Wednesday, September 18, 2013

What Drove Us to Drink 8 Glasses of Water a Day?

8 Glasses a Day Not Backed by Science

Water is, of course, essential for your survival. Every day, your body loses water through urine and sweat. This fluid needs to be replenished, for while you can survive for months without food, without water you wouldn't last more than a few days. If you get the fluid/water replacement issue right, then you have made one of the most important and powerful steps you can in taking control of your health.
But just how much water do you need to drink to replenish what you've lost? Writing in the American Journal of Physiology, Heinz Valtin of Dartmouth Medical School notes:
“Despite the seemingly ubiquitous admonition to “drink at least eight 8-oz glasses of water a day” (with an accompanying reminder that beverages containing caffeine and alcohol do not count), rigorous proof for this counsel appears to be lacking.
This review sought to find the origin of this advice (called “8 X 8” for short) and to examine the scientific evidence, if any, that might support it. The search included not only electronic modes but also a cursory examination of the older literature that is not covered in electronic databases and, most importantly and fruitfully, extensive consultation with several nutritionists who specialize in the field of thirst and drinking fluids. No scientific studies were found in support of 8 X 8.
Rather, surveys of food and fluid intake on thousands of adults of both genders, analyses of which have been published in peer-reviewed journals, strongly suggest that such large amounts are not needed because the surveyed persons were presumably healthy and certainly not overtly ill.”
As for the origins of this now widely accepted dietary dogma, the closest reference Valtin uncovered was a brief mention in the obituary of a well-known nutritionist by the name of Fredrick J. Stare, which said he was an “early champion of drinking at least six glasses of water a day.”
Interestingly, Dr. Stare, who was a professor of nutrition and the head of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, was a notable friend to industry, notorious for his outspoken support for food additives and water fluoridation. He also had ties to the tobacco industry and was a strong supporter of the sugar industry; he even reportedly earned the moniker “The Sugar King” at Harvard.
At one point, sometime during the late ‘50s, early ‘60s, Dr. Stare went so far as to publish an article stating that claims made by the Boston Nutrition Society that white bread was devoid of nutrients and a contributor to disease were “a cruel and reckless fraud.” In other words, Dr. Stare believed white bread to be perfectly healthy, and openly criticized those who questioned food additives or excessive sugars in the diet, which isn’t surprising considering his financial ties to Nabisco, Kellogg and the Cereal Institute.
The point is … Dr. Stare is also being credited with perhaps being among the first to promote drinking 6-8 glasses of water a day as healthy, which, given the source, deserves to be questioned.
Also mentioned by Valtin was a 1945 recommendation by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council, which recommended 2.5 liters of water as a “suitable allowance” of water for most adults. They, however, pointed out that “most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods,” but it could be that people interpreted this to mean that 2.5 liters of water is the right amount to drink each day. The advice was repeated again in 1948, without a scientific backing.
Of course, consuming large quantities of water has been used as a medical therapy since the 19th century, when “hydropathists” advised patients to drink copious amounts of water to cure their ills. People have long been exploring the body’s need for water, as well as what the optimal “dose” appears to be … but to date there’s not much compelling evidence that the “8 8-ounce glasses a day” is the be all and end all in water consumption.

Are Bottled Water Companies Behind the Push to Drink More Water?

Last year, Dr. Margaret McCartney, a general practitioner from Scotland, wrote a commentary for the British Medical Journal arguing that the advice to drink 8 glasses of water a day is “thoroughly debunked nonsense” being spread by bottled water companies in order to churn up more profit. She pointed out that Hydration for Health, an initiative to promote drinking more water, is sponsored and created by French food giant Danone, which produces Volvic, Evian, and Badoit bottled waters. Interestingly, even claims that the elderly and children especially need to drink more water may also be unfounded.
A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that:
“… Healthy older adults maintain water input, output and balance comparable to those of younger adults and have no apparent change in hydration status.”
McCartney also pointed out research done by Professor Stanley Goldfarb, physician and nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and colleagues, which also found:
“There is no clear evidence of benefit from drinking increased amounts of water. Although we wish we could demolish all of the urban myths found on the internet regarding the benefits of supplemental water ingestion, we concede there is also no clear evidence of lack of benefit. In fact, there is simply a lack of evidence in general.”
Interestingly, Goldfarb was contacted by Danone after the paper was published, McCartney notes:
“After he wrote his article, he was contacted by Danone, and taken out to dinner by two of its representatives. They didn’t try to dissuade him from his views, but they did show him a graph intimating that sales fell after the editorial was published.”

Drinking Too Much Water Can be Dangerous

There’s a misconception with water consumption that the more you drink, the healthier you’ll be. This is true to a point, particularly if you drink water in lieu of sugar-laden beverages like soda and fruit juice, but if you drink too much water, the sodium levels in your blood may drop to dangerously low levels, causing hyponatremia -- a condition in which your cells swell with too much water. While most of your body's cells can handle this swelling, your brain cells cannot, and most of the symptoms are caused by brain swelling. This condition is most common among athletes, although anyone can be affected by drinking excessive amounts of water.
Symptoms of hyponatremia include:
ConfusionDecreased consciousness; possible comaHallucinationsConvulsions
FatigueHeadacheIrritabilityLoss of appetite
Muscle spasms, cramps, or weaknessNauseaRestlessnessVomiting

Most People DO Need to Drink More Water

Clearly, staying well hydrated is essential. But whether or not you actually need eight glasses of water or more each and every day is questionable, because hydration needs are so individual, and vary from day to day. You may very well need eight glasses of water a day.
Drinking eight 8-ounce glasses of pure water a day may not be likely to cause you harm; it’s just that the evidence is lacking on whether that is the magic number for everyone, and most likely it appears that it is not.
The reality is that many people are dehydrated and would benefit from drinking more water each day, and from making water their primary source of fluids.
It does now appear that the notion that caffeinated drinks like coffee and tea cannot be counted as part of your fluid intake, as they act as a diuretic that will dehydrate you even further, may be another myth -- so if you drink these beverages you can “count” them as part of your fluid consumption. However, the bottom line is that you may not need to “count” your fluid intake at all. Instead, just let your body be your guide.

