|
|
|
Alternative Medicine in the News
August 2010 edition 87
published weekly
|
|
Vaccines destroy the lives of children in China
(NaturalNews) More than 70 children in the northern Chinese province of
Shanxi have suffered severe side effects from defective vaccines in the
past several years, the China Economic Times has reported.
According
to the state-run media, vaccines including those against hepatitis B
and rabies were exposed to excessive heat through improper storage
between 2006 and 2008. According to the World Health Organization, this
can cause vaccines to denature and become dangerous, but the Times reports that the vaccines
were not properly destroyed and were administered to children instead.
More than 70 children suffered serious side effects, and four died.
Wang Mingliang said that his baby son Xiao'er began to suffer from spasms and trouble breathing shortly after receiving a hepatitis B vaccine.
"We spent more than seven months trying to get him well, from Western medicine
to traditional Chinese medicine, and none of it worked," Wang said.
"None of the hospitals we went to managed to find a cause for his
illness, and that's when we started suspecting the vaccine."
The child died several months later.
Another child, Qiang Qiang, developed epilepsy and a learning disability after a vaccine against Japanese encephalitis.
"His
teacher at school tells us he is dumb, that he has short memory and
cannot follow classes," his father Gao Changhong said. "We have spent
nearly 60,000 yuan ($8,800) to try to cure him, and we really hope the
government will take this situation seriously."
While the Chinese health
ministry has acknowledged that the vaccines were improperly managed, it
denies any connection between the vaccines and the four deaths.
State-run media have also exposed a drug firm in Jiangsu province for using an unapproved additive that allowed the company's rabies
vaccine to pass inspection but made it less potent. In this case, the
Food and Drug Administration has acknowledged the use of "inferior
materials," and said it had ordered the company to stop production.
Sources for this story include: http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph....
|
Identify the Causes of Dark Circles under the Eyes
(NaturalNews) Dark circles under the eyes tend to give you an older,
rather haggard or tired appearance. There are many factors that lead to
the dark circles.
Why Dark Under Eye Circles Develop
Age
Typically,
dark circles develop when the skin under the eyes become relatively
thin and more transparent with age, write Dr David J. Goldberg M.D., a
New Jersey dermatologist, and Eva M. Herriot in Secrets Of Great Skin:
The Definitive Guide To Anti-aging Skin Care.
Allergies and Nasal Congestion
Dark circles under the eyes are also caused by allergies such as asthma and hay fever, which tend to lead to congestion of the fine veins under the eyes. The Mayo Clinic also lists nasal congestion as one of the most common causes of dark circles. In an online article,
the Clinic explains that when the nose gets congested, it causes veins
that drain from the eyes into the nose to dilate and get darker.
Heredity
Age
and family traits play an important role in the appearance of dark
circles. According to Linda Allen Schoen and Paul Lazar, hereditary
anatomical factors are often a direct cause of under eye circles. In
their book "The look you like: medical answers to 400 questions on skin
and hair care,"
they explain that these circles particularly affect people who have
thin, lower eyelid skins because the flow of blood in the veins beneath
the surface tends to show through the skin, giving it a bluish-black
tint.
Lack of Sleep
Although people usually associate dark circles under the eye with lack of sleep,
insomnia is not really a major cause, though it may aggravate the under
eye circles. If lack of sleep does not cause dark circles, what is the
relationship between them? Why do some people develop the circles when
they are fatigued? According to authors Marianne Legato and Carol
Colman, the skin below the eyes may lose some moisture and elasticity
when one is exhausted, which will change the way light is reflected off
the skin.
Shadowing
Dark circles under the eyes may be
little more than shadows cast by puffy under-eye bags. In their book
"What Women Need to Know," Marianne Legato and Carol Colman state that
dark circles may be an optical illusion that results from the way light
gets reflected off the skin beneath the eyes.
Hormonal Changes
In
some instances, pregnancy and birth control pills may also cause the
dark circles to develop. This is as a result of hormonal changes and
increased pigmentation under the eyes respectively.
References
1. "Secrets Of Great Skin: The Definitive Guide To Anti-aging Skin Care," David J. Goldberg, Eva M. Herriot
2. The Mayo Clinic: Dark circles under eyes? Not from fatigue
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/he...
3. "The look you like: medical answers to 400 questions on skin and hair care," Linda Allen Schoen, Paul Lazar
4. "What Women Need to Know" Marianne Legato, Carol Colman
|
Vitamins Get Rid of Dark Circles under the Eyes
(NaturalNews) Although the dark circles under the eyes may not cause
any serious health problem, they are often a cause of great cosmetic
concern, adding years to your appearance or making you look haggard or
unhealthy. There are a number of different natural remedies for dark
under eye circles - such as vitamins. Vitamins can be used topically or
orally to get rid of dark circles
The Mayo Clinic recommends
getting rid of your dark circles by applying a vitamin-rich cream. A
2004 clinical study conducted by researchers at Tokyo's Nippon Medical
School showed that a topical gel treatment containing vitamins A, C, K and E had moderately effective results in reducing dark circles. The gel, which was applied twice a day, contained 2% vitamin K, 0.1% retinol (Vitamin A), 0.1% vitamin C and 0.1% vitamin E . Several over-the-counter creams contain these vitamins.
Tanushree
Podder, in her book 1000 Plus Household Hints, recommends treating your
dark circles with slices of pumpkin. What makes pumpkin effective?
Pumpkin contains Vitamins A, C, and K, which help to reverse the effect
of the dark circles. Place the pumpkin slices over your under-eye area
for a few minutes each day.
Amparo Salvador and Alberto Chisvert
report that dermatologists have recently discovered that Vitamin K is
effective at getting rid of dark circles under the eyes. In their book, "Analysis of cosmetic products,"
they explain that this vitamin helps to minimize the appearance of
under-eye circles that may result from poor blood flow beneath the eyes
In
her book, "Your Health Is in Your Kitchen," Gwenyfar notes that dark
circles are among the more visible symptoms of a Vitamin K deficiency.
She writes that you can reverse this deficiency by adding foods rich in
vitamin K to your diet. These include brown rice, eggs, oatmeal, wheat,
alfalfa, cornmeal, sweet potatoes, liver, soybeans, and milk.
B vitamins help to reduce water retention, explains Lisa Drayer in The Beauty Diet: Looking Great Has Never Been So Delicious. Water retention often causes puffy eyes, which result in dark circles under the eyes. The different B vitamins
work together, so you should ensure that you take all of them. Foods
rich in the various vitamins are walnuts (Vitamins B1 and B7), yogurt
(B2 and B5), wild salmon (B3), spinach (B9), and oysters (B12). Walnuts, salmon, and spinach also contain Vitamin B6.
Roshni Dayal, author of the book "Natural Beauty Secrets from India,"
recommends applying a few drops of Vitamin E oil around the eyes before
going to sleep to help get rid of dark circles. Vitamin E also helps
the body to make better use of Vitamin K, reports the University of Maryland Medical Center.
In
the book in Nutrition Almanac, John D. Kirschmann explains that just a
small Vitamin A deficiency may lead to dry eyelids, easy tiring of the
eyes, and sensitivity to light variations, which contribute to dark
circles. Taking Vitamin A will help keep the eyes in good health and alleviate these symptoms, which in turn will get rid of dark circles.
REFERENCES
1. The Mayo Clinic: Dark Circles Under Eyes: Causes
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/da...
2.
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology : The effects of topical application of
phytonadione, retinol and vitamins C and E on infraorbital dark circles
and wrinkles of the lower eyelids
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
3. "1000 Plus Household Hints," Tanushree Podder
"Analysis of cosmetic products," Amparo Salvador, Alberto Chisvert
4. "Your Health Is in Your Kitchen: Why Momma Made Chicken Soup," Gwenyfar R0hler
5. "The Beauty Diet: Looking Great Has Never Been S0 Delicious," Lisa Drayer
6. University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC): Vitamin K Source
http://www.umm.edu/imagepages/18116.htm
7. "Natural Beauty Secrets from India," Roshni Dayal.
8. "Nutrition Almanac," John D. Kirschmann, Nutrition Search, Inc
|
|
Yoga & Meditation at Abha Light House
YOGA
Mondays - Wednesdays
5:30 - 6:30
Cost: Ksh 300
4 classes for Ksh 1000
MEDITATION
Tuesdays
6:30 - 7:30
Cost: free!
Welcome!
Call for information: 0710-620323 / 0733-895466
|
|
Quick Links
:: :: ::
We source our articles from the below links. There's a lot of information out there, perhaps you'd like to subscribe directly to these links free e-zines.
