Lisa Says: Kudos to Amy Frostick for a fabulous time at the first annual Blue Moon Wicked 10K. Then on to more fun as we all ventured to Halloween/Fall Festival Parties ! It struck me however as I sat in my dirndl passing out glowstick bracelets (QUITE the hit actually) as an alternative to refined sugar (even the Obamas passed out healthy alternatives yesterday), that I needed to remind everyone of the clinical data surrounding how refined sugar suppresses the immune system. I googled that and got over 1.6 MILLION hits. Right when we are going into ‘cold and flu season’ and need to boost our natural defenses. http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4568832_does-sugar-affect-immune-system.html

but NO WORRIES ! consider rationing the sweets (tell the kids it makes it LAST longer) and focus on nurturing the immune system
http://www.parents.com/toddlers-preschoolers/health/cough/boost-childs-immunity/

Rex Says: “A regular 20-ounce soda contains 17 teaspoons of sugar (almost 6 TABLESPOONS) and 250 calories. The avg. American drinks 50 gallons of sugared beverages annually.” This is info from a great article from Kelly D. Brownell, Director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University and David S. Ludwig, associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Most Americans do not understand the amount of refined sugars that they are consuming, and the devastation it has their health.

A nationwide surcharge on syrupy beverages would provide both revenues and health benefits.

By KELLY D. BROWNELL and DAVID S. LUDWIG

The United States needs a health care sweet spot — a way to raise revenue now and to lower health care costs in the future. Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages — those with added sugar, high-fructose corn syrup or so-called fruit juice concentrates — would answer that need.

There are already minor surcharges on soda in many states — fractions of a cent per ounce in most cases. That’s not enough. What’s needed is a penny per ounce of sugary beverages. That amount would raise about $150 billion nationally over the next 10 years. At the same time, the reduced consumption of soft drinks produced by a penny-per-ounce national tax would have direct health benefits, estimated to be at least $50 billion over the decade. This $200 billion could make an enormous difference in addressing the nation’s mounting health care costs.

The average American drinks 50 gallons of sugared beverages annually. The marketplace, once dominated by a few flagship beverages such as Coke and Pepsi, has exploded into a wide array of fruit drinks, sweetened teas, energy drinks, sports drinks and other versions of sugar water. But two companies still reign: Together, Coca-Cola and PepsiCo control three-quarters of the world beverage market.

Sugared beverages are marketed with fierce precision, using sports stars and other celebrities and promising benefits ranging from increased energy to better memory. Product placements in television shows, such as Coca-Cola on “American Idol,” expose vast numbers of children to hidden marketing. Portions are also an issue — the 8-ounce bottle of the 1950s has morphed into a 20-ounce behemoth.

A regular 20-ounce soda contains 17 teaspoons of sugar and 250 calories.

For full article http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/63806572.html?page=2&c=y

Lisa Says: This is the time of year where you see more pink than Valentine’s Day. Last weekend when we were in DC at the Green Festival, we saw quite a few wearing their pink regalia diligently raising money for breast cancer something. I leave you with two thoughts: First, before you purchase products espousing their contributions to breast cancer research, visit http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/ where they have a list of questions to ensure your well intended dollars are getting to the right place AND consider that there are numerous companies that promote breast health with pink ribbons, YET THEIR VERY PRODUCTS ARE LINKED TO CAUSING BREAST CANCER. The short video clip on Eli Lilly was chilling

Second, I still take issue with the fact that with breast cancer having exploded in the country in the last 50 years, we spend billions on genetic research but few funds promoting life style education and supportive changes that we KNOW prevent not just breast cancers, but most cancers.  Are we really saying that America has undergone a genetic change in the last 50 years? or is lifestyle having an impact?

I am reposting a previous entry from Rex commenting on an article from Naturalnews.com.

Rex Says: Personally, I believe the estimates are too low on how many these lifestyle changes could affect. If cancer has skyrocketed so much in recent years, why WOULDN’T it help more than just a thrid of cancers? Americans certainly haven’t undergone a genetic change in the last 50 years, it’s lifestyle and what we’re exposing ourselves to, but remember, WE HAVE THE CONTROL.

Good Dietary and Lifestyle Health Habits can Drastically Cut Cancer Risk
by Reuben Chow, citizen journalist

(NaturalNews) Why do people get cancer? Perhaps more significantly, why have cancer rates soared so drastically over the past century? Is it because of genes? Is it because of what we are eating today? Or are stressful lifestyles to blame? Others put forth that factors such as environmental toxins and electromagnetic radiation are the main culprits. The fact is, cancer is a multi-causal disease and probably a result of a combination of the abovementioned factors. Recent statistics released by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) has estimated the role of diet and lifestyle, suggesting that about one-third of the 12 most common types of cancer in richer countries could be prevented merely through a healthy diet, physical activity and the maintenance of healthy weight. In poorer, developing nations, the proportion of cancers preventable through these steps was estimated to be about one-in-four.

