AMERICAN THEOCRACY, BY KEVIN PHILLIPS

AMERICAN THEOCRACY, BY KEVIN PHILLIPS: "Home Commentary Table of Contents Preface About the Author Reviews Other Books Buy the Book
'American Theocracy may be the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years. It is not without polemic, but unlike many of the more glib and strident political commentaries of recent years, it is extensively researched and frighteningly persuasive...By describing a series of major transformations, by demonstrating the relationships among them, and by discussing them with passionate restraint, Phillips has created a harrowing picture of danger that no American reader will welcome, but that none should ignore.'

The New York Times Book Review, March 19, 2006

'American Theocracy serves as an invaluable resource, given its marshaling of facts and figures, as well as the breadth and depth of its historical analyses... Overall, Phillips’ book is a thoughtful and somber jeremiad, written throughout with a graceful wryness...a capstone to his life’s work.'

Chicago Sun-Times, March 12, 2006

"Phillips makes a very interesting argument that the old North-South split in this country is far deeper and more ingrained than most people realize, and that one way of looking at American politics today is to say that the South managed the aftermath of its defeat in 1865 that it is now the dominant section of the country."

Baltimore Sun, March 12, 2006

Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns’ DNA

Bush Signs Bill To Take All Newborns' DNA

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, May 2, 2008

President Bush last week signed into law a bill which will see the federal government begin to screen the DNA of all newborn babies in the U.S. within six months, a move critics have described as the first step towards the establishment of a national DNA database.

Described as a "national contingency plan" the justification for the new law S. 1858, known as The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007, is that it represents preparation for any sort of "public health emergency."

The bill states that the federal government should "continue to carry out, coordinate, and expand research in newborn screening" and "maintain a central clearing house of current information on newborn screening… ensuring that the clearing house is available on the Internet and is updated at least quarterly".

Sections of the bill also make it clear that DNA may be used in genetic experiments and tests.

Read the full bill here.

One health care expert and prominent critic of DNA screening is Twila Brase, president of the Citizens' Council on Health Care who has written a detailed analysis (PDF) of the new law in which she warns that it represents the first program of populationwide genetic testing.

Brase states that S.1858 and H.R. 3825, the House version of the bill, will:

• Establish a national list of genetic conditions for which newborns and children are to be tested.

• Establish protocols for the linking and sharing of genetic test results nationwide.

• Build surveillance systems for tracking the health status and health outcomes of individuals diagnosed at birth with a genetic defect or trait.

• Use the newborn screening program as an opportunity for government agencies to identify, list, and study "secondary conditions" of individuals and their families.

• Subject citizens to genetic research without their knowledge or consent.

"Soon, under this bill, the DNA of all citizens will be housed in government genomic biobanks and considered governmental property for government research," Brase writes .

"The DNA taken at birth from every citizen is essentially owned

by the government, and every citizen becomes a potential subject of government-sponsored genetic research."

             
"The public is clueless. S. 1858 imposes a federal agenda of DNA databanking and population-wide genetic research. It does not require consent and there are no requirements to fully inform parents about the warehousing of their child's DNA for the purpose of genetic research."

In a previous report we outlined the consequences of the already existing DNA warehousing operation in Minnesota, a program that the Citizens' Council on Health Care has been following closely for a number of years.

Ms. Brase explained in a statement last month that state Health Department officials are now seeking exemption for the so called "DNA Warehouse" from Minnesota privacy law. This would enable state officials to continue to take the DNA of newborn infants without consent, which would also set the precedent for nationwide policy on DNA screening.

DNA of newborns has already been harvested, tested, stored and experimented with nationwide.

The National Conference of State Legislatures lists for all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, the various statutes or regulatory provisions under which newborns' DNA is already being collected.

In addition, all 50 states are now routinely providing these results to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007 merely establishes this practice within the law.

Another vocal critic of bill S. 1858 is Texas Congressman Ron Paul who made the following comments before the U.S. House of Representatives:

"I cannot support legislation, no matter how much I sympathize with the legislation's stated goals, that exceed the Constitutional limitations on federal power or in any way threatens the liberty of the American people. Since S. 1858 violates the Constitution, and may have untended consequences that will weaken the American health care system and further erode medical privacy, I must oppose it."

Paul, a medical doctor himself continued, "S. 1858 gives the federal bureaucracy the authority to develop a model newborn screening program. Madame Speaker the federal government lacks both the constitutional authority and the competence to develop a newborn screening program adequate for a nation as large and diverse as the United States. …"

"Those of us in the medical profession should be particularly concerned about policies allowing government officials and state-favored interests to access our medical records without our consent … My review of S. 1858 indicates the drafters of the legislation made no effort to ensure these newborn screening programs do not violate the privacy rights of parents and children," Paul continued.

"In fact, by directing federal bureaucrats to create a contingency plan for newborn screening in the event of a 'public health' disaster, this bill may lead to further erosions of medical privacy. As recent history so eloquently illustrates, politicians are more than willing to take, and people are more than willing to cede, liberty during times of 'emergency," he concluded.

---

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

Mayo Clinic's Top 10 Complementary Therapies

Mayo Clinic's Top 10 Complementary Therapies

Amit Sood, MD

Mayo Clinic College of Medicine

ozens of US hospitals and major medical centers now offer complementary treatments in addition to conventional medical care* -- and some of these therapies are covered by health insurance.

Problem: With so many conflicting claims being made regarding complementary therapies, how do doctors at these institutions decide which to recommend to the patients they treat? At the world-renowned Mayo Clinic, the following four criteria are used...

Is it safe? If a complementary treatment is completely safe, then it may be worth trying, even if its effectiveness has not been proven definitively by scientific studies.

Is it standardized? Herbs and dietary supplements are subject to limited regulatory oversight by the FDA. Therefore, these products frequently are not standardized to contain a consistent level of ingredients, potency and purity. Some herbs and dietary supplements do provide benefits, but you should work closely with a knowledgeable doctor when using them.

Does it meet a need that cannot be met by conventional medicine? When it comes to stress, for example, conventional medicine includes treatments, such as anti-anxiety drugs or antidepressants, that potentially can help people. But such medications often have side effects and may not be suitable for long-term use. Complementary therapies, such as yoga, massage and meditation, can help relieve stress without the risk for serious side effects.

Does it positively affect not only patients, but also those with whom they interact? The calming influence of several complementary treatments, such as meditation and music therapy, promotes a feeling of relaxation and well-being that helps bring harmony to one's interactions with family and friends. Positive, supportive relationships, in turn, are believed to help speed recovery from many types of illness.

Here is an alphabetical listing of Mayo Clinic's top 10 complementary treatments -- and the research that supports their use...

BEST TREATMENTS

1. Acupuncture. In this treatment from traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncturists insert thin needles into strategic, energy-balancing points on the body. Acupuncture can prevent and treat nausea and vomiting and help relieve many types of pain, including that from osteoarthritis, low back pain, neck pain, headaches and postsurgical pain. Patients who receive acupuncture typically receive up to 12 treatments, usually given once or twice a week.

Standout scientific evidence: German researchers tracked more than 3,000 patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis and found that those receiving acupuncture experienced significantly more pain relief than those who did not receive acupuncture treatments.

2. Guided imagery. Patients imagine a beautiful, soothing environment, such as a warm beach. Guided imagery, also referred to as visualization, helps reduce anxiety in patients who become claustrophobic during magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, who are having outpatient surgery without general anesthesia or who have been diagnosed with a life-threatening disease, such as cancer.

Standout scientific evidence: In a study conducted at the University of Akron in Ohio, a group of 53 women receiving radiation therapy for breast cancer either listened to guided imagery tapes once a day or did not. The women listening to the tapes felt more comfortable and less anxious, particularly during the first three weeks of treatment.

3. Hypnosis. The patient is led into a state of deep relaxation and focused attention by either a hypnotherapist or an instructional audio (self-hypnosis), and verbal suggestions are made to help relieve anxiety, pain, tension headaches and insomnia.

Standout scientific evidence: Doctors at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City analyzed 20 studies on hypnosis and surgical patients. In 89% of cases, surgical patients who were hypnotized had less pain, used less pain medication and recovered faster.

4. Massage. A massage therapist manipulates the body's soft tissue -- muscle, skin and tendons -- using fingertips, hands and fists. Massage treats anxiety and low back pain and improves postsurgical healing.

Standout scientific evidence: Studies conducted at the University of Miami's Touch Research Institute show that massage can help relieve back pain and strengthen the immune system in women with breast cancer by increasing levels of natural disease-fighting cells.

5. Meditation. Attention is focused on breathing and/or on a word, phrase or sound (mantra), leading to a more relaxed body and calmer mind. Doctors at the Mayo Clinic use meditation to treat patients with anxiety and high blood pressure and to help people quit smoking without medication.

