Are You Tired of Being Forced To Buy $150.00
worth of products and join an MLM Company
in order to purchase
Glyconutrients?
Our Clients Have Asked - Now We Deliver - Manufactured Exclusively for OAW
  ~ ~ Introducing ~ ~
Premier 8
Advanced GlycoNutrient Formula
No Membership Fees - No Monthly Minimum Purchase Required - Immune System Enhancer

By Caitlin N. Murphy

After years of inhalers and decongestant prescriptions, the cause of your allergies may not be the pollen in the air after all, but the contents of your gut.

Antibiotics can cause changes in the human digestive system that, coupled with an unhealthy diet, could be responsible for recent increases in the development of allergies and asthma, according to research findings released Dec. 23 from the University Medical Research Center.

“Antibiotics are great. They are, but there is a price to pay, and that’s what we have ignored”, said Gary Huffnagle, a professor of internal medicine, microbiology and immunology. Huffnagle, the head researcher on the project, and Mairi Noverr, a University postdoctoral fellow, developed a study to test their hypothesis that antibiotics change the microflora lining — a mixture of fungus and bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract or the system of organs that digests food. According to their research findings, this change disrupts the immune system and its ability to ignore inhaled allergens.

Noverr exposed the laboratory mice to a broad-spectrum antibiotic, which kills a wide range of bacteria, for five days to kill their gut bacteria. Then, to help the mice quickly redevelop a bacterial mix in their GI tract, they were exposed to Candida albicans, a type of yeast normally found in the GI tract. Two days later, the mice were exposed to ovalbumin, an experimental allergen known to illicit an allergic response. Comparing the mice that received the antibiotics to those that did not, Noverr found that the mice treated with the antibiotic were much more sensitive to the allergen.

Now that they have found a correlation between the GI tract the immune system, Huffnagle and Noverr want to determine how the gut microflora communicates with the immune system.

Noverr said that special cells called regulatory T cells, which are generated in the GI tract, help to maintain tolerance to allergies. Huffnagle and Noverr believe these cells can travel to other mucosal surfaces, such as the lungs, where they can dampen immune response. They plan to investigate whether or not changes in microflora influence the development of regulatory T cells.

Their current results confirm their hypothesis that the increase in allergies, asthma, and many other diseases over the last 40 years in Western industrialized societies can be credited to the widespread use of antibiotics, Huffnagle said.

Noverr said they are interested next in studