Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘Health’

A new survey commissioned by the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine reveals that almost half of Ontarians treated by naturopathic doctors report naturopathic medicine has helped reduce their use of prescription drugs. Further, approximately 4 in 10 of those individuals report fewer visits to their family doctors and 3 in 10 to hospitals as a result of the care they receive from naturopathic doctors.

Ontarians seeking more natural approaches to health and wellness are increasingly turning to naturopathic medicine. The survey conducted in August 2011 found that 72% of Ontarians familiar with the practice view naturopathic medicine positively, 43% say they are familiar with the practice and an estimated 18% of all adult Ontarians— an estimated two million people—have seen a naturopathic doctor.

According to the survey, women are both more likely to be familiar with naturopathic medicine (49% versus 36%) and more likely to have a positive impression of it (77% versus 66%) as compared to men. Of interest, the Ontario Ministry of Finance reports that females in Ontario enjoy a life expectancy which is over four years longer than their male counterparts.

“These results show more Ontario residents are not only increasingly using complementary therapies, but also indicating that naturopathic medicine is an effective alternative to help relieve the cost pressures on the publicly-funded provincial health system,” says Nick DeGroot, a naturopathic doctor and dean of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine.

The demand for naturopathic medicine continues to grow with 41% of respondents indicating they are likely to see a naturopathic doctor in the next few years, and over half of these anticipating a visit within the next 12 months.

Moreover, the survey showed that there is a general movement moving towards selecting naturopathic medicine as a treatment option based on a strong desire for more natural approaches to boosting and maintaining health.  In fact, survey respondents currently seeking treatment from naturopathic doctors indicate they are seeking more natural approaches to health and wellness (67%) as opposed to being motivated by a dissatisfaction with traditional health services (4%).

“The naturopathic treatment for my psoriasis has allowed me to make outstanding progress, despite the fact that I’d been treated for the past three years with steroids and other traditional treatments with limited success,” says Andrew Tappin, a patient at the Robert Schad Naturopathic Clinic. “My psoriasis gradually and consistently diminished, and I’ve also experienced a new burst of energy, clarity of thought and tremendously improved sleep patterns. The naturopathic care I’ve received has given me my life back,” adds Tappin.

This study was conducted by Innovative Research Group Inc. through random digit dialling telephone interviews among a sample of 606 English speaking Ontarians, 18 years of age or older.  The interviews were conducted between August 17^th and August 23^rd, 2011. Up to eight call-backs were made in the case of non-response.  Using 2006 Census data from Statistics Canada, the results were weighted according to region, age and gender to ensure a sample representative of the entire Ontario adult population. After weighting a sample of this size, the aggregate results are considered accurate to within ±4.0% (19 times out of 20).  The margin of error will be larger within each sub-grouping of the sample.

The results of a recent study by National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) suggests that a daily diet of Omega-3 fatty acids should be incorporated for the young and healthy individuals, since it has reduced their symptoms of anxiety and inflammation, a process that plays a role in many other diseases.

A 12 week, double-blind, study that included 68 healthy young medical students (38 men, 30 women), not only suggests that omega-3 fatty acids reduced the symptoms of Anxiety, but consistent with the previous studies of NCCAM, Omega-3 diet is suggested for reducing depressive symptoms in “clinically” depressed subjects, young or old. However, the case may not be for less severely depressive individuals.

In previous studies, Anna-leila Williams, M.P.H., of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, reviewed evidence on Depression and Omega-3 in the general population. Out of five randomized controlled trials, all but one of these trials found some improvement from using Omega-3 for symptoms of Depression. (1)

The interest in Omega-3, as a clinical diet, dates back to 3 decades ago, when the Biological Psychiatry published the very first study setting apart the general vitamin diet from an Omega-3 diet, even though originally Omega-3 was considered to be a vitamin (Vitamin F). (2)

The first study incorporating an Omega-3 diet together with a Pharmaco-therapy was reported about a decade ago by the American Medical Association, in which 70 patients with persistent Depression, despite their current pharmaco-therapy, when a diet consisting of one (1) gram/per day of Omega-3 was added for a period of 12 weeks, 69% of the patients showed a 50% reduction in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD). (3)

Additionally, the role of Polyunsaturated fatty acids of Omega-3 in moderating stress has been well reported by The NIH and amazingly, in all age categories, the conclusion has been that the DHA of Omega-3 had unequivocal beneficial properties for Depression / Anxiety, young or old.

Notwithstanding this recent study on young medical student, but also, another recent study presented by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) of NIH linked the stress to lack of DHA of Omega-3 in the active service members and, like this study, made the recommendation of an Omega-3 diet. (Our Press Release of 8/27/11)

Stress, be it psychological or physiological (age-related) produces a hormone called cortisol. Clinical studies have shown, going back to 1966, that cortisol increases the activity of an enzyme called “tryptophan pyrrolase”, which degrades tryptophan. (4)

Tryptophan is an essential amino acid, which is the raw material for the mood hormone (Serotonin). Lack of Serotonin has been implicated in Depression, bipolarity and anxiety. (5,6,7)

In addition to stress, higher inflammatory bio-markers have been associated with the degradation of tryptophan, as well. (8)

1. Journal of Affective Disorders, May 2006
2. Biological Psychiatry 1981 Sep;16(9):837-50.
3. Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 59, Oct. 2002.
4. Biochemical Journal. 1972 November; 130(2): 74P.
5. Current Medicinal Chemistry. 2011 Aug 24
6. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Aug 16.
7. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2009 Jan;112(1-3):267-72.
8. Biological Chemistry Hoppe-Seyler. 1987 Oct; 368(10):1407-12.

by Heidi Stevenson, Gaia-Health

If breastfeeding and improved immunity stand in the way of vaccine profits, then the solution is simple: Delay breastfeeding and undo the immunity.

Children in poor countries do not develop as many antibodies as those in wealthy nations. Rather than ask whether it may be an indication that their bodies are refusing for a good reason, medical researchers assume that it’s bad. Therefore, they’re making a couple of the most inane suggestions imaginable.

Their suggestions include:

• Delay breastfeeding so that it won’t “interfere” with the development of antibodies.
• Medically modify gut biota in healthy children.

When conventional medicine makes inane suggestions, you know that it’s in trouble. That’s exactly what’s happening in the zeal to promote vaccinations in developing nations.

The Problem

Big Pharma sees Big Profits in vaccines, and the number of people in the nonindustrialized nations is enormous, well over half the world’s population. Getting them vaccinated could mean enormous amounts of money—car, train, boat, and plane loads of it.

They have an artificial way of determining whether vaccines are effective—and they’re locked into that system. They measure antibodies to their vaccine, and if they reach a certain arbitrary level, they say that the vaccination is successful. It’s rather clever, because it nicely evades having to demonstrate that people are actually immune from the diseases.

GreenMedInfo describes the issue beautifully:

First, it must be made clear that the term “efficacy” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody elevating effects does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the intended infection.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is simply a highly successful business enterprise founded on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by the “experts” and the manufacturers who produce them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be understated.⁽¹⁾

The problem is that children in developing nations are not producing antibodies at the prescribed levels. And if they don’t, then the arbitrary definition of success hasn’t been met. Therefore, something needs to be done. To that end, two possible solutions have been offered—and neither one makes one iota of sense.

Delay Breastfeeding

In Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal, an article on the ineffectiveness of live oral rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries found that the culprit is breast feeding.⁽²⁾

The best source of disease immunity in babies is their mothers’ milk. It is well recognized that babies fed on their mothers’ breast milk are healthier. But that, of course, isn’t the real goal. The goal is profits. Therefore, if breast milk interferes with Big Pharma’s profit machine, then something needs to be done about it.

The primary antibody in the intestinal tract is IgA (immunoglobulin A). It’s a significant factor in gut health. The authors of the rotavirus vaccine study surmise that the higher amounts of IgA in mothers’ milk neutralizes or prevents antibodies from forming.

Therefore, the researchers suggest that breast feeding be delayed so that the obvious benefits to the baby cannot interfere with the dubious one of developing rotavirus vaccine antibodies. Are they concerned about a loss of protection during that time? Apparently not. All they care about is that their dog and pony antibody show look good, so they can push the rotavirus vaccine on more and more babies.

Modify Gut Biota

The journal Biology published an article about the difficulty in achieving efficacy of vaccines in undeveloped countries. The author, Myron M. Levine, is concerned that vaccine efficacy—as defined by GreenMedInfo above—is diminished in these places. Here is his explanation:

Giardia infections are highly prevalent among children in developing countries but are increasingly recognized not to be associated with either diarrhea or adverse nutritional consequences. Nevertheless, Giardia may have an impact on mucosal integrity and function that may diminish responses to oral vaccines. Thus, I would advocate a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which half the participants receive metronidazole to eradicate Giardia before oral vaccination.⁽³⁾

He is saying that giardia, which is a devastating infection in developed nations, is harmless to most children in undeveloped areas because their intestinal mucosa prevents the parasite from harming them. So, Levine hopes to undo this advance in their immunology! He wants to give them the antibiotic metronidazole.

Metronidazole’s adverse effects include encephalopathy, neuropathy (including the optic nerve), pancreatitis, seizures, skin necrolysis, leukopenia, and other unpleasant effects, including, of course, candidiasis, the ever-common fungal result of antibiotics, and the now recognized life-long increased risk of cancer.

To sum it up, Levine wants to give healthy children a dose of metronidazole, a highly dangerous antibiotic, to all the children of undeveloped nations because their immune systems are able to prevent harm from at least one disease. He wants to strip their improved health away, and at the same time, permanently harm and even kill many of them.

Nonetheless, Big Pharma’s imperative, to increase profits, must be satisfied. Therefore, these children’s advantage must be taken from them by giving them a drug that will certainly kill some of them, maim others, and increase their chances of developing cancer. Then, they can be given vaccines that will likely further harm their immune systems.

Back to the Bottom Line

Of course, the most important problem is resolved. Big Pharma’s profits are protected. Does it matter that it comes at the cost of lives around the world? That it costs the health of children? That it causes suffering? That it undoes improvements in immune systems? No, it doesn’t. There is only one ethic in Big Pharma. It’s spelled:

P R O F I T

I was sent a copy of this ebook by a friend who thought I’d be interested in it.  I haven’t read all 111 pages, but I have gone through the majority of it.  It’s great information, though not exactly professionally written.  It reads like a blog that’s been pulled together into one book.  I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s not the case.

Regardless, it’s got some excellent information about natural healing and health and some of the less common herbs that are often overlooked in the literature.  Specifically, it tends to focus on Native American remedies and folklore (despite the Greek mythology reference in the title) and focuses heavily on cancer.

Overall, it’s worth a read, but honestly I wouldn’t use it as my only source of information on the subject.

The book was written by Alan Holman, about whom there is a lot of info online, but it’s hard to pin down what’s myth and what’s fact.  A Facebook page claiming to be his 2012 presidential campaign is up, though it hasn’t had an update since April.  His (apparently) actual Facebook profile is more useful.  Those who are familiar with alternative news sources like GCN Radio will recognize Holman’s name.

Regardless, it appears that Holman is at least accessible and therefore more believable than some of the questionable quacks from whom I’ve seen $99 “informative books” offered.  The alternative cancer cures industry is, sadly, thriving mostly on bunk sold by these con artists.  Given that Holman is both giving away the book for free and is making himself accessible to people online, I wouldn’t lump him in with those others.

Anyway, the book can be downloaded for free from numerous Web sources, but to simplify thing, I’ve added another to the bunch.  You can get it by clicking here (no signups, no gimmicks, no “adding to a list” or anything – just click and it will download).

As always, I present this as-is without warranty or guarantee.  If you try to sue me for giving you this book, you’ll definitely burn in hell and be forced to eat genetically modified corn for eternity and wash it down with fluoridated water.

by Jonathan Benson, NaturalNews

As most NaturalNews readers probably already know, there is a rapidly-growing resistance to antibiotics that has given way to antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), and even the strongest antibiotic drugs available have all but lost their ability to treat even the most common infections that afflict people today.

However, a research scientist from the Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology IZI in Leipzig, Germany, has discovered that simple,naturalamino acids work better thanantibioticsat treating infections, and they do not cause harm tohealthycells in the body.

For their study, Dr. Andreas Schubert and his colleagues from Fraunhofer tested the effects ofamino acidsin vitro and found that they broke through bacterial membranes and penetrated them quicker and with less of a required concentration thanantibiotic drugs. And the best part of all was that the amino acids caused no cell damage, unlike antibiotics which kill off beneficialbacteriain the system as well as harmful bacteria.

“Antibiotic peptides (from amino acids) unlock their microbicidal effect within a few minutes. They also work at a concentration of less than 1 microliter, compared with conventional antibiotics which require a concentration of 10 microliters,” said Schubert as part of his test results. “The spectrum of efficacy of the tested peptides includes not only bacteria and molds but also lipid-enveloped viruses. Another key factor is that the peptides identified in ourtestsdo not harm healthybodycells.”

The findings are revolutionary, because they show that amino acids work on virtually everyinfection, including evenMRSAand CRKP. And because amino acids occur naturally in variousfoodslike nuts, grass-fed meats and dairy products, beans, seafood,eatingmore of these foods regularly can help boost levels of these vital nutrients without the need fordrugs. Amino acids supplements are also a great way to boost amino acid levels to optimal levels in order to prevent or treatinfections.

“We have already identified 20 of these short chains of amino acids which kill numerous microbes, including enterococci, yeasts and molds, as well as human pathogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans, which is found in the human oral cavity and causes tooth decay,” said Dr. Andreas Schubert, group manager of Fraunhofer. “Even the multi-resistant hospital bug Staphylococcus aureus is not immune, and in our tests its growth was considerably inhibited.”

Sources for this story include:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea…

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/032825_amino_acids_antibiotics.html#ixzz1Qwewz9dx

by Aaron Turpen, HealthFreedomNetwork

The War on Cancer is largely a failure, despite billions of dollars being spent every year and a continually-growing number of cancer patients getting diagnosed. To date, the greatest advances in cancer treatment have all lead to only two things: more cancer diagnosis and slightly longer lifespans after diagnosis.

For the most part, other than more people being found to have cancer and those who are treated for it living slightly longer (often in pain), the War on Cancer has been about as effective as the War on Terror.. it’s spent a lot of money and come up with little to show for it that would be considered progress.

In fact, odds are that you’re going to get cancer by the age of 74 – higher than they are that you’ll have heart disease, even.

Here are five reasons the War on Cancer has failed:

1. Most cancers have no accepted, known cause. Nearly all cancers are likely caused by environmental toxins and manifest as complications, but mainstream science rarely accepts this as the overriding cause of cancer. This is largely due to the way that clinical trials are conducted – these trials cannot account for more than one issue, cause, or concern due to the very methods used. So saying that a “combination of toxins” caused the cancer is generally not possible.
2. Most cancer treatments attack the whole body – all cells – rather than specifically targeting the cancer. Chemotherapy is a good example of this. It’s a general killer, destroying just about everything in its path. Doctors just hope that it destroys more cancer than non-cancer. It’s like dumping bleach on red cloth and hoping it “only takes the stain out.”
3. Fads in research and reporting often become misleading or, worse, urban legends in cancer’s causes. Remember ten years ago when it was “proven” that cancer is almost always genetically derived? A few cancers are genetic in nature, but by and large, we know that most are not. Some are caused by viruses, but only a handful. Yet many people were mislead by these stories and the myth of cancer being a genetic concern – so if your mom had it, you might too – still prevails. Even insurance forms and doctor’s offices ask about “cancer history” in your family tree.
4. Animal-based tests for cancer are often inadequate and, worse, wasteful of animal life.It’s hard to argue that animal testing is not beneficial in some cases, but it’s become so common that just about everything is tested on lab animals now. Cancer is one of them. Science has, interestingly, not figured out most of the root causes of cancer (see #1), but nonetheless has become very proficient at giving it to lab animals for testing. Seem like a Catch-22 to you? You’re not alone. This one factoid has often fueled the “conspiracy theory” that cancer is man-made, but scientists and doctors don’t want to admit it. Beyond that, though, animal testing of new treatments and possible cures often fails for the same reason outlined in #1.
5. Cancer drugs, treatments, etc. almost never work beyond either prolonging life for a few extra months (which doctors considered a “success”) or by doing more of #2 – attacking everything indiscriminately. Often these treatments and drugs do both. Like most things in mainstream medicine, much of the treatment is aimed at the symptoms, not the root cause.

