April 17, 2012
By Dr Christiane Northrup
The hormonal health of any woman depends upon the delicate dance of progesterone and estrogen. Estrogen is meant to be the predominant hormone in the first half of the menstrual cycle and progesterone the predominant one in the second half. However, for most women in the industrialized world this is not the case.
There are many causes of hormone imbalance, but at the base of the problem is something called Estrogen Dominance – which means there is too much estrogen and not enough progesterone present in the body. There are many symptoms that result from having low progesterone levels.
The common causes of hormonal imbalance and estrogen dominance include:
taking the pill,
taking HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy),
exposure to environmental poison,
eating non organic and estrogen pumped animal products,
stress in all its forms and
February 27, 2012
By Jonathan Benson
The truth has once again shaken the foundation of the ‘American Tower of Babel’ that is mainstream science, with a new study out of Harvard University showing that pasteurized milk product from factory farms is linked to causing hormone-dependent cancers. It turns out that the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) model of raising cows on factory farms churns out milk with dangerously high levels of estrone sulfate, an estrogen compound linked to testicular, prostate, and breast cancers.
Dr. Ganmaa Davaasambuu, Ph.D., and her colleagues specifically identified “milk from modern dairy farms” as the culprit, referring to large-scale confinement operations where cows are milked 300 days of the year, including while they are pregnant. Compared to raw milk from her native Mongolia, which is extracted only during the first six months after cows have already given birth, pasteurized factory milk was found to contain up to 33 times more estrone sulfate.
Evaluating data from all over the world, Dr. Davaasambuu and her colleagues identified a clear link between consumption of such high-hormone milk, and high rates of hormone-dependent cancers. In other words, contrary to what theU.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), theU.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA), and the conventional milk lobby would have you believe, processed milk from factory farms is not a health product, and is directly implicated in causing cancer.
February 22nd, 2012
By: David Martin
Nearly three decades in the making, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced its landmark dioxin assessment with the conclusion: “Generally, over a person’s lifetime, current exposure to dioxins does not pose a significant health risk.”
But Dr. Arnold J. Schecter, a University of Texas professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, says dioxins pose a risk for fetuses, newborns and people with immune deficiencies such as AIDS patients.
“Some people are going to be more susceptible because they receive a higher dose or they’re more sensitive,” says Dr. Schecter, who served on an EPA advisory panel on dioxins.
Dioxins are a class of highly toxic chemicals released into the environment by industrial production, waste incineration and forest fires. The chemicals get into the food chain and accumulate in animal fat.
Air emissions of dioxins in the United States have decreased 90% since 1987, thanks to the EPA, state and industry efforts, the agency said Friday. Even so, some dioxins are now present in every man, woman and child on the planet.
The EPA characterizes dioxins as “likely” carcinogens. They are also linked to developmental and reproductive problems, damage to the immune system, hormone disruption, skin rashes and discoloration, and mild liver damage.
Fetuses and newborns have diets relatively high in fat and their bodies are still developing, putting them at greater risk for health problems related to dioxins, Schecter says, as are people whose immune systems are already compromised.
Animal fat in the diet accounts for close to 90% of dioxin exposure in the United States, according to a 2003 National Academies of Science report on dioxins in the food supply.
With the new assessment, the EPA set the threshold for safe dioxin exposure at a toxicity equivalence (TEQ) of 0.7 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day.
Stephen Lester, science director for the Center for Health Environment & Justice, says young children may routinely be exposed to higher levels through their diets.
Lester points to the National Academies report, which found the average 1 to 5 year old’s diet contained 1.09 TEQ. Boys and girls 6 to 11 years old averaged .69 TEQ.
“The EPA has mentioned that the levels in the air are going down and we’ve made great improvements and that we’ve got the problem under control, but that’s not what’s going on here,” Lester says.
Research published in 2009 put the average TEQ exposure for all Americans at .54 TEQ, assuming an average body weight of 165 pounds.
Dioxins cannot be washed off foods. Eating less or leaner meat, chicken and fish; low-fat or fat-free cheese and yogurt; and drinking skim milk will lower the dioxin content of the typical American diet, Schecter says.
“We’re lucky. The same thing that’s good for protecting our hearts and our brains from heart attacks and strokes will also protect us from the toxic effects of dioxins.”
In addition to cutting fat out of the diet, CHEJ also recommends eating grain or grass fed beef. Lester says some cattle are given feed that contains animal fat, essentially recycling the dioxins.
