POTENTIALLY fatal superbugs are not confined to hospitals but are now invading homes, schools and gyms, scientists claimed last night.
A report in New Scientist says the infections are now lurking “just about everywhere”.
Robert Daum, a paediatrician at the University of Chicago’s Children’s Hospital was one of the first to warn of “community MRSA” in 1998.
He told New Scientist, “Everywhere it has come it has stayed and it comes to more and more places every day.”
It is thought young people, gym users and those involved in contact sports or living in close proximity – such as in prison – are the most vulnerable to the infections.
Community MRSA is not thought to be simply an escapee from hospitals because it has certain distinguishing features and is actually more virulent.
It is however usually susceptible to certain antibiotics that no longer work on hospital MRSA, although experts believe this could soon change.
Robert Skov, head of the Danish Centre for Antimicrobials and Infection Control in Copenhagen, told the journal, “Once these community strains get into hospitals, I would be surprised if they don’t pick up more resistance determinants.”
Hospitals in Wales and England are already advised to screen people scheduled to undergo certain types of surgery for superbugs. But some doctors now want all patients, and possibly even people just visiting emergency rooms, to be screened for the infections as well.
Richard James, director of the centre for Healthcare Associated Infections in Nottingham, said this would save hospitals money in the long term.
But Dr Daum believes the infections are already too widespread in the US for screening to have any effect.
In Scandinavia, the battle against MRSA has already been taken to the community in a bid to halt the infection spreading, with nurses sent to people’s homes to treat carriers and educate them about hygiene.
Dr Skov said, “Every case of MRSA, regardless of whether it causes infection or is just colonisation, is a transmission possibility. That means we should fight MRSA in the community too. If you don’t then you will have a silent pool who are continuously spreading it to other people.”
Doctors also fear the increasing invulnerability of these superbug bacteria could put medicine back to how it was before the advent of antibiotics. This regression would mean humans once again becoming defenceless against common illnesses such as pneumonia,
according to the article.
30 Happiness Tips: Program Your Life for Optimum Enjoyment
For many of us, the goal of life isn't ultimate wealth, a massive amount of stuff, or the perfect car. It's happiness, plain and simple.
Some people may be created happier than others, with enjoyment of life programmed into their hardwiring. For others, getting to happiness isn't always that simple. You weren't programmed that way.
But like any programming, yours can be changed. Rewrite your life program to include as many of the following tips as appeal to you, and the ultimate goal of happiness can be yours. If you've already achieved complete happiness, well done!
Experiment to find out what makes you happy. Different things make different people happy. If you aren't sure what your hot spots are, experiment. Try different things out. Find out what you enjoy most. The answers just might surprise you. Try a few of the following for starters.
Surround yourself with others who are happy. If you are around angry, depressed or sad people, it will transfer to you. You can't help it. But if you're around people who are happy, that will also transfer to you. You'll also learn their habits, and learn to react the way they do when something bad happens. Slowly weed out the negative influences on your life and replace them with positive ones.
Count your blessings. When something bad happens to you, try not to focus on it. Instead, take a minute to count your blessings. Everyone has good things in their lives, whether it is health or loved ones or whatever.
Gratitude sessions. Along those lines, it is a good practice to have a daily gratitude session. Think about what you have to be thankful for, and silently thank those who have done something good for you in some way. If you have time, take the time to call them or email them to thank them.
Think solutions. Instead of thinking about problems, move to the next step: how to solve it. When someone says to me, "Oh, this is so hard," or "Oh, I can't seem to do this," or "Man, we don't have any more of that," I just ask them, "Well, what's the solution?" If you develop solution-oriented thinking, you'll be much happier.
Connect with others. As much as possible, spend time with those you love, and with others who you enjoy. It could be a simple phone call, or a short visit. Or take a day with the person or people you'd like to spend time with. Have a conversation, do things together, be intimate.
Accept things. We are often unaware of it, but we usually want things or people or ourselves to change. And that's a sure way to lead to unhappiness, because we cannot control the world. We have to accept things as they are, try to understand them, even love them. Including and most especially ourselves: accept who you are, allow yourself to be yourself, try to understand and love yourself. Then do the same with the others in your life.
Take time to savor life. Instead of rushing from one thing to another, resolve to have less to do each day, less appointments and fewer tasks. Then do each thing slowly, with mindfulness and ease, and try to be present in the moment. And truly enjoy whatever it is you do, from talking to eating to walking to just sitting.
Notice small things. Along the same lines, try to notice when you feel good, or you're not suffering, or you are tasting something really delicious, or you feel something cold or hot, anything. Noticing the little things will help keep you focused on the present.
Treat yourself. Take a few minutes each day to give yourself a little treat, whether that's something like chocolate or berries, or a bubble bath, or walking barefoot in the grass, or taking a nap. Whatever it is, treat yourself. You deserve it.
This shall pass. When bad things happen, and you're having trouble accepting it, think to yourself the same thing the ancients did: "This, too, shall pass." And it will. And you'll survive.
Volunteer. When you give to others, whether that's money or the stuff you no longer need or your time and love, you become happier. It's true. Take 5 minutes today to call a charity and volunteer to donate some time sometime this month. It will make a big difference in your life.
Follow your passions. If you do what you love to do, especially for a living, you wil be extremely happy. This is one of the best things you can do. If it seems impossible, don't give up. Others have done it and you can too.
Look at your achievements. Instead of looking at what you haven't done, or what you've failed at, think about what you have done. Many times that's much more than we realize.
Laugh. Just the simple act of laughing can make you happier. Watch a funny movie, tell jokes, read a book by Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett, go to humor sites on the Internet. And laugh your head off.
Realize that you deserve it. You deserve happiness. That simple statement is actually profound for many people, as they don't believe they really deserve to be happy. It's often unconscious. If you feel that within yourself, you need to first realize that you deserve happiness. Repeat it if necessary.
Get into the flow. There is a state of doing known as Flow, which is when you completely lose yourself in a task and forget about the world around you. It leads to happiness, and productivity. Set yourself up for it by clearing distractions, giving yourself a challenging (but accomplishable) task, and making it something that you like doing. Then try to lose yourself in that task.
Have a goal. Too many goals will lead to ineffectiveness. Try to choose one goal and really focus on it. And work to accomplish it. Goals lead to happiness, if you make progress on them.
Get inspired. Take time to read blogs or books or magazine articles about success stories related to what you want to do. It will get you energized.
Celebrate. When you do something right, when you accomplish something, when you feel like it, reward yourself. Celebrate. Have fun, and pat yourself on the back.
Autonomy. Try to have at least one area in your life where you have autonomy. It's best if this is at work, but if not, find another place, such as a hobby or civic activity. You need to be in control of what you do to be happy.
Spend time doing something you love. Make room in your life by eliminating some of the commitments you don't really like doing, and replacing them with something you truly love.
Show little acts of kindness. Each day, try to be kind to others in little ways, opening doors, smiling, giving up your place in line.
Exercise. Just a short walk or run could lift your spirits and reduce stress. Nothing difficult. Just get outside and move.
Catch negative thoughts. Monitor your thoughts. When you catch negative ones, try to think of something good instead. Corny, but it helps.
Jealousy doesn't help. Many people obsess about others who are successful or happy. That gets you nowhere, fast. Instead, be happy for them. Then focus on yourself, and what you do right.
Stop watching and reading news. Sure, this sounds like a head-in-the-sand suggestion. But really, if you give this a try, you won't miss a thing. And instead, you can focus on reading books and listening to music that lifts you up.
Learn something new. It's strange how many of us are afraid to try new things, or admit we don't know something. But learning new skills or new information is one of the most fun things there is to do. Give it a try.
Check out nature. Go and watch a sunrise or sunset. Watch the water, whether that's a river or ocean or lake. Watch the stars, or the clouds. Watch animals. Watch people. Watch children. And be inspired by it all.
Laugh some more. When you are in the middle of a bad situation, look around you, realize the absurdity of the situation, and just laugh. In a year, no one will care. In two years, you'll be laughing at this anyway. So laugh now, and be happy now.
More Studies Cast Doubt on Safety of Diabetes Drug
Two more studies published in yet another prominent medical journal have raised questions about the safety of Avandia, a once-popular diabetes medicine.
One study found that Avandia, made by GlaxoSmithKline, doubled the risks of heart failure and raised the risks of heart attack by 42 percent. A second study found that Actos, a similar drug made by Takeda, actually lowered the risks of heart attacks, strokes and death but, like Avandia, also raised risks of heart failure.
Taken together, some of the authors said, the two studies in The Journal of the American Medical Association confirm what doctors and patients using Avandia have already done in great numbers, that is, switch to another drug. Sales of Avandia have plunged.
GlaxoSmithKline said in a written statement that the studies were flawed and “offered no new information on the safety of Avandia.” The company “continues to support Avandia as safe and effective when used appropriately,” the statement said.
In July, a federal advisory panel voted overwhelmingly that Avandia should remain on the market even though it raised the risks of heart attacks. In June, the Food and Drug Administration said it would place its strictest warnings on the labels of both Avandia and Actos because of heart failure risks.
Riven by internal disagreements, the drug agency is still pondering further regulatory actions regarding Avandia. Some in the agency say that the drug should be withdrawn, while others say that all diabetes drugs have risks and that doctors need a variety of options.
The controversy began in May when The New England Journal of Medicine published a combined analysis of more than 40 studies of Avandia that found that it significantly raised the risks of heart attacks. The study attracted wide attention, but it was also criticized by the company and some on Capitol Hill as flawed.
In the study’s aftermath, the drug agency said that it had been told in 2005 of a similar study conducted by GlaxoSmithKline that came to a similar conclusion. Critics denounced the agency’s delay in alerting patients.
Dr. Richard Hellman, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, said that the new studies were “more evidence that we should have a very high level of caution” regarding the use of Avandia. The drug agency should further strengthen the warnings on Avandia’s label to make it clear that the drug should be used very sparingly.
In the first study, researchers from Wake Forest University did yet another combined analysis of Avandia studies, this time limiting themselves to four long-term studies. The authors’ hope was that, by focusing on such a select set, their analysis would avoid some of the limitations of the May analysis.
The redo came to a conclusion almost identical to that of the study published in May. Dr. Sonal Singh, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the Wake Forest School of Medicine and a co-author of the study, said the drug agency should consider withdrawing Avandia from the market.
In addition to its deleterious effects on the heart, Avandia can cause blindness, and it doubles the risks of bone fractures in women, Dr. Singh said in an interview.
