A Natural Environmental Health Facts Ezine

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"A NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FACTS Ezine" Here to Inform and Help You Become Healthier and Happier while Achieving Quality Longevity!

http://www.antibiotic-alternatives.com
Email Lena
928-636-9425
Sunday May 8, 2005
````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Watch for Monday's "Ask Lena Health Q & A edition.
Get Your Health Question Answered Email Click Here
&
Tuesday's & Thursday's "Your Home Business Coach"

This Ezine is available by subscription only and subscriber requests are kept on file!

I strive to bring you only the most timely, pro's & con's information for the betterment of your health without clogging the issue or your email box with a lot of advertising and other such junk! If I am not succeeding mailto:health@antibiotic-alternatives.com and let me know!!

Our subscriber list is confidential and we respect your privacy. A N.E.H.F. does not make its list available to third parties. All subscribe and unsubscribe information can be found at the end of this issue. The Mission of this Ezine Click Here

============================
=> IN THIS ISSUE!
============================

==> Editors' Ranting & or Warnings
==> Something To Think About
==> Health Thought for the day!
==> Showcase Health Spotlight
==> Monthly Spotlight Ads
==> Today's Health Tip
==> Food of The Week
==> Health Today
==> Environmental Report
==> Life Changing Information

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY to all you mothers and mothers-to-be. I do hope your family allows you the rest you so richly deserve on this day... A little history today; Mother's Day was first suggested by Julia Ward Howe, a women's suffrage leader and author of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," in 1872. She envisioned it as a day to celebrate peace and wanted it to be June 2. In 1907, West Virginian Anna Jarvis began serious campaigning for a "Mother's Day" to be held the second Sunday in May. Woodrow Wilson approved it as a national holiday in 1915.

If you have a question or comment (good or bad) send it to me... Click Here
Remember ANEH Facts archives now exist Click Here
Ask Lena Health Q & A Archives Click Here
Take charge of you and your family's health before it takes charge of you!
Lena

==> Find An Alternative Health Professional
==>Latest Product Recalls - I'm appalled at the number of things, particularly medications, recalled weekly/daily neither your doctor nor your news stations are telling you about, so how are you going to know? Look here for DAILY Product Recall Site
===> Help The World Without Spending!
http://www.unicefusa.org/emergencies/
===>Help Feed The Hungry Doesn't Cost You A Penny
http://www.thehungersite.com Share your LOVE here!

==================================
Something To Think About
===================

A diet high in excitotoxins, such as aspartame, can convert a condition called benign MS, a subclinical condition into full-blown clinical MS. The amount of excitotoxins consumed in the average American diet is considerable, as shown by several studies. In addition, the toxin methanol is also in the aspartame molecule. Methanol is a axon poison. Combined toxicity of the aspartate and the methanol adds up to considerable brain toxicity and can convert benign, subclinical MS into full-blown MS. Once the MS becomes full-blown, further consumption of excitotoxins magnifies the toxicity, increasing disability and death.

Proven Fact Of Marketing!
Takes a minimum of seven times readings an ad
before the normal buyer will take advantage of your offer...
GET THAT ADVANTAGE HERE!
Spotlight your product or service here!
Ad Information Click Here

======================================
We accept all advertisements in good faith, but the advertisers are completely responsible for the content and accuracy of their advertisements. We do not give any warranties and accept no responsibility. The editor and publisher suggest that you exercise due diligence!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Nutrasweet and Brain Tumors: Class Action Suit Ready To Launch
© Copyright 2005 David Lear

Had any Nutrasweet lately? If you have, you might like to know that a class action lawsuit is in the works against Nutrasweet manufacturer G.D. Searle.

A consumer rights advocacy group calling itself ºMission Possible¡± is leading this potentially explosive litigation. In their lawsuit they plan to expose evidence pointing to the fact that aspartame - also known as "Nutrasweet" - has been found to be a causative agent for brain tumors and that the FDA has known of these risks for years.

Mission Possible has amassed an impressive array of studies and reports proving that aspartame is not a bonafide food additive but a neurotoxic drug that spins off the deadly brain tumor agent: DKP (diketopiperazine).

The founder of Mission Possible, Betty Martini, explained the situation as follows: Neither congressional hearings nor repeated petitions calling for a ban have stopped aspartame manufacturers from exposing the public to this sweet poison. In fact, aspartame producers are reporting increased sales and boasting the market place addition of Neotame, a new aspartame product.¡±

It is a matter of documented record that for sixteen years, the FDA tried to resist pressure to approve aspartame because of various studies that linked the artificial sweetener to a variety of adverse reactions. Among those reactions were brain tumors that occurred in animals that ingested aspartame.

In 1977, FDA investigator Jerome Bressler discovered that Searle had intentionally destroyed evidence of a large number of laboratory animals that had died from ingesting aspartame. Bressler later met with doctors H.J. Roberts, MD and Russell Blaylock, MD to brief them on his findings.

For quite a long period of time during the initial lab testing, the fate of aspartame was uncertain. The FDA had been resisting approval based on mounting evidence that aspartame was toxic.

Then - enter Donald Rumsfeld (yes, THE Donald Rumsfeld). In 1978, the Board of Directors of G.D. Searle recruited Rumsfeld to head up the company as CEO. Three years later, political wheels turned and the FDA reversed its longstanding opposition to aspartame and approved its sale.

Since then, the FDA has received thousands of complaints and has amassed a list of no less than 92 symptoms of aspartame poisoning. This list includes neurological problems, seizures, vision loss, blindness, headaches, cardiovascular problems, and death.

Of all the consumer complaints filed with the FDA each year, a whopping eighty percent of those complaints have to do with adverse reactions to Nutrasweet-related products. Eighty percent!

Fortunately for all of us, Martini has been collecting data about this controversy since 1992. She has tried executive and administrative remedies to have aspartame removed from the market place, but little has come of her efforts.

She is now of the opinion that: "Litigation is the only way to spare consumers from the misery of aspartame poisoning." Her reasoning is supported by the outcome of recent product liability controversies such as the now famous Vioxx fiasco. In the case of Vioxx, it had become clear to many observers that the FDA wasn't going to be part of the solution - at least not soon. It finally took a well-orchestrated class action lawsuit to get everyone's attention and pressure the agency into taking corrective action.

To back up these allegations about Nutrasweet, there's a large body of evidence in Mission Possible's possession that accurately documents the history of aspartame from its initial discovery to its politically-engineered approval. That a product with so many known health risks continues to be allowed in over 9000 commonly consumed foods, beverages and medical products, is, well, food for some very disturbing thought.

Over the years it has been demonstrated that aspartame is a neurotoxic agent and that it interacts with other drugs and vaccinations in unexpected, harmful ways. For example, in one set of discovered documents, Searle conducted Nutrasweet experiments in six third world countries (1983-
1984). During that period, some of the subjects who were given Nutrasweet developed brain tumors and others started to have seizures.

The bottom line is that large numbers of people who were asked to consume Nutrasweet in early Searle studies came down with brain and nervous disorders. The damaging results from these studies were statistically
significant and yet, for reasons that are now becoming obvious, the FDA was not advised.

In 1999, an aspartame study was done by Dr. Peter Nunn at King's College in England. Based on the results, Dr. Nunn concluded that: it is possible that the aspartame breakdown product may be capable of enhancing the rate of malignant progression of preexisting tumors in the brain. These results validated those of famed neuroscientist Dr. John Olney, who had also determined that there was a connection between brain tumors and aspartame.

Currently, about seventy percent of adults and forty percent of children consume aspartame in one form or another. Coincidentally, brain tumors in the United States have been steadily on the rise since the early 1980s when aspartame was approved.

In a powerful video documentary called Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, aspartame investigator Cori Brackett pieces together key interviews with doctors, scientists, attorneys, and FDA investigators. Most troubling is the body of evidence pointing to the fact that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld used his considerable political influence to cause the FDA to approve aspartame, knowingly putting hundreds of millions of people at risk.

So here it is in a nutshell: if you consume any product that contains aspartame (AKA: "Nutrasweet") you are in fact consuming a poisonous chemical known for its ill-effects on the human body. If you eat or drink products containing Nutrasweet, you're just asking for it. For the sake of your health and for the sake of those who love you and want to see you around for a long time, please stop. Read the label. If it says "Nutrasweet" or "aspartame", reach for something else.

*** David Lear is an independent nutrition researcher and free-lance writer. His main interest is in cutting-edge supplements that improve health and reverse illness. For further information, visit http://www.diabetes-hypoglycemia.net

Olea europaea L

When my grandchildren were younger they liked to use this week's food as finger fun. Each finger would have a black or green one slipped on one or both hands and used them as fun food, waving them and plucking one at a time off a finger and into their mouth. Some mom's would find this disgusting but I find that children use all kinds of things for play that can invariably end up good for them just as the olives did for my grandchildren. They are growing up and I don't see that behavior any longer but still fondly remember chiding them that food wasn't a toy but secretly admiring their ability to make fun out of every aspect of life...

The olive - Olea europaea L. - is a subtropical evergreen tree or shrub with leaves that are waxy green on top and grayish green on the bottom. Young bark is green, but older bark is gray. In the Mediterranean, olive trees are known to live for over a thousand years. If the top is damaged, a new tree will sprout from underground parts. The olive tree gives us great food and health nutrients! Olive trees have been cultivated for thousands of years, and were already plentiful during biblical times. The olive can be traced back to Biblical times when a branch in a dove's mouth sent Noah the message that dry ground existed and he and his family could leave the ark. Olives continue to be grown in the Mediterranean area today. The olive was also important to the Greeks and the Romans, who made it a part of their mythologies to celebrate the use of its oil as an essential food and fuel for lamps. The olive leaf extract was also used to prepare the dead for burial.

The conditions for the olive's greatest cultivation is found in Italy and Spain. It was the Spanish who spread the olive to America. Catholic missionaries spread the olive to Mexico and later to California, as well as to South America.

Plucked from the tree, the olive is extremely bitter, and virtually inedible. Prior to eating, olives are typically cured, either in brine, water or in oil. Freshly picked olives can also be stir-fried to remove some of the bitterness before eating.

Known Health Benefits:

FRUIT: First are the fruits processed and eaten either as ripe or pickled. Olives are most widely used in Italian dishes...

LEAF: Olive leaf extract has also been studied for its ability to normalize blood pressure.

The most commonly known use of the olive is its oil:

Widely used and best for our health is the oil pressed from ripe fruit... Like other types of vegetable oils, olive oil contains no cholesterol. Organic virgin oil has 120 calories and 14 grams of fat per tablespoon. The olive oil is important in prevention of heart disease. Its high concentration of monounsaturated fatty acids, compounds decrease blood levels of LDL cholesterol - the type associated with plaque build-up in the arteries - and increase levels of protective HDL cholesterol. The higher amount of monounsaturated fatty acids in olive oil is known to help improve your cardiovascular health. Olive oil is classified mainly by the amount of acidity, as well as the flavor, color and aroma. "Extra virgin" olive oil meets the highest standards for low acidity and rich and fruity taste. It should have less than .8% acidity content. "Pure" olive oil has a lighter color and aroma, and is often used as a general, all-purpose olive oil.

About 40% of the calories in the typical Greek diet come from olive oil. To some that looks like a lot of fat, yet this traditional Mediterranean style of eating -- which emphasizes fish, olive oil, whole grains, and fruits and vegetables -- seems to contribute to the favorably low rates of heart disease among people who live in the countries that ring the Mediterranean Sea. Both vitamin E and polyphenols act as antioxidants, inhibiting the development of heart disease by reducing the oxygen-related damage along artery walls. An ingredient in olive oil also appears to make the blood less likely to clot, reducing the chance that an errant blood clot will block an artery and lead to a heart attack or stroke.

In our house you will find olive oil as the only oil used and I make my own butter spread by putting one-half butter and one-half olive oil whip it up and into a container and refrigerate it. You cannot tell the difference and it has no artificial anything to make it unhealthy. Try it you will like it!

Lena

The following should be titled "The Education To Selling Killer Drugs." This drug may be back on the market anytime now....

Documents Show Vioxx Sales Tactics
May 6, 2005
By LAURAN NEERGAARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - What Merck & Co. (MRK) calls good salesmanship - emphasizing the positive in selling the painkiller Vioxx - a Democratic congressman says is disinformation designed to deflect safety concerns. The public got an extraordinary glimpse Thursday into the world of drug marketing, as lawmakers released confidential Merck documents that detail how a sales army of 3,000 aggressively pushed the multibillion-dollar drug before it was pulled from the market last fall because of heart attack risks.

Instructions were as detailed as how long to shake a physician's hand - three seconds - and how to eat bread when dining with doctors - "one small bitesize piece at a time."

