There are so many reasons that you should be taking a
Turmeric supplement. Read the article below from GreenMed Info. If you aren’t
taking Turmeric….then start! It’s too important for your health.
Science Confirms Turmeric As Effective As 14 Popular Drugs
Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo LLC, 2015
Turmeric is one the most thoroughly researched plants in
existence today. Its medicinal
properties and components (primarily curcumin) have been the subject of over
5600 peer-reviewed and published biomedical studies. In fact, our five-year long research project
on this sacred plant has revealed over 600 potential preventive and therapeutic
applications, as well as 175 distinct beneficial physiological effects.
Given the sheer density of research performed on this
remarkable spice, it is no wonder that a growing number of studies have
concluded that it compares favorably to a variety of conventional medications,
including:
Lipitor/Atorvastatin (cholesterol
medication):
A 2008 study published in the journal Drugs in R & D
found that a standardized preparation of curcuminoids from Turmeric compared
favorably to the drug atorvastatin (trade name Lipitor) on endothelial
dysfunction, the underlying pathology of the blood vessels that drives
atherosclerosis, in association with reductions in inflammation and oxidative
stress in type 2 diabetic patients
Corticosteroids (steroid medications):
A 1999 study published in the journal Phytotherapy Research
found that the primary polyphenol in turmeric, the saffron colored pigment
known as curcumin, compared favorably to steroids in the management of chronic
anterior uveitis, an inflammatory eye disease.
A 2008 study published in Critical Care Medicine found that
curcumin compared favorably to the corticosteroid drug Dexamethasone in the
animal model as an alternative therapy for protecting lung
transplantation-associated injury by down-regulating inflammatory genes. An
earlier 2003 study published in Cancer Letters found the same drug also
compared favorably to dexamethasone in a lung ischaemia-repurfusion injury
model.
Prozac/Fluoxetine & Imipramine (antidepressants):
A 2011 study published in the journal Acta Poloniae
Pharmaceutica found that curcumin compared favorably to both drugs in reducing
depressive behavior in an animal model.
Aspirin (blood thinner):
A 1986 in vitro and ex vivo study published in the journal
Arzneimittelforschung found that curcumin has anti-platelet and prostacyclin
modulating effects compared to aspirin, indicating it may have value in
patients prone to vascular thrombosis and requiring anti-arthritis therapy.
Anti-inflammatory Drugs:
A 2004 study published in the journal Oncogene found that
curcumin (as well as resveratrol) were effective alternatives to the drugs
aspirin, ibuprofen, sulindac, phenylbutazone, naproxen, indomethacin,
diclofenac, dexamethasone, celecoxib, and tamoxifen in exerting
anti-inflammatory and anti-proliferative activity against tumor cells.
Oxaliplatin (chemotherapy drug):
A 2007 study published in the International Journal of
Cancer found that curcumin compares favorably with oxaliplatin as an
antiproliferative agenet in colorectal cell lines.
Metformin (diabetes drug):
A 2009 study published in the journal Biochemitry and
Biophysical Research Community explored how curcumin might be valuable in
treating diabetes, finding that it activates AMPK (which increases glucose
uptake) and suppresses gluconeogenic gene expression (which suppresses glucose production in the
liver) in hepatoma cells. Interestingly, they found curcumin to be 500 times to
100,000 times (in the form known as tetrahydrocurcuminoids(THC)) more potent
than metformin in activating AMPK and its downstream target acetyl-CoA
carboxylase (ACC).
Another way in which turmeric and its components reveal
their remarkable therapeutic properties is in research on drug resistant- and
multi-drug resistant cancers. We have
two sections on our site dedicated to researching natural and integrative
therapies on these topics, and while there are dozens of substances with
demonstrable efficacy against these chemotherapy- and radiation-resistant
cancers, curcumin tops both lists:
Cancers: Drug Resistant
Cancers: Multi-Drug Resistant
We have found no less than 54 studies indicating that
curcumin can induce cell death or sensitize drug-resistant cancer cell lines to
conventional treatment.
We have identified 27 studies on curcumin's ability to
either induce cell death or sensitize multi-drug resistant cancer cell lines to
conventional treatment.
Considering how strong a track record turmeric (curcumin)
has, having been used as both food and medicine in a wide range of cultures,
for thousands of years, a strong argument can be made for using curcumin as a
drug alternative or adjuvant in cancer treatment.
Or, better yet, use certified organic (non-irradiated)
turmeric in lower culinary doses on a daily basis so that heroic doses won't be
necessary later in life after a serious disease sets in. Nourishing yourself, rather than
self-medicating with 'nutraceuticals,' should be the goal of a healthy diet.
Cell Phone Risk Update
By Melissa Young at Health Science Institute
I think cellphone companies are secretly trying to tell us
something.
After all, you rarely, if ever, see someone in one of their
TV pitches using one of these devices as an actual phone! They show people
taking selfies, getting directions, watching movies and ball games, and
listening to music... but these wireless companies just don't appear to be
encouraging putting one next to your ear. And there's a good reason why.
As we've been telling you here in eAlert, exposure to
cellphone radiation is probably one of the biggest risks you face day in and
day out. And holding one of these devices up to your head or stashing it close
to your body has clearly been linked to cancer and genetic damage.
Now, a new study has found that cancer isn't the only thing
we have to worry about. The radiation given off by these devices can also harm
specific areas of the brain that have to do with memory -- especially for
teens.
It has truly never been more important to realize just how
powerful the equipment you're holding in your hand actually is -- not only in
terms of what it can do for you, but what it can do to you.
But by taking three simple steps, you can enjoy the
conveniences these devices have to offer... without putting your health on the
line.
Keep Your Distance
The wireless industry has been fighting scientists for
decades over the risks that cellphones pose -- and it has even managed to get
regulators from the FDA, FCC, and CDC in its pocket.
But the debate over cellphone safety has by no means been
settled in the powerful industry's favor.
Some well-credentialed reinforcements have just arrived to
challenge Big Wireless -- a group of international researchers including ones
affiliated with a public-health institute in Switzerland and a scientist out of
the University of California Berkeley's Wireless Research Center.
This team analyzed the cellphone-use patterns of almost 700
teens in Switzerland to figure out what their cumulative "brain dose"
of the radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) radiation added up to...
and how they held their phones.
It uncovered frightening news for any parent or grandparent.
The researchers found that the brain damage from cellphone
RF-EMF exposure can add up, impairing both verbal and figural (or visual)
memory.
But the most telling part of this study is that the harm was
much more pronounced in the kids who held the phones to the right side of their
heads, which just so happens to be the precise location where figural memory is
located in the brain.
Other types of cellphone use -- such as playing games,
texting, and Internet browsing -- substantially reduced RF-EMF exposure and
weren't found to carry the same risks as plastering one of these devices next
to your ear.
And this measurable decline in memory was apparent after
only one year! Can you imagine what they might have found had the study
continued for longer?
Considering that nearly all teens use these devices
practically 24/7, it's shocking to learn that this study (and another one done
three years ago by these same researchers) represent the first and only
attempts to measure the effects of cumulative cellphone radiation exposure on
adolescents.
And while kids are more vulnerable to cellphone radiation,
there's plenty for adults to be concerned about as well.
Extensive research done using rats, for example, has found
that RF-EMF exposure can cause DNA damage, lymphomas, liver cancer, and rare
and deadly tumors around the heart.
Then, there's the long-standing question of whether
cellphone use is a cause of brain tumors. Industry shills will tell you that
the evidence isn't conclusive... or even that it doesn't exist at all.
But as I told you just a few months ago, a shocking
investigation into Big Wireless found that it has been manipulating everything
we've been told about the "safety" of these devices for decades. Despite
that stranglehold, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer
recently classified the kind of radiation cellphones give off as "possibly
carcinogenic to humans."
And when it comes down to the bottom line of liability, not
one insurance carrier contacted by those researchers said that it would sell a
policy covering any potential harm caused by cellphone radiation.
The one saving grace here is that wireless radiation drops
off quickly -- meaning that the more distance you put between yourself and your
phone when it's turned on, the better!
And by faithfully following these three rules, you can
benefit from the convenience of having a smartphone without endangering your
health.
#1: Never put one of these devices next to your ear! Use the
speakerphone or a headset. Text whenever possible instead of calling.
#2: Don't carry a turned-on phone in your bra or shirt,
jacket, or pants pocket.
#3: At night, either turn off your phone or put it far away
from where you're sleeping -- never under your pillow or on a nightstand next
to your head.
And remember, when the bars (or dots) on your phone indicate
that the signal is weak, it sends out more radiation to try to make a
connection. If you don't need to use it, put it in "Airplane Mode"
or, better yet, turn it off completely.
