By Dr. Mercola

Edible flowers are ordinarily associated with haute cuisine and wedding cakes, but you may have several tasty varieties right in your own backyard.

Adding flowers to your meals will not only make an ordinary dish look gourmet, they can be quite flavorful and nutritious.

Historically speaking, many different cultures valued fresh flowers in their culinary endeavors; rose petals were popular among Asian Indians, daylily buds often appear in oriental dishes, Romans used violets, and stuffed squash blossoms were popular in Italian and Hispanic cultures.ⁱ

If you’re used to adding fresh herbs to your food, adding in a sprinkling of fresh flowers is not much different, but there are some unique guidelines to be aware of.

Not Every Flower is Edible

Before eating any flower, you need to make sure it is edible. As a general rule, assume any flower from a florist, nursery or garden center is not edible, as these are nearly always heavily treated with pesticides. The same goes for flowers you find near a roadside or in any garden that has been treated with chemicals. Stick to organically grown flowers, or those you grow yourself (without pesticides/herbicides).

Some flowers, however, even organic ones, can make you very sick if eaten. Daphne, foxglove, daffodils, and hyacinths are just a few examples of poisonous flowers that should not be used for food purposes. The slideshow above contains 42 examples of flowers that are safe to eat, but there are many others. Consult a reference book on edible flowers, or ask an expert in this area, before branching out further, and if you’re not sure, don’t eat it.

Flower Power: Are Flowers Good for You?

Flowers are natural plant foods, and like many plant foods in nature often contain valuable nutrients for your health. For instance, dandelions contain numerous antioxidant properties and flavonoids, including FOUR times the beta carotene of broccoli, as well as lutein, cryptoxanthin and zeaxanthin. They’re also a rich source of vitamins, including folic acid, riboflavin, pyroxidine, niacin, and vitamins E and C. Other examples include:

• Violets contain rutin, a phytochemical with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties that ay help strengthen capillary walls
• Rose petals contain bioflavonoids and antioxidants, as well as vitamins A, B3, C and E
• Nasturtiums contain cancer-fighting lycopene and lutein, a carotenoid found in vegetables and fruits that is important for vision health
• Lavender contains vitamin A, calcium and iron, and is said to benefit your central nervous system
• Chive blossoms (the purple flower of the chive herb) contain vitamin C, iron and sulfur, and have traditionally been used to help support healthy blood pressure levels

Flowers are Fragile, Handle with Care

Flowers are extremely perishable and do not do well when stored in the refrigerator. Ideally, pick them fresh and serve them as soon as possible (store them upright in a glass of water while preparing). If you must store them, place them carefully between two moist paper towels, wrap in plastic or place in an airtight container, and put them in the fridge. When ready to use, rinse each flower gently with water, and blot it carefully dry. You can use a knife or tweezers to remove the stem, leaves and pistil, then separate the petals (generally only the petals are eaten).

Flowers can be eaten raw in salads (nasturtiums, dandelion and primrose are popular for this purpose), added to appetizers or infused into sauces and other dishes. Every flower has a unique taste, so you will find the ones that appeal to you most just like any other herb or spice. For instance, bee balm tastes similar to oregano, carnations have a clove-like flavor, and marigolds are sometimes called “poor man’s saffron” because of their peppery, saffron-like flavor.

If they’re not available for free in your own backyard, you can find edible flowers at gourmet food shops, farmers’ markets and other specialty food shops.

Start Slowly When Eating Flowers

Flowers are tiny but they can pack a powerful punch, especially if they’re new to your diet. Introduce them sparingly at first to avoid any potential digestive upset or allergic reactions. This is especially important if you have allergies to pollen, as eating flowers may exacerbate your symptoms. Even high-quality, nutritious edible flowers can cause an unexpected reaction in some people. Try them one at a time and in SMALL amounts to see how your body is going to react.

References:

• ⁱ About.com Edible Flowers History

By Dr. Mercola

The World Health Organization (WHO) released its final report on dental amalgam, and has taken a stance against the use of mercury in dentistry — a move that could signal the beginning of the end for this toxic, outdated practice.

In their report, Future Use of Materials for Dental Restoration, WHO committed itself “to work for reduction of mercury and … facilitate the work for a switch in use of dental materials.”

The report states that amalgam “has been associated with general health concerns” and releases a “significant amount of mercury” into the environment.

It also notes that alternatives to amalgam are readily available.

WHO Finally Takes Stance Against Dental Mercury

The final WHO report urges “a switch in use of dental materials” away from amalgam.As reported by Charlie Brown, director of Consumers for Dental Choice,”[F]or many reasons,” WHO explains, “restorative materials alternative to dental amalgam are desirable.” As Consumers for Dental Choice, which was founded by Bob Jones and Sue Ann Taylor, reported, WHO noted the following three reasons for the new position:

Amalgam releases a “significant amount of mercury” into the environment, including the atmosphere, surface water, groundwater, and soil. WHO reports:

“When released from dental amalgam use into the environment through these pathways, mercury is transported globally and deposited. Mercury releases may then enter the human food chain especially via fish consumption.”

WHO determines that amalgam raises “general health concerns”: While the report acknowledges that a few dental trade groups still believe amalgam is safe for all, the WHO report reaches a very different conclusion: “Amalgam has been associated with general health concerns.” The report observes:

“According to the Norwegian Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, the majority of cases of side-effects of dental filling materials are linked with dental amalgam.”

WHO concludes “materials alternative to dental amalgam are available” and cites studies indicating they are superior to amalgam. For example, WHO says “recent data suggest that RBCs [resin-based composites] perform equally well” as amalgam. And compomers have a higher survival rate, says WHO, citing a study finding that 95% of compomers and 92% of amalgams survive after 4 years.

In particular, WHO explains that “Alternative restorative materials of sufficient quality are available for use in the deciduous [baby] dentition of children” – the population whose developing neurological systems are most susceptible to the neurotoxic effects of dental mercury. Perhaps more important than the survival of the filling, WHO asserts that:

“Adhesive resin materials allow for less tooth destruction and, as a result, a longer survival of the tooth itself.”

The report also included mention of the known toxic effects of mercury exposure, stating:

“Mercury is highly toxic and harmful to health. Approximately 80% of inhaled mercury vapor is absorbed in the blood through the lungs, causing damages to lungs, kidneys and the nervous, digestive, respiratory and immune systems. Health effects from excessive mercury exposure include tremors, impaired vision and hearing, paralysis, insomnia, emotional instability, developmental deficits during fetal development, and attention deficit and developmental delays during childhood.”

This is the latest revelation in a string of positive progress that has been made this year toward ridding the dental industry of dangerous mercury-containing amalgams.

Will FDA Have Dentists Warn about Dental Amalgams?

As a result of enormous public pressure from dentists, health professionals and consumers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also promised to make an announcement by year’s end about dental amalgam. While the agency is being vague about the substance of this announcement, it is known that FDA is currently reconsidering whether or not to warn the public of the dangers of dental amalgam, and possibly even restrict its use.

As the Chicago Tribune reported:

” … in response to concerns about its ruling, the FDA convened a panel last December to re-examine the issue and expects to make a new announcement by the end of this year.”

A series of grassroots protests, petitions, and town meetings in three states this year hosted by the FDA’s Center for Devices has resulted in the FDA’s reconsideration of its appalling 2009 amalgam rule.

Thanks to Consumers for Dental Choice, town meetings previously attended mostly by industry representatives pleading with the FDA to “go easier on them” are now instead being dominated by consumer advocates demanding government accountability. Their greatest hope is to see mercury amalgams banned altogether, but short of that, Consumers for Dental Choice hopes the FDA will at least make all consumers aware that amalgams are more than 50 percent mercury.

The American Dental Association (ADA) has historically covered up that fact, and, as the 1990 60 Minutes video above noted, even at one time declared that removing mercury fillings is unethical — despite the known fact that dental amalgam emits mercury vapor after it is implanted in your mouth, and this mercury is bioaccumulative and endangers your health in many ways.

Incidentally, the ADA also takes money from Coca-Cola and other companies whose products promote the formation of cavities. But the tide is certainly changing, as evidenced further by the FDA’s December 2010 hearings, which included two days of testimony that were alternatively scientific and emotional. The results were utterly convincing, even to scientists handpicked by FDA. With no dissent, they recommended that FDA promptly:

Make sure that all consumers and all parents know that amalgam is mainly mercury
Stop amalgam use for children and pregnant women

As panelist Dr. Suresh Kotagal – a pediatric neurologist at the Mayo Clinic – summed it up, there is “no place for mercury in children.”

Unprecedented press coverage accompanied these hearings, with every network and most major newspapers writing stories that FDA is determining the health risk of amalgam. Fifty percent of dentists are now mercury-free; you can help abolish the use of mercury fillings by supporting one of them. We are on the brink of prompting real change in the fight for mercury-free dentistry, as the FDA is set to make an announcement on mercury fillings by the end of 2011.

Other Countries Take Stance to Protect Against Mercury Fillings

The FDA panelists are not alone in their assertion that amalgam should no longer be used for children and pregnant women. Other countries are already working to protect vulnerable populations, especially children, from exposure to amalgam.

For example:

The 47 nations of the Council of Europe passed a resolution calling on the nations to start “restricting or prohibiting the use of amalgams as dental fillings,” explaining that “amalgams are the prime source of exposure to mercury for developed countries, also affecting embryos, fetuses (through the placenta) and children (through breastfeeding).

Exposure to mercury can seriously affect the health of both patients and dental professionals, and early exposure to low doses of mercury (during pregnancy and through breastfeeding) increases the risk of a decrease in the intelligence quotient (IQ) among children.… According to the World Health Organization in 2005, certain studies show that mercury may have no threshold below which some adverse effects do not occur.”
Australia’s National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) says amalgam should be avoided in pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, and people with kidney disease. As the government of the state of Queensland explained:

“Amalgam is now generally avoided for filling children’s teeth. Growing children tend to be more sensitive to the effects of exposure to any chemical substance in their environment… High level exposure to mercury (which is present in silver fillings) may affect the kidneys. Therefore, the NHMRC, suggest people with kidney disease may be more concerned than others to minimize exposure to mercury.”

Health Canada directed its dentists to stop using amalgam in children, pregnant women, and people with impaired kidney function – way back in 1996.

Mercury Filling Health Risks in a Nutshell

The metallic mercury used by dentists to manufacture dental amalgam is shipped as a hazardous material to the dental office. Any amalgam leftover is also treated as hazardous and requires special precautions to dispose of, as it should because it can cause wide-ranging damage to your health.

Charlie Brown states:

” … mercury is a reproductive toxin. Meaning, of course, it can harm your unborn baby. It’s a neurotoxin meaning it can harm your brain. It’s a nephrotoxin meaning it will harm your kidneys. There is no safe level of mercury. This dentist is playing Russian roulette with your child or you if he or she is giving you a mercury filling.”

Virtually any kind of stimulation can cause these fillings to release mercury. Eating, drinking, brushing your teeth, grinding your teeth, chewing gum, anything. If you want to see the vapors released for yourself, watch the shocking video below.

Mercury vapor from the amalgams passes readily through cell membranes, across the blood-brain barrier, and into your central nervous system, where it causes psychological, neurological, and immunological problems. Children and fetuses, whose brains are still developing, are most at risk, but really anyone can be impacted.

Further, dental mercury is the number one source of mercury in our wastewater, so dentists are handing the clean-up bill for their pollution to taxpayers and water ratepayers. And this mercury ends up in your food supply, where it can cause continued damage to your health if you eat fish and other contaminated seafood.

Alternatives are Readily Available … and Desired by Most Americans

Far from being an essential dental product with no viable alternatives, amalgam is interchangeable with many other filling materials, as WHO noted — including resin composites and glass ionomers — which have rendered amalgam completely unnecessary for any clinical situation. In fact, the mercury-free alternatives are so advanced that entire nations, such as the Scandinavian countries, have stopped the use of amalgam. Already, about half of U.S. dentists are mercury-free and 77 percent of consumers who are told that amalgam contains mercury choose mercury-free alternatives.

One of the most popular alternatives to amalgam is resin composite. Resin composite is made of a type of plastic reinforced with powdered glass. It is already common throughout the U.S. and the rest of the developed world, offering notable improvements over amalgam, as it:

Is environmentally safe: Composite, which contains no mercury, does not pollute the environment. This saves taxpayers from paying the costs of cleaning up dental mercury pollution in our water, air, and land – and the costs of health problems associated with mercury pollution.
Preserves healthy tooth structure, because, unlike amalgam, it does not require the removal of significant amounts of healthy tooth matter. Over the long term, composite preserves healthy tooth structure and actually strengthens teeth, leading to better oral health and less extensive dental work over the long-term.
Is long-lasting: While some claim that amalgam fillings last longer than composite fillings, the science reveals this claim to be baseless. The latest studies show that composite not only lasts as long as amalgam, but actually has a higher overall survival rate.

A lesser-known alternative is increasingly making mercury-free dentistry possible even in the rural areas of developing countries. Atraumatic restorative treatment (also called alternative restorative treatment or ART) is a mercury-free restorative technique that has been demonstrated a success in a diverse array of countries around the world, including Tanzania, India, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Turkey, South Africa, Thailand, Canada, Panama, Ecuador, Syria, Hong Kong, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Chile, Nigeria, China, Uruguay, Peru, and the United States.

ART relies on adhesive materials for the filling (instead of mercury) and uses only hand instruments to place the filling, making it particularly well-suited for rural areas of developing countries.

How to Have Amalgam Fillings Properly Removed

It should be clear that there’s simply no such thing as a safe mercury filling. However, please do NOT make the mistake of having your amalgam fillings removed by a dentist who is not properly trained in safe amalgam removal. Doing so could expose you to tremendous health risks, due to the large amounts of mercury vapor being released during the removal process. Research has shown that if you do not take proper safety precautions during the removal process, mercury levels in your blood can rise three to four-fold, which may result in acute toxicity.

SO PLEASE …

Make sure to use a so-called biological dentist that is trained in properly removing mercury fillings. Some things that need to be done to keep you (and your dentist) safe during the procedure include:

Providing you with an alternative air source and instructing you not to breathe through your mouth
Using a cold-water spray to minimize mercury vapors
Putting a rubber dam in your mouth so you don’t swallow or inhale any toxins
Using a high-volume evacuator near the tooth at all times to evacuate the mercury vapor
Washing your mouth out immediately after the fillings have been removed (the dentist should also change gloves after the removal)
Immediately cleaning your protective wear and face once the fillings are removed
Using room air purifiers

For a complete description of how to safely remove mercury amalgam, see this PDF created by the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT). The proper procedure is also explained in the featured video. Here are several sources to help you locate a dentist trained in biological dentistry:

Consumers for Dental Choice’s Campaign for Mercury-Free Dentistry
IAOMT’s database
International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine
The Holistic Dental Association

Avoid making the same mistake I did 20 years ago when I had all my amalgams removed by a competent dentist. Unfortunately, he was clueless about mercury toxicity and used no precautions and as a result I got kidney damage. Additionally, I had to remove all the crowns he put in because they were metal. It was a very expensive and health-damaging mistake.

I also suggest you get healthy BEFORE having your fillings removed, as you want your detoxification mechanisms optimized prior to removal. To remove mercury that has already accumulated in your body, I highly recommend reviewing my Mercury Detoxification Protocol, which details the things you can do right now to help rid your body of this toxin. If your mercury levels are seriously elevated, you should work with a knowledgeable health care practitioner to help you through the detoxification process.

Help Keep the Ball Rolling to Get Mercury Out of the Dentist’s Office

Your voice is needed in order to bring about permanent change in the fight for mercury-free dentistry. We need to keep the momentum going between now and year’s end. You must urge the FDA to heed the advice of its own scientists convened in December 2010 and the World Health Organization. To voice your opinion, contact Dr. Shuren at:

Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, Director
Center for Devices, U.S. Food & Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Ave.
WO66-5431, Room 5442
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002
Phone: 301-796-5900
Fax: 301-847-8149 or 301-847-8109
Email: jeff.shuren@fda.hhs.gov

The following are Charlie Brown’s recommended talking points for this contact:

Thank Dr. Shuren for agreeing to act on amalgam fillings this year.
Please end the use of amalgam immediately for children, pregnant women, and hypersensitive adults (as a minimum).
Please make sure every parent knows amalgam is mercury, not silver, by making warnings mandatory. Every consumer should be told the truth about what’s going into their mouths, and their children’s mouths.
Please follow WHO’s lead and act now. In its 2011 report, the World Health Organization calls on health authorities like FDA to take action now: “Health authorities can play an active role in advocacy for use of dental materials alternative to amalgam.” It is time for FDA to act now, NOT an announcement that the FDA’s decision will be postponed. We have irrefutable scientific evidence about the dangers of mercury amalgams. Your children are being subjected to harm now—they can’t wait another year.

