Childhood Adversity Linked to Higher Risk of Early Death

Traumatic childhood experiences are linked to an increased risk of early death.

The research, led by the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM), in collaboration with the ESRC International Centre for Lifecourse Studies in Society and Health at UCL, found that men and women who had suffered adversity in childhood were more likely to die before age of 50 than those who had not.

The researchers compared premature death rates among more than 15,000 people to their experiences of adversity at ages 7, 11 and 16. This included spending time in care, suffering from neglect, parental separation or having a family member in prison.

For women, the likelihood of dying before age 50 increased with the amount of adversity they had suffered in childhood. Women who had suffered one negative experience by age 16 were 66 per cent more likely to die before the age of 50 than those who had not faced any adversity. Women who had two or more adverse experiences in childhood had an 80 per cent increased risk of premature death.

Men who had suffered two or more traumatic events in childhood were 57 per cent more likely to die by the time they were 50 than those who had not experienced any adversity growing up.

The association between childhood adversity and premature death remained even after taking into account factors such as education level and social class, alcohol and tobacco use, and psychological problems in early adulthood.

The researchers note that some causes of death in early adult life are related to mental stress, such as suicide or addiction to alcohol or drugs. However, they also suggest that children who suffer severe stress may experience imbalances in their hormone and immune systems that impact on their physical development and later health.

For the first time in any study, the longitudinal nature of the data made it possible to link the risk of early death to experiences of adversity that have been recorded during childhood, rather than relying on adult recollections of early life experiences.

Professor Mel Bartley, one of the UCL authors of the study, says: "Our Centre has been collaborating with public health researchers at INSERM to enable them to use unique British birth cohort data to test their ideas.

"This work on early psychological trauma and premature death adds a whole new dimension to public health. It shows that if we are going to ensure better health in the population the work needs to begin early in life to support children experiencing severe adversities. Many people have suspected this but until now we have not had such high quality evidence from such a large cohort of people."

Read More

Why Smokers Gain Weight When They Quit Smoking.

Most smokers put on a couple of kilos when they quit smoking. This is not due to an increased calorie intake, but to a change in the composition of the intestinal flora after quitting smoking,

When smokers wave goodbye to their cigarettes, eighty per cent of them put on seven kilos on average. Their weight increases even if their calorie intake remains the same or even falls compared to the level before quitting smoking. What is the reason for this weight gain?
Researchers working with Gerhard Rogler of Zurich University Hospital attribute the cause to a changed composition of the bacterial diversity in the intestine. As they recently showed in a study in PLoS One, the bacterial strains that also prevail in the intestinal flora of obese persons take the upper hand in people giving up smoking.
Comparison of stool samples.
Rogler and his colleagues of the Swiss IBD cohort study examined the genetic material of intestinal bacteria found in the faeces and studied stool samples which they had received from twenty different persons over a period of nine weeks -- four samples per person. The test persons included five non-smokers, five smokers and ten persons who had quit smoking one week after the start of the study.
While the bacterial diversity in the faeces of smokers and non-smokers changed only little over time, giving up smoking resulted in the biggest shift in the composition of the microbial inhabitants of the intestines. The Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes fractions increased at the expense of representatives of the Firmicutes and Actinobacteria phyla. At the same time, the test subjects who had quit smoking gained an average of 2.2 kilos in weight although their eating and drinking habits remained the same (with the exception that, towards the end of the study, they drank on average a little more alcohol than before quitting smoking).
More efficient utilisation.
Their results reflected those seen in previous studies conducted with mice, says Rogler. When other scientists transplanted the faeces of obese mice into the intestines of normal-weight mice some years ago, they saw that both the fractions of the Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes in the gut flora as well as the weight of the mice treated increased. The new gut flora apparently used the energy contained in the nutrition more efficiently.
Rogler and his colleagues assume that the same effect also manifests itself in their test subjects. The composition of the diverse bacteria in the intestinal flora, which changes after giving up smoking, probably provides the body with more energy, resulting in new non-smokers gaining weight.
Swiss IBD cohort study.
With the aim of gaining a better understanding of inflammatory bow-el diseases or IBD, specialist hospitals, private practice physicians and university institutions have come together to pool their knowledge. They are collecting the medical data of now nearly 2,000 affected persons who are participating in this long-term study.

Read More

Poverty Reduces Brainpower Needed for Navigating Other Areas of Life.

• Poverty and all its related concerns require so much mental energy that the poor have less remaining brainpower to devote to other areas of life.

 The researchers suggest that being poor may keep a person from concentrating on the very avenues that would lead them out of poverty. A person's cognitive function is diminished by the constant and all-consuming effort of coping with the immediate effects of having little money, such as scrounging to pay bills and cut costs. Thusly, a person is left with fewer "mental resources" to focus on complicated, indirectly related matters such as education, job training and even managing their time.
In a series of experiments, the researchers found that pressing financial concerns had an immediate impact on the ability of low-income individuals to perform on common cognitive and logic tests. On average, a person preoccupied with money problems exhibited a drop in cognitive function similar to a 13-point dip in IQ, or the loss of an entire night's sleep.

But when their concerns were benign, low-income individuals performed competently, at a similar level to people who were well off, said corresponding author Jiaying Zhao, who conducted the study as a doctoral student in the lab of co-author Eldar Shafir, Princeton's William Stewart Tod Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs. Zhao and Shafir worked with Anandi Mani, an associate professor of economics at the University of Warwick in Britain, and Sendhil Mullainathan, a Harvard University economics professor.
"These pressures create a salient concern in the mind and draw mental resources to the problem itself. That means we are unable to focus on other things in life that need our attention," said Zhao, who is now an assistant professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia.

"Previous views of poverty have blamed poverty on personal failings, or an environment that is not conducive to success," she said. "We're arguing that the lack of financial resources itself can lead to impaired cognitive function. The very condition of not having enough can actually be a cause of poverty."
The mental tax that poverty can put on the brain is distinct from stress, Shafir explained. Stress is a person's response to various outside pressures that -- according to studies of arousal and performance -- can actually enhance a person's functioning, he said. In the Science study, Shafir and his colleagues instead describe an immediate rather than chronic preoccupation with limited resources that can be a detriment to unrelated yet still important tasks.

"Stress itself doesn't predict that people can't perform well -- they may do better up to a point," Shafir said. "A person in poverty might be at the high part of the performance curve when it comes to a specific task and, in fact, we show that they do well on the problem at hand. But they don't have leftover bandwidth to devote to other tasks. The poor are often highly effective at focusing on and dealing with pressing problems. It's the other tasks where they perform poorly."

The fallout of neglecting other areas of life may loom larger for a person just scraping by, Shafir said. Late fees tacked on to a forgotten rent payment, a job lost because of poor time-management -- these make a tight money situation worse. And as people get poorer, they tend to make difficult and often costly decisions that further perpetuate their hardship, Shafir said. He and Mullainathan were co-authors on a 2012 Science paper that reported a higher likelihood of poor people to engage in behaviors that reinforce the conditions of poverty, such as excessive borrowing.

"They can make the same mistakes, but the outcomes of errors are more dear," Shafir said. "So, if you live in poverty, you're more error prone and errors cost you more dearly -- it's hard to find a way out."
The first set of experiments took place in a New Jersey mall between 2010 and 2011 with roughly 400 subjects chosen at random. Their median annual income was around $70,000 and the lowest income was around $20,000. The researchers created scenarios wherein subjects had to ponder how they would solve financial problems, for example, whether they would handle a sudden car repair by paying in full, borrowing money or putting the repairs off. Participants were assigned either an "easy" or "hard" scenario in which the cost was low or high -- such as $150 or $1,500 for the car repair. While participants pondered these scenarios, they performed common fluid-intelligence and cognition tests.

Subjects were divided into a "poor" group and a "rich" group based on their income. The study showed that when the scenarios were easy -- the financial problems not too severe -- the poor and rich performed equally well on the cognitive tests. But when they thought about the hard scenarios, people at the lower end of the income scale performed significantly worse on both cognitive tests, while the rich participants were unfazed.
To better gauge the influence of poverty in natural contexts, between 2010 and 2011 the researchers also tested 464 sugarcane farmers in India who rely on the annual harvest for at least 60 percent of their income. Because sugarcane harvests occur once a year, these are farmers who find themselves rich after harvest and poor before it. Each farmer was given the same tests before and after the harvest, and performed better on both tests post-harvest compared to pre-harvest.
The cognitive effect of poverty the researchers found relates to the more general influence of "scarcity" on cognition, which is the larger focus of Shafir's research group. Scarcity in this case relates to any deficit -- be it in money, time, social ties or even calories -- that people experience in trying to meet their needs. Scarcity consumes "mental bandwidth" that would otherwise go to other concerns in life, Zhao said.
"These findings fit in with our story of how scarcity captures attention. It consumes your mental bandwidth," Zhao said. "Just asking a poor person to think about hypothetical financial problems reduces mental bandwidth. This is an acute, immediate impact, and has implications for scarcity of resources of any kind."
"We documented similar effects among people who are not otherwise poor, but on whom we imposed scarce resources," Shafir added. "It's not about being a poor person -- it's about living in poverty."
Many types of scarcity are temporary and often discretionary, said Shafir, who is co-author with Mullainathan of the book, "Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much," to be published in September. For instance, a person pressed for time can reschedule appointments, cancel something or even decide to take on less.

"When you're poor you can't say, 'I've had enough, I'm not going to be poor anymore.' Or, 'Forget it, I just won't give my kids dinner, or pay rent this month.' Poverty imposes a much stronger load that's not optional and in very many cases is long lasting," Shafir said. "It's not a choice you're making -- you're just reduced to few options. This is not something you see with many other types of scarcity."
The researchers suggest that services for the poor should accommodate the dominance that poverty has on a person's time and thinking. Such steps would include simpler aid forms and more guidance in receiving assistance, or training and educational programs structured to be more forgiving of unexpected absences, so that a person who has stumbled can more easily try again.
"You want to design a context that is more scarcity proof," said Shafir, noting that better-off people have access to regular support in their daily lives, be it a computer reminder, a personal assistant, a housecleaner or a babysitter.

"There's very little you can do with time to get more money, but a lot you can do with money to get more time," Shafir said. "The poor, who our research suggests are bound to make more mistakes and pay more dearly for errors, inhabit contexts often not designed to help

Read More

Scientists Discover Compound to Prevent Noise-Related Hearing Loss..

Your mother was right when she warned you that loud music could damage your hearing, but now scientists have discovered exactly what gets damaged and how.

Noise-induced hearing loss, with accompanying tinnitus and sound hypersensitivity is a common condition which leads to communication problems and social isolation," said Xiaorui Shi, M.D., Ph.D., study author from the Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery at the Oregon Hearing Research Center at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Oregon. "The goal of our study is to understand the molecular mechanisms well enough to mitigate damage from exposure to loud sound."
To make this discovery, Shi and colleagues used three groups of 6 -- 8 week old mice, which consisted of a control group, a group exposed to broadband noise at 120 decibels for three hours a day for two days, and a third group given single-dose injections of pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) prior to noise exposure. PEDF is a protein found in vertebrates that is currently being researched for the treatment of diseases like heart disease and cancer. The cells that secrete PEDF in control animals showed a characteristic branched morphology, with the cells arranging in a self-avoidance pattern which provided good coverage of the capillary wall. The morphology of the same cells in the animals exposed to wide-band noise, however, showed clear differences -- noise exposure caused changes in melanocytes located in the inner ear.
"Hearing loss over time robs people of their quality of life," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. "It's easy to say that we should avoid loud noises, but in reality, this is not always possible. Front-line soldiers or first responders do not have time to worry about the long-term effects of loud noise when they are giving their all. If, however, a drug could be developed to minimize the negative effects of loud noises, it would benefit one and all."

Read More

5 WAYS TO BEAT CANCER

Today more and more individuals are diagnosed with some type of cancer. But aren’t we all programmed to think: “This could never happen to me.” And yet it does. Yes, it can happen to you. And between you, your partner and you best friend, one of you may get it. So what exactly is going on in the world? Cancer is a relatively new disease and cause of death in the history of mankind.



The cancer institute online is dedicated simply to cancer statistics and occurances. Their rates between 2007 and 2009 extrapolate that over 40% of all men and women today will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. That is almost 50%!

First, what exactly is cancer?

The body is made up of trillions of cells. The cells grow, divide and die in an orderly fashion. It’s a tightly controlled process. Cancer, on the other hand, is a disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body. It can happen anywhere in the body – lungs, bones, breasts, etc.




Here is an interesting fact: Cancerous cells cannot survive in an oxygenated environment.

Lets flip this around. It means that a low cellular oxygenation level in newly-formed cells are actually going to turn cancerous. In 1931 Dr. Warburg won his first Nobel Prize for proving cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen respiration in cells. He stated in an article titled The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer that “the cause of cancer is no longer a mystery, we know it occurs whenever any cell is denied 60% of its oxygen requirements.”

This is the prime cause of cancer.

Of course there are secondary causes of cancer but lack of oxygen seems to be the #1. He then goes on to elaborate that “the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar. All normal body cells meet their energy needs by respiration of oxygen, whereas cancer cells meet their energy needs in great part by fermentation.”

In summary, this means that cancerous cells are anaerobes (without oxygen) and healthy cells are aerobes (with oxygen).

What reduces oxygen levels in cells?
Buildup of cellular toxicity which then damages the cellular oxygen respiration mechanism within cells.
Poor blood flow in the form of red blood cells clumping which slows down the bloodstream and restricts flow into capillaries.
Lack of proper building blocks for cell walls that don’t allow nutrients into the cells.
An acidic environment in the body.

Some people use chemo and radiation therapy to kill cancer. However, they also cause damage to healthy cells and overload them with toxins, which in turn leads to the result of cancer in normal cells! And you may have heard, cancer usually returns more than once to people unless they have made changes in their lives!

So, What are 5 Ways You Can Decrease Yours Odds of Getting Cancer!?

1. Detoxify your body (decrease cellular toxicity and increase oxygenation to cells)

Eliminating environmental toxins from your diet (by eating organically grown foods and avoiding chlorinated/fluoridated water) and your surroundings (by using non-toxic, natural cleansers, cosmetics, furniture, building materials, and clothing) will go a long way toward eliminating cancer from your life. There are a variety of ways to detox your body via water fasts, juice feasts (where you drink only fruit and vegetable juices for a set number of days), and full-on detoxification programs.

2. Exercise (increase blood flow)

One cause of poor oxygenation is poor circulation. If cells are oxygen starved they are more likely to become cancerous. So, when one exercises and increases circulation, oxygenation improves and more nutrients will be carried into the cells.

3. Proper eating habits (to create proper building blocks for cell walls)

Diet is a crucial weapon in your cancer-fighting arsenal. You should eat organic whole foods whenever possible to reduce toxins. Increase your intake of essential fatty acids from organic cold-pressed flax oil or fish oil.

Cancer thrives on sugar and refined grains. Cut them out as much as possible, and don’t use artificial sweeteners as they are not healthy. Recently, new healthy sweeteners such as stevia, xylitol, and Laknato have become widely available.

4. Eat mainly alkaline foods

Foods that are acidic to the body consist of: meats, poultry, fish, dairy products, eggs, junk food, soda, alcohol, coffee, grains, and cereals. These foods you want to minimize in your diet. Alkaline foods, on the other hand, consist mainly of fruits and vegetables. A good percentage to aim for is 75% alkaline foods and 25% acidic foods. This may be challenging in the beginning because many people’s diets are the exact opposite. Once this becomes a bit more natural, a general guideline to shoot for is: 45% cooked fruits and vegetables, 30% RAW fruits and vegetables and 25% grains, nuts, seeds, meat, fish, or poultry.
There have, in addition, been research that shows the benefits of a 100% raw food diet in the treatment of cancer. The Gerson institute in San Diego, California provides an alternative to treating cancer. The Gerson Therapy is a natural treatment that activates the body’s extraordinary ability to heal itself through an organic, vegetarian diet, raw juices, coffee enemas and natural supplements. Over the past 60 years thousands of people have been cured of ‘incurable diseases’ including: cancer, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and auto-immune disorders. Talk about food as medicine!




5. Support your body’s ability to use oxygen to make energy

A nutrient vital in the production of energy in a cell is CoEnzymeQ10. If a cell doesn’t have CoQ10, it can’t produce energy. Also, research shows that (high-quality) Omega-6 oils increase oxygen transfer into cells.

Remember, the more ways you attack cancer, the better your chances are of beating it. The best alternative cancer clinics in the world use multiple supplements and holistic treatments. They don’t do just one thing. If possible, do the same yourself.

Cancer can be beaten. Never doubt that. People succeed all the time. The best way to beat cancer, though? PREVENT it!

Read More

FDA Finally Admits Chicken Meat Contains Cancer-Causing Arsenic

After years of sweeping the issue under the rug and hoping no one would notice, the FDA has now finally admitted that chicken meat sold in the USA contains arsenic, a cancer-causing toxic chemical that's fatal in high doses. But the real story is where this arsenic comes from: It's added to the chicken feed on purpose!

Even worse, the FDA says its own research shows that the arsenic added to the chicken feed ends up in the chicken meat where it is consumed by humans. So for the last sixty years, American consumers who eat conventional chicken have been swallowing arsenic, a known cancer-causing chemical. (http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/...)

Until this new study, both the poultry industry and the FDA denied that arsenic fed to chickensended up in their meat. The fairy-tale excuse story we've all been fed for sixty years is that “the arsenic is excreted in the chicken feces.” There's no scientific basis for making such a claim… it's just what the poultry industry wanted everybody to believe.

But now the evidence is so undeniable that the manufacturer of the chicken feed product known as Roxarsone has decided to pull the product off the shelves (http://www.grist.org/food-safety/20…). And what's the name of this manufacturer that has been putting arsenic in the chicken feed for all these years? Pfizer, of course — the very same company that makes vaccines containing chemical adjuvants that are injected into children.

Technically, the company making the Roxarsone chicken feed is a subsidiary of Pfizer, called Alpharma LLC.Even though Alpharma now has agreed to pull this toxic feed chemical off the shelves in the United States, it says it won't necessarily remove it from feed products in other countries unless it is forced by regulators to do so. As reported by AP:

“Scott Brown of Pfizer Animal Health's Veterinary Medicine Research and Development division said the company also sells the ingredient in about a dozen other countries. He said Pfizer is reaching out to regulatory authorities in those countries and will decide whether to sell it on an individual basis.”(http://www.usatoday.com/money/indus…)

But even as its arsenic-containing product is pulled off the shelves, the FDA continues its campaign of denial, claiming arsenic in chickens is at such a low level that it's still safe to eat. This is even as the FDA says arsenic is a carcinogen, meaning it increases the risk of cancer.

The National Chicken Councilagrees with the FDA. In a statement issued in response to the news that Roxarsone would be pulled from feed store shelves, it stated, “Chicken is safe to eat” even while admitting arsenic was used in many flocks grown and sold as chicken meat in the United States.

What's astonishing about all this is that the FDA tells consumers it's safe to eat cancer-causing arsenic but it's dangerous to drink elderberry juice! The FDA recently conducted an armed raid in an elderberry juice manufacturer, accusing it of the “crime” of selling “unapproved drugs.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/032…) Which drugs would those be? The elderberry juice, explains the FDA. You see, the elderberry juice magically becomes a “drugs” if you tell people how it can help support good health.

The FDA has also gone after dozens of other companies for selling natural herbal products or nutritional products that enhance and support health. Plus, it's waging a war on raw milk which it says is dangerous. So now in America, we have a food and drug regulatory agency that says it's okay to eat arsenic, but dangerous to drink elderberry juice or raw milk.

Eat more poison, in other words, but don't consume any healing foods. That's the FDA, killing off Americans one meal at a time while protecting the profits of the very companies that are poisoning us with their deadly ingredients.

Oh, by the way, here's another sweet little disturbing fact you probably didn't know about hamburgers and conventional beef: Chicken litter containing arsenic is fed to cows in factory beef operations. So the arsenic that's pooped out by the chickens gets consumed and concentrated in the tissues of cows, which is then ground into hamburger to be consumed by the clueless masses who don't even know they're eating second-hand chicken crap.

Read More

Most “Honey” From Grocery Stores Is Not Actually Honey

It seems that corporations just can’t leave well enough alone. Even something as natural and historically revered as honey has to be processed until it is no longer the thing it used to be.

Food Safety News conducted tests of honey sold at various outlets in 10 states and the District of Columbia. The honey was analyzed for pollen content by a leading mellisopalynologist (investigator of pollen in honey).

The results? 76% of total samples had all pollen removed. 100% of samples packaged in small individual portions had all pollen removed. In contrast, all of the honey bought at farmers markets, co-ops and natural food stores had the full, anticipated, amount of pollen.

Why does this matter? Even the U.S. Food and Drug Administration says that any product that has been ultra-filtered to remove all pollen is not honey. Not that that matters, as the FDA is a good friend to industry and does not actually check for pollen.

Bee pollen is full of protein, vitamins, minerals, lipids, and carbohydrates. Besides this nutritional value, it is said to help with stomach ailments, allergies, anemia, low energy, and other problems. Pollen from flowers is packaged by the honey bees with nectar and enzymes which turns it into a superfood.

The fact that pollen is removed by honey packers seems bizarre, considering that it costs money and reduces quality. One company spokesman said “North American shoppers want their honey crystal clear” (a useless sound bite) and another said “processed honey…lasts longer on the shelves” (admitting it’s about the money).

It is about the money, and it goes far deeper than shelf life. Removing all pollen makes the origin of the “honey” undetectable. This allows packers to take honey from anywhere in the world, including China. A few years ago it was found that imported Chinese honey was contaminated with chloramphenicol and other dangerous animal antibiotics. U.S. packers import about 120 million pounds of honey from Asian countries, several of which are known laundering points for Chinese honey.

Regular filtering to remove bee parts, wax, and debris is a normal process. There is no reason to do ultra-fine filtration except to remove pollen. Without the pollen there is no sure way to tell where honey comes from. The big-name companies like the Sioux Honey Association which markets Sue Bee, Clover Maid, and others do not care to even comment on the issue.

However, Golden Heritage Producers, the nation’s third largest packer, says they take precautions to avoid laundered Chinese honey. A spokesman said, “The brokers know that if there’s an absence of all pollen in the raw honey we won’t buy it, we won’t touch it, because without pollen we have no way to verify its origin.” However, Golden Heritage still removes all pollen in order to, as they say, increase shelf life.

So it seems that the big corporations selling their “honey” on grocery store shelves don’t want pollen in the product. Is it any coincidence that lack of pollen leaves the origin undetectable, and that only one packer said they take precautions to avoid laundered Chinese honey?

It seems a terrible shame to subject honey—an amazing natural product valued for centuries—to the greed of corporate manufacturing, removing the thing that makes it real honey.

We can combat this practice by buying honey made from local beekeepers and buying from packers that pledge their devotion to healthy, pollen-rich honey.

Read More

Why Medicine Won't Allow Cancer to Be Cured

Imagine a commercial plane crashed and there were some fatalities involved. You can be sure that would make the headline of every major newspaper. Well, we have the equivalent of 8-10 planes crashing EVERY DAY with everyone on board dying from cancer.

Nearly two million Americans are diagnosed with cancer every year—one person out of three will be hit with a cancer diagnosis at some time in their lives, in spite of the massive technological advances over the past half-century.

Western medicine is no closer to finding a “cancer cure,” while cancer has grown into a worldwide epidemic of staggering proportions. The statistics speak for themselves:

In the early 1900s, one in 20 people developed cancer
In the 1940s, one in 16 people developed cancer
In the 1970s, it was one in 10
Today, it’s one in three!
According to the CDC, about 1,660,290 (1.66 million) new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed in 20131. If overall death rates are falling, why are incidence rates still on the rise? The answer is simple: the 40-year “war on cancer” has been a farce.

The cancer epidemic is a dream for Big Pharma, and their campaigns to silence cancer cures have been fierce, which is a tale well told in the documentary film featured below, Cancer: Forbidden Cures.


The Cancer MachinePlease understand that cancer is big business. The cancer industry is spending virtually nothing of its multi-billion dollar resources on effective prevention strategies, such as dietary guidelines, exercise and obesity education. Instead, it pours its money into treating cancer, not preventing or curing it.

Why would they shoot their cash cow? If they can keep the well-oiled Cancer Machine running, they will continue to make massive profits on chemotherapy drugs, radiotherapy, diagnostic procedures and surgeries.

The typical cancer patient spends $50,000 fighting the disease. Chemotherapy drugs are among the most expensive of all treatments, many ranging from $3,000 to $7,000 for a one-month supply.

If the cancer industry allows a cure, then their patient base goes away. It makes more sense to keep a steady stream of cancer patients alive, but sick and coming back for more. How did this societal monster come about?

The featured documentary is enormously informative. It details how the pharmaceutical industry partnered with the American Medical Association (AMA) in an ingenious plan to overtake the medical system in four swift, easy steps, back in the early 1900s. In a nutshell, it went something like this:

International bankers that own the drug and chemical companies gained control over the medical education system over 100 years ago.
They gave grants to the AMA and leading medical schools in exchange for seats on their board and the ability to control policy.
Finally, they cleverly engineered their control of virtually every federal regulatory agency relating to the practice of medicine.‘Don’t You DARE Cure Anyone!’

In spite of the enormous amounts of money funneled into cancer research today, two out of three cancer patients will be dead within five years after receiving all or part of the standard cancer treatment trinity—surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. This is not too surprising when you consider that two of the three are carcinogenic themselves! One study estimated that chemotherapy benefits about one of every 20 people receiving it.