Jury Finds Monsanto Is Guilty of “Malice” for Hiding Dangers
of Roundup
Steve Kroening, ND
August 15, 2018
Mark is a friend and wildlife biologist who has told me
numerous times the herbicide Roundup is completely safe. Another friend, John,
is a chemist who says Roundup is so safe he would almost swallow a spoonful of
it. Of course, he has never done so. And now, we learn it’s a good thing.
In a civil lawsuit against Monsanto, the maker of Roundup,
there was enough evidence presented to convince the jury that Roundup does
indeed cause cancer. The jury was so convinced, it ordered Monsanto to pay out
$289 million to one man. What’s more, the jury found the company knew its
product is dangerous and has hidden the evidence.
Once you read the details of the case, you’ll agree with the
jury – and you’ll want to use something else to kill weeds in your yard.
Fortunately, there’s a natural way to do so that’s much less expensive and easy
to make at home....
This story is one we hear all too often – and never see any
justice. Chemical manufacturing companies like Monsanto are eager to sell their
products. To do so, they have to make them seem as safe as possible. So they
come up with story lines like my chemist friend gave me.
I’ve heard several people say they would swallow a spoonful
of Roundup. No one ever swallows the product, though. And yet, I keep hearing
this same line of “proof” that it’s safe. I’ve heard it so often, I have to
wonder if it’s a talking point started by Monsanto to alleviate fears of its
product. It’s an easy one to roll off your tongue – and no one would ever
expect you to actually swallow it. But the point is made.
Well, turns out, Roundup isn’t so safe.
Dewayne Johnson’s Sad Story
Dewayne Johnson has three children and is a 46-year-old
former groundskeeper. He’s a “former” groundskeeper because he’s terminally ill
with cancer.
In 2012, he took a position with the school district of
Benicia, California, a suburb just north of San Francisco. The job required him
to take care of the school grounds, which required him to spray Roundup to
control weeds. There were many days where he had to spray the chemicals for
several hours, giving him significant exposure.
During the trial, he argued that the exposure he had to the
chemicals caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), a blood cell cancer. On the stand,
he detailed his pain and suffering, as skin lesions took over his body.
“I’ve been going through a lot of pain,” Johnson testified.
“It really takes everything out of you … I’m not getting any better.”
After developing the cancer and seeing the connection,
Johnson was horrified that Monsanto let him use the herbicide near
schoolchildren. He said: “I never would’ve sprayed that product on school
grounds or around people if I knew it would cause them harm.”
Johnson likely has just months to live, and his medical
bills are piling up. His wife is working two jobs, with many 14-hour days, in
an attempt to pay for the medical bills. All to no avail.
The jury award of $289 million is to cover past and future
economic losses and punitive damages.
As sad as Johnson’s story is, it’s not the end of story for
Monsanto. Just think of how many people use Roundup on a daily basis thinking
it’s safe enough to drink.
Monsanto “Acted With Malice or Oppression”
Monsanto’s chemicals are dangerous. And Johnson’s lawyer was
allowed to prove it in this case. But the lawyer did much more damage to
Monsanto than prove the dangers of the product – he proved Monsanto knew their
product was dangerous and lied about it.
The jury determined that Monsanto’s Roundup caused Johnson’s
cancer and that the corporation failed to warn him of the health hazards from
the constant exposure he endured. But this jury went much further. The men and
women were so appalled with the evidence that they found Monsanto “acted with
malice or oppression.”
In other words, an ethical district attorney needs to look
into criminal charges here!
This was an unusual case, as the judge presiding over it
allowed the plaintiff to present scientific arguments. So Johnson’s lawyer was
able to show how Monsanto had “fought science” for years. In fact, they had
gone so far as to target any scientists who spoke up about possible health
risks from Roundup.
The judge also allowed the plaintiff to present internal
emails from Monsanto showing the malice company executives and employees
committed in trying to hide their product’s dangers.
Johnson’s attorney said, “We were finally able to show the
jury the secret, internal Monsanto documents proving that Monsanto has known
for decades that ... Roundup could cause cancer.” These internal documents were
internal emails from Monsanto executives that Johnson’s attorney said
“demonstrated how the corporation repeatedly ignored experts’ warnings, sought
favorable scientific analyses and helped to ‘ghostwrite’ research that
encouraged continued usage.”
