Why people with Lyme cannot drink alcohol

Why people with Lyme cannot drink alcohol | What is Lyme?

Why people with Lyme cannot drink alcohol | What is Lyme?

In its never-ending attempt to fabricate “mental disorders” out of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most ridiculous disease they’ve invented yet: Healthy eating disorder.

This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you’re “mentally diseased” and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, “Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder” and goes on to claim this “disease” is called orthorexia nervosa — which is basically just Latin for “nervous about correct eating.”

But they can’t just called it “nervous healthy eating disorder” because that doesn’t sound like they know what they’re talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn’t). That’s where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means “bones with holes in them”).

Getting back to this fabricated “orthorexia” disease, the Guardian goes on to report, “Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out.”

Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there’s something wrong with you.

But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be “normal?” If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that’s okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.

What is “normal” when it comes to foods?
I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It’s an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that’s all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.

The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, “The obsession about which foods are “good” and which are “bad” means orthorexics can end up malnourished.”

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

November 3, 2009 (Honolulu, Hawaii) – Overall nutritional status in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) shows that this patient population is at risk for low trace mineral status, including deficiencies in zinc and copper – minerals that may play a crucial role in the production of dopamine, norepinephrine, and melatonin, which regulates sleep.

Presented here at the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 56th Annual Meeting, a study conducted by investigators at the University of British Columbia and the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre in Vancouver, Canada, showed among 44 children aged 6 to 12 years with ADHD, rates of zinc and copper deficiency were 45% and 35%, respectively.

Dr. Margaret Weiss

“There are a lot of studies in ADHD children looking at sugar intake, etcetera, but no one has ever actually looked at the dietary intake and subsequent nutrients of children with ADHD, ” principal investigator Margaret Weiss, MD, PhD, told Medscape Psychiatry.

With first author Joy Kiddie, RD, the study included 44 drug-naive and drug-treated ADHD children aged 6 to 12 years. Of these children, 17 were medication-naive, 18 were taking stimulant medications, and 9 were taking atomoxetine.

The children’s dietary intake was assessed using a 3-day food record and 24-hour recall. The food record assessed macronutrient/micronutrient intake relative to the recommended dietary allowances and food group recommendations.

The 24-hour recall was used to assess the percentage of low-nutrient density foods, or so-called “junk food” intake.

The study revealed that serum zinc below laboratory norms was present in 77% of children aged 6 to 9 years and 67% of children aged 10 to 12 years, and 25% of the children were below the cutoffs for zinc deficiency. Serum copper below laboratory norms was present in 23% of children.

No Difference in Junk Food Consumption

The investigators found that the study sample consumed comparable levels of protein, carbohydrate, and fat compared with recommendations and population norms, and ADHD children were no different than population norms in intake of low-nutrient density foods. However, 40% of the children consumed less than the recommended levels of meat and meat alternatives and had low levels of related micronutrients that are essential cofactors for the body’s manufacture of dopamine, norepinephrine, and melatonin.

Measurement of blood levels of micronutrients replicated previous findings of zinc deficiency and demonstrated copper deficiency for the first time. In addition, a majority of children had serum ferritin levels lower than 50 μg/mL, a level considered necessary for entry into the central nervous system.

“There is a commonly held belief that children with ADHD eat more junk food than other children, but the study did not confirm this view,” said Dr. Weiss. “However, our data suggest children with ADHD are nutritionally different from the rest of the population in that they eat less meat, fish, and poultry and have low levels of related micronutrients that are essential cofactors for the body’s manufacture of dopamine norephinephrine, and melatonin.”

Need to Focus on Nutrition

In a separate study of zinc supplementation also presented here at the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 56th Annual Meeting, Eugene Arnold, MD, and colleagues from The Ohio State University, Columbus, found that supplementation with 15 or 30 mg of elemental zinc made no difference to symptoms compared with placebo in a group of children diagnosed with ADHD after 13 weeks of treatment.

