Sunshine and skin cancer: the real story
It turns out that a new type of nail polish may increase your risk of cancer. I'll give you the details in a minute, but because we're moving into summertime, let's first take a look at one of the other things we do to make ourselves look good: getting some sun. . .
Continued below. . .
You hear a lot of warnings that too much sun may give you skin cancer. Other than smoking, this is one of the few cancer prevention ideas mainstream medicine gets excited about.
It's too bad they don't use their resources and all those public service TV and radio commercials for something more worthwhile. The cancer danger from ultraviolet rays is pretty small. The best evidence I've seen indicates that sunshine may cause mild, practically harmless basal cell carcinomas. Almost nobody ever dies of this type of skin cancer, although it can blemish the skin. The deadly type of skin cancer is melanoma and, surprisingly, the evidence isn't conclusive on whether UV rays cause melanoma. In any case, very few people die of melanoma. Now, I'm not saying go out and get as tanned as you want. Too much UV exposure does age the skin and most likely causes the mild form of skin cancer. What's more, the damage from the tans and burns we get when we're young doesn't show up for decades. It's a case of "enjoy now, pay a terrible price later." So assuming you don't want dry, wrinkled skin and nasty little black lesions when you're an old coot like me, you should keep your sun exposure brief and moderate. Boosting your vitamin D levels is the only real health reason to take in UV rays, and a little bit of exposure (well short of what it takes to give a white person a tan) is plenty for that purpose.
But there's another danger here,
and it doesn't come from the sun. . .
Conventional medicine's "cure" for too much sun may be worse than the disease. Some researchers are just as concerned about sunscreens as a potential carcinogen as they are about UV rays.
I've been warning about this possibility for years. There have been few or no long-term studies on whether it's safe to slather sunscreen chemicals all over our bodies. But people think, "Surely the government checks out all these products." Right. I see young parents covering infants and toddlers with sunscreen from head to toe. It's scary. Now there's some evidence my hunch may be right. Cell toxicity studies conducted by researchers at Missouri University of Science and Technology suggest that a common sunscreen ingredient, zinc oxide, may be at the root of the problem. Dr. Yinfa Ma, Curators' Teaching Professor of chemistry, led research studies which found that exposing this ingredient to sunlight causes a chemical reaction that may release unstable molecules known as free radicals. According to the study published in the Journal of Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, as free radicals try to bond with other molecules, they cause cell damage that could increase the risk of skin cancer. Dr. Ma's team also theorized that the longer zinc oxide is exposed to sunlight, the greater damage it causes to human cells. If this study is accurate, then using sunscreen to protect your body from UV rays couldspeed up the formation of cancer-causing free radicals. But the study authors caution against jumping to conclusions. Dr. Ma noted that this study was just a beginning and additional research is needed. No doubt that's true, but I haven't used sunscreen for years (I don't like the stuff anyway). I recommend avoiding it and taking the following steps instead:
These solutions may sound simple and "un-medical" — they don't come out of pharmacy. But sometimes the most effective solutions don't have to be complicated at all!
Now, about that cancer-causing nail polish. . .
At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the First Lady sparked a fashion craze by wearing a unique shade of blue-gray gel nail polish.
Nail salons nationwide reported an uptick in clients searching for this long-lasting, chip resistant polish. Because gel nail colors require a UV light source to dry and seal the color, they're mainly applied by the pros. But some manufacturers have created home kits that include a mini UV lamp to help you achieve the same look at home. Many women love these gel colors because some can last as long as three weeks! But that kind of durability makes it harder to remove the polish too. You have to soak your nails in acetone for10 to 15 minutes to remove the polish. That sounds like a bad idea to me, right off the bat. The acetone can dry your nails… irritate the skin near your nails… and even escalate to form rashes or blisters on your skin! An American Academy of Dermatology press statement cites one study in which dermatologists examined five women who complained of weak, brittle and thinning nails that they suspected were caused by gel manicures. The dermatologists agreed that their problems were likely a result of the gel manicures. What's more, one of the women underwent two additional tests to measure the nail plate before and after one gel manicure. These tests confirmed that nail plate thinning occurred.
So what's the cancer connection?
Gel nail polish may pose a cancer threat on two levels…
First of all, some of these polishes contain the chemical preservative butylated hydroxyanisol (BHA), which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have found to be a consistent cause of tumors in laboratory animals. Likewise, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies BHA as a possible human carcinogen. Scientists are not sure how much exposure you would need for cancer to develop, but it's wise to be cautious. Not all gel polishes contain this chemical, so be sure to check the ingredient list on any bottle you plan to use. The second potential cancer threat from gel manicures has to do with the application process. Remember that gel polish applications require a UV lamp to set. Does this UV exposure pose a cancer danger? At least one conventional expert thinks so. . . Dr. Susan Taylor, dermatologist and clinical researcher, said that exposure to this UV light for just four to eight minutes every two weeks can wind up being a significant level of exposure. I'm skeptical that the UV angle of this nail polish is much of a problem. Are women going to get melanoma lesions on their fingertips from a brief UV exposure? I suspect not. But, as I said before, it ages the skin and may also cause less deadly types of skin cancer. And who needs that? Dr. Taylor has three recommendations for people who prefer gel manicures to traditional nail polish:
Like many beauty treatments (hair dyes, for example — see Issue #272) this one sounds like more risk than it's worth. Your move. . .
|
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Sunshine and skin cancer: the real story
Labels:
cancer cure treatment natural
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Warrior Island Casting Call Season 2 Atlantic City
|
Monday, May 20, 2013
History of a different kind was made this weekend
DC Divas Fall Short in Record-Setting Duel, 81-54
Neal Rozendaal
Boston, MA – Against an ordinary team, 54 points would be good enough to win a football game.
The 2013 Boston Militia are no ordinary team.
