“Is gene control cause of slow recovery from Jet Lag? – ridiculous

La Roche labs is looking for their next big win. Jet Lag?

According to the study, mice reveal why the body is so slow to recover from jet-lag and identifies a target for the development of drugs that could help us to adjust faster to changes in time zone.

“With funding from the Wellcome Trust and F. Hoffmann La Roche, researchers at the University of Oxford and F. Hoffmann La Roche have identified a mechanism that limits the ability of the body clock to adjust to changes in patterns of light and dark. And the team show that if you block the activity of this gene in mice, they recover faster from disturbances in their daily light/dark cycle that were designed to simulate jet-lag.”

According to acupuncture meridian points can reset jet lag quickly an easily in minutes with no drugs needed.  Neural Kinesiology  also can reset the body’s brain clock quickly without the need for a drug.  Biontology also can reset the body’s energies after long trips.

Written by Dr. Mary Wolken PhD

Resource: http://medicalxpress.com

“Healthy company = less stressed out workers = more $$”- Comp Med Assoc.

Stress has been called the “health epidemic of the 21st century” by the World Health Organization and is estimated to cost American businesses up to $300 billion a year.”

Here are a few ways that workplace stress the costs us:

  • 300% increase in behavioral disability claims in one decade.
  • 70 % of all visits to the family doctor.
  • 30% rise in disability claims.Statistics adapted from http://www.stress.org/workplace-stress/Stress

Isn’t it time we charge a few things?

Wouldn’t you like to feel confident that the place you work was taking steps to reduce your stress?

Let us know with a comment or a call.

 

 

 

HPV vaccine not so popular yeah!

Vaccination rates among adolescent girls for the cancer-causing human papillomavirus (HPV) is low, so Merck and the CDC is putting pressure education on physicians and increased advertizing so more parental education.  They are encouraging physicians to push the vaccinations on every visit. medscape.com

So is it possible that people are becoming more educated on healthier ways to improve their health? This decrease is the best news to date. Seems people are not buying the fear tactics that this vaccine is necessary for young girls and boys.

Gardasil is the commercial HPV vaccine; licensed for use in June 2006, by the FDA to Merck and Company. The vaccine “targets four strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) — HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18. HPV-16 and HPV-18 account for about 70% of all cervical cancers. HPV-6 and -11 cause about 90% of genital warts. HPV is also linked to anal cancer.”

Who can get HPV infections?

It is possible for males to get HPV infections and can pass the virus to their sex partners. HPV causes genital warts and is associated with rare cases of cancer of the penis. Particularly in gay men, HPV is linked to anal cancers. Merck is currently testing Gardasil in men, including gay men. webmd.com

The HPV vaccine contains:

  • proteins of HPV Types 6, 11, 16, and 18
  • amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (adjuvant)  it causes neuron death in mice  healthsentinel.com
  • yeast protein -possible allergen for those who have yeast sensitivities or those who have an overgrowth of yeast in their body
  • sodium chloride salt
  • L-histidine – Most lists of amino acids classify Lhistidine as an essential amino acid; however, it has never been clear if Lhistidine is an essential amino acid for adults.
  • polysorbate 80  solubilizing agent that can cause severe nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions”  ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
  • sodium borate – ” sodium borate, and sodium perborate are estimated to have a fatal dose from 0.1 to 0.5g/kg. These substances are toxic to all cells, and have a slow excretion rate through the kidneys. Kidney toxicity is the greatest, with liver fatty degeneration, cerebral edema, and gastroenteritis.”  cqconcepts.com

Merck does not list all ingredients in this toxic cocktail.  There is no guarantee that this vaccine is even needed. Vaccines add toxic chemicals to the body that is the reason the body launches the immune response. It is trying to get rid of these foreign substances.

Image courtesy of wikimedia.org

“When will we demand protection- cell phone radiation?”

“Does radiation from cellphone towers cause cancer?Yes, said the Kasliwals, two of who have been diagnosed with brain cancer after three towers were installed next to their upscale C-scheme neighborhood in Jaipur.Since then, illnesses, both minor and major, have become a part of their lives and the lives of the 50 other families in their neighborhood”1

Do we care or must we continue to ignore and share our hazards of cell phone/cell tower radiation with all living things on the planet?

This flagrant blindness will literally kill millions of life forms unless we wake up and find alternatives or solve the EMF challenge that all electrical devices ig and small pose to our way of life.

1. in.news.yahoo.com/mobile-phone-tower-radiation\

2. thehindu.com

Congressional push Remove antibiotics from Food – Comp. Med Assoc.

From the Rep. Slaughter Antibiotics in Food Survey
The information supplied by the food industry, Rep. Slaughter, the only microbiologist serving in Congress, is urging consumers and the Congress to act now.

Editor’s comment: Beware of companies using antibiotics routinely in stock feed for “growth” of the stock when shopping. Congress must strengthen US laws in order to fight the excessive use of antibiotics in our meats and poultry production. Excessive antibiotics can make humans more prone to the growing threat of superbugs by decreasing our immune systems and intestinal flora.

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of foodsafetynews

 

“Infant formula-more dangerous than vaccines?”

“Pediatricians spend much time frightening parents with something like a 1 in 100,000 combined risk from vaccine-preventable diseases when parents question the utility and safety of vaccines…. Yet these very same professionals offer formula samples with the other hand – when the magnitude of health risks associated with the use of formula is 500 times greater.” ~ Dr. Linda Folden Palmer, excerpted from The Deadly Influence of Formula”
Remember: Infant protection must be monitored on all levels to raise health kids. Is formula more dangerous than vaccines?  Nothing canned ever produced something alive.

“New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research”

By Dr. Mercola  October 15 2011

Two widely cited, published cancer research studies contain fabricated data, will be retracted

The Mayo Clinic concluded that data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, resulting in the retraction of 17 papers in nine research journals
Cancer research in the United States needs to be scrutinized, as much is money-driven and based on developing new drugs

In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings. His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.

It seems fairly evident that the cancer industrial complex is a highly lucrative, well-oiled system that tends to support funding for expensive drug treatments that don’t address the cause of the problem, and have yet to make a significant dent in the decrease of the overall cancer rate in the US despite investing hundreds of billions of dollars. Much of the support comes from flawed and biased “research” studies that support the use of expensive drugs as detailed in the featured articles.

Researchers, too, are well aware of the notoriety and money to be found in cancer research … particularly what may be deemed successful cancer research (which unfortunately is often measured by the discovery of new drug treatments). But, as with many areas of medical research, it’s important to read between the lines of “scientifically proven” studies, even those that are well accepted.

Often what you’ll find is the research gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to control and deceive. Case in point, here again we have an example of widely accepted, published research that turned out to be fabricated.

10 Years of Cancer Research Down the Drain

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health reported in August 2011 that final action has been taken against Sheng Wang, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, Cancer Research Center. ORI states:

“The Respondent engaged in research misconduct by fabricating data that were included in two (2) published papers.”

This includes:

Oncogene February 2009, which found that HIC1, a protein thought to suppress tumor growth, is a “central molecule in a novel mechanism controlling cell growth and that the disruption of this HIC1-mediated pathway may lead to abnormal cell proliferation and, ultimately, cancer.”
Molecular Endocrinology December 2009, which found “reintroducing HIC1 into resistant breast cancer cells restored their sensitivity to the estrogen antagonists, indicating the existence of a novel regulatory mechanism for growth control of breast cancer cells.”

Specifically, six of the eight figures in the Oncogene paper and six of the seven figures in the Molecular Endocrinology study were said to contain data from fabricated experiments. Though Wang is now required to retract the papers, and he reportedly stopped working for Boston University in July, he will only be ineligible for federal funding for 2 years.

Further, the fabricated research may continue to live on, as it has been cited by other studies and once a finding is accepted in the medical community, it’s very hard to make it go away. Unfortunately, scientific retractions are actually becoming increasingly common.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide …

At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist …”

Fabricated Research is More Common Than You Might Think

Peer-reviewed research published in medical journals gets the golden star of approval in the media, yet many, if not most, of the findings are incredibly misleading. One of the best exposé’s into this muddled system came from none other than Dr. Marcia Angell, who was the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In her book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposed many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted, and said flat out:

“Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time.”

For instance, in 2009 Dr. Scott Reuben, who was a well-respected, prominent anesthesiologist, former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. and a former professor at Tufts University’s medical school, allegedly fabricated the data for 21 studies!