Your Body Will Let You Know When it’s Time for a Drink

Your body will tell you when it's time to replenish your water supply, because once your body has lost between one to two percent of its total water, your thirst mechanism lets you know that it's time to drink some water!
Since your body is capable of telling you its needs, using thirst as a guide to how much water you need to drink is one way to help ensure your individual needs are met, day-by-day. Of course, if it's hot, exceptionally dry outside, or if you are engaged in exercise or other vigorous activity, you will require more water than normal. But again, if you drink as soon as you feel thirsty, you should be able to remain well hydrated even in these cases.
The color of your urine will also help you determine whether or not you might need to drink more. As long as you are not taking riboflavin (vitamin B2, also found in most multi-vitamins), which fluoresces and turns your urine bright yellow, then your urine should be a very light-colored yellow. If it is a deep, dark yellow then you are likely not drinking enough water. If your urine is scant or if you haven't urinated in many hours, that too is an indication that you're not drinking enough. (Based on the results from a few different studies, a healthy person urinates on average about seven or eight times a day.)
Pure clean water is the ideal beverage of choice for hydration, but remember you can get valuable fluids from fresh fruits, vegetables and certain foods, like homemade broth, too.

Shocking! This 'Tequila' Sweetener is Far Worse than High Fructose Corn Syrup

Many people interested in staying healthy have switched to agave as a safer "natural" sweetener. They want to avoid well documented dangerous sweeteners like HFCS(high fructose corn syrup) but are unaware that most agave is actually WORSE than HFCS.
This expose will offend many hard core natural health advocates because they have been convinced of the agave hype by companies that are promoting it.
Some have even criticized me for having "ulterior" motives. But nothing could be further from the truth. Although I do offer natural health products for sale on this site, I sell no competing products to agave.
Rather, I recommend other options such as stevia products. You can also use xylitol in small amounts or glucose which is sold as dextrose and can easily be purchased on Amazon for $1 per pound. I do not sell any of these products.
My only purpose for sharing this information is to help people understand the truth about health. In case you haven't noticed, we have an epidemic of obesity in the US and it wasn't until recently that my eyes opened up to the primary cause - - fructose.
I had similar epiphanies about omega-3 fats and vitamin D since I started this site, but this is the most major health appreciation I have had since I learned about vitamin D over five years ago. This is serious business and it is my intention to make the public fully aware of it and let you make your own choices.
Yes it is all about freedom of choice. It is hard to have freedom if you aren't given the entire story, and up until now that has been the case with agave.
So Just What is Agave?
Blue agave is an exotic plant growing in the rich volcanic soil of Mexico under a hot tropical sun, boasting a stately flower stem that blooms only once in its lifetime. "Agave" literally means "noble." It's generally recognized as a superstar of the herbal remedy world, claiming to offer relief for indigestion, bowel irregularity, and skin wounds.
Ferment it, and you have Mexico's favorite adult beverage -- tequila.
Just the name "agave" conjures up images of romantic tropical excursions and mysterious shamanic medicine.
These are the mental images many agave "nectar" sellers want you to hold. They use agave's royal pedigree to cover the truth that what they're selling you is a bottle of high-fructose syrup, so highly processed and refined that it bears NO resemblance to the plant of its namesake.

Such a high fructose content isn't typical of all agave products. "Depending on how the syrup is processed, it may or may not contain more fructose," says Roger Clemens, a professor at USC and spokesman for the Institute of Food Technologists, whose research has focused on functional foods, food processing and nutrition.
Depending on the source and processing method used, agave syrup can, therefore, contain as little as 55% fructose, the same amount found in high-fructose corn syrup -- in which case the syrup would offer no advantage.
How Agave is Grown and Produced Proves it is Unnatural
Agaves grow primarily in Mexico, but you can also find them in the southern and western United States, as well as in South America. Agaves are not cacti, but succulents of the yucca family, more closely related to amaryllis and other lilies. Edible parts of the agave are the flowers, leaves, stalks and the sap.
A mature agave is 7 to 12 feet in diameter with leaves that are 5 to 8 feet tall -- an impressive plant in stature, to be sure. There are over 100 species of agave, in a wide variety of sizes and colors.
Although the industry wants you to believe that agave nectar runs straight from the plant and into your jar, nothing could not be farther from the truth.
In spite of manufacturer's claims, most agave "nectar" is not made from the sap of the yucca or agave plant but from its pineapple-like root bulb[i]. The root has a complex carbohydrate called inulin, which is made up of fructose molecules.
The process which many, if not most, agave producers use to convert this inulin into "nectar" is VERY similar to the process by which cornstarch is converted into HFCS1.
Though processing methods can differ among manufacturers, most commercially available agave is converted into fructose-rich syrup using genetically modified enzymes and a chemically intensive process involving caustic acids, clarifiers, and filtration chemicals[ii]. Here is a partial list of the chemicals many producers use:
  • Activated charcoal
  • Cationic and ionic resins
  • Sulfuric and/or hydrofluoric acid
  • Dicalite
  • Clarimex
  • Inulin enzymes
  • Fructozyme
How natural does this sound?
The result is highly refined fructose syrup, along with some remaining inulin.
Most agave "nectar" is neither safe nor natural with laboratory-generated fructose levels of more than 80 percent!
Is There Really a "Safe" Organic Agave?
Part of the problem leading to the confusion is that there are some natural food companies that are indeed committed to excellence and in providing the best product possible. But let me assure you that in the agave industry, this is the minority of companies.

