Supplements Needed

I was happy to receive this report from the UK nutrition group I belong to because I have been fighting the ignorance of the cancer industry for a long time over this issue.

I'd bet it would be a lot better to give chemo patients vitamins than the chips and candy handed out at a Spokane regional cancer center; one that refused to respond to my inquiry about their practice.

Remember that just this past week the government reiterated what it has said several times over the past fifty years that cancer and nutrition are connected.

"NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENTS SAFE & BENEFICIAL FOR PATIENTS UNDERGOING CHEMOTHERAPY & RADIATION THERAPY" Charles Simone et al.

For nearly a decade oncologists have been telling patients undergoing chemo or radiation therapy that they should not take antioxidants & other nutritional supplements because they interfere with treatment. However, a 2-part article published in the most recent issues of 'Alternative Therapies', should lay this this myth to rest.

Oncologist Charles B. Simone, MD & colleages searched Medline & CancerLit & found 280 peer-reviewed studies on the concurrent use of chemo and/or radiation & dietary supplements. These include 50 human studies involving 8,251 patients.
They found that nutritonal supplements did not interfere with conventional cancer treatments & actually enhanced the killing effects of chemo & radiotherapy. In 47 of the human studies, supplements were also found to protect normal tissues & reduce the often serious side-effects of chemo & radiation. In 15 human studes 3,738 patients had increased survival - a finding that is rare in cancer outcome. There is no downside to taking supplements while undergoing chemo but there is a tremendous upside.

'Alternative Therapies Journal'

Bristol-Myers Squibb Fraud Follies

Five hundred fifteen million dollars can go a long way in providing needed health care in many places throughout the world.

Instead B-MS is paying this money as a fine for what we have know the drug companies do to enlist doctors to prescribe their drugs.

One of the most egregious acts by this firm is the increased prices charged to government health programs, especially the Senior Drug plan. The rip-off Senior drug plan is was and always will be a gravy train for Big Pharma, unless the Congress gets some chutzpah and reverses the law.

"The integrity of our health care system rests on physicians being able to make decisions based on the best interests of their patients," said acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.

Yes integrity is a key component of compassionate and competent health care. If doctors really are going to be allowed to make decisions based on patient need then Big Pharma needs to step aside, along with the insurers, and let medicine be managed by doctors.

Bristol-Myers pays 515 mln dlrs to end fraud, kickback probe
Fri Sep 28, 3:28 PM ET

Bristol-Myers Squibb will pay 515 million dollars to settle a probe into illegal kickbacks to doctors and fraudulent pricing of its drugs to government health programs, officials said Friday.

The Justice Department said the US pharmaceutical giant and its Apothecon subsidiary agreed to the payments to settle the civil allegations on drug marketing and pricing practices.

Bristol-Myers said the settlement covers the previously disclosed investigations that began several years ago. The company had agreed in principle to a settlement in December and to implement a five-year "corporate integrity agreement."

Government investigators alleged that Bristol-Myers from 2000 through mid-2003 paid "illegal remuneration to physicians and other health care providers to induce them to purchase BMS drugs," the Justice Department statement said.

The money was in the form of "consulting fees and expenses" to physicians and other health care providers as well as "travel to luxurious resorts."

From 1994 through 2001, according to investigators, Apothecon paid "illegal remuneration such as stocking allowances, price protection payments, market share payments, and free goods in order to induce its retail pharmacy and wholesaler customers to purchase its products."

In both cases, the government alleged that the company caused the submission of inflated and fraudulent claims to the federal health care programs.

"The integrity of our health care system rests on physicians being able to make decisions based on the best interests of their patients," said acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.

"This settlement reflects the Justice Department's strong commitment to holding drug companies accountable for devising and implementing fraudulent marketing and pricing schemes that undermine that decision-making process at the expense of federal health care programs for the poor and the elderly."

Bristol-Myers said in a separate statement it "is pleased to have resolved these matters from the past and is proud of its commitment to conduct business with the highest standards of integrity in its mission to extend and enhance human life."

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse.

Nutrition Does Matter

It is always much more than you are what you eat and this is probably why I believe very strongly in two nutritional programs.

One is a system based on at least 80 years of scientific research. It helps you find out which one of twelve types you are and how to plan your eating to best support your individual biochemistry. This system relates strongly to the way in which you autonomic nervous system functions.

When I first began studying this system I learned that there are really no pure vegetarians. I learned also that the culture closest to veganism are the Hindu people.
For someone coming from another culture whose food roots are based in meat or other type foods, it actually takes eight generations to change your physiology to benefit from another food plan.

The second food plan I use is one that is also based on decades of scientific nutrition research. This approach is one that was proven to rebalance your biochemistry.

These plans are significant because so many diseases, like cancer and diabetes, are effected by how you eat.

Another way your health is effected is eating a diet that over the long term promotes sever nutritional deficiencies. I defer to this issue because I stumbled on a recent report on Nightline, looking at the Hallelujah Diet.

I looked at this diet somewhere about ten years ago and took the time then to consider its risks and benefits. This diet isn't much different that that in the Froehm plan used, although I understand in an altered way now, at Health Quarters, a place similar to Hallelujah Acres.

Initially, and in the short term a cleansing diet is beneficial for all of us because of pollution and the amount of junque food most Americans eat.

If you followed this food plan for about six weeks you would be lighter and probably a little bit healthier. Even period short use of this approach is helpful. But then you can accomplish the same benefits by fasting one day a week combined with some other natural health plans that are not so drastic.

If you'd like to know more about this, here are some directions -

1. For the simple food plan to help rebalance biochemistry, send $3.00 for a copy that can be emailed to you in a pdf file. Email us here for specifics - dr_cw_gayle (at) yahoo (dot) com.

2. If you are more curious and want to determine your metabolic food plan send $35 and we will send you the book of questions. Once you've completed the questions you'll have information that gives you percentage amounts of food types fit for you.

3. If you would like some research on why Hallelujah Diet is unhealthy read more here.It is much more than the lack of B12 that is a problem for vegetarians and especially vegans.

FDA: “They’re passive, they’re reactive, and they often side with industry over public health,”

Now with a bigger handout from Congress, along with the lessening of your right of access to vitamins and natural supplements, the FDA tells you it is doing more for public safety.

I don't expect their bureaucratic culture to change even the slightest. All of what they will be doing is collecting more money from the Pharma Cartel to faster track hazardous drugs to market, enriching the coffers of the pharmaceutical companies so they can further their desired favors from members of congress.

September 28, 2007
Report Assails F.D.A. Oversight of Clinical Trials
By GARDINER HARRIS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The Food and Drug Administration does very little to ensure the safety of the millions of people who participate in clinical trials, a federal investigator has found.

In a report due to be released Friday, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, Daniel R. Levinson, said federal health officials did not know how many clinical trials were being conducted, audited fewer than 1 percent of the testing sites and, on the rare occasions when inspectors did appear, generally showed up long after the tests had been completed.

The F.D.A. has 200 inspectors, some of whom audit clinical trials part time, to police an estimated 350,000 testing sites. Even when those inspectors found serious problems in human trials, top drug officials in Washington downgraded their findings 68 percent of the time, the report found. Among the remaining cases, the agency almost never followed up with inspections to determine whether the corrective actions that the agency demanded had occurred, the report found.

“In many ways, rats and mice get greater protection as research subjects in the United States than do humans,” said Arthur L. Caplan, chairman of the department of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania.

Animal research centers have to register with the federal government, keep track of subject numbers, have unannounced spot inspections and address problems speedily or risk closing, none of which is true in human research, Mr. Caplan said.

Because no one collects the data systematically, there is no way to tell how safe the nation’s clinical research is or ever has been.

The drug agency oversees just the safety of trials by companies seeking approval to sell drugs or devices. Using an entirely different set of rules, the Office for Human Research Protections oversees trials financed by the federal government.

Privately financed noncommercial trials have no federal oversight.

“It’s crazy that we have all these different sets of rules,” said Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, chairman of the bioethics department at the National Institutes of Health.

“It would facilitate things a lot if we had one agency overseeing things.”

Dr. Janet Woodcock, chief medical officer at the drug agency, acknowledged that it needs to put more “teeth” in its enforcement. “We are working to address these problems very aggressively,” Dr. Woodcock said.

The case of Audine Graybill demonstrates the flaws in the system. According to the F.D.A., in the spring of 2005, she decided to try an experimental drug to treat mania associated with bipolar disorder. The consent form that she signed on May 29 stated that she could change her mind at any point in the study.

She checked into High Pointe Healthcare in Oklahoma City, a psychiatric center owned by a psychiatrist, Dr. David Linden. On June 3, Ms. Graybill changed her mind and asked to leave.

Dr. Linden refused to let her go.

On June 6, she was given the experimental medicine. Ms. Graybill’s lawyer, Anthony Sykes, obtained a writ of habeas corpus for her to appear in court and took the writ to the hospital, where the staff refused to honor it and said it would not give it to Dr. Linden, Mr. Sykes said.

Mr. Sykes tracked Dr. Linden to another office and had him served with the writ, Mr. Sykes said. Within hours, Dr. Linden’s lawyer called Mr. Sykes and said Ms. Graybill was free to go. Mr. Sykes took her home on June 7.

Ms. Graybill could not be reached.

More than nine months later, an F.D.A. inspector appeared at Dr. Linden’s research center and uncovered myriad other problems.

The agency sent its warning letter more than two years after Ms. Graybill’s experience.

Last November, the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision suspended Dr. Linden’s license for three months because he had sex with two patients and gave them genital herpes infections, according to board records. Dr. Linden, who also owns a psychiatric center in Las Vegas, did not return repeated telephone messages.

Dr. Linden has conducted clinical trials for most major pharmaceutical companies and continues to do research, according to his Web site.

The F.D.A. disqualified investigators from conducting further clinical trials 26 times from 2000 to 2005 and disqualified their data just twice even though the agency found serious problems at trial sites 348 times in that period, the inspector general found.

While some of the report’s findings surprised ethicists, its conclusion that the agency’s oversight of clinical trials is disorganized and underfinanced has long been known and is, in many ways, identical to criticisms leveled at other agency functions, including its oversight of imported food, foreign drug manufacturers, animal food and the safety of older medicines.

In each case, the size and complexity of the tasks facing the agency have grown enormously as the number of inspectors for those tasks has generally declined.

An inspector general’s report in 2000 criticized the oversight of clinical trials and noted that the inspections mostly focused on whether study information was accurate and not on whether human subjects were protected. That is still true.

In the present report, the inspector general recommended that the agency create a registry of all continuing clinical trials, an idea signed into law by President Bush on Thursday.

The report also recommended that the agency create a complete registry of research ethics boards, create a single comprehensive database to track its research inspections and obtain greater authority to regulate research assistants.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said the agency “needs to implement these recommendations to meet its duty.”

Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, said it needed more money and guts.

“They’re passive, they’re reactive, and they often side with industry over public health,” Ms. DeLauro said.

The agency’s reserve is apparent in some of its warning letters.

On May 24, 2005, an inspector, Barbara Breithaupt, went to the office of Dr. Frank A. Wingrove of Ames, Iowa, and for weeks asked to see records of his study of an experimental topical treatment for periodontal disease. Dr. Wingrove refused. Dr. Wingrove did not return telephone messages seeking comment.

More than two years later, the agency sent Dr. Wingrove a warning letter. The inspector general’s report suggests that if Dr. Wingrove promised to reform, the agency was unlikely to show up again to see whether he had followed through.

Millions to Lilly and others in the Big Pharma Cartel, Death to Thousands

It will be interesting to learn at some point what the FDA will do now to seriously consider the hazards of the SSRI drug class.

One of the problems with this class of drugs is the fluoride compounds that serve as the chemical base of the drug.

This issue caries over to many other pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics and osteoporosis drugs as examples.

Of course I hope for more serious Black Box warnings or banning of these drugs. They have caused countless damage to those using them and innocent bystanders, as well as creating other diseases caused by side effects: diabetes is only one.

In the mean time I'll keep education about how nutrition and other natural approaches can be safer and more effective in the mental health arena.

Depression and Anxiety Special Report from Johns Hopkins Health Alerts
Antidepressant Warnings

Is the cure worse than the disease? Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Dr. Karen L. Swartz discusses the risks and benefits of SSRIs.

Call it the pill paradox: Some 20 years ago, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) burst onto the scene, lauded for their ability to treat depression. Today, however, some studies have linked SSRIs to an increased incidence of suicidal thoughts and behavior, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the midst of an extensive review of drug safety data. This has led to what’s being called a “crisis of confidence” in antidepressants, with many people wondering whether antidepressants, especially SSRIs, are safe to take.

