Archive for the ‘Blog Posts’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Kids damaged by drugs on a regular basis

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Toxic labelMore than half a million U.S. children yearly have bad reactions or side effects from widely used medicines that require medical treatment and sometimes hospitalization.

Children younger than age 5 are most commonly affected. Penicillin and other prescription antibiotics are among drugs causing the most problems, including rashes, stomach aches and diarrhea.

Parents should pay close attention when their children are started on medicines since “first-time medication exposures may reveal an allergic reaction,” said lead author Dr. Florence Bourgeois, a pediatrician with Children’s Hospital in Boston.

Doctors also should tell parents about possible symptoms for a new medication, she said.

Source: Associated Press and the Medical Journal Pediatrics October 2009.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Peter Osborne, Diplomate with the American Clinical Board of NutritionDr. Osborne’s Comment

This study simply eludes to a much greater problem that American health care is facing.  The medicine doctors give very commonly does more damage than good.  A study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1997 analyzed the number of deaths caused by the proper use of medicines and surgical procedures.  The alarming conclusion was that more than 100,000 deaths per year were caused by the medical treatments themselves.  That makes medicine the fourth leading cause of death in the United States!  Looking at this scenario objectively analyze the following:  Heart disease, cancer, and stroke are the top three leading causes of death in this country.  Mainstream medicine treats these conditions with drugs and various other surgical procedures.  Drugs and surgical procedures are the fourth leading cause of death.  Do you follow the logic?  How is this type of healthcare ever going to stop contributing to bankrupting the nation?

The solution to this problem is quite simple.  Educate yourself about food and nutrition.  Stay active to stay healthy.  The central core of good health revolves around these issues.  If you ignore them, you will be more predisposed to developing illnesses that lead you into mainstream medicine’s failing model of sick care.

Learn one of the reasons why drugs cause so many problems

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Posts | 1 Comment »

Organic Food? How Do You Know?

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Buying organic food is becoming increasingly popular due to the health benefits and promotion of agriculture sustainability.  But how do you identify what is  vs. what is not organic?

Official USDA organic food label

Identifying Organic Foods –

Single item foods such as fruits and vegetables must be labeled with the official USDA organic label sticker.  You can also find this sticker on single item packaged foods such as eggs and meat.

Many packaged foods have multiple ingredients.  So how can you be sure that all of the ingredients are actually organic?

The USDA label means that the food is at least 95% organic.  To ensure total organic status and differentiate between 95% and 100% , the label will read 100% organic only on products that do not have other non organic ingredients.

Foods packaging that reads – “Made with organic ingredients”  must contain only 70-94% organic ingredients.  The label may list up to three of these ingredients on the front of the packaging.

Conventional (Non organic) Vs. Organic

Read the produce stickers –

Most fruits and vegetables sold in the grocery store will contain a sticker with numbers on it.  An easy way to identify organic vs. non-organic produce is to read these labels.

Conventional Organic Genetically Modified (GMO)
4 digit number 5 digits starting with a 9 5 digits starting with an 8
Example: pear -4416 Example: pear – 94416 Example: pear – 84416

Pear produce sticker

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Posts | 1 Comment »

Gluten Genetic Testing

Sunday, September 27th, 2009

DNA Man

Genetic Testing Now Available For Gluten Sensitivity and Celiac Disease Without a Doctors Visit.

  • Test kit is mailed to your home
  • No Needles or blood draws (cheek swabs)
  • Confidentiality from your insurance company
  • Test results emailed promptly with either a positive or negative answer
  • Video download explains what you need to know and do if your results are positive
  • Family discounts are available on 2 or more test kits

get your electonic cigarettes and start saving now!

You cannot control what genes you are born with, but you can identify them and change your diet and lifestyle to accommodate them.   Fortunately gluten sensitivity and celiac disease can be evaluated with genetic testing.

Traditional diagnostic testing has focused on blood antibody tests and or intestinal biopsies.  These tests are antiquated and typically come back falsely negative.  Additionally, these tests are not specific for gluten sensitivity, they only measure for celiac disease.  The problem is that if you have non-celiac gluten sensitivity and your doctor runs tests to measure celiac disease, the outcome of the lab will be very misleading.

Traditional lab tests for gluten sensitivity are often incorrect!  Watch this to learn why genetic testing is the most accurate way to test…

Traditional labs only measure a fraction of how a person’s immune system can react to gluten.  Add to the problem that different grains contain different types of gluten.  Blood tests only measure the gluten found in wheat (gliadin).  The other problem is that people react to gluten in different ways.  Some people have immune reactions, some have intestinal problems, some develop psychological problems, some suffer with migraine headaches, psoriasis, osteoporosis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, multiple sclerosis…  The list is over 200 diseases long.  I can’t even begin to tell you how many patients have come to my office after they were already biopsied or blood tested and told that they did not have gluten intolerance only to find out that their gene DNA tests were positive.

Unfortunately, the traditional definition of gluten is not 100% correct!

Why? Most of the research regarding gluten is directly linked to celiac disease, and most of the research on celiac disease focuses only on 3 grains (wheat, barley, rye) and sometimes a fourth (oats).   There are a number of studies that have linked the gluten in corn to adverse reactions! But wait, there is more…  Almost half of the people diagnosed with celiac disease do not get better on a traditionally defined gluten free diet!  So the big question is…Why?! The answer – The traditionally defined Gluten Free Diet is not really gluten free.

There is usually a 30-50 year gap in medical research and its application in actual practice.  Point being don’t expect your gastroenterologist or other specialist to start discussing gluten with you.  Don’t take my word for it, watch the news report below.  Fact is many doctors are on cue with the research curve, and many are not.

DNA - ScienceWho Should Be Genetically (DNA) Tested For Gluten Sensitivity?

Those directly related to someone who has already been diagnosed with gluten intolerance or celiac disease should always be tested, but those suffering with any of the following list of diseases should also get tested:

  • Those who suffer from chronic intestinal problems
  • Infertility or recurrent miscarriage
  • Chronic anemia
  • Osteoporosis
  • Migraine Headaches
  • Psoriasis
  • Eczema
  • IBS
  • Bipolar or Schizophrenia
  • Low thyroid (Hypothyroid)
  • ADD or ADHD
  • Autism
  • Fibromyalgia
  • Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  • Restless Legs Syndrome
  • Sleep Apnea
  • Type I or II diabetes
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Any Autoimmune Disease

Because of recent media exposure on The View, Larry King and Fox News, gluten sensitivity is becoming more and more of a house hold word.  Watch the video below to see a recent report by Fox News featuring Dr. Osborne as an expert in gluten sensitivity.  Pay particular attention to the symptoms and diseases that the woman had before finding out that she was gluten intolerant (hint – they were the opposite of celiac disease symptoms!)

Don’t know where your illness is coming from?  It’s time for you to get tested…

get your electonic cigarettes and start saving now!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Announcements, Blog Posts, Products | 6 Comments »

CDC Vaccine Advisor Conflict of interest

Friday, September 25th, 2009

CDC Vaccine Advisor Pockets $29 Million Promoting Vaccines

chiropractic,

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) received at least $29 million from his share of royalties for Merck’s Rotateq vaccine after using his position with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to ensure that childhood vaccination with the vaccine became compulsory.

According to a report on the Web site “Age of Autism,” a review of CHOP’s royalties schedules reveals that Offit likely received between $29 million and $55 million for his work developing the Rotateq vaccine for rotavirus, which causes diarrhea in infants. Because the vaccine is jointly owned by CHOP and by the Wistar Institute but Offit is the only inventor listed on the patent from CHOP, he received 100 percent of inventor’s rights payments from CHOP.

“Clearly, based on the distribution of income rights outlined in [CHOP’s policies], Paul Offit had a greater personal interest in Rotateq’s commercial success than any other single individual in the world,” article authors Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill write. “And more than other individual in the world, he found himself in a position to directly influence that success.”

Between 1998 and 2003, Offit sat on the U.S. government’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). His involvement with development of Rotateq began before and ended after these dates.

While a member of the ACIP, Offit consistently voted in favor of making vaccination against rotavirus part of the compulsory U.S. childhood immunization schedule. He also voted to rescind recommendation of Wyeth’s competing vaccine RotaShield, while aggressively advocating for the idea that other rotavirus vaccines would be less dangerous.

“Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created not by consumer demand, but by the recommendation of an appointed body called the ACIP,” Olmsted and Blaxill write. “In a single vote, ACIP can create a commercial market for a new vaccine that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a matter of months.”

In the case of Rotateq, its addition to the vaccine schedule led to an increase in yearly revenue of $655 million over the course of two years.

Source: www.ageofautism.com

_______________________________________________________________

Dr. Peter Osborne, Diplomate with the American Clinical Board of NutritionDr. Osborne’s Comment

Clearly this is another example of the fox guarding the henhouse.  The federal government obviously does not take your health seriously.  Allowing physicians to hold policy making positions regarding their own products is nothing short of an atrocity.  Follow the money…  How is it possible that the doctor recommending the shot is making at least 30 million dollars based on that recommendation.  Could anyone in his shoes form a non biased opinion?  Watch the news story on CBS’s investigative report below:

Worried about the flu shot?  Try vitamin D therapy as a safe, natural, nutritional alternative.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Announcements, Blog Posts | No Comments »

Shift Workers Have Higher Cancer Rates

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009
Shift work is once again linked to an increased risk for cancer.
Multiple studies have linked night shift work to an increased risk for cancer.1-7
Now a new study in the American Journal of Epidemiology links rotating shift work
to an increased risk for prostate cancer in men.
1. Motohashi Y, Higuchi S. Shift work and health. Occup Health Rev 1999;12:125–44.
2. Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG. Night shift work, light at night, and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst
2001;93:1557–62.
3. Hansen J. Increased breast cancer risk among women who work predominantly at night. Epidemiology 2001;12:
747.
4. Tynes T, Hannevik M, Andersen A, et al. Incidence of breast cancer in Norwegian female radio and telegraph
operators.  Cancer Causes Control 1996;7:197–204.
5. Megdal SP, Kroenke CH, Laden F, et al. Night work and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2023–32.
6. Schernhammer ES, Laden F, Speizer FE, et al. Rotating night shifts and risk of breast cancer in women
participating in the Nurses’ Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1563–8.
7. Hormonal resynchronisation—an occupational hazard. Lancet Oncol 2002;3:323.
8. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:549–555
Dr. Osborne’s Comment…
Improper sleep habits are a major contributing factor to poor health.  Many
studies have linked inadequate sleep to increased risk for cancer, autoimmune
diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes, hormone disruption, and more.  The
body has a natural circadian rhythm.  The hormone melatonin is secreted in
higher amounts through out the night during sleep.  This hormone has
antioxidant properties as well as cancer suppressing effects.  Inadequate sleep
suppresses melatonin pathways and diminishes its beneficial effects.
Studies show that the most beneficial sleep is between the hours of 10
pm and 2 am
Your body repairs and heals itself during sleep.
Artificial light sources in the bedroom should be turned off to prevent
disruptive sleep.
Keep in mind that some people require more sleep than others.
Generally speaking people require between 6 and 10 hours of sleep.
For a safe and natural alternative to help with sleep

Shift Work and CancerShift work is once again linked to an increased risk for cancer.

Multiple studies have linked night shift work to an increased risk for cancer.1-7
Now a new study in the American Journal of Epidemiology links rotating shift work
to an increased risk for prostate cancer in men.
  1. Motohashi Y, Higuchi S. Shift work and health. Occup Health Rev 1999;12:125–44.
  2. Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG. Night shift work, light at night, and risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1557–62.
  3. Hansen J. Increased breast cancer risk among women who work predominantly at night. Epidemiology 2001;12:747.
  4. Tynes T, Hannevik M, Andersen A, et al. Incidence of breast cancer in Norwegian female radio and telegraph operators.  Cancer Causes Control 1996;7:197–204.
  5. Megdal SP, Kroenke CH, Laden F, et al. Night work and breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:2023–32.
  6. Schernhammer ES, Laden F, Speizer FE, et al. Rotating night shifts and risk of breast cancer in women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1563–8.
  7. Hormonal resynchronisation—an occupational hazard. Lancet Oncol 2002;3:323.
  8. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:549–555

Dr. Peter Osborne, Diplomate with the American Clinical Board of NutritionDr. Osborne’s Comment…

Improper sleep habits are a major contributing factor to poor health.  Many
studies have linked inadequate sleep to increased risk for cancer, autoimmune
diseases, high blood pressure, diabetes, hormone disruption, and more.  The
body has a natural circadian rhythm.  The hormone melatonin is secreted in
higher amounts through out the night during sleep.  This hormone has
antioxidant properties as well as cancer suppressing effects.  Inadequate sleep
suppresses melatonin pathways and diminishes its beneficial effects.
  • Studies show that the most beneficial sleep is between the hours of 10 pm and 2 am.
  • Your body repairs and heals itself during sleep.
  • Artificial light sources in the bedroom should be turned off to prevent disruptive sleep.
  • Keep in mind that some people require more sleep than others.
  • Generally speaking people require between 6 and 10 hours of sleep.
For a safe and natural alternative to help with sleep

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Posts | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »