GUT BRAIN HEALING with PROFESSOR SUNDARDAS - NATUROPATH, HOMOEPATH, ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES, SINGAPORE

Are we poisoning our future generations?

Dr Sundardas May 11, 2011 No Comments

A new study from the Universityof California, San Francisco reveals that 100% of expectant mothers (sample size = 268) are contaminated with highly toxic synthetic chemicals. The study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.”

These chemicals are known to exhibit various harmful effects on human biology, covering everything from neurological and infertility problems to cancer and hormonal disorders. Many of the chemicals found in these women have been banned for not just years, but decades.

The poisoning of our bodies by chemical companies

Where do all these chemicals come from? Pesticides are sprayed on crops, of course, and the new so-called “Food Safety” bill passed by Congress does absolutely nothing to reduce pesticide levels of food (that’s not part of their definition of “safety,” apparently). In addition, S.510 actually places a new burden on U.S. farmers, shifting the competitive advantage to food importations from countries where the most toxic pesticides are still legal to use.
Phthalates are chemical plasticizers. Pharmaceutical pills are often coated with phthalates to give them a shiny finish. They’re also used in children’s toys, medical devices, personal care products, sunscreens and even sex toys. On the personal care side, phthalates are found in perfumes, eye shadow, liquid soap, nail polish and hair spray. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677823/?tool=pmcentrez).

Phthalates are known as “endocrine disruptors” because they interfere with normal endocrine system function — potentially leading to obesity and birth defects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalates#Endocrine_disruption).
Perchlorate, also known as the “rocket fuel chemical,” is used in the manufacture of automobile airbags and other vehicle parts. It’s also present in many fireworks, and is frequently found contaminating the water supply.

We could go on with more details, but here’s the point: We live in a toxic stew of synthetic chemicals — chemicals that the plastics industry and the American Chemistry Council tend to say are all completely harmless, of course. The FDA allows thousands of other chemicals to be used in food and personal care products, and the processed food manufacturers inject an alarming array of toxic chemicals into their foods (and food packaging materials).

The average U.S. consumer bathes their clothing in extremely toxic fabric softeners and perfumed laundry detergents that make them smell like walking fragrance factories. The exhaust air from dryer vents even pollutes the air in residential neighborhoods and apartment buildings.With all this going on, is anybody really surprised that 100% of pregnant women are contaminated with toxic chemicals?

The Roman Empire poisoned itself with lead in the water supply. The American empire has decided to poison itself with the “miracle of modern chemistry” as found in all the pesticides, plasticizers, additives, preservatives and other chemicals that a typical first-world consumer poisons themselves with a thousand times a day.

Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever and all the other consumer product companies using synthetic chemicals to manufacture personal care products. It is corporations like these, in my opinion, whose products are poisoning our bodies and contaminating our world with dangerous synthetic chemicals.

You have a choice to make. Support them or tell them it’s got to stop.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

How to protect your thyroid (Part 2)

Dr Sundardas April 12, 2011 No Comments

Chlorella is another great superfood for protection against radiation. Chlorella has been used after nuclear accidents and even nuclear bombings to help clear radioactive elements out of the body. Spirulina and chlorella have been used heavily by the Russians after the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. And the Japanese love their miso soup and that was said to help some of their citizens survive the fallout after the Americans attacked two of their cities. This is why I recommend Dr PPARS because of its high chlorella content and because it is like refined rocket fuel for the cells providing them with a broad range of concentrated nutrients.

Tan Koon Peng from Singapore writes: “Miso is effective for detoxifying your body of radiation. During World War II, two hospitals that were located side by side were hit with atomic radiation, in one hospital people consumed Miso and all of them survived while many people in the other hospital that did not take miso died. Miso is rich in vitamin B therefore it is suitable for vegetarians who are in shortage of vitamin B. For best results do not cook miso.”