Details and Findings of Study

The cancers in question included those of the bowel, breast, gallbladder, kidney, liver, lung, mouth / pharynx / larynx, esophagus, pancreas, prostate, stomach and womb. For these cancers, it was estimated that 34% of cases in the US and 39% of UK cases were preventable through the said steps. This implied that there was more room for improvement in these countries.

Zooming in, it was also estimated that more than 40% of breast and bowel cancer cases in developed nations could have been prevented in the same way.

And the abovementioned figures had not even taken into account the detrimental effects of smoking, which on its own is believed to be the main cause of about one-third of all cancers.

The report had been put together by a panel of 23 experts. Their study had been based on 10 recommendations released by the WCRF in 2007 on preventing cancer; those included daily exercise, avoiding processed meats, eating less salt, and keeping healthy weight. To arrive at the estimates, the team had looked at the biggest and most reliable research studies available which covered the 10 factors.

“This report shows that by making relatively straightforward changes, we could significantly reduce the number of cancer cases around the world,” said Michael Marmot, the chair of the panel.

Importance of Dietary and Lifestyle Factors in Cancer Prevention

The possible causes of cancer were discussed earlier. What is clear about cancer is that it is certainly not an alien-like ailment which descended from the sky and invaded our bodies, against which we can do nothing for protection or recovery. “People think that somehow cancer comes from heaven, or Darwin, or from their parent’s genes, but that’s not always the case. A third are caused by smoking, and approximately a third are related to diet and physical activity,” Marmot also said.

And scientific backing seems to be increasing. “The evidence linking diet, physical activity, obesity and cancer has become stronger over the last decade and this report can play a part in people adopting healthier lifestyles. After not smoking, it is clear that diet, physical activity and weight are the most important things people can do to reduce their cancer risk,” said Mike Richards, the National Clinical Director for Cancer.

Holistic Action is Needed

The experts have called for urgent action, especially in view of the escalating sedentary and obesity epidemics, graying populations as well as worsening food choices. “We are expecting a substantial increase in cancer rates with the ageing population, obesity rates soaring, and with people becoming less active and increasingly consuming highly processed and energy dense foods and drinks. The good news is that this is not inevitable,” said Martin Wiseman, the project director.

But it is also quite clear that a holistic solution involving many parties will be needed if society is to stem the cancer epidemic. “There is no magic bullet, no one single fix to the problem. If we are to tackle the situation we need individuals, business and government to work together to encourage healthy lifestyles by promoting things like cycle lanes and food labeling,” said Richard Davidson from Cancer Research UK.

The panel’s report had put forth some 48 suggestions for improvement. Some include:

* Eating more fruits in place of unhealthy fatty foods.
* Consumers to check labels to ensure foods being bought are healthy.
* Lowering costs of healthy foods.
* Schools and workplaces to stop providing unhealthy foods and to encourage exercise.
* Cycling to work.
* Governments to require widespread walking and cycling routes to be put in place; this will facilitate physical activity.
* Improving access to sporting facilities.

Beyond Merely Prevention – Cancer Recovery

How about those who have already been diagnosed with cancer? Are such lifestyle and dietary changes too little, too late for them? Not according to a recent study conducted by researchers at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridgeshire, which found that about 36% of men with aggressive prostate cancer could give planned surgery or radiotherapy a miss after making some basic dietary and lifestyle changes.

The changes, which included lowering salt intake, reducing alcohol consumption, eating larger amounts of oily fish, losing weight and undertaking moderate exercise, were able to inhibit or even totally stop their cancers’ progression.

As we search for complicated answers to the cancer riddle, we should not underestimate the powerful role of factors which have been with us throughout human history – dietary and lifestyle habits.

References

Clean living way to beat cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7…)

Healthy meal, exercise cuts cancer risk (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/…)

Adopting a healthy lifestyle ‘helps cancer suffers after diagnosis’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3…)

Lisa Says: I just saw on mainstream news yesterday (finally) that not everyone is sold on the effectiveness or safety of the swine flu vaccine, or the flu vaccine in general. New York nurses are filing a suit in protest (to my knowledge) to requiring the vaccine as a condition of employment. (sorry it won’t let me insert a hyperlink). http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-29-swine-flu-mandatory_N.htm

Get more info on the vaccine at the National Vaccine Information Center http://www.nvic.org/

Lisa Says: the lack of balanced reporting by mainstream media on the H1N1 vaccine effectiveness (or lack thereof) and safety (or lack thereof) astounds me. Accurate data is not being reported and the media is perpetuating the hysteria. We need to get balanced information out so that we Americans can make a more informed decision about whether or not we will get this vaccine.

