happiness

 

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
December 15 2009 | 49 views

How does an adult achieve a high level of contentment while living a frenetic and distraction-packed life? The Business Week article linked below looks at results from a survey designed to elicit insights into short-term satisfaction (happiness) and long-term benefit (meaning). Respondents consisted of more than 3,00 well-educated managers, entrepreneurs, and professionals.

As it turns out, there proved to be an incredibly high correlation between people's happiness and meaning at work and at home. In other words, those who experience happiness and meaning at work tend also to experience them outside of work. Those who are miserable on the job are usually miserable at home.

The implication is unmistakable -- happiness and meaning in life appears to have more to do with who you are than where you are. Rather than blaming your job, your managers, and your customers (or your friends, family members, and communities), you might be better served by looking in the mirror.

In addition:

• Reduce TV watching; it doesn't increase overall satisfaction with life
• Cut back on surfing the Web for nonprofessional reasons; it's negatively correlated with the experience of both happiness and meaning.
• Spend time exercising and with people you love
• Feeling challenged is linked to greater satisfaction, so challenge yourself

Sources:

  Business Week December 10, 2009

Radiation from CT Scans May Raise Cancer Risk (NPR)

Radiation From CT Scans May Raise Cancer Risk
by RICHARD KNOX

 

Enlarge Corbis

This CAT (computerized axial tomography) scan allows doctors a detailed, inside view of the human head. But some CT scans, particularly abdominal scans and scans involving multiple "slices," expose the patient to high levels of radiation.

December 15, 2009

Doctors love the detailed pictures created by CT scans. Patients often expect a scan. But now researchers are warning that the radiation patients get each time computerized tomography is used to detect injuries and disease will cause thousands of extra cancers in coming years.

A new study from the National Cancer Institute projects 29,000 excess cancers from the 72 million CT scans that Americans got in 2007 alone. Nearly 15,000 of those cancers could be fatal.

CT-related cancers will impose a similar burden each year — unless the number of scans and the radiation dose-per-scan can be reduced.

''Physicians [and their patients] cannot be complacent about the hazards of radiation or we risk creating a public health time bomb,'' says Dr. Rita Redberg, editor of
Archives of Internal Medicine
, which is publishing the paper in this week's issue.

Children, younger adults and women are especially susceptible. Two-thirds of the excess cancers will occur in women, the NCI researchers say.

Projected Future Cancers Possibly Related To CT Scans In U.S.



Notes
The bars indicate the projected average number of future cancers for each age range (95% uncertainty limits) that could be related to CT scans performed in the U.S. in 2007, according to age at exposure. The lower and upper values represent the possible margin of error from the mean estimate.

Source: Archives of Internal Medicine, Courtesy Amy Berrington

Wide Range Of Doses

A separate study in the journal documents needlessly high radiation exposures from CT scans at four San Francisco-area hospitals.

That study looked at actual radiation doses for 11 common types of CT scans in more than 1,100 patients. For the same body part, the doses varied enormously from one hospital to another and even within the same hospital. The researchers found a 13-fold range between the highest and lowest radiation dose.

It's often said that the radiation dose of a chest X-ray is comparable to flying across the continent. ... But a CT scan can be comparable to 500 transcontinental flights.

- Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman

That means many unsuspecting patients are getting considerably more radiation than they need for an adequate CT image.

''For the same body part, the same patient with abdominal pain being evaluated for possible cancer, there can be a profoundly different radiation dose,'' says Dr. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at the University of California at San Francisco who led that study.

Smith-Bindman says neither doctors nor patients appreciate the amount of radiation exposure that U.S. patients are accumulating from CT scans. The number of scans has increased at a rate of 10 percent a year recently, jumping from 3 million scans in 1980 to more than 70 million a year today.

''It's often said that the radiation dose of a chest X-ray is comparable to flying across the continent,'' Smith-Bindman says, referring to natural radiation exposures at high altitudes. ''But a CT scan can be comparable to 500 transcontinental flights.''

She adds that a single CT scan can deliver about the same radiation dose that survivors of the atomic blasts at Nagasaki and Hiroshima endured.

''I think we need to pause and think about whether the extra information [from CT scans] really helps us make a diagnosis,'' Smith-Bindman says. ''In most cases it does, and we should be using CT scanning in those cases. But in other situations it doesn't ... and the potential for harm outweighs the benefits.''

She says patients should start asking doctors if they really need a particular CT scan, and if so, whether it can be done with minimal radiation exposure. It's especially important for younger adults and parents to ask the questions.

Smith-Bindman says radiation exposures can be cut substantially by eliminating unnecessary CT scans — both initial scans and repeat or follow-up scans now often done routinely. Also some fancier CT studies, involving multiple ''slices'' through the body in a single examination, can be replaced by simpler CT tests, conventional X-rays or tests such as ultrasound or MRI that don't involve radiation.

Another way is to reduce the amount of radiation involved in each scan.

Sounding An Alarm

Dr. James Thrall, chairman of the American College of Radiology, agrees. He says at his institution, the Massachusetts General Hospital, doctors who order a CT scan or other imaging study must list the reason. A computer program feeds back an ''appropriateness score.'' A low score indicates the test is unlikely to be necessary.

''Our experience over the last five years has been rather phenomenal,'' Thrall says. Instead of an annual growth rate of 12 percent in CT scans, it's now about 1 percent, lower than the hospital's annual growth in patient load. ''That means we're doing fewer scans per person,'' he says.

To cut down on unnecessarily high radiation doses, Thrall says, the College of Radiology is also developing an ''alarm'' system that will alert hospitals when their CT scan exceeds an acceptable dose. That will require hospitals to feed dose data to a central computer run by the radiology group.

In the long run, experts say, newer-generation CT scanners will come equipped to prevent excessive radiation doses. But it will take a while for thousands of current machines to be replaced.

Thrall doesn't agree with the National Cancer Institute's projection of 29,000 excess cancer deaths a year from CT radiation.

''I think it's almost undoubtedly less than 29,000,'' he says. ''But in one respect, it doesn't matter whether it's 29,000 or 1,000. There are opportunities for us in radiology to do all the good things we do using less radiation.''

Body needs fasting periods to stay healthy (Medical Science News)

Body needs fasting periods to stay healthy

3. December 2009 06:17

A body that is provided with food too often gets caught up in the maelstrom of a lack of exercise, obesity and ultimately diabetes. The trigger is a molecular switch that is controlled by insulin, a new study by scientists from ETH Zurich has revealed.

Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper. And nothing in between: no snacks, no sweets, not even anything we think of as healthy. For in order to stay healthy the body needs to fast between meals. At least this is what nutritionists would recommend were they to translate the results of a new study from ETH Zurich into practical terms. After all, the research group headed by Markus Stoffel, a professor from the Institute of Molecular Systems Biology at ETH Zurich, has discovered an important molecular mechanism that underlies a lack of exercise and therefore obesity. The researchers present their findings in the current issue of the journal Nature.

Hunger makes you active

The key switch player in this is a transcription factor called Foxa2. Transcription factors are proteins that make sure other genes are activated and converted into proteins. Foxa2 is found in the liver, where it influences fatburning, but also in two important neuron populations in the hypothalamus - the region of the brain that controls the daily rhythm, sleep, intake of food and sexual behavior. The control element for Foxa2 activity is insulin, in both the liver and the hypothalamus.

If a person or animal ingests food, the beta cells in the pancreas release insulin, which blocks Foxa2. When fasting, there is a lack of insulin and Foxa2 is active. In the brain, the scientists have discovered, Foxa2 assists the formation of two proteins: MCH and orexin. These two brain messenger substances trigger different behavior patterns: the intake of food and spontaneous movement. If mammals are hungry, they are more alert and physically active. In short, they hunt and look for food. "If you watch a cat or a dog before feeding it, you can see this very clearly", says Stoffel.

Explanation found for lack of movement

The researchers discovered a disorder in obese mice: in these animals, Foxa2 is permanently active, regardless of whether the animals are fasting or full. This explains a well-known but until now unaccountable phenomenon: the lack of movement in obese people and animals.

To prove this, the researchers used a genetic trick to breed mice, in the brains of which Foxa2 is always active, regardless of whether they have just eaten or are fasting. These mice produce more MCH and orexin and move five times more than normal animals, in which insulin deactivates Foxa2 after eating or which are obese. The genetically modified mice lose fatty tissue and form larger muscles. Their sugar and fat metabolism works flat out and their blood values are considerably improved.

Three meals a day suffice

For Stoffel, the study clearly shows that, "The body needs fasting periods to stay healthy." Moreover, you should make sure you have a good body weight. He therefore doesn't think much of eating many little meals spread out over the day; it is better to eat less frequently but well, and leave room in between to get hungry. After all, because insulin is released during every meal, thus suppressing Foxa2, the motivation to do physical exercise and burn sugar and fat visibly decreases.

http://www.imsb.ethz.ch/

Posted in: Medical Science News

US Urges Mammograms at 50 not 40 (NYTimes)

NYTimes

In Reversal, U.S. Urges Mammograms at 50, Not 40

By GINA KOLATA

Published: November 16, 2009

Most women should start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40, according to new guidelines released Monday by an influential group that provides guidance to doctors, insurance companies and policy makers. The new recommendations reverse longstanding guidelines and are aimed at reducing harm from overtreatment, the group says. It also says women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently — every two years, rather than every year. And it said doctors should stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis.

Just seven years ago, the same group, the United States Preventive Services Task Force, with different members, recommended that women have mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40. It found too little evidence to take a stand on breast self-examinations.

The group's new guidelines, which are different from those of some professional and advocacy organizations, are published online in The Annals of Internal Medicine They are likely to touch off yet another round of controversy over the benefits of screening for breast cancer.

Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chairwoman of the task force and a professor of biomedical informatics at Arizona State University, said the guidelines were based on new data and analyses and were aimed at reducing the potential harm from overscreening.

While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. They include unnecessary tests, like biopsies that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that are better off not found. Some cancers grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman's lifetime. When they are found, women end up being treated unnecessarily.

Over all, the report says, the modest benefit of mammograms — reducing the breast cancer death rate by 15 percent — must be weighed against the harms. And those harms loom larger for women in their 40s, who are 60 percent more likely to experience them than women 50 and older but are less likely to have breast cancer, skewing the risk-benefit equation. The task force concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 74, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69.

The guidelines are not meant for women at increased risk for breast cancer because they have a gene mutation that makes the cancer more likely or because they had extensive chest radiation. The task force said there was not enough information to know whether those women would be helped by more frequent mammograms or by having the test in their 40s. Other experts said women with close relatives with breast cancer were also at high risk.

Dr. Petitti said she knew the new guidelines would be a shock for many women, but, she said, "we have to say what we see based on the science and the data."

But the new report conflicts with advice from groups like the American Cancer Society and the American College of Radiology. They are staying with their guidelines advising annual mammograms starting at age 40.

The cancer society, in a statement by Dr. Otis W. Brawley, its chief medical officer, agreed that mammography had risks as well as benefits but, he said, the society's experts had looked at "virtually all" the task force and additional data and concluded that the benefits of annual mammograms starting at age 40 outweighed the risks.

Other advocacy groups, like the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Breast Cancer Action, and the National Women's Health Network, welcomed the new guidelines.

"This is our opportunity to look beyond emotions," said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. The task force "is an independent body of experts that took an objective look at the data," Ms. Visco said. "These are the people we should be listening to when it comes to public health messages."

Some women, though, were not pleased.

"I know so many people who had breast cancer and survived, and what saved their lives was early detection," Janet Doughty, 44, of San Clemente, Calif., said in a telephone interview. She said she had had an annual mammograms since her late 30s and would not stop now.

The guidelines are not expected to have an immediate effect on insurance coverage but should make health plans less likely to aggressively prompt women in their 40s to have mammograms and older women to have the test annually.

Congress requires Medicare to pay for annual mammograms. Medicare can change its rules to pay for less frequent tests if federal officials direct it to.

Private insurers are required by law in every state except Utah to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s.

But the new guidelines are expected to alter the grading system for health plans, which are used as a marketing tool. Grades are issued by the National Committee for Quality Assurance, a private nonprofit organization, and one measure is the percentage of patients getting mammograms every one to two years starting at age 40.

