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
Wednesday September 20, 2006
````````````````````````````````````````````````````

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"
The newsletter/ezine for home based business!

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
==> Health Today
==> Environmental Report
==> Life Changing Information

My grandmother always said; "Prevention is worth a pound of cure!" I try to pass that along to you in the form of information making it possible... The colds and flu season is gearing up to bombard you at every turn unless you are prepared with prevention! Starting with October 31's bombarding of sweet trick-or-treats season on through New Year's indulging parties all putting the immune system on a steady decline depending on what you feed it or fail to feed it. Prepare now to stay healthy through the coming illness inducing season! The next few issues will give you tips scattered through out each issue on preparing and how you can build your immune system and/or prevent it from going downhill. Enjoy!

Take charge of you and your family's health before it takes charge of you!
Question or comment (good or not so good) Click Here

Remember ANEH Facts archives now exist Click Here
Ask Lena Health Q & A Archives Click Here
Your Home Business Coach Archives Click Here

==> 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
============================

NCI's (National Cancer Institute) misleading press release and Web site on the Study of Raloxifene and Tamoxifen, or STAR trial.
By Dr. Ralph Moss

This landmark study compared these two drugs in healthy postmenopausal women to determine which was better at reducing these women's risk of breast cancer over a period of five years. NCI's statements on the positive effects of raloxifene {Evista} have now been shown to be exaggerated.

NCI's science-by-press-release strategy generated considerable controversy at the 2006 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The STAR results were supposed to have been reported first at ASCO so that there could be some form of peer review before general announcements were made. But instead, according to the Associated Press, NCI hastily called a press conference "and didn't disclose in materials sent to reporters that some key results were not statistically significant."

"It needs to be publicly vetted because it's not clear either way" which drug is better, said Dr. Roy Herbst, a well-known M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, researcher.

The trial's actual results thus differed substantially from the interpretation pushed by NCI's press release. This has also disturbed some reporters who bought into the earlier NCI version of the study. In April, for instance, the popular MSNBC Web site declared: "New, safer drug helps prevent breast cancer." The subhead, referring to Evista, held that the new drug "causes fewer side effects than tamoxifen, large study finds." But less than two months later, MSNBC's headline reads: "Surprising flip-flop in breast cancer drug study. Contrary to initial findings, raloxifene may not be better than old standby."

Robert Bazell, NBC's Chief Medical and Scientific Correspondent, really took NCI to task. He pointed out that the most disturbing aspect of the actual paper was that raloxifene was shown to be associated with a higher incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Biologists may debate whether DCIS is truly breast cancer, a pre-cancerous condition or merely a risk factor. "But tens of thousands of women a year require surgery (often mastectomy) and radiation to treat DCIS so anyone would think twice before taking a drug that might increase the risk," said Bazell (2006).

American taxpayers spent $88 million paying for this trial, and raloxifene manufacturer Eli Lilly put in another $30 million, in order to arrive at the present ambiguous result. No wonder Lilly was so eager to try and rescue something positive from this debacle.

Bazell, who has won journalism's prestigious Peabody Award, scolded NCI for conducting science by press conference, rather than by peer-reviewed study. Or, as he trenchantly put it, "Impress the public before the messy facts get in the way."

NCI scientists have offered several rationalizations for issuing their misleading press release. For instance, they said it was necessary for the sake of "public health" and to inform the women who were in the trial.

But, as Bazell put it, "It is hard to see how either public health or the volunteers benefit from incomplete and confusing information released in a hurry."

According to this veteran reporter, "The NCI has faced a huge problem since 1971 when President Richard Nixon ordered the 'war on cancer.' Deaths from cancer - not only total deaths, but the death rate adjusted for the age of the population - have been climbing. Only last year for the first time did the death rate drop by a mere 1 percent."

Because of this, "NCI is always painting a rosy picture of progress." What he calls NCI's "optimism in the face of reality" reached its pinnacle in 2003 when Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, then head of the agency, declared the unrealistic goal of eliminating all suffering and death due to cancer by 2015. Although many scientists privately derided the impracticality of this notion, few of them dared speak publicly for fear of losing NCI's financial support.

Bazell's eloquent conclusion is worth quoting:

"In the face of the enormous health burden of cancer, NCI should be spending even more to elucidate both the basic science and the clinical applications - including studies like the STAR trial. But a government agency with a charter to improve the public's health does not serve it by trying to put a positive spin on every result."

While it was encouraging to see this trenchant analysis on the MSNBC Web site, from a cynical point of view one could conclude that NCI calculated correctly. Its press release about the so-called "good news on Evista" was picked up by thousands of media outlets and has undoubtedly already influenced millions of potential consumers. The critical view represented by Robert Bazell and a few others will reach only a tiny fraction of eagle-eyed readers. Most journalists and headline writers drew their sound bites from the NCI statement, and even with publication of the full report on the STAR trial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, public perceptions are unlikely to change. Apparently, a billion dollars per year in sales buys you a lot of good will, facts notwithstanding.

