Laetrile: How Much Proof Do They Need?

Laetrile: How Much Proof Do They Need? When I first got involved in alternative cancer treatments back in 2005, someone mentioned Laetrile. My reaction was, "You've got to be kidding. That was discredited back in the 1970s." I didn't say this as a fan of conventional medicine. No way. I'd been devoted to alternative medicine for decades and I knew a great deal about it. But I'd read somewhere or other that it had been "proven" Laetrile doesn't work. No one ever talked about it in the alternative health newsletters I read. So how did we all get fooled? Keep reading. . . Continued below. . . The secret to curing cancer: You've been throwing it in the trash! In 1921, a British doctor discovered that members of a remote native tribe were almost totally cancer-free. But when members of this tribe move away from their native land and change their diet, they get cancer just like anyone else. It's all thanks to a food most of us throw away as waste — a food that's rich in amygdalin — what most of us call Laetrile. Click here now and watch a video presentation about this cancer breakthrough. One cancer expert calls this overlooked food "the key to curing AND preventing cancer" — and you can benefit now — without going to a doctor or buying expensive supplements. This little throwaway food tastes great. Bill Clinton, of all people, eats a certain amygdalin-rich food all the time, and so can you. Click here now to watch the video! I mention this story to show just what a thorough job Big Medicine does at brainwashing the public. Well-informed people — people who have a whole cabinet full of supplements — ridicule or fear a great many alternative treatments. Not just cancer treatments, but alternative answers to all kinds of health conditions. The suppression of Laetrile has been a category five health disaster that's cost hundreds of thousands of lives — probably millions of lives. If you want to learn the truth about this valuable therapy, I suggest you get your hands on a book called Laetrile Case Histories: The Richardson Cancer Clinic Experience, by John A. Richardson, M.D. and Patricia Irving Griffin, R.N., B.S. Dr. Richardson, now deceased, was one of the Laetrile pioneers in the 1970s and paid a terrible price. He had to stand three expensive trials in California courts. All three cases against him were dismissed. Then he had to go through a longer and even more expensive trial in Federal Court in San Diego, where he was convicted of "conspiring to smuggle Laetrile" and was fined $30,000 (equal to more than $100,000 today). In due course his license to practice medicine was taken away. Notice he wasn't convicted of smuggling. He was convicted of "conspiring to smuggle" — the sure sign of a lame case. If they can't convict you of a crime they convict you of thinking about a crime. His book was written in 1975 and describes in detail 62 cases of successful recovery from cancer with the help of Laetrile. I mention it now because the book was updated in 2005, with some shocking new evidence. You see, the authors tried to locate as many of the original 62 cancer patients as they could, to see if their recoveries were long-term or just a fluke. They were able find data on 33 of these old cases from the early 1970s, and most of those people lived for years after Laetrile helped clear up their cancer. They were long-term cancer survivors and then some. I heard one of the book's authors, Patricia Griffin, speak at a cancer conference recently. She told the audience she takes Laetrile-rich apricot kernels every morning — and also Laetrile tablets — to prevent cancer. The REAL people and REAL results mainstream medicine hoped you'd never uncover! Dr. Richardson , M.D. was a general practitioner in San Francisco when an office assistant sparked his interest in Laetrile as a cancer cure. After reading the available resources on the subject, he became convinced that Laetrile—along with certain enzymes and a diet free of animal proteins—could form part of a "natural barrier against the growth of cancer." Notice that he wasn't saying Laetrile is a magic bullet all by itself. He combined it with other therapies. In Laetrile Case Histories, Dr. Richardson explains that in 1971 he began treating patients with the regimen that he called "metabolic therapy." Here are a few of the 62 case histories in his book. . . Bone cancer banished— in November 1973, doctors said a six-year-old boy with cancer of the right upper arm bone and spinal column had no more than six to nine months to live. Within a month of starting metabolic therapy with Laetrile, he was able to use his arm and remove the sling. During a checkup in January 1977, Richardson reported "the arm looked so good the radiologist could not believe the child ever had osteosarcoma." The mother confirmed in 2005 that her child had remained symptom free for 32 years! Cervical cancer clobbered—a doctor recommended a hysterectomy to a 49-year-old Iowa woman whose Pap smear revealed cervical cancer cells. She opted to ride a bus to California for metabolic therapy in July 1973. After only nine days of treatment—she received cancer-free Pap smear results! As of last contact in June 2005, the woman was still alive and well. Chronic leukemia cast out—a 53-year-old male diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia started metabolic therapy instead of following doctors' recommendation to watch its progression for six months. Within a week he reported greater energy and more restful sleep. After a year he remained symptom free and a follow-up revealed that he lived for 29 years after the treatment! Prostate cancer pulverized—a 61-year-old man was diagnosed with inoperable prostate cancer in October 1973. After beginning Laetrile treatments the same month, he noted health improvements within 10 days! Despite being told he had little time remaining—the patient remained symptom free and lived an additional 13 years! You might think these success stories would motivate medical practitioners to take a second look at Dr. Richardson's Laetrile cases. But the reality was altogether different… Authorities raided Richardson's office and arrested him in June 1972 for violating California's Cancer Law. His conviction in the first trial was overturned on a technicality. And two subsequent trials resulted in hung juries. The legal establishment failed to stop Richardson's activities, but the medical community didn't stop harassing him. The California Board of Medical Quality Assurance revoked Richardson's California medical license in 1976. Dr. Richardson subsequently worked in a Mexican clinic and as a homeopathic practitioner in Nevada until his health deteriorated and he passed away in 1988. You need to know more about this treatment Here at Cancer Defeated, we've interviewed many, many doctors and patients who have benefited from Laetrile. The most powerful way to receive the treatments is by IV, and the easiest place to do that is at the top Mexican clinics we recommend in our Special Report Adios, Cancer. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get IV Laetrile therapy in the United States. But if you can't go to Mexico, you can benefit from eating foods that are rich in Laetrile, such as apricot kernels. I've seen cures reported just from eating the foods. But let me add that if you're really serious about getting well, you won't rely exclusively on Laetrile — either taken by mouth or by IV — but will use it in conjunction with other treatments and lifestyle changes. Adios, Cancer explains how to safely and legally obtain Laetrile-rich foods. My friend Ty Bollinger, author of Cancer — Step Outside the Box, is another great advocate of Laetrile. You can learn more about his book by clicking here. You may hear laetrile referred to as vitamin B17 or "amygdalin," which comes from the Greek word for almond. This name is appropriate considering that amygdalin is extracted from almonds or the pits of apricots and peaches. Laetrile is the trade name for a compound chemically related to amygdalin. In the early 1950s, Dr. Ernst Krebs, Sr. , M.D. and his son Ernst Jr. first used amygdalin to treat cancer patients. The work of the Krebs family was the main inspiration for Dr. Richardson's work. Dr. Krebs theorized that cancer cells contain an enzyme that causes amygdalin to release cyanide. The cyanide destroys the cancer cells while leaving noncancerous tissues unharmed. Healthy cells don't contain the enzyme that stimulates amygdalin to break down into cyanide and other substances; that's why healthy cells remain unharmed. According to people who have studied amygdalin, it releases the killing cyanide only when cancer cells are present. Dr. Krebs said that, in fact, healthy cells are protected by another enzyme which renders the cyanide harmless. From the 1950s through the 1970s, Laetrile became a popular alternative cancer treatment in the United States. It took ferocious attacks against practitioners like Dr. Richardson, plus an aggressive campaign of false information, to lead most people to think Laetrile is a quack remedy. Amygdalin is a naturally occurring substance that cannot be patented—which makes it a prime target for the wrath of "Big Pharma!" The big drug companies invariably try to ban cancer cures that aren't patentable and profitable. Deny, discredit and destroy In the book Alternatives in Cancer Therapy, authors Rose Pelton, R. Ph. and Lee Overholser, Ph.D. call Laetrile an "orphan drug" because it gets no love or support from the pharmaceutical industry. Pelton and Overholser said "no drug company is interested in committing money to research Laetrile's potential." But these advocates aren't willing to tuck their tail between their legs and move on… Instead, they say orthodox medicine has instituted a full-fledged campaign to: Downplay case histories of patients who've benefited from Laetrile treatments Exaggerate reports of side effects and toxicity Ruin the reputation of doctors who successfully treated patients with Laetrile Strong-arm government officials to ensure Laetrile does not receive exemption from the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) On the issue of toxicity, Pelton and Overholser said some Laetrile users reported symptoms of weakness, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting. They said these symptoms may be related to a person's inability to eliminate toxins resulting from tumor breakdown. It may also be the result of patients just plain eating too much of the Laetrile-rich foods (usually apricot kernels) and getting sick to their stomachs. The solution is simple: If the foods are making you sick, cut back. Pelton and Overholser admit there have been credible reports of muscular weakness and respiratory difficulties among Laetrile users. They believe those side effects typically result from patients taking excessively high doses without a doctor's supervision. And in some cases, children who accidentally took Laetrile tablets did experience cyanide poisoning. But the authors said these incidents cannot be compared to the results of those whose medicine is administered under the watchful care of a medical practitioner. From what we've been able to learn, it's extremely unlikely the side effects are the result of cyanide poisoning, as Laetrile's enemies would have you believe. Thousands of people have been safely and successfully treated with Laetrile — including intravenous Laetrile — without side effects. If Laetrile was a significant source of cyanide, I'm pretty confident that EVERYONE who's ever taken it by IV would be dead PDQ. Pelton and Overholser said "cyanide poisoning does not appear to be a major problem in laetrile therapy." As with other medical treatments, it should be administered with proper supervision. The Laetrile crusade continues! Richardson was no lone crusader for Laetrile. Pelton and Overholser said "some alternative cancer clinics use laetrile regularly and claim to have a steady stream of patients who respond well." And Laetrile has had other noteworthy supporters… Harold W. Manner, Ph.D., chairman of the biology department at Loyola University in Chicago, found that laetrile combined with vitamin A and pancreatic enzymes produced a very high cure rate of breast cancers. And National Cancer Institute (NCI) biochemist Dr. Dean Burke, Ph.D. performed an experiment that used Laetrile to kill a tissue culture of cancer cells. Dr. Burke was convinced that Laetrile could be an effective cancer cure, a pain reliever for terminal cancer victims, and even useful for preventing cancer1. You won't be surprised to learn the FDA has not approved Laetrile as a treatment for cancer in the United States. And the National Cancer Institute maintains its stance that Laetrile "has shown little anticancer effect in laboratory studies, animal studies, or human studies."2 Dr. Richardson pointed to a definition of appropriate therapy response, provided by the California Cancer Advisory Council, as an example of what shapes such conclusions. The definition essentially states that only a decrease in tumor size is an acceptable measure of the anti-tumor effect of a substance. Dr. Richardson believed that other criteria besides tumor shrinkage should be considered when evaluating a cancer remedy. Positive results can include pain relief, increased appetite, weight gain, and a patient's ability to be more active. Patients on Laetrile often experience these other results. For example, it's very common for such patients to report pain relief. Dr. Richardson drew a distinction between tumor shrinkage and these other effects. As long as a tumor isn't growing, it may be nothing more than a nuisance. In fact, tumor shrinkage may be a poor measure of a treatment's success or failure. Many substances shrink tumors. The shrinkage is often temporary. As we've often said in our publications, cancer is a systemic disease — it's a disease of the entire body. Treating a local problem such as a tumor is just one part of successful recovery. Richardson took a dim view of mainstream medicine's obsession with tumor shrinkage. His opinion on this matter is a fitting way to end this article. He said, in part: "As long as this sophomoric attitude is accepted by orthodox medicine, and especially as long as it is forced on the rest of us by the effect of law, tens of thousands of people will continue to die needlessly every single day, and all the million-dollar grants and all the research in the world will fail to stop it."

