Category: Interesting Information

Information I want to share in a non-essay form

Interesting Information: Warning: Most Sun Screens Do NOT Prevent Skin-Damaging Radiation

Interesting Information:  July 28, 2014

Warning:  Most Sun Screens Do NOT Prevent Skin-Damaging Radiation

 

I drove up to Belfast this morning in Pea Soup Fog to shop at the Coop.  I retain my fascination with the mystery and softness of a dense Pea Soup Fog.  With this one, I could only see about 100 feet in front of the car.

On the way home, it rained buckets–a real gully washer.  Reynolds insisted on getting into my lap and hiding her head under my left arm.  The parking lot at Hannaford’s, where I stopped to get some cleaning supplies not available at the Belfast COOP (which immediately tells me something about those supplies), was wheel-high gushing water in its low spot.  Mercy!

But, on the way home, the noon Maine NPR station was discussing sunburn and sunblocks.  The guest “expert” was from the Environmental Working Group–which is more or less solid I think.  I do have some problems with the EWG.

Coincidentally, Dr. Joseph Mercola had sent out recently a post on sunblocks and sun protection, and the need for balance in that we get vitamin D from sun shining on our skin.

Here’s the thing I did not know until I read this post:  Sun Screens DO NOT protect your skin from UVA rays, and they are the ones that damage your skin and set into place the potential for skin cancers.

Here’s the explanation from Mercola’s post:

QUOTE:

UVAs versus UVBs

So, how can you get the benefits without raising your risk for skin damage? It’s important to remember that the sun can either be helpful or harmful depending on what type of ultraviolet light you’re getting. The ultraviolet light from the sun comes in two main wavelengths:
  • Ultraviolet A (UVA) – Considered the unhealthy wavelength because it penetrates your skin more deeply and cause more free radical damage. Sunblocks containing SPF filter out the beneficial UVB, not these cancer-causing UVAs, unless they also contain a UVA blocking ingredient.
  • As a result, wearing sunscreen may prevent you from burning, as excessive UVBs are the chief cause of sunburn, but you still receive a large amount of skin-damaging radiation. Moreover, UVA rays are constantly available, even on cloudy days.  There are likely some benefits to UVA in moderation that we do not fully understand, as there appears to be with many spectrums emitted from the sun.
  • Ultraviolet B (UVB) – This is the ‘healthy’ wavelength that helps your skin produce vitamin D. While both UVA and UVB can cause tanning and burning, UVB does so far more rapidly.
  • Contrary to UVAs, which are more readily available, UVB rays are low in morning and evening, and high at midday or solar noon, making this the most optimal time for vitamin D production (roughly between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.). Ironically, this is the timeframe most mainstream experts warn you to stay out of the sun.

How to Prevent and Treat Sunburn Naturally.

Mercola goes on to discuss healthy sun-exposure practices–the most important of which is to GET OUT OF THE SUN AFTER 10 OR SO MINUTES OF EXPOSURE IN THE HEAT OF THE DAY!!!

When I was growing up, our days at the beach were so special–it was time we all looked forward to all year.  We went to the beach around 10 a.m. and left just before noon.  We returned around 3:30 or 4:00 until, sometimes, close to dark.  WE NEVER LAY IN THE SUN AND “SUNNED” OURSELVES.  And we got plenty tanned.  We spent our time at the beach swimming, riding waves, and walking the tidal edge looking for shells.  

You know, in other eras, people protected their skin from the sun.  Today we equate a tan with health.

I don’t use sun blocks of any kind any longer–and we never did as children.  There is a strong correlation between today’s heavy use of the chemicals in sun blocks and cancer.  And, science has shown that many of the chemicals in sun blocks are dangerous.  The Environmental Working Group has lists of which sun screens are better than others.  And the speaker today kept emphasizing to RUB IN the chemicals so they are effective, that NO SUNBLOCK protects when washed away with water, and that the spray sunblocks are being investigated by the FDA on a number of accounts.  (Users don’t want to get their fingers “dirty” while rubbing in sunblocks–which is the height of…what???…misguidedness, at the very least.)

Here are the “rules” from my childhood–you know, that time when no one had heard the word “cancer”–leave the beach by noon, don’t go back until late afternoon, wear a hat when out of the water, on really hot days wear an old t-shirt to swim, and protect your skin from the sun in the heat of the day with long-sleeved shirts, yes, but seek out the shade in the heat of the day.  Truthfully, after a morning of riding waves and a hearty lunch, an hour or two reading or playing games was a nice change.  Even the hardier types often fell into naps–which was relaxing and enabled staying up very late at night to enjoy a beach fire or chasing ghost crabs at the edge of the dunes.

Interesting Information: Seventy-Five Percent Of Honey Bought At The Supermarket Isn’t Real Honey

Interesting Information:  July 27, 2014

Fake Honey

You know that cute little bear filled with honey at the supermarket.  You have a 25 percent chance of that bear’s contents being actual honey.

I’ve written several times about fake or “laundered” honey on this blog.  You can search for “laundered” honey–most of which is coming from China.

Here’s more recent information:

Health Freedom Alliance » Seventy-Five Percent Of Honey Bought At The Supermarket Isn’t Real Honey.

Buy REAL, unprocessed, unheated LOCAL honey from a caring bee keeper.  That kind of honey is one of nature’s most amazing medicines.  I make sure I eat several tablespoons every day, and I can’t think when (knock on wood) I’ve had a cold, or the flu, or allergies…

Interesting Information: “The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics”

Interesting Information:  July 27, 2014

“The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics”

I’ve often wondered if the “new” plastics that are BPA-free are any safer.

Ok, so I’m a total cynic where industry “truth” is concerned.

And that cynicism is driven by the fact that with regard to agricultural chemicals, industry lets a chemical ride until it has hurt enough people, then withdraws it, then replaces it with something else that does not yet have a reputation.  The tobacco industry wrote this playbook, and it staved off recognition of health dangers for…what?…50 or 60 years.

Our government either is powerless to stop this kind of practice and/or turns a blind eye.

Mariah Blake’s article beings this way:

EACH NIGHT AT DINNERTIME, a familiar ritual played out in Michael Green’s home: He’d slide a stainless steel sippy cup across the table to his two-year-old daughter, Juliette, and she’d howl for the pink plastic one. Often, Green gave in. But he had a nagging feeling. As an environmental-health advocate, he had fought to rid sippy cups and baby bottles of the common plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), which mimics the hormone estrogen and has been linked to a long list of serious health problems. Juliette’s sippy cup was made from a new generation of BPA-free plastics, but Green, who runs the Oakland, California-based Center for Environmental Health, had come across research suggesting some of these contained synthetic estrogens, too.

And, contains this kind of information:

Even as the industry crafted defensive talking points, some companies began offering BPA-free alternatives. But they often didn’t bother testing them for other potentially toxic compounds or synthetic hormones. Nor did they have to: Under US law, chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise, and companies are rarely required to collect or disclose chemical-safety data. Michael Green, the Center for Environmental Health director who worried about his daughter’s sippy cup, says this results in a “toxic shell game”: Corporations that come under pressure to root out toxins often replace them with untested chemicals, which sometimes turn out to be just as hazardous. “It’s an unplanned science experiment we’re doing on our families,” Green told me when I visited him at his Bay Area home, where Juliette, now 5, was padding around in a pink princess costume.

We are talking about reproductive health and cancer for our children.  Nothing less…

So, do read the article…

The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics | Mother Jones.

Interesting Information: AARP Bulletin – May 2014 – “Cancer RX: `The $100,000 Myth’ “

Interesting Information:  July 27, 2014

“Cancer RX:  The $100,000 Myth”

The cancer industry is driven not by finding a “cure,” but by finding patients who are desperate to live, who have good insurance, and who agree to undergo cancer drug treatments–which by the way have been a scandalous and dismal failure.

This little piece in the AARP Bulletin exposes the gouging practices for the drugs.

AARP Bulletin – May 2014 – Page 22-23.

The authors are Donald W. Light and Hagop Kantarjian.

