Discount Depot1      

Silver Shield is EPA approved. Former U.S. Air force Surgeon General drafted a letter to

the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recommending this new silver solution as

an important resource in bio-defence against bio- terrorism and outbreaks of infectious

disease. According to Dr. Carlton, the aquasol technology "has undergone rigorous

testing and has been found to kill anthrax, bubonic plague, hospital staph (MRSA) 

and SARS" while being non-toxic to humans.   Just to mention a few other benefits,

It has been found to:                                                              

  • Kill 99.9% of most bacteria, yeast, and molds within 10 minutes
  • Continues to kill pathogens with catalytic, not chemical action
  • Can be used internally, as well as topically
  • Has multiple mecanisms of action to ensure its efficacy
  • Is non-toxic and safe at recommended levels
  • Black mold on your bathroom tile?

Put Silver Shield in amber spray bottle and  spray on tile. Let it sit for 10 minutes

then use brush to wipe it away. Silver Shield comes in liquid and gel form, is

non-toxic and can be used for 72 years daily (if you choose to)  with no side effects.

The book "A Fighting Chance" by Dr. Gordon Pederson informs us of over 300 ways

Silver Sol can be used. This book is a must for families and health care practitioners.

Truthfully speaking, it's a must for everyone.

         

Purchase from catalog or email alternatives.young4u@verizon.net

========================================================================================

Disturbing History

Whether we're discussing Gardisil® or a forthcoming swine flu vaccine, one

question lingers in the minds of most Americans. Will we retain our right to

choose vaccination or not? There is fear among the populous that we will lose

the right to choose. What if we're forcibly administered a vaccine? Will it save

our lives, render us paralyzed or drop us dead like a swatted fly? The

conspiracy theories are numerous and frightening. We want facts that do

not exist. Noteven researchers have the facts. However, we do know

historic facts. This article from the UK is a factual account from US history.


Swine flu jab link to killer nerve disease: Leaked letter reveals concern

of neurologists over 25 deaths in America

By Jo Macfarlane
Last updated at 11:05 PM on 15th August 2009

A warning that the new swine flu jab is linked to a deadly nerve disease has

been sent by the Government to senior neurologists in a confidential letter.

The letter from the Health Protection Agency (UK), the official body that oversees

public health, has been leaked to The Mail on Sunday, leading to demands to

know why the information has not been given to the public before the vaccination

of millions of people, including children, begins.

It tells the neurologists that they must be alert for an increase in a brain disorder

called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.

GBS attacks the lining of the nerves, causing paralysis and inability to breathe, and

can be fatal. The letter, sent to about 600 neurologists on July 29, is the first sign

that there is concern at the highest levels that the vaccine itself could cause serious

complications. It refers to the use of a similar swine flu vaccine in the United States

in 1976 when:

  • More people died from the vaccination than from swine flu.
  • 500 cases of GBS were detected.
  • The vaccine may have increased the risk of contracting GBS by eight times.
  • The vaccine was withdrawn after just ten weeks when the link with GBS became

      clear.

  • The US Government was forced to pay out millions of dollars to those affected.

Concerns have already been raised that the new vaccine has not been sufficiently

tested and that the effects, especially on children, are unknown. It is being

developed by pharmaceutical companies and will be given to about 13million people

during the first wave of immunization, expected to start in October.

Top priority will be given to everyone aged six months to 65 with an underlying

health problem, pregnant women and health professionals. The British Neurological

Surveillance Unit (BNSU), part of the British Association of Neurologists, has been

asked to monitor closely any cases of GBS as the vaccine is rolled out. One senior

neurologist said last night: ‘I would not have the swine flu jab because of the

GBS risk.'

There are concerns that there could be a repeat of what became known as the ‘1976

debacle' in the US, where a swine flu vaccine killed 25 people - more than the virus

itself. A mass vaccination was given the go-ahead by President Gerald Ford because

scientists believed that the swine flu strain was similar to the one responsible for the

1918-19 pandemic, which killed half a million Americans and 20million people

worldwide.

Within days, symptoms of GBS were reported among those who had been immunized

and 25 people died from respiratory failure after severe paralysis. One in 80,000

people came down with the condition. In contrast, just one person died of swine flu.

More than 40million Americans had received the vaccine by the time the program was

stopped after ten weeks. The US Government paid out millions of dollars in

compensation to those affected.

The swine flu virus in the new vaccine is a slightly different strain from the 1976 virus,

but the possibility of an increased incidence of GBS remains a concern. Shadow health

spokesman Mike Penning said last night: ‘The last thing we want is secret letters

handed around experts within the NHS. We need a vaccine but we also need to know

about potential risks. ‘Our job is to make sure that the public knows what's going on.

Why is the Government not being open about this? It's also very worrying if GPs, who

will be administering the vaccine, aren't being warned.'

Two letters were posted together to neurologists advising them of the concerns.

The first, dated July 29, was written by Professor Elizabeth Miller, head of the HPA's

Immunization Department. It says: ‘The vaccines used to combat an expected swine

influenza pandemic in 1976 were shown to be associated with GBS and were

withdrawn from use. ‘GBS has been identified as a condition needing enhanced

surveillance when the swine flu vaccines are rolled out. ‘Reporting every case of

GBS irrespective of vaccination or disease history is essential for conducting robust

epidemiological analyses capable of identifying whether there is an increased risk of

GBS in defined time periods after vaccination, or after influenza itself, compared

with the background risk.'

Read this article in it's entirety.

Kids, High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS)
and Mercury

One of this month's featured articles comes from contributing author Mary Born. 

Did you know that high fructose corn syrup is processed with mercury?  I didn't.

I already knew how bad refined carbohydrates are for our health, and the health of

our children, but this sheds a whole new light on why we need to teach  children to

avoid simple sugars. Of course, we aren't going to be able to do this if we don't start

with ourselves.  

One of the things that I especially liked about this article was its focus on the

emotional side of why kids may eat a lot of sugar.  Many of them are starved for

love and attention.  I have long known that the craving for sugar is often a symptom

of a "lack of sweetness" or joy in our our lives.  It also stresses that we need to help

people learn better parenting skills, a topic I plan to cover in one of my upcoming free

webinars (see the next article). You can read Mary Born's enlightening article by

clicking on the link below:

Read about the link between HFCS and mercury here.

==========================================================================================  

Researchers find first common autism gene Article Courtesy Maggie Fox, Health and

Science Editor, Reuters
Tue Apr 28, 2009

Researchers have found the first common genetic link to autism and said on Tuesday

it could potentially account for 15 percent of the disease's cases. Three studies,

  two in the journal Nature and one in Molecular Psychiatry, suggest

changes in brain connections could underlie some cases.

While the findings do not immediately offer hope for a treatment, they do help explain

the underlying causes of the condition, which affects as many as one in 150 children,

according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"These findings establish that genetic factors play a strong role in autism spectrum

disorder," National Institutes of Health acting director Dr. Raynard Kington said in a

statement. "Detailed analysis of the genes and how they affect brain development is

likely to yield better strategies for diagnosing and treating children with autism."

Autism refers to a spectrum of diseases, from severe and profound inability to

communicate and mental retardation, to relatively mild symptoms called Asperger's

syndrome. Doctors have been at a loss to explain it, although it has been clear autism

can often run in families, suggesting a genetic cause.

"Previous studies have suggested that autism is a developmental disorder resulting

from abnormal connections in the brain. These three studies suggest some of the

genetic factors which might lead to abnormal connectivity," Dr. Thomas Insel, director

of NIH's National Institute of Mental Health, said in a statement.

INTERNATIONAL SEARCH

The international team of researchers looked at DNA from more than 12,000 people,

some from families affected by autism, and unaffected volunteers. "We estimate that

the variants we discovered may contribute to as many as 15 percent of autism spectrum

disorder cases in a population," Dr. Hakon Hakonarson of Children's Hospital of

Philadelphia, who worked on the study, said in a statement. "Most of the genes that

have been identified in these studies are involved in the connections between

neurons called synapses,' said Tony Monaco of the Wellcome Trust Center for Human

Genetics at Britain's University of Oxford, who worked on the study, said in a statement.

"This does seem to fit with what we know from brain scans -- that people with autism

may show different or reduced connectivity between different parts of the brain."

The mutations are not unique to people with autism.