There are a number of foods that can better help our bodies tolerate the effects of pollution. Eating lower on the food chain minimizes our chemical intake. Consuming more whole grains has a multitude of benefits. Their high fiber content binds with toxins and lessens intestinal transit time. Their vitamin B6 content nourishes the thymus gland and their vitamin E content helps the body to better utilize oxygen. The grain buckwheat is high in rutin and helps to protect against radiation and stimulates new bone marrow production. The mucilaginous fiber in seaweed helps to prevent the reabsorbing of radioactive strontium 90.

The sulfur compounds in the broccoli family trigger increased expression of your glutathione system, which results in both metal detoxification and free radical neutralization. The other group of food compounds that do this is the polyphenolic antioxidants – pine bark extract, green tea extract, grape seed extract, and my favorite Haritaki or terminalia chebula, an Ayurvedic fruit that is the basis for many medicines including the intestinal detoxifier Triphala. This fruit is used extensively in Tibetan Medicine where it is pictured being held by the Medicine Buddha and call the “King of Herbs”. It has potent effects on the glutathione system and on expression of other intracelluar antioxidants such as superoxide dismutase. Haritaki is one of the superpowers in Clear Way. Clear Way also includes other polyphenolics such as Pine Bark extract, large amounts of liver cleansing dandelion root extract, natural iodine and minerals from fucus extract (or what is known as bladderwrack, a sea vegetable), the metal chelator and super antioxidant R-Lipoic acid, nerve protectors gotu kola and bacopa monniera, and B-vitamins 1, 5, and 6.

Research on animals indicates that curcumin (an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory compound found in the curry spice turmeric) may help protect against radiation-induced damage to the skin. Other research in animals shows that the herb ginkgo biloba may help shield against organ damage resulting from radiation therapy. And aloe vera is often touted as a natural remedy for radiation-induced skin changes preventing or minimizing radiation-induced skin reactions.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

How to protect your thyroid (Part 1)

Dr Sundardas March 25, 2011 No Comments

In the aftermath of Japan’s nuclear catastrophe and the fear that winds could blow radiation into the west coast of North America, there has been a sudden rush on potassium iodide, which helps protect your glandular system from radiation poisoning if you’re exposed. The Japanese government is handing out this supplement in huge quantities to the survivors north of Tokyo. These “radiation pills” are being sold out everywhere. NukePills.com says they were completely sold out over the weekend. Pharmacies in California are receiving a stampede of phone calls from near-panicked residents there, reports Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/15/drug-stores-report-sudden-increase-potassium-iodide-sales /

Dr. John W. Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology in the University of California at Berkeley, has written extensively about the effort to belittle the menace of low-level radiation. People associated with the nuclear and medical industries assert falsely, “there is no evidence that exposure to low-dose radiation causes any cancer — the risk is only theoretical,” or “the risk is utterly negligible,” or “the accidental exposures were below the safe level,” and even “there is reasonably good evidence that exposure to low-dose radiation is beneficial and lowers the cancer rate.” By any reasonable standard of scientific proof, the weight of the human evidence shows decisively that cancer is inducible by ionizing radiation even at the lowest possible dose and dose-rate — which means that the risk is never theoretical.

Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling described this process as follows: “The rays of high-energy radiation are like little bullets that shoot through the body. They tear electrons away from molecules and through subsequent reactions of the molecular ions that are formed, the molecules may be broken in two, some atoms may be torn away from them, some new molecules may be formed. The dose of 500 roentgens that usually leads to death by acute radiation sickness causes about 500,000 changed molecules to be formed in each cell. If any of the special molecules [that control the process by which the cell divides] happen to be damaged by a single little bullet of radiation from a single radioactive atom, it may be changed in such a way as to cause the cell to divide much more rapidly than the other cells. This cell may then produce a colony of rapidly dividing cells, which in the course of time would outnumber the normal cells of that type. Then the human being may die from cancer — perhaps leukemia, bone cancer, some other kind of cancer — caused by the single radioactive atom that produced the single little bullet of radiation.”

Radioactive materials, plutonium in particular, affect the deepest level of the human being — bone marrow, DNA, genetic structure, inner organs and the deepest of emotions. The message is clear. We have created a horrific heritage. – Jeremy Sherr

Potassium Iodide is a man-made chemical. It is used to prevent only one type of radiation poisoning (for radioactive iodine isotopes). It is only effective for 24 hours so taking it now is not going to help but it may just hurt. Basically it works because it closes the receptor sites to the thyroid so the nuclear fallout (heavy metals) which destroy the thyroid will not get to it.

Be well
Dr Sundardas

Why doesn’t fast food decompose?

Dr Sundardas March 7, 2011 1 Comment

The latest “new” discovery by the mainstream media is that McDonald’s Happy Meal hamburgers and fries won’t decompose, even if you leave them out for six months. This story has been picked up by CNN, the Washington Post and many other MSM outlets which appear startled that junk food from fast food chains won’t decompose in the US.

The funny thing about this is that the natural health industry already covered this topic years ago. Remember Len Foley’s Bionic Burger video? It was posted in 2007 and eventually racked up a whopping 2 million views on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYyDXH1amic). And this video shows a guy who bought his McDonald’s hamburgers in 1989 — burgers that still haven’t decomposed in over two decades! Now, he has an entire museum of non-decomposed burgers in his basement.

Did the mainstream media pick up on this story? Nope. Not a word. The story was completely ignored. It was only in 2010 when an artist posted a story about a non-decomposing McDonald’s hamburger from six months ago that the news networks ran with the story.

This is especially interesting because the more recent “Happy Meal Project” which only tracks a burger for six months has drawn quite a lot of criticism from a few critics who say the burgers will decompose if you give them enough time. They obviously don’t know about the mummified burger museum going all the way back to 1989. This stuff never seems to decompose! So why don’t fast food burgers and fries decompose in the first place? The knee-jerk answer is often thought to be, “Well they must be made with so many chemicals that even mold won’t eat them.” While that’s part of the answer, it’s not the whole story.

The truth is many processed foods don’t decompose and won’t be eaten by molds, insects or even rodents. Try leaving a tub of margarine outside in your yard and see if anything bothers to eat it. You’ll find that the margarine stays seems immortal, too! Potato chips can last for decades. Frozen pizzas are remarkably resistant to decomposition. And you know those processed Christmas sausages and meats sold around the holiday season? You can keep them for years and they’ll never rot. With meats, the primary reason why they don’t decompose is their high sodium content. Salt is a great preservative, as early humans have known for thousands of years. McDonald’s meat patties are absolutely loaded with sodium — so much so that they qualify as “preserved” meat, not even counting the chemicals you might find in the meat. To me, there’s not much mystery about the meat not decomposing. The real question in my mind is why don’t the buns mold? That’s the really scary part, since healthy bread begins to mold within days. What could possibly be in McDonald’s hamburger buns that would ward off microscopic life for more than two decades?

As it turns out, unless you’re a chemist you probably can’t even read the ingredients list out loud. Here’s what McDonald’s own website says you’ll find in their buns:

Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid, enzymes), water, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, yeast, soybean oil and/or partially hydrogenated soybean oil, contains 2% or less of the following: salt, calcium sulfate, calcium carbonate, wheat gluten, ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, dough conditioners (sodium stearoyl lactylate, datem, ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, mono- and diglycerides, ethoxylated monoglycerides, monocalcium phosphate, enzymes, guar gum, calcium peroxide, soy flour), calcium propionate and sodium propionate (preservatives), soy lecithin.

The reason nothing will eat a McDonald’s hamburger bun (except a human) is because it’s not food! No normal animal will perceive a McDonald’s hamburger bun as food, and as it turns out, neither will bacteria or fungi. To their senses, it’s just not edible stuff. That’s why these bionic burger buns just won’t decompose. Welcome to the Happy Meal. You need to decide where you will eat it though.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

The Ultimate Quacks (Part 2)

Dr Sundardas February 16, 2011 No Comments

The fraud started in the 1940’s when the Rockefeller Foundation wanted to corner the drug market. The Carnegie Foundation established a commission headed by Abraham Flexner and subsidized by John Rockefeller who had just purchased stock in pharmaceutical companies.

