The Magic of Your Touch

The Magic of Your Touch

For centuries, mothers have instinctively known it works -- pick up young children and they'll stop crying... gently rub babies' backs and it's off to dreamland they go. Now scientists are also coming to recognize the power of touch -- and not just touch therapies such as reflexology, but simple acts such as giving a backrub, holding hands, sharing a hug or putting your arm around someone. With research demonstrating the healing power of touch, more hospitals are incorporating massage programs into care protocols for cancer and cardiovascular patients, among others.

Tiffany Field, PhD, director of the Touch Research Institute at the University of Miami School of Medicine, has studied the benefits of touch for many years. Her book, Touch, reviews medical and sociological research on the importance of touch to good health and also argues that the Western world, including the medical profession, has marginalized and minimized its importance. When I called her to discuss her work, Dr. Field told me that many forms of touch can help reduce pain, anxiety, depression and aggressive behavior... promote immune function and healing... lower heart rate and blood pressure... and improve air flow in asthmatics. All this, and no drug side effects!

THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF TOUCH

Previous research has suggested that touch deprivation leads to aggression and violent behavior in animals, so it was no surprise when Dr. Field shared her concerns that living in our largely touch-deprived Western society can have negative consequences. It was these concerns that led researchers at the Touch Research Institute to examine how touch is treated differently in two cities with very different cultures -- Miami and Paris.

In one study, published in Early Child Development and Care in 1999, Dr. Field and her colleagues measured how much affectionate touch preschoolers received from their parents on playgrounds and also the children's level of aggressive behavior. In Paris, they found there was more touch toward peers and parents by children and less aggression. In a separate study, researchers also observed that French adolescents -- raised with more affectionate touch -- were more affectionate and less physically and verbally aggressive with one another than American adolescents. This association does not imply or prove causation, but does make a case for closer examination with further research.

REACH OUT AND TOUCH

Dr. Field explained that the benefits of touch seem to stem largely from its ability to reduce levels of cortisol, a stress hormone manufactured by the adrenal glands. This was measured in two dozen studies. She said that touching with moderate-pressure (a firm handshake) stimulates activity in the vagus nerve, one of the 12 cranial nerves in the brain, which in turn slows the heart and decreases the production of stress hormones including cortisol.

Other studies published from the Touch Research Institute, published in peer-reviewed journals, demonstrate that touch contributes to...

• Decreased pain. Children with mild to moderate juvenile rheumatoid arthritis who were given massages by their parents 15 minutes per day for one month experienced less anxiety and lower cortisol levels. Over a 30-day period, parents, kids and their physicians reported less pain overall in the children.

• Enhanced immune function. In studies, women with breast cancer and HIV patients showed a measurable increase in natural killer cells
  -- part of a line of defense in the immune system against virus-infected cells and cancer cells -- after massage. They also experienced less anxiety and depression.

• Happier, healthier babies. Preemies who were touched more while in the NICU gained more weight.

• Less labor pain. Women in labor who received a backrub the first 15 minutes of every hour of labor reported less pain and made fewer requests for pain medications. Their labor was also shorter, on average.

• Enhanced alertness and performance. Following massage, adults completed math problems in significantly less time and with fewer errors

TOUCH IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL

Touching is good for the giver as well as the recipient, says Dr. Field. She cites a study in which 20 children with leukemia were given daily massages by their parents. After one month, the parents' depressed moods decreased, and the children's white blood cell and neutrophil counts increased. In another study of elderly volunteers who were trained to give massages to infants, Dr. Field found that after three weeks the seniors experienced improved mood with less anxiety or depression, decreased levels of stress hormones and more social contacts and fewer doctor visits.

GET IN TOUCH

Touch comes more naturally to some people than others. You can make a conscious effort to bring more touch into your daily life -- and more happiness to yourself and those around you. Give your kids hugs when they leave for school in the morning and when they come home. Hold your partner's hand when you take a walk, exchange back rubs and don't forget good-night kisses. Pet your dog or cat. Schedule a few sessions with a professional massage therapist and pay attention to what feels especially good -- then try it at home on one another. Relax and enjoy.

Source(s):

Tiffany Field, PhD, director of the Touch Research Institute at the University of Miami School of Medicine in Florida.

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Alcohol and health

Alcohol and health. Good for you, bad for you. Back and forth the debate rages. Some studies indicate that moderate drinking improves health and extends life (particularly in terms of heart health), whereas other studies indicate it may be implicated in an increased risk of breast cancer for women -- one of the leading causes of cancer death in women around the world. In recent years, there's been some focus on what women can do to decrease their risk of breast cancer -- such as breastfeeding and eating a good diet. But one thing they've been consistently urged to do is stop drinking alcohol. And now new studies may reinforce that conclusion, while at the same time helping shed some light on exactly how alcohol affects the body and raises the risk of breast cancer.

According to findings presented last week at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, in San Diego, alcohol, consumed even in small amounts, may significantly increase the risk of breast cancer -- particularly estrogen-receptor/progesterone-receptor positive breast cancer. Further, the findings are supported by a second study that found an association between breast cancer risk and two genes involved in alcohol metabolism.

Alcohol and estrogen/progesterone receptor based breast cancers

The first study followed more than 184,000 postmenopausal women for an average of seven years. Those who had less than one drink a day had a 7 percent increased risk of breast cancer compared to those who did not drink at all. Women who drank one to two drinks a day had a 32 percent increased risk, and those who had three or more glasses of alcohol a day had up to a 51 percent increased risk. The risk was seen mostly in those 70 percent of tumors classified as estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-positive. The researchers suspect that alcohol may have an effect on breast cancer via an effect on estrogen in the body.

