Alternative Health News From Around the World-November 30, 2007

Nutrition can improve learning and memory in school children. A group of European scientists from Unilever have proved that nutrition is part of the foundation to a child’s education, even if they are well fed.

The researchers, along with colleagues from research institutes in Australia and Indonesia performed a 12 month study with 780 children, as reported in Medical News Today.

The first group of studies – done with a group of children in Australia – were either given a vitamin and mineral mix to a daily drink, or a placebo. The children with the vitamin and mineral mix performed much better on tests measuring their learning and memory capabilities than the children who received the drink and placebo. The study was also carried out in Indonesia, and similar results were found but only for the girls.

The drink mix was either a mix of micronutrients (iron, zinc, folate and vitamins A, B-6, B-12 and C) or with fish-oil (DHA and EPA), or with both added, or a placebo. The children’s blood was tested to determine the effectiveness of the uptake of the micronutrients. All the students from Australia showed higher levels of the micronutrients. The fish-oil only mixture did not show any significant role in improving cognitive ability in the students.

A group of Australian scientists has suggested a dozen native Australian fruits that could be of interest to the natural products industry, particularly as antioxidants, in an article published in Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies.

"The search for world unique food ingredients and flavors with enhanced health-beneficial properties is at present one of the key market trends," wrote lead author Michael Netzela of the food research and development organization Food Science Australia -- a joint project of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia's national science agency) and the Victoria government.

"Botanicals from the regions linked to wellness and natural functionality with exotic fruits called 'super fruits,' such as acai from Amazonia, are becoming a popular target of health-conscious consumers and industry managers," Netzela wrote.

Along with researchers from Ohio State University and the contract research organization Pharmaceutical Product Development, Netzela performed laboratory tests on the antioxidant properties of 12 native Australian fruits and compared them with that of blueberries. The fruits tested were brush cherry, Burdekin plum, Cedar Bay cherry, Davidson's plum, finger lime (red and yellow), Kakadu plum, Illawarra plum, Molucca raspberry, muntries, riberries and Tasmanian pepper.

All 12 fruits exhibited stronger radical scavenging effects than blueberries. Burdekin and Kakadu plum, in fact, scored five times as high on measures of radical scavenging per gram of fruit.

Once in a great while, a report emerges from the medical establishment that's so myopic and devoid of wisdom that it boggles the mind. Today, a new candidate for the "most ignorant medical advice" emerges from none other than the Metropolitan Chicago Breast Cancer Task Force -- a group of over 100 doctors and nurses who collectively have failed to publicly recognize any significant link between diet and breast cancer. By combining their ignorance into a "Task Force," they have managed to create a pompous-sounding document that purports to explain why black women die from breast cancer at much higher rates than white women; yet all they've really created is a self-serving presentation of medical myths grounded upon the false belief that breast cancer is essentially caused by a deficiency in mammograms.

In 113 pages of text containing 37 recommendations for how to solve the breast cancer problem with black women, there is not a single mention of vitamin D. You heard that correctly: This miracle nutrient which has been scientifically shown to prevent 77 percent of all breast cancers -- a nutrient that is deficient in virtually all black women living in North America -- apparently didn't even cross the minds of these 100 doctors, nurses and cancer "experts" who contributed to this highly publicized report. If it did cross their minds, it was certainly not considered significant enough to warrant a single mention in this 113-page report: Not even a footnote!

You can read the full report yourself by clicking here.

Naturally occurring chemicals found in broccoli and soy may prevent the spread of breast cancer, according to a study conducted by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

"We think these compounds might slow or prevent the metastasis of breast and ovarian cancer, which would greatly increase the effectiveness of current treatments," said Erin Hsu, a graduate student in molecular toxicology at UCLA.

Researchers applied 3,3-Diindolylmethane (DIM), found in broccoli, and genistein, found in soy, to motile cancer cells and observed their effects. They found that the spread of cancer and the invasion of healthy cells was significantly reduced by the compounds.

This effect occurred because of DIM and genistein's effect on the CXCR4/CXCL12 axis. CXCL12 is a compound produced by healthy cells which binds to CXCR4 receptors on cancer cells, thereby attracting the malignant cells to healthy organs. DIM and genistein were found to reduce the production of CXCR4 and CXCL12 messenger RNAs and proteins in a manner directly proportional to the dose.

As a result, the movement toward CXCL12 was reduced 80 percent in cancer cells treated with either of the plant compounds, compared with untreated cells.

The researchers found the same effect when DIM or genistein were applied to prostate cancer or melanoma cells.

A just released study of 1,093 patients treated for head and neck cancer showed that their state of mind had no influence on their outcomes. Or to put it simply, having a positive attitude, had no impact on survival.

In reporting the study, WebMD quoted Dr. Jimmie Holland from Sloan-Kettering, who coined the phrase "the tyranny of positive thinking." Commenting on the study, Dr. Holland said, "The idea that we can control illness and death with our minds appeals to our deepest yearnings, but it just isn't so. It is so sad that cancer patients are made to believe that if they aren't doing well it is somehow their own fault because they aren't positive enough."

Harsh words, but that pretty much says it all -- a definitive study that proves that what you think does not matter when it comes to cancer.

So what objection could I possibly have what WebMD calls "one of the largest and most rigorously designed investigations ever to examine the issue?"