Dr. Reuben succeeded in getting numerous studies published, and those studies were accepted as fact and swayed the prescribing habits of doctors. It was only due to a routine audit raising a few red flags that a larger investigation was later launched.

So how did those false studies, or any studies for that matter, become worthy of being published? Part of the problem may be the peer-review process itself, as this puts researchers in charge of policing other researchers’ results, and most do not want to insult a fellow researcher’s work with negative comments.

As written in Gaia Health:

“It’s all about money. Get published in a major medical journal and your future is made. Most peer reviewers are doing their own studies. That’s what makes them peers. They want to be able to publish. Therefore, they are not particularly inclined to make more than perfunctory negative comments. Obviously, they don’t want to alienate the authors of papers, since they either are or hope to become published themselves.

Peer review is a farce. The only kind of review that makes real sense is professional independent reviewers. Yet, for decades we’ve had peer review trotted out as the be-all and end-all in determining the legitimacy of papers. It’s been unquestioned, while a little examination of the concept demonstrates that it’s nearly certain to result in fraudulent work being passed as good science.”

It’s almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting process, as peer reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. And although the system is based on the best of intentions, it lacks consistent standards and the expertise of the reviewers can vary widely from journal to journal.

Given that cancer research is such a lucrative business right now — the National Cancer Institute, which gave the grant money to support Dr. Sheng Wang’s fabricated research, had a $5.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 — the stakes are exceptionally high. So it stands to reason that it may be subject to even more fraud and manipulation than less lucrative research prospects.

As The Economist reported, there were more new cancer drugs in development in 2010 than any other therapeutic area. Drug makers are well aware that a blockbuster cancer drug could easily earn them profits in the billions, even if the drug is only borderline effective. It is abundantly clear that profit is a primary motive of these companies so it should not be a surprise that they have moved in this direction, and this is where the abundance of research is focused as well.

Why You Might Want to Think Twice Before Donating to Anti-Cancer Charities

A lot of people put their faith in charity organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS), dutifully donating money to help in the “war on cancer.” But in the report titled American Cancer Society—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.

For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that’s just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!

The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.

“Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention. Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding,” Dr. Epstein writes.

Many also do not realize that when you donate money to the American Cancer Society, the majority of it may never go further than the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives.

Meanwhile, global cancer rates have doubled in the last three decades, and their “war on cancer” strategy completely ignores, and oftentimes denies, the obvious links between cancer and toxic exposures through pesticide-laden foods, toxic personal care products, cancer-causing medical treatments and drugs, and industrial pollution. We CAN turn this trend around, but to do so the medical and research communities must stop focusing on drug treatments and overlooking the methods that can actually have a significant impact on preventing this disease.

My Top 12 Tips for Cancer Prevention

Rather than put your health in the hands of cancer researchers willing to do just about anything to discover the next cancer drug breakthrough, take control of your health by following the cancer-preventive lifestyle changes below.

Avoid Fructose and Sugar

It’s quite clear that if you want to avoid cancer, or are currently undergoing cancer treatment, you absolutely MUST avoid all forms of sugar — especially fructose — and this is largely due to its relation to insulin resistance. According to Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, as much as 80 percent of all cancers are “driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells,” Gary Taubes reports.

Some cancer centers, such as the Cancer Centers of America, have fully embraced this knowledge and place their patients on strict low-sugar, low-grain diets. But conventional medicine in general has been woefully lax when it comes to highlighting the health dangers of this additive.

As a standard recommendation, I strongly advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day including fruits. But for most people it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less, as you’re virtually guaranteed to consume “hidden” sources of fructose if you drink beverages other than water and eat processed food.
Optimize Your Vitamin D Level

There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — could be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population.

On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial.

If the notion that sun exposure actually prevents cancer is still new to you, I highly recommend you watch my one-hour vitamin D lecture to clear up any confusion. It’s important to understand that the risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure.
Exercise

If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn’t immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer. One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells.

For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly may reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive.It’s important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as those described in my Peak Fitness program.

These exercises activate your super-fast twitch muscle fibers, which can increase your body’s natural production of human growth hormone. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
Get appropriate amounts of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats.
Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much under appreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
Engage in activities that help you reduce your stress levels, such as exercise, meditation, journalling, music, gardening, etc. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed.
Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
Maintain an ideal body weight.
Get appropriate amounts of high-quality sleep.
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them. Better yet eat as many of your foods raw as you can.

