Author Archive

by Christina Luisa, NaturalNews

In a review published in the December issue of the journalComplementary Therapies in Medicine, women receiving Chinese herbal medicine treatments weretwice as likely to get pregnant within a four-month periodthan those receiving conventional Western medical fertility drug treatment or IVF. The findings also suggested that the quality of the menstrual cycle – a key component in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) diagnosis — appears to be crucial to the successful treatment of female infertility. Infertility is generally defined as an inability to conceive after a year or more of regular sexual activity without using birth control.

There is a long recorded history of Chinese herbs being used in the treatment of infertility. In fact, records indicating herbal treatment ofinfertility and miscarriagedate back to 200 A.D., including mention of formulas that are still used for those same purposes today. The first book devoted solely to gynecology and obstetrics, “The Complete Book of Effective Prescriptions for Diseases of Women,” was published in 1237 A.D.

Alternative TCM treatments have become increasingly popular in Western countries as more and more couples find out firsthand howeffective and safethey are. It is with good reason that more than a quarter of the world’s population regularly uses Chinese medicine as part of their health care regimen and that TCM is the only form ofclassical medicinethat is regularly used outside of its country of origin.

Study methodology

The study examined abstracts in English of studies investigating infertility, menstrual health and TCM. Researchers then did meta-analyses of (non)randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies and compared clinical pregnancy rates achieved with Chinese herbal medicine versus Western medicine drug treatment (IVF). In addition, they collected common TCM pattern diagnosis in infertility in relation to the quality of the menstrual cycle and associated symptoms. Eight RCTs, 13 cohort studies, three case series and six case studies involving a total of 1851 women with infertility were included in the systematic review.

Results

The results showed a 3.5 greater likelihood of achieving a pregnancy with Chinese herbal medicine therapy over a four-month period compared with Western medicine drug therapy alone. Average pregnancy rates were 60 ± 12.5% (60%) for Chinese herbal medicine compared with 32 ± 10% (32%) using Western medicine drug therapy. Meta-analysis of selected cohort studies showed a mean clinical pregnancy rate of 50 percent using TCM compared with 30 percent for IVF.

Why choose TCM over conventional fertility treatments?

While health is said to be the common goal of both TCM as well as conventional medicine, their ideas on the etiology of disease, disease in itself and the process used to recover and maintain wellness are decidedly different. The Western medicine physician learns that disease should be cured by prescribing medicine or using invasive and often dangerous surgical intervention. The physician trained in TCM, however, focuses on healing the patient not by treating the disease but rather bytreating the whole person, taking into account the various combined attributes of an individual that account for that individual’s state of health. According to the tenets of TCM, a person is much more than their pathology; treating the pathology may produce desired results, yet, they are usually temporary.

For female infertility, the key therapeutic factors in TCM are focused onre-establishing balance and reducing stresswhile regulating hormones and menstruation. TCM recognizes that many cases of infertility stem from a problem that may be more functional than structural. In contrast, Western medicine treatment techniques like IVF are not only invasive and expensive but are often stressful for the patients, and stress is not conducive to the achievement of a healthy pregnancy.

Fertility management has been extensively studied and well-developed in Chinese medicine. Doctors in modern China have reported up to a 70% success rate in treating both female and male infertility with herbs, and the results of large scale clinical trials are reported in Chinese medical journals. Hundreds of different herbs are used frequently in the treatment of infertility, often given in complex formulas comprised of multiple ingredients. Herbal medicine is often used in combination with acupuncture, massage, diet and lifestyle modifications for treating fertility. TCM fertility techniques are relatively non-invasive and can often offer a better success rate for significantly less cost.

Sources for this article include:

1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22036524?dopt=Abstract

2.http://www.shen-nong.com

3.http://www.itmonline.org/arts/fertility.htm

4.http://www.livestrong.com/article/169613-chinese-herbs-infertility/

5.http://www.bubhub.com.au

6.http://www.altmd.com/Articles/TCM-for-Infertility

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035436_Chinese_medicine_infertility_treatment.html#ixzz1rKn8W9SX

from study authors Dierdre McLaughlinChi-Wai and LuiJon Adams

The use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) among older adults is an emerging health issue, however little is known about older people’s experiences of using CAM and the cultural, geographical and other determinants of CAM use in this population. This study used qualitative methods to explore older women’s views of CAM and reasons for their use of CAM.

Participants for the project were drawn from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (ALSWH) 1921-1926 birth cohort. Women who responded positively to a question about CAM use in Survey 5 (2008) of the ALSWH were invited to participate in the study.

A total of 13 rural and 12 urban women aged between 83 and 88 years agreed to be interviewed.

Results: The women expressed a range of views on CAM which fell into three broad themes: “push”factors such as dissatisfaction with conventional health services, “pull”factors which emphasised the positive aspects of choice and self-care in health matters, and barriers to CAM use. Overall, the “push’factors did not play a major role in the decision to use CAM, rather this was driven by “pull”factors related to health care self-responsibility and being able to source positive information about types of CAM.

A number of barriers were identified such as access difficulties associated with increased age, limited mobility and restricted transport options, as well as financial constraints.

Conclusions: CAM use among older women was unlikely to be influenced by aspects of conventional health care (“push factors”), but rather was reflective of the personal beliefs of the women and members of their close social networks (“pull factors”). While it was also apparent that there were differences between the rural and urban women in their use of CAM, the reasons for this were mainly due to the difficulties inherent in accessing certain types of CAM in rural areas.

by Paul Armentano, NORML

Cannabis and its active constituents appear to be safe and modestly effective treatments in patients suffering from a variety of chronic pain conditions, including neuropathy (pain due to nerve damage), according to a literature review to be published in The Clinical Journal of Pain.

An investigator from New York University, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, conducted a PubMed search to survey the percentage of positive and negative published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing cannabinoids as treatments for pain. Of the 56 hits generated, 38 published RCTs met inclusion criteria. Of these, “71 percent (27) concluded that cannabinoids had empirically demonstrable and statistically significant pain relieving effects, whereas 29 percent (11) did not.”

Cannabinoids appeared to be most effective in treating hard-to-treat neuropathic pain conditions. “[F]or notoriously difficult to treat conditions such as HIV neuropathy, … cannabinergic pain medicines, particularly inhaled cannabinoid botanicals, are one of the only treatments that have been shown to be safe and effective with the highest levels of evidence,” the review states.

Five to ten percent of the US population is estimated to suffer from neuropathic pain at some point during their lives.

The study concludes, “Overall, based on the existing clinical trials database, cannabinergic pain medicines have been shown to be modestly effective and safe treatments in patients with a variety of chronic pain conditions. … Incorporating cannabinergic medicine topics into pain medicine education seems warranted and continuing clinical research and empiric treatment trials are appropriate.”

A separate paper, published in January in the Harm Reduction Journal, concluded: “Prescribing cannabis in place of opioids for neuropathic pain may reduce the morbidity and mortality rates associated with prescription pain medications and may be an effective harm reduction strategy.”

by Tony Isaacs, NaturalNews

In a groundbreaking new study just published in the peer reviewed journalStem Cells, researchers at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Department of Oncology found that, despite killing half of all tumor cells per treatment, radiation treatments on breast cancer transforms other cancer cells into cancer stem cells which are vastly more treatment-resistant than normal cancer cells. The new study is yet another blow to the failed and favored mainstream treatment paradigm of trying to cut out, poison out or burn out cancer symptoms (tumors) instead of actually curing cancer.

Senior study author Dr. Frank Pajonk, associate professor of radiation oncology at the Jonsson Center, reported that induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSC) “were generated by radiation-induced activation of the same cellular pathways used to reprogram normal cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) in regenerative medicine.” Pjonk, who is also a scientist with the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine at UCLA, added “It was remarkable that these breast cancers used the same reprogramming pathways to fight back against the radiation treatment.”

