This is the second part of how our government and big corporations are wreaking havoc with us. Read here about much safer options to mammograms!

Cancer Society Has Financial Ties to Mammography

Is There a Safer Screening Option?

The revised U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations discourage doctors from teaching breast self-examination (BSE), even though they have long been recommended as a simple way for women to keep track of anything unusual in their breasts.

While BSEs are certainly not inherently harmful, the problem they pose is that it typically forces women into a conventional, and potentially dangerous, diagnostic model, as if you do find something unusual, you will typically be brought in for a mammogram for further screening.

There is a safer option for breast screening, however, that you may not have heard of because it is not financially tied to ACS or other public health agencies.

It’s called thermographic breast screening, and works by measuring the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translating this information into anatomical images. Thermography uses no mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation, and can detect signs of breast cancer as much as 10 years earlier than either mammography or a physical exam!

Whereas mammography cannot detect a tumor until after it has been growing for years and reaches a certain size, thermography is able to detect the possibility of breast cancer much earlier.

It can even detect the potential for cancer before any tumors have formed because it can image the early stages of angiogenesis — the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size.

More men’s lives could also be spared from the disease as mammography is not frequently used on men, which leads to most men with breast cancer being diagnosed at a very late stage.

Breast Cancer Prevention Tips

It’s sad to note that while the American Cancer Society widely encourages women to get mammograms, they do not do nearly enough to spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place.

A healthy diet, regular physical exercise, and an effective way to manage your emotional health are the cornerstones of just about any cancer prevention program, including breast cancer.

But for breast cancer, specifically, you can take it a step further by also watching out for excessive iron levels. This is actually very common once women stop menstruating. The extra iron actually works as a powerful oxidant, increasing free radicals and raising your risk of cancer.

So if you are a post-menopausal woman or have breast cancer you will certainly want to have your Ferritin level drawn. Ferritin is the iron transport protein and should not be above 80. If it is elevated you can simply donate your blood to reduce it.

The following lifestyle strategies will also help to further lower your risk:

* Optimize your vitamin D level. Ideally it should be over 50 ng/ml, but levels from 60-80 ng/ml will radically reduce your cancer risk. Safe sun exposure is the least expensive and most effective way to increase your levels, followed by safe tanning beds and then oral vitamin D3 supplementation.
* Improve Your Insulin Receptor Sensitivity. The best way to do this is make sure you have an optimized exercise program. Most people need about five to eight hours of exercise every week to optimize their insulin receptors, but make sure you just don’t do cardio. A varied program that includes the Peak Fitness exercises will give you the most benefits.
* Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It’s important to lose excess weight because estrogen, a hormone produced in fat tissue, may trigger breast cancer.
* Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as those from krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
* Avoid drinking alcohol, or limit your drinks to one a day for women.
* Breastfeed exclusively for up to six months. Research shows this will reduce your breast cancer risk.

Technorati Tags: mammograms, breast cancer, breast cancer prevention, breast self-examination, thermographic breast screening, American Cancer Society, Vitamin D, breastfeeding, onega-3 fats, healthy body weight, exercise

I am so sick of corporations and governments making money by making us sick!!! This is horrific!! This time it is The American Cancer Society. Imagine, this so called good deeder, using us to make more money! “There is a safer option for breast screening, however, that you may not have heard of because it is not financially tied to ACS or other public health agencies.” It’s called thermographic breast screening. Please DON”T have mammograms!! This is the first part. As it is so important to read the whole thing, that I will put the alternatives in a new blog.

Cancer Society Has Financial Ties to Mammography.

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, warns that the American Cancer Society has close financial ties to the makers of mammography equipment. Five radiologists have served as presidents of the American Cancer Society (ACS).

In its every move, the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker.

This bias hypes mammography, which Dr. Epstein and Dr. Rosalie Bertell emphasize is an avoidable cause of breast cancer itself.

According to World Wire:

“Routine mammography delivers an unrecognized high dose of radiation, warn Drs. Epstein and Bertell. If a woman follows the current guidelines for premenopausal screening, over a 10 year period she would receive a total dosage of about 5 rads. This approximates the level of exposure to radiation of a Japanese woman one mile from the epicenter of atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.”

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

There is no solid evidence that mammograms save lives. In fact, research demonstrates that adding an annual mammogram to a careful physical examination of the breasts does not improve breast cancer survival rates over getting the examination alone.

Yet, most physicians recommend mammograms to women as the go-to method of breast cancer screening, and the American Cancer Society advises women age 40 and older to have a screening mammogram every year, and continue to do so for as long as they are in good health.

This is a recommendation they kept, despite updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which state that women in their 40s should NOT get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer!

So why is ACS so gung-ho on mammograms, despite a lack of strong evidence to back up their use?

American Cancer Society Has Financial Interests in Mammography

Dr. Epstein, M.D., professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, has been speaking out about the risks of mammography since at least 1992. As for how these misguided mammography guidelines came about, Epstein says:

“They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of “crimes against humanity.””

And what better spokesperson to tout mammography’s benefits than the American Cancer Society itself, an agency that is supposed to be devoted to preventing and curing cancer for the American public? But as Dr. Epstein points out, ACS’ role in the promotion of mammography is far from altruistic, as the Society has numerous ties to the mammography industry itself:

• Five radiologists have served as presidents of ACS
• ACS commonly promotes the interests of mammogram machine and film manufacturers, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak and Piker

Dr. Epstein and Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D. of the International Physicians for Humanitarian Medicine stated:

“The mammography industry conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, serves on its advisory boards, and donates considerable funds.

DuPont also is a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; sponsors television shows and other media productions touting ACS literature for hospitals, clinics, medical organization, and doctors; produces educational films; and aggressively lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the nationwide availability of mammography services.”

The close ties also help explain why ACS commonly runs advertisements urging women to get mammograms, even going so far in one ad as to promise that early detection leads to a cure “nearly 100 percent of the time.”

But as World-Wire reported, an ACS communications director even admitted that the statement was not based on science, but marketing potential. She said:

“The ad isn’t based on a study. When you make an advertisement, you just say what you can to get women in the door. You exaggerate a point … Mammography today is a lucrative [and] highly competitive business.”

Unfortunately, what the American Cancer Society is not making clear in their heavy mammography marketing material are the risks involved, some of which may actually raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

Mammogram Risks You Probably Haven’t Heard Of …

A mammogram uses ionizing radiation at a relatively high dose, which in and of itself can contribute to the development of breast cancer. Mammograms expose your body to radiation that can be 1,000 times greater than that from a chest x-ray, which we know poses a cancer risk.

According to Epstein and Bertell in World-Wire:

“If a woman follows the current guidelines for premenopausal screening, over a 10 year period she would receive a total dosage of about 5 rads. This approximates the level of exposure to radiation of a Japanese woman one mile from the epicenter of atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.”

Interestingly, in a study by Dr. Robert M. Kaplan, the chairman of the department of health services at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues, they found 22 percent more invasive breast tumors in the group who had mammograms every two years compared to the group who had just one mammogram over a six-year period.

Could it be that the mammograms themselves contributed to these results?

I would certainly not discount it, or the fact that mammography also compresses your breasts tightly, which could lead to a dangerous spread of cancerous cells, should they exist.

False Positives Alarmingly Common

Mammograms carry a first-time false positive rate of up to 6 percent. False positives can lead to expensive repeat screenings, exposing you to even more radiation, and may result in unnecessary invasive procedures including biopsies, unnecessary surgery, radiation, chemotherapy and more.

Should you end up getting a breast biopsy, that too can have detrimental consequences.

Needle biopsies, which are widely used, may accidentally cause malignant cells to break away from a tumor, allowing it to spread to other areas of your body. And according to a study from the John Wayne Cancer Institute, it appears that a needle biopsy may increase the spread of cancer by 50 percent compared to patients who received excisional biopsies, also known as lumpectomies.