That will change, said Margaret E. O'Kane, the group's president, who said it would start grading plans on the number of women over 50 getting mammograms every two years.

The message for most women, said Dr. Karla Kerlikowske, a professor in the department of medicine, epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco, is to forgo routine mammograms if they are in their 40s.

Starting at age 50, Dr. Kerlikowske said, "the message is to get 10 mammograms in a lifetime, one every two years." That way they get the most benefit and the least harm from the test. If women are healthy, she added, they might consider having mammograms every two years until age 74.

Nearly two-thirds of all women in their 40s had mammograms within the last two years, as did 72 percent of women age 50 to 65, according to an editorial by Dr. Kerlikowske that accompanies the report.

In order to formulate its guidelines, the task force used new data from mammography studies in England and Sweden and also commissioned six groups to make statistical models to analyze the aggregate data. In Europe, women are generally screened every two years starting at age 50.

The models were the only way to answer questions like how much extra benefit do women get if they are screened every year, said Donald A. Berry, a statistician at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and head of one of the modeling groups.

"We said, essentially with one voice, very little," Dr. Berry said. "So little as to make the harms of additional screening come screaming to the top."

The harms are nearly cut in half when women have mammograms every other year instead of every year. But the benefits are almost unchanged.

The last time the task force issued guidelines for mammograms, in 2002, the reportwas announced by Tommy G. Thompson, then the secretary of health and human services. When the group recommended mammograms for women in their 40s, some charged the report was politically motivated. But Dr. Alfred Berg of the University of Washington, who was the task force chairman at the time, said "there was absolutely zero political influence on what the task force did."

It was still a tough call to make, Dr. Berg said, adding that "we pointed out that the benefit will be quite small."

In fact, he added, even though mammograms are of greater benefit to older women, they still prevent only a small fraction of breast cancer deaths.

Different women will weigh the harms and benefits differently, Dr. Berg noted, but added that even for women 50 and older, "it would be perfectly rational for a woman to decide she didn't want to do it."

Researchers worry the new report will be interpreted as a political effort by the Obama administration to save money on health care costs.

Of course, Dr. Berry noted, if the new guidelines are followed, billions of dollars will be saved.

"But the money was buying something of net negative value," he said. "This decision is a no-brainer. The economy benefits, but women are the major beneficiaries."

Roni Caryn Rabin contributed reporting.

Pacifiers Tied to Speech Disorders (Wall Street Journal)

Wall Street Journal

Pacifiers Tied to Speech Disorders

Preschoolers with speech disorders were three times as likely as other children to have used a pacifier for at least three years, according to an observational study in BMC Pediatrics. Out of 128 Chilean 3- to 5-year-olds in the study, 61 scored below normal on a standardized speech test. In addition to the pacifier trend, children in this group were also thrice as likely to have started bottle-feeding before nine months of age. Previous studies have shown that certain sucking behaviors in early childhood are associated with oral and dental deformities, but evidence of these behaviors' effect on speech has been inconsistent, the researchers said.

Alamy

Caveat: The infants' sucking behaviors were based on parental recollections rather than direct observation. A larger, randomized trial is needed to validate the findings, the researchers cautioned.

Are you too busy to catch the hidden beauty life has to offer?

Mercola.com

 

Are You Too Busy to Catch the Hidden Beauty Life Has to Offer?

 

 

Posted by: Dr. Mercola
October 28 2009 | 152 views

On a cold January morning in a Washington, DC Metro Station, a man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time about two thousand people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.

After three minutes a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.

Four minutes later, the violinist received his first dollar: a woman threw the money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk. After 6 minutes, a young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again. After ten minutes, a 3-year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. This action was repeated by several other children. Every parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.

In the end, only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while. About 20 gave money, but continued to walk at their normal pace.  The man collected a total of $32. When he finished playing, no one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

The violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before Joshua Bell had sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.

The performance was organized as part of a social experiment about perception, taste, and people's priorities. In a common place environment, at an inappropriate hour, do you perceive beauty? Do you stop to appreciate it? Do you recognize talent in an unexpected context?

If you do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, how many other things might you be missing?

Sources:

  Washington Post April 8, 2007

Healthful kitchen must-haves (Wash Post)

Washington Post

Healthful kitchen must-haves

(Big Stock Photo)   Enlarge Photo     TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! Buzz COMMENT 1 Comment  |  View All »  COMMENTS ARE CLOSED Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. Discussion Policy CLOSE Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging » Links to this article

By Denise DiFulco

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Some foods are simply better than others. So we put this question to three local nutrition experts: If you could pick just a handful of ingredients to incorporate into your clients' diets, what would they be? Here are items that can have a long-term effect on health and well-being, according to North Potomac nutritionist Kelly Dorfman; Dana Laake, owner of Dana Laake Nutrition in Kensington; and D.C. health counselor Casey Seidenberg:

BLUEBERRIES Fresh or frozen, blueberries have one of the highest concentrations among fruits of antioxidants and phytochemicals (which fight disease and inflammation). They also tend to rank low in pesticide contamination. They are naturally sweet (unlike cranberries), yet they do not raise blood sugar significantly.

BROCCOLI AND OTHER DARK GREENS It has been proved again and again that Mom was right about eating your broccoli (and cauliflower and Brussels sprouts). Researchers continue to uncover the health benefits of one phytochemical in particular, sulforaphane, that is found in these vegetables, as well as in bok choy, kale, collard greens and watercress.

CACAO You'll often see dark chocolate turn up on "superfood" lists because it contains blood-pressure-lowering plant phenols and loads of antioxidants. Cacao, or raw chocolate, is even better because it lacks sugar and other additives. Though bitter, the whole beans or nibs can be eaten plain. In its powder form, cacao can be mixed into a smoothie or pancake batter, making it taste much like the guilty pleasure we all know and love.

QUINOA Though considered a grain, quinoa is a seed that has the same versatility as rice or barley but with even greater nutritional value and no gluten. It's a complete protein, meaning that it contains a balanced set of essential amino acids, which come only from diet. It also has fiber and such key nutrients as phosphorus, magnesium and iron.

SARDINES These, and other small fish, are becoming increasingly popular, and rightly so because of their lower concentrations of contaminants such as mercury. Most people are familiar with the canned variety, but sardines also are available fresh. They are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, which maintain heart health, and they're a significant source of calcium.

 

Denise DiFulco is a freelance writer.

Why vaccines are so prevalent GREAT ARTICLE (NaturalNews.com)

A vaccine for anxiety? The real reason why drug companies are pushing more vaccines

NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) There's a new vaccine for nicotine addiction, and another one for drug addiction. There's an AIDS vaccines (which doesn't work) and a vaccine for cervical cancer that's been approved for use on boys (boys don't have a cervix). Through the pharmaceutical industry, the big push for vaccines is on!

But why, exactly? Is there suddenly a new rash of epidemic disease requiring vaccine treatments? No, not really. What's new is the way Big Pharma is latching on to these diseases as new opportunities to sell more drugs.

There's a huge shift underway from drugs designed for sick people to a whole new class of drugs manufactured for healthy people. The new paradigm is that people need drugs before they get sick, as a sort of "protection" against sickness. Drugs, in essence, are being positioned as nutrients -- things the human body needs in order to be healthy. And from the moment you're born, you're considered deficient in these drugs. That's why babies are injected with vaccines within minutes after being born. There's a strong belief in the medical industry that babies are born deficient in vaccines and that such deficiencies must be "corrected" as soon as possible.

This simple but powerful shift in the marketing strategy of Big Pharma has expanded the potential customer based from a subset of the population (people who are sick) to the entire world population. Now, everybody needs a vaccine for something say the drug companies. All that's necessary for the financial success of these scheme is to convince sick people that they need more drugs (or vaccines), and that's easily accomplished through disease mongering campaigns (like the current fear push over H1N1 swine flu).

Bypassing the need for scientific evidence
There's another important shift taking place alongside the big vaccine push: A shift away from "evidence-based medicine" to a new medical paradigm of "dogmatic belief."

Medicines that treat sick people, you see, have to be proven to work. There have to be clinical trials, and some percentage of those sick people (only 5% or so, typically) have to show some sort of improved response after taking the medicine. This is the so-called "gold standard" of modern medicine. But with vaccines, no proof of efficacy is required. No placebo-controlled studies need to be conducted at all. Vaccines can be openly marketed and prescribed without any evidence that they actually work.

This is the new "free pass" for Big Pharma -- a class of medicine that requires no proof! They merely need to be injected into a few hundred people who are observed for as little as two weeks to see if anybody died or collapses into a coma. That's all the testing that's required (and sometimes even less). No long-term safety tests are required or pursued, and, importantly, there is no requirement that the vaccine proves it actually works to reduce flu infections (or HPV infections, etc.).

In essence, by pushing for a vaccine approach to virtually everything, including nicotine addictions, the pharmaceutical industry has transformed itself from a small industry that only served sick people with scientifically-proven medicines to a huge global industry that sells vaccines to everyone and needs no proof that they even work. By any assessment, it's a brilliant strategy for increasing pharmaceutical profits.

At the same time, it's a hazardous approach to public health. Even while vaccines provide little or no benefit to the people who get them, they do present very real risks of serious harm. Teen girls have died horrible deaths following HPV vaccine injections (http://www.naturalnews.com/027151_cancer_cervical_cancer_Natalie_Morton.html), and routine vaccines for children continue to inject them with levels of mercury so high that even the EPA considers vaccine liquids to be toxic waste (http://www.naturalnews.com/027293_flu_vaccine_swine.html).

Meanwhile, billions of dollars are being spent on seasonal flu vaccines and H1N1 vaccines without a shred of evidence that they actually work. The profitable sale of these vaccines to world governments was so easy and so lucrative that it's gotten the attention of drug companies. We're onto something! Vaccines are Big Pharma's new gold. They rake in the big dollars, they need no proof that they work, and as an added bonus, drug companies have been granted full legal immunity against all side effects by the U.S. governments!

From the point of view of the drug makers, there's no risk involved in vaccines. There's no risk of scientific failure since no studies are being done to even question the efficacy of the vaccines. And there's no risk of being sued over side effects since these companies enjoy blanket immunity. It's all pure profit with no downside. This is the real reason why drug companies are looking for more vaccines to push.

A vaccine for boredom?
Ten years ago, the idea of mandating a cervical cancer vaccine to teenage girls would have seemed ludicrous. But today, it's the law in many states. It's easy to push, too, since they can always say it's being done for "public benefit." (Although, in reality, the primary beneficiary is Big Pharma.)

Now, the drug companies are pushing theories that diseases like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome are caused by a virus or that prostate cancer is caused by a virus. These are attempts to establish a justification for future vaccines against such conditions. If drug companies can convince the medical authorities that a virus is responsible for heart disease, or cancer, or diabetes, then they can promote vaccines for those things, too.

Before long, every human being will be targeted with a hundred or more vaccines for diseases they don't even have!

It's only a matter of time before Big Pharma decides to start pushing vaccines for psychiatric disorders. Feeling bored? There will be a vaccine for boredom. Having trouble concentrating? Watch for a vaccine to be announced for ADHD. Afraid of public speaking? You'll probably see a vaccine promoted for "social anxiety disorder" sooner or later.

Although this sounds utterly ridiculous right now, don't discount the ability of the pharmaceutical industry to reshape the entire dialog about mental disorders and vaccines. They've already proven their ability to turn normal human experiences into psychiatric disorders requiring pharmaceutical intervention, and most conventional health professionals have bought into it. Pushing vaccines for psychiatric disorders is the next great untapped market for drug companies. All that's required is to first convince the public that viruses or chemicals are involved in brain disorders.

Believe or it not, this line has already been crossed with the recently announced nicotine vaccine. Nicotine isn't a virus, obviously. So how can drug companies claim a vaccine works to stop the nicotine habit?

It's easy: Instead of targeting a virus, the nicotine vaccine targets a molecule (the nicotine molecule). So now, drug makers can claim their vaccines can grant immunity to virtually any chemical or substance. And since psychiatric disorders are already blamed on "chemical imbalances in the brain," the groundwork has already been laid for the pushing of vaccines for such "chemical imbalances."

In fact, to take this one step further, keep in mind that according to the psychiatric disease "bible" (the DSM-IV), the very act of defying conventional wisdom is, all by itself, a psychiatric disorder. It's called "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" or ODD. (I'm not making this up.) You can be diagnosed with ODD simply by arguing with your psychiatrist over the validity of whether the disorder itself actually exists. If you frequently disagree with authorities (like the FDA), you might also be labeled ODD.

If the current health regime is allowed to continue in America, I can easily imagine a day when anyone who disagrees with vaccinations is immediately "diagnosed" with Oppositional Defiant Disorder and injected with a psychiatric vaccine designed to "cure" the "disorder." Effectively, it will be a chemical lobotomy.

To fully understand where this can lead, I urge you to visit CCHR's museum called Psychiatry An Industry of Death (http://www.cchr.org/psychiatry_an_industry_of_death_museum/) where you'll tour the horrific history of so-called "psychiatric medicine." It's free. Just tell 'em you're a reader of NaturalNews and Mike Adams sent you. Reserve about 2 hours for the tour, and don't eat much beforehand because you just might lose your lunch. When you see what psychiatrists have done to human beings in the name of medicine, you'll be absolutely outraged. The street address of the museum is 6616 Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90028. Call 1-800-869-2247 to make a reservation for yourself or a group.

Vaccines are the new holocaust. And just as drug companies were once involved in the Nazi-era experiments conducted on human beings, those same companies are now engaged in poisoning humans for profit.

Watch for Big Pharma to place even more emphasis on vaccines in the next decade. For them, it's easy money. But for public health, it's a disaster.

Scrub 'em and tub 'em? (Wash Post)

SHOULD YOU WASH RECYCLEABLE CONTAINERS?

 

By Nina Shen Rastogi

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

I've always been dedicated to washing the peanut butter, Pepsi and mayo out of my food containers before tossing them into the recycling bin. My sister, though, pointed out that I'm probably wasting gallons upon gallons of precious H20! Is it worth it to soap up my tin cans and soda bottles?

Not really. Recycling facilities are well equipped to handle dirty cans and bottles, so some caked-on tomato sauce and the occasional stray chickpea won't significantly hinder the process. (They can even handle that lime wedge you left in your Corona bottle.) Residue left on plastic or glass containers generally gets flushed out with water at some point in the process; most of the gunk left behind on steel and aluminum cans is burned away when they get melted down. So there's no need to waste water: Even if you were to get your recyclables squeaky clean, they'd probably end up getting washed again, anyhow.

That being said, the Green Lantern doesn't advocate tossing cans and bottles immediately, and she really doesn't want you chucking half-full jars. It's wasteful and it's just not sanitary: Food scraps can lead to mold and bacteria growth, and the smell can attract insects and other vermin.

After you put your recyclables on the curb, there's plenty of time for stuff to start spoiling and rotting. Cans and bottles go to a facility where they're sorted and baled, They might sit there for weeks or months before they're sold to a reprocessing facility, where they'll be cleaned before getting ground up, melted down or chipped into flakes.

Imagine your bottle of half-eaten, four-month-old tartar sauce, lounging in a stuffy warehouse and getting riper by the day. Not pleasant, is it? So the Green Lantern suggests that you scrape out as much food residue as you can (the Lantern recommends using one of those skinny, flexible baking spatulas), and then swish out the can or bottle in your leftover dishwater. If you use a dishwasher, don't take up valuable real estate with items meant for the recycling bin. Just fill a bowl with water and use it to clean out any food particles, ideally from several containers at once.

Rinsing is an especially good idea if your community participates in single-stream recycling, where everything from newspapers to detergent bottles are placed in a single curb-side bin. Paper is easily contaminated by oil and grease, which is why pizza boxes usually aren't accepted unless they're pristine. If you're really concerned about making the recycling process as efficient as possible, read your community guidelines so that you're not overloading the system with non-recyclable materials.

Here's an even better idea: Why not try cutting down on packaging in general? Recycling is only the third R in the waste-management hierarchy, after all -- reducing and reusing are even better. According to the EPA, Americans generated 254 million tons of municipal solid waste in 2007. (That's everyday, nonindustrial trash.) Containers and packaging made up the biggest fraction of that waste -- 30.9 percent, or 78.4 million tons. Nearly half of that amount ended up being recycled, but it would be better if we had less packaging to begin with. After all, disposal is only part of the equation: There are also significant environmental costs that come with manufacturing those boxes, cans and bottles. In fact, a widely cited 1992 study by the Boston-based Tellus Institute found that 99 percent of the environmental harm caused by packaging came from its production, not its disposal. And -- major bonus -- if you don't buy it in the first place, you don't have to worry about cleaning it when you're done.

Booster Seat Study for Kids 4-8yrs (News-Medical.net)

News-Medical.net

Children restrained in belt-positioning booster seats less likely to get injured

 

20. October 2009 06:08

 

Boosters especially effective in side impact crashes

 

A study released today in Pediatrics by The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia offers updated evidence that children ages 4 to 8 who are restrained in the rear seat of a car in a belt-positioning booster seat are 45 percent less likely to be injured in a crash compared with children using a seat belt alone. Furthermore, the study showed there was no difference in the level of protection offered by backless versus high back booster seats. Of those riding in booster seats, children involved in side-impact crashes saw the greatest reduction in injury risk.

 

Researchers at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's Center for Injury Research and Prevention studied more than 7,000 children ages 4 to 8 involved in real-world crashes between 1998 and 2007.

 

"We wanted to take a fresh look at booster seats' effectiveness to reduce injury among this age group, because when we first evaluated the protective benefits of booster seats in 2002, most children using them were 4 and 5 years old," explains lead researcher Kristy Arbogast, Ph.D., Director of Engineering at CHOP's Center for Injury Research and Prevention. "Since then, usage rates among older kids ages 6- to 8 have tripled, and we wanted to be sure these older kids were as well-protected by booster seats as the younger ones, now that we had more data. We found that injury reduction offered by booster seats remains significant even when a greater proportion of older children are included in the study."

 

Researchers attribute the sharp increase in booster seat use among older children, in part, to many states passing upgrades to their child restraint laws that require booster seats for children older than age 4. The upper age limit of these booster laws varies by state and ranges from 6 through 8 years. Passage of these laws is associated with a nearly 40% increase in child restraint use among children up to age 8. While 47 states have booster seat laws, only 25 states and the District of Columbia require booster seats for children up to at least age 8. Florida, Arizona, and South Dakota have no booster seat law. The CHOP researchers recommend policymakers work to close these gaps in the laws to cover children to at least age 8 so that parents have the best information to protect their children.

 

"Based this new analysis of a decade's worth of data on children involved in crashes, policymakers, pediatricians and health educators should continue to recommend as best practice the use of belt-positioning booster seats once a child outgrows a harnessed based child restraint until he/she is at least 8 years of age," says Dennis Durbin, M.D., M.S.C.E., Co-Scientific Director of The Center for Injury Research and Prevention and study co-author. "Additionally, these results can give confidence to parents and health educators that choosing between a high back versus a backless booster seat for their child does not represent a compromise in safety."

 

SOURCE The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

 

 

Wash hands with hot water? (NYTimes)

The New York Times

The Claim: Always Wash Your Hands With Hot Water, Not Cold.

By ANAHAD O'CONNOR

Published: October 12, 2009

With swine flu sweeping across the country, health officials are reminding Americans to wash their hands often to reduce the spread of the disease.

Soap and warm water have long been said to prevent the spread of infections, but is warm or hot water really more effective than cold?

In its medical literature, the Food and Drug Administration states that hot water comfortable enough for washing hands is not hot enough to kill bacteria, but is more effective than cold water because it removes oils from the hand that can harbor bacteria.

But in a 2005 report in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, scientists with the Joint Bank Group/Fund Health Services Department pointed out that in studies in which subjects had their hands contaminated, and then were instructed to wash and rinse with soap for 25 seconds using water with temperatures ranging from 40 degrees Fahrenheit to 120 degrees, the various temperatures had "no effect on transient or resident bacterial reduction."

They found no evidence that hot water had any benefit, and noted that it might increase the "irritant capacity" of some soaps, causing contact dermatitis. "Temperature of water used for hand washing should not be guided by antibacterial effects but comfort," they wrote, "which is in the tepid to warm temperature range. The usage of tepid water instead of hot water also has economic benefits."

THE BOTTOM LINE

Hot water for hand washing has not been proved to remove germs better than cold water.

5 Healthiest Meats

FOXNews.com

5 Healthiest Meats

Friday, October 09, 2009

Red-meat addicts, it's time for a dose of reality.

A recent 10-year study, the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC), found that guys (and girls) who eat just 10 ounces (283 grams) of red meat a week are more likely to develop colon cancer than guys who don't. Not a nice thought.

If you want to learn which meats are the worst offenders, check out our article on unhealthy meats. While nothing can replace a mouth-watering steak, there are plenty of tasty alternatives to hold you over. Here are five healthy meats that won't wreak havoc on your colon.

1. Buffalo (Bison)

No matter how good white meat can be, it will never truly satiate the craving for red meat. Buffalo, however, can. It's probably the reddest meat you'll ever see and unlike beef, it's pretty good for you. A hunk of buffalo has far less fat than steak and buffalo are generally grass-fed, which means healthier meat. Let's compare burgers: Your typical lean hamburger (10 percent fat) contains about 0.32 oz (9 g) of fat. Buffalo burgers, on the other hand, contain less than half that, about 0.14 oz (4 g). Not bad for a tasty burger. There was a point when buffalo were endangered, but the beasts have made a comeback, especially on ranches. Today, buffalo meat is readily available in most grocery stores.

2. Pork

Pork chops used to be on the doctors' hit list. Today, however, pork is "the other white meat" and is a healthy alternative to red meat. And when it's eaten in reasonable quantities (8 oz), a pork chop can be quite good for you. Pork chops can be relatively lean, but they're typically not as low-fat as chicken or fish. By contrast, however, a USDA, University of Wisconsin and Maryland study found that a 3 oz (85 g) serving of pork tenderloin contains 0.105 oz (2.98 g) of fat and that the same portion of skinless chicken breast contains 0.106 oz (3.03 g) of fat.If chops are still your thing, look for lean ones, and trim the fat before you eat them. A typical pork chop, with the fat cut off, contains about 0.3 oz (8 g) of fat.

Beware, however, of cured pork, like ham and bacon; both meats may contain nitrates and nitrites as preservatives, which have been linked to cancer.

3. Chicken

White meat is much better for you than red — that's a well-known fact. As such, chicken (not deep-fried) is a great alternative to red meats. It's low in fat — without the skin — and it's pretty tasty if it's prepared correctly. Chicken is a great source of protein and, as an added bonus, it's less expensive than beef. But remember, there's always the risk of E. coli infection when you're dealing with chicken. Be sure to cook or heat it to an internal temperature of at least 165F to kill off the bugs.Also, charred grilled chicken can contain some cancer-causing chemicals, such as heterocyclic amines, so limit your consumption of well-blackened chicken.

4. Turkey

This big bird never saw it coming. Domestic turkey is a relatively recent addition to the world's protein menu, and it's great for you. Turkey is generally a white meat (turkey breast), but it packs more flavor than chicken, and its dark meat can be downright gamy. Turkey meat is also relatively low in fat: one 4.9 oz (140 g) serving of skinless roasted turkey contains about 0.25 oz (7 g) of fat.

There's a popular belief that turkey makes you sleepy, and it does, due to the sleep-inducing amino acid tryptophan within, but it's not enough to knock you out. The sheer size of the average Thanksgiving feast, especially when combined with alcohol and a pleasant atmosphere, is more likely to influence your post-meal slumber.

5. Fish

A properly cooked hunk of fish can be as satisfying as a great steak. Plus, many fish (typically salmon and tuna) are packed with omega-3 fatty acids, which have been linked to decreased rates of heart disease. Circulation published a study that suggests lean, white fish, such as cod, don't provide the same health benefits as fattier fish do. Another extensive EPIC study found that people who eat lots of fish are less likely to develop colon cancer than those who don't. But be careful: Big fish like tuna can contain high levels of mercury, which is a poison to the human body.

So, how much fish can you eat and be safe? It depends. Avoid large fish that eat other fish — tuna, swordfish and shark — and stick to smaller fish, which tend to contain less mercury than bigger fish. Local levels of mercury vary; check with your nearby fish and game agency to see which fish contain high levels of mercury.

Everything in Moderation

It is absolutely true that you can have too much of a good thing. Moderate your overall intake of meat and fat, and you'll stay healthy. As a general rule, many nutritionists suggest that your portion of meat should be about the size of your fist. It seems small, but it's enough. And be sure to balance your diet with lots of fruits and veggies.

Corn Herbicide Dangers? (WSJournal)

This is disturbing...espeically if you've seen the documentary "King Corn."  Everything we eat is corn based these days...

XOXO

 

Wall Street Journal

EPA to Review Health Effects of Corn Herbicide

By BILL TOMSON

WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday it is launching an investigation into whether the herbicide atrazine, popular among U.S. corn farmers, causes cancer and birth defects.

"Our examination of atrazine will be based on transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine whether a change in EPA's regulatory position on this [herbicide] is appropriate," said Steve Owens, an EPA assistant administrator.

But agribusiness giant Syngenta AG, maker of atrazine for 50 years, said the chemical has already been proved safe. The company, in a recent statement, said the EPA, the World Health Organization and others have previously reviewed the drug and pronounced it safe.

Sherry Ford, a spokeswoman for Syngenta, said the EPA re-licensed atrazine for sale in the U.S. in 2006 and said the chemical wasn't likely to cause cancer.

U.S. corn farmers have come to rely on the herbicide to control weeds in their fields. Ken McCauley, former president of the National Corn Growers Association, said Wednesday that atrazine is used on most corn fields in the U.S.

Syngenta's Ms. Ford said about 60% of the corn, 75% of the sorghum and 90% of sugarcane grown in the U.S. is done so with the aid of atrazine.

"When EPA re-registered it in 2006...they estimated that atrazine saves corn farmers about $28 per acre in herbicide costs and yield advantages," Ms. Ford said.

Mr. McCauley, who farms 4,500 acres in Kansas, said he relies on the herbicide to "enhance" the effects of other chemicals. While he and many farmers rely heavily on atrazine, they use less of it than when the chemical was first sold on the market. Initially, atrazine was used as a primary herbicide and farmers would use about three to five pounds per acre. Now, Mr. McCauley said, it is common practice to use about a pound or less.

Use of the herbicide makes it possible for many corn producers to conduct "no-till" farming, Mr. McCauley said, a practice that eliminates plowing to protect against soil erosion.

U.S. farmers are currently in the midst of harvest and are expected to produce about 13 billion bushels of corn on 80 million acres of land, according to USDA data.

Atrazine is already regulated by the EPA, which warns of human health threats from contamination of drinking water. The EPA said atrazine may cause "congestion of heart, lungs and kidneys; low blood pressure; muscle spasms; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands" if "people are exposed to it at levels above [three parts per billion] for relatively short periods of time."

Blood Tests May Detect Colon Cancer (WebMD)

Blood Tests May Detect Colon Cancer

Tests Look for Genetic Fingerprints to Diagnose Gastrointestinal Cancers

By Charlene Laino
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Sept. 22, 2009 (Berlin) -- Two new blood tests may help to make the diagnosis of colon and other gastrointestinal cancers simpler, cheaper, and less unpleasant.

The tests, developed by Belgian and German scientists, look for genetic fingerprints of tumor growth in the blood. One test may also help to predict whether cancer is likely to spread.

The tests were described here at a joint meeting of the European Cancer Organization (ECCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology.

ECCO President Alexander Eggermont, MD, head of surgical oncology at the Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands, tells WebMD that the tests may help fill a need for more convenient cancer screening. He was not involved with the work.

One in 17 people will develop colorectal cancer in his or her lifetime. It's the second leading cancer killer in the U.S. and Europe.

The risk of dying is reduced substantially if the disease is caught early, when it is most treatable. But many people shun current tests such as colonoscopy and stool sample analysis, calling them invasive or just plain nasty, says Joost Louwagie, PhD, of OncoMethylome Sciences in Liege, Belgium, which is developing one of the tests.

Louwagie and colleagues collected blood samples from 193 patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and 688 people who were undergoing colonoscopies.

They looked for two genes, SYNE1 and FOXE1, which have been linked to tumor growth.

"We found a high frequency of these genes in colorectal patients. The same genes occurred infrequently in noncancerous patients," Louwagie tells WebMD.

Overall, the test correctly identified 50% to 60% of cancers, he says. And it correctly identified more than 90% of people with no cancer.

In people with early-stage colon cancer, the test performed even better, Louwagie says.

"Once validated, the new methylation test could be used as a noninvasive screening option for patients who decline or do not have access to colonoscopy or do not wish to undertake the fecal occult blood test."

"The blood sample can be taken by nurses or primary care doctors without the need for special equipment or training, leading to higher rates of patient compliance," he says.

The company is talking with several larger companies about licensing rights to the test.

The second test, developed by Ulrike Stein, PhD, of the ECRC Charite University of Medicine in Berlin, and colleagues, looks for colon, rectal, and gastric cancers.

The test homes in on a genetic fingerprint, S100A4, that has been linked to the development and spread of tumors.

The researchers studied daily blood samples from 185 people with colon cancer, 190 people with rectal cancer, 91 gastric cancer patients, and 51 tumor-free volunteers.

"We found that S100A4 was present at significantly higher levels in the group of cancer patients, no matter whether they had colorectal or gastric cancer, than in the tumor-free control group," says Stein.

There were even higher levels in patients who cancer had spread, she says.

Treating Head Lice Naturally (Medical News)

Sodium chloride for treating head lice
September 2009 01:22


At just 31 years of age, and with a first grader in tow, single mom Wendy Langley set out to take on the giants in the head lice industry. The reason? She couldn't, as she says, stand putting a popular but potentially toxic head lice treatment that "smelled like bug spray" on her kid's head to kill lice. Plus, she was constantly terrified the runny liquid would seep into her daughter's eyes.

Langley's desire to protect her daughter and other children prompted her to develop a product that would absolutely kill head lice, even the dreaded super lice, as they're called, and buck the standard of using pesticides to do so. Her solution was to use sodium chloride, better known as salt, as her weapon to kill head lice. Her unusual product, Licefreee, quickly became the best-selling pesticide-free head lice treatment in the U.S., the world's largest consumer market for head lice.

In 1988, Langley walked in the doors of Tec Labs, a family-owned pharmaceutical manufacturer in Oregon. The thriving company was mainly known for making Tecnu, a poison ivy product with a cult-like following. She was hired through a temp agency for a three-day stint in the company's mail room. Her offbeat personality and eagerness to learn clicked with Tec Labs' CEO, Steve Smith, and she was eventually brought in as a full-time employee.

Langley worked in several areas of the company before she discovered her passion in the Research and Development department. Soon, Langley was a leader on the R&D team, heading up the research side. She became nearly obsessed with a desire to help people on a broad scale.

"I truly love helping people," says Langley, "especially children, since they can't help themselves."

Langley's first success on the R&D team was Calagel, a home run for the company in the anti-itch category. Next up was Corticool, a first-of-its-kind mentholated hydrocortisone gel. And then came the head lice incident, as she calls it, which prompted her to develop Licefreee.

Langley recalled the moment when she came across the idea of using salt to kill head lice. "I felt chills run through my body," said Langley. "I thought, 'Aha! That's it!' I knew from doing my research that salt, in the right formulation, could be 100% effective in killing lice."

It turned out that Langley was correct. Independent lab studies showed Licefreee to be 100% effective killing head lice and their eggs. The company added a sturdy metal comb and Licefreee became a hit, eventually landing on over 20,000 drug store shelves. The treatment's popularity skyrocketed. Licefreee went on to become the top-selling pesticide-free head lice brand in America. This back-to-school season marks the 10th anniversary of Licefreee.

Not content with battling head lice, Ms. Langley set her sights on a far more dangerous foe: MRSA (methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus). "I saw the oncoming threat of MRSA years ago and told the R&D team," said Langley. "I saw that this sometimes deadly problem was growing, and it had a growth potential of epidemic proportion. I feared it could affect our children through the school system."

Staphaseptic hit shelves in 2006 behind the biggest product launch in the company's 32-year history and became another breakout success. Langley is now busy trying to discover her next big idea for Tec Labs.

"Helping others is where my heart feels best," she says. "I can't wait until the next 'Aha!' moment. I have a feeling it's coming soon."

Source: http://www.Licefreee.com
lice

Study proves link between thimerosal and austism (Natural News)

Study Proves Link Between Thimerosal and Autism Neurotoxicity

by Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author
(NaturalNews) In a study just published, a causal connection between Thimerosal, the preservative often used in vaccines, and the brain pathology found in patients diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), has been established. The study, A Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Impaired Oxidative-Reduction Activity, Degeneration, and Death in Human Neuronal and Fetal Cells Induced by Low-Level Exposure to Thimerosal and Other Metal Compounds was published in the June 2009 issue of the peer-reviewed journal Toxicology & Environmental Toxicology.1
In the study, it was found that the amounts of Thimerosal found in inoculations commonly given to infants in the 1990s and still in use today (though more limited) induced levels of cellular toxicity. This cellular damage was consistent with that found in studies of patients diagnosed with ASD.
Both studies found significant mitochondrial dysfunction, reduced cellular oxidative-reduction activity, cell degeneration, and cell death being tied to ASD. All of these contribute significantly to ASD diagnosis and are also often attributed to other childhood and early development maladies.
Here at Natural News, of course, readers are likely well aware of the links between Thimerosal and autism. Until now, those links have mostly been implied and inferred through anecdotal evidence and court cases. Nevertheless, the link between mercury, Thimerosal and childhood autism rates has been exhaustively covered here.2
Now, conclusive scientific evidence that cannot be ignored has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This gives those of us concerned with the issue more ammunition to use in forcing lawmakers to acknowledge the link and for pharmaceutical companies who've been pushing their wares on us to become accountable for it.
This study also showed that Thimerosal is much more toxic than other metal compounds included in the study and commonly found in vaccines. Other compounds studied included aluminum sulfate, methylmercury hydroxide (often blamed for autism), lead acetate, and mercuric chloride. This study does not take those compounds off the hook, of course, but does show that Thimerosal is significantly more toxic than even methylmercury.
The explanation for that higher toxicity lies in the fact that Thimerosal is not naturally-based, but manufactured.
First created in the 1920s as a stronger replacement for alkylmercury compound, it's biological transport and intracellular delivery properties were enhanced. The study shows that, in comparison to methylmercury hydroxide, Thimerosal has three distinct toxicity-enhancers:

1. Higher aqueous solubility - the ability to dissolve in water.
2. Higher solubility in cell membranes - the ability to dissolve in cell membranes.
3. Higher intracellular toxicity - the ability to inactivate essential cell processes.

The study was done by CoMeD, Inc. (a non-profit) through a grant from the Brenen Hornstein Autism Research & Education Foundation and the non-profit Institute of Chronic Illnesses, Inc. Attribution was also given to the Genetic Centers of America.
CoMeD, Inc. and BHARE recommend parents and health care providers have children with ASD diagnosis tested by urinary porphyrin profile analysis (UPPA). More information is available at CoMeD's website Mercury-freeDrugs.org, including free information on ordering UPPA tests as well as papers validating those tests.
Resources:
1 - A Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Impaired Oxidative-Reduction Activity, Degeneration, and Death in Human Neuronal and Fetal Cells Induced by Low-Level Exposure to Thimerosal and Other Metal Compounds http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/co...
2 - Natural News "Thimerosal" articles: http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSe...
3 - Press Release from CoMeD on study: http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/0...

Buzz up!

About the author

Aaron Turpen is a professional writer living in Wyoming in the USA. He is also the Director of Gateway's Needy Animals, a local animal shelter and rescue in the eastern Wyoming area. His blog covers organic/sustainable living and environmental considerations at http://www.aaronsenvironmental.com.