UFO Enthusiasts Hail FBI’s Official Release of Roswell Memos

April 12th, 2011

RawStory.com

By: Kase Wickman

As a treat to history buffs, the FBI has launched a blog called The Vault, displaying old memos and documents that might interest the public. The documents garnering the most attention, however, are about Unidentified Flying Objects. And not just any UFO — the FBI has released the long top-secret Roswell Memo and the letter from Agent Guy Hottel that claims that aliens were aboard a UFO that crash-landed there.

The 1947 incident in Roswell, New Mexico has been the calling card for UFO enthusiasts since the late 70s, so the memo’s official publication caused quite the stir.

However, there’s not much cause to think that the government has suddenly changed its position on UFOs by releasing these documents. The documents have been leaked several times before, they’re just in the news cycle now because the FBI reminded the public of them.

More than that, there’s nothing close to admittance of UFOs in the documents: Agent Hottel’s letter is merely a retelling of an informant’s story about alien autopsies — Hottel isn’t even based in New Mexico, lowering the value of the tale even further — and recommends no follow-up investigation. Similarly, the Roswell memo reinforces that the object was a weather balloon, not a “flying disc,” and also recommends no follow-up.

Those who have always claimed conspiracy or government cover-up in relation to Roswell will continue doing so, and outlets such as the International Business Times will publish wide-eyed reports on the memos that have been in front of us all along, but are now collected in one place and acknowledged by the FBI.

In the meantime, the Hottel memo and the Roswell memo are embedded below, courtesy of the FBI, and The Vault’s other memos about “unexplained phenomenon” can be found online for some fun reading.

Click here for the full report from RawStory.com

Gas Prices Could Hit $5 Per Gallon

April 12th, 2011

CBS 2 Chicago

At one time, $5 per gallon gas seemed like a far-fetched idea, but that is no longer the case.

As of Monday, the average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the Chicago area is $4.11, compared with $3.71 a month ago, and about $3.10 a gallon at this time a year ago.

Some experts say $5 per gallon gas is possible by Memorial Day-or sometime in summer. Others caution that reaching that mark is unlikely over the next six weeks. In Chicago, the prices keep rising to near-record levels–with no relief in sight.

Right now, oil markets are so skittish that records set in 2008 could fall.

Drivers Monday morning were practically numb to the price spikes.

“What are you going to do?” said Shannon Thompson. “We’ve become so gas-dependent in this country. There are so many SUVs. I mean, I’ve had a hybrid. It worked great. Right now, I’m just going to deal with it.”

Prices at some gas stations outside the city were still below $4, a bargain compared to the $4.29-$4.40 range at some service stations downtown.

“It’s painful,” said Lamar Magee. “You’ve got to make a decision on where you drive and where you go nowadays.” He said he is “definitely” making changes to his routines.

Magee says it will cost him about $120 to fill up the 30-gallon tank on his van.

But even that pales in comparison to the big rigs. Truck driver Mark Kanarowski says his truck holds 200 gallons.

“It’s got to be a huge expense for the company,” Kanarowski said. “I went to St. Louis over the weekend to fill up my own car, and I was paying about $4.13 a gallon. It hurts.”

A limo driver shared his thoughts as he filled up his tank at the Des Plaines Oasis.

“Normal-sized tank, big price – when you get done at the pump, it’s killing business, and a lot of one-way trips now,” he said, “like I’m going to get somebody this morning, and I’m not bringing him home. His wife will probably bring him home, because everyone’s trying to save a little bit here, a little bit there.”

The Lundberg Survey says the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded as of Monday was $3.76. That is up 19 cents since March 18, and up 91 cents since this time last year.

The sharply rising prices hearken back memories of the summer of 2008.

That year, oil prices were driven well above $100 per barrel, and in June of that year and gas prices were well over $4 a gallon. The highest average record price was $4.34 per gallon, set July 2008.

No one is eager to break that record. But with no end in sight to the turmoil in the Middle East, analysts say we’re likely to do just that – and just as holiday travelers hit the highways for Memorial Day weekend.

Click here for the full report from CBS 2 Chicago

Doctors Don’t Tell Patients the Truth About the Treatments They’d Use Themselves

April 12th, 2011

Natural News

By: S.L. Baker

Hopefully, this will never happen to you, but consider this scene: you’ve been diagnosed with a life threatening condition like colon cancer. So you sit down in your doctor’s office to discuss your medical options with your physician and it turns out there are a couple of treatments.

