Alternative Health News November 10, 2007

Public and environmental health is being severely threatened through the institution of animal factory farming, which pollutes our water, air, soil and even our bodies with harmful chemicals and pollutants. Corporations now have taken over the practice of family farming and have developed cost-saving mass-production strategies that are not only dangerous to public health, but are also cruel to the animals being processed.

Animal factories, also known as large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), go against traditional farming practices by treating the animal simply as a machine or production unit. These farms are more like an assembly line system of animal harvesting than anything resembling a genuine farm or ranch.

"Factory farming has taken the joy out of the lives of millions of calves and pigs, and billions of hens; it has driven countless family farmers off the land; it has polluted streams and rivers; it has injected massive amounts of antibiotics and other drugs into the public food supply resulting in serious health risks. It has lowered food quality," says Christine Stevens, author of the book Factory Farming, The Experiment That Failed.

Conditions inside animal factory farms

To understand the conditions present in these factory farms, you must first examine what the animals in these factory farms are eating. The factory farmer has redefined what constitutes animal feed in a 'bottom line' effort to save money. They seem to care little about the health or the happiness of the animal, and instead treat it like a product. The low quality standards placed on animal feed by these "farmers" prove that little consideration is being taken towards the animal or the consumer.

For example, some of the "ingredients" commonly used in animal factory feed include: (think hard about this list the next time you order a hamburger...)

Excessive grains -- Abnormally high amounts can make the animals sick, especially natural grass eaters like cattle. Their bodies are not designed to handle a corn-rich diet; as a result, these animals can form liver abscesses and excessively acidic digestive systems.

Plastics -- For the many animals whose digestive systems still need roughage to move food through, these factories have turned to the use of plastic pellets instead of plant-based roughage to compensate for a lack of natural fiber in the feed.

Meat from members of the same species -- The factory farming industry is turning farm animals into cannibals. Scientific research has linked this practice to the spread of both mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE) and avian bird flu.

Manure and animal waste -- This can include cattle manure, swine waste, and poultry waste. It can also contain wood, sand, rocks, dirt, sawdust and other non-food substances.

Animal byproducts -- This is often categorized as "animal protein products" and may appear as rendered feathers, hair, skin, hooves, blood, internal organs, intestines, beaks and bones. These may also include dead horses, euthanized cats and dogs, and road kill.

Drugs and chemicals (including dangerous antibiotics) -- Drugs are frequently implemented in order to fight disease, control parasites and reduce animals' stress from overcrowded living conditions. However, the antimicrobials used on some poultry promote the accumulation of arsenic inside their bodies. This is a highly carcinogenic chemical that can then contaminate the water supply near the farm, or emerge in the meat later eaten by consumers.

In fact, an estimated 13.5 million pounds of antibiotics are used on factory farm animals every year in the U.S. These antibiotics are grossly overused and are especially dangerous because they aid in the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria -- an urgent health problem that costs the American taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

To read the full article, follow this link :

Factory animal farms produce meat through routine torture and environmental destruction by NewsTarget - October 8, 2007

 A yearly flu vaccine has not been proven to prevent flu-related deaths in people over the age of 65, according to a review in the Lancet medical journal.

Nonetheless, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the flu shot for this purpose, citing research about the 36,000 yearly deaths and 200,000 annual hospitalizations for flu-related illness in the United States.

No studies have conclusively proven that flu shots prevent flu-related deaths among the elderly, according to the review, and some of the support for this practice is based on flawed data.

While some studies have shown a benefit for flu shots in younger adults, only a small number of trials included people over the age of 70 -- even though about 75 percent of flu-related deaths occur among that age group.

There is also evidence, according to the researchers, that the flu vaccines are less effective in older people because the elderly have lower immune activity.

Flu shots do not always prevent infection with the flu, though they can make the illness less serious.

You may have been fooled into believing the only way to prevent death from the flu is to get a dose of the vaccine, however there are many natural ways to prevent the flu.

Get plenty of sunshine or vitamin D

Eat right for your nutritional type, including avoiding sugar

Exercise

Get adequate sleep

Address emotional stress

Wash your hands regularly

The bottom line is to lead a healthy lifestyle, and you will likely not have to worry about coming down with the flu ever again.

To read the full article, follow this link :

Controversial Findings About Flu Vaccines for the Elderly by Dr. Mercola - October 9, 2007

Supplementing with high levels of vitamin D can help stem the bone loss caused by the long-term use of antiseizure medication, according to a study published in the journal Neurology.

