Monsanto trying to take over world seed supply, nation by nation

ScienceDaily (June 26, 2011) — A study from scientists at Queen Mary, University of London, sheds new light on why people who experience serious trauma or go through major surgery, can suffer organ damage in parts of the body which are seemingly unconnected to the injury.

The study, published June 26 in Nature Immunology, examines the way certain white blood cells, called neutrophils move out of blood vessels to defend damaged organs against injury or infection.

This is normally a one-way journey but researchers were surprised to find that, in some cases, this process can go into reverse, with rogue super-activated neutrophils, re-entering the blood stream and causing damage to other parts of the body.

The researchers used a cutting edge imaging technique which allowed them to watch the movement of neutrophils, in three dimensions and in real time in mice. As they expected the neutrophils moved out of blood vessels and into tissues to tackle injury or infection and they showed that his process was being controlled by a protein on the surface of the blood vessels called JAM-C.

However, when they temporarily blocked the blood vessels, mimicking the trauma experienced by patients undergoing major surgery, JAM-C was lost from the blood vessels. When this happened the neutrophils seemed to loose their way. Cells that had already exited blood vessels returned to the blood stream and damaged other parts of the body. In particular, the researchers found that these confused but highly activated neutrophils lodged into blood vessels in the lungs where they appeared to cause inflammation and damage to lungs.

Further research on the JAM-C molecule and the properties of these rogue neutrophils could lead to the development of drugs aimed at reducing life threatening complications following major surgeries such as inflammation of the lungs.

Professor Sussan Nourshargh who led the study said: “This is a really exciting piece of research as we have been able to watch how white blood cells move out of blood vessels to enter parts of the body that need their help. But with the advanced imaging technique that we have developed we could also for the first time see neutrophils move back into blood vessels following trauma. The neutrophils that behave this way are very different from normal blood neutrophils in that they are highly activated and fully capable of causing damage to other organs.”

“Neutrophils are usually our first line of defence against infection but they have the ability to cause many diseases. As we learn more about the complex processes that protect us against infections we also find ways of tackling inflammatory diseases where white blood cells are inappropriately switched on.”

Natural amino acids preferable to antibiotics for treating infections, says study

NaturalNews) As most NaturalNews readers probably already know, there is a rapidly-growing resistance to antibiotics that has given way to antibiotic-resistant “superbugs” like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), and even the strongest antibiotic drugs available have all but lost their ability to treat even the most common infections that afflict people today.

However, a research scientist from the Fraunhofer Institute for Cell Therapy and Immunology IZI in Leipzig, Germany, has discovered that simple, natural amino acids work better than antibiotics at treating infections, and they do not cause harm to healthy cells in the body.

For their study, Dr. Andreas Schubert and his colleagues from Fraunhofer tested the effects of amino acids in vitro and found that they broke through bacterial membranes and penetrated them quicker and with less of a required concentration than antibiotic drugs. And the best part of all was that the amino acids caused no cell damage, unlike antibiotics which kill off beneficial bacteria in the system as well as harmful bacteria.

“Antibiotic peptides (from amino acids) unlock their microbicidal effect within a few minutes. They also work at a concentration of less than 1 microliter, compared with conventional antibiotics which require a concentration of 10 microliters,” said Schubert as part of his test results. “The spectrum of efficacy of the tested peptides includes not only bacteria and molds but also lipid-enveloped viruses. Another key factor is that the peptides identified in our tests do not harm healthy body cells.”

The findings are revolutionary, because they show that amino acids work on virtually every infection, including even MRSA and CRKP. And because amino acids occur naturally in various foods like nuts, grass-fed meats and dairy products, beans, seafood, eating more of these foods regularly can help boost levels of these vital nutrients without the need for drugs. Amino acids supplements are also a great way to boost amino acid levels to optimal levels in order to prevent or treat infections.

“We have already identified 20 of these short chains of amino acids which kill numerous microbes, including enterococci, yeasts and molds, as well as human pathogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans, which is found in the human oral cavity and causes tooth decay,” said Dr. Andreas Schubert, group manager of Fraunhofer. “Even the multi-resistant hospital bug Staphylococcus aureus is not immune, and in our tests its growth was considerably inhibited.”

Sources for this story include:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032825_amino_acids_antibiotics.html#ixzz1QUYDGmfz

Gluten then and now

NaturalNews) Over the past decade, the frequency of conversations about gluten intolerance (GI) and celiac disease (CD) in the United States has gone from almost unheard of to commonplace. Chances are your local supermarket sells dozens of items labeled “gluten free” where none existed five years ago. Restaurants and school lunch programs frequently offer gluten-free alternatives. What happened?

Before I dive into that discussion, I want to clarify some terms to minimize confusion. “Gluten” is the general term for a mixture of tiny protein fragments (called polypeptides), which are found in cereal grains such as wheat, rye, barley, spelt, faro, and kamut. Gluten is classified in two groups: prolamines and glutelins. The most troublesome component of gluten is the prolamine gliadin. Gliadin is the cause of the painful inflammation in gluten intolerance and instigates the immune response and intestinal damage found in celiac disease. Although both conditions have similar symptoms (pain, gas, bloating, diarrhea), or sometimes no gastrointestinal symptoms at all, celiac disease is an autoimmune reaction to gluten that can cause severe degradation of the small intestine; whereas, gluten intolerance/sensitivity is an inability to digest gliadin with no damage to the intestines.

The medical community’s use of improved diagnostic tools (saliva, blood, and stool tests; and bowel biopsies) as well as self-diagnosis by aware individuals has certainly contributed to the swelling ranks of people afflicted with these maladies; however, that’s not the whole story. A combination of hybridized grains, America’s growing appetite for snacks and fast food, and the genetics of gluten intolerance and celiac disease have brought discussions of these once uncommon conditions front and center.

New evidence indicates that the hybrid versions of grains we eat today contain significantly more gluten than traditional varieties of the same grains. Experts such as Dr. Alessio Fasano, medical director of the Center for Celiac Research at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, believe this recent increase in the amount of gluten in our diet has given rise to the number of people suffering from gluten intolerance and celiac disease.

According to Fasano, “The prevalence of celiac disease in this country is soaring partly because changes in agricultural practices have increased gluten levels in crops.” He further states, “We are in the midst of an epidemic.”

For example, the ancient wheat that Moses ate was probably very different from our wheat today. Moses lived about 3,500 years ago, when wheat, spelt, and barley were all popular grains. Modern wheat varieties, however, have been bred to grow faster, produce bigger yields, harvest more efficiently, and bake better bread. The downside to today’s hybridized cereal grains is that they contain more gluten.

Celiac disease was once considered a rare malady and was estimated to have afflicted approximately 1 in 2,000 people in the United States. According to research done by the Mayo Clinic, CD is four times more common today that it was five decades ago. This increase is due to increased awareness and diagnostics, and the estimate today is that 1 out of every 133 people in the United States has celiac disease. To read more facts and figures please read The University of Chicago Celiac Disease center at http://www.uchospitals.edu/pdf/uch_…

Here are estimates for other parts of the world:
· 3 in 100: United Kingdom
· 1 in 370: Italy
· 1 in 122: Northern Ireland
· 1 in 99: Finland
· 1 in 133: United States
· Once thought rare for African-, Hispanic- and Asian-Americans, current estimates in these populations: 1 in 236
· 1 in 30 are estimated to have gluten intolerance in the United States.

More than 6,000 years before Moses was born, an agricultural revolution took place in the Middle East that allowed humans to embrace farming (sewing and harvesting wild seeds), herding, and other forms of agriculture and move away from our hunter-fisher-gatherer ancestors. This was the first major introduction of gluten into the human diet.

According to Dr. Loren Cordain, PhD, author of The Paleo Diet, “The foods that agriculture brought us — cereals, dairy products, fatty meats, salted foods, and refined sugars and oils- proved disastrous for our Paleolithic bodies…. studies of the bones and teeth early farmers revealed that they had more infectious diseases, more childhood mortality, shorter life spans, more osteoporosis, rickets, and other bone mineral density disorders than their ancestors thanks to the cereal-based diet. They were plagued with vitamin and mineral deficiencies and developed cavities in their teeth.”
In other words, people traded their health for sustainable food sources and a less nomadic way of life.

Two hundred years ago, the global diet received another big injection of gluten with the birth of the Industrial Revolution and steam-powered mills that were able to produce refined-grain flours that had significantly longer shelf lives, making flour (aka: gluten) more accessible and available to an almost global market. “We were able to mill and process grains for consumption and eat them in larger quantities than we had ever done in the past,” writes Cordain.

Jack Challem, “The Nutrition Reporter,” offers a different long view of human consumption of gluten: “Look at in another way, 100,000 generations of people were hunter-gatherers, 500 generations have depended on agriculture, and only 10 generations have lived since the start of the industrial age, and only two generations have grown up with highly processed fast foods. This short period of time in the course of man’s existence that grains have been around has proven that many of us are not physiologically able to tolerate gluten.”

Historical evidence of people having trouble digesting gluten was first documented in the 2nd century A.D. when the Greek physician Aretaeus of Cappadocia, diagnosed patients with celiac disease. The symptoms included “wasting and characteristic stools.” Since Aretaeus’ time, the disease has gone by a variety of names, including “non-tropical sprue,” “celiac sprue,” “non-celiac gluten intolerance,” “gluten intolerance enteropathy,” and “gluten sensitive enteropathy.”

Fast forward to 1950, when the Dutch pediatrician Willem-Karel Dicke proposed wheat gluten was the cause of the disease. His theory was based on observations that celiac children improved during World War II when wheat was scarce in Holland.