In the new study, Pajonk and his team irradiated normal non-stem cell cancer cells and placed them into mice. Through a unique imaging system, the researchers observed the cells differentiate into iBCSC in response to radiation treatments. Pjonk reported that the newly generated cells were remarkably similar to non-irradiated breast cancer stem cells. The team of researchers also found that the radiation-induced stem cells had a more than 30-fold increased ability to form tumors compared with non-irradiated breast cancer cells.

Despite mounting evidence, mainstream medicine clings to surgery, chemo and radiation and ignores natural solutions

Despite all the billions of dollars spent on cancer, the 40 year “war on cancer” has been a losing one by any honest evaluation. One hundred years ago, anywhere from 1 in 50 to perhaps 1 in 100 people could be expected to develop cancer. Now it is estimated that 1 in every 2 men and 1 in every 3 women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. Despite more people around the world developing cancer and dying from cancer every year, mainstream medicine continues to cling to failed treatments which more often than not fail to eliminate the cancer and help cancer spread and return more aggressively than ever. Notably, two of the three major mainstream cancer treatments – radiation and chemo – are themselves highly carcinogenic.

One might think that the new study provided ample reasons to rethink using radiation. However, the study authors looked at the results as an opportunity to continue and enhance the use of radiation by finding ways to control the cell differentiation. What the scientists failed to note is that natural alternatives have already been found which prevent the development of cancer stem cells.

As just one example, Natural News reported in May 2010 that a University of Michigan study had found a compound in broccoli and broccoli sprouts which had the ability to target cancer stem cells. See:

http://www.naturalnews.com/028822_broccoli_breast_cancer.html

The researchers failed to note how cancer cells fought against unnatural treatments. They also failed to take into account the mounting evidence that the best way to beat cancer as well as avoid it is to build and enhance our natural first line of defense – our immune system.

The safest and most effective way to enhance the natural immune system and fight cancer in general is by working with nature. It is also by far the least expensive way, and therein likely lies the rub. You can’t patent and profit from nature like you can with mainstream drugs and treatments.

Note: Neither NaturalNews nor this author condone the inhumane use of animals in medical studies.

Other sources included:

www.cancer.ucla.edu/Index.aspx?page=644
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120213185115.htm
www.naturalnews.com/cancer_cells.html
www.naturalnews.com/stem_cells.html

About the author:
Tony Isaacs, is a natural health author, advocate and researcher who hostsThe Best Years in Lifewebsite for those who wish to avoid prescription drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and happier lives naturally. Mr. Isaacs is the author of books and articles about natural health, longevity and beating cancer including “Cancer’s Natural Enemy” and is working on a major book project due to be published later this year. He is also a contributing author for the worldwide advocacy group “S.A N.E.Vax. Inc” which endeavors to uncover the truth about HPV vaccine dangers.

Mr. Isaacs is currently residing in scenic East Texas and frequently commutes to the even more scenic Texas hill country near Austin and San Antonio to give lectures and health seminars. He also hosts the CureZone “Ask Tony Isaacs – featuring Luella May” forum as well as the Yahoo Health Group “Oleander Soup” and he serves as a consultant to the “Utopia Silver Supplement Company“.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035289_radiation_cancer_stem_cells.html#ixzz1qOJRXuzq

by Ethan A. Huff, NaturalNews

A recent study published in the Journal of Toxicology in Vitro has found that, even at very low levels, Monsanto’s herbicide formula Roundup destroys testosterone and ultimately leads to male infertility. The findings add to the more than 25 other diseases known to be linked to Roundup, which include DNA damage, birth defects, liver dysfunction, and cancer.

For their study, Emilie Clair and her colleagues from the Universite de Caen Basse-Normandie Institute of Biology in France tested the effects of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, on testicular cells from rats. Ranging in dilution from one part per million (ppm) to 10,000 ppm, which accounts for varying exposure levels in real life situations, each of the tests revealed undeniable cell toxicity caused by Roundup.

Interestingly, the findings revealed that even at one ppm, Roundup was responsible for causing severe endocrine disruption that reduced testosterone levels by 35 percent. And a one ppm exposure level is considered to be extremely low, and much lower than typical exposure levels in everyday environmental situations.