Washington D.C. Area Sports Update 01/10/2012

WINSTON-SALEM STATE EDGES BOWIE STATE LADY BULLDOGS 59-52

WINSTON-SALEM STATE EDGES BOWIE STATE LADY BULLDOGS 59-52 (WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – January 9, 2012) Junior Cortney Baynard and sophomore Brooke Miles scored 10 points each and senior Kimberly Jones recorded eight points and a game-high eight rebounds, but Winston-Salem State edges Bowie State 59-52. Both teams started the game very slow, as neither team reached double-digits until Winston-Salem held a 10-8 advantage with 13:57 left in the first half. The Lady Rams maintained a lead most of the first half, but Bowie State went into the locker room with a slim 22-21 lead at the break. Bowie State (1-9 / 1-2 CIAA) hit just 7-of 29 (24 percent) from the field in the first 20 minutes. Winston-Salem State was just as cold, making only 7-of-25 (28 percent) from the field. The Lady Bulldogs’ largest lead of the night (48-39) came at the six minute mark of the second half. Winston-Salem State erased that deficit on a 14-2, capped off by a 3-pointer by WSSU’s Taneisha White that gave the Lady Rams the lead for good. To make matters worse for Bowie State, a Miles layup with one minute left to play was the only Lady Bulldogs field goal over the final six minutes. Courtney Medley led the Lady Rams with 15 points (six rebounds) and Jovanah Graham chipped in 13 points and a team-high seven rebounds. Bowie State senior Juliette Turner contributed nine points and five rebounds before fouling out late in the game. In terms of team stats, Winston-Salem State (8-5 / 3-0 CIAA) wrapped up the game shooting 35 percent from the floor (19-of-55) and 61 percent from the charity stripe (17-of-28). In comparison, Bowie State ended the contest with a shooting percentage of 32 percent (17-of-53) and made 12-of-16 (75 percent) from the free throw line. Turnovers were plentiful for both squads as BSU committed 27 and WSSU 22. The Lady Bulldogs return to action – Thursday (January 12) facing the defending CIAA Champions of Shaw University in the Lady Bears’ C.C. Spaulding Gymnasium.

