CHILDREN RUN BETTER UNLEADED

In the nation’s largest lead Superfund site, Bunker Hill, a 1500 square mile, an EPA designated NPL area stretching from the Idaho, Montana border on into Washington State, children are not running very well.

The lead testing of children is being compromised. Not only are thousands of children not being tested by a multitude of government agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency there are serious repercussions for anyone speaking out about lead and the health problems exposure can cause.

In desperation the Silver Valley Community Resource Center a 25 year old non-profit organization
whose board and members represent six generations of families living in the area with chronic
lead poisoned health conditions reached out to begin a Community Lead Health Project in the summer of 2012. The project began on a small scale with 3 families and five children. Out of the five children tested two were found with elevated lead levels. SVCRC and its outside networking support followed up with Medicaid EPSTD, Early Periodic Screening Diagnostic and Treatment case management recommendations that have never been extended to anyone in the area.

The organization is reaching out to find funds to begin a community supported Lead Health Clinic
designed with the help of international and national lead experts including the late Dr. John Rosen, Montefiore Medical Center, New York, who spent considerable time testing and educating families over many years.

SVCRC is currently seeking funds to extend the critical need of testing children for lead exposure.

If you would like to contribute, please send contributions fully tax deductible to SVCRC, PO BOX 362, Kellogg, ID 83837

Website: www.silvervalleyaction.com

More Fish Oil Folly from Mainstream Medicine

Recently I sent out a message about this study, pointing out the use of fractionated omega 3 in the DHA only form, and a low dose, les than therapeutic recommendations.

Now another of many commentaries has been published.

Before you believe the talking heads on your TV station or the internet aggregator sites, do a bit of your own investigation.  We hope this helps.

Several scientific studies have found a reduction in prostate cancer associated with increased omega-3 intake.^1-11 A recent report purportedly showed the opposite.¹²
This report was based on a single blood test of plasma fatty acids in a group of 834 men who were followed up to six years to assess prostate cancer risk (low- and high-grade disease). A smaller group of 75 men was followed up to nine years to assess only high-grade prostate cancer risk.
The results showed that slightly higher omega-3 plasma percentages from this single blood test were associated with a greater risk of low-grade (44%) and high-grade (71%) prostate cancers over the multi-year follow-up.
This report was turned into news stories with headlines blaring “Omega-3 fatty acids may raise prostate cancer risk.”
Omitted from the media frenzy was the fact that this study was not about fish oil supplement users. The authors admitted they did not know how the study participants achieved what turned out to be very low omega-3 plasma percentages in all groups.
In fact, omega-3 plasma levels were only about 40% of what would be expected in health conscious people taking the proper dose of fish oil.^{12 ,13} The insufficient levels of plasma omega-3s in all the study subjects were overlooked by the media. Had these very low plasma levels of omega-3s been recognized, it would have been apparent that this report had no meaning for those who boost their omega-3 consumption through diet and supplements.
Also absent from the reporting was that more men with slightly higher omega-3 plasma levels had confounding risk factors for greater risk of contracting prostate cancer at baseline, such as having higher PSA scores and a positive family history. Although the authors attempted to statistically control (through a statistical model called multivariate analysis) for some of these risk factors in their analysis, the concern remains that the baseline data was confounded and therefore the statistical analysis invalid, and that the reported results are compromised by higher rates of preexisting disease along with a genetic predisposition, not because of the miniscule variance in the amount of their plasma omega-3.
Prostate cancer sharply increases by 120% to 180% in men who have a first-degree relative who had contracted prostate cancer. Nearly double the men who contracted prostate cancer in this study had a positive family history, and although the researchers attempted to statistically control for this confounding factor, this fact was conveniently overlooked by the mainstream media as omega-3s were instead labeled the culprit.
Associating a one-time plasma omega-3 reading with long term prostate cancer risk is ludicrous. That’s because plasma omega-3 changes rapidly with short-term dietary changes. It does not reflect long-term incorporation of omega-3 into cells and tissues. In this report, differences in baseline omega-3 blood measures were so trivial that if a man had just one salmon meal the night before, he could have wound up in the “higher” omega-3 group even if he never ingested another omega-3 again.¹⁴
Numerous flaws in this report render its findings useless for those who supplement with purified fish oils and follow healthy dietary patterns. This article represents Life Extension^®’s initial rebuttal to this spurious attack on omega-3s that was blown out of proportion by the media.

Prostate cancer is a slow developing malignancy that can take decades to manifest as clinically-relevant disease. Commonly recognized risk factors for contracting prostate cancer are diet, body mass, race, family history, hormone status, and age.^15,16
An under-recognized risk factor associated with developing prostate cancer is coronary artery disease.¹⁷ We at Life Extension long ago observed that men with clogged coronary arteries often developed prostate cancer (and vice versa). A renowned prostate oncologist named Stephen Strum, M.D., made a similar observation and established a common factor behind coronary heart disease and prostate cancer, i.e., bone loss.
Coronary artery disease is clearly linked with osteoporosis,¹⁸ as lack of vitamin K prevents calcium from binding to bone and instead allows it to infiltrate and harden the arteries. The ensuing bone loss results in the excessive release of bone-derived growth factors that fuel prostate cancer propagation and metastasis.
Long after Dr. Strum published his elaborate correlation, a 2012 study of 6,729 men showed coronary artery disease to be associated with a 35% increased risk of prostate cancer.¹⁷
The reason we bring up the connection of heart disease and prostate cancer is that the authors of the controversial study apparently failed to assess overall baseline health status of the study subjects. We initially suspected that men in the higher group of plasma omega-3 (which turned out to be low by our standards) were more likely to have coronary heart disease. That’s because men with heart disease are told by their cardiologists to eat less red meat and more cold-water fish. So it would not be surprising if the plasma percentage of omega-3 was higher in men with prostate cancer as they may have been trying to eat healthier to avoid bypass surgery or a sudden heart attack.
When we asked the authors of the report if they assessed the baseline cardiovascular status of the subjects, their reply was, “No, I don't believe this to be the case.”

Read the rest of the story here

Big Government Plan for Your Supplements

Here's the latest CODEX update from National Health Federation

Anti-Vitamin Misinformation

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) celebrated its 50^th year of existence the first week of July while also conducting its 36^th session, with several hundreds of member-state delegates and non-governmental organizations in attendance.  Chairman Sanjay Dave was re-elected as CAC Chairman and presided over the meeting in a fair and business-like manner.
          But fair and business-like did not compensate for the Commission’s gross nutritional ignorance that resulted in certain Nutrient Reference Values (NRVs) being approved for vitamins and minerals over the repeated and strong objections of the National Health Federation (NHF), a Codex-accredited non-governmental organization.
          As Scott Tips – the NHF’s delegate at that meeting – remarked afterwards, “Of course we spoke up in opposition to approval of these NRVs, because they will reduce by 20% to 66% all but one of the already-low B vitamin NRVs, increase Calcium NRVs while reducing Magnesium NRVs (the exactopposite of what modern nutrition tells us should be done), and promote, at best, subsistence nutrition when optimal nutrition is called for here. These are standards that would only allow consumers to put one foot before the other, barely avoiding slipping into the grave, as they shuffle through life.  Consumers deserve better, they deserve optimal nutrition that allows them to maximize their potential and quality of life.”
          To continue reading the full report of what happened at this most recent meeting, CLICK HERE. The fight over these NRVs is not over and will continue in November in Germany at the Nutrition Committee meeting to be held there.
          Another detailed critique of the proposed Codex recommendations has been written by health journalist Bill Sardi, as commissioned by the NHF.  The entire critique can be read online.  Sardi has written the U.S. delegate to Codex in the past, opposing passage of similar guidelines. He has been an outspoken critic of Codex.
          Codex has drawn the similar ire of other health-freedom advocates.  There is a concern that Codex solely serves the needs of big business and that it is a conduit for disease mongering by establishment of nutrient recommendations that lock in in a certain level of disease in human populations that then requires more doctoring and drugs.
          For more information, contact the National Health Federation, the only health-freedom organization with standing to participate at Codex meetings.

Proposed Changes In Recommended Daily Dietary Intake Of Essential Vitamins & Minerals CODEX (World Health Organization/ Food & Agriculture Organization of The United Nations) versus Daily Value/Reference Daily Intake
NUTRIENT	Proposed Recommended Nutrient Intake (RNI) -CODEX	100% Daily Value(what is listed on dietary supplement labels) based on RDI (Reference Daily Intake)	Difference
Thiamin (Vitamin B1)	1.2 mg	1.5 mg	-20%
Riboflavin (Vitamin B2)	1.2 mg	1.7 mg	-30%
Niacin (Vitamin B3)	15 mg	20 mg	-25%
Pyridoxine (Vitamin B6)	1.3 mg	2.0 mg	-35%
Folic acid (Vitamin B9)	400 mcg	400 mcg	No change
Cobalamin (Vitamin B12)	2.0 mcg	6.0 mcg	-66%
Vitamin A	550 mcg (1833 IU)	1500 mcg (5000 IU)	-64%
Vitamin C	45 mg	60 mg	-25%
Vitamin D	200 IU (5 mcg)	400 IU (10 mcg)	-50%
Calcium	1000 mg	1000 mg	No change
Iodine	150 mcg	150 mcg	No change
Iron	14 mg	18 mg	-22%
Magnesium	240 mg	400   mg	-40%
Zinc	12 mg	15 mg	-20%
IU = international units Mg = milligrams Mcg = micrograms	Source: CODEX NRVs CCNFSDU PWG Discussion Paper	RDI -Reference Daily Intake Source: Nutribase.com

          Minneapolis, Minnesota will be the hosting city for Codex Alimentarius’ next Committee meeting on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (August 24-30, 2013). NHF will be there participating not only at the plenary session but also at the working group session on the Guidelines on Risk Management Recommendations for Residues of Veterinary Drugs, with the intent and goal of keeping as many drug residues out of our foods as possible.

Malnutrition Equals Obesity

While this article from Gary Scattergood is written about the issue of malnutrition in the UK it is certainly appropriate to raise the same question in the US.

In the late 60s when I was in college earning my NP degrees I studied nutrition as an integrated part of the the curriculum.  Certainly we knew then that malnutrition was an issue directly related to health, not some obscure thought.  Even then we knew cancer for instance was a nutritional disease as were many hospital related deaths.

Disease now is just thought of as a deficiency of some pharmaceutical drug and the problem is not addressed from all possible and interrelated issues.

 

Shame on health providers, shame on dietitians, government, and big business along with seemingly ignorant legislators.

Put the spotlight on malnutrition instead of obesity

The UK is in dire need of a national strategy to tackle malnutrition, which is at least as big a problem to public health and the public purse as obesity.

According to Dr Elizabeth Weekes, from the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London, widespread attention on the so-called obesity epidemic was overshadowing the fact that 3M people in the UK were either malnourished, or at severe risk of malnutrition, at any time.

One million of those are over 65 years old and 400,000 of them live in London. The problem is more likely to be experienced in deprived areas and it is likely that “far more people are malnourished now than they were 10 years ago” due to the economic climate and government welfare cuts.

Don’t recognise a problem

“The problem we have in the UK is that people don’t recognise we have a problem [with nutrition] or, if they do think we have a problem, they think it is about obesity.

“Malnutrition costs at least as much to health and social care costs as obesity,” said Weekes at the Government Knowledge conference ‘Beating the Nutrition Recession: Tackling Food Poverty’ in London last month.

She added there were “millions of reasons” why malnutrition occurs including physical, psychological and social factors. The consequences, she said, however, were clear.

“Malnourished people are more prone to illness, less likely to recover from illness and the cost of treating someone who is malnourished in hospital is twice that of someone who is well-nourished.”

Weekes said she was particularly alarmed by the results of a recent survey, which showed that 60% of carers in the community were concerned about the nutritional intake of a patient. Furthermore, 16% of recipients reported fears  that a patient was underweight or had a very small appetite and yet had no sources of nutritional support or advice.

“Another figure that staggered me was that 55% of people being cared for use nutritional supplements,” she added.

 

Another stark figure she revealed was that 70% of malnourished people who were admitted to hospital were more malnourished when they left.

She told delegates it was essential a national malnutrition strategy was formulated.

“The Malnutrition Taskforce (an independent group of experts across health, social care and local government) is calling for a national strategy, particularly for the elderly, but I feel quite strongly it should be for everyone,” she added.