-Victor RoehrichMy Mother's Battle with Cancer
-Gayle BledsoeDiscovery of the Bio-spectrum Effect
-Simon TianYou Are What You Absorb
-James A. McHale D.C.
Editorial PolicyTHE MOST DANGEROUS WOMAN IN AMERICA (to the medical establishment)
-Tim BolenDr Quinn Speaks Out
Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills
-Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
For those of you who follow developments in physics and mathmatics, there is an intriguing article in "The New Scientist" which asserts that 'Space and the material world could be created out of nothing but noise. That's the startling conclusion of a new theory that attempts to explain the stuff of reality'.
Tri-State Holistic Health Association to sponsor HEALTH EXPO Sunday, April 9, 2000
The Tri-State Holistic Health Association presents the annual Tri-State Holistic Health Association HEALTH EXPO Sunday, April 9, 2000
at the Mt Laurel Hilton on Route 73 in southern New Jersey where the NJ Turnpike crosses Route 295. Times are 11 AM till 6 PM. There will be music, food, and fun for everyone!
Wearing of Bras Linked to Breast Cancer
January 24, 2000, Health Musings by Clifford S. Garner, Ph.D.- We turn next to brassieres. Are you aware of the fact that women who do not wear a bra are 22 times less likely to get breast cancer than bra wearers? Some women have experienced the disappearance of neck and shoulder pain when they stopped wearing bras. Even lumps in the breast have sometimes vanished after stopping bra use. Some breast lumps and congestions arise from insufficient blood and lymph flow in the breasts and armpits and/or from blocked milk ducts (whether lactating or not),both of which are favored by bra wearing. In PKP Kinesiology, in which I am certified, there is a breast lymph release procedure which I teach the client to use at home which is wonderful for relief of congested breasts, including those with painful knotty areas or for their prevention.
Dr. David Williams in the October, 1997 issue of his “Alternatives" newsletter has a 2-page discussion of breast cancer prevention, including his specialized lymph massage self-treatment (if you are interested you can order this issue or subscribe by calling l-800- 527-3044). Incidentally, he quotes a further study by Sidney Singer of two groups of Fiji women with the same diet, environment and lifestyle, half of whom wore bras and the other half not. Those wearing bras had the same rate of breast cancer as women living in the USA, whereas the braless Fiji women had practicallv no breast cancer. The weight of braless breasts causes the breasts to swing and bob naturally as the person moves, which pumps the lymphatic tissue; rebounding on a trampoline is good for breast lymph release, although not as good as the breast lymph release procedures mentioned above.
As a woman, if you feel you must wear a bra, consider wearing it as little as possible, and use a bra that allows some breast motion, without cutting tightly under and along the outer edges of the breasts where the milk ducts are located.
Yes, the hippy girls of the 1960s had the right idea when they burned their bras! Although I think it's a little sad that so many small-breasted women spend so much time and money trying everything from massage to breast implants to increase the size their breasts, when medical astrology suggests, just as we choose the stars under which to be born, we choose the general characteristics and proportion of our physical body before embodiment. However, I suppose I should mention while on the subject of breasts, that research at the University of Houston and elsewhere has definitely shown that women can use visualization and relaxation techniques to add two inches and a full cup size to their breasts.
Incidentally, routine mammograms on women in their 40s produce false positive results in over a third of the tests, usually leading to anxiety, unnecessary biopsies, scarring and distortions of the breasts, further impeding the accuracy of later tests. Also, 25% of malignant tumors in women in their 40s and 10% in older women are missed. A recent Australian study revealed that more than half of breast cancers in younger women are not detected by mammograms. Actually, 98% of women in their 40s apparently get no benefit from mammograms, and the other 2% have their lives extended statistically by only 200 days on the average. If women start getting regular mammograms at age 40 more cancers will be found because more cancers will be induced by the resulting X-radiation to radiation-sensitive breast tissue. Between 50 and 60% of breast cancers are discovered by women themselves, either by accident or through regular self-examination.
An inventor, Earl Wright, has developed a $20 device, the "Sensor Pad," available in Canada, most European countries and parts of Asia, which makes it far easier for women to detect changes in breast tissue on self-examination. Your friendly FDA has kept it off the market in the USA (you get only one guess why). Recently the FDA has allowed the "Sensor Pad" to be available by prescription (contact Inventive Products at l-800-356-69l1 for more information or to find a doctor in your area who is willing to prescribe one for you).