The risk was similar whether women consumed beer, wine, or hard liquor. Alcohol consumption in any form was the common denominator. What the exact mechanism is that might lead to this increase in cancer is not known. It is suspected that in some forms of breast cancer, malignant cells have receptors that render them sensitive to hormones such as estrogen. These tumors re referred to by doctors as being estrogen-receptor/progesterone-receptor positive (ER+/PR+) breast cancers.

And in fact the study found that alcohol specifically increased the risk most for ER+/PR+ tumors -- the most common type of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. In normal circumstances, when women reach menopause, levels of both estrogen and progesterone in their bodies fall precipitously, which, according to the medical establishment, should lead to fewer of these tumors. But the study found that post-menopausal women actually had higher rates of these hormone-responsive tumors if they drank alcohol. And the more they drank, the higher the risk. As I stated earlier, the study found that drinking less than one serving of alcohol a day still resulted in a 7% increase of risk for the ER+/PR+ types of breast cancer. And drinking as much as three servings of alcohol per day vaulted your risk upwards to 51%.

It is important to note that in women with estrogen-receptor negative, progesterone-receptor negative (ER-/PR-) tumors, there appeared to be no link between drinking and breast cancer.

The question of course arises, "Why would drinking alcohol raise the risk of hormone-fueled tumors regardless of receptor sites?" As I mentioned earlier, the answer seems to be that alcohol interferes with estrogen metabolism, which in turn increases the risk of hormone-sensitive breast cancer. We will talk more about this later, but for now, let's take a look at the second study I mentioned.

Alcohol and ADH1B and ADH1C gene variant breast cancer

A second study, also presented in San Diego, explored another possible mechanism by which alcohol consumption increases breast cancer risk. "For years, we've known that there's an association between alcohol drinking and breast cancer risk, but nobody knows yet what the underlying biological mechanisms are," said Dr. Catalin Marian, lead author of the study and a research instructor in oncology at the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. "The logical step was to begin analyzing the alcohol metabolizing genes."

The researchers studied DNA samples from 991 women with breast cancer and 1,698 women without cancer. They found that variants in two of these genes, ADH1B and ADH1C, were associated with a two-fold increase in breast cancer risk. But the study did not prove a definite cause-and-effect link. "This is an association," Dr. Marian said. "This type of study is good for generating hypotheses. It's not a definite conclusion. It needs to be replicated by other studies to say for sure that what we found is there."

Putting the alcohol breast cancer studies in perspective

While the studies do not prove cause and effect, they lend plausibility to growing evidence implicating drinking as a risk factor for breast cancer, says Elizabeth Platz, ScD, a specialist in cancer prevention at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "The beauty of the research is that it tells us something about the mechanisms" by which alcohol may raise breast cancer risks.

Another researcher urged caution in interpreting the results of both studies.

"These studies are too early for use in a clinical setting or to advance a public health message," said Dr. Peter Shields, co-author of the genetics study and deputy director of the Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

To better understand what this message might or should be, let's explore the alcohol/estrogen metabolism question that I mentioned earlier. For it is here that we have the most to learn -- and the most to be confused about.

Alcohol and estrogen utilization

Physiologically, the higher the estrogen levels in your body, the more readily alcohol is absorbed -- but the more slowly it is broken down. But the problem is compounded by the fact that the very act of drinking alcohol actually increases estrogen levels, almost tripling levels in post-menopausal women in a matter of minutes. As a result, after you drink, you get spurts of estrogen that can be as high as 300 percent higher within 30 minutes of consumption. In other words, it's one thing to have a constant amount of estrogen and occasionally have a rise before you ovulate. But if you get these rises in estrogen every time you have a drink, and for years past your ability to ovulate, this would quite likely be a significant breast cancer risk. The bottom line is that we know that estrogen levels increase after you drink. And we know that estrogen is linked to breast cancer. Therefore, it should be no surprise that estrogen is linked to breast cancer more often when women drink.

The progesterone/cancer question

Researchers love to lump (no pun intended) estrogen and progesterone receptors together when talking about breast cancer. But they are not the same by any stretch of the imagination, and the action of estrogens and progesterone when it comes to breast cancer are worlds apart. For that matter, you can't even lump all estrogens together. Estrone and estradiol are cancer promoting, whereas estriol may be cancer protective. And then, of course there are the synthetic estrogens and progesterones and the petroleum based xenoestrogens -- potent and cancer promoting in amounts as low as a billionth of a gram. In the world of hormones and breast cancer, these differences are not subtle; they are fundamental.

The connection between estrogen, and breast cancer (with alcohol an added catalyst) is all but proven, but what about the connection between progesterone and cancer? After all, much of the cancer risk referred to above is associated with those 70 percent of tumors classified as estrogen-receptor/progesterone receptor-positive.

Progesterone is an ovarian steroid hormone that is essential for normal breast development during puberty and in preparation for lactation and breastfeeding. The actions of progesterone are primarily mediated by its high-affinity receptors, which include the (PR)-A receptor and its -B isoforms, which are located in tissue throughout the body, including the brain, where progesterone controls reproductive behavior, the reproductive organs, and of course the breasts.