“If you use Avandia to treat patients with Type 2 diabetes,” he said, “their chance of getting heart failure due to Avandia is one in 30 and their risk of getting a heart attack is one in 220. All due to the drug.”
Dr. Singh added, “There are older and cheaper drugs that are far better to treat diabetes.”
In the second study, researchers at the Cleveland Clinic combined data from 19 trials of Actos and found that the drug seemed to lower the risks of heart attack, stroke and death by about 20 percent. The study confirmed that Actos increased the risks of heart failure, but this problem is mostly reversible.
“I think this shows that these drugs aren’t the same,” said Dr. A. Michael Lincoff, vice chairman for research in the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
Dr. Lincoff said that Actos not only appeared to be safer than Avandia, but also offered some protection to the heart. Most diabetics die of heart disease.
In an accompanying editorial, two doctors from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston wrote that Avandia would probably not have been approved in 1999 had its heart risks been known.
In an interview, Dr. Daniel H. Solomon, a co-author of the editorial, called Avandia “a drug of last resort.”
Dr. Solomon wrote that the Avandia situation should be used to improve the nation’s drug-safety system. Among his proposals is that when several drugs are available to treat a condition, new drugs must prove that they improve or extend people’s lives before they are approved. Now, many drugs are approved only after they improve laboratory results, like blood sugar or cholesterol levels.
Out of the 92 elements that exist in nature, 25 make up the human body. The largest one is iodine (atomic weight 126.9), followed by molybdenum (95.9). Selenium (78.96) is third.
Selenium was discovered in 1817 and named after Selene, the Greek Goddess of the Moon. This element is a member of the Group 16 (VIA) family of elements in the periodic table, along with oxygen, its sister sulfur, and the metalloid elements tellurium and polonium. Soil contains selenium in minute and variable amounts. In the U.S., soil selenium concentration ranges from <.05 to >50 parts per million (ppm). In the Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes region, Northeast, and Florida, where the soil comes from volcanic or washed coastal deposits, soil selenium concentration is low (<.05 ppm). In the Midwest, with its soil derived from cretaceous shales, soil selenium concentrations are 40 to 200 times higher (2 to 10 ppm), and in some areas, greater than 50 ppm. The concentration of selenium in the earth’s crust is less than that of gold.
Plants take up selenium from the soil and propagate it through the food chain. Brazil nuts, in particular, like selenium. One unshelled Brazil nut (one you have to crack open yourself) contains an average of 100 micrograms (mcg) of selenium per nut. (Already shelled Brazil nuts have 12 to 25 mcg of selenium per nut.) Phytoplankton, the "plants of the sea," extract and concentrate the even more minute amounts of selenium in ocean water and provide this needed element to fish. Selenium was identified as an essential trace element for mammals in 1957, and investigators now have determined that the cells of all organisms, bacterial, animal, and non-animal, need selenium.
Two amino acids, among the 20 that the body uses to make proteins, contain sulfur – methionine and cysteine. Selenium has similar chemistry and replaces the sulfur atom in these amino acids. Selenocysteine, selenium bound to cysteine, a "21st" amino acid, is the active site in some 35 proteins. Several are enzymes. Glutathione peroxidase, with four selenium atoms, is a powerful antioxidant (it reduces hydrogen peroxide to water and oxygen and lipid hydroperoxides to alcohol). Iodothyronine deiodinase converts the thyroid hormone T4 (thyroxine) into its active form T3 (triiodothyronine). Since this enzyme requires selenium to function properly a deficiency of selenium can cause hypothyroidism. Thioredoxin reductase regenerates antioxidant systems and regulates gene expression. All living things contain this selenium-dependent enzyme (Protein Sci 2003;12:372–378).
The proteins that selenium seed have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and immune enhancing properties that altogether foster a long, healthy life, akin to what Selene sought for Endymion (if in sleep) in Greek mythology. Selenium blood levels tend to fall as people age. In one study, investigators followed 1,300 people age 60–71 years for 9 years and found that those with the greatest decrease in blood selenium had the highest likelihood of cognitive decline. The same study showed that people with a low selenium blood level also had a shorter life span.
Cancer cuts short many lives. One in three Americans will have some kind of cancer during their lifetime. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in 2004 (the most recent data available) cancer was the cause of death in 550,000 Americans, many of them in the prime of life.
A growing body of evidence indicates that selenium can prevent cancer. Studies show that low selenium blood levels are associated with an increased risk of cancer. One done in Finland showed that people with low selenium bloods levels are much more likely to develop lung cancer, especially if they smoke, than smokers and nonsmokers with high selenium levels. Another one, the Harvard Health Professionals Cohort study in 34,000 men, found that men with the lowest selenium levels had three times the likelihood of developing advanced prostate cancer compared with those who had the highest levels. These and other epidemiological, cohort, and case control studies suggest that selenium plays a role in cancer prevention. Now, however, there is strong scientific evidence that selenium does indeed reduce the risk of cancer. Evidence from a well-conducted randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the case.
The Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (NPC) trial recruited 1300 patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer who were randomized to receive 200 mcg of selenium a day or a placebo for a mean 4½ years. Selenium decreased the overall incidence of all cancers by 35% and cancer mortality by 50%. Prostrate cancer decreased by 63%; colorectal cancer, by 58%; and the incidence of lung cancer decreased by 46%. All of these decreases in cancer incidence and mortality are statistically significant (JAMA 1996; 276:1957–1963). Seven other clinical trials on the effects of selenium supplementation on the incidence of cancer, done in China (5), India (1), and Italy (1) with varying degrees of randomization, support the NPC findings (Brit J Nutr 2004;91:11–28).
Antioxidant protection and enhanced immune surveillance are two mechanisms researchers have proposed to account for selenium’s anticancer effect. Others include enhancement of apoptosis (programmed cell death), regulation of cell proliferation, suppression of angiogenesis (growth of blood vessels supplying nutrients to the cancer), and inhibition of tumor cell invasion. Studies on cells in tissue cultures and in small animals indicate that two metabolites of selenium, hydrogen selenide and methylselenol, play a central role in cancer prevention and suppression (Zeng. J Nutr Biochem 2007; Epub ahead of print June 27). In order for enough of these metabolites to form and exert their anticancer effects, "supranutritional" doses of selenium have to be given. An equivalent dose for humans is 200–400 mcg/day of selenium.
In 2000, the U.S. Food and Nutrition Board (in the Institute of Medicine) revised the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for selenium, setting it at 55 mcg per day (it had been 70 mcg/day for men and 55 mcg/day for women). This is the "nutritional" dose, said to be adequate for 98 percent of the population. It is based on two studies that show this amount of selenium supports the maximal expression of glutathione peroxidase, which is regarded as fully discharging the nutritional effects of this element. A supranutritional dose is one that is 5 to 10 times higher than the RDA and not toxic. The government-funded experts who set the RDA for selenium did not take into account the NPC trial results, reported in 1996, four years earlier, that shows that a dose four times higher (200 mcg) has an anticancer effect.
The U.S. Food and Nutrition Board set the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for selenium at 400 mcg/day. Chinese authorities place the UL, which they term "no adverse effect level," at 819 mcg/day and the "low adverse effect level" at 1540 mcg/day. China is unique in having areas where the soil selenium level is severely deficient and other areas where the levels are toxic. The first indication of selenium toxicity is "garlic breath" and dry skin. Then the fingernails develop white patches, become brittle, and fall off. In studying the health effect of various levels of dietary selenium intakes in China, investigators found that hair and nail loss occurs when selenium intake reaches 4,990 mcg/day (J Trace Elem Electrolytes Health Dis 1994;8:159–165). These findings indicate that consuming 200–400 mcg of selenium a day to keep cancers from occurring will be well tolerated, without side effects, on top of one’s dietary intake of selenium, which in the U.S. ranges from 60–110 mcg/day (in Europe it is 11–67 mcg/day).
A recently published study in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which does not like supplements, warns that selenium “may” increase the risk for type 2 diabetes. This study is badly flawed. One of its major defects, among others, is that the investigators did not do any blood tests for diabetes at the start of the trial (where subjects were randomized to take selenium or a placebo) and relied simply on what the study subjects told them. Only 4% said that they had diabetes, whereas the true prevalence of diabetes in people their age, >60 years old, is 16.0% in men and 14.4% in women; and undiagnosed diabetes is present in an additional 7.9% of men and 4.2% women (Diabetes Care 2006;29(6):1263–1268). This study is not credible and is no cause for alarm. People with diabetes can take selenium without being concerned that it might make their diabetes worse.
The Moon Goddess’ element has other beneficial effects on human health. The heart does not function well without selenium. People in the Keshan province of China, where selenium content in the soil is very low, develop a severe form of heart failure, a dilated cardiomyopathy known as Keshan’s disease. Selenium supplements reverse it. Heart failure can occur after weight loss (bariatric) surgery due to selenium deficiency resulting from malabsorption, which resolves when selenium is administered intravenously (J Trace Elements Med Biol 2004;18:81–88). And researchers have shown that selenium helps the heart recover after it is temporarily deprived of oxygen, something surgeons do in performing heart surgery.
Selenium may help prevent coronary artery disease (atherosclerosis). It is biologically plausible because oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is an initiating event in the inflammatory process that produces atherosclerotic coronary plaques, and the antioxidant selenium enzymes glutathione perioxidase and thioredoxin reductase can prevent LDL from becoming oxidized. This postulation awaits study.
Selenium stimulates the immune system and has been shown to be effective in treating sepsis (blood stream infection). Studies show that it increases the number of T cells circulating through the body, both CD4 helper T cells and CD8 cytotoxic (killer) T cells. Even given a good dietary intake (120–134 mcg/day), selenium supplementation still has considerable immunoenhancing effects. At Harborview Medical Center, the noted trauma and burn center at the University of Washington, patients in the intensive care unit receive 400 mcg/day of selenium intravenously for 2 days and then 400 mcg/day by mouth (or through a feeding tube) for the next 5 days (along with 1,000 mg of vitamin C and 1,500 IU of vitamin E).
Selenium also affects male fertility. It is required for synthesis of testosterone and to keep sperm structurally intact. Experts in animal husbandry recognize that selenium is essential for successful reproduction. In the U.S., soil scientists reckon that selenium deficiency is a major problem for livestock and wildlife in at least 37 states.