So what is the root cause of cancer? Nearly all of those who aren’t part of the War on Cancer’s trillions of dollar payouts agree: it’s toxic overload. Hundreds of successful treatments, derided or ignored by mainstream medicine, have proven that the same core approach nearly always works: attack the toxic overload and the cancer goes away.

Every successful cancer therapy has this as its basic premise. From colon and liver cleanses to heavy metal chelation, the ultimate goal is to rid the body of as many toxins as possible. Once that is done, nearly all forms of cancer are removed from the body naturally, by the body itself.

This is likely because, in theory at least, cancer is caused by an overactive and overtaxed immune system coupled with cells laden with toxins that become confused about their role in the body.

A recent study that surveyed mummies from ancient times found that cancer was almost unheard of then. What is different between the people of a thousand (or a few thousand) years ago and the people of today? Anatomically, we are identical. Our DNA profiles are almost 100% the same. So what was different?

Right. Lifestyle. Including exposure to toxins via diet, industry, chemicals, and other aspects of our lives that didn’t exist then. Rid the body of those toxins and you rid it of cancer.

I didn’t need a multi-million dollar research grant to figure that out. Neither should you.

“The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system,” concludes a review of studies by researchers Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in Neurologia (June 2011), reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

The research team reports, “It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride.” (1)

“Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident,” they write.

Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water.

“Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF.  ”We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children’s teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can’t see the harm it’s doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking,” says Beeber.

Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain’s physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological  and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.

“Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth,” they write.*

Animal studies show fluoride’s toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, Valdez-Jimenez’s team reports.

A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that “A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ.” (Biological Trace Element Research)  (2)

In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council’s (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, “It’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” And, “Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” (3)

On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.” (4)

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 (5) and then was fired for doing so.(6)

Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.

Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years  – the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska.  This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC.

*Translated from Spanish using Google Translation

References:  https://groups.google.com/d/topic/fluoridation-news-releases/rD7pCONMcLw/discussion

From issue #377 of the Health Freedom Network Newsletter.

The subject of masturbation is generally taboo in American society. This is mainly because of our Protestant background and the culture of shame and guilt we’ve built around the idea of self-pleasure for either men or women. Sadly, this has lead to a lot of misconception and lost health benefit for many people in our society.

Masturbation, for both men and women, can be a very healthy activity for a variety of reasons. Here are just a few:

1. Solo orgasm is an excellent stress reliever and can also be a sleep aid.
2. Men who masturbate regularly (2-3 times weekly) in a 2007 study were found to have better immune system function and prostate health.
3. Women who masturbate regularly can build stronger pelvic floor, lower back, and lower abdomen muscles leading to less back pain and stress.
4. Self-pleasure increases blood flow for women and can decrease menstrual pain as well as reduce some side effects from menopause.
5. Socially, mutual masturbation between couples can be an equalizer to help repair disparity in sex drive frequency and orgasm timing.
6. Both sexes can learn about their own sexual responses and learn what feels good, using this information to communicate to partners for better relations overall. Some studies hint that the masturbation urge during teenage years may be there at least partially for this reason.
7. Men who experience premature ejaculation can use masturbation to learn to control their finish, prolonging sex.
8. Masturbation has been shown to keep genital and urinary tracts healthy into old age.

Of course, like any other good thing, over-indulgence in masturbation can have negative effects on relationships. Most of the negatives associated with it, however, are social rather than physical. These emotional negatives are often what creates the majority of problems related to the act of self-pleasure.

Despite its proven benefits, masturbation is still extremely taboo in our society. Dr. Jocelyn Elders, the U.S. Surgeon General under President Clinton, was fired after making positive remarks regarding masturbation as a method of birth control.

But as Dr. Sigmund Freud said, “The only thing about masturbation to be ashamed of is doing it badly.”

The latest issue of the Health Freedom Network Newsletter (#377) has the following article as part 1 of a 2 part series. This excerpt includes some valuable information on detoxification and the methods for doing so.

Your body is building up toxins as you read this. Everyone’s does, it’s a normal part of life. Before our modern era of plenty and a lack of general exercise, our bodies would detoxify themselves on their own. Before modern conveniences, we worked harder (physically), ate a less varied diet (for better or worse), and often had to go without for relatively long periods of time (fasting). Added to this was the work our bodies did ridding us of germs and parasites that were everywhere.

Obviously, things weren’t necessarily better in those days, but our bodies are built to be living in those times, so we have to adapt to our current (mostly better) times to match. To do this, we should regularly detox ourselves and clean out those nasties that build up over time. So be thankful for our times of relative plenty, but understand that this comes with a price and to pay that price, we must conscientiously keep ourselves clean.

Luckily, it’s not that difficult. Cleansing the body comes in three steps and each must be taken before the next for proper detoxification to take place. Cleaning out your liver, for instance, before the colon that it sends its refuse to is clean will mean a backing up of toxins and that leads to sickness. This is why many detox programs make you nauseous, sickly, or downright ill.

Start With the Finish Line

A proper detoxification begins in the colon, the finish line for most of our intake. This is the body’s primary route for ridding itself of things that are harmful to it. Both the liver and gall bladder dump directly into the colon when getting rid of the things they’ve filtered out of our bodies. So a clean and well-functioning colon is our first priority.

There are literally hundreds of colon cleansers on the market. Some work better than others, but most are barely getting started when it comes to cleaning out what’s likely backed up in the average person’s large intestine. Probably the most often cited and recommended colon cleanse is the one created by Dr. Richard Shulze, a well-known herbalist. While it can be purchased commercially, Dr. Schulze actually recommends that people purchase the ingredients and make it themselves to take as either a home-made capsule (gel caps can be purchased at most health food stores) or directly as a powder (1 capsule equals about 1/2 a teaspoon of powder).

Read the rest in the latest issue of the Health Freedom Network Newsletter!

A survey conducted by the Hartman Group on behalf of Boiron, a homeopathic medicine manufacturer, has found that 82% of women shoppers ages 25-70 avoid over the counter (OTC) drugs for headaches and influenza (and similar problems) as often as possible.  These women believe that these OTC drugs are not good for them and instead look for natural, alternative options.

The survey was done online and included 1,400 women in the U.S.  The participants also believe that the purity and healthfulness of medicines is very important (42%) and 31% said they pay close attention to chemical and irritation-causing content when choosing OTC medications.

Most had not, however, used a recognized homeopathic remedy (only 15%) and about the same number (14%) had given homeopathic remedies to their children in the past year.  Most responded that they did not know enough about homeopathy to consider it.

Critics will point out that the survey was conducted by a homeopathic medicine maker, so it’s “biased.”  Well, the majority of surveys done for OTC and mainstream medicine are the same way, usually paid for by a pharmaceutical or drug maker.

Related articles

• Exclusive: Fibromyalgia and Homeopathy – Perfectly Complementary (hiddenhealthscience.com)