AzBilliards.com
Page 11 of 212 « First 91011 12132161111 Last »

AzBilliards.com (https://forums.azbilliards.com/index.php)
-   Non Pool Related (https://forums.azbilliards.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Why Is The Food Industry Trying To Kill Us? - Top 10 Food Additives to Avoid (https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=213485)

Sev 07-15-2011 05:53 AM

Might have to add this to my diet. That and Spirulina.
Krill Oil is on my list as well.

As mentioned before with the algae I had read about certain toxins being present depending where it is harvested.
I have in the past only purchases products produced in the US.


Hasnt NASA for years been studying B /G algae for both food and oxygen production?

OneIron 07-15-2011 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyg (Post 2767155)
Where are these guys? Aren't they supposed to look out for us? What do we pay them for?

1) FDA
2) Dept. Of Commerce
3) US Dept of Agriculture
4) Dept of Health & Human Services
5) Food & Safety Inspection Service
6) HACCP -
7) Centers for Disease Control
8) Dept of Food Safety (FOS)
9) World Health Organization
10) Environmental Protection Agency

J

Speaking of the above guys, why the huge spike in "patent medicine" ads on tv and radio? I gues if the ingredients are "natural", all is OK... :rolleyes:

jimmyg 07-15-2011 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneIron (Post 3105834)
Speaking of the above guys, why the huge spike in "patent medicine" ads on tv and radio? I gues if the ingredients are "natural", all is OK... :rolleyes:

"Natural", just like poison ivy. :smile:

J

UGOTDA7 07-15-2011 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyg (Post 3085096)
Friend's son just returned from Iraq, entire company is being given Prozac.

Guess the military bought a few million doses from Eli Lilly.

J

Lilly Gives Away Prozac, Makes Money
Matthew Herper, 11.16.01, 4:46 PM ET

NEW YORK - Some drug firms may have been hesitant to give away AIDS drugs in Africa. But sometimes a pharmaceutical company can make money with drug freebies--so long as the patients want more afterward.

For months, Eli Lilly (nasdaq: LLY - news - people ) has been quietly giving away a one-month supply of a new version of its Prozac antidepressant that is taken once a week, as opposed to once a day or more. Lately, Lilly has ramped up a heavy television advertising campaign for the once-weekly Prozac. The tactic may help it recover some of the sales being lost as cheaper generics enter the market.

In addition to selling the once-a-week Prozac, Lilly has also re-branded fluoxetine, the active chemical in Prozac, to treat a serious form of premenstrual syndrome. These two approaches could help Lilly maintain Prozac sales at a floor of $250 million this year, according to Robert C. Hazlett III, a pharmaceuticals analyst at Robertson Stephens. And it needs the money.

Lilly is staggering after the earlier-than-expected loss of patent protection on the antidepressant. While the patent stayed, Prozac sales stood at an astounding $2.6 billion. But generic firms like Barr Labs (nyse: BRL - news - people ) introduced copycats--and now branded Prozac has been hit with the largest sales erosion ever for a blockbuster drug.

Unlike some other drug companies, Lilly did not attempt to introduce last-minute litigation to keep generic Prozac from the market. That ploy is commonly used in the drug industry: Take, for instance, AstraZeneca's (nyse: AZN - news - people ) court challenge to keep a generic version of its $6 billion ulcer and acid reflux drug Prilosec from being marketed by Davie, Fla.-based Andrx (nasdaq: ADRX - news - people ). "Lilly played it absolutely by the book," Hazlett says. "They lost--and they let it go. They took the high road."

But Lilly needs to stay on the minds of doctors who prescribe antidepressants because it has another one coming down the pipe. A new compound, called duloxetine, may be even more effective than Prozac and other competitors' drugs like GlaxoSmithKline's (nyse: GSK - news - people ) Paxil. Duloxetine should be submitted for approval to the Food and Drug Administration this quarter.

In order to stay in contact with doctors, Lilly needs to keep marketing its Prozac to them. Selling a delayed-release version of a drug is a common way to do this. Schering-Plough (nyse: SGP - news - people ) has pulled the same trick with Claritin--its heavily advertised blockbuster allergy drug.

More rare is actually relaunching the compound as a new drug--as Lilly has done with Sarafem. A new patent, called a "use patent," keeps other companies from marketing fluoxetine for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). For that, Lilly owes Richard Wurtman, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Wurtman realized that lowered levels of serotonin, the brain chemical that Prozac raises, were also partly responsible for PMDD. He patented the discovery and now Lilly licenses it to a company he founded. Hazlett estimates that Sarafem could bring Lilly more than $80 million in sales this year.

Friend's son just returned from Iraq, entire company is being given Prozac.

Please clarify this......

jimmyg 07-15-2011 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGOTDA7 (Post 3106169)
Friend's son just returned from Iraq, entire company is being given Prozac.

Please clarify this......

Not much that I can clarify, or add.

My friend told me that his son, who just returned from Iraq, told him that his entire company was prescribed prozac.

J

jimmyg 07-16-2011 07:39 AM

Prostate health
 
Caution to Men: These Drugs May Turn An Enlarged Prostate into Cancer Posted By Dr. Mercola | July 16 2011

Dr. Rudi Moerck is a drug industry insider and an expert in chemistry, as it relates to food supplements. In this interview, he shares his knowledge about helpful supplements for prostate health.Sources:

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

The topic of this interview—prostate health—is crucially important to all men, so I hope all female readers will share this information with the men in their lives. Thankfully, there are simple, effective strategies men can employ that may significantly reduce their chances of having to face prostate problems such as enlarged prostate or prostate cancer, and here I discuss those strategies with Dr. Rudi Moerck; a drug industry insider who is an expert in the chemistry of food supplements.

The Importance of Maintaining a Healthy Prostate:
While prostate health becomes more important with age, particularly for men over the age of 60, it's worthwhile considering this issue far in advance. Although you may be able to reverse the damage, ideally you'll want to prevent these problems from ever occurring in the first place. Additionally, you need to be informed of the serious potential side effects of the drugs typically prescribed for an enlarged prostate.

"Generally, statistics are overwhelming. Men over 70 have almost a 50 percent chance of developing some sort of enlarged prostate," Dr. Moerck says. "The medical doctors call that benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH). The word 'benign' is very important because it doesn't mean prostate cancer. It just means an enlargement of the prostate.

There are many drugs on the market that are used to treat that; some of which have recently had to issue warning labels that if you have a benign prostate hyperplasia or BPH, it may turn into prostate cancer… Some of these drugs can actually increase the cancer [risk] or make it a much more aggressive cancer."

Clearly, this is a disturbing prospect. But according to Dr. Moerck, you also need to be careful with dietary supplements, as both supplements and drugs can feed prostate cancer, so it's important to seek professional advice.

That said,

"There are things you can do with your diet, and there are things you should do, generally, as a male that can help mitigate this problem," Dr. Moerck says. "… [T]he use of saw palmetto by the American Indians, especially in the Southern States where the saw palmetto plant grows, has been around for thousands of years, and has been used for prostate health for thousands of years."

Before we get into the use of saw palmetto, let's quickly review the drugs typically prescribed for enlarged prostate, which will further help you understand what makes saw palmetto such an attractive alternative.

Conventional Drugs for Enlarged Prostate
The two primary types of drugs prescribed for benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH, or enlarged prostate) fall into two classes:

1.Alpha-blockers
2.5-alpha-reductase inhibitors

Alpha-blockers relax smooth muscles, such as your bladder and prostate. Drugs in this class include Flomax, Hytrin, Cardura, and Rapaflo. While alpha-blockers can help improve urine flow, they do NOT reduce the size of your prostate.

The other class, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitors, includes drugs like Avodart and Proscar. Your prostate gland contains an enzyme called 5 alpha-reductase, which converts the male hormone testosterone to another androgen called dihydrotestosterone (DHT). It's the DHT that stimulates your prostate. This class of drugs inhibit 5 alpha-reductase, thereby blocking the conversion of testosterone DHT. As a result, they may help to actually shrink your prostate, but as mentioned earlier, these drugs come with significant risks, as they may also increase your risk of developing prostate cancer.

Conventional Recommendations are Flawed when it Comes to Testosterone
Many conventional experts do not recommend the use of testosterone because they believe it causes cancer, but it is actually the testosterone breakdown product DHT (dihydrotestosterone) that increases the risk of prostate cancer. The 5-alpha-reductase is the enzyme that is responsible for the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHTTestosterone levels in healthy men typically decline with age, which actually is one of the reasons that prostate enlargement and cancer is caused, as the prostate gland requires testosterone to remain healthy.

One doctor who's trying to re-educate people on this point is Harvard-based Abraham Morgentaler, MD, FACS, author of Testosterone for Life. He has meticulously demonstrated that restoring testosterone levels in aging men does not increase their risk of prostate cancer. On the contrary, those with low testosterone are the ones at greater risk.

For an interesting article that contains a lot more information about this, read Abraham Morgentaler's report Destroying the Myth About Testosterone Replacement and Prostate Cancer. It explains how unfortunate assumptions have led to a dogmatic belief that testosterone replacement increases your risk of prostate cancer—a belief that might now be preventing many men from being optimally healthy. He writes:

"In 2004, when my article in the New England Journal of Medicine was published, there were 15 of these longitudinal studies examining the relationship of hormones and prostate cancer. Since 2004, there have been approximately a half-dozen more. Not one has shown any direct relationship between the level of total testosterone in a man's blood and the subsequent likelihood that he will develop prostate cancer.

Specifically, average total testosterone (T) levels were not higher in the cancer group compared to men without cancer, and men with the highest T values were at no greater risk for later developing prostate cancer than men with the lowest T values.

… At the end of immersing ourselves into this literature for a full year, Rhoden and I were stunned by the fact that there was not a single study in human patients to suggest that raising testosterone increased the risk of prostate cancer."

Saw Palmetto for Prostate Health:
So, to recap, enlarged prostate and prostate cancer is caused, not by testosterone, but by excessive DHT. This is where saw palmetto works and can make a big difference.

According to Dr. Moerck, the medical literature contains as many as 100 clinical studies on saw palmetto. One of the first prostate drugs on the US market was actually saw palmetto, released by Eli Lilly Company back in the early 1870's.

"The mechanism of action of saw palmetto is not fully clear," Dr. Moerck says. "We are certainly not making any drug claims, but the anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a reduction in the conversion of testosterone into the dihydrotestosterone, and therefore, men that take saw palmetto will have slightly higher levels of testosterone in their body…That's a good thing...

It turns out that if you don't have enough testosterone in your body it can cause all kinds of problems like gaining weight, breast enlargement in men, and problem with urinating. So saw palmetto alone, or with pumpkin seed or lycopene is an interesting proposition … It's something that you should definitely try."

I agree with Dr. Moerck.

Trying a high quality supplement like saw palmetto before you resort to a drug is well worth it, considering the stern warnings that accompany some of these drugs. Granted, not all of the drugs have cancer warnings, but those also do not work on actually shrinking your prostate; they're just ameliorating your symptoms. And all drugs come with a list of potential side effects.

(Keep in mind that the average number of side effects per drug today is 70! So make sure you read the fine print and review the list of side effects for any and all drugs before taking them.)

As for saw palmetto, it does not increase your risk of prostate cancer. It decreases it. And if your body doesn't need it, it will do no harm. If you do choose to use a supplement, please understand that you need to be careful of the brand. As I explain below, most brands on the market are close to worthless because they use the inactive form of the plant.

Dosing and How to Identify High Quality Saw Palmetto
Dr. Moerck recommends a daily dose of 320 mg of saw palmetto oil (supercritical CO2 extract). Quality is extremely important, however. Saw palmetto is an effective supplement, but only if it's from a high quality source! Unfortunately, more than half of all the saw palmetto products on the market are ineffective for this very reason…

"Most will not work for you because of one very simple reason," Dr. Moerck explains. "Somebody had the bright idea a few years ago to take dried saw palmetto berries, picked in Florida, and grind them up and put them in a capsule. The berries themselves, those so-called green berries, do not have a lot of oil in them—maybe 8-9 percent oil. So if you put 300 or 500 mg of green berry powder in a capsule, you're only going to get 35 mg of oil. Whereas the right dose, the clinically trial dose, is 320 mg."

According to Dr. Moerck, these ineffective products include most of the mass-marketed saw palmetto supplements found in drug- and grocery stores.

"… [T]hey'll say 'Serenoa repens 320 mg as berry.' That's not 320 mg of oil. That's berry powder. It does not work… It is incredibly bad stuff… It gives people false hope."

What you want is the supercritical extract of saw palmetto oil. This oil can be made three different ways:

1.Ethanol/alcohol extraction (darker oil that still contain some of the micronutrients, such as chlorophyll)

2.Hexane extraction (yellow oil resembling corn oil that does not contain any micronutrients. May contain residue of hexane, which is toxic)

3.Supercritical CO2 extraction
The highest quality oil comes from the third extraction method, using liquid carbon dioxide and ultra-high pressure to extract the oil from the berries.

According to Dr. Moerck, supercritical CO2 extraction is the cleanest extraction method known today, aside from eating the food whole. And, the higher the pressure used, the more micronutrients are left in the oil, such as lutein, lycopene, zeaxanthin, and chlorophyll.

The highest quality products are the organic supercritical-extracted saw palmetto oils, which are very dark green in color. Only one or two out of every 20 brands will be of this high quality. Next in line are:

•Ultra-high or High pressure-extracted oils (rose colored)
•Super critical oils
•Low pressure-extracted oils (yellow colored)

Synergistic Benefits Between Saw Palmetto and Other Nutrients
Evidence also suggests that certain nutrients may synergistically heighten the benefits of the saw palmetto.

"There are a number of nutrients that have been used traditionally," Dr. Moerck explains. "One of them is organic pumpkin seed oil, which is a good nutrient… It's slightly less effective than saw palmetto [alone]… because it is a different mechanism of action…"

However, when buying a combination product, beware that saw palmetto oil is far more expensive than pumpkin seed oil. Some supplements will therefore contain mostly pumpkin seed oil and very little saw palmetto oil, resulting in a less effective product. Remember the threshold of what you want, as far as a daily dose, is a minimum of 320 mg of the saw palmetto oil.

"I would not go more than twice that [amount]," Dr. Moerck says. "I have to also mention that the fatty acids in saw palmetto are free fatty acids. They're very acidic. If you take a lot of it, it could cause some stomach upset. I recommend taking it with food…"

You don't want to take saw palmetto on an empty stomach because it's a fat soluble supplement, so it will not absorb well without a little bit of fat. I recommend taking it with eggs, which contain phospholipids that enhance absorption of fat soluble nutrients.

The other nutrient that works well with saw palmetto is lycopene, and there's a growing body of evidence indicating that lycopene is beneficial for prostate health. One excellent food source is tomatoes, including organic, non-sweetened tomato sauce. Animal studies have shown that of all the carotenoids, lycopene is the one that accumulates in the prostate of male animals, and this holds true for humans as well.

A third nutrient that has been found to offer significant protection against prostate cancer is vitamin K2.

The Importance of Vitamin D for Prostate Health:

Link to entire, unedited, article + video: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...te-health.aspx

chefjeff 07-16-2011 08:12 AM

I take a few Saw Palmettos a month and that does the trick for me.

It only takes a few for me. One of my customers has to take 2 or 3 a day for the same results. (I use the highest quality herbs possible and pay for that---cheaper isn't better when it comes to herbs, cuz the guaranteed quality of the raw ingredients matter most).

Jeff Livingston

jimmyg 07-21-2011 06:33 AM

Diet Soda Is A Scam
 
Are Diet Sodas Making You Fat?

Posted By Dr. Mercola | July 21 2011

Two new studies have linked diet soda to poorer health.

In one study, people who drank two or more diet sodas a day experienced waist size increases that were six times greater than those of people who didn't drink diet soda. A second study that found that aspartame (NutraSweet) raised blood sugar levels in diabetes-prone mice.

According to The Week:

"... [R]esearchers speculate that the artificial sweeteners warp appetite, leaving diet soda drinkers hungry for unhealthy treats ... The results were the same for all diet soda drinkers, even after factors such as exercise, social class, education, and smoking were taken into account."
Sources: The Week June 30, 2011 - Meeting of the American Diabetes Association, San Diego, California, June 26, 2011

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Diet soda is easily one of the biggest health scams preying on well-meaning dieters looking for a sweet calorie-free beverage. Nearly 927 million cases of Diet Coke, and another 892 million cases of Diet Pepsi, were sold in 2010. If you bought one or more of those millions, please realize you would be better off flushing that money down the toilet, as at least then you would not be harming your health.

Diet Soda Drinkers Get a Whopping 70-500 Percent Greater Increase in Waist Size:

A study by researchers at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, presented at a recent meeting of the American Diabetes Association, has added to growing research that diet soda is not a "guilt-free" treat at all. Instead, after following 474 diet soda drinkers for nearly 10 years, they found that their waists grew 70 percent more than the waists of non-diet soda drinkers. Further, those who drank two or more diet sodas a day had a 500 percent greater increase in waist size!

As you may know, your waist size is not only a matter of aesthetics, but also a powerful indicator of a build-up of visceral fat, a dangerous type of fat around your internal organs that is strongly linked with type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Your waist size is a far more accurate predictor of your heart risks than even your body mass index (BMI), so any habit that has the potential to increase your waist size by 500 percent more than someone who does not have that habit is one worth breaking.

A second study by some of the same researchers also revealed that mice eating food laced with the artificial sweetener aspartame had higher blood sugar levels than mice eating food without it, which suggests it may increase your risk of diabetes and metabolic syndrome. In a statement, the researchers noted:

"These results are consistent with data from community-based epidemiologic studies in which the consumption of diet sodas was shown to be associated with increased incidence of metabolic syndrome and diabetes. They suggest that aspartame exposure may in fact directly contribute to increased blood glucose levels, and thus may contribute to the associations observed between diet soda consumption and the risk of diabetes in humans."

You May be Fooled by Diet Soda … but Your Brain Isn't:

Clearly, if you are still opting for diet soda because you believe it is healthier than regular soda, you are doing yourself a great disservice. Regular soda is by no means a healthy choice either … but please don't fall into the trap of believing that diet soda is "healthy" just because it's calorie-free. As Professor Helen Hazuda, an author of the above studies, told the Daily Mail:

"They may be free of calories but not of consequences."

Indeed, it was six years ago now that research by Sharon P. Fowler, MPH, who was also involved in the new studies noted above, and colleagues found that your risk of obesity increases by 41 percent for each can of diet soda you drink in a day.

So what is going on?

Substances like Splenda and aspartame may have zero calories, but your body isn't fooled. When it gets a "sweet" taste, it expects calories to follow, and when this doesn't occur it leads to distortions in your biochemistry that may actually lead to weight gain.

As far as "sweetness satisfaction" in your brain is concerned, it can tell the difference between a real sugar and an artificial one, even if your conscious mind cannot. Artificial sweeteners tend to trigger more communication in the brain's pleasure center, yet at the same time provide less actual satisfaction. So when you consume artificial sweeteners, your body craves more, as well as real sugar, because your brain is not satisfied at a cellular level by the sugar imposter. There is even research suggesting that artificial sweetener use may ruin your body's ability to control calories, thus boosting your inclination to overindulge.

Diet Soda is Not a "Healthier" Alternative:

There are other reasons aside from weight gain to think twice before drinking diet soft drinks. In fact, there are already hundreds of published studies linking artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which is widely used in diet soda, to serious health complications. Cori Brackett's documentary film Sweet Misery is an excellent summary of the problems with aspartame.

You can also view my interview with Victoria Innes-Brown, who over a 2.5-year period performed a set of meticulous and detailed animal experiments, documenting the effects of using aspartame liquid comparable to diet soda. This included not only large tumors but also neurological effects, paralysis, skin disorders and symptoms of cerebral palsy.

Recent research has also linked diet soda consumption to higher rates of strokes, heart attacks and other lethal vascular events as well as metabolic syndrome.

There is literally enough evidence showing the dangers of consuming artificial sweeteners to fill an entire book -- which is exactly why I wrote Sweet Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet beverages or eat diet foods, this book will explain how you've been deceived about the truth behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose

Are You Addicted to Diet Soda?
It's very possible to become addicted to diet soda, and this likely has to do with the blurring of your brain's ability to respond to both real and artificial sugars. According to Harold C. Urschel, an addiction psychiatrist in Dallas, in a CNN article:

"You think, 'Oh, I can drink another one [diet soda] because I'm not getting more calories. Psychologically, you're giving yourself permission."

Yet the satisfaction your brain receives from the artificial sweetener doesn't measure up to the satisfaction provided by real sugar. According to Martin P. Paulus, MD on CNN:

"Your senses tell you there's something sweet that you're tasting, but your brain tells you, 'Actually, it's not as much of a reward as I expected.' The consequence might be that the brain says, 'Well, I'll have more of this."

"Artificial sweeteners have positive reinforcing effects -- meaning humans will work for it, like for other foods, alcohol, and even drugs of abuse. Whenever you have that, there is a potential that a subgroup of people ... will have a chance of getting addicted."

If you're finding it difficult to ditch diet soda, your emotional connection to cravings might be an important factor for you. One of the most profound methods I know of for diminishing the effects of food cravings is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), and particularly Turbo Tapping, which is a refinement of EFT that allows you to resolve emotional aspects of an addictive problem in a short period of time. I strongly recommend giving this technique a try if you can't kick your diet soda habit.

Once you have broken your addiction, you may be able to introduce the natural sweetener Stevia, which can be used to make your own drinks and food dishes. My favorites are the liquid stevias that come in flavors like English Toffee and French Vanilla, which you can even add to seltzer water to make a far healthier soda alternative.

jimmyg 07-22-2011 07:48 AM

The Dark Side of This Popular Drug Taken by 1 in 4 Americans Over-45...

Posted By Dr. Mercola | July 22 2011

A recent meta-analysis has demonstrated that taking statin drugs is associated with excess risk of developing diabetes.

Researchers looked at five different clinical trials that together examined more than 32,000 people. They found that the higher the dosage of statin drugs being taken, the greater the diabetes risk.

According to the study, as reported by Green Med Info:

"In a pooled analysis of data from 5 statin trials, intensive-dose statin therapy was associated with an increased risk of new-onset diabetes compared with moderate-dose statin therapy."
Sources: Journal of the American Medical Association June 22, 2011; 305(24): 2556-2564 - Green Med Info

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

This recent meta-analysis of five different drug trials adds further credence to suspicions that statins may be contributing to the current epidemic of adult-onset diabetes. Statins, as most of you probably know, are the most popular cholesterol-lowering drugs available today.

They're primarily thought of as "preventive medicine" to reduce your risk of heart disease. Many doctors also prescribe them if you have elevated C reactive protein (an indication that you have chronic inflammation in your body), and they're even promoted for kids as young as eight years old!

The fact that statin drugs cause side effects is well established—there are some 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk. But as we're now starting to discover, statins may also cause diabetes...

Statins Increase Risk of Diabetes Onset, Researchers Find
The meta-analysis, published in JAMA in June, concluded that those taking higher doses of statins were at increased risk of diabetes compared to those taking moderate doses. What this means is that the higher your dose, the higher your risk of developing diabetes.

The "number needed to harm" for intensive-dose statin therapy was 498 for new-onset diabetes—that's the number of people who need to take the drug in order for one person to develop diabetes. In even simpler terms, one out of every 498 people who are on a high-dose statin regimen will develop diabetes. (The lower the "number needed to harm," the greater the risk factor is.)

(As a side note, the "number needed to treat" per year for intensive-dose statins was 155 for cardiovascular events. This means that 155 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one person from having a cardiovascular event.)

The following scientific reviews also reached the conclusion that statin use is associated with increased incidence of new-onset diabetes:

•A 2010 meta-analysis of 13 statin trials, consisting of 91,140 participants, found that statin therapy was associated with a 9 percent increased risk for incident diabetes. Here, the number needed to harm was 255 over four years, meaning for every 255 people on the drug, one developed diabetes as a result of the drug in that period of time.

•In this 2009 study, statin use was associated with a rise of fasting plasma glucose in patients with and without diabetes, independently of other factors such as age, and use of aspirin, β-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The study included data from more than 345,400 patients over a period of two years.

On average, statins increased fasting plasma glucose in non-diabetic statin users by 7 mg/dL, and in diabetics, statins increased glucose levels by 39 mg/dL.

How Do Statins Cause Diabetes?
Statins appear to provoke diabetes through a few different mechanisms. The most important reason is that they increase your insulin levels, which can be extremely harmful to your health.

While you need some insulin to maintain your blood glucose levels, elevated insulin levels causes chronic inflammation in your body, and inflammation is the hallmark of most chronic diseases. In fact, elevated insulin levels lead to heart disease, which, ironically, is the primary reason for taking a cholesterol-reducing drug in the first place! It can also promote belly fat, high blood pressure, heart attacks, chronic fatigue, thyroid disruption, and diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and cancer.

Secondly, statins increase your diabetes risk by raising your blood sugar. When you eat a meal that contains starches and sugar, some of the excess sugar goes to your liver, which then stores it away as cholesterol and triglycerides. Statins work by preventing your liver from making cholesterol. As a result, your liver returns the sugar to your bloodstream, which raises your blood sugar levels.

Statins also rob your body of certain valuable nutrients, which can also impact your blood sugar levels. Two nutrients in particular, vitamin D and CoQ10, are both needed to maintain ideal blood glucose levels.

Now, it's important to realize that drug-induced diabetes and genuine type 2 diabetes are not necessarily identical.

If you're on a statin drug and find that your blood glucose is elevated, it's possible that what you have is just hyperglycemia—a side effect, and the result of your medication. Unfortunately, many doctors will at that point mistakenly diagnose you with "type 2 diabetes," and possibly prescribe another drug, when all you may need to do is simply discontinue the statin in order for your blood glucose levels to revert back to normal. So if friends or loved ones you know are on a statin (and one in four Americans over 45 are) and they are told they have diabetes, please do them a favor and tell them about the information in this article.

Beware: Statins Decimate Health-Promoting Nutrients:

It's still uncertain whether statins actually deplete your body of vitamin D, but they do reduce your body's natural ability to create active vitamin D (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol). This is the natural outcome of the drug's cholesterol-reducing ability, because you need cholesterol to make vitamin D! It's the raw material your body uses for vitamin D conversion after you've exposed your skin to sunlight.

It's also well-documented that vitamin D improves insulin resistance, so needless to say, when you take a statin drug, you forfeit this 'built-in' health-promoting mechanism.

Additionally, statins suppress your natural coenzyme Q10; also called "ubiquinol" in its active form. Produced mainly in your liver, it makes energy for every cell in your body, and it too plays a role in maintaining blood glucose. Depleting CoQ10 also increases your risk for heart failure, high blood pressure, and heart disease. Moreover, CoQ10 protects your body from oxidative stress, a strong contributing factor in the development of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and heart attacks.

That said, if you absolutely have to take a statin drug, you must make sure to also take ubiquinol in order to prevent CoQ10 deficiency and help protect against cellular damage.

Other Potential Side Effects of Statins:
Aside from what I've already covered above, statin drugs are associated with a rather extensive list of harmful side effects, including:

Weakness Polyneuropathy (nerve damage in the hands and feet) - Acidosis Dysfunction of the pancreas - Muscle aches and pains - Anemia -Sexual dysfunction - Cataracts - Rhabdomyolysis, a serious degenerative muscle tissue condition - Potential increase in liver enzymes so patients must be monitored for normal liver function - Suppressed immune function -Increased cancer risk

Do You Really Need a Statin Drug?
That these drugs have dominated the market the way they have is a testimony to the power of marketing, corruption and massive conflict of interest, because the odds are very high— greater than 100 to 1—that if you're taking a statin, you do NOT actually need it. It's clearly one of the most over-prescribed drugs there are. There's only one subgroup of people that might benefit from this drug and that's those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, which makes them resistant to traditional measures of normalizing cholesterol.

In order to see past the propaganda, you must first understand that cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease. And if your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, then you should know that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher or you have a seriously distorted HDL/Cholesterol ratio.

Your body needs cholesterol. It's important in the production of your cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories, and is vital to your neurological function. There is strong evidence that having too little cholesterol increases your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson's disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior.

The following ratios are FAR more potent indicators for heart disease, and are the ones you want to keep an eye on:

1.HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be above 24 percent. If below 10 percent, you have a significantly elevated risk for heart disease.

2.Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be below 2.

I have seen people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who were actually at low risk for heart disease due to their elevated HDL (so-called "good" cholesterol) levels. Conversely, I have seen many people with cholesterol levels under 200 who had a very high risk of heart disease, based on their low HDL.

How to Optimize Your Cholesterol Levels Without a Drug:
It's truly unfortunate that the drug industry's media- and medical industry manipulation has been so successful in brainwashing both doctors and unsuspecting patients into taking these harmful drugs when so few people actually need them. Not to mention the fact that the most effective way to optimize your cholesterol profile and prevent heart disease is via diet and exercise.

It's actually quite simple too. Seventy-five percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels.

Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol and reduce your risk of both diabetes and heart disease.

As you've just learned, taking a statin drug can actually increase your risk of both of these diseases. And remember the "number needed to treat" that I mentioned earlier; in order to prevent a cardiovascular event in just one person, 155 people must be treated with the drug—all of them taking the risk of experiencing a potentially serious side effect... So, before you agree to take a statin drug, please evaluate the risks and benefits.

What are the chances you will be in the minority who will benefit? And what are your chances of suffering a potentially devastating side effect? Make a conscious, informed decision, and keep track of any side effects once you start taking the drug!

Also know that there are other ways to improve your cholesterol that do not put your health at risk. My primary recommendations for safely regulating your cholesterol include:

•Reduce, with the plan of eliminating grains and fructose from your diet. This is the number one way to optimize your insulin levels, which will have a positive effect on not just your cholesterol, but also reduces your risk of diabetes and heart disease, and most other chronic diseases. Use my Nutrition Plan to help you determine the ideal diet for you, and consume a good portion of your food raw.

•Get plenty of high quality, animal-based omega 3 fats, such as krill oil, and reduce your consumption of damaged omega-6 fats (trans fats, vegetable oils) to balance out your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio.

•Include heart-healthy foods in your diet, such as olive oil, coconut and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats.

•Exercise daily. Make sure you incorporate peak fitness exercises, which also optimizes your human growth hormone (HGH) production.

•Avoid smoking or drinking alcohol excessively.

•Be sure to get plenty of good, restorative sleep.
Unlike statin drugs, which lower your cholesterol at the expense of your health, these lifestyle strategies represent a holistic approach that will benefit your overall health—which includes optimal insulin levels and a healthy cardiovascular system.

jimmyg 07-24-2011 09:43 AM

Are vaccines safe and necessary? Possibly not!
 
The Smear Campaign They Used to Try to Shut Us Up

Posted By Dr. Mercola | July 24 2011

Barbara Loe Fisher is a pioneer in vaccine education and safety, and the founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).

14 Min video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpdYr...layer_embedded

In an effort to educate and offer a counterbalance to the massive amounts of traditional mass media exposure on vaccines, which rarely ever mentions the potential dangers, we co-sponsored a message that was featured on the New York Time Square’s Jumbotron in March of this year. It was a 15-second spot that ran every hour, 24/7 for five weeks.

To say it caused a stir would be an understatement. Here, Fisher discusses the controversy that ensued.

Sources: video transcript

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

If you were in New York in the month of March, you may have caught a first-hand look at the message we co-sponsored with the NVIC. The 15-second spot was displayed on the Time Square Jumbotron, where it ran for five weeks, once every hour, around the clock.

This short and simple message created a completely disproportionate amount of controversy.

Link to 25 sec video message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=z7pPR2E0iUA

"I was very surprised," Fisher says, "because this was a really non-controversial 15-second message. [It was] basically 'Get informed; make an informed vaccine decision. It's your health, your family, your choice.'"

Is the Industry Afraid of Informed Healthcare Consumers? You Bet!
It was truly interesting, and at times hilarious, to watch the ensuing response to our simple message reminding people about their right to make educated and well-informed health decisions.

The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote a letter to CBS, pressuring them to take the message down. The letter was also leaked to bloggers who started a smear campaign against NVIC based on the fact that they advocate making informed and voluntary vaccination decisions. All in all, it was a rare display of widespread and blatant pro-censorship sentiments.

Interestingly, those who question the impartiality of NVIC, which is a not-for-profit public health advocacy group, would like you to believe that the only information worth listening to is that which comes from the makers of these vaccines, and organizations with invested interest in maintaining vaccine sales…If impartiality is the crux of the problem, then what on earth makes the vaccine industry the most reliable source of information?

"I protested," Fisher says. "I wrote a letter to the President of the American Academy of Pediatrics asking, "Why would NVIC be targeted when we, for 30 years, have been the leading consumer advocates trying to institute safety reforms in the mass vaccination system; trying to encourage everybody to make educated vaccine decisions? If we can't do that in America; if we can't ask people to become educated healthcare consumers, then we're in a pretty sorry state."

What Makes NVIC a Reliable Source of Vaccine Information?
Fisher co-founded the group that is now known as the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) back in 1982.

"We were parents of children who had been injured by DPT vaccine. Our very first goal was to inform parents, inform people that there are risks associated with vaccines, and to institute safety reforms in the mass vaccination system," Fisher says.

"So I thought to myself, if I'm going to be a critic of existing policy [then] I need to understand what that policy is and what people who recommend it believe. I can't just be a critic from the outside. I have to be willing to sit at the table with people who are making these policies and try to explain to them why the public wants to have more information, and wants to have the freedom to make informed vaccine decisions.

I spent… about 25 years sitting on vaccine advisory committees, participating in public engagement projects with government, in the effort to try to get them to see that people want to be empowered with information and they want to be partners with their doctors in making life and death healthcare decisions for their children.

I think this is a responsibility we all have as Americans. If we're going to criticize, we need to get information and we need to be willing to sit at the table and try to convince the people in power they have to change."

Those Who Cannot Persuade with Facts are Left with Just One Option: Attack!
Yet for all of Fisher's dedication and experience, the American Academy of Pediatrics still launched an aggressive attack against her and NVIC over this public service announcement…

But why are pediatricians and the organizations that represent them attacking those who are trying to improve the system to ensure greater safety for all? And why are they attacking parents of vaccine injured children? Don't parents deserve more from their pediatricians than that? Ultimately, this controversy seems to stem from the foundational issue that there is a widely held view that vaccines are an essential element of the traditional health system, and that they are responsible for saving millions of people's lives.

But is this belief based on accurate facts?

I understand how many professionals who ascribe to the idea that vaccines are necessary to save lives would be violently opposed to some of the messages that we promote. Unfortunately, most of them haven't taken the time to carefully examine the data, and haven't thoroughly evaluated the information being disseminated. It's important to remember that most of the information about vaccines comes straight from the vaccine makers themselves, and it's meant to promote the sale of vaccines, not inform people of the potential risks involved.

In many ways, informed consumers are a direct threat to both the vaccine industry and to pediatric medicine, because both have heavily vested interests in maintaining the status quo on vaccine usage.

"There's this idea that the cornerstone of public health and individual health must be that we control or eradicate infectious diseases through the mass mandated use of vaccines," Fisher says. "But what they've never bothered to do is to take a step back and say, 'is that a wise thing to do? Because we did it with smallpox, because we did it with polio, is it a wise thing to do with every single microorganism that causes infections in humans?'

We are at the point now where we have 69 doses of 16 vaccines that the government recommends every single child should get from day of birth through age 18. We now have a universal use influenza vaccine policy that every single American, from six months of age through the year of death, is to receive a flu vaccine every year.

But what we don't have is large studies that show that these policies are safe (particularly for every person) and also effective. Are we really achieving greater health in our society on an individual basis, and a public health basis, by using so many vaccines? I would argue that the jury is definitely out because we have seen an explosion of chronic disease and disability in our society in the last quarter century, particularly since we began using so many vaccines."

Emerging studies show that, in fact, these policies are not at all effective, and I agree with Fisher that the safety of our current vaccination policy is highly questionable, especially when you consider that no proper studies have been done to evaluate the policy as a whole. The question of whether or not it's safe for any given child to receive multiple vaccines in combination is being completely ignored.

Why aren't Pediatricians Asking More and Better Questions?
A perfect example of a common-sense question that is being ignored by the American Academy of Pediatrics is the strategy to vaccinate all newborns with the hepatitis B vaccine at 12 hours of age. Why is this being done when the incidence of hepatitis B is so low in the United States to begin with?

There is no common sense applied to this recommendation and implementation because the child is only at risk for hepatitis B if the mother has the active infection. So why don't we just test the mother for hepatitis to see if the vaccine is warranted, instead of routinely vaccinating all babies? This would not only protect the child from unnecessary harm, it would also be far more cost effective.

"I think cost effectiveness is something that really needs to be looked at in this economic climate that we're in," Fisher says.

Are the increasing amounts of vaccines given actually translating into better health for our children and adults? That's an important question that still needs to be answered.

The Old Drug Paradigm is Dying—But it's a Slow, Drawn-Out Death…
Ultimately it all comes back to the issue of education. Does the average parent of a newborn understand all the issues related to their decisions? I think it's safe to say that many don't, because you can't expect to get a complete picture if your only source of information is heavily influenced by conflicts of interest…

However, there are signs that the education campaign is working, although it's slow-going.

"We know, from recent polls in the last few years, that the majority of parents now are concerned about both vaccine safety and prescription drug safety," Fisher says.

"We also know that about two-thirds of Americans believe that doctors are too heavily influenced by pharmaceutical companies and pharmaceutical company lobbyists. I would also add that, unfortunately, a lot of legislators at the state and federal level are also influenced by the pharmaceutical lobby, which is the biggest lobby on Capitol Hill. I think that this growing concern. They know that there is something, potentially, that they need to know, but I don't think that the basic educational level for most new parents is there when it comes to infectious diseases and vaccines.

So that's really what our organization has always been about… We don't tell people what to do. We're consumer advocates. We're not doctors. We don't tell people to vaccinate or not to vaccinate.

What we say is, 'as an educated healthcare consumer, you must understand the risk associated with the diseases as well as the vaccines, and make an informed decision—because, as a parent, you live with that decision.' You have to take responsibility for it because your doctor and your legislator and your pharmacist are not going to live with it; you're going to live with it.

I think the idea that we ought to have the right and freedom in this country to have information and make voluntary decisions is a human right. I think it's a civil right. I think it's something worth standing up for in the 21st century."

Although still a minority, many Americans, perhaps as much as 40 percent, are moving toward a new health care paradigm that is less focused on pharmaceutical products; a holistic paradigm that embraces a more natural, less toxic approach to health and well-being. The Vaccine Safety and Informed Consent Movement is a big part of this paradigm shift toward holistic health.

But there are those in control of the old pharmaceutical-based paradigm who are not happy with the shift, and they're actively fighting to prevent it. And in so doing, they're jeopardizing health freedom, and in many ways preventing health.

"I think that… those of us who understand; who want to eat organic, who want to have natural ways to stay healthy; who want to make vaccine choices, we're going to have to stand up and fight really hard in this second decade of the 21st century, or else we're going to lose that freedom. Government will come down on people and they will demonize people and make it impossible to function in society unless you conform," Fisher warns.
"I mean, America was built by dissenters with a healthy respect for minority views. Why should we be thrown off of a Time Square ad when we were only advocating informed healthcare choices? It's very frightening that you can't simply say, 'Get educated.'"

Fortunately, the company that owned the billboard had integrity, and the ad was not taken down. Interestingly enough, the added exposure received from the controversy stirred up by the American Academy of Pediatrics and various bloggers actually benefited the NVIC and brought the issue of consumers' right to education and informed consent to the forefront.

Final Thoughts: Link to entire article including remainder:http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...0724_SNL_Art_1

UGOTDA7 07-24-2011 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyg (Post 3106357)
Not much that I can clarify, or add.

My friend told me that his son, who just returned from Iraq, told him that his entire company was prescribed prozac.

J

Sorry, but to be blunt that's pure BS and his son doesn't have a clue WTF he's talking about.....and yeah, feel free to tell him I said so.

jimmyg 07-24-2011 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UGOTDA7 (Post 3120213)
Sorry, but to be blunt that's pure BS and his son doesn't have a clue WTF he's talking about.....and yeah, feel free to tell him I said so.

Sure! :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCNGVftY5A8

J

UGOTDA7 07-24-2011 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyg (Post 3120280)

Sure, some take it, some take just about anything - but to say en entire company was blanket prescribed Prozac is just idiotic for a lot of reasons. And folks who not only ignorantly and naively buy into this idiocy and on top of that spread it as gospel are doing a disservice to those who serve. But yeah, what would I know - I've only lived it for decades, have multiple tours of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, have personal experience getting controlled medication, and worked with and have friends who were BCT and DIV Surgeons responsible for managing these programs.

chefjeff 07-25-2011 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyg (Post 3120280)

Life is short, Jimmy.

Jeff Livingston

UGOTDA7 07-25-2011 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chefjeff (Post 3121559)
Life is short, Jimmy.

Jeff Livingston


It sure is.....too short to buy into and live with worldview built upon BS.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:25 AM.
Page 11 of 212 « First 91011 12132161111 Last »

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.