The Goddess of the Moon looks fondly at life on Earth; and she provides an element, rarer than gold, to sustain it. We cancer-prone humans need more selenium than most of us get in our diet. An additional 200 mcg/day of selenium, as selenomethionine or in an inorganic form, is well tolerated and has no side effects. It will help us enjoy optimal health, and live a long life cancer-free and mentally intact.
A simple course of vitamin D could help you live longer, say researchers.
Trials involving 57,000 people found that those who took supplements regularly were less likely to die over the six-year period.
Scientists have already shown that a deficiency of vitamin D may be to blame for 600,000 cancer cases each year. Other studies have linked low levels of the vitamin with heart disease and diabetes.
Now it is being credited with reducing the risk of death from any causes.
In the latest research, published today in the Archives of Internal Medicine, results from 57,000 people in 18 separate trials of vitamin D supplements were analysed.
They received varying doses, with an average 528 International Units - about the level in commercial supplements.
Over almost six years, 4,777 participants died, while those who took vitamin D had a 7 per cent lower risk of death than those who did not.
The latest study was carried out by the International Agency for Research on Cancer at Lyon and the European Institute of Oncology in Milan.
They reported: "The intake of ordinary doses of vitamin D supplements seems to be associated with decreases in total mortality rates. Interventions effectively strengthening vitamin D status should result in reduced total mortality."
The vitamin's function is only partly understood but it is known to slow the rate of growth of cancer cells and help the immune system.
It is produced naturally in the body through exposure to sunlight and U.S. researchers last month linked higher cancer rates in northern European countries to lower levels of sunshine.
Pamela Mason from the Health Supplement Information Service said: "This is an exciting study.
"There have been a number of studies showing low blood levels of vitamin D are associated with a higher risk of various diseases.
"This latest research shows a reduction in the risk of death over a substantial timespan among people taking supplements.
"In northern climates many people, including the elderly, are likely to have low blood levels of vitamin D because of lower levels of sun exposure.
"But this research, coming after a wet summer in Britain, demonstrates the effectiveness of taking vitamin D supplements or multivitamins, which contain reasonable amounts of vitamin D."
Supplements are available in two forms, vitamin D2 and vitamin D3. Researchers recommend vitamin D3 because it is more active and effective.
Vitamin D is found in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk.
In the UK, the Food Standards Agency does not recommend a specific daily dose of vitamin D unless you are elderly, pregnant, Asian, get little sun exposure or eat no meat or oily fish, in which case 10mcg is advised.
We ban smoking yet allow our children to be poisoned with food additives
Well, what a surprise. An authoritative new report published in medical journal The Lancet has confirmed that artificial colouring in children's foods can cause physical and mental damage, leading to hyperactivity, poor behaviour and allergic reactions.
The study, carried out by the Food Standards Agency, only confirms what all too many parents have known for years, that excessive additives do a great deal of harm to vulnerable youngsters.
The research is some sort of vindication for those of us who have for so long expressed our fears over the growing fashion for harmful chemical ingredients in snacks and soft drinks.
Too often in the past we have been attacked for warning of the dangers of E-numbers, which are now widely used in everything from biscuits to chewing gum, and crisps to breakfast cereals.
We have been ridiculed as paranoid and cranky. Some have said that we have misunderstood science, others have claimed that we are not living in the real world.
By raising doubts about artificial ingredients in food, we have even been accused of trying to avoid responsibility for problems in parenting, and passing on the blame for our own supposed inadequacies in disciplining our children.
Yet the latest report from the Food Standards Agency exposes the hollowness of these charges. It is the products, not the parents, that are the cause of the trouble.
Children and their families have been unfairly labelled as troubled, all because of modern diets. Eager to peddle their multi- coloured, over-chemicalised wares in place of natural foodstuffs, the manufacturers are the real architects of the current epidemic of illhealth and hyper-activity among the young.
As a steadfast campaigner against E-numbers, I have known this essential truth for more than 30 years. The official government scientists have just taken a heck of a long time to catch up.
My understanding of the issue was based on my own experiences with my son Miles, an extremely bright boy who was acutely hyperactive almost from the moment he was born. Indeed, he was diagnosed with this condition when he was just two and half, so dramatic were the symptoms.
Though he was fascinated with the world around him, he had poor sleep patterns, was extremely restless, and turned almost every situation into a battle of wills. At times he could be aggressive. There was barely a moment's peace in our home.
Prams and pushchairs would be overturned and he would continually disappear, even when we were out on shopping trips. On occasions, to my horror, he would climb inside the metal guard of our fireplace. He had absolutely no sense of fear and no awareness of boundaries.
For a while I thought there was nothing I could do, despite the severe anxiety his behaviour caused. But then I got hold of the writings of Professor Ben Feingold, an immunologist from San Francisco.
He argued that the chemical ingredients in a diet could be a major factor in children's
conduct, especially those who might be susceptible to hyperactivity.
So I radically altered what Miles was eating. Out went the fizzy drinks, the crisps, the sugary cereals and in came far more natural products: squash, water, vegetables and fruit.
The change in Miles was dramatic. He was suddenly far calmer and less fidgety and rebellious. Peace descended on our house. I had a tremendous sense of liberation from the eternal cycle of aggression and tantrums. Miles remained a lively, inquisitive boy, but his eager spirit was now less wayward.