So a false positive on a mammogram, or worse, a false diagnosis, can really be damaging.

Technorati Tags: mammograms, breast self-examination, thermographic breast screening, American Cancer Society, breast cancer, breast cancer causes, breast cancer prevention

This is the second part about the dispersants they are using and how it will affect our health as well as what we can all do about it. Please take the time to sign the petition. Read on……

Next Major Toxic Hazard that Can Ruin You and Your Children’s Health

Toxic Dispersants: The Oil Spill Tragedy You Probably Haven’t Heard About

BP is using two dispersants: Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527A.

Corexit is on the EPA’s list of approved chemical dispersants, and BP could have chosen any one from the list. Instead, they chose Corexit, which is among the most toxic and least effective options.

As it turns out, BP has financial ties with Nalco, which explains why they have now poured more than 1 million gallons of it into the Gulf. Because of these industry ties, Corexit is the only dispersant available in the massive quantities “needed” for an oil spill of this size.

In fact, they used up all exiting stockpiles of Corexit 9527A, the older and more dangerous formula, and Nalco states it will be discontinued, now that it has been used up.

Of all 18 dispersants tested, Corexit 9500 and 9527A are the LEAST effective, further confirming that BP’s preferential use of these products is motivated by profit, rather than their proclaimed intention to “clean up the mess.”

Toxic for Humans and Marine Life

Corexit products were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the UK more than a decade ago after the agents were linked with human health problems including:

* Respiratory
* Neurological
* Liver
* Kidney
* Blood disorders

Further, according to Carys Mitchelmore, a researcher at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, the detergent-like brew of solvents, surfactants and other compounds are known to cause a variety of health problems in animals, including:

* Death
* Reduced growth
* Reproductive problems
* Cardiac dysfunction
* Immune suppression
* Altered behavior
* Carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic effects

As Sayer Ji, founder of InformationToInspireChange.com, stated:

“Dispersing the oil into the water column accelerates the poisoning of all marine life, deep throughout the water column and seabed. Ultimately it results in “covering-up” the extent of the disaster on the surface, while amplifying the damage within our oceans.

Also, when the dispersants mix with the crude oil, a third far more toxic product is produced called “dispersed oil.” Dispersed oil has been shown to be more toxic than the sum of its parts.

Dispersing simply keeps the oil deeper in the water column so that it will not surface, into the light of public scrutiny.”

The chemical dispersants, by the way, are not a silver bullet to miraculously make oil disappear. Oil spill dispersants only alter the chemical and physical properties of the oil, making it more likely to mix with seawater than deposit on the shoreline.

So what the dispersants do is re-direct the oil, making its impact perhaps less so on birds and shore-dwelling animals, but more so on fish, coral reefs, oysters and other marine life that live in the deeper waters. It essentially “hides” the oil out of view, below the surface where news cameras can’t see it.

Sadly, the oil and dispersant mix is so toxic that I strongly caution you to STAY OUT of the Gulf of Mexico. In my opinion, it’s simply not safe to swim there.

Remember also that children are far more prone to experiencing health problems from this type of toxic exposure than adults. So please, keep your children safe. Do not allow your children to swim or play on the Gulf coast beaches.

Is There Any Way to Help?

Only time will tell what the true environmental and human health impacts of the 2010 BP oil spill will be, but this is for certain: we need our oceans, our coral reefs and our marine life to survive.

Coral reefs are already disappearing faster than rainforests, and dispersed oil is particularly deadly to coral reefs.

According to Charlie Veron, an Australian marine biologist regarded as the world’s foremost authority on coral reefs:

“The future is horrific. There is no hope of reefs surviving to even mid-century in any form that we now recognize. If, and when, they go, they will take with them about one-third of the world’s marine biodiversity. Then there is a domino effect, as reefs fail, so will other ecosystems. This is the path of a mass extinction event, when most life, especially tropical marine life, goes extinct.”

You may feel helpless right now to make a difference in the Gulf, but there are some steps you can take to help. First, you can join the movement to stop the use of dispersants by signing this petition.

I also urge you to take action now, without delay, pressing your representatives to hold BP accountable for this massive environmental tragedy.

Technorati Tags: dispersants, toxic hazard, bp, bp oil spill, oil spill, cerexit, petition

And the government said it was mostly gone! This is the first of a 2 part article. Read on for your health and well being….

Next Major Toxic Hazard that Can Ruin You and Your Children’s Health

The BP oil leak has reportedly been plugged, but the devastation caused by the hundreds of millions of gallons of oil that poured into the Gulf, coupled with a reckless use of toxic dispersants to “clean it up,” is just beginning.

And the sad truth is, even highly trained toxicologists can only guess what the full extent of the damage will be. This is, by far, the worst oil spill in human history. The Exxon Valdez disaster spilled “only” 12 million gallons of oil — and even that ended up taking a much more complex environmental toll than toxicologists initially predicted.

There’s no doubt in my mind this disaster will take DECADES to clean up, if it’s at all possible, and the worst-case scenario is pointing to major devastation on all levels of marine life, from coral reefs and plankton to fish and air-breathing mammals.

Where Did the Massive Oil Slicks Go?

Since the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon, thousands of square miles in the Gulf were covered with immense patches of oil.

Media images showing the extent of the destruction have been scarce — draconian measures have been implemented to limit media access and reporting on the disaster, and CNN recently reported on a new rule that prevents anyone, including reporters and photographers, from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms anywhere on the water or on beaches — but the oil was there, coating expansive stretches of ocean, nonetheless.

Now, fast-forward to early August and the New York Times reported that the oil patches are “largely gone,” and “Radar images suggest that the few remaining patches are quickly breaking down in the warm surface waters of the gulf.” They went on to report, “The slick appeared to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected.”

Two days earlier, a government report released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey similarly implied that the oil in the Gulf was quickly disappearing and that environmental effects were well under control.

Government Report Implies Oil is Mostly Gone!

For starters, the report estimated that only 4.9 million barrels of oil were released from the BP Deepwater Horizon well, when at the height of the spill estimates revealed that 4.2 million gallons of oil were likely still spilling into the Gulf of Mexico daily.

Next the report goes on to explain that:

“It is estimated that burning, skimming and direct recovery from the wellhead removed one quarter (25%) of the oil released from the wellhead. One quarter (25%) of the total oil naturally evaporated or dissolved, and just less than one quarter (24%) was dispersed (either naturally or as a result of operations) as microscopic droplets into Gulf waters.

The residual amount — just over one quarter (26%) — is either on or just below the surface as light sheen and weathered tar balls, has washed ashore or been collected from the shore, or is buried in sand and sediments.”

The remaining “residual” oil, along with the oil that has been chemically and naturally dispersed are “currently being degraded naturally,” according to the government report.

With a glowing report like this one, it makes you wonder if the U.S. government is in collusion with BP. Already the report is drawing criticism that it is deliberately trying to play down the real impacts of the spill.

As Samantha Joye, a marine scientist at the University of Georgia who has conducted important research regarding the spill, told the New York Times:

“A lot of this is based on modeling and extrapolation and very generous assumptions. If an academic scientist put something like this out there, it would get torpedoed into a billion pieces.”

You can also listen to this shocking interview with top EPA official Hugh Kaufman, which reveals that the NOAA and the EPA are covering up the lethal effects of dispersants and lying about Gulf Oil Spill water samples to save BP billions of dollars in fines.

At the very least, it appears the government has completely overlooked the toxic effects of the dispersants used to “remove” much of the oil. Massive oil slicks don’t just “disappear” from the ocean. Instead, many were treated with harsh chemical solvents that simply transferred the oil from the ocean’s surface to the delicate waters below.

Technorati Tags: oil spill, toxic hazard, BP, BP oil leak, dispersants, health and wellness

It seems we cannot get away from all the things that cause cancer. Back to the futon!

A Cancer-Causing Radiation Antenna You Wouldn’t Know

The rate of breast cancer in Western countries is 10 percent higher in the left breast than in the right. This also is true for the skin cancer melanoma.

Researchers have suggested a surprising explanation for this — and for the dramatic increase in rates of breast cancer and melanoma over the past three decades.

In Japan, there is no correlation between the rates of melanoma and breast cancer, and there is no left-side prevalence for either disease. The rate of breast cancer in Japan is also significantly lower than in the West.

This may be due to differences in sleeping habits in Japan and Western countries. Previous research has shown that people prefer to sleep on their right sides, possibly as a way of reducing weight stress on the heart.

This is most likely the same in both the East and the West, but the futons used for sleeping in Japan are mattresses placed directly on the bedroom floor, in contrast to the elevated box springs and mattress of beds used in the West.

According to Scientific American:

“… [A] 2007 study in Sweden conducted between 1989 and 1993 … revealed a strong link between the incidence of melanoma and the number of FM and TV transmission towers covering the area where the individuals lived …

Consider, however, that even a TV set cannot respond to broadcast transmissions unless the weak electromagnetic waves are captured and amplified by an appropriately designed antenna. Antennas are simply metal objects of appropriate length sized to match the wavelength of a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation.”

In the U.S., bed frames and box springs are made of metal, and the length of a bed is exactly half the wavelength of FM and TV transmissions. The maximum strength of the field develops 75 centimeters above the mattress, so when sleeping on your right side, your left side will be exposed to the highest field strength.

Technorati Tags: cancer causes, cancer, futons, box springs, mattresses, beds, melanoma, breast cancer, FM and TV transmission towers

And the last, most important part of this article – Ways to help your child achieve optimal health and body weight without drugs! This is a must read!! If you TRULY love your child you will do the following!

The Hidden Truth: Why Government Wants Your Kids on Cholesterol Drugs…

Top 10 Ways to Help Your Child Achieve Optimal Health and Body Weight — Without Drugs

While prescription of a cholesterol-lowering medication may be warranted in a few rare cases, 99 times out of 100, hyperlipidemia and hypercholesterolemia can be corrected with some simple lifestyle changes.

Here are my top 10 recommendations:

* Eliminate all sodas and fruit juices.
* If your child is already overweight or obese it is particularly important to lower their total fructose intake, INCLUDING fruit, until their weight normalizes. It would also be helpful to severely limit grains, even apparently healthy ones like whole organic grains, until their weight normalizes.
* Help your child get regular exercise.
* Prepare the right foods for your child’s nutritional type. I now offer the full nutritional typing program free of charge.
* Encourage your child to eat a good portion of her food raw.
* Make sure your child is getting plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega3-fats. My favorite is krill oil.
* Introduce your child to a variety of heart-healthy foods such as olive oil, coconut and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats that fit within her nutritional type guidelines.
* Introduce your child to strategies that help her address emotional challenges, such as EFT.
* Make sure your child gets plenty of restorative sleep.
* Finally, make sure your child’s vitamin D levels are within therapeutic levels.
* Vitamin D is not “just a vitamin,” but rather the only known substrate for a potent, pleiotropic (meaning it produces multiple effects), repair- and maintenance hormone that serves multiple gene-regulatory functions in your child’s body.

Low levels of vitamin D are associated with an increased risk of heart disease.

About 70 percent of U.S. children have inadequate levels of vitamin D, so this should be one of the first issues you address to keep your child’s heart healthy.

A Call to Action for the Sake of ALL Children

The Alliance for Natural Health has an on-line “action alert” letter you can send to your Congressional representatives about repealing the law that allows drug companies to extend their patents by testing drugs on children.

It is quick and easy to do! Just click here.

If you care about this issue, I encourage you to take a moment to let your rep’s know how you feel.

Technorati Tags: optimal health and body weight, hyperlipidemia, hypercholesterolemia, lifestyle changes, nutritional type, omega 3 fats, heart healthy foods, vitamin D

This is part 3 of this article. Read what the side effects are if children are given statin drugs for children with high cholesterol! SCARY!!!

The Hidden Truth: Why Government Wants Your Kids on Cholesterol Drugs…

Cholesterol is NOT the Villain in Childhood Obesity

Cholesterol has been terribly vilified, when in reality it is essential for a wide variety of vital functions in your child’s growing body, including:

* Maintaining healthy cell membranes
* Producing a variety of hormones, including estrogen, testosterone and vitamin D
* Producing bile acids, which aid in fat digestion
* Cholesterol also helps your child’s brain form memories and is vital to her overall neurological function.

On the flip side, there is strong evidence that having too little cholesterol increases your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson’s disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior.

Before 2004, a 130 LDL cholesterol level was considered perfect. But now, many physicians are recommending levels of less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk. In order to achieve these outrageous and dangerously low targets, you typically need to take multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs!

So, the guidelines have progressively widened the pharmaceutical market. If children are subjected to universal cholesterol screening, the drug companies increase their target market that much more.

Statin Side Effects: Keep Out of the Reach of Children!

In 2007, the American Heart Association first recommended the use of statin drugs for children with high cholesterol. Then, in 2008 the American Academy of Pediatrics followed suit, recommending cholesterol-lowering drugs for children as young as age 8.

Now they are concocting ways to place more and more children on statins, in spite of the overwhelming evidence for serious side effects — nearly 900 studies point to the damaging effects of these drugs.

The list of statin-related health problems includes the following:

* Muscle damage (potentially permanent), mostly related to CoQ10 depletion
* Heart damage, heart failure and strokes
* Neuropathy
* Immune system suppression
* Pancreatic dysfunction
* Hepatic dysfunction
* Increased cancer risk
* Cognitive impairment
* Depression

In addition to these risks, there are also risks from insufficient CoQ10 levels, which directly relate to the use of statins:

* Impaired white blood cell activity
* Reduced muscle strength contraction — especially for the heart muscle
* Impaired liver function
* Decreased cell growth and division
* Decreased ability to neutralize free radicals

And now, it would appear, they are pushing a massive kiddie-statin campaign, disguised as “preventative medicine.”

Pfizer has been in legal trouble a number of times over fraudulent claims about the “health benefits” of Lipitor. Lipitor is particularly damaging if you are diabetic, doubling your risk for stroke. And with childhood diabetes rates increasing by leaps and bounds, prescribing Lipitor would be extremely risky to these diabetic or pre-diabetic kids.

According to an excellent report in 2008 in the New England Journal of Medicine, long-term data about the safety of statins for children is completely lacking. Ferranti and Ludwig write:

“At 8 years of age, a child’s brain and other organ systems remain in dynamic stages of growth and development, raising concern that long-term pharmacotherapy initiated at this age may adversely affect the central nervous system, immune function, hormones, energy metabolism, or other systems in unanticipated ways.”

It is one thing to medicate the child who has a rare genetic defect in cholesterol metabolism, but quite another to treat masses of at-risk children whose symptoms reflect easily modifiable lifestyle factors.

As the article says, “Once this door has been opened, the pharmaceutical industry will happily walk through it.”

Technorati Tags: cholesterol, childhood obesity, obesity, statin drugs, statin-related health problems, CoQ10, kiddie statin campaign, Pfizer, Lipitor

Should I feed my children fat or sugar??

This is a continuation of the previous article. I felt it was so important that I have broken the article up into 4 parts so that you will read them all. This one is about HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP (HFCS) and cholesterol in children. Read your labels and make sure you do not give HFCS to your children. Also, if your doctor is urging your child to get her total cholesterol level checked, you should realize this test tells you virtually nothing about her risk of heart disease. Just remember, “Dietary fat raises the large, buoyant LDL — the one that is harmless. Dietary SUGAR raises the small, dense LDL (VLDL) — the one that correlates with heart disease.”