The controversy began with concern over the use of SSRIs in children and adolescents, with studies indicating an increased risk of suicide. For adults, the issue heated up recently, when researchers reported an increased risk of suicidal behavior during the first month of treatment with SSRIs. The study presented data on nearly 160,000 people treated in Britain with one of four antidepressants, two of which were the SSRIs fluoxetine (Prozac) and paroxetine (Paxil). The others were the tricyclic antidepressants amitriptyline (Elavil) and dothiepin (Dothep).

While the risk of suicidal behavior did not differ from drug to drug, the researchers found, it was elevated during the first month of antidepressant treatment and highest during the first nine days of treatment. It is important to note, however, that other studies have not found such a link. For instance, in another study in 2006, researchers analyzed drug safety data from that country’s regulatory agency. They found no evidence that SSRIs increase the risk of suicide. And a Swedish study found no link between SSRIs and an increased risk of suicide in either children or adults over a nine-year period. Moreover in the United States the suicide rate has actually declined since a peak in the late 1980s -- a drop that coincides with the introduction of SSRIs.

FDA Warnings on SSRIs

Because of the importance of this issue, the FDA is moving ahead with a safety review of antidepressant medications in adults, with the results expected later this year. In the interim, the FDA issued a public health advisory in July 2006 directed at adults. According to the advisory, adults who are being treated with antidepressants should be watched closely for worsening of depression and for increased suicidal thoughts or behavior. The FDA added that this increased surveillance might be especially necessary when a person goes on antidepressant medications for the first time or when doses are changed.

Where does all this leave us? It is essential to remember that serious depression poses a significant risk to a person’s life. The vast majority of people who commit suicide have major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder that is not being treated at all. Overall, SSRIs have a good safety profile, with fewer side effects than other antidepressants, which is why they are widely used. And beyond that, it is essential to remember that the real threat lies with the disease itself. If you are struggling with depression, get treatment. Untreated bipolar disorder and major depression kill people every year; their threat to your health is significant and should never be ignored or glossed over.

Misdiagosis and No Diagnosis All Too Common

I've mentioned recently that a doctor I know told me that "...today there is no diagnosis. Everything is based on labs".

To a great extent this is very true, and it is something I have been confronted with by clients for many years.

Recently I had a phone call from a client who was extremely short of breath, what we refer to as SOB. Probably the most common cause of SOB is congestive heart failure or some type of serious cardiovascular event.

I could tell by speaking with this person it was not allergy, yet this is where my effort to get her to go to the doctor led.

In this person's case the student PA at her clinic (for low income and those with little or no insurance) gave her somethings for allergy.

It was later on, because of her co-workers that she went to the ER where it was determined she had congestive heart failure.

I reviewed all the lab work from the ER and found that neither the clinic or the ER had ordered a CBC with diff, lipid or chemistry panel. The only lab tests were for some of the common cardiovascular indicators. When I finally had all the lab work, using the biochemistry related method I use to determine deficiencies, it was fairly clear what the risks were.

So it is not just the lab work, but it is the best analysis of the lab work that counts too.

With an echocardiogram it was determined that her heart valve was quite damaged.

Still her clinic was doing little to get her a referral to a cardiologist. When this finally came about the doctor was verbally demeaning to this client because she was using natural therapies.

Mind you this arrogant doctor was working in a Western Washington medical group that advertises on its web site that the patient comes first and their wishes are paramount.

As yet, her clinic - the one who is prescribing her diuretic and ACE inhibitor - also did not want to respond to her obvious reaction to a drug they prescribed and has not provided follow-up care as is required since they are prescribing medications.

As it says in our banner, our goal is, and has been for decades, to give more tools to both patients and health care providers to get to the real cause and work collaboratively as a team for the best interest of patient care.

I guess I may be a step or two ahead of CNN, but at least they are trying.

Wish more in health care did too.

By Elizabeth Cohen, CNN

Empowered Patient is a regular feature from CNN Medical News correspondent Elizabeth Cohen that helps put you in the driver's seat when it comes to health care.

ATLANTA, Georgia -- The celebrity was John Ritter.

Actor John Ritter died in September 2003 from an aortic dissection, a commonly misdiagnosed condition.

The actor died in 2003 of an aortic dissection -- a tearing of the major artery that comes out of the heart. His widow later settled a wrongful death lawsuit against a California hospital, alleging his condition had been misdiagnosed "at least twice."

Experts who study malpractice cases and autopsy reports say certain diseases are misdiagnosed over and over again. It's worth knowing what they are so you won't be a victim.

1. Aortic dissection: Sometimes aortic dissections are easy to diagnose -- a patient feels a distinct tearing sensation in his or her chest. But other times they're pretty easy to miss because the symptoms could point to other diseases, says Dr. Robert Bonow, past president of the American Heart Association. "Sometimes it feels like heartburn," he says.

2. Cancer: In a Harvard study of malpractice claims in the U.S., cancer was far and away the most misdiagnosed illness, primarily breast and colorectal. Study authors attributed this to doctors failing to stick to cancer screening guidelines.

3. Clogged arteries: Sometimes doctors tell patients they're short of breath because they're out of shape, when it's actually coronary artery disease, says Bonow, who's also the chief of cardiology at Northwestern Medical School.

4. Heart attack: Sound strange? How could a doctor miss a heart attack? Bonow says the big and obvious attack -- the one where someone clutches his or her chest and falls to the floor, the one Bonow calls "the Hollywood heart attack" -- isn't always so clear. Sometimes the only signs of a heart attack are a sense of fullness in the chest, nausea and a general sense of not feeling well.

5. Infection: In the Harvard study, infection followed cancer as the most misdiagnosed condition.

So how can you keep yourself from becoming a victim of misdiagnosis?

1. Ask for more tests - Has your illness been misdiagnosed? - Actually, Nancy Keelan says, demand more tests. For more than three years, Keelan says, she complained to her gynecologist about irregular, heavy bleeding, and for three years he told her she was entering menopause and not to worry. Keelan says it turned out she had both advanced endometrial and ovarian cancer. "I believe he missed my diagnosis five times," says Keelan, who was 46 when she got her correct diagnosis.

Keelan, a registered nurse, now speaks to women's groups, telling them not to let more than three weeks go by if they're having new, strange symptoms. She says if the doctor tells you it's no big deal, you can frame your request this way: Tell your doctor you know it might be nothing, but would it do any harm to have a simple test? She says a simple ultrasound, would have caught her cancer much earlier.