This is an article posted today on NaturalNews.com

Concerns about Dangers from Swine Flu Vaccine Grow
by Melanie Grimes, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) Concerns about the safety of the H1N1 vaccine continue to grow as the government rushes to bring the vaccine to market. The FDA usually requires rigorous testing of any new drug, but concerns about the H1N1 pandemic has sped the vaccine through the channels without the same clinical testing as other vaccines. Even health care workers are concerned, as they are the first ones to receive the swine flu vaccine and will, in effect, be human guinea pigs.

The New York State Nurses Association is holding a demonstration against the mandatory swine flu vaccination of nurses; it was reported in Newsday. Many face the loss of their jobs if they refuse the vaccination.

Mercury poisoning is one of the concerns about any vaccination, but in recent years the additive, thimerosal, which contains mercury, has been removed from most vaccines. However, the H1N1 flu shot still contains a high level of mercury and this alone is a concern for children, pregnant women, and the elderly — the very populations who are being encouraged to take the swine flu shot.

Squalene is another additive used in vaccines that is a concern. Squalene was an additive in the vaccine given to Gulf War soldiers and is now known to be one of the causes of Gulf War Syndrome. Even the government, who approved the use of squalene in the vaccines, has admitted that it was one of the causes of the vets’ illness.

Side-effects from the H1N1 flu shot are another concern. The vaccine for the Avian flu caused a rare neurological disorder, Guillain-Barre syndrome and death.

One third of health care professionals are refusing to take the H1N1 vaccine, according to polls in both the US and England. Another third is unsure, leaving only one third of the health care professionals supporting the H1N1 vaccine. President Obama has stated that the H1N1 vaccine will be voluntary, but companies and hospitals are acting otherwise, and against the interests of their employees and medical staff.

Both Ireland and Greece have said that they will fine and imprison those who refuse to be vaccinated.

A recent article in Reuters reported that “adverse event reports” are expected by the public health departments after the swine flu vaccine is administered, including one million heart attacks, 700,000 strokes and 900,000 miscarriages.

The FDA is charged with protecting the American people from unsafe drugs. Their intention to speed the swine flu vaccine into production has caused concern about the safety of the new drug. Until these questions are addressed, the health benefits of the swine flu vaccine remain under suspicion.

http://www.reuters.com/news/topics/…
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/…
http://www.cdc.gov/H1N1FLU/

Rex Says: Got a great referral today from local media story on this site for promoting healthy school lunches. Remember, American kids today are now predicted to have a lower life expectancy their own parents, for the first time in history. Just to clarify, go more in depth in ingredients and eliminate chemicals such as High Fructose Corn Syrup which is clearly shown to cause diabetes, etc. (see our other posts).

This seems to be a great local support and educational system for families on living healthier. http://www.chkd.org/Services/HealthyYou/

02/07 - just diagnosed - on vacation deciding on treatment

[caption id="attachment_496" align="alignnone" width="225" caption="09/07 - after natural approach - 55# lighter, healthy and cancer free"][/caption]
09/07 – after natural approach – 55# lighter, healthy and cancer free

.
.
VB local since 1968 courtesy of the USN, Rex attended Cox HS and met his future wife Lisa the first day. Married since 1982 with 3 fine sons by 1987, Rex’s career has focused in the home improvement/building supply industry.

While getting a routine physical at 44 in 2007, Rex requested a PSA check per Lisa although he had no symptoms or issues. While this is not the standard for his age/race, Rex said “’Mama’ said get it and what ‘Mama’ says goes’”. His PSA was noted to be above average for his age so he was referred to a urologist. After a round of antibiotics for possible prostatitis, it was still above where the average was so he agreed to a prostate biopsy. The month after that was an adventure. Rex said when he went to urinate, he never knew if he was going to get “chardonnay, rose’ or merlot”. Frankly, after almost 2 weeks the bleeding continued, so he went back to make sure all was ok, and instead got the results. Prostate cancer at 44. Luckily, it appeared early and contained.
After consulting with the radiation oncologist and then the surgeon, Rex was leaning towards surgery (a June date was planned) but something the surgeon said struck a cord, “I take selenium every day and I’m not worried about getting prostate cancer.”
Rex still has the info on taking selenium the surgeon wrote on a prescription pad. He was stunned when the surgeon explained despite how advanced robotic prostatectomies are, he would still have to take ‘the little blue pill’ the rest of his life no matter how well he responded to the surgery. Rex left with his selenium info in hand and began praying and felt the Holy Spirit say to him , ‘there is a another way’. Another way to heal, in essence.
God began to clearly steer Rex on a path of natural healing. Rex and Lisa began researching info they had heard that ‘cancer cells can’t live in an oxygen rich environment’ and unexpectedly, a church friend who was an RN and a breast cancer survivor came to Rex with information about balancing the body’s pH levels. Rex’s brother then paid for a detox program he didn’t feel he could afford and began balancing his body’s chemistry ( i.e. alkalizing his pH levels making his body oxygen rich, not oxygen deprived). When Rex announced to his home church that he had been diagnosed with cancer, the group laid hands on both Rex and Lisa and covered them in prayer. They had been researching international treatment methods with better survival rates and a higher quality of life, and after Rex’s announcement in church, another church friend who was an herbalist who had studied under Dr. Kimberly Balas, an American Naturopathic Doctor, who had a written a similar protocol to the international approaches, came to Rex and offered to work with him. She also had felt a calling to work with those diagnosed with cancer but had not done so at that point. She felt this was her confirmation.
He began hydrating being blessed again by a high school friend who paid for bottled water delivery, and began eating only fresh and whole foods based on Dr. Colbert’s book What Would Jesus Eat, exercising, and working with Dana, the herbalist, using Dr. Balas’s protocol in April 2007 and the results have been amazing. His PSA dropped from it’s original 3.9 to 2.0 in just 2 months. His lab values normalized so rapidly the doctor’s were amazed. He dropped from 246# to a healthy 195# and now maintains 190#. He began hot yoga to work on meditation and dealing with suppressed negative emotions as clinical data shows a clear correlation with yoga/prayer and the body’s healing process.
In July 2009, he met again with the surgeon and took the new PCA3 test (a unique biomarker test which more accurately detects prostate cancer than any other screening method currently in use), and was determined to be cancer free and in great health.

Rex calls cancer his blessing. He says it took cancer to heal him, to make him well.
Now his passion is to educate the public on making the transition from the typical American lifestyle promoting disease to one supporting the body as it was designed by God to function and flourish.

Lisa Says: I really am all about getting ALL the facts, weighing the pros and cons, then making an educated decision. We have posted previously on the concerns of the vaccine Gardasil outweighing any possible benefit and now, so soon after it’s release, serious concerns are arising, enough for the CDC (such a proponent of vaccines) to get involved. Even a doctor quoted in this article says other doctors themselves haven’t been informed of all the facts. Here is a mainstream ABC news story. Be informed, be empowered, be healthy.

CDC Report Stirs Controversy For Merck’s Gardasil Vaccine
Cervical Cancer Vaccine Linked to Deaths, Incidents of Fainting and Blood Clots
By RADHA CHITALE
ABC News Medical Unit August 18, 2009
A government report out today raises new questions about the safety of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil and links the drug to 32 unconfirmed deaths as well as higher incidences of fainting and blood clots than other vaccines.

Emily Tarsell started her daughter Christina on Gardasil — a vaccine that protects against four of the most common cancer-causing strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV) — after her first visit to a gynecologist and at the doctor’s recommendation.

Eighteen days after Christina received her final vaccine shot, she died.

“I know it was the Gardasil,” Tarsell said, although the official cause of death was undetermined. “They were really recommending it, saying that there weren’t any side effects, that it was safe. So I kind of went against my better instinct [and let her] get the shot.”

Deaths like Christina’s are one of several types of complications reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following Gardasil distribution in 2006, a summary of which appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association today. Some of these adverse events were serious, including blood clots and neurological disorders, and some were non-life threatening side effects from the vaccine, including fainting, nausea and fever.

Although experts agree that the accuracy of data from VAERS reports — which can be made by anyone and are not verified or controlled for quality — is questionable, they remain divided as to whether extreme adverse events, which are serious but rare, are cause enough to stop recommending and administering the Gardasil vaccine without further investigation.

Report Shows Rare But Serious Side Effects May Result From Gardasil Vaccine
“Although the number of serious adverse events is small and rare, they are real and cannot be overlooked or dismissed without disclosing the possibility to all other possible vaccine recipients,” said Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at University of Missouri. “The rate of serious adverse events is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.”

As of June 1, 2009, the CDC reported that over 25 million doses of Gardasil, which is recommended for women between ages 9-26, have been distributed in the U.S. and there was an average of 53.9 VAERS reports per 100,000 vaccine doses. Of these, 40 percent occurred on the day of vaccination, and 6.2 percent were serious, including 32 reports of death.

VAERS Report Is No Measuring Stick For Gardasil Side Effects
“I’m pro preventing cervical cancer and HPV,” said Dr. Jacques Moritz, director of gynecology at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital, who said he would not offer the Gardasil vaccine to patients when good cervical cancer screening techniques and treatments exist. “I’m not pro that the physicians don’t know the risks and side effects.”