I also urge you to contribute to Consumers for Dental Choice. I strongly believe in their mission and their commitment to the Campaign for Mercury-Free Dentistry. They rely on public donations to complete this important mission. (Consumers for Dental Choice is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to advocating mercury-free dentistry. Contributions are tax-deductible in the U.S.)

Donations can be made online or through the mail:

Online donations: http://www.toxicteeth.org/donate.cfm
Checks can be mailed to:

Consumers for Dental Choice
316 F St., N.E.,
Suite 210
Washington DC 20002

Also, for timely updates and information, please join Consumers for Dental Choice on Facebook.

Thank you for your help in keeping the ball rolling—help make 2011 a landmark year for your dental health!

Source: FDA December 15, 2010
Source: World Health Organization 2010
Source: Chicago Tribune November 30, 2011

Many of you know that I have a passion for technology in addition to health.

That was one of the reasons for starting this newsletter 15 years ago, as I was able to merge these two passions.

In addition to reviewing health literature, I also review hundreds of blog posts on technology every day, and I have reached some conclusions that I thought many of you might enjoy and perhaps benefit from.

Emerging Technology Will Change the Way You Interact with Computers

I have never been a major fan of Apple products for a variety of reasons and was skeptical of the iPad when it was first introduced.

It just never made sense to me why anyone would ever use a device like this.

It was 8 months after the iPad was first introduced before I got one, as a friend gave it to me for Christmas, and I actually played with it.

If you own an iPad then you already know this I am preaching to the choir, but for those that don’t, let me tell you that shortly after using this device it became very clear to me that it will radically transform computing technology.

The key is the form factor and the ability to EASILY consume electronic content and have rapid access to key information when you need it. It is about the size and weight of a small magazine, yet it can hold hundreds of thousands of books. Unlike a bulky notebook computer which typically weighs three to five times as much, it is easier to carry around. You will get very few stares in a business meeting or restaurant if you break out an iPad, but you might if you start to use your notebook computer.

Emerging social trends confirm my observation, as now Yale Medical School has its entire curriculum on the iPad and many if not most airlines are in the process of converting their forty pounds of flight manuals carried by each pilot to iPad equivalents. There is no question that many schools will switch to tablets and away from textbooks. This is simply inevitable.

The tablet computer is really designed primarily as a consumption device to read and consume information. It is not intended to write large amounts of text. If you plan on substituting it for a notebook you will likely be disappointed, as it is not easy to enter long streams of text unless you have an external keyboard. Even though I own one for my iPad, I have never used it and always wind up using my notebook for extended writing. It is certainly easier than typing on a smart phone, but anything beyond a sentence or two can be cumbersome and inefficient in my opinion.

Hints on How to Use the iPad

There is no question that for the foreseeable future the iPad will dominate the tablet market. Hopefully Android tablets will provide some competition down the road, but for now the iPad rules. If you haven’t purchased one, it is my suggestion to not purchase one with a wireless modem for several reasons. They cost $100 more, you need to pay monthly fees, and the current 3G connection is slow compared to 4G. So get the Wi-Fi version for $100 less. If you can afford more memory, go for it, if not, the base model at $499 is just fine.

One key to making the iPad a great tool is the speed of your connection, as many of the useful apps may be slow for some people to use at typical 3G speeds. So you can hook up to your home or office Wi-Fi, or when you are mobile you can hotspot into a phone that has 4G LTE. I got the first phone with the service from Verizon in March and it is extraordinary. I only use it when traveling but it is amazing. No more internet connection fees at hotels or airports.

My Favorite Apps to Help Make Your iPad or Smartphone Truly Useful

A main reason you use an iPad is for the apps, so I thought some of you would appreciate which ones I find useful. Many of my friends realize I am passionate about this, so I typically share my latest findings with them and also with my family. Part of the reason I wrote this article was to have it in place to make it easier to share.

I have scanned many thousands of articles and downloaded several hundred applications, and these are the cream of the crop from my perspective. You might have some other interests or needs, so clearly these are not the only good apps out there, so I would encourage you to keep your eye open for others. And share your recommendations in the Comments below.

So here are my top recommendations:

Google Maps for Android

In my mind this is the single best smart phone/tablet application and is absolutely a stunning representation of what technology can do for you. This app alone is worth the purchase of an Android smart phone if you drive a lot. Unfortunately this is an app works best on Android smart phones. It will not work as well on the iOS platform.

At the time of this article, Google Maps for Android has a number of features that the iPhone does not. Most important is a true navigation system. On the Android version of Google Maps, the navigation works more like a standalone GPS device. It automatically updates your next turn based on your current location.

Android also has “offline reliability,” which saves a cache of frequently used areas of the map so you can still navigate even if you don’t have a data connection. These two features alone are enough to convince most prospective smartphone users to choose an Android phone for navigation purposes.

Google Maps is nothing less than pure magic. It is, in my opinion, the single best way to navigate to a location while not only driving, but walking. What makes this application so great? The marriage of highly effective voice recognition and awareness of where you are located. I use this app all the time when I am visiting a different city and it has eliminated all fear of getting lost or not winding up where I need to be.

This app is better than any in car navigation system that you can spend several hundred dollars for and it is FREE. On many occasions I have had to fire this app up when the driver of the car I was in had a navigation system that simply did not provide the correct information.

You merely press the application and then speak your destination. For example you can state the name of a large chain, like Whole Foods, and in seconds it will give you turn by turn directions that speak to you so you can get to the nearest Whole Foods. When you arrive at your destination it tells you which side of the street the destination is on and actually shows you a picture so you can find it. How awesome is that?

If you have ever used this program my guess is that you will agree with me that this is the most sophisticated navigation program on the market and it is likely that most cars will use it instead of their expensive navigation systems in the future.

The Weather Channel

One of the most useful information you can easily obtain from your device is to know the weather now and in the immediate future. I downloaded all the major weather apps, including the paid ones and there is one clear winner in this area that decimates the others. The Weather Channel was an order of magnitude better than the other apps, but they recently released an update that makes it even better. This free app is an absolute must have. Beautiful graphics allow you to easily compare different cities by a single swipe with colorful graphic ten day predictions. Of course they have Doppler radar maps so you can easily see when rain or snow will likely hit your area. I use this nearly every day and suspect you might too.

Flipboard

Many may not realize that RSS feeds are the tool I have used for nearly 15 years to access the news. Unfortunately RSS feeds never took off and I am not sure why. But the newer version of them is Flipboard, basically RSS feeds on steroids. It is essentially a customized magazine that you create that you can read like a colorful print magazine. Like the Weather Channel, it is also a free and must have app.

Its key innovation is to make finding and subscribing to RSS feeds very easy. It has dozens of preconfigured channels that you can subscribe to, or you can find your favorite RSS feeds and use it as your RSS reader. Unlike a typical RSS feed where it is often difficult to find the subscribe button, you will never fail with Flipboard as it is simple to do. This is one of my favorite apps on the iPad.

One simple modification that you can use is to integrate Google Reader into Flipboard. You can add dozens or even hundreds of RSS feeds into Google Reader and then view Google Reader on Flipboard. The advantage of doing this is that you don’t have to keep flipping through multiple RSS feeds. Some RSS feeds or blogs only post a few times a month. when it is in Google Reader it becomes very efficient to check.

Additionally when you view the posts in Google Reader the headlines become gray after viewing them so you can see where you stopped reading. This does not happen in other Flipboard subscriptions. I have over 50 RSS feeds that I have in my Google Reader which allows me to scan well over 500 blog posts a day that I screen for this newsletter.

Calorie Tracker by MyFitnessPal

Another free app that I use every day to record my food intake and help me keep track of my macronutrient ratios is MyFitnessPal. It has a fitness element but I only use it for the food diary. Like the weather app I looked at many in this category, and Calorie Tracker is head and shoulders above the rest.

Newspapers

These are all free on the iPad. In my experience the best papers are the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the USA Today. The Times and the Journal apps are free, but do require a subscription to read many of the articles.

Fitness Builder

I also use this app every day to record my exercise programs. This is one of the few paid apps on this list but it is worth the $10 (or so) to purchase it, as it is like a personal trainer in that it has about five thousand exercises you can choose from, and they each have videos to describe how to perform them. There is a very simple interface to identify exercise by body part and equipment that you want to use.

KNO

Earlier I had mentioned that virtually all schools will replace textbooks with tablets. KNO is currently the leading application that allows students to purchase textbooks for the iPad. It is a free application, and what I use it for is to read PDFs, books and manuals on. And unlike the PDF or book reader, with the iPad you can highlight text and the text will be saved into a journal, so you can review all your highlights in a separate journal. You can also make notes in the document.

DropBox

Another free essential app that allows you to easily transfer and share files between your computers and your iPad. It is also a brilliant and easy way to work around the 10 megabyte limit present in most email clients. So when you need to send someone a larger file you can just email them your Dropbox public file link and they get it instantly, couldn’t be quicker or easier, and it is free. They give you 2 gigabytes of storage, which is more than enough for most, but if you need more you can always purchase it from them.

Instapaper

One of the other paid apps that I find helpful, as it allows you to maximize the use of your iPad as a reading tool. You can use this to easily transfer articles you find on your computer to your iPad. You simply purchase the app for $5 and install it on your iPad. Then you install the web version on your desktop or notebook by dragging their icon to your toolbar. When you find an article you want to read later, you merely click their icon in your toolbar and like magic the article appears on your iPad ready to read with all the ads stripped out, making it very easy to read. You can easily delete it from your iPad or archive it, depending on your needs.

DragonGo

Great app that costs you no money and allows you to dictate notes into your tablet. Most likely this will be replaced by Apple’s new intelligent personal assistant Siri, which is available for free on the new iPhone 4S, once it gets ported over to the iPad.

Photosynth

Who would have thought that one of the most enjoyable and innovative iPhone apps of the year would be developed by Microsoft. That’s the case with Photosynth, which lets users quickly and reliably capture panoramic 360-degree gyroscopic images simply by moving their cameras.

Google Translate

This language translation app from Google excels above all others for its ability to audibly translate spoken words into other languages. Google Translate’s simple and elegant interface translates text between 63 languages and lets users star notable translations and access them for later use.

Spotify

This seems to be the way you will eventually consume music in the future if you aren’t already. Rather than purchasing music from iTunes or other online stores, you simply rent it. This way you don’t ever need to hassle with losing your music or transferring it to different devices. Plus you get access to many millions of different songs.

I have been using a similar service called Rhapsody for the past five years and really enjoy the service. It does seem clear that the writing is on the wall and Spotify will likely take over as the leader in this space. Three years after launching in Europe, this music streaming service finally made its way to North America in July. The iOS application combines access to Spotify’s deep library with great playlist creation and social networking capabilities. Well worth the $10 monthly subscription for hardcore music fans tired of iTunes.

GarageBand

I am not, nor have I ever been musically talented. However if you play an instrument you will likely enjoy this powerful application that is one of the few that Apple actually wrote. It costs $5 but is a fun tool that allows you to create endless types of music on various instruments.

AppStart for iPad, and AppsGoneFree for iOS

The problem with apps is that they can cost money. However there are a few apps you can download that will tell you when the paid apps go free. They typically are only free for 24 hours so you have to act quickly. AppStart is one of the best apps out there to learn how to use your iPad and do just about anything with it. It is a tutorial inside of a guide inside of an… iPad! Great user interface and simple dynamic to learn about Apple’s magical iPad.

An article in the British Journal of Nutrition reports the results of an extensive search of the available scientific literature regarding the role of omega-6 fats, omega-3 fats, and trans fats in the diet.

They found that for both non-fatal myocardial infarction and death from heart disease, the risk reduction for a mixed diet of both omega-3 and omega-6 fats was 22 percent.

On the other hand, diets higher in omega-6 fats and lower in omega-3s resulted in a 13 percent increase in the risk.

According to the study:

“Risk… was significantly higher in [omega]-6 specific PUFA (polyunsaturated fatty acid) diets compared to mixed… diets…

Advice to specifically increase [omega]-6 PUFA intake… is unlikely to provide the intended benefits, and may actually increase the risks of… death.”

It is information like this that makes it all the more astonishing that the American Heart Association (AHA) is still recommending that you increase your intake of omega-6 fats.

The results of this study represent even more evidence that the AHA has drawn incorrect conclusions about omega-3 and omega-6 fats, and they are making potentially dangerous dietary recommendations, as a result.

How Could the AHA be So Confused about Omega-6 Fat?

In January 2009, the AHA published a “scientific advisory” in their scientific journal with the following conclusion:

“Aggregate data from randomized trials, case-control and cohort studies, and long-term animal feeding experiments indicate that the consumption of at least 5 percent to 10 percent of energy from omega-6 PUFAs reduces the risk of coronary heart disease relative to lower intakes. The data also suggest that higher intakes appear to be safe and may be even more beneficial (as part of a low–saturated-fat, low-cholesterol diet).

In summary, the AHA supports an omega-6 PUFA intake of at least 5 to 10 percent of energy in the context of other AHA lifestyle and dietary recommendations. To reduce omega-6 PUFA intakes from their current levels would be more likely to increase than to decrease risk for coronary heart disease.”

There are three serious problems with this recommendation.

Problem #1:

This statement runs counter to a large body of research suggesting the converse—specifically, that reducing omega-6 fatty acids (and increasing omega-3) is beneficial for your heart. For example, the journal Nature Neuroscience published a study showing that increased levels of omega-6 contribute to confused behavior and Alzheimer’s disease, stating that it appears to interfere with your brain’s nerve cells and cause over-stimulation, and that lowering omega 6 levels can allow those cells to function normally.

Problem #2:

A wide range of health problems have been linked to omega-3 fat deficiencies, including:

Increased inflammation
Depression and violence
Weight gain and diabetes
Allergies and eczema
Memory problems and dyslexia

If you go to the omega-3 fat page on GreenMedInfo.com, you will see a list of scientific studies supporting the benefits of omega-3s for 255 different diseases, which is powerful proof of their reach.

Problem #3:

The American Heart Association continues to completely ignore the nutritional science showing the stark differences between processed fats and unprocessed fats. If the fats you consume are coming from processed foods, you’re not doing your health any favors, no matter WHAT your ratio omega-3 to omega-6 ratio is. PUFAs are very chemically unstable and prone to oxidation. Therefore, the type and form of fats you choose to consume are extremely important. The AHA never addresses this.

The AHA also neglects to mention that you should strictly avoid ALL genetically modified (GM) fat sources, which includes the vast majority of omega-6 oils used in processed foods (corn oil, canola oil, soybean oil, margarine, shortening, etc.).

Two Dietary Oils, Two Sets of Benefits

You need both types of fat in your diet—omega-3 AND omega-6. It isn’t that one is “good” and the other is “bad.” Both perform distinct biological functions and offer their own unique health benefits. (For a complete discussion of the differences between types of dietary fat, omega-3 versus omega-6, DHA, EPA, PUFAs, etc., please refer to this comprehensive fatty acids overview.)

The major challenge is when you have excessive amounts of either one of them. Most experts agree that the omega 6:3 ratio should range from 1:1 to 5:1. The sad reality is that it now ranges from 20 to 50:1 for most Americans. They are getting far too many omega-6 fats, this is especially pernicious as they are getting them in the form of highly processed vegetable oils that exclude most of the original nutrients. The processing also introduced aberrations like trans fats. The final insult is that most of these oils are genetically engineered, like soy, corn and canola that makes them loaded with dangerous antigens and herbicides like glyphosate.

You also need both plant-derived and animal-derived fats for optimal health.

Ninety percent of the money Americans currently spend on food is for processed foods, so this is obviously a real challenge for most Westerners today.

There is no question in my mind that you need to eliminate MUCH of the omega-6 fats in your diet, but the fats you need to eliminate are the processed fats that have been refined and heated and become useless—and even worse, potentially very harmful to your body. We should have about equal or twice as many omega-6 fats as omega-3 fats. This is still a relatively small amount of oil, amounting to about three grams or four 750 mg capsules per day, for a 150-pound adult. Regardless of the exact ratio, the most important point is that they come from the right sources.

The Best Food Sources of Omega-3 and Omega-6 Fats

The best way to improve your omega-3 to omega-6 ratio is to eat the following types of high-quality foods:

Unprocessed organic oils such as extra virgin olive oil, coconut oil, avocados and avocado oil, and organic butter—or better yet, raw butter from grass-pastured cows. Raw milk is also a good source of highly bioavailable omegas.
Raw nuts andseeds, such as fresh organic flax seeds, chia seeds, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, pumpkin seeds, almonds, and English walnuts, which are also high in omega-3s (ALA).
Meat from animals that are free ranging and/or grass fed, which are higher in beneficial omega-6s, such as natural CLA. If you have access to them, game meats such as venison are very high in beneficial fats. The article “Better Beef,” written by California rancher Dave Evans, gives a great in-depth view of the many benefits of grass-fed beef.
Egg yolks from pastured hens are rich in beneficial omega-3s.
Coconut oil, although not an omega-3 or omega-6 fat, is also an extremely beneficial dietary fat with an “embarrassment of riches” for your heart, metabolism, immune system, skin and thyroid. Coconut oil’s health benefits derive from its special MCFAs (medium-chain fatty acids).

Your BEST Source of Animal-Based Omega-3s

In a perfect world, you’d get all of the animal-based omega-3s you need from eating fish and seafood, the animal products richest in omega-3 (EPA and DHA). But the sad reality is that industrial pollution has contaminated most of the world’s fish and seafood with a variety of dangerous toxins like mercury and PCBs. The one exception is krill oil, my favorite omega-3 fat supplement. Krill does not generally have this contamination.

I take krill oil every day because I believe it’s the best omega-3 source for the following four reasons:

Highest Bioavailability: The omega-3 in krill oil is bound in a phospholipid structure, making it far more bioavailable than fish oil. In fact, nearly 100 percent of the DHA and EPA in krill oil are immediately available to your body.
Highest Stability: Unlike ordinary fish oil, krill oil naturally contains the powerful antioxidant astaxanthin, which prevents the perishable DHA and EPA from oxidizing and going rancid.
Highest Sustainability: Krill is the largest biomass in the world, and krill harvesting is one of the best regulated on the planet, with strict catch regulations that are reviewed regularly to ensure sustainability.
Greatest Potency: Krill oil works at a much lower dose than fish oil. Because krill oil is so potent and used so efficiently by your body, you may only need one 500 mg capsule per day.

For more in-depth information about the advantages of krill oil over fish oil, please see my interview with industry expert Dr. Rudi Moerck.

Sources for High-Quality Grass-Fed Beef

Dave Evans suggests the following ranchers as good sources for high quality grass-fed beef:

Panorama Meats: Black Angus and Red Angus
Country Natural Beef: Hereford and Angus
Tallgrass Beef
Niman Ranch: A network of more than 600 independent farmers and ranchers, and probably the easiest to find locally
Pacific Village: Entirely grass-fed cattle since 2002

Fats to Avoid!

The following are the primary sources of highly processed, highly refined and highly oxidized oils used in processed foods:

Corn oil
Canola oil
Soy oil
Hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated fats
Margarine and shortening

Just look at the labels on the foods and condiments you buy and you’ll see just how common these oils are. It’s very difficult to find any kind of processed or prepackaged food that does not contain one of them. I strongly recommend you avoid ALL of these,as they will only deteriorate your health.

References:

Journal of the American Heart Association January 2009
Nature Neuroscience 2008
GreenMedInfo
Better Beef

In a U.K. survey of more than 19,700 patients who underwent more than 50,000 cervical spine manipulations, a team of researchers have concluded that your risk of having a serious adverse event from “getting your neck cracked,” is slim to none.

The manipulation technique at the focus of this safety study was defined as the application of high-velocity/low-amplitude or mechanically assisted thrust to the cervical spine. Patients were followed, and any adverse symptoms recorded immediately, and up to seven days after treatment.

There were no reports of serious adverse events, which translates to an estimated risk of, at worst, one per 10,000 treatments.

Minor side effects, occurring either immediately after, or within seven days after treatment, were slightly more common. Some of the side effects included:

Fainting, dizziness, light-headedness in, at worst, 16 per 1,000 treatments

Headache in, at worst, 4 per 100 treatments

Numbness or tingling in upper limbs in, at worst, 15 per 1,000 treatments

Sources:

Spine October 1, 2007, 32(21):2375-2378

By Dr. Mercola

A new study has led to what is perhaps the most ludicrous recommendation for flu treatment ever — statin drugs!

The researchers reported that statin use may reduce death risk in people hospitalized with the flu, and the media is reporting sensational headlines like “Statins reduce flu death risk by half.”

This is particularly outrageous, because the study was seriously flawed and designed to make statin drugs useful for another condition while they do nothing to address the underlying cause.

To validly determine if statin drugs are effective for flu they need to compare it to placebo, not a poison.

So what did they do?

They compared statin drugs to other toxic drugs, this time antiviral medications. So what the study actually found was that, more than likely, antiviral drugs were killing people twice as quickly as the statins!

What did the Study Really Show?

In the observational study published in The Journal of Infectious Disease, researchers examined data from 3,000 patients hospitalized with the flu, 33 percent of whom were given statins while the rest received antiviral drugs. The results showed that people who did not receive statins were twice as likely to die.

Another way of saying this, of course, is that people who received antiviral drugs were twice as likely to die as those given statins. And what this really means is that the antiviral medications were exceptionally harmful, not that statins were beneficial.

Still, it is not surprising that the drug’s manufacturer and the media are reporting favorable results for statin drugs, even though the researchers themselves pointed out the many limitations to their study, noting, for example:

” … it was difficult to ascertain the underlying functional health status of these patients, which may potentially confound the relationship between statins and severity of influenza.”

Further, one of the study’s authors has been a consultant to numerous drug companies, including Sanofi Pasteur, Novartis, Pfizer, Dynavax, and GlaxoSmithKline, whereas the study itself was funded by the Emerging Infections Program Cooperative Agreement of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which also has worrisome ties to the drug industry.

Statins are Not Wonder Drugs

The drug companies started pushing their statin drugs, which are ordinarily prescribed to lower cholesterol levels, for the flu back in 2009 during the swine flu scare, and they are working hard to get the accepted as “wonder drugs” for the treatment of everything from pneumonia to Alzheimer’s disease.

However, as Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a senior scientist at MIT, explains, statins are dangerous because they suppress the synthesis of a true biological wonder drug, namely cholesterol. And she believes it is actually cholesterol (in high amounts prior to patients’ starting statin therapy) that is responsible for many of the statins’ alleged benefits:

“Statin drugs are particularly problematic because they suppress the synthesis of a biological wonder drug, namely cholesterol. Repeatedly, retrospective studies have shown an alleged benefit for statins, which is actually a benefit derived from the many years of high cholesterol that preceded statin treatment. This game has been played out for sepsis, pneumonia, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s, and these are just the ones I’m aware of. When the proper placebo-controlled study is done, the effect reverses — statins make the situation worse. But these negative results are kept well concealed from the public’s eyes. This is how the myth has been kept alive that statins, instead of cholesterol, are the wonder drug.”

There are, in fact, 304 adverse health effects that may be associated with statin drugs, and this may only be the tip of the iceberg.

The Truth About Antiviral Flu Drugs

Anti-viral flu drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza are conventional medicine’s go-to option for treating the flu, but you should know that they carry serious side effects — and may only shorten the time you are sick by one to two days. These drugs are part of a group of anti-influenza drugs called neuraminidase inhibitors, which work by blocking a viral enzyme that helps the influenza virus to invade cells in your respiratory tract.

The problem is that your nervous system also contains neuraminidase enzymes essential for proper brain functioning, and when blocked with these dangerous drugs, severe neurotoxicity may ensue (especially in the infants and children whose blood-brain barrier has not yet developed sufficiently).

Serious side effects include convulsions, delirium or delusions, suicidal behavior and 14 deaths in children and teens have been reported as a result of neuropsychiatric problems and brain infections. Japan actually banned Tamiflu for children in 2007 because of the steep risks.

It was also around this time that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began reviewing reports of abnormal behavior and other brain effects in more than 1,800 children who had taken Tamiflu. Further, the drug commonly causes a myriad of side effects that, ironically, resemble the flu symptoms the drug claims to treat. You can decide for yourself whether these risks are worth a measly one- or two-day reduction in your flu symptoms:

Nausea Vomiting
Diarrhea Headache
Dizziness Fatigue
Cough Behavioral side effects (such as reports of children jumping off roofs shortly after taking the drug)
Statin Study Highlights Flu Shot Ineffectiveness

Whenever I address the topic of influenza, I like to mention flu shots, simply because the propaganda supporting them is so widespread — and the truth deserves to be heard. Not only is there a shocking lack of evidence supporting the use of the flu vaccine, but a number of studies have actually confirmed the danger and ineffectiveness of the shots.