2. Ask, "What else could my illness be?" - Let's say you've been experiencing shortness of breath when you exercise, and your doctor tells you you're just out of shape. You can ask your doctor if it could possibly be something more dangerous. Dr. Mark Graber, chief of medicine at the Veteran's Administration in Northpoint, New York, says the single most common cause of misdiagnosis is a doctor's failure to consider other possibilities after an initial diagnosis is reached. "It's called premature closing -- the minute they come up with a diagnosis, they don't think about a better solution," he says.

3. Don't assume no news is good news - Another source of misdiagnosis: Lab results get lost or forgotten. A study by Dr. Tejal Gandhi at Harvard Medical School found that up to 33 percent of physicians did not always notify patients about abnormal test results. "No news is not good news," says Dr. Saul Weingart, vice president for patient safety at Dana Farber Cancer Institute. "It might be that the report fell down behind someone's desk."

4. Assume your doctors don't talk to one another - Our experts said doctors often don't share information about test results. One piece of advice: Use that conference call function on your cell phone. Make phone appointments with your doctors at the same time, and then conference them all together.

5. Be wary when your doctors work in shifts - The title of Gandhi's 2005 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine says it all: "Fumbled Handoffs: One Dropped Ball after Another." In it, she describes how a hospital patient's tuberculosis was misdiagnosed partly because test results weren't passed on when doctors changed shifts.

Raw Almond Requiem

I know this is an important story and we covered it earlier this year; now the insanity is in place.

I was wondering during some time I could not get this update posted if this isn't related to cancer, since raw almonds are a very good food - in quite small amounts - to help you keep from getting cancer and helping you if you develop it.

One really never knows what sinister concepts exist in bureaucratic schemes.

The same false logic exicts with Big Ag farming and much of the fruits and vegetables we know are grown in the California Valley. The new replacement for methyl bromide in strawberry, tomato and other vegetable crops is MEL or methyl iodide.

MEL is classed as a carcinogen, and as such could be in violation of certain government regulations that prohibit carcinogenic substances to be utilized in products consumed by humans. California seems to have the only outspoken agricultural agency on this so far because MEL is banned in CA simply because it is a carcinogen.

The pundits tell us that we can expect that MEL won't be absorbed into these foods as it is applied only to the soil.

I don't know about you but from all I have ever learned, what is in the soil becomes absorbed into what grows there. I guess they have a new theory for this now, but I haven't seen hide nor hair of it.

And as the march of genetically modified foods continues along the road to your supermarket, you'll be getting moldy almonds and cancerous crops added to the mix.

Rich Johansen 9-27-7

THE MANDATORY PASTEURIZATION OF ALMONDS AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2007 -- WHAT'S NEXT ??

It's your right to know!

Please pass this information on to as many people as you can. Informed citizens can make the difference. There are still some raw almonds in stores and warehouses - stock up!

Did you know that . . .On August 27, 2007 the FDA enacted a new law mandating that all almonds grown and commercially marketed in the U.S. must be pasteurized beginning on September 1, 2007. This means that there will no longer be access to purchasing raw almonds from stores. Every almond sold commercially from here on out will be pasteurized.This is because of two salmonella outbreaks traced to almonds ­ one in 2001 and one in 2004. It makes you wonder how many cases of salmonella have been traced to chicken and meat?

This arbitrary ruling is contrary to the better judgment of members of the Almond Board and is being opposed by most almond growers.Five pasteurization facilities have been built throughout California and the USDA has already begun implementing this program.As of September 1, all almond growers are required to comply with the mandatory pasteurization and truck their almonds to these plants and back to the packing facilities ­ at their own expense. At what cost is this to the grower, the consumer, and the taxpayers?

The pasteurization technique being used for organic almonds is steam. The steam process could leave nuts damp and create mold, which could easily lead to cases of anaphylactic shock.These almonds will still be labeled "raw," even though they will be heat pasteurized and will no longer be raw. Consumers will be deceived and not know what they are truly getting.

Truly raw almonds, with their enzymes intact, are a living, nutrition-packed food. Raw almonds that have been soaked and sprouted are nutritionally superior food to heated almonds, and are more easily assimilated in the digestive process. Heating almonds over 112 degrees destroys their enzymes, and greatly diminishes their nutritional value. Heating also leads to rancidity of nuts.

Almonds shipped into the U.S. from other countries are exempted from mandatory pasteurization. With all the recent news about food from China, it poses the question of why other countries are being exempted from the strict standards U.S. growers are being required to adhere to.

Almonds grown in the U.S. and shipped out of the U.S. to other countries also do not have to be pasteurized!

Is this just the beginning? What are they planning next for mandatory pasteurization? Will it be walnuts, pecans, or what ??? Who knows, maybe spinach will be next. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of "fresh" food. We may not even have access to fresh salad greens anymore !! Even if we loose raw almonds, we must stop the process before we loose more!

Should our government be controlling our choice of food?

Refer to these web sites for more information:

www.cornucopia.org, www.rense.com, www.livingtreecommunity.com, www.rawnuts.com.

Hillary's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf

September 26, 2007

Hillary and Bill Clinton show muscle as cover boy Bill gets a negative story dumped

Tim Reid in Washington

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign forced a magazine to drop a negative story about her by threatening to cut off the publication’s access to the former President Bill Clinton, it emerged yesterday.

The ruthless response to GQ magazine, and its decision to bow to the ultimatum, reflects the enormous leverage Mr Clinton brings to his wife’s White House bid at a time when her quest for the Democratic nomination appears more formidable than ever.

The magazine, which is due to have Mr Clinton on its cover for its December issue, was told that the former President would no longer cooperate unless it pulled an article it was about to publish detailing infighting and tensions within Mrs Clinton’s campaign.

Despite protests at the magazine, the article was duly sidelined, according to a respected US political website. In an e-mail statement to The Times, Jim Nelson, the Editor of GQ, said: “I don’t really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you that, yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons.” He refused to elaborate.

The move by the Clinton campaign provides a graphic example of the be-hind-the-scenes hardball tactics it employs in keeping the New York senator’s relentlessly disciplined presidential bid on track and on message, and the power that she and her husband have in shaping how her White House bid is perceived.

On Sunday Mrs Clinton pulled off the rare feat of appearing on all five Sunday-morning political talk shows, a privilege the networks are unlikely to afford her rivals. Her lead in the national Democratic polls over her nearest rival, Barack Obama, is so big – almost 20 per cent – that pundits are now asking not if she can win the nomination, but if she can be stopped.

President Bush also thinks that she will win the nomination, it emerged yesterday, and has even indicated in private that he believes she will succeed him. White House aides, on Mr Bush’s instructions, have been privately briefing her – and other Democrat candidates – about Iraq in case she wins the election next November. They have been urging her not to commit to an immediate withdrawal if she takes office in January 2009, because Mr Bush wants his successor – Democrat or Republican – to continue prosecuting the war after he leaves the Oval Office.

Although Mr Bush often says that he will not handicap elections, he told the author of a new biography about him that Mrs Clinton has “got a great national presence, and this is becoming a national primary”. In an off-the-record session with broadcast journalists just over a week ago, Mr Bush, according to those in the room, gave the impression that he thought she would win the presidency and that he had been thinking about how to turn Iraq over to her.

Mrs Clinton’s lead in national polls, and similarly big leads over Mr Obama in the early primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, means that the contest in the first nominating state of Iowa has become crucial.

With Mrs Clinton succeeding in making her nomination look almost inevitable, her rivals are expected to be more aggressive and critical in a Democratic debate tomorrow night in New Hampshire, aware that time is running out to derail her.

They Shoot Horses Don't They? And Kill Your Daughters with Shots

I am sure that when you offered up your daughter as a guinea pig for the NIH and Merck no one told you there might be a risk of a serious side effects from this vaccine.

If you are a young woman taking this risk did any one tell you the vaccine is not designed for anyone who already is sexually active?

When do you ask questions and expect the answers that are your right, under the law?

You do have the right to refuse, in case you didn't know.

Or did they forget to tell you this as well?

Deaths Associated with HPV Vaccine Start Rolling In, Over 3500 Adverse Affects Reported

By John-Henry Westen

TORONTO, September 20, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As Canada, in large part due to aggressive behind the scenes lobbying, rolls out the not-comprehensively-tested Merck HPV vaccine for girls as young as nine, a look at developments on the vaccine south of the border should cause Canadians serious concern. In the United States a similar lobby campaign by the same company launched the mass HPV vaccination of girls beginning in June last year.

In just little over a year, the HPV vaccine has been associated with at least five deaths, not to mention thousands of reports of adverse effects, hundreds deemed serious, and many that required hospitalization.

Judicial Watch, a U.S. government watchdog, became concerned while noting large donations to key politicians originating from Merck. A freedom of information request from the group in May of this year discovered that during the period from June 8, 2006 - when the vaccines received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - to May 2007 there were 1,637 reports of adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine reported to the FDA.

Three deaths were related to the vaccine, including one of a 12-year-old. One physician's assistant reported that a female patient "died of a blood clot three hours after getting the Gardasil vaccine." Two other reports, on girls 12 and 19, reported deaths relating to heart problems and/or blood clotting.

As of May 11, 2007, the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities.

Side effects published by Merck & Co. warn the public about potential pain, fever, nausea, dizziness and itching after receiving the vaccine. Indeed, 77% of the adverse reactions reported are typical side effects to vaccinations. But other more serious side effects reported include paralysis, Bells Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and seizures.

Judicial Watch informed LifeSiteNews.com that a subsequent request for information on adverse reactions to the HPV vaccine, covering the period from May 2007 to September 2007, found that an additional 1800 adverse reactions have been reported, including more deaths. Exactly how many more deaths occurred will be released in the coming days, Judicial Watch's Dee Grothe informed LifeSiteNews.com.

The LifeSiteNews.com report on the moneyed lobbying efforts of Merck in the U.S. was reported in February. (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020204.html )

However the Canadian lobby effort by Merck's Canadian affiliate Merck Frosst Canada has been underway using powerful lobbyists with close connections to the politicians who have signed off on massive government funded vaccination programs.

The Toronto Star recently reported that Merck Frosst Canada Ltd hired public relations giant Hill & Knowlton to push the immunization strategies using some well-connected lobbyists: Ken Boessenkool, a former senior policy adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper; Bob Lopinski, formerly with Premier Dalton McGuinty's office; and Jason Grier, former chief of staff to Health Minister George Smitherman.

Harper's Conservative Government approved Merck's HPV vaccine Gardasil in July and later announced a $300 million program to give the vaccine to girls from ages 9-13. That of course is only the beginning of what Merck likely hopes will be a much larger vaccination of all potentially sexually active women in Canada who are not already HPV infected. In August, McGuinty's Ontario Liberals, on the advice of his Health Minister George Smitherman, announced that all Grade 8 girls will have free access to Gardasil.

One of the major complaints by physicians is that the HPV vaccination program has been implemented before adequate testing has been completed. Long-term effects of the vaccine remain unknown. Many are asking why the seemingly reckless rush?

At least one answer to that question comes from the fact that Merck currently is the sole provider of an HPV vaccine with its Gardasil product. A competing HPV vaccine, Glaxo Smith Kline's Cervarix, is set to hit the market in January 2008. As more children are vaccinated with Gardasil, fewer will be able to later receive the necessary repeat boosters of a competing, incompatible vaccine. Merck is in a race to capture as much of the market as it can, consuming many millions of taxpayer dollars.

U.S. sales of Gardasil are expected to reach $1 billion in the first year of its availability.


Read Previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

The reports from the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System detailing the three previous deaths are available here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/GardasilVAERSDeath...

The reports detailing all 1637 adverse effects are here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/GardasilVAERSRepor...

New Threats to Pet Health

MEDIA ALERT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michael San Filippo
Phone: 847-285-6687, Cell: 847-732-6194
e-mail: msanfilippo@avma.org

Update: AVMA warns of potential new threat to pets

Schaumburg, Ill.

— The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) has recently been made aware of several complaints from pet owners and veterinarians that multiple brands of jerky treats manufactured in China have been making pets sick. Symptoms of illness have included vomiting, diarrhea, and lethargy. To our knowledge, no deaths have been reported.

The AVMA posted an alert on its Web site on September 13 to inform its members and the public about what was known. Today, the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) issued a statement saying it also has become aware of an unusual number of dogs presenting similar symptoms and abnormal test results associated with consumption of some jerky treats. The ACVIM statement is available at www.acvim.org/uploadedFiles/Jerky_Treat_Info_September_14.doc.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently testing several products to see if a contaminant can be found. So far, they have ruled out melamine, one of the chemicals that led to the massive pet food recall this spring, but have yet to identify anything that might be making pets sick.

While a list of brand/product names of affected treats is not yet available, the AVMA has learned that all complaints have involved jerky treats from China. We recommend that pet owners use their best judgment in this matter.

Suspected cases should be reported to the FDA. To find the number for the FDA district office consumer complaint coordinator in your region, visit www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html.

The AVMA is monitoring the situation and will provide updated information on our Web site (www.avma.org) as soon as it becomes available. Like all information on our Web site, we will only post information that is credible and has been confirmed.

For more information, contact Michael San Filippo, AVMA media relations assistant, at 847-285-6687 (office), 847-732-6194 (cell), or msanfilippo@avma.org.

###

The AVMA and its more than 75,000 member veterinarians are engaged in a wide variety of activities dedicated to advancing the science and art of animal, human and public health. Visit the AVMA Web site at www.avma.org for more information.

More Concerns Raised About Wi-FI Safety and Health

EU watchdog calls for urgent action on Wi-Fi radiation
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 16 September 2007

Europe's top environmental watchdog is calling for immediate action to reduce exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi, mobile phones and their masts. It suggests that delay could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking and lead in petrol.

The warning, from the EU's European Environment Agency (EEA) follows an international scientific review which concluded that safety limits set for the radiation are "thousands of times too lenient", and an official British report last week which concluded that it could not rule out the development of cancers from using mobile phones.

Professor Jacqueline McGlade, the EEA's executive director, said yesterday: "Recent research and reviews on the long-term effects of radiations from mobile telecommunications suggest that it would be prudent for health authorities to recommend actions to reduce exposures, especially to vulnerable groups, such as children."

The EEA's initiative will increase pressure on governments and public health bodies to take precautionary action over the electromagnetic radiation from rapidly expanding new technologies. The German government is already advising its citizens to use wired internet connections instead of Wi-Fi and landlines instead of mobile phones.

The scientific review, produced by the international BioInitiative Working Group of leading scientists and public health and policy experts, says the "explosion of new sources has created unprecedented levels of artificial electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on Earth", causing "long-term and cumulative exposure" to "massively increased" radiation that "has no precedent in human history".

It says "corrections are needed in the way we accept, test and deploy" the technologies "in order to avert public health problems of a global nature".

***

Germany warns citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi
Environment Ministry's verdict on the health risks from wireless technology puts the British government to shame.
By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 09 September 2007

People should avoid using Wi-Fi wherever possible because of the risks it may pose to health, the German government has said.

Its surprise ruling – the most damning made by any government on the fast-growing technology – will shake the industry and British ministers, and vindicates the questions that The Independent on Sunday has been raising over the past four months.

And Germany's official radiation protection body also advises its citizens to use landlines instead of mobile phones, and warns of "electrosmog" from a wide range of other everyday products, from baby monitors to electric blankets.

The German government's ruling – which contrasts sharply with the unquestioning promotion of the technology by British officials – was made in response to a series of questions by Green members of the Bundestag, Germany's parliament.

The Environment Ministry recommended that people should keep their exposure to radiation from Wi-Fi "as low as possible" by choosing "conventional wired connections". It added that it is "actively informing people about possibilities for reducing personal exposure".

Its actions will provide vital support for Sir William Stewart, Britain's official health protection watchdog, who has produced two reports calling for caution in using mobile phones and who has also called for a review of the use of Wi-Fi in schools. His warnings have so far been ignored by ministers and even played down by the Health Protection Agency, which he chairs.

By contrast the agency's German equivalent – the Federal Office for Radiation Protection – is leading the calls for caution.

Florian Emrich, for the office, says Wi-Fi should be avoided "because people receive exposures from many sources and because it is a new technology and all the research into its health effects has not yet been carried out".

Edwards Campaign Mandates Cancer Causing Mammogram

I have written the Edwards campaign asking if Mr. Edwards understands that mammogram is a leading cause of breast cancer. I am waiting for a response.

Additionally, the Edwards plan offers no dental care as well as no freedom of choice for natural care, supplements and non-drug or mainstream care.

Edwards backs mandatory preventive care

By AMY LORENTZEN, Associated Press Writer Sun Sep 2
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070902/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_2

TIPTON, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

Edwards said his mandatory health care plan would cover preventive, chronic and long-term health care. The plan would include mental health care as well as dental and vision coverage for all Americans.

"The whole idea is a continuum of care, basically from birth to death," he said.

The former North Carolina senator said all presidential candidates talking about health care "ought to be asked one question: Does your plan cover every single American?"

"Because if it doesn't they should be made to explain what child, what woman, what man in America is not worthy of health care," he said. "Because in my view, everybody is worth health care."

Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year.

Edwards, who has been criticized by some for calling on Americans to be willing to give up their SUVs while driving one, acknowledged Sunday that he owns a Ford Escape hybrid SUV, purchased within the year, and a Chrysler Pacificia, which he said he has had for years.

"I think all of us have to move, have to make progress," he said. "I'm not holyier-than-thou about this. ... I'm like a lot of Americans, I see how serious this issue is and I want to address it myself and I want to help lead the nation in the right direction."

He said he would not buy another SUV in the future.

The Ford Escape, the first hybrid SUV on the market, gets an estimated
36 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway.

Closed Head Injury and PTSD

Today Vanderbilt University got a big write-up in an AP article on traumatic brain injury in the soldiers fighting in Iraq and related current military conflagrations.

CHI began out Veteran's Resources effort with a contribution received from a Vietnam Vet we helped.

The major concerns behind this effort, even though the oldest vet we have helped is 85, are depleted uranium, PTSD and traumatic brain injury(TBI).

I watched how little is done for the returning vets in a news story about the VA. I can tell you that it takes much more to recover from TBI that being given a Palm Pilot.

While the Palm Pilot may help there is a faster easier way to reintegrate brain hemispheres. There is also a better way to help concomitant PTSD than anti-depressants.

If AP is interested in something not so status quo, I am open to their call. And if Sandy Schneider from Vanderbilt would like the information, that would be great.

However, if any veteran needs this help there is no charge to you.

Vitamin E, Women's Health and Myth Making by Experts

Last month I happened to post on a truly specious study reporting that vitamins were of no help to women's hearts. That story is re-posted at the end of this post for easy reference.

You'll see my positive report on vitamin C for cancer below as well. And you'll also see a story from today about how vitamin, slammed in the August report can be most helpful in the prevention of blood clots for women (this works well for men to!).

This is how you get confused, especially if you do to know the history of vitamin E and it's use to prevent are reverse heart disease (the medical studies on this date back to the 1940s and 50s).

Natural vitamin E (listed on a label as d-alpha tocopherol) is very effective in preventing and treating blood clots. It was so good that in the 1970s when I worked as the Critical Care Nursing Manager in a large metropolitan hospital vitamin was given pre-op to prevent blood clots and life-threatening pulmonary embolism (blood clot in the lungs).

Natural vitamin E is, in adequate dose (about 2000 IU daily), a preventive for peripheral neuropathy. This same dose taken the two days prior to chemotherapy treatments helps protect against hair loss, and seems to help you need less chemo drugs. Vitamin E helps carry oxygen across pulmonary membranes inside the lungs(great for pulmonary hypertension and cardiac disease), it is protective against colon cancer and helps reduce menopausal symptoms. This great vitamin in natural form - the old way was wheat germ oil - has so many other beneficial uses for your health.

Sticking to the issue of cardiovascular care for women - often ignored since most research is focused on men - I have to encourage you to quickly avoid the American Heart Association recommendations on this one.

Vitamin E is an essential nutrient for health. It needs to be in a natural form, not from soy as most of it is, and it does a body good!

Vitamin E may reduce blood clots in women: study

Regular doses of vitamin E may reduce the risk of life-threatening blood clots in women, researchers reported on Monday.

But they cautioned that more research is needed to confirm the link in the prevention of the clots, known as venous thromboembolism, and said patients should not stop taking prescribed blood thinners.

"The data indicated that, in general, women taking vitamin E were 21 percent less likely to suffer a blood clot," the American Heart Association, which published the finding in its journal Circulation, said in a statement.

"This is an exciting and interesting finding, but I don't think it's proven," Dr. Robert Glynn of Harvard Medical School said.

The American Heart Association generally does not recommend antioxidant vitamins such as vitamin E for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases or conditions, which include blood clots.

The study by Glynn and his colleagues reviewed data from 39,876 women aged 45 and older taking part in the Women's Health Study. They were given either 600 international units of natural source vitamin E or a placebo.

The women were asked to take them on alternate days over a 10-year period and did not know if they were taking vitamin E or a placebo.

"During the 10-year study, 482 women -- 213 in the vitamin E group and 269 in the placebo group -- reported having a venous thromboembolism that was subsequently confirmed through review of medical records," the heart association said.

"In this study, venous thromboembolism occurred more often than heart attacks and almost as often as stroke. People don't realize how common it is," Glynn said.

Such blood clots can become fatal if the clot blocks the flow of blood to the lungs, heart or brain.

The study results also seemed to indicate that vitamin E was most beneficial to women who were genetically predisposed to get the clots.

A recent update to the American Heart Association's guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in women stated that antioxidant vitamin supplements such as vitamin E, C and beta carotene should not be used for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in women.

"A large placebo-controlled, randomized study failed to show any benefit from vitamin E on heart disease," it said, underscoring the need for more research on the subject.

Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

Monday, August 13, 2007
Can You Really Believe This?

My regular readers know what I have to say about lying with statistics. I guess you can fool people with hilarious headlines too. And remember the the courts have said it is ok to lie in the media...

This study is off, by well more than a mile, and here's why.

First of all the report gives no information about who provided the funding or the supplements. Remember that Pfizer's junque vitamin Centrum gets to tout all the marvelous benefits of vitamins. Because its Pfizer, a big campaign donor to the current administration, whose lobbyists get to participate in writing new drug legislation a when no one else can, also gets its vitamins paid for in the Senior drug payola to the drug companies program. If it was anyone else or some small company any claim is off limits without raising the ire of the FDA, strongly protecting the drug companies from the other side of the door.

Another important issue not reported in this study is that the amounts provided participants is extremely low in comparison to therapeutic dosing, or in what we refer to as orthomolecular medicine.

What the study failed to do was to provide the basic requirement of vitamin c for an adult. This happens to be 3000 mg a day because humans do not make their own vitamin C as do primates and other animals. This basic amount was determined through primate studies.

Therapeutic doses are substantially higher in many cases. Right now I am taking 12500 mg daily in five divided doses because it is harvest where I live and the dust is causing me to have unhappy lungs. With the vitamin C at this level I have no respiratory issues and this reduces stress on my heart. I too am in the age range of this study's participants. In addition I take non-soy vitamin E, 800 IU daily and a combination vitamin A / Beta Carotene tablet of 25,000 IU a day. Many people, including researchers, may not know that beta-carotene cannot convert to vitamin A alone.

"The women consumed either 500 milligrams of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) every day, 600 international units of vitamin E every other day, or 50 milligrams of beta carotene every other day."

In itself, the above reference to the study informs me that the outcome was to show vitamins do no good for health.

Don't be fooled, see more here from the experts.

And as far as getting enough vitamins in the diet is groundless because of corporate agricultural methods and food processing, all permitted by your government.

CHICAGO (Reuters) 13 August 07
Common vitamins no help for women's hearts: study -
Middle-aged women at risk for heart disease received little benefit from taking vitamins C, E or beta carotene, researchers said on Monday.

Though vitamin supplements provided no heart benefit, eating a diet rich in those vitamins does make for healthier heart, their study noted.

Experts believe a nutritious diet rich in these vitamins protect the body's cardiovascular system by counteracting compounds known as "free radicals." These harmful compounds build up in the body and can damage artery linings, encourage blood clots and alter the function of blood vessels.

"Single antioxidants (vitamins) may not reflect the complex vitamins and nutrients found in foods, which may explain the discrepancies between most intervention trials and studies of fruits and vegetables," wrote study author Nancy Cook of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston.

"While additional research into combinations of agents, particularly for stroke, may be of interest, widespread use of these individual agents for cardiovascular protection does not appear to be warranted," she concluded.

Among the more than 8,000 women, average age 61, involved in the study only a combination of vitamins C and E conferred a slightly lower risk of stroke compared to placebos.

The participants were tracked for roughly nine years for fatal heart disease, heart attacks, strokes and heart-related surgery, the study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine said. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the industrialized world.

"Do we expect these supplements to reverse 30 years of heart disease? Of course they won't," said Andrew Shao of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group for the industry that produces $20 billion in U.S. states annually.

"But studies show that supplementation with modest amounts of antioxidants over a long period of time, 10 years or more, (produces) modest benefits," he said. "They're subtle, as should be expected when you're talking about nutrients and not pharmaceuticals," or prescription drugs.

Importantly, the study showed taking the supplements did not harm the women, Shao said, as some recent research has suggested based on deaths from all causes.

The women consumed either 500 milligrams of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) every day, 600 international units of vitamin E every other day, or 50 milligrams of beta carotene every other day. Some consumed more than one.

Wait, wait. Don't tell me. The light bulb finally turned on.

Well, after all these years, all the cancer deaths, and all the debilitation from the standard approach to cancer some one has finally begun to see the light.

It isn't just Dr. Pauling's light that is shining now but the light of so many who has promulgated the natural approach to treating cancer with vitamins, especially vitamin C.

It always amazes me how those of us who work with and for natural health care have known these things for decades and how we have been attacked for our beliefs and practices.

Now of course that MSM (mainstream medicine) has their hands on this concept the spin will begin. And now those who ask their doctors for nutritional therapies should not be castigated for their requests.

One can only hope.

More about natural cancer therapies -

Study shows vitamin C's cancer-fighting properties

By Will Dunham 58 minutes ago

Vitamin C can impede the growth of some types of tumors although not in the way some scientists had suspected, researchers reported on Monday.

The new research, published in the journal Cancer Cell, supported the general notion that vitamin C and other so-called antioxidants can slow tumor growth, but pointed to a mechanism different from the one many experts had suspected.

The researchers generated encouraging results when giving vitamin C to mice that had been implanted with human cancer cells -- either the blood cancer lymphoma or prostate cancer. Another antioxidant, N-acetylcysteine, also limited tumor growth in the mice, the researchers said.

Antioxidants are nutrients that prevent some of the damage from unstable molecules known as free radicals, created when the body turns food into energy. Vitamin C, vitamin E and beta-carotene are among well-known antioxidants.

Previous research had suggested that vitamin C may stifle tumor growth by preventing DNA damage from free radicals.

But researchers led by Dr. Chi Dang, a professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, found that antioxidants appear to be working in a different way -- undermining a tumor's ability to grow under certain conditions.

Figuring out how antioxidants impede tumors should help scientists figure out how they might be harnessed to fight cancer, Dang said. In addition to the cancer types involved in this study, others that might be vulnerable to vitamin C include colon cancer and cervical cancer, he said.

Dang said more research is needed and cautioned against taking high doses of vitamin C based on these findings.

"Certainly we would very much discourage people with untreated cancer to go out and take buckets full of vitamin C," Dang said in a telephone interview.

Linus Pauling argued in the 1970s that vitamin C, also called ascorbic acid, could ward off cancer, but the notion has proved contentious.

Pauling, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry as well as the Nobel Peace Prize, died in 1994.

"Pauling actually had some good evidence that under certain situations vitamin C can prevent tumor formation. It's just the mechanism was really not that clear then," Dang said.

"Now that, I think, we provide relatively compelling evidence of how this works, maybe Pauling is partly right. We shouldn't dismiss him so quickly." Dang added.

Copyright © 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

This is Aspartame Awareness Weekend.

Please see the one hour lecture by Dr. Russell Blaylock, neurosurgeon. His web site is www.russellblaylockmd.com. Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills is one of his three books and is on MSG and Aspartame.

He also has a DVD titled, Nutrition and Behavior, and a CD, The Truth About Aspartame. You can get these from www.atavistik.com With the new study sponsored by Food Standards in the UK showing additives cause behavioral problems, even temper tantrums, his DVD on Nutrition and Behavior is a must for all schools and pediatricians and OB-GYN.

The "Truth About Aspartame" has detailed information about the Ramazzini Study which shows aspartame to be a multipotential carcinogen confirming original FDA records, as well as information on how to detox from aspartame. Here is the lecture:

EXCITOTOXINS:
The Taste That Kills

We also ask that you forward the REPORT FOR SCHOOLS: http://www.mpwhi.com/report_on_aspartame_and_children.htm
You can read Dr. Blaylock's information in this document. This is the project this year for Aspartame Awareness Weekend, (9/7 to 9/9)to forward it all over the planet, especially to schools, board of educations, pediatricians, OB-GYN and the general public.

FDA to Review Ramazzini Study:
http://www.mpwhi.com/fda_to_review_ramazzini_aspartame_study.htm
(Includes some resources - books and aspartame documentary).

Thank you for your support and your interest in learning about the toxic impact of artificial sweeteners aspartame and sucralose.

Cost and Your Health: Women Listen Up!

On occasion I listen to progressive talk show host Randi Rhodes, heard on my local Clear Channel station that carries Air America.

This is an odd mix, Clear Channel carrying Air America. I'm just glad in this market they do.

One thing I like about Randi is her sometimes outrageous take on things and that great burlesque-like song she plays. It's the Bounce Your Boobies song, now available as a ringtone.

In the same vein I wish Randi would be more open to health concepts other than from mainstream medical myopia.

It's in this genre I'd like to put forth some facts about the real cost of breast health screening. I've been waving this flag for over a decade, as well as asking why the 'cure' didn't come about in 1972 as promised.

My hope too is that women wake-up and smell the burnt flesh before "Race for the Cure" gets you again this year. This ad campaign and mammogram deter the effort from the need for action on prevention and cure.

It is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and several European national health plans that recommend screening mammography no more than every two years AND only after menopause.

MAMMOGRAM IS NOT SAFE AND IT IS A CAUSE OF BREAST CANCER

Here are some facts:

• Yearly screening mammograms aren't safe, they expose you to radiation and breast cancer.
• Yearly screening mammograms aren't cost effective to society. The mammography industry could gross $1 billion per year if every woman aged 40-49 was screened yearly.
• Yearly screening mammograms aren't safe environmentally.
• Less than 10 percent of all breast cancers occur in women age 40-49.
• A major medical journal reports that the cost effectiveness (defined as the number of dollars spent so one person can live one year longer) of mammograms for women under 55 is $82,000.19.
• The current cost to detect one breast cancer is $195,000, using screening mammograms.
• Dr. Charles Wright of Vancouver (Canada) General Hospital estimates that the cost of saving one life by mass screening is $1.25 million.
• Several studies show no advantage to yearly mammograms. Mass screening once every two or three years offers the same reduction in deaths ( the famous five-year mortality scale). There is also less radiation hazard to individuals and society, and at far less cost.
• Many of the cancers found by mammographic screening are in situ cancers. Women with in situ cancers rarely die from them.
  
• With or without early detection and treatment, 93 percent survive more than five years.
• When in situ breast cancers are found by mammogram, treated, and added to the statistical base, breast cancer cure rates and longevity statistics improve.

Consider why mammography is praised: It has done what research into cures for breast cancer have failed to do.

The mammography campaign leads you believe there is progress in battling this dis-ease. Finding and treating the increasing numbers of breast cancer cases is NOT progress!

My thanks to John Gofman, PhD, MD and Susun Weed for their efforts to improve breast health based on fact.