As Challem points out, today, thanks in large part to the fast food and snack food industries, gluten is in just about every kind of food imaginable.

So Why Can’t Everyone Handle Gluten?

People who that carry any of the genes for CD and GI (expressed or not) are more susceptible to developing either condition. You can carry two dominate genes for celiac disease and perhaps end up developing CD or you can carry one dominant gene and one recessive gene and develop only GI. Your genes determine the body’s immune response in the presence of gluten, and many different health problems may result from that response. Some people may have their brain affected and develop cognitive problems such as depression or impaired brain function, while others suffer pancreatic problems and develop diabetes. Research still needs to be done to answer the question as to why these maladies affect different parts of the body in different people.
When populations that are genetically predisposed to CD and GI are exposed to cereal grains with higher gluten content, there’s little wonder why more people are having these genes “turned on” and develop gluten insensitivity on a much larger scale — especially now that the flour made from these grains are part of the “hidden ingredients” in foods from ice cream to lunch meats.

OK, Now What?

So, gluten has changed, and we have changed, and it appears not for the better. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, identifying and eliminating the foods and ingredients from your life that do not work for your body is the only answer. There is no magic pill to take to make it all go away.

If you, or someone you know, is experiencing major health issues that aren’t getting better, enlisting a knowledgeable physician who understands the complexities of CD and GI testing is an excellent idea; however, on average, it takes the medical community 10 years to diagnose people who are suffering with severe health problems from undiagnosed CD and GI.?

The Bottom Line

Gluten intolerance is not a fad diet. I have seen countless cases display miraculous improvements in?long standing ailments — simply by adapting this lifestyle. Even if you have a test for CD and it comes back negative?and medical community clears you to continue?eating gluten, but you feel better without it,?listen to your body. You?know yourself far better than anyone else and you deserve?good health. If you have doubts about your diet, try going gluten-free for two weeks and see how you feel. Those with more advanced illnesses (autoimmune diseases and such) will usually not experience changes until they have been gluten-free for six months to a year.

Julie McGinnis, M.S., R.D., certified herbalist holds a Master’s degree in nutrition from the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut and has been involved in the field of nutrition for twenty years. Upon completion of her herbal certification she began her career in complimentary health and worked for years in research and development for a professional line of nutrition supplements. She has written professional nutrition and health literature for national retailers and other small businesses. She is one of three owners of The Gluten Free Bistro in Boulder, CO a manufacturer of gluten-free pizza, pasta and flour.

About the author:
Julie McGinnis, M.S., R.D., certified herbalist holds a Master’s degree in nutrition from the University of Bridgeport in Connecticut and has been involved in the field of nutrition for twenty years. Upon completion of her herbal certification she began her career in complementary health and worked for years in research and development for a professional line of nutrition supplements. She has written professional nutrition and health literature for national retailers and other small businesses. She is one of three owners of The Gluten Free Bistro in Boulder, CO a manufacturer of gluten-free pizza, pasta and flour.www.theglutenfreebistro.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032823_gluten_intolerance_celiac_disease.html#ixzz1QUXR5eQG

Promising Results of Phase I Diabetes Trial

ScienceDaily (June 26, 2011) — Promising results of the Phase I clinical trial of the generic drug BCG (bacillus Calmette-Guerin) to treat advanced type I diabetes were announced June 26 at the American Diabetes Association scientific sessions in San Diego. A research team led by Denise Faustman, MD, PhD, director of the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Immunobiology Laboratory is presenting two abstracts (No. 2240-PO and No. 0057-LB) — the first which describes the apparent reproduction in human patients of the mechanism that reversed type 1 diabetes in a mouse model and the second proposing that lack of a key part of that mechanism may explain why recent trials of an antibody-based diabetes therapy were not successful. The Iacocca Foundation has been the primary supporter of this work.

“We found that even low doses of BCG could transiently reverse type 1 diabetes in human patients,” Faustman says. “One of the key components of this study was our development of a way to measure the death of the autoreactive T cells that destroy the ability of the pancreas to produce insulin. Not only did we observe and measure the death of these self-targeting immune cells, but we also saw evidence of restoration of insulin production even in patients who’ve had type 1 diabetes for more than a decade.”

A generic drug with 90 years of safety data, BCG is currently approved by the U.S. FDA for vaccination against tuberculosis and for the treatment of bladder cancer. BCG is known to elevate levels of the immune modulator tumor necrosis factor (TNF), which previous work in Faustman’s lab showed can temporarily eliminate the abnormal white blood cells responsible for type 1 diabetes in both humans and mice. The Phase I double-blinded clinical trial enrolled six long-term type 1 diabetes patients, diagnosed for an average of 15 years. The participants were randomly assigned to receive two injections of either BCG or a placebo spaced four weeks apart.

Blood samples from the participants with diabetes were also compared with samples from six nondiabetic participants and with reference samples from 75 additional individuals with diabetes and 15 without. Four measurements were analyzed for each sample — levels of autoreactive T cells; levels of the regulatory T cells that help control the immune response; levels of GAD autoantibodies, which are a marker of pancreas activity; and levels of C-peptide, a marker of insulin secretion.

Most participants treated with BCG showed increases in both the death of autoreactive T cells and in levels of the protective regulatory T cells. A temporary but statistically significant elevation in C-peptide levels, suggesting a restoration of insulin production, was also observed in the BCG-treated patients. Unexpectedly, the same responses were seen in one of the placebo-treated patients who, after enrolling in the study, coincidently developed infection with the Epstein-Barr virus, which is known to induce expression of TNF.

“These data support our hypothesis that BCG may benefit human type 1 diabetes by boosting TNF levels,” says Faustman. “The data from the EBV-infected patient show that induction of TNF expression from diverse sources may have been a missing component in two recent, unsuccessful Phase III trials that tested antibodies against the immune molecule CD3 in type 1 diabetes patients. Those trials were specifically designed to avoid reactivating any latent EBV infection, but blocking EBV activation could also block TNF expression.”

In addition to providing major funding for the now-completed Phase I trial, the Iacocca Foundation has committed to a leadership role in the Phase II clinical trial that was initiated at MGH earlier this month. Currently $8.5 million has been raised out of a total of $25 million needed to conduct the Phase II study over the next three years.

Spice up your sex life with this simple curry spice

(NaturalNews) A new study conducted by researchers from both Applied Science and Nutrition, an Australia-based scientific and consulting company, and the University of Queensland’s medical school have found that the curry spice fenugreek livens up a lot more than just food. Based in their findings, men who consume fenugreek regularly can boost their sex drives by as much as 25 percent, which can eliminate the need to take dangerous pharmaceuticals.

For its study, the team assigned 60 healthy men between the ages of 25 and 52 to take 600 milliliters (ml) of fenugreek twice daily for six weeks. Researchers monitored the participants’ libido levels during this time, and noted a 28 percent average rise by the end of the trial period. A placebo group, on the other hand, saw their libido levels drop over the course of six weeks.

Researchers believe the active substances in fenugreek responsible for the positive benefits are saponins, a type of bioactive metabolite compound that helps regulate hormone levels and boost testosterone levels.

“It probably works to increase testosterone or androgen levels, which decrease with age,” said Dr. Raj Persad, a consultant neurologist, in response to the findings. “If it’s proven to be safe, this is good news. Men with good sexual health live longer than those who [sic] without.”

Besides boosting sex drive, fenugreek is also known to help treat diabetes, lower blood sugar and bad cholesterol levels, maintain healthy metabolism, prevent constipation, purify blood and detoxify the body, and increase breast milk production in lactating women (http://www.naturalnews.com/030628_m…). And a traditional Chinese medicinal tea composed of fennel, flax, and fenugreek, is known to help treat coughs and colds, mucus buildup, irritable bowel syndrome, and Chron’s disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/030842_f…).

Sources for this story include:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/ipad/…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032818_curry_spice_libido.html#ixzz1QUWoSDjN

Dead or alive: Probiotics benefits beyond the grave

Post a commentBy Shane Starling from Milan, 27-Jun-2011

Related topics: Probiotics, Research, Probiotics and prebiotics

Dead probiotic bacteria that typically reside alongside live cultures in probiotic formulations, could be contributing to healthful effects, researchers told the Probiotech conference in Milan, Italy, last week.

 

Dead probiotics may be useful healthwise

Dr Bruno Pot, research director at the Pasteur Institute in Lille, France, said his latest research indicated dead bacteria had a role to play in conferring benefits to the host in formulations – even if they did not meet the World Health Organization definition of probiotics as being “live microorganisms”.

Dr Pot’s presentation focused on the idea that certain probiotics could be naturally selected to deliver anti-inflammatory benefits, and he highlighted how those cultures that die along the way, could still perform a function in probiotic function and cell signalling, although further research was required.

The observation was also discussed by Dr Luz Sanguansri, research team leader in delivery systems at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia, whose work in formulation and microencapsulation had led her to similar conclusions.

 

“All products with live cells also contain dead cells,” she said. “Is there a desirable ratio of live to dead cells?”

But her observation was made in the context of a talk about how microencapsulation methods are allowing shelf life extension, and how selection of particular strains could assist that process.

Natural selection, probiotics and drugs

Dr Pot went on to highlight how selecting strains could be refined to the point where they may offer drug-like performance in the treatment of maladies such as chronic inflammation.

“Probiotics can be selected with enhanced and anti-inflammatory functionality,” he said. “This functionality can be linked to metabolites formed, or can be caused by cell wall structures at the surface of the strain.

 

“The study of the underlying mechanisms, such as the probiotic activation of regulatory T cells promoting the development tolerance, will allow selecting even more efficient strains. These can lead to the development of specific probiotic preparations, or in case an active molecule has been identified, to specific drugs.”

 

Euromonitor’s head of health and wellness research, Ewa Hudson, predicted the global pre- and probiotics would be worth $32bn in 2015.

Other topics included probiotic films (Dr Bill Costerton, Allegheny-Singer Research Institute, US); probiotics in cleaning products (Dr Robin Temmerman, CEO, Chisal); probiotics in animal feed (Dr Marion Bernardeau, Danisco) and metagenomics (Dr Michiel Kleerebezem from NIZO Food Research in the Netherlands).

Event organiser Jean Michel Pommet, Gate2Tech said he hoped some of the discussions would be brought to the attention of regulators.

“It was great event for the multiple sectors we covered and the very high standards of all the talks and it showed how progress in science is helping regulators understand the sector,” he said.

“Some of the scientific issues discussed here about bioavailability and formulation need to be discussed now with regulators.”

Texas declares light bulb sovereignty, incandescents to remain legal in Lone Star State

NaturalNews) Federal attempts to illegally control what types of light bulbs Americans are permitted to buy and use have been thwarted by the great state of Texas, thanks to the recent passage of HB 2510. The bill effectively exempts incandescent light bulbs made and sold within the state of Texas from having to comply with federal light bulb restrictions that are set to come into effect in 2012.

Authored by Marva Beck (R-Centerville), HB 2510 was passed in both the Texas House and Senate on May 25, and signed into law by Governor Rick Perry on June 17. Its provisions will come into effect on January 1, 2012, the same day that the light bulb prohibitions in the Energy Independence Act of 2007, which were signed into law by former President George W. Bush, are also set to come into effect.

“People don’t want the government dictating the lighting they can use,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Arlington), who is pushing for a full repeal of the Energy Independence Act. “Traditional incandescent bulbs have been brightening the night since Thomas Edison created the first one in 1879. They are safe, cheap, and reliable.”

Gov. Perry’s office apparently holds a similar notion, adding further that compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, which are touted as being “greener” because they use less energy, are loaded with toxic chemicals and are difficult to dispose of in a safe manner.

“The ‘new and improved’ compact fluorescent light bulbs don’t work as promised, are significantly more expensive, as are the LEDs, and have environmental and disposal problems due to the mercury they contain,” said the statement.

You can read about the dangers of CFLs here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/CFLs.html

Similar bills in both South Carolina and Georgia have been passed by one portion of their state Congresses, and both are awaiting a hearing in the other. H 3735 in South Carolina is currently awaiting a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry, while SB 61 in Georgia is awaiting a hearing in the House (http://ceolas.net/index-x.html#li01inx).

Sources for this story include:

http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032817_incandescent_light_bulbs_Texas.html#ixzz1QUUV4m00

7 surprising things you’re not supposed to know about sunscreen and sunlight exposure

NaturalNews) Ask somebody about sunscreen and you’re likely to receive an earful of disinformation from a person who has been repeatedly misinformed by health authorities and the mainstream media. Almost nothing you hear about sunscreen from traditional media channels is accurate. So here’s a quick guide to the 7 most important things you need to know about sunscreen, sunlight and vitamin D:

#1) The FDA refuses to allow natural sunscreen ingredients to be used in sunblock / sunscreen products

It’s true: If you create a truly natural sunscreen product using exotic botanicals with powerful sunscreen properties, you will never be able to market it as a “sunscreen” product. That’s because the FDA decides what can be used as sunscreen and what can’t, regardless of what really works in the real world. And there are really only two natural ingredients the FDA has allowed to be sold as sunscreen: Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Any other non-chemical sunscreen ingredients, if sold as “sunscreen,” would be considered mislabeled by the FDA and result in your products being confiscated… even if they offer fantastic sunscreen protection!

Not surprisingly, this whole monopoly over sunscreen chemicals is designed to protect the profits of the chemical companies while marginalizing the natural product companies which could easily formulate far better solutions. I have personally spoken to the founders of several health product companies who have figured out amazing sunscreen formulations using nothing but natural botanicals, but the FDA won’t let them market their products as sunscreen products!

It’s just another example of the FDA standing in the way of health innovation.

#2) Nearly all conventional sunscreen products contain cancer-causing chemicals

Read the ingredients list of any sunscreen product sold at Wal-Mart, or Walgreens, or any other mainstream store. I dare ya!

You will not be able to pronounce most of the chemicals found in the ingredients list. That’s because most sunscreen products are formulated with cancer-causing fragrance chemicals, parabens, harsh alcohols, toxic chemical solvents and petroleum oils. A typical sunscreen product is actually a chemical assault on your body. That’s why research shows that using sunscreen actually causes more cancer than it prevents (http://www.naturalnews.com/023317_s…).

#3) In a nation where over 70% of the population is vitamin D deficiency, sunscreen actually blocks vitamin D production

Vitamin D deficiency is perhaps the most widespread vitamin deficiency in North America. According to the research, 70 percent of whites are deficient in vitamin D, and up to 97 percent of blacks are deficient (http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_v…).

Chronic vitamin D deficiency promotes cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/031560_v…), winter flu and infections, depression, osteoporosis and hormonal imbalances. Depending on whom you believe, vitamin D alone can prevent anywhere from 50% to nearly 80% of all cancers (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html).

By blocking vitamin D production in the skin, sunscreen products actually contribute to cancer-promoting nutritional deficiencies.

This doesn’t mean you should never wear a sunscreen product, of course. If your skin is really pale and you’re planning a day on the beach in Hawaii, you will obviously benefit from some level of sun protection using a truly natural sunscreen product. But an informed health-conscious person would try to allow their skin to achieve a natural, healthy tan (yes, a tan truly is healthy if it’s combined with good nutrition, see below) through sensible exposure levels that activate vitamin D production in the skin.

#4) You can boost your internal sun resistance by changing what you eat

Here’s the real secret about sun exposure that no one in conventional medicine is talking about (because, as usual, they are woefully ignorant about nutrition): You can boost your internal sunscreen by eating antioxidant-rich foods and superfoods.

The supplement astaxanthin, for example, is very well known for boosting your skin’s natural resistance to sunburn. Its fat-soluble carotenoids are actually transported to skin cells where they protect those cells from UV exposure.

The more natural antioxidants you have in your diet, the more sunlight your skin will be able to handle without burning. Nearly everyone mistakenly believes that a person’s sunlight burn response is purely a genetic factor. They’re wrong. You can radically improve your resistance to UV exposure through radical dietary changes.

I’m a great example of this, actually, as I used to burn in just 20 – 30 minutes of sunlight when I was on a junk food diet years ago. But now, as someone who eats superfoods and high-end nutritional supplements every day, I can spend hours in the sun and will only turn slightly red (which fades a few hours later and does not result in a burn or skin peeling).

Except for one time on an all-day visit to a water park, I have not worn sunscreen in over 8 years. I spend a large amount of time in the sun, and I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever about skin cancer. My skin, most people tell me, looks significantly younger than my biological age. That’s not from sunscreen; it’s from nutrition. Sun exposure does not make your skin “age” if you follow a high-nutritional density diet.

#5) UV exposure alone does not cause skin cancer

It is a complete medical myth that “UV exposure causes skin cancer.” This false idea is a total fabrication by the ignorant medical community (dermatologists) and the profit-driven sunscreen companies.

The truth is actually more complicated: Skin cancer can only be caused when UV exposure is combined with chronic nutritional deficiencies that create skin vulnerabilities.

To create skin cancer, in other words, you have to eat a junk food diet, avoid protective antioxidants, and then also experience excessive UV exposure. All three of those elements are required. Conventional medicine completely ignores the dietary influences and focuses entirely on just one factor: Sunscreen vs. no sunscreen. This is a one-dimensional approach to the issue that’s grossly oversimplified to the point of being misleading.

The medical industry, it seems, does not want people to figure out they can literally eat their way to healthier skin. It’s amazing, actually: Your skin is made entirely out of the food you eat, so how could your diet not affect your skin health? Yet no one in conventional medicine — not the dermatologists, not the doctors and not the health regulators — has the intellectual honesty to admit that what you eat largely determines how your skin reacts to UV exposure.

#6) Not all “natural” sunscreen products are really natural

Be careful when shopping for so-called “natural” sunscreen products. While there are some good ones out there, many are just examples of greenwashing, where they use terms like “natural” or “organic” but still contain loads of synthetic chemicals anyway.

A good guide for checking on sunscreen products is the Environmental Working Group guide (EWG) at:
http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/

Some of the products that are truly natural include Loving Naturals sunscreen and Badger All Natural Sunscreen. Read the ingredients labels to see for yourself. Don’t use any sunscreen product containing ingredients that sound like chemicals:

• Methyl…
• Propyl…
• Butyl…
• Ethyl…
• Trieth…
• Dieth…
etc.

Always buy unscented sunscreen unless for some reason you just enjoy coating your skin with artificial perfume chemicals. A typical sunscreen product is made with over a dozen cancer-causing fragrance chemicals, and they’re absorbed right through your skin. Most sunscreens, when applied as directed, are really just toxic chemical baths that heavily burden your liver and can give you cancer.

#7) Many “chemical free” sunscreens are loaded with chemicals

Search Amazon.com for “chemical free natural sunscreen” and you’ll see a listing for:

Jason Natural Cosmetics – Earth’s Best Sun Block Chemical Free, 4 oz cream

Click on the product and you’ll find a listing of its ingredients which includes: C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Sorbitan Isostearate, Sorbitan Sesquioleate, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Ethyl Macadamiate, Calcium Starch Octenylsuccinate, Stearalkonium Hectorite

So how are those not chemicals? Ethylhexyl Palmitate is NOT a chemical? Who are these people kidding? The Amazon.com description (title) of this product is false and misleading. In all fairness, however, this product title looks like it was added into the Amazon.com system by the vendor and not the Jason company itself. But it’s an example of how the information you see from online vendors can often be misleading.

