Excerpt:

Autoimmunity refers to an inappropriate immune response against self-components of the host that results in pathological conditions. Autoimmune diseases are characterized by an activation of autoreactive T and B cells, are associated in some cases with the production of pathogenic autoantibodies against self-molecules, culminating in inflammation and tissue damage. The reasons for the breakdown of tolerance mechanisms leading to autoimmunity are not clearly known. However, a combination of genetic, immunological, and environmental factors plays a critical role in the pathogenesis of autoimmunity 

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

From: INTEGRATIVE MEDICAL-CONSULTING

The Little Princes of Denmark
Why do Danes have smaller nuts than Finns—are toxins to blame?

By Florence WilliamsPosted Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010, at 9:41 AM ET

It’s a source of parental pride when baby Buster needs the size “large” penis ring for his circumcision. Mother and father see their child’s life unfold effortlessly: He will be flushed with testosterone, well-hung, and yet (somehow) sensitive to the needs of others—a caring leader of great integrity. But what happens when he comes out with a genital malformation?

If you’re Danish, you compare the goods to those of your Baltic neighbors.

Concerned with a recent increase in male genital birth defects plus dropping sperm counts and higher rates of testicular cancer, Danish researchers have spent the last five years ranking their nether regions against those of the Finns. Both countries have excellent registry data, an accommodating research population, and a rivalry dating back to Viking-era tribes hitting one another with clubs. Whose cudgel is bigger? That is the question. Why should you care if you’re neither Danish nor Finnish? Because the answer involves environmental toxins that have made their way around the globe.

By all accounts, the Finns are winning hands-down (or up?) in the size wars. In a study of 1,600 babies born between 1997 and 2001, the Danes had smaller testicles than the Finns. Scientists know this because they expertly measured “ellipsoidal volume” and found the Danish package lagging at birth. The differences were even more pronounced after three months, with the Finns averaging three times more testicular growth. When these results were published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism in 2006, it was the Scandinavian equivalent of announcing Yale men have smaller nuts than Harvard men. The story “was very much in our media,” says lead researcher Katharina Main of the University of Copenhagen. Another study measured baby penile lengths, showing boys with more testosterone had longer lads. “The Finns are doing so much better from every parameter, semen, testes size, and cancer,” Main bemoaned.

Before you decide that these joy-stick measuring Scandinavians should just be happy being the tallest, blondest people on Earth, consider: Testicle and penis size, and certainly malformations, are sometimes linked to other measures of health and reproductive success. And the environmental factors at work here are affecting other parts of Western Europe and probably North America as well.

Basically, the bigger the nuts, the more Sertoli cells they contain, and Sertoli cells are the “nurseries” that produce sperm. For years, the Danes have been wringing their hands about declining sperm counts. One study from 2006 found 40 percent of young Danish military recruits had suboptimal sperm levels. In the land of Lego, 7 percent of all live births in 2007 required “assisted” reproduction. (In the United States, it’s around 1 percent.) There’s gloomy news about other measures of manhood as well. About 9 percent of schoolboys have at least one undescended testicle, compared with 2.3 percent in Finland. This condition, called cryptorchidism, doubles the risk for testicular cancer. And, in fact, Danish testicular cancer rates are about one in 100, about three times higher than the Finnish or U.S. rates.

Also troubling: Danish baby boys with the unfortunate malformations are found to have relatively low levels of androgenic male hormones. It’s unclear what this means for their adult health; still, even before their births, something was blocking their androgens from doing their job. But what? The likely culprits were genetic or environmental or some combination thereof. Researchers went back and tested samples from the babies’ stored blood and their mothers’ breast milk. Danes are known to smoke and drink during pregnancy, but that didn’t seem to explain the genital effects. Then other hormone-monkeying suspects turned up at relevant levels: industrial chemicals like polychlorinated biphenols (banned since the 1970s but doggedly persistent in land, water, and food), flame retardants, dioxins, and pesticides like DDT. “It turns out the chemical burden is not the same” for Danish and Finnish baby boys, says researcher Main, who was surprised by the finding. “It’s higher here. The higher your burden, as measured in breast milk, the higher the risk of undescended testes.”

What does all of this augur for males in the United States? Are they more like the poor shrinking Danes or the lucky strapping Finns? Thanks to our relatively poor data sets, it’s hard to say, but we know our chemical burdens are similar to the Danes’, and even worse for some compounds like brominated flame retardants, which we continue to use in the United States (most are banned in Europe). One relatively common birth defect here is hypospadias, in which the urethra opens somewhere along the underside of the penis rather than on the tip. It usually requires surgery, and severe cases can lead to problems with sexual function and fertility. Depending on whom you believe, it affects either one out of 125 or one out of 250 male births.

According to a study conducted in England last year, women exposed to hairspray in the workplace have a threefold risk of bearing a son with hypospadias. The study points out that many hairsprays contain phthalates, a common class of chemicals used in plastics and linked to hormone disruption. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a doubling of hypospadias in the United States from 1968 to 1993. More comfortingly, a paper published last year found no increase in hypospadias since then in New York hospitals.