FDA Proposes that Nutritional Labels Must Include Trans Fats
The Washington Post January 12, 2000 - First it was cholesterol, then saturated fat. Now trans fatty acids are the latest dietary demon. Like those nutrients, trans fats raise blood cholesterol levels and significantly increase the risk of premature heart disease. Trans fat has been nicknamed "phantom fat" because the Food and Drug Administration does not require it to be listed on food labels. As a result, even health-conscious consumers are often unaware that hundreds of popular foods-from margarine, baked crackers and biscuits to cookies, fish sticks and french fries-pack significant amounts of trans fatty acids.
Much of this fat comes from liquid vegetable oils that have been converted to solids because they stay fresh longer than conventional shortenings. On average, Americans consume about five grams of trans fat per day, accounting for about 3 percent of their total calories, according to a 1999 study in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. While that may sound tiny, research has linked even small amounts of trans fat to an increased risk of heart disease. A 1994 Harvard University study found more than twice the risk of heart attacks among those who ate partially hydrogenated oils, which are high in trans fat, compared with those who consumed little trans fat. Several large studies in the United States and elsewhere, including the Nurses Health Study, also show a strong link between premature death and consumption of foods high in trans fatty acids.
Trans fats are unique in that they affect blood lipids in every way that is harmful. This hidden fat raises low-density lipoprotein (LDL) ?the harmful form of cholesterol ?and lowers protective high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ?the so-called "good cholesterol." Most Americans are clueless about the dangers of trans fat. A 1995 survey by the FDA found that 90 percent of those polled were either unaware of the risks of trans fat or mistakenly thought that it was beneficial. Even those who recognize trans fat as something to avoid are often confused about how best to do that.
Those who try to reduce trans fat will find it tough because most food labels don't have the information that you need to do that. Nutritional labels on prepared foods list the total grams of fat in products and that total does include trans fat, but there is no separate line showing, as they do with saturated fats, the actual amount of trans fats. The FDA, however, proposed in November that food manufacturers begin including trans fat on labels. The 90-day public comment period won't end until mid-February and two food companies have already requested a 90-day extension. When the comment period ends, it could take about two years for any new rule to go into effect.
Under the proposed regulation, trans fat would be folded into the saturated fat gram count, since both raise the risk of heart disease. An asterisk would direct the consumers to the bottom of the label where they could find a reference listing the exact amount of trans fat included in the food. If the proposal goes forward, trans fat would also be part of the nutritional information that the FDA considers when it gives foods such rankings as "lean," "extra lean," "reduced saturated fat" or "low saturated fat." Low-cholesterol foods that now sometimes contain significant amounts of trans fatty acid would be required to contain less than two grams of saturated fat and trans fat per serving combined.
The FDA estimates that these labeling changes would prompt changes in eating habits that would save at least $1 billion in annual health care costs by preventing 6,400 cases of heart disease per year and at least 2,100 deaths. Others say the benefits could be even greater. Trans fatty acids are responsible for about 30,000 premature deaths per year.The Stealth Fat
Why the sudden concern about trans fats? Beef and high-fat dairy products have always contained minuscule amounts of trans fat, which is produced in the gastrointestinal lining of cattle. But in the 20th century, food manufacturers discovered the stability and long shelf life of trans fat. During the past 50 years, trans fat has become one of the most common ingredients in both grocery store food and restaurant fare. Trans fats are produced when food manufacturers take liquid vegetable oils, heat them and add metal catalysts and hydrogen to the mix. Called partial hydrogenation, this process produces hardened vegetable oils that remain solid at room temperature. They can then be made into shortening and margarine and are less likely to spoil.