 

Here’s a quote:

Eleven of the 12 new cancer drugs approved in 2012 were priced above $100,000 annually, and a 20 to 30 percent copayment can make them unaffordable even for well-insured patients.

The article goes on to ask WHY? and proceeds to utterly demolish Big Pharma’s rationale for this kind of gouging.

Big Pharma has inflated and twisted its actual development costs.

Taxpayers “subsidize about half of company research costs through credits and deductions granted to drug companies.”

Big Pharma distorts its “average” costs by only using the most expensive drugs to compute the average.

Big Pharma spends only about one-sixth of its research funds in developing new drugs.  For cancer drugs, this figure is even lower.

Big Pharma continually raises prices across its whole market yearly, or it has a “market spiral pricing strategy.”

And on and on…

It’s a rigged system–rigged for profit, not for human health.

And that’s what industry does when capitalism is not fettered to morals and ethics that are good for people.

 

 

 

Interesting information: Dr. Sylvia Onusic on Taking Daily Baby Aspirin

Interesting Information:  July 2014

 Dr. Sylvia Onusic on Taking Daily Baby Aspirin

 

Are you taking a daily baby aspirin to prevent heart disease?

If so, you may want to take a look at this posting.

And, note that aspirin is actually a very serious drug, not just something we can pop like we might a vitamin pill…

 

Sylvia Onusic is a board certified and licensed nutritionist with a PhD in Public Health Education.  

 

By Dr. Sylvia Onusic

Another medical sacred cow bites the dust. Time to chuck that baby aspirin bottle in the trash if you haven’t already.

My Mother, who is 88 years old, has never had a heart attack, stroke or angina, religiously takes a coated low dose aspirin “every other day” on the advice of her physician.

A couple of years ago, she was complaining of heart burn and her doctor thought it was heart pain. After placing a stent, the pain continued and it was found that she had had several ulcers which were caused by the bacteria heliobacter pylori: h.pylori for short.

She was given high dose antibiotics to combat the bacterial infection. After an emergency visit to the hospital because of a reaction to the medication, her doctor paid her no further attention except to prescribe daily aspirin and proton pump inhibitors like Prilosac.

In some time she was informed that she needed a medical procedure to look at her stomach lining which involved IV anesthetics in a hospital setting. After the procedure the gastroenterologist showed us photos of her stomach lining which was inflamed. There were angry red specks everywhere. He informed us that the aspirin had caused the inflammation but she needed to keep taking it because it protected her heart!

The truth is that there is no evidence that aspirin prevents cardiovascular disease in men and women 80 years or older. 1 But despite this, elderly are regularly recommended aspirin when the potential benefit due to a reduction in myocardial infarctions outweighs the potential harm due to an increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

The risk of bleeding from aspirin usage is especially higher in the elderly. 2-3 More worrisome, recent studies have linked regular use of aspirin with the development of macular degeneration, an eye condition which leads to blindness. 4 -5

A recent article in the Journal of the American Board for Family Medicine reports that:

“ Even with new evidence against the use of aspirin for primary prevention, it is difficult to change beliefs about the effectiveness and safety of aspirin, as reflected in the behavior of physicians and patients.” 6

But other groups may not benefit as well. In 2002 the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) started recommending the use of aspirin as primary prevention for patients at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

They still recommend aspirin use but differently in men versus women:

–for men age 45-79 to reduce risk of myocardial infarction (MI) when a net benefit is present.

–for women age 55-79 to reduce risk of ischemic stroke when a net benefit is present.

And how to determine “net benefit? It is totally up to the physician.

The USPSTF provides an online instrument to calculate the ten year coronary heart disease risk as a means of deciding if aspirin ingestion would yield a “net benefit.” The USPSTF is an independent panel of 16 so-called experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine and is composed of physicians and psychologists. 1

On two occasions the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has denied to approve aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events and stroke in any population because of a lack of evidence supporting its efficacy. 6 The most recent denial was a citizen’s petition from Bayer to add primary prevention of heart attacks and strokes to aspirin labeling. 

In fact NO studies have shown that the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks of side-effects for those without a history of cardiac events. Despite current prescription policies, there is no specific population, not even diabetics, where the benefits of aspirin for primary prevention outweigh the risks. 3,6 Several long term clinical trials showed conflicting results. A recent meta-analysis of l9 randomized controlled trials of aspirin for primary prevention of cardio-vascular disease (CVD), with data on over 100,000 people, concluded that “routine use of aspirin for primary prevention is not warranted.” 7

A new and emerging use of aspirin for the prevention of deaths from colon cancer was also evaluated in the same meta-analysis and no overall beneficial effect of aspirin use on cancer deaths was found. 7

The American Heart Association recommends regular aspirin usage for secondary prevention of acute cardiovascular events since 1997. Secondary prevention means that the person has already had a heart attack, stroke or angina. 8 For these patients the benefits of taking aspirin may be outweighed by the increase in internal bleeding. Aspirin interferes with platelets, which help blood to clot. A 2010 study showed that patients taking aspirin showed a higher risk for recurrent heart attack and heart problems.3

The most common side effect from regular aspirin usage is upper abdominal pain from gastric irritation. Enteric coasted aspirin is recommended to deal with this. 8 The coating supposedly prevents inflammation of the stomach lining but contains aluminum, around 50 mg. per pill 9 Aluminum has been strongly linked with the development of Alzheimers Disease.10 To reduce the risk of bleeding medical professionals recommend a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) like the “little purple pill” Nexium or Prilosec and similar medications in combination with the aspirin. PPI’s reduce the level of stomach acid and thus dramatically impact digestive efficiency. They are closely linked to development of osteoporosis, B 12 deficiency, anemia, severe iron deficiency, and many nutrient deficiency diseases which can be life threatening. 11

Aspirin is also associated with development of ulcers and diverticular disease, and there is an increased risk of breast cancer in women taking aspirin, increased risk of kidney failure and development of cataracts, hearing loss and tinnitus. But that is not all. With frequent aspirin use, there is an increase in sudden death. Aspirin may act as a masking agent, and conceal a “cardiac event in progress.” Aspirin does not perform any better for women. 3

Some may remember the government campaign in the 70’s and 80’s cautioning parents not to not give aspirin to infants, from birth to 18 years of age especially after a viral illness. The warnings were prompted by the many cases of children taking aspirin who developed Reyes Syndrome. Researchers today believe that the Reyes Syndrome was caused, at least in part of the cases, by metabolic failure of the mitochondria from virus, pesticides, medicine, or stress. 12 The warning still appears on aspirin packaging. 9

Did Overly Liberal Use of Aspirin Contribute to Flu Deaths in 1918?

Autopsies of young adult victims who died early on during the 1918-1919 flu pandemic which accounted for a high number of cases showed wet and hemorrhaging lungs and pulmonary edema. Physicians of the day were giving huge amounts of aspirin, up to 31 grams per day. Today we know those amounts produce toxicity as well as pulmonary edema.

Recent results with aspirin overdoses show similar lung problems and a significant proportion of the deaths in persons who had pulmonary edema could be explained by aspirin overdose. Aspirin overdose has serious consequences including hallucinations, confusion, seizure, cerebral edema and coma. The most common cause of death following overdose is cardiopulmonary arrest.13

A government panel recently recommended daily low-dose aspirin use after 12 weeks of gestation for pregnant women in order to reduce the risk of pre-eclampsia and premature birth. Fans of Downtown Abbey may remember the death of the daughter, Sybil, who developed eclampsia at a home birth. Eclampsia. It is characterized by high blood pressure, protein in the urine, liver disease and blood-clotting abnormalities.14

Most people switched from aspirin to acetaminophen (Tylenol) and other pain relievers at the end of the 20th century. In 2013 the FDA issued a warning that acetaminophen can cause rare but fatal skin reactions with actual skin death. Overdose accounts for the most cases of acute liver failure in this country. Contrary to popular belief, acetaminophen does not reduce inflammation. Its history is fraught with reports of harm… its deadly to cats, dogs and snakes. But what about people? Dr. William Shaw, PhD, Director of Great Plains Laboratories, who has done extensive work with autistic children, points to acetaminophen as a possible cause of rising rates of autism, asthma and Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD). 15

In addition, acetaminophen has been linked with shockingly high rates of asthma in children even when taken as infrequently as once per year.

