Health

LEAF [ The Health Benefits of Juicing Raw Cannabis ] – YouTube.

medicine

Leaf introduces Dr. William Courtney and Kristen Peskuski of Cannabis International; along with the people involved in researching, promoting, regulating and benefiting from raw cannabis.

Dr. Courtney is a physician and researcher from Mendocino, California, who gives medical marijuana approvals to qualified patients in Mendocino and Humboldt Counties. Kristen Peskuski is a researcher and patient who put her systemic lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, interstitial cystitis, and numerous other conditions into remission juicing fresh cannabis.

They help make sense of the science behind patient’s recoveries from a diverse range of medical conditions. Attorneys, physicians, law enforcement, medical care providers, patients and their families discuss their experiences with medical cannabis. They specifically focus on juicing fresh cannabis, which is non-psychoactive and contains medical properties 200-400 times stronger than traditional, heated cannabis.

Patients have reported success with osteo and rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune disorders, cancer and many other conditions using this unique therapy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTaqHFz1xlIScientist Warning Against Flu Shot – YouTube.

Not convinced that the flu is a threat to most people.

The numbers compiled by the government are wrong.

We don’t have vaccines to target whatever flu is active. It’s a guess.

Your own doctor is not doing his homework on this. He relies on Big Pharma  for his information.

______________________________________________________________

12 Jun 2013

Dr. Peter Doshi, Scientist at Johns Hopkins University and Steve spoke about why the flu shot should not be administered.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Victoria, BC, Canada. This is happening all over the world already.

I took these within the last year. They begin at 4am and they expand to the whole sky in 12 hours or so. Lou

______________________________________________________________

Scientists Warn Geo-Engineering Can Kill Billions of People.

From and with kind permission of  http://www.morphcity.com/

By Cassandra Anderson
October 2, 2012

gates22Geo-engineering is an umbrella term for deliberate climate intervention that includes spraying the sky with aerosols to reflect solar radiation away from Earth in order to cool the planet and to save the environment and humanity from the effects of supposedly man-made global warming.  There is evidence that this program has already been implemented for many years using unidentified chemical aerosols, known as chemtrails. 

A geo-engineering/ chemtrails experiment using a balloon to spray sulfur particles into the sky to reflect solar radiation back into space is planned for New Mexico within a year by scientist David Keith.  Keith manages a multimillion dollar research fund for Bill Gates.  Gates has also gathered a team of scientist lobbyists that have been asking governments for hand-outs to for their climate manipulation experiments with taxpayer money.

Geo-engineering is touted as a last-ditch effort to save people and the planet from global warming.  But the truth is that geo-engineering can alter rain cycles leading to droughts and famine that could result in billions of deaths!

Therefore, Bill Gates appears to be using his concern over global warming to cloak his real intent of controlling weather and/or depopulation.

Mount Pinatubo Model for Geo-Engineering Drought, Famine & Death 

The Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines erupted in 1991, spewing 22 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.  A 2008 study from Rutgers University based a model on Mount Pinatubo sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and applied it to geo-engineering; the scientists said that they expected overall global cooling, but some regions would experience an increase in greenhouse gases and warming, as was recorded after Pinatubo erupted.

Based on the SO2 volcanic model, the scientists reported that geo-engineering aerosols sprayed in tropical or Arctic regions are likely to disrupt African and Asian/Indian summer monsoons, threatening the food and water supply for billions of people!

Additional negative consequences include ozone depletion, reduced strength of hydrological cycles resulting in decreased river flow and soil moisture.
While the scientists, led by Alan Robock, who performed the experiments appear to believe in man-made global warming, they do have stern warnings against the dangers of geo-engineering.
2012 Geo-Engineering Study
The Max Planck Institute conducted a study of geo-engineering models based on volcanoes, but the study was unrealistic because it used climate models with 400% more carbon dioxide than the pre-industrial era.  However, their results showed that geo-engineering will cause a strong decrease in rainfall (a 15% loss in North America and Eurasia and a 20% decrease in South America). Overall, global rainfall would be reduced by 5%.Unless one considers the financial benefits (government and private grants), it is bewildering why the academia would support geo-engineering.http://www.egu.eu/home/geoengineering-could-disrupt-rainfall-patterns.html
Geo-Engineering Can Cause Warming
atmosphere2Geo-engineering can actually cause global warming when tampering with clouds in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.  The Gates-funded scientist lobbyists propose spraying sulfur dioxide 30 miles above Earth and the New Mexico experiment proposes spraying 15 miles above surface- both of these fall within the parameters of the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.  The troposphere is the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere, extending an average of 4 to 12 miles above surface.  Clouds that are in the lower troposphere are generally thick white clouds with a high rate of albedo or reflectivity of the sun’s rays away from Earth that produce a cooling effect.  However, the experiments are to be conducted above this level in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere.

The upper atmosphere is called the stratosphere and extends as high as 31 miles above the Earth’s surface. The clouds in the higher stratosphere are generally thin, have a lower albedo reflective rate and act like a blanket that traps heat. 