How government "okays" carcinogens

Government Won't Protect You from Environmental Poisons Air pollutants from vehicles… pesticides… radiation… military waste sites… Most people realize these all-too-familiar carcinogens pose a threat to our health. And even though the government knows it, too—these and many other toxins continue to spread throughout the environment due to neglect by the giant government bureaucracies that "protect" us. Continued below. . . The Secret of Enzymes Plus an Odd Fact: Most Health Foods are a Waste of Money By Lee Euler You can take vitamins, minerals and antioxidants by the handful and still suffer poor health. Now we know why. Our diets lack a vital food — a type of nutrient that even some alternative doctors don't know about. I'm talking about enzymes. Thanks to enzyme supplements, a mother's lifelong migraines disappeared, and a man with "terminal" kidney cancer was alive and well 15 years later. In fact, a great many cancer patients beat the disease and are still alive today thanks to enzymes. Enzymes are a key part of most alternative cancer treatment plans. More important: Even if you're healthy today, taking enzymes is something you can and should do now to prevent not only cancer, but also heart disease, pain and diabetes and many other ailments. Enzyme supplements are among the top-selling pain-relievers in Germany and they're even used by the German Olympic team. As for us older folks, research indicates that enzymes improve circulation and can outperform blood-clot and blood-thinning drugs. (Good-bye, warfarin!) They've even helped 9 out of 10 autistic children. A few months back I received a letter from a mother whose 7-year-old autistic son was almost completely cured after she read my Special Report called The Missing Ingredient, and then started giving him enzymes. This letter came to me out of the blue. The mother wrote, "He has basically been nonverbal until summer 2009, he started talking one day and has never stopped!!" She adds, "The enzymes have kept my 3-year-old son, Noah's eczema AWAY! We are truly blessed, and I believe our Lord led me to you and your book." How can ONE supplement possibly do all this? Just ask yourself: What if you were getting NO vitamins in your diet? You'd be very sick. This nutrient is just as important, and you're getting almost none, if you're like the typical American. Click here to learn more. In a May 2010 report titled "Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk: What We Can Do Now", the President's Cancer Panel expressed deep concerns that the threat from environmental contaminants is being "grossly underestimated." The group denounces government rules that place a greater burden on the American public to prove that environmental exposure to various contaminants is harmful! The rules require overwhelming proof of harm to humans before any corrective action begins. Lest you think this is merely a partisan issue, please note the panel was formed by President George W. Bush to serve a three-year term. Their report didn't come out until well into the Obama Administration. You have NO idea what you may be eating, drinking and breathing! Believe it or not, "the entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals," the report authors stated. Many of these chemicals are known carcinogens. The report mentioned that "40 chemicals classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens" are approved for use as EPA-registered pesticides. When dangerous chemical pesticides and fertilizers find their way into air, soil and groundwater, they can do some serious health damage. Farm workers, crop duster pilots and even pesticide manufacturers have been found to have high rates of prostate cancer, skin cancers, and even cancer of the lip. Exposure to approved pesticide chemicals also has been linked to a variety of cancers affecting body parts including the: Brain/central nervous system Breast Colon Lung Ovaries (of female spouses of exposed workers) Pancreas Testicles The report cited xylene as an example of an inert ingredient in almost 900 pesticides. This one chemical has been associated with increased risk of brain tumors, leukemia and rectal cancer! But you can be sure pesticides aren't the only cancerous chemicals spewing into the air, soil and water… The high price of modern conveniences… The President's Cancer Panel received expert testimony from members representing industrial and manufacturing interests. Although the list of known or suspect chemicals was too extensive to cover in one report, the panel said numerous chemicals and substances tied to industrial and manufacturing processes are persistent in the environment. The list includes some familiar villains such as: Asbestos—used to make brake linings, cement pipe, acoustical and thermal insulation; inhaling asbestos can cause mesothelioma, a rare cancer of the mesothelium membrane covering most of your internal organs Chromium—used in leather tanning, wood preservation, steel production and other process; exposure to chromium is known to cause lung, nasal, and nasopharyngeal cancers (chromium is needed in small amounts in the diet, but you don't want to breathe it) Perchloroethylene (PCE) and Trichloroethylene (TCE)—both PCE and TCE are solvents used in the dry cleaning industry. TCE is now used to manufacture adhesives, paint removers, varnishes, paints and lacquers. The report noted that high levels of PCE in drinking water have been associated with elevated breast cancer risk. And TCE has the dubious distinction of being "the most frequently detected organic solvent in groundwater." This is BAD news considering its possible link to kidney, liver, biliary and cervical cancers! The report also highlights hazards presented by medical contaminants such as radiation… modern lifestyle toxins such as tobacco smoke and wireless devices… and military hazards such as Agent Orange and nuclear weapons. If you're a regular reader of this newsletter or our books and reports, you already know the dangers of many of the substances I've mentioned. So what's the news? The news is that this is the government pointing the finger at itself. It's one thing when we fringe crazies try to tell people that food, water, workplace environments, detergents, dry cleaned clothes, and cosmetics are loaded with officially-approved poisons. It's something else when a panel appointed by the President announces the same thing. The report leveled sharp criticism at efforts to regulate contaminants in four key areas: Agricultural Indoor and outdoor air and water pollution Industrial Nuclear fallout, radiation, and electromagnetic fields The panel said government regulatory efforts are far more "reactionary rather than precautionary" — the Feds wait until considerable damage is done before taking action. Even more alarming is the panel's assertion that only a few hundred of the 80,000+ chemicals used in the United States have been tested for safety! The regulatory system is flawed and failing… The President's Cancer Panel was headed up by Dr. LaSalle D. Lefall, Jr., a professor of surgery at Howard University and Margaret Kripke, a professor at University of Texas' M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. The 2010 report concluded that government agencies are "failing to carry out their responsibilities" and made recommendations for overhauling the nation's flawed chemicals management system. The group identified these five major problems that make regulation of environmental contaminants ineffective: Excessively complex regulations Fragmented and overlapping authorities along with decentralized enforcement Inadequate funding and insufficient staffing Undue industry influence Weak laws and regulations Lefall and Kripke said these problems cause agency dysfunction and make it difficult to identify and remove hazards. My private view: There's a fatal flaw in the whole concept that the government is somehow more fair, more virtuous, and more honest — that it somehow stands independently above the fray and renders impartial judgments while it's only the private sector that is self-seeking and corrupt. Government is just another player in the game. It's not going to look out for you. You have to educate yourself and look out for yourself. The biggest mistake you can make is to outsource your health and safety to the government and the various entities (like the medical profession and the drug companies) that enjoy official approval. I think the average person walks into a supermarket believing that all the products and all their ingredients have been studied, tested and government-approved. Most people think, "Surely the government wouldn't let companies sell us foods and personal products that are harmful." Oh, yes they would. The public's fatal belief that everything is being taken care of — actually supports bad practices and makes them possible. It's provided cover for a massive proliferation of tens of thousands of chemicals without anyone asking questions. Without this touching, naïve faith in regulation, consumers would be more alert and ask more questions. The day the FDA is abolished (soon, I hope) everyone will realize they have to check out things for themselves, or select health advisors they personally know and trust. In the alternative health field, most of us do that anyway. What's the big deal? Meanwhile, with such a variety of toxins bombarding you every day, you might be wondering… What should be done about environmental carcinogens? The President's panel thinks government regulation can somehow be fixed, if everyone tries real hard. The panel made several recommendations for actions that government entities could take to reduce exposure to environmental contaminants. They recommended first that the President, Congress and responsible agencies such as the EPA adopt a new national cancer prevention strategy focused on primary prevention. Lefall and Kripke said the new approach should set tangible goals for eliminating environmental toxins that can cause cancer. The group made several other recommendations, including adoption of new workplace chemical exposure assessments, stronger cooperation among agencies, and speedier development of measurement and assessment tools. As for what YOU can do to reduce your exposure to environmental toxins—the panel suggested these practical actions: Check home radon levels (see Issue #117) Choose foods grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers Drink filtered home, tap or well water (see Issue #85) Remove shoes before entering your home Use a headset with your cell phone and keep calls brief (see Issue #90) You'll find a full list of the panel's recommendations for government, industry and private citizens regarding environmental toxins by accessing the report at http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf.

Pumping Iron Greatly Reduces Severe Football Injuries

Lifting weights may be the key to preventing severe injuries to football players, according to a three-year study of high school athletes in Florida.

The study found 78% of severe injuries to the upper body, especially shoulder separations, occurred among football players not involved in a strength-training program of controlled weight lifting. In addition, 64% of those with severe injuries to the lower body, including knee injuries, also were athletes not involved in the training program.

"These are very significant numbers," said Dr. MaryBeth Horodyski, assistant professor of exercise and sports sciences at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. "The bottom line is, those kids who did strength training typically did not have as severe injuries. They more often had mild or moderate injuries."

The study involving teams at 13 high schools turned up 887 injuries among football players. Mild injuries were defined as those which kept players out of practice or a game for seven days or less. Downtime for moderate injuries was 7 to 21 days, and severe injuries included those that kept players out of action for more than 21 days.

Roughly one third of the players in the study sustained injuries. However, Horodyski said that she and the team of athletic trainers and doctors assigned to the study were not surprised by that figure. According to national statistics, some type of injuries occur in 25% to 50% of athletes playing football during a given year, she points out.

The Florida study found defensive linemen are the most frequently injured players, and the most common type of injury for all positions is a sprain.

Fewer injuries were recorded during spring football, probably because it is less intense than fall play, the researcher said.

"The take-home message for coaches is, they need to implement a well-structured strength-training program for their players throughout the entire season," Horodyski stated. "It won't cut down on the total number of injuries, but time-loss goes down drastically if the injuries are not severe."

Source: Stroke (1997;28:1908-1912)

Washington D.C. Area Sports Update 01/06/2012

Washington D.C. Area Sports Update 01/07/2012

Key Stretch Awaits Hokie Basketball by Chris Coleman, TechSideline.com, Virginia Tech has a great opportunity ahead of them in basketball. Right now the Hokies are 11-3 on the season, and ranked in the top 40 of the RPI. They have three very winnable games coming up, and the chance to move to 14-3 and into the top 30 of the RPI is staring them right in the face. So far this year, it appears the ACC is probably a four-bid league when it comes to the NCAA Tournament. The Hokies can't afford to lose games they shouldn't lose, and thus far they've done a good job of avoiding that. Here's a look at their next three games, which are all winnable. Virginia Tech's Next Three Games Date Opp. RPI Record Location Jan. 7 Wake Forest 111 9-5 Winston-Salem Jan. 10 Florida State 66 9-5 Blacksburg Jan. 14 Boston College 262 5-9 Chestnut Hill In today's preview of the Wake Forest game, we noted that Virginia Tech is better than the Demon Deacons in almost every statistical category, including strength of schedule. That's a game the Hokies should win, though everyone knows that upsets happen in basketball every day. So far, Boston College is the worst team in the ACC, and they are rivaling 2010-11 Wake Forest as the worst team in ACC history. They have losses to Holy Cross, UMass, Saint Louis, New Mexico, Penn State, Boston U, Providence, Harvard and Rhode Island, and their computer numbers are as bad as it gets for a power conference team. The Eagles are breaking in almost an entirely new roster from last season, and they don’t resemble the team that upset the Hokies last season, just a game after Tech beat Duke. The game between Wake and Boston College, at home against Florida State, is interesting. The Noles were expected to make the NCAA Tournament again this year, but they are off to a very disappointing start, with losses to Harvard and Princeton. FSU should probably get away from scheduling the Ivy League for awhile. That said, the Noles are still a talented team. They have a lot of height, and they play good defense, but they are offensively challenged. That makes them about the same as every other Florida State team under Leonard Hamilton. Here's a look at the current ACC standings, based on RPI rank. ACC Standings Team Record RPI Duke 12-2 2 UNC 13-2 18 Virginia Tech 11-3 39 Virginia 13-1 52 NC State 11-4 53 FSU 9-5 66 Miami 9-4 75 Maryland 10-3 110 Wake Forest 9-5 111 Georgia Tech 7-7 156 Clemson 7-7 234 BC 5-9 262 Virginia Tech has played a good non-conference schedule, and as a result they have the third best RPI of all the ACC schools. Right now, it's fair to say that Duke and UNC are NCAA Tournament locks, while Virginia Tech, Virginia and NC State are the next three in line. Florida State and Miami are not out of it, because they've played a tough enough schedule to keep their RPI in the ballpark. However, they are going to have to go on big winning streaks. As far as Virginia Tech goes, they've got a chance for a decent road win tomorrow, and then they can beat a team who might end up in the top 50 in the following game. Their objective when they go to Chestnut Hill next weekend is simply to avoid what would be an embarrassing loss. TURNER LEADS BOWIE STATE TO ITS FIRST WIN (BOWIE, Md. – January 5, 2012) Juliette Turner led all players with career-highs of 25 points and 18 rebounds as Bowie State University opened its CIAA season with a 69-49 victory over Fayetteville State University. The win is the first this season for the Lady Bulldogs (1-8, 1-0) while the Lady Broncos (6-4, 0-1) dropped back-to-back games for the first time this season. When first year head coach Renard was asked what made the difference tonight, he simply responded, “They wanted it … Every last one of them wanted to win at home!” Kimberly Jones added 16 points, tying her career-high while Brooke Miles chipped in 12 for the Lady Bulldogs. Je’Lena Robertson led Fayetteville State with nine points while Akysia Resper and SheQuitia Manning had eight apiece. Manning led the Lady Broncos with 12 rebounds. The Lady Broncos struggled mightily in their first game in 17 days, showing considerable rust while being foul prone in the first half. Fayetteville State made just one of its first 12 field goal attempts, and finished the half shooting just 24 percent from the field. Turner had a lot to do with Bowie State’s quick start, scoring her team’s first 10 points and 14 of its first 18. She had a double-double by the break, with 15 points and 11 rebounds, leading the previously winless Lady Bulldogs to a 30-19 lead at the half. Bowie State continued to pour it on after the break, scoring 10 of the first 12 points of the period to stretch out a 20-6 scoring run that spanned halftime. That gave the Lady Bulldogs their largest lead to that point, 40-21, with 16:50 left in the game. The Lady Bulldogs will hit the road for a week long southern swing to Winston-Salem State University (January 9th), Shaw University (January 12th) and Saint Augustine’s College (January 14th).  Bowie State returns home Monday, January 16th, hosting Livingstone College at 5:30 pm in the A.C. Jordan Arena. 15th-RANKED BULLDOGS ROLL TO 97-85 VICTORY OVER FAYETTEVILLE STATE (BOWIE, Md. – January 5, 2012) The 15th ranked Bulldogs of Bowie State University had a tough first half, but pulled away in the final period and rolled to a 97-85 win over the Fayetteville State University. Fayetteville State gave Bowie State all they could handle for a half.  But a brilliant 6-minute stretch spanning the halftime break was enough for the Bulldogs to prevail 97-85 in the CIAA opener for both teams on Thursday night. In a matchup of the CIAA’s top two scoring teams, Bowie State was able to overcome a sterling shooting performance by Fayetteville State’s Jarmel Baxter.  Baxter finished with a game-high 18 points, setting a new career-high for 3-point field goals made in a single game with six. Paced by Baxter’s four triples and 12 points, Fayetteville State (2-6, 0-1 CIAA) trailed just 45-42 at the half. The teams traded the lead several times, with the Broncos recovering from an early seven-point deficit to take a 40-36 edge with 2:41 to go in the half after Tyrrel Tate’s jumper. But Bowie State (9-1, 1-0 CIAA) was only getting started. The game was tied entering the final seconds of the half before senior Jay Gavin buried a deep 3-pointer as the shot clock was winding down to give Bowie State the 3-point advantage, closing the first half on a 9-2 spurt. Gavin added another 3 in the opening minute of the second period while senior Darren Clark put together a three-point play, stretching the Bulldogs’ run to 14-2 and the lead to 51-42 just 67 seconds into the half. In all, the Bulldogs scored 14 unanswered points to open the period, stretching the scoring run to 23-2 for a 59-42 lead just over three minutes into the second half. Fayetteville State managed to recover midway through the period, and on Baxter’s sixth 3-ponter, the Broncos trailed 79-67 with 7:59 remaining. But the Bulldogs, who shot 53 percent from the field for the game, quickly pushed the lead back to 16 to regain control. “A string of second half stops in the second half really helped us pull away”, said third year coach Darrell Brooks.  “When asked about the Bulldogs balance this season, Brooks responded, “We do everything by committee and hopefully that will be the strength for us this year … We have the depth, especially inside.” Gavin and senior Travis Hyman led five Bowie State players in double figures with 16 points apiece. Sophomore Julian Williams and junior Byron Westmorland added 12 points each while junior Dameatric Scott chipped in 11. Tim Plummer added 15 points and seven rebounds for the Broncos while Tate chipped in 13 points and a game-high three steals. Bowie State will take their six-game winning streak on the road, making stops at Winston-Salem State (January 9th), Shaw (January 12th) and Saint Augustine’s (January 14th).  The Bulldogs’ next home contest will take place Monday, January 16th versus Livingstone College.  Game time is set for 7:30 pm in BSU’s A.C. Jordan Arena.