Nevertheless, these ethical companies seek to provide an outstanding product. There are a few companies who commit to and actually achieve these criteria and actually:
  • Work with the indigenous people,
  • Use organic agave as the raw material, free of pesticides
  • Process it at low temperatures to preserve all the natural enzymes
  • Produce a final agave product that is closer to 50% fructose instead of over 90%
  • Fructose is bonded or conjugated to other sugars and not floating around as "free" fructose, like HFCS, which is far more damaging.
The VAST majority of companies however do not apply these principles and essentially produce a product that is, as this articles states, FAR worse than HFCS.
If you are going to use agave you will certainly want to seek out one of the companies that adhere to the principles above. However you will still need to exert caution in using it.
Just like fruit it is quantity issue. Fructose only becomes a metabolic poison when you consume it in quantities greater than 25 grams a day. If you consume one of the typical agave preparations that is one tablespoon, assuming you consume ZERO additional fructose in your diet, which is VERY unlikely since the average person consumes 70 grams per day.
Even a hundred years ago, long prior to modern day food processing, the average person consumed 15 grams a day.
Listen to YOUR Body
Many people will not be convinced by my arguments and data. They certainly can choose to do that but they are only hurting themselves. Fortunately there is a very simple way to learn if the fructose level you are consuming is safe.
When you consume fructose over 25 grams per day it will very likely increase its metabolic byproduct, uric acid, in your blood. So you can go to your physician and have a simple uric acid level done.
This is not a fasting test and is very inexpensive to do, it's typically free with many automated chemistry profiles.
If your level is above 5.0 you will want to consider reducing your fructose level until the level drops below 5.0. This will provide you with a valid, objective parameter to let you know if the information I am sharing is correct for you and your family.
Sales are Sweet for Agave Companies and Bad for You and Your Family
Growing consumer resistance to HFCS has been a hole-in-one for the agave industry. Need a healthy alternative to those evil HFS products?
Agave syrup to the rescue!
In case you doubt the influence of marketing in setting trends and consumer buying habits, look at these statistics:[iii]
  • New agave products more than tripled in number between 2003 and 2007, from 56 to 176. Agave syrup is now appearing in products such as energy bars, cereals and organic ice creams.
  • Revenues for the category "other liquid sweeteners," which includes agave, rose to more than $10.3 million in 2007, which was a 50 percent jump from 2006.
  • McCormick & Co., a major food manufacturer, placed agave syrup in its "top 10 flavors" list for 2009.
  • Two of Mexico's largest agave syrup manufacturers, Iidea and Nekutli, are sending increasingly large shipments of agave syrup to Germany, Japan and New Zealand due to growing global popularity.
Agave is also quickly crossing over from the health food market to mainstream grocery chains, restaurants and taverns, and consumers (especially vegans and raw food enthusiasts) are replacing their honey and maple syrup with bottles of agave after being duped into believing it's a more healthful alternative.
The Myth of Agave as a "Healthy" Sugar Substitute
It's important for you and your family's health to remember that agave syrup is neither healthy nor natural.
As reported by Dr. Ingrid Kohlstadt, a fellow of the American College of Nutrition and an associate faculty member at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health:
"Agave is almost all fructose, a highly processed sugar with great marketing."
Agave syrup is not low calorie -- it has about 16 calories per teaspoon, the same as sucrose (table sugar). The glycemic index is immaterial, once you understand the full extent of the risk this product poses to your health.
The consumption of high amounts of sugar is what is inflating America's waistline, as well as escalating rates of diabetes, blood pressure and heart disease.
Although overall sugar consumption is definitely something to be concerned about, even more problematic is one type of sugar that wreaks extraordinary havoc on your body: FRUCTOSE.
And if you want fructose, agave products next to pure fructose, have the highest percentage of fructose of any sweeteners on the market, over 50 percent more fructose than high fructose corn syrup.
Why You Need to Understand Why Fructose is so Important
All sugars are not created equal, in spite of what you might have been told.
Glucose is the form of energy your cells were actually designed to run on. Every cell in your body, every bacterium -- and in fact, nearly every living thing on the Earth -- uses glucose for energy.
But as a country, regular cane sugar, or sucrose (50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose), is no longer the sugar of choice. It's now fructose.
This happened in the 1970s as a result of technology that made HFCS far less expensive to produce. Believe me, it was NOT done for its health benefits. This was purely an economic decision.
Let me clear up any confusion here, as fructose is the primary sugar in most fruits. It isn't that fructose is intrinsically evil -- it is just the MASSIVE DOSES you and your family are exposed to that makes it dangerous. Because it is so cheap and makes foods taste so much better, it is added to virtually every processed food.
There are two overall reasons fructose is so damaging:
  1. Your body metabolizes fructose in a much different way than glucose. Fructose is broken down in your liver just like alcohol and produces many of the side effects of chronic alcohol use, right down to the "beer belly"
  2. People are consuming fructose in quantities that are 400-800 percent higher than they were 100 years ago due to its pervasive presence in just about all processed foods
Fructose Turns to Fat and Makes You Fat!
Unlike fructose which is nearly exclusively broken down in your liver and is directly converted to dangerous fats. This is one of the reasons why fructose is the leading cause of obesity. However, only 20 percent of glucose is metabolized in your liver. This is related to the fact that nearly every cell in your body can directly use glucose as a fuel source, so it's normally "burned up" immediately after consumption.
It is also important to understand that the fructose in fruits and vegetables is not the same fructose molecule you'll find in synthetic high-fructose corn syrup, which is manufactured in the lab. Naturally occurring fructose comes along with fiber, enzymes, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, whereas fructose sweeteners have no nutritional value at all.
Additionally it is actually attached to other sugars and molecules and needs to be broken down before it is absorbed which limits the damage it causes. In HFCS it is a free fructose molecule, just as the glucose. Because these sugars are in their free forms their absorption is radically increased and you actually absorb far more of them had they been in their natural joined state which would cause a higher percentage of the fructose to pass to the intestine unabsorbed.
But the menace of fructose doesn't stop there.
  1. Fructose also elevates your uric acid levels, which is actually more dangerous than elevated cholesterol levels as it causes chronic, low-level inflammation, which increases your risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis and premature aging.
  2. Fructose also "tricks" your body into gaining weight by fooling your metabolism -- it actually severely impairs your body's normal appetite-control systems.
  3. Excessive fructose rapidly leads to weight gain and abdominal obesity ("beer belly"), decreased HDL, increased LDL, elevated triglycerides, elevated blood sugar, and high blood pressure -- i.e., classic metabolic syndrome.
  4. Fructose metabolism is very similar to alcohol metabolism, which has a multitude of toxic effects, including NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease). Metabolically it's very similar to drinking alcohol without the buzz.
Remember to RADICALLY Reduce Your Fructose
These biological changes are not seen when humans or animals eat starch (or glucose), suggesting that fructose is a "bad carbohydrate" when consumed in excess of 25 grams per day.
However, it is important to remember that because fructose is so cheap it is added to nearly all processed foods. So even if you are seeking to eliminate it from your diet you will EASILY exceed 25 grams per day because it is "hidden" in so many foods. This is made worse by the deceptive and lax labeling laws which frequently allow gigantic loopholes for agribusiness to include it in the product and not identify it.
Making matters worse, your body easily becomes sensitized to fructose.
Fructose activates its own pathways in your body—those metabolic pathways become "upregulated." In other words, the more fructose you eat, the more effective your body is in absorbing it; and the more you absorb, the more damage you'll do.
You become "sensitized" to fructose as time goes by, and more sensitive to its toxic effects as well.
Let me be clear that it isn't fructose that is the problem -- but excessive fructose. And especially the concentrated amounts of fructose that your body was never designed to process, such as what's in HFCS and most agave syrup.
Agave nectar is even worse than HFCS because it's even higher in fructose than HFCS (80 percent and higher), making it an even worse metabolic menace.
Other Reasons You Should Steer Clear of Agave
  1. Poor Quality Control. There are very few quality controls in place to monitor the production of agave syrup. Most agave sold in the U.S. comes from Mexico. Industry insiders are concerned that the majority of agave producers are using lesser, even toxic, agave plants due to a shortage of blue agave.
  2. Pesticides. There are also concerns that some distributors are cutting agave syrup with corn syrup -- how often and to what extent is anyone's guess. In addition, the FDA has refused shipments of agave syrup due to excessivepesticide residues.
  3. Saponins. Agave is known to contain large amounts of saponins. Saponins are toxic steroid derivatives, capable of disrupting red blood cells and producing diarrhea and vomiting. There is also a possible link between saponins and miscarriage by stimulating blood flow to the uterus, so if you're pregnant, you should definitely avoid agave products.
  4. Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF). Some agave syrups contain a contaminant called hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF, also called 5-hydroxymethyl furfural), an organic heat-formed compound that arises in the processing of fructose -- in both agave syrup and HFCS. HMF has potential toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic effects[iv]. HMF is EXTREMELY toxic to honey bees, which is a problem since commercial beekeepers feed HFCS to the bees to stimulate honey production when field-gathered nectar sources are scarce[v].
  5. Nutrient Void. Agave syrup is not a whole food -- nearly every brand is fractionated and processed, devoid of the nutrients contained in the original, whole plant.
  6. Enzymes. Agave syrup is not a live food. The natural enzymes are removed by most companies to prevent agave syrup from fermenting and turning into tequila in your food pantry or cabinet.
  7. Addictiveness. Agave is, for all intents and purposes, highly concentrated sugar. Sugar and sweeteners wreak havoc on your health and are highly addictive.