"While this gene variant is common in the general population, we discovered that it

occurs about 20 percent more often in children with autism," said Dr. Daniel Geschwind

of the University of California Los Angeles, who worked on the study. "Until now, no

common genetic variant has been identified with such overwhelming evidence to

support its role in autismspectrum disorders," added Dr. Margaret Pericak-Vance of the

University of Miami.


DNR, Inc. H1N1 Update: We have received numerous calls from many of our product

users inquiring about precautions for the new flu strain called H1N1. Swine influenza

A virus infection (H1N1) can cause a wide range of symptoms, including fever, cough,

sore throat, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people have reported

diarrhea and vomiting associated with swine flu. Like seasonal flu, swine flu in humans

 can vary in severity from mild to severe. Severe disease with pneumonia, respiratory

failure and even death is possible with swine flu infection. Certain groups might be

more likely to develop a severe illness from swine flu infection, such as persons with

chronic medical conditions. Sometimes bacterial infections may occur at the same

time as or after infection with influenza viruses and lead to pneumonias, ear

infections, or sinus infections.

DNR suggests a common sense approach to preventing this virus.

  • Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when you cough or sneeze.                      
  • Throw the tissue in the trash after you use it.
  • Wash your hands often with soap and water, especially after you cough or sneeze.
  • Avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth. Germs spread that way.
  • Influenza is thought to spread mainly person-to-person through coughing or sneezing of infected people.
  • If you get sick, we recommend that you stay home from work or school and limit contact with others to keep from infecting them.

February 24, 2009 Scientific American

Saving New Brain cells

By Tracey j. Shors

 Key concepts

*Thousands of new cells are generated in the adult brain every day, particularly in

the hippocampus, a structure involved in learning and memory. *Within a couple of

weeks, most of those newborn neurons will die, unless the animal is challenged to

learn something new. Learning-especially that involving a great deal of effort-can

keep these new neurons alive.

*Although the neurons do not seem to be necessary for most types of learning, they

may play a role in predicting the future based on past experience.  

*Enhancing neurogenesis might therefore help slow cognitive decline and keep

healthy brains fit. 

If you watch TV, read magazines or surf the Web, you have probably encountered

advertisements urging you to exercise your mind. Various brain fitness programs

encourage people to stay mentally limber by giving their brain a daily workout-doing

everything from memorizing lists and solving puzzles to estimating the number of

trees in Central Park.  

It sounds a bit gimmicky, but such programs may have a real basis in eurobiology.

Recent work, albeit mostly in rats, indicates that learning enhances the survival of

new neurons in the adult brain. And the more engaging and challenging the problem,

the greater the number of neurons that stick around. These neurons are then

presumably available to aid in situations that tax the mind. It seems, then, that

a mental workout can buff up the brain, much as physical exercise builds up the body.

The findings may be particularly interesting to intellectual couch potatoes whose

brains could benefit from a few cerebral sit-ups. More important, though, the results

lend some support to the notion that people who are in the early stages of

Alzheimer's disease or who have other forms of dementia might slow their cognitive

decline by keeping their minds actively engaged. It's a New Neuron! 

In the 1990s scientists rocked the field of neurobiology with the startling news that

the mature mammalian brain is capable of sprouting new neurons. Biologists had long

believed that this talent for neurogenesis was reserved for young, developing minds

and was lost with age. But in the early part of the decade Elizabeth Gould, then at the

Rockefeller University, demonstrated that new cells arise in the adult brain-particularly

in a region called the hippocampus, which is involved in learning and memory. Similar

reports soon followed in species from mice to marmosets, and by 1998 neuroscientists

in the U.S. and Sweden had shown that neurogenesis also occurs in humans

[see "New Nerve Cells for the Adult Brain," by Gerd Kempermann and Fred H. Gage;

Scientific American, [May 1999].

In rodents, studies of neurogenesis generally involve injecting the animals with a

drug called BrdU (bromodeoxyuridine), which marks newly formed cells, making

them stand out when viewed under a microscope. Those studies indicate that in

rats, between 5,000 and 10,000 new neurons arise in the hippocampus

every day. (Although the human hippocampus also welcomes new neurons, we do

not know how many.) The cells are not generated like clockwork, however. Instead

their production can be influenced by a number of different environmental factors.

For example, alcohol consumption has been shown to retard the generation of new

brain cells. And their birth rate can be enhanced by exercise. Rats and mice that log

time on a running wheel can kick out twice as many new cells as mice that lead a

more sedentary life. Even eating blueberries seems to goose the generation of new

neurons in the rat hippocampus. Use It or Lose It

Exercise and other actions may help produce extra brain cells. But those new recruits

do not necessarily stick around. Many if not most of them disappear within just a few

weeks of arising. Of course, most cells in the body do not survive indefinitely. So the

fact that these cells die is, in itself, not shocking. But their quick demise is a bit of a

puzzler. Why would the brain go through the trouble of producing new cells only to

have them disappear rapidly? From our work in rats, the answer seems to be: they are

made "just in case."

If the animals are cognitively challenged, the cells will linger. If not, they will fade

away. Gould, who is now at Princeton University, and I made this discovery in 1999,

when we performed a series of experiments looking at the effect of learning on the

survival of newborn neurons in the hippocampus of rat brains.

The learning task we used, called trace eyeblink conditioning [see box on page 50],

is in some ways similar to the experiments in which Pavlov's dogs started to salivate

when they heard a sound they associated with the arrival of dinner. In eyeblink

conditioning, an animal hears a tone and then, some fixed time later

(usually 500 milliseconds, or half a second), gets hit with a puff of air or a mild

stimulation of the eyelid, which causes the animal to blink. This article is a must read. Follow this link to read the article from Scientific American in .pdf format. neuroscience

46 Scientific American March 2009

© 2009 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC. Key Concepts

¡¡Thousands of new cells are generated in the adult brain every day, particularly

in the hippocampus, a structure involved in learning and memory.

¡¡Within a couple of weeks, most of those newborn neurons will die, unless the

animal is challenged to learn something new. Learning-especially that involving a

great deal of effort-can keep these new neurons alive.

¡¡Although the neurons do not seem to be necessary for most types of learning,

they may play a role in predicting the future based on past experience. Enhancing

neurogenesis might therefore help slow cognitive decline and keep healthy brains fit.

-The Editors

Fresh neurons arise in the adult brain every day. New research suggests that the

cells ultimately help with learning complex tasks-and the more they are challenged,

the more they flourish

By Tracey j. Shors

Saving New BrainCells If you watch TV, read magazines or surf the Web, you have

probably encountered advertisements urging you to exercise your mind. Various brain

fitness programs encourage people to stay mentally limber by giving their brain a daily

workout-doing everything from memorizing lists and solving puzzles to estimating

the number of trees in Central Park.

It sounds a bit gimmicky, but such programs may have a real basis in neurobiology.

Recent work, albeit mostly in rats, indicates that learning enhances the survival of new neurons in the adult brain. And the more engaging and challenging the problem, the greater the number of neurons that stick around. These

neurons are then presumably available to aid in situations that tax the mind. It

seems, then, that a mental workout can buff up the brain, much as physical exercise

builds up the body. The findings may be particularly interesting to intellectual couch

potatoes whose brains could benefit from a few cerebral sit-ups. More important,

though, the results lend some support to the notion that people who are in the early

stages of Alzheimer's disease or who have other forms of dementia might slow their

cognitive decline by keeping their minds actively engaged.

It's a New Neuron!

In the 1990s scientists rocked the field of neurobiology with the startling news that

the mature mammalian brain is capable of sprouting new neurons. Biologists had long

believed that this talent for neurogenesis was reserved for young, developing minds

and was lost with age. But in the early part of the decade Elizabeth Gould, then at the

Rockefeller University, demonstrated that new cells arise in the adult

brain-particularly in a region called the hippocampus, which is involved in learning

and memory. Similar reports soon followed in species from mice to marmosets, and by

1998 neuroscientists in the U.S. and Sweden had shown that neurogenesis also occurs

in humans [see "New Nerve Cells for the Adult Brain," by Gerd Kempermann and Fred

H. Gage; Scientific American, May 1999]. www.SciAm.com SCIENTIFICAMERICAN47

Jana Leon

© 2009 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.48 Scienti f ic American March 2009

[The Author]Tracey J. Shors, a professor in the department of psychology and the

Center for Collaborative Neuroscience at Rutgers University, has had a long-standing

interest in the neurobiology of learning and memory. Working with Elizabeth Gould of Princeton University,

a discoverer of adult neurogenesis, Shors showed that learning enhances the survival

of new neurons in the hippocampus and that these neural recruits seem to be involved

in some aspects of learning. Some 10 years later Shors continues to ponder the

question: "Neurogenesis: What's learning got to do with it?" In rodents, studies of

neurogenesis generally involve injecting the animals with a drug called BrdU

 (bromodeoxyuridine), which marks newly formed cells, making them stand out when viewed under a microscope. Those studies indicate that in rats, between 5,000 and 10,000 new neurons arise in the hippocampus every day. (Although the human hippocampus also welcomes new neurons, we do not know how many.)

The cells are not generated like clockwork, however. Instead their production can be influenced by a number of different environmental factors. For example, alcohol consumption has been shown to retard the generation of new brain cells. And their birth rate can be enhanced by exercise. Rats and mice that log time on a running wheel can kick out twice as many new cells as mice that lead a more sedentary life. Even eating blueberries seems to goose the generation of new neurons in the rat hippocampus.

Use It or Lose It

Exercise and other actions may help produce extra brain cells. But those new recruits do not necessarily stick around. Many if not most of them disappear within just a few weeks of arising. Of course, most cells in the body do not survive indefinitely. So the fact that these cells die is, in itself, not shocking. But their quick demise is a bit of a puzzler. Why would the brain go through the trouble of producing new cells only to have them disappear rapidly?

From our work in rats, the answer seems to be: they are made "just in case." If the animals are cognitively challenged, the cells will linger. If not, they will fade away. Gould, who is now at Princeton University, and I made this discovery in 1999, when we performed a series of experiments looking at the effect of learning on the survival of newborn neurons in the hippocampus of rat brains.

The learning task we used, called trace eyeblink conditioning [see box on page 50], is in some ways similar to the experiments in which Pavlov's dogs started to salivate when they heard a sound they associated with the arrival of dinner. In eyeblink conditioning, an animal hears a tone and then, some fixed time later (usually 500 milliseconds, or half a second), gets hit with a puff of air or a mild stimulation of the eyelid, which causes the animal to blink.

After enough trials-usually several hundred-the animal makes a mental connection between the tone and the eye stimulation: it learns to anticipate when the stimulus will arrive and to blink just before that happens. This "conditioned" response indicates that the animal has learned to associate the two events together in time. The rats' accomplishment may sound trivial, but the setup provides a good way to measure "anticipatory learning" in animals-the ability to predict the future based on what has happened in the past.

To examine the connection between learning [basics]

Where NewNeuronsForm

In the adult brain, new neurons arise in the hippocampus, a structure involved in learning and memory. Although the original discovery was made in rodents, new brain cells have since been found in adult humans as well. More specifically, the fresh crop of neurons arises in an area of the hippocampus called the dentate gyrus, highlighted in the brain slices at the right.

Humanbrain

Hippocampus Cross section of hippocampus

Dentate gyrus

courtesy of tracey j. shors (Shors); RubberballProductions Getty Images (woman); jen christiansen (illustrations) The tasks that rescue the most neurons are the ones that are hardest to learn.

© 2009 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.www.Sc iAm.com SCIENTIFIC AMERIC AN49

and neurogenesis, all the animals were injected with BrdU at the start of the experiments. One week later half the rats were recruited into the eyeblink training program; the others lounged in their home cages. After four or five days of training, we found that the rats that had learned to time their blink properly retained more BrdU-labeled neurons in the hippocampus than did the animals that had simply remained in their cages. We concluded that learning this task rescued cells that would otherwise have died. In the animals that received no training, very few of the newborn cells that had been labeled with BrdU at the start of the experiment could be seen at the end. And the better the animal learned, the more new neurons it retained. The same thing happens in animals that have learned to navigate a maze.

When we first started doing the eyeblink studies in the late 1990s, we examined the effects of training in animals that had learned well: in other words, rats that learned to blink within, say, 50 milliseconds of the eyelid stimulation-and did so in more than 60 percent of the trials. More recently, we asked whether animals that failed to learn-or that learned poorly-also retained new neurons after training. They did not. In studies published in 2007, rats that went through some 800 trials but never learned to anticipate the eyelid stimulation had just as few new neurons as the animals that never left their cages.

We also conducted eyeblink experiments in which we limited the animals' opportunity to learn. This time we gave rats only one day-200 trials-to get it right. In this situation, some animals learned to anticipate the stimulus, and others did not. Again, the rats that learned retained more of the new neurons than the rats that did not, even though all went through the same training. These data imply that it is the process of learning-and not simply the exercise of training or exposure to a different cage or a different routine-that rescues new neurons from death.

No Pain, No Gain

Although learning must occur if newborn hippocampal neurons are to survive, not all types of learning work. For example, training an animal to swim over to a platform that is visible in a pool of water does not enhance cell survival. Nor does training an animal to recognize that two stimuli, such as a tone and an eyeblink stimulus, occur almost simultaneously.

The reason these tasks fail to rescue new cells from death, we surmise, is that they do not require much thought. Swimming to a visible platform is something rats do readily. After all, they do not want to drown. And if eyelid stimulation overlaps in time with a tone, the animals do not need to form a memory trace of an event that happened in the past-the sound of the tone-to help them predict when the eyeblink stimulus will occur. They simply respond when they hear the sound.

We think that the tasks that rescue the most new neurons are the ones that are hardest to learn, requiring the most mental effort to master. To test this hypothesis, we took a task that is a bit of a no-brainer and made it a little more challenging. We started with the easy eyeblink task, in which the tone precedes but still overlaps in time with the eyelid stimulation. Learning that connection, as indicated above, does not typically rescue new neurons. Then we made this task more challenging by greatly extending the duration of the tone so that now the stimulus arrived toward the end of a very long sound.

Learning when to blink in this task is more difficult than in the easy test, because in this case blinking soon after the tone begins, like runners taking off after hearing the starting pistol, is not the correct response. The task is also more difficult than the standard, 500-millisecond trace test because the animal cannot use the

The micrograph at the right shows the hippocampus of a "Brainbow" mouse, which was engineered to produce differently colored proteins in its neurons. Dentate gyrus

COUrtesy of Jean Livet, Tamily Weissman, Joshua Sanes and Jeff Lichtman Harvard University (hippocampus); Courtesy of Benedetta Leuner (BrdU)

© 2009 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.50 Scienti f ic American March 2009

end of the tone as a signal to "get ready." Rather the rat must keep track of exactly when the tone started and estimate when the eyelid stimulation will occur-a real challenge for all animals, including humans. And we found that this challenge rescues as many, and sometimes more, new neurons than does the standard trace conditioning task.

Interestingly enough, among the animals that learned in our conditioning tasks those that were a bit slow-in that they required more trials to learn how to master a task-ended up with more new neurons than animals that learned fast. Thus, it seems that new neurons in the hippocampus respond best to learning that requires a concerted effort.

Timing Counts

Why effortful learning should be critical is not clear. One theory is that tasks requiring more thought-or taking longer periods of training to learn-activate more vigorously the networks of hippocampal nerve cells that include these newborn neurons, and that such activation is key. I tend to favor this hypothesis for a couple of reasons.

First, a number of investigators have demonstrated that tasks involving learning, such as the classical eyeblink conditioning test, generally increase the excitability of neurons in the hippocampus, making them become much more active. Furthermore, this hippocampal hustle and bustle goes hand in hand with learning: the animals that show the most activation are the ones that best learn the task.

Next, it appears there is a critical window of time in which learning can save newborn neurons-in rodents, between about one week and two weeks after the cells arise. One recent study in rats reported, for instance, that learning can rescue cells when the cells are seven to 10 days old. Training that occurs after that time is too late: the neurons are already dying off. And training before that time is too early to help. This learning window corresponds to the period when these newborn cells, which start life unspecialized, begin to differentiate into neurons-sprouting signal-detecting dendrites (which receive impulses from other parts of the brain) and axons (which carry messages to a neighboring region of the hippocampus called CA3). Around this time they also begin to re [learningtests]

What Rat StudiesRevealed

The author and her colleagues relied on "eyeblink conditioning" experiments to discover that working hard to learn something enhances the survival of new neurons. They began with a classical form of the experiment (top), in which an animal hears a tone that is followed half a second later by a stimulus that will make it blink. After several hundred trials, most animals learn to blink just before the stimulus arrives. Because the tone and the blink-inducing stimulus are separated in time, figuring out when to blink is difficult; this task rescues a large fraction of newborn neurons.