The DC Divas and Boston Militia shattered the WFA record for most combined points in a single game, but the Divas came up on the short end of an 81-54 final score. The Divas (4-2) fought valiantly on offense, scoring 54 points despite losing star running back Kenyetta Grigsby due to injury early in the first quarter. But they ultimately had no chance against a Boston team that scored 12 touchdowns on their first 13 possessions.
Grigsby went down with an injury on the Divas’ second series of the game, and the DC offense struggled in the first quarter in her absence. An 88-yard touchdown pass from Allyson Hamlin to Ashley Whisonant gave the Divas their first points of the game, but DC trailed, 28-7, after the first quarter.
The Militia (6-0) scored their fifth touchdown of the game one minute into the second quarter to extend their lead to 35-7, and it looked like the contest was destined to be a Boston blowout. Instead, the Divas’ offense regained their balance and matched the Militia point for point from then on. The resurgent DC offense kept the Divas within striking distance and turned the contest into the greatest shootout in WFA history.
Starting tight end Donna Wilkinson – the only member of the roster who played for the Divas’ inaugural team in 2001 – shifted from tight end to the running back position in the second quarter, and the DC offense exploded. Wilkinson was a record-setting running back for the Divas earlier in her career, and she proved that she can still handle the job, carrying the ball time and again for solid gains. Wilkinson’s hard running provided balance to the DC offense and helped them move the ball down the field.
Hamlin found Whisonant in the end zone on two more occasions in the second quarter; the Divas trailed at halftime, 55-21. Less than two minutes into the second half, Hamlin threw her fourth touchdown of the game, this one to Juliette Baker-Brice to cut the deficit to 55-28.
The DC defense then provided their only highlight of the evening, stopping Boston’s Whitney Zelee on fourth down to get the ball back for the Divas. The offense took advantage as Hamlin threw her fourth touchdown pass to Whisonant, which sliced the margin to 55-35.
Hamlin found Whisonant in the end zone for a fifth time on the Divas’ next possession, which again drew the Divas within twenty at 61-41. Ashley Whisonant ended the game with five receiving touchdowns. When Boston’s Whitney Zelee scored just before the end of the third quarter to give the Militia a 67-41 lead, the contest surpassed the record for the most points ever scored in a WFA game with a full quarter still remaining.
Wilkinson gave the Divas their first rushing touchdown of the game with 12:02 left, which again cut the deficit to twenty at 67-47. Just over five minutes later, Kasee Hillard snared Hamlin’s seventh touchdown pass of the game and pulled DC within 73-54. But the Militia tacked on their 12th touchdown of the game moments later for the final points of the game, and the Divas fell to an 81-54 defeat.
The 135 total points scored easily surpassed the previous WFA record of 105, set last season in the Kansas City Tribe’s 63-42 victory over the St. Louis Slam. The Divas’ 54 points were also the most ever scored in a losing effort, topping the 42 scored by St. Louis in that game.
The 81 points surrendered by the Divas was easily the most ever yielded in franchise history, topping the 56 points the Militia racked up against DC in their first meeting this year. At the same time, the 54 points the Divas tallied against Boston was by far the most points Boston has ever given up in a single game, topping the previous record of 36 scored by the Divas in a 2010 contest.
DC will get two weeks to rest from this exhausting scoring duel. After a scheduled bye week, the Divas next take the field at home on June 1 against the Pittsburgh Passion in a game that will likely decide the division championship. Pictures and video available on Facebook at D.C. Divas football.
Neal Rozendaal
Boston, MA – Against an ordinary team, 54 points would be good enough to win a football game.
The 2013 Boston Militia are no ordinary team.
The DC Divas and Boston Militia shattered the WFA record for most combined points in a single game, but the Divas came up on the short end of an 81-54 final score. The Divas (4-2) fought valiantly on offense, scoring 54 points despite losing star running back Kenyetta Grigsby due to injury early in the first quarter. But they ultimately had no chance against a Boston team that scored 12 touchdowns on their first 13 possessions.
Grigsby went down with an injury on the Divas’ second series of the game, and the DC offense struggled in the first quarter in her absence. An 88-yard touchdown pass from Allyson Hamlin to Ashley Whisonant gave the Divas their first points of the game, but DC trailed, 28-7, after the first quarter.
The Militia (6-0) scored their fifth touchdown of the game one minute into the second quarter to extend their lead to 35-7, and it looked like the contest was destined to be a Boston blowout. Instead, the Divas’ offense regained their balance and matched the Militia point for point from then on. The resurgent DC offense kept the Divas within striking distance and turned the contest into the greatest shootout in WFA history.
Starting tight end Donna Wilkinson – the only member of the roster who played for the Divas’ inaugural team in 2001 – shifted from tight end to the running back position in the second quarter, and the DC offense exploded. Wilkinson was a record-setting running back for the Divas earlier in her career, and she proved that she can still handle the job, carrying the ball time and again for solid gains. Wilkinson’s hard running provided balance to the DC offense and helped them move the ball down the field.
Hamlin found Whisonant in the end zone on two more occasions in the second quarter; the Divas trailed at halftime, 55-21. Less than two minutes into the second half, Hamlin threw her fourth touchdown of the game, this one to Juliette Baker-Brice to cut the deficit to 55-28.
The DC defense then provided their only highlight of the evening, stopping Boston’s Whitney Zelee on fourth down to get the ball back for the Divas. The offense took advantage as Hamlin threw her fourth touchdown pass to Whisonant, which sliced the margin to 55-35.
Hamlin found Whisonant in the end zone for a fifth time on the Divas’ next possession, which again drew the Divas within twenty at 61-41. Ashley Whisonant ended the game with five receiving touchdowns. When Boston’s Whitney Zelee scored just before the end of the third quarter to give the Militia a 67-41 lead, the contest surpassed the record for the most points ever scored in a WFA game with a full quarter still remaining.