Other disturbing data regarding chemicals and manliness continues to pile up, however. Testicular cancer is increasing alarmingly in the United States as well as elsewhere, doubling over the past 20 years. It is the No. 1 cancer affecting young men. A recent study linked abnormal sperm to blood levels of PFOS and PFOA, widespread substances used to make nonstick coatings. As with cancer risk, an interplay of genes and the environment is likely meddling with male fertility. Gaining ground is the theory that a chemical or combination of chemicals disrupt the hormones early in life, says UCSF urologist Laurence Baskin. “The exposure has to be in the first trimester, because the penis is a done deal by 17 weeks,” he explains.

Testosterone and other male hormones affect not only the genitalia but the brain as well. In a curious study published in November in the International Journal of Andrology, U.S. researcher Shanna Swan measured young boys’ tendencies toward traditional “male” play. Those boys who played the least with toy guns were exposed to the highest uterine levels of phthalates, as measured earlier in their pregnant moms’ urine. Though no one knows what this might mean for the boys’ future behavior, SWAN says such data suggest that “prenatal exposure to pthatlates, even at low environmental levels, can induce profound and permanent changes” in the brain and reproductive organs.

Not every expert buys the argument that it is pollutants that are messing with male hormones. It’s a difficult hypothesis to prove in humans, even though the evidence is quite strong in animal studies. Dr. Michael Joffe at Imperial College, London, points out that testicular cancer cases mysteriously started rising in the mid 19th century. The timing means that victims of the disease would have been in the womb before many chemicals became widespread.

Still, it’s enough to make a mom wonder about using phthalate-laden perfumes and creams during pregnancy. While we wait for more research on this side of the pond, the Danes have already put in place some of the strongest regulations on chemicals in the world, banning PFOA, phthalates, and a host of other compounds. They’ll be keeping a keen eye on how things develop. Or don’t.

Dr Mark Hyman continues to sound the alarm with useful well organized information that can help us wake our patients up to the clear contributing causes to most poor health. They are suffering from TOXINS in our environment, not a deficiency of some antidepressant, pain medication, and cancer drug or heart medication. We need to wake up before it is too late and learn from Dr Hyman and from my FIGHT program that poor health is multifactorial but always Food sensitivities, Infections, Genetic, Heavy Metals, and Toxins are part of the answer.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

http://www.ultrawellness.com/blog/ultrawellness-key-5

Your body may be a toxic waste dump.

Worried? You should be …

We are exposed to 6 million pounds of mercury and the 2.5 billion pounds other toxic chemicals each year.

80,000 toxic chemicals have been released into our environment since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and very few have been tested for their long-term impact on human health. And let me tell you, the results aren’t pretty for those that have been tested …
How can we not be affected by this massive amount of poison?

According to the nonprofit organization Environmental Working Group , the average newborn baby has 287 known toxins in his or her umbilical cord blood.

If a newborn is exposed to that many toxins, imagine how many you have been exposed to in your life …

Do you think this may be why so many of us are sick and fat today?

The simple truth is that we are living in a sea of toxins and it is destroying our bodies and brains.

The two most important things you need to know to cure disease, create health, and lose weight are:
1. The role of nutrition in health and disease.

2. The role of toxins and the importance of detoxification in health and disease.
Unfortunately, you probably aren’t going to learn much about them from your doctor. Most physicians today are still hopelessly ignorant in these areas. They were simply never taught about nutrition and detoxification in medical school.

However, there are many things you can do to reduce your toxic exposures and enhance your detoxification. Today I want to share some information your doctor probably won’t focus on in your next visit, even though it is at the very root of your health. I am going to outline a simple 10-step plan you can use to enhance your detoxification.
Enhancing detoxification is the 5th key of the 7 keys to UltraWellness. If you want to lose weight and get healthy, you need to clean up the toxic waste in your body. Today you will learn how.

The Role of Toxins in Health and Disease
The role of toxins and detoxification in health has been largely ignored by medicine.
Thankfully, scientists and practitioners are starting to recognize its importance in health.
I recently spoke about detoxification at the 13th International Symposium on Functional Medicine. The presentation was called Managing Biotransformation: The Metabolic, Genomic, and Detoxification Balance Points. Leading experts from all over the globe came together to present the data on the role of toxins in health and offer suggestions for how we can detoxify.

If you want all the scientific background on detoxification, I recommend reading the proceedings from that meeting. You will find extensive data on the impact toxins have on our health and how critical detoxification is for long-term wellness.

The reality is that many of you probably have symptoms of chronic toxicity but don’t realize that you’re toxic.

The following is a list of the common symptoms of chronic toxicity. If you suffer from any of the following, detoxifying might be critical for you to get healthy and feel good again:
• Fatigue
• Muscle aches
• Joint pain
• Sinus congestion
• Postnasal drip
• Excessive sinus problems
• Headaches
• Bloating
• Gas
• Constipation
• Diarrhea
• Foul-smelling stools
• Heartburn
• Sleep problems
• Food cravings
• Water retention
• Rashes
• Skin problems
• Eczema
• Psoriasis
• Canker sores
• Acne
• Bad breath
• Premenstrual syndrome
• Other menstrual disorders
• Puffy, dark circles under the eyes
• Difficulty concentrating
• Trouble losing weight

But how do you detoxify? And what does that word even mean? Let’s look a little more closely at what detoxification is.

