With summer almost here, it’s time to show off those legs! But first, we have to make sure they’re sundress, […]
The post DIY All Natural Shaving Oil for Silky, Summer-Ready Legs appeared first on Plant Therapy Blog.
Source: plant therapy Blog
I’ve written about the collusion between industry and the U.S. federal regulatory agencies on many occasions throughout the years, and how industry-funded research simply tends to promote and support the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.
In recent years, the hidden influence of The Coca-Cola Company over health and sugar science has been highlighted several times and, according to recent findings, it appears the company has not changed its secretive and deceptive ways, despite public assurances of transparency.
Documents obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests reveal Coca-Cola’s research agreements with certain universities give the company questionable rights over the research process, while other FOIA documents show Coca-Cola has an unreasonable amount of influence over the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Truly, having a public health organization that protects and supports industry rather than looking out for public health is worse than having no public health protection agency at all, and making health decisions on Coca-Cola funded research is bound to lead public health in the wrong direction — which is exactly what’s been happening.
Big Soda’s core message has been that the obesity epidemic is driven by a lack of activity, as opposed to indulging in sugar-based foods and beverages, despite overwhelming scientific evidence you will never be able to out-exercise your diet.
Recent FOIA documents obtained by the nonprofit consumer and public health watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) offer an explanation as to how the company can influence research to support and promulgate this false idea.1,2,3,4 As noted in a commentary in The British Medical Journal:5
“The research team, from the University of Cambridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the University of Bocconi, and non-profit group US Right to Know, looked at five research agreements made with four universities: Louisiana State University, University of South Carolina, University of Toronto, and the University of Washington.
They found that, although the contracts show that Coca-Cola does not have day-to-day control of the research, it has various rights throughout the process … This is despite Coca-Cola’s website stating that ‘in no event does The Coca-Cola Company have the right to prevent the publication of research results’ …
The authors are now calling on corporate funders to publish lists of terminated studies and on scientists to publish industry agreements to show that their findings are free from influence.”
Just how much influence do the agreements grant Coca-Cola? According to the featured paper,6 published in the Journal of Public Health Policy, the research contract provisions give Coke:7
In a USRTK press release, Gary Ruskin, co-director of USRTK and co-author of the paper, commented: 10
“These contracts suggest that Coke wanted the power to bury research it funded that might detract from its image or profits. With the power to trumpet positive findings and bury negative ones, Coke-funded ‘science’ seems somewhat less than science and more like an exercise in public relations.”
Marion Nestle, Ph.D.,11 professor of nutrition and public health at New York University and author of “Soda Politics,” in which she dissects the many ways in which funding from the food and beverage industry influences scientific results, calls the USRTK findings “jaw-dropping.” She told Inverse:12
“It demonstrates what we have all long suspected. Companies that sponsor research make sure that they get what they pay for. The study documents the involvement of Coca-Cola in many aspects of developing research projects.
It is no surprise that its funded research typically comes out with results that are useful for Coca-Cola marketing purposes. Industry funded research is marketing research, not scientific research.”
Since September 27, 2007, Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act requires any clinical trial being undertaken to be registered, and summary results must be submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov13 regardless of the outcome of the study. The reason for this is to help prevent publication bias where only positive findings see the light of day.
Unfortunately, this law only applies to certain clinical trials of drugs, biological products and medical devices,14 and while researchers in many other fields have taken to preregistering their studies,15,16 which means they must also publish their results, it’s not a blanket requirement across the board.
As of yet, preregistration of trials is not a requirement for nutritional research, although there’s a movement toward it. As noted in the 2015 editorial “Goals in Nutrition Science 2015-2020,” published in Frontiers of Nutrition:17
“[T]here is a general movement in science for ‘Transparency and Openness Promotion,’ formalized in ‘The TOP Guidelines.’18 The guidelines recognize eight standards: citation, data transparency, analytic methods (code) transparency, research materials transparency, design and analysis transparency, preregistration of studies, preregistration of analysis plans, and replication.
These standards aim to improve the communication of science, allowing improved understanding and replicability of results. Because the TOP Guidelines are being adopted across fields of science, the field of nutrition will not have to act in isolation to improve its scientific practices. Instead, we can build on and work with the minds and resources coming from a spectrum of scientific inquiry.”
Another paper, 19 “Best Practices in Nutrition Science to Earn and Keep the Public’s Trust,” published in January 2019, also highlights the TOP (transparency and openness promotion) guidelines that call for preregistration of studies.
On a quick side note, the first analysis20 of preregistered studies reveals there’s been a sharp increase in null findings, suggesting the practice is working as intended.
As reported by Nature, “Studies that preregister their protocols publish more negative findings that don’t support their hypothesis, than those that don’t.”21 This is important, because when mainly positive studies are published, it can easily create the false appearance that the evidence for a particular treatment is far stronger than it actually is.
Earlier this year, another batch of emails obtained via FOIA requests (after USRTK sued the CDC to get a response) revealed Coca-Cola was actively lobbying the CDC “to advance corporate objectives rather than health, including to influence the World Health Organization,” USRTK said in a post on its website,22 adding that the documentation demonstrates “a need for clearer policies on avoiding partnerships with manufacturers of harmful products.”
These documents, featuring correspondence between Coca-Cola executives and the CDC, can be found in the USCF Food Industry Documents online archive.23,24 A paper25,26,27,28 detailing the connections between Coke and the CDC based on the email cache was published in The Milbank Quarterly in January 2019.
In a press release announcing the publication of the paper, USRTK said:29
“Coca-Cola’s contact with the CDC shows the company’s interest in gaining access to CDC employees, to lobby policymakers, and to frame the obesity debate by shifting attention and blame away from sugar-sweetened beverages …
‘It is not the proper role of the CDC to abet companies that manufacture harmful products,’ said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know. ‘Congress should investigate whether Coca-Cola and other companies that harm public health are unethically influencing the CDC, and subverting its efforts to protect the health of all Americans.’
‘Once again we see the grave risks that arise when public health organisations [sic] partner with manufacturers of products that pose a threat to health,’ said Martin McKee, professor of European public health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
‘Sadly, as this example, and more recent ones in the United Kingdom show, these risks are not always appreciated by those who should know better.’”
In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.
WHOs recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.
Email correspondence between Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of the food industry-funded group International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), and Barbara Bowman, Ph.D., then-director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, revealed Bowman repeatedly tried to help Malaspina get an audience with WHO officials, with the aim to talk them into relaxing the sugar limits.30,31
As noted by the USRTK,32 while Bowman’s job was to prevent obesity and related health problems, she “appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.”
Bowman left the agency at the end of June 2016, just two days after the initial reports about her cozy relationship with Coke were made public,33 which suggests she understood full well how inappropriate her behavior was.
This case also highlights the reality of corporate loyalty. As reported by the Huffington Post,34 early in her career, Bowman worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola. She also co-wrote one of the editions of a nutritional book published by ILSI.35
It’s human nature to remain loyal to former employers and colleagues, which is why the revolving door between industry and the agencies that regulate them is so problematic. People don’t shed their corporate mindset just because they get a government title and a new set of responsibilities.
Coca-Cola and other soda makers have invested a lot of money in research and PR efforts aimed at protecting sales through misdirection. Coca-Cola in particular has worked hard to make it seem as though they’re concerned about public health while secretly undermining real efforts to improve it.