But clinicians on both sides of the vaccination debate agree that data provided by the VAERS report is limited because it lacks any baseline comparison for the adverse events reported. This makes it difficult to draw cause and effect relationships when a death, for example, occurs soon after administering the Gardasil vaccine.

In fact, the JAMA study authors showed that 90 percent of those with blood clots had typical risk factors for clots, outside of having received the vaccine — using oral contraceptives, for example, or smoking.

“The problem is that there is a difference between an adverse reaction caused by the vaccine, as opposed to an adverse event reported in association with the vaccine,” said Dr. Lauren Streicher, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Northwestern Medical School, who supports use of the vaccine. “Patients need to understand the true risk of the vaccine, as well as the risks of not getting the vaccine.”

Understanding Risks and Side Effects Essential For Recommending Gardasil
The overwhelming consensus regarding Gardasil use is that physicians who are not well versed in the risks of HPV and cervical cancer and the side effects of the vaccine cannot adequately counsel patients whether or not to be vaccinated.

Dr. Joseph Zanga, chief of pediatrics at the Columbus Regional Healthcare System in Columbus, Ga., pointed out that Gardasil does not prevent women from contracting HPV in every instance, that many people who are infected will spontaneously rid themselves of the virus, and that routine pap smears are still the best prevention against cervical cancer.

“Perhaps the most important, currently missing ‘warning’ is that the vaccine may not be forever,” Zanga said. “We know that it protects for 5-7 years so that a girl getting the series at [age] 11-12 will enter the time of her most likely sexual debut unprotected but believing herself to be.”

Many Doctors Will Continue to Provide Gardasil
Dr. L. Stewart Massad, the Practice and Ethics Committees chair for the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, said his organization has educated thousands of clinicians about the risks of HPV and the Gardasil vaccine.

“We based our education [program] criteria on data from the CDC’s risk assessment,” he said. “Certainly there are differences of opinion when it comes to how adverse events are, you have to balance the risk for each patient.”

Massad also noted that the ASCCP was unable to secure government or other non-profit funding for education outreach programs when the vaccine was first introduced and turned instead to private companies, including Merck, which manufactures Gardasil.

Further Investigation of Adverse Reports Needed
Harper said that the next step in determining the severity of the risks associated with the Gardasil vaccine would be for the CDC to investigate the reported adverse events and verify a causal relationship. But this may prove a difficult task, she said, because many of those events were reported by Merck and did not include sufficient information to perform an investigation.

Still, the report is unlikely to prevent most doctors from continuing to provide the vaccine to patients.

“There are 772 serious problems identified in 23 million doses of vaccine,” said Dr. Kevin Ault, associate professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics at Emory University. “I usually tell my patients that these serious events are tragic, rare and likely unrelated to the vaccine.”

ABC News’ Tyeese Gaines-Reid contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

Lisa Says: at the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse, here is another post on the vital role cholesterol has in our health, concerning clinical data on status use, and in the case, recommendations on use with diabetes. Dr. Mercola gives a good overview with a link to 900 studies showing statin drugs to be dangerous. You can also review the clinical data at Dr. Graveline’s website can review Dr. Graveline’s research at http://www.spacedoc.net/ as well as http://www.thincs.org/.

Here is the article:
Mayo Clinic DEAD Wrong on Diabetic Recommendations

Researchers from North Carolina State University and the Mayo Clinic have developed a computer model that is intended to determine the best time to begin using statin therapy in diabetes patients to help prevent heart disease and stroke.

According to the lead author, “The research is significant because patients with diabetes are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and statins are the single most commonly used treatment for patients at risk of heart disease and/or stroke.”

The new model incorporates patient-specific data. An established risk model calculates each patient’s probability of heart attack and stroke based on risk factors, such as their cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. This overall risk “score” is used to weigh the medical advantages of beginning statin therapy against the financial cost of the statins.

Sources:

Science Daily July 26, 2009

Medical Decision Making May 2009; 29 (3): 351-367

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Statins, which are a class of drugs used to lower your cholesterol, are among the most commonly prescribed medications in the world, and I believe, one of the most unnecessary drugs there are.

This is one class of drugs that I am dedicated to sound the alarm about. We are actually in the process of seeking to replicate a campaign similar to what was done to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking, to inform the public about the dangers and combat the media fraud, deception and manipulation that causes people to believe otherwise.

They could have saved loads of time and money here by reading this website, because the answer to the question, “When should you begin taking a statin?” is “never.” No computer models required.

Why?

Because it’s safe to say that a drug intended to prevent heart disease which actually causes heart failure is not the right treatment for most people. Statin drugs offer a “cure” that is far worse than the disease.

Why It’s Highly Unlikely You’ll Ever Need a Statin Drug

At least 12 million Americans are already taking statins, and based on new expert recommendations another 23 million “should” be taking them.

Now, there are a small group of people with genetic enzyme defects that have cholesterols levels above 325-350 who seem to benefit from statins. However, in my clinical experience over more than two decades and tens of thousands of patients, there have been a grand total of three patients that required statins to control this relatively uncommon genetic problem.

What This Computer Model Will NOT Tell You

It’s the emergence of these kinds of dangerous diagnostic strategies that make it so important to remain educated on this issue and not simply go along with what the media and professionals claim.. Especially since statin drugs are linked to many, many dangerous side effects. And I can guarantee you this computer model will not evaluate your risk of being harmed by the drug, even though there are over 900 studies showing statin drugs to be dangerous.

For example, Bayer’s statin, Baycol, was pulled from the market in 2001 after 31 people died from rhabdomyolysis, a condition in which muscle tissue breaks down resulting in kidney failure.

Other serious and potentially life threatening side effects include, but are not limited to:

Polyneuropathy, also known as peripheral neuropathy, which is characterized by weakness, tingling and pain in the hands and feet, as well as difficulty walking

Heart failure

An increase in cancer risk

Immune system suppression

Potential increase in liver enzymes, so patients must be monitored for normal liver function

Another example is Zetia, a cholesterol-lowering drug prescribed to about 1 million people each week. It was not only found to have no medical benefits, but the trial also discovered that arterial plaque growth increased, growing nearly twice as fast in patients taking Vytorin, a drug that combines Zetia with Zocor (another statin drug).

Despite these disturbing facts, Zetia and Vytorin account for about 20 percent of the cholesterol drugs on the U.S. market.

What You Need to Know About Cholesterol in Order to Understand the Dangers of Statins

Statin drugs work by preventing the formation of cholesterol, and reduce LDL cholesterol, which is considered the “bad” cholesterol.

There is no argument that these drugs do work very well at lowering your cholesterol levels. However, was has not been proven is that they significantly lower your risk of dying from heart disease. In no way, shape or form, do they treat the cause of your problem. They are nothing more than a toxic band-aid.

So just what makes statins so dangerous, and why are they not the answer for managing your cholesterol levels?

First you need to understand the biological workings of cholesterol.

In fact, there is no such thing as “good” or “bad” cholesterol. Both HDL and LDL cholesterol perform vital functions in your body, which is why it’s actually dangerous to bring your LDL levels down too low.

HDL (high density lipoprotein) and LDL (low density lipoprotein) are actually proteins that transport the cholesterol to and from your tissues.

Cholesterol in turn is a precursor to steroid hormones. For example, you can’t make testosterone or estrogen, cortisol, DHEA or pregnenolone, or a multitude of other steroid hormones that are necessary for health, without cholesterol.

Even more importantly, your cells cannot regenerate their membranes without it. The reason you have LDL to begin with is to transport the cholesterol to the tissues in order to make new cells and repair damaged ones.

However, there are different sizes of LDL particles and it’s the LDL particle size that is relevant, and statins do not modulate the size of the particles. Unfortunately, most people don’t know about that part, and very rarely, if ever, get tested for particle size.

The particles are sticky, so very small LDL’s can easily get stuck in different areas, and the build-up eventually causes inflammation and damage.

The only way to make sure your LDL particles are large enough to not cause damage is through your diet. In fact, it’s one of the major functions of insulin.

Conveniently enough, a healthy diet is also the answer for type 2 diabetes, so by focusing on what you eat, you’re treating both your diabetes and your cholesterol levels, and reducing your associated risk of heart disease.

If you eat properly, which is really the only known good way to regulate LDL particle size, then it does the right thing; it takes the cholesterol to your tissues, the HDL takes it back to your liver, and no plaque is formed.

The second thing you need to know is that statins work by reducing the enzyme that causes your liver to make cholesterol when it is stimulated by high insulin levels.

Again, you can achieve the same, or better, result by simply reducing your insulin levels by eliminating sugar and most grains, which is also what you need to do to successfully address type 2 diabetes.

What Most Doctors Fail to Tell You When Prescribing Statins

Another important aspect that most doctors fail to tell you about is that statins are non-specific inhibitors of not just one, but a number of very important liver enzymes, one of of the most important being Coenzyme Q10.

CoQ10 is a vital enzyme that your body needs for energy and cardiovascular health.

It is widely recommended to repair heart damage, boost the function of the heart and acts as a protectant against heart attacks and valve damage. Additionally, CoQ10 has been shown to be beneficial in heart and lung cancer, as well as maintain cognitive function.

Thus, when you take statins your production of this enzyme is dramatically depleted and you do not reap the health benefits associated with it. Unfortunately, few patients are ever told about this fact and their health suffers accordingly.