Monday, September 2, 2013

What You Need to Know About Inflammation

Nutrigenomics is the idea that studying diet-gene interactions can help identify the positive or detrimental effects of dietary compounds. For example, nutrigenomics can explain why eating rancid or oxidized omega-fats and refined sugar encourages inflammation and cancer growth.
It is important to understand that a diet rich in omega-3 fats can reduce inflammation in cancer. So can healthy omega-6 fats like gamma linoleic acid (GLA), found in evening primrose, black currant seed, and borage oil. GLA inhibits the action of the cancer gene HER-2/neu, which is overexpressed in 30 percent of all breast cancers, making them particularly lethal.
According to Donnie Yance, clinical master herbalist and certified nutritionist, chronic conditions such as cancer and cardiovascular disease have a strong link with chronic inflammation, which promotes the production of free radicals.
The transcription protein Nuclear Factor-kappa Beta (NfKB) is a major inducer of inflammation. In cancer, a mutation in the tumor suppressor gene PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homologue) is the likely driver that activates NfKB.
Some plant-based phytocompounds can enhance PTEN expression or inhibit PTEN mutation, including quercetin, resveratrol, and various isoflavones often referred to as phytoestrogens. An ever-growing body of evidence suggests that the use of these compounds can and should play an important role in cancer prevention and treatment.
NfKB modulation is an important target for cancer prevention and treatment. NfKB can be modulated by:
  • The curcumin in tumeric
  • Stilbenes such as the resveratrol found in grape skins
  • The proathocyanidins in grape seeds
  • Catechins such as EGCG, which is present in green tea.
  • The ursolic acid in holy basil, also called Tulsi, and rosemary