Over the last hundred years, a number of natural cancer treatments have been developed and used successfully to treat patients in the US and other countries. All have been vehemently discounted, silenced, and pushed under the rug by the medical monopoly, with physicians and researchers attacked, smeared, sent to prison, and professionally ruined for daring to defy the medical establishment.

To this day, with respect to credibility in medicine, “quack” is synonymous with “competition.”

In order to protect the medical monopoly, any viable natural treatment is met with massive opposition by the pharmaceutical and medical industries. Drug companies have no interest in natural agents that they cannot patent, because they interfere with their revenue stream. They will go—and have gone—to extreme measures to prevent the truth about effective natural treatments (competitive threats) from reaching the public.

The FDA is now, thanks to PDUFA, primarily funded by the drug companies and is complicit in this process. They restrict competition in the guise of protecting the public, when the reality is they are protecting the profits of the drug companies.


My Top 12 Cancer Prevention Strategies

There is so much you can do to lower your risk for cancer. But please don’t wait until you get the diagnosis—you have to take preventative steps NOW. It’s much easier to prevent cancer than to treat it, once it takes hold. I believe you can virtually eliminate your risk of cancer and chronic disease, and radically improve your chances of recovering from cancer if you currently have it, by following these relatively simple strategies.


Food Preparation: Eat at least one-third of your food raw. Avoid frying or charbroiling; boil, poach or steam your foods instead. Consider adding cancer-fighting whole foods, herbs, spices and supplements to your diet, such as broccoli,curcumin and resveratrol. To learn more about how these anti-angiogenetic foods fight cancer, please see our previous article: “Dramatically Effective New Natural Way to Starve Cancer and Obesity.”
Carbohydrates and Sugar: Reduce or eliminate processed foods, sugar/fructose and grain-based foods from your diet. This applies to whole unprocessed organic grains as well, as they tend to rapidly break down and drive up your insulin level. The evidence is quite clear that if you want to avoid cancer, or you currently have cancer, you absolutely MUST avoid all forms of sugar, especially fructose, which feeds cancer cells and promotes their growth. Make sure your total fructose intake is around 25 grams daily, including fruit.
Protein and Fat: Consider reducing your protein levels to one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. It would be unusual for most adults to need more than 100 grams of protein and most likely close to half of that amount. Replace excess protein with high-quality fats, such as organic eggs from pastured hens, high-quality meats, avocados, and coconut oil.
GMOs: Avoid genetically engineered foods as they are typically treated with herbicides such as Roundup (glyphosate), and likely to be carcinogenic. A French research team that has extensively studied Roundup concluded it’s toxic to human cells, and likely carcinogenic to humans. Choose fresh, organic, preferably locally grown foods.
Animal-Based Omega-3 fats: Normalize your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil and reducing your intake of processed vegetable oils.
Natural Probiotics: Optimizing your gut flora will reduce inflammation and strengthen your immune response. Researchers have found a microbe-dependent mechanism through which some cancers mount an inflammatory response that fuels their development and growth. They suggest that inhibiting inflammatory cytokines might slow cancer progression and improve the response to chemotherapy. Adding naturally fermented food to your daily diet is an easy way to prevent cancer or speed recovery. You can always add a high-quality probiotic supplement as well, but naturally fermented foods are the best.
Exercise: Exercise lowers insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells. In a three-month study, exercise was found to alter immune cells into a more potent disease-fighting form in cancer survivors who had just completed chemotherapy. Researchers and cancer organizations increasingly recommend making regular exercise a priority in order to reduce your risk of cancer, and help improve cancer outcomes. Research has also found evidence suggesting exercise can help trigger apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells. Ideally, your exercise program should include balance, strength, flexibility, high intensity interval training (HIIT). For help getting started, refer to my Peak Fitness Program.
Vitamin D: There is scientific evidence you can decrease your risk of cancer by more than half simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with appropriate sun exposure. Your serum level should hold steady at 50-70 ng/ml, but if you are being treated for cancer, it should be closer to 80-90 ng/ml for optimal benefit. If you take oral vitamin D and have cancer, it would be very prudent to monitor your vitamin D blood levels regularly, as well as supplementing your vitamin K2, as K2 deficiency is actually what produces the symptoms of vitamin D toxicity. To learn more, please see my previous article: “What You Need to Know About Vitamin K2, D and Calcium“.
Sleep: Make sure you are getting enough restorative sleep. Poor sleep can interfere with your melatonin production, which is associated with an increased risk of insulin resistance and weight gain, both of which contribute to cancer’s virility.
Exposure to Toxins: Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, herbicides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and toxic cosmetics.
Exposure to Radiation: Limit your exposure and protect yourself from radiation produced by cell phones, towers, base stations, and Wi-Fi stations, as well as minimizing your exposure from radiation-based medical scans, including dental x-rays, CT scans, and mammograms.
Stress Management: Stress from all causes is a major contributor to disease. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is driven by emotional factors. It is likely that stress and unresolved emotional issues may be more important than the physical ones, so make sure this is addressed. My favorite tool for resolving emotional challenges is Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT).



What to Do If You Already Have Cancer

Without a doubt the most powerful essential strategy I know of to treat cancer is to starve the cells by depriving them of their food source. Unlike your body cells, which can burn carbs or fat for fuel, cancer cells have lost that metabolic flexibility. Dr. Otto Warburg was actually given a Nobel Prize over 75 years ago for figuring this out but virtually no oncologist actually uses this information.

You can review my recent interview with Dr. D’Agostino below for more details but integrating a ketogenic diet with hyperbaric oxygen therapy which is deadly to cancer cells debilitated by starving them of their fuel source would be the strategy I would recommend to my family if they were diagnosed with cancer.

Read More

Scientists Expose A 30 Year Government Vaccination Cover-up

Research by the University of British Columbia's (UBC) Department of Ophthalmology, Visual Sciences, Experimental Medicine and Neuroscience has exposed 30 years of corruption and lies concerning government vaccination policy.

An extensive investigation into the inner workings of the U.K.'s nationalized health care system has revealed a shocking scandal of official meetings by UK government vaccine committees and independent medical ‘experts' with drug industry connections.

Dr. Chris Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic from the University of British Columbia in Canada, published a peer reviewed paper in the Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, which details government ties to pharmaceutical companies and cooperation with vaccine manufacturers on strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake.

According to Dr. Chris Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, the advisory and governing bodies that set vaccination policy in the U.K. Have, for many decades now, hidden the truth about vaccine dangers, and deliberately pushed unsafe vaccines on the public in order to uphold the official vaccination schedule.

A quote from the published, peer reviewed paper states: “British health authorities have been engaged in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program”.

As a result of the vaccination policy promoted by the British Government, many children have been vaccinated without their parents being disclosed the critical information about demonstrated risks of serious harmful reactions.

There is now a plethora of scientific proof that vaccines are actually implicated in most common diseases today and that childhood vaccines, flu shots and other kinds of inoculations systemically destroy the body's immune system.

Furthermore, the research shows causal links between increased exposures to aluminium salts used as adjuvants in vaccines and increased levels of neurological trouble in exposed populations.

Read More

Why 80% of People Worldwide Will Soon Stop Eating Wheat

The future of wheat is certain, and it's toxic. There are as many health risks associated with the consumption of wheat as there are nutritional benefits claimed by the wheat industry. Why is there such a strong emphasis on the development of wheat products all over the world when there are so many adverse and crippling effects such as neurological impairment, dementia, heart disease, cataracts, diabetes, arthritis and visceral fat accumulation, not to mention the full range of intolerances and bloating now experienced by millions of people?


Approximately 700 million tons of wheat are now cultivated worldwide making it the second most-produced grain after maize. It is grown on more land area than any other commerical crop and is considered a staple food for humans.

At some point in our history, this ancient grain was nutritious in some respects, however modern wheat really isn't wheat at all. Once agribusiness took over to develop a higher-yielding crop, wheat became hybridized to such an extent that it has been completely transformed from it's prehistorical genetic configuration. All nutrient content of modern wheat depreciated more than 30% in its natural unrefined state compared to its ancestral genetic line. The balance and ratio that mother nature created for wheat was also modified and human digestion and physiology could simply could not adapt quick enough to the changes.


The Nutrional Value of Wheat is Practically Non-Existent In Its Current Form


So-called health experts in nutrition who continue to promote the health benefits of wheat are extremely uninformed about the nature of modern wheat and its evolution from growth to consumption. It is shocking how many professionals in public health still recommend wheat products without an assessment of their individual requirements, especially considering the amount of evidence regarding its lack of nutrition and health risks for proportionally large segments of the population.

The majority of wheat is processed into 60% extraction, bleached white flour. 60% extraction--the standard for most wheat products means that 40% of the original wheat grain is removed. So not only do we have an unhealthier, modified, and hybridized strain of wheat, we also remove and further degrade its nutritional value by processing it. Unfortunately, the 40% that gets removed includes the bran and the germ of the wheat grain--its most nutrient-rich parts. In the process of making 60% extraction flour, over half of the vitamin B1, B2, B3, E, folic acid, calcium, phosphorus, zinc, copper, iron, and fiber are lost. Any processed foods with wheat are akin to poison for the body since they cause more health risks than benefits. The body does not recognize processed wheat as food. Nutrient absorption from processed wheat products is thus consequential with almost no nutritional value.

Some experts claim if you select 100% whole wheat products, the bran and the germ of the wheat will remain in your meals, and the health benefits will be impressive. This is again a falsity promoted by the wheat industry since even 100% whole wheat products are based on modern wheat strains created by irradiation of wheat seeds and embryos with chemicals, gamma rays, and high-dose X-rays to induce mutations. Whether you consume 10% or 100% of wheat is irrelevant since you're still consuming a health damaging grain that will not benefit, advance or even maintain your health in any way.

Dr. Marcia Alvarez who specializes in nutritional programs for obese patients says that when it comes to nutrition, wheat may be considered as an evil grain. "Modern wheat grains could certainly be considered as the root of all evil in the world of nutrition since they cause so many documented health problems across so many populations in the world." Dr. Alvarez asserted that wheat is now responsible for more intolerances than almost any other food in the world. "In my practice of over two decades, we have documented that for every ten people with digestive problems, obesity, irritable bowel syndrome, diabetes, arthritis and even heart disease, eight out of ten have a problem with wheat. Once we remove wheat from their diets, most of their symptoms disappear within three to six months," she added. Dr. Alvarez estimates that between the coming influx of genetically modified (GM) strains of wheat and the current tendency of wheat elimination in societies, that a trend is emerging in the next 20 years that will likely see 80% of people cease their consumption of wheat from any form.


Genetic Modification


The GM wheat currently being tested for approval for production in Canada is a new variety of hard red spring wheat which has been genetically engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup. Monsanto Canada Inc. requested the approval of GE wheat from Health Canada in July 2002 and for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in December 2002.

In July 2009, the most hated company in the world Monsanto, announced new research into GM wheat and industry groups kicked their promotion of GM wheat into high gear. "Widespread farmer and consumer resistance defeated GM wheat in 2004 and this global rejection remains strong, as demonstrated by today's statement," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

There are now even claims by researchers in Australia have developed a form of salt-tolerant wheat that will allow farmers to grow crops in soil with high salinity. They created the new form of wheat by crossing a modern strain with an ancient species, and the researchers believe this new super-wheat will allow farmers to grow more food crops on land previously thought to be off limits to agriculture. Critics suggest that new strains will be foreign to current ecological systems and will be unsustainable without massive chemical intervention.

Industry claims that the introduction of GM wheat will lead to a reduction in herbicide use, a claim that has been made prior to the introduction of other herbicide tolerant (HT) crops such as Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans, canola and corn. These claims have been contradicted by US government statistics that show that GM HT crops such as RR crops use more pesticides than conventional crops. These state GM crops can receive as much as 30 percent more herbicide than non-GM crops. Not only do GM crops use more pesticides but they also force the farmer to purchase one single brand of herbicide, in this case Monsanto brand Roundup.

If introduced, GE wheat will enter farmers’ rotations along with the already HT canola and soybeans. This compounds the issue of superweeds as each crop sown would be HT, so any seed that fell from the crop before harvest would pose a threat of becoming an uncontrollable weed, or contained by using increasingly toxic herbicides. How can we believe that pesticide use will decrease with GE wheat?

These developments are also taking place in the United States which is the third largest wheat producer in the world. Fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, and growth regulators are all becoming more chemically potent and their frequency of application continues to increase every 5 years. American scientists are currently developing GM strains of wheat conferring resistance to fungal diseases. Wheat is becoming such a transmutated grain, that it someday may not even be called wheat.


Health Effects


A powerful little chemical in wheat known as 'wheat germ agglutinin' (WGA) which is largely responsible for many of wheat's pervasive, and difficult to diagnose, ill effects. Researchers are now discovering that WGA in modern wheat is very different from ancient strains. Not only does WGA throw a monkey wrench into our assumptions about the primary causes of wheat intolerance, but due to the fact that WGA is found in highest concentrations in "whole wheat," including its supposedly superior sprouted form, it also pulls the rug out from under one of the health food industry's favorite poster children.

Each grain of wheat contains about one microgram of Wheat Germ Agglutinin (WGA). Even in small quantities, WGA can have profoundly adverse effects. It may be pro-inflammatory, immunotoxic, cardiotoxic ... and neurotoxic.

Below the radar of conventional serological testing for antibodies against the various gluten proteins and genetic testing for disease susceptibility, the WGA “lectin problem” remains almost entirely obscured. Lectins, though found in all grains, seeds, legumes, dairy and our beloved nightshades: the tomato and potato, are rarely discussed in connection with health or illness, even when their presence in our diet may greatly reduce both the quality and length of our lives. Yet health experts dismiss the links between disease and wheat despite all the evidence.

Dr William Davis has documented several hundred clinical studies on the adverse effects of wheat. These are studies that document the neurologic impairments unique to wheat, including cerebellar ataxia and dementia; heart disease; visceral fat accumulation and all its attendant health consequences; the process of glycation via amylopectin A of wheat that leads to cataracts, diabetes, and arthritis; among others. There are, in fact, a wealth of studies documenting the adverse, often crippling, effects of wheat consumption in humans.

The other claim is that wheat elimination ‘means missing out on a wealth of essential nutrients. Another falsity. Dr. Davis states that if you replace wheat with healthy foods like vegetables, nuts, healthy oils, meats, eggs, cheese, avocados, and olives, then there is no nutrient deficiency that develops with elimination of wheat. Dr Davis also states that people with celiac disease may require long-term supplementation due to extensive gastrointenstinal damage caused by wheat.

People with celiac disease do indeed experience deficiencies of multiple vitamins and minerals after they eliminate all wheat and gluten from the diet. But this is not due to a diet lacking valuable nutrients, but from the incomplete healing of the gastrointestinal tract (such as the lining of the duodenum and proximal jejunum). In these people, the destructive effects of wheat are so overpowering that, unfortunately, some people never heal completely. These people do indeed require vitamin and mineral supplementation, as well as probiotics and pancreatic enzyme supplementation.

Due to the unique properties of amylopectin A, two slices of whole wheat bread increase blood sugar higher than many candy bars. High blood glucose leads to the process of glycation that, in turn, causes arthritis (cartilage glycation), cataracts (lens protein glycation), diabetes (glycotoxicity of pancreatic beta cells), hepatic de novo lipogenesis that increases triglycerides and, thereby, increases expression of atherogenic (heart disease-causing) small LDL particles, leading to heart attacks. Repetitive high blood sugars that develop from a grain-rich diet are, in my view, very destructive and lead to weight gain (specifically visceral fat), insulin resistance, leptin resistance (leading to obesity), and many of the health struggles that many now experience.

Wheat gliadin has been associated with cerebellar ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, gluten encephalopathy (dementia), behavioral outbursts in children with ADHD and autism, and paranoid delusions and auditory hallucinations in people with schizophrenia, severe and incapacitating effects for people suffering from these conditions.

According to statistics from the University of Chicago Celiac Disease Center, an average of one out of every 133 otherwise healthy people in the United States suffers from CD. However, an estimated 20-30 percent of the world's population may carry the genetic susceptibility to celiac disease--and the way to avoid turning these genes 'on' is by avoiding gluten.

When you consider that undiagnosed CD is associated with a nearly four-fold increased risk of premature death, the seriousness of this food sensitivity becomes quite evident. The primary disease mechanism at play is chronic inflammation, and chronic inflammatory and degenerative conditions are endemic to grain-consuming populations.

Changes in genetic code and, thereby, antigenic profile, of the high-yield semi-dwarf wheat cultivars now on the market account for the marked increase in celiac potential nationwide. "Hybridization” techniques, including chemical mutagenesis to induce selective mutations, leads to development of unique strains that are not subject to animal or human safety testing--they are just brought to market and sold.

Author and preventive cardiologist William Davis, MD, wheat's new biochemical code causes hormone disruption that is linked to diabetes and obesity. "It is not my contention that it is in everyone's best interest to cut back on wheat; it is my belief that complete elimination is in everyone's best health interests," says Dr. Davis, "In my view, that's how bad this thing called 'wheat' has become."

Chemical mutagenesis using the toxic mutagen, sodium azide, of course, is the method used to generate BASF’s Clearfield herbicide-resistant wheat strain. These methods are being used on a wide scale to generate unique genetic strains that are, without question from the FDA or USDA, assumed to be safe for human consumption.


Wheat-Free Options


* Note that many of the wheat-free options still contain gluten.

1. Cereal Grains: Barley, millet, oats, rice, rye, sorghum, tef and wild rice are all in the same cereal grain family as is wheat. All flours ground from cereal grains may be used as a wheat substitute. Commonly available are barley, buckwheat, rice and rye flour. The less utilized flours may be purchased online or from natural food stores. Note: people with a gluten allergy must also avoid barley, oats and rye.

2. Non-Cereal Grains: Amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat are three grain-like seeds unrelated to cereal grains. (Despite its name, buckwheat is not a wheat-relative.) It is rare for anyone to develop a sensitivity to these non-cereal grains. Amaranth, quinoa and buckwheat are gluten-free and therefore not suitable for making leavened bread; however, they make excellent quick breads and cookies.

3. Nut Meal: Ground nuts such as almonds, hazelnuts or walnuts make the richest flour substitute for cookies and cakes. Because their fragile fatty acid content gives them a brief shelf life, it’s preferable to grind your own nuts in a food processor just prior to use. Nut meal requires a binding agent such as eggs. Because chestnuts are lower in fat than other nuts, chestnut flour has a longer shelf life. It is available online.

4. Bean Flour: Dried beans, such as navy, pinto and chickpeas may be milled and used, in combination with other flours, as a wheat alternative. Bean flour is, however, not always recommended. It tastes like beans and makes baked goods dense and hard to digest.

5. Other Flour Substitutes: Potato starch, arrowroot powder, and tapioca are thickening agents that substitute for wheat in sauces and gravy. In baked goods these starchy ingredients serve as a binding agent.

Due to the irresponsible high frequency hybridization, processing and inevitable genetic modification of modern wheat, there is only one solution for the health and wellness of future generations. Stop eating wheat and educate as many people as you can on the coming strains of this grain which will be much more deadly than they already are today.


Sources: inspection.gc.ca - cban.ca - rebeccawood.com - greenmedinfo.com - gmo-compass.org -inhabitat.com - wheatbellyblog.com - mercola.com - whfoods.com - sierraclub.ca - rsc.org

Read More

Chinese Scientists Grow New Teeth From Human Urine

Over the years scientists have made false teeth from a variety of materials – from cuspids crafted out of animal bone to chompers made from wood and gold. However a group of Chinese scientists just announced that they have successfully grown “rudimentary teeth” from an extremely unlikely and slightly unsettling source: human pee. According to the research, published in Cell Regeneration Journal, the tiny tooth-like structures were grown from stem cells harvested from urine.



While the scientists believe it could herald a new, albeit disturbing, age for false teeth, stem cell researchers believe they could have several hurdles to overcome. The Chinese research team, which is based at the Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health used urine as it contains cells that are normally passed out of the body – but in the laboratory they can be come stem cells.

These cells were then mixed with organic material to form teeth. However according to BBC News, the “teeth” were not as hard as natural teeth. Unsurprisingly, the experiment has received a large amount of backlash.

Prof Chris Mason, a stem cell scientist at University College London, said to BBC News that urine was a poor starting point and “was probably one of the worst sources [for stem cells]. There are very few cells in the first place and the efficiency of turning them into stem cells is very low. You just wouldn’t do it in this way.”

Prof Mason added: “The big challenge here is the teeth have got a pulp with nerve and blood vessels which have to make sure they integrate to get permanent teeth.”

Yes, there’s that and the fact that many people probably wouldn’t be too keen on urine-based teeth. They’re funny like that.

- See more at: http://awescience.com/2013/08/01/chinese-scientists-grow-new-teeth-from-human-urine/#sthash.eFUw2slR.dpuf

Read More

Genetically – Engineered Mosquitoes Lose Nose for Humans

It has long been believed that detecting carbon dioxide was one of the ways that mosquitoes target their human prey. But the fact that mosquitoes tend to favor certain people over others indicates that some other odor also plays a part in the attraction. Researchers at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) have genetically engineered mosquitoes to alter their sense of smell, which could provide the understanding required to block the pesky pests’ attraction to humans.

A team led by Leslie Vosshall altered the odor-sensing capabilities of Aedes aegypti, a mosquito found in tropical and subtropical regions that is a vector for dengue fever, yellow fever and other diseases. Following on from her lab’s previous success in genetically engineering flies to delete a gene called orco, which they knew affected the flies’ ability to respond to odors, Vosshall’s team used zinc-finger nucleases to specifically mutate the orco gene in the mosquito.

After injecting the targeted zinc-finger nucleases into mosquito embryos, the researchers waited for them to mature before identifying the mutant individuals and generating mutant strains that allowed them to study the role the orco gene plays in mosquito biology.

They found that the genetically engineered mosquitoes exhibited a reduction in neural activity related to odor-sensing, with subsequent tests revealing various behavioral changes. Whereas normal Aedes aegypti will make a bee-line (or mosquito line) for humans when given the choice between a human and another animal, the mosquitoes with orco mutations showed a reduced preference for humans over guinea pigs. These results were seen even in the presence of carbon dioxide.

“By disrupting a single gene, we can fundamentally confuse the mosquito from its task of seeking humans,” says Vosshall.

However, the researchers still aren’t sure whether this confusion is due to an inability by the engineered mosquitoes to sense a “bad” smell coming from the guinea pig, or a “good” smell coming from the human, or both.

The researchers also found that the mosquitoes with orco mutations responded differently to DEET, the active ingredient in most insect repellents. When presented with two human arms, one covered in a solution containing 10 percent DEET, and the other untreated, the mosquitoes showed no preference for either arm, suggesting that they couldn’t smell the DEET. However, those that landed on the DEET-covered arm quickly flew away.

“This tells us that there are two totally different mechanisms that mosquitoes are using to sense DEET,” explains Vosshall. “One is what’s happening in the air, and the other only comes into action when the mosquito is touching the skin.” The researchers say this dual mechanism had never been identified before.

The research team plans to continue their study of the orco protein and how it interacts with the mosquitoes’ odor receptors.

“We want to know what it is about these mosquitoes that makes them so specialized for humans,” she says. “And if we can also provide insights into how existing repellants are working, then we can start having some ideas about what a next-generation repellant would look like.”

Even though mosquitoes cause more human deaths than any other animal, they do perform some beneficial ecological functions. So finding a more effective insect repellent would likely be a more palatable idea for those opposed to the idea of using genetic engineering to wipe the mosquito out altogether.

Read More

Wearable ViSi Mobile System lets doctors wirelessly monitor patients

Dr. McCoy’s tricoder isn’t looking too futuristic these days. Not only are real life versions of the Star Trek device under development, but some new medical devices are making it look a bit old fashioned. Take, for example, the ViSi Mobile vital signs monitor built by Sotera Wireless of San Diego, California. This wearable sensor pack uses Wi-Fi technology and is claimed to allow doctors using a tablet or smartphone to remotely monitor patient vital signs with the accuracy of an intensive care unit.

Designed around the concept of “monitoring in motion,” the ViSi Mobile consists of several units made of rugged, water-resistant plastic. These include a wrist unit with monitor readout, chest sensors, a blood pressure cuff monitor and a thumb sensor. These are connected to the existing hospital data infrastructure via Wi-Fi with WPA2 encryption for security.

These sensors allow doctors to constantly monitor blood oxygen levels, blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram readings and skin temperature with the accuracy of an intensive care unit, while allowing patients to stay in ordinary hospital rooms or move about.

The readouts from the sensors can be accessed from ViSi Mobile’s wrist monitor’s touchscreen or by means of a desktop PC, a tablet or a smartphone. The wrist monitor’s readouts are locked by authorization codes, so the patient can’t access them.

The purpose of all of this is more than just giving medical technicians a cool-looking piece of wireless gear to play with. The idea is to provide doctors with immediate, direct access to a patient’s vital signs whether at an ambulance scene or while the patient is walking about in hospital.

This continuous monitoring removes some human error and gives fewer reasons to disturb patients. It also helps in the early detection of patient deterioration, which the current practice of taking vital sign readings every few hours often misses. Furthermore, the ViSi Mobile technology frees up expensive intensive care unit spaces and allows patients the enjoyment of more mobility.

Sotera sees future expansion of the ViSi Mobile technology, including monitoring patients after they’ve been discharged, the inclusion of a cuffless non-invasive blood pressure (cNIBP) sensor and the monitoring of patient posture or activity as a “new vital sign.”

The video below shows ViSi Mobile’s features.

Read More