How to Normalize Your Cholesterol Without Dangerous Drugs

Just about every person, other than thesmall minority with the genetic enzyme defects mentioned above, can normalize their cholesterol levels with the Total Health Program, which includes modifying your eating habits based on your body’s unique nutritional type.

If you truly want to normalize your cholesterol levels, following these simple lifestyle changes can get you there:

Normalize your insulin levels by eliminating sugar and grains.

Take a high-quality animal-based omega-3 fat like krill oil or fish oil

Most men, and women who is in menopause, should check your iron levels as elevated levels of iron can cause major oxidative damage in the blood vessels, heart and other organs. Excess iron is also one of the major contributing factors of cancer risk

Regular exercise is another important tool that can help

Energy Psychology methods such as meridian tapping techniques can also be helpful for cholesterol. Read this press release for the possibilities.

As I stated earlier this week, one of our top priority goals is to spread the message that statin drugs are clearly not the weapon of choice for high cholesterol. I urge you to share this information as well, by forwarding this article to your friends and family.

Related Links:

The Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs (Statins), Cholesterol and Health

The Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven’t Been Told About Cholesterol-Lowering Medications

Cholesterol Drugs Actually Cause Heart Disease

Lisa Says: I was just talking about the benefits of Vitamin D (the FREE vitamin) this weekend. Here’s a clip from MSNBC.COM about how studies continue to show the risk of Vitamin D deficiencies due to lack of sunlight are related to cancer. Remember, this is only on a part of overall health, but who can argue that just 10 minutes a day with face and arms exposed (and no sunscreen) would hurt ? It could only help.

In this article, Dr. Mercola expounds on the benefits of Vitamin D regarding cancer. Here’s the link to the article which also includes the video clip (I couldn’t find the new clip itself on the web). Dr. Mercola then discusses the The D*Action Project.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/13/New-Model-for-Cancer–Dynamite.aspx

New Model for Cancer — Dynamite!
In a new study, researchers used a complex computer prediction model to determine that intake of vitamin D3 and calcium would prevent 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer annually in the U.S. and Canada. The researchers’ model also predicted that 75 percent of deaths from these cancers could be prevented with adequate intake of vitamin D3 and calcium.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

You can likely cut your risk of cancer by 60 percent — and it won’t cost you a dime. Would you like to know how?

By getting sun exposure.

This simple action is what allows your body to produce vitamin D, which is actually not a vitamin at all but rather a steroid hormone that influences your entire body. Receptors that respond to vitamin D have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your bones to your brain.

Theories linking vitamin D to certain cancers have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies, according to epidemiologist Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at the UC San Diego School of Medicine.[1]

Dr. Garland is widely regarded as the top epidemiologist on vitamin D and its relation to health. He led one of the latest studies on vitamin D for cancer prevention and his results, which were published in the Annals of Epidemiology[2], were nothing short of astonishing. Garland wrote:

“It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D [vitamin D] level to 40-60 ng/ml would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three quarters of deaths from these diseases, in the US and Canada.”

Further, the study proposed a new model of cancer development — dubbed DINOMIT — that is centered on a loss of cancer cells’ ability to stick together. The model is a departure from the older model of cancer development, which centers on genetic mutations as the earliest driving forces behind cancer. According to Dr. Garland:

“The first event in cancer is loss of communication among cells due to, among other things, low vitamin D and calcium levels. In this new model, we propose that this loss may play a key role in cancer by disrupting the communication between cells that is essential to healthy cell turnover, allowing more aggressive cancer cells to take over.”

Vitamin D is a Powerful Cancer Prevention Strategy

Dr. Garland’s findings only lend further credence to the mountain of growing evidence that optimal levels of vitamin D are essential for your health. Here are just a few highlights into some of the most noteworthy findings:

Some 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year if vitamin D levels among populations worldwide were increased, according to previous research by Dr. Garland and colleagues.[3] And that’s just counting the death toll for two types of cancer.
Optimizing your vitamin D levels could help you to prevent at least 16 different types of cancer including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, prostate, and skin cancers.[4]
A large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled study on vitamin D and cancer showed that vitamin D can cut overall cancer risk by as much as 60 percent![5] This was such groundbreaking news that the Canadian Cancer Society has actually begun endorsing the vitamin as a cancer-prevention therapy.
Light-skinned women who had high amounts of long-term sun exposure had half the risk of developing advanced breast cancer (cancer that spreads beyond your breast) as women with lower amounts of regular sun exposure, according to a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology.[6]
A study by Dr. William Grant, Ph.D., internationally recognized research scientist and vitamin D expert, found that about 30 percent of cancer deaths — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — could be prevented each year with higher levels of vitamin D.[7]
Now we’re starting to see more evidence that the type of cancer in question may not be all that important, because vitamin D appears to play a key role in the development — and prevention — of ALL types of cancer!

Beyond cancer, researchers have pointed out that increasing levels of vitamin D could prevent diseases that claim nearly 1 million lives throughout the world each year![8]

Why Isn’t This Being Shouted From the Rooftops??

The evidence is overwhelming, and the solution is incredibly simple. One way to drastically reduce your risk of cancer and countless other chronic diseases is to optimize your levels of vitamin D either by safe sun exposure, tanning in a safe tanning bed or taking a high-quality supplement.

Yet, a great deal of people around the world have heard nothing of this great “discovery.” It’s even likely that your doctor is among them.

And on top of that, many, many people are deficient in vitamin D. It’s thought that over 95 percent of U.S. senior citizens may be deficient, along with 85 percent of the American public.

Clearly, the word needs to get out but the mainstream media is slow to react. Plus, there’s no money to be made on selling vitamin D (it’s one of the most inexpensive supplements around) and sun exposure is free! So don’t count on any major corporations or drug companies to help get the message out (rather, count on them to try and suppress this lifesaving information).

The longer this information goes largely unnoticed, the more people who will die unnecessarily from potentially preventable cancers and other diseases.

Fortunately, GrassrootsHealth D*action is on a mission to get the word out and solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic … in just one year’s time.

The D*Action Project: How YOU Can Make a Difference

GrassrootsHealth has launched a worldwide public health campaign to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic in a year through a focus on testing and education with all individuals spreading the word.

And you are all invited to join in this campaign!

With Dr. Garland at the helm, The D*Action Project will be monitoring, for five years, the health outcomes of individuals who get their vitamin D levels to the levels of 40-60 ng/ml. I would highly recommend that you optimize your levels to the high end of this spectrum, as optimal vitamin D levels are 50-65 ng/ml, or 65-90 ng/ml if you are treating cancer.

Says Carole Baggerly, director of GrassrootsHealth:

“We will be tracking the incidence of many diseases, from cancer to diabetes and muscular function as well as pain levels to see what effect the higher vitamin D levels may have.

We expect to see a significant reduction in the incidence of breast cancer (and its recurrence), colon cancer, diabetes and myocardial infarction, compared with the general population. With the expansion of the project by individuals, we could substantially reduce this epidemic in a few years!”

So how can you get involved?

Join the D*action Project!

Simply complete a health questionnaire and test your vitamin D levels two times per year during the 5-year program to help demonstrate the public health impact of this nutrient.

GrassrootsHealth is sponsoring the use of blood spot test kits (laboratory analysis done by ZRT Labs) for a $40 fee to each individual. The tests are to be done twice a year by each individual along with the submission of some basic health data. The fee includes:

A vitamin D blood spot test kit to be used at home (except in the state of New York)
The results sent directly to you
You will be asked to take a quick health survey and also to take action to adjust your vitamin D levels to get into the desired ranges, ideally in consultation with a knowledgeable health care professional.

If you are a physician, medical institution or other health group, please also get involved by contacting Baggerly directly at: carole@grassrootshealth.org

What will be done with the information you provide in the health survey?

A five-year study will be done with the data accumulated to evaluate the results of the program in disease prevention and to help create a long-term plan for public health.

Regularly testing your vitamin D levels and monitoring them to stay within therapeutic ranges is a step I urge all of you to do for your health. By joining the D*Action Project, you can make a major contribution to the health of the United States and your own health at the same time!

This project depends on a true ‘grassroots’ health movement. Together we can stop the vitamin D deficiency epidemic in its tracks and improve the health of millions of people.

With only 100 of you joining today, and getting two friends to join in two weeks (and those two friends getting two more), by week 42 there could be 400,000,000 people who are vitamin D ‘replete’ (more than the United States population)!

To find out more about vitamin D, including what your levels should be and how to safely get them there, please watch my one-hour, free vitamin D lecture.

Then, do your part to stop vitamin D deficiency, and improve your own health, by Joining the D*Action Project Now, and encouraging your friends and family to do so also!

——————————————————————————–

[1] Science Daily, “New Model Of Cancer Development: Low Vitamin D Levels May Have Role” May 26, 2009

[2] Annals of Epidemiology July 2009, Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages 468-483

[3] Nutrition Reviews August 2007 Volume 65, Supplement 1, pp. 91-95(5) (Registration Required)

The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology March 2007; 103(3-5):708-11

[4] Grant, William “Reduce Your Risk of Cancer With Sunlight Exposure,” Mercola.com March 31, 2004

[5] American Journal of Clinical Nutrition June 2007; 85(6):1586-91.