The Difference Between Chronic and Acute Inflammation
If you have an injury or infection, inflammation is necessary to help protect and heal your body. Through a series of biochemical reactions, white blood cells and other chemicals are sent to the injured area to fight off foreign bodies.
You’ve certainly experienced this type of beneficial acute inflammation if you’ve had a cut or infection, and the symptoms typically include:
  • Redness
  • Warmth
  • Pain
  • Swelling
  • Loss of movement and function
When inflammation becomes chronic, however, there are often no symptoms until a loss of function occurs. This is because chronic inflammation is low-grade and systemic, often silently damaging your tissues.
This process can go on for years without you noticing, until a disease such as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s or autoimmune disease like multiple sclerosis, ulcerative colitis, crohn’s disease or rheumatoid arthritis develops.
What Causes Chronic Inflammation?
Chronic inflammation can be the result of a mal-functioning, over-reactive immune system, or it may be due to an underlying problem that your body is attempting to fight off. Many of these “problems” are actually due to an unhealthy lifestyle.
As the summary above points out, the study of nutrigenomics suggests that certain dietary components can trigger or prevent health effects in your body, and this is very true with inflammation.
Whereas eating oxidized or rancid fats and sugar will increase inflammation in your body, eating healthy fats such as animal-based omega-3 fats or the essential fatty acid gamma linolenic acid (GLA) will help to reduce them.
In fact, all of the following can increase your risk of chronic inflammation:
  • Being obese or overweight
  • Eating a poor diet
  • An existing heart condition
  • A family history of heart disease
  • Diabetes that's poorly controlled
  • A sedentary lifestyle (no, or very little, exercise)
  • Smoking
  • Long-term infections
  • Gum disease
  • Stress
So how can you determine if you have chronic inflammation, especially since many of the “symptoms” are silent?
One test used by conventional medicine is the C-Reactive Protein (CRP) test, which measures a protein found in your body that signals responses to any forms of inflammation. The underlying problem regarding CRP, however, is that doctors are aware that it exists but are uncertain whether reducing it is at all helpful.
Clinically, I have not been very impressed with the CRP test, as it does not appear to be very useful.
Another test that is more effective, depending on the severity of disease, is an ESR (sed rate) test, which checks for non-specific indicators of inflammation.
You can also use a fasting blood insulin level for this purpose. Although this test is typically used to screen for diabetes, it’s also a marker for inflammation as the higher your insulin levels are, the higher your levels of inflammation tend to be.
Problems with Most Conventional Inflammation Treatments
Conventional medicine will recommend anti-inflammatory drugs like aspirin and NSAIDs when treating inflammation, but I strongly advise against them. I was the first to publicly warn against these drugs in the late ‘90s, including about Vioxx, which ended up killing more than 60,000 people from strokes and heart attacks.
Statins are also now frequently prescribed to individuals who have normal cholesterol levels if they have elevated C-reactive protein levels, to combat inflammation, and presumably reduce their risk of developing heart disease. 
But taking a statin in this case will NOT resolve the underlying problem causing the increase in inflammation and will expose you to an abundance of statin-related side effects. 
The third drug often given to people with inflammation is the corticosteroid prednisone. This immunosuppressive drug, though necessary in some cases, is associated with serious long-term side effects such as cataracts, bone loss, weakening of the immune system, and many others. One of the most serious complications from prednisone is the risk of osteoporosis, which occurs from the bone loss.
Although prednisone is indeed occasionally needed and can actually be life saving, it is nearly always a poor choice to use for the long term. Prednisone will cover up the disease, but it is the underlying dysfunction -- the cause of the disease -- that must be repaired.
How to Treat Inflammation at its Source, Naturally
Lifestyle changes will go a long way toward reducing chronic inflammation in your body, so focus on making the following changes:
  1. Focus on eating a healthy diet. This includes avoiding pro-inflammatory foods like trans fats, fried foods, sugar and grains, foods cooked at high temperatures and oxidized cholesterol (cholesterol that has gone rancid, such as that from overcooked, scrambled eggs).
  1. Get plenty of animal-based omega-3 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil that is chock full of these beneficial omega-3s. My favorite in this area is krill oil.
  1. Optimize your insulin levels. If your fasting insulin level is not lower than three consider limiting or eliminating your intake of grains and sugars until you optimize your insulin level.
  1. Exercise regularly. Exercise is a great way to lower inflammation without any of the side effects associated with medications.
  1. Quit smoking. Smoking hardens your arteries and increases inflammation. But research shows you can reverse all the damaging effects to your arteries within 10 years of quitting. However, be sure you get your diet under control first so you don’t fall into the trap of trading cigarettes for unhealthy junk foods.
  1. Make sure your waist size is normal. If you're a woman with a waist measurement of over 35 inches or a man with a waist of over 40 inches, you probably have high inflammation and should take steps to lose weight.
  1. Have healthy outlets for stress and other negative emotions. High levels of stress hormones can lead to the release of excess inflammatory chemicals, so be sure you use tools to help deal with your current stress and resolve past emotional challenges as well. Meditation, prayer and my personal favorite the Meridian Tapping Technique (MTT) are all useful stress management techniques to try out.
  1. Optimize your vitamin D levels. Most people are not aware that vitamin D can have a profoundly dramatic impact on your health.
Your best source of vitamin D is through your skin being exposed to the sun or alternatively using a safe tanning bed. In the wintertime, however, you may need to take an oral supplement. Just make sure you’re taking the right form of vitamin D in the appropriate amounts to reap the benefits, and remember to get your vitamin D levels tested regularly. 
Useful Herbs and Supplements to Fight Inflammation
Finally, although they are not a long-term solution, the herbs that follow are useful for treating the symptoms of inflammation and relieving pain while you work at implementing the lifestyle changes above:
  • Boswellia: Also known as boswellin or "Indian frankincense," this herb contains specific active anti-inflammatory ingredients, referred to as boswellic acids that animal studies have shown significantly reduce inflammation. This is one of my personal favorites as I have seen it work well with rheumatoid arthritis patients
  • Bromelain: This enzyme, found in pineapples, is a natural anti-inflammatory. It can be taken in supplement form, but eating fresh pineapple may also be helpful.
  • Ginger: This herb is anti-inflammatory and offers pain relief and stomach-settling properties. Fresh ginger works well steeped in boiling water as a tea or grated into vegetable juice. Powder capsules are also available, but I recommend using the fresh root.
  • Resveratrol: Resveratrol is a potent antioxidant found in certain fruits, vegetables and cocoa that is emerging as a modern-day fountain of youth. It works by preventing your body from creating sphingosine kinase and phospholipase D -- two molecules known to trigger inflammation. The science surrounding this compound is so compelling that it has become one of my all-time favorite antioxidants, and I believe one that shows real promise of health benefits.
  • Evening Primrose, Black Currant and Borage Oils: These contain the essential fatty acid gamma linolenic acid (GLA), which is useful for treating arthritic pain. It is reasonable for many to take these as a supplement, particularly if you struggle with dry skin in the winter, as this is a strong indicator that you are deficient in these fats.
  • Turmeric, Tulsi and Rosemary: The transcription protein Nuclear Factor-kappa Beta (NfKB) is a major inducer of inflammation, and these three herbs are capable of modulating NfKB.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Radiation scientists agree TSA naked body scanners could cause breast cancer and sperm mutations

The news about the potential health dangers of the TSA's naked body scanners just keeps getting worse. An increasing number of doctors and scientists are going public with their warnings about the health implications of subjecting yourself to naked body scanners. These include Dr Russell Blaylock (see below) as well as several professors from the University of California who are experts in X-ray imaging.

At the same time, some internet bloggers are insisting that the TSA's naked body scanners pose no health risks because air travelers are subjected to higher levels of radiation by simply enduring high-altitude flights where cosmic radiation isn't filtered out by the full thickness of the Earth's atmosphere. This comparison, however, is inaccurate: The TSA's body scanners focus radiation on the skin and organs near the skin whereas cosmic radiation during high-altitude flights is distributed across the entire mass of your body.

Comparing the total radiation exposure across your entire body to machine-emitted radiation exposure that focuses its ionizing radiation primarily on your skin is like comparing apples and oranges. You'll see this explained further, below, in the words of these scientists.

As Dr Russell Blaylock (www.BlaylockReport.com) recently reported:

The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administration's new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.

The letter Dr Blaylock is referring to is from the Faculty of the University of California, San Francisco and is signed by Doctors John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D.

Even though it was written in April of this year, this letter has received increased publicity lately due to the TSA's sudden expansion of naked body scanners in airports as well as the agency's arrogant insistence that such machines will soon be used at bus stations, railway stations and other entrance points for mass transportation.

In this NaturalNews article, I highlight the most important warnings from this letter and explain, in plain language, what these scientists are trying to say.

The letter that the TSA doesn't want you to read

Once again, this letter was written by Drs John Sedat Ph.D., David Agard, Ph.D., Marc Shuman, M.D., Robert Stroud, Ph.D., all from the University of California.

Here is their background as described in the letter:

Dr. Sedat is a Professor Emeritus in Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco, with expertise in imaging. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences. The other cosigners include Dr Marc Shuman, and internationally well known and respected cancer expert and UCSF professor, as well as Drs David Agard and Robert Stroud, who are UCSF Professors, X-ray crystallographers, imaging experts and NAS members.

Here are the highlights of the letter along with my comments and explanations:

"We are writing to call your attention to serious concerns about the potential health risks of the recently adopted whole body backscatter X-ray airport security scanners. This is an urgent situation as these X-ray scanners are rapidly being implemented as a primary
screening step for all air travel passengers."


Translation: The naked body scanners may be dangerous to your health.

"Our overriding concern is the extent to which the safety of this scanning device has
been adequately demonstrated. This can only be determined by a meeting of an impartial panel of experts that would include medical physicists and radiation biologists at which all of the available relevant data is reviewed."


Translation: The safety of these naked body scanners has never been demonstrated, and especially not by an independent panel of qualified scientists.

"The physics of these X-rays is very telling: the X-rays are Compton-Scattering off outer molecule bonding electrons and thus inelastic (likely breaking bonds)."

Translation: The ionizing radiation emitted by these devices can alter your DNA.

"Unlike other scanners, these new devices operate at relatively low beam energies (28keV). The majority of their energy is delivered to the skin and the underlying tissue. Thus, while the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high."

Translation: The danger of these devices is significantly higher than what might be assumed from the TOTAL radiation emissions. This is why those who claim "you get more radiation just from flying" are flat-out wrong in their conclusions.

"This comparison is very misleading: both the air travel cosmic ray exposure and chest X-rays have much higher X-ray energies and the health consequences are appropriately understood in terms of the whole body volume dose. In contrast, these new airport scanners are largely depositing their energy into the skin and immediately adjacent
tissue, and since this is such a small fraction of body weight / volume, possibly by one to two orders of magnitude, the real dose to the skin is now high."


Translation: This is a further explanation of why the ionizing radiation from the naked body scanners may pose a much higher risk of cancer (two orders of magnitude higher!) than what might be assumed from the total radiation emissions.

"In addition, it appears that real independent safety data do not exist. A search,
ultimately finding top FDA radiation physics staff, suggests that the relevant radiation
quantity, the Flux [photons per unit area and time (because this is a scanning device)]
has not been characterized. Instead an indirect test (Air Kerma) was made that
emphasized the whole body exposure value, and thus it appears that the danger is low
when compared to cosmic rays during airplane travel and a chest X-ray dose.
In summary, if the key data (flux-integrated photons per unit values) were available, it
would be straightforward to accurately model the dose being deposited in the skin and adjacent tissues using available computer codes, which would resolve the potential
concerns over radiation damage."


Translation: The FDA screwed up the safety testing (gee, really?) by assuming the emitted radiation was distributed across the entire body rather than focused on the skin.

It brings up the question: When and how were these devices ever approved by the FDA anyway? Naked body scanners are clearly "medical devices" as they emit X-rays that penetrate body tissue. Did the FDA ever conduct long-term clinical trials demonstrating the safety of these devices? (Of course not.)

Did they ever test the safety of naked body scanners on pregnant women? What about senior citizens? How about people who have already undergone radiation treatments for conditions like thyroid cancer?

Ten big concerns voiced by the scientists

Here are ten additional concerns raised by these scientists in their letter: (the bolded titles are my subheads, the subsequent explanation test is quoted straight out the scientists' letter)

#1) Cancer in senior citizens - The large population of older travelers, greater than 65 years of age, is particularly at risk from the mutagenic effects of the X-rays based on the known biology of melanocyte aging.

#2) Breast cancer - A fraction of the female population is especially sensitive to mutagenesis-provoking radiation leading to breast cancer. Notably, because these women, who have defects in DNA repair mechanisms, are particularly prone to cancer, X-ray mammograms are not performed on them. The dose to breast tissue beneath the skin represents a similar risk.

#3) White blood cells being irradiated - Blood (white blood cells) perfusing the skin is also at risk.

#4) HIV and cancer patients - The population of immunocompromised individuals -- HIV and cancer patients (see above) is likely to be at risk for cancer induction by the high skin dose.

#5) Radiation risk to children - The risk of radiation emission to children and adolescents does not appear to have been fully evaluated.

#6) Pregnant women - The policy towards pregnant women needs to be defined once the theoretical risks to the fetus are determined.

#7 Sperm mutations - Because of the proximity of the testicles to skin, this tissue is at risk for sperm mutagenesis.

#8 Radiation effects on cornea and thymus - Have the effects of the radiation on the cornea and thymus been determined?

#9 Problems with the machine - There are a number of 'red flags' related to the hardware itself. Because this device can scan a human in a few seconds, the X-ray beam is very intense. Any glitch in power at any point in the hardware (or more importantly in software) that stops the device could cause an intense radiation dose to a single spot on the skin.

Translation: This machine does not emit a "flood light" of radiation like you might get from a dental X-ray machine. Rather, this machine emits a thin, narrow beam of radiation that is quickly "scanned" across your body, back and forth, in much the same way that an inkjet printer prints a page (but a lot faster). Because the angle of the X-ray beam is controlled by the scanner software, a glitch in the software could turn the naked body scanner into a high-energy weapon if the beam gets "stuck" in one location for more than a fraction of a second.

#10 Higher radiation for the groin? - Given the recent incident (on December 25th, 2009), how do we know whether the manufacturer or , seeking higher resolution, will scan the groin area more slowly leading to a much higher total dose?

None of these ten concerns are being answered by the TSA and its head John Pistole. The attitude from the TSA on these scanners, in fact, is downright belligerent, treating Americans as terrorists and threatening to arrest and detain individuals who refuse to be scanned and groped.

The TSA, it seems, believes it can do no wrong. Such is the inevitable outcome of granting too much power to any government department, as it will always seek to expand its power to the point of tyranny over the People.

Dangerous errors are possible

In this letter, these scientists go on to explain why they continue to hold such concerns: (my emphasis added)

We would like to put our current concerns into perspective. As longstanding UCSF
scientists and physicians, we have witnessed critical errors in decisions that have seriously affected the health of thousands of people in the United States. These unfortunate errors were made because of the failure to recognize potential adverse outcomes of decisions made at the federal level.

Crises create a sense of urgency that frequently leads to hasty decisions where unintended consequences are not recognized. Examples include the failure of the CDC to recognize the risk of blood transfusions in the early stages of the AIDS epidemic, approval of drugs and devices by the FDA without sufficient review, and improper standards set by the EPA, to name a few.

Similarly, there has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.

We are unanimous in believing that the potential health consequences need to be rigorously studied before these scanners are adopted. Modifications that reduce radiation exposure need to be explored as soon as possible.

In summary we urge you to empower an impartial panel of experts to reevaluate the potential health issues we have raised before there are irrevocable long-term consequences to the health of our country. These negative effects may on balance far outweigh the potential benefit of increased detection of terrorists.


Translation: These scientists believe that the TSA's naked body scanners pose a risk of promoting cancer across the population and that a real, scientific evaluation by trained, independent scientists must be conducted before these scanners are put to further use.

Big Government says: What cancer?

The TSA, of course, refuses to hold any serious discussion about the science behind its use of naked body scanners... primarily because there is no legitimate science backing the use of its naked body scanners.

This whole scam was orchestrated by Chertoff and his Washington buddies to scare the population into accepting X-ray scans at airports so that a few rich white guys could cash in on the sale of these machines to the federal government.

The whole thing is a massive con job that, as usual, benefits the bank accounts of a few well-connected power pushers while compromising both the freedoms and the health of the American people.

No legitimate safety testing has ever been conducted on these naked body scanners, and yet the FDA and TSA just allow them to be rolled out on the ASSUMPTION that they must somehow be perfectly safe. (The same is true with seasonal flu vaccines, by the way, which are never tested in randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.)

Isn't this how aspartame got legalized, come to think of it? Except in that case it was Rumsfeld, not Chertoff, calling the shots.

You can't have nutrition, but we'll feed you X-rays!

Think about what's happening here for a minute: The FDA is an agency that has gone out and threatened, raided and persecuted manufacturers of walnuts, cherries and green tea products who made scientifically validated health claims about the benefits of those products. And yet, when it comes to rolling out naked body scanners that pose a cancer risk to the population, the FDA requires no legitimate scientific testing whatsoever and simply rubber stamps the whole project, thereby subjecting virtually the entire population to radiation-emitting devices with an unknown level of health risk.

But then again, what do they care if a few thousand people get cancer anyway? More cancer just means more profits for the cancer industry which, not coincidentally, just happens to treat its patients with yet more radiation as some sort of "therapy" for cancer. (I know, this just gets more bizarre the further you go).

Big Pharma must love the fact that millions of Americans are now being subjected to yet another form of ionizing radiation, as that means more cancer patients to buy chemotherapy in the years ahead, too. Pile 'em in, Chief! We've got more cattle to brand!

The craziest part of all

But the really crazy part about this whole story is not that the scientists are concerned about the health risks of these naked body scanners. It's not that the TSA is, itself, a terrorist organization now generating more fear and terror than the international terrorists could ever hope to accomplish. It's not even the fact that the FDA allows these radiation machines to be widely used across the country despite the fact that they've never been honestly and scientifically tested for use on humans.

No, the real shocker in all this is the startling fact that people are lining up like cattle to go along with this. Your average American citizen, it seems, just can't wait to bow down to authority and subject their private body parts to a federal search in complete violation of their Constitutional rights.

The American education system, it seems, has successfully produced a race of wage slaves who utterly fail to ask intelligent questions or stand up for their own rights. I guess that's the result of all the revisionist history being taught in public schools these days, where children are taught that Christopher Columbus is a national hero and that the government always tells the truth.

By the way, this reminds me to mention one of the most eye-opening books you will ever read. It's called Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History by Judge Andrew Napolitano

If you're not one of the Sheeple, and you think for yourself, and you have come to the realization that practically everything you were taught about history in the public schools was a complete fabrication, then you will definitely enjoy this book. It's written by one of the most knowledgeable and intelligent Constitutional scholars you'll ever encounter, and its sections on the Fourth Amendment are especially relevant to what's happening today with the TSA.

In fact, come to think of it, Judge Napolitano recently appeared on the Alex Jones Show to talk about the freedom issues with the naked body scanners and obscene gropes.

Naked body scanners pose a cancer risk

But getting back to the health issue in particular, it is clear to anyone who understands the laws of physics that the TSA's naked body scanners create an increased risk of cancer to the population.

That's why I had the sense to refuse to go through one of these when directed to do so at a California airport. I opted out and went through the "easy" pat down (the easy version, before they upgraded to their "enhanced" pat downs).
As of right now, I refuse to fly until the TSA backs off its naked body scanner madness. Not only do I refuse to subject my biology to ionizing radiation that carries an unknown cancer risk, but I also strongly object to the U.S. government violating my Constitutional rights by viewing the shape of my naked body on their electronic viewing screens.

Who are the real terrorists? The TSA

Another thing that has become abundantly clear in all this is that the real terror threat is the TSA itself. "Terrorism" is defined as using fear to achieve a political purpose. I can't think of a better example of that than the TSA and its fear-mongering campaign engineered to justify its huge power-grabbing expansion of personnel and authority. This is a government agency that had fewer than 200 employees a few years ago but now directs over 60,000 agents (it's like a whole new army of domestic secret police).

Another obvious "a-ha" moment in all this comes when you realize that air travelers are far more afraid of the TSA than any terror threat. Your chances of being killed by a terrorist on an air flight in America are so low that you probably have a greater chance of being struck by lightning right smack in the center of your butt crack while doing a yoga pose in a thunderstorm. And yet, your chances of being molested by the TSA are orders of magnitude higher, and everyone who stands in line at a security checkpoint is thinking, in the back of their minds, "Oh God, I hope they don't single me out for an obscene pat down."

The fact that this thought appears in your head (and admit it, it does) should be a huge red flag that you now live in a police state. People who live in truly free societies do not fret over being molested by their own government security agents.

Think about it: The way you and I feel in a TSA security line in many way reflects a small part of the way a Jewish citizen must have felt in Germany, in the 1930's, when a Nazi party member knocked on their door and demanded to see their papers. You never know: Am I going to be arrested? Molested? Detained? Deported? Or even killed?

Remember: Terrorism hinges on the ability of those in power to leverage fear in order to achieve their political goals. And right now, that seems to be a word-for-word blueprint for what the TSA is doing to the American people.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson.

And Winston Churchill famously said:

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."