Both experiments propose dumping  SO2 in the upper atmosphere/stratosphere, creating a heat-trapping blanket that would theoretically increase warming.  This is the opposite of Gates’ stated goal to cool the planet.(Note: most long-distance planes fly at 6 miles above surface, in the lower atmosphere/troposhere)
What About the EPA?Given that the EPA claims that sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions cause health problems and early death and that they are shuttering coal plants over emissions, you may be wondering why the EPA isn’t screaming bloody murder over Gates’ SO2 aerosol-spraying experiments.  The answer can be found on the EPA’s own website where they promote giving regulatory power over geo-engineering/chemtrails to the UN and/or developed countries that fund the programs.  The EPA is abdicating power to international interests.Bill Gates’ failure to address the EPA’s dire warnings of the dangers of SO2 is proof that he is aware that the EPA’s claims are grossly overstated or that he doesn’t really care about the environment and has ulterior motives.Global Warming and UN ControlGlobal warming is a ruse that claims that life on planet Earth is in grave danger- this alarmism is used for political gain.  Global warming is a hoax based on manipulated science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  The UN currently is assuming control over geo-engineering through its Convention on Biological Diversity treaty that declared a moratorium on experiments, except in some cases.Conclusion

Geo-engineering is either a risky adventure to test ignorant theories or a scheme to control weather, water and food supplies.

Bill Gates’ record as a depopulation enthusiast supports the argument that geo-engineering is a weather domination scheme that may be used as a weapon threatening the lives of billions of people.

Scientists Warn Geo-Engineering Can Kill Billions of People.

Ask yourself why he is, his administration anyway, doing this. From where I stand it looks to me that the president of the United States of America has no power whatsoever. He is merely a puppet acting on behalf of the usual gang of villains__Big Pharma, police and corrections unions, prosecutors, etc.

The man smoked pot himself. Plenty of studies have demonstrated the medical benefits and safety of the plant, yet, millions are wasted in order to protect the profit margins of a select few (Pharma shareholders). Shame on you Obama and all your hypocrite friends.

Lou

______________________________________________________________

Obama Administration Has Spent Nearly $300 Million Cracking Down On Medical Marijuana: Report.

The Huffington Post  |

By   06/13/2013

The report calculates the total amount of federal spending on medical marijuana intervention at $289 million over Obama’s four-and-a-half years in the White House. According to the analysis, the Drug Enforcement Administration alone spent 4 percent of its budget in 2011 and 2012 cracking down on medical marijuana across 20 states. Taken as a whole, Obama’s participation makes up the majority of what ASA says is a $483 million war of lawsuits, indictments and asset forfeiture attempts waged by the Department of Justice under the past three presidents.

Full article:

Obama Administration Has Spent Nearly $300 Million Cracking Down On Medical Marijuana: Report.

Living on light: woman attempts to prove humans can live without food | World news | guardian.co.uk.

A 65-year-old Seattle woman is attempting to go 100 days on just water, shunning all medical advice in the process

guardian.co.uk

in New York

Friday 14 June 2013

Naveena Shine

Naveena Shine has lost 30lbs since beginning her experiment. Photograph: Facebook

A Seattle woman is attempting to go 100 days without eating to prove that humans can “live on light”.

Naveena Shine says she believes it is possible for human beings to survive without food and is conducting what she describes as an experiment to prove it.

The 65-year-old, originally from Birmingham in the UK, has been consuming just water and “one, maybe two cups of tea a day” for the past 41 days, losing 30lbs in the process. Other people have previously claimed to be able to survive without food and and water, although no one has ever proven it to be possible and some have died attempting it.

Dr Ronald Hoffman, medical director of the Hoffman Center and host of a weekly health talk podcast, said it was “delusional to think that you can escape the laws of biology”.

“Plants have what are called choroplasts that contain chlorophyll and they have the ability to capture energy from sunlight,” Hoffman said. “Humans don’t have cholorphyll or chloroplasts. No humans do. It is impossible for a human to have that.

“Therefore they have to derive energy from external sources, that can be either fat or protein or carbohydrates, but it can’t be sunlight.”

Hoffman said if Shine continues to not eat food her organs will eventually fail and she will die.

Shine contends that “a doctor can’t see living on light because he looks through different lenses” and has said she is not undergoing medical tests as during the experiment. She said she had experienced a “calling” which inspired her to stop eating.

“It came as an idea that became so powerful, I knew I had to do it,” she said. “And this has happened a few times in my life; I suddenly got this strong desire or need to do something that nobody in my world could imagine but it came so strongly to me, it was just like: ‘This is what I need to do.’ It’s intuition.”

She said she had heard of others who claim to be able to forgo conventional nutrition, including a friend who claimed to have survived without food for three years.

“I know that people say it is [possible] and I don’t disbelieve them, and I don’t believe them, so the only way to find out is to do it,” she said.

Shine is not undertaking any special exercises or performing other procedures in order to “live on light” – a process she describes as “not necessarily literal”.

In 2003 American illusionist David Blaine survived 44 days in a glass box without food, while last year a Swedish man claimed to have survived two months in his car eating just handfuls of snow. While experts believe it is possible for the human body to survive for up to two months without food, should Shine survive for 100 days her feat would be unprecedented.

“It is said by scientists that all matter comes from light. All matter,” she said. “It does go through all of our animals and grass all the things that grow on our planet so that we can access it. But that doesn’t mean to say that we don’t have a system within us already that can access it more directly.”

While Shine says her inspiration to eschew food does not come from a particular set of beliefs, her website praises Jasmuheen, an Australian woman who describes herself as an “ambassador of peace” and “international lecturer”, and whose teachings that it is possible to subsist on light alone have been linked to the deaths of four people.

Jasmuheen claims to have lived for years on light alone, but tried and failed to go without food and water for 10 days in an experiment for Australian television program 60 Minutes in 1999. A doctor for the network noted that after 48 hours Jasmuheen displayed symptoms of dehydration, stress and high blood pressure. The network cancelled the experiment after four days when Jasmuheen’s health continued to deteriorate.

So far Shine has lost 30lbs, although in a post on Facebook she said her weight has “been holding at around 128lbs and 129lbs”. In video updates posted to Facebook and her website she has reported feeling light-headed when bending down and when getting up from a seated position. She said she had a couple of days where she threw up bile, but other than that was in good condition.

The tone of her Facebook updates has changed as time has elapsed, with it appearing this week that Shine would not put herself at risk if she continues to deteriorate. On Monday she wrote that she would not drop down below 120lbs; suggesting an end to her attempt may be in sight.

She said she had started adding “a package of EmergenC” into her water, which she said had no nutritional value, although the website of the supplement shows that a typical package does contain 25 calories and a number of vitamins and minerals.

Beyond that, however, Shine has eschewed medical evaluations.

“Doctors can’t really have that much to say with this, because it’s not within the doctors’ paradigm. A doctor can’t see living on light because he looks through different lenses, he looks through different eyes.

Certainly if I start getting ill or I start falling all over the place or I start feeling really bad or all the things that are pretty obvious, I will know that this is not going anywhere and I can stop, which I will. But so far none of that’s happened.”

Hoffman said he would urge Shine to begin the “slow reintroduction of food”.

“Stop doing it, and get some medical tests to see if there’s any critical deficiencies, because critical vitamin deficiencies can develop too. It’s not just protein and calorie, it’s also there may be critical deficiencies of D vitamins, vitamin C, you could get scurvy. All the nutritional diseases can manifest when you don’t eat.”

Gut Biota Never Recover from Antibiotics: Damages Future Generations – Waking Times : Waking Times.

June 5, 2013

Flickr - antibiotics - Sheep purpleHeidi Stevenson, Gaia Health
Waking Times

Emerging research shows that the harmful effects of antibiotics go much further than the development of drug resistant diseases. The beneficial bacteria lost to antibiotics, along with disease-inducing bacteria, do not fully recover. Worse, flora lost by a mother is also lost to her babies. The missing beneficial gut bacteria are likely a major factor behind much of the chronic disease experienced today. The continuous use of antibiotics is resulting in each generation experiencing worse health than their parents.

Martin Blaser, the author of a report in the prestigious journal Nature writes:

Antibiotics kill the bacteria we do want, as well as those we don’t. These long-term changes to the beneficial bacteria within people’s bodies may even increase our susceptibility to infections and disease.Overuse of antibiotics could be fuelling the dramatic increase in conditions such as obesity, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies and asthma, which have more than doubled in many populations.

Without even considering the development of superbugs, we’re now seeing clear documentation that the overall long term effects of antibiotics are devastatingly harmful to our health. Speaking to ABC News, Blaser said:

Antibiotics are miraculous. They’ve changed health and medicine over the last 70 years. But when doctors prescribe antibiotics, it is based on the belief that there are no long-term effects. We’ve seen evidence that suggests antibiotics may permanently change the beneficial bacteria that we’re carrying. [Emphasis my own.]

Notice that term, permanent. Without factoring in the potential risks in the casual use of antibiotics, it now looks like conventional medicine is creating several pandemics of some of the worst chronic diseases known.

Mass Use of Antibiotics

By the time a child reaches age 18 in the industrialized world, the chances are he or she has been given 10-20 courses of antibiotics. That misuse continues into adulthood, and they’re casually prescribed to pregnant women.

That’s where the situation grows ever worse. Part of normal childbirth is a baby’s passage through the birth canal—where it’s exposed to its first dose of beneficial bacteria. (This should give pause to anyone considering a caesarian birth that isn’t absolutely necessary.)

When a mother’s microbiota is deficient, her child is born to that deficiency. The evidence now appears to show that, once a probiotic deficiency exists, it is never recovered—and it’s passed down the generations. Therefore, each generation is likely to suffer from poorer health than the parents enjoyed.

Costs of Antibiotic-Induced Chronic Conditions

Healthcare costs rise and rise in treating this chronic ill health. Consider the pandemic status of diabetes and asthma in children today. Those diseases were extremely rare 50 years ago, and now they’re literally routine. Yet, the focus continues to be on treatment—which increasingly lines the pockets of Big Pharma and doctors.

The search for cause has practically been ignored, even in the face of rising rates of chronic illness. Instead, treatment is the touchstone. Ever more toxic methods of suppressing symptoms, while hiding adverse effects, are researched and pushed on conventional medicine’s victims.

Two of the most critical functions in health are drastically compromised in enormous numbers of today’s children. The ability to metabolize food and the ability to breathe are being stolen from this generation. Yet the treatment they’re receiving for this poor health does nothing to make them well. It only masks the symptoms and makes their children even sicker!

On top of those losses, children suffer from allergies, their bodies’ inability to distinguish between disease-inducing agents and harmless substances. They suffer from autoimmune disorders, their bodies’ inability to distinguish between foreign substances and parts of their own bodies.

Has there ever been a generation of children whose inherent health has been so devastated by the very medical system that is supposedly responsible for their health?

Iatrogenic Disease

Iatrogenic disorders are health problems caused by medical errors. They are now officially the third-leading cause of death in the United States. But those numbers do not include early deaths from diabetes, asthma, allergies, chronic bowel disorders, or cancer—all of which have been documented as results of antibiotic use—nor are the miseries suffered by the people burdened with them reckoned in the iatrogenic toll.

Related Research on GreenMedInfo.com: Antibiotics

About the Author

Heidi Stevenson is Allopathy’s Gadfly. She’s an iatrogenic survivor whose prior career in computer science, research, and writing was lost as a result. She has turned her skills towards exposing the modern medical scam and the politics surrounding it, along with providing information about the effectiveness of much alternative medicine, without which she would not be here today acting as Allopathy’s Gadfly. Find her work on GaiaHealth.com

Resources:

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.

The Sun Is Heating Up And It’s Time To Ignore Every Single Message You Hear About Slathering On Sunscreen.

June 4, 2013

by MARCO TORRES

http://preventdisease.com

The Sun Is Heating Up And It’s Time To Ignore Every Single Message You Hear About Slathering On Sunscreen

The idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is a falsity promoted by a profit-seeking tag-team effort between the cancer industry and the sunscreen industry. How convenient an oversight by these demonizers of the sun that people closest to the equator have the lowest incidence of skin cancer, but you’ll never hear that message on your local news. Instead, as the summer approaches the media bombards us daily with myths that blocking the sun’s rays from reaching our skin will somehow protect us from the one thing it actually prevents–cancer.
Blocking the sun’s rays from reaching our skin dramatically influences our optimal vitamin D levels, leading to higher mortality, critical illness and mental health disorders. Ironically, sunscreen itself causes cancer.

A Tale of Corruption and Deception

The sunscreen industry makes money by selling lotion products that actually contain cancer-causing chemicals. It then donates a portion of that money to the cancer industry through non-profit groups like Cancer Societies which, in turn, run heart-breaking public service ads and charity events such as Relay For Life urging people to donate and use sunscreen to “prevent cancer.”

The cancer establishment has retreated from the truth. What began as sincere investigation into the economic root causes of a complex set of 200 different diseases, at the turn of the 20th century, quickly degenerated into a single-minded focus. All cancer societies are now dedicated to funding drug companies to “find the cure” that will never exist, at least not from any mainstream institution.

Devra Davis, one of North America’s sharpest epidemiologists “Astonishing alliances between naive or far too clever academics and folks with major economic interests in selling potentially cancerous materials have kept us from figuring out whether or not many modern products affect our chances of developing cancer.” She has documented how some of the world’s most prominent cancer researchers secretly worked for chemical firms without disclosing these ties when publishing studies.

Davis’ work will rob you of any lingering, Disney-like fantasies you might have entertained about the nobility of cancer fundraising campaigns actually doing some good the cancer patients. Please DON’T support American or Canadian Cancer Societies or Relays For Life.

Many grants funding cancer research are supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Melanoma Research Foundation. The NCI is the same federally funded (and privately funded by Big Pharma) organization that promotes mammography via ionizing radiation. In fact they are one of the biggest mammography promoters in the nation. They are directly managed by the biotech sector and typically employ pharmaceutical executives on their boards.

The Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) is filled with scientific advisory members with conflicts interests statements littering their academic work. The decision makers at MRF are all current or former pharmaceutical executives or board members.

Why Sunscreen Will Never Prevent Cancer And May Cause It

The Sun does not cause cancer. Researchers have concluded that UVA exposure has not contributed to the rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past 30 years. UVA makes up 90 percent of the ultraviolet light spectrum of sunlight.

“Our data refute the only direct evidence that UVA causes melanoma, which is not to say that UVA is harmless,” said the study’s lead author David Mitchell, Ph.D., professor in M. D. Anderson’s Department of Carcinogenesis located at its Science Park — Research Division in Smithville, Texas. “UVA is just not as dangerous as we thought because it doesn’t cause melanoma.”

Both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, although UVB does so far more rapidly. UVA, however, penetrates your skin more deeply than UVB.

UVB appears to be protective against melanoma — or rather, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective.

As written in The Lancet:

“Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect.”

So if UVA and UVB do not cause melanoma, why use sunscreen?

Skin cancer rates are increasing and the so-called experts are STILL blaming the sun for a problem manufactured right here on earth.

If the sun was REALLY causing skin cancer, and if sunscreen prevented it, we’d be cancer-free by now. We’re already spending less time outside than ever, and wasting billions of dollars a year on needless, dangerous creams and lotions.

Meanwhile, just a couple of generations ago, we spent far more time out in the sun and ZILCH on sunscreen — and skin cancer was practically unheard of.

After decades of debate, several governments have failed to set mandatory sunscreen safety standards. Companies are free to make their own decisions on everything from advertising claims to product quality. The underlying message is that sunscreen applications are presently carrying risks that far outweigh any benefit to the public.

Comprehensive scientific reviews indicate that 83% of 785 sunscreen products contain ingredients with significant safety concerns. Only 17% of the products on the market block both UVA and UVB radiation which is the intended purpose by manufacturers of sunscreen, so what’s the point? The assessment by the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database was based on a review of nearly 400 scientific studies, industry models of sunscreen efficacy, and toxicity and regulatory information housed in nearly 60 government, academic, and industry databases.

At least 50% of products on the market bear claims that are considered “unacceptable” or misleading under sunscreen safety standards. An analysis of marketing claims on hundreds of sunscreen bottles shows that false and misleading marketing claims are common. They give consumers a false sense of security (based on myths) with claims like “all day protection,” “mild as water,” and “blocks all harmful rays” which are completely untrue, yet are found on bottles. Consumers might assume that, because researchers have implicated ultraviolet light in skin cancer development, sunscreen automatically thwarts skin cancer. They play on this consumer bandwagon of fear and hope on an issue shouldn’t even be an issue…blocking the sun!

A review of the technical literature shows that some sunscreen ingredients absorb into the blood, and some are linked to toxic effects. Some release skin-damaging free radicals in sunlight, some act like estrogen and could disrupt hormone systems, several are strongly linked to allergic reactions, and still others may build up in the body or the environment.

Almost two dozen law suits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Playtex Products Inc., Tanning Research Laboratories Inc. and Chattem Inc involving some of the most popular brands, including Coppertone, Banana Boat, Hawaiian Tropic, Bullfrog and Neutrogena — charge that manufacturers inflate claims about sunscreens, lulling consumers into believing their products are safe when they have shown to CAUSE cancer.

Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives retinol and retinyl palmitate which accelerate tumor growth.

In a year-long study, tumors and lesions developed up to 21 percent faster in lab animals coated in a vitamin A-laced cream than animals treated with a vitamin-free cream, a report by EWG stated based on their analysis of initial findings released by the FDA and the National Toxicology Program,

Based on the strength of the findings by FDA’s own scientists, many in the public health community say they can’t believe nor understand why the agency hasn’t already notified the public of the possible danger.

Scientists have reported that particle size affects the toxicity of zinc oxide, a material widely used in sunscreens. Particles smaller than 100 nanometers are slightly more toxic to colon cells than conventional zinc oxide. Solid zinc oxide was more toxic than equivalent amounts of soluble zinc, and direct particle to cell contact was required to cause cell death. Their study is in ACS’ Chemical Research in Toxicology, a monthly journal.

The Environmental Working Group who previously analyzed 15 studies on nanoparticles on sunscreen said that no investigations have ever assessed absorption through damaged skin. Such data is missing “for nearly all of the 17 sunscreen chemicals approved for use in the U.S.” The scientists note that a concern is children accidentally ingesting nano-sized zinc oxide.

Another common and toxic ingredient in sunscreens is titanium dioxide. New research published in ACS’ journal, Environmental Science & Technology found that Children may be receiving the highest exposure to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide. The geometry of titanium dioxide (TiO2) based nanofilaments appears to play a crucial role in cytotoxicity having a strong dose-dependent effect on cell proliferation and cell death.

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer found that titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, found in everything from cosmetics to sunscreen to paint to vitamins, caused systemic genetic damage in mice. The TiO2 nanoparticles induced single- and double-strand DNA breaks and also caused chromosomal damage as well as inflammation, all of which increase the risk for cancer.

Vitamin D From The Sun is The Key In Preventing Disease

The scientific evidence, however, shows quite clearly that sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking the body’s absorption of ultraviolet radiation, which produces vitamin D in the skin. Vitamin D, as recent studies have shown, prevents up to 77 of ALL cancers in women (breast cancer, colon cancer, cervical cancer, lung cancer, brain tumors, multiple myeloma, etc). Meanwhile, the toxic chemical ingredients used in most sunscreen products are actually carcinogenic and have never been safety tested. They get absorbed right through the skin (a porous organ that absorbs most substances it comes into contact with) and enter the bloodstream.

For the past several years, there has been considerable interest in the role vitamin D plays in improving health and preventing disease. Previous finding show that low levels of vitamin D have been directly associated with various forms of cancer and cardiovascular disease. Stephen B. Kritchevsky, PhD, Professor of Internal Medicine and Transitional Science at the Wake Forest School of Medicine found a significant correlation.

“We observed vitamin D insufficiency (defined as blood levels <20 ng/ml), in one third of our study participants. This was associated with nearly a 50 percent increase in the mortality rate in older adults,” said Kritchevsky. “Our findings suggest that low levels of vitamin D may be a substantial public health concern for our nation’s older adults.”

Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., cancer prevention specialist at the Moores Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) and colleagues estimate that 250,000 cases of colorectal cancer and 350,000 cases of breast cancer could be prevented worldwide by increasing intake of vitamin D3, particularly in countries north of the equator. “For the first time, we are saying that 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancer could be prevented each year worldwide, including nearly 150,000 in the United States alone,” said Garland.

Although vitamin D can be obtained from limited dietary sources and directly from exposure to the sun during the spring and summer months, the combination of poor dietary intake and sun avoidance has created vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency in large proportions of many populations worldwide.