This study, said Dr. Weiss, raises many questions because previous research has suggested that zinc supplementation does make a difference. “It may not just be a question of what children eat but also whether they can absorb or metabolize zinc, or whether they are excreting it. In other words, is there some kind of phenomenon of zinc wasting?” she said.

Dr. Weiss said that, based on this study, it is too early to make any clinical recommendations beyond ensuring that children with ADHD have an adequate diet that includes appropriate levels of fish, meat, and poultry. However, she acknowledged, this can be a challenge in children on stimulant medications because of the drugs’ appetite-suppressing effect.

She added that it is important that clinicians with expertise in the assessment of nutritional status provide parents with information about good nutrition. “Traditionally, the emphasis on ADHD has been on treating the core symptoms of the disorder, but it is also important to assess and manage basic issues of health such as sleep, nutrition, and growth. Good health makes a difference,” said Dr. Weiss.

Dr. Weiss has disclosed that she is on the advisory board of and/or has received research or grant support from Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Purdue University, Shire Pharmaceuticals Inc, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.

American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 56th Annual Meeting: Abstract 17.3. Presented October 31, 2009.

Angel Huggzzz
Linda

Is Mercury Toxicity an Epidemic?
Author: Joseph Pizzorno, ND
Source: Vitamin Retailer Magazine, June 2009

Conventional medicine has dismissed mercury toxicity as a clinical concern except in cases of obvious poisoning. This is due to the poor correlation between the various measures of mercury body load and clinical symptoms. It is also the reason the dental community has in the past so consistently denied that amalgam fillings are a health risk. (Although called “silver” fillings, they are actually about 55 percent mercury.) However, the integrative medicine community has for decades believed that chronic low-level mercury exposure is the root cause of many chronic diseases ranging from autism to heart disease to “brain fog.”
This controversy became very personally relevant when I discovered, as part of an innovative corporate wellness program I helped to design, that my RBC (red blood cell) Hg level was 59.3 nmol/L over twice the “safe” level of < 24.9. This was quite surprising as I live a very healthy lifestyle, have no amalgam fillings, only consume small, wild-caught fish, eat 75 percent of my food organically grown, etc. I then had the same test done on my wife and found her level was almost as high as mine. This lead to the obvious questions: Was the test valid? Is the mercury damaging our health? Where is the mercury coming from? How do we get rid of it?

Mercury Exposure
There are three types of mercury in the body: elemental, ionic and organic, typically methyl mercury. All are toxic to humans, although each is more toxic in different tissues of the body. The primary sources of human exposure to mercury are: occupational, environmental, fish, high fructose corn syrup and amalgam fillings. As you might expect, dentists and dental assistants have a high level of exposure, although they have become much more careful in the past few years. Nonetheless, a large study of several hundred dentists and dental assistants in Washington state found that almost all of them had four or more symptoms consistent with mercury toxicity.
The major environmental source is the air near electricity producing plants that burn coal. For most people, the major sources are mercury amalgams and fish. A large number of studies have now shown a clear, direct correlation between the number of amalgam surfaces and amount of mercury in the blood, hair, urine and, unfortunately, the brain. However, the correlation between the number of amalgam surfaces and symptoms is not so clear. This is probably because of two major factors: the great variation in a person’s ability to excrete mercury from the body and the equally great variation in genetics that determines the amount of oxidative stress a person gets from mercury. Mercury from fish turns out to be more complicated. Without question, body Hg is proportional to the amount of fish consumed (hundreds of studies show this). However, neurological symptoms do not typically correlate well with fish consumption because of the brain-benefit effects of omega-3 fatty acids. I think that only high-mercury fish such as tuna or low-omega-3 fish such as those that are farmed are problematic.

Mercury Toxicity Symptoms
For long-term, chronic exposure at moderate to high levels the evidence is very clear that mercury is a serious neurotoxin. A 2008 report provides for the first time long-term data on the Japanese people living in Minimata who for years ate fish contaminated with industrial mercury waste. The researchers found more than 50 symptoms.
The challenge for most of us is to determine at what levels mercury becomes toxic and what are the most sensitive symptoms. Looking at several studies that examine symptoms produced by only modestly elevated levels of mercury, I compiled the following list of common symptoms: depression, memory loss, anxiety, unintentionally dropping things and headaches.