For example, a historical analysis36 published in 2016 found the sugar industry funded research that identified dietary fat as the culprit in heart disease, not sugar, and didn’t disclose that funding.
A 2017 study37 revealed that while sponsoring 95 U.S. health organizations, Coke was lobbying against public health bills aimed at reducing soda consumption through taxing, sugar limits and other strategies.
Coca-Cola and many other junk food manufacturers are also notorious for funding — and thus influencing — food and nutrition conferences and education.38
Most recently, a Coke-funded study39 published in the International Journal of Obesity January 31, 2019, evaluated “the single and joint associations of objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time on week and weekend days with obesity in children from 12 countries …”
They concluded the odds of obesity were highest among those who got the least amount of physical activity on both weekdays and weekends. Children with the lowest odds of obesity were the most active throughout the whole week. As noted by Nestle in her Food Politics blog:40
“This is another paper from the ISCOLE study funded by Coca-Cola, that seems to be aimed at casting doubt on the idea that sugary beverages might promote weight gain. Instead, these results suggest that physical activity is a more important factor.
Of course physical activity is important for health, but doesn’t expend nearly as many calories as is usually needed to compensate for soft drink intake. I learned about this study from a Weighty Matters blog post41 by Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, who runs a weight management center in Ottawa.
In his view, the ISCOLE study ignores evidence42 that childhood obesity is a determinant of physical activity, ‘not the other way around.’ He also questions the ‘no influence’ statement in the funding disclosure, on the basis of emails43 between ISCOLE investigators and Coca-Cola that not surprisingly suggests that these relationships have the very real potential to influence the framing of results even if funders [are] not involved in study design.
As I discuss in ‘Unsavory Truth,’ the influence of food-industry funders appears to occur at an unconscious level; investigators do not recognize the influence and typically deny it.”
Source: mercola rss
Bayer has come up zero for 3 in the first lawsuits alleging that Roundup herbicide caused cancer, with the latest verdict ordering the chemical giant to pay $2 billion to its victims.
The verdict came from the third case, heard before the Alameda County Superior Court of California, in which a married couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, claim they both developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after regular use of Roundup. The pair had been using Roundup since the 1970s, stopping only a few years ago.
The jury heard 17 days of testimony and deliberated for less than two days before deciding in the Pilliods’ favor. Bayer, which is the largest seed and pesticide company in the world due to its $63 billion purchase of Monsanto in 2018, must now pay $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages.
The guilty verdict against Bayer includes a $1 billion payout to Alberta, who developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma brain cancer in 2015. Another $1 billion is owed to Alva, who was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, which has spread from his bones to his spine and pelvis, in 2011. A total of $55 million in damages was awarded for past and future medical bills and pain and suffering.1
In order to award punitive damages, U.S. Right to Know reported, "The jury had to find that Monsanto ‘engaged in conduct with malice, oppression or fraud committed by one or more officers, directors or managing agents of Monsanto’ who were acting on behalf of the company."2
The plaintiffs' attorney, Brent Wisner, also stated, "From day one, Monsanto has never had any interest in finding out whether Roundup is safe."3 Wisner based his request for punitive damages on the $892 million in gross profits Monsanto reported in 2017, and this was just from its agricultural chemicals division.
Bayer plans to appeal the verdict, and the damages may ultimately be reduced, as it's generally upheld that punitive damages shouldn't be more than 10 times higher than compensatory damages. Still, the $2 billion verdict sent a shockwave through the system.
Bayer shares have fallen about 45 percent since the Monsanto purchase, and dropped as much as 5% when the third verdict was announced.4,5 Now, with at least 13,400 lawsuits still looming from people who claim exposure to their glyphosate-containing Roundup herbicide caused them health problems, including cancer, the likelihood of a settlement grows stronger.
Some analysts have suggested settlement costs could exceed $14.6 billion, and while the company, according to Moody's, may be able to absorb payments of $5.6 billion, if costs reach $22.4 billion it could be a blow to their credit rating.6
During the third trial, the plaintiffs’ lawyers presented evidence including internal emails and advertising that showed Monsanto’s lack of regard for safety. One such advertisement showed a man killing backyard weeds while wearing shorts and a T-shirt to the tune of an Old West film, while Monsanto studies have recommended the chemical only be applied while wearing chemical boots and overalls.7
Internal Monsanto emails, meanwhile, mentioned ghostwriting scientific papers and payments to front groups, such as the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), to promote glyphosate's safety.
Bayer attorneys, while maintaining that Roundup is safe, tried another tactic: distraction. They brought up completely unrelated "concerns" in front of jurors, like the fact that the plaintiffs' attorneys had posed for a photo with environmental activists Daryl Hannah and Neil Young.8
The trials have revealed disturbing evidence against the chemical giant, including the fact that Monsanto allocated about $17 million in one year to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) scientists who spoke out against glyphosate.9
In March 2015, IARC determined glyphosate to be a "probable carcinogen" based on evidence showing the popular weed-killing chemical can cause Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with "convincing evidence" it can also cause cancer in animals.
For instance, in 2017, Henry Miller was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California. Miller, falsely posing as a Stanford professor, promoted genetically engineered foods during this campaign.
In 2015, he published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking IARC's findings after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Later it was revealed that Miller's work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto.
In August 2018, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson in a truly historic case against Monsanto. Johnson — the first of the cases pending against the chemical company — claimed Roundup caused his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the court agreed.
Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson, although the award was later reduced to $78 million. Bayer asked the court to throw out the judgment in April 2019, going so far as to ask for reversal of the damages awarded based on the fact that Johnson is near death.10
In a second case, a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Bayer to pay more than $80 million. The jury agreed that Edwin Hardeman's repeated exposures to Roundup, which he used to kill weeds on his 56-acre property, not only played a role in his cancer diagnosis but also that the company did not warn consumers that the product carried a cancer risk.11
The case was split into two phases, with jurors first finding the chemical to have caused the cancer on purely scientific grounds and the next phase finding that Bayer is liable for damages.12 Ultimately, Hardeman was awarded $75 million in punitive damages, $5.6 million in compensatory damages and $200,000 for medical expenses.13
In the midst of Bayer facing billions in damages due to glyphosate causing cancer, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in their latest review of glyphosate, released a draft conclusion stating the chemical poses potential risks to mammals and birds that eat treated leaves, as well as risks to plants,14 but "no risks of concern" for people and "is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."15
It's not surprising, considering the EPA's history of siding with and protecting Monsanto. As far back as 1983, when a Monsanto study revealed an increased cancer risk in mice exposed to glyphosate, the EPA asked for further studies, but the company simply refused. They claimed the study wasn't a concern because one mouse not exposed to glyphosate also developed a tumor, and used this to support its safety.
Johnson's lawyer, Timothy Litzenburg, told Rolling Stone, "They fought over that one mouse's kidney for years, spent millions of dollars on experts, instead of just doing the test again. The EPA even offered a compromise — let's just do a kidney and liver test. Monsanto said 'no.' It's amazing how often they're able to say no to the EPA."16
In an opinion piece in The Guardian, Nathan Donley, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity, and Carey Gillam, an investigative journalist, ask the question we all should be asking:17
"Precisely because the chemical has been treated as so much safer than other pesticides, over the past 45 years glyphosate has become virtually ubiquitous: residues of the chemical have been documented in food, air, water and soil samples, as well as within the bodies of people who have never used the pesticide. The chemical has even been detected in raindrops.