It is known that vitamin D has a wide range of physiological effects and that correlations exist between insufficient amounts of vitamin D and an increased incidence of a number of cancers. These correlations are particularly strong for cancers of the digestive tract, including colon cancer, and certain forms of leukemia.

Spending an average of three hours a day exposed to sunlight can slash the risk of breast cancer by up to 50 percent.

People with higher blood levels of vitamin D live significantly longer than people who have low blood levels of the vitamin.

A new study from University College London in the UK found that people with higher vitamin D levels had a 43% lower risk of depression, compared to people with vitamin D lower levels.

Results published in Clinical Nutrition also indicated that the higher vitamin D levels were associated with a 67% lower risk of panic, compared to the lower levels.

“The high burden of mental and behavioral disorders and concurrent high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency (<75nmol/l) worldwide (29) highlight the potential importance of our findings,” wrote the researchers, led by Jane Maddock from the UCL Institute of Child Health.

People with the highest levels of vitamin D have the lowest risk of skin cancer. Sure, you can get some of that from a pill…but historically, most people have gotten their D straight from the source: the sun, and protecting yourself from it 100 years ago with clothing, cream or anything would likely have been viewed as its own mental health disorder.

How To Make Your Own Non-Toxic Sunscreen

While the sun will not cause cancer, it is not in your best interest to burn your skin. So if you are prone to burning easily, try making your own natural sunscreen to extend your exposure.

New York Times Best selling author, Sophie Uliano of Gorgeously Green and her new book DO IT GORGEOUSLY, shows you how to make your own non toxic sunscreen in less than 4 minutes.

Please omit zinc oxide from the recipe to make a truly natural and toxic free version of this sunscreen, especially during preparation. Zinc oxide can affect the lungs and reproductive system if inhaled. Replace the zinc oxide with 1 tablespoon of avocado oil which helps increase the sun protection factor (SPF).

Recipe: (SPF 6-8)
2 tablespoon Virgin Coconut Oil
1 tablespoon Shea Butter
1 tablespoon Avocado Oil
1/2 teaspoon Sesame Oil
1/2 teaspoon Aloe Vera Gel

Keep in mind that this recipe will not allow you to stay in the sun for hours without burning, even if you have darker skin. If you have pale skin and are prone to burning in very short periods, this recipe will only modestly protect you when UV rays are at their highest strength. Intermittent periods spent in the shade are highly recommended to balance the UV dose you receive.

For those that tan well, this lotion will give you an excellent color and glow if used daily while spending a minimum of 30 minutes in the sun.

Although it not waterproof, it is water resistant if applied thoroughly and spread evenly. In direct sunlight, you must reapply a thin layer of the lotion every half hour for optimal results.

Spread the word: Please promote the use of non-toxic sunscreens.

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Sources:
ewg.org
preventdisease.com
jhu.edu
sciencedaily.com
aolnews.com
preventdisease.com

The Sun Is Heating Up And It’s Time To Ignore Every Single Message You Hear About Slathering On Sunscreen.

How to Get Vitamin D Without the Sun | GreenMedInfo | Blog Entry.
Thursday, June 13th 2013
Written By: Heidi Stevenson

Sunflower in sunshineCertainly, it’s best to get your Vitamin D from the sun. It’s the most natural approach. However, there are other ways if needed. Here’s a guide to those sources, and how to convert IUs to milligrams.

Sunflower in sunshineWhile it’s best to obtain your Vitamin D3 by sun exposure, nowadays it simply isn’t practical for most of us to spend that much time outside. There’s no need to worry, though. Two good options for getting the D3 you need are readily available. One is through suntanning booths and beds, and the other is via supplements.

First, though, let’s take a look at what foods provide D3. Although there’s a diet that can supply adequate D3, it isn’t one that’s readily available to most people, and frankly, unless you’ve grown up with it, the chances are you’ll find it less than appetizing. It’s virtually all meat and animal fat, and much is eaten raw. D3 and other vitamins are readily available in the flesh, organs, and blubber of far north animals, unlike those of lower latitudes. While this diet isn’t readily available to most people, or desirable, it does demonstrate that D3 can be obtained through diet.

It’s helpful to know where you can obtain D3 in your food. As might be expected from the Inuit diet, the best foods for D3 are cold water fish, with cod liver oil at the top of the list. Unfortunately, cod liver oil is very toxic from pollution and should be avoided—not a heartening start!

The current official recommended allowance of D3 is 400 IU. However, this figure is far too low to produce adequate levels in the body. An adequate figure has not yet been established, but 2,000 IU is likely a more reasonable figure. Assuming that, one tablespoon of cod liver oil would produce about 68% of what’s necessary for a typical person.

Update: While optimal intake of vitamin D is still not specified, the best sources of information are stating that 5,000 IUs is a good place for an adult to start. However, unless you know your blood level, you cannot know just how much to supplement.

The best food sources for D3 are:
Food     Quantity     Content (IUs)     Percent of 2,000 IUs
Cod Liver Oil     1 Tbl.     1,360     68.0
Atlantic Herring (pickled     100 gms.     680     34.0
Oysters (steamed)     100 gms.     500     25.0
Mackerel (canned & drained)     100 gms.     450     22.4
Salmon (baked)     100 gms.     360     18.0
Mackerel (fresh & cooked)     100 gms.     345     17.2
Lard (pork fat)     10 gms.     280     13.8/td>
Sardines (canned in oil, drained)     100 gms.     170     13.4
Eel (cooked)     100 gms.     200     10.0
Milk (whole/nonfat, D3 fortified)     1 cup     98     5.0
Beef liver (cooked)     100 gms.     30     1.6
Whole egg     1 Egg     26     1.2
Butter     10 gms.     5.6     0.3

Obviously with most modern diets, eating is not a realistic way to get Vitamin D3! That leaves either supplementation or using a tanning booth to obtain an adequate amount, if you can’t spend enough time in the sun.
Suntanning Booths

Suntanning booths have the extra advantage of giving you an attractive tan. The question is, are they healthy?  The two potential problems are burning and skin aging.

While it’s true that sun exposure has been associated with melanoma, a particularly virulent type of skin cancer, there is evidence that it may not be true:

    Most cases of melanoma do not occur on skin that’s often exposed to sunlight. About 75% of cases are found in unexposed locations, such as the bottom of the foot.
    Melanoma decreases with more sun exposure.
    Research from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has shown that the use of sunscreens does not decrease the incidence of melanoma.

A history of sunburn does appear to be associated with melanoma, but there is little to suggest that moderate amounts of tanning are a factor, and much to indicate that it may be beneficial. Gaia Health discusses this in more depth in Suntans Have Nothing to Do with Cancer, But Most Sunscreens Do.

Judicious use of ultraviolet lamps can resolve concerns with the potential of burning. Start slowly, and be particularly careful if your skin is light. Remember that burns often don’t show until hours later.

If your skin is particularly sensitive, it might be a good idea to take a high-dose supplement of Vitamin D for a month before starting your sessions, as it can prevent burning. Of course, be sure to first have a blood test to determine that your systemic D3 level is low. Once assured that it’s low, then you can take 10,000 IUs a day for a month. Not only does UVB light create Vitamin D, the reverse is true: Vitamin D helps protect the skin from burning.

Full article:

How to Get Vitamin D Without the Sun | GreenMedInfo | Blog Entry.

   
  Waleed Alzuhair/flickr
   

Fish on Prozac: Anxious, anti-social, aggressive — Environmental Health News.

By Brian Bienkowski
Staff Writer
Environmental Health News

June 12, 2013

When fish swim in waters tainted with antidepressant drugs, they become anxious, anti-social and sometimes even homicidal.

New research has found that the pharmaceuticals, which are frequently showing up in U.S. streams, can alter genes responsible for building fish brains and controlling their behavior.

Humboldt State University
Fish downstream of wastewater treatment plants are more at risk of pharmaceutical exposure, experts say.

Antidepressants are the most commonly prescribed medications in the United States; about 250 million prescriptions are filled every year. And they also are the highest-documented drugs contaminating waterways, which has experts worried about fish. Traces of the drugs typically get into streams when people excrete them, then sewage treatment plants discharge the effluent.

Exposure to fluoxetine, known by the trade name Prozac, had a bizarre effect on male fathead minnows, according to new, unpublished research by scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Male minnows exposed to a small dose of the drug in laboratories ignored females. They spent more time under a tile, so their reproduction decreased and they took more time capturing prey, according to Rebecca Klaper, a professor of freshwater sciences who spoke about her findings at a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry conference last fall. Klaper said the doses of Prozac added to the fishes’ water were “very low concentrations,” 1 part per billion, which is found in some wastewater discharged into streams.

When the dose was increased, but still at levels found in some wastewater, females produced fewer eggs and males became aggressive, killing females in some cases, Klaper said at the conference.

The drugs seem to cause these behavioral problems by scrambling how genes in the fish brains are expressed, or turned on and off. The minnows were exposed when they were a couple of months old and still developing.

There appeared to be architectural changes to the young minnows’ brains, Klaper said at the toxicology conference. Growth of the axons, which are long nerve fibers that transmit information to the body, was disrupted.

When the dose was increased, but still at levels found in some wastewater, females produced fewer eggs and males became aggressive, killing females in some cases.The new findings build on Klaper’s previous research, which tested minnows with the gene changes to see how well they avoided predators. They swam longer distances and made more directional changes, which suggests that the drugs induced anxiety.

The drugs used in the study were among the most common in sewage: Prozac, Effexor and Tegretol. The researchers tested each drug alone and in combination.

“At high doses we expect brain changes,” Klaper said. “But we saw the gene expression changes and then behavioral changes at doses that we consider environmentally relevant.”

However, there is too little evidence to know whether pharmaceuticals are having any impacts on fish populations in the wild, said Bryan Brooks, an environmental science professor at Baylor University who has extensively studied pharmaceuticals in streams and fish.

Ohio DNR
Fathead minnows exposed to low doses of antidepressant drugs became anxious, anti-social and aggressive.

Any changes in reproduction, eating and avoiding prey can have devastating impacts for fish populations, Klaper said.

The most vulnerable fish populations are those downstream of sewage treatment plants, where prescription drugs consistently show up in higher levels than in other waterways. It’s only within the past decade that technology has allowed plants to test for the chemicals in their wastewater and in waters downstream, though most still don’t, said Steve Carr, supervisor of the chemistry research group at the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.

One of the antidepressants tested in the fish – Tegretol – comes into the treatment plants and goes out at near constant levels, said Eric Nelson, a senior chemist with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.

That means the county’s treatment technology does not seem to have any effect on the drug. It comes in and leaves in a very tight range, about 150 to 400 parts per trillion, Nelson said.

Nelson said the two other drugs tested on the fish – Prozac and Effexor  –  are discharged in effluent at even lower levels: between about 20 and 30 parts per trillion. In comparison, the levels that altered behavior of the lab fish were 50 times higher.

When monitoring an Iowa and a Colorado stream, the U.S. Geological Survey found most drugs at levels similar to Los Angeles County’s. However, these low levels could still find their way into fish brains, according to their 2010 study.

Researchers found elevated levels of pharmaceuticals in the stream water two to six miles from the sewage treatment plants. But the chemicals at the highest levels in the water were not the ones most prevalent in the fish brains.

USGS
U.S. Geological Survey scientists found traces of antidepressants in Iowa’s Fourmile Creek.

“The fish downstream of the wastewater treatment had elevated concentrations of two antidepressants … Zoloft and Prozac,” said Edward Furlong, a research chemist at the U.S. Geological Survey based in Boulder, Colo. “And these were relatively low in water compared to others.”

Even if the levels released into streams seem low, they are constant, which is problematic, Brooks said.

“The drugs may not be classically persistent like PCBs,” Brooks said. “But they’re pseudo-persistent. The [continuous] exposure of organisms in a stream is equivalent to a chemical that is persistent.”

Some drugs bioaccumulate, or build up, in rainbow trout, according to Brooks’ research. Also, rainbow trout exposed to sewage effluent have pharmaceuticals in their blood at levels as high as those that affect the brains of people, according to research in Sweden.

Brooks said the likelihood of bioaccumulation for pharmaceuticals is high. “People have to take these drugs for weeks before they start having effects. They slowly bioaccumulate in your system,” which suggests bioaccumulation potential in fish, too, Brooks said.

Changes to the brain can affect all kinds of things in fish, Klaper said. And since humans have a similar brain gene structure, the findings raise questions about whether traces of these drugs in drinking water might harm human health.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers pharmaceuticals an “emerging concern,” and has concluded that the chemicals may pose risks to wildlife and humans. There are currently no federal regulations of the compounds in waste or drinking water. However, 12 pharmaceuticals are currently on the EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List, which are chemicals that may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Studies have consistently found prescription drugs in drinking water at parts-per-trillion levels. U.S. Geological Survey scientists sampled 74 waterways used for drinking water in 25 states in 2008 and found 53 had one or more of the three dozen pharmaceuticals they were testing for in their water. Forty percent of the pharmaceuticals were found at one or more of the sites.

“The drugs may not be classically persistent like PCBs. But they’re pseudo-persistent. The (continuous) exposure of organisms in a stream is equivalent to a chemical that is persistent.” -Bryan Brooks, Baylor UniversityFifty-four active pharmaceutical ingredients and 10 metabolites have been detected in treated U.S. drinking water, according to a 2010 EPA review.

Studies of children exposed in the womb to antidepressants taken by their mothers show effects on their motor development and a higher risk of some birth defects.

But health officials say the levels found in some drinking water are too low to cause harm.

According to a 2012 World Health Organization report, the “trace quantities of pharmaceuticals in drinking water are very unlikely to pose risks to human health.” The report said that the amount found in drinking water is usually 1,000 times lower than doses expected to have an effect on a person.

But Klaper said that in light of the gene changes in fish brains, officials may need to rethink what is considered safe.

“Fish do not metabolize drugs like we do,” Klaper said. “Even if environmental doses aren’t thought to be much for a human, fish could still have significant accumulation, and, it appears, changes in their brain’s gene expression.”

Source:

Fish on Prozac: Anxious, anti-social, aggressive — Environmental Health News.

Creative Commons License

PressTV – High doses of common painkillers may raise heart risk.

1
PressTV Mon Jun 3, 2013
A new study has suggested that consuming high doses of two common painkillers ibuprofen and diclofenac can increase the risk of heart problems.

Those people who take high doses of common painkillers known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen and diclofenac for a long time are in higher risk of developing cardiovascular diseases, study clarifies.

A team of researchers at the University of Oxford investigated over 353,000 patient records from 639 separate clinical trials to assess the impact of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines.

The results confirmed that taking either 2,400 mg of ibuprofen or 150 mg of diclofenac daily increased the risk of heart attacks, strokes and death by about one-third.

“Three per thousand per year sounds like it is quite a low risk, but the judgement has to be made by patients,” said lead researcher Prof Colin Baigent.

Researchers pinpointed that the drugs can pose even greater risks for smokers and the overweight, according to the study published in the journal The Lancet.

“The review also revealed that people on high doses of NSAIDs have a two to four times greater risk for bleeding ulcers or other significant upper gastrointestinal problems.”

As the other type of painkiller called naproxen has lower risks of heart complications, comparing to ibuprofen and diclofenac, some doctors recommend the medicine to higher-risk patients although this also increases the odds of a stomach bleed.

“However, because of their potential side-effects, in particular the increased risk of cardiovascular complications which has been known for a number of years, there is an urgent need to find alternatives that are as effective, but safer,” the medical director of Arthritis Research UK, Prof Alan Silman stressed.

FGP/FGP