Reprinted with permission Mercola.com

“Eating salt -effects brain activity”

In older adults, the higher the sodium consumption and the less physical activity, the more chance the (aging) brain will be negatively effected.
The effects of physical activity seem to win out, so that habitual, moderate exercise may essentially ‘immunize’ the brain against adverse effects of higher sodium intake. However, the  more physical activity and less consumption of NaCl the better. (Getting the proper amounts of sun time is critical too.-(editor’s note)
It is well known that a high sodium intake stresses out the cardiovascular system. Given the link between cardiovascular factors, such as hypertension, and brain health, in a study of more than 1200 older adults with normal cognitive function at the outset, researchers found that a high intake of sodium combined with low levels of physical activity was associated with a decline in global cognitive function over 3 years.
After age, sex, education, waist circumference, diabetes, and overall diet were controlled, the study showed that for those with low physical active, sodium intake and cognitive decline was most impacted over time.
Excerpts courtesy of medscape.com http://goo.gl/Byjtr

Image courtesy of wikimedia.org  http://goo.gl/PTUKb

“Hope for healing Vitamin D + Cancer”

“This is like the Holy Grail of cancer medicine; vitamin D produced a drop in cancer rates greater than that for quitting smoking, or indeed any other countermeasure in existence.”

~ Dennis Mangan, clinical laboratory scientist

The Vitamin D Council, a nonprofit educational corporation based in California, launches their “Vitamin D and Cancer” campaign today, presenting 20 detailed summaries of the evidence on the role of vitamin D in preventing cancer. Epidemiologist Dr. William Grant prepared the evidence-based summaries. He is the founder of the nonprofit organization, Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC) and serves as the Science Director for the Vitamin D Council.

Some researchers believe the link between vitamin D sufficiency and a decreased risk in cancer is promising. A randomized controlled trial found a 77% reduction in all-cancer incidence when the study group supplemented with 1100 IU/day of vitamin D plus 1450 mg/day calcium. Says Dr. Grant, “Based on various studies of UVB, vitamin D and cancer to date, it appears that global cancer burden can be reduced by 15-25% if everyone had vitamin D blood levels above 40 ng/ml.”

The summaries can be found under the “Health conditions” tab on the Vitamin D Council website, or more specifically at http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/. The Vitamin D Council hopes the campaign will spread more awareness about the importance of vitamin D sufficiency and the dangers of vitamin D deficiency.

For the top ten facts about vitamin D and cancer click here.

Information provided courtesy of the Vitamin D Council.

Image courtesy of thegodguy.files.wordpress.com  http://goo.gl/5culY

“Protect family -read bar codes”

I am going to watch those bar codes a LOT more now… I am busy reading the ingredients.. Boy.. shopping is a full time job!!!

ALWAYS READ THE LABELS ON THE FOODS YOU BUY–NO MATTER WHAT THE FRONT OF THE BOX OR PACKAGE TURN IT OVER AND READ THE BACK—CAREFULLY!

With all the food and pet products now coming from China , it is best to make sure you read labels at the grocery store and especially Wal-Mart when buying food products. Many products no longer show where they were made, only give where the distributor is located. It is important to read the bar code to track its origin.

How to read Bar Codes … interesting!

This may be useful to know when grocery shopping, if it’s a concern to you.

GREAT WAY TO “BUY USA & CANADA ” AND NOT FROM CHINA!!

The whole world is afraid of China-made “black hearted goods”.
Can you differentiate which one is made in Taiwan or China ?
If the first 3 digits of the barcode are 690, 691 or 692, the product is MADE IN CHINA.
471 is Made in Taiwan .

This is our right to know, but the government and related departments never educate the

public, therefore we have to RESCUE ourselves.

Nowadays, Chinese businessmen know that consumers do not prefer products “MADE IN

CHINA”, so they don’t show from which country it is made.

However, you may now refer to the barcode – remember if the first 3 digits are:

690-692 … then it is MADE IN CHINA
00 – 09 … USA & CANADA
30 – 37 … FRANCE
40 – 44 … GERMANY
471 … Taiwan
49 … JAPAN
50 … UK

BUY USA & CANADIAN MADE by watching for “0” at the beginning of the number.
Support the USA.

Health Tip of the day submitted by JS
Image courtesy of  http://goo.gl/sLbZF