“What would you do, doctor, if you were in my position?” would be a logical question to ask.

And, most likely, you’d expect an honest answer. The trouble is, you might very well not be told the truth.

In fact, according to a survey study published in the April 11 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, what doctors consider the best choices in treatment for themselves is often not what they tell their patients is best for them.

Here’s how Peter A. Ubel, M.D., of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and his colleagues came up with their findings. They surveyed two samples of U.S. primary care physicians. Each group of doctors was presented with one of two clinical treatment possibilities.

For the first scenario, 500 doctors were asked about what sort of treatment they’d recommend if they or one of their patients received a diagnosis of colon cancer. They were given two choices to pick from — both were surgeries they could cure the colon malignancy in 80 percent of patients.

But there was a catch.

One operation had a higher death rate. However, it also had far fewer adverse side effects. On the other hand, the second type of surgery had a lower death rate but a small percentage of patients would be left with serious health problems including chronic diarrhea, intermittent bowel obstruction , a wound infection and/or the need for a colostomy (a surgical procedure that brings one end of the large intestine out through the abdominal wall where stools drain into a bag attached to the abdomen).

Almost half the doctors returned the colon cancer questionnaire and 37.8 percent of them stated that if they had received the cancer diagnosis, they would personally opt for the surgical procedure with a higher rate of death but a lower rate of the serious adverse effects listed above.

On the other hand, the majority of these doctors would have told their patients the operation with a lower death rate but a host of potentially very serious adverse effects was best for them.

The second hypothetical scenario polled 1,600 physicians about how they’d treat patients or themselves if faced with a new strain of avian flu infecting people in the U.S. One group of doctors was asked to imagine they had been infected; the other group was asked to imagine that a patient was infected with this serious influenza.

A single therapy was available for this strain of avian flu — an immunoglobulin treatment. In people with the avian flu who weren’t given immunoglobulin, there would be a 10 percent death rate and a 30 percent hospitalization rate with an average stay of a week. The treatment would reduce the rate of adverse events by half. However, in this scenario, the immunoglobulin therapy would also cause death in one percent of patients and permanent neurological paralysis in four percent of patients.

The avian influenza scenario survey was returned by 698 doctors and a whopping 62.9 percent of them said they’d personally refuse the immunoglobulin treatment when imagining they had been infected, in order to avoid its adverse effects.

But what decision did the docs make when imagining that a patient had been infected with the avian flu? The vast majority stated they’d recommend the immunoglobulin shots.

“Patients facing difficult decisions often ask physicians for recommendations,” the authors stated as background information in the study. “However, little is known regarding the ways that physicians’ decisions are influenced by the act of making a recommendation.”

“In some circumstances, making recommendations could reduce the quality of medical decisions. In at least some circumstances, however, such as when emotions interfere with optimal decision making, this change in thinking could lead to more optimal decisions,” the researchers concluded in their paper.

Curiously, Dr. Ubell and his research team think physicians probably different treatment recommendations for their patients than they would for themselves because of this: “…the very act of making a recommendation changes the way physicians weigh medical alternatives.”

Another common sense alternative explanation could be that doctors are also considering legal ramifications — for example, if they recommend a procedure with a slightly higher mortality rate and the patient dies, a family member might sue.

Whatever the explanation is, one thing is clear. This study is another example of why people should educate themselves about risks and possible benefits of medical treatments and take charge of their own health decisions whenever possible.

Click here for the full report from Natural News

You Are What You Eat

Eating good quality food every single day makes a huge difference in how you feel, your energy, your sleep, your skin, and your digestion.  So, a lot of people come up to me and ask, “Kevin, what should I eat? What do YOU eat?” 

The simplest answer is number one; always avoid high fructose corn syrup.  Always avoid monosodium glutamate (MSG), which also goes by the name, hydrolyzed vegetable protein.  So, if you are reading the ingredients and it has that in it, do not eat it.  Stay away from artificial sweeteners, like Splenda and aspartame, also known as NutraSweet. 

Another thing is I would strongly encourage you to do is stay away from conventional meat and conventional dairy products.  I absolutely love beef and dairy. I encourage you to eat all the beef you want, but if you’re eating beef, if you’re eating lamb, if you’re eating chicken or turkey; you want to get beyond 100% organic.  What you want is 100% grass-fed beef from GrasslandBeef.com. That is where I purchase my beef, lamb, turkey, poultry, and other food. These animals are never injected with bovine growth hormone, never injected with antibiotics, and they walk around and roam free and they eat real wild grass like an animal should.

When you’re buying beef and poultry at the store or restaurant; the animal is given injections of bovine growth hormone, injections of antibiotics, and they’re fed a chemical-produced, genetically modified grain mixture of genetically modified corn and other grains. They are fed massive amounts of chemicals, massive amounts of drugs, and their feed has ground up dead pigs, chickens, horses, and cows that were too diseased to be eaten by humans.

Now, cattle; they’re vegetarians.  They’re not supposed to be eating ground up dead pigs, horses, chickens, and other cattle.  They’re also not supposed to be eating corn.  They’re supposed to be eating grass.  So, if you just change the meats that you buy at home and you make your own sandwiches instead of going out to eat, I guarantee a couple of things are going to happen. 

Number one, you’re going to lose weight because the CLA content in GrasslandBeef.com’s beef is much higher and it’s heart-healthy.  It burns fat.  It gives you more energy.  There is no bovine growth hormone, so you’re automatically going to lose weight.  You’re not giving yourself antibiotic therapy, so your health is going to improve dramatically.  Such a small change in your diet can go a long way!

So, I strongly encourage you to go to GrasslandBeef.com. They also have raw cheese and butter from grass-fed cows.  I just love their products!

GrasslandBeef.com, that’s where I go and I would recommend you go, as well!

Yours in health…
KT

Chicago School Bans Homemade Lunches, The Latest In National Food Fight

April 12th, 2011

Yahoo! News

By: Liz Goodwin

Students who attend Chicago’s Little Village Academy public school get nothing but nutritional tough love during their lunch period each day. The students can either eat the cafeteria food–or go hungry. Only students with allergies are allowed to bring a homemade lunch to school, the Chicago Tribune reports.

“Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school,” principal Elsa Carmona told the paper of the years-old policy. “It’s about … the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It’s milk versus a Coke.”

But students said they would rather bring their own lunch to school in the time-honored tradition of the brown paper bag. “They’re afraid that we’ll all bring in greasy food instead of healthy food and it won’t be as good as what they give us at school,” student Yesenia Gutierrez told the paper. “It’s really lame.”

The story has attracted hundreds of comments so far. One commenter, who says her children attend a different Chicago public school, writes, “I can accept if they want to ban soda, but to tell me I can’t send a lunch with my child. ARE YOU KIDDING ME????”

For parents whose kids do not qualify for free or reduced price school lunches, the $2.25 daily cafeteria price can also tally more than a homemade lunch. “We don’t spend anywhere close to that on my son’s daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk,” Northwestern education policy professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach told the paper in an email. She told The Lookout parents at her child’s public school would be upset if they tried to ban homemade lunches.

“I think that lots of parents at least at my child’s school do think that what they pack is more nutritious [than school lunches],” she said. A Chicago public school teacher started a blog to protest the city’s school lunches, and last year the schools tightened their nutrition standards for cafeteria-served school lunches. Every lunch must contain whole grains, only reduced-fat salad dressings and mayonnaise are offered as condiments, and the meals must feature a different vegetable each day. Meal providers also must reduce sodium content by 5 percent annually. About 86 percent of the district’s students qualify for free or reduced price school lunches because their families live close to the poverty line.

Change in Chicago’s school cafeterias feeds into a larger effort to combat the country’s childhood obesity epidemic. About a third of America’s kids are overweight or obese, and since children consume at least 30 percent of their calories while in school, making lunches healthier is seen as one way to counter that problem. Poorer kids are also more likely to be obese or overweight than middle class kids, and to consume a bigger proportion of their calories while at school. Forty-four percent of American kids living below the poverty line are obese or overweight, according to a 2010 study published in Health Affairs.

While we haven’t been able to track down another school that bans homemade lunches outright, many smaller food battles have been playing out in cafeterias across the country. As principals try to counter obesity in their schools, healthy intentions can come across as overreach, occasionally sparking parent and student anger.

Alabama parents protested a school’s rule that barred students from bringing any drinks from home, as ice water was provided at lunch. East Syracuse, New York schools have outlawed cupcakes and other desserts. And schools around the country have kicked out chocolate milk and soda vending machines. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin even showed up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, with dozens of cookies to express her disdain for a debate in the state about recommending teachers limit the number of times per month the sugary treats are eaten in classroom birthday celebrations.