Laboratory Assessment of Mercury Load
Mercury is measured in hair, saliva, spinal fluid, serum, RBCs, urine and stools. Unfortunately, these tests do not correlate very well with each other and none are a reliable or sensitive measure of brain mercury where most of the symptoms are produced. This is one of the key reasons the issue of mercury toxicity is so controversial. At this time I think whole blood mercury is the best general measure. However, for best sensitivity a mercury challenge test is needed where the person is given an injection of a chelating agent like DMPS and then collects their urine for several hours.

Mercury Elimination
Normally, about one percent of the body burden of Hg is naturally excreted every day through the bile into the stools. Unfortunately, 95 percent of the cleared mercury is reabsorbed. Those who eat a high fiber diet reabsorb less since mercury binds to fiber. About the same amount of mercury is also excreted every day in the urine, bound to sulfur containing compounds. The way the brain gets rid of mercury is by binding it to the antioxidant glutathione. This is a very slow process, which explains why it is so hard to get mercury out of the brain.
When trying to decrease mercury load in the body, obviously the first task is to identify and eliminate the source—amalgams, contaminated fish, industrial, air, etc. Also to be considered are household goods such as fluorescent lights, old thermometers and ayurvedic medicines to which mercury is intentionally added. A very disturbing recent study found mercury in high fructose corn syrup. The most highly contaminated samples had 25 micrograms of mercury per can of soft drink, the equivalent of eating two ounces of fish, without the benefits of fish’s omega-3 fatty acids.
For those with high levels of mercury contamination, I recommend seeing a doctor skilled in chelation. The agents most often used are DMSA and DMPS. Discussion of their merits and risks is beyond the scope of this column.
Several nutritional supplements, such as zinc, selenium modified citrus pectin, glutathione, alpha lipoic acid and NAC have been studied to see if they increase the rate at which the body excretes mercury. As near as I can tell, the most effective at getting mercury out of the body, especially methyl mercury, is N-acetylcysteine (NAC). It has been shown to not only increase the kidney elimination of methylmercury (which is especially toxic to the brain) by a remarkable 500 percent, but it even increases the excretion of mercury from the brain and fetus. The typical dosage is 500mg twice a day and it appears very safe.
Those who would like to read more about the mercury epidemic will find a lot more information in my two-part editorial at www.imjournal.com. I also encourage you to visit more of this site for information on this article, get my “Ask Dr. Joe” newsletter and to benefit from the NHI tradesite.

References
Heyer NJ, Echeverria D, Bittner AC, et al. Chronic Low-Level Mercury Exposure, BDNF Polymorphism, and Associations with Self-Reported Symptoms and Mood. Toxicological Sciences 2004;81:354–363
Kingman A, Albertini T, Brown LJ. Mercury concentrations in urine and whole blood associated with amalgam exposure in a US military population. J Dent Res 1998;77(3): 461-471
Guzzi G, Grandi M, Cattaneo C, et al. Dental amalgam and mercury levels in autopsy tissues: food for thought. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2006;27(1):42-5
Takaoka S, Kawakami Y, Fujino T, Oh-ishi F, Motokura F, Kumagai Y, Miyaoka T. Somatosensory disturbance by methylmercury exposure. Environ Res. 2008;107(1):6-19
Holger Zimmera, Heidi Ludwiga, Michael Baderb, Josef Bailerc, Peter Eickholzd, Hans Jˆrg Staehled, Gerhard Triebiga. Determination of mercury in blood, urine and saliva for the biological monitoring of an exposure from amalgam fillings in a group with self-reported adverse health effects. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2002;205(3):205-211
Clarkson TW, Vyas JB, Ballatori N. Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body. Am J Indust Med 2007;50:757–764
Dufault R, LeBlanc B, Schnoll R, Et al. Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar. Environmental Health 2009, 8:2
Ballatori N, Lieberman MW, Wang W. N-acetylcysteine as an antidote in methylmercury poisoning. Environ Health Perspect. 1998 May;106:267-71

Dr. Joe Pizzorno is the founding president of Bastyr University and editor-in-chief of Integrative Medicine, A Clinician’s Journal. He is the co-author of seven books including the internationally acclaimed Textbook of Natural Medicine and the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine, which has sold over a million copies and been translated into six languages.