The EPA says the amount of dioxin in food will go decline as dioxin levels in the environment go down.
The Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture monitor dioxin in food and feed. A USDA survey of dioxins in meat is expected to be released in 2013.
“Given the success of the current dioxin reduction program, and the low levels of risk posed for consumers, additional regulatory changes by USDA or recommendations to avoid particular foods are unwarranted at this time,” a USDA spokesperson said in a statement to CNN.
The 344-page EPA dioxin assessment looked only at non-cancer risks. A second report on dioxins’ cancer risks will follow. No date has been set.
January 11, 2012
By Anthony Gucciardi
Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world’s food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto’s grasp on international politics has never been clearer.
Amazingly, the information reveals that the massive corporation is also intensely involved in the passing and regulations concerning the very GM ingredients they are responsible for. In fact, the information released by WikiLeaks reveals just how much power Monsanto has thanks to key positions within the United States government and elsewhere. Not only was it exposed that the U.S. is threatening nations who oppose Monsanto with military-style trade wars, but that many U.S. diplomats actually work directly for Monsanto.
In 2007 it was requested that specific nations inside the European Union be punished for not supporting the expansion of Monsanto’s GMO crops. The request for such measures to be taken was made by Craig Stapleton, the United States ambassador to France and partner to George W. Bush. Despite mounting evidence linking Monsanto’s GM corn to organ damage and environmental devastation, the ambassador plainly calls for ‘target retaliation’ against those not supporting the GM crop. In the leaked documents, Stapleton states:
“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.”
The undying support of key players within the U.S. towards Monsanto is undeniably made clear not only in this release, but in the legislative decisions taken by organizations such as the FDA and USDA. Legislative decisions such as allowing Monsanto’s synthetic hormone Posilac (rBGH) to be injected into U.S. cows despite being banned in 27 countries. How did Monsanto pull this off?
August 16th, 2011
By: Anthony Gucciardi
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has decided to launch an investigation into the effects of bisphenol A (BPA) after a number of highly-publicized studies have found that the estrogen-mimicking hormone is a threat to human health. According to the EPA’s report on the subject, the environment is contaminated each year with over 1 million pounds of BPA. Canada has already taken the initiative in banning BPA as a toxic chemical back in December of 2010 after it was found in 91% of Canadian citizens. The EPA’s discussion of investigation is a direct response to public outcry for regulatory action, but BPA has already found its way into countless products in the U.S. and elsewhere.
BPA has been found in 18 of the 20 most popular food cans, dental fillings and sealants, most plastic water bottles, and even baby bottles. Some states have banned the presence of BPA from baby bottles due to its destructive nature. These states include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Washington. Due to its estrogen-mimicking nature, it leads not only to the onset of female development, but also to a major decrease in male fertility rates. It has also been found to ‘feminize’ men as regular estrogen does when administered to males. By upsetting the hormonal functions of the body, feminine traits are developed in males such as the development of breasts and certain emotional changes.
“A number of concerns have been raised about the potential human health and environmental effects of BPA,” said Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, according to UPI.
“The data collected under the testing the EPA is considering would help the EPA better understand and address the potential environmental impacts of BPA,” Owens finished.
Even if the EPA goes after BPA and bans it as a toxic substance, the amount of human exposure is so great that there will be repercussions for decades to come. With so many household items containing BPA, a hormonal armageddon is already sweeping through the nation. Just as with artificial sweeteners, GMOs, and other toxic ingredients, government organizations will sit idly by until the absolute last second before intervening. BPA has also now become an environmental issue just like the genetic modification of crops worldwide. With 1 million pounds released in the environment, BPA is poisoning nature in a very eery way. Peaceful action and legislation is necessary to put an end to the extreme poisoning of the planet that is now happening on a daily basis. The EPA’s possible investigation is indeed a step in the right direction as it will raise awareness about BPA’s harmful effects on both humans and the environment.
April 6th, 2011
By: T.M. Hartle
A new study from Princeton University found that significant weight gain occurred by merely adding high fructose corn syrup to the diet. Subjects in the test group gained 48% more weight than those who were not given any high fructose corn syrup. Companies with financial ties to the industry have fought back against current scientific research with a very effective, yet deceptive, advertising campaign. Despite industry ad campaigns, research continues to show high fructose corn syrup to be a health damaging substance.
The latest ad campaigns have tried to paint a picture that high fructose corn syrup is no different than white sugar. It is interesting that the industry is trying to make their product look harmless by comparing it to another unhealthy substance. Regardless of the lunacy of the comparison, the claim is false. During the study conducted at Princeton, subjects consuming foods laced with high fructose corn syrup experienced weight gain, high increases in triglyceride levels, and fat deposits in the abdominal area. This study, however, does not stand alone in its implication of high fructose corn syrup and its health damaging effects.
An earlier study looked at the direct differences between white sugar and high fructose corn syrup. This study separated two groups: one was given white sugar, the other high fructose corn syrup. The group receiving white sugar received a similar amount to what would be found in a regular can of soda. The other group received high fructose corn syrup in half the volume in comparison to the amount of white sugar given to the first group. Researchers found that high fructose corn syrup consumption led to increased triglycerides, abdominal fat, and weight gain. The group on white sugar did not experience any of these effects. Researchers also hypothesized that this could lead to leptin and insulin resistance leading to a predisposition toward obesity. Leptin is a hormone that signals to the brain that you are full. Research has shown that high fructose corn syrup does inhibit this hormone leading to excess calorie intake.
The claim that high fructose corn syrup is the same as white sugar simply does not pan out according to many scientific studies. Americans have heard that high fructose corn syrup isn’t healthy but many cannot articulate why. The reality is fructose is processed entirely differently in the body than sucrose and other sugars. This leads to fatty liver, increased abdominal fat, leptin resistance, increased triglycerides, and other negative health effects not seen with other types of sugar. High fructose corn syrup is not a benign ingredient in foods and consumers should consciously evaluate ingredients labels on food and avoid it entirely.
March 10th, 2011
By: Maia Szalavitz
Quick quiz: does pregnancy cause weight loss or gain? It seems like a dumb question but it’s a test that the promoters of the “hCG diet” seem to have failed.
Short for human chorionic gonadotrophin, hCG is the hormone secreted by the embryo that makes a pregnancy test positive. Since the 1950s, certain doctors have promoted hCG injections as the key to hunger-free weight loss — and now, the diet is taking off on the Web. This, despite 14 clinical trials showing that hCG has no effect on weight.
The hCG diet restricts caloric intake to 500 calories a day. That alone pretty much guarantees weight loss for anyone who can manage to stick with it. But people who take a placebo instead of hCG while restricting calories do just as well as those who take the hormone — and taking the hormone doesn’t increase the likelihood that people will stay on the diet.
Some doctors will actually give injections of hCG, but many people take hCG pills, which are sold online — illegally, according to the FDA — for use in this diet. There’s even less evidence for the effectiveness of pills than the injections, however, and it’s impossible to know whether the pills actually even contain hCG.
There’s also data to show that such starvation-level diets — with or without hormones — can cause dramatic rebounds in weight in the long run, making maintaining healthy weight much more difficult.
So why does this demonstrably ineffective and potentially harmful diet aid stay popular? In brief, it’s the power of placebos and anecdotes.
For one thing, research on placebos has shown that the effect of getting an injection is more powerful than taking a pill, in terms of getting a result based on patients’ positive expectations. So the hCG injections themselves power the placebo effect, producing compelling anecdotes of successful weight loss. In reality, of course, what causes the dropped pounds is the caloric restriction — but the people who tout the diet emphasize the shots.
And all of us — doctors included — are fundamentally susceptible to seduction by dramatic success stories. Our brains are biased to believe real people providing emotional accounts of change over the dull, dry statistics found in scientific papers. What better evidence could there be than a dramatic before-and-after story, our minds tell us.
But it’s worth remembering that anecdotes cannot be used to distinguish between effective and ineffective treatments: that misconception is what allowed bloodletting and other harmful practices to persist in medicine for centuries. Requiring a higher standard of proof to demonstrate causality is what has made modern medicine a success. Going beyond anecdote is the only way to know for sure whether something helps or harms.
So if you want to find a diet or other medical treatment that works, it’s better to stick with the data and avoid hCG. Unless you want to believe that a growing infant in the womb secretes hormones altruistically to avoid growing and to make its mom skinnier. Consider this: even the nausea of early pregnancy generally ends in weight gain, not loss.
March 10th, 2011
By: Peiter Cohen
Which of the below statements is true about the hCG diet?
- You can lose 30 pounds in one month.
- Many dieters swear by it.
- Doctors say it doesn’t work.
- The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) calls hCG supplements illegal and fraudulent.
What’s remarkable is that all these statements are true. Let’s take a close look at the hCG diet to separate fact from fiction.
What is the hCG diet?
The hCG diet combines extreme calorie restriction with daily shots of a hormone produced by pregnant women called human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).
How much can you eat on the hCG diet?
Very little. The hCG diet requires that you eat only 500 calories a day. You would hit your daily limit with one turkey sandwich with Swiss cheese and mayo.
Can you lose a lot of weight on the hCG diet?
Yes. If you don’t eat, you’ll lose weight. Skipping meals and extreme restriction of food has been used by dieters for decades to try to lose weight. If you stick to a diet of only 500 calories a day, it’s possible to lose 5 or more pounds a week.
If you lose weight fast, then why don’t doctors recommend it?
You don’t keep the weight off. Decades of research have demonstrated that if you diet by eating only 500 calories a day, you regain a lot of weight after the diet ends. It turns out that these crash diets lead to no more weight loss after one year than if you modestly reduce calories and increase exercise.
It’s also unsafe. Common sense tells us that starving is not very good for our bodies. In fact, scientists have proven this as well. If you only eat 500 calories a day, there are serious health risks. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has already investigated over a dozen deaths linked to these very low calorie diets as far back as the 1970s. Click here to review their findings. Of course, most people won’t die from the hCG diet, but many will develop other health problems like hair loss, constipation and gallstones – a painful condition that often requires surgery.
What about the hCG injections – doesn’t that make the diet more effective?
No. Promoters of the hCG diet claim that when people are injected with hCG hormone they don’t feel hungry even though they’re not eating. The idea of using hCG injections to curb appetite was introduced over 50 years ago and has been carefully studied in over a dozen well-done trials. Every single well-done trial showed that the hCG injections were no better than injecting a salt-water placebo. In other words, people injected with hCG lost the same amount of weight as people injected with a salt-water placebo.
If hCG injections don’t make you lose more weight, do they make the diet safer?
Unfortunately, the injections don’t make starving yourself any safer and, in fact, might make it more dangerous. Since the use of hCG has been shown to be no better than salt-water injections for weight loss, it is not used by mainstream physicians for weight loss. Therefore the safety of injecting a pregnancy hormone into women (and men!) when they are eating so few calories has never been studied. Although hCG injections could have long-term health effects, the truth is we just don’t know.
People on the hCG diet say they don’t feel hungry. If it doesn’t work, how can that be?
It turns out that when it comes to hunger, humans are very suggestible. Probably earlier this week you weren’t at all hungry until someone starting talking about a favorite food or you lost your appetite at the sight of unappealing food. When we want to believe that a shot, whether it’s of saltwater or hormones, will make our hunger go away, our hunger sometimes does go away.
Does it really matter if it’s the medicine or the power of suggestion? If the shot helps with dieting, isn’t it worth a try?
The extreme calorie restriction is known to cause serious health problems and the safety of hCG injections in this setting is completely unknown.
March 10th, 2011
Imagine losing a pound a day and never feeling hungry. Those that have had success with it believe it’s the long-awaited miracle cure for weight loss. Is the HCG diet safe or too good to be true? Dr. Oz investigates.
Learn the origin of the diet, which employs a hormone produced in pregnant women and a highly restrictive diet.
February 7th, 2011
By: Ethan A. Huff
The mainstream media is just now catching on to what NaturalNews and other natural health advocates have been saying for years: type 2 diabetes can be reversed through dietary and lifestyle changes, and without the need for lifelong drug interventions. A recent report by CNN says that improving one’s diet, keeping off excess weight, and regularly exercising, can help millions of people with diabetes get rid of it for good.
“We have seen numerous people reverse their condition,” Dr. Michelle Magee, director of the MedStar Diabetes Institute in Washington, is quoted as saying by CNN. “But it takes a real dedication for the rest of their lives.”
Typically, overweight or obese people who eat poorly and exercise little develop type 2 diabetes. The conventional course of action is then to regularly watch blood sugar levels with a monitor and take daily shots of insulin, the hormone normally produced by the pancreas to process sugars, but that is lacking in diabetics.
But by eliminating processed foods loaded with highly refined sugars, eating lots of whole, organic foods, and getting regular exercise to maintain healthy muscle and fat levels, diabetes can actually get their bodies back on track to where they can once again naturally produce their own insulin, and even stop having to inject themselves with insulin every day.