The commissions final report, in 1910, produced an almost instantaneous revision of medical education. The total absence of standards for medical education and clinical practice in the USA led to the passage of the federal Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, and to the publication in 1910 of the Flexner report.

It’s amazing how medical scientists will get rough and tough when attacking homeopathy, touting how their own medicine is “based on the gold standard of scientific evidence!” and yet when it really comes down to it, their scientific evidence is just a jug of quackery mixed with a pinch of wishful thinking and a wisp of pseudoscientific gobbledygook, all framed in the language of scientism by members of the FDA who wouldn’t recognize real science if they tripped and fell into a vat full of it.

Big Pharma and the FDA have based their entire system of scientific evidence on a placebo fraud! And if the placebo isn’t a placebo, then the scientific evidence isn’t scientific.
Oh, but wait. They’ll call it science because they wish the placebo to be a placebo. Yep — the clinical researchers are now psychics, mediums and fortune tellers who simply decree that little pill of olive oil to “be a placebo!” while waving their hands over it in a gesture borrowed from David Copperfield.

Hope also has a huge role to place in all this. The more you hope your placebos are really placebos, the better results you’ll get. In fact, in reporting on this whole fiasco, the lead researcher of the study uncovering all this, Dr Beatric Golomb, said, “We can only hope that this hasn’t seriously systematically affected medical treatment.”

But of course it has. (And by the way, no disrespect toward Dr Golomb. She deserves kudos for being willing to tackle this subject which will no doubt make her very unpopular among the cult of Scientism as practiced by conventional medical researchers today.)

How to improve your clinical trial results? For improved results, try to use the most harmful placebo substances you can. For example, in real clinical trials involving AIDS patients — who tend to be lactose intolerant — researchers have used pills made of, guess what? Lactose!

That’s sort of like running a clinical trial on a cure for heroin addiction and using heroin as the placebo, isn’t it? Somehow our drug worked “better than placebo.” Funny how that works, isn’t it? And if you still don’t get the results you want, just start inventing your own data like other clinical trial researchers do. Remember Dr Scott Reuben? This highly-respected clinical trial researcher faked at least twenty-one clinical trials for Big Pharma.. His fraudulent clinical trials are still being cited to sell prescription medications!

Be well

Dr Sundardas

The Ultimate Quacks (Part 1)

Dr Sundardas January 20, 2011 No Comments

We already know that clinical trials are rife with fraud. Most of the clinical trials used by pharmaceutical companies to win FDA approval of their drugs, for example, are funded by pharmaceutical companies. And it is a verifiable fact that most clinical trials tend to find results that favor the financial interests of whatever organization paid for them. So what’s to stop Big Pharma from scheming up the perfect placebo that would harm patients just enough to make their own drugs look good by comparison?

It now appears that all those thousands of clinical trials conducted over the last few decades comparing pharmaceuticals to placebo pills must now be completely thrown out as utterly non-scientific. And why? Because the placebos used in the studies weren’t really placebos at all, rendering the studies scientifically invalid. This is the conclusion from researchers at the University of California who published their findings in the October issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine. They reviewed 167 placebo-controlled trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals in 2008 and 2009 and found that 92 percent of those trials never even described the ingredients of their placebo pills.

Why is this important? Because placebo pills are supposed to be inert. But nothing is inert, it turns out. Even so-called “sugar pills” contain sugar, obviously. And sugar isn’t inert. If you’re running a clinical trial on diabetics, testing the effectiveness of a diabetes drug versus a placebo then obviously your clinical trial is going to make the diabetes drug look better than placebo if you use sugar pills as your placebo.

Some placebo pills use olive oil which may actually improve heart health. Other placebo pills use partially-hydrogenated oils which harm heart health. Yet only 8 percent of clinical trials bothered to list the placebo ingredients at all!