Well, how about:

The patients in the study received standard medical treatment
Standard medical treatment, for the most part, means chemo and radiation
Chemotherapy and radiation depress the immune system
The benefit of positive thoughts are that they boost your immune system. Negative thoughts conversely depress it. Bottom line: your thoughts have a direct effect on your immune system -- all things being equal.

But all things were not equal in this magnificent study. If you’re being treated with chemotherapy or radiation, then what you think doesn’t matter very much since your immune system is trashed no matter what you think. Once you acknowledge that fact, the results of the study are essentially a forgone conclusion. You don’t need to conduct "one of the largest and most rigorously designed investigations ever" to reaffirm that medical treatments trash your immune system beyond you ability to think your way out of it.

On the other hand, if you tested the effect of positive thinking in combination with either alternative health protocols that are immuno-supportive -- or even one of the newer medical immuno-therapies that are designed to work with the immune system, that would indeed be a far more useful study.

To read the full article, follow this link :

New research is creating more reasons for you to think twice before feeding processed foods to your children, or eating it yourself for that matter. If you are struggling to change your family’s diet to raw foods, there is new evidence for why you may want to make the change sooner rather than later. A diet consisting of mostly processed foods is causing fatty liver disease in the young. Liver disease, primarily found in older adults, is now becoming a disease found in children. All this is being caused by the increase of processed foods in our diet.

A six month research project led by David S. Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight for Life program at Children’s Hospital Boston was published in the September issue of the journal Obesity. The research was conducted on two groups of mice. Both groups were fed the exact same caloric intake but fed different starches. One group was fed processed high glycemic index (HGI) foods and the other, unprocessed low glycemic index (LGI) foods.

Foodconsumer.org defines Glycemic Index (GI) as “a measure of how fast a food releases glucose from starch. The higher the GI, the faster the food releases glucose.” This rapid release of glucose causes the body to release more insulin, which in turn causes the body to store fat. Examples of HGI foods are processed foods such as white rice, foods containing white flour, and even overly processed whole grains. LGI foods consist of mainly unprocessed foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, and whole grains.

At the end of the study, both groups of mice weighed the same, but the HGI group had higher body fat, more fat in their blood, and about twice as much fat in their liver. This research has shown that processed food is causing liver disease in many children. While no symptoms are showing in some, it is leading the way for fatal liver disease later in life. There is major concern among health officials that this could be the new health epidemic of the future.

ADHD has been a hot topic in the media for a few years due to raising diagnoses, medication concerns, and debates to whether it is even a real health condition. New research has found that a few food additives can cause the symptoms that can lead to a diagnosis of ADHD. Once we establish the symptoms of ADHD, we can correlate them with the symptoms produced in the study by specific ingredients that we can then identify and eliminate from our families’ diets.

What is ADHD?

It is a common group of symptoms that mean a child is having problems learning, socializing, and focusing. Parents and teachers complain of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, and less emphasis has been placed on what it must feel like to have the symptoms- to not be able to control one’s self, play with other children, and please caring adults. Let’s call ADHD and its set of symptoms an unsolved problem. This problem is really about the quality and richness of life in a growing child; how can the quality of life of children with this problem be improved? A very simple answer, though it may not prove to be the only answer, has been found. Research has recently found that some ingredients in common foods, when ingested, inhibit children to flourish and grow to the full extent of their capabilities. It is daunting to find how easy it is to buy and consume products that are unsafe, but there is healthy nutrition available, and because these ingredients have not been banned, it is the consumer’s responsibility, our responsibility, to ensure the safety of our families. So one proven answer to the problems ADHD presents is to eliminate artificial preservatives and colors from children’s diets.

The Study

A study conducted by the UK’s government Food Standards Agency (FSA) found a definite link between food additives and behavior problems in children, such as temper tantrums and poor concentration. Food colorings and one preservative were tested on 3 year olds and 8-9 year olds. The culprits are tartrazine (E102), ponceau 4R (E124), sunset yellow (E110), carmoisine (E122), quinoline yellow (E104), allura red AC (E129), and the preservative sodium benzoate (E211). When combinations of these ingredients were administered, there was either a significant correlation with decreased attention or a trend towards it. Because the ingredients were all used together, it is not possible to say if it was one or all of the ingredients that played a significant role in changing the children’s behavior.

Asian men may have a higher chance of surviving prostate cancer than white men, even though they appear on the surface to be at greater risk, according to a study conducted by the California Cancer Registry and published online in the journal Cancer.

Dr. Anthony S. Robbins and colleagues examined data from California men who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1995 and 2004. 108,076 of the participants were white and 8,840 were of Asian descent. Asian men were further categorized into more specific subgroups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and South Asian. The South Asian category included men from Bangladesh, Bhutan, southern India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sikkim and Sri Lanka.

Robbins said that the current study was one of the first to examine the different survival rates between Asians and whites, and the first to break it down within the Asian group.

With the exception of South Asians, who actually had a worse survival rate than whites, all the other Asian groups had a higher 10-year survival rate. This was particularly surprising to researchers, because the Asian men actually had a higher risk profile than the white men.

"For the groups with better survival, it was paradoxical," Robbins said, "because their risk factor profiles were all going in the wrong direction. You would have thought they would do worse than whites.

"Obviously, the main question we are still trying to explain is why these five Asian groups had better survival. What is behind the 'Asian edge' in prostate cancer? Diet? Lower comorbidity? Less overweight/obesity?"

Alternative Health News November 30, 2007