The Hidden Truth: Why Government Wants Your Kids on Cholesterol Drugs…

What is Really Making Your Child Fat?

The modern Western diet has become exceedingly reliant on high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), refined grains, processed foods and artificial sweeteners — a “perfect storm” for weight gain and poor health.

HFCS is now the number one source of calories in the US, and free-floating fructose is now the leading culprit for the obesity epidemic.

Sugar — specifically fructose — is metabolized by your child’s body in such a way that nearly all of it is converted to fat.

Fructose is a very different sugar from glucose, which humans were designed to use for energy. Fructose is actually closer to ethanol, in terms of how it’s metabolized. Unfortunately, fructose is the number one source of calories in the American diet, and children and adolescents are its number one consumers.

If you wish to promote your children’s health and well being, it is essential to limit their fructose consumption.

You may have been deceived into thinking that dietary fat is the reason for your child’s weight problem. But low-fat diet foods actually CAUSE weight gain in the majority of people, rather than saturated fats.

There are other factors that influence whether or not your child may develop a weight problem and other related health issues. There are genetic, emotional, social and environmental factors.

For example, researchers at the University of Illinois and the Harvard School of Public Health report that toddlers in day care tend to gain more weight than those who are cared for at home. They found babies spending more than 9 months in day care gained 0.4 pound more than those cared for by their parents. Although the higher weight gain was not easily explained, they speculated it had to do with “irregular eating patterns,” as well as possibly the types of foods they were fed.

One hypothesis suggested by scientists was that day care workers might use food to sooth crying babies more than parents do, which could theoretically set up your baby for “emotional eating.”

There is evidence that childhood obesity is not only related to adult obesity but to poor health in adulthood as well, so it is very important to pay attention to your child’s diet and eating patterns from day one.

Total Cholesterol Number Alone is Virtually Useless

If your doctor is urging your child to get her total cholesterol level checked, you should realize this test tells you virtually nothing about her risk of heart disease — unless it is 330 or higher.

Without also knowing lipid values, total cholesterol is meaningless. If you are going to participate in a screening, make sure a complete fasting lipid profile is what is being done.

What matters is how much HDL your child has in relation to her LDL and triglycerides.

The purpose of HDL is to take cholesterol from your child’s tissues and arteries and transport it back to her liver, where it can be reused. It is her body’s way of recycling and reusing cholesterol — because cholesterol is vital for health, not the villain it has been made out to be.

LDL particles come in a variety of sizes, and it’s the small, dense ones (VLDLs) that can potentially be a problem because they can squeeze through the lining of your child’s arteries and oxidize, causing inflammation.

Here is a simple way to determine if your child has too much bad LDL (VLDL):

* If her triglycerides are low and her HDL is high, then the LDL she has is the good variety.
* If her triglycerides are high and her HDL is low, then the LDL she has is the bad variety. The triglyceride-to-HDL ratio is a far better indicator of cardiovascular disease than the total cholesterol-to-HDL ratio that nearly everyone uses.

Here are two ratios, easily calculated from a lipid panel, which can help you evaluate your child’s heart disease risk:

* HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be more than 24 percent. If it’s less than10 percent, your child has a significant risk for developing heart disease.
* Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be less than 2.

Now, here’s the bottom line: Dietary fat raises the large, buoyant LDL — the one that is harmless. Dietary SUGAR raises the small, dense LDL (VLDL) — the one that correlates with heart disease.

The type of fat that is beneficial comes from organic meats and dairy and natural whole foods, NOT trans fats, which can be deadly and should be avoided altogether.

Technorati Tags: cholesterol in children, fat or sugar, dietary fat, dietary sugar, LDL particles, HFCS, high fructose corn syrup, lipids, obesity, childhood obesity, weight problems, fructose, calories

Yikes!! a g a i n !!! This is scary stuff. Moms and Dads, Grandmas (I am Dam Dam) and Grandpas (he is Hapas), aunts and uncles, please please READ LABELS before giving children good! If it has HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP (HFCS) in it, which it most likely does, DO NOT let him eat it. And watch out for LIPITOR in their gummy bears! Read on…

The Hidden Truth: Why Government Wants Your Kids on Cholesterol Drugs…

If Pfizer has its way, your child’s gummy bears may be replaced with chewable Lipitor

The exploitation of children for the sake of profit is yet another loathsome strategy drug manufacturers are willing to deploy, this time for the purpose of extending Lipitor’s patent to hold off generic brand competition.

We are already drugging children into complacency with psychotropic stimulants such as Ritalin if they are bored or distracted in the classroom, and devastating their developing immune systems with massive amounts of sugary drinks and a growing barrage of mercury-laden vaccines.

The following trends are quite disturbing:

* According to one study, American children take antipsychotic medications at six times the rate of U.K. children.
* One in four American kids takes a prescription drug for a chronic health condition.
* One in five teens has high cholesterol.
* Heartburn and acid reflux medications among adolescents has jumped 147 percent since 2001.
* Girls aged 10 to 19 taking medications for type 2 diabetes has jumped almost 200 percent in the past nine years.
* Children and adolescents make up the leading growth category for the pharmaceutical industry, with increases nearly four times higher than those seen in the rest of the population.

“No Child Left Unscreened”

Pumping statins into your children, like we are already doing with psychiatric drugs, would be disastrous, as the damaging side effects are now well established.

And if the government gets involved in mandating cholesterol screenings, it then becomes a slippery slope toward YOUR loss of parental choice about YOUR child’s medical care. Often the government passes off recommendations as “medical decisions” but they are really “monetary decisions.”

You should be the person in charge of your child’s health — not some government agency with a competing agenda!

Generation XL

It is indisputable that childhood obesity is placing the very future of the developing world at stake — a topic I am so concerned about that I wrote a book called Generation XL. If the childhood obesity epidemic is not reversed, we will, for the first time in history, see children living shorter lives than their parents.

Indeed, something must be done about escalating childhood obesity and “adult” diseases showing up in our children.

But massive statin campaigns are certainly NOT the answer.

The cause of the problem is unhealthy lifestyle choices — and drugs do nothing to address this. As mentioned in the source article, Harvard researchers found 85 percent of heart disease can be prevented by lifestyle changes alone — diet, exercise, and supplemental nutrients.

Technorati Tags: ritalin, high fructose corn syrup, gummy bears, lipitor, cholesterol drugs, explotation of children, sugary drinks, vaccines, antipsychotic medication, acid reflux medication, diabetes, statins, childhood obesity, obesity, adult diseases in children, lifestyle choices

I have been on holiday for the past two weeks, enjoying my wonderful 2 year old grandson, Joey!! I plan on making up the time lost to my blog, so get ready!!

The following information is critical. There is a chart for you here, so that you know what you need to do to get your ratio to a more acceptable 3:1 to prevent not just inflammation but also disease.

Scientists have proven internal body inflammation can lead to many different diseases such as arthritis, autoimmune diseases and various heart diseases.  They have also proven that Omega 6 fatty acids actually increase internal body inflammation, while Omega 3 fatty acids can lower this internal inflammation while preventing the risk of disease. 

We also know that our current ratio of Omega 6 fatty acids to Omega 3 fatty acids is around 20:1.  That means we eat 20 times more inflammation causing Omega 6 fats than we do Omega 3 fats.  We need to increase our omega 3 intake immediately if we want our body to be disease free in the years to come. 

Technorati Tags: omega 3 fats, omega 6 fats, ratio omega 6 to omega 3, inflammation, disease, arthritis, autoimmune diseases, heart disease