(HealthDay News) — Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.

HFCS has replaced sugar as the sweetener in many beverages and foods such as breads, cereals, breakfast bars, lunch meats, yogurts, soups and condiments. On average, Americans consume about 12 teaspoons per day of HFCS, but teens and other high consumers can take in 80 percent more HFCS than average.

“Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply,” the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy’s Dr. David Wallinga, a co-author of both studies, said in a prepared statement.
ad_icon

In the first study, published in current issue of Environmental Health, researchers found detectable levels of mercury in nine of 20 samples of commercial HFCS.

And in the second study, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), a non-profit watchdog group, found that nearly one in three of 55 brand-name foods contained mercury. The chemical was found most commonly in HFCS-containing dairy products, dressings and condiments.

More charming facts about high-fructose corn syrup

HFCS contains more fructose than sugar and this fructose is more immediately available because it is not bound up in sucrose. Since the effects of fructose are most severe in the growing organism, we need to think carefully about what kind of sweeteners we give to our children. Fruit juices should be strictly avoided–they are very high in fructose–but so should anything with HFCS…

…(Scientists conducted) studies with two groups of rats, one given high amounts of glucose and one given high amounts of fructose (the sugar found in corn syrup.)

The glucose group was unaffected but the fructose group had disastrous results.

The male rats did not reach adulthood. They had anemia, high cholesterol and heart hypertrophy–that means that their hearts enlarged until they exploded. They also had delayed testicular development.

Dr. Field explains that fructose in combination with copper deficiency in the growing animal interferes with collagen production. (Copper deficiency, by the way, is widespread in America.)

In a nutshell, the little bodies of the rats just fell apart. The females were not so affected, but they were unable to produce live young.

Source: http://www.westonaprice.org

November 4, 2009 (San Diego, California) — High fructose consumption is independently associated with high blood pressure, according to findings presented here at Renal Week 2009: American Society of Nephrology 2009 Annual Meeting.

An analysis of data from more than 4500 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) showed that consuming 74 grams or more of fructose per day — equivalent to about 2.5 12-ounce cans of sugary soda — correlated significantly with blood pressure of at least 135/85 mm Hg; the relation grew stronger as blood pressure rose. The survey participants had no history of hypertension.

Fructose consumption, in the form of added sugar, has been rising in Western nations since the 1900s, and parallels the growing prevalence of hypertension, said lead investigator Diana I. Jalal, MD, assistant professor of renal medicine at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Aurora.

To examine the relation between the 2, she and her colleagues used the NHANES data to evaluate median fructose intake from food high in added sugar, including bakery products, dairy desserts, chocolate and other candy, dried fruits, honeys, jams, jellies, syrups, and sugar-sweetened soft drinks. Soft drinks alone account for 33% to 40% of fructose consumption in the United States, Dr. Jalal noted.

Fresh fruits were excluded from the analysis because they contain ascorbate, antioxidants, and potassium, which counteract the effect of fructose, Dr. Jalal said during her presentation. Using responses on self-administered dietary questionnaires, the investigators calculated median fructose intake of the participants to be 74 g/day. They then studied the relation between fructose consumption and blood pressure, adjusting for demographics, physical activity, other dietary factors, ascorbate, antioxidants, and potassium, , and findings on laboratory tests. Data from 4528 adults were included in the analysis.

Daily fructose consumption of 74 g or more was independently associated with a 28% increased risk for blood pressure of 135/85 mm Hg or higher, a 36% increased risk for blood pressure of140/90 mm Hg or higher, and an 87% increased risk for blood pressure of 160/100 mm Hg or higher.

The relation was seen only between systolic blood pressure and fructose intake, Dr. Jalal said. There was no correlation between fructose consumption and diastolic blood pressure.

“In subjects with no history of hypertension, there is an independent and significant graded association between high fructose intake and systolic blood pressure levels,” she concluded. The mechanism underlying the relation is unclear.

Among other variables, black ethnicity and waist circumference were significantly associated with higher levels of fructose intake, independent of calorie or carbohydrate consumption. Inverse correlations were seen for sodium and alcohol consumption and fructose. “It seems that people either like their alcohol or they like their sugar, and they like their salt or they like their sugar,” Dr. Jalal told Medscape Nephrology.

This study shows that “we must pay more attention to the nutritional needs of our patients,” said Talal Ikizler, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, and medical director of the Vanderbilt University Outpatient Dialysis Unit in Nashville, Tennessee.

Nephrologists rarely catch patients at the early stages of renal disease, when risk factor modification might still be possible, explained Dr. Ikizler, who was not involved in this research. However, internists and other primary care physicians do have these opportunities. Whenever possible, patients should be “warned of the consequences of their dietary choices early on.”

Dr. Jalal and Dr. Ikizler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Renal Week 2009: American Society of Nephrology (ASN) 2009 Annual Meeting: Abstract TH-FC037. Presented October 29, 2009.

Reported by: Jennifer Harrington
Email: <mailto:jharrington@abc15.com>jharrington@abc15.com
Last Update: 7/10 12:41 pm

<http://www.PaulaOwens.com>Paula Owens the author
of <http://thepowerof4-paula.blogspot.com>“The
Power of 4” says avoiding these 10 things will
change your body dramatically. Owens has a
master’s degree in holistic nutrition and a bachelors degree in kinesiology.

1. HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP: HFCS is the number one source of calories for most Americans and causes obesity.

You’ll find high-fructose corn syrup (GMO) in processed food, fast food, sodas, syrup that goes into your Latte, etc.

HFCS is extremely toxic to your liver, increases inflammation, causes obesity, oxidative stress and creates an aggressive insulin response.

2. PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED OILS (TRANS FATS):
Partially hydrogenated oils are found in thousands of processed foods (breakfast cereals, cookies, chips).

Trans fats are proven to cause heart disease and contribute to obesity.

Restaurant food, especially from fast food chains, often serve food loaded with trans fats.

Consequences of a diet high in trans fats include:
* increased inflammation
* decreased immune function
* decreased testosterone
* Arthritis
* Cancer
* Decrease IQ – learning disabilities.
American IQ has dropped 20 points in the past 20 years.
* Diabetes
* Elevated blood pressure
* Free radical production
* Heart Disease
* Interferes with neurological & visual development of fetus
* Liver damage
* Obesity
* Osteoporosis
* Type II diabetes
3. MSG: Monosodium glutamate is a chemical that has been associated with reproductive disorders, migraine headaches, permanent damage to the endocrine system leading to obesity and other serious disorders.

MSG is used in many foods as a taste enhancer. It is linked to reduced fertility.

4. SODIUM NITRATE: This is a preservative, coloring, and flavoring commonly added to bacon, ham, hot dogs, luncheon meats, smoked fish and corned beef.

Studies have linked eating it to various types of cancer.

Before you mix up a soy shake, snack on a soy protein bar or pour yourself a glass of soy milk consider this: unfermented, processed soy inhibits the thyroid, is deficient in amino acids, is toxic to infants and shrinks the brain

Before you mix up a soy shake, snack on a soy protein bar or pour yourself a glass of soy milk
consider this: unfermented, processed soy inhibits the thyroid, is deficient in amino acids, is toxic to infants and shrinks the brain.