Bottom line? Just because we can buy aspirin and acetaminophen over-the-counter doesn’t mean that it they have no health risks, especially for the most vulnerable of us, such as the unborn child, infants, young children and the elderly.

About the Author

Sylvia Onusic is a board certified and licensed nutritionist with a PhD in Public Health Education.  She discovered her gluten sensitivity as an adult after experiencing serious weight gain, disabling arthritis and skin infections. She herself experienced many enamel defects and untold hours of expensive dental work.

One of her main nutritional interests is helping individuals and  families recognize the physical and mental conditions and illnesses related to early gluten sensitivity, celiac disease and other food-related disorders, and how to deal with them to protect the family’s health. You can read more of her work at her website drsylviaonusic.com or connect with her via Facebook.

References

1 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Aspirin for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease. Recommendation Statement. March 2009. http://bit.ly/1iQ9K5w

2 Pilottto A et al. The risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly users of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: the role of gastroprotective drugs. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2003 Dec;15(6):494-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14959953

3 Mercola J. Aspirin’s Mostly Unrecognized Connection to Serious Medical Problems. Mercola.com. Take Control of Your Health. http://bit.ly/Q1nnYB

4 Liew G et al. The association of aspirin use with age-related macular degeneration. JAMA Intern Med . 2013 February 25;173(4):258-64.

5 de Jong PT, Chakravarthy U, Rahu M et al. Associations between aspirin use and aging macula disorder: the European Eye Study. Ophthalmology 2012 January;119(1):112

6 Hissett J et al. Effects of Changing Guidelines on Prescribing Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events. Am Board Fam Med. 2014;27(1):78-86. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/818884, accessed 5-3-14.

7 Seshasai SRK, Wijesuriya S, Sivakumaran R, et al. Effect of aspirin on vascular and nonvascular outcomes: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:209 –16.

8 Paikin JS, Eikelboom, JWCardiology Patient Page. Cardiology patient page: Aspirin. Circulation. 2012; 125: e439-e442 . doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.046243

Free text here: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/10/e439.full.pdf

9 Toxic Effects everyday exposures. Aluminum. http://www.everydayexposures.com/toxins/toxic-metals/aluminum;

Daily Med. Safety coated enteric aspirin. http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/lookup.cfm?setid=5e1484d3-5be1-40da-a3bf-fb19f7d27d45

10 Bhattacharjee S et al. Aluminum and its potential contribution to Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Front Aging Neurosci. 2014 Apr 8;6:62. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00062. eCollection 2014. Open access free text.

11 Saint Louis C. Acid-Suppressing Drugs Linked to Vitamin B12 Deficiency. New York Times, 12-10-14. http://nyti.ms/1eGBcBo

12 Aspirin Foundation – Suitability – Backgrounder on New Advice on Aspirin. Aspirin and Reyes syndrome. http://www.aspirin-foundation.com/suitability/backgrounder.html

13 Starko KM. Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918–1919. Pharmacology, Pathology, and Historic Evidence. Clin Inf Diseases. 2009; 49:1405-10

14 Saint Louis, C. Panel Urges Low Dose Aspirin to Reduce Preeclampsia Risk. New York Times. 4-7-2013. http://nyti.ms/1fG4R4C

15 Shaw, W. Evidence that Increased Acetaminophen use in Genetically Vulnerable Children Appears to be a Major Cause of the Epidemics of Autism, Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity, and Asthma. Great Plains Laboratory; Ellis S. New research claims use of acetaminophen / paracetamol correlates with Autism and ADHD diagnosis rise. AND Austism Daily Newscast. October 29, 2013 ; Krans B. Healthline. Study: Acetominopen during pregnancy raises risk for ADHD. Healthline News. 2-2-14. http://bit.ly/1luWHMk.

– See more at: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/aspirin-no-benefit-prevention-heart-attack-and-stroke/#sthash.2AbgcP1E.dpuf

 

Interesting (AND SAD) Information: CDC Estimates 1 in 68 Children Has Been Identified With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Interesting Information:  July 23, 2014

 

CDC Estimates 1 in 68 Children Has Been Identified With Autism Spectrum Disorder

1 in 48 boys and 1 in 189 girls…

30% higher than 2012 data…

Autism rates are worse in some areas than others…

When I was growing up, people were just not sick like they are now…

Where’s the tipping point where we demand change, where we demand what is good for human health BEFORE what’s seemingly good for industry?

Here’s a quote from the press release:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 1 in 68 children (or 14.7 per 1,000 eight-year-olds) in multiple communities in the United States has been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).  This new estimate is roughly 30 percent higher than previous estimates reported in 2012 of 1 in 88 children (11.3 per 1,000 eight year olds) being identified with an autism spectrum disorder.    The number of children identified with ASD ranged from 1 in 175 children in Alabama to 1 in 45 children in New Jersey.

The surveillance summary report, “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder among Children Aged 8 Years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2010,” was published today in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  Researchers reviewed records from community sources that educate, diagnose, treat and/or provide services to children with developmental disabilities. The criteria used to diagnose ASDs and the methods used to collect data have not changed.

The data continue to show that ASD is almost five times more common among boys than girls:  1 in 42 boys versus 1 in 189 girls. White children are more likely to be identified as having ASD than are black or Hispanic children.

CDC estimates 1 in 68 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder Latest snapshot shows proportion of children with autism and higher IQ on the rise | Press Release | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC.

Interesting Information: Berkeley Pushes For Cancer Warning Stickers On Cell Phones

Interesting Information:  July 19, 2014

Berkeley Pushes For Cancer Warning Stickers On Cell Phones

I think the barn door is open now on information about the cancer dangers cell phones carry.

Here’s another article–one from a Great Britain newspaper about Berkeley, California’s attempt to require warning stickers on cell phones.

It’s important to note that industry studies claiming safety are…short.   And, Devra Davis, claims, jerry-rigged.  (Oh what a surprise!)  The types of cancer caused by cell phones mostly take a decade to emerge.  So, once again, we are all walking experiments.

 

Berkeley pushes for cancer warning stickers on cell phones – SFGate.  

Here’s a quote:

“Cell phones are a risk, and I believe the public has a right to information that’s credible, readable and understandable about the device they’re using,” said Berkeley City Councilman Max Anderson, who’s co-sponsoring the ordinance and has a background in public health. “I’m not intimidated by the cell phone industry. The legal department might be, but I’m not.”

And, here’s another:

Joel Moskowitz, head of UC Berkeley’s Center for Family and Community Health, has no such indecision. He’s been studying the issue since 2009, and has concluded that cell phones are “one of the top emerging public health risks.”

Studies cited by the cell phone industry are outdated, he said. Newer and more complex wireless technology, coupled with people spending increasing amounts of time on their phones, is almost certain to lead to an uptick in brain cancer, he said.

“It’s just a matter of time,” he said. “The evidence is a lot more compelling than it has been.”

Radiation from cell phones penetrates the skin and skull and absorbs into the brain tissue, having an adverse affect on cells, he said. Phone radiation can also affect sperm count among men who carry phones in their pockets, he said.

Consumers should wear headsets, use the speaker feature and otherwise keep phones away from their bodies, he said.

“With cell phones, distance is your friend,” he said.

Interesting Information: Devra Davis Lecture: NEW Urgent Warning To All Cell Phone Users

Interesting Information:  July 19, 2014

Devra Davis Lecture:  NEW Urgent Warning to All Cell Phone Users

 

I really like my cell phone.

Most of you do, too.  And many of you are dropping your land lines and relying, now, solely on your cell phone connection to the world.

What’s not to like?  This little gadget connects us to the internet, to our mail, to all our phone functions, to Facebook, to a GPS function that can direct you anywhere, and on and on.