As I said earlier, the role of estrogen as a potent breast mitogen (a substance that triggers cell division) is undisputed, and inhibitors of the estrogen receptor and estrogen-producing enzymes (aromatases) are now recognized as effective first-line cancer therapies. However, progesterone receptor action in breast cancer has barely been studied, and the results of those studies are ambiguous at best -- and, in fact, when a connection is found at all, it is associated with the use of progestins (synthetic progesterones), not natural or bio-identical progesterones.

Progestins are frequently prescribed for contraception or during postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy, in which the progestins are combined with synthetic estrogens as a means to block estrogen-induced endometrial growth. As I have said, the role of estrogen as a potent breast mitogen is undisputed, and inhibitors of the estrogen receptor and estrogen-producing enzymes (aromatases) are effective first-line cancer therapies. But there is no evidence of any note that indicates that natural progesterone is connected to an increased incidence of breast cancer. In point of fact, most evidence indicates that it is breast cancer inhibitory.

Conclusion: drinking and breast cancer

So what does it all mean?

• Well, first and foremost, if breast cancer runs in your family, you may want to think twice about drinking.
• Drinking aside, the key issue here is the cancer promoting qualities of estrogen -- and therefore, we have yet another reason to be concerned about estrogen dominance.
• And finally, if you do decide to drink, you might want to consider using a natural progesterone crème to buffer the effects of massive estrogen spurts your body is likely to experience.

PS, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy

And now a related, but tangential, issue.

The connection between alcohol and breast cancer gives us yet another reason to reconsider the advisability of prophylactic breast mastectomies to reduce the risk of breast cancer. As I discussed in a 2006 blog entry, the BRCA gene mutation that is prompting ever increasing numbers of women to remove their breasts as a cancer preventative, is hardly a guarantor of breast cancer…without a corresponding family history of breast cancer. In fact, without the family history, your risk of getting breast cancer is the same as if you didn't have the gene mutation at all. But family history is open to interpretation. It doesn't necessarily mean genetic inevitability. Living on a farm, for example, can increase your risk fourfold. In other words, just moving from the farm might be all that's required to drop your risk to normal and save your breasts. And now we see that for some women, merely cutting out drinking might dramatically reduce your risks. If you have the BRCA mutation, but come from a family that drinks regularly and  has a history of breast cancer, then just by stopping drinking you might completely negate the BRCA gene bump -- particularly since some studies indicate that alcohol directly affects the BRCA1 gene. In other words, becoming a teetotaler might be an alternative to lopping off your breasts. Look, prophylactic breast mastectomy has always been hard to justify; the latest studies on alcohol and breast cancer just make it that much harder.

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Fwd: FW: Sweet Poison

Think of gum too.

SWEET POISON
  
In October of 2001, my sister started getting very sick. She had stomach spasms and she was having a hard time getting around.  Walking was a major chore. It took everything she had just to get out of bed; she was in so much pain.

By March 2002, she had undergone several tissue and muscle biopsies and was on 24 various prescription medications.  The doctors could not determine what was wrong with her. She was in so much pain, and so sick, she just knew she was dying. She put her house, bank accounts, life insurance, etc., in her oldest daughter's name, and made sure that her younger children were to be taken care of.  

She also wanted her last hooray, so she planned a trip to Florida (basically in a wheelchair) for March  22nd.

On March 19, I called her to ask how her most recent tests went, and she said they didn't find anything on the test, but they believe she had MS.

I recalled an article a friend of mine e-mailed to me and I asked my sister if she drank diet soda? She told me that she did.  As a matter of fact, she was getting ready to crack one open that moment.

I told her not to open it, and to stop drinking the diet soda!

I e-mailed her the article my friend, a lawyer, had sent.

My sister called me within 32 hours after our phone conversation and told me she had stopped drinking the diet soda AND she could walk! The muscle spasms went away. She said she didn't feel 100% but she sure felt a lot better. She told me she was going to her doctor with this article and would call me when she got home.

Well, she called me, and said her doctor was amazed! He is going to call all of his MS patients to find out if they consumed artificial sweeteners of any kind.

In a nutshell, she was being poisoned by the Aspartame in the diet soda...and literally dying a slow and miserable death.

When she got to Florida March 22, all she had to take was one pill, and that was a pill for the Aspartame poisoning! She is well on her way to a complete recovery. And she is  walking! No wheelchair! This article saved her life.

If it says 'SUGAR FREE' on the label; DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT!

I have spent several days lecturing at the WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE on 'ASPARTAME,' marketed as 'NutraSweet,' 'Equal,' and 'Spoonful.'

In the keynote address by the EPA, it was announced that in the United States in 2001 there is an epidemic of multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus. It was difficult to determine exactly what toxin was causing this to be rampant.

I stood up and said that I was there to lecture on exactly that subject.

I will explain why Aspartame is so dangerous: When the temperature of this sweetener exceeds 86 degrees F, the wood alcohol in ASPARTAME converts to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, which in turn causes metabolic acidosis. Formic acid is the poison found  in the sting of fire ants. The methanol toxicity mimics, among other conditions, multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus. Many people were be being diagnosed in error. Although multiple sclerosis is not a death sentence, Methanol toxicity is!

Systemic lupus has become almost as rampant as multiple sclerosis, especially with Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi drinkers.  The victim usually does not Know that the Aspartame is the culprit. He or she continues its use; irritating the lupus to such a degree that it may become a life-threatening condition.  We have seen patients with systemic lupus become asymptotic, once taken off diet sodas.  

In cases of those diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, most of the symptoms disappear. We've seen many cases where vision loss returned and hearing loss improved markedly.
 

This also applies to cases of trinities and firma.

During a lecture, I said, ' If you are using  ASPARTAME (NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc) and you suffer from fibromyalgia  symptoms, spasms, shooting, pains, numbness in your legs, cramps, vertigo, dizziness, headaches, tinnitus, joint pain, unexplainable depression, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, blurred vision, or memory loss you probably have ASPARTAME poisoning!'

People were jumping up during the lecture  saying, 'I have some of these symptoms. Is it reversible?'  

Yes! Yes! Yes! STOP drinking diet sodas and be alert for Aspartame on food labels! Many products are fortified with it! This is a serious problem.  Dr. Espart (one of my speakers) remarked that so many people seem to be symptomatic for MS and during his recent visit to a hospice, a nurse stated that six of her friends, who were heavy Diet Coke addicts, had all been diagnosed with MS. This is beyond coincidence!

Diet soda is NOT a diet product! It is a chemica lly altered, multiple SODIUM (salt) and ASPARTAME containing product  that actually makes you crave carbohydrates.  It is far more likely to make you GAIN weight!

These products also contain formaldehyde, which stores in the fat cells, particularly in the hips and thighs. Formaldehyde is an absolute toxin and is used primarily to preserve 'tissue specimens.' Many products we use every day contain this chemical but we SHOULD NOT store it IN our body!

Dr. H. J. Roberts stated in his lectures that once free of the 'diet products' and with no significant increase in exercise; his patients lost an average of 19 pounds over a trial period.

Aspartame is especially dangerous for diabetics. We found that some physicians, who believed that they had a patient with retinopathy, in fact, had symptoms caused by Aspartae.  The Aspartame drives the blood sugar out of control. Thus diabetics may suffer acute memory loss due to the fact that aspartic acid and phenylalanine are NEUROTOXIC when taken without the other amino acids necessary for a good balance.

Treating diabetes is all about BALANCE. Especially with diabetics, the Aspartame passes the blood/brain barrier and it then deteriorates the neurons of the brain; causing various  levels of brain damage, seizures, depression, manic depression, panic attacks, uncontrollable anger and rage.

Consumption of Aspartame causes these same symptoms in non-diabetics as well.

Documentation and  observation also reveal that thousands of children diagnosed with ADD and ADHD have had complete turn arounds in their behavior when these chemicals  have been removed from their diet. So called 'behavior modification prescription drugs' (Ritalin and others) are no longer needed. Truth be told, they were never NEEDED in the first place! Most of these children were being 'poisoned' on a daily basis with the very foods that were 'better for them than sugar.'

It is also suspected that the Aspartame in thousands of pallets of diet Coke and diet Pepsi consumed by men and women fighting in the Gulf War, may be partially to blame for the well-known Gulf War Syndrome.

Dr. Roberts warns that it can cause birth defects, i.e. mental retardation, if taken at the time of conception and during early pregnancy.

Children are especially at risk for neurological disorders and should NEVER be given artificial sweeteners. There are many different case histories to relate of children suffering grand mal seizures and otherneurological disturbances talking about a plague of neurological diseases directly caused by the use of this deadly poison.'
 
 
Herein lies the problem:

There were Congressional Hearings when Aspartame was included 100 different products and strong objection was made concerning its use. Since this initial hearing, there have been two subsequent hearings, and still nothing has been done. The drug and chemical lobbies have very deep pockets.

Sadly, MONSANTO'S patent on Aspartame has EXPIRED!

There are now over 5,000 products on the market that contain this deadly chemical and there will be thousands moreintroduced.  Everybody wants a 'piece of the Aspartame pie.' I assure you that MONSANTO, the creator of Aspartame, knows how deadly it is.   

And isn't it ironic that MONSANTO funds, among others, the American Diabetes  Association, the American Dietetic Association and the Conference of the American College of Physicians?  

This has been recently exposed in the New York Times.

These [organizations] cannot criticize any additives or convey their link to MONSANTO because they take money from the food industry and are required to endorse their products.

Senator Howard Metzenba um wrote and presented a bill that would require label warnings on products containing Aspartame, especially regarding pregnant women, children and infants. The bill would also institute independent studies on the known dangers and the problems existing in the general population regarding seizures, changes in brain chemistry, neurological changes and behavioral symptoms.    The bill was killed.

It is known that the powerful drug  and chemical lobbies are responsible for this, letting loose the hounds of disease and death on an unsuspecting and uninformed public. Well, you're Informed now!
 
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO  KNOW!

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Science is, unfortunately, not pure.

A study published in 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine (supposedly the most prestigious medical journal in America) emphatically reported that smokers undergoing lung scans would have a higher risk of detection of early cancers. The study, performed at Weill Cornell Medical College, indicated that if CT scans were used to evaluate smoker's lungs rather than plain X-rays, a significantly higher rate of early diagnoses could occur since the CT scans could detect much smaller tumors which could be removed through surgery. Finding a cancer early by CT scans could reassure smokers to continue their habit since early diagnosis could potentially cure their condition. The cancer society does not currently recommend CT scans, and most insurers don't pay for them.
To the shock of many people, it was discovered in March of 2008 that this lung cancer study was partly funded by a tobacco company, raising serious suspicions about its accuracy. Furthermore, the lead researcher has a financial interest in lung cancer CT scan patent technology. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1725719,00.html

As a reader of my newsletter I suspect that you pay attention to news about health issues in the media. The reason I mention this topic is for you to be aware that there is a complex underworld of motivations that are not apparent when you read or see on TV the final headlines of study results. Science is, unfortunately, not pure. Personal motivations and big money influence outcomes or influence interpretations of the statistics not only on medical topics, but on nutritional supplements.

Water Intoxification and True Hydration: Baseline's Alternative Health Newsletter

Water Intoxification and True Hydration: Baseline's Alternative Health Newsletter: \
One thing governments CAN do, however, is restrict the use of fluoridation. Although supported by organizations such as the American Dental Association and the American Medical Association, it is disapproved of by the New England Journal of Medicine, the National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences, and the EPA. And fluoridated water is banned in Finland, Holland, Sweden, France, Germany, Chile, and Japan. More surprisingly, the EPA and National Institute of Environmental and Health Services show evidence that fluoride causes cancer. Other studies have stated that excess fluoride suppresses the immune system, causes mouth, throat and bone cancer, emphysema-like respiratory conditions, skin lesions, liver and kidney damage, neurological disorders, chronic diseases, miscarriages, vision problems, brittle bones, and mottled teeth.

And then, of course, there is the simple warning statement on every tube of toothpaste sold in America. In April 1997, the Food and Drug Administration mandated that every tube carry the warning to keep toothpaste “out of the reach of children under 6 years of age,” along with the ominous advice, “In case of accidental ingestion contact a Poison Control Center immediately.”

Over 15 years ago in a number of issues of the LifeStyle Resources Report (the forerunner to this newsletter), I was telling people to avoid fluoride. I also mentioned back then that, despite what you heard to the contrary, there was no convincing evidence that fluoridated water made even one iota of difference in the incidence of dental caries. Now a decade and a half later (after incalculable harm to millions of people), the Journal of Dental Research has concluded that tooth decay rates in Western Europe, which is 98 percent un-fluoridated, have declined as much as they have in the US in recent decades. In other words, it is now proven that fluoridating water has zero impact on the incidence of dental cavities. There is now only one reason for adding fluoride to drinking water: it generates huge profits for the companies (and their lobbyists) that provide it to the municipal water companies. And that’s just not a good enough reason for you to drink it.

The bottom line is that finding pure water can take some effort. You need to treat the water that comes into your house to remove the chlorine, fluoride, chemical residues, heavy metals, bacteria, parasites, etc. in your water. And, you need to remove all of these toxins not only at the tap where you drink, but also where you bathe and shower. So how do you do it? You really only have 4 choices.

1. Get a system for the entire house that treats the water where it enters your house. This is obviously the most expensive way to answer the problem, but if you actually get a good system that removes all of the toxins, it's the best way to go.
   
   
2. There's no question that a good water distiller will provide the "cleanest" water you can get, but you need to be sure it incorporates a charcoal filter, since toxins like chlorine vaporize and re-condense along with the water you're trying to clean. There's one other question to consider. Distilled water, by definition, has no mineral content. It is electrically dead. If you drink distilled water, it’s essential that you “re-mineralize” it before drinking.
   
   
3. Reverse osmosis units produce a good quality drinking water. The problem I have with them is that they waste a huge amount of water – many gallons of waste for each gallon of usable water. I'm not really sure that's justifiable nowadays with the looming water shortage we face.
   
   
4. A good water filter is probably your best bet, but keep in mind that it will cost you more than $29.95 or even $100. To find one that will truly remove ALL of the bad stuff, while leaving in the beneficial minerals, you will need to pay $250-$300. A good example is the Aquaspace AQ-425 (Triple Counter Top). I’ve worked out an arrangement with them so that they pass on my 20% dealer discount to anyone who uses my name when they order.

Lastly, don’t count on beverages like tea and coffee to hydrate you. They’re actually diuretics. Also, avoid soda pop and other packaged beverages, including most sports drinks, as a means to hydrate. They’re heavily loaded with sugar – or even worse, artificial sweeteners.

Fwd: Assault on Freedom - The Nazi Connection

Part One - The History is Real
The parallels between Bush and Hitler are intriguing,
In fact the Bush families ties to Nazi Germany pre World War II and
during the War are impossible to deny.

The Bush Family wealth has its roots from funding Hitler and German
Industry throughout the War through Prescott Bush's Bank, Union
Banking Corp. Prior to that Prescot Bush (GW Bush's Grandfather) was a tire salesman!

Learn about the failed November 1934 Bush attempt to overthrow the US
Government, assassinate FDR and install a Nazi Government in the USA.

And although Prescot Bush, George Herbert Walker Bush's father,
(G.W.'s Grandfather) was investigated for treason after the War, for
aiding and abetting the enemy, his indictment was swept under the
carpet by his cronies in the US Government.

GW Bush's ideology is influenced by the Secret "SKULL AND CROSSBONES
SOCIETY" and the "THULE SOCIETY" of which he and his father were
members. The philosophy of the THULE SOCIETY is the spiritual bible
of the Nazi Party.

The tactics currently being used today in America to stifle dissent,
control the media, spread disinformation, create paramilitary forces,
operate secret prisons, torture and surveillance are all taken
directly out of the Nazi Party Handbook.

* Hitler engaged in intimidation and fraud to "win" elections

* Hitler manufactured terrorist threats and used these threats to
rationalize the development of a police state including the loss of
fundamental citizen rights and the build of a vast interment camps.

And on and on it goes.

There's a reason these similarities between Bush and Hitler that go
far beyond the predictable patterns of human psychopathology...

The Bush family had a long and deep involvement with the Nazi
movement. Since then, the Bush family has surrounded itself with
allies, advisors and agents who, one can argue, emulate Nazi values
and tactics.
Bush's goal: To Be the most powerful family in the world!

Here is the Truth about America's First Family,

Perhaps the most censored piece of ESSENTIAL Amercian History

The Bush - Hitler Connection

click this link http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/263.html


------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------


Part Two - It is happening here.

People mistakenly think that
Nazi Germany started with a bang.

No.

It didn't happen that way.

It was a slow, steady boil

Does the USA resemble early 1930s Germany?

Award winning author and pro democracy activist Naomi Wolf analyzes
the technology and strategy for closing down a modern democracy.

The ten step blueprint presented in this video is predictable and is
a prophetic warning to the USA and to freedom loving citizens everywhere

Mussolini created the blueprint (with inspiration from Lenin), Hitler
elaborated on it, Stalin studied Hitler...

Here's how it works

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law

Conclusion. Should there be an Impeachment of Bush and Cheney? Is it
enough?
Prosecuting (and jailing) them for crimes committed is perhaps the
only rational solution.

Click here for a talk by prize winning author Naomi Wolf
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/177.html

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.

Fwd: Vaccination, Immunization, and Children

In the wisdom of modern medicine, we have created vaccines to "pre-build memory" for our immune systems -- memories of significant diseases we have never had, such as measles, mumps, polio, diphtheria, small pox, etc. Vaccines contain a weakened sterilized version of microorganisms (or proteins from those microorganisms) that is capable of producing an immune response in the body without inducing a full-blown onset of the disease itself. Although vaccines have played a significant role in helping reduce the number of deaths among children, this benefit has not come without cost. As I mentioned in Lessons from the Miracle Doctors, I have a strong emotional attachment to this issue, which makes it impossible for me to be objective. My youngest brother, Peter, was one of those "small percentage" of children who responded badly to the series of immunization shots he received back in the early 60s. I was there after the first two shots when he ran high fevers and cried all night. I was there when my mother called the pediatrician each time, only to be reassured that it was nothing to worry about. And I was there after the third shot, when my mother and I took turns holding Peter and rocking him to try and comfort him as he screamed at the top of his lungs for hours on end, ran a fever of 105, and convulsed. As it turns out, the pediatrician was wrong. My brother, along with thousands of other children (unfortunately, even a small percentage, when applied to a large number, still equals thousands of children), reacted to the shots that ultimately left him severely retarded. Although the manufacturer of the vaccine had indications that this was a possibility, they had not made it clear to the pediatricians who used it. Also, before 1990, doctors were not legally obligated to report adverse reactions to vaccines to the Centers for Disease Control; and, even with the current legal obligation, it's estimated that only 10% of doctors report the damage they see to the CDC. This sort of reaction to a vaccine and this sort of irresponsibility by a pharmaceutical company are not as anomalous as you might think. Paralytic Polio The polio vaccine is considered one of the great success stories of modern medicine. Maybe yes, maybe no! Jonas Salk testified before a Senate subcommittee that since 1961, except for a few importations from other countries, all cases of polio have been caused by the Oral Polio Vaccine. In fact, over a number of years, Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin each accused the other's vaccine of causing polio. Unfortunately, they were both right! First, Jonas Salk's vaccine was responsible for one of the worst pharmaceutical disasters ever. Just two weeks after the release of his "miracle" polio vaccine, a series of telephone calls about a strange outbreak of paralysis in children in California started pouring in. In each case, paralysis occurred in the arm that was inoculated with Salk's vaccine, and in each case the vaccine was made by Cutter Laboratories. Cutter's vaccine was immediately recalled, but 380,000 doses had already been administered -- mostly to healthy first- and second-graders. Within months, the Communicable Diseases Center in Atlanta found that Cutter's vaccine had caused 40,000 cases of mild polio, 200 cases of permanent paralysis, and 10 deaths. It was one of the worst pharmaceutical disasters in American history. But the Salk vaccine was not alone in causing polio. Salk was correct when he implicated the Sabin oral vaccine in causing polio. The oral polio vaccine contains a weakened version of the poliovirus, activating an immune response in the body.  As it turns out, in rare instances, the virus in the vaccine can mutate into a form that can paralyze. When this virus regains the ability to circulate, it is called a circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV). As I said, it is rare -- about 200 cases in the US over the last decade. But if you're one of those cases, rare doesn't matter. And finally, there is strong evidence that the original polio epidemic itself in the late 1940s was caused (or at least greatly exacerbated) by another vaccine. The early triple vaccine against diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus has been shown beyond doubt to cause paralytic polio in some children to whom it was administered. The incidence of polio in children vaccinated with this shot was statistically greater than in unvaccinated children. This scandal broke in Britain during 1949, an epidemic year for polio; other reports soon followed from Australia. SV40 But it's not just polio, there's also SV40, the monkey virus. The polio vaccine that was given to children in the 50s and 60s was not as sterilized as originally thought. In fact, when better test equipment was later used, it was found that there were over 140 live viruses in those early versions of the polio vaccine. This is not speculation. A 1999 study affirmed that unique strains of SV40 in commercial polio vaccines from 1955 were not readily identifiable with then current testing for SV40 infection. With what result? Well for one thing, SV40 is strongly implicated in a number of cancers, including brain cancer. In 2002, three leading SV40 experts (Drs. Gazdar, Butel and Carbone) published their findings that SV40 should be included in the list of group 2A carcinogens. For perspective, Group 2A includes: Human papilloma virus and Kaposi's sarcoma herpes virus/human herpes virus. In their book, The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed, Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher state that between 1997 and early 2003, more than 25 published studies found SV40 in human mesotheliomas; 16 others found the virus in brain and bone cancers, lymphomas, and other cancers, and in kidneys and peripheral blood. As of 2003, SV40 had been found in human tumors in 18 developed countries. Bookchin and Schumacher claim that the rates of SV40-positive tumors seem highest in countries that used the greatest amount of contaminated Salk polio vaccine, including the UK, USA, and Italy. Thimerosal In addition to the "active" part of the vaccine, the vaccine includes substances such as ethylene glycol (antifreeze), formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), and aluminum…and, of course, thimerosal, the mercury based preservative. Every couple of months, a new study or medical pronouncement is released "claiming" that thimerosal is safe -- that it doesn't cause autism. But the claims of safety are inaccurate, and the claims related to autism too limited. Recently, for example, an Argentinean study was released that found, "the levels of thimerosal [in childhood vaccinations] don't go very high and they go down right away. By the time it's time for the next dose of vaccine, the levels are right back to where they were at the beginning." The study found that the half-life of ethyl mercury in the blood -- the time it takes for the body to get rid of half the mercury, and then another half, and so on -- was 3.7 days. That's significantly less than the half-life of methyl mercury, the kind found in fish, at 44 days. Bottom line: according to the study's authors, the study proved that the controversial mercury-containing preservative thimerosal is rapidly excreted from babies' bodies and can't build up to toxic levels. Unfortunately, the data showed no such thing. According to the study's methodology, the infants in the study were put into three age groups and their blood-mercury levels were tested both before and after vaccinations were given to newborns, and at their two- and six-month checkups. Excuse me, but let's use our brains here for a moment -- assuming they haven't been damaged by exposure to mercury. Just because blood levels of mercury drop doesn't necessarily mean that the mercury has been excreted from the body -- only that it has left the bloodstream. Those are two very different conclusions. Since the study didn't monitor urine levels of mercury, there's no way to tell if it left the body. In fact, experience tells us that mercury does not easily leave the body, that it in fact "electrically binds" with soft tissue, bones, and even brain matter. If anything, the study should potentially raise alarm bells -- indicting that ethyl mercury binds with cellular tissue and locks into the body far faster than methyl mercury. Without the urine testing, there's no way to know. Bottom line: Mercury does not easily "metabolize" and pass out of the body. It remains for years and years locked to body tissue. If you want to get rid of it, you have to chelate it out. Make no mistake, this study has not proven thimerosal safe. It may not cause autism, but that doesn't mean that it's safe. In fact, it's no secret that mercury is one of the most toxic metals known. Numerous studies have shown its impact on health. There is strong evidence that mercury lowers T-Cell counts. This, alone, implicates it in cancer, autoimmune diseases, allergies, Candida overgrowth, and multiple sclerosis. In fact, due to other studies that showed mercuric chloride increased several types of tumors in rats and mice, and methyl mercury caused kidney tumors in male mice, the EPA has determined that mercuric chloride and methyl mercury are possible human carcinogens. It has also been shown that mercury cuts the oxygen carrying capacity of blood by half. This would account for many instances of chronic fatigue. Mercury also has an affinity for brain tissue and is implicated in brain tumors and dementia (think mad as a hatter). And, finally, mercury has an affinity for fetal tissue, which accounts for its implication in birth defects. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences found strong evidence for the toxicity of methyl mercury to children's developing brains, even at low levels of exposure. A 2005 study from the Centers for Disease Control found that as many as 637,233 American children are born each year with mercury levels of more than 5.8 µg/L (5.8 micrograms per liter), the level associated with brain damage and loss of IQ. To be sure, some study may ultimately prove that injecting infants with the second most toxic metal known to man (just behind plutonium) is safe, but no study so far has proven that -- not by a long shot (all puns intended).. And of course, there is the recent court ruling on Hannah Poling that found that the vaccinations she received "significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder." VICP On October 1, 1988, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660) created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). Officially, the VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines. In reality, it was designed to protect vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits so that they would not feel "legally" constrained in their ability to produce vaccines as necessary. Indeed, it was established in response to a liability crisis centering around children's vaccines -- specifically, the same DTP immunization shots which had destroyed my brother's brain some years earlier. The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. To date, over $1.5 billion has been paid out ( post-1988 and pre-1988). That's a surprisingly large number for injuries caused by vaccines promoted as perfectly safe -- and it doesn't begin to tell the real story. As it turns out, over 75% of all claims for permanent immune system and brain damage following immunization of the mandated vaccines are rejected for payment by the fund. That would put the true cost in the US alone at over $6 billion dollars, not to mention the far larger number of people who do not even know the fund exists and, therefore, never file at all. Total it up and you're now looking at a rather frighteningly high injury cost for "safe, mandated childhood vaccinations." Note: On average, in the United States, children are now required to receive some 33 doses of 9 different vaccines in order to attend school. The success of vaccines Okay, we've dealt with the myth that vaccines are perfectly safe and looked at their downside. But there is also a myth that vaccines do not work, and that is equally untrue. 12 vaccine preventable diseases and disease rates have been reduced by 99% in the U.S. These include mumps, measles, diphtheria, whooping cough/pertussis, and tetanus to name a few. 50 years ago in the United States, polio paralyzed more than 16,000 children and killed nearly 2,000 annually. That doesn't happen any more The Global Polio Eradication Initiative, spearheaded by the World Health Organization, Rotary International, the CDC and UNICEF, was begun in 1988. That year, an estimated 350,000 children were paralyzed with polio worldwide; in 2004, polio cases had fallen to just over 1,200 cases globally. And Smallpox. On the other hand, much of this success may not be related to vaccinations at all. Statistical evidence clearly indicates that the mortality rates of most of the diseases that vaccines have claimed victory over were already dropping precipitously even before the vaccine was introduced. In fact, in most cases, you can't even notice a statistical blip after the introduction of vaccines. To be fair, mortality rates are not the same as incidence rates and can be reflective of better medical care. Parents opting out of immunization There is now a fairly substantial movement of parents who wish to avoid childhood immunizations. To be sure, all states except Mississippi and West Virginia allow a religious exemption to vaccination for those people who hold a sincere religious belief opposing vaccination such that it would be an infringement on their right to exercise their religious beliefs. Some 20 states also allow exemptions for parents whose "personal beliefs" prompt them to skip vaccination for their children. In 1991, approximately 1% of children in the US went unvaccinated. By 2004, that number was up to 2.5%. At first glance, 2.5% might not seem like a big deal, but with approximately 40 million children under the age of 10, you're talking upwards of 1 million unvaccinated children. The downside Yes, there is a downside. One of the main reasons that parents can successfully opt their children out of vaccination programs is because those programs have been somewhat successful. Last month in San Diego, 12 kids fell ill with the measles, a once common childhood disease now rarely seen in this country. Nine of the kids had skipped vaccination because their parents objected; the other three were too young to receive the vaccine. As Dr. Mark Sawyer, a pediatrician and infectious disease specialist at Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego, told the New York Times, "The very success of immunizations has turned out to be an Achilles' heel. Most of these parents have never seen measles, and don't realize it could be a bad disease so they turn their concerns to unfounded risks. They do not perceive risk of the disease but perceive risk of the vaccine." On the other hand, Dr. Sawyer would have a harder time using lack of immunization as an excuse for an outbreak of mumps in 2006 that infected over 400 people, considering that all but one of the infected Kansas students had received two doses of the Measles/Mumps/Rubella vaccine. And then, of course, a whooping cough outbreak in Children's Hospital in Boston in 2006, also had nothing to do with lack of immunizations, but rather, appears to have been caused by a surgeon who contracted the disease while on military reserve duty and brought it back to the hospital. Conclusion So where does that leave us? In opposing ideological war rooms, we find the anti-vaccination movement that sees no benefit in any vaccination program and the medical establishment that believes, like Dr. Sawyer, that no possible vaccine should be left unused. And on the actual battlefield, we find parents like Sybil Carlson, who is quoted in the NYT article as saying, "I refuse to sacrifice my children for the greater good" opposed by government bureaucrats who look to mandate an ever increasing number of questionable vaccines. What to do? What to do? What to do? Unfortunately, the answer is not clear cut. And even what is known is far more nuanced than black and white. Even Mr. Spock's logical dictum from Star Trek "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is not black and white in this case. Why? Consider what we've discussed. Yes, you can make the case that childhood vaccinations have dramatically helped to reduce infant mortality. On the other hand, statistical evidence shows that they deserve far less credit for reducing this mortality than they receive. And yes, as Mr. Spock would say, society has the right to protect itself from massive outbreaks of disease even if a small percentage of children are harmed. But do society's representatives have the right to deliberately lie about the dangers inherent in mandated vaccinations? And where does it stop? Does the government have the right to mandate that preschoolers get vaccinated for the flu every year, or for HPV, or even for HIV before a vaccine is even proven to work? And what do you tell the thousands of children throughout the world (as small as the percentage might be) when their brains are destroyed, or they get cancer, or asthma? What should I have told my brother, whom I was very close to, before he passed away -- that he died for the greater good? Look, I'm not saying vaccines should be eliminated (besides, that's not going to happen anyway) -- just that we should use a lot more discrimination than we are at the moment in their application. Eventually, it's possible that new techniques of genetic engineering, by being able to totally isolate the offending antigen, may be able to offer a safer form of vaccine. But until that day… We need to be a lot more selective as to which vaccines are mandated and which are discretionary. We need to remove any ingredients like Thimerosal that give rise to any question concerning their safety. Wasting time on studies "proving" that thimerosal may not cause autism is unconscionable. Let's get real here. Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to man. Its effects are cumulative. It doesn't easily leave the body. Just because it may not cause autism doesn't mean it isn't slowly killing you. Thimerosal can be easily replaced in any vaccine. Not doing so undermines any credibility the medical community has regarding their concern for public safety. We need to have full disclosure on the true benefits of vaccination programs -- not the inflated propaganda numbers currently touted. And we need full disclosure concerning the side effects and resultant injuries. And finally, we need to update programs like the VICP that keep their figures artificially rosy by rejecting ¾ of all injury claims. And for those of you who choose not to immunize your children, there is a cautionary that may alter the equation. As long as most of the children in your neighborhood are getting immunized, then the likelihood of your child contracting a serious childhood illness is minimal -- and in most first world countries that has been true for some time. But with the increase in globalization, the increase in travel from third world countries as economies shift, the increase in immigration from poorer to wealthier countries, that protective cocoon is disappearing. Every day, the risk of exposure to long absent childhood diseases is increasing. You now have to weigh that increasing, but unknown, risk against the very real risks inherent in many of the vaccines now available that might offer a modicum of protection. And that's your call -- not mine, nor the government's (at least for now).

---

You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.