At higher exposure levels, Roundup was shown to induce testicular cell death in a little as one hour, and typically no later than 48 hours after exposure. And this is only acute toxicity, as the study did not analyze the long-term effects of continual and repeated exposure to Roundup, which has already been shown to seep into rivers and groundwater supplies.

A similar study published in the journalReproductive Toxicologyback in 2007 found similar results. In vivo tests with Roundup revealed that the ducks exposed to Roundup exhibited “alterations in the structure of the testis and epididymal (a part of the male reproductive system) region as well as in the serum levels of testosterone and estradiol, with changes in the expression of androgen receptors restricted to the testis.”

So contrary to the claims made by Monsanto, there is truly no safe exposure level to Roundup. At typical exposure levels, it has been proven to destroy human cells and cause serious reproductive harm. And at trace levels, it has been proven to severely disrupt proper hormonal function and lead to low testosterone in men.

“Because it’s a systemic pesticide and sprayed in high doses, produce and fruit and nut trees often take up the poison into the parts of the food we eat,” writes Leah Zerbe in a recentRodale Newspiece on Roundup. “Three easy ways to reduce your exposure? Eat organically grown foods … [a]dopt organic lawn care techniques in your yard, and start an organic garden to further reduce your exposure to harmful chemicals.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233311003341

http://www.activistpost.com

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0890623806002711

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-ingredient/roundup-herbicide

http://www.rodale.com/roundup-dangers?page=0,0

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035135_Roundup_herbicide_testosterone.html#ixzz1oImrFXEg

by Andi Cockroft, WattsUpWithThat

One cannot help but notice the events of the past few weeks (nay months if you include Climategate II), and the ad hominem attacks on both sides.

Fred Singer in his recent post here would have us place Climate Science advocates into three groups; deniers, sceptics and warmistas – but why the need for demarcation?

Way back in 1879, it may not have been evident to Pauline and Hermann that their new-born son would progress through his teenage years as a school drop-out – using a forged Doctor’s note to do so. Although later in life at the age of 16 he did enroll in a Polytechnic – but again failed in just about every subject.

At 17, he and his sweetheart enrolled again at the Polytechnic, stimulating the interest he held about electromagnetism

Married, divorced, married again, he couldn’t even get a job teaching, so ended up working as a clerk in the local Patent Office reviewing patent applications pertaining to electromagnetism. But boredom led to many thoughtful reflections on life, the universe and everything.

In 1905, by thesis, he obtained a Doctorate, and that same year published not one, but 4 ground-breaking papers.

His name of course is Albert Einstein – the amateur who proclaimed to the world the nature of matter, energy and relativity.

OK, so what has this little biography got to do with Climate Science – well I say it should teach us 2 things:

Firstly, an amateur working as a clerk is just as able to present the truth as the most gifted professional. The truth is the truth no matter who presents it. The unwillingness of many main-stream “Climate Scientists” to engage with alternate viewpoints sets them apart from “Science”. To many the science is not settled, and needs a full open and honest public debate.

Of course building on Einstein’s work, a humble Belgian priest Le Maitre (another gifted amateur) proposed a theory now well established regarding an expanding universe. I well remember a revered astronomer from my old school in Yorkshire, England – a certain Fred Hoyle who unwittingly creating a phrase bandied about to this day – in an attempt he states never meant to mock relativity and/or expansionism – he jokingly referred to a “big bang”. That particular phrase seems to have stuck with us somehow.

More recently, over on the Swiss border, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) produced some unexpected results when Neutrinos were observed to be apparently travelling faster than light – something Special Relativity states is impossible.

Although I saw some rejection of this notion in various Fora, I saw no ad hominem attacks – simply a startled disbelief and a raging curiosity – could we be wrong after all these years? Do we have to rewrite the physics?

As we now know, a computer cabling glitch has been blamed for the neutrinos apparent haste – but hey – for a moment there it looked real cool – most physicists I know were both incredulous and incredibly excited at one and the same time.

So, my second point – true scientists – in this case physicists – are willing to be sceptical. They are willing – nay eager – to look at new possibilities and alternate explanations.