AND, dropping your land line means you are only paying for ONE phone, not two.

 

BUT, what’s not to like?  In a nutshell, they are dangerous.

It is increasingly clear that cell phones are dangerous as they can impact your body at the cellular level AND THAT THIS INFORMATION IS WELL KNOWN BY CELL PHONE COMPANIES AND IS BEING SUPPRESSED.

Here’s a lecture by the premier scientist Devra Davis.  You may recall that she wrote THE SECRET HISTORY OF THE WAR ON CANCER, in which, at the end, she begins to realize the dangers of cell phones and how industry was hiding those dangers.  And I can tell you her book, which I have not yet read, details the science that shows cell phone danger:  DISCONNECT:  THE TRUTH BEHIND CELL PHONE RADIATION.

Here’s a quote from the article setting up the lecture whose url is below:

In her lecture, Dr. Davis explains how the biological impact of your cell phone is not related to its power, which is quite weak, but rather to the erratic nature of its signal and its ability to disrupt resonance and interfere with DNA repair. This is now believed to be the most plausible theory for understanding the wide array of health impacts discovered, which includes cancer… – See more at: http://www.healthfreedoms.org/new-urgent-warning-to-all-cell-phone-users/#sthash.4QHw6Rsw.dpuf

 

Please slow down and pay attention and put into place the measures that can protect you.  For instance:  DON’T CARRY YOUR CELL PHONE ON YOUR BODY.  And, don’t stay on it too long.  You’ve noticed the heat it generates, right?  Well, that heat hurts.

Health Freedom Alliance » NEW Urgent Warning To All Cell Phone Users.

Here’s another quote from this article:

 Experts in the area of the biological effects of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) and wireless technologies believe there’s virtually no doubt that cell phones and related gadgets are capable of causing not only cancer but contributing to a wide variety of other conditions, from depression and diabetes to heart irregularities and impaired fertility. Researchers have now identified numerous mechanisms of harm, which explain how electromagnetic fields impact your cells and damages your DNA.

One such expert is Dr. Martin Blank, PhD, one of the most experienced researchers of the cellular and molecular effects of electromagnetic fields in the U.S. He gave an informative speech at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, “The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields,” co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. In it, he explained why your DNA, with its ‘coil of coils’ structure, is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.

– See more at: http://www.healthfreedoms.org/new-urgent-warning-to-all-cell-phone-users/#sthash.4QHw6Rsw.dpuf

CHILDREN ARE ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE:  it’s a VERY BAD IDEA to give them cell phones.

 

Interesting Information: Time’s June 12th Cover, “Eat Butter”

Interesting Information:  July 2014

“Don’t Blame Fat” by Bryan Walsh

 

Yes, Yes, Yes!

Bryan Walsh’s article on how eating good fats is NOT DANGEROUS appeared in the June 12th TIME magazine.

“Note that “Good” fats are not just any fats–they are saturated animal fats from animals raised in holistic environments where they eat what they are supposed to eat and unprocessed olive and coconut oil.  They are NOT HIGHLY PROCESSED VEGETABLE OR NUT OILS.  Think, especially, of butter, tallow, lard, duck fat, chicken fat, eggs from free-range chickens who are NOT fed soy, raw milk and raw milk products like yogurt, coconut oil, olive oil, organic avocado, and organic nuts and seeds that have been soaked in salt water and dried.

Time Cover, Butter – Google Search.

Friend Judith Valentine–a PhD nutritionist who trained in part under Dr. Mary Enig of The Weston A. Price Foundation (judithvalentine.com), saved the article for me.

What a joy it was to read.

The work of many of the people I’ve written about here on this blog was acknowledged–like Gary Taubes.  And Michael Pollen.  And the Duke Obesity Clinic docs.

Ancel Keyes, the father of the low-fat movement, was properly debunked.

The role of politics was traced.

The fact that it’s really difficult to get reputable science published if it “goes against the momentary grain” of BELIEF was demonstrated.

EAT REAL FOOD and OCCUPY YOUR KITCHEN!

Thank you TIME and Bryan Walsh.

 

Visit your library and read the article.