The positive results of changing Miles' diet got me thinking. There must be thousands of families going through exactly the same ordeal as my own family, with a high- spirited child becoming an uncontrollable ball of energy because of their diet.
So, inspired by Professor Feingold, I set up the Hyperactive Children's Support Group in 1977. Our dual aims were, first, to tell parents that they did not have to live with the misery of disruptive children, that there were steps they could take to relax them, and second, to campaign for the Government to outlaw additives in food.
It was obvious to me, after my experience with Miles, that these E-numbers were doing nothing but harm. They were only there to give a superficial, synthetic appeal, but the damage they caused far outweighed the shallow charm they provided in taste or image. Childrens' health was being sacrificed on the altar of commercial gain.
So why on earth has the FSA not called for a complete ban on additives in childrens' foods? I simply cannot understand the logic of the FSA's position. It says that these chemicals are bad for children, but does not want to see them outlawed.
A body which was established to protect the interests of the public should not be acting in such a manner. But I'm sad to report that this approach is typical of all my dealings with state-funded quangos: all talk and no action.
It is as if the quangocrats inhabit an academic world, where evidence is gathered purely for its own sake, not for any wider public benefit. If the FSA really believed in the findings of its study, it would be calling for a ban today.
Of course, I can understand the liberal view that we already have too much nannying in the country, that people should be free to take responsibility for their own decisions, even if they cause harm. But that hardly applies to children, who cannot make an informed choice and can easily be exploited.
Moreover, the present Government and its institutions cannot hide behind liberalism to justify their reluctance to impose a ban, for that would by the height of hypocrisy.
After all, New Labour has been ruthless in cracking down on smoking in the name of the wider public good, while additives have been banned from baby foods, precisely on the grounds of health risks.
It is time that we applied that logic more widely to children's foods. There is no point in having a Food Standards Agency if its research has no results. The only possible justification - that the profits of the big food manufacturers and supermarkets might be hit by such a crackdown - is hardly an edifying one.
The Government regulates the market all the time in the public interest - and there is no greater cause than the health of children.
A ban would not be an example of the nanny state. It would be a measure of reform in public health.
The pH Miracle - There Is No Disease
There is no Disease
by Robert O. Young D.Sc, Ph.D.
* Dr. Young has 5 degrees in science including 3 doctorates which include a Ph.D, D.Sc., and an N.D. Dr. Young is a scientist, health nutritionist, educator, and microbiologist and is the author of 8 books pertaining to nutrition, health, the science of blood and microbiology. Dr. Young is not a medical or naturopathic doctor or practicing as such.
Disease names like diabetes and osteoporosis are misleading and misinform patients about disease prevention.
There is a curious tendency in conventional medicine to name a set of symptoms a disease. I was recently at a compounding pharmacy having my bone mineral density measured to update my health stats. I spotted a poster touting a new drug for osteoporosis. It was written by a drug company and it said exactly this: 'Osteoporosis is a disease that causes weak and fragile bones.' Then, the poster went on to say that you need a particular drug to counteract this 'disease.
'Yet the language is all backwards. Osteoporosis isn't a disease that causes weak bones, osteoporosis is the name given to a diagnosis of weak bones. In other words, the weak bones are the result of excess acidity, and then the diagnosis of osteoporosis followed.
The drug poster makes it sound like osteoporosis strikes first, and then you get weak bones. The cause and effect is all backwards. And that's how drug companies want people to think about diseases and symptoms: first you 'get' the disease, and then you are 'diagnosed' just in time to take a new drug for the rest of your life.
But it's all hogwash. There is no such disease as osteoporosis. It's just a made-up name given to a pattern of symptoms that indicate you are over-acid which causes your bones to get fragile.
As another example, when a person follows an unhealthy lifestyle that results in a symptom such as high blood pressure, that symptom is actually being assumed to be a disease all by itself and it will be given a disease name. What disease? The disease is, of course, 'high blood pressure.' Doctors throw this phrase around as if it were an actual disease and not merely descriptive of patient physiology.
This may all seem silly, right? But there's actually a very important point to all this.
When we look at symptoms and give them disease names, we automatically distort the selection of available treatments for such a disease. If the disease is, by itself, high cholesterol, then the cure for the disease must be nothing other than lowering the high cholesterol. And that's how we end up with all these pharmaceuticals treating high cholesterol in order to 'prevent' this disease and lower the levels of LDL cholesterol in the human patient. By lowering only the cholesterol, the doctor can rest assured that he is, in fact, treating this 'disease,' since the definition of this 'disease' is high cholesterol and nothing else.
But there is a fatal flaw in this approach to disease treatment: the symptom is not the cause of the disease. There is another cause, and this deeper cause is routinely ignored by conventional medicine, doctors, drug companies, and even patients.
Let's take a closer look at high blood pressure. What actually causes high blood pressure? Many doctors would say high blood pressure is caused by a specific, measurable interaction between circulating chemicals in the human body. Thus, the ill-behaved chemical compounds are the cause of the high blood pressure, and therefore the solution is to regulate these chemicals. That's exactly what pharmaceuticals do -- they attempt to manipulate the chemicals in the body to adjust the symptoms of high blood pressure. Thus, they only treat the symptoms, not the root cause.
Or take a look at high cholesterol. The conventional medicine approach says that high cholesterol is caused by a chemical imbalance in the liver, which is the organ that produces cholesterol. Thus the treatment for high cholesterol is a prescription drug that inhibits the liver's production of cholesterol (statin drugs). Upon taking these drugs, the high cholesterol (the 'disease') is regulated, but what was causing the liver to overproduce cholesterol in the first place? That causative factor remains ignored.
The root cause of high cholesterol, as it turns out, is primarily an over acidic diet. A person who eats foods that are acidic will inevitably cause the body to go into preservation mode and produce more cholesterol to neutralize the excess acid thus showing the symptoms of this so-called disease of high cholesterol. Its simple cause and effect. Eat the wrong foods, and you'll produce too much acid which will cause the body to release cholesterol from the liver to bind up that acid which can be detected and diagnosed by conventional medical procedures.
You see it is not the cholesterol that is bad it is the acid producing food we eat that is bad. Reduce the acid producing foods like beef, chicken, pork, dairy, coffee, tea, soda pops, etc and you will reduce the protective cholesterol that is saving your life from excess acid foods.
Yet the root cause of all this is actually poor food choice, not some bizarre behavior by the liver. If the disease were to be accurately named, then, it would be called Acidic Food Choice Disease, or simply AFCD.
AFCD would be a far more accurate name that would make sense to people. If it's an acidic foods choice disease, then it seems that the obvious solution to the disease would be to choose foods that aren't so acidic. Of course that may be a bit of simplification since you have to distinguish between healthy alkaline foods and unhealthy acidic foods. But at least the name AFCD gives patients a better idea of what's actually going on rather than naming the disease after a symptom, such as high cholesterol. You see, the symptom is not the disease, but conventional medicine insists on calling the symptom the disease because that way it can treat the symptom and claim success without actually addressing the underlying cause, which remains a mystery to modern medicine.
But let's move on to some other diseases so you get a clearer picture of how this actually works. Another disease that's caused by poor acidic food choice is diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is the natural physiological and metabolic result of a person consuming refined carbohydrates and added sugars in large quantities, undigested proteins from beef, chicken, and pork without engaging in regular physical exercise that would compensate for such dietary practices.
The name 'diabetes' is meaningless to the average person. The disease should be called Excessive Acid Disease, or EAD. If it were called Excessive Acid Disease, the solution to it would be rather apparent; simply eat less sugar, eliminate all animal proteins, eggs, dairy, drink fewer soft drinks and so on. But of course that would be far too simple for the medical community, so the disease must be given a complex name such as diabetes that puts its solution out of reach of the average patient.
Another disease that is named after its symptom is cancer. In fact, to this day, most doctors and many patients still believe that cancer is a physical thing: a tumor. In reality, a tumor is the solution of cancer, not its cause. A tumor is simply a physical manifestation of bound up acidic cells so they do not spoil other healthy cells. The tumor is the solution to cells damaged by acids not the problem. The truth is cancer is not a cell but an acidic liquid. When a person 'has cancer,' what they really have is a latent tissue acidosis. They are absorbing their own acidic urine. It that would be a far better name for the disease: Latent Tissue Acidosis or LTA.
If cancer were actually called Latent Tissue Acidosis, it would seem ridiculous to try to cure cancer by cutting out tumors through surgery and by destroying the immune system with chemotherapy. And yet these are precisely the most popular treatments for cancer offered by conventional medicine. These treatments do absolutely nothing to support the patient's immune system and prevent the build up of acids in the tissues. That's exactly why most people who undergo chemotherapy or the removal of tumors through surgical procedures end up with yet more cancer a few months or a few years later. It's also another reason why survival rates of cancer have barely budged over the last twenty years. (In other words, conventional medicine's treatments for cancer simply don't work.)
The main reason is current medical science wrongly perceives cancer as a cell when in reality cancer is an acidic liquid, like lactic acid. This whole situation stems from the fact that the disease is misnamed. It isn't cancer, it isn't a tumor and it certainly isn't a disease caused by having too strong of an immune system that needs to be destroyed through chemotherapy. It is simply latent tissue acidosis. And if it were called latent tissue acidosis disease or urine in the tissues, the effective treatment for cancer would be apparent.
There are many other diseases that are given misleading names by western medicine. But if you look around the world and take a look at how diseases are named elsewhere, you will find many countries have disease names that actually make sense.
For example, in Chinese medicine, Alzheimer's disease is given a name that means, when translated, 'feeble mind disease.' In Chinese medicine, the name of the disease more accurately describes the actual cause of the disease which is caused by acids or urine on the brain, whereas in western medicine, the name of the disease seems to be intended to obscure the root cause of the disease, thereby making all diseases sound far more complex and mysterious than they really are.
This is one way in which doctors and practitioners of western medicine keep medical treatments out of the reach of the average citizen. Because, by God, they sure don't want people thinking for themselves about the causes of disease!
By creating a whole new vocabulary for medical conditions, they can speak their own secret language and make sure that people who aren't schooled in medicine don't understand what they're saying.
That's a shame, because the treatments and cures for virtually all chronic diseases are actually quite simple and can be described in plain language, such as making different alkaline food choices, getting more natural sunlight, drinking more alkaline water, engaging in regular physical exercise, avoiding specific acidic foods, supplementing your diet with green foods and green drinks and alkalizing nutritional supplements and so on.