Natural News
Emaxhealth.com
Ray Collins Good Life Letter
Hpathy.com
Zeus Info Service
What the Doctors won't Tell You
:: :: ::
Did you miss an earlier edition?
You can visit our archive of previous mini-e-zines. click here
:: :: ::
Why not forward this mini-ezine to a friend or two?
|
|
|
New study: 85% of Big Pharma's new drugs are "lemons" and pose health risks to users
(NaturalNews) For years, natural health proponents have been sounding
the alarm about the dangers of new drugs being pushed on consumers. But
is that a one-sided, inaccurate view? Not at all. In fact, new research
now shows the problems with Big Pharma's hugely hyped medications are
far worse than most people have even dreamed. Independent
reviewers found that about 85 percent of new drugs offer few if any new
benefits -- but they carry the risk of causing serious harm to users.
According to Donald Light, Ph.D., a professor of comparative health policy at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey who authored the study, the pharmaceutical industry is a "market for lemons" and Big Pharma spends a fortune to sell those lemons to the public.
"Sometimes drug companies hide or downplay information about serious side effects of new drugs and overstate the drugs' benefits," Dr. Light, who presented his findings
on August 17 in Atlanta at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association, said in a press statement. "Then, they spend
two to three times more on marketing than on research to persuade doctors to prescribe these new drugs. Doctors may get misleading information and then misinform patients about the risks of a new drug. It's really a two-tier market for lemons."
Dr. Light's paper, Pharmaceuticals: A Two-Tier Market for Producing 'Lemons' and Serious Harm,
is an institutional analysis of the pharmaceutical industry and how it
works. He based his conclusions on a wide range of data from
independent sources and studies, including the Canadian Patented
Medicine Prices Review Board, the Food and Drug Administration, and Prescrire International
(a French language journal which publishes extensive research on
pharmacology, toxicology and pharmaceutics ). Much of research for the
study was conducted for a forthcoming book Dr. Light edited, The Risk of Prescription Drugs, which is slated for publication this fall by Columbia University Press.
In
both his paper and his book, Dr. Light emphasizes what he dubs the
"Risk Proliferation Syndrome", which refers to the way Big Pharma has
grossly maximized the number of people exposed to new drugs with
relatively low effectiveness but a heightened risk of adverse and often severe side effects. The pharmaceutical giants have accomplished this by failing to put each new medication on the market using a controlled, limited launch which would allow evidence to be gathered about the drug's effects, positive and negative. Instead, Big Pharma builds hugely hyped drug launches based on clinical trials
that were designed in the first place to minimize evidence of harm and
are published in the medical literature to only emphasize a drug's
advantages.
Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars on massive campaigns to sell a new prescription med, recruiting leading doctors
to use the drug for conditions other than those for which it is
approved, Dr. Light revealed. By promoting such off-label or unapproved
uses, Big Pharma goes after even more sales and physicians
inadvertently become what Dr. Light calls "double agents" -- they work
to push sales of the new drug while they are supposed to be stewards of
their patients' well-being.
And what happens when patients
complain that the drug is making them sicker and/or producing side
effects? Studies show their doctors usually just discount or dismiss
these complaints, Dr. Light said.
According to the new study,
the big drug companies are successful in getting away with selling
their "lemon" drugs because of three main reasons: Big Pharma is in
charge of testing their own new drugs; the pharmaceutical companies have invested millions in building "firewalls" of legal protection to hide information about a drug's dangers
or lack of effectiveness; and the bar for drug efficacy is set fairly
low to make it easier for Big Pharma to get a new drug approved.
Dr.
Light pointed out that despite the extensive requirements for testing
the efficacy and safety of each new medication, drug companies use a
strategy of "swamping the regulator" with large numbers of incomplete,
partial, and substandard clinical trials. For instance, in one study of
111 final applications for approval, 42% lacked adequately randomized
trials, 40% had flawed testing of dosages, 39% lacked evidence of
clinical efficacy, and 49% raised concerns about serious adverse side
effects.
"The result is that drugs get approved without
anyone being able to know how effective they really are or how much
serious harm they will cause," he said. "The companies control
the making of scientific knowledge and then control which findings will
go to the FDA or be published."
|
The most dangerous epilepsy drugs name
06 August 2010
All of the epilepsy drugs come with a health warning: they make you
suicidal. Now researchers have pinpointed the most dangerous ones.
Many of the newer anti-epileptics increase the risk of suicide and
self-harm three-fold, researchers at the Charite University Medical
Centre in Berlin have found. The most dangerous include Keppra
(levetiracetam), Topamax (topiramate) and Sabril (vigabatrin).
The researchers were able to discover the most dangerous
anti-epileptics after they analysed a database of UK patients. Of
these, 44,300 people had been prescribed an anti-epileptic between 1989
and 2005, and 453 of these had committed suicide or had attempted it.
The 'danger drugs' come with a far higher risk of causing depression
which, in turn, makes the people more suicidal.
(Source: Neurology, 2010; 75: 335-40).
|
Canola Oil is a Classic Example of Food Fraud
(NaturalNews) Remember margarine? That was touted as healthier than
butter several years ago. Though many have since caught on to that lie,
it still persists somewhat. Margarine is as healthy as melted plastic.
But it sure is cheap to produce! That was then, this is now. Could
Canola oil's health claims compare with margarine's fraud?
There
is evidence to support health food fraud with canola oil. Not buying it
by the bottle is easy enough, but it appears in many prepared or
processed foods, even those in health food stores. Because of Canola's marketing itself as a healthy option, it is recommended by many health food experts. Meanwhile, the health food industry sells and uses it as a healthy alternative despite growing evidence of toxic dangers.
What Canola Oil Is
Canola is a hybrid name that stands for Canadian oil,
since it is grown, processed, and exported mainly from Canada. And the
Canadian government, it is reported, put up the cash to have the FDA
classify Canola oil as GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe). This
classification allowed the Canola industry to avoid long term safety
testing.
The Canadian government subsidizes most of rapeseed planting and harvesting. Those plants are cheap, easy to grow and a natural
insect resistant, and Canola oil is cheaper and easier to use for
processed foods than more expensive, healthier cold pressed oils such
as olive oil.
Originally
it was called lear oil (low erucic acid rapeseed) a natural modified
hybrid of rape seed to remove most of its erucic acid, which is totally
toxic. Rapeseed oil
is so toxic that bugs and animals won't eat it. It was used in the
first half of the 20th century as an industrial oil. So that name had
to go completely. Hence, the final Canadian product became Canola oil
in 1988.
The rapeseed plant was genetically modified further to withstand heavy doses of the Monsanto's weed killing herbicide Roundup.
Roundup itself is not exactly safe for humans and animals, so the use
of a toxin to support a genetically modified plant makes for a
dangerous combination.
In addition to the plant having an unpredictable GMO
element, the oil is heated to over 300 degrees as part of a process to
remove its extremely unpleasant odor. Processing vegetable oils may
include degumming, batch acidulation, bleaching, deodorization,
chemical extraction methods using solvents, and high temperature
expeller pressing.
Canola oil is monounsaturated, which makes it
easy to promote it as similar to olive oil but cheaper. But real olive
oil is not processed and doesn't contain toxic trans-fatty acids or
GMOs. Canola is among the lowest of all oils with essential fatty acids, which happens to be the main health aspect of oils.
Then Came Some Independent Testing
Various
tests came up with previously unforeseen and unannounced health
hazards. One example is when piglets were fed a formula using Canola
oil, their vitamin E was reduced to dangerous levels, and their blood platelets became sticky, impeding blood flow. And this is what is promoted as a heart healthy oil?
Other
tests have determined various imbalances with micronutrients that
nature synergistically provides. These imbalances are part of what
technology does to ruin food and undermine long term human health.
The best that can be said about Canola oil is that it is not a healthy option.
It doesn't even rank among other oils that do promote health, such as
cold pressed hemp, flax, or even olive oil. Even worse, tests show that
Canola may promote bad health. Read your labels carefully.
[Editor`s
Note: NaturalNews is strongly against the use of all forms of animal
testing. We fully support implementation of humane medical
experimentation that promotes the health and wellbeing of all living
creatures.]
Sources for more information include:
Canola: Canada's Oil Spill into the American Market http://www.quantumbalancing.com/new...
Canola: Another Victory of Food Technology Over Common Sense http://www.naturalnews.com/026365_c...
Truther Girls Site on Canola http://thetruthergirls.wordpress.co...
|
Choline Deficiency during Pregnancy may lead to Birth Defects
In a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
it has been revealed that deficiency of choline, an important nutrient
for cell growth and functioning, may lead to higher risk of birth
defects in babies.
The study was conducted by researchers of
McGill University and Cornell University on two groups of mice. One
group had been subjected to a choline deficient diet during pregnancy
while the other was given the recommended amount of choline. The
offspring of both groups were tested and it was shown that the one with
choline deficient diet had a higher number of offspring with heart defects.
Choline
is a vital nutrient related to the Vitamin B family and it is present
in eggs, spinach, bacon, milk, cauliflower, kidney, soybean, salmon,
white fish, bananas, lentils and wheat germ. Scientists believe that in
pregnant women choline plays an important role in fetal brain
development. It is also required for healthy nerves, liver metabolism,
cell functioning and transporting nutrients throughout the body.
Because
of the insufficient scientific evidence needed to assign a Recommended
Dietary Allowance (RDA) for choline, Food and Nutrition Board of the
Institute of Medicine had recommended an adequate intake (AI) of
choline in 1998. According to that recommendation, adult men need 550
mg of choline; whereas, adult women
need 425 mg of the nutrient. For pregnant women the amount is 450 mg.
However previous researchers had revealed that in the US only ten
percent or less adult men, women, children and pregnant women have
sufficient intake of choline in their diet.
Choline deficiency
may lead to elevated levels of the amino acid homocysteine in the body
which may in turn cause reduced cognitive functioning and increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. A study published in Behavioral Neuroscience also found that choline intake during pregnancy and lactation improved attention function.
Marie
Caudill, PhD, RD, associate professor at Cornell University noted that
women who had choline deficient diets during pregnancy had two times
greater the risk of giving birth to babies who had neural tube defects. A woman who did not take enough choline during pregnancy could cause the baby to have insufficient blood vessels in the brain that could lead to learning and memory difficulties later in life.
The
researchers advise pregnant women to consult a nutritionist or their
physician to know the amount of choline they should have in their diet
and to ensure that the infant development is properly reducing the risk
of heart, nerve or brain defects.
[Editor`s Note: NaturalNews is
strongly against the use of all forms of animal testing. We fully
support implementation of humane medical experimentation that promotes
the health and wellbeing of all living creatures.]
SOURCES:
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/chol...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...
http://www.diet.co.uk/news/2010/Jul...
|
|
Scientists discover that radiation causes breast cancer (gee, really?)
(NaturalNews) Girls who undergo chest radiation as a cancer treatment
are significantly more likely to develop breast cancer as little as
eight years later, according to a study conducted by researchers from
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York and published in the
Annals of Internal Medicine.
"Risk in women treated
before puberty is not lower than that in those treated during
adolescence, as suggested by some early studies," they wrote.
The researchers reviewed the results of 12 prior studies that had looked at breast cancer risk in female survivors of childhood cancers. They found that patients who have undergone chest radiation as children suffer from an increased risk of breast cancer as little as eight years later.
"This incidence is similar to that in women with a BRCA gene mutation," the researchers wrote.
The risk
does not plateau over time but only continues to increase, so that by
age 40 or 45 as many as one in five childhood cancer survivors has
contracted breast cancer. The more radiation a woman was exposed to as
a child, the higher her cancer risk.
The Children's Oncology
Group, of which the researchers are a part, recommends that because of
this risk, female survivors of childhood cancers get annual mammograms starting at age 25, or eight years after the end of their radiation therapy -- whichever comes later.
Yet the researchers cautioned that more research
is needed before this can be emphatically recommended, since mammograms
also expose women to radiation and can increase their cancer risk. A
woman who begins getting yearly mammograms at age 25 would end up
getting 15 more mammograms in her lifetime than a woman who began at
age 40.
In addition, it is unknown if cancer survivors react differently to radiation than other women do.
Due
to concern over false positives and radiation risk, the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force no longer recommends annual mammograms. It
recommends biannual tests for women over the age of 49.
Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS... http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle....
|
|
|
|
Medical Disclaimer:
The information contained within does not take the place of medical diagnosis or
prescription. See your health care provider in case of sickness.
Editorial Disclaimer: Publication of these articles are to promote food for thought. The opinions expressed in these articles may not be the opinion of editors.
|
|
|