Tucson, Arizona’s Children’s Success Academy allows home-packed lunches–but only if nothing in them contains white flour, refined sugar, or other “processed” foods, the Arizona Republic reported in a story last year. The school has no cafeteria, so some parents told the paper they struggled to find foods to pack that meet the restrictions. Many schools ban fast food or other take-out meals.

Soon, cafeteria offerings across the country will all be healthier, whether students like it or not. Last year’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, championed by First Lady Michelle Obama, calls for higher nutritional standards to serve the 32 million kids who eat lunch every day at school (most of whom qualify for free or reduced price lunches through a federal government program). For the first time, the USDA will set calorie limits for school lunches, and will recommend they contain more vegetables and whole grains, and less salt, USA Today reports. French fries should be replaced by vegetables and fruit, the guidelines say.

The bill also calls for stricter food safety checks on cafeteria food.

(UPDATE: An earlier version of this story was illustrated by an AP photo of a student’s lunch in Gleed, Washington, which was labelled as such but some readers complained was misleading. To see a photo of a sample lunch served at Chicago’s Little Village Academy, click here.)

Click here for the full report from Yahoo! News

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 4-11-11

Today, Kevin explains how you are giving yourself skin cancer and what you can do to stop it before it’s too late. Plus, find out what is causing your child to have ADD & ADHD and what you can do to reverse it!

Self Help:
Get Rid Of The Magic Pill
Water Filtration System
Click Here If You’ve Ever Taken An Antibiotic
Chemical-Free Hair Products
Soap Without The Harmful Toxins

Health:
Top 10 Theories: What Causes ADHD?
Sunscreen Dangerous? “Experts” Shed Light on the Controversy

NWO:
Government Control: The Future

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

 

Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!

Monsanto Cash Helped Fund Bill to Stifle Whistleblowers In Iowa

April 11th, 2011

Grist.org

By: Tom Laskawy

Speaking of Monsanto, it turns out they are playing a role in Iowa’s proposed anti-whistleblower bill — a bill focused primarily on agriculture. Should the bill pass, it will become illegal to produce undercover videos at various types of agricultural facilities (as well as to get a job at a facility with the express intent of producing a video). Sarah Damian of the Government Accountability Project, a “whistleblower advocacy organization,” observes over at the Food Integrity Campaign’s blog that Monsanto has been throwing lobbying dollars behind Iowa’s effort to draw a steel curtain around food production. And not without reason:

… Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country, with more than 25 offices. The company is heavily invested in the bill’s outcome because “crop operations” are also covered, which would apply to Monsanto’s seed houses, pesticide manufacturing plants and research facilities throughout Iowa. The biotech and crop chemical giant wouldn’t want any undercover videos produced on its clock, apparently.

That’s a bit ironic, however, given the fact that Monsanto investigators are notorious for trespassing on farmers’ property and going to extreme measures to produce evidence of seed patent infringement, including posing as land mappers or even joining a local Alcohol Anonymous group to gain the farmers’ trust and gain video access to their fields. Talk about undercover.

And don’t think that Monsanto hasn’t planned ahead. According to Damian, there are provisions in the bill that would allow Monsanto to continue snooping around farmers’ fields in its ongoing search for so-called “seed thieves” aka “patent infringers.”

Despite occasional setbacks and even uncertainty in the marketplace, let it not be said that Monsanto has lost its taste for playing the heavy.

Click here for the full report Grist.org

World’s Smallest Computer Can Fit Inside Your Eye

April 11th, 2011

TheTechtics.com

This tiniest device measures upto one square millimeter, but don’t go on the small size of this computer because pack inside the tiniest device is an ultra low power microprocessor, a pressure sensor , solar cell, wireless radio for communication to an external reader device, memory and a thin film battery.

Remember Gulliver’s travel to Lilliput, maybe our world is also turning smaller day by day because in the future this smallest computer (Unnamed uptill now) can be use efficiently for tracking, surveillance, military purposes and what not?

DEVELOPER’S TEAM:

The miniscule computer system is developed by Professor Dennis Sylvester, David Wentzloff and David Blaauw.

Dennis Sylvester, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Michigan further explained and said:” This is the very first true millimeter-scale complete computing system; small computing systems are possible by the usage of low-power components that can fit on a chip. A complete millimeter scale computer system enables us to collect, store and transmit data”.

