Making The Whole Grain Switch: Some Amazing Benefits Of Eating Whole Grains

Making The Whole Grain Switch: Some Amazing Benefits Of Eating Whole Grains

By Kurtis Bright

Everybody’s Talking About Whole Grains--But Why? Here Are Some Amazing Benefits

With so many conflicting dietary recommendations out there, it’s easy to get confused. Every day it seems like there’s some new breakthrough health study, some re-discovery of a long-lost indigenous plant that is the latest miracle cure.

However some things are based on pretty solid evidence that has been accumulated over a long time. One of these that is pretty much universally agreed upon is that we need whole grains in our diet.

However, as with many things in this age of too much information and not enough knowledge, even the term itself can be confusing: what exactly are whole grains?

The difference between refined grains and whole grains may seem a matter of splitting hairs, but it is actually quite important: whole grains include all the parts of the original grain kernel, the bran, germ and endosperm, which give us the fiber we need. Two sliced of dark rye bread contain 5.8 grams of fiber whereas two slices of white bread only contain 1.9 grams of fiber.

And fiber is important because it digests more slowly, and makes us feel fuller and more satiated. What’s more, fiber helps control blood sugar levels, lowers LDL or bad cholesterol, and reduces the risk of colon cancer. For grains with the highest fiber content look for oats, barley and bulgur. So when you eat foods made with whole grains as opposed to refined grains (white bread, pasta, etc.) you are going to not only feel fuller longer, you will avoid the dreaded sugar crash that comes with eating high glycemic-index foods.

These days a random loaf of bread on the supermarket shelves is as likely to tout some sort of “whole wheat/whole grain” notice on the label as not. But as with most food labels, manufacturers are tricksy little Hobbitses: even if it says “made with whole grains” that bread could still contain a majority of refined grains over whole grains.

Another thing to look for is that the grain is listed among the first three ingredients on the label. And another trick from unscrupulous manufacturers seeking to cash in on people’s desire for healthier food: be wary of “healthy” looking bread that is simply refined grain bread that has been dyed brown or mixed with molasses to give it a darker color.

In addition to helping us feel fuller and staving off hunger longer, whole grains also help with digestion. We’ve known this for some time, but recent studies are showing that the benefits of fiber aren’t limited to just keeping you regular.

For one thing, fiber helps prevent diverticulosis, a bowel condition typified by inflammation, constipation and diarrhea. It also helps keep the bacterial balance in the gut healthy. And the lactic acid in whole grains aid digestion and nutrition absorption, and may even benefit the immune system.

What’s more, whole grains also can help lower blood pressure by lowering cholesterol and triglycerides. Eating whole grains have even been found to contribute to a 19 percent lower risk of hypertension in men who ate seven or more servings a week.

Perhaps best of all, by replacing refined grains with whole grains, your risk of heart disease is greatly reduced.

Gosh, it’s almost like we evolved to eat whole, natural foods as they grow out of the ground, as opposed to refined, chemical-laden, mass-manufactured “foods” that have been stripped of all nutritive value in the name of profit.

###

Halo Foods: What Healthy-Sounding Buzz Words Actually Mean--And That They Don’t

Halo Foods: What Healthy-Sounding Buzz Words Actually Mean--And That They Don’t

By Kurtis Bright

Watching Out For Tricky Labels That Make Food Sound Healthy, And What They Really Mean

In these weird times when White House officials identify what has hitherto been known as “utter bullshit” by the much nicer but less descriptive moniker “alternative facts,” and when everyone has their own definition of the phrase “fake news” (generally this seems to mean "anything I disagree with") perhaps it is time to identify some ongoing cases of alternative facts when it comes to food labeling.

There are a number of terms manufacturers employ in order to create a health “halo effect” and fool unsuspecting--and let’s face it, naïve--consumers into thinking they are actually eating healthy.

Of course, there is sometimes truth in labeling, but in these times, it is more often a cruel sham. For example, the Senate bill known as the DARK Act by opponents (Denying Americans the Right to Know) that was hastily cobbled together as a fig leaf for big food manufacturers and agrichem businesses that think they should be able to sell the public foods that contain GMOs without telling us, despite the clear evidence that we don’t want them.

It is a bill that allows food manufacturers to “identify” GMO-containing foods by forcing consumers to scan a QR code, visit a website, or call a 1-800 number to find out what’s inside--all this runaround in order to avoid simply putting a label on the package identifying it as something that contains GMOs--again, because consumers don’t want them and the carcinogenic chemicals such crops contain, and to manufacturers, our lack of desire for their products should be no barrier to their ability to sell them.

So with an understanding of the depth of bullshit the food industry will sink to in order to sell us their shitty, unhealthy products that we don't want, here are a few other alternatively factual ways food manufacturers try to con health-conscious consumers.

• Natural - When I see this word I think of John Denver, playing guitar in a Colorado mountain meadow, sunshine streaming down on the golden grasses blowing gently in the wind. Maybe that’s a bit over the top, but at the very least most of us would probably assume that foods that have this word on their label would have some relation to foods that are, well, natural--that is to say, not synthesized in a lab. The sad truth is that the Food and Drug Administration is as culpable for allowing the level of bullshit that food manufacturers favor: the word “natural” has no formal definition for the FDA. So it can mean whatever manufacturers want it to mean. In other words, don’t stop reading when you hit the word natural. Be sure to read the fine print, keeping an eye out for things like high-fructose corn syrup and other added sugars, as well as chemical preservatives.
• Organic - Yet another term that on the face of it might appear to be pretty self-explanatory. However, big food equals big money, and manufacturers and their marketers are nothing if not wily creatures--and their pet politicians who make the rules for consumers are nothing if not greedy. So let’s start with the clear-cut: the USDA organic seal signifies that the food in question was produced without using synthetic pesticides, GMOs, petroleum or sewage sludge fertilizers. When it comes to dairy or meat products, it means that the animals in question were fed organic, vegetarian feed and had “access to the outdoors.” (This phrase is especially interesting: for example a tiny one-foot by one-foot doorway for tens of thousands of chickens leading to a three-foot square concrete pad located at one end of a massive factory farming facility qualifies under the USDA definition.)
  However as we’ve seen with other examples of truth-challenged claims, the devil is in the details. The USDA organic definition only applies to foods labeled “100% Organic.” So if a food label says merely “Organic,” it only needs to contain 95 percent organic ingredients. And “Made With Organic Ingredients” means only 70 percent needs to be organic. But hey, what’s five or 30 percent ingredients grown using glyphosate or human waste among friends, right? "Alternative organic,” that’s what.
• Local - Once again, we see a seemingly straightforward word that has no actual definition from the FDA. Indeed, adding to the deliberate confusion sown by food manufacturers with the aid of the FDA, a recent survey showed that 23 percent of respondents thought that local also meant “organic.” It does not, not even by the weak-ass USDA definition outlined above. Keep in mind too that mom and pop operations such as you might find at farmer’s markets employing a “local” label are often legally able to skirt nutrition facts labeling, so be sure to ask for ingredients when buying jam or pie is unlabeled.
• Gluten-free - Oh, the popular label du jour for faux-health-conscious hipsters in need of some attention. What with consumers mistakenly thinking that cutting out gluten alone will help them lose weight and get a ripped body just like their favorite TV or movie star, gluten-free nonsense probably still hasn’t peaked. One positive: the FDA actually has a definition for this. Products must have a limit of gluten that is less than 20 parts per million. However, this doesn’t meant that a gluten-free label indicates a bullshit-free label. They also may label a whole raft of foods as gluten-free even if they don’t and never have contained any type of wheat, rye, barley or crossbreeds of these grains. That’s why we see ridiculously absurd things like gluten-free tonic water and gluten-free shampoo. Aside from the less than one percent of people who actually suffer from Celiac disease, this label is expressly designed for people with too much money and too little sense.
• Grass-fed - Yet another deliberately obtuse label designed to obfuscate rather than enlighten. The “grass-fed” label is often taken to mean organic, though it does not. What it does mean is that the cattle whose meat is so labeled were fed only mother’s milk and forage. However, the cattle’s feed has no requirement to be organic, nor does it mean that the animal is free from antibiotics or hormones.

So good luck avoiding stepping in the fully organic bullshit that seems to be everywhere these days! Hope this helps.

###

Go the F*ck to Sleep: Nobody is Getting Enough Rest

Go the F*ck to Sleep: Nobody is Getting Enough Rest
By Kurtis Bright

But Since You’re not Getting Enough Sleep Anyway, Here Are Some Natural Energy Boosters

Don’t you miss nap time like we used to have in kindergarten? It was so nice to lie down on your mat after some juice and a cookie for a luxurious afternoon sleep. It’s not fair that as adults most of us don’t get to enjoy the simple joy and energy boost that comes with a short snooze.

In this era when nobody is getting enough sleep anymore, no matter how much we know about the damage it causes us, more than ever we should be taking the time to sleep more.

But since you’re not going to do that because you’re overworked and overstressed like the rest of us, here are a few natural ways to give yourself an extra boost of energy when you really need it.

• Eat a healthy snack - Hypoglycemia or low blood sugar has a variety of ugly effects depending on the person: you might get sluggish and foggy, you might get the dreaded “hangry.” It is similar to what happens after a sugar crash: when your blood sugar skyrockets then plummets to earth, it leaves you more tired than you were before. However you can combat this with a small, healthy snack that doesn’t have a high glycemic index, for instance some carrots, or spoonful of peanut butter, maybe some avocado on toast. In short, what you want to go for is something with a bit of fiber, protein, and hopefully some iron and vitamin C to give you that extra energy boost.
• Drink up - Dehydration is tricky: it often manifests as something else. Symptoms vary: there’s the headache, of course, but another trick many people don’t realize is that a common symptom of dehydration is hunger. And one of the first effects dehydration has on our bodies is it drains our energy. It can even be dangerous: dehydration can lead to fatigue, confusion, and even fainting, so ignore it at your peril. If you’re feeling a little logy or a bit peckish on a long afternoon at the office, grab some water first before firing up the coffee maker or going to the snack vending machine.
• Get out - Going for a simple walk can have a tremendous energy boosting effect. Counterintuitively, moving around when you’re feeling sluggish--especially when you least feel like moving--can kick you an extra reserve energy boost you didn’t know you had in you. This effect is even more pronounced if you can get outside and expose yourself to the blue light that is naturally visible during the day. It has been shown in numerous studies that the bright light of the outdoors kicks the hypothalamus into high gear. That’s the part of the brain that controls our circadian rhythms, and tells us when to sleep and when to get going, so take advantage of the natural ally you have in the sun.
• Every breath you take - We all know that breathing pulls oxygen into our bodies. But did you know that deep breaths transport more oxygen to various parts of the body and brain? This has not only a relaxing effect, but also can be tremendously invigorating. Take a moment to remember that you are a living, breathing animal instead of an extension of your computer and smart phone.
• Rock it out - No matter your musical tastes, kicking out some high-energy jams when you are feeling a little dusty and dreary can really recharge your day. A study in 2011 showed that when people listened to their favorite music even for as little as 15 minutes, it flooded their brains with dopamine, which is the brain chemical associated with reward and pleasure. They also found higher levels of oxytocin and serotonin, both vital components of a sense of well-being and energy. 

###

Every Breath You Take: Air Pollution Unacceptably High for 90 Percent Of Humanity

Every Breath You Take: Air Pollution Unacceptably High for 90 Percent Of Humanity

By Kurtis Bright

Air Pollution Is Killing Us and It's Only Getting Worse

Environmental warnings become more and more dire every year, it seems. We have melting icecaps including a huge chunk of Antartica about to break away, to the ocean acidification and the death of the Great Barrier Reed, to near-constant mega-storms to new record temperature every month. The natural systems of the earth just can’t catch up with all the havoc we are wreaking.

However, despite the deniers’ refusal to accept responsibility for what we have wrought, we may be finally be seeing some undeniable human consequences of our environmental folly, in the form of deadly, pervasive air pollution.

The alarm has been sounded in the form of a new study: at least 92 percent of the human population lives in areas where air pollution levels exceed those recommended. The study’s authors estimate that 6.2 million people die every year as a result.

The study comes not from some lone maniac posting on his weird blog but from as reliable a group as they come: the World Health Organization. In it the study authors detail an environment gone awry.

“Fast action to tackle air pollution can't come soon enough,” said the WHO’s top environmental official Maria Neira. “Solutions exist with sustainable transport in cities, solid waste management, access to clean household fuels and cook-stoves, as well as renewable energies and industrial emissions reductions.”