What are Toxicity and Detoxification?
When you hear the word “detox” you might think drug detox or alcohol detox or wheatgrass enemas. That’s not what I am talking about.

I am referring to the science of how our bodies get rid of waste. If waste builds up, we get sick. And the key is to figure out how to enhance your body’s capacity to detoxify and get rid of waste while minimizing your exposure to toxins.

This is so important, because many diseases of our society are actually related to toxicity.
Here are some of the diseases you may suffer from if you are toxic:
• Parkinson’s disease
• Alzheimer’s disease
• Dementia
• Autism
• Attention deficit disorder
• Depression and other mood disorders
• Insomnia
• Heart disease
• Chronic fatigue syndrome
• Fibromyalgia
• Cancer
• Autoimmune disease
• Food allergies
• Arthritis
• Digestive diseases like Crohn’s disease, ulcers, and colitis
• Menstrual problems like heavy bleeding, cramps, PMS, menopausal symptoms, mood changes and hot flashes

With so many conditions on that list, it might seem that everyone is toxic.

That may be true to differing degrees …
Problems with detoxification form one of the roots of illness — and signify one of the core systems in the body that must be working well for you to be healthy. If you feel lousy, it’s likely you’re toxic.

It is important to understand why we are toxic and how we can detoxify. I will explain how you can detoxify a little later, but first I want to tell you about where toxins come from and how we are overloaded.

To understand toxicity, you must understand the concept of “total load.” Total load is the total amount of stressors on your system at any one time — it’s like what happens when a glass fills over with water. It takes a certain amount of water to fill the glass and then, after a certain point, you put more in and it overflows.

When our detoxification system is overwhelmed, it gets overloaded. That’s when we start developing symptoms and getting sick, but it may take years of accumulated stress and toxins to get to that point.

Here are some, but not all, of the factors that can contribute to your total toxic load:
• Exposure to heavy metals like mercury and lead, petrochemicals, residues, pesticides, and fertilizers.
• Food allergies, environmental allergies, molds, and toxins from molds.
• Eating a standard American diet.
• Mental, emotional, and spiritual toxins — isolation, loneliness, anger, jealousy, and hostility, all of which translate into toxins in our system.
• Medications can sometimes be toxins. Often we need medications, but the reality is that most of us are overmedicated and use medications to treat problems for which there are better solutions, such as lifestyle and diet.
• Internal toxins — things like bacteria, fungus, and yeast inside our gut as well as hormonal and metabolic toxins that we need to eliminate.

That’s a lot of toxins for our bodies to manage.

You may wonder: Why aren’t we all sick, given this incredible load of toxins? The answer is simple. It is because each of us is genetically and biochemically unique. Some of us are good at getting rid of toxins and waste, and others are not. I am not. That is why I developed chronic fatigue syndrome.

I became overloaded with mercury and couldn’t get rid of it because I am missing a gene for GSTM1 — a critical detoxifying enzyme for mercury. But by learning to support my system and how to detoxify, I was able to cure myself of a seemingly incurable condition.

What I learned is that there are five key steps to optimal detoxification. They are:
1. Identify and Get Rid of Toxins — I listed the primary forms of toxic exposure above. Eliminating them is absolutely essential if you want to rebalance your detox system.
2. Fix Your Gut — Gut imbalances are a key source of toxins for many.
3. Get Moving — This help your blood and lymphatic circulation do its job.
4. Get Your Liver and Detox System Working — If your detoxification system isn’t working properly, this is a serious problem and needs to be addressed. A great place to start is the 10-step approach outlined below.
5. Detox Your Mind, Heart, and Spirit — This is just as important as detoxing your body, and it’s an area few of us ever think about as a source of toxins.

To completely detoxify your body you need to work through each of these steps carefully, and that can take some time. But you can start today by following this simple 10-step plan.

10 Simple Steps to Enhance Detoxification
Proper detoxification is so essential for health that you need to start enhancing your body’s ability to detoxify today. Here is how to do it:
1. Drink Clean — Drink plenty of clean water, at least eight to ten glasses of filtered water a day.
2. Eliminate Properly — Keep your bowels moving, at least once or twice a day. And if you can’t get going, then you need some help. This can include taking two tablespoons of ground flax seeds and taking acidophilus and extra magnesium citrate capsules. If you have any chronic diseases or problems, you have to be careful about taking supplements and should work with your doctor.
3. Eat Clean — You should also eat organic produce and animal products to eliminate the toxins, hormones, and antibiotics in your food.
4. Eat Detoxifying Food — You should eat 8 to 10 servings of colorful fruits and vegetables a day, particularly family of the cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, collards, kale, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi) and the garlic family (garlic and onions), which help increase sulfur in the body and help detoxification.
5. Minimize Drugs — Avoid stimulants, sedatives, and drugs, such as caffeine and nicotine, and try to reduce alcohol intake.
6. Get Moving — Exercise five days a week with focus on conditioning your cardiovascular system, strengthening exercises, and stretching exercises.
7. Avoid the White Menace — This includes white flour and white sugar.
8. Sweat — Sweat profusely at least three times a week, using a sauna, steam, or a detox bath.
9. Supplement — Take a high-quality multivitamin and mineral supplement.
10. Relax — Relax deeply every day to get your nervous system in a state of calm, rest, and relaxation.

Simply following these steps will help to correct problems caused by toxicity, maximize your body’s own detoxification capacity, and help you safely eliminate toxins stores in your body.

Depending on your symptoms, genetic predispositions and environmental exposures, you may need different levels of nutrients and types of treatment, but this is an excellent way to get started on detoxification today.

Remember, getting rid of toxins and learning how to optimize your detoxification system is essential for creating lifelong vibrant health.

Now I’d like to hear from you …
Why do you think we live in such a toxic world?
Do you think the government should do more to regulate toxins? If so, what kind of legislation should be put in place to protect us?
Have you suffered from toxic exposures? What were they and how did they make you feel?
Do you have any other suggestions for detoxification?

To your good health,
Mark Hyman, M.D.

Big biotech claims that genetic engineering is a necessary step towards feeding the world’s growing population.  And yet debate still rages as to whether GM crops actually increase yields at all.  Furthermore, the UN recently stated that 30,000 people a day were starving to death, but not because of underproduction of crops.  It’s simply through lack of access.

Independent scientific studies raised serious alarm bells over the safety of GM foods over a decade ago.  But while this made front-page headlines in European newspapers, the North American mainstream media were conspiratorially silent.

Biotech companies stand to make billions from their seed patents.  Governments and supreme courts have sanctioned the patenting of life itself.  The planet’s food supply is becoming increasingly dominated by fewer and fewer players.

If the biotech industry’s stated intention of feeding the world is misguided or even misdirecting, is there another political agenda behind GM food? Have we been mis-sold?  Were we even given a choice in the first place?

Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, reveals the shocking truth behind GM foods and the huge effort by governments and Biotech corporations to keep it out of the mainstream media and outside of your awareness.

WORDS: Jeffrey M. Smith

It looks the same-the bread, pies, sodas, even corn on the cob. So much of what we eat every day looks just like it did 20 years ago. But something profoundly different has happened without our knowledge or consent. And according to leading doctors, what we don’t know may already be hurting us big time.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) publicly condemned genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, saying they posed “a serious health risk.” They called on the US government to implement an immediate moratorium on all genetically modified (GM) foods, and urged physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients.

GM-What?

Genetic engineering is quite distinct from selective breeding because it involves taking genes from a completely different species and inserting them into the DNA of a plant or animal. The long term effects of this for our health and our planet’s biodiversity are unknown.

AAEM, an “Academy of Firsts,” was the first US medical organization to describe or acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, chemical sensitivity, food allergy/addiction, and a host of other medical issues. But the potential for harm from GMOs dwarfs anything they have identified thus far. It can impact everyone who eats.

More than 70% of the foods on supermarket shelves contain derivatives of the eight GM foods on the market-soy, corn, oil from canola and cottonseed, sugar from sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, and a small amount of zucchini and crook neck squash. The biotech industry hopes to genetically engineer virtually all remaining vegetables, fruits, grains, and beans (not to mention animals).

The two primary reasons why plants are engineered are to allow them to either drink poison, or produce poison. The poison drinkers are called herbicide tolerant. They’re inserted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of toxic herbicide. Biotech companies sell the seed and herbicide as a package deal, and US farmers use hundreds of millions of pounds more herbicide because of these types of GM crops. The poison producers are called Bt crops. Inserted genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis produce an insect-killing pesticide called Bt-toxin in every cell of the plant. Both classes of GM crops are linked to dangerous side effects.

Doctors and Patients: Just Say No to GMOs

“Now that soy is genetically engineered,” warns Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles, “it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.” How dangerous are GM foods? World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava, PhD, believes they are the major reason for the recent rise in serious illnesses in the US.

The range of what GMOs might do to us is breathtaking. “Several animal studies,” according to the AAEM, reveal a long list of disorders, including: “infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, [faulty] insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

“There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects,” says the AAEM position paper. Based on established scientific criteria, “there is causation.”

Difficult to Trace the Damage

Outside the carefully controlled laboratory setting, it is more difficult to confidently assign GMOs as the cause for a particular set of diseases, especially since there are no human clinical trials and no agency that even attempts to monitor GMO-related health problems among the population. “If there are problems,” says biologist David Schubert, PhD, of the Salk Institute, “we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.”

GM crops were widely introduced in 1996. Within nine years, the incidence of people in the US with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled-from 7% to 13%. Visits to the emergency room due to allergies doubled from 1997 to 2002. And overall food related illnesses doubled from 1994 to 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Obesity, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, and autism are also among the conditions that are skyrocketing in the US.