MEDICAL APPLICATION:

The first application of millimeter scale computing system is in the field of medical. This device is implanted in the human eye to measure eye pressure and track the progress of glaucoma , which is a potential blinding disease.

The system starts working after every 15 minutes to take measurements and uses an average of 5.3 nanowatts energy, battery is charged through 10 hours of indoor light each day or 1.5 hours of sunlight.

The device is equipped with a wireless radio for communicating to external reader device but it can not communicate with computer systems of its own type.

Scientists are now working on decreasing the radio’s power consumption so that it’s compatible with millimeter-scale batteries.

Let’s hope this incredible device will open doors for further advancements in the miniscule computer systems.

Click here for the full report from TheTechtics.com

Sunscreen Dangerous? Experts Shed Light on the Controversy

April 11th, 2011

Stylelist.com

By: Grace Gold

When we first covered the controversy surrounding model Gisele Bündchen’s use of the word “poison” to describe sunscreen (a term her publicist later refuted as an incorrect translation), StyleList was inundated with reader comments that surprisingly shared a similar suspicion about the safety of chemicals in common sunscreens.

Combine that with the results of a study published last year that sparked fears of a cancerous relationship between a form of vitamin A found in sunscreen formulations and sun exposure, and it’s no wonder people are concerned.

That got us thinking: Is there such a thing as natural sunscreen? Why do brands even use chemicals to begin with, and should consumers be wary of any of them? And what is the status on the Food and Drug Administration’s investigation into the retinyl palmitate scare?

As far as natural sunscreens go, there is disagreement between the medical and holistic communities about what constitutes the word “natural.”

On one hand, American Board of Dermatology President Dr. Robert T. Brodell says there is no such thing as a natural sunscreen.

“None of the products that protect the skin significantly would be considered ‘natural,’” Brodell tells StyleList. “The closest thing would be ‘chemical-free’ sunscreens. The white paste you see on a lifeguard’s nose in the summer is zinc oxide… the classic example,” adds the Ohio dermatologist.

Defined as an “inorganic compound” because it’s formed by chemical bonds that lack a carbon molecule, zinc oxide, and its common cousin titanium dioxide, are earth minerals often found as a physical block in sunscreen. Dermatologists consider both compounds to be safely proven ways of blocking both harmful UVA and UVB sunrays.

Yet organic expert and “The Green Beauty Guide” author Julie Gabriel, says that she is willing to consider an element like zinc oxide as natural, since it’s a mineral.

“The absence of a natural sunscreen is a fairy tale of the conventional beauty industry. I’ve been using a basic handmade blend of beeswax, calendula oil, zinc oxide, green tea and vitamin E during my ski weekends in very high altitudes of 2,500 meters in Davos, Switzerland,” Gabriel tells StyleList.

“I’ve had no sun damage, no tan, no marks, nothing,” says Gabriel, who adds that she came up with the concoction by mixing a zinc oxide-containing diaper balm with the marigold-colored calendula plant to add a glowy finish.

If making your own blend, Gabriel recommends purchasing zinc oxide from either Ingredients to Die For or Texas Natural Supply. The organic expert says she has worked with both retailers, and considers them top, trustworthy sources.

With such nonirritating, noncontroversial sunblocks available, one wonders why brands even go the route of chemical blends. Experts say it’s primarily because consumers find that physical blocks can feel heavy, smell strongly, and cast an unnatural pale tint to skin, especially on deeper skin tones.

“Because zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sit on the skin’s surface without being absorbed, they are nonirritating and nonallergenic. But this is also the reason why natural sunscreens require a lot more rubbing in, and advance application time to bind with the skin to be effective,” says New York State Society for Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery President, Dr. David Bank.

Some brands turn to chemicals for lighter and seemingly more elegant formulas, which protect skin by first interacting with UV light, and then undergoing a chemical reaction that blocks out dangerous sunrays.

These chemicals are often of the multisyllabic, impossible-to-pronounce variety, with common examples being avobenzone, benzophenonone, triethanolamine, and the easier to say, though no less mired in controversy, ingredient of PABA.

Mexoryl, which enjoyed a highly anticipated debut on the US market after tremendous success in Europe, is gaining recognition as a favored chemical sunscreen. Experts attribute the ingredient’s popularity to its light, easily absorbed texture, nearly non-existent scent and superior block of both UVA and UVB rays.

The newest chemical sunscreens that are currently pending FDA approval are Tinosorb S and Tinosorb M, which offer a trio of powerful actions, including absorbing, reflecting and scattering ultraviolet rays. They’re both very naturally stable, which makes for a more dependable and long-lasting application, shares Bank.

And that means greater protection against the signs of aging.

“These products (chemical ingredients) also protect against the long-term problems associated with sun exposure, including wrinkling, brown spots, yellowing and thickening of the skin, precancers and skin cancers. The weight of the evidence strongly favors routine use of sunscreens, whether chemical or physical,” Brodell strongly advises.

However, it’s what happens during the chemical transformation phase that causes some to speculate on the overall safety of the active ingredients. It’s here where the heart of the chemical sunscreen controversy exists.

“Triethanolamine has been identified as an active in promoting the release of free radicals in our bodies once the UVA and UVB radiations saturate our skin,” says Los Angeles dermatologist, Dr. Ava Shamban, author of “Heal Your Skin.”

Free radicals are considered by many in the beauty industry to be volatile molecules that react explosively and cause the kind of tissue damage that leads to aging and disease.

Another concern with chemical sunscreens is the potential for skin sensitivity issues in those who are suspeptible.

“The chemical most responsible for an allergic reaction to sunscreen is oxybenzone, which is also one of the most commonly used chemicals in broad-spectrum sunscreen,” explains Maryland dermatologist, Dr. Noelle Sherber. “I always tell my patients with sensitive skin to avoid it, because it’s the most common culprit of redness, itchiness and bumps.”

But oxybenzone isn’t just a problem for those who have sensitive skin. Bank says it’s an ingredient that has long been questioned for its safety.

“Oxybenzone is of most concern to many scientists. In a study by the Center for Disease Control, it was proven to be absorbed into the blood stream systemically, and excreted in the urine of 97 percent of study participants. More studies are needed to give us a comprehensive understanding of how these chemicals behave in skin cells,” says Bank.

Fortunately, most experts agree that the new technology found in micronized mineral sunscreen is both safer and more enjoyable to apply and wear. These nano particles block rays with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide, yet apply less white and with a sheerer finish than their traditional forms. Protection works by bouncing sun radiation waves off skin.

You should especially consider micronized mineral sunscreen for babies and children, says Sherber.

“The amount of surface area compared to body mass is very different between a baby and an adult. Whatever you apply all over a baby’s skin will be absorbed more, because they have so much more skin than body mass. For example, a topical eczema-treatment cream can be given to adults without a problem, but the active ingredients are absorbed at such a high rate by children, that it can actually stunt their growth,” says Sherber.

While the collective consensus between the natural and dermatology worlds seems to skew toward physical blocks, the debate on the safety of retinyl palmitate in sunscreen has moved little since the Environmental Working Group raised concerns this past year over an FDA study that showed an increase in cancer cells of mice exposed to sunlight while wearing a retinyl palmitate-containing cream.

“Retinols and retinoids in general have been a nighttime preparation, as it makes the skin sun sensitive. Some manufacturers believed that since retinols are antioxidants, then adding them to sunscreen would be beneficial,” explains Bank.

However, the study in question surprised experts when it was shown that vitamin A could possibly turn photocarcinogenic under sunrays.

Yet evidence pointing to retinyl palmitate as a cause of cancer remains unproven, as the original study examined the form of vitamin A in plain skin cream, not sunscreen. Further review by the FDA this winter shed no additional light on the situation.

Sherber cautions against jumping to conclusions when other mitigating factors may have colored the results of the study.

“The possibility that the shininess of the cream could have magnified their UV exposure — like putting on old-school baby oil in the sun — is one of several potential confounders,” says Sherber.

“It’s also important to note that the mice used in NTP (National Toxology Program) studies are highly susceptible to UV radiation. They can get skin cancer within weeks of UV exposure. While this makes studies of skin cancer in these mice feasible because they can show effects within weeks rather than years of UV exposure, we have to be very careful not to assume that these mice respond to UV or other skin-directed treatments in the same way that humans do,” adds Sherber.

Experts also caution consumers that just because a substance may be naturally derived, that doesn’t mean it’s automatically safe.

“The FDA looks at vitamins and minerals in a less stringent way than other drugs, so I am always nervous about the safety of such products,” admits Brodell. Citing that the study was done on mice, and never with sunscreen, Brodell adds, “I do not worry, for myself or my family, about retinyl palmitate, but reserve the right to change my mind if more information would become available.”

Click here for the full report from Stylelist.com

Top 10 Theories: What Causes ADHD?

April 11th, 2011

EverydayHealth.com

Though we don’t completely understand why some children are more susceptible to ADHD than others, the brain changes that are seen in children with ADHD symptoms are not theoretical. Studies show that regions of the brain affected by ADHD are the same regions that control attention as well as impulse control in children without ADHD. Here are 10 theories — some more plausible than others — to explain the brain changes that cause ADHD symptoms:

- Genetics. ADHD symptoms tend to run in families. Studies show that one in four children with a diagnosis of ADHD will have a close family member with ADHD.

- Lead exposure. Studies have shown an association between lead exposure and ADHD symptoms in young children. Lead may enter a child’s drinking water from old plumbing fixtures. Children may also be exposed from lead paint. “These exposures are known to increase the risk of ADHD, but these exposures are becoming increasingly rare and most children with a diagnosis of ADHD have no evidence of significant lead exposure,” Hunter notes.

- Cigarettes and alcohol. Two toxins that have been shown to increase the risk of ADHD in children are cigarette smoke and alcohol. Smoking and drinking during pregnancy are associated with a number of serious health risks for both mother and fetus. Not surprisingly, several studies have specifically linked these substances to an increased risk of having a child with ADHD.

- Medications taken during pregnancy. A study done in the Netherlands found that children of women who were treated for high blood pressure during pregnancy with a medication called labetalol (Normodyne, Trandate) had a significantly higher risk of ADHD. “It may be that some medications given to a mother may interfere with fetal oxygen, but these are isolated findings and require more research,” cautions Hunter.

- Fluoride. The theory that fluoride could cause ADHD arose from a study done in rats. Although rats exposed to fluoride during the study did develop ADHD symptoms, this may not necessarily translate into increased risk among humans. “I know of no convincing evidence that fluoride is a significant ADHD risk factor for children,” says Dribinsky.

- Sugar and sugar substitutes. Both refined sugar and sugar substitutes have been studied as possible ADHD causes. Most studies show that neither sugar nor sugar substitutes affect children’s behavior or their learning ability. According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), there is actually more research to suggest that sugar is not linked to ADHD symptoms than there is research to support an association between the two.

- Celiac disease and food allergies. Some research supports the theory that food intolerance or food allergies, such as in the intolerance to the protein gluten seen in celiac disease, may be a trigger for ADHD symptoms. Studies have shown that a small percentage of children may get some relief from ADHD symptoms with diet restrictions. “Food sensitivities and nutritional deficiencies may play a role, but more research needs to be done,” says Dribinsky.

- Food additives. It has long been suspected that food additives such as food coloring or food preservatives might cause ADHD symptoms or make them worse. Recent research published in Britain supports a link between these additives and an increase in ADHD symptoms. Research is under way to see if these findings can be confirmed. “The effects of food additives are probably negligible for most children with ADHD, but some children may be more sensitive than others,” Hunter explains.

- Pesticides. “Recent studies done at Harvard suggest that pesticide exposure may increase the risk of ADHD in children,” notes Hunter. The researchers found that children who had high levels of pesticide in their urine had almost double the risk of ADHD as children who had undetectable levels.

- Complications during pregnancy. Many studies show that a difficult pregnancy can lead to ADHD. These may be complications that occur during fetal development in the womb, or complications that affect the baby’s brain during delivery. Complications that have been identified include high blood pressure during pregnancy, bleeding before the birth of the baby, babies who remain in the womb beyond their due date, long delivery time, and anything that impacts the baby’s oxygen supply during birth.

It remains unclear which of these theories play the biggest role in ADHD symptoms. It’s likely that a number of factors work together to determine whether a child develops ADHD. As Dribinsky points out, “We know that children with ADHD have brains that function differently … What we need to know more about is how the environment triggers ADHD symptoms.”

Adds Hunter: “Children who have a genetic predisposition for ADHD may be more vulnerable to pesticides, toxins, or other triggers. The areas of the brain that are responsible for attention and activity regulation are very sensitive.”

While exact ADHD causes are not yet known, this is an exciting and active time for research and discovery in ADHD. Some earlier theories seem less promising now, but new theories may hold the key to unraveling the mystery of ADHD in the future.

Click here for the full report from EverydayHealth.com

« Previous Page — Next Page »