Sales representatives were offered $2,000 bonuses for meeting sales goals, and worked in campaigns with such code-names as "Project Offense" to try to boost sales even as regulators were about to increase warnings on the drug's label.

Don't bring up the heart risks, warns a Feb. 9, 2001, memo.

And when doctors asked about those risks, the Merck sales reps were to refer to a "cardiovascular card" with data suggesting that Vioxx could be safer than other anti-inflammatory drugs. Yet the card, also released Thursday, doesn't include the very study that raised the first warning signal that Vioxx could harm.

"The Cardiovascular Card is an obstacle handling piece," says an April 2000 memo to Vioxx sales reps, written just after the first heart-related research began trickling in. It "will allow you to set the record straight with your physicians."

The documents were released at a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee.

Merck Vice President Dennis Erb defended the company's handling of Vioxx, noting that it promptly released details of studies that first raised the specter of heart damage - and followed up by performing the study that ultimately doomed the drug.

"We believed wholeheartedly in the safety of Vioxx and that Vioxx was an important treatment option," he said. "My own father was a regular user of Vioxx until we voluntarily withdrew it from the market."

But even as scientific debate about Vioxx's heart risks began in 2000, sales of the painkiller steadily soared, to $2.5 billion in 2003.

"Why did doctors write so many Vioxx prescriptions even as evidence of harm mounted?" asked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Sales tactics in directly promoting the drug to doctors, he concluded: "When it comes to the one thing doctors most needed to know about Vioxx - its health risks - Merck's answer seems to be disinformation and censorship."

Merck pulled Vioxx after a study showed it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes in patients using the drug for more than 18 months. Merck is facing more than 2,300 lawsuits from customers, and on Thursday its chief executive, Raymond V. Gilmartin, stepped down. Merck named Richard T. Clark to replace him.

But many people say Vioxx offered relief that other drugs haven't. So Erb told lawmakers the company has begun discussions with the Food and Drug Administration about what it could do to return the drug to pharmacy shelves.

"We're now in preliminary discussions," he said.

FDA's scientific advisers in February narrowly voted that Vioxx might be able to come back onto the market under certain conditions, such as restricting its use to patients with severe pain or loading it with strong warnings about the heart risk.

That risk first appeared with research released in 2000 and 2001, showing certain Vioxx users suffered twice as many heart attacks and other cardiovascular problems as users of the older painkiller naproxen. In 2002, the FDA added warnings to Vioxx's label.

At first, scientists thought it might be because Vioxx users weren't getting a blood-thinning benefit that comes with many older painkillers. But by 2002, top specialists were worried that Vioxx might be the direct culprit - and Merck's own follow-up research prompted it to pull the drug.

FDA drug chief Dr. Steven Galson told lawmakers that the agency is taking steps to improve awareness by the public and doctors of potential drug risks as soon as they arise.

He said that what was happening with Vioxx wasn't clear-cut until the research was completed last summer. He acknowledged, however, that it may have taken too long to put a new warning label on the drug.

"We think we've addressed the sort of problems that happened here, and to make sure it won't happen again," Galson said.

Waxman tried to focus attention on the sales representatives, arguing that "the goal was sales, not education."

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the committee chairman, said the new documents raise questions about Merck's handling of Vioxx. But he said he was not prepared to criticize the company without more information, noting that Merck made public results of its own studies that raised the concerns - data subsequently widely published, in medical journals and newspapers.

"A wide-awake physician would have obviously known about this?" Davis asked.

"That is correct," Erb responded.

But another witness, Dr. Michael Wilkes, vice dean for medical education at the University of California-Davis, said physicians are busy and look for shortcuts to get information. "Doctors don't read the medical literature," he said, and often rely on the salesman they meet in their office.

Associated Press Writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Vioxx documents: Click Here

PAIN MAY ONLY MEAN YOU ARE LOW ON MINERALS AND TRACE MINERALS!
"YOU CAN TRACE EVERY SICKNESS, EVERY DISEASE, AND EVERY AILMENT TO A MINERAL DEFICIENCY" Linus Pauling, PhD a top scientist and two-time Nobel Prize winner Science is just now discovering what he already knew!
Read Why Every Person Should Be Supplementing With
Life Transfusion Ionic Liquid Minerals Click Here
Order online at The Herbal Pharmacy
OR Toll Free Order line 9am to 9pm Sunday through Thursday 1-866-605-0420

Earth Has Become Brighter, but No One Is Sure Why
By KENNETH CHANG
May 6, 2005

Reversing a decades-long trend toward "global dimming," Earth's surface has become brighter since 1990, scientists are reporting today.

The brightening means that more sunlight - and thus more heat - is reaching the ground. That could partly explain the record-high global temperatures reported in the late 1990's, and it could accelerate the planet's warming trend.

"We see the dimming is no longer there," said Dr. Martin Wild, a climatologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and the lead author of one of three papers analyzing sunlight that appear in today's issue of the journal Science. "If anything, there is a brightening."

Some scientists have reported that from 1960 to 1990, the amount of sunshine reaching the ground decreased at a rate of 2 percent to 3 percent per decade.

In some places, the brightening of the 1990's has more than offset the dimming, Dr. Wild said. In other places, like Hong Kong, which lost more than a third of its sunlight, the dimming has leveled off, but skies remain darker than in the past. In a few places, like India, the dimming trend continues, he said.

The new papers also call attention to a major gap in the understanding of climate. Scientists do not exactly know what caused the dimming and the brightening, or how they affect the rest of the climate system.

Earth reflects about 30 percent of the incoming sunlight back into space. Slight changes in the reflectivity, possibly caused by changes in cloud cover and air pollution, can have as much impact on the climate as heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

Some scientists say that the dimming and the brightening might explain why for many years temperatures on Earth lagged what was predicted by many climate models and then shot upward more recently.

"I think what could have happened is the dimming between the 60's and 80's counteracted the greenhouse effect," Dr. Wild said. "When the dimming faded, the effects of the greenhouse gases became more evident. There is no masking by the dimming anymore."

But Dr. Rachel T. Pinker, a professor of meteorology at the University of Maryland who led the team that wrote one of the other papers, said the picture might not be so simple. More sunlight should increase evaporation rates, leading to more clouds, and the additional cloud cover could then increase Earth's reflectivity, limiting the warming effect.

"I think that's a complex issue," Dr. Pinker said. "There are many feedbacks involved."

The findings of Dr. Wild and his colleagues are based on data through 2001 from a network of ground-based sensors that directly measure the sunlight hitting the ground. But the sensors are not evenly distributed, with the greatest number in Europe, few in Africa and South America, and none covering the 70 percent of Earth's surface that is water.

Dr. Pinker's team analyzed satellite data from 1983 to 2001 that covered the globe. Its findings about brightening, which basically agree with Dr. Wild's, rely on computer models to estimate how much sunlight reaches the surface.

Finally, a team led by Dr. Bruce A. Wielicki of NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia reports that measurements from the agency's Aqua satellite show a slight decrease in the amount of light reflected off Earth since 2000, which corresponds to a brightening on the surface.

The NASA findings conflict with measurements, reported last year, suggesting that Earth had resumed dimming since 2000. Those measurements looked at the illumination of the dark side of the Moon by light reflected off Earth.

Dr. Philip R. Goode, a professor of physics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology who was one of the researchers behind last year's report, said it was not clear why the findings differed so markedly. "We've been working with them to understand the origins of the differences," Dr. Goode said of the Wielicki group.

Dr. Wielicki said his data supported a report last month by a team led by Dr. James E. Hansen of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. In a paper published on Science's Web site, Dr. Hansen and his colleagues said much of the excess heat generated by global warming has been stored in the oceans. Even if no more greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, they said, Earth will continue to warm by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the coming decades, as the heat in the oceans is released into the air.

Dr. Wielicki said the amount of energy coming from the Sun matched the gain in heat in the oceans reported by Dr. Hansen. "It is consistent with the ocean heat storage that the oceanographers are seeing," Dr. Wielicki said, "and it is consistent with the climate models' predictions of what the heat storage should be."

Dr. Robert J. Charlson, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington and an author of a commentary that accompanied the three papers, said, "This set of papers, taken together, calls attention for more emphasis on research in these topics."

But he added, "Unfortunately, impediments have come up." Four years' worth of data from the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite is unanalyzed, he said, because there is no money for scientists to work with it.

Another satellite, the Deep Space Climate Observatory, which was scheduled to be launched on a space shuttle, awaits in storage. Proposed budget cuts in earth science research at NASA could limit the analysis of data from other satellites, Dr. Charlson said.