=======================
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!
=======================

There's good news and bad news about the common cold.
According to the Ear Nose and Throat Journal, the good news is that kissing doesn't spread colds. The cold virus doesn't survive in saliva, and contact with the lips and tongue are very unlikely to make anybody sick. Now the bad news. Colds are transmitted by airborne particles, so being in the same room as somebody with a cold puts you at risk. In other words, kiss as much as you like -- in different rooms.

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!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Season Of Sweet Deception Begins "Big Time" October 31!

The upcoming season of one holiday after another ripens the world for deception this year more than ever before! With everyone so freaked out about possibly getting the flu from overindulging in sugar that they are trying to play it safe and not overindulge in the sugar department yet they want their treats! Hence the deception!

By now the message is out that eating sugary foods kills the immune system. Setting up a deception toward really serious illness and the majority seems to be buying into the sweet Splenda deception!

Ever where I go I see these little old gals with bags of Splenda on their carts or tables set up to sell you on their wares and passing out free drink or food containing Splenda. All the while saying how healthy it is and how it will prevent you from gaining weight and/or prevent the immune system's downfall.

Someone is not telling them the truth! Or they are not trying to find the truth. There are tests showing how Splenda causes weight gain and more not so good other health problems. Those tests prove my premise and why scientists know that more horrific illnesses are just around the corner because of the Splenda craze

To begin with there has been no human research done regarding Sucralose (Splenda)! So who knows what is going to happen to the human body?

So far we know what happens in animals! Tests have shown that sucralose (Splenda) can cause many problems in them, such as:

*Aborted pregnancy
*Atrophy of lymph follicles in the spleen and thymus
*Decreased red blood cell count
*Decreased fetal body weights and placental weights
*Diarrhea
*Enlarged liver and kidneys
*Extension of the pregnancy period
*Hyperplasia of the pelvis
*Increased cecal thickening
*Reduced growth
*Shrunken thymus glands (up to 40%)

If that's not enough:

According to the Medical Letter on Drugs & Therapeutics, "Its long-term safety is unknown."

According to the Sucralose Toxicity information Center "Manufacturer's hundreds of studies' were clearly inadequate and do not demonstrate safety in long-term use, some even shows dangers." You bet they haven't released those to the general public.

According to Consumers Research Magazine "Some concern was raised about sucralose being a chlorinated molecule. Some chlorinated molecules serve as the basis for pesticides such as D.D.T., and accumulate in body fat. However, Johnson & Johnson emphasized that sucralose passes through the body unabsorbed." NOT TRUE!!!

A substantial amount of sucralose must be absorbed for the accumulated DDT and other chemicals that is showing up in every single body that walks this earth! Do you want to add to that accumulation with Splenda? "Accumulates in the body fat?" Could that be why reports are surfacing showing weight gain in people who use of Splenda, Aspartame, etc.?

The FDA says that sucralose is produced at an approximate purity of 98%. So what is those other 2% impurities?

The final sucralose product is said to contain small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as: Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead, Arsenic, Triphenilphosphine Oxide, Methanol, Chlorinated Disaccharides, Chlorinated Monosaccharide). So is that the other 2% and the FDA is letting you consume those horrific chemicals legally?

I don't know about you but I don't need arsenic or other toxins in my body if I can help it!

Sadly too many prepared products now contain Splenda instead of sugar so read your labels as you are in danger all year long!

If you have to have sweets, sugar will be your best bet, just don't overdo it! Of course for diabetics, who have not discovered that diabetes can be reversed with an alternative protocol, Stevia or fruit to fill that sweet cravings, is the safest! If you want to know how diabetes is reversed mailto:lena@envirodocs.com?subject=diabHelp

Use your good sense and don't buy into the holidays sweet deceptions!

(c) By Lena Sanchez

POSITIVE REPORT: The following is a follow up on a report I gave you some months back and this is positive and something I see weekly working with Dr. Garland...

Dr.: Va. Teen Cancer Patient Improving
Sep 16, 2006
By SHELIA BYRD

GREENWOOD, Miss. (AP) - A Virginia teenage cancer patient appears to be improving less than a month after he won a court fight to forgo chemotherapy and seek alternative treatments, his doctor said Friday.

"His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and stamina," said Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and radiation oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer Center in Greenwood.

It was the first update on 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix's condition since his family was allowed to pursue alternative treatments in his battle with Hodgkin's disease.

Neither Cherrix or his doctor would discuss specifics about the treatment, but the teen's father said chemotherapy was not part of the treatment plan.

The teen was diagnosed last year with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of the lymphatic system that is considered treatable in its early stages. He said he was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he declined a second, more intensive round early this year. He has said he thought it would kill him.

His then-oncologist alerted social services officials when the teen chose instead to go on a sugar-free, organic diet and use an alternative herbal liquid treatment called the Hoxsey tonic. The treatment was banned in the United States in 1960.

Cherrix, dressed in bluejeans, a button-down shirt and a baseball cap that read: "Victory shall be mine," said he's feeling excellent.

"This treatment has been working for me," he said. "I've had a tremendous boost of energy."

The teen's family has leased a house in Greenwood but his mother and younger brother remain on Chincogeague Island in Virginia.

Abraham Cherrix

Dr. Arnold Smith

THREE MOST IMPORTANT CHEMICAL-FREE STEPS TO
HEALTHY, BEAUTIFUL, SUPPLE, LESS WRINKLED SKIN
cleansing, toning and moisturizing.
Simple takes less then 5 minutes!
Pure n' Natural Skin Care Trio
Available in Gentle, Deep Pore or Combination
Lena uses and recommends for Healthy Skin Care Click Here

Cost of air travel measured in terms of pollution, not dollars - Travelocity and Expedia partner with groups that fund clean energy projects and reforestation.
September 17, 2006

IN the United States, air travel generates as much as 10% of transportation-based emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting. A typical flight from Los Angeles to New York, for example, generates 1 ton of carbon dioxide per passenger.

To spread the word about travel's contribution to global warming, online travel agencies Expedia and Travelocity this month partnered with groups dedicated to decreasing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the environment.

"There is a large contingent of consumers … concerned with green travel," said Expedia spokeswoman Katie Deines. "It's important to us to offer our customers options in that vein."

Expedia has become partners with TerraPass (www.terrapass.com), a 2-year-old company that sells customers "passes" to help offset the greenhouse-gas emissions caused by their travel.

For a round-trip flight of 6,500 miles (a bit more than a trip from Los Angeles to New York), a TerraPass costs $17; for international flights, $30.

Expedia gives all the money directly to TerraPass, which invests in projects designed to decrease carbon emissions in other industries. It funds clean energy projects throughout the U.S., including wind farms and biomass energy, and the generation of electricity from animal and plant material, such as cow manure.

Methane derived from cow manure has several advantages over fossil fuels, according to TerraPass. It's renewable, which means no net carbon is put into the air, and the process reduces the amount of methane, a greenhouse gas 22 times more potent than carbon dioxide, entering the atmosphere.

TerraPass also purchases something called "carbon offsets" — which are essentially licenses to pollute — and retires them.

These carbon offsets are voluntary restrictions on carbon emissions to which businesses nationwide agree. If a business has an excess of them, they can be traded on the free market on the Chicago Climate Exchange. In theory, the fewer licenses on the market, the less pollution.

Such models of greenhouse gas reduction have been around Europe for years but are just catching on in this country.

The U.S. has been "a little bit behind the rest of the world in recognizing the concept," Deines said.

One of the forerunners of this type of environmental approach to travel is the Britain-based firm Carbon Neutral Co. (www.carbonneutral.com). It has been around since 1997 (when it was called Future Forests) and performs much the same function as TerraPass.

Such programs may not be the approach many people think of when talking about improving the environment.

"It's less about trees and more about investing in renewable energy and energy-efficient projects in developing countries that will save the equal amount of CO2," said Carbon Neutral spokesman Jim Peacock.

For example, Carbon Neutral invests in a solar panel project in Sri Lanka that reduces dependence on greenhouse-gas-emitting kerosene.

The Conservation Fund, favored by Travelocity, takes a more traditional approach to the solution of global warming. Since its founding in 1985, the group has reforested with native trees and plants more than 5 million acres of public land that had been deforested through logging and farming activities. Trees act as a natural filter for carbon dioxide, turning it into oxygen.

"Our program … is blending climate change with wildlife habitat and heritage" preservation, Conservation Fund President Larry Selzer said.

Through a Conservation Fund program called Go Zero, Travelocity customers can elect to donate $10 to $40, depending on the distance of the trip. Travelocity passes on 100% of the contribution to the nonprofit Conservation Fund.

"Climate change and global warming have emerged as the great environmental issue in the 21st century," Selzer said.

Acknowledging that and providing a way for individuals to make a positive environmental contribution are the keys to solving the crisis, he said. Individual involvement was key to the success of recycling programs, and Selzer is convinced that once people understand their carbon impact, they will respond.

"When given the opportunity, the American people will participate" in environmental programs, he said.

Expedia and Travelocity say they are participating in the programs in response to consumer demand and awareness.

But some are a bit skeptical.

"Expedia and Travelocity are doing nothing more than cashing in on travelers' sensitivity to global warming," said Henry Harteveldt, principal analyst for travel research at Forrester Research. "Nothing wrong with that, and it's fine they give travelers the option to participate. Just don't mistake these for what they really are: revenue-generating opportunities for the agencies."

Still, awareness that travel has an effect on the environment is a good thing, and the agencies aren't taking a cut of the donations. Plus you don't have to buy from one of the online agencies to participate. You can go direct to the source and contribute for air travel and any other carbon-generating activities. Selzer scoffed at the idea that just traveling less would remedy the situation.

"Get out and enjoy the great natural resources," he said. "You'll become better stewards of them in the future."

james.gilden@latimes.com