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s international
agency for research on cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably
carcinogenic to humans.” This triggered a wave of legal and legislative
challenges and opened the door for Johnson’s lawsuit.
The company line, as detailed by Scott Partridge, the
vice-president of Monsanto, has been to reject the verdict and push for an
appeal. Partridge insisted the “verdict doesn’t change the four-plus decades of
safe use and science behind the product.”
Partridge said the IARC verdict “has been demonstrated as
having been corrupted.” He asserts the organization does “no testing, they do
no analysis, they have no laboratories, they simply render an opinion.”
I’ll be the first to admit the WHO isn’t above reproach on
much of anything. They’re the pot calling the kettle black in this instance.
But there’s enough evidence outside of the IARC verdict to destroy Monsanto’s
lies. Much of this was presented at the trial.
Is Roundup Dangerous to Children – Even in Small Doses?
As with everything, the dose is key. Johnson sustained a
large dose of Roundup on an almost daily basis. It’s hard to argue this didn’t
cause his cancer. Are smaller doses safe? Studies suggest they aren’t.
There’s new research coming out that shows how relatively
low levels of weed killers (like Roundup), indoor bug sprays, and other
pesticides can cause cancer and other serious medical problems in children, and
possibly adults.
It’s not just because children are smaller than adults.
Their bodies and brains are still developing, which means their cells are
dividing rapidly. This makes them especially vulnerable to chemical assault. So
even small amounts of insecticides and pesticides that are meant to kill rodents
or insects, even in tick and flea sprays used on pets, can cause problems.
One study from September 2015 found indoor bug sprays can
cause leukemia or lymphoma, and possibly brain cancer, in children. This was an
important study because it was a meta-analysis. That means the researchers
combined data from 16 smaller studies to reach their conclusions.
Another study, this one from August 2015, found that Roundup
in drinking water can cause harmful effects in the liver and kidneys of rats.
We’ve been told that once Roundup goes into the earth, it becomes neutralized.
This study casts serious doubt on this assertion.
Perhaps the most troubling study came in May 2016. In this
study, researchers at the University of California San Francisco announced that
they found glyphosate (the major ingredient in Roundup), in the urine of 93% of
the American public. What’s more, they said the highest levels were found in
children. Unless all of us are swallowing Roundup, how else do you explain
this? It’s obvious glyphosate is getting into our food and water supply.
We do have to ask this question, though: If 93% of the
American public has glyphosate in our urine, why don’t all of us have cancer?
It’s a legitimate question with a legitimate answer. Most people are not
getting the dose that Mr. Johnson received. Most of us are somewhat healthy and
able to withstand smaller doses. But we also have to consider that these
chemicals in our bodies are causing a host of health problems. They may not
kill us. But we could be suffering from memory loss, fatigue, thyroid issues,
muscle weakness, digestive issues, and any number of other problems because of
these chemicals.
So What Can You Do?
Many people suggest we don’t use these products around our
homes. That’s easier said than done when the bugs and weeds are invading your
home. Plus, if these chemicals are in our food and water supply, not using them
really isn’t going to help much. We would all have to stop – and that’s not
going to happen anytime soon.
So you have to take steps to protect yourself today. The
best way to do that is to detoxify your body regularly. Many people go through
a spring detoxification. This is a good idea. But to get these chemicals out of
your body, you need daily protection from a detox product that can remove
pesticides and herbicides from your blood and tissues.
Exercise and/or sitting in a sauna are also important, as
sweating is a great way to release toxins from your body.
Eating organic fruits and vegetables is vital as well.
Unless it says organic, you need to assume that it has Roundup on it and in it.
Remember, many genetically modified products use Roundup as a part of its new
gene structure.
Whatever you do, don’t believe the hype that expensive
chemicals that kill plants and animals are completely safe. They’re effective
at what they do because they’re harmful products. It’s common sense, but it’s
not commonly thought through.
Yes, there are natural products that will work, particularly
as an herbicide. Vinegar is one. Combine one gallon of vinegar with two cups of
salt and two tablespoons of dish soap (stir until the salt dissolves) and it
will work even faster. The combination probably won’t work as fast as Roundup –
and may need more applications. But it also won’t cause cancer.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
The information on this blog is provided for educational
purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical care, and
medical advice and services are not being offered. If you have, or suspect you
have, a health problem you should consult your physician (preferably a
Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment