BPA and Erectile Dysfunction
November 25, 2009
Natural News
By S.L. Baker
Big Pharma bombards consumers with ads for drugs to treat erectile dysfunction (ED), the politically correct term for what used to be known as “impotence”. Erectile dysfunction, the repeated inability to get or maintain an erection firm enough for sexual intercourse, is a problem affecting between 15 million to 30 million American men, according to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). But why?
While many people assume ED is an inevitable part of growing older or something men experience for no particular reason, a just released study raises another disturbing possibility. It turns out the chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) can reduce sexual function in men.
The Kaiser Permanente research, published in the journal Human Reproduction, followed 230 Chinese men who were exposed to BPA in their workplace for five years and compared them to 404 others who worked in a factory where no BPA was present. The results were dramatic. The men working in facilities where they were exposed to BPA had four times the risk of erectile dysfunction and seven times more risk of difficulties with ejaculation than their counterparts who weren’t regularly exposed to BPA. The BPA-exposed men had also had dramatically lowered sexual desire and overall less satisfaction with their sex life than men without the chemical exposure.
While it’s true the BPA levels experienced by the exposed factory workers in the study were 50 times higher than levels of the chemical the average American man is believed to be exposed to, the bottom line is this: Americans — male and female, young and old — are being exposed to BPA regularly. The chemical is used in an enormous amount of products including many plastic containers, baby bottles, the lining of cans used for food and beverages, and even dental sealants. And no one knows for sure what effects the chemical could be having on the human body, including the reproductive system.
Gut Bacteria May Cause Obesity
November 12, 2009
Time
by Alice Park
If you have ever fought the battle of the bulge, then you are all too familiar with its key players: diet, exercise and your genes. The less you move (calories out) and the more you eat (calories in), the more fat you gain — an equation that may be heavily influenced by your particular genes. But scientists have long known that these three factors do not adequately explain every case of obesity, and now researchers are discovering increasingly convincing evidence of another important contributor to body weight, one that until recently has been almost completely ignored: the bacteria that live in your gut.
Technically, they’re known as the gut microbiota, a universe of tens of trillions of microbes, which live and thrive in the human intestinal tract and colon and most of which survive without oxygen. These microbes perform an enormous range of vital functions, including helping regulate the calories the body obtains from food and stores as fat. In other words, they may help regulate weight. And a new study published on Nov. 12 in Science Translational Medicine suggests that the particular type and balance of bugs you harbor in your gut may help push your body toward either obesity or leanness and that these microbe populations might even be manipulated to potentially change your weight.
The new study builds on previous research in mice that suggests that heavy bodies may have a different makeup of gut bugs than thin ones. The gut microbiota of obese mice has been shown to have significantly more of one main type of bacteria called Firmicutes and fewer of another kind called Bacteroidetes (both types populate human guts as well); in normal mice, the distribution is the opposite. Jeffrey Gordon at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., who conducted the previous research, experimented again with mice for the new paper. This time, however, he and his team used human microbiota to colonize mouse guts and then fed the rodents the equivalents of typical human diets to see how their microbes — and their weight — changed.
Researchers started with mice that were specially bred to be germ-free — with no gut microbiota of their own — and to be able to nurture human gut microbiota. Researchers injected the mice with samples of fresh and frozen human feces, the bacteria from which took hold and colonized in the gut of the mice. If that surprises you, it absolutely stunned the researchers. “We were surprised that so much of the diversity present in human microbial communities could be recaptured in mice,” says Gordon, who has been studying gut microbiota for more than five years.
The fact that the human gut flora flourished in the rodents was indeed an experimental coup. Since the mice were genetically engineered to be germ-free, lacking a functioning immune system, the scientists could be certain that any bug colonies that took hold in the mouse guts originated entirely from the human sample, not the mice. Being able to recreate the living human gut environment so faithfully in an animal was a welcome prize.