The WHO has published an interactive map of air quality that really brings home what many have suspected for some time: those countries hardest hit by poverty and other poor quality of life measures are the places where most deaths due to air pollution occur. Over 60 percent of deaths due to air pollution occur in low and middle-income countries, mostly centered in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific region.

“Air pollution continues to take a toll on the health of the most vulnerable populations -- women, children and the older adults,” added WHO's Assistant Director General Flavia Bustreo. “For people to be healthy, they must breathe clean air from their first breath to their last.”

The latest study and the air quality model represent WHO’s most extensive, deep and broad effort to date toward understanding and quantifying the effects of air pollution. Developed in conjunction with researchers at the University of Bath in the U.K., it employs satellite data, air transport models, and data culled from ground station monitors in over 3,000 locations in cities and in rural areas.

The researchers then use these data to map a comprehensive picture that illustrates the specific areas that are most affected by a variety of pollution types: vehicular, household fuel-burning pollution, coal-fired plant pollution and other industrial sources.

Officials and researchers at the WHO are hoping that the new map may offer guidance on how to best alleviate specific problems for the hardest-hit areas.

“This new model is a big step forward towards even more confident estimates of the huge global burden of more than six million deaths -- one in nine of total global deaths,” said Dr. Neira.

###

Patients Diagnosed With Certain Types Of Cancer Living Longer Than Ever

Patients Diagnosed With Certain Types Of Cancer Living Longer Than Ever

By Kurtis Bright

 

Survival Rates Up To Ten Years After Diagnosis Are Now Common

There is just so much bad news out there--seemingly more every day. So every now and then it’s nice to come across something that is genuinely heartening, some nugget of news that is unequivocally positive.

Here goes: for people who develop a few common types of cancer, survival rates  are now routinely running to a decade or more following diagnosis.

There was a time when a diagnosis of cancer implied a rush to get one’s affairs in order; today the question is no longer “How long do I have, doc,” so much as “How long do you want?”

For those suffering skin cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer, huge majorities can now expect to live for a minimum of ten years following their diagnosis, according to the latest government surveys.

The likeliest group to still be going strong a decade after diagnosis is those diagnosed with skin cancer, of whom a whopping 89 percent were able to live long enough to reach that milestone, according to figures provided by the U.S. government Office for National Statistics.

For women diagnosed with breast cancer, more than 80 percent of them now survive an additional ten years following their first diagnosis.

A man who suffers from prostate cancer has a ten-year survival rate nearly as high, with 79.9 percent coming in at the decade mark after being diagnosed.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are certain types of cancer diagnoses that still bring very bad news indeed, when it comes to the long-term survival rate of patients. For pancreatic cancer sufferers, only 5.7 percent of those diagnosed survive an additional ten years. And when it comes to lung cancer, the rate is slightly less dire, but still not very hopeful at 9.8 percent. Brain cancer patients only survive to ten years after diagnosis 11.9 percent of the time.

However, the overall improvement in the statistics suggest that ongoing research, treatment possibilities, and earlier diagnoses are all contributing factors resulting in an incremental increase in life expectancy after diagnosis for certain types of cancer but not others.

An example is that 96.4 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2009 and 2013 lived for at least a year after they were diagnosed, whereas 86.7 survived an additional five years. This constitutes the highest rate recorded to date.

It remains a fact that any kind of cancer is still very bad news, of course. However, at least we can take some small comfort in the demonstrable fact that it isn’t an immediate death sentence anymore.

###

A Gut Feeling: Alternative Ways To Contend With A Variety Of Stomach Troubles

A Gut Feeling: Alternative Ways To Contend With A Variety Of Stomach Troubles

By Kurtis Bright

Instead Of Taking Harsh And Sometimes Dangerous Drugs, Try These Remedies First

We often hear the history of the human species told as the story of the development of our ridiculously big brains: why and when they developed, what effects they may have had on us and our ancestors, and what effects the environment may have had.

However there is another viewfinder for tracking the story of who and what we are, what we once were, and what we have become: our digestive tracts. We came from scavengers, pre-humans warily scuttling from the trees to crack open the long bones of antelope and other animals left behind by lions, eventually developing agriculture some 10,000 years ago, eventually creating the vast network of interconnected fields feeding seven billion of us today.

In other words, food has been on our minds for a long time.

Thus, if you think about how much time we spend eating, thinking about food, and developing ways to produce food, maybe we should take more time addressing some alternative ways to deal with digestive distress without resorting to powerful meds.

  

• Constipation - One study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, showed that about 15 percent of adults say they have bowel movements two or fewer times a week on average. Especially with an aging population, that number is only likely to climb, given that a common consequence of aging is more common constipation. But you can combat this by increasing the fiber you eat--women over 50 should be getting 21 grams a day, men that age 30 grams. But do go easy on laxatives, even over-the-counter ones. The stimulant-based ones like Correctol and Dulcolax can trigger dependency as well as diarrhea, dizziness and nausea.
• Heartburn - When stomach acid backs up into the esophagus we’re struck with that nasty feeling of heartburn, and this one also becomes more common as we age. Another common trigger for heartburn is weight gain. So immediately we can see that one way to help yourself is to drop a few pounds if you’re overweight. Other ways to prevent heartburn is quitting smoking and to try not to eat within two hours of bedtime. It is important too to identify the foods that cause you heartburn and cut down on them or eliminate them altogether. These can include  fried foods, spicy food, alcohol, garlic and onions--these are all heartburn triggers, depending on the individual. If you feel you have no choice but to address heartburn with meds, try OTC antacids like Tums or Rolaids. Definitely avoid proton pump inhibitors like Prilosec and Nexium--they are proven to cause kidney disease and even bone fractures among other nasty side effects we are only now beginning to understand and identify, despite being widely prescribed pills.
• Gas - Burping is the result of taking in excess air as we eat, so for starters, slow down. You can reduce this effect by avoiding carbonated drinks. And if you notice foods like beans or broccoli causing gas at the other end, you can mitigate this effect by introducing such foods into your diet in small amounts to start with, which gives your body time to adjust. More water can help as well.

###

Get Those Jackhammers Out Of My Head: Keeping The Hangover Monster At Bay

Get Those Jackhammers Out Of My Head: Keeping The Hangover Monster At Bay

By Kurtis Bright

There’s No Real Cure, But Here Are Some Simple Ways Science Says You Can Avoid the Worst Hangovers

Here comes another New Year’s Eve, and with it will come the parties, overpriced club cover charges, fireworks, and midnight kisses for the lucky.

Also there may be some alcohol involved. That’s just a rumor.

And given oft-booze-soaked nature of this pinnacle of the holiday party season , it is an appropriate time to revisit the subject of the ever-elusive hangover cure.

Pretty much as long as humans have been drinking, we have also been trying to find a miracle cure for the crushing pain of the aftermath. It’s unfortunate, but the simple truth is that if you dump ungodly amounts of poison into your system, become dehydrated and lose sleep, you are not going to feel your best the next day.

So while there is no magic bullet cure for a hangover, there are a few ways to trim the edges off the time it takes to recover, and reduce the symptoms at least. Here are some that have been backed up by science.

• Asparagus - A 2009 study in Korea found researchers examining extracts taken from asparagus leaves and shoots that contain elevated levels of a certain enzyme, one that their studies showed were effective in helping the body to process alcohol. The jury is out on whether your average partier will be up for an asparagus juice shot the morning after tying one on, however.
• Prickly Pear - This is a cactus native to the Americas, especially Mexico and the western part of the U.S. that has been found to contain anti-inflammatory components that help the body fight back against the damage done by liquor. A group of Tulane University researchers--conveniently located near New Orleans’ famous booze-pit the French Quarter--found that study participants who ingested an extract of prickly pear five hours prior to drinking reported 50 percent fewer symptoms of hangovers.
• Clear liquids - Water, as even the most green college freshman knows, is your friend before, during and after a bout of drinking. However another substance to be aware of besides good old H2O is congeners. These nasty yet necessary devils are a byproduct of the fermentation process that give darker alcoholic beverages their color--and make hangovers much worse. By choosing white wine instead of merlot or cabernet, by sipping vodka martinis instead of bourbon or tequila you will give yourself a better chance of avoiding the full-on train wreck hangover where you can’t peel yourself off the couch all day. It’s also important to remember that a night of heavy, sweet cocktails will give you the same sugar crash that eating desserts does, an effect that amplifies a hangover.

• Coconut Water - Other things we learned in college: no doubt your buddies told you of the dubious virtues of sports drinks in terms of dealing with hangovers. However, despite the allure of the tasty sugar blast of an ice-cold neon blue or green drink for a dehydrated mouth, there isn’t much there, there. Sports drinks claim to contain electrolytes, but the truth is they are more heavily laden with sugar and chemical dyes--not to mention flame retardant--that are decidedly unhealthy than they are with electrolytes. Conversely, coconut water has naturally electrolyte-boosting components that are on par with those in a serving of Gatorade if you go with Zico brand--and you can safely swill coconut water without worrying about too much sugar or the other added chemicals.  

###

Monsanto-Funded Glyphosate Study Pleased to Inform the World That Glyphosate Is Completely Safe

Monsanto-Funded Glyphosate Study Pleased to Inform the World That Glyphosate Is Completely Safe

By Kurtis Bright

Thanks For Clearing That Up, Monsanto

 

They just won’t give up, will they?

Once again Monsanto is in the news, and this time it isn’t about their proposed merger with Bayer, a troubling enough development to anyone who thinks food and the means to feed ourselves shouldn’t be controlled by a half-dozen chemical corporations.

And weirdly the news isn’t about their genetically modified seeds either, the seeds that the rural people of India call “suicide seeds” due to the rate at which impoverished farmers in hock to the corporation because of their usurious patent fees kill themselves.

For once it isn’t even about their lawyers continuing to avoid the corporation’s culpability in the poisoning of millions of acres of U.S. wetlands and waterways with their PCB chemical runoff.

No, Monsanto is in the news this time around due to something they actually want to see in the news--which is there thanks no doubt to their massive PR department. The chemical concern-turned-seed-company recently made headlines due to the release of a study that has shown that glyphosate, the active ingredient in their signature herbicide Roundup has been determined to be perfectly safe.

If you’re wondering why that doesn’t sound quite right, given that the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm found that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, or because you’re aware of the mounting evidence that keeps piling up indicating that glyphosate is largely responsible for the massive bee die-offs of recent years, well, you wouldn’t be alone in your confusion.

What you should probably know is that Monsanto funded the research and paid the scientists who reached this conclusion, so there’s that.

Miracle of miracles, they sided with Monsanto’s long-time claims.

Of course disclosing their financial interest in the results isn’t something Monsanto’s pet scientists felt compelled to do, at least not in any clear, transparent way. Published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, the study conveniently didn’t mention these blatant industry ties until the very end of the article, in an obscurant “Declaration of Interests.”

And those confessions were anything but candid. In part:

“...it should be recognized that each individual participated in the review process and preparation of this paper as an independent professional and not as a representative of their employer.”

And who are those employers? Well you’d have to read on to find the Monsanto name on there. But at any rate, how big-hearted, how clear-eyed and objective of them to dig deep and find their independence while working on this study--despite living in homes paid for by Monsanto, sending their kids to high-end schools financed by Monsanto, and eating food put on the table by their Monsanto paychecks.

And in case you didn’t take the point about how liberated the scientists were from the constraints of pleasing their bosses in their day jobs, there were multiple, prominent  references to the “independence” of the study’s authors, a curious use of the word to say the least.

And this “independent” study couldn’t have been released at a better time for Monsanto, as the company attempts to justify its sale to Bayer. Given the current ongoing cultural context of glyphosate being found in more and more consumer products, including baby food, wine, beer and oatmeal, and more and more people questioning GMO farming versus organic methods, and expressing an overwhelming preference not to eat these chemicals, Monsanto could be viewed as somewhat desperate to make sure the deal goes through.

But another place the company has found more of that much-vaunted “independent” corroboration that glyphosate is as safe as mother’s milk is at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Recently the EPA announced that it would be holding a four-day open forum with public meetings to address citizen concerns over the cancer risk of glyphosate.

Luckily, just to keep things crystal clear, the agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs was able to reach the conclusion that glyphosate is “...not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses relevant to human health risk assessment” just before the hearings began.

Such a convenient “independent” conclusion to come to for both Monsanto and the EPA, especially given that the EPA is complicit in allowing billions of pounds of glyphosate to be dispersed all over the planet over the course of the last 20 years.

Imagine how ashamed they would be if some independent study were to find that glyphosate causes cancer.

Oh, wait. That already happened, and neither entity has shown the least scrap of shame.

But then that’s one of the traits of great liars: their inability to be ashamed of what they’ve done.

When the government agency in charge of protecting people from corporate poisons is providing cover for those same corporations, we’re no longer living in a liberal democracy nor even a free-market capitalist society.

That is what you call fascism (from Wikipedia):

“Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state. Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.”

The only difference between the economic side of this neo-fascism and that of pre-World War II Italy and Germany is that back then, the state called the shots and controlled the corporations.

Today the corporations control the state.

###

Tryptophan And Happiness: Here Are Some Great Foods That Boost Your Serotonin Levels

Tryptophan And Happiness: Here Are Some Great Foods That Boost Your Serotonin Levels

By Kurtis Bright

Long Considered the Scourge of Thanksgiving, Tryptophan Can Actually Help Regulate Your Serotonin

It’s tough to shake a bad reputation. Just ask Tryptophan. The relatively common amino acid, which is found in turkey and numerous other foods, was long thought to be the primary cause of a sleepiness that strikes after eating the traditional meal on the U.S.’s annual Thanksgiving Day.

Every year, Thanksgiving would come around again, and all people would talk about the tryptophan in turkey, so much that your Uncle Ralph was perfectly justified in falling asleep on the couch while watching football.

Like may myths surrounding food, the reality is both more simple and more complicated than that. Yes, tryptophan does indeed help boost your serotonin levels, which is a neurotransmitter that regulates mood, a sense of well-being and is partly responsible for helping us to sleep soundly.

But the thing is there are many foods that contain much higher levels of tryptophan than turkey. A more likely culprit for Uncle Ralph’s snoring and drooling on his sweater by halftime of the Detroit Lions game is perhaps simply because he ate so much high starch, high glycemic index food at one sitting and thus suffered a massive sugar crash. A couple of atypical afternoon beers never hurt either.

However, when considering trying to avoid tryptophan, it is important to keep in mind that, as mentioned above, it not only helps us sleep, it is also essential for keeping our moods stable, helping us produce niacin, and for promoting growth and development. Tryptophan comes with a recommended daily dose of 4 mg per kilogram of body weight, or 1.8 mg per pound, meaning that a person weighing 70 kilograms or 154 pounds should consume 280 mg of tryptophan per day.

But you don’t have to wait for Thanksgiving to roll around again to get your tryptophan fix. Start with these:

• Pumpkin seeds - One unassuming little ounce of these guys contains a whopping 50 percent of the U.S. recommended daily allowance for tryptophan. Other seed sources include chia seeds, sesame seeds, pistachios and sunflower seeds.
• Soya-based foods - Edamame, which is simply the Japanese name for roasted or blanched soybeans are also a great source for tryptophan. Products made from soya like tofu and soybean sprouts are also loaded with tryptophan.
• Cheese - One cheese stands out, good old mozzarella, which is remarkably high in tryptophan, ringing up 160 mg per ounce, or over 56 percent of the U.S. RDA.
• Lamb - You know how you feel so at peace and satisfied after a big meaty meal? There’s a reason for that. All meat, but lamb especially contains a lot of tryptophan, up to 228 mg in a 55 gram serving, or 81 percent of the U.S. RDA.
• Chicken and Turkey - This may fall under the “duh” list. But what you might not have known is that chicken breast is actually higher in tryptophan than turkey, bringing home 343 mg per three-ounce serving to light up your inner happy place.
• Tuna - Tuna is another over-achiever in the tryptophan wars, with 95 mg per one-ounce serving. That may not be quite as high as chicken or turkey, but it makes a nice change. And there are other great tryptophan-containing fish including halibut, salmon and trout.

###

Physical Activity For Seniors May Be Even More Important Than We Thought

Physical Activity For Seniors May Be Even More Important Than We Thought

By Kurtis Bright

Exercise and Staying Active May Speed Recovery From Injury

It becomes more and more apparent every day how important exercise is for us throughout all of life’s cycles, especially as we age. Studies continue to pile up confirming what we have long known: people who choose not to exercise as they age due to discomfort or fear of injury or simple lack of energy are, counterintuitively, exacerbating those very same problems.

To not exercise is to unwittingly participate in a self-fulfilling prophecy, one made doubly lamentable by the illumination of recent studies showing that nearly a third of people over 50 don’t get any exercise at all.

That is to say, shockingly, beyond the movement that is required for basic existence, 33 percent are completely sedentary.

But a recent study will perhaps encourage sedentary folks to take a second look at finding ways to stay more active into their senior years. A study out of Yale University School of Medicine led by Dr. Thomas Gill followed a group of 1,600 seniors who were mostly inactive. Dr. Gill and his team then asked half the group to undertake a regimen of strength and balance training, and to take regular walks.

The results couldn’t have been more clear: those people in the group that exercised were 25 percent less likely to spend time disabled or injured than the non-exercising group.

Indeed they were apparently more fit and presumably less prone to injury, but according to Dr. Gill, that isn’t all.

“The benefit wasn’t just limited to preventing initial onset of disability but was also effective in promoting recovery after a disability,” Dr. Gill said. “Then, once the recovery occurred, the intervention was effective in preventing subsequent episodes of disability.”

And we would do well not to overlook the importance of that distinction, says Dr. Gill. Most studies only examine the ways exercise can prevent disability.

However, due to the fact that most seniors spend a lot of time lurching back and forth between periods of immobility and full function due to injury plaguing them in their fragility, an exercise program might well reduce the time they spend with limited activity. And by maximizing their activity, their increased strength and balance would presumably reduce their chances of further injury.

“This demonstrates that a physical activity program really has continued, sustained benefit over an extended period of time,” said Dr. Gill. He also suggested that perhaps the exercise helps to create a back-up storehouse of energy that helps to aid recovery when and if injury does occur.

The results were especially promising for the lives of seniors, according to Dr. Gill, considering that most of the participants who entered the study did so with some pre-existing hindrance to their ability to get exercise: they presented with problems of mobility, balance or lack of muscle tone.

This study should be a tremendous boost in the information available out there showing that virtually anyone and everyone can benefit from an exercise program, regardless of their level of fitness at the outset.

###

Breakthrough Study Shows Reduced Recurrence Of Breast Cancer In Women On Mediterranean Diet

Breakthrough Study Shows Reduced Recurrence Of Breast Cancer In Women On Mediterranean Diet

By Kurtis Bright

Surprise, Surprise: A Diet Heavy In Fresh Fruit And Veg, Nuts, Fish And Whole Grains Is Better For You

Even with so many negatives in the world, it is undeniable that this is a great time to be alive--at least when it comes to the cornucopia of medical paradigm shifts that are taking place right before our eyes.

We seem to have new revelations on the benefits of marijuana every day, for example. And these days kratom is joining venerable marijuana as a widely accepted aid to humans suffering a variety of ailments.

But one healthy choice that has been known for decades now in the West, and much longer in Europe continues to produce amazing results: the Mediterranean diet.

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past 40 years, the Mediterranean meal plan leans heavily on fresh plant-based foods like fruits and vegetables, as well as whole grains and nuts. It also replaces butter with olive oil and limits red meat while emphasizing fish, and it has long been a staple of the diet section in bookstores, as well as fodder for celebrity chat shows.

And the latest study seems to show that there may well be a connection between eating a Mediterranean diet and reducing your chances of the recurrence of breast cancer.

Presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the researchers’ study followed 307 women who had previously faced early-stage breast cancer but who were then in remission. The study split the women into two groups, one of which was given a regular western diet (199 women); the other group was given a Mediterranean diet (108 women).

The women were tracked for three years, and what they found was stunning: all 11 women who had a relapse were eating a Western diet, none of them were on the Mediterranean diet.

Of course, this is a very small sample size. The study must be replicated in order to prove the results conclusive. But if nothing else, it is an undeniably promising first step, providing further evidence that a diet heavy in red meat, refined grains and sugar is not as healthy as a Mediterranean diet.

“The preliminary results of this small study suggest that a Mediterranean diet could lower the risk of breast cancer returning,” said Professor Amie Purushotham, senior clinical adviser for Cancer Research UK. “We'd need much longer follow-up than three years to confirm the diet’s impact.”

But yet further evidence that they are on the right track is a similar study that was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine. This study included 4,000 women, and it produced similar results: those participants who followed the Mediterranean diet and switched to olive oil had a 68 percent reduced risk of breast cancer.

The latest work should be taken as something promising if not certain, another building block in the edifice of evidence showing that diet and lifestyle choices can and do have a powerful impact on everything that happens to our bodies--including cancer. This effect, we’re seeing more and more, is not just limited to direct cause and effect linkages like obesity and type 2 diabetes.

The Mediterranean diet is just one more way we can take control of our health and change long-term outcomes for ourselves.

###

GMO Safety Cheerleaders Debunked: Why You Shouldn’t Believe The Online Shills

GMO Safety Cheerleaders Debunked: Why You Shouldn’t Believe The Online Shills

By Kurtis Bright

Government Lining Up with Paid Corporate Shills to Disseminate Disinformation on the Safety of GMOs

There are semi-smart people out there who find it fashionable these days to deride opinions that speak negatively about Monsanto, genetically modified crops, and all things GMO.

And maybe some of them are not even being paid by the company and its cut-out middlemen.

Maybe.

If you follow certain comment boards on sites like Reddit, you will quickly find they are flush with comments using surprisingly similar wording, argumentation, and fallacious reasoning to defend poor little picked-on Monsanto and its ilk.

It’s almost as though the same talking points were distributed along with marching orders on how to use them...

One huge part of this trend is of course due to Monsanto’s massive public relations arm distributing millions of dollars into various sources combating its cartoonishly evil (but well-deserved) reputation. The company and its busy little sock puppets have worked hard to create social media buzz that pushes back.

Their sophistication in recent years has grown exponentially in the ways they manage these sock puppet accounts; there are some people among these trolls who are very smart. But you can spot the paid shills when you start to notice the people who lack the capacity for nuance and reasoning in the face of contradictory opinion.

It’s not only that these people would have you believe that GMOs are safe, and that only dangerous paranoiacs and the uneducated believe otherwise. The ludicrousness of the straw-man positions they argue against is a dead giveaway.

Nonetheless, you should take care when you are stuck reading or listening to their arguments, just as you would with those of the government, which is equally untrustworthy as we have seen ad infinitum.

Forget for a moment that virtually all pro-GMO safety arguments neglect to acknowledge the use of pesticides and herbicides on the crops, residue from which then enters your system. Instead they like to pretend that the GMO argument is simply a matter of benignly tweaking the DNA of the plants or animals in a manner akin to that of dog breeders or wheat farmers over the millennia. But the fact is we can look back on the Food and Drug Administration’s early views on GMOs and see how far astray we’ve gone.

Author Steven Druker focuses on just this issue in his book Altered Genes, Twisted Truth. A delineation of his background, education and research can be found in a recent open letter he wrote to the Royal Society in Britain. In it, he lays out a truth that hides in plain sight beneath the entire GMO debate: government regulators are guilty of rigging the game heavily in favor of the corporations who are seeking to control the entirety of food production for all humanity, and they have done so without solid science to back their decisions.

“Although it purports to be based on solid science and the open flow of information on which science depends, the massive venture to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply has substantially relied on the propagation of falsehoods,” Druker said in his op-ed. “Its advancement and very survival have been crucially and chronically dependent on the misrepresentation of reality – to the extent that more than thirty years after the creation of the first genetically engineered plant, the vast majority of people the world-over (including most government officials, journalists, and even scientists) continue to be misled about the important facts.”

If you find yourself being pummeled by the arguments of the so-called “skeptics” on comment boards and the like, please take a moment to check out Druker’s piece--and maybe even his book.

The battle over our food supply and corporate profits is deadly serious, and we all need to educate ourselves on it.

###

Cancer-Fighting Plant Found Only In The Exotic Tropics Of...Indiana?

Cancer-Fighting Plant Found Only In The Exotic Tropics Of...Indiana?

By Kurtis Bright

Meet The Paw-Paw Fruit: ‘Tropical’ Midwest Plant May Prove The Best Tool Yet For Fighting Cancer

 

Every day it seems like Western science is bumbling across health secrets derived from exotic, mysterious plants discovered in faraway lands, secrets previously only understood by a handful of indigenous people who stuck with the Old Ways that were handed down by their elders.

The paw-paw fruit fits that description to a T: it is a little-known, relatively rare plant that is found only in one specific region, it has long been known to the locals as a healthful, nutritious food, and its curative properties are only now beginning to emerge.

It fits the bill perfectly, were it not for the fact that the paw-paw comes from the exotic, faraway land of Indiana and southern Michigan--not exactly a tropical Pacific island.

Sometimes called the Hoosier banana or the Michigan banana, the paw-paw fruit has a smooth texture that has been likened to custard, and a subtle flavor that is reminiscent of bananas and strawberries. The paw-paw has been known to natural health food enthusiasts for a while now, but it has yet to truly enter the mainstream, although you can occasionally find paw-paw supplement capsules on the shelves of health food stores.

But it's hard to understand why it remains so obscure: boasting antioxidant levels on a par with that of cranberries, 20 times the magnesium of apples, bananas or strawberries, 70 times the iron of the above mentioned fruits, more vitamin C than oranges, and an excellent source of amino acids, the paw-paw fruit is truly a miracle food.

Even more exciting, new research is showing that its cancer-fighting properties may be even more miraculous.

For starters, the bark of the paw-paw tree seems to be one of the strongest anti-cancer compounds known to date, according to a large-scale study conducted at Purdue University.

That study along with a second one, which was also led by Dr. Jerry McLaughlin of Purdue, has led to several patents, and was found to offer strong evidence that the tree bark of the paw-paw can be a powerful ally in the fight against even drug-resistant cancers.

The study McLaughlin led showed that over 40 anti-cancer compounds are in paw-paw bark. And while he noted that cancer cells are famously complex and hard to kill in humans, the study’s results showed promise that with wider studies, the bark could prove to be the basis for a whole new range of cancer treatments in practice.

“The paw-paw compounds are not only effective in killing tumors that have proven resistant to anti-cancer agents, but they also seem to have a special affinity for such resistant cells,” according to a Purdue News piece accompanying McLaughlin’s study.

Meanwhile, we’ll just have to be content with pounding paw-paw pills--unless you are lucky enough to be able to visit the exotic climes of northern Indiana and southern Michigan, and find yourself with an opportunity to sample the fruit that the native peoples there have might offer you.

###

Poisonous Fields Forever: Why You Should Always Buy Organic When It Comes To This Fruit

Poisonous Fields Forever: Why You Should Always Buy Organic When It Comes To This Fruit

By Kurtis Bright

Delicious But Deadly, This Fruit Is Almost Certainly Loaded With Deadly Chemicals

With each passing day it becomes ever more clear that the agencies purportedly regulating the food market are firmly in the pocket of Big Agriculture. Neither lawsuits, pleading, marches, nor any other kind of citizen action is going to make them pull their heads out of the toxic sand and actually do the job of protecting consumers from dangerous chemicals.

However, the flipside of this is that more and more people are coming to realize that we’re essentially all alone out there when it comes to making healthy decisions on the food we eat and provide for our families. You just cannot trust what they tell you anymore, it’s as simple as that.

And if you look at this the right way, there is a certain freedom in being on your own when it comes to making healthy food choices--more on that later.

One prominent case in point illustrating the utter failure of the regulators to regulate the poisons that go into our food comes in the form of one of Americans’ favorite fruits, the humble strawberry. Recently a loophole was pried open--following several intense rounds of lobbying by the Dow Chemical corporation--allowing California strawberry growers to double the amount of cancer-causing pesticide Telone they may legally spray on their fields.

You may think, so what? What difference can one more chemical make in a land that is already awash in them?

The thing about strawberries is, much like certain recently elected neo-politicians, they are notoriously thin-skinned.

Which is to say that strawberries literally have a very thin outer covering. What this means in terms of your health is that anything they are sprayed with is almost impossible to wash off. In fact, they actually absorb the chemicals with which they are treated, so no amount of washing can make a chemically-treated strawberry clean.

And here’s another fun fact, but one most of us already realize about strawberries: they are delicious. The consequence of this is that not only do humans love to spend time in strawberry fields nibbling on them, so do bugs of all kinds--not only Beatles.

(Sorry. Couldn’t resist.)

So strawberry producers who use conventional growing methods--which means heavy, multiple treatments with harsh and toxic chemicals--are among the worst for chemical contamination of their product.

And strawberry manufacturers not only douse their fields before planting--using gasses that were developed for chemical warfare but have since been banned from combat (pity the soldiers that eat strawberries; there’s no Geneva Convention protecting them against U.S. agriculture). They use up to 60 different kinds of pesticides on their crops.

One USDA study in 2014 found that 98 percent of all strawberries sampled came back with pesticide residues, and 40 percent of them had residues resulting from 10 or more pesticides. So keep in mind, if you buy non-organic strawberries, here’s what you are getting as a garnish:

• Carbendazim - This fungicide disrupts the male reproductive system and was found on 30 percent of the strawberry samples tested in the aforementioned USDA study. Banned in the E.U.
• Bifenthrin - 40 percent of the samples tested turned out to have traces of this chemical, which is identified in California as a possible carcinogen.
• Malathion - Most of us have probably heard of this neurotoxin and probable human carcinogen, which is used to kill mosquitoes. However it is especially dangerous to humans because when it breaks down into its core components it becomes malaoxon, an even more toxic chemical.

The real takeaway here should be an awareness that any and all of these chemicals are going to be on--and importantly, in--your strawberries. It doesn’t matter how well you scrub and soak and clean them: if you buy conventionally-grown strawberries they will have absorbed some or all of these deadly toxins.

The pain of paying through the nose for organic foods is real, especially in the deadly stagnant economy the neoliberal elites have seen fit to impose on us in order to the stock market and unemployment high and job security low, thus protecting their own fortunes. And in all honesty there are some foods you can take a chance on buying non-organic, thick-skinned fruit and veg like bananas, pineapples and avocados.

But non-organic strawberries--at least those grown in the U.S.--simply aren’t safe.

But don’t expect any agency to tell you that--in this age of misinformation serving money uber alles, we have no one to watch out for us except ourselves.

We are truly on our own.

But while this might sound like a rather doom-filled concept on the face of it, it doesn’t have to be disheartening.

There is something compellingly liberating, something that feels like a weight being taken off your chest about finally, once and for all understanding that there is no one looking out for you, at least not in the halls of government. When we finally realize we can no longer rely on our elites to defend our interests, and that we must fend for ourselves, we become truly free.
 