See, western medicine prefers to describe diseases in terms of chemistry. When you're depressed, you aren't suffering from a lack of natural sunlight; you are suffering from a 'brain chemistry imbalance' that can only be regulated, they claim, by ingesting toxic chemicals to alter your brain chemistry. When your bones are brittle, it's not acidic brittle bones disease; it's called osteoporosis, something that sounds very technical and complicated. And to treat it, western doctors and physicians will give you prescriptions for expensive drugs that somehow claim to make your bones less brittle. But in fact, the real treatment for this can be described in plain language once again: regular physical exercise, vitamin D supplementation, mineral supplements that include calcium and strontium, natural sunlight, and avoidance of acidic foods such as soft drinks, white flour and added sugars.
In fact, virtually every disease that's prominent in modern society -- diabetes, cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, clinical depression, irritable bowel syndrome and so on -- can be easily described in plain language without using complex terms at all. These diseases are simply misnamed. And I believe that they are intentionally misnamed to put the jargon out of reach of everyday citizens. As a result, there's a great deal of arrogance in the language of western medicine, and this arrogance furthers the language of separation. Separation never results in healing. In order to effect healing, we must bring together the language of healers and patients using plain language that real people understand and that real people can act upon.
We need to start describing diseases in terms of their root causes, not in terms of their arcane, biochemical actions. When someone suffers from seasonal affective disorder or clinical depression, for example, let's call it what it is: Sunlight Deficiency Disorder. To treat it, the person simply needs to get more sunlight. This isn't rocket science, it's not complex, and it doesn't require a prescription.
If someone is suffering from osteoporosis, let's get realistic about the words we use to describe the condition: it's really Acidic Bones Disease. And it should be treated with things that will enhance bone density, such as nutrition, physical exercise and avoidance of acidic foods and drinks that strip away bone mass from the human body to neutralize the excess acids in the blood and tissues.
All of this information, of course, is rather shocking to old-school doctors and practitioners of western medicine, and the bigger their egos are, the more they hate the idea of naming diseases in plain language that patients can actually comprehend. That's because if the simple truths about diseases and their causes were known, health would be more readily available to everyday people, and that would lessen the importance of physicians and medical researchers.
There's a great deal of ego invested in the medical community, and they sure don't want to make sound health attainable to the average person without their expert advice. Doctors all want to serve as the translators of 'truth' and will balk at any attempts to educate the public to either practice medicine on their own. But in reality, health (and a connection with spirit) is attainable by every single person. Health is easy, it is straightforward, it is direct and, for the most part, it is available free of charge.
A personal connection with our Creator is the same if we ask humbly in prayer for a relationship with Him, and guidance. Don't believe the names of diseases given to you by your doctor. Those names are designed to obscure, not to inform. They are designed to separate you from self-healing, not to put you in touch with your own inner healer. And thus, they are nothing more than bad medicine masquerading as modern medical practice.
Home microwave popcorn killing you?
Home Microwave Popcorn Cited in Illness
Consumers, not just factory workers, may be in danger from fumes from buttery flavoring in microwave popcorn, according to a warning letter to federal regulators from a doctor at a leading lung research hospital.
A pulmonary specialist at Denver's National Jewish Medical and Research Center has written to federal regulators to say doctors there believe they have the first case of a consumer who developed lung disease from the fumes of microwaving popcorn several times a day for years.
"We cannot be sure that this patient's exposure to butter flavored microwave popcorn from daily heavy preparation has caused his lung disease," cautioned Dr. Cecile Rose. "However, we have no other plausible explanation."
The July letter, made public Tuesday by a public health policy blog, refers to a potentially fatal disease commonly called popcorn lung that has been the subject of lawsuits by hundreds of workers at food factories exposed to chemicals used for flavoring.
In response to Rose's finding, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association issued a statement Tuesday recommending that its members reduce "to the extent possible" the amount of diacetyl in butter flavorings they make. It noted that diacetyl is approved for use in flavors by the federal Food and Drug Administration.
One national popcorn manufacturer, Weaver Popcorn Co. of Indianapolis, said last week it would replace the butter flavoring ingredient because of consumer concern. Congress has also been debating new safety measures for workers in food processing plants exposed to diacetyl.
The FDA said in an e-mail it is evaluating Rose's letter and "carefully considering the safety and regulatory issues it raises."
William Allstetter, spokesman for National Jewish Medical, confirmed the letter was sent by Rose, a specialist in occupational and environmental lung diseases and director of the hospital's Occupational and Environmental Medicine Clinic.
"There have been no other cases that we know of other than the industrial occupational ones," Allstetter said.
Rose acknowledged in the letter that it is difficult to confirm through one case that popping buttered microwave popcorn at home can cause lung disease.
However, she said she wanted to alert regulators of the potential public health implications.
Rose said the man with diseased lungs consumed "several bags of extra butter flavored microwave popcorn" every day for several years.
David Michaels of the George Washington University School of Public Health, who first published Rose's letter on his blog, The Pump Handle, said the finding is another reason for federal regulators to crack down on diacetyl exposure by workers and consumers.
"This letter is a red flag, suggesting that exposure to food flavor chemicals is not just killing workers, but may also be causing disease in people exposed to food flavor chemicals in their kitchens," Michaels wrote on his public health policy blog.