Compare that to the theatre that is “Climate Science”

by Jonathan Benson, NaturalNews

If you choose to have your baby vaccinated with the combination diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough (pertussis), polio and Haemophilus influenzae type 2 vaccine, a mega-jab collectively known as the DTap-IPV-Hib, your child may be at an increased risk of having a vaccine-induced seizure. A new study published in theJournal of the American Medical Associationhas identified a clear link between the vaccine and the onset of fever-related seizures, which the authors claim will not cause long-term damage.

Yuelian Sun fromAarhus Universityin Denmark and her colleagues evaluated data on roughly 380,000 babies born in Denmark between 2003 and 2008. Children in that country are recommended to get the vaccine at three different times — once when they are three months old, again when they are five months old, and a third time on their first birthday. Upon analysis, the researchers determined that about 7,800 of these children, or just over two percent, had been diagnosed with a fever-related seizure by the time they reach one-and-a-half years old.

The risk of having a fever-related seizure appears to increase after each subsequent jab with the vaccine, and particularly on the same day that it is administered. And yet the study authors and others insist the DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine is safe because such seizures allegedly do not cause brain damage or other permanent harm. Dr. Eugene Shapiro, a pediatrics and infectious diseases researcher atYale University, actually purports that these findings are “reassuring,” and that parents should not be concerned.

Even more absurd was study author Sun’s response to the findings, in which she suggested that perhaps injected babies who had a seizure in response to the vaccine were just genetically prone to seizures, and that the vaccine had nothing to do with it. This and other nonsensical responses to studies that identify health risks associated with vaccines are typical. It is always anything but the vaccine that is responsible for causing harm — “Have you ever drunk raw milk at any time in your life? That must have been the cause of the seizure!”

DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine loaded with bacterial components, antibiotics, and toxic chemicals and additives

According to theVaccine Awareness Network, the DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine contains diphtheria and tetanus toxoids, five components of the bordetella pertussis bacteria, filamentous haemagglutinin (the component of the bacteria which causes infection), pertactin (a highly immunogenic virulence factor), three types of inactivated polio virus, types 1, 2 and 3, a component of Haemophilus influenzae type B that has been attached to tetanus toxoid to make babies produce more antibodies, and three different types of antibiotics — neomycin, streptomycin, and polymyxin B.

Besides this barrage of pathogens and pathogenic components, the vaccine also contains deadly preservatives and additives like formaldehyde (rat poison), 2-phenoxyethanol (a detergent that is the main ingredient in anti-freeze), aluminum, and polysorbate 80 (an emulsifier implicated in causing male infertility).

There are also more than 3,500 reports in theDepartment of Health and Human Services‘ (HHS)Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System(VAERS) about serious adverse events associated with the DTap-IPV-Hib vaccine. These include, but are not limited to, Moraxella catarrhalis, streptococcus pneumonia, asthma, anaphylactic reactions, pancreatitis, gastrointestinal dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy, Guillain-Barre syndrome, and meningitis.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.reuters.com

http://text.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccines-And-How-They-Are-Made

http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.php

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035072_Dtap_vaccine_seizures_babies.html#ixzz1oIgptRRs

by Dr. Mercola

Did you know there are two types of vitamin D, and they are NOT interchangeable?

In fact, taking the wrong one could do you more harm than good…

Drisdol is a synthetic form of vitamin D2—made by irradiating fungus and plant matter—and is the form of vitamin D typically prescribed by doctors.

This is not the type produced by your body in response to sun or safe tanning bed exposure, which is vitaminD3.

A recent meta-analysis by the Cochrane Databaseⁱlooked at mortality rates for people who supplemented their diets with D2 versus those who did so with D3, the form naturally produced by your body, highlighting the significant differences between the two.

The analysis of 50 randomized controlled trials, which included a total of 94,000 participants, showed:

• A six percent relative risk reduction among those who used vitamin D3, but
• A two percent relative risk increase among those who used D2

According to the Vitamin D Councilⁱⁱ:

“You would think a paper that took a look at tens of thousands of subjects and analyzed the efficacy of prescription vitamin D (D2) and over-the-counter vitamin D (D3) would warrant a news story or two.

To my knowledge, these papers are the first to paint such a clear picture about the efficacy between D3 and D2.

While there may be explanations for D3′s superiority other than improved efficacy, for the time being, these papers send doctors a message: use D3, not D2.”

The Difference Between Supplemental Vitamin D2 and D3

The notion that vitamin D2 and D3 were equivalent was based on decades-old studies of rickets prevention in infants. Today, we know a lot more about vitamin D, and the featured study offers compelling support for the recommendation to take vitamin D3 if you need to take an oral supplement—which is the same type of D vitamin created in your body when you expose your skin to sunlight.

Supplemental vitamin D comes in two forms:

1. Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2)
2. Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)

I personally recommend getting your vitamin D from safe sun exposure (or a safe tanning bed), as there’s compelling reason to believe the vitamin D created in your skin in response to sun exposure has some slight but important differences that make it even more beneficial than supplemental vitamin D3. I will address this more in just a moment, but first, let’s review the differences between the two types of supplemental vitamin D. Aside from the featured findings that supplemental vitamin D3 reduced the relative mortality risk by six percent, while D2 actually INCREASED mortality risk by two percent, the two types differ in the following ways:

• According to the latest research, D3 is approximately 87 percent more potentⁱⁱⁱ in raising and maintaining vitamin D concentrations and produces 2- to 3-fold greater storage of vitamin D than does D2.
• Regardless of which form you use, your body must convert it into a more active form, and vitamin D3 is converted 500 percent faster than vitamin D2.
• Vitamin D2 also has a shorter shelf life, and its metabolites bind poorly with proteins, further hampering its effectiveness.

What about Dietary Sources? Animal-Based versus Plant-Based Vitamin D

Aside from taking an oral vitamin D supplement, you can also obtain small amounts of vitamin D from your diet. Here too, it’s important to realize that not all food sources provide the same kind of vitamin D. Plant sources provide you with D2. The more beneficial D3 can only be had through animal-based sources such as:

• Fish, such as salmon, mackerel, tuna and sardines
• Egg yolk
• Raw milk

Dairy processors producing pasteurized milk have also been fortifying milk with vitamin D since 1933. Today, about 98 percent of the milk supply in the U.S. is fortified with approximately 400 International Units (IU) of vitamin D per quart. While dairies used to fortify their milk with vitamin D2, most have now switched over to D3. But, if you still drink pasteurized milk (which I don’t recommend), check the label to see which form of vitamin D has been added. (If you drink raw milk, then you’re getting the naturally-occurring vitamin D in the milk fat.) Keep in mind that although milk is fortified, other dairy products such as cheese and ice cream does typically not contain added vitamin D.

Vitamin D Can Make or Break Your Health, So Get the Right Kind!

There’s overwhelming evidence that vitamin D is a key player in your overall health. This is understandable when you consider that it is not “just” a vitamin; it’s actually a neuroregulatory steroidal hormone that influences nearly 3,000 different genes in your body. Receptors that respond to the vitamin have been found in almost every type of human cell, from your brain to your bones.

Just one example of an important gene that vitamin D up-regulates is your ability to fight infections, as well as chronic inflammation. It produces over 200 antimicrobial peptides, the most important of which is cathelicidin, a naturally occurring broad-spectrum antibiotic. This is one of the explanations for why it can be so effective against colds and influenza.

Optimizing your vitamin D levels should be at the top of the list for virtually everyone, regardless of your age, sex, color, or health status, as vitamin D deficiency has been linked to an astonishingly diverse array of common chronic diseases, such as:

The IDEAL Way to Optimize Your Vitamin D Levels

While this article is focused on the two types of oral vitamin D supplementation, it’s important to realize that the IDEAL way to optimize your vitamin D levels is through appropriate sun or safe tanning bed exposure. While your skin does create vitamin D3 in response to sun light, which is theoretically the same as the D3 you get from an oral supplement, there’s cause to believe that the vitamin D created from sun exposure may have additional health benefits, and here’s why:

• When you expose your skin to the sun, your skin also synthesizes high amounts of cholesterol sulfate, which is very important for heart and cardiovascular health. In fact, according to research by Dr. Stephanie Seneff, high LDL and subsequent heart disease may in fact be a symptom of cholesterol sulfate deficiency. Sulfur deficiency also promotes obesity and related health problems like diabetes
• When exposed to sunshine, your skin also synthesizes vitamin D3 sulfate. This form of vitamin D is water soluble, unlike oral vitamin D3 supplements, which is unsulfated. The water-soluble form can travel freely in your bloodstream, whereas the unsulfated form needs LDL (the so-called “bad” cholesterol) as a vehicle of transport. According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff, there’s reason to believe that many of the profound benefits of vitamin D are actually due to the vitamin D sulfate. As a result, she suspects that the oral non-sulfated form of vitamin D might not provide all of the same benefits, because it cannot be converted to vitamin D sulfate
• You cannot overdose when getting your vitamin D from sun exposure, as your body has the ability to self-regulate and only make what it needs

So essentially, getting regular sun exposure has much greater health ramifications than “just” raising your vitamin D levels and preventing infections. Sun exposure also appears to play a role in heart and cardiovascular health, and much more!

If you cannot get your vitamin D requirements from sun exposure, I recommend using a safe tanning bed (one with electronic ballasts rather than magnetic ballasts, to avoid unnecessary exposure to EMF fields). Safe tanning beds also have less of the dangerous UVA than sunlight, while unsafe ones have more UVA than sunlight. If neither of these are feasible options, then you should take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. It will certainly be better than no vitamin D at all.

How Much Vitamin D Should You Take?

Some 40 leading vitamin D experts from around the world currently agree that there’s no specific dosage level at which “magic” happens; rather the most important factor when it comes to vitamin D is your serum level (the level of vitamin D in your blood). So you really should be taking whatever dosage required to obtain a therapeutic level of vitamin D in your blood.

That said, based on the most recent research by GrassrootsHealth—an organization that has greatly contributed to the current knowledge on vitamin D through their D* Action Study—it appears as though most adults need about 8,000 IU’s of vitamin D a day in order to raise their serum levels above 40 ng/ml.⁴ For children, many experts agree they need about 35 IU’s of vitamin D per pound of body weight.

At the time GrassrootsHealth performed the studies that resulted in this dosage recommendation, the optimal serum level was believed to be between 40 to 60 ng/ml. Since then, the optimal vitamin D level has been raised to 50-70 ng/ml, and when treating cancer or heart disease, as high as 70-100 ng/ml, as illustrated in the chart above.

What this means is that even if you do not regularly monitor your vitamin D levels (which you should), your risk of overdosing is going to be fairly slim even if you take as much as 8,000 IU’s a day. However, the only way to determine your optimal dose is to get your blood tested regularly, and adjust your dosage to maintain that goldilocks’ zone.

For more information, including an in-depth explanation of everything you need to know before you get tested, please see Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.

by Marsha Anderson, NaturalNews

Everyone knows that the circulatory system has a very famous, much loved central component called the heart. The heart works non-stop 24/7 for an entire lifetime circulating blood. The lymphatic system is a specialized component of the circulatory system that doesn’t have the advantage of a central pump. The flow inside the lymphatic vessels is unidirectional because of one-way valves that keep the lymph from traveling backwards but the circulation depends largely on movement.

The blood brings nutrition and oxygen to the cells and the lymph removes the waste, debris, and disease components such as viruses. The cells are bathed in lymphatic fluid. Fluid retention in the tissues suffocates the cells so that the nutrients can’t get in and garbage accumulates. There are four excellent and simple methods to get the lymphatic fluid moving and each one will help to get the nutrients in and the waste products out.

Deep breathing

Deep diaphragmatic breathing is possibly the best way of circulating the lymph. Breath in slowly and deeply pushing the belly out and then let the breath go slowly and completely. The dramatic pressure variance with the lung expansion and contraction moves the lymph and also helps to open the ducts to allow the lymph to reenter the bloodstream at the subclavian veins at the base of the neck. Deep, slow diaphragmatic breathing for 10 minutes a day will oxygenate the blood and also circulate the lymph.