The Lyme Induced Autism Foundation, a patient advocacy group, is not waiting for studies to prove that GMOs cause or worsen Lyme, autism, and the many other diseases on the rise since gene-spliced foods were introduced. Like AAEM, the LIA Foundation says there is more than enough evidence of harm in animal feeding studies for them to “urge doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets” and for “individuals, especially those with autism, Lyme disease, and associated conditions, to avoid” GM foods.

Another patient group, those suffering from eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), is more confident about the GMO origins of their particular disease. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan in the late 1980s. It killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. The characteristics of EMS made it much easier for authorities to identify the epidemic and its cause. It only affected those who consumed the pills; symptoms came on almost immediately; and its effects were horrific-including unbearable pain and paralysis. There was even a unique, easy-to-measure change in the white blood cell count. But even though EMS was practically screaming to be discovered, it still took the medical community more than four years-and it was almost missed.

“The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” David Suzuki, renowned Canadian geneticist.

What if the GMOs throughout our food supply are creating common diseases which come on slowly? It would be nearly impossible to confirm them as the cause. “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients,” says AAEM president Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, “but need to know how to ask the right questions.” The patients at greatest risk are the very young. “Children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods, says Dr. Schubert. They become “the experimental animals,” our collective canaries in the coal mine.

Warnings by Government Scientists Ignored and Denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems back in the early 1990s. According to secret documents made public from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, new “super” diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests. But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of the scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies-who have a long history of lying about the toxicity of their earlier products-to determine if their own foods are safe.

After overseeing GMO policy at the FDA, Mr. Taylor worked on GMO issues at the USDA, and then later became Monsanto’s vice president. In the summer of 2009, he went through the revolving door again. Taylor was appointed by the Obama administration as the de facto US food safety czar at the FDA.

Dangerously Few Studies, Untraceable Diseases

“Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?” This was the concluding question posed in a 2007 review of published scientific literature on the health risks of GM plants, showing that the number of studies and available data are “very scarce.”

“The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs,” says renowned Canadian geneticist David Suzuki. He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”

When consumers realize the dangers of GM foods and that the FDA has abdicated its responsibility to protect us, they usually want to opt out of this massive feeding experiment. In fact, most Americans already say they would avoid GMO brands if given a choice.

It wouldn’t take a majority of us to kick GMOs out of our food supply. Kraft and other food companies wouldn’t wait until half their market share is gone before telling their suppliers to switch to the non-GM corn, soy, etc. By using GM ingredients, they don’t offer customers a single advantage. The food doesn’t taste better, last longer, or have more nutrients. Thus, if even a tiny percentage of US consumers-say 5% or 15 million people-started avoiding GMO brands, the millions in lost sales revenue would likely force brands to remove all GM ingredients, like they already have in Europe.

But the FDA doesn’t want to give us the choice. They ignore the wishes of nine out of ten Americans for mandatory GMO labeling in order to promote the economic interests of just five biotech companies.

The Shocking Evidence of Harm from GMOs

Genetically modified (GM) foods have not been scientifically tested on human beings. (The only published human feeding study had ominous results – see later.) Instead, animals are used as our surrogates, but the few published animal safety studies are generally short-term and superficial. In fact, industry-funded research is widely criticized as designed to avoid finding problems.  They’ve got bad science-down to a science. Even still, the accumulated evidence of harm is compelling people to read ingredient labels and avoid brands with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Infant Mortality and Reproductive Disorders

When GM soy flour was added to the diets of female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks-compared to only a 10% death rate among mothers fed natural soy. The babies from the GM-fed group were also smaller and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color-from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice testicles also showed changes, including damaged young sperm cells. And the DNA in mice embryos functioned differently when their parents ate GM soy. Mice fed GM corn had fewer babies, and their children were smaller than normal.

About two dozen US farmers say that thousands of their pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn. Investigators in the state of Haryana, India, report that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died.

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food, A Registered Pesticide?

When insects bite genetically modified Bt corn and cotton, they get a mouthful of a built-in toxin, produced by every cell of the plant. The poison splits open their stomach and kills them. The GM plants are registered as pesticides with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Biotech companies claim that Bt-toxin has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert genes from the bacteria into the DNA of the corn and cotton, so the plants themselves do the killing.

They fail to point out that the Bt-toxin produced in GM plants:

• Is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray;
• Is designed to be more toxic;
• Has properties of an allergen; and
• Unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

But even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.

Those exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers handling Bt cotton grown in India. According to Sunday India, medical records confirm that “victims of itching have increased massively . . . related to Bt cotton farming.”

If GM crops kill animals, how safe are they for us to eat?

When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in their intestines and livers. Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.” In a small feeding study, 100% of sheep fed Bt cotton died within 30 days, while those grazing on natural cotton plants in the adjoining field had no symptoms.