Standout scientific evidence: An analysis of 20 studies on meditation found that this treatment could help patients cope with epilepsy, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), menopausal symptoms, autoimmune disease and anxiety during cancer treatment.

6. Music therapy. Many complementary medical centers employ music therapists. However, you can use music therapy on your own by listening to soothing music or your favorite music.

Standout scientific evidence: At Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis, a study of 86 patients recovering from heart surgery showed that those receiving music therapy experienced less anxiety and pain.

7. Spinal manipulation. Practiced by chiropractors, osteopaths (medical doctors whose training allows them to correct structural problems in the musculoskeletal system) and physical therapists, this hands-on technique adjusts the spine to properly align the vertebrae with muscles, joints and nerves. Spinal manipulation is an accepted medical practice for low back pain, but the evidence supporting its use for other medical problems has been somewhat conflicting.

Standout scientific evidence: At the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Public Health, a study of 681 patients with low back pain showed that chiropractic care was as effective as medical care, including painkilling drugs, in relieving discomfort.

8. Spirituality. For some people, this means religious observance, prayer or faith in a "higher being." For others, spirituality can be found through a deep appreciation of nature or art or participation in a secular community.

Standout scientific evidence: Researchers in Virginia who conducted an analysis of 16 studies on illness and "religious intervention" -- praying or attending religious services -- found that spirituality can decrease the length of hospital stays and fever in patients with severe infections... increase immune function... help relieve rheumatoid arthritis symptoms... reduce anxiety... and improve outcomes in people with heart disease.

9. Tai chi. This gentle exercise, derived from Chinese martial arts, consists of a series of defined postures and movements performed slowly and gracefully. Medically, it is used to improve balance in older people who are prone to falls.

Standout scientific evidence: In a study of 278 elderly people at Vrije University in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, those who performed tai chi three times a week for six months had 50% fewer falls and fewer injury-causing falls.

10. Yoga. These stretching postures and breathing exercises, which originated in India, help calm body and mind. Yoga is particularly effective for stress relief, low back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, osteoarthritis, anxiety and depression.

Standout scientific evidence: In a study conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi, 98 people with heart disease or diabetes who practiced the postures and breathing techniques of yoga had significant reductions in total cholesterol and blood sugar.

*To learn more about complementary therapies, go to www.nccam.nih.gov, the Web site of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Bottom Line/Health interviewed Amit Sood, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and director of research at the Complementary and Integrative Medicine Program at Mayo Clinic, both in Rochester, Minnesota. He is a contributor to the Mayo Clinic Book of Alternative Medicine (Time).

---

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

The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won't ever see:

The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won't ever see

By Siv O'Neall

More News How to Get Universal Health Care US payrolls shrank by 20,000 jobs in April: Net... Former fascist elected mayor of Rome Bush-Cheney Israel Disinformation Campaign to... The Four Day Work Week: Sixteen Reasons Why This...

(Axis of Logic) -- The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years. The endless list of genetically modified seeds sold and controlled by Monsanto are putting at enormous risk age-old agricultural patterns under the presumptuous slogan of aiming at solving the huge problem of hunger in the world.

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, entitled 'The World According to Monsanto' (Le Monde selon Monsanto[1]). Starting from the Internet over a period of three years Robin has collected material for her documentary, going on to numerous interviews with people of very different backgrounds. She traveled widely, from Latin America, to Asia, through Europe and the United States, to personally interview farmers and people in influential positions.

As an example of pro-Monsanto interviews, she talked at length with Michael Taylor who has worked as a lawyer for Monsanto and also for the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), where he had great influence on the legalization of the genetically modified bovine growth hormone (BGH). It also became FDA policy during Taylor's tenure that GM seeds are declared to be "substantially equivalent[2] to non-GM seeds, hence proclaiming proof of the harmlessness of GMs to be unnecessary. Michael Taylor[3] is a typical example of technocrats employed via 'the revolving door policy'. He is now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.

The gospel according to Monsanto is that their patented GM seeds and their bovine growth hormone (BGH) will increase worldwide production of agricultural, dairy and meat products and Bt cotton to the extent that worldwide hunger and poverty will be eradicated.

The actual truth is rather the opposite. GMOs are creating serious damage all over the world and artificial BGH injection in cows[4] cause numerous health problems, and even death.

Monsanto is not held back by any considerations of ethics and it hides the reality of its sordid machinations behind a wall of secrecy. Everything Monsanto does is exclusively with the intent of increasing its own profit – everything else be damned. If left to its own devices it will most certainly destroy the livelihood of millions of farmers – a process begun a decade ago in India and certainly in many other countries as well[5]. The planet's ecosystems will be seriously threatened by unnatural ways of changing agricultural patterns. The dangers of GMO cultivation to the environment come in many forms:

• Switching from age-old biodiverse crops that can tolerate low-level amounts of water to industrial monocultures of crops such as GM soya, cotton, sugarcane, etc. that require large amounts of irrigation.
  
  
• Inundating cultivated lands with toxic herbicides, in particular the dangerous Monsanto product Roundup, to which the GMO seeds have been made biotechnically resistant. Any other growth should succumb to Roundup, were it not for the fact that weeds to a very large extent become Roundup resistant.
  
  
• Putting an end to biological farming and poisoning non GM cultures through pollenization from GM crops and accidental exposure to Roundup herbicide.
  
  
• Deforestation to make more land available for the culture of the GM seeds Monsanto sells at high prices to poor farmers.

On top of all these dangers to biodiversity and biological farming comes the fact that Monsanto has patented its products and farmers are legally bound not to save seeds for replanting for the following year. They must buy new seeds from Monsanto every year and the company has a sizeable staff that just deals with prosecuting farmers suspected of illegally using one year's seeds for the planting of the next year's crop.

Globalization and Poverty

Biological farming is adapted to existing ecosystems. But age-old biological farming has had to give room to industrial monocultures that enrich the few and cause poverty and despair for millions of small farmers. Now there is soil erosion, destruction of biodiversity and social/economic disasters in tow. Contrary to Monsanto promises that GM seeds and Roundup would reduce production cost, farmers now have to pay skyrocketing prices for herbicides, pesticides and fertilizer.[6]

The destructive effects of genetically engineered crops are worldwide, but the extensive damage done in India has been widely documented by Dr Vandana Shiva. She is a physicist and environmentalist as well as a tireless activist and author of many books concerning the nefarious consequences of GM farming as opposed to the wisdom of traditional family and biological farming. She is currently based in New Delhi.

Quote from Dr. Vandana Shiva:

"I am writing this statement from beautiful Doon Valley in the Himalaya where the monsoons have arrived, and our Navdanya (Nine Seeds—Our National Movement on Conservation of Biodiversity) team is busy with transplanting of over 300 rice varieties which we are conserving along with the rich diversity of other agricultural crops. Our farm does not use any chemicals or external inputs. It is a self-regenerative system which preserves biodiversity while meeting human needs and needs of farm animals. Our 2 bullocks are the alternative to chemical fertilisers which pollute soil and water as well as to tractors and fossil fuels which pollute the atmosphere and destabilise the climate."[7]

"Economic globalization has become a war against nature and the poor" says Dr. Vandana Shiva.

"Recently I was visiting Bhatinda in Punjab because of an epidemic of farmers’ suicides. Punjab used to be the most prosperous agricultural region in India. Today every farmer is in debt and despair. Vast stretches of land have become waterlogged desert. And, as an old farmer pointed out, even the trees have stopped bearing fruit because heavy use of pesticides has killed the pollinators — the bees and butterflies.

"And Punjab is not alone in experiencing this ecological and social disaster. Last year I was in Warangal, Andhra Pradesh, where farmers have also been committing suicide. Farmers who traditionally grew pulses and millets and paddy have been lured by seed companies to buy hybrid cotton seeds referred to as “white gold”, which were supposed to make them millionaires. Instead they became paupers."[8]

In India as well as in China it has been proven that the unscrupulous promises of Monsanto that Bt cotton (genetically engineered cotton) would produce a far higher yield and prove less costly in terms of herbicide and fertilizer required has been the exact opposite of what was promised. Bt cotton increases irrigation and water requirements where biological cotton would thrive without added irrigation. Thus the yield of Bt cotton has been far inferior to that of biological cotton and the costs of production significantly higher.[9]

Disastrous health problems caused by GMO products

In spite of the reassurances from Monsanto and its own lawyers and scientists that GMO cultures and Roundup herbicide are not health hazardous, it has been proven in their own research that rats have developed different forms of tumors and other health problems. However, instead of pushing the research further, they put a complete stop to it.

"As farmers know there is a cancer epidemic in America's heartland – partly resulting from exposure to chemicals like Roundup, and partly from ingesting contaminated food and drinking water." (Economic, health & environmental impacts of Roundup-type chemical and Roundup Ready soybeans)

Particularly when Roundup is applied by aerial spraying the risk of drift of the herbicide to close-by crops and trees is considerable. Both trees and nutritious and medicinal herbs have been proven to be killed or producing severely damaged fruit and leaves from the effect of Roundup being sprayed on nearby cultures, by air as well as by ground spraying.

Quote from "New research on the impact of GMOs on health"

"Although some GMOs have been approved and marketed for several years, there was no body of scientific research on their impact on the biology of living organisms. This is partly because animal feeding trials are not required in the current safety approval process for GMOs in the EU or USA. Only now is a body of evidence starting to emerge from a small number of animal feeding trials into the health effects and progress in the new science of epigenetics. This indicates that genetic engineering is much more unpredictable and risky than traditional breeding."[10]

Various health problems from GMO products have been identified, from serious skin problems in humans in Argentina at soya plantations (documented by Marie-Monique Robin in her film – The World According to Monsanto), to allergies in humans as well as tumors, damage to internal organs and internal bleeding in rats fed with genetically engineered potatoes.

From a lack of sufficient research and the fact that many health hazards develop over a long period of time, there is still no complete list of real health hazards to humans caused by GMO products. Monsanto who provides 90% of the world's long list of genetically engineered products[11] (having bought up 50 smaller companies during the last decade) does their business with such complete secrecy that there are still sold-out individuals out there who praise the complete revolution of agriculture achieved by the culture of GMO crops. These corrupt people seem to be totally unaware of the health hazards and the drive to despair and ruin of small farmers caused by GMO products. They seem to still believe that genetically engineered seeds can save the world's food problems. Or worse yet, they don't care.

A high representative for Monsanto has openly admitted that "We want to control the world's food supply."[12] It is also very clear that they have no concern for health hazards or human disasters caused by the callous decisions of world leaders to give up on biological farming and opt for genetically engineered food production and monoculture industrial farming.

The proofs that GM huge industrial monocultures and Roundup herbicide are destroying the earth's environment and human health are completely censured and ignored, due to intense lobbying and pressure from sold-out individuals at the United States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Drug Administration.

Once again, only corporate profit counts and people as well as the environment are of no importance. And the neocon puppets are playing the game with great gusto.

---

[1] Also entitled 'Monsanto, une enterprise qui vous veut du bien' (Monsanto, a company that wants the very best for you.) Monsanto is the multinational producer of Agent Orange, dioxin, bovine growth hormone, Round Up and 90% of the world production of GMOs. New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins See also: Le Monde selon Monsanto

[2] [Michael Taylor] Attorney for Monsanto who rewrote the "regulations" for Genetically Modified foods. His brilliant addition is the "substantial equivalence" measure which says if the nutrition measures are the same for the GMO as the natural food it is nobody's business what the chemical companies add.

[3] Michael Taylor, former legal advisor to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Bureau of Medical Devices and Bureau of Foods, later executive assistant to the Commissioner of the FDA - still later a partner at the law firm of King & Spaulding where he supervised a nine-lawyer group whose clients included Monsanto Agricultural Company - still later Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the United States Food and Drug Administration - and later with the law firm of King & Spaulding - now head of the Washington, D.C. office of Monsanto Corporation.

[4] Reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson Blow Whistle On News Station - Florida Milk Supply Riddled with Artificial Hormone Linked to Cancer. They Were Ordered to Lie About it on Fox-TV.

[5]1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness, was at the root of farmers taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy, a loosing economy. Two factors have transformed the positive economy of agriculture into a negative economy for peasants - the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalisation. (Vandana Shiva)

[6] The shift from farm-saved seed to corporate monopolies of the seed supply is also a shift from biodiversity to monocultures in agriculture. The District of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh (India) used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Seed monopolies created crop monocultures of cotton, leading to disappearance of millions of products of nature's evolution and farmer's breeding. Monocultures and uniformity increase the risks of crop failure as diverse seeds adapted to diverse ecosystems are replaced by rushed introduction of unadapted and often untested seeds into the market. When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure. Instead of 1,500 Kg / acre as promised by the company, the harvest was as low as 200 kg. Instead of increased incomes of Rs. 10,000 / acre, farmers ran into losses of Rs. 6400 / acre. (Vandana Shiva)

[7] Monocultures, monopolies, myths and the masculinisation of

agriculture - Statement by Dr. Vandana Shiva

[8] Indian Agrarian Crisis

[9] "Several studies have shown Bt cotton yields to be substantially lower than non-Bt varieties." Has the Bt cotton bubble burst? (Devinder Sharma)