There are some redeeming qualities to soy, however these are found primarily in fermented
soy products like tempeh, miso, natto and soybean sprouts.

If you want to get some health benefits from soy, stick to these four forms and pass on ALL
processed soy milks, tofu, soy burgers, soy ice cream, soy cheese and other soy junk foods that are disguised as health foods.

6. WHITE SUGAR: Sugar is more addictive than cocaine!

Sugar has a profound influence on your brain function and your psychological function.

When you consume excess amounts of sugar, your body releases excess amounts of insulin, which in turn causes a drop in your blood sugar, also known as hypoglycemia.

In addition, sugar is pro-flammatory damages skin collagen and promotes wrinkles, increases your appetite, depletes your body of B vitamins, causes joint degeneration, ADHD and other
behavior disorders, stimulates cholesterol synthesis and weight gain.

Opt for a healthier version such as Bragg’s amino acids or Celtic sea salt (light pink, grey or beige color).

8. ASPARTAME, SPLENDA, SWEET N LOW, EQUAL:
Aspartame is an artificial, chemical sweetener found in many foods and beverages including
desserts, gelatins, protein powder, low calorie foods, drink mixes and sodas.

It may cause cancer or neurological problems, such as dizziness, migraine headaches, weight
gain, increased appetite, bloating, rashes or hallucinations.

Aspartame poisoning mimics symptoms of MS. NutraSweet is in over 7,000 foods!

Side effects:
* Increased heart disease
* Bloating and edema
* Brain seizures
* Cancer
* Cravings
* Headaches
* Predispose you to Parkinson’s, Multiple Sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease
* Rashes and hives
* Weight gain – results in obesity

9. FOOD COLORINGS: (Blue 1, 2; Red 3; Green 3; Yellow 5, 6) Six food colorings still on the
market are linked with cancer in animal testing.

There is evidence that food coloring and food additives contribute to behavioral problems in
children, lead to lower IQ, hyperactivity, ADHD, depression, hormonal dysfunction and cancer.

Red 3, used to dye cherries, fruit cocktail, ice cream candy and baked goods have been shown to cause thyroid tumors in rats.

This harmful artificial color causes cancer and changes in brain chemistry. Read the list of
ingredients in your child’s cough syrup (artificial color).

Green 3 is a potential allergen and has been linked to bladder cancer. Green 3 is added to
candy, mint jelly, cereals and beverages.

Blue 1 and 2, found in beverages, candy, baked goods, cereals and pet food have been linked to allergies and cancer.

Yellow 5 is the most notable artificial color because it causes the most immediate allergic
reaction in people sensitive to salicylates such as aspirin.

Yellow 6 has been linked to tumors of the adrenal gland and kidney. Yellow 6 is added to beverages, sausage, gelatin, baked goods and candy.

Take home message – Stay away from any product listing an ingredient with a color plus a number.

10. PROCESSED/REFINED WHEAT AND GLUTEN: Refined grains are void of nutrients, disrupt insulin levels and are highly allergenic for many individuals.

Wheat and gluten have adverse health affects for approximately 80 percent of the population. Gluten is a protein found combined with starch in the endosperm of grains, notably wheat, rye and barley.

Gluten intolerance/sensitivity is severely misdiagnosed or under-diagnosed – one estimate
says that 97 percent of all sufferers don’t know they have the disease due to unfamiliarity with it among U.S. physicians.

Signs and symptoms of gluten intolerance: The ultimate effect of this hidden wear and tear is the slow destruction of the healthy mucosa, or lining tissue of the small intestine causing an autoimmune response that’s similar to an allergic reaction.

In some cases there may be symptoms in childhood such as allergies, asthma, anemia, reoccurring infections, a constant upset stomach or milk intolerance.

Other symptoms are nasal and throat mucous, feeling of food sitting in stomach, bloating,
gas, diarrhea with periodic constipation, mental fogginess and skin rashes.

In severe cases, as with Celiac disease, there can be seizures, psychosis, violent behavior and withdrawal from self.