It all raises this troubling question: if what has been touted as perhaps our 'safest' widely used pesticide actually causes cancer, what assurance do we have about the hundreds of other pesticides that the EPA has assured us are safe?"
At Bayer's annual general meeting in Bonn, Germany, 55.5% of shareholders voted against ratifying the management's actions, in large part due to the Monsanto acquisition.18 Some are calling the takeover "disastrous,"19 and investors had complained that Bayer was not revealing enough about its strategy for defeating upcoming lawsuits.
The vote was symbolic in nature and won't legally change anything, but highlights the growing unrest within the company, which will only be heightened with the latest $2 billion verdict.
According to Bloomberg, "Markus Mayer, an analyst at Baader Bank AG, said the ruling increases the probability that Bayer becomes vulnerable to a takeover or a target for more activist investors like Paul Singer's Elliott Management Corp. pushing for a split between agriculture and health assets."20
Bayer was even caught making a hit list after French media raised accusations about Monsanto's 2016 "stakeholder mapping project." Monsanto had compiled lists of supportive and critical stakeholders, which may have violated both ethical principles and legal regulations. In a bit of damage control, Bayer posted the following:21
"Following an initial review, we understand that this initiative has raised concerns and criticism. This is not the way Bayer seeks dialogue with society and stakeholders. We apologize for this behavior.
Currently, we have no indication that the preparation of the lists under discussion violated any legal provisions. Bayer will ask an external law firm to investigate the project Monsanto commissioned and evaluate the allegations.
The law firm will also inform all of the persons on the lists of the information collected about them. Bayer will fully support the public prosecutor's office in France in its investigations."
Nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate are used in the U.S. each year, with usage being heaviest in the Midwest due to extensive production of genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy. In fact, more than 90 percent of corn and soy grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered, and these ingredients are common in processed foods.22
The chemical was detected in more than 90 percent of pregnant women tested living in Central Indiana, and levels of the chemical were associated with shortened pregnancy lengths.23 Aside from cancer, in 2017, separate research revealed that daily exposure to ultra-low levels of glyphosate for two years led to nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in rats.24
What’s more, glyphosate is in fact patented as an antibiotic, and when broken down, the word antibiotic means “anti-life.” In addition to promoting antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics,25 Roundup causes disturbances to a soil fungus called Aspergillus nidulans26 and may be causing serious damage to non-target plants.
Glyphosate is also a popular tool for desiccating (or accelerating the drying out) crops like wheat and oats. In testing done by Friends of the Earth (FOE), 100 percent of oat cereal samples tested positive for residues of glyphosate.27 If you want to avoid this chemical as much as possible, choose organic or biodynamic foods, and install a filter on your drinking water.
If you're curious how much glyphosate is in your body, the Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.
Ordering this kit automatically allows you to participate in the study and help HRI better understand the extent of glyphosate exposure and contamination. In a few weeks, you will receive your results, along with information on how your results compare with others and what to do to help reduce your exposure. We are providing these kits to you at no profit in order for you to participate in this environmental study.
Source: mercola rss
By Stuart Cooper, Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network
Ending the addition of hazardous fluoridation chemicals — primarily hydrofluorosilicic acid — to the public's drinking water will be one of the greatest public health achievements of the 21st century.
With each passing month, the case against artificial fluoridation builds as new research showing harm is published, legal action advances, overfeeds and spills are exposed and local fluoride-free campaigns spread throughout the world.
A number of significant studies — two of which were funded by the U.S. government (the National Institutes of Health, or NIH) — have been published in the last eight months linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and thyroid problems, and showing that pregnant women and infants in "optimally" fluoridated communities are exposed to significantly more fluoride than those in non-fluoridated communities.
In February 2019, a string of news stories — triggered by a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report1 admitting that at least 40% of children are overexposed to fluoride — focused on kids swallowing too much toothpaste and neglected the significant exposure from fluoridated tap water.
Regardless, the defenders of water fluoridation are missing the real story. Dental fluorosis is a biomarker of overexposure to fluoride and the "elephant in the room" is what damage fluoride is doing to other tissues.
Recent scientific research indicates that exposure to fluoridated water may lower thyroid function,2,3 particularly in those with an iodine deficiency. A new study also found that significantly more infants, particularly those under 6 months of age, will exceed the upper limit set by the Institute of Medicine for fluoride when consuming formula reconstituted with the "optimal" 0.7 parts per million (ppm), greatly increasing their risk of side effects.4
There are now over 350 published studies on fluoride's effect on the brain: 130 human studies, over 200 animal studies and 33 cell studies. This includes a major U.S.-government funded mother-offspring study conducted in Mexico City.5 This rigorous study — which controlled for many possible confounders — found a very strong association between fluoride levels in mothers' urine and lowered IQ for their offspring.
The fluoride levels in this study also correspond to levels in pregnant women living in "optimally" fluoridated areas in Canada according to an October 2018 paper.6
The same research team at University of Toronto's Dalla Lana School of Public Health has since released additional findings that confirm and strengthen their 2017 fetus/IQ study.7 Very young children, aged 1 to 3 years, also show loss of IQ. In other words, their study now covers the ages of the offspring from 1 to 12 years.
For the ages of 1 to 3 years, for every 1 mg/L increase in the urine fluoride level of their pregnant mothers, the children averaged 2.4-point lower IQ scores. The finding was statistically significant and accounted for potential confounding factors.
They concluded, "Our findings add to our team's recently published report on prenatal fluoride and cognition at ages 4 and 6–12 years8 by suggesting that higher in utero exposure to F has an adverse impact on offspring cognitive development that can be detected earlier, in the first three years of life."
This was followed up by another published paper that linked higher levels of urinary fluoride during pregnancy with more symptoms of ADHD9 — the second study to do so.10
As if the recent research condemning fluoridation couldn't get any worse, a major review article in the journal Pediatric Medicine by David Bellinger, Ph.D., professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, has included fluoride in a list of chemicals known or suspected to interfere with the neurodevelopment of children.11
Bellinger, recognized as one the leading experts in the world on the neurotoxicity of lead, holds three important positions in Boston: two at Harvard and one at Boston Children's Hospital.
In his review of fluoride's neurotoxicity, Bellinger cites the meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies from China and Iran;12 a follow-up study in China he co-wrote13 and the more recent U.S. government-funded mother-offspring studies from Mexico City.14,15
While the mainstream media covered the Choi meta-analysis from 2012, they have ignored all the major neurotoxicity studies published since then. Meanwhile, they continue to go overboard on low-quality studies that focus on tooth decay.
According to Paul Connett, Ph.D., Fluoride Action Network (FAN) director, "We hope that when more pediatricians read about these important neurotoxicity studies — especially the mother-offspring studies — that they will warn women of child-bearing age to avoid all sources of fluoride during pregnancy and parents not to bottle-feed their infants with formula prepared with fluoridated tap water."
These new scientific findings further strengthen the evidence of fluoride's neurotoxicity. The fluoride levels at issue in these studies are within the range that pregnant women in the U.S. are receiving, so the findings are clearly relevant to our ongoing legal case against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In November 2016, the FAN together with a coalition of organizations and private citizens, presented a petition to the EPA calling on the agency to exercise its authority to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to the public's drinking water supplies under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The EPA dismissed our petition, which prompted our coalition to file a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. Since then, we've had several significant legal victories. First, Judge Edward Chen denied the EPA's motion to dismiss the case. Second, the judge denied a request by the EPA to prohibit our attorneys from obtaining internal documents and our experts from using the recently published studies mentioned above.