Stretch before you go 'Down the Stretch'

The importance of stretching before a run.

It's always a good idea to begin any aerobic workout, especially a run, with a light bout of walking or light jogging to allow muscles, tendons and other tissues to warm up gradually. Some fitness experts believe that's all you need to do to prepare for a workout--that stretching serves no useful purpose. However, limited joint mobility can predispose you to injury and taking a few minutes to increase flexibility in muscle groups that might be overused cannot hurt. In fact, Research by Peter and Lorna Francis support the use of appropriate flexibility exercise before and after a walking or jogging workout.
There are several types of stretching but they can be placed into two main categories: passive stretching and active stretching. During a passive stretch, the elastic components of the muscle are usually relaxed, and the portion of muscle most likely to be loaded is the connective tissue. The static stretch method is an excellent example of passive stretching. Active stretching has greater effects on the elastic components of the joints. It requires muscle contraction through a range of motion and prepares the muscles, tendons and joints for the functional activities at hand.
Regardless of which stretch you choose to use resist the temptation to rush through the stretching phase of your warm up. Stretches performed improperly and in haste are of little value.

Supplement Review Pyruvate

By I.S.S.A.
Pyruvate is a chemical product of sugar metabolism. A company called Med-Pro Industries owns the patent on pyruvate (does anyone else find the trend of pharmaceutical and supplement companies actually patenting naturally occurring substances disturbing?). Med-Pro licenses out the use of pyruvate to a handful of companies, most notably Twinlab who produce, you guessed it, "Pyruvate Fuel."
Pyruvate is marketed, overmarketed if you ask me, as a dietary supplement with claims that it will increase fat and weight loss. This is reportedly accomplished through an increase in metabolic rate, brought on by supplementing with pyruvate, and a coinciding increase in fat utilization.
While I would agree with those commentators (like Bill) who have called for more research to be done on pyruvate before such bold claims are put forward, I would actually go a step further and advise you to be very skeptical about this supplement. Here's why:
The hype being pushed by the makers and distributors of pyruvate are based on claims that stem from some very dubious studies.
The main human study that pyruvate's fat and weight loss claims are derived from has significant limitations. First, the studies exclusively involved women classified as morbidly obese who were isolated in hospital wards for 3 weeks, virtually confined to their beds, and on a liquid only diet.
While the group taking pyruvate (in very large doses I might add, about 10 times the daily dose people using the supplement get) did lose 48% more fat than the group not taking pyruvate, that 48% was only less than 3 pounds of actual weight (2.86). Remember, these were extremely obese individuals on a liquid diet, not people who are training on a regular basis.
I find the other marketing claims associated with pyruvate to be equally misleading. All in all, I just don't like the way the makers and marketers of pyruvate distort the very limited and inconclusive research that has been done on the product; I'm offended by it.
And to make matters worse, pyruvate is pushed particularly hard on the web and via email marketing. Fitness and the Web are two key elements of my life and my business, so I get a little peeved about things like this. There are a handful of good supplements available that will help you to drop those extra pounds and promote fat loss. I'm convinced that pyruvate is not one of them.

American Beef is Banned in Europe and Much of the Rest of the World

American Beef is Banned in Europe and Much of the Rest of the World In 1989 the European Economic Community (EEC) banned hormone-treated U. S. meat, citing dangers of meat treated with sex hormones. This wasn't a case of typical out-of-control bureaucrats. In fact, European consumers pressured the EEC to take this action on behalf of their health. Ever since, the US Department of Agriculture has been bullying the EEC on unfair trade practices. American farmers view the meat ban as a flimsy excuse to keep out their products. In this case, I think they're mistaken. People shouldn't eat this perverted product, and the Europeans are wise to keep it out. It's not just the Europeans who won't buy American meat. Japan initiated its own ban in 2003. Canada and Australia also refuse our hormone-contaminated meats. The U.S. should join them instead of fighting them. Here's what this stuff can do to you. . . Continued below. . . 3 hidden memory-destroying triggers no one told you about If your memory is not what it used to be, you may have one or more of these 3 factors. Here’s the latest scientific research on how to undo the damage, and get your memory back in as little as 30 days. It’s ironic. Just when you’ve got all this wisdom and experience under your belt, your brain is no longer “old reliable.” You never know when it’s going to trip you up, frustrate you, embarrass you, or make you wonder if you’re starting to lose your marbles. Researchers at Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Duke, UCLA, and other top universities recently discovered three hidden triggers that cause frequent memory lapses and mental decline. They’re the missing link scientists have been seeking for years! And thanks to a new breakthrough, it’s now possible to switch off these hidden triggers—and even reverse years of brain aging. That means you can enjoy a “steel trap” memory, crystal-clear thinking, and laser-like focus—in just 30 days or even less. It all starts with reversing this first hidden trigger… Learn More Now The EU Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health (SCVPH) confirmed for the third time in 2002 that the use of hormones as cattle growth promoters poses a health risk, in light of a review of 17 studies and other recent scientific data. The committee found no reason to change its previous opinions of 1999 and 2000.1 The SCVPH concluded there's a substantial body of evidence that estradiol, a common hormone used to grow American beef, must be considered a complete carcinogen. This means it both causes tumors to start and promotes the growth of those that already exist. The committee could not establish any safe level of intake for any of the six hormones now used to quickly fatten beef cattle in America.2 An official EU scientific panel released a comprehensive report confirming at least one of the six growth hormones contained in U.S. beef products causes cancer — beyond doubt.3 They further stated that all the banned hormones are thought to cause a variety of health problems or diseases… including cancer, developmental problems, immunological breakdown, brain disease, and others. A critical point made by the EU report was that exposure to even small levels of hormone residue in meat and meat products carries some risk. Drug abuse in the cattle industry An estimated 90 percent4 of all beef slaughtered in the U.S. is loaded up with hormones before it goes to the butcher and onto your plate. Today's six most common hormones in the beef industry are estrogen, progesterone and testosterone, plus the synthetic hormones melengesterol, trenbolone or zeranol. Producers place hormone-releasing pellets under a cow's ear when it first enters the feedlot, and then again 50 days later. In another 50 days or less, it's slaughtered. Worse yet… injection into the muscle is a lucrative and common practice, although it's against the law. In the commercial cattle industry, the aim is to add as much weight to the animals as fast as possible. These hormones speed up weight gain and increase profits by $80 per cow. It takes less time for the cow to get fat enough for slaughter and the cow consumes less food along the way. Conventionally raised beef calves grow from 80 pounds to 1,200 pounds in a period of just 14 months. Calves are fed or implanted with various drugs and hormones, grain and protein supplements… in order to, as the beef industry states, "promote efficient growth".6 All approved implant products have a zero-day withdrawal… meaning the meat is considered safe to eat any time after the animal is treated. Here's the rub, though… Hormones are natural chemicals that control processes in your body. But they function optimally within a very small range of delicate balance. Any small imbalance of even a single hormone can lead to staggering health problems. What the cattle eat is what you eat, too. You're just the next step up on the food chain. And beware… These hormones do not disappear when they hit your plate — or your stomach There are indications that these hormones don't just disappear when they hit your plate — or your stomach. So the questions you must ask yourself are… If hormones are so "safe" why are there so many restrictions on medicating humans with hormones… while medicating cows with them is not only permissible but standard? Furthermore, if high estrogen is so "safe", then why is there such a strong link between excess estrogen and cancers of the breast and prostate? It's worth noting that the only USDA imposed requirement on safety of hormonal meat is that it be less than one percent of a child's daily hormonal production. Yet, a single ear implant of Synovex-S, a combination of estradiol and progesterone, spiked estradiol levels in various meat products up to 20-fold higher than normal. Samuel Epstein, M.D., environmental cancer expert, states that an eight-year-old boy eating two hamburgers in one day would be exposed to enough estradiol to increase his body's levels of the hormone by 10 percent. It's about like giving your children birth control pills. And it gets worse. Due to their high hormone levels, cows are more likely to get sick with mastitis and other illnesses requiring antibiotics. So not only are you eating hormones, but you're also ingesting high amounts of antibiotics. Irresponsible use of antibiotics has led to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a very serious threat. Déjà vu…? Where have we seen this before? Four decades after diethylstilbestrol (DES), a growth-enhancing animal feed additive, was first declared carcinogenic (1938), it was finally banned in 1979. Why it took forty long years for a known carcinogen to be banned is beyond the scope of this article. But it should prompt us to be skeptical of the current notion that these six newer growth hormones are safe for us to eat day in and day out. Immediately after banning DES, the meat industry switched to its current six carcinogenic additives — particularly the "natural" sex hormones estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone. Epstein cites the link between spiking cancer rates and a lifetime of exposure to dangerous dietary residues from carcinogenic feed additives. Deliberate poisoning and your likelihood of cancer The abuse of these hormones has grown side by side with the rapidly escalating incidence of reproductive cancers in the U.S. Since 1950, there's been a 55% increase for breast cancer, 120% for testicular cancer, and 190% for prostate cancer.7 (Full disclosure: Other reports cite different rates of increase in these cancers.) Sex hormones elevate levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factor-1) — linked to prostate, breast and colon cancer. A Washington University (St. Louis) 2006 study found that healthy vegetarian men have much lower IGF-1 levels than endurance athletes of the same weight who eat meat.8 The World Health Organization also warned that dietary factors account for at least 30 percent of all cancers in Western countries. And researchers found that people who avoid meat are much less likely to develop cancer. Large studies in England and Germany also confirmed that vegetarians were about 40% less likely to develop cancer.9 A 2004 study discovered that men with high IGF-1 have a 50% higher prostate cancer risk, and high IGF-1 women have a 65% higher breast cancer risk than women with lower IGF-1 levels.10 Moreover, American women have a stunning five-fold greater risk of breast cancer than do women in countries that ban hormonal beef.11 Mountains of evidence for a cancer connection The Europeans, Japanese, and Australians have done a great deal of research and have labeled hormonal meat a definite carcinogen. It's been well established since the 1980's that the cattle hormone estradiol causes gene damage and cancer in rodents which relates to breast and uterine cancer in women.12 Australian researcher Mike Waters, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, University of Queensland, published a review in the American journal Endocrinology in 2007, supporting the claims of consumers that meat injected with growth hormones could lead to cancer. He cited numerous studies connecting cancer with the practice of eating growth-hormone-treated meat. Studies also find that inhibiting growth hormones helps "reduce both size and number of tumors." Here's what to do if you don't want to become a vegetarian Since the government doesn't seem to get it, take charge yourself. Switch to organic meat! I believe that many people are not served well by vegetarianism, and need higher dietary protein levels. I favor moderate consumption of meat — and only hormone-free and antibiotic-free meat. There's a theory of metabolic types — some people thrive on meat, others get sick on it. We'll discuss this in a future issue. But even if you're the metabolic type that needs high protein, you should eat only the healthy kind. If you're ready to make the switch to hormone-free, antibiotic-free meat, there's good news! In response to consumer demand, organic livestock in the U.S. bolted from 18,513 in 1997… to 196,506 in 2005. Producers must show through solid documentation that meat has had no hormones or no antibiotics if they want to use "no hormone" or "no antibiotic" labels. The organic label cannot be used if there are any hormones or antibiotics involved. Hormone-free meat poses fewer health risks and is also better for the environment and animal health. Although it may be more expensive than conventional red meat, the price reflects its true production costs. It's not a rip-off — it costs more to raise. A couple of labeling tricks you should know about: For meat to be organic it must carry the organic label. Meats labeled "hormone-free", "all-natural", "grass fed" or "free range" may not necessarily be organic. At the same time, "organic" animals are not necessarily free range or grass fed. Organic regulations only require that animals have access to the outdoors. Your healthiest meat is that which is both free range and organic. Here's a money-saving trick If you can't afford organic for every food you eat, choose the ones that give you the biggest benefit over conventional. Consumer Reports regards organic meat as one of those foods. Here's how to save on organic grass fed beef. First, shop around, because prices on organic foods can vary greatly. Even better… buy organic grass fed beef from a nearby farmer. This tends to be less expensive and also reduces your carbon footprint. As a bonus, the meat is much more fresh. Plus, you're supporting local community businesses, and you can check out how it's raised. I'm a big fan of farmer's markets. I can't swear the meat is always cheaper, but the other advantages outweigh the cost. Check out these websites: www.localharvest.org and http://www.realmilk.com/where2.html for sources of organic, grass-fed beef in your area. There are also national providers who will ship to you, if you're unsuccessful in finding something local. If you can swing the upfront cost, consider getting a quarter, half, or whole cow butchered to your specifications, generally at less cost per pound. You do need a large freezer. But the savings from buying in bulk are considerable. Having a supply in your home will lessen emergency trips to the grocery store, as well as the temptation to patronize that place with the golden arches, and others like it.