It turns out there are absolutely no FDA rules regarding the choice or composition of placebos used in clinical trials. Technically, a clinical trial director could use eye of newt or lizard’s legs as placebo and would not even be required to mention such nefarious details in the trial results ala Shakespeare. That would cause trouble, trouble, boil and bubble!

Placebos are usually provided by the very same company funding the clinical trial! Do you detect any room for fraud in this equation? How drug companies can fake clinical trials with selected placebo pills

Placebo performance strongly influences whether drugs are approved by the FDA, by the way. As the key piece of information on its regulatory approval decisions, the FDA wants to know whether a drug works better than placebo. That’s the primary requirement! If they work even 5% better than placebo, they are said to be “efficacious” (meaning they “work”). This is true even if the placebo was selected and used specifically to make the drug look good by comparison. You see, if there are no regulations or rules regarding placebo, then none of the placebo-controlled clinical trials are scientifically valid.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Are we turning our ADHD kids into “speed” addicts?

Dr Sundardas December 29, 2010 No Comments

Just how dangerous are the amphetamine stimulant drugs prescribed for children with so-called ADHD? According to scientific research funded by the FDA and the National Institute of Mental Health, drugs such as Ritalin increase the risk of sudden death by five hundred percent among children and teens.

In these cases of sudden death, the child suddenly collapses and dies, only to be discovered later by parents or siblings. That’s what happened to Matthew Hohmann in 2004 ands more and more children at a rate that’s 500 percent higher than would be considered typical for children of a similar age and health status.

ADHD drugs like Ritalin are, of course, amphetamine stimulants. They used to be sold on the street as “speed,” but now they’re prescribed by psychiatrists to children after a subjective diagnosis of a fictitious disease: ADHD — a “disorder” which has no measurable biological symptoms whatsoever.

Interestingly, the FDA banned ephedra, an herbal stimulant, after a handful of consumers died from consuming huge amounts of the herb in a desperate effort to lose weight. In that case, in banning the herb, the FDA announced “the risks outweigh the benefits,” declaring that “ephedra is not safe at any dose.” However vaccines are considered perfectly safe even though there are no double blind studies done on their safety or their efficacy. Look at my previous article on “Toxic Story” about mercury.

In great contrast to that, even as children are literally dropping dead after taking ADHD drugs, the FDA is now insisting “the benefits are worth the risks.”

But what benefits, exactly, are they talking about? There are no trusted scientific studies whatsoever showing ADHD drugs like Ritalin have any long-term positive effect on children. In fact, the available studies show that ADHD drugs stunt the physical growth of children while impairing brain development. Children who take these drugs, in other words, are not merely at a 500 percent increased risk of sudden death; they are almost assured to be stunted in their brain and body growth by this dangerous amphetamine stimulant drug.

The only real benefits to ADHD drugs, it turns out, are the financial benefits to the drug companies. With hundreds of millions of doses of ADHD drugs sold around the world each year, Big Pharma is raking in the profits while children are dropping dead in their own homes. So when the FDA says “the benefits are worth the risks,” what they mean is that the financial benefits to the drug companies are worth the risks to the lives of children.When parents take their children to psychiatrists and are told to put them on drugs like Ritalin, most parents believe what the doctors say. They believe the FDA wouldn’t approve a drug so dangerous that it could kill their child without warning. And they believe the drug companies would never sell products that harm people.

But those beliefs are foolish. In reality, the FDA, the drug companies and the psychiatrists are all working in collusion, knowingly pushing dangerous, deadly drugs onto families for the sole purpose of generating profits. While children suffer and die, they cash in on the ADHD delusion, first by promoting a fictitious disease and then later through high-profit pharmaceutical quackery.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

SUGAR BLUES 2

Dr Sundardas December 8, 2010 No Comments

Sugar and monosodium glutamate have one thing in common. People are more likely to buy products containing them if they are called something else. Consumers trying to avoid sugar have started reading food labels. Many have begun to think that sugar by another name is not really sugar. Manufacturers know that calling sugar evaporated cane juice for instance, fools people into thinking there is less sugar in the product. Many label readers have caught on to the fact that ingredients have to be listed in order, from the largest amount contained down to the smallest. By using different names for sugar, manufacturers can split the content among the different names, putting the idea of sugar further down on the label without actually reducing the amount of sugar in the product.

Once upon a time health food stores did not carry products containing sugar. Today what we think of as a “health food store” is often a type of hybrid resulting from the cross breeding of true health food stores with traditional grocery retailers. These new stores are trying to capitalize on having a healthy image, while their shelves are stocked with products containing processed sugar, often listed by one of its other names.

However, both evaporated cane juice and white sugar are both sucrose, and both contain 400 calories in 100 grams. Both evaporated cane juice and white cane sugar have been heavily processed to remove the molasses content. During this processing the vitamins, minerals, fiber, amino acids, and trace elements that make molasses nutritious have been striped away, leaving one of the purest chemicals ever manufactured. Only tiny amounts of vitamin A and calcium remain in evaporated cane juice. Following processing, evaporated cane juice is 99.5 percent sucrose, and white sugar is 99.9 percent sucrose. Turbinado sugar is 99 percent sucrose.

Whether sugar is eaten in the form of white sugar, evaporated cane juice, turbinado, or any of the other names for it, its effect on the body is the same. When eaten in large amounts, or eaten without fat or protein, each of them will produce the same sort of insulin spike, weight gain, immune system suppression, and increased chance for diabetes. It has been implicated in Syndrome X and heart disease as well.

The big difference between evaporated cane juice and granulated sugar is the price, which runs about 8 to 10 dollars a pound for evaporated cane juice compared to about 1 to 3 dollars a pound for white sugar. If manufacturers are willing to spend the extra money to put the words evaporated cane juice on their labels, it means they know the public is seriously trying to avoid eating sugar and needs to be tricked into eating it anyway.

Our collective sweet tooth goes back to the days when we lived in caves and life was a physical event rather than a mental one, as it is now. We needed to eat foods high in nutrients in order to have energy to get through the physical challenges of the typical day. Sweets eaten back then were primarily berries and other fruits that contained beneficial nutrients, enzymes and many phytochemicals to keep us going strong. Back then, a sweet tooth was not a bad thing. But sugar craving still exists for the purpose of compelling people to seek high energy nutrition. Until that nutrition is obtained, sugar craving continues, leaving today’s people in that vicious circle where more nutrient depleted sweets are eaten, and more sugar craving signals are sent. For many people, sugar has almost completely replaced nutrient dense foods, with obesity and health issues as the results. Next time you want something sweet, eat some fruit.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Anti-Cancer Minerals

Dr Sundardas November 22, 2010 No Comments

Any woman wanting to avoid breast cancer or its recurrence needs to be aware of the real risk factors. These are not the factors you hear about from the typical oncologist who is interested in pushing drugs. Imbalances in the body are the real risk factors that explain why women get breast cancer, not lack of drugs. The only way to avoid cancer or its recurrence is to address these imbalances. Two minerals, zinc and selenium, are key in maintaining balance in the body and keeping cancer away. Lack of zinc has been implicated not only in the initiation of breast cancer, but also in the transition, progression, and metastasis of the disease. When zinc is deficient, cellular functioning in the breast is compromised. (Genes and Nutrition, April 2) In a recent study done at the University of Washington, scientists investigated the signaling pathways modulated by selenium. They compared global gene expression profiles in mammary tissues from pubescent female rats maintained on a selenium (3ppm) diet with those on a standardized diet. The selenium-enriched diet altered the steady-state levels of genes involved in various cellular functioning, the most dramatic of which was the changes in the expression of multiple genes that regulate circadian rhythm.