The third victory came in October 2018 when the EPA objected to sharing internal documents — or allowing their employees to be deposed — about their acknowledgment of and concerns about the known risks associated with fluoridation. Judge Chen ruled the EPA had to share this crucial information (see the Judge's full ruling).16
Yet another victory came in April 2019 when the court compelled EPA to both produce further documents and produce three more of its scientists for deposition.
We are now entering the final phase before our historic trial begins. The judge originally scheduled the trial for the beginning of August 2019, but due to the recent government shutdown, the federal court was also closed and the trial has been moved back several months to late 2019 or early 2020.
In the meantime, our legal team will continue conducting the discovery phase, interviewing EPA officials and collecting internal documents. FAN urgently needs your help to ensure we can provide the funding necessary for the foremost scientific experts in the world to present the best case at trial.
The primary expense at this point is the experts, who will need to spend considerable time preparing reports, preparing for their depositions and testifying in court. To fund these specific legal costs, FAN is currently running a spring fundraiser.
You can follow it on social media using the hashtag #FluorideLawsuit. So, please consider becoming a supporter of our historic legal action by making a tax-deductible donation today that will be doubled for a limited time.
The latest research isn't the only fluoridation fiasco being ignored by the media and the dental lobby. Fluoridation-related accidents, malfunctions, overfeeds and worker errors have shockingly become commonplace. The most recent example is the current fluoridation crisis and negligent actions of elected officials occurring in Sandy, Utah.
A power outage during a snowstorm in Sandy February 6, 2019, caused a pump to flood parts of the town's drinking water system with dangerously high levels of fluoridation chemicals, with city officials saying possibly up to 150 ppm.
The fluoridating chemical released in Sandy — hydrofluorosilicic acid — apparently caused the corrosiveness of the water to increase dramatically, causing leaching of unsafe levels of lead, copper and other heavy metals from plumbing.
A public health official claimed neurotoxic harm from lead only occurs as the last stage of poisoning. Actually, in children, neurotoxicity occurs at levels below where symptoms of lead poisoning appear.
Possibly the most egregious act of negligence committed was the removal of "Do Not Ingest" from the initial warning to residents. The utilities director removed the words intentionally after consulting with representatives of the state health department, but has yet to explain his justification for doing so, even to the mayor and citizens.
The mayor has since placed the utilities director, Tom Ward, on paid administrative leave to "restore the public's confidence," in the water system. The city was also cited by the State Division of Drinking Water for failing to notify the public adequately and for exceeding safe fluoride levels.
The mayor and city council voted to open an independent investigation into how the malfunction occurred and how the city responded. Both county and state legislators have called for an investigation of fluoridation in Salt Lake and Davis counties, as well as a moratorium on the practice throughout Utah.17
The mayor of Salt Lake City stated that unless state legislators ban the practice, by law Salt Lake area voters must make the decision with a question on the ballot. In response, FAN sent a letter to the mayor and other public officials asking for a detailed health investigation.
The fluoride incident February 5 to 7 reportedly caused levels at homes to reach way over 100 mg/L, a level close to what caused a fatality and serious illnesses in a previous overfeed accident in Alaska. A level of 100 mg/L is 25 times greater than the EPA standard and 150 times greater than the normal level for water fluoridation.
FAN points out that government officials downplayed possible health effects. Officials said fluoride does not accumulate in the body and therefore should cause no long-term effects. This is incorrect, as 50% of ingested fluoride is retained and can raise the body-burden for years.
The health investigation that followed the Alaska fluoride poisoning incident found elevated fluoride and abnormal clinical blood measures weeks after the exposures had ceased.
FAN has requested that a thorough health investigation be conducted, similar to that for the Alaska incident, with added attention to lead and other heavy metals. The mayor's office replied that he would seriously consider our request and get back to FAN.
Pro-fluoridation officials have responded by claiming that accidents like this are very rare. As usual, their claim is factually incorrect. Fluoridation-related accidents happen on a regular basis, endangering millions of residents.
FAN has put together a list of 50 accidents that have occurred primarily since 2000 and have been reported by media outlets. These even include two accidents in the Salt Lake City area that hospitalized a water worker, contaminated a local stream and killed wild animals.
As you view our accident list, keep in mind that many go unreported. I suspect this list could easily be doubled or even tripled with additional research into U.S. Department of Transportation rail and trucking accident records, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) records and state groundwater records.
Also keep in mind that a fluoridation accident or overfeed doesn't have to occur to cause leaching of heavy metals from the drinking water infrastructure. It happens with the so-called "optimal" level of fluoridation additives as well.
The Fluoride Action Network believes that it is urgent for pregnant women to be warned of this potential and avoidable threat to their baby's intellectual development. Because government authorities are failing to issue such warnings, FAN has begun this campaign to warn expectant mothers to avoid fluoride — especially fluoridated water — during pregnancy.
Fluoride is added to approximately 70% of public drinking water systems across the U.S. as nonconsensual dental treatment. The greatest exposure to fluoride for the majority of Americans comes from drinking fluoridated water and using it in food preparation to make soups, rice, coffee, tea, infant formula and more.
What water should I drink if I am pregnant? — Find out here
Questions & Concerns? Check out the Q & A
While ending public water fluoridation is the proper response and ultimate solution to this health risk, it's important that we work to reduce the harmful effects of the practice while it's still in effect. A crucial part of this effort is warning people who are particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxicity.
With your help, we can educate the next generation of parents, so they can take action to avoid fluoride exposure during this critical time in the development of their child. Consider taking these first steps to help spread the Moms2B Avoid Fluoride message, so that expecting mothers can act to protect their children:
If the dental and chemical lobbies had their way, you would never know about the millions of people who live in communities that have successfully fought to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to their drinking water.
Fluoridationists would like us all to believe that the practice is continuing to expand and that the trend is firmly in favor of more towns initiating the practice. However, this is just more propaganda, as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's own stats and our records of community victories have affirmed.
Since 2010, approximately 250 communities representing approximately 7.2 million people have chosen — either by referendum or by council vote — to prohibit fluoridation (see list of local victories).
More than 500 communities throughout the world have ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate since 1990, adding millions more freed from fluoridation.
Most of these victories were the result of citizens organizing local campaigns and voicing their opposition to public officials, with many working in coordination with FAN or using our materials to educate their neighbors and local decision-makers about the serious health risks associated with the practice.
These numbers don't even reflect the residents who have been spared from countless attempts to pass statewide fluoridation mandates in recent years, which FAN has helped defeat. In 2018 alone, four separate mandate bills in Hawaii and New Jersey were met with significant opposition and failed to even pass out of the first committees where they were considered.
If passed, over 5 million people would have had fluoridation chemicals forced upon them, regardless of local opposition and at the expense of taxpayers with no say in the matter.
Our data also show that 79% of community or council votes on fluoridation in the U.S. over the past five years were prompted by residents or officials calling for an end to fluoridation, not for implementation of it. And every attempt to initiate fluoridation has been at the request of dentists and their lobbyists, not independent residents.
It's crucial we maintain this momentum, so we can ensure that fluoridation becomes a thing of the past for you and the world. FAN is dedicated to creating more resources for campaigners, providing more analysis on key studies, recruiting more professionals to support local campaigners, raising greater awareness in the media and among decision-makers and assisting advocates for safe water around the globe with their campaigns.
A couple examples of new educational resources we've been working on: FAN recently created a video series to provide the public and decision-makers with a basic understanding of fluoride, to dispel myths surrounding fluoridation and answer common questions.
The series, "Fluoride Fundamentals," currently includes four short videos — with more on the way — that have been incredibly popular on social media, particularly our video detailing where fluoridation chemicals come from; now with over 150,000 views on Facebook. We suggest sharing these videos on your own social media pages, with decision-makers, family and friends.
We also have three new "one-pager" handouts available to quickly educate your community and local officials. We plan to continue publishing new and updated handouts throughout the year, so follow us on social media and sign up for our emails to get them as they're released.
The dental lobby is not going to let artificial water fluoridation end without a drawn-out fight. This means it's up to concerned citizens and educated health professionals like yourselves, along with groups like the Fluoride Action Network, to protect the public from unnecessary and harmful exposure to fluoride.
Please support our efforts by organizing locally to help end fluoridation, by sharing our message with others and by making a tax-deductible donation of any size.
Source: mercola rss
So many florals, so little time! When it comes to floral essential oils, there are more options than petals on a rose. With a garden—or cupboard—full of blooms, how do you know which floral oils to try?
To make the task a tad easier, we pruned the list of our floral favorites. We also included a few fun facts and different ways to use each floral scent to round out this botanical blog post.
Bring on the bouquet!
Fun fact: Blue Tansy is often used in high-end, luxury beauty products.
What sets it apart: Though the flower is bright yellow, Blue Tansy oil is an exquisitely rich shade of sapphire. Keep this in mind when using this floral essential oil—its color may stain surfaces, fabric, and skin. Unless you want the color to blossom on your bed linens, always dilute Blue Tansy when using it topically.
Fun fact: The Egyptians used Geranium essential oil for more radiant-looking skin.
What sets it apart: Oily, dry, and combination skin all love Geranium oil. This native South African bloom boasts flowerful cleansing and moisturizing properties.
Fun fact: Helichrysum flowers are often called immortelle—the everlasting flower. Maybe that’s why this floral essential oil is our pick when it comes to youthful, glowing complexion goals!
What sets it apart: Helichrysum is produced from distilling Helichrysum flowers, but this essential oil has an earthy aroma unique among the sweet blooms on this list.
Fun fact: It takes 10 pounds of flowers to make one 5 ml bottle of Jasmine oil!
What sets it apart: Jasmine has a rich, sultry aroma—but that’s not the reason for its mystique and allure. To maximize Jasmine’s scent, the flowers must be picked at night before sunrise!
Fun fact: Lavandula—the plant genus Lavender comes from—is part of the mint family, which is why Lavender’s floral scent is so complex and unique.
What sets it apart: Lavender essential oil is a wonderful blend of fresh, floral, clean, and calm and has a bazillion different uses. No wonder it’s our top-selling oil!
Fun fact: Chamomile has been used since ancient times. The word chamomile is derived from the Greek words khamai (“on the ground”) and melon (“apple”).
What sets it apart: Roman Chamomile essential oil has a sweet, fruity aroma with a hint of apple. Its crisp, bright scent is a favorite for creating a cheerful space in children’s play areas.
Fun fact: The Finca Botanica Farm and Distillery in Ecuador is bountiful with Ylang Ylang blossoms.
What sets it apart: Ylang Ylang floral oil is an aromatherapy rockstar because it combines a calming and comforting scent with masterful moisturizing superpowers.
If citrus scents are more your thing, peel yourself away from this post to check out our roundup of citrus oil uses and benefits. Once you’ve squeezed all you can out of our list, learn why we can tout so many tips. Hint: it’s because essential oils really work!
The post Floral favorites: 30 ways to use floral essential oils appeared first on Young Living Blog.
Source: Young Living Blog
Hands up if you’re already planning your summer vacay! After all, it is one of the best parts of summer. […]
The post Essential Oils for Summer: Cut Chemicals Out of Your Summer Vacay appeared first on Plant Therapy Blog.
Source: plant therapy Blog
Described as a patented compound with the ability to enhance working memory, short- and long-term memory and learning in animal studies, magnesium L-threonate (shortened to MgT and pronounced "Mag T") was developed by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2010.
The animal study that first introduced MgT, published in Neuron in 2010,1 noted its ability to rapidly absorb into the brain, which structurally reversed specific aspects of brain aging by increasing the number of "functional presynaptic release sites while it reduced their release probability."2
Magnesium is already recognized as a mineral required by your body for more than 300 crucial biological functions, such as contracting your muscles, maintaining your heartbeat, creating energy and activating nerves to send and receive messages.
However, with all its importance to your bodily functions, a large percentage of the U.S. population is deficient in magnesium, with about half not getting the recommended amounts: 310 to 320 milligrams (mg) for women and 400 to 420 mg for men.3 Presumed deficiencies vary depending on your health status and age; for example, having heart disease and being elderly increase the risk for being deficient in magnesium, one analysis found.4
But still, no matter the age, it's apparent that magnesium deficiency is a genuine health concern worldwide. In fact, in 2006 a French study of 2,373 subjects aged 4 to 82 concluded that 71.7% of men and 82.5% of women weren't getting adequate amounts of magnesium.5
People with low magnesium levels are at risk for a number of serious disorders, including cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, high blood sugar and other signs of metabolic syndrome, as well as osteoporosis.6
A study published in the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease in 20167 notes MgT's benefits in the areas of anxiety, sleep disorders and cognitive dysfunction in human adults. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial took place in three separate institutions, and involved participants between the ages of 50 and 70 with reported episodes of memory problems, sleep disorders and anxiety.
In short, the study found brain atrophy is a natural part of aging, but supplementation with magnesium L-threonate, aka MMFS-01, for 12 weeks improved and even reversed symptoms in the study group:
"With MMFS-01 treatment, overall cognitive ability improved significantly relative to placebo. Cognitive fluctuation was also reduced.
The study population had more severe executive function deficits than age-matched controls from normative data and MMFS-01 treatment nearly restored their impaired executive function, demonstrating that MMFS-01 may be clinically significant ... The current study demonstrates the potential of MMFS-01 for treating cognitive impairment in older adults."
To come to this conclusion, this study conducted baseline cognitive testing, with the first follow-up testing six weeks later. Then, for 12 weeks, study subjects were randomly dosed daily with either placebos or 1,500 to 2,000 mg of MgT, depending on body weight, as cognitive tests were repeated at six-week and 12-week intervals in the areas of:
Significantly, the most "startling" finding is that not only does MgT enhance performance on individual cognitive tests in older adults with cognitive impairment, but it serves to reverse brain aging by more than nine years.8 The study's findings revealed four significant results from MgT use:
MgT boosts the magnesium levels in your brain when taken orally due to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Once it's in your brain, it increases the density of synapses, the communication connections between brain cells. What's more, MgT increases this function in precisely the places needed.11,12,13
The importance of getting it to your brain shows why it isn't as simple as adding magnesium to your diet, as MgT works differently than typical magnesium, which doesn't reach the brain to change the factors of brain aging.14
Even raising blood magnesium levels by 300% (known as "induced hypermagnesemia") doesn't change cerebrospinal fluid levels by more than 19%.15 An all-encompassing study showing the complex regulatory functions of the blood-brain barrier notes:
"The environment exerts profound effects on the brain. A large body of evidence shows that brain plasticity is strongly affected by exposure to stimulating environments, with beneficial consequences throughout the entire life span."16
One reason these discoveries were deemed critical is because there's a connection between a loss of synaptic density, brain shrinkage and subsequent cognitive decline, the study authors said.
According to researchers, your brain doesn't age at the same rate as the rest of your body. For instance, a 60-year-old can have a brain that essentially functions like that of someone a decade older. How that varies is measurable via performance test scores as well as physiological parameters.17,18,19 It can also happen in cases of traumatic brain injury.20
The MMFS-01 study shows an average chronological age of 57.8 years in their study participants. However, their cognitive function averaged 68.3 years of age — about a 10-year difference.
But supplementing with MgT made a dynamic difference: The subjects' collective brain age decreased from 69.6 at the start of the study to just 60.6 in just six weeks' time — a nine-year brain age drop. The improvements continued through all 12 weeks, with the brain age at the end averaging 9.4 years younger, which closely matched their peers with healthy brains.
The takeaway is the remarkable difference that magnesium, and more specifically, MgT, makes in regard to turning back time in people whose brain age is greater than that of their chronological age.
Studies also show how increasing concentrations of magnesium in cultured brain cells from the hippocampus (where memories are stored and retrieved) boosts both synaptic density and brain plasticity.21,22 The reasons this is important are twofold:
Researchers cited a number of earlier studies exploring factors contributing to cognitive decline. Sleep loss28 and anxiety disorders29 with perceived memory loss. Not surprisingly, people with this particular set of conditions are more likely to develop Alzheimer's, as the following studies can attest.
In a review published in 2013, researchers from several hospitals and research centers in St. Louis reported that symptoms of sleep disorders, anxiety and disrupted circadian rhythms are common in patients with Alzheimer's disease. In their study objective, the authors wrote:
"Recent animal studies suggest a bidirectional relationship between sleep and amyloid-β (Aβ), a key molecule involved in AD (Alzheimer's) pathogenesis. This study tested whether Aβ deposition in preclinical AD, prior to the appearance of cognitive impairment, is associated with changes in quality or quantity of sleep."30
The upshot was that amyloid deposition was associated with an inferior quality of sleep, specifically worse sleep efficiency (the percentage of time in bed spent actually sleeping) in comparison with those without amyloid deposition, although sleep time was similar in both groups. Significantly, "Frequent napping was associated with amyloid deposition."31
In 2007, scientists in Sweden followed 185 people for three years with no cognitive impairment along with another 47 people with depressive symptoms related to mood, motivation and anxiety. Interestingly, the scientists observed, "The predictive validity of mild cognitive impairment for identifying future Alzheimer disease cases is improved in the presence of anxiety symptoms."32
Another 2013 study33 as a collaboration between researchers in California observed that aging is associated with regional brain atrophy, reduced slow wave activity during non-REM sleep and impaired long-term retention of episodic memories. The researchers found that age-related gray-matter atrophy was linked to sleep disorders and impaired long-term memory.
There are a few little-known but important factors regarding magnesium. One is that like other minerals, your body doesn't produce it, so it must be derived from an outside source. Second, magnesium works hand in hand with calcium, and the optimal ratio between magnesium and calcium is 1-to-1.
However, doctors have mistakenly pushed women in particular to concentrate on their calcium intake to avoid problems with osteoporosis. With insufficient amounts of magnesium, your heart can't function properly. When the balance between the two favors calcium, especially to the 2-to-1 ratio promoted by doctors over the past 30 years, it can result in a heart attack.
In one study,34 high incidences of hip fractures in Norway were thought to be a result of an imbalance between the concentration of calcium and magnesium in municipal drinking water. In fact, 5,472 men and 13,604 women aged 50 to 85 years suffered hip fractures, which, after an investigation, researchers concluded that increasing magnesium may protect against them.
In addition, keeping your vitamin K2 and vitamin D intake on par with magnesium and calcium is also important. The four work together. For instance, people whose magnesium intake was relatively high were shown in one study35 to be less likely to have a vitamin D deficiency, compared with people with an inadequate magnesium intake.
If you opt for a magnesium supplement, note that there are several different forms. Additionally, one way to get it is through taking regular Epsom salt baths or foot baths. This form of magnesium, magnesium sulfate, absorbs into your skin to raise your levels.
Essentially, since you get only one brain to last your entire life, scientists believe supplementing with MgT appears to be imperative for anyone wanting to preserve brain function, and even recover some function that was lost.
Source: mercola rss
1 Which of the following types of exercise has been shown to be particularly effective for diabetes and insulin resistance?
2 Which of the following statements is true?
3 Research shows a majority of urinary tract infections are the result of:
4 Which of the following are now required by the FDA to carry a black box warning, stating side effects include dangerous behaviors that can lead to injury or death?
5 Which of the following chemicals produced by your body is responsible for many aspects of runner's high?
6 Glyphosate has been called a probable carcinogen by:
7 Cutting edge cancer research led by Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D., suggests that in order to safely and effectively treat cancer, you must:
Source: mercola rss
Two years ago, in December 2017, the United Nations General Assembly declared May 20 of each year as World Bee Day.1 The resolution was the result of an initiative started in 2015 by the Slovenian Beekeepers' Association in an effort to raise awareness about the importance of bees and other pollinating insects, all of which are threatened with extinction thanks to a wide range of toxic human activities.2
As explained by the U.N.,3 May 20 was chosen because it "coincides with the birthday of Anton Janša, who in the 18th century pioneered modern beekeeping techniques in his native Slovenia and praised the bees for their ability to work so hard, while needing so little attention."
While bumble bees might be the most well-recognized, there are in fact between 25,000 and 30,000 different species of bees across the globe. On the Center for Food Safety's website4 you can find a listing of some of the most common species, such as sweat bees, digger bees, carpenter bees, cuckoo bees, long-horned bees and many more.
More than 75% of the world's food crops depend on these and other pollinators, either wholly or in part, as do 90% of wild flowering plants.5 What's more, in the past 50 years, there's been a 300% increase in the volume of crops being produced that are dependent on pollination.6
As such, "Caring for bees and other pollinators is part of the fight against world hunger," the U.N. says.7 It's also important to protect and maintain biodiversity among bee species to ensure agricultural resilience.
The first report8 on "The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture" by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture., issued in April 2019, warns that biodiversity is dwindling across the globe, thereby threatening global food production and human survival.
All forms of life — animals, plants and microorganisms necessary for food, feed, fuel and fibers — are losing diversity. As reported by worldbeeday.org:9
"Of around 6,000 species of agricultural plants, fewer than 200 contribute to global food production, and just nine of them account for 66% of total crop yields. World livestock production is based on approximately 40 animal species, with just a handful providing the vast majority of meat, milk and eggs. The catch quantity is being exceeded for a third of fish stocks, while more than half have reached their limit of sustainability …
At the meeting of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture the European Region proposed that the results of this report be included in the strategy of biodiversity being drawn up by FAO.
Several countries proposed that countries should respond to the main conclusions of the report by including the findings and content in national policies, legislation, programmes and projects in the area of biodiversity in agriculture, forestry and food, in line with their capacities, while there is also an urgent need to formulate further measures to implement the conclusions from the report.
The report will also be important for discussion on the global framework for biodiversity as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity after 2020 and for achieving the sustainable development goals of Agenda 2030."
Another global assessment report10 on pollinators, pollination and food production, released by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in 2016, found an estimated 16% of the vertebrate pollinators around the world are threatened by extinction, as are 30% of island species. According to IPBES vice-chair, Sir Robert Watson::11
"Wild pollinators in certain regions, especially bees and butterflies, are being threatened by a variety of factors. Their decline is primarily due to changes in land use, intensive agricultural practices and pesticide use, alien invasive species, diseases and pests, and climate change."
Similarly, researchers at the University of New Hampshire warn there’s been a “dramatic decline” of 14 wild bee species needed for pollination of apples, blueberries, cranberries and other crops grown in the Northwest. 12 Sandra Rehan, assistant professor of biological sciences, told Science Daily:13
"We know that wild bees are greatly at risk and not doing well worldwide. This status assessment of wild bees shines a light on the exact species in decline, beside the well-documented bumble bees. Because these species are major players in crop pollination, it raises concerns about compromising the production of key crops and the food supply in general.
We found that wild bee species that once greatly populated more southern areas near sea level are now in decline. While up north in more mountainous areas, like the White Mountains, those same species persist which is an indicator of how climate change is affecting certain populations, especially in the Seacoast area."
Using museum data stretching back 125 years (1891 through 2016), the researchers analyzed the prevalence of 119 wild bee species that are native to New Hampshire but also widespread across the Northeast and North America as a whole.
Fourteen of the species were found to have significantly declined while eight species have significantly increased. Out of the 14 species in decline, 13 are ground nesters and one is a cavity nester. Overall, both declining and increasing species have been migrating northward over the last 125 years, suggesting changes in climate are a driving factor.
In related news, the pesticide Sivanto (flupyradifurone), which its maker, Bayer CropScience, claims is completely safe for bees, may not be so safe after all. A yearlong investigation14 by the University of California (UC) San Diego found Bayer’s testing appears to have excluded common use cases that lead to abnormal behavior and increased mortality in exposed bees.
Sivanto, developed to replace neonicotinoid pesticides, which are known to contribute to bee die-offs, was registered for commercial use in 2014 and is currently available in 30 countries including the U.S. and countries in Africa, Asia and Europe. Another 65 countries are also expected to give Sivanto the green-light of approval.
It’s “bee safe” classification permits Sivanto to be sprayed on crops that are in bloom with actively foraging bees. However, according to this study, the pesticide “could in fact pose a range of threats to honeybees depending on seasonality, bee age and use in combination with common chemicals such as fungicides,” the press release states.15
The video above demonstrates the abnormal activity and motor coordination deficits exhibited by exposed bees. As noted in the press release, the researchers:16
"… showed that worst-case, field-realistic doses of Sivanto, in combination with a common fungicide, can synergistically harm bee behavior and survival, depending upon season and bee age. Bees suffered greater mortality — compared with control groups observed under normal conditions — and exhibited abnormal behavior, including poor coordination, hyperactivity and apathy."
Importantly, while official guidelines for pesticide risk assessment focus testing on bees inside the hive, the researchers discovered that the foragers are actually more susceptible to harm, in part because they're more likely to be exposed and in part due to their age. Younger honeybees work inside the colony while the older ones forage outside the hive.
In the case of Sivanto, the harmful effects were four times greater on foragers than in-hive bees. Needless to say, this still threatens the health of the entire colony. The harm was also greater on both types of worker bees during the summer, compared to spring.
"According to the authors, the standard measurements of only lethal effects are insufficient for assessing the complexity of pesticide effects," the press release notes.17 Lead researcher Simone Tosi, who works at ANSES, the French agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, commented:18
"This work is a step forward toward a better understanding of the risks that pesticides could pose to bees and the environment. Our results highlight the importance of assessing the effects pesticides have on the behavior of animals, and demonstrate that synergism, seasonality and bee age are key factors that subtly change pesticide toxicity."
James Nieh, professor of biological sciences at UC San Diego, added:19
"Because standard risk assessment requires relatively limited tests that only marginally address bee behavior and do not consider the influence of bee age and season, these results raise concerns about the safety of multiple approved pesticides, not only Sivanto.
This research suggests that pesticide risk assessments should be refined to determine the effects of commonly encountered pesticide cocktails upon bee behavior and survival … The idea that this pesticide is a silver bullet in the sense that it will kill all the bad things but preserve the good things is very alluring but deserves caution."
On worldbeeday.org, a number of suggestions can be found for how kindergartens and schools can get involved and celebrate World Bee Day with educational activities.20 For example, schools are encouraged to get together with local beekeeping associations to organize a visit to a local beekeeper where the children can learn about bees and nectar-bearing plants, honey production and how to set up a hive.
On a more individual basis, there are a number of things you can do to help protect our pollinators, not only on World Bee Day but every day. Following are several suggestions issued by worldbeeday.org:21
Plant nectar-bearing flowers in your garden, yard or balcony to help feed the bees, and be sure to avoid using toxic pesticides and herbicides that might hurt pollinators! If you have a farm, large or small, be sure to incorporate flowers that support the wild bee population. The following video, made by Project Integrated Crop Pollination, demonstrates helpful planting practices.
Buy honey and other hive products from local beekeepers to help keep them in business.
Teach your children about the importance of bees and beekeepers.
Set up a beehive.
Preserve meadows and sow wildflowers in your garden, making sure the wildflower mix you choose contains flowers native to your area. Non-native plants do not contribute as much toward the care and feeding of local insects, as they are not able to adapt and feed on whatever is available. Hybridized plants also do not provide proper nourishment, and can be likened to "junk food" for insects, as they do not provide much in terms of nourishment.22
Wait to cut meadow grass until the nectar-bearing plants have finished blooming, so as not to rob bees of crucial nourishment.
Avoid using toxic pesticides and herbicides. Even when using a nontoxic product, make sure to spray it when there’s little to no wind, and either early in the morning or late at night, when bees are not actively foraging.
Blooming plants and trees that must be sprayed with pesticides should be mulched before spraying to avoid attracting bees.
Source: mercola rss
You’ve most likely experienced the unpleasant feeling of nausea once or twice (or maybe more) in your life, mainly because it can arise for numerous reasons. From sicknesses to pregnancy, or even stress, this condition could have a number of triggers. But when it does arise, do you know how to deal with this unpleasant feeling?
There may be numerous reasons why it strikes, but the good news is there are many ways to get rid of nausea. This article will shed light on different strategies for alleviating nausea, so it won’t impact your day-to-day tasks. Discover home remedies that can treat or relieve this common health issue, so you can be ready whenever it strikes.
Medical News Today defines nausea as “an unpleasant sensation of discomfort or unease in the stomach (queasy stomach), accompanied by an urge to vomit.”1 Other symptoms of nausea include stomach cramping and excessive salivation.2
Sometimes, nausea and vomiting are interchanged as being the same, but actually these are two different terminologies referring to two different conditions. Vomiting is when you expel the contents of your stomach, whether forcibly or involuntarily.3 While there can be rare exceptions, vomiting is usually preceded by nausea. On the other hand, it is possible to feel nauseated but not to vomit.4
The causes of nausea and vomiting are similar.5 Both these conditions can affect people of any age, whether adults or children. Cleveland Clinic notes that undergoing certain medical treatments like chemotherapy and radiation therapy may also cause nausea and vomiting.6 Pregnant women, too, are prone to nausea.
While it is unpleasant, nausea is not a disease, though it could be one of the symptoms of a disease.7 Hence, knowing what triggers it is crucial in alleviating this symptom. Nausea can be triggered by diseases or medical conditions, such as:8
There are also psychological factors that may lead to nausea, such as anxiety10 or social phobia. Anorexia nervosa and bulimia (wherein self-induced vomiting is a hallmark symptom) are also potential triggers.11 Taking certain medications may lead to nausea as side effect. Examples include aspirin, erythromycin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and blood pressure drugs.12
As mentioned above, pregnant women are at risk of nausea, mainly because of the many changes happening in their body. In fact, nausea is one of the earliest symptoms of pregnancy, affecting over 50% of expectant women. It’s also known as “morning sickness,” and may or may not be accompanied by vomiting.13
In most women, morning sickness stops after the first trimester. It’s not harmful, but if it occurs severely, it could indicate a condition called hyperemesis gravidarum. This can be dangerous if left unaddressed, as it can lead to nutrient deficiency for you and your child.14
Another common trigger of nausea is alcohol intake. This occurs because alcohol irritates your stomach lining, leads to dehydration and expands your blood vessels.15 The best thing to do to avoid a hangover is not to drink in the first place — or to at least limit your drinks to just one — but if you do imbibe, there are ways to effectively deal with a hangover. For helpful tips on dealing with hangover nausea and other symptoms, check out this How to Get Rid of a Hangover infographic.
Conventional treatments for nausea include taking antiemetic drugs, which work by obstructing certain neurotransmitters in the body.16 However, antiemtics can lead to a number of side effects, some of which may be worse than nausea — examples include blurry vision, severe hypotension and hypersensitivity.17
Instead of relying on these drugs, you can turn to natural remedies for nausea, some of which may be found in your home:
• Ginger — This ancient herb has been used widely for its antiemetic properties. Using ginger is a safe way to ease nausea particularly during pregnancy.18 It’s also been found effective against motion sickness.19 You can use fresh or dried ginger, or in forms such as capsules, tablets and liquid extracts.20 Sipping on ginger tea is a popular way to get the nausea-relieving benefits of this plant.
• Peppermint and spearmint — You can make use of peppermint or spearmint oil, or enjoy a freshly brewed cup of tea using these herbs. A study has found that giving peppermint and spearmint capsules to cancer patients may help ease the nausea that comes with chemotherapy, thanks to the beneficial compounds in these plants.21
• Chamomile tea — A study found that chamomile, along with ginger capsules, may also have beneficial effects against nausea during chemotherapy.22 One of the easiest ways to reap this benefit is to brew and sip on freshly brewed chamomile tea. Read more about chamomile tea and why it’s a popular beverage that is well-loved by many people today.
• Lemon — The tart flavor and citrusy scent of lemons is said to be effective in easing the nausea and vomiting brought on by pregnancy23 There are many ways you can use this citrus fruit:
◦ Place a few freshly cut lemon wedges in a plastic bag and inhale the scent.24
◦ Suck on a lemon wedge or sip lemon juice or very tart lemonade25
◦ Crush a few peeled lemon seeds with a mortar and pestle and mix with honey to make a fine paste and ingest.26
• Vitamin B6 supplement — A 2013 study found that taking a 40-milligram dose of vitamin B6 daily helped ease nausea among pregnant women just as efficiently as ginger did.27
• Acupressure — A traditional healing art that is based on acupuncture, acupressure involves applying pressure to certain “acupoints” in your body to relieve tension and boost blood circulation. For nausea, you will need to target the pressure point P-6, or Nei guan, found in your inner wrist. The Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center shares these steps on how to do acupressure to ease nausea:28
1. Position your hand in a way that your palm is facing you and your fingers are pointing upward.
2. Put the three middle fingers of your other hand across your wrist, just below the palm. Put your thumb on the inside of your wrist, just below your index finger. There should be two large tendons under your thumb — this is pressure point P-6.
3. Press on P-6 for two to three minutes using your thumb or forefinger. This should be done in a circular motion. The pressure should be firm, but not so hard that it hurts.
4. Repeat this on your other wrist.
As mentioned, ginger, lemon and mints like peppermint and spearmint all have antiemetic effects, so it makes sense that their essential oils also provide this benefit. However, if you don’t have these essential oils on hand, you can turn to other types that may prove to have nausea-relieving effects as well.
One example is lavender oil. This essential oil may help ease nausea, especially if its triggers involve pain or anxiety.29 To use lavender oil, simply add a few drops to a basin of cool water and then soak a washcloth in it. Use this as a forehead compress.30 According to “The Complete Book of Essential Oils and Aromatherapy,” other oils that may help ease nausea include:31
Essential oils for nausea may work when diffused, inhaled or applied topically. Remember that these oils are highly concentrated and should be diluted in a safe carrier oil like coconut or jojoba oil prior to use. Do a skin patch test before applying the oil blend to large areas of your skin, so you will know if you have any sensitivities to the oil. Do not ingest essential oils without the advice of a health care expert, especially if you’re pregnant or suffering from any illness.
Nausea can be uncomfortable and distressing, but if you try the home remedies above, you may be able to break free from its unpleasant grip. Remember these other tips to help manage this symptom:32,33
• If your nausea comes with vomiting, make sure to drink plenty of water to replenish your fluids. This will help you avoid dehydration. If it’s difficult to keep liquids down, take small sips.
• Stay away from strong smells and fragrances. They can trigger nausea.
• Relax and avoid moving too much. Sudden and intense movement may worsen nausea.
• Control your breathing. Taking in slow and steady deep breaths can help ease nausea.
• Sit upright. This will help support your digestion and relieve nausea. Do not bend backward or forward.
• Opt for smaller and more frequent meals instead of two or three heavy ones. Opt for light, bland foods and stay away from greasy, sweet or fried foods.
Most of the time, nausea and vomiting are harmless and can be resolved with home remedies. However, if there are indications of a bigger health problem, it may be best to consult with your physician. Have yourself checked if you notice symptoms along with nausea and vomiting, such as:34
Q: How can you stop nausea and vomiting without pharmaceutical drugs?
A: There are home remedies you can turn to that can safely ease nausea and vomiting. Lemon, ginger, mints like spearmint and peppermint and vitamin B6 supplements may help with this uncomfortable problem. You can also try acupressure.
Q: What should I eat for nausea?
A: Sucking on a piece of lemon wedge or a drinking tart lemon juice may help ease nausea.35 It’s also best to eat light and bland foods and avoid greasy fried foods. Opt for small meals instead of large ones.36
Q: Can nausea be a sign of cancer?
A: According to Cancer Treatment Centers of America, there are some cases when stomach cancer may cause nausea and vomiting.37
Q: How should you sleep when you're nauseated?
A: According to WebMD, sleeping with your head higher than your feet is an ideal position if you feel nauseated. Also remember not to lie down after eating.38
Source: mercola rss