Wilkinson gave the Divas their first rushing touchdown of the game with 12:02 left, which again cut the deficit to twenty at 67-47. Just over five minutes later, Kasee Hillard snared Hamlin’s seventh touchdown pass of the game and pulled DC within 73-54. But the Militia tacked on their 12th touchdown of the game moments later for the final points of the game, and the Divas fell to an 81-54 defeat.
The 135 total points scored easily surpassed the previous WFA record of 105, set last season in the Kansas City Tribe’s 63-42 victory over the St. Louis Slam. The Divas’ 54 points were also the most ever scored in a losing effort, topping the 42 scored by St. Louis in that game.
The 81 points surrendered by the Divas was easily the most ever yielded in franchise history, topping the 56 points the Militia racked up against DC in their first meeting this year. At the same time, the 54 points the Divas tallied against Boston was by far the most points Boston has ever given up in a single game, topping the previous record of 36 scored by the Divas in a 2010 contest.
DC will get two weeks to rest from this exhausting scoring duel. After a scheduled bye week, the Divas next take the field at home on June 1 against the Pittsburgh Passion in a game that will likely decide the division championship. Pictures and video available on Facebook at D.C. Divas football.
Bodybuilding.com becomes Title Sponsor for Warrior Island
|
Sunday, May 19, 2013
How drug companies price what your life is worth
How Drug Companies Price
Of all the appalling things we deal with when it comes to modern medicine, Big Pharma is the worst. |
The One Word
every cancer patient must know
Your doctor's reading the results, you know it's the worst news, and you snap out of it just in time to hear him say...
"I'm going to recommend an aggressive chemotherapy regimen." That's when you say one word that sucks the air out of the entire doctor's office. It's a new cancer therapy that doctors are whispering about behind closed doors...and doctors will be stunned you know about it. $4 billion has already been spent researching it--making it one of the largest research initiatives in medical history. And the results are powerful--Tumor shrinkage in 86% of lung cancer patients. Once "incurable" brain tumors put on hold. And these revelations are already rushing 374 clinical trials into hospitals. But you can't call this new hope therapy "aggressive" like chemo, because there is no poison, there are no toxins. In fact, this therapy could have you alive and thriving. Find out the one word that will have your doctor asking, "how did you hear about this?" |
Drug prices related to medical illness are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. Many patients are required by their insurance providers to pay roughly 20 percent of the total cost of the drug. That quickly adds up to sky-rocketing out-of-pocket payments. Just in the last ten years, average monthly costs for cancer drugs have doubled, up from $5,000 to more than $10,000 per month.
In 2012, 11 out of the 12 new cancer drugs approved by the FDA were priced at well over $100,000 a year. We're not even talking about miracle drugs here. Only three of the 11 new drugs improved patient survival rates beyond a reasonable doubt. Two of those only boosted survival by two months.
Call me coldhearted, but I'm really and truly puzzled that people would pay more than $100,000 for two more months of life, especially two miserable months on chemo. I don't get it. For this we leave our spouses and children destitute?
Some of these patients are just following doctors' orders, but some are well-informed enough to know what they're doing — because many oncologists will tell a late-stage patient the 'official estimate' of just how much extra time another round of chemo will buy them. Most of the time the answer is "not much."
And the unofficial estimate is even worse — chemo shortens life as often as it extends it. For the late-stage patient it's a bust (literally, in terms of their bank account.) Of course, mainstream doctors don't know the "unofficial" figure — or claim they don't — but even their drug-company-provided estimate that you'll live two more weeks or two more months or whatever is so absurd, I marvel that patients go for it.
In 2012, 11 out of the 12 new cancer drugs approved by the FDA were priced at well over $100,000 a year. We're not even talking about miracle drugs here. Only three of the 11 new drugs improved patient survival rates beyond a reasonable doubt. Two of those only boosted survival by two months.
Call me coldhearted, but I'm really and truly puzzled that people would pay more than $100,000 for two more months of life, especially two miserable months on chemo. I don't get it. For this we leave our spouses and children destitute?
Some of these patients are just following doctors' orders, but some are well-informed enough to know what they're doing — because many oncologists will tell a late-stage patient the 'official estimate' of just how much extra time another round of chemo will buy them. Most of the time the answer is "not much."
And the unofficial estimate is even worse — chemo shortens life as often as it extends it. For the late-stage patient it's a bust (literally, in terms of their bank account.) Of course, mainstream doctors don't know the "unofficial" figure — or claim they don't — but even their drug-company-provided estimate that you'll live two more weeks or two more months or whatever is so absurd, I marvel that patients go for it.
They charge what they can get away with,
insurance companies will pay
insurance companies will pay
Most people don't realize that pharmaceutical companies are the ones who dictate price. All the FDA does is give approval. Then drug companies look at their research and development costs, factor in the expense of drugs that didn't get approval, add in education and ad costs, and then (I would guess) throw in a nice buffer for profits.
Here's more that'll make your blood boil: Some U.S. drug prices are two to four times as much as you'll pay for the same thing in other countries. And in the U.S., patients whose drug costs are covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs pay drug prices that are 50 percent lower than prices paid by Medicare patients—because the VA is allowed to negotiate drug payments and Medicare can't.
Worse still, U.S. drug manufacturers can actually pay the makers of generic drugs to keep their cheaper versions of a drug off the market for a limited period of time (usually a number of months). It's called "pay to delay" and brings clear profits. According to Ralph Neas, president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, healthcare spending was reduced by more than $1 trillion thanks to earlier introduction of generic drugs over the past 10 years.2
We need to see the same thing happen with cancer treatment and drugs.
Here's more that'll make your blood boil: Some U.S. drug prices are two to four times as much as you'll pay for the same thing in other countries. And in the U.S., patients whose drug costs are covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs pay drug prices that are 50 percent lower than prices paid by Medicare patients—because the VA is allowed to negotiate drug payments and Medicare can't.