Similarly, buffalo that grazed on natural cotton plants for years without incident are reacting to the Bt variety. In one village, for example, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for a single day in January 2008. All died within three days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines. Even Monsanto’s own 90-day rat feeding study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs due to their Bt corn. And a 2008 Italian government study found that Bt corn provoked immune responses in mice.

GMOs Contain Allergens

Immune system problems in GMO-fed animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies,” according to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine specifically notes an increase in cytokines, “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation.” While all three conditions are on the rise in the US, it is the upsurge in food allergies among children that has generated the most alarm nationwide.

There are many reasons why GMOs might be the cause:

• The GM proteins produced in GM soy, corn, and papayas have properties of known allergens. They actually fail the allergy screening protocol recommended by the World Health Organization.
• The process of creating a GMO can introduce new allergens or elevate existing ones. Both GM soy and corn contain new unintended allergenic proteins, and GM soy has as much as seven times higher levels of a natural soy allergen-trypsin inhibitor.
• Herbicide tolerant GM crops have considerably more residues of toxic herbicides, which may provoke reactions.
• Skin prick allergy tests confirm that some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. But there are other non-GM foods that are also provoking more allergic responses now than in the past. Research shows, however, that consuming GM foods may still be the culprit by provoking sensitivity to other foods.

Mice fed Bt-toxin, for example, not only reacted to the Bt itself, they started having immune reactions to foods that were formerly harmless. Similarly, after mice ate GM peas, they started to react to other foods that previously had no impact. In addition, GM soy drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If our ability to breakdown proteins is impaired, we could become allergic to a wide variety of foods.

GMOs and Liver Problems

As a primary detoxifier, the condition of the liver can point to toxins in our diet. The livers of mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes. Some were smaller and partially atrophied, others were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed, and some showed signs of a toxic insult from eating GM food.

The Worst Finding of All?  GMOs Remain Inside Us!

The only published human feeding study revealed what many find to be the most disturbing discovery. The genes inserted into GM crops transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continue to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Although scientists only tested this on soy, if Bt genes from corn chips also transferred, they could transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When doctors hear about this evidence, they often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Even if GMOs helped combat global hunger, which they don’t, it would be hard to justify putting these high-risk organisms into the food supply in their current state. Especially since GM crops cross-pollinate and contaminate the environment. Their self-propagating genetic pollution may outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.

Shhhh!  Meet the Scientists Who Dared to Break the Silence on GMOs.

Arpad Pusztai
Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field. But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years. The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.

With permission from his Director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his Institute-for two days. Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO Prime Minister’s office to the Institute’s Director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.

Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans and Canadians.

Irina Ermakova
Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.

Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”

Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour. In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55%.

It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Andrés Carrasco
Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup®, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready® crops. Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup® used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects. Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup®, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.

Terje Traavik
Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:

• Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;
• Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and
• Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.

The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? He presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.

Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”

Nothing to Hide?

When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes. After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples. Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American, “Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. . . . Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies. Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk-so she faxed it out.

Why is Science and Debate Being Silenced?

The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. There appears to be a de facto ban on scientists asking certain questions and finding certain results.

New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place . . . and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly, …  or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”

University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetic engineering scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of their products, I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”

Failing that, are you willing to continue your participation?

Tell us your opinion on genetically modified food: post a comment below.
To find out how to stop eating GMOs, visit: www.nongmoshoppingguide.com.
Videos:  The Future of Food, The World According to Monsanto

Regards,
Linda

CHRONIC Low Level Lead Toxicity and our Health

It seems from this new report that my concerns about chronic lead toxicity are destined to become the concerns of mainstream medicine. All I have to do is live to over 100 and my approach to health problems might become mainstream so perhaps I need to keep working hard to stay ahead of mainstream medicine.

They are not likely to adopt by FIGHT program that fast, as incorporating Food, Infection, Genetic, Heavy Metal/Hormones and Toxins into the new nationalized health care schemes will not work well with their focus on cost containment. Probably everyone could enjoy considerably improved health with such as broad spectrum approach and certainly multifactorial medicine does not fit well in a nationalized health care plan design to save money from the onset, not a few years later.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

Toxic Metal Report: Lead Is Still in the Workplace and Can Affect Genetic Expression

Dealing with heavy metals—lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and others—were once the concern of integrative medical physicians and dentists alone. In fact, these practitioners were routinely targeted by medical boards for screening patients for heavy metal toxicity. But now the conventional medical literature links mercury to heart attacks and heart disease and lead to high blood pressure.

A new government report says on-the-job exposure to lead continues to be a hazard for US workers. Nationally, blood lead levels increased between 2005 and 2006/2007. Lead may be much higher in tissues rather than circulating in the bloodstream, according to many practitioners.

New research shows that lead, even at low doses, is extremely toxic. Studies of patients with thinning bones suggest that lead toxicity can occur later in life. It is often unrecognized in older adults with high blood pressure. Despite this, allopathic physicians rarely screen for heavy metals, and even many integrative physicians only suggest that their patients be screened.

A larger study shows that a mother’s total lead burden affects her children’s genetic development. Lead released from a mother’s bones during pregnancy is linked with the “turning on and off” of her fetus’s genes, which may make her children and grandchildren more susceptible to diseases that include Alzheimer’s. In addition, lead exposure before birth has been linked to premature births and low birth rates.

Screening at-risk mothers-to-be for lead toxicity should become the standard of care. Integrative physicians are clearly in the forefront of improving patient care as they recognize the role heavy metals play in our health, our children, and future generations.

Silver has been known for its medicinal and antimicrobial properties for thousands of years. Hippocrates, “Father of Medicine,” used silver for tissue repair & wound healing. In 69 B.C. silver nitrate was described in the contemporary pharmacopoeia. The ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome used silver to control bodily infection & prevent food spoilage. The King of Persia used silver containers to carry water to prevent contamination. Throughout the ages, the ‘Metal of the Moon’ as it was known to some of the ancients has been used effectively for numerous medicinal purposes.

Beyond prescribing any silver-based product for its antimicrobial effect, it is necessary in successful practice to distinguish the vast differences in performance amongst competing brands. Clearly silver is not just silver. Major formulation advancements have been made in the last 150 years since the first electrolytically produced colloidal silvers came into existence. To understand the difference in antimicrobial activity between the leading evidence based silver products currently available, we need only compare kill kinetics studies against various benchmark microorganisms.

The most effective antimicrobials within the clinical setting are defined as broad-spectrum; exhibiting bactericidal, virucidal, fungicidal and more in killing effect. As there are a near infinite number of types, and genetic variations of pathogens, antimicrobial research is best accomplished by Association of Analytical Communities (AOAC) standard, invitro kill time studies. This is the same protocol utilized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in determining the germicidal efficiency of a pesticide/disinfectant. The AOAC protocols are accepted and recognized as standard.

In my investigations, I have compiled kill kinetics data of three of the better known silver-based antimicrobial products currently on the market, which I obtained from the manufacturer’s own websites. Included in this comparative analysis are the independently derived, and independently published kill kinetics test results of Results RNA Advanced Cellular Silver (ACS) 200®, American Biotech ASAP silver® and Purest Colloids, Inc. MesoSilver® against three benchmark microorganisms; Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Candida albicans, and Staphylococcus aureus.

Before we examine the data, a simple defining of terms is necessary:

Titer: Synonymous with Microbe Concentration. Titer refers to the number of organisms calculated in the culture prior to testing.
Log Reduction: Defines the percentage of kill in logarithms.
Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) – Comparative Kill Time Study
MRSA  Titer  Log Reduction  Time 
ACS 200*  2,170,000,000  6.64/99.999984%  < 3 minutes 
ASAP silver  1,900,000  4.98/99.9989%  60 minutes 
Meso Silver  1,200,000  Log not provided claimed kill 5 hours
* Performed using AOAC methods
ACS 200 titer is 114,210% greater than ASAP silver titer
ACS 200 titer is 180,833% greater than MesoSilver titer
www.aoac.org – Association of Analytical Communities

ACS 200® (tested by AOAC) provides a >6.64 log reduction/99.999984% complete kill in less than 3 minutes.
ASAP® silver provides a >4.98 log reduction/99.9989% complete kill in 60 minutes.
MesoSilver® requires 300 minutes to achieve complete kill against MRSA. (Actual Log reduction not provided in published report.)
Microbe Concentrations: The initial microbe concentration (titer) of MRSA used with ACS 200® for testing is significantly larger than the titers used by ASAP® silver and MesoSilver®. Comparisons are as follows:
MRSA Microbe Concentrations by Product

ACS 200® MRSA titer: 2.17 X 109
ASAP® silver MRSA titer: 1.9 x 106
MesoSilver® MRSA titer: 1.2 x 106

MRSA Microbe Concentrations Compared

The 2.17 X 109 ACS 200® titer is 1,142 times larger than the 1.9 x 106 ASAP® silver titer.
The 2.17 X 109 ACS 200 titer is 1,808 times larger than the 1.2 x 106 MesoSilver® titer.

MRSA Testing Conclusion:

ACS 200® achieves complete kill (without a single organism left alive) against 2,170,000,000 MRSA organisms in less than 3 minutes.
ACS 200® achieves a significant 20 times faster kill than ASAP® silver against Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus evidencing a 3 minute/99.999984% >6.64 log reduction versus a 60 minute/99.9989% >4.98 log reduction, while killing an 1,142 times greater number of MRSA organisms.
ACS 200® achieves ­­a significant 100 times faster kill than MesoSilver® against Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus evidencing a 3 minute/99.999984% >6.64 log reduction versus a 300 minute kill time, while killing an 1,808 times greater number of MRSA organisms.

Candida albicans – Comparative Kill Time Study
C. albicans Titer  Log Reduction  Time 
ACS 200*  445,000,000  5.95/99.99989%  2 minutes 
ASAP silver  1,300,000  4.83/99.9985%  60 minutes 
Meso Silver  12,000 Log not provided claimed kill 24 hours
* Performed using AOAC methods
ACS 200 titer is 34,230% greater than ASAP silver titer
ACS 200 titer is 370,833% greater than MesoSilver titer

ACS 200® provides a >5.95 log reduction/99.99989% kill in 2 minutes.
ASAP® silver provides a >4.83 log reduction/99.9985% kill in 60 minutes.
MesoSilver® requires 1,440 minutes to achieve complete kill. (Actual Log reduction not provided in published report.)
Microbe Concentrations: The initial microbe concentration (titer) of Candida albicans used with ACS 200® for testing is significantly larger than the titers used by ASAP® silver and MesoSilver®. Comparisons are as follows:
Candida albicans Microbe Concentrations by Product

ACS 200® Candida titer: 4.45 x 108
ASAP® silver Candida titer: 1.3 x 106
MesoSilver® Candida titer: 1.2 x 104

Candida Microbe Concentrations Compared

The 4.45 x 108 Candida titer (ACS 200®) is 342 times larger than the 1.3 x 106 Candida titer (ASAP® silver).
The 4.45 x 108 Candida titer (ACS 200®) is 37,083 times larger than the 1.2 x 104 Candida titer (MesoSilver®).

Candida Testing Conclusion

ACS 200® achieves complete kill (without a single organism left alive) against 445,000,000 Candida organisms in less than 3 minutes.
ACS 200® achieves a significant 30 times faster kill than ASAP® silver against Candida albicans evidencing a 2 minute/99.99989% >5.95 log reduction versus a 60 minute/99.9985% >4.83 log reduction, while killing a 342 times greater number of Candida organisms.
ACS 200® achieves ­­a significant 720 times faster kill than MesoSilver® against Candida albicans evidencing a 2 minute/99.99989% >5.95 log reduction versus a 1,440 minute kill time, while killing a 37,083 times greater number of Candida organisms.
Staphylococcus aureus – Comparative Kill Time Study
S. aureus Titer  Log Reduction  Time 
ACS 200*  234,000,000  > 5.37/99.9996%  15 seconds 
ASAP silver  2,300,000 > 5.06/99.99914%  60 minutes 
Meso Silver  830,000 Log not provided claimed kill 24 hours
* Performed using AOAC methods
ACS 200 titer is 10,173% greater than ASAP silver titer
ACS 200 titer is 28,192% greater than MesoSilver titer
ACS 200® provides a >5.37 log reduction/99.9996% kill in 15 seconds.
ASAP® silver provides a >5.06 log reduction/99.99914% kill in 60 minutes.
MesoSilver® requires 1,440 minutes to achieve complete kill. (Actual Log reduction not provided in published report.)
Microbe Concentrations: The initial microbe concentration (titer) of Staphylococcus aureus used with ACS 200® for testing is significantly larger than the titers used by ASAP® silver and MesoSilver®. Comparisons are as follows:
Staphylococcus aureus Microbe Concentrations by Product

ACS 200® S. aureus titer: 2.34 x 108
ASAP® silver S. aureus titer: 2.3 x 106
MesoSilver® S. aureus titer: 8.3 x 105

Microbe Concentrations Compared

The 2.34 x 108 ACS 200® titer is 101 times larger than the 2.3 x 106 ASAP silver titer.
The 2.34 x 108 ACS 200 titer is 281 times larger than the 8.3 x 105 MesoSilver® titer.

Staph Aureus Testing Conclusion:

ACS 200® achieves complete kill (without a single organism left alive) against 234,000,000 S. aureus organisms in less than 15 seconds.
ACS 200® achieves a significant 240 times faster kill than ASAP® silver against S. aureus evidencing a 15 second/99.9996% >5.06 log reduction versus a 60 minute/99.99914% >5.06 log reduction, while killing 101 times greater number of S. aureus organisms.
ACS 200® achieves ­­a significant 5,760 times faster kill than MesoSilver® against S. aureus evidencing a 15 second/99.9996% >5.06 log reduction versus a 1,440 minute kill time, while killing a 281 times greater number of S. aureus organisms.
Conclusion
As you can see, the performance of these three silver formulations differs greatly. ACS 200® achieves 100’s of times faster kill in just minutes, against thousands of times greater number of pathogenic microorganisms.

With enhanced killing effect, superior efficacy and patient outcomes are readily discernable with ACS 200® versus competing antimicrobial products. In our clinical experience over the last several years, many practitioners have seen ACS 200® perform extremely well against a host of pathogenic microorganisms, with high benefit and very little risk.
——————————————————————————–
Download Original Kill Time Studies Here
 ACS 200 vs MRSA
 ACS 200 vs Candida albicans
 ACS 200 vs Staph aureus

 ASAP Silver vs MRSA
 ASAP Silver vs Candida albicans
 ASAP Silver vs Staph aureus

 Meso Silver vs MRSA
 Meso Silver vs Candida albicans
 Meso Silver vs Staph aureus

 
——————————————————————————–
 
 
 
Copyright © 2009 Results RNA, LLC All rights reserved.
For more information visit our website at www.resultsrna.com