Furry Logic

Well it seems today that someone at this lab overlooked a very key issue in the race to address a relatively 'rare' concern of MSMed known as hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar.

"The authors propose that people with mild diabetes who are at risk of hypoglycemia and in need of weight loss "may benefit from this new class" of glucose-lowering drugs."

They also admit that side effects can be serious, such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.

In the medical way of thinking, at least when I was in college or in practice, is that nausea, vomiting or diarrhea are signals that any drug may be causing a serious problem.

We knew that people with diabetes needed to eat to off stave low blood sugar, which if not treated could be potentially life threatening.

We knew that if you are nauseous you rarely want to eat, or drink for that matter. Not taking in fluids could further provoke problems because of dehydration.

Then of course if you started vomiting, you would lose valuable electrolytes, and risk additional problems.

And we knew of course that vomiting and diarrhea would cause severe loss of electrolytes and worsen dehydration. No treatment at home alone might get you death or if you had a computer call system, an ambulance ride to the ER for IVs and electrolytes, glucose, and more - perhaps.

Maybe at the end of this drug development process the chemists are bald.

If you'd like more sensible information look for my newsletter, herbalYODA Says!, publishing this coming Saturday.

Drugs lower blood glucose without weight gain

Two new antidiabetes drugs are modestly effective at reducing blood glucose levels without causing weight gain in people with type 2 diabetes, according to a review in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association.

Both drugs target incretin hormones that are produced in the gastrointestinal tract and boost the release of insulin triggered by glucose. This "incretin pathway" appears to be weakened in type 2 diabetes.

In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration approved exenatide, which mimics the effect of the incretins, as add-on treatment for type 2 diabetes. The following year, the agency approved the incretin enhancer sitagliptin. Of the two, only sitagliptin is taken orally.

Dr. Anastassios Pittas and associates at the Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston reviewed clinical trials comparing incretin-based drugs with inactive "placebo" treatment or other diabetes medications.

The drugs reduced A1c levels, a measure of long-term glucose control, by a little less than a percentage point more did placebo. Both types of medication were "noninferior" to other anti-diabetic drugs.

Episodes of excessively low glucose levels (that is, hypoglycemia) were rare with both types of drug.

The drugs either produced a slight weight loss or were "weight neutral."

Nevertheless, there were significant side effects, the researchers note. Exenatide-type agents were linked to nausea and vomiting during the first two months, and diarrhea was also common. Sitagliptin-type drugs did not cause any gastrointestinal side effects but were associated with sore throat, urinary tract infection, and headache.

The authors propose that people with mild diabetes who are at risk of hypoglycemia and in need of weight loss "may benefit from this new class" of glucose-lowering drugs.

SOURCE: Journal of the American Medical Association, July 11, 2007.

Oh No, What Will They Think Up Next?

What they think up really might effect your health, especially when they think they have a cool idea to block anti-biotic resistance.

I just told a colleague that brutally truthful (and factual articles) is necessary today because you aren't reading it in MSM (mainstream media). He is kind enough to ask my opinion of what he writes he publishes.

I guess I am blessed because I know one person values my knowledge and opinion.

I have been on the issue of flesh-eating bacteria and MRSA prevention and treatment from a perspective of a different color for almost two decades. Yet, I have know of the problem of resistant bacteria for more than forty years. And I don't see anyone really picking up on my opinion of the mess created in this are by Big Pharma. Except recently.

I am happy to say that I received a reply from a top administrator at UK's equivalent to the FDA. Just in the past two weeks this occurred and it was a total surprise.

I referred them on to a manufacturer of a product proven in hospital to reduce greatly those notorious infection causing bacteria. I hope there is progress.

Now back to the matter at hand, antibiotic resistance.

You really have to be kidding when you see an article like this one from the BBC today - "Scientists believe they may have found a way to stop the growing problem of bacteria becoming resistant to current drug treatments."

This one stopped me in my tracts. I told my colleague (see above) I thought this group of scientists , expanding work to available time, had to be on SSRIs.

For young readers, expanding work to available time is bureaucrat-ese for Murphy's Law. For those in contract work it might be bill padding.

Anyway, some scientists think bisphosphonates will do a great job of blocking antibiotic resistance because the drugs in this class are known to curtail E. coli.

E. coli can be deadly in some cases and is a very troublesome microbiologic agent that can make you extremely sick. Yes, this is the very place I started when I approached the WA State Department of Health lab director in 1993 with a proposal for alternate treatment to stop the worsening epidemic.

No bites here, but then you have to know about the Washington bureaucracy intimately like I do.

Undaunted I have not given up, and those 'chemists on happy pills' have to discovery of the moment.

And that's it, a flash in the pan.

So you say, what's bisphosphonate.

Bisphosphonate is pretty much left overs from making Tide and P&G have a great amount of $$$ bound up in Actonel, their osteoporosis drug. Yes P&G is in the drug business for profit and in a lot of other things too - FOR PROFIT.

Profit is good, but not at the expense of maiming and killing.

The downside of bisphosphonate is that is causes something called osteonecrosis of the jaw. There are other problesm with the osteoporosis drugs that you can find out about by looking up the side effects and deciding for yourself.

In general osteonecrosis is 'dead bone', without a blood supply. It happens in some forms of arthritis in younger people idiopathically or from trauma and illness.

The bisphosphonates can lead to osteonecrosis of the jaw and you can read what the dentists have to say here.

Another factor is the fluoride in this class of drugs like Fosamax, known for creating "swiss cheese bones".

While fluoride is a major concern in health it is a topic of its own and you can learn more about it from another colleague of mine who is a keen researcher on 'F' here or here.

I'm hoping you do a little more reading to make an informed decision.

And in the mean time, watch it when some one tries to encourage you to take anti-biotics or you might end up resistant and go to a different kind of life.

Or treatment.

No drug needed

That little punque Brian, over at PUMP-X, refers to me as an "encyclopedia" because I know so much. His quote was written up in a news story about the product I developed for his company. The product is a cellular oxygenator, and it is works great for extreme athletes and has a number of other beneficial uses.

I call Brian the 'punque' for a number of reasons that change over time. He is a spoiled brat from Petaluma ( west of the interstate), although now he is in Pullman since finishing his undergrad work there. Sometimes he isn't up on his ethics, especially when he isn't timely on paying the development fees and royalties, and some other money he owes CHI.

This situation is somewhat akin to this news story found while scanning the morning news today. In my usual fashion, it is posted below my commentary.

For years I have been working in natural health, at the same time as working in the health care industry. I study a lot of things, first because it interests me, but mostly to help people get understanding of issues not forthcoming from doctors and nurses or others in the field.

It's called education for lack of a better word.

I do it for me, but the ultimate goal is for my clients and those of you who care about your health. For those who are not my clients, I only hope that the information I post is helpful to you or someone you know or love, and can make a difference in your life. The core issue is being able to be more responsible for your health, and do it without reliance on drugs.

Since we know from the studies, only about 20 percent of medicine is beneficial. It's the trauma centers that take the crown for their good work.

The rest is hit or miss and lucky guessing. It's like a doctor I know who told me "there is no diagnosis, it's just labs."

She is correct about the lack of diagnosis. And it's also what the insurance companies will allow, or what I call protocol medicine to be nice. Cookie-cutter medicine to be frank!

One of my close friends is very ill right now. A few months back I was talking with her on the phone and could tell she had CHF (congestive heart failure) and suggested she see a doctor.

She finally did see a doctor (she doesn't like them, and after what happened I don't blame her) and was given allergy medicine.

A few days later she was in the ER and they found exactly what I had thought.

In my work I don't diagnose, but I did for decades. It is a tough art to excise from your life.

What I do do now though is to review lab work and target what nutritional deficeincies you may have and give you a plan with foods, herbs, vitamins and other natural things to do to recover your health.

I don't take your prescriptions away but I will educate you about them if you have them. Then I explain how to ask your doctor why they did not explain all the problems with the drugs to you as required by law.

As a former client told me, "You taught me how to be an advocate for my health."

So here is my pat on the back to me for a job well done.

And here is a tip for those of you accepting that chemo is the only treatment, along with radiation, for cancer.

NO, you don't need to lose your hair. And, you don't need an expensive patented drug to keep you from losing your hair.

You can take that vitamin that all the medical people seem to think is deadly because they believe in faulty studies and won't do a thorough search of the literature to find out why they are wrong.

That vitamin that will protect you from chemo and concomitant hair loss is vitamin E.

You need 2000 IUs a day for the two days preceding chemo treatments.

The vitamin E must be natural and this means do not get it at WalMart or Costco et al.

Make sure the label says d-alpha tocopherol, NOT d-l alpha tocopherol.

Try to buy it in some form other than from soy, so this means read the label or ask to have it ordered, or order it from CHI to help support our work.

And BTW, if you have diabetes, this amount of vitamin E taken daily, prevents peripheral neuropathy and other problems in the vascular bed of lower limbs. It certainly beats Lyrica and it's a good way to get more oxygen across the alveolar membranes inside your lungs.

Cancer cells do not like oxygen.

But then, if you don't mind paying a high price for a drug with who knows what kind of side effects, then read about the new one that may be coming to a prescription pad near you.

Doctors discover hair-loss prevention drug for cancer patients

A Japanese medical team has found that a form of antibiotic could prevent cancer patients from losing hair during chemotherapy, a doctor involved in the research said Monday.

Toshiyuki Sakai said his team had found "alopestatin" reduced hair loss by 70 percent when used on rats also given etoposide anti-cancer drugs.

Etoposide is widely used to treat lung and other cancers but can cause hair loss.

Sakai, professor at Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, said his team was hoping to to put the agent to practical use in the future.

"I want people to know that few studies have been made on reducing side-effects of anti-cancer drugs," he said.

"This field is lagging behind (the development of cancer drugs) but is still important for patients' quality of life."

The study, which was outlined at an academic meeting in Japan last week, is still ongoing, and the chances are "low at the moment" that alopestatin will be commercialised soon, he said.

No clinical tests are yet in sight, but one possible use for humans would be to apply it to the head in the period when hair loss is most likely to occur during chemotherapy, he added.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse.

Suicide & Death Can Lurk In Each SSRI Pill

In June 2001 I posted a response to the just reported Andrea Yates case, directing my comments to the negligence of the prescribing physician for the overload of SSRI and related psychiatric drugs, including Haldol. There was no inclusion of nutritional support for this young mother, and she was treated as a monster.

In many other cases such as the high school shootings and at Virginia Tech, SSRIs have been implicated, as has fluoridated water (The Dartmouth Study). Most SSRI drugs are fluoride based. Fluoride blocks thyroid receptor sites for it's main nutrient, iodine.

Perhaps you should take time to understand why she might have been a prescription drug created monster by reading this from Ann Blake Tracy, PhD.

Dr. Tracy is the author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare. She has testified in court cases involving antidepressants for 12 1/2 years. The last 15 years of her life have been devoted full time to researching and writing about SSRI antidepressants.

Research on serotonin has been clear from the very beginning that the most damaging thing that could be done to the serotonin system would be to impair one's ability to metabolize serotonin. Yet that is exactly how SSRI antidepressants exert their effects.

For decades research has shown that impairing serotonin metabolism will produce migraines, hot flashes, pains around the heart, difficulty breathing, a worsening of bronchial complaints, tension and anxiety which appear from out of nowhere, depression, suicide - especially very violent suicide, hostility, violent crime, arson, substance abuse, psychosis, mania, organic brain disease, autism, anorexia,
reckless driving, Alzheimer's, impulsive behavior with no concern for punishment, and argumentative behavior.

How anyone ever thought it would be "therapeutic" to chemically induce these reactions is beyond me. Yet, these reactions are exactly what we have witnessed in
our society over the past decade and a half as a result of the widespread use of these drugs.

In fact we even have a whole new vocabulary as a result with terms such as "road rage," "suicide by cop," "murder/suicide," "going postal," "false memory syndrome," "school shooting," "bi-polar" - every third person you meet anymore - along with the skyrocketing rates of antidepressant-induced diabetes and hypoglycemia.

Can you remember two decades ago when depressed people used to slip away quietly to kill themselves rather than killing everyone around them and then themselves as they do while taking SSRI antidepressants?

A study out of the University of Southern California in 1996 looked at a group of mutant mice in an experiment that had gone terribly wrong. These genetically engineered mice were the most violent creatures they had ever witnessed. They were born lacking the MAO-A enzyme which metabolizes serotonin. As a result their brains were awash in serotonin. This excess serotonin is what the researchers determined
was the cause for this extreme violence.

Antidepressants produce the same end result as they inhibit the metabolism of serotonin.

These are extremely dangerous drugs that should be banned as similar drugs have been banned in the past.

As a society we once thought LSD and PCP to be miracle medications with large margins of safety in humans. We have never seen drugs so similar to LSD and PCP as these SSRI antidepressants. All of these drugs produce dreaming during periods of wakefulness. It is believed that the high serotonin levels over stimulate the brain stem leading to a lack of muscle paralysis during sleep thus allowing the patient to act out the
dreams or nightmares they are having. The world witnessed that clearly in the Zoloft-induced murder-suicide of comedian Phil Hartman and his wife, Brynn.

Connecticut witnessed the Prozac-induced case of Kelly Silk several years ago. This young mother attacked her family with a knife, then set the house on fire killing all but her 8 year old daughter who ran to the neighbors. As she stood bleeding and screaming for help she explained, "Help! My mommy is having a nightmare!"

Out of the mouths of babes we will understand these nightmares for what they are. She understood that this was something her mother would do ONLY in a nightmare, never in reality.

This is known as a REM Sleep Behavior Disorder. In the past it was known mainly as a drug withdrawal state, but the largest sleep facility in the country has reported that 86% of the cases they are diagnosing are patients on antidepressants.

Because this was known in the past as a condition manifesting mainly in drug withdrawal you should see how dangerous the withdrawal state from these drugs will prove to be. That is why it is so critical to make sure patients are weaned EXTREMELY slowly so as to avoid ANY chance of going into a withdrawal state.

There is more to be found at worldnetdaily and other sites.

Search and support Creating Health Institute at GoodSearch.com

DETOXIFICATION AND HEALTH

It always seems that MSMed (mainstream medicine) negates anything the don't or won't understand. This seems to be common when it comes to the topic of detoxification.

In natural healing, or what the MedStapo refers to as CAM(complementary-alternative), varied approaches make liberal use of detoxification protocols. Detoxifying the body has been a coincident to all ancient healing traditions, including Ayurvedic, Chinese and Native American, for thousands of years.

If detoxification was not integral to traditional care, perhaps these cultures would have failed to endure.

To maintain a healthful and productive life, detoxification is a necessity.

Statistics reflecting the lack of effectiveness of MSMed therapies directly related to increased exposure to petrochemicals, toxins, heavy metals and other chemicals in the environment. It is logical to consider that an ongoing detoxification program to minimize effects from toxic exposure will reduce the incidence of chronic and degenerative disease. Using these techniques will improve your overall quality of life.

Why Detoxify the Body ?

We live in a sea of toxic pollutants; the most toxic in history. We continually inhale and assimilate waste products and residue from petrochemicals, plastics
and pesticides. These toxic chemicals make it difficult or impossible for health promoting activity in your cells and on cell receptor sites to block nutrient, enzyme and hormonal utilization.

Consider these statistics:

* 1,600% increase in birth defects since 1980
* 250% increase in breast cancer since 1980
* 59% decrease in male sperm count since 1940
* 500% increase in cancer mortality since 1900
* 400% increase in heart disease since 1900

And consider that industrial pharmaceuticals contribute to 100,000 - 300,000 deaths each year.

At CHI/TOC we have developed a series of what we call "Healthy Handouts"©. One of them is our food cleansing protocol. You might want to start here, or consult with us for a specialized program based on your health needs and concerns.

See also: The Pollution Within (National Geographic October 2006 pgs 117-143).

Moral Imperatives

It seems that G W Bush believes that stem cell research is morally wrong when it involves embryos. Scientific research has used embryos in many forms throughout the years, with little outcry.

But then the government has experimented on people throughout it's history and I guess it depends on who thinks they are the decider.

Daily we are slaughtering our own people who are dispatched by order to fight the fabricated war currently raging in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

We are killing innocents in these countries as well.

Now we learn that Iraqi orphans are moved "better quarters" but they are in a state of emaciation.

Someone explain this brand of morality to me please.

So here you have it folks! Lyrica for fibromyalgia.

What is Lyrica you might ask? It’s a so-called pain medication but here is what you won’t be told, as I learned about two years ago because of a client who came to me for help.

LYRICA is indicated for management of: Neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and post herpetic neuralgia. It is also indicated as adjunctive therapy for adult patients with partial onset seizures.

A maximum allowed dose is 300 mg daily and it must not be abruptly discontinued as this make provoke seizures. This drug must be used with extreme caution in people with renal (kidney) impairment.

Some of the many side effects include dizziness and somnolence, gait disorders, confusion, asthenia, abnormal thinking, blurred vision, lack of coordination, infection, accidental injury, dry mouth, weight gain, chest pain, vomiting, nervousness, peripheral edema, risk of heart failure, itching, bruising, ulceration and others.

In standard preclinical in vivo lifetime carcinogenicity studies of pregabalin, there was an unexpectedly high incidence of hemangiosarcoma (cancerous tumour).

Now what interested me was that I had a client who was preparing for elective surgery. She came to me to try to get relief of pain while on this drug. In reviewing her lab tests she had a definitive problem with platelet reduction.

Platelets help your blood clot, something certainly necessary with pending surgery. Now as we continue with side effects consider this – Decreased Platelet Count. Pregalbin treatment is associated with a decrease in platelet count.

The musculoskeletal side effects include joint pain, leg cramps, and muscle pain. With Fibromyalgia there is muscle and joint pain. I guess the money mongers at Pfizer just want to see how much you can endure.

With the positive results for FMS I've achieved with clients in my work using natural treatment, it’s a wonder anyone would do something else.

FDA OKs first fibromyalgia treatment
6-21-07
A Pfizer Inc. drug won expanded federal approval Thursday as the first treatment for fibromyalgia, a mysterious syndrome marked by muscle pain and fatigue.
The Food and Drug Administration action means Lyrica becomes the first drug that can be marketed specifically as a treatment for adults with fibromyalgia. Patients currently make so-called "off label" use of pain medications, antidepressants, muscle relaxants and sleep aids to treat the condition. Exercise and applying heat also can help.
Fibromyalgia typically affects women, striking them with long-lasting or chronic pain, as well as muscle stiffness and tenderness, according to the FDA. An estimated 3 million to 6 million people in the United States are affected each year.
Lyrica, known generically as pregabalin, previously won FDA approval to treat partial seizures, pain following the rash of shingles and pain associated with diabetes nerve damage.
The FDA warned that common side effects of the drug included mild-to-moderate dizziness and sleepiness. Also, the agency said that Lyrica reduces pain and improves daily functions for some patients with fibromyalgia, but that not everyone derived benefit from the drug in studies.
The cause of fibromyalgia is a mystery, though it may be linked to injury, emotional distress or viruses that change the way the brain perceives pain, the FDA said.

REAL ISSUES AND TORT REFORM

There are days when I think it is almost time for me to quit. Either someone finally brings up an issue I've addressed long ago, or I am dealing with newbies who address items on a superficial level yet think they are the 'expert'.

While for some I may be a high-priced consultant from out-of-town, for most I am not. It's just that you really do have to get beyond the hype and propaganda to know what is going on under-the-spin.

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL? DEBUNKING THE MYTH OF LAWSUIT ABUSE

by Jason Zasky

Any individual who has firsthand experience with the court system will tell
you how costly and time-consuming it is to bring a lawsuit, and how difficult it
is for the average American to get justice in court, especially if the defendant
is a deep pocketed corporation. Yet, a disconcertingly large percentage of the
public—influenced by fictional or highly misleading "frivolous lawsuit" stories
and the occasional eye-popping verdict—believes the U.S. is in the midst of a
litigation crisis.
Any American who thinks they support tort reform ought to
read Stephanie Mencimer's "Blocking the Courthouse Door" (Free Press), a
powerful new book which demonstrates how self-interested corporations and
"lawsuit abuse" groups have convinced millions of citizens that it's too easy to
sue. Why has their stealth campaign been so successful? Failure interviewed
Mencimer to find out.

What is the definition of tort reform?
It depends on whom you ask. If you ask a trial lawyer he or she will say it's a movement to tilt the playing field in the courts towards the defense so that big companies are more insulated from lawsuits by individual consumers. If you talk to people in the corporate world they say that tort reform is a movement to bring fairness and predictability to a legal system that they consider nothing short of a form of legalized extortion.

Are we in the midst of a litigation crisis?
No. The kinds of lawsuits that the tort reformers care about are what you'd call
personal injury cases or toxic torts. They make up a very small percentage of
the legal docket—maybe 10 percent total. And the number of those lawsuits has
been declining for at least a decade.

So why do so many Americans support tort reform?
If you ask Americans, "What is your definition of a frivolous
lawsuit?" they basically think it is any lawsuit except one that they might
file. You hear people who actually end up having to file say, "My suit wasn't
frivolous. I'm not one of those people." There's this perception that tort
reform only limits the "crazy" lawsuits. People don't realize that tort reform
affects their own ability to sue, and that's partly because it's sold that way
by those who are most interested in passing it.

Do Americans really want to go back to the early 20th century, where the public had almost no legal protection from unscrupulous businesses?
I don't think so. Most people just don't think about this stuff. It's not like health care where you regularly see your doctor or have a regular interaction with the system. Most folks never have to deal with the legal system unless they are getting divorced. It's only after something really bad happens to them that they find out the rights they thought they had aren't there for them.

How did we get to the point where Americans believe that our society is too litigious?
For one thing, insurance companiesand the tobacco industry spend a lot of money persuading them that is the case.
Also, they circulate a lot of "loony lawsuit" stories. But when you look closely
you find that these lawsuits are either not true or that the facts are
remarkably different. And most of the loony lawsuits are filed—without the
assistance of a lawyer—by prisoners or people who are mentally ill. It doesn't
necessarily mean that the claims are frivolous. It's just that without the help
of a lawyer they don't do it properly and that makes for things you can make fun
of. So some goofy things get into the system, but most of them don't go
anywhere.

Can you tell our readers the story of Frank Cornelius?
Back in the 1970s Cornelius worked as an insurance industry lobbyist in Indiana and helped pass the state's cap on medical malpractice damages. Afterwards, he left the
insurance lobbying business and sold used cars—among other things. One day he
felt out of a chair and injured his left knee. He needed [routine arthroscopic]
surgery and after he got home from the hospital he was in an inordinate amount
of pain. He tried to get hold of his surgeon, but the doctor was going on a ski
trip and told Frank's wife, "Just get him a bedpan and I'll see him when I get
back." It turned out that he had a complication from the surgery [reflex
sympathetic dystrophy, a chronic neurological syndrome often brought on by
surgery or trauma], and at some point the condition became irreversible. Then
while he was having physical therapy to treat this complication, his therapist
shocked his leg with a piece of rehab equipment. After that he was in more pain
than ever. Then he had to have more surgery because he developed a blood clot in
the leg. After that operation he nearly bled to death, and as the surgeons were
trying to save him the doctor who put the breathing tube in punctured his lung.

By this time, he needed an oxygen tank to breathe, he was confined to a
wheelchair, and was addicted to pain-killers. When he went to file a medical
malpractice lawsuit, he found out the hard way that damages in Indiana were
capped at $500,000. That was the most money he could be compensated, even after
all these injuries. Cornelius ultimately committed suicide, but before he died
he wrote a mea culpa to The New York Times about how the work he had done 15 or
20 years earlier had come back to haunt him. He was a victim of his own reform.
Between his lost income and the cost of his medical care he had damages that
were in excess of $5 million. He was only able to recover a tiny fraction of
that.

What role has the media played in building public support for tort reform?
The fundamental problem is how news agencies cover the civil justice system. Most reporters never cover trials. They only cover verdicts. So the only time there is ever news about the civil justice system is when somebody wins a lot of money in a
jury verdict. The public gets the perception that you could slip on a banana
peel and win millions of dollars, because that's all they hear about. It's a
very distorted portrait of the legal system.

Does the mainstream media have an incentive to misrepresent the truth about the legal system?
Some of the major media companies have done that, but there's really not that big of a conspiracy. Newspapers are understaffed and they just don't have enough bodies to sit in court all day and report on the civil side of things. So that's part of the
problem. The other part is that reporters are often threatened with
lawsuits, and some of them do get sued. Their firsthand experience with the
civil justice system is often unpleasant. So a lot of reporters probably think
that tort reform is a good idea.

What can be done to get Americans to understand that lawsuits offer more than just the chance to obtain justice—they also provide the opportunity to shine a light on the behavior of private institutions?
That's a good question. There's not really an organized
constituency for the courts. You have the trial lawyers, but people tend to
discount them because they have a financial motive. Anytime they try to come to
the defense of the civil justice system, critics say, "Oh, they are just looking
to line their own pockets." So their message is a little bit colored by
self-interest—even though their interests may align perfectly with the average
citizen. There isn't really anybody else on their side except for a few consumer
groups, but the consumer groups don't have any money. So it's a very uneven
playing field. I don't really know the answer. I guess they could buy my book
[laughs].

Is support for tort reform part of a larger overall problem—that Americans are increasingly willing to give up their constitutional rights?
I don't believe they think much about it. It's funny because Americans have two
minds about this. In our mythology we have this sense that the courts are this
great place where David can best Goliath in the courtroom. People still believe
that. And they think it's important. But at the same time they don't fully
understand that these [tort reform] measures minimize that possibility.

Americans think that filing a lawsuit is a form a victimology—that it's an
abdication of personal responsibility. There is a strong sentiment of that in
American culture and there always has been. But if you provide the facts of an
individual case they'll say, "Wait a minute, maybe this person actually should
get some money, because they were injured by someone else's negligent conduct."
Everyone has heard about the McDonald's coffee spill lawsuit. What do people
not know about Stella Liebeck's story? It's so hard to sum up what really
happened in that case in two sentences or less. The headline was, "Old Woman
Spills Coffee on Herself, Wins $3 Million!" People think, coffee is supposed to
be hot—ha ha ha. But what people didn't hear is that the behavior of McDonald's
was rather callous. McDonald's knew a lot of people had been badly burned by
their coffee and still refused to turn the temperature down.

First, you needto know that Stella wasn't driving when she was drinking the coffee, and when it spilled on her, she went into shock and ended up with third-degree burns on the inside of her thighs and other places you would not want to spill hot coffee on. She had to have skin grafts and spent a couple weeks in the hospital. Her
daughter had to almost quit her job to take care of her because the health
insurance money ran out and she had to be released from the hospital [early].
Stella sent a letter to McDonald's, telling them that their coffee was too
hot and to turn the temperature down, and also asking them to pay some of her
medical bills. McDonald's sent her a letter back and said, Sorry, you are out of
luck. We are not going to change our coffee temperature and we'll give you $700
to go away. Stella and her family members were longtime Republicans but she was
so outraged that she consulted an attorney. She ended up suing and the case went
to a mediator. The mediator suggested that McDonald's settle the case for
approximately $225,000, but McDonald's refused and forced the case to go to
trial.

[After-the-fact] interviews with the jurors show that the jury was
very skeptical of the case from the very beginning. But the evidence showed that
there were something like seven or eight hundred complaints that McDonald's had
received about coffee temperature, with witnesses from Shriners Burn Center
testifying that McDonald's coffee was being sold at a temperature hot enough to
peel skin off bone in seven seconds or less. Jurors were shocked and awarded
Liebeck actual damages—compensation for her losses, medical bills, and her
daughter's lost wages. The jury did dock Stella twenty percent, because she did,
in fact, spill the coffee. Then they awarded $2.3 million in punitive damages to
punish McDonald's for its conduct—approximately two days worth of McDonalds'
profits from coffee sales.

What never got the headlines, of course, was that the judge reduced the award to approximately $400,000. The case was eventually settled for something less than that a few years later. So Stella did not get $3 million for spilling coffee on herself.

In researching your book did you encounter any evidence to support the notion that lawsuits drive up the cost of medical malpractice insurance?
No. In theory lawsuits could drive up the cost of insurance, but in medical malpractice the insurers don't make their money off of premiums, they make it off of investments. They take the premiums and invest them in the bond and stock market. There's not much evidence that medical malpractice rates went up because of an epidemic of lawsuits. The spike was caused by the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, because [insurance] companies lost money on stocks, like most of the rest of the country.

Do you think that lawsuit abuse is going to be a big issue in the 2008 campaign? It could be if John Edwards is the nominee. There's a whole industry devoted to attacking trial lawyers, and the Bush Administration tapped into that in the 2004 campaign. They believed John Edwards was a very strong candidate so they worked with tort reform groups to tar him as a former trial lawyer. I'm sure that will all kick
into play if Edwards looks like he might become the Democratic nominee.

What we've complained about for years

I guess you might have to say that this is a window into a concenr I've addressed for years. Yes, many of us have known for a long time that Barrett is truly the 'Quack' of quack watch, and now the courts have pointed this out again.
To the many people in mainstream medicine and the media that cling to Barrett as 'the authority'maybe now you will start to pay attention to those of us who are truly qualified experts in natural health care.
In addition, perhaps the media and others (those superficial researchers dabbling in the false category called CAM) will look to those like me when they are interested in facts and the science behind natural health care.
This might now extend to the US presidential hopefuls claiming to have a health care plan proposal - none addressing right of choice and access to supplements and other healing techniques that would help prevention and reduce costs.

------------------------------------

SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, Calif., June 14
PRNewswire-USNewswire — In a strongly worded opinion,
the Appeals Court for the State of Pennsylvania ruled
against Stephen Barrett, a long-time critic of
chiropractic and alternative health care. In an action
that chiropractors see as a major setback for their
nemesis, the judge refused to overturn a 2005 decision
against Barrett.

The earlier lawsuit was won by chiropractor Tedd
Koren, DC, whose company markets chiropractic
educational pamphlets that Barrett had harshly
criticized.

In his newsletter, Dr. Koren referred to the
self-proclaimed "Quackbuster" as a "Quackpot" and
commented that Barrett was "de-licensed," and "in
trouble." Barrett sued Koren for defamation and lost
the case.

Barrett, who represents himself as an expert on health
care quackery, has appeared as a medical expert in
numerous court cases and claims the FDA, FTC and other
governmental agencies have consulted him on health
care issues. He is noted for his outspoken opposition
to and criticism of non-medical health care
approaches, most of which he labels "quackery." His
targets have included chiropractic, homeopathy,
naturopathy, and even two-time Nobel Prize winner
Linus Pauling.

Heading the legal team for the original Koren case and
appeal was Carlos Negrete, who serves as legal counsel
for the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).

"This is a great victory for the chiropractic
profession," Koren stated after the Pennsylvania
Appellate Court decision was announced. "Once again,
chiropractors across the country have been vindicated
and exposed the specious and evil attacks by someone
who has no knowledge or expertise in our field."

Negrete specializes in representing alternative health
care providers who are targeted by advocates of the
medical and pharmaceutical industries. His previous
court victories have positioned him as the premier
"health freedom" attorney in the US.

During heated and often dramatic courtroom
proceedings, Negrete pointed out many of the
questionable statements Barrett includes on his
websites attacking chiropractic, as well as facts
about Barrett's own credentials that shocked even his
supporters. Under Negrete's intense cross-examination,
Barrett admitted that he had not been a licensed
physician for more than a decade and had failed the
neurological exam, preventing him from being certified
as a specialist. Negrete demonstrated that, despite
his claims, Barrett had no real expertise in any
medical field.

Barrett also admitted, under questioning, that he
misrepresented himself as a licensed physician in a
previous court case.

"These revelations cast serious doubts about Barrett's
credibility and integrity and were major factors in
the judge's decision," Negrete stated.

Calling the case a "landmark decision" for
chiropractors and alternative care providers, Negrete
noted that "Barrett has made a career out of attacking
core chiropractic values, specifically subluxation,
with no scientific basis for his contentions. This
case clearly shows that his opinions about
chiropractic or other health care options are
irrelevant."

WCA President Terry A. Rondberg, DC, agreed with
Negrete. "This is a turning point not only for
Barrett, but for all unscientific and uninformed
opponents who seek to impose the medical monopoly on
the public. People around the world deserve freedom of
choice in health care and need valid, unbiased and
truthful information on all options available to them.
Thanks in great part to the WCA legal counsel, Carlos
Negrete, they now have a better chance of getting
both."

The World Chiropractic Alliance — an international
organization representing doctors of chiropractic —
promotes traditional, drug-free and non-invasive
chiropractic to correct vertebral subluxations. The
WCA is an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization)
associated with the United Nations Department of
Public Information and publishes the peer-reviewed
chiropractic research journal, Journal of Vertebral
Subluxation Research. For more information, contact
the WCA at 800-347-1011 or
http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org.

SOURCE World Chiropractic Alliance

Dr. Zorba is out to lunch

Well don't I wish!

Probably not a week goes by that I don't come across some really bad - and WRONG - information given out by this radio doctor aired on your local public radio station.

Calling my station recently about one of the pieces of 'wrong information' doled out by Paster, the program director brusquely pushed me off to his program.

I explained that I had contacted the program a number of times about the pablum dosed out by Zorba, with not even the courtesy of a reply. KPBX couldn't care less.

Well just the other day Zorba disrupted my air ways because I forgot to switch stations as I was in the middle of a project. Here he was telling a mother who had called in about her daughter, herself and allergy remedies.

This mother had chosen a good remedy, Nettle. Nettle is one of the best herbs for allergy in the pollen propulsion season of each year.

Zorba scoffed! and this is certainly demeaning to the caller, in my mind.

Maybe this was the result of his medical training, you know that system that puts women well below men.

So the next time you need to know about natural remedies, contact us. If it's nettle you need to know about - about the best herbal anti-histamine (along with antronex and vitamin c)you can use - go to our webpage.

And our PODCASTS will be returning to the internet shortly, so you'll have more than one venue to get good information and facts.

Here you have some science to counter the HYPE

Most people know little about the two key players in the artificial sweetener market, aspartame and sucralose.

What they do know is more likely than not limited to the marketing and advertising HYPE blasted over the airwaves, online or in print. What they buy into is really a long known health dive, and the risk of very serious problems over time. In some, the problems can and do appear almost immediately.

Aspartame and sucralose (Nutrasweet and Splenda)have in common the fact that both were developed as insecticides. Very few know this, including your local health care provider.

Aspartame is a chemical soup of ingredients that turn into methyl (wood) alcohol when exposed to heat and during digestion.

Sucralose is, according to the Splenda International Patent A23L001-236 and PEP Review #90-1-4 (July 1991), synthesized by this five-step process:
1. sucrose is tritylated with trityl chloride in the presence of dimethylformamide and 4-methylmorpholine and the tritylated sucrose is then acetylated with acetic anhydride,
2. the resulting TRISPA (6,1',6'-tri-O-trityl-penta-O-acetylsucrose) is chlorinated with hydrogen chloride in the presence of toluene,
3. the resulting 4-PAS (sucrose 2,3,4,3',4'-pentaacetate) is heated in the presence of methyl isobutyl ketone and acetic acid,
4. the resulting 6-PAS (sucrose 2,3,6,3',4'-pentaacetate) is chlorinated with thionyl chloride in the presence of toluene and benzyltriethylammonium chloride, and
5. the resulting TOSPA (sucralose pentaacetate) is treated with methanol (wood alcohol, a poison) in the presence of sodium methoxide to produce sucralose. (1)

Even if you don't know what the chemicals are, it should scare any sensible person.

"Splenda (sucralose) is created in the lab, using a complex process involving dozens of chemicals you and I can barely pronounce - let alone consume. Basically, the chemists force chlorine into an unnatural chemical bond with a sugar molecule, resulting in a sweeter product, but at a price: a huge amount of artificial chemicals must be added to keep sucralose from digesting in our bodies. These toxic substances prevent (hopefully) the dangerous chlorine molecules from detaching from the sugar molecule inside the digestive system, which would be a carcinogenic hazard."

So here you have it, and hopefully you too will question these products and stop using them. Find out more at wwww.dorway.com.

Never too late to read the labels on what you buy.

Safe alternatives are agave, stevia and Just Like Sugar.

Using the Right Food Achieves the Same Effect, Naturally and Safely

Of course when money is the driving factor little or no research into nutrition and its relationship to health problems is seen.

Eating Sesame Seed, Halvah, and using Sesame Seed Oil in your diet - all promote platelets.

Food indeed is YOUR BEST MEDICINE

--------------------------------------------------
Glaxo drug hikes platelets, cuts bleeding in study
Sat Jun 9, 8:51 AM ET

GlaxoSmithKline Plc's experimental platelet-boosting drug eltrombopag has produced further positive results in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP), researchers said on Saturday.

Eltrombopag, which Glaxo plans to sell as Revolade in Europe and Promacta in the United States, is one of several novel drugs in the group's pipeline which it believes have blockbuster potential.

Results from a pivotal Phase III study presented at the European Hematology Association congress in Vienna showed 50 to 75 milligrams once daily resulted in a statistically significant increase in platelet counts and also reduced bleeding in people with chronic ITP.

The placebo-controlled trial involved 114 adults and patients studied had previously received and failed current standard ITP treatments.

ITP is an autoimmune disease which results in low blood platelet counts. Because platelets contribute to blood clotting, patients with low counts bleed more easily than others, heal more slowly and bruise more often.

Eltrombopag, which is given as a pill, was discovered as a result of a research collaboration between Glaxo and Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc..

Best look out for egos

Because our focus is health, and better yet, NATURAL HEALTH, that means we include environment in our definition.

Now environment to some may be a bad word, except when they think they can muscle in on on everyone and come out on top. SO that to me implies bullyism and ultimately greed. You know, that old saw about "he who has the most toys wins".

Well there seems to be a greedy son-of-a ...fertilizer sprayer guy out of Ohio that thinks he and his new mega corporation will take over the environment hands down.

That environment to him is your lawn and garden. And in his fervor he plans to squash all the recycled soda bottles and worm waste he can, just to keep them out of his way.

That way is not the yellow brick road but the plan to the takeover and control the more ecological product line of a great idea start-up company.

You may have guessed it by now, the guy who thinks he is such a big shot because he's logged over 500,000 miles in the corporate jet in a year is the Scotts/Miracle Gro CEO.

He's on a 'verre de terre' hunt, big time. No nets, just intimidating tactics to scare some the new guys on the block. Yes, it's that old corporate tactic of ego puffing and fear mongering. Really tells you a lot about Scotts corporate social responsibility doesn't it.

Did he forget that Santa, when working for Macy's, told people to shop at Gimbels.

Or, you might say, I bet the guy never read 'Small is Beautiful' or took a course in whole system design.

That's probably true.

So what can we learn from all this?

Well the point is that your garden, and the gardens that feed a lot of us from small family farms, can improve your environment if you improve on them. Simply improve the soil and what feeds what you grow. Yes, we are all a part of it and the circle does go round and round.

Tune in to TerraCycle and learn about the great idea that flourished from the "garbage, garbage, garbage" of some Princeton dining hall and the tons of empty milk jugs and soda bottles thrown away daily in this country.

Bless Thomas Edison and ingenuity!

If you know anything at all about worms you know that they can turn your household garbage into great fertilizer and use it to up the yield of that victory garden you've planted for this year's season.

But now comes the guy on the jet who says "Whoa, you can't do that". Just like his Monsanto buddies that urge you to use RoundUp. All that does is increase your risk of cancer and give you bigger weeds to kill with more and more RoundUp.

I'm packing some big guns here and you don't cross my corner.

Snidely WhipScott rears his ugly head and sends out the attorneys (those legal larcenists that go for the $$$ you know) to start that paper trail.

For the rest of the story its your turn to check it out because I've never seen a package of anything look like MiracleGro or Scotts, Even all that good stuff from my usual supplier Garden's Alive(purchase via our shpping village to help support our work). Now that I've seen TerraCycle, there sure is someone out of Ohio lacking in visual acuity.

Gee, Arlo where are you? We need a new song.

In the interim, return all your Scotts and go for the GLOW(worm, that is).

Oprah's Down the Rabbit Hole

I have an on-going theme in 2007 for my newsletter, herbalYODA Says! It has to do with a single issue I have named 'falling for fabrication'. I titled it this way because as I peruse the plethora of news reports of interest to me - those about health and environment, nutrition, electrosmog and related topics - I see an overall pattern of what is pure propaganda.

Nowadays some folks take exception with Noam Chomsky but at the very least he makes you think. He also addresses issues of 'falling for fabrication' in his well known book, 'Manufacturing Consent'.

This is an important concept and it is aimed at directing your thinking and decision making to more or less a 'mob mentality'.

Now this brings us to mercury. You know that slippery, shiny heavy metal that is very toxic to humans, plants and animals, and the environment.

Mercury (chemical symbol Hg(C.A.S. 7439-97-6)) is

an element that occurs naturally in the environment. It is a silver-white, heavy metal that is liquid at room temperature; as a solid, it is tin-white and can be cut with a knife. It can also be found in compounds with other chemicals such as chlorine in the same way that sodium is found in table salt.

Mercury is used in pure form in thermometers, barometers, and other consumer products. Batteries containing mercury are used in devices ranging from guided missiles and space craft to hearing aids, cameras, toys, portable radios, calculators, measuring devices, smoke alarms, self-winding watches, and radio microphones. Electric or mercury lamps are used for outdoor lighting, including floodlights and street lights, motion picture projection, health treatment, and photography. Mercury is also used as a catalyst in the production of vinyl chloride monomer, urethane foam, and anthraquinone. It is used in diuretics, antiseptics, and skin preparations.

Prior to August 20, 1990, mercury was added to paints as an anti-mildew agent, antibacterial agent, and fungicide; about one-third of all interior latex paint contained varying levels of mercury. (Oil-based paint does not contain mercury.) Mercury is also used in pigments, refining, lubrication oils, and dental amalgams.

Mercury in one form, "organic mercury," can become highly concentrated in the flesh of certain fish. For this reason relatively low levels of mercury contamination in the ocean and lakes can lead to toxic contamination of these fish. Organic compounds of mercury are phenylmercury acetate (C8H8HgO2) and methylmercuric chloride (CH3HgCl). Other compounds of mercury, called "inorganic mercury," are mercury, mercuric II acetate or mercury salt (HgC4H6O4c), mercuric II chloride (HgCl2c), and mercurous I chloride (Hg2Cl2c).

Chemical properties:

Mercury that is released into the environment will remain there indefinitely. The form that mercury exists in (organic or inorganic) may change with time. Some or all of released organic mercury will slowly decompose to become inorganic mercury. Some portion of released inorganic mercury will be slowly transformed into organic mercury by bacteria in soil or water.

Mercury is not flammable and does not have an odor. Some mercury salts and organic compounds are soluble in water, depending on the chemical species.

Synonyms for mercury are colloidal mercury; kwik; liquid silver; quicksilver; metallic mercury; and hydrargyrum.

Identification:

* Chemical Name: Mercury
* Regulatory Name: Mercury
* Formula: Hg
* DOT Label: Corrosive
* CAS: 7439-97-6
* STCC: 4936336
* CHRIS: MCR
* UN Number: 2809

Health effects:

Mercury, in both inorganic and organic forms, is toxic to humans and can cause death. The organic forms of mercury such as methylmercuric chloride and phenylmercuric acetate have been found to be more toxic than inorganic forms such as mercuric chloride. More severe effects on developing nervous systems are generally observed following exposure to organic mercury.

Deaths have been reported following acute exposure to high unspecified concentrations of metallic mercury vapor caused by a loss of respiratory function as a result of severe pulmonary tissue damage. Oral ingestion of single doses of mercuric chloride has led to poisoning and death caused by shock, cardiovascular collapse, acute renal failure, and severe gastrointestinal damage. Most reported cases of poisoning from organic mercury compounds are a result of the ingestion of contaminated fish or grains.

Long-term exposure to either organic or inorganic mercury can irreversibly damage the brain, kidneys, or developing fetuses. The form of mercury and the way humans are exposed to it influence which of these health effects will be more severe.

For example, organic mercury that is eaten in contaminated fish or grain will tend to cause greater harm to the brain and developing fetuses than to the kidney; inhaled inorganic mercury vapor will tend to cause greater harm to the brain; and inorganic mercury that is eaten or drunk in contaminated food or water will tend to cause greater harm to the kidneys.

Effects to the developing fetus include brain damage. Effects in adults briefly exposed to mercury include shakiness, tremors, and memory loss.

Exposure Values:

* IDLH: 10 mg/m3 (NIOSH, 1997)
* TLV TWA: 0.025 mg/m3. Not classifiable as human carcinogen.
* (ACGIH, 1999)
* NIOSH REL: Hg Vapor: TWA 0.05 mg/m3 [skin], Other: C 0.1 mg/m3 [skin]
* OSHA PEL: C 0.1 mg/m3

Economics:

U.S. manufacturers of mercury are Centerchem, Inc, New York, NY; Rascher & Betzold, Inc, Chicago, IL; SST Corporation, Clifton, NJ; Eastman Kodak Laboratory and Specialty Chemicals Eastman Kodak Co, Rochester, NY; Spectrum Chemical MFG Corp, Gardena, CA; D F Goldsmith Chemical & Metal Corp, Evanston, IL; and Belmont Metals, Inc, Brooklyn, NY.

Mercury is produced mainly by mining. Five percent of the world mercury production is a by-product of gold mining, and most of the remaining mercury is produced from underground mines. Some salvage is done on scrap materials as well.

U.S. production of mercury in 1985 was 1,254,000 pounds; world production in 1986 was 13,376,000 pounds. In 1986, almost 1,520,000 pounds of mercury were imported to the United States.

Regulation:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued permissible levels of mercury in bottled water. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued permissible exposure limits for mercury.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prohibited adding mercury to paint after August 20, 1990. However, paint manufactured before that ban can still be sold.

EPA offices overseeing regulations and guidelines for mercury are Air Quality Planning and Standards, Water and Standards, Emergency and Remedial Response, Solid Waste, and Toxic Substances.

Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, releases of more than one pound of mercury into the air, water, or land must be reported annually and entered into the National Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

Under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, releases of more than one pound of mercury into the air, water, and land must be reported annually and entered into the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

National Overview of 1998 Toxics Release Inventory

In 1998, 340 facilities released 291,341 pounds of mercury. Of those releases, 22,007 pounds were air emissions; 134 pounds were surface water discharges; 0 pounds were released to land; and 239,072 pounds were transferred off-site for disposal. Total emissions for 1998 represented an increase from 1997 emissions, which totaled 45,125 pounds; from 1996 emissions, which totaled 28,198 pounds;an increase from 1995 emissions, which totaled 28,591 pounds; and a decrease from 1988 (baseline) emissions, which totaled 296,299 pounds.

In 1998, 776,222 pounds of mercury waste were managed; 455,629 pounds were recycled on-site; 34,068 pounds were recycled off-site; 0 pounds were used for energy recovery on-site; 0 pounds were used for energy recovery off-site; 4,315 pounds were treated on-site; 1,165 pounds were treated off-site; and 281,045 pounds were released on-and off-site.

The 10 states in which the largest amounts of mercury were released in 1998 were: NV (224,400 pounds); SC (21,019 pounds); TN (3,279 pounds); KY (2,320 pounds); OH (1,653 pounds); GA (1,326 pounds); NC (1,283 pounds); WV (1,258 pounds); LA (1,226 pounds); and IN (1,110 pounds).

The 10 facilities releasing the largest amounts of mercury in 1998 were: Getchell Gold Corp., Golconda, NV (144,000 pounds); Jerritt Canyon Joint Venture, Elko, NV (80,400 pounds); Safety-Kleen (Pinewood), Pinewood, SC (21,019 pounds); Olin Corp., Charleston, TN (3,279 pounds); Ashta Chemicals Inc., Ashtabula, OH (1,653 pounds); Olin Corp., Augusta, GA (1,326 pounds); Holtrachem Mfg. Co. Llc, Riegelwood, NC (1,283 pounds); Ppg Inds. Inc., New Martinsville, WV (1,258 pounds); Pioneer Chlor Alkali Co. Inc., Saint Gabriel, LA (1,226 pounds); and Osram Sylvania Prods. Inc., Versailles, KY (1,203 pounds).

Notations:

The NIOSH recommended exposure limits (RELs) are time-weighted average (TWA) concentrations for up to a 10-hour workday during a 40-hour workweek. A short-term exposure limit (STEL) is designated by "ST" preceding the value; unless noted otherwise, the STEL is a 15-minute TWA exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday. A ceiling REL is designated by "C" preceding the value. Any substance that NIOSH considers to be a potential occupational carcinogen is designated by the notation "Ca."

The OSHA permissible exposure limits (PEL) are found in Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 of the OSHA General Industry Air Contaminants Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000). Unless noted otherwise, PEL are TWA concentrations that must not be exceeded during any 8-hour workshift of a 40-hour workweek. A STEL is designated by "ST" preceding the value and is measured over a 15-minute period unless noted otherwise. OSHA ceiling concentrations (designated by "C" preceding the value) must not be exceeded during any part of the workday; if instantaneous monitoring is not feasible, the ceiling must be assessed as a 15-minute TWA exposure. In addition, there are a number of substances from Table Z-2 (e.g., beryllium, ethylene dibromide, etc.) that have PEL ceiling values that must not be exceeded except for specified excursions. For example, a "5-minute maximum peak in any 2 hours" means that a 5-minute exposure above the ceiling value, but never above the maximum peak, is allowed in any 2 hours during an 8-hour workday.

Information Sources:

* CAMEO®, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, www.epa.gov/ceppo.
* Chemical Manufacturers Association, 1300 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209: (703) 741-5000 or Chemical Referral Library, (800) 262-8200.
* National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Clearinghouse on Environmental Health Effects, 100 Capitola Drive, #108, Durham, NC 27713; (800) 643-4794; fax (919) 361-9408.
* TOXNET, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health; www.toxnet.nlm.nih.gov
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC 20460; Right to Know Hotline (800) 535-0202.
* U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Washington, DC, www.osha.gov
* OSHA PEL: Z-1 Table: www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_data/1910_1000_TABLE_Z-1.html
* OSHA PEL: Z-2 Table: www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_data/1910_1000_TABLE_Z-2.html

You know not to eat too much tuna, and you've probably turned in your mercury filled thermometer for one filled with alcohol of a digital type.

You probably know the devastating effects of mercury used as a preservative in vaccines, which since 1926 has been known by the AMA to cause mental impairment and brain damage.

And maybe you know that the "Mad Hatter" from 'Alice in Wonderland' was called that because of his hat - the felt hat manufactured with mercury.

So here we are in 2007 and all the folks whose words determine your choices, mostly without any investigation on your part, have gone down the Rabbit Hole after breathing too many mercury fumes.

If you are on the subscriber list to herbalYODA Says! you have received our Earth Day special issue on the CFL bulb.

Yes, its that compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) hawked every where as a way to reduce global warming. Even Oprah is giving them away!

Now Oprah took on the Texas cattlemen some years ago in a big fight. I think it is fair to take on Oprah when she pushes something that just might now be good for you. If you read this blog you know I have challenged her on a few other issues. I probably will challenge her and others again, for the pure purpose of getting you to put your thinking hat on.

Yes, I was at the very first Earth Day and it seems really a long time ago. I don't see that much has has changed.

It must be a microcosmic effort because I do know individuals to whom the environment is very much worth protecting. As we always said on the Rez, "Love Your Earth Mother".

I guess we need to look at this in a different way now as the fabrication of events through advertising and marketing causes many of us to fall for the Madison Avenue hype, what is popular for the moment.

Here is another example, following on the war cry of recent flooding of the Internet with messages about writing to stop vegetable juice from becoming a 'drug'.

Look at almost every event, Yahoo and other web special sites, global warming web sites, news ads, rock concerts, ad infinitum. What are these all pushing this weekend? CFL.

So they want us to light the Earth Mother with something they tell us will save energy.

Maybe so, and I thought so too over a decade ago when I bought one these bulbs to go in a lamp I had on a timer so my house would not be dark when I arrived home fore the evening.

At the end of last year I had a nice e-chat with the fellow who runs the local recycling center.

Hey Andy, I wrote, what about the mercury in these light bulbs and what'll it do to the landfill?

Andy already knew about the mercury in the 'compact fluorescent bulb' so we went on to address the radio frequency generated by the bulbs and what this might do to your health in a house full of these swirling glass tubes. Yes, I did say radio frequency, or RF or EMF as more people might call it.

I don't get grants from Philips who is funding the bulb give away on college campuses this weekend. Maybe Philips might like to send some funds the way of Creating Health Institute to help sponsor our environmental work. Like this special edition of out newsletter. And maybe Sheryl Crow might send us a few dollars or so from increased album sales after giving away the free light bulbs at these concerts.

Then there is 18Solutions.org also out there telling us that since 1 January 2007 more than 30 million of these bulbs have been sold. Stopglobalwarming.org is hawking the bulbs too, as I am sure are many other power companies and organizations.

Now, about two months after I posted this information on my blog, I see World Net Daily is reporting on health hazards of CFL.

Hopefully this turns on your old bulb before jumping on the wagon...

More to follow on 'falling for fabrication'.

As always you will find more information about the topics covered in this and other issues of our newsletter on our web site at http://www.leaflady.org/ (http://www.leaflady.org/ ), and on our blog at http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com
(http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/).

herbalYODA Says! is written by Gayle Eversole, DHom, PhD, MH, NP, ND.
Creating Health Institute, celebrating 50 years in natural healing, blending science with the natural healing arts. We bring it to you as a public service, and part of our long established Health Matters© educational publications.

CHI is a tax-exempt, non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. We ask that you consider helping us continue our work through your tax-deductible donation, through our shopping villages, products and services.

CHI Copyright © 2007. All Rights Reserved.

The CFL contains mercury! If it breaks inside your home it releases mercury. It harms the environment because it is toxic waste and ends up somewhere in a landfill.

It can make you sick in other ways because it is a radio frequency emitter. RF is something you do not see, but it can affect your health.

There are other options. In the early days of the environmental movement we turned off the light when we did not need it. Now you can buy halogen or full spectrum light bulbs or very long life bulbs, so you do have a choice.

Just leave the mercury alone.

What we warned about Gardasil is now filtering into the media

But behind the scenes, Gardasil has been dogged by uncertainty about how effective it really is. Merck won approval for the vaccine based on research that showed it protected against two strains of the human papillomavirus, known as HPV 16 and 18, that are thought to cause 70% of cervical-cancer cases. The Food and Drug Administration didn't ask its panel of experts advising on Gardasil to rule on whether the vaccine specifically prevented the cancer itself. In clinical trials, 361 of 8,817 women who received at least one shot of Gardasil went on to develop precancerous lesions on their cervixes within three years of vaccination, just 14% fewer than in a placebo control group.

This paragraph alone should raise the ire of women who have 'rallied' behind this vaccines because of propaganda. Mothers of daughters should be especially irate. A sweeping blitz campaign should immediately be directed to your Members of COngress and state legislatures where laws have benn passed to mandate this shot.

Vaccines promote disease and it has been shown true through scientific research, over and over again. FMI: vaclib.org


The Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2007
VIRAL MARKETING

Questions on Efficacy Cloud a Cancer Vaccine
By JOHN CARREYROU

When Merck & Co. introduced its new vaccine against cervical cancer last June, it gave it one of the biggest pushes any new medicine has received. The company lobbied dozens of states to make the vaccine mandatory for 11- and 12-year-old girls. It aired TV ads featuring young girls skipping rope while reciting the slogan, "I want to be one less" woman to battle the disease.

The campaign scored some big victories. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared all women age 11 to 26 should get the vaccine, called Gardasil. Texas and Virginia passed mandatory-vaccination laws for girls entering the sixth grade. Even after Merck halted its lobbying in February amid criticism, an organization backed by the company continues to push for similar laws, and about 20 states are considering them. The vaccine costs $360 for a three-shot regimen. (See the full CDC recommendations.1)

RELATED DOCUMENTS
See the full CDC recommendations2 on the HPV vaccine.
See a recent presentation by Merck's Eliav Barr3 giving the latest data on Gardasil's efficacy.
Read the background document4 an FDA reviewer prepared for the advisory committee that assessed the vaccine on May 18, 2006, and see a full transcript of that meeting5.

But behind the scenes, Gardasil has been dogged by uncertainty about how effective it really is. Merck won approval for the vaccine based on research that showed it protected against two strains of the human papillomavirus, known as HPV 16 and 18, that are thought to cause 70% of cervical-cancer cases. The Food and Drug Administration didn't ask its panel of experts advising on Gardasil to rule on whether the vaccine specifically prevented the cancer itself. In clinical trials, 361 of 8,817 women who received at least one shot of Gardasil went on to develop precancerous lesions on their cervixes within three years of vaccination, just 14% fewer than in a placebo control group.

Scott Emerson, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Washington who sat on the FDA advisory committee, says he's not persuaded the vaccine is worth the billions of dollars likely to be spent on it in coming years. "I do believe that Gardasil protects against HPV 16 and 18, but the effect it will have on cervical-cancer rates in this country is another question entirely," says Dr. Emerson. "There is a leap of faith involved."

Merck says the 14% figure is misleading because more than a quarter of the women in the study were already infected with HPV before receiving the vaccine, blunting its effect. Gardasil isn't designed to treat those with pre-existing infection. The company prefers to point to a subset of 4,616 trial participants who were mostly free of HPV when they were vaccinated. Only 52 of these women went on to develop precancerous lesions on their cervixes over the next three years, 46% fewer than among the placebo group. Merck says this smaller group of women is the one most representative of the 11- and 12-year-old girls for whom Texas and Virginia have required vaccination. (See a recent presentation by Merck's Eliav Barr7 giving the latest data on Gardasil's efficacy.)

Safety is another issue. Merck tested the vaccine in only a few hundred 11- and 12-year-old girls. Some doctors consider that number too small to declare the vaccine safe for preteen girls, given the big changes their bodies undergo.

In its approval letter, the FDA ordered Merck to follow "a sufficient number of children 11-12 years of age" in a large postmarketing study to further establish the vaccine's safety. That study won't be completed until 2009. Norman Baylor, the director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at the FDA, says it's common for the agency to recommend postmarketing studies for vaccines, and the FDA considers Gardasil safe.

The company says it complied with the FDA's request that the clinical trials include more than 3,000 9- to 17-year-olds. It adds that it didn't test Gardasil more widely on girls because it wanted to focus on sexually active women to demonstrate the vaccine's efficacy. So far, Merck has distributed more than four million doses of the vaccine in the U.S., and the CDC says adverse events have been mostly minor and within the normal range.

Eliav Barr, the head of Merck's HPV vaccine program, says Gardasil is a "lifesaving" vaccine and its widespread adoption will result in "a substantial decline in the rate of cervical cancer." Dr. Barr says Merck provided "an extremely strong dossier" on Gardasil that both the FDA and the CDC have deemed satisfactory.

Merck has a lot riding on Gardasil. It faces patent expirations on other best sellers and legal costs related to Vioxx, the withdrawn painkiller linked to heart attacks and strokes. Some analysts believe Gardasil's annual sales could reach $2 billion or more by 2010.

Work on a cervical-cancer vaccine goes back nearly two decades, after scientists discovered that HPV infection can trigger lesions of the cervix that eventually turn into cancer. In the early-to-mid-1990s, Merck licensed patents held by the National Cancer Institute and CSL Ltd. of Australia, and began work on commercializing the vaccine.

From the start, Merck faced a challenge in winning acceptance of the vaccine as a universal necessity for American women. Though common in developing nations, cervical cancer is a relatively rare disease in the U.S., accounting for about 0.7% of cancer diagnoses and deaths each year. Women already have a highly effective method of prevention: visiting a gynecologist for regular Pap tests. The low-tech exam has contributed to an 80% reduction in cervical-cancer deaths in the U.S. over the past 50 years.

Human studies of the present version of the vaccine, which also targets two HPV strains that cause genital warts, began in 2000. The vaccine was administered to more than 20,000 women. It is delivered in three injections over six months. Merck submitted Gardasil to the FDA for approval in 2005.

Hints of Trouble [Gardasil Gold]
A meeting of the FDA advisory panel that reviewed Gardasil in May 2006 gave the first hint of Merck's troubles in persuading doctors of Gardasil's real-world efficacy. In its presentation, Merck stressed the vaccine's nearly 100% effectiveness in blocking infection by HPV 16 and 18 and in preventing precancerous lesions caused by those two strains. But a document prepared for the committee by an FDA reviewer noted the vaccine's limited overall efficacy against precancerous lesions in the broader group of nearly 9,000 trial participants. (Read the FDA reviewer's document.8)

Dr. Emerson, the University of Washington professor, expressed concern that Merck wasn't putting enough emphasis on the question of whether the vaccine prevented cervical cancer. "It's almost the treating the symptom but not the disease sort of idea," he said, according to a transcript of the meeting. (Read the transcript.9)

Merck pointed to the confounding factors behind the lower efficacy rates, including the problem of women who came into the trial already infected. In an interview, Merck's Dr. Barr says Gardasil's true efficacy will become more apparent with time, particularly in the group that includes women with a pre-existing infection.

While Merck often states that Gardasil prevents infection with viruses that account for 70% of cervical-cancer cases, Dr. Barr concedes that the vaccine is less than 70% effective against precancerous lesions. Merck says this is because the HPV strains not covered by Gardasil cause disproportionately more precancerous lesions that don't end up turning into cancer.

Efficacy against lesions is a significant issue because after a Pap test, doctors generally remove any lesions that reach a certain grade of seriousness, even though some might not turn into cancer. The surgery involves cutting out part of the cervix and can cost several hundred to several thousand dollars. Dr. Barr predicts Gardasil will eventually be shown to prevent nearly 60% of precancerous lesions that doctors would want to remove among women who were free of HPV infection when they were vaccinated.

Ultimately Gardasil received the panel's unanimous approval, and the FDA approved the vaccine in June 2006. The agency reasoned that waiting for more data would prevent some women who needed the vaccine from getting it.

With the FDA's approval, Merck faced a new challenge: persuading the public to take its vaccine. It got a quick boost from the CDC, which issued guidance in late June recommending that all girls receive the vaccine at age 11 or 12. The CDC said women age 13 to 26 should also get the vaccine. Gardasil was also endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Merck crafted its advertising and public relations to avoid some of the less-favorable numbers surrounding Gardasil. The TV commercial says the vaccine "may help protect you" from HPV strains "that may cause 70% of cervical cancer." The company doesn't often discuss the lower efficacy against precancerous lesions or in populations where some women are already infected. The "one less" slogan avoids the question of how many lives will be saved.

Some Gardasil supporters funded by Merck are less careful about qualifying their claims. At the FDA advisory committee hearing, Martha Nolan, vice president of a women's health group that receives funds from Merck, said that by approving Gardasil, the agency had "the opportunity to eradicate this terrible disease."

After the FDA approval, a group of female state legislators called Women in Government started a campaign to get states to mandate vaccinations. The group receives money from Merck but won't say how much. Many of the pending bills would allow parents to keep their children out of the vaccination program, but only after submitting proof that they have received information about cervical cancer and the vaccine.

In early January, Women in Government held a conference for some 60 state legislators in Marco Island, Fla., paying for their airfare and hotel rooms. One of the speakers was Christine Baze, a pop singer and cervical-cancer survivor. As she performed songs on the piano, Ms. Baze told the story of her battle with the disease and said she wished a vaccine had been available to her. Ms. Baze says Women in Government paid her a $2,500 fee and covered her travel and lodging. She says she didn't receive any money from Merck for the appearance, but the company has paid her $7,500 to speak at three other events.

Marilyn Canavan, a representative in the Maine assembly who attended the conference, says she was bothered by the large number of drug-industry lobbyists she saw. A list of conference participants shows that 30 pharmaceutical-industry representatives were present -- one for every two state legislators. Merck had two representatives there. Ms. Canavan has since resigned her post as Women in Government's director in Maine over concerns that the group's agenda is being dictated by drug companies. Susan Crosby, Women in Government's president, says those concerns are unfounded.

Other state lawmakers came away from the conference inspired. Upon returning home, Jessica Sibley Upshaw, a representative in the Mississippi assembly, drafted a bill that would make vaccination a school requirement. "For me, it's a common-sense thing to do if we can eradicate a disease," she says. Ms. Upshaw's bill has since died, but she plans to reintroduce it.

Sparking an Uproar

In February, Texas Gov. Rick Perry bypassed the state legislature and issued an executive order mandating that all girls entering the sixth grade be vaccinated as of September 2008. One of Merck's lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Gov. Perry's former chief of staff, and Merck contributed $6,000 to the governor's re-election campaign. Mr. Toomey didn't return calls and emails seeking comment. A spokeswoman for the governor says he acted to protect the public's health, not because of the contribution or the lobbying of his former aide.

Gov. Perry's order sparked an uproar. Among the opponents are religious conservatives who say receiving the vaccine conflicts with their message of abstinence. Other opponents say Gardasil isn't worth the cost, which includes $360 for the vaccine and up to several hundred dollars more for three doctors' appointments to get the shots. The money would be better spent, these people say, in pushing Pap tests for women who aren't getting them now.

John Schiller, one of the National Cancer Institute scientists whose vaccine work was licensed by Merck, believes Gardasil is an important advance that should receive wide use, but he has mixed feelings about the way the company has promoted it. He hopes it won't divert public-health dollars away from regular Pap screening, which he says remains the most important weapon against cervical cancer. Merck "is a heavy-handed company," Dr. Schiller says. "When they do something, they spare no energy. It's the Merck way or the highway."

Merck says cost-effectiveness studies suggest the vaccine could deliver its life-saving benefits at a reasonable cost, in part by reducing the need for frequent Pap tests. Most of these studies have been funded by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline PLC, maker of another HPV vaccine, Cervarix. Glaxo applied for FDA approval of Cervarix last month.

One skeptic is Diane Harper, a longtime HPV researcher and professor at Dartmouth Medical School, who was involved in Gardasil's clinical trials and has received speaker and consulting fees from Merck and Glaxo. She says as many as 10% of 11- and 12-year-old girls may already have HPV, either from sexual activity, sexual abuse or transmission through nonsexual skin-to-skin contact. That could reduce the vaccine's efficacy, she says.

Dr. Harper also suspects the vaccine may require booster shots after 10 years. Merck says it's not sure how long the vaccine's protection will last and is monitoring women over the long term to find out.

The American Cancer Society, while agreeing with the CDC that girls should be vaccinated, said in January there is "insufficient evidence" that women age 19 to 26 will benefit from the vaccine because many have already been exposed to HPV.

Worried about the backlash that emerged in February in Texas and other states, Merck shifted into damage control. Richard Haupt, Merck's executive director of medical affairs, placed calls to respected figures in the vaccine field, including Jon Abramson, the chairman of the CDC's advisory committee on immunization practices, and Joseph Bocchini, chairman of the committee on infectious diseases at the American Academy of Pediatrics. Both men and others told Dr. Haupt they supported the vaccine, but it was too early and counterproductive to push for school requirements.

On Feb. 20, Merck announced that it was suspending its lobbying push, but Women in Government continues to lobby for school requirements. Virginia's mandate became law two weeks ago.

Write to John Carreyrou at john.carreyrou@wsj.com10

STATE BY STATE

The following states have introduced legislation on making cervical-cancer vaccinations a school requirement:
State Proposal Status
California Bill would have required girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Withdrawn for further consideration.
Colorado Bill would require 12-year-old girls to be vaccinated to attend school. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Pending
Connecticut Bill would require girls receive a first dose of the vaccine before entering the sixth grade. Allows parents to opt their daughters out on medical or religious grounds. Pending
District of Columbia Bill would require girls to be vaccinated before they turn 13 to attend school. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Pending
Florida Bill would have required 11- and 12-year-old girls to be vaccinated to attend school. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Died in committee
Georgia Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated unless parents can't afford the vaccine or object to it on medical or religious grounds. Pending
Illinois Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Pending
Kansas Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out on medical or religious grounds. Pending
Kentucky Bill would require girls entering middle school to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Passed House, to Senate
Maryland Bill would have required girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Withdrawn
Massachusetts Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out on religious grounds. Pending
Michigan Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Pending.
Missouri Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out on medical or religious grounds. Pending
Minnesota Bill would require 12-year-old girls to be vaccinated to attend school. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Pending
Mississippi Bill would have required girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Died. Sponsor planning to re-introduce it with an opt-out clause.
New Jersey Bill would require girls in grades seven through 12 to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out on medical or religious grounds. Pending
New Mexico Bill would require nine- to 14-year-old girls to be vaccinated to attend school. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Passed legislature. Vetoed by governor.
Ohio Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Pending
Oklahoma Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Pending
South Carolina Bill would require girls entering the seventh grade or 11 years of age to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out on medical or religious grounds. Pending
Texas Governor issued executive order requiring that girls entering the sixth grade be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Bill overriding the executive order has passed the House and is pending in the Senate.
Vermont Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out on medical, moral or religious grounds. Pending
Virginia Bill requires girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out. Passed the legislature. Goes into effect Oct. 1, 2008; to be implemented in fall of 2009.
West Virginia Bill would require girls entering the sixth grade to be vaccinated. Allows parents to opt their daughters out on medical grounds. Pending

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, state legislatures
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117668541991270825.html

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf
(2) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5602.pdf
(3) http://www.cdc.gov/nip/acip/slides/feb07/08-hpv-2-barr.pdf
(4) http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf
(5) http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4222t1.pdf
(6) http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/04/16/how-effective-is-mercks-hpv-vaccine/
(7) http://www.cdc.gov/nip/acip/slides/feb07/08-hpv-2-barr.pdf
(8) http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/briefing/2006-4222B3.pdf
(9) http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/06/transcripts/2006-4222t1.pdf
(10) mailto:john.carreyrou@wsj.com
Copyright 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Radiation by any name still promotes cancer

The shift to MRI, also a form of radiation, may be better than the current system, remembering that a tumour must be at least eight years old before mammography will detect it in most cases.

I have spoken against the 'enhanced digital imaging' from the time it was proposed as an ineffective method of detecting tumours.

Thermography is the best choice for early and effective detection of tumours and it is not cancer causing. Ultrasound is effective too.

Read more here and here

Computers hinder mammogram readings, report finds
By Gene Emery, Reuters 4 April 07

Computer-aided mammogram designed to help doctors spot cancer do not increase the chance of finding a tumor and, instead, heighten the risk that a woman will get an unnecessary biopsy, researchers reported on Wednesday.

"This study points out the need for the use of other techniques to find cancer at its earliest stages," said Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute, which helped pay for the study.

Dr. Joshua Fenton of the University of California, Davis, and colleagues studied more than 429,000 mammograms for their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

About 24 million screening mammograms are taken in the U.S. each year. "We would guess maybe 25 to 30 percent of facilities have adopted this, maybe more in urban centers where they have a high volume," said Fenton.

The results "constitute a substantial hit to this technology" and will "surprise and disappoint" most doctors who read mammograms, Dr. Ferris Hall of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, wrote in a commentary.

Hall said Medicare pays an extra $20 for mammograms that are read by computer, a financial incentive that "was mandated by a heavily lobbied Congress, despite little evidence-based data in support of its value at the time."

Complicating the issue is the fact that the field is changing so quickly, further research may not be practical, he said. "Such studies will be expensive, controversial, indeterminate, or quickly passe owing to the emergence of new technology," Hall wrote.

Three such computer-aided devices, costing $160,000 to $240,000, have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the facilities in the Fenton study used units from R2 Technology Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif. the first to get FDA approval, in 1998. R2 is owned by Hologic Inc..

Kodak and iCAD Inc., of Nashua, N.H., also make units.

The research team used mammograms taken from 1998 to 2002 at 43 medical facilities in three states, seven of which switched to computer-aided detection in the middle of the study.

With human-read mammograms, 98 out of every 1,000 women were mistakenly told they were free of cancer. When the readings were done with the help of a computer, that number rose to 128 out of 1,000, without significantly increasing the number of tumors that were spotted by X-ray.

In addition, the researchers said the computer programs tended to focus on the least-dangerous types of cancers.

"There was no clear benefit in terms of breast cancer detection," Fenton said in a telephone interview.

The researchers also estimated that if every medical center used computer-assisted detection, it would cost the U.S. health care system an extra $550 million, an increase of 18 percent in the cost of doing breast cancer screening exams.

There is a lot of pressure to improve detection.

Hall said missed tumors are the most common source of lawsuits against radiologists, and in as many as half of all cancer cases, doctors turned out to have missed the tumor in an earlier mammogram. And with many medical students avoiding the field because of the stress, there is a shortage of good mammographers.

Hall said one alternative would be magnetic resonance imaging. Although it may detect 10 times as many cancers than mammography or physical examination, it is also 10 times more expensive.

"In certain populations of women, MRIs are much more sensitive to picking up cancers than mammography," said the chairwoman of the American Cancer Society's Breast Cancer Advisory Group, Dr. Christy Russell.

For those women, the chance of an MRI finding a tumor is 70 percent or higher, compared to just 30 percent for mammography or ultrasound, she said.

Hillary's Heist

Seems as Mrs. Clinton is on a cash roll in fundraising lately.

But, please do remember that Bill Clinton brought you NAFTA.

NAFTA and GATT opened the door to sending all the good paying manufacturing jobs elsewhere. It also led the way to the requirement accepting unregulated products and ingredients imported from other places around the world. These ingredients recently found their wayr into pet food that recently took the lives of beloved animal companions.

Go back and look Hillary's health care proposal too if you think the wool might be pulling down over your eyes.

ASPARTAME BANNED IN THE PHILIPPINES

What New Mexico refused to do to protect its citizens from the known damage of aspartame has now become law in the Philippines.

from the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce (Spain)

Philippines forbids the import and use of aspartame

A law promulgated by the Philippine congress has forbidden the importing and use, in the country, of aspartame, a sweetener that is between 180 to 200 times more potent than sugar, as well as banning distribution of four makes of saccharine, the most important brand names in the country known as: Equal, NutraSweet, Equal-Measure y
Spoonful.[*]

According to the said Law aspartame gives rise to a total of 75% of the negative effects reflected in consumers and other users according to the north American administration of food and alimentation, among others, brain tumours, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Parkinsons, Alzheimers and
diabetes among others.

The ban affects all use of this product in any type of consumable and infringement will carry penalties that go from 9,000 euros to 90,000 euros.

Spanish Institute of External Commerce (ICEX). Paseo de la Castellana 14-16, 28046 MADRID. | 902 349 000

[*] All these are the brand names for aspartame. Aspartame is listed as E951 in the Codex Alimentarius.

Filipinas prohbe la importacin y uso del aspartamo

Una ley promulgado por el congreso de Filipinas ha prohibido la
importacin y el uso del aspartamo, un edulcorante entre 180 y 200
veces ms potente que el azcar, en el pas, as como ha prohibido la
distribucin de cuatro marcas de sacarina, de las ms importantes del
pas: Equal, Nutrasweet, Equal-Measure y Spoonful.[*] Segn dicha ley
el aspartamo da lugar a un total del 75% de los efectos negativos
reflejados por los consumidores y usuarios segn la administracin
norteamericana de comida y alimentacin, entre otros, tumores
cerebrales, esclerosis mltiple, epilepsia, sndrome de fatiga crnica,
parkinson, alzheimer y diabetes entre otros. La prohibicin afecta al
uso de este producto en cualquier tipo de consumible y la vulneracin
de la misma acarrear penas que van desde los 9.000 euros a los 90.000
euros.

Instituto Espaol de Comercio Exterior (ICEX). P de la Castellana
14-16 28046 MADRID | 902 349 000

[*] Todas estas marcas son de aspartamo. Aspartamo se encuentra en
el Codex Alimentarius bajo el nmero E951.

http://www.icex.es/icex/cda/controller/page/0,2956,35582_13637_16030_298341,00.html