[10] New research on the impact of GMOs on health

[11] New movie damns Monsanto's deadly sins

[12] Greenpeace researcher uncovers chilling patent plans. One way or another, Monsanto wants to make sure no food is grown that they don't own -- and the record shows they don't care if it's safe for the environment or not. (Direct quote in Marie-Marianne Robin's documentary)

Siv O’Neall is an Axis of Logic columnist, based in France. She can be reached at siv@axisoflogic.com

On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, entitled 'The World According to Monsanto' (Le Monde selon Monsanto[1]). Starting from the Internet over a period of three years Robin has collected material for her documentary, going on to numerous interviews with people of very different backgrounds. She traveled widely, from Latin America, to Asia, through Europe and the United States, to personally interview farmers and people in influential positions."

Cloned Food Is Frankenstein Food

Cloned Food Is Frankenstein Food

I was shocked when I read, in January of this year, that an FDA report says that food products from cloned cows, goats and pigs are as safe as those from traditionally bred animals, basically paving the way for their milk and meat to enter our food supply. Not only did the FDA say products from cloned animals or their offspring are as safe as others, they also stated that, because the products are "virtually" the same, cloned-animal products wouldn't require special labels to identify them as such. Weird, right? It's exactly how I felt. But I thought perhaps I was missing something so I decided to learn more about the cloning process. It didn't make me feel reassured at all. Here's what I found out...

CLONING BASICS

The cloning process sounds straightforward: You remove the nucleus from an egg cell, replace it with a nucleus with DNA from the animal to be cloned, give this new cell a tiny electric shock to kick-start it into dividing, and then implant it into a surrogate mother who will carry the clone embryo. The end result is supposed to be a genetic replica of the original DNA donor animal -- beneficial for farmers or ranchers who want to reproduce a particularly high-yield milk cow or beef steer. The process seems like an easy way to ensure product quality, right?

Not even close. While easy to describe, cloning is hard to do successfully. At present, 90% or more of cloning attempts fail. And then at least 50% of those that do survive suffer from what's called "large-offspring syndrome," which is exactly what it sounds like -- the babies are unusually large, and may also have bigger-than-normal organs. These newborns can suffer from a host of ailments, from enlarged tongues and brain abnormalities to immune diseases and diabetes. Though some cloned animals can lead "normal" lives, the gestation and birth process is extremely stressful (occasionally even fatal) for the mother as well as the clone. "This isn't just a food safety issue," says Rebecca Spector, west coast director of The Center for Food Safety. "It's an animal welfare issue."

RISKS WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT...

However, the biggest concern, by far, lies in what we don't know about the safety of foods from cloned animals -- mostly because we don't know what we don't know.

Michael Hansen, PhD, a senior scientist with Consumers Union (consumersunion.org), has publicly voiced concern that it's possible that food from cloned offspring will have safety problems that haven't yet been considered. With the implantation of a cell nucleus into another cell, for example, it is conceivable that cells in clones contain mitochondria from two different animals -- a condition known as heteroplasmy. This doesn't occur in traditionally bred animals. Also, given that cloning costs $15,000 or so per animal, it's actually the offspring of the clones that are likely to make it to market as meat. Dr. Hansen has noted that little study has been done on these next generation clones. Who knows whether they are safe for human consumption?

There are definitely reasons to be concerned about cloned foods for the simple fact that they haven't been studied enough to be deemed safe. The long-term implications are unknown. And, really, who's asking for clones? Not consumers -- we're not facing a meat or milk shortage. A Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology survey found that 64% of people are uncomfortable with animal cloning. Not likely many ranchers either -- why would they be eager to pay large sums for genetically questionable animals? I suspect that biotech firms are pushing to advance this technology -- which is not who I want in control of my food.

WE NEED LABELS, AT LEAST

So, the question becomes: What do we do about it? First off, let's push for labeling. Though the FDA's report has essentially stated that it's unnecessary, at least nine states have introduced bills that would require some sort of labeling for foods from clones. I urge everyone who reads Daily Health News to contact their state representatives about this issue -- ask what they're doing about the labeling of cloned food. E-mail this story to make them aware of the potential problems. Granted, it's a long shot -- the labeling issue seems to be on the back burner in even the states looking at the issue -- but it's a start.

Beyond that, one good thing to know is that foods labeled as "organic" aren't allowed to contain any products from cloned animals. Small, local farmers are unlikely to use clones -- by supporting them, you're eating healthier while supporting a local business.

Source(s):

Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director, The Center for Food Safety, San Francisco.

---

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

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.