Rebounding

A Rebounder, also known as a mini-trampoline, is a great way to exercise. A simple, gentle walk in place without even lifting the feet off of the trampoline will suffice to circulate the lymph. At the top of the bounce the body experiences a moment free of gravity and at that time all of the one-way valves in the lymphatic vessels open to allow the fluid to move upward. This can even be done without a rebounder just by bouncing on the toes.

Massage and movement

Lymphatic drainage is a technical skill taught by a therapist, however a gentle massage can be self administered with good effects. Lymphatic massage is gentle using very little pressure to move and stretch the skin to stimulate flow through the lymphatic capillaries that are located just under the skin. Massage the skin in the direction of the heart. Any kind of movement such as walking will circulate the lymph because of the muscle contractions. Even laughter works well to get the fluid in motion.

Castor oil

“No drug exists that has the ability to improve lymphatic flow; however, the job can easily be handled through the topical application of Castor oil,” said Dr David G. Williams. For lymphatic stimulation, a good place to put a Castor oil pack would be the lower abdomen and/or the liver. For a Castor oil pack use a cotton or wool flannel cloth folded in several layers and a good quality, cold-pressed oil. Saturate the cloth in oil and apply it to the skin. Put plastic over the pack to keep the oil from dripping, then wrap an old towel around the pack for more protection. A hot water bottle placed over the pack will increase the effectiveness of the treatment. It can be left in place as long as all night. Because of the antimicrobial properties of the oil. the same pack can be used over again many times before discarding.

Sources for this article include

The Golden Seven Plus Oneby C. Samuel West, D.N., N.D. January 1983, Samuel Publishing

http://webschoolsolutions.com/patts/systems/heart.htm

Dr David G Williams complementary Newsletter v6 n1, July 1995

http://netinc.net.my/health/b/010.htm

http://www.naturalnews.com/031199_rebounding_lymphatic_system.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/031159_rebounding_lymph_system.html

About the author:
Marsha Anderson practices organic gardening, plant based nutrition, and healthy living in sunny San Diego, California.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/034649_lymphatic_fluid_rebounding_massage.html#ixzz1lxlgr6OT

by Dana Ullman, Huffington Post

The Swiss government has a long and widely-respected history of neutrality, and therefore, reports from this government on controversial subjects need to be taken more seriously than other reports from countries that are more strongly influenced by present economic and political constituencies. When one considers that two of the top five largest drug companies in the world have their headquarters in Switzerland, one might assume that this country would have a heavy interest in and bias toward conventional medicine, but such assumptions would be wrong.

In late 2011, the Swiss government’s report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland’s national health insurance program.

The Swiss government’s inquiry into homeopathy and complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments resulted from the high demand and widespread use of alternatives to conventional medicine in Switzerland, not only from consumers but from physicians as well. Approximately half of the Swiss population have used CAM treatments and value them. Further, about half of Swiss physicians consider CAM treatments to be effective. Perhaps most significantly, 85 percent of the Swiss population wants CAM therapies to be a part of their country’s health insurance program.

It is therefore not surprising that more than 50 percent of the Swiss population surveyed prefer a hospital that provides CAM treatments rather to one that is limited to conventional medical care.

Beginning in 1998, the government of Switzerland decided to broaden its national health insurance to include certain complementary and alternative medicines, including homeopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, herbal medicine, anthroposophic medicine, and neural therapy. This reimbursement was provisional while the Swiss government commissioned an extensive study on these treatments to determine if they were effective and cost-effective. The provisional reimbursement for these alternative treatments ended in 2005, but as a result of this new study, the Swiss government’s health insurance program once again began to reimburse for homeopathy and select alternative treatments. In fact, as a result of a national referendum in which more than two-thirds of voters supported the inclusion of homeopathic and select alternative medicines in Switzerland’s national health care insurance program, the field of complementary and alternative medicine has become a part of this government’s constitution (Dacey, 2009; Rist, Schwabl, 2009).

Read the rest at this link.