Rats master readily an easier version of the test-in which the blink stimulus overlaps with the tone (middle); this task does not enhance survival of new neurons. Making conditions more challenging-by having the rat wait much longer before the stimulus arrives (bottom)-rescues more neurons than even the classical approach does. Delay conditioning

classical "trace"conditioning long-Delay conditioning Difficulty 

NigelCattlin Photo Researchers, Inc. (rat); jen christiansen (illustrations) It appears there is a critical window of time in which learning can save new neurons.

© 2009 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.www.Sc iAm.com SCIENTIFIC AMERIC AN51

spond appropriately to certain neurotransmitters-the chemicals that carry communications between nerve cells.

These observations suggest that the new cells must be somewhat mature and wired into networks with other neurons in the brain before they can respond to learning. When learning is difficult, neurons throughout the hippocampus-including the new recruits-are fully engaged. And these recruits survive. But if the animal is not challenged, the new neurons lack the stimulation they need to survive and then simply fade away.

What Do They Do?

So thousands of new cells arise in the hippocampus every day, and if an animal is challenged to learn, these cells stay around. But what function do they perform? They cannot, of course, help with learning in real time as they arise. Much learning occurs almost instantaneously (over the course of seconds, if not less). Faced with a new task, the brain cannot very well wait around a week or so for new neurons to be born, mature and hook up into functional networks before an animal can begin to learn. My colleagues and I suspected that the stockpiled cells influence some aspects of learning later on.

To test that idea, we decided to get rid of newborn brain cells. If these cells become important for learning, we reasoned, animals that lacked them would be less successful students. Of course, excising every single new cell from an animal's brain would be technically impossible. Instead we prevented the cells from being generated in the first place by treating rats for several weeks with a drug called MAM, which stops cells from dividing. Then the animals hit the classroom.

Rats treated with MAM, we found, were poor students in the standard, 500-millisecond trace eyeblink conditioning task. They had a difficult time learning to anticipate the stimulus. Yet the treated animals performed well on many other learning tasks that depend on the [hypothesis]

howlearning helpsto save newneurons During their first week of life, newborn hippocampal cells migrate from the edge of the dentate gyrus in to a deeper area, where they mature and become wired into a network of neurons. Learning that occurs when the cells are between about one to two weeks old enhances their survival-perhaps exerting this effect by stimulating existing neurons, which in turn release signals that foster maturation of young cells. In the absence of learning during the maturation period, most new hippocampal cells will die. Learningwindow

Learning that occurs about seven to 14 days after a new cell's birth maximizes its chance of survival Day 1 •Stem cells give rise to a cell destined to become a new neuron Day 14 •New neuron is active and wired into a learning network Day 7 •Newborn cell migrates and becomes an immature neuron

Stem cell Immature new neuron

Functional new neuron

Connection to cells in CA3 region of hippocampus

Dendrite receiving signals from elsewhere in the brain

Stem cell progeny (newborn cells)

jen christiansen

CA3 region of hippocampus

Area enlarged

Dentate gyrus

© 2009 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.52 Scienti f ic American March 2009

hippocampus, such as the Morris water maze. In this task, rats are dropped into a pool of opaque liquid through which they must swim until they find a submerged platform. The walls of the pool are marked with spatial cues that help the animals navigate. Rats bereft of recently born neurons caught on just as quickly as their untreated mates.

In our hands, animals that were treated with MAM also learned to remember the place in which an emotional experience occurred. For example, rats that received a mildly unpleasant stimulus to the foot when placed into a particular cage froze the moment they were put back there. This type of emotional learning, known as contextual fear conditioning, also depends on the hippocampus, but it did not give our treated animals any problems.

All told, the learning abilities of rats with few new neurons were relatively unimpaired. The animals did seem to have trouble learning more difficult associations, such as figuring out that a sound always precedes a stimulation to the eyelid by half a second. We surmise, therefore, that if the new neurons are necessary for learning at all, they come into play only in a select set of situations, apparently those involving some cognitive effort.

Biologically speaking, that kind of specialization makes sense: an animal would not want to rely on producing and developing an entire cohort of new neurons to respond to situations that will affect its immediate survival. So presumably the added cells, once they mature, are used to fine-tune or boost problem-solving skills that already exist. In the lingo of psychology, enhancement of such skills is called "learning to learn."

What about My Brain?

All the studies discussed thus far were conducted in laboratory animals-either mice or rats. What would happen in humans who did not produce new neurons in the hippocampus? Modern medicine, sadly, provides us with a population of ready-made subjects: people who are undergoing systemic drug treatment (chemotherapy) for cancer. Like treatment with MAM, chemotherapy impairs the cell division required for generating new cells. It is perhaps no coincidence, then, that people who have had chemotherapy often complain that they have trouble learning and remembering things, a syndrome sometimes referred to colloquially as "chemobrain."

In some ways, the observation fits our animal data. Like rodents who show very mild or limited cognitive impairment after MAM treatment, people undergoing chemotherapy function quite well under most circumstances. They get dressed, go to work, make meals, socialize with friends and family, and otherwise continue to live their lives. Which makes sense. Given the findings in laboratory animals, one would not expect profound or pervasive deficits in basic cognitive functions. Rather one would expect selective deficits in more difficult types of learning processes-the kinds of things everyone finds challenging, such as multitasking that calls for juggling multiple projects while trying to process new information.

To establish that neurogenesis plays a role in human learning, investigators need to develop noninvasive methods for detecting new neurons in the living brain, and they need to find reversible ways to prevent the cells' maturation during the learning process. The former methods are what helps, what hurts

Learning promotes the survival of new neurons but does not affect the number of cells produced. Other interventions, however, have been found to influence the generation of neurons in rodents.

BOOSTERS

Exercise

Antidepressants

Blueberries BLOCKERS

Alcohol

Nicotine

what's next?

Much remains to be discovered about how learning affects the survival of new neurons in the hippocampus. First, we would like to determine the molecular mechanisms by which cognitive challenges save new cells. Which neurotransmitters are involved? Which receptor proteins? And when exactly do those mechanisms operate? Does learning help new neurons to become integrated into neuronal networks, or does it promote the survival of those that are already connected? Further, how do neurons produced in the mature brain contribute to the ability to gain knowledge?

Those kinds of studies are being done in animals. But we would also like to understand more about neurogenesis in humans-both in healthy individuals and in people with diseases such as Alzheimer's.

To do that, we will need noninvasive ways to monitor the birth and death of newborn neurons in the human brain. Armed with that ability, we could begin to address some interesting issues, such as how much neurogenesis goes on in a healthy human brain versus a brain afflicted by Alzheimer's. Ultimately, we could also examine whether an intervention such as gene therapy could increase the numbers of new neurons generated in the human hippocampus-and whether particular brain-exercising activities would help keep those new neurons around. -T.S.

 

jen christiansen Could neurogenesis somehow be exploited for preventing or treating disorders that

bring about cognitive decline?

© 2009 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.54 Scienti f ic American March 2009

More To➥Explore Learning Enhances Adult Neurogenesis in the Hippocampal Formation. Elizabeth Gould, Anna Beylin, Patima Tanapat, Alison Reeves and Tracey J. Shors in Nature Neuroscience, Vol. 2, No. 3, pages 260-265; March 1999. Neurogenesis in the Adult Is Involved in the Formation of Trace Memories. Tracey J. Shors, George Miesegaes, Anna Beylin, Mingrui Zhao, Tracy Rydel and Elizabeth Gould in Nature, Vol. 410, pages 372-376; March 15, 2001. Neurogenesis, Learning and Associative Strength. Jaylyn Waddell and Tracey J. Shors in European Journal of Neuroscience, Vol. 27, No. 11, pages 3020-3028; June 2008.

being developed, and the latter are likely to be some time off.

Suppose, for the moment, though, that having a ready supply of new neurons on tap does help to keep the human brain intellectually limber. Could neurogenesis, then, somehow be exploited for preventing or treating disorders that bring about cognitive decline?

Consider the case of Alzheimer's, in which degeneration of hippocampal neurons leads to a progressive loss of memory and of learning ability. People with Alzheimer's do continue to produce new neurons, but it seems that many of the cells do not survive to become fully mature. Perhaps the process of neurogenesis and neuronal maturation is impaired in these individuals. Or perhaps the new cells do not survive because the disease hampers the ability to learn.

Yet some findings offer hope, at least for those in the early stages of dementia. As mentioned earlier, studies in healthy animals and people suggest that simple actions such as aerobic exercise can boost the production of new neurons. In addition, antidepressants have been found to be powerful modulators of neurogenesis. And a study in 2007 found that chronic treatment with antidepressants increases daily living and global functioning in patients with Alzheimer's-a hint, at least, that such therapy might promote production and survival of new neurons in patients.

Anecdotal accounts suggest that effortful learning may also help some patients. I recently presented our animal data at a meeting about Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. The clinicians in the audience were intrigued by our findings indicating that efforts to learn something difficult help to preserve freshly minted nerve cells. They report having seen benefits from such exertions in their patients. And they note that patients who can fully engage themselves in cognitively demanding activities may be able to delay the progression of this mind-robbing disease.

That said, it would be foolish to think that cognitive engagement combined with antidepressants or physical activity could completely reverse the damage done by a disease such as Alzheimer's, which kills many more brain cells than just new ones. It could be, though, that such activities might slow the rate of cognitive decline-in people grappling with degenerative diseases and, perhaps, in all our brains as we grow older.

They say you can't teach an old dog new tricks, and certainly as adults, many of us find it painful to learn something completely new. But if we want to keep our brains in shape, it probably would not hurt to learn a new language, take up tap dancing, or tackle some fast gaming after your Wii Fit workout-and it might even help. ¡ the more challenginga cognitive task is, the more new neurons it is likely to rescue, if findings from rodents hold true in humans.

PhotoAlto Getty Images; PHOTOILLUSTRATIONBYJENCHRISTIANSEN(book title)

© 2009 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC.


DNR, Inc. Footnote: Nothing can keep us alive forever.

We are composed of matter and energy. And as we age, our physical structures begin to deteriorate and their functioning capabilities begin to lessen. Often our energy depends on how our body's cells deal with toxic accumulations.

Researchers have known for several years the motor neuron is the major target for oxidative damage which is a key factor affecting aging and life span. The motor neurons are the nerve cells responsible for mobility and movement of the body's muscles.

Besides the motor neuron, there are trillions of other cells in the body, each containing hundreds of mitochondria, which together provides about 90% of the energy a cell needs to carry out its life processes.

Numerous studies of the mitochondria have shown that anything that impedes the flow of electrons through the respiratory system causes a decline in energy production. DHE-501 addresses the needed energy increase and the protection against the eventual energy drop-off in the cell. The cell's ability to fight off free-radical molecules is essential in maintaining health and preventing premature aging.

No toxic drug - capsule - tablet or pill can provide the electrically charged energy the body's cells require to fight off premature aging. Nor can they provide the full spectrum of subtle energy frequencies needed and found in DNR's DHE-501. This formulation has been created to meet the energetic needs revealed in recent studies concerning cellular oxidation and how it relates to aging.

When the trillions of cells in our bodies have been attacked by free radicals, toxins and other environmental hazards - we may notice premature aging, as well as fatigue or stress in our daily lives. Even our immune systems and healing capacities become ineffective. CEL-517 was formulated to balance and energize each cell structure. When in balance the cells can maintain the highest possible level of offensive and defensive activity, and cell repair is faster and more effective. Also promotes new cell development.

As we begin to age, our skin often reflects the care we haven't given it over the years. SKN-524 has been formulated to offer the billions of cells of the skin a renewed vitality and healthy appearance. This supplement works from the inside out to counter the signs of aging, stress and fatigue.

Click here to read the article, "What About - Premature Aging, Short Term Memory Loss, Hormone Imbalances, Chronic Tiredness."

In addition to DHE-501 and EVB Oral Spray, DNR, Inc. offers several products you may wish to read about.

For instant energy that lasts all day long, click here to read about Shampoo Drops.

For nervous system support, click here to read about NRV-SYS within the HBH Photanical Series.

For an appearance product that tightens and firms the skin around the eyes and chin, click here to read about Dynique Liquid Pearls.


Get Money Back with a Purchase Volume Rebate!

Genetically Engineered Foods: An experiment on the Masses.
===============================================
Pusztai found that rats fed GM potatoes had smaller livers,Hearts, testicles and brains, as well as damaged immune
Systems; they showed structural changes in their white blood Cells, making them more vulnerable to infection and disease
Compared to other rats fed non- GM potatoes. It got worse.Thymus and spleen damage showed up, as did enlarged tissues,
Including the pancreas and intestines. There were cases of liver atrophy as well as significant proliferation of stomach and
 intestinal cells that could be a sign of greater future risk of cancer. Equally alarming was that all this happened after only  
10 days of testing, andthe changes persisted after 110 days- that's the human equivalent of 10 years.

≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡≡ 

 

 

 

 

 

==============================================================================================

Aspartame -- History of Fraud and Deception

Today we have "Nutra-Sweet", which is widely used in a plethora of consumables,

despite a demonstrated neurological reaction in some people. In February 1 was

decided to also use the product name "Benevia". It is estimated that as many as

20,000,000 people cannot metabolize phenylalimine, and this inability is 996, it

genetically inherited by children. The inability to metabolize phenylalinine can lead to mental

retardation in children. This means a risk of retardation for millions of children.

A multi-billion dollar enterprise, this substance is said to be "refined" from "natural"

substances. Like other "refined" substances, it represents a health threat to the

general public. No long term studies have been performed to evaluate the physiological

effects of this substance, yet the public is lead to believe it is absolutely safe. Technically,

the chemical is called aspartame, and it was once on a Pentagon list of biowarfare

chemicals submitted to Congress. [1] Aspartame is in over 4,000 products worldwide

and is consumed by over 200 million people in the United States alone. What follows is

a skeletal examination of the chronology related to aspartame. A more detailed chronology

is given later in this chapter based on information provided to us by the Aspartame

Consumer Safety Network.

Aspartame is produced by G.D. Searle Company, founded in 1888 and located in

Skokie, Illinois. Searle is now owned by others. It is about 200 times sweeter than

the refined sugar that it is meant to replace, and it is known to erode intelligence and

affect short-term memory. It is essentially a chemical weapon designed to impact populations

en masse. It is an rDNA derivative made from two amino acids, L-phenylalanine,

L-aspartic acid and methanol. Originally discovered during a search for an ulcer drug

in 1966, it was "approved" by the FDA in 1974 as a "food additive".

Approval was followed by a retraction based on demonstrated public concern over the

fact that the substance produced brain tumors in rats. According to the 1974 FDA task

force set up to examine aspartame and G.D.Searle, "we have uncovered serious deficiencies

in Searles operations and practices, which undermine the basis for reliance on Searle's

integrity in conducting high quality animal research to accurately determine the toxic

potential of its products." The task force report concluded with the recommendation that

G.D. Searle should face a Grand Jury "to identify more particularly the nature of the

violations, and to identify all those responsible." [2]

In 1976, an FDA "task force" brought into question all of G.D. Searle's aspartame testing

procedures conducted between 1967 and 1975. The final FDA report noted faulty and

fraudulent product testing, knowingly misrepresented product testing, knowingly

misrepresented findings, and instances of irrelevant animal research. In other word,

illegal criminal activity. Understandably scared, Searle officials sought to suppress the

FDA findings and obstruct justice. They turned to Nixon and Ford administration

operative Donald Rumsfeld and elected him "chairman of the Searle organization.

" In 1977, the Wall Street Journal detailed the fact that Rumsfeld made efforts to

"mend fences" by asking "what Searle could do" in the face of the changes. Also in

1977, Dr. Adrian Gross, a pathologist working for the FDA, uncovered evidence that

G.D.Searle might have committed criminal fraud in withholding adverse data on aspartame.

[3] The FDA requested that U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner be hired to investigate Searle's

aspartame testing procedures in January 1977. Samuel Skinner was the federal prosecutor

responsible for convincing the Grand Jury to investigate whether Searle willfully and

criminally withheld data that cast doubt on the safety of aspartame. In February 1977, Skinner met with Searle attorneys at the Chicago law firm of Sidney & Austin. Suddenly, newly elected President Carter announced that Skinner would not remain in office, and Skinner thereafter announced that he would be hired by Sidney & Austin. Obviously, Skinner then had to recuse himself from the Searle prosecution. The case was taken over by US Attorney William Conlon, who essentially sat on the case, despite complaints from the Justice Department, which was urging that a grand jury be convened to prosecute Searle Company for falsifying Nutra-Sweet test data. Failing to perform his duty, Conlon also joined Searle's law firm in January 1979.

Skinner's defection from the FDA might have been prompted by the results of the review of the Searle studies. David Hattan, deputy director of the FDA Division of Toxicological Review and Evaluation, concedes that anyone reading the original FDA investigation reports is likely to be "shocked" by what they reveal. He says that the ensuing review of the Searle studies, in which he was involved from the time of his arrival in 1978, was one of the most thorough in the agency's history. It included an unprecedented hearing before a public board of inquiry composed of experts from outside the agency. Arthur Hayes, Jr., then Commissioner of the FDA appointed by Reagan, agreed with Searle and the FDA's Bureau of Foods (now the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) that "an appropriate analysis of the data showed no significant increases in tumor incidence in rats exposed to aspartame or DKP, one of the breakdown products of aspartame. The board of inquiry rejected concerns that aspartame's components could cause neurological damage.[4]

In 1981, under pressure from the soft drink lobby, FDA Commissioner Hayes approved the initial use of aspartame in dry foods and as a tabletop sweetener, discounting public complaints as anecdotal and ignoring three FDA scientists.[5] who voiced the fact that there were serious questions concerning brain tumor tests after having done an in-house study. Hayes was widely profiled as a man who believed that approval for new drugs and additives was "too slow" because "the FDA demanded too much information." Hayes also ignored the fact that the biased scientific studies paid for by Searle were faulty.[6] After leaving the FDA, Hayes took the post of senior medical consultant for the public relations firm retained by Searle..[7] A subsequent inquiry "found no impropriety".

In July 1983 it was approved for use in soft drinks in the United States, followed three months later by approval in Britain by the Ministry of Agriculture. All this was done despite the fact that the Department of Defense knew that aspartame was neurotoxic and harmful to human health. These facts were deliberately suppressed by the government. It is also interesting that in 1981 FDA scientist Dr. Robert Condon, in an internal government document, said "I do not concur that aspartame has been shown to be safe with respect to the induction of brain tumors." All safety was thrown aside because of pressure from Searle. Considering the connections the drug companies have to the medical and intelligence community, it would not be surprising that there were other factors involved in the pressure to adopt aspartame into the diet of the population.

In 1984, the Arizona Department of Health began testing soft drinks to ascertain the level of toxic deterioration by-products in soft drinks. It was determined that soft drinks stored in elevated temperatures promoted more rapid deterioration of aspartame into poisonous methyl alcohol (methanol). The FDA decided to ignore these results. Public complaints about the effects of aspartame began to come in. People complained of headaches, dizziness, vomiting, nausea, blurred vision, seizures, convulsions and a host of other reactions to aspartame.

Also in 1984, the Centers for Disease Control made the fraudulent announcement that "no serious, widespread" side effects of aspartame had been found. It was an outright lie, and this announcement was quickly followed by another from PepsiCo that it was dropping saccharin and adopting aspartame as the sweetener it all its diet drinks. Others followed suit, despite the January 1984 broadcast on CBS Nightly News where the chief scientist for the FDA task force investigating Searle publicly stated that Searle company officials made "deliberate decisions" to cloak aspartame's toxic effects.

When a human consumes "Nutra-Sweet", it breaks down above 85° not only into its constituent amino acids, but into methanol, which further breaks down into formaldehyde, which is carcinogenic[8] and very toxic, as well as formic acid and a brain tumor agent called diketopiperazine (DKP). In a meek attempt to ward off further public inquiry, the FDA in 1984 announced that "no evidence has been found to establish that aspartame's methanol by-product reaches toxic levels". This was a direct lie, since Medical World News reported in 1978, six years earlier, than the methanol content of aspartame is 1,000 times greater than most foods under FDA control. Furthermore, the methanol in aspartame is "free methanol", which is never found in nature. Methanol in nature is always accompanied by ethanol and other compounds which mitigate the methanol when introduced into the body.

In 1985, Searle Company was bought by Monsanto, the maker of other insidious substances that manage to find their way into human food, including Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH). Senator Metzenbaum, commenting on the FDA relative to the aspartame issue in 1985 said, "the FDA is content to have Searle conduct all safety tests on aspartame. That's absurd."

Supreme Court Collusion in Aspartame Coverup Clarence Thomas Former Monsanto Lawyer

In 1986, the Washington Post reported that the Supreme Court refused to consider arguments that the FDA had not followed proper procedures in approving aspartame, despite arguments that the product "may cause brain damage." (Supreme Court obstructing Justice). Since Bush-nominated Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
is a former attorney for Monsanto [9],it is unlikely that hundreds of millions of people will find redress. There are also indications of ties between Monsanto and elements in the CIA.

University of Illinois Fraudulent Study on Aspartame

In August of 1987, the University of Illinois, a recipient of funding from Monsanto, issued a study "exonerating aspartame of causing seizures in laboratory animals." The fact that they were paid by Monsanto automatically invalidates the results. US Senate hearings in 1987 showed that G.D.Searle used "psychological strategy" to get regulators at the FDA "into a yes-saying habit" to "bring them into a subconscious spirit of participation." .[10] More than half of 69 medical researchers polled by the FDA in 1987 said they were concerned about aspartame's safety.[11]

FDA Ignores Complaints of Neurological Symptoms

In 1989, the FDA received over 4,000 complaints from people who described adverse reactions. Because the FDA conveniently lists aspartame as a "food additive", it removes the legal requirement for adverse effect reporting to any Federal agency and the necessity for safety monitoring processes. Research also indicates that aspartame, when combined with glutamine products (such as MSG, widely used in foods) increase the likelihood of brain damage occurring in children.[12]

Important Message Alert: Genetic Egineered Cereals, etc. ready to hit the shelves.

Go to this site!!  http://www.organicconsumers.org/kelloggs.cfm  After reading t

his, Make a Free Call to Kellogg's and let them know how you feel.

800-962-1413.

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

Line up for Flu Shots

Interesting Articles

We are always researching and studying the latest news and events in healthcare science. One of the benefits of this e-mail newsletter is we will pass on to you information that we feel is relevant and important to the health of those you care about. DNR, Inc. has said for years that the benefit from getting a flu shot is negligible or nonexistent. This article, in part, explains why.


A Shot of Fear
Flu Death Risk Often Exaggerated; So Is Benefit of Vaccine 

By Steven Woloshin, Lisa M. Schwartz and H. Gilbert Welch
Courtesy The Washington Post
 

Medical research often becomes news. But sometimes the news is made to appear more definitive and dramatic than the research warrants. This series dissects health news to highlight some common study interpretation problems we see as physician-researchers and show how the research community, medical journals and the media can do better.

For years, the public health community has used fear as one strategy to promote the flu vaccine. A vaccination poster distributed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for example, emphasizes that "36,000 Americans die of flu-related illnesses each year," implying that the vaccine could prevent many of these deaths.

When it became aware of the vaccine shortage last October, the federal government changed course and tried to reassure Americans that going without a shot was no big deal. "We all need to take a deep breath. This is not an emergency," CDC director Julie Gerberding advised the public.

Instead of urging vaccination for everyone age 50 and older, as they had been doing, government officials recommended shots only for people 65 and older, and those in selected high risk groups. The public's response was predictable: People were upset and confused. Our local television news played a story in which a pharmacist was called "a murderer" when his vaccine supply ran out. Ironically, the crisis mentality led some to engage in behaviors that probably increased their risk. Frail elderly people, some with oxygen tanks, stood in long lines in the cold, waiting for the vaccine. Others crowded clinics and doctors' offices, increasing their chance of exposure to flu and other infectious agents.

With uncertainties about this year's vaccine supply, the CDC again recommended that highest-risk people get priority for flu shots, at least until late October. But last year's flu season may have left people confused about essential points: Just how risky is the flu? And just how effective is the vaccine? The answers to these questions may surprise readers.

How Risky Is the Flu?

First, a caveat: The risk calculations we analyze here describe typical flu seasons only. We don't consider here what the picture would be in the event of a deadly flu pandemic -- a worldwide outbreak of a new, highly virulent flu strain, the potential for which has recently drawn considerable media attention. No one really knows how likely such an outbreak is, but the risk profile would certainly change. A pandemic is a fundamentally different situation: The risk of death would be substantially higher, and untested strategies (including new treatments, quarantine and a new vaccine) would need to be implemented rapidly.

We deal here with what is known about typical flu seasons, based on data that form the basis for the federal government's flu-risk figures.

By choosing to highlight the annual number of flu deaths, the CDC employed an attention-grabbing tactic often used by public health and disease advocacy groups. It's a tactic readers should be inoculated against if they want a clear picture of the risks they face.

In fact, it is very difficult to know how many people die from any given disease because there is often much uncertainty in determining the cause of death. This is particularly true for the flu. That's because it shares symptoms with so many other diseases, and because people most likely to die a flu-related death are also at high risk for many other causes of death.

Flu deaths are probably undercounted because doctors do not routinely test for the flu, and because some deaths that should be attributed to the flu are given other diagnoses. For example, someone who dies from a heart attack because they are debilitated by the flu might not get counted as a flu death. Some over-counting of flu deaths also occurs: Clearly not all winter pneumonia deaths are caused by the flu.

According to the CDC, 90 percent of flu-related deaths occur among people age 65 years and older. Based on this information and the age distribution of the population, the chance of a flu-related death for people in that age group is about one in 1,000. Another way of saying this is that the chance of not dying from flu for those 65 and older is about 999 out of 1,000. (For context, the chance of a flu-related death is slightly lower than the chance of dying from a fall or other accident.)

For people younger than 65 (including children), the chance of a flu-related death is much smaller -- about one in 100,000. Of course, adults and children might be concerned about flu-related problems besides death, such as being hospitalized or just suffering with unpleasant symptoms (typically three to seven days of fever, muscle aches, headache, weakness, dry cough and runny nose). As you might guess, counting the number of flu-related hospitalizations or the number of people experiencing symptoms from the flu is even more difficult than counting flu deaths.

How Good Is the Vaccine?

Getting a shot does not guarantee you will not get sick from the flu or die from it. Recently, the Cochrane Collaboration, an international group that evaluates the evidence for various medical interventions, reviewed the medical literature on the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in preventing death.

Unfortunately, the evidence on how well the vaccine works to prevent death in the elderly is limited. Few of the existing studies are randomized trials -- considered the gold standard for medical evidence. Instead, most data are from observational studies -- studies in which scientists simply count up outcomes (here, the number of deaths that occur among people who did or did not get the vaccine).

But drawing conclusions about cause and effect from such observations is fraught with problems.

For example, a 2003 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine observed that the flu vaccine was associated with a 50 percent reduction in the overall death rate (that is, death from heart disease, stroke, cancer and all other causes combined). To attribute an effect of this magnitude solely to the flu vaccine is ludicrous: Flu-related deaths make up less than 2 percent of all deaths. If the claim were accurate, the vaccine's power would dwarf that of any other medical intervention. There is, however, a much more likely explanation: People who choose to get a flu shot are much healthier -- and therefore already at much lower risk of death -- than people who do not.

Only five randomized trials have examined the effectiveness of the flu vaccine. In these studies, patients were randomly assigned -- a selection technique equivalent to the flip of a coin -- to get either a flu vaccine or a placebo injection. But none of these studies looked at whether the vaccine prevents death. Instead, the scientists measured who developed a flu-like illness. For a summary of the findings of these studies, see "How Well Does the Vaccine Work in the Elderly?" below.

In the absence of good randomized trial data, it is still possible to gauge the effectiveness of vaccination by looking at time trends in flu vaccine rates compared with flu-related deaths in the elderly. As more people get vaccinated, you would expect the flu-related death rate to decline -- if the vaccine is effective. But, as the graph below, titled "A Windening Gap," shows, despite a dramatic increase in vaccination among the elderly, deaths from the flu and pneumonia have hardly budged. (The calculations have taken into account the aging of the population.)

For younger adults, flu-related death is so rare that it has not been reliably studied: Doing so would require a trial of millions of people.

Of course, the flu shot may have benefits besides reducing the chance of death. Many may get flu shots simply to avoid getting sick. The Cochrane Collaboration identified more than 20 randomized trials addressing this question. The overall chance of developing "clinical" flu (we'll explain in a minute) was 19 percent in those chosen, again by chance, to receive the recommended flu vaccine vs. 23 percent in the control groups.

The careful reader may notice that these percentages are substantially higher than those reported for the elderly. (See "How Well Does the Vaccine Work in the Elderly?") This is because clinical flu is defined as a set of non-specific symptoms including fever, cough and muscle aches -- symptoms shared by many non-flu illnesses like the common cold. These non-flu illnesses may be especially common in younger adults because of their exposure to other people, particularly children. To try to isolate the effect of the vaccine, scientists sometimes use laboratory tests to confirm the activity of flu virus in the blood. Using this measure, the chance of flu in the vaccine group is 2 percent vs. 7 percent in the control group.

Studies have also measured another outcome: how vaccination affects days lost from work. On average, there are about 0.16 fewer days lost from work per person vaccinated. Another way of saying this is that about 5 percent of those vaccinated avoid missing about three days of work because of the flu. (That is, 0.16 days divided by the 5 percent who benefited from vaccination equals 3.2 days.) The other 95 percent vaccinated got no benefit.

Take-Home Messages

To promote vaccine use, many in the public health community have overstated the risk of flu-related death and the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing it. While the flu vaccine may have some important benefit (less flu-related illness), we really do not know whether it reduces the risk of death. For younger individuals -- for whom the chance of flu-related death is extremely small -- any death-protection benefit can only be very modest (and it is unlikely we will ever reliably know whether it even exists). However, we do know that the vaccine reduces the risk of being sick and time lost from work. But because the effect is small, individuals will have to judge for themselves whether it's worth the bother.

We are not suggesting that Americans forgo flu vaccines. We simply want to help people make informed decisions.

For many people, getting the vaccine is a reasonable choice. And many may reasonably choose not to get it. (Consequently, the use of flu vaccination rates by Medicare and others to measure health care quality probably does not make sense.)

Regardless, public health officials should not exaggerate risks or benefits to promote vaccination. Exaggeration carries a price: Not only do some people get scared and engage in behaviors that increase their risk (like waiting in a crowded clinic for a flu shot). They may also grow cynical and end up ignoring health messages that really matter.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

New health risks linked with plastic in bottles

Chemical linked to heart disease and diabetes, first big human study finds

Tues., Sept. 16, 2008

CHICAGO - The first major study of health effects in people from a chemical used in plastic baby bottles, food cans and a host of other products links it with possible risks for heart disease and diabetes.

It suggests a potential new concern about the safety of bisphenol A or BPA. And because of the possible public health implications, the results "deserve scientific follow-up," the study authors said.

But the study is preliminary, far from proof that the chemical causes heart disease and diabetes. Two Dartmouth College analysts of medical research said the study raises questions but provides no answers about whether the ubiquitous chemical is harmful.

The findings were released to coincide with the researchers' presentation of their findings at a Food and Drug Administration scientific advisers' hearing.

The FDA has asked its panel of science experts to weigh in on whether the plastic hardening chemical poses a risk to children and infants. Bisphenol has been used in baby bottles and the lining of canned food for over 50 years, but recent studies in animals suggest it can disrupt hormones and cause developmental problems in the brain.

At the behest of scientists and consumer advocates, federal regulators have been reviewing the chemical, but with little agreement about its risks.

The FDA has the power to limit use of BPA in food containers and medical devices but last month released an internal report concluding that BPA exposure is not enough to warrant action.

Since then, another government agency released a separate report concluding that risks to people, in particular to infants and children, cannot be ruled out.

Past animal studies have suggested reproductive and hormone-related problems from BPA. The new study is the largest to examine possible BPA effects in people and the first suggesting a direct link to heart disease, said scientists Frederick vom Saal and John Peterson Myers, both longtime critics of the chemical.