Asthma and Dehydration don't mix!

 

Dehydration Worsens Exercise-Induced Asthma

NEW YORK (Reuters Health)--With the return of hot weather, a word of warning to people with asthma: Dehydration can cause bronchospasm, a constriction or "tightening" of lung airways. And dehydration can make asthma brought on by exercise worse, report researchers.
Lead investigator Paula Maxwell of the University of Buffalo, New York, and colleagues compared airway reactivity after 6 minutes of high-intensity exercise in eight young adults with exercise-induced asthma and eight without the condition. Subjects first exercised when fully hydrated and again after 24 hours of voluntary water deprivation.
Hydration status had no effect on lung function in normal subjects, but the study showed that in individuals with exercise-induced asthma, dehydration resulted in a significant decrease in FEV1, a measure of lung function based on the amount of air blown out in one second.
This decline in lung function was evident both before and after exercise in these individuals, the research team reported Friday at the American College of Sports Medicine meeting in Seattle, Washington.
The investigators also noted that the rate of decline in lung function was the same in asthmatics whether they were hydrated or dehydrated, but when dehydrated, asthmatics start out with worse lung function than usual, and therefore experience more breathing problems than when they have enough water on board.
"Asthmatics are more sensitive than non-asthmatics to dehydration, but we need to investigate this condition further to determine how it affects (lung) function," said study co-author Dr. Frank Cerny, associate professor and chair of the University of Buffalo department of physical therapy, exercise, and nutrition sciences.
"The message continues to be, 'Drink fluids whenever you get the chance,'" he added. "If you have asthma, dehydration may make it worse, particularly during exercise."
Source: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 1999;47:639-646, 755-756.

Tonight on US Sports Radio Its DeMatha High School Basketball: The 10th Ranked Stags take on the Cadets of St. John's in a big conference match-up go www.ussportsentertainment.com to listen live tonight starting at 7:05pm EST

Presented on US Sports Radio By Cancer Defeated