It has long been known that the antiseizure medications used to control epilepsy speed up bone breakdown, often leading to bone loss and osteoporosis. It is also known that vitamin D increases the calcium available to the body for maintaining bone structure by increasing calcium absorption during digestion and reducing its excretion through urine.

Researchers studied 72 adults and 78 children over the age of 10, all of whom were receiving antiseizure medications as a treatment for epilepsy. Some of the participants were given a daily vitamin D supplement of 400 IU, while the others were given a significantly higher amount (4,000 IU for adults and 2,000 IU for children).

The current daily recommended vitamin D intake is 400 IU, but recent studies have suggested that higher amounts are safe and also more effective in providing numerous health benefits.

All of the adult participants were already experiencing bone loss when the study began, indicated by the fact that they had a lower bone mineral density (BMD) than healthy adults of their age. After one year, adults who received the 4,000 IU treatment had demonstrated an improvement in BMD, although it still remained below the healthy level. Adults treated with 400 IU did not show any improvements in BMD.

All the children began and ended the study with healthy BMD. No significant difference was observed between the groups given 400 IU and 2,000 IU.

Vitamin D is naturally synthesized by the body during exposure of the skin to sunlight. As little as 30 minutes a day of sun on the face and hands for darker-skinned people and 15 minutes for lighter-skinned people can cause the body to synthesize all the vitamin D required for regular needs. Most people, however, don't receive adequate sunlight, or they block sunlight by using sunscreen, depriving their bodies of the ultraviolet radiation necessary to produce vitamin D.

Recent research shows that 92 percent of black babies and 66 percent of white babies born in the United States are now born in a state of vitamin D deficiency. See related story here.

To read the full article, follow this link :

Vitamin D halts development of osteoporosis in people taking antiseizure medications by NewsTarget - October 9, 2007

Adding a dollop of honey to your daily diet may help to fight your aging process, according to researchers from the University of Waikato in Hamilton, New Zealand.

The researchers fed 2-month-old rats a diet containing 10 percent honey, 8 percent sucrose, or no sugar at all for 12 months. They were tested every three months to measure their anxiety and spatial memory.

Honey-fed rats seemed to hold up better to the effects of aging. Specifically:

Honey-fed rats spent close to double the time in open sections of an assessment maze than sucrose-fed rats, which suggests they were less anxious.

Honey-fed rats were more likely to enter novel sections of a Y-shaped maze, which suggests they knew where they had been before and had better spatial memory.

The researchers believe that a honey-sweetened diet may also decrease anxiety and improve memory in aging humans. The beneficial effects may be due to the antioxidant properties of honey.

The study was funded by Fonterra, a dairy company that’s looking to market a honey-sweetened yogurt.

Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour meeting at Newcastle University,
UK September 5-7, 2007

To read the full article, follow this link :

Can You Use Honey to Stay Young? by Dr. Mercola - October 4, 2007

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) described the risks of several medications in a new report published in its Drug Safety Newsletter for health care professionals.

The move came after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) sharply criticized the FDA in 2006, saying it has “a dysfunctional structure hindering its ability to protect public health.” The Agency has also been criticized for not monitoring drugs after they’re on the market.

The report, which fills one of the FDA’s commitments to the IOM after the criticism, details the side effects from the following drugs:

Rituxan, a cancer drug that has been liked to a potentially fatal central nervous system disorder.

Provigil, a narcolepsy drug that has been linked to serious skin reactions.

Temodar, a brain cancer medicine that has been linked to fatal aplastic anemia.

Exjade, a blood infusion drug. Reports of kidney failure, 115 deaths, and hospitalizations are suspected to be linked to the drug, although the deaths are now listed as “due to the underlying disease.”

Consumer group Public Citizen said the FDA’s quarterly Drug Safety newsletter could be “a real service” if it focuses on emerging drug side effects .

To read the full article, follow this link :

Under Pressure, FDA Reveals Deadly Drug Side Effects by Dr. Mercola - October 11, 2007

Men who are having trouble conceiving may want to stay out of the hot tub for awhile, according to a study by University of California researchers.

After analyzing data from infertile men who had been repeatedly exposed to high water temperatures from hot tubs, Jacuzzis, or hot baths for about 30 minutes a week, they found a strong link to their infertility.

In fact, all of the men had signs of infertility, including impaired sperm production and motility.

The good news is that the heat-induced damage appears to be reversible. When the men stopped their exposure to wet heat, total mean sperm counts increased by 491 percent after three to six months.

Among the men whose sperm counts did not increase, the researchers speculated that tobacco use may have been to blame, as most of the men whose sperm counts did not increase were chronic smokers.

To read the full article, follow this link :

Warning to Men: Hot Tubs Really Will Damage Your Fertility by Dr. Mercola - October 11, 2007

You've already seen the headlines touting October as breast cancer awareness month. A zillion products are available in "pink" editions now, and gullible consumers snatch them up at retail outlets without knowing a single thing about where that money goes or even what percentage of their product sale is donated to cancer non-profits. (For many products, the amount donated is mere pennies, and much of the donated money goes to worthless cancer maintenance non-profits that have no interest in actually preventing cancer...)

The level of hype and propaganda in this year's breast cancer awareness month has risen to a new low. The American Cancer Society, as usual, appears to be absolutely worthless in all this, still failing to teach women the No. 1 way to prevent a whopping 77 percent of all cancers: Sunlight and vitamin D.

The ultra-wealthy ACS non-profit, with all its ties to pharmaceutical companies and mammography machine manufacturers, still refuses to openly urge women to prevent breast cancer by getting more vitamin D through nutritional supplements or sensible sunlight exposure. In fact, the organization continues to warn people away from sunlight, actually contributing to the mass vitamin D deficiency that's now rampant in western nations (including the U.S., Canada and the U.K.).

Vitamin D deficiency greatly reduces the body's ability to halt the growth of cancer tumors. That's why higher amounts of vitamin D circulating through the blood have been shown again and again to dramatically reduce the growth of cancer tumors, keeping them in check and preventing a breast cancer diagnosis. Over 75 percent of all breast and prostate cancers could be avoided through vitamin D therapy alone.

Amazingly, the American Cancer Society appears to have no interest in vitamin D. How could it be that this cancer-centric non-profit wouldn't be interested in a free therapy that could eliminate up to three-fourths of all future cancers? Shouldn't this be the No. 1 headline around the world during breast cancer awareness month? Shouldn't the ACS be screaming this fact to anyone who will listen?

To read the full article, follow this link :

October is Breast Cancer Propaganda Month: Pinkwashing, Breast Cancer Action and Vitamin D by NewsTarget - October 11, 2007

That bag of chips that you decided to forgo is significantly cheaper than that bag of organic apples. If you think about it, it doesn’t really make sense. The bag of chips has gone through several manufacturing steps, and so has the bag that contains the chips. The apples have gone through no manufacturing, the bag through some manufacturing. There are labour costs associated with both products – so why the huge price difference? Two words: government subsides. To give you an idea of the amount of money the US government gives specific farmers, the sugar industry received 1.2 billion in 2005, wheat 1.1 billion in 2005 and livestock 2.7 million in 2005. These are just estimates, but the impact can be seen. It is not because the bag of apples is more expensive, but the fact that manufactured foods are unrealistically cheap that the price disparity is so evident. As you can see, these products fall under the “avoid” category for the anti-cancer diet. But if you are budget conscious, and many of us are, many will be pulled financially towards buying cancer-promoting foods.

So if the US government subsidises the cancer promoting foods, what about anti-cancer foods? There is little reliable data showing organic fruit and vegetable a farm receiving subsides like those for sugar, wheat or livestock. Organic farms tend to be small, too small in fact to participate in the government programs aimed at huge farm operations. Their diverse crops don’t qualify for support, which is typically aimed at huge monochromatic crops, such as corn. For example, flax subsides totalled $914 000 over a ten year period. That is less than one million dollars over ten years. The sugar industry would laugh at that.

If you think it stops there – it doesn’t. Due to the fact that many of these cancer-promoting foods are unnaturally cheap –the profits they make are subsequently unnaturally higher. The marketing and advertising for some of the industries that take these subsidised crops to make manufactured foods, is staggering. Coke alone has a $2 billion dollar annual marketing budget.

Anti-cancer foods, specifically organic foods, have been growing at an electrifying pace – somewhere near 15-20 percent per year over the past decade. This is not due to a $2 billion dollar marketing campaign. The growth of this sector of foods is to the benefit of all, as long as organic standard are kept high. The prevalence of anti-cancer foods, and the adopting of an anti-cancer diet could cut the cost of cancer to the US by $63 billion annually if those preventable cancers are avoided.

To read the full article, follow this link :

Government subsidies: the reason why cancer-causing foods are so cheap and readily available by NewsTarget - October 12, 2007