One major study determined that the best the flu vaccine could do during a season where, in the rare case, the vaccine actually matched the wild-type strains in circulation, was to reduce the risk of influenza infection by a paltry 1 percent relative to unvaccinated controls. This means that despite receiving the shot – riddled, as it is, with side effects such as the debilitating and potentially deadly nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome — there is still an overwhelming likelihood that you will not be protected from the flu as a result of receiving the vaccine.

The reason for this has to do with how flu strains work. Along with the faulty science behind the creation of the vaccine, the act of determining which flu strains will affect your area is pretty much a guessing game. Mainstream medical officials urge you to receive the shot, but health officials are fully aware that it is truly impossible to know for sure which strain to vaccinate against.

With such a wide selection of strains (hundreds, if not thousands), it is very rare for officials to actually pick the correct strains – the best case scenario is that an appropriate match will occur 10 percent of the time, according to the study. Interestingly, as it was not the researchers’ intent, the statin-flu study also highlighted the striking lack of effectiveness of the flu vaccine in preventing flu deaths:

“Our finding that vaccine was not effective in preventing mortality from influenza is likely explained by the timing of our study. We evaluated the impact of statins on influenza mortality in 2007–2008, a year in which the vaccine was not well matched to the circulating viruses … In addition, vaccination status may not impact mortality in the event of vaccine failure regardless of match to circulating strains; 50% of our patients were over the age of 70, an age group in which influenza vaccine is known to be less effective.”

Why Doesn’t the CDC Fund a Study on Vitamin D for Flu Treatment?

Apparently the CDC would rather throw money at a potential cash cow for the drug makers than promote the real natural alternatives that can stop the flu in its tracks without any side effects. Where is the CDC-sponsored study on vitamin D and the flu, for instance? According to the findings from a 2010 study that didn’t get any widespread attention, vitamin D is a highly effective way to avoid influenza. In fact, children taking low doses of vitamin D3 were shown to be 42 percent less likely to come down with the flu.

Dr. John Cannell, founder of the Vitamin D Council, was one of the first to introduce the idea that vitamin D deficiency may actually be an underlying cause of influenza, which would help explain its apparent benefits as a flu-fighter. His hypothesis was published in the journal Epidemiology and Infection in 2006, which was followed up with another study published in the Virology Journal in 2008.

Dr. Cannell’s hypothesis received further support and confirmation when, in the following year, the largest and most nationally representative study of its kind to date discovered that people with the lowest blood vitamin D levels reported having significantly more recent colds or cases of the flu. You can find my full recommendations for how to optimize your vitamin D levels in this past article.

There are Effective Natural Options for Beating the Flu

I have not caught the flu in over two decades, and you can avoid it too, without using drugs or getting vaccinated. Following these guidelines will help to keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you’re far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with — and if you do, these strategies will help you to get better, faster.

Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I’ve previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency is likely the TRUE culprit behind the seasonality of the flu — not the flu virus itself. This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take.

If you are coming down with flu-like symptoms and have not optimized your levels, you can take doses of 50,000 units a day a vitamin D3 for three days to treat the acute infection.
Avoid sugar and processed foods. Sugar decreases the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a strong immune system is key to fighting off viruses and other illness. Be aware that sugar is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.

In fact, the first thing you want to do when you feel yourself coming down with a cold or flu is to avoid ALL sugars, artificial sweeteners, and processed foods.
Get enough rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you’re tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night’s Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.
Implement effective tools to address your stress. We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness.

If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an effective energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique, which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma.
Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. You can review my exercise guidelines for some great tips on how to get started.
Take a good source of animal-based omega-3 fats like krill oil. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils like trans fats found in most processed foods, as it will seriously damage your immune response.
Wash your hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don’t use antibacterial soap for this — antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
Eat garlic regularly. Garlic works like a broad-spectrum antibiotic against bacteria, virus, and protozoa in your body. And unlike with antibiotics, no resistance can be built up so it is an absolutely safe product to use. However, if you are allergic or don’t enjoy garlic it would be best to avoid as it will likely cause more harm than good.
Avoid hospitals whenever possible. I’d recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you have an emergency, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds, and could be one of the likeliest places you could be exposed to flu bugs.

By Dr. Mercola

Drug companies are master marketers, and they attack the drug market on multiple levels.

On the surface level are direct-to-consumer advertisements, like the drug commercials you see on television and in magazines.

The next level is an army of drug reps who “educate” physicians about new drugs; a practice that includes visiting physicians personally, often with lavish gifts in hand, or offers of dinners and trips as persuasive perks.

As you dig even deeper, the next marketing “layer” are the industry-paid physicians, researchers and other medical experts who provide consulting services, research and lectures about drugs — lectures that typically target the physicians they depend on to recommend, prescribe, and dispense their medications.

These “experts” are very much on the drug industry’s payroll — but they masquerade as independent medical experts or even state officials during their “day jobs.”

Over $761 Million Paid in Just Over Two Years

The amount of money that drug companies are throwing at medical experts is nothing to sneeze at.

An ongoing investigation by ProPublica revealed that 12 drug companies paid $761.3 million to physicians for consulting, speaking, research and other expenses in 2009, 2010 and, for some, the beginning of 2011 — and that represents only the disclosed payments.In all actuality, this figure is probably far too low.

As ProPublica reported:

“Only the companies that have disclosed payments on their web sites are included. Their combined prescription drug sales amounted to about 40 percent of the U.S. market in 2010. Though a substantial share, the data may not be wholly representative of the industry.”

It is, by the way, 100% legal for drug companies to pay medical professionals to promote their products. The conflict of interest within this practice is obvious, which is why the drug industry often keeps quiet on their actual payments, as do the medical professionals involved. Although many medical, educational and research institutions require faculty members to disclose such potential conflicts of interest, many do not actively monitor employees’ activities and, as the New York Times recently reported:

“Across the country, the reporting of such perceived conflicts has traditionally fallen short …”

Despite the commonality of this practice, I suspect many Americans would be surprised to learn that many thousands of doctors, researchers and other medical experts – some of whom you probably depend on to provide unbiased information and advice pertaining to your health care – receive large amounts of supplemental income from drug companies.

The New York Times recently highlighted some of the ProPublica data from Texas, where at least 25,000 physicians and researchers received $57 million or more from researchers over a span of just over two years. This included medical experts who were state employees being paid with taxpayer dollars!

As mentioned, in many cases we’re not talking about a few hundred dollars. Often, the supplemental income is well over $100,000 a year, providing a very lucrative side business. As the Times reported, examples include:

Dr. Joseph Bailes, an oncologist and the vice chairman of the executive committee at the Cancer Research and Prevention Institute of Texas, who was paid about $250,000 between 2009 and 2010 as a consultant for Pfizer
Dr. Stanley Lemon, former director of the Institute for Human Infections and Immunity at the University of Texas Medical Branch, currently with the University of North Carolina, to whom Pfizer paid nearly $80,000 for consulting
Dr. Stanley Self, a part-time psychiatrist at Texas’ state-run Rusk psychiatric hospital, who was paid at least $145,000 by drug companies from 2009 to 2010, primarily for speaking engagements

I Was a Former Drug Company Lecturer

My point is not to call out any individual physician or researcher who is currently receiving income from the industry. In many cases, these individuals do not believe the relationship influences their medical advice, research or prescribing habits — although clearly the drug industry would not continue devoting millions of dollars to this type of marketing if it did not pay off.

Rather, the point is to expose the fact that in many cases, even prominent researchers and expert physicians are being influenced by the industry, whether they realize it or not.

I speak from experience because, in fact, I used to be one of those lecturers. I was hired as a “rising star” shortly after I finished my residency training in 1985 and flew across the country lecturing on estrogen replacement therapy, and receiving handsome checks from the drug companies for doing so.

I stopped this over 20 years ago when I realized that the entire approach was a scam. Fifteen years later all the major studies came out showing that estrogen replacement therapy radically increased heart disease and cancer, and did not prevent it like the drug industry’s manipulated studies suggested.

Currently there are tens of thousands of U.S. physicians and researchers who have replaced my lecturing role and are currently on Big Pharma’s payroll. They are often touted as leaders in their field, experts who have specialized training that make them uniquely qualified to teach other physicians about the benefits of any given drug, although some actually have very limited credentials and nefarious pasts.

Regardless, you always have to follow the money trail and take that influence into consideration, especially when it concerns a matter that could impact your health. Of course, paying medical experts for consulting, lectures and research is only one trick the drug companies have up their sleeve.

Drug Companies Pay Ghost Writers, Too

A new cross-sectional survey found that more than 20 percent of articles published in six leading medical journals during 2008 were likely written by honorary- and/or ghost writers. For medical journals, ghostwriting usually refers to writers sponsored by a drug or medical device company, who make major but uncredited research- or writing contributions.

The pharmaceutical company hires a medical education and communications company or MECC, which is a company paid almost exclusively by pharmaceutical companies to write articles, reviews, and letters to editors of medical journals in order to cast their products in a favorable light. (Since they pay substantial amounts to have these articles written, it automatically implies that it will be written to their specifications.)

Once the article is written to their satisfaction, the pharmaceutical company then starts “shopping around” for an academic physician or physicians who are well known in the field, encouraging them to put their name on the article.

From there, they “massage” the article past peer review in one of the more prestigious medical journals, preferably one that strongly influences practicing doctors. Once the article is published, the pharmaceutical company then purchases tens of thousands of reprint copies to be distributed to doctor’s offices by their pharmaceutical representatives. The unsuspecting doctor thinks the study is reliable since it clearly appears to be written by a leading name in the field, and has been published in a prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal.

Why would medical journals play along with this apparent sham?

Perhaps the primary incentive to play it loose is that it’s very lucrative for them, as the reprints purchased by the pharmaceutical companies for distribution are quite expensive. And medical journals are, after all, for-profit businesses.

Even “Independent” Media Outlets Receive Drug Company Dollars

The drug industry really has not left one stone unturned when it comes to controlling the information that is disseminated about their drugs, and this includes the media. It’s a simple idea: if you don’t like the bad press you’re getting, why not buy out the media so you can have a say in what gets printed? For example, The Australian newspaper has reportedly accepted an undisclosed amount of sponsorship money from the drug industry for a series of health policy articles.

As retired neurosurgeon Russell L. Blaylock, MD put it:

” … We no longer have investigative journalists, we have a corporate controlled media. It is no secret that most media outlets are desperate for money, especially in this economy.

The lifeblood of all media is advertising. An independent analysis appearing in a peer reviewed open access journal published by the Public Library of Science estimated that pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. spent $57.5 billion on promotion in 2004, almost twice as much as they spend on research and development.

Virtually every TV news network, magazine and newspaper is filled with very expensive pharmaceutical ads. These media outlets cannot afford to lose this money and this allows the pharmaceutical companies to set editorial policy. Stories criticizing vaccines are as rare as hen’s teeth. With billions to use for influence, one witnesses resulting bias in academia and government regulatory agencies as well.”

Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which also has worrisome ties to the drug industry, spends $1.7 million for a Hollywood liaison as part of their Entertainment Education Program, which makes sure that when your favorite TV shows feature a health topic, that information is “accurate,” or shall we say “CDC-approved.” Have you ever wondered why you will rarely ever see a TV show that features a plot line including a vaccine injury or adverse drug reaction, even though they are incredibly common in real life? Now you know why.

Is Transparency in the Medical Field Finally Coming Our Way?

The bright light shining through all of these dark clouds is that in 2013 you will be able to determine if a health care provider you trust is actually on the drug industries’ payroll, thanks to a new federal law that entails the following:

Drug and medical device companies will be required to report and disclose all payments (including stock options, research grants, knickknacks, consulting fees, travel expenses and more) to physicians (March 2013). Unfortunately, payments to nurses, physician assistants, and other medical professionals will not have to be disclosed
The information will be displayed in an online government database that you will be able to search (September 2013)

In the meantime, you can search ProPublica’s database to see the disclosed payments made to physicians in your state. Many of the most prestigious universities, including Harvard, are now banning their staff from receiving money from drug companies for speaking, and this new disclosure requirement will hopefully push more institutions in that direction.
Posted By Dr. Mercola | January 14 2012
Breaking the drug industry’s stranglehold on the conventional medical industry will not be easy — after all, the drug industry spends nearly twice as much on promotion as it does on research and development — but the tide is beginning to turn.

Increasing numbers of people are now waking up to these harsh realities, and you, being among those who are informed, can help share this knowledge with others. More than 1.5 million people receive this newsletter, and together we can make a huge difference.

The ultimate goal is to have a critical mass of people refuse the unnecessarily dangerous and counterproductive solutions currently offered by conventional medicine, as this will be the powerful stimulus to generate authentic change. You can also act now, on a personal level, by making the necessary lifestyle changes that will allow you to take control of your health, instead of leaving it in the hands of the drug industry.

By Dr. Mercola

Demand for safe “green” cleaning products is on the rise, as consumers are increasingly unwilling to risk their health for the sake of a “clean” home.

The truth is, most cleaning products on the market are toxic chemical cocktails, and when you spritz your bathtub or kitchen counter with that brightly colored liquid you’re exposing yourself and your family to endocrine-disrupting phthalates, carcinogenic benzene, and organ-damaging phenols, just to name a few.

Unfortunately, finding a safer option is not as straightforward as it may seem, because when it comes to cleaning products — even avowedly “green” cleaning products — you can’t judge a book by its cover.

Popular Green Cleaner “Simple Green” is Actually Toxic

Simple Green is one of the most widely used, supposedly “green” cleaning products on the market.

It’s named “green” not only because of its color, of course, but because it is trying to promote a safe and natural image.

In fact, Simple Green’s web site calls it “the leader of non-toxic, biodegradable, environmentally safer cleaning products.”

This sounds great… until you discover its ingredients, which by the way is not a simple feat because cleaning product manufacturers — even those that claim to be “green” — are not required by law to disclose all their ingredients on product labels.

This is where a product’s material safety data sheet (MSDS) comes in handy. The product manufacturer must make an MSDS available to consumers; this is federally mandated, so if you are in doubt about a product’s true ingredients, this is the source to turn to. In the case of Simple Green, the MSDS is incredibly revealing, as it states that the formula contains up to 4 percent 2-Butoxyethanol by volume.

2-Butoxyethanol Linked to Birth Defects, Reproductive Problems and More

2-Butoxyethanol is a petrochemical solvent that has been shown to destroy red blood cells and cause reproductive problems and minor birth defects. At GreenMedInfo you can further see 10 diseases associated with 2-butoxyethanol, including liver cancer and osteoarthritis. Other health risks revealed by the MSDS for 2-Butoxyethanol include:

Inhalation: Causes irritation to the respiratory tract. Symptoms may include sore throat, coughing, headache, nausea and shortness of breath. High concentrations have a narcotic effect Ingestion: Causes irritation to the gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms may include nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Toxic! May cause systemic poisoning with symptoms paralleling those of inhalation. Skin Contact: May cause irritation with redness and pain. May be absorbed through the skin with possible systemic effects.
Eye Contact: Vapors are irritating and may produce immediate pain, redness and tearing. Splashes can cause severe pain, stinging, swelling. Chronic Exposure: Prolonged or repeated exposures can cause damage to the liver, kidneys, lymphoid system, blood and blood-forming organs. Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions: Persons with pre-existing skin disorders, eye problems, impaired liver, kidney, blood, respiratory or lymphoid system function may be more susceptible to the effects of the substance.
Reproductive Toxicity: Has shown teratogenic effects in laboratory animals.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about this information is that most people spend about 90% of their time indoors, with women, children and the elderly being more susceptible to being harmed by chemicals like 2-butoxyethanol due to their increased likelihood of exposure. In the case of the very young, such as infants, whose blood-brain barrier and detoxification systems are not yet fully developed, the danger may be hundreds of times higher than for adults.

2-Butoxyethanol is Also a Dispersant Chemical Banned in the UK

Remember the 2010 oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, where BP attempted to “clean up” the water with highly toxic dispersants? It’s a disaster that’s virtually impossible to forget, one that was made even more tragic because of BP’s indiscriminate use of two toxic products from a line of dispersants manufactured by Nalco: Corexit 9500 and Corexit 9527A.

Corexit products were removed from a list of approved treatments for oil spills in the U.K. more than a decade ago after the agents were linked to human health problems including respiratory, neurological, liver, kidney and blood disorders, as well as “harmful effects” on sea life. Corexit 9527, an older formula used only during the early days of the clean-up according to Nalco, has been determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be a ‘chronic and acute health hazard.’

The 9527 product contains 2-butoxyethanol, an ingredient identified as the cause of ongoing health problems in Exxon Valdez oil spill cleanup workers, which is also found in Simple Green cleaner! As GreenMedInfo stated:

“It was the absence of the highly toxic and controversial 2-butoxyethanol in the 9500 Corexit formula that made it a “safer” alternative. It is believed that 2-butoxyethanol contributed to the significantly shorter lifespan of Exxon Valdez clean-up workers and is why Corexit 9527 was banned in the United Kingdom.”

It’s Common for “Green” Cleaners to Contain Toxins

Unfortunately, Simple Green is not the only chemical cleaner trying to masquerade as a natural product. In general, if you pick up a green cleaning product and it does not have its ingredients clearly labeled, you need to be very suspicious.

Take, for example, one study that analyzed 25 commonly used, scented products, including cleaning products (disinfectants, all-purpose cleaners, dish detergents), half of which claimed to be green, organic, or natural. Amazingly, the products tested emitted an average of 17 chemicals EACH, but only ONE compound was actually listed on the label.

All in all, the 25 products tested emitted a total of 133 different chemicals, about 25 percent of which are currently classified as toxic or hazardous under federal law, but only one of these 133 chemicals were disclosed on the label … and only two were listed on the MSDS! And every single product emitted at least one chemical listed as toxic or hazardous! So it truly is a buyer-beware market when it comes to cleaning supplies — even “green” cleaning products. Further, researchers noted:

“For “green” products, emissions of these compounds were not significantly different from the other products.”

Do You Want to Clean Your Home Safely? Here are the Simple Tips …

Have a clean home should not mean sacrificing your health due to chemical exposures, plain and simple. In fact, some of the best cleaners are items you probably already have around your home, such as vinegar, baking soda, and lemon juice. Here’s a simple starter list of what you need to make your own natural cleaning products:

Baking soda White vinegar Lemon juice
Hydrogen peroxide Liquid castile soap Organic essential oils (optional)
Mixing bowls Spray bottles Microfiber cloths

For a great video on how to use these ingredients and other tips for cleaning your home without hazardous chemicals, please review the article: How to Keep Your Home Clean Naturally. For example, lemon juice is a natural whitener, vinegar and water makes an excellent window cleaner, and vinegar combined with hydrogen peroxide works exceptionally well as both a disinfectant and sanitizer.

Baking soda is also great to scrub your bath and kitchen. Put it in a glass grated cheese container with a stainless steel top that has holes in it, and just sprinkle the baking soda on the surfaces and scrub. You may add a few drops of your favorite essential oil to this, such as lavender and tea tree oil, which have added anti-bacterial qualities.

If you prefer a ready-made cleaner, there are some truly safe versions out there, including our new Greener Cleaner, which my team and I spent over three years working on to develop the best environmentally and personally safe cleaner on the market. Ideally, you can use safe cleaners such as this, in combination with tired-and-true natural ingredients, to completely replace dangerous chemical cleaning products in your home. Here are several more simple tips to get you started:

Use baking soda as a safe, non-scratch scrub for metals and porcelain.
To clean your oven, sprinkle a cup or more of baking soda over the bottom of the oven, then cover the baking soda with enough water to make a thick paste. Let the mixture set overnight. The next morning the grease will be easy to wipe up because the grime will have loosened. When you have cleaned up the worst of the mess, dab a bit of liquid detergent or soap on a sponge, and wash the remaining residue from the oven.
To unclog a drain, pour 1/2 – 1 cup of baking soda down the drain, then slowly pour 1/2 – 1 cup of vinegar in after it. Cover the drain and let it sit for 15 minutes. If it bubbles like a volcano, it means it’s working as planned. Flush with a gallon of boiling water.
Deodorize dry carpets by sprinkling liberally with baking soda. Wait at least 15 minutes, then vacuum.
To rid your garbage disposal of foul smells, add vinegar to water for ice cubes, then let a few of them get chopped by your disposal.
To clean your silver, boil 2-3 inches of water in a shallow pan with 1 teaspoon of salt, 1 teaspoon of baking soda, and a sheet of aluminum foil. Totally submerge silver and boil for 2-3 minutes more. Remove silver from the pan and wipe away the tarnish with a clean cotton cloth.

originally posted online at, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753398?sssdmh=dm1.733351

Fran Lowry

November 11, 2011 — Marijuana use can lead to a loss of brain volume in individuals who are at risk of developing schizophrenia, new research shows.

“It is now accepted by most psychiatrists that smoking cannabis increases an individual’s risk of psychosis, and more specifically schizophrenia,” lead author Killian A. Welch, MD, from the University of Edinburgh, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, United Kingdom, told Medscape Medical News.

However, the risk associated with using the drug does not seem to be equally distributed across the population, Dr. Welch added.

“People with a family history of schizophrenia are particularly vulnerable to the psychotomimetic effects of the drug, and are likely at particular elevated risk of developing schizophrenia if they use cannabis,” he said. “Still, it has remained unclear how cannabis affects the brain to result in this increased risk.”

The study was published in the November issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry.

Highly Significant Volume Reduction

In the current study, Dr. Welch and colleagues compared structural changes in the thalamus and amygdala-hippocampal complex over time in 57 people aged between 16 and 25 years who were well but who had a strong family history of schizophrenia.

Each person had a full assessment, including a magnetic resonance imaging scan. Two years later, each person returned for another scan and were also asked about their use of illicit drugs, including marijuana, as well as their use of alcohol and tobacco in the period between the scans.

Of the 57 participants, 25 had used marijuana between the 2 assessments.

The researchers found that those participants who had used marijuana showed a reduction in their thalamic volume that was significant on the left side of the thalamus (F = 4.47; P = .04), and highly significant on the right (F = 7.66; P = .008). However, no loss of thalamic volume was noted in those who did not use marijuana during the 2-year period.

Some of the participants who used marijuana also used other drugs such as ecstasy and amphetamines. After controlling for the use of these other drugs, the results remained significant.

Potentially Devastating Consequences

“This is the first longitudinal study to show that cannabis use by individuals at increased risk of schizophrenia is resulting in their brain developing in a different way from the way it develops if they do not use the drug,” Dr. Welch noted.

“These are people who are currently well, not psychotic, and their use of the drug is associated with volume loss in a critical brain structure. By far the most likely explanation for this is that it is the cannabis exposure which is causing these abnormalities of brain development,” he said.

The thalamus is a very important brain structure that acts as an information processing and relay station for the brain, he added. “Given this role in interconnecting diverse brain regions, anything that affects its structure, and consequently, one assumes, its function, would be expected to have widespread and potentially devastating consequences.”

Dr. Welch warned that these findings should not be misconstrued to suggest that marijuana use is safe if one has no such family history. However, “it seems safe to say that if you do have such a background you should be particularly wary of the drug,” he said.

Novel Finding

Jean Bidlack, PhD, Paul Stark Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry in New York, told Medscape Medical News that the study by Dr. Welch and colleagues adds something useful to what is already known on the subject.

“This is the first study to show an association between a decrease in the volume of the thalamus and the use of marijuana in currently unaffected people who are at a high risk of developing schizophrenia due to family history,” Dr. Bidlack said.

“A decrease in the volume of the thalamus has been associated with psychosis and schizophrenia. The thalamus has a high level of cannabinoid receptors, which bind the active ingredient in marijuana and may contribute to the decrease in the volume of the thalamus,” she explained.

This research begins to explain the link between marijuana use and the development of schizophrenia in this high-risk group, she said.

Dr. Welch and Dr. Bidlack have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Br J Psych. 2011;199:386-390.

Even low impact car accidents can cause whiplash and symptoms often don’t show up until days or weeks later.  Most car insurance covers injuries 100% including chiropractic treatments and massage.  If you’ve been in a car accident and have been experiencing neck pain, headaches, shoulder pain or pins and needles in the arms or legs I recommend you get it checked.  Rimrock Chiropractic will handle all of your insurance claims and help you recover fast!  970-243-1388 Consultations are always free.