With the proliferation of prepared foods in recent years, it's a small wonder that a long and varied list of products now contains hidden trans fat. Food surveys suggest that the typical American eats about 34 grams a day of saturated and trans fat combined, well over the recommended daily intake of 20 grams of saturated fat for an average 2,000 calorie-a-day diet. A close look shows clearly how the numbers creep up. Think that biscuit with three grams of saturated fat on the label isn't too bad? Add in the four grams of trans fatty acid and it jumps to seven grams of artery-clogging fat. Peruse the label of those chocolate chip cookies that boast only two grams of saturated fat per serving. Surprise! They contain double the amount of fat when the trans fat is taken into account. Ditto for the fish sticks, which tout just three grams of saturated fat per serving but actually pack another five grams of hidden trans fat. Same goes for some of the most popular brands of baked crackers, which boast just one gram of saturated fat on their labels but contain an extra two grams of trans fat. And that piece of apple pie? It has seven grams of saturated fat in the crust, but contains another seven grams of trans fat per serving.
In the dairy case, there's more confusion between butter and margarine. Butter contains no trans fatty acids. Each tablespoon of butter still has seven grams of saturated fat ?or roughly a third of the recommended daily intake. Many margarines ?particularly stick margarines ?are low in saturated fat, providing just two to three grams per tablespoon, but they come loaded with trans fat, sometimes as much as three additional grams per tablespoon. Stick margarines are almost as bad as butter, but the tub margarines are much better and the lower-fat tub margarines are much, much better.Calculating Trans Fat In Your Food
Until a final rule is made, however, consumers can only guess how much trans fat most foods contain. The easiest way to check is usually to read the ingredient list. If partially hydrogenated oils or fats appear, the food has trans fat. But knowing how much is difficult ?unless the label happens to list monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat grams, which are not required but are sometimes included on the label. Even then, consumers need to calculate the amount of trans fat by adding grams of polyunsaturated, monounsaturated and saturated fat and subtracting that sum from the total fat listed on the label. The difference is a ballpark estimate of trans fat. For example, Oreos have seven grams of total fat in a serving. The saturated fat, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat add up to five grams. The difference is two grams, and most of that is trans fat. Wheat Thins have six grams of total fat and only three grams are accounted for in the saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat counts. That leaves three grams of fat and most of that is trans fat.
FDA Loosens Restrictions on Supplement Labeling
WASHINGTON (AP) - The government says dietary supplements can legally claim to treat a variety of symptoms - from morning sickness to memory loss - that are considered common passages of life.
The final regulation issued Wednesday by the Food and Drug Administration surprised consumer advocates, who maintain it weakens patient protections.
The new rule ``allows supplement manufacturers to make claims regarding serious health conditions without any pre-market review by the FDA,'' said Bruce Silverglade of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
The Grocery Manufacturers of America said the rule ``makes strides which will allow beneficial health information'' to be conveyed to consumers.
At issue are the $6 billion worth of dietary supplements that Americans buy each year - pills, capsules and teas that do not undergo any government scrutiny for safety or effectiveness before selling.
Federal law allows the products to make truthful claims that they maintain the healthful ``structure or function'' of the body - but they may not claim to treat diseases.
The question was where to draw the line between what is a real disease and what is just a symptom or annoyance that supplements could legally claim to ease.
The FDA proposed in 1998 that supplements cannot even imply that they diagnose, treat, prevent or cure a disease or definitive disease symptom. But the agency received thousands of letters, from the supplements industry and consumers, complaining that was too strict.
So Wednesday, the FDA relented a little: Supplements will be allowed to claim to help ``common conditions'' associated with ``passages of life'' such as pregnancy, menopause, adolescence and aging - but clear diseases and serious symptoms are still off-limits.
That means supplements could claim to ease ordinary morning sickness or the common leg swelling of late pregnancy, but not toxemia or other serious pregnancy complications. They could claim to treat teen-age acne and menopausal hot flashes. They could claim to treat muscle pain - but not joint pain because that's a classic symptom of arthritis, clearly a disease. They could claim to treat ``mild memory loss associated with aging'' - but not real dementia.
"It's a difficult line to draw," acknowledged FDA associate policy chief Peggy Dotzel. But "if it's a symptom you encounter in the context of stages of everyday life, that's not a disease."
From the Stranger than Fiction Department...
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a
Holistic Health Yellow Pages
Directory & Links
Yellow Page Registration
Dotor-Patient Channel Registration
Foreign Country Exclusive Reseller Plan
Web Access statistics
Telstar Innovations Inc
4734 Topeka Ave
Oakford, PA 19053, USA
SEND EMAIL TO FINDHEALER.COM
All rights reserved