Worse still, U.S. drug manufacturers can actually pay the makers of generic drugs to keep their cheaper versions of a drug off the market for a limited period of time (usually a number of months). It's called "pay to delay" and brings clear profits. According to Ralph Neas, president of the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, healthcare spending was reduced by more than $1 trillion thanks to earlier introduction of generic drugs over the past 10 years.2
We need to see the same thing happen with cancer treatment and drugs.
Why Big Pharma drives thousands
of people to bankruptcy
of people to bankruptcy
The 120 doctors who published a protest are specialists in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), a condition for which a daily drug is commonly prescribed. The costs add up fast. The patients have to pay a high price just to stay alive. As the experts say in their protest, their patients are the financial victims of successful drug company tests.
New studies are finding that many CML patients and other cancer patients simply stop filling their prescriptions because they can't afford them. The American Cancer Society conducted a survey that found one cancer patient out of four puts off getting tests or treatments because of the exorbitant costs.
To defend themselves, the pharmaceutical companies claim high costs when it comes to drug development. But that defense falls flat when you look at companies like Swiss drug maker Novartis, the maker of Gleevac, which grossed a staggering $4.7 billion in sales last year alone.
Even one of the doctors who was part of developing Gleevac, Dr. Brian Druker, thinks Novartis has gone too far. After suggesting they could easily get by with a few billion less, Dr. Druker told The New York Times, "When do you cross the line from essential profits to profiteering?"1
This most recent outcry toward drug companies by the medical establishment was inspired by doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Last year, those doctors refused to use Zaltrap, a new colon cancer drug, because it cost more than twice as much as a similar drug called Avatin. Yet, Zaltrap proved to be no better in terms of treatment outcomes than the cheaper Avatin.
The boycott at Memorial Sloan Kettering worked, and the manufacturer of Zaltrap has since cut the price by half. Interesting to note, though, was that the boycott crossed a major line—and set a precedent. Up till then, doctors were constantly under pressure to use any treatment that appeared to be new and better.
So while it seems like a no-brainer to boycott a drug that costs twice as high with no appreciable improvement in results … it actually raised some eyebrows, simply because doctors had never done anything like that before. (A "herd of independent minds" is the appropriate phrase for this profession.) The boycott was a step in the right direction — long overdue, in fact.
The reality is, most new drugs are no improvement over generic drugs that have been around for years, yet they're touted as a great new breakthrough and doctors dutifully prescribe them. I'm talking about ALL types of drugs, not just cancer drugs. The norm is for a "new" drug to be a minor tweak of an old drug. Or, even if a drug is genuinely new, in most cases it doesn't perform any better than older drugs that are off-patent and inexpensive. But the tweak or the mediocre "new discovery" can be protected by patent and priced accordingly.
But at least it's promising to know that so many oncologists out there have finally become mindful of the expensive technology and treatments they recommend. Soaring costs are pushing them to honor a new obligation, which is the consideration of financial strains they place on their patients when trying to treat them.
New studies are finding that many CML patients and other cancer patients simply stop filling their prescriptions because they can't afford them. The American Cancer Society conducted a survey that found one cancer patient out of four puts off getting tests or treatments because of the exorbitant costs.
To defend themselves, the pharmaceutical companies claim high costs when it comes to drug development. But that defense falls flat when you look at companies like Swiss drug maker Novartis, the maker of Gleevac, which grossed a staggering $4.7 billion in sales last year alone.
Even one of the doctors who was part of developing Gleevac, Dr. Brian Druker, thinks Novartis has gone too far. After suggesting they could easily get by with a few billion less, Dr. Druker told The New York Times, "When do you cross the line from essential profits to profiteering?"1
This most recent outcry toward drug companies by the medical establishment was inspired by doctors from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Last year, those doctors refused to use Zaltrap, a new colon cancer drug, because it cost more than twice as much as a similar drug called Avatin. Yet, Zaltrap proved to be no better in terms of treatment outcomes than the cheaper Avatin.
The boycott at Memorial Sloan Kettering worked, and the manufacturer of Zaltrap has since cut the price by half. Interesting to note, though, was that the boycott crossed a major line—and set a precedent. Up till then, doctors were constantly under pressure to use any treatment that appeared to be new and better.
So while it seems like a no-brainer to boycott a drug that costs twice as high with no appreciable improvement in results … it actually raised some eyebrows, simply because doctors had never done anything like that before. (A "herd of independent minds" is the appropriate phrase for this profession.) The boycott was a step in the right direction — long overdue, in fact.
The reality is, most new drugs are no improvement over generic drugs that have been around for years, yet they're touted as a great new breakthrough and doctors dutifully prescribe them. I'm talking about ALL types of drugs, not just cancer drugs. The norm is for a "new" drug to be a minor tweak of an old drug. Or, even if a drug is genuinely new, in most cases it doesn't perform any better than older drugs that are off-patent and inexpensive. But the tweak or the mediocre "new discovery" can be protected by patent and priced accordingly.
But at least it's promising to know that so many oncologists out there have finally become mindful of the expensive technology and treatments they recommend. Soaring costs are pushing them to honor a new obligation, which is the consideration of financial strains they place on their patients when trying to treat them.
Proactive lifestyle choices are still your best bet
The cost of cancer care is just one facet of a much bigger problem, the overall cost of conventional care. That's why I advocate as much proactive healthcare on your part as possible, so you can avoid this mess of money and greed in medicine.
I beg you with all my heart, get over the idea that you can neglect your health, let yourself go, eat and drink anything you like, adopt a "what-me-worry" attitude toward all the toxins around us — and somehow a miracle drug or high tech device will come along and make everything all right when you hit middle age or old age and your health falters.
I beg you with all my heart, get over the idea that you can neglect your health, let yourself go, eat and drink anything you like, adopt a "what-me-worry" attitude toward all the toxins around us — and somehow a miracle drug or high tech device will come along and make everything all right when you hit middle age or old age and your health falters.
Friday, May 17, 2013
5 reasons to ditch your probiotic supplement
Still Taking a Probiotic Supplement?
|
They Are Calling It The New AIDS Of America
There is a new menace invading the USA. They are terrorists but not humans…
This killer is the American trypanosome, which causes deadly Chagas disease: it makes your heart swell and burst without warning. It's being called the "new AIDS". It's transmitted by "kissing bugs", which are moving ever northwards, as the climate warms. 40% of these bugs, when tested, had fed on humans recently. Your only real protection is knowledge: you MUST get informed about what's going on. Keith Scott-Mumby MD has produced a brilliant comprehensive handbook explaining scores parasites (only the ones we meet in Western society. You'll be shocked, horrified even, when you learn the truth. Virtually all of us carry parasites, Dr. Keith says. His entire text is backed up by cutting edge scientific references and--most importantly--help on what to do to stay safe and keep the critters out of your body. Read more here... |
Reason #1: There's an incredible alternative that, according to some sources, contains100 times more beneficial bacteria than an entire bottle of high potency probiotic supplement.
And this alternative isn't some newfangled product either.
It's been a part of the diet of nearly every traditional culture throughout the history of mankind. I'm talking about cultured vegetables, though there are other cultured foods highly regarded in various parts of the world. More on this is a minute.
Only since the widespread use of refrigeration have we stopped using traditionally fermented foods.
Reason #2: It may be impossible to say whether the bacterial strains in any particular probiotic supplement are really the best ones — or if they represent a wide enough selection of those needed for health. Scientists are constantly discovering new facts about the human body. For example, the Belly Button Biodiversity Project by scientists at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, has been analyzing navel swabs from volunteers. New Science reports that so far, they've found 1,400 distinct bacterial strains, nearly half of which have never before been seen.1 Who knows what beneficial bacteria are still undiscovered?
Reason #3: The trust factor. While we can't deny the benefits of probiotic supplementation — and it's certainly a whole lot safer than taking dangerous pharmaceuticals — I trust the thousand-plus year history of fermented foods more than its modern lab-formulated counterparts. There are serious questions about how many live microorganisms are actually left in a probiotic capsule or softgel by the time it gets to you. They can't tolerate high temperatures, and if your pills haven't been refrigerated every step of the way, they may have lost most of their live cultures.
Reason #4: What's more, at about $40 per bottle for a "high quality" probiotic, you stand to save a lot of money by eating cultured vegetables — especially if you make them yourself.
Reason #5: They're tastier than supplements any day. And the flavor will likely grow on you over time. If you make them yourself you get a degree of personal satisfaction too. It's easy. And inexpensive. It's also…
And this alternative isn't some newfangled product either.
It's been a part of the diet of nearly every traditional culture throughout the history of mankind. I'm talking about cultured vegetables, though there are other cultured foods highly regarded in various parts of the world. More on this is a minute.
Only since the widespread use of refrigeration have we stopped using traditionally fermented foods.
Reason #2: It may be impossible to say whether the bacterial strains in any particular probiotic supplement are really the best ones — or if they represent a wide enough selection of those needed for health. Scientists are constantly discovering new facts about the human body. For example, the Belly Button Biodiversity Project by scientists at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, has been analyzing navel swabs from volunteers. New Science reports that so far, they've found 1,400 distinct bacterial strains, nearly half of which have never before been seen.1 Who knows what beneficial bacteria are still undiscovered?
Reason #3: The trust factor. While we can't deny the benefits of probiotic supplementation — and it's certainly a whole lot safer than taking dangerous pharmaceuticals — I trust the thousand-plus year history of fermented foods more than its modern lab-formulated counterparts. There are serious questions about how many live microorganisms are actually left in a probiotic capsule or softgel by the time it gets to you. They can't tolerate high temperatures, and if your pills haven't been refrigerated every step of the way, they may have lost most of their live cultures.
Reason #4: What's more, at about $40 per bottle for a "high quality" probiotic, you stand to save a lot of money by eating cultured vegetables — especially if you make them yourself.
Reason #5: They're tastier than supplements any day. And the flavor will likely grow on you over time. If you make them yourself you get a degree of personal satisfaction too. It's easy. And inexpensive. It's also…
A true living food
True raw cultured vegetables are a 100% organic, unheated, fermented food, loaded with beneficial enzymes.
The lactic acid produced during fermentation helps you digest other foods eaten at the same time as cultured ones, especially important for digesting proteins and starchy foods.
Cultured vegetables "pre-digest" sugars and starches, which helps support overall digestive function. They are alkaline-forming due to their abundance of vitamins and minerals. And they can help you replenish your mineral stores and balance your whole body's pH levels.
Want to overcome starch cravings? Enthusiasts report that eating cultured vegetables on a regular basis can help you regain control over these cravings.
And as I said, cultured vegetables are teeming with beneficial microorganisms — a true "living" food.
When you eat them, you're feeding your biological system with intelligent little beings that work hard to keep your health optimal.
The lactic acid produced during fermentation helps you digest other foods eaten at the same time as cultured ones, especially important for digesting proteins and starchy foods.
Cultured vegetables "pre-digest" sugars and starches, which helps support overall digestive function. They are alkaline-forming due to their abundance of vitamins and minerals. And they can help you replenish your mineral stores and balance your whole body's pH levels.
Want to overcome starch cravings? Enthusiasts report that eating cultured vegetables on a regular basis can help you regain control over these cravings.
And as I said, cultured vegetables are teeming with beneficial microorganisms — a true "living" food.
When you eat them, you're feeding your biological system with intelligent little beings that work hard to keep your health optimal.
Nearly every ancient civilization prized them
"The science and art of fermentation is, in fact, the basis of human culture: without culturing, there is no culture… Culture begins at the farm, not at the opera house, and binds a people to a land and its artisans," according to Sally Fallon, President of the Weston A. Price Foundation.
Weston A. Price was a dentist who traveled the world to study isolated cultures (human ones, not microbial ones) for the relationship between their dental health and what they ate. He found that whenever a people abandoned their traditional native foods, both their dental and physical health rapidly fell apart. However, if they stuck with their native diet, their overall health stayed strong throughout life.2
Long before modern scientists decided probiotics are the darlings of the microbial world, nearly every ancient civilization prized fermented foods and recognized their health benefits. Sadly, in modern day America, we've ditched these healthy foods, for the most part.
Culturing was how our ancestors naturally preserved food to ensure they had nourishment when fresh food was scarce… although they probably did not realize these foods boost the immune system, support good health, and add years to our lives.
Dr. Price found that almost every ethnic group had its own version of cultured food that people made themselves and ate regularly. These medicinal foods ranged well beyond cultured vegetables like sauerkraut, natto, miso and kimchi. The list must also include yogurt, kefir, aged cheeses, kombucha, sourdough breads, pickled fruits, lassi and more.
The Chinese have been fermenting cabbage for thousands of years. Cultured vegetables were eaten in ancient Rome — and in medieval Europe. Genghis Kahn used them around 1200 A.D., and Captain James Cook, the 18th century English explorer, took cultured sauerkraut on his ships to prevent scurvy in his crews.
In her book Nourishing Traditions, author Sally Fallon considers our modern-day proliferation of mysterious new viruses, parasites, chronic health problems, and even Superbugs. She asks, "Could it be that by abandoning the ancient practice of lacto-fermentation and insisting on a diet in which everything has been pasteurized, we have compromised the health of our intestinal flora and made ourselves vulnerable to legions of pathogenic microorganisms?"
Seems we've hijacked our health and even our economic well-being by insisting on "more, faster, cheaper"…
Weston A. Price was a dentist who traveled the world to study isolated cultures (human ones, not microbial ones) for the relationship between their dental health and what they ate. He found that whenever a people abandoned their traditional native foods, both their dental and physical health rapidly fell apart. However, if they stuck with their native diet, their overall health stayed strong throughout life.2
Long before modern scientists decided probiotics are the darlings of the microbial world, nearly every ancient civilization prized fermented foods and recognized their health benefits. Sadly, in modern day America, we've ditched these healthy foods, for the most part.
Culturing was how our ancestors naturally preserved food to ensure they had nourishment when fresh food was scarce… although they probably did not realize these foods boost the immune system, support good health, and add years to our lives.
Dr. Price found that almost every ethnic group had its own version of cultured food that people made themselves and ate regularly. These medicinal foods ranged well beyond cultured vegetables like sauerkraut, natto, miso and kimchi. The list must also include yogurt, kefir, aged cheeses, kombucha, sourdough breads, pickled fruits, lassi and more.
The Chinese have been fermenting cabbage for thousands of years. Cultured vegetables were eaten in ancient Rome — and in medieval Europe. Genghis Kahn used them around 1200 A.D., and Captain James Cook, the 18th century English explorer, took cultured sauerkraut on his ships to prevent scurvy in his crews.
In her book Nourishing Traditions, author Sally Fallon considers our modern-day proliferation of mysterious new viruses, parasites, chronic health problems, and even Superbugs. She asks, "Could it be that by abandoning the ancient practice of lacto-fermentation and insisting on a diet in which everything has been pasteurized, we have compromised the health of our intestinal flora and made ourselves vulnerable to legions of pathogenic microorganisms?"
Seems we've hijacked our health and even our economic well-being by insisting on "more, faster, cheaper"…
A host of benefits awaits you
A basic tenet of holistic medicine is that digestive dysfunction is either a cofactor or the main cause of most chronic and degenerative diseases. Research suggests that bacterial imbalances (between "good" and "bad" bacteria) can disrupt your intestinal function — and that matters because it's your first line of defense against pathogens occurring in food or water.
Probiotic organisms, whether from cultured foods or supplements, replenish our good bacteria and tip the balance in the battle against bad bacteria.
While probiotic supplementation is very common, why not take a "food as medicine" approach and use cultured foods instead?
You already know vegetables provide a low-calorie wealth of nutrients. Fermenting them just makes them into real superfoods, easier to absorb and utilize.
Cultured vegetables can enrich your level of B vitamins (even vitamin B12, which is hard to obtain from food), vitamin C, omega-3 fatty acids, digestive enzymes, lactase and lactic acid and other immune chemicals that can fight off harmful bacteria, and yes, possibly even cancer cells.
Cultured vegetables can help you lose weight, as they're linked to how well things flow through your digestive tract, how regular you are, and how alkaline you are.
They can fight unhealthful microorganisms such as candida and E. Coli, and help with diarrhea, gastroenteritis, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease and cancer.
There's even anecdotal evidence that kimchi may fight bird flu. Kimchi is a traditional Korean dish of spiced, fermented vegetables. In 2005, scientists at Seoul National University reported feeding an extract of kimchi to 13 infected chickens. A week later, 11 of them had started recovering. Eating kimchi to cure the flu may sound like a dubious folk remedy, but the theory is being floated by some of Korea's most eminent scientists.3
While it certainly seems plausible that we can benefit from turning ordinary vegetables into cultured superfoods with more live enzymes and predigestive qualities, most of what we know at this point comes from anecdotes and clinical reports, not peer reviewed science. After all, how much money could the drug companies make from studying the lowly cultured vegetable?
Probiotic organisms, whether from cultured foods or supplements, replenish our good bacteria and tip the balance in the battle against bad bacteria.
While probiotic supplementation is very common, why not take a "food as medicine" approach and use cultured foods instead?
You already know vegetables provide a low-calorie wealth of nutrients. Fermenting them just makes them into real superfoods, easier to absorb and utilize.
Cultured vegetables can enrich your level of B vitamins (even vitamin B12, which is hard to obtain from food), vitamin C, omega-3 fatty acids, digestive enzymes, lactase and lactic acid and other immune chemicals that can fight off harmful bacteria, and yes, possibly even cancer cells.
Cultured vegetables can help you lose weight, as they're linked to how well things flow through your digestive tract, how regular you are, and how alkaline you are.
They can fight unhealthful microorganisms such as candida and E. Coli, and help with diarrhea, gastroenteritis, irritable bowel syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease and cancer.
There's even anecdotal evidence that kimchi may fight bird flu. Kimchi is a traditional Korean dish of spiced, fermented vegetables. In 2005, scientists at Seoul National University reported feeding an extract of kimchi to 13 infected chickens. A week later, 11 of them had started recovering. Eating kimchi to cure the flu may sound like a dubious folk remedy, but the theory is being floated by some of Korea's most eminent scientists.3
While it certainly seems plausible that we can benefit from turning ordinary vegetables into cultured superfoods with more live enzymes and predigestive qualities, most of what we know at this point comes from anecdotes and clinical reports, not peer reviewed science. After all, how much money could the drug companies make from studying the lowly cultured vegetable?
Beware of foods that appear
to be naturally cultured, but aren't!
to be naturally cultured, but aren't!
To get your money and your health's worth from fermented foods, be aware of the HUGE difference between healthy fermented foods and commercially processed ones. Sauerkraut — potentially the most useful processed food you could buy — is in fact nutritionally worthless when purchased in a store because it's all been pasteurized. Pasteurization kills any live cultures in a food. Likewise, cheeses are pasteurized so they harbor few if any live cultures.
Setting aside the fact that the government makes food companies pasteurize everything, fermentation is a somewhat inconsistent process… some say it's more an art than a science. So it stands to reason commercial processors would develop ways to standardize their results. They don't want their brand's taste to vary from one batch to the next, and that's rather likely to happen with fermented foods (think of wine, for example — every bottle is unique).
In the search for standardization and "safety," Americans have traded the many benefits of cultured foods for the convenience of mass-produced pickles, yogurt, kefir and more.
Technically, anything "brined" in a salt stock is fermented. But watch out! Vinegar's acidic pH, refrigeration, and high-heat pasteurization all slow or stop the fermentation and enzymatic process.
For example, olives were traditionally fermented. Now they're treated with an acidic solution of lactic acid, acetic acid, sodium benzoate, and potassium sorbate — a far cry from the old-time natural lactic acid fermentation of salt alone.
Yogurt in the U.S. today is pasteurized and generally so full of sugar that it's little more than a highly sweetened pudding. All that sugar, unfortunately, tends to cancel out the potential benefit from any cultures that do manage to survive the over-processing. Ditto for kefir.
Setting aside the fact that the government makes food companies pasteurize everything, fermentation is a somewhat inconsistent process… some say it's more an art than a science. So it stands to reason commercial processors would develop ways to standardize their results. They don't want their brand's taste to vary from one batch to the next, and that's rather likely to happen with fermented foods (think of wine, for example — every bottle is unique).
In the search for standardization and "safety," Americans have traded the many benefits of cultured foods for the convenience of mass-produced pickles, yogurt, kefir and more.
Technically, anything "brined" in a salt stock is fermented. But watch out! Vinegar's acidic pH, refrigeration, and high-heat pasteurization all slow or stop the fermentation and enzymatic process.
For example, olives were traditionally fermented. Now they're treated with an acidic solution of lactic acid, acetic acid, sodium benzoate, and potassium sorbate — a far cry from the old-time natural lactic acid fermentation of salt alone.
Yogurt in the U.S. today is pasteurized and generally so full of sugar that it's little more than a highly sweetened pudding. All that sugar, unfortunately, tends to cancel out the potential benefit from any cultures that do manage to survive the over-processing. Ditto for kefir.
How to make sure you're getting real
Lacto-fermented foods
Lacto-fermented foods
You can still find some healthy traditional lacto-fermented foods.
The strong-flavored traditional Greek olives in many olive bars are not lye-treated and are still alive with active cultures, according to our sources.
Many Korean and Japanese markets still sell their traditional cultured foods, like natto, miso, and kimchi. In general, the stronger the flavor (excluding jalapeno and hot peppers), the more likely the food still has active and beneficial lacto-bacteria.
You can also find fermented foods in some gourmet stores, farmer's markets and health food stores.
But the surest way of all is to make your own. And it's really pretty easy.
The strong-flavored traditional Greek olives in many olive bars are not lye-treated and are still alive with active cultures, according to our sources.
Many Korean and Japanese markets still sell their traditional cultured foods, like natto, miso, and kimchi. In general, the stronger the flavor (excluding jalapeno and hot peppers), the more likely the food still has active and beneficial lacto-bacteria.
You can also find fermented foods in some gourmet stores, farmer's markets and health food stores.
But the surest way of all is to make your own. And it's really pretty easy.
The satisfaction and cost savings of DIY…
Real fermentation fans look to the past to define the wave of the future. And since, in days of old, people fermented their own foods, why not take it up yourself? 60 years ago it wasn't unusual at all for people to make their own sauerkraut or pickles.
While there are many ways to go about it, and individual tastes vary, making your own gives you the latitude to customize these foods with your own favorite (or local, in-season) vegetables, fruits and spice preferences (e.g., jalepenos and hot peppers).
Basically, you either shred or dice the vegetables (usually with cabbage as a base), season, and place them in sanitary jars, covered, for about 7 days at a steady temperature of 59 to 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Some people choose to add a starter to speed up the process.
Either way, expect the rapid multiplication of lactobacilli microbes that pre-digest the sugars ad starches and speed your digestive process.
Culturing is a great way to use up cabbage when it's in season, or when you have a surplus from your garden.
Some people advocate cultured vegetables as a substitute for salsa. Others recommend eating a little on a salad, on top of a small serving of meat or fish, or simply as a side dish.
While there are many ways to go about it, and individual tastes vary, making your own gives you the latitude to customize these foods with your own favorite (or local, in-season) vegetables, fruits and spice preferences (e.g., jalepenos and hot peppers).
Basically, you either shred or dice the vegetables (usually with cabbage as a base), season, and place them in sanitary jars, covered, for about 7 days at a steady temperature of 59 to 71 degrees Fahrenheit. Some people choose to add a starter to speed up the process.
Either way, expect the rapid multiplication of lactobacilli microbes that pre-digest the sugars ad starches and speed your digestive process.
Culturing is a great way to use up cabbage when it's in season, or when you have a surplus from your garden.
Some people advocate cultured vegetables as a substitute for salsa. Others recommend eating a little on a salad, on top of a small serving of meat or fish, or simply as a side dish.
What's YOUR Favorite Recipe?
As far as recipes go, there are entire cookbooks now devoted to cultured foods, available at your library, bookstores, or online. Plus, there are a host of recipes online. You can use them as starting points, and with time develop your own personal favorites. There are far too many possibilities to cover them here.
But please… feel free to share your personal favorites with us on our Facebook fan page.
But please… feel free to share your personal favorites with us on our Facebook fan page.
Kindest regards,
Lee Euler, Publisher
Lee Euler, Publisher
Footnotes:
Editor in Chief: Lee Euler Contributing Editors: Mindy Tyson McHorse, Carol Parks, Roz Roscoe Marketing: Shane Holley Information Technology Advisor: Michelle MatoWebmaster: Steve MacLellan Fulfillment & Customer Service: Joe Ackerson and Cami Lemr
Reminder: You're getting this email because you purchased a special report or book from us, or signed up for our free newsletter and gave us permission to contact you. From time to time we'll alert you to other important information about alternative cancer treatments. If you want to update or remove your email address, please scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the appropriate link.
We're an online cancer bookstore offering Outsmart Your Cancer, Cancer Step Outside the Box, Stop Cancer Before It Starts, Natural Cancer Remedies that Work, Adios-Cancer, Cancer Breakthrough USA, Missing Ingredient For Good Health, German Cancer Breakthrough, How to Cure Almost Any Cancer for $5.15 a Day and Keep Your Gallbladder!
Labels:
cancer treatment cure natural
Big Train Players Report in Two Weeks! BT College Round-Up 5/17
DC Divas Brace for Round Two Against the Boston Militia
Watch D.C. Divas @ Boston Militia Live Saturday May 18th 2013 5:45pm EST Live on US Sports Network Powered by US Sports Fitness
Neal Rozendaal
Neal Rozendaal
Washington, DC – The DC Divas will attempt to become the first team in five years to win a regular season game in Boston when they travel to take on the Militia Saturday.
The Divas (4-1) received a needed boost of confidence last weekend when they easily defeated the New York Sharks, 49-6. The game was halted after three quarters due to lightning, but Divas head coach Alison Fischer was happy with how her team responded to the adverse weather conditions.
“I thought we handled the rain pretty well,” Fischer said. “In the past, we’ve had a little trouble when the weather got wet, because the ball gets extremely slippery. But I thought the offense did pretty well, and the defense stepped it up this week.”
Fischer was especially proud of her defense, which kept the Sharks off of the scoreboard in the first half with a strong goal line stand at the end of the second quarter. “That was a good stand,” Fischer remarked. “We had a couple pass interference penalties, but we were still able to hold them at the goal line. That’s a positive. I think the defense played better this week.”
The Divas’ defensive performance was in stark contrast to that of their loss three weeks ago against the Boston Militia (5-0), when DC surrendered 56 points – the most in franchise history – in a 56-35 defeat. Coach Fischer hopes that the team has corrected their deficiencies in a hurry before they take the field with the Militia for the second time.
“We definitely had some issues in that game that we’re still trying to correct,” Coach Fischer said. “We did okay against Boston at times, but in a lot of areas we just didn’t play that well. So we’re really focusing on correcting those mistakes and playing better.”
Probably the biggest key to this matchup will be whether or not the Divas can slow the Militia’s powerful running game, led by Whitney Zelee. Zelee almost single-handedly led Boston to victory three weeks ago by carrying the ball 26 times for 339 yards and five touchdowns, along with four successful two-point conversion runs. “Zelee’s a special running back. She’s the total package,” Fischer noted. “And that’s Boston’s game; you know it’s coming. You know she’s going to get the ball, and it’s just a matter of trying to stop it.”
The game in Boston will be a difficult challenge for the Divas, because the Militia are very strong on their home field. Boston has won their last 20 regular season contests and are 21-1 all-time at home in the regular season. Their only regular season home loss came against the New York Sharks, 25-24, on May 10, 2008.
Around the WFA – The Boston Militia improved to 5-0 on Saturday after a hard-fought victory over the Pittsburgh Passion, 42-28…The Miami Fury topped the Jacksonville Dixie Blues, 14-5, becoming the first team since 2005 to defeat the Dixie Blues twice in the same season. The 5-0 Fury face their division rivals, the 5-0 Tampa Bay Inferno, this weekend; Miami and Tampa Bay are the only two division foes who are both still undefeated…The Central Cal War Angels (based in Fresno, California) ran their season record to 5-0 with a 49-22 victory over the IWFL’s Nevada Storm. The War Angels’ second-leading receiver, Lisa King, and her husband Jeff own and operate the WFA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)