The primary gene protecting women from breast cancer, p53, is thought to be the most frequently mutated or altered gene in the development of cancer. This gene requires zinc, and if it is missing, the gene becomes mutated, resulting in it becoming inactivated or suppressed. Dysfunction of p53 is well documented in the development of breast cancer, indicating that a zinc deficiency is a risk factor for breast cancer independent of the levels of boron, copper and calcium. In France, scientists report that estrogen receptor expression in breast cancers is associated with differentiated tumors and a more favorable prognosis. The greater the resemblance of cancerous breast cells to non-cancerous breast cells, the less threatening is the disease. Although the exact mechanism underlying the protection ERs play against cancer progression remains to be researched, these scientists studied the actions of ER alpha, and documented that one of the ways this ER inhibits invasion is though its first zinc finger. A zinc finger is a group of proteins organized around a zinc ion that can bind to DNA and influence gene regulation. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 2008)

The relationship between selenium status and intake among breast cancer patients was studied by scientists in Kuala Lumpur. 64 women with breast cancer and 127 matched controls were interviewed to obtain information on their habitual dietary intakes, demographic data, and medical history. Selenium status was determined from toenail and hair analysis. The researchers found that total energy and protein intake was significantly higher among controls than among the breast cancer cases. The selenium intake among the women with breast cancer was significantly lower than the controls. Breast cancer risk decreased with the increasing quartiles of selenium intake. Selenium in hair did not differ among breast cancer cases and controls, but selenium status in the nails of controls was significantly higher compared to the breast cancer cases. (Singapore Medical Journal, March 2009). Drink your minerals ladies

Be well

Dr Sundardas

TOXIC STORIES

Dr Sundardas November 2, 2010 No Comments

The FDA has, for decades, ridiculously insisted that mercury fillings pose no health threat whatsoever to children. While dismissing hundreds of studies showing a clear link between mercury amalgam fillings (“silver fillings”) and disastrous neurological effects in the human body, the FDA denied the truth about mercury and effectively protected the mercury filling racket that has brought so much harm to so many people. For over a hundred years, a cabal of “mercury mongers” made up of the American Dental Association, mercury filling manufactu- rers and indignant dentists have reaped windfall profits by implanting toxic fillings into the mouths of children, all while insisting that mercury — one of the most toxic heavy metals known to modern science — posed no health threat whatsoever.

That reign of toxicity ended in June 2008. Thanks to the tireless, multi-year efforts of people like Charles Brown, National Counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org), the FDA was forced to acknowledge a fact so fundamental that, by any measure of honest science, it should have adopted the position decades ago. What position is that? Simply that mercury is toxic to humans.

The FDA has to be sued to do its job of protecting consumers. The FDA’s stonewalling on this issue has been nothing less than a circus of politically-motivated denials, much like the Big Tobacco executives swearing under oath that “Nicotine is not addictive.” In similar style, the FDA insisted for decades that “Mercury is not toxic.” Both statements, as any sane person can readily conclude, are the outbursts of lunatics. Sadly, those lunatics somehow remain in charge of America’s food, drugs and cosmetics (and dental care), meaning that any real progress to protect the People must come from outside the FDA.

And that’s exactly what happened. Consumers for Dental Choice teamed up with Moms Against Mercury (www.MomsAgainstMercury.org) and sued the FDA and its commissioner whose name sounds like an evil-minded villian right out of a Marvel comic book: Von Eschenbach. The lawsuit, entitled, Moms Against Mercury et al. v. Von Eschenbach, Commissioner, et al was concluded in June 2008 with a reluctant agreement by the FDA to both change its website on the issue of mercury and to reclassify mercury within one year, following a period of public comment (which the agency will no doubt try to drag out as long as possible in order to avoid actually sticking to the terms of the lawsuit agreement).

Remarkably, the FDA’s website no longer claims mercury is harmless. The language has now been changed in dramatic fashion, reading: “Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus.”Speaking of people going mad with mercury, that’s the history of the term “as mad as a hatter.” As explained by Wikipedia:

There is scientific evidence behind the meaning of insanity. Mercury was used in the process of curing felt used in some hats. It was impossible for hatters to avoid inhaling the mercury fumes given off during the hat making process. Hatters and other men in working mills died early due to the residual mercury caused neurological damage, as well as confused speech and distorted vision. As the mercury poisoning progressed to dangerously high levels, sufferers could also experience psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations.

Be well

Dr Sundardas