They wrote an editorial accompanying the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Still, they said more rigorous studies are needed to confirm the results.

Vom Saal is a biological sciences professor at University of Missouri who has served as an expert witness and consultant on BPA litigation. Myers is chief scientist at Environmental Health Sciences, a Charlottesville, Va., nonprofit group.

90 percent with detectable BPA
BPA is used in hardened plastics in a wide range of consumer goods including food containers, eyeglass lenses and compact discs. Many scientists believe it can act like the hormone estrogen, and animal studies have linked it with breast, prostate and reproductive system problems and some cancers.

Researchers from Britain and the University of Iowa examined a U.S. government health survey of 1,455 American adults who gave urine samples in 2003-04 and reported whether they had any of several common diseases.

Participants were divided into four groups based on BPA urine amounts; more than 90 percent had detectable BPA in their urine.

A total of 79 had heart attacks, chest pain or other types of cardiovascular disease and 136 had diabetes. There were more than twice as many people with heart disease or diabetes in the highest BPA group than in the lowest BPA group. The study showed no connection between BPA and other ailments, including cancer.

No one in the study had BPA urine amounts showing higher than recommended exposure levels, said co-author Dr. David Melzer, a University of Exeter researcher.

Drs. Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice said the study presents no clear information about what might have caused participants' heart disease and diabetes.

"Measuring who has disease and high BPA levels at a single point in time cannot tell you which comes first," Schwartz said.

The study authors acknowledge that it's impossible to rule out that people who already have heart disease or diabetes are somehow more vulnerable to having BPA show up in their urine.

"There's a small possibility that there's some other factor that's explaining this and it's not due to BPA itself. We've done everything we can think of to exclude that possibility, but it would be nice to get more direct evidence," Melzer said.

The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said the study is flawed, has substantial limitations and proves nothing.

"As the authors themselves note, they do not conclude that the presence of BPA is causing adverse health effects - they merely noted a statistical association," the group said in a statement.

But Dr. Ana Soto of Tufts University said the study raises enough concerns to warrant government action to limit BPA exposure.

"We shouldn't wait until further studies are done in order to act in protecting humans," said Soto, who has called for more restrictions in the past.

An earlier lab experiment with human fat tissue found that BPA can interfere with a hormone involved in protecting against diabetes, heart disease and obesity. That study appeared online last month in Environmental Health Perspectives, a monthly journal published by the National Institutes of Health.

Government toxicology experts have also studied BPA and recently completed their own report based on earlier animal studies. They found no strong evidence of health hazards from BPA, but said there was "some concern" about possible effects on the brain in fetuses, infants and children.

Several states are considering restricting BPA use, some manufacturers have begun promoting BPA-free baby bottles, and some stores are phasing out baby products containing the chemical. The European Union has said BPA-containing products are safe, but Canada's government has proposed banning the sale of baby bottles with BPA as a precaution.

On main page, click on the icon "worlds first light-energized water solutions" for for definiton and descrition on how  these products work for your benefit.

DNR, Inc. Footnote:

Users of DNR, Inc. products should feel confident that the bottles that contain our light-energized solutions are made with HDPE high-density polyesscent plastic and not the PET clear plastic that has a higher concentration of polyvinyl chloride. What's more important to the safety of the solutions are the counter-frequencies encoded in every DNR, Inc. product formulation that neutralizes any toxic outgassing from the plastic bottle.

                                 

Dr. Mercola Dr. Mercola's Comments:     

If spending some time in the sun each day this summer is not on your list of priorities, I urge you to reconsider. This simple act can drastically reduce your risk of major diseases like heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Not to mention that the feel of the warm sun on your skin is one of life's great pleasures -- and it's free, so what have you got to lose?

The evidence just keeps pouring in.
It's no coincidence that northern countries (with less intense sunlight and colder winters) have higher levels of heart disease than sun-filled southern countries, and more heart attacks occur in the winter months, when sunlight is scarce.

This recent study found that low vitamin D levels more than doubled the risk of heart attack and death. That's a huge jump! Past studies have also found that getting a daily dose of vitamin D boosts your natural anti-inflammatory response, which can help to
treat congestive heart failure.

Just
how does vitamin D help your heart?

Well, there are a number of mechanisms triggered by vitamin D production that help fight heart disease, including:
  • An increase in your body's natural anti-inflammatory cytokines
  • The suppression of vascular calcification
  • The inhibition of vascular smooth muscle growth
Vitamin D also works by lowering insulin resistance, which is one of the major factors leading to heart disease in the United States.

Using Sunlight for Your Health

Unfortunately, in the United States the sun has been vilified. Many people have been convinced that staying out of the sun is necessary to avoid cancer, when actually the exact opposite is true. Why would anyone in their right mind want to exchange the risk of a few harmless skin cancers with that of serious life-threatening challenges like colon, breast, prostate and colon cancers?

Of course, you always want to avoid getting burned, but generally speaking you can safely spend anywhere from 20 minutes to two hours in the sun every day with beneficial effects. If you have dark-colored skin or live far from the equator, you will need to spend more time in the sun than someone who is light-skinned living close to the equator.

If you are a person who regularly spends time outdoors, without sunblock (sunblock screens out ultraviolet light, which interferes with vitamin D production in your body), then your vitamin D levels may be OK. However, most people spend a lot of time inside and do not get adequate sun exposure on a daily basis.

For this reason, I strongly encourage you to
have your vitamin D levels tested. If you are currently facing chronic disease, it's even more important that you get your levels checked, as vitamin D deficiency could be a factor.

The test is a simple blood test called 25(OH)D, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D. You can request it from just about any doctor, but ideally you will get it from a holistic physician who understands the importance of vitamin D, and can guide you into getting your levels optimized.

What's the Best Way to Get Vitamin D?

Sun exposure is always the best method of getting vitamin D, but some people do need to take a vitamin D3 supplement to keep their levels up. You should only do this under the care of a knowledgeable physician, however, as you can overdose on vitamin D supplements.

In fact, the only time you don't need to worry about whether or not you're getting too much, or too little, vitamin D is when your body makes it naturally from the sun.

There is still massive confusion out there, even among health care professionals, about what's healthy and what's not when it comes to sunlight and vitamin D. For instance, certain vitamin D supplements (vitamin D2) are highly inferior to vitamin D3, and should not be taken.

Meanwhile, some doctors will tell you your vitamin D levels are "normal" if they're over 20 ng/ml. In reality, your vitamin D level should NEVER be below 32 ng/ml and should really be 45-52 ng/ml to be optimal.
                   click here for  Vitamin D3

  Related Articles:

  Lack of Sunshine Causes One Million Deaths a Year

 BEWARE of Most Prescription Vitamin D Supplements!

 The Depressing Truth About Vitamin D Deficiency

EXERCISING IN POLLUTION PUTS EXTRA STRAIN ONTHE HEART 

Led by Dr. Nicholas Mills of the University of Edinburgh, a Scottish team found that during exercise, heart patients who inhaled as much diesel exhaust as is typically found in "heavy-traffic" cities (about 300 mcgs of particulate matter per cubic meter of air) increased the stress on their hearts by threefold, compared with control patients who exercised in cleaner air. "We...found that even six hours after the one-hour exposure to air pollution, there are still adverse effects on the way blood vessels respond," says Mills. Time.                   Click here for full article.   

 

                           

By GIGI STONE
Oct. 15, 2008

You cannot taste them. You cannot see them. But scientists say they are there: traces of prescription drugs in the water that comes from many people's faucets.

Contaminated Drinking Water Scientists say there are traces of prescription drugs in the water that comes from your faucet and may pose long-term health risks with continued exposure.(Getty Images )

"Everything from antidepressants to heart medication to birth control pills to caffeine" has been found in certain drinking water, said Dr. Brian Buckley, environmental scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

In his lab in New Brunswick alone, Buckley has found acne medication, barbiturates, caffeine and birth control medication in the water system.

While most of the medicines we take are absorbed by our bodies, he said, traces do escape via human waste and are flushed into our treatment plants, winding up in the water supply.

While the long-term health risks are unclear, there is evidence that medicines in the water, as well as hormones and chemicals, have negatively affected frogs and fish.

"The concern is we don't know what these chemicals do in the body over a lifetime of exposure," Buckley said.

 

next page

 

  Copyright © Discount Depot1 All Rights Reserved.