But just because the government has been fully assimilated by the businesses it is supposed to regulate doesn't mean you are alone. There are resources out there for finding out the truth about the unhealthy foods Big Ag is trying to foist off on us. There are communities of like-minded people to be found on the internet and in real life, places to commiserate, trade recipes and tips, and gain support. There are tons of resources on how to start your own organic garden.

But what we must realize is that we can no longer trust the food that corporations--with the assistance of complicit, compromised government regulators--want to sell us.

The moment you fully understand you are truly alone is the moment you become free.

###

Cancer Hiding In Your Kitchen: Avoid These Foods At All Cost

Cancer Hiding In Your Kitchen: Avoid These Foods At All Cost

By Kurtis Bright

How These Foods Hide Their True, Cancer-Causing Nature

 

As more and more information about how the powers-that-be really operate comes to light, more people are beginning to suspect that maybe they don’t have our best health interests at heart. Forget about politics--look at the ongoing fights against Monsanto, Big Pharma, Big Soda, Big Oil, Big Agriculture, and more.

Do you ever wonder why we are paying billions of dollars to government regulators who are supposed to protect us from these entities when they threaten our health? It’s almost like their jobs aren’t to protect the public, but rather to protect businesses, even as they poison us and the environment.

Thankfully, people are starting to wake up to the fact that we are going to have to be responsible for watching out for our own health.

What this means in practical terms is that we are going to have to do our own research and make our own choices--for instance, when it comes to shopping for food--while taking what labels tell us with a giant grain of salt. These days it has become all too apparent that just because something is on the shelf of your local supermarket that doesn’t mean it is safe for human consumption. The corruption of the USDA, the FDA, Congress and other regulators is without end, as proven over and over again as in the Vermont GMO labeling battle.

Having said that, here are a few foods that have been proven carcinogenic--and yet are still widely available on store shelves--foods you may not typically think of as unhealthy.

• Microwave popcorn - The fact that this product is still available with no warning label or media campaign against it is downright criminal. Those convenient bags that cause your microwave popcorn to pop so quickly and evenly are lined with perfluoroctanoic acid, a toxin found in Teflon and which has been linked to infertility along with a cornucopia of cancers, including bladder, kidney, liver, pancreas and testicular cancer. Also, let’s not forget that the popcorn itself is rife with chemicals and likely contains GMOs, for instance soybean oil.
• Canned tomatoes - Tomatoes and the lycopene they contain in particular are good for the prostate and other health functions, so it is easy to understand how a person might want to take advantage of a quick and convenient option for getting a dose of tomato goodness. However, the sad truth is that canned tomatoes--along with almost every other canned fruit and vegetable--comes in cans that are lined with bisphenol A, aka BPA, a chemical that has been linked to endocrine problems as well as cancer. This is a serious enough issue that the use of the chemical has been discontinued in children’s items. But for industry-friendly regulators, the health of adults--and any children who are fed canned veggies and fruits, it should be noted--allowing its continued use in all manner of plastics and other consumer items that come in contact with food is A-ok. The problem with tomatoes in particular is that, in coming into contact with BPAs, their natural acidity causes the chemicals to leach out into the food.
• Processed meats - Sorry, lovers of meats like prosciutto, cacpicola, salami or even plain old hot dogs: these highly processed foods are likely to contain sodium nitrates, which have been shown to be cancer-causing in rat studies, increasing the chances of early death by 44 percent. Do keep in mind also that even unprocessed red meat causes you to run a risk: a recent bombshell of a study showed that red meat actually causes a toxic, allergic reaction in humans eliciting an immune response, one that may be the precursor of cancer among red meat eaters.

###

Natural Born Cancer Killers

Natural Born Cancer Killers

By Kurtis Bright

Cancer-Killing Substances the Pharmaceutical Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know About

As the litany of greedy and short-sighted acts of the food industry and the pharmaceutical industries continue apace, more and more people are turning to natural, healthy alternatives whenever possible. Naturally, big business doesn’t much cotton to the idea of your money going anywhere but directly into their pockets. Thus they work very hard to keep information about these alternatives out of the public forum.

This is especially true when it comes to herbal medicine. It is far too easy to overlook all the “new” discoveries that are made on a near-daily basis, as modern researchers chase down remedies that have been known to indigenous peoples for centuries. These are just a few substances that have been shown to have extraordinary capabilities for combating cancer.

• Brucea Javanica - Native to southeast Asia and northern Australia, this shrub has been used in Chinese medicine for centuries to treat a plethora of ailments. Studies have shown promise for the plant’s abilities to combat breast cancer, bladder cancer and leukemia.
• Graviola - This tree native to South America is the source of the soursop fruit, which has shown tremendous promise in killing cancer on a cellular level. One study from Purdue University showed that it can selectively kill cancer cells, while another study conducted by the organization Cancer Research U.K. showed that it was especially promising in killing the cells of liver cancer and breast cancer.
• Paw-Paw - This little-known plant sprouts a tropical-looking fruit similar to the papaya, however the paw-paw only grows in the Midwest region of the U.S. Despite these decidedly non-exotic beginnings, the paw-paw may disguise the most remarkable anti-cancer plant yet discovered. The aforementioned Purdue study on the graviola plant also examined the paw-paw and found it also showed great promise in killing cancer on a cellular level.
• Fucoidan - Found on the sea bed, the fucoidan plant has been proven to stop lung cancer in its tracks, according to a study published in the journal Phytotherapy Research. It also boosted white blood cell counts while triggering the death of cancer cells.
• Artemisinin - The sweet wormwood plant’s extract artemisnin is another staple of Chinese medicine that has shown signs of being able to discern and attack cancer cells while leaving healthy cells alone. The rate at which it does so is about 12,000 to one--pretty good odds if you can get them.
• Lei Gong Teng - This plant has long been called the “thunder god vine,” and it has tremendous potential for fighting cancer. It also set off a cascade of cancer cell death in studies, and specifically showed strong anti-leukemia properties.

The sad fact is that most of us have never heard of these plants. This is partly due to the suppression of long-term human studies that might prove a threat to the medicinal monopoly western medicine has on health and treatment. However you should continue to research them, perhaps setting up google alerts on them. You can be sure that the future of human health is not to be found in a lab--it is hidden deep in the forest and on the bottom of the sea.

###