Always read the ingredients of any sunscreen product before using it. Don’t poison yourself with sunscreen!

Beware the disinfo minefield surrounding sunscreen products

Perhaps more with sunscreen than any other personal care product, the “official” information distributed through the mainstream media is hopelessly misleading (if not downright false). Remarkably, no one in the media or the government is even willing to admit that fragrance chemicals are bad for your health. Similarly, no one is willing to admit that the chemicals you put on your skin get ABSORBED by your skin.

Without those two truths being acknowledged right up front, the rest of whatever they say about sunscreen is worthless babble. Any honest talk about sunscreen must acknowledge the simple truth that the chemicals you put on your skin get absorbed into your skin, and that most sunscreen products are made out of a chemical cocktail of cancer-causing substances.

This is the truth about sunscreen that both the sunscreen industry and the cancer industry doesn’t want you to hear. It’s the dirty little secret of sunscreen: The more you use, the more you CAUSE cancer in your body! (And the more money the cancer centers make “treating” your cancer with yet more deadly chemicals known as chemotherapy.)

So buyer beware. Sunscreen products are a minefield of lies, fraud and disinformation designed to keep you ignorant of the importance of sun exposure as well as the health risks associated with using cancer-causing chemicals on your skin.

Stick with truly natural sunscreen products (when needed) and try to build up a healthy tan while consuming large quantities of superfoods and antioxidants in your diet. Consider taking astaxanthin or other fat-soluble nutrients on a regular basis. Engage in daily juicing of fresh fruits and vegetables which are loaded with living nutrients. Time your sun exposure to build up a healthy tan so that you don’t need sunscreen at all. Contrary to all the misinformation we’ve all been fed, a healthy tan is actually a good sign that you’re achieving adequate vitamin D synthesis in your own skin.

Learn more about sunlight and vitamin D with these two resources:

FREE report: The truth about sunlight and vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/rr-sunli…).

FREE video: The Truth About Sunlight, Cancer and Vitamin D
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5A62F…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032815_sunscreen_chemicals.html#ixzz1QUTxP66N

Scientists Expose Cancer Cells’ Universal ‘Dark Matter’; Findings Reveal Chaos in Biochemical Alterations of Cancer Cells

ScienceDaily (June 26, 2011) — Using the latest gene sequencing tools to examine so-called epigenetic influences on the DNA makeup of colon cancer, a Johns Hopkins team says its results suggest cancer treatment might eventually be more tolerable and successful if therapies could focus on helping cancer cells get back to normal in addition to strategies for killing them.

In a report published June 26 in Nature Genetics, the investigators focused on a particular epigenetic biochemical signature known as methylation, which silences genes. Although not part of a gene’s central DNA sequence, it is copied when a cell divides, perpetuating its activity.

By comparing the epigenomes of eight human tissue samples — three from noncancerous colon tissue, three from colon tumors and two from polyps (early-stage colon cancer) — the team found that in all the colon tumors the defining characteristic was a universally “chaotic” pattern of methylation. In noncancerous tissue, they found methylation occurring in well-defined places, either as small “islands” of methylation or huge methylated “blocks” that collectively encompassed at least a third of the genome.

“In the cancer tissue we saw that the once-precise boundaries of the islands had shifted or disappeared altogether, and the start and end points of the sites appeared unregulated,” says Andrew Feinberg, M.D., M.P.H., professor of molecular medicine and director of the Center for Epigenetics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine’s Institute for Basic Biomedical Sciences. “We also saw a loss of methylation, presumably increasing the randomness of gene function within them.”

“What seems to define cancer at the epigenetic level may be simple and common, namely chaos that seems to be universal,” he adds.

The researchers noted that cells in their normal colon tissue samples stayed methylated at around the 80 percent level for large (and previously unexamined) blocks of the epigenome. By comparison, cells from colon tumors comprising those same huge blocks had no such stability and were much more variable in terms of methylation levels.

Feinberg says the findings could mean that current efforts to simply identify methylation markers as signals of cancer or targets of cancer therapy may be misleading or worse, won’t do the job at all. An alternative would be a new method that detects epigenetic chaos universally in any cancer epigenome.

The team designed a custom test to compare about 20 noncancerous tissue samples to 20 samples from each of a variety of tumors as they investigated thousands of methylation sites for colon, breast, lung, kidney and thyroid cancers. They found that, here again, methylation was well-regulated in the normal tissues, almost always occurring within a limited range of variability. However, in the very same specific places of the epigenome characterized by chaos in colon cancer cells, all the other cancerous tissues examined by the team showed distinctly variable and “chaotic” levels of methylation variation.

“Maybe the big lesson learned from our observation of this universal chaos is that we may need to think not so much about just killing cancer cells, but also about ways of helping cancer cells figure out how to be what they’re supposed to be, and re-educate them so they can stay truer to their normal identities,” Feinberg says.

From the cancer cells’ “perspective,” Feinberg says, the chaos is helpful, endowing tumors with the ability to turn genes on and off in an uncontrolled way, and making cancer cells adaptable enough to live in all different kinds of environments, spread and thrive in foreign tissue.

“The regions of epigenetic chaos where methylation appears wildly variable in at least five different common cancers are — not so coincidentally — the very same as those that during normal development are important in controlling cell differentiation, or what particular cells are supposed to be, like normal colon cells,” Feinberg says.

“The same epigenetic malleability that permits human cells with the same DNA to become different tissue types during development also confers vulnerability,” adds Rafael Irizarry, Ph.D., a professor of biostatistics in the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, who with Feinberg, led this study. “The epigenome has these regions where change is easy in order for some cells to become kidney and others, brain and spleen, for example, but that very vulnerability to change may ultimately lead to cancer. Targeting those regions might help the cells become more normal.”

Because the new study also identifies regions of the genome that appear to control this epigenetic chaos, Feinberg and his team say it may prove potentially fruitful in revealing new targets for cancer therapy or prevention.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

In addition to Feinberg and Irizarry, other authors from Johns Hopkins are Kasper Daniel Hansen, Winston Timp, Hector Corrada Bravo, Sarven Sabunciyan, Benjamin Langmead, Oliver G. McDonald, Bo Wen, Yun Liu and Eirikur Briem. Additional authors are Hao Wu of Emory University, and Dinh Diep and Kun Zhang of the University of California, San Diego

Studies Track Protein Relevant to Stem Cells, Cancer

ScienceDaily (Mar. 30, 2011) — Last year, a research team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill discovered one way the protein Tet 1 helps stem cells keep their pluripotency — the unique ability to become any cell type in the body. In two new studies, the team takes a broad look at the protein’s location in the mouse genome, revealing a surprising dual function and offering the first genome-wide location of the protein and its product, 5-hydroxymethylcytosine — dubbed the “sixth base” of DNA.

UNC biochemist Yi Zhang, PhD, whose team conducted the studies, called the findings an important step in understanding the molecular mechanisms behind cell differentiation and the development of cancer. The findings appear in two recent papers, published March 30, 2011 online in Nature and in the April 1, 2011 issue of Genes & Development.

“There is no doubt that Tet proteins are relevant to cancer,” said Zhang, Kenan distinguished professor of biochemistry and biophysics. Zhang is also an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a member of the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center. Tet proteins were initially discovered in leukemia as fusion proteins, which are commonly found in cancer cells, where they may function as oncoproteins.

In addition, Zhang said, “Tet is likely to be one of the important players for stem cell reprogramming.” Learning to “reprogram” cells in the adult body to make them behave like stem cells has long been a goal for stem cell researchers; understanding how Tet proteins operate could help advance stem-cell based treatments.

Tet proteins are known to help stem cells stay pluripotent. Zhang’s team analyzed Tet1’s occupancy across the entire mouse embryonic stem cell genome. They found that the protein works by using a two-pronged approach to maintain the mouse embryonic stem cell state.

“On one hand, it silences the genes that are important for differentiation. On the other hand, it also activates pluripotency genes,” said Zhang.

The team then focused its attention on the Tet1-catalyzed reaction product,5-hydroxymethylcytosine. 5-hydroxymethylcytosine is a modified version of cytosine — the “C” in the four main DNA bases, A, T, G, and C. 5-methylcytosine and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine have been called the fifth and sixth bases of DNA, but since 5-hydroxymethylcytosine was discovered only recently, scientists know little about it.

“Everybody is trying to understand what 5-hydroxymethylcytosine is doing,” said Zhang. “Is it an intermediate, or is it an end product? What is its biological function?” Zhang’s team mapped the distribution of 5-hydroxymethylcytosine across the genome, offering new insights to its role in development and disease.

“It’s the first time we have the whole picture of where this new modification is in embryonic stem cells,” said Zhang. “We found that its role in regulating transcription is complicated. It’s not simply activating or repressing genes — it depends on the context.”

Like much of science, the research answers some questions while raising others. “This study is just beginning,” said Zhang. Although Tet1 is known to generate 5-hydroxymethylcytosine, there are places where one exists without the other. Further investigation could reveal more about the relationship between the two and whether other enzymes may play a role. In addition, scientists need to examine how Tet1 and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine function in animal models.

Study collaborators include UNC postdoctoral researchers Ana D’Alessio, Shinsuke Ito, and Kai Xia, as well as Yi Sun and Hao Wu of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine; Zhibin Wang of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health; and Kairong Cui and Keji Zhao of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.