The main advantage was that Gordon and his team now had the cutting-edge DNA-sequencing capability to scan and analyze all the genes contained in those bacteria. That meant researchers could determine not only which species of bacteria were present and in what proportions, but also which genes these bugs were actively using in different conditions. Before such genomic-analysis technology became available, researchers could study only the gut microbes (animal or human) that could be cultured outside their intestinal home — something that not all of the oxygen-shunning bugs were amenable to — but never the complete microbiota of the gut. “We cannot recapitulate the entire microbial diversity that exists in these complex communities. We simply don’t know how to culture them, so we could miss a lot of diversity,” says Gordon.
That diversity and its impact came into plain view when the researchers started experimenting with the rodents’ diet. When one group of mice was fed a typical Western diet, high in fat and sugars, they tended to gain weight and grow more Firmicutes gut bacteria and fewer Bacteroidetes. In mice given a low-fat plant-based chow, the distribution of the two groups of bugs flipped and the animals remained lean. It’s not clear whether the balance of gut bugs causes weight gain or is a result of it, but the findings suggest that a “gut profile” could potentially serve as a diagnostic tool for identifying who might have a propensity for obesity. If, for instance, your gut environment contains a preponderance of Firmicutes, then your body may be predisposed to digest calories in a way that leads to greater fat storage. In fact, in Gordon’s earlier work with identical twins of different weights, he found that the obese twin tended to have more Firmicutes colonies than the leaner one.
Drugs That Change Taste Damage Metabolism
October 26, 2009
NaturalNews
By S. L. Baker
It’s not unusual to hear about herbicides having suspected toxic effects or prescription drugs producing side effects. But a new National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded study just published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry has found another negative and surprising way common herbicides and fibrate drugs (which are used to lower elevated blood lipids) impact the human body: they block a nutrient-sensing taste receptor on the tongue called T1R3.
So what’s the big deal about this? It turns out there’s emerging evidence these taste receptors are also found in hormone-producing cells in the intestine and pancreas. When working properly, these internal taste receptors in the gut trigger the release of hormones involved in the regulation of normal homeostasis (the ability of the body to maintain internal physiological stability) of glucose as well as energy metabolism. Simply put, screwing up the ability of T1R3 to sense certain nutrients could possibly wreak havoc on the human body in a variety of ways — from playing a role in unhealthy blood sugar levels to causing people to gain weight .
“Compounds that either activate or block T1R3 receptors could have significant metabolic effects, potentially influencing diseases such as obesity, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome,” said Monell geneticist and study leader Bedrich Mosinger, MD, PhD, in a statement to the media.
For their study, Dr. Mosinger and his research team tested the ability of two classes of chemical compounds to block the T1R3 taste receptor. These compounds were selected because they have strong structural similarities to lactisole, a sweet taste inhibitor that is known to block T1R3. Specifically, the researchers investigated fibrates (a class of drugs often used to lower blood cholesterol, especially triglycerides), and phenoxy herbicides.
Fibrate drugs are sold in the U.S. under several names including gemibrozil (brand name Lopid) and fenobribrate (brand name Tricor). Phenoxy herbicides are chemicals widely used in agricultural fields, on golf courses, rights-of-way and lawns to control broad-leaf weeds. The best known, called 2,4-D, is one of the most extensively used herbicides in the world. According to the Oregon State University Extension Service web site, popular brands of phenoxy herbicides include MCPA, Crossbow, Banvel, Garlon, Weed-B-Gone, and Brush Killer. They are also incorporated into a host of “weed and feed” and brush control products for use on grass.
In laboratory experiments, the researchers found that both classes of compounds were very potent in blocking activation of the human sweet taste receptors. Additional tests showed that this ability of both fibrates and phenoxy herbicides to block T1R3 is specific to humans.
“The metabolic consequences of short and long-term exposures of humans to phenoxy herbicides are unknown. This is because most safety tests were done using animals, which have T1R3 receptors that are insensitive to these compounds,” Dr. Mosinger said in the press statement. “Given the number of compounds used in agriculture, medicine and the food industry that may affect human T1R3 and related receptors, more work is needed to identify the health-related effects of exposure to these compounds.”
Click here for the full report.
Anxiety Vaccine? What Next?!
October 23, 2009
Natural News
By Mike Adams
There’s a new vaccine for nicotine addiction, and another one for drug addiction. There’s an AIDS vaccines (which doesn’t work) and a vaccine for cervical cancer that’s been approved for use on boys (boys don’t have a cervix). Through the pharmaceutical industry, the big push for vaccines is on!
But why, exactly? Is there suddenly a new rash of epidemic disease requiring vaccine treatments? No, not really. What’s new is the way Big Pharma is latching on to these diseases as new opportunities to sell more drugs.
There’s a huge shift underway from drugs designed for sick people to a whole new class of drugs manufactured for healthy people. The new paradigm is that people need drugs before they get sick, as a sort of “protection” against sickness. Drugs, in essence, are being positioned as nutrients — things the human body needs in order to be healthy. And from the moment you’re born, you’re considered deficient in these drugs. That’s why babies are injected with vaccines within minutes after being born. There’s a strong belief in the medical industry that babies are born deficient in vaccines and that such deficiencies must be “corrected” as soon as possible.
This simple but powerful shift in the marketing strategy of Big Pharma has expanded the potential customer based from a subset of the population (people who are sick) to the entire world population. Now, everybody needs a vaccine for something say the drug companies. All that’s necessary for the financial success of these scheme is to convince sick people that they need more drugs (or vaccines), and that’s easily accomplished through disease mongering campaigns (like the current fear push over H1N1 swine flu).
Bypassing the need for scientific evidence
There’s another important shift taking place alongside the big vaccine push: A shift away from “evidence-based medicine” to a new medical paradigm of “dogmatic belief.”
Medicines that treat sick people, you see, have to be proven to work. There have to be clinical trials, and some percentage of those sick people (only 5% or so, typically) have to show some sort of improved response after taking the medicine. This is the so-called “gold standard” of modern medicine. But with vaccines, no proof of efficacy is required. No placebo-controlled studies need to be conducted at all. Vaccines can be openly marketed and prescribed without any evidence that they actually work.
This is the new “free pass” for Big Pharma — a class of medicine that requires no proof! They merely need to be injected into a few hundred people who are observed for as little as two weeks to see if anybody died or collapses into a coma. That’s all the testing that’s required (and sometimes even less). No long-term safety tests are required or pursued, and, importantly, there is no requirement that the vaccine proves it actually works to reduce flu infections (or HPV infections, etc.).
In essence, by pushing for a vaccine approach to virtually everything, including nicotine addictions, the pharmaceutical industry has transformed itself from a small industry that only served sick people with scientifically-proven medicines to a huge global industry that sells vaccines to everyone and needs no proof that they even work. By any assessment, it’s a brilliant strategy for increasing pharmaceutical profits.
Get the Massage – Relax Your Way to Good Health
October 16, 2009
Natural News
By Sheryl Walters
The tremendous benefits of regular massage are irreplaceable to the human body. Massage is a variety of sometimes ancient techniques that manipulate the soft tissues of the body. It can definitely relax you, but there are some benefits of massage that go far beyond relaxation.
Pain and anxiety are two common problems associated with receiving massage therapy. By soothing muscles and nerves a greater state of well being is achieved for the recipient. When you take this concept further you find that massage can also benefit chronic pain and even self esteem. Massage allows for person to person contact that promotes feelings of comfort and soothing.
Medically massage is used for sports related injuries and to promote optimum performance of muscles. Through a pattern of exercise and massage, injuries can be avoided and greater athletic achievements can be accomplished. The regular massage prevents small injuries from becoming bigger ones and the athlete avoids the pain cycle all together. Massage is also an immune system enhancer that benefits patients with chronic immune system diseases like HIV. Increasing the circulation of healthy blood cells in the body helps these patients fight off disease better and keep a more positive mental attitude that is crucial for their survival.
Infants and babies have shown positive responses to massage through toddlerhood. The birthing process is often made easier and less complicated by regular massage during pregnancy and throughout the labor process. Massage for premature babies promotes better weight gain, and massage for babies with diabetes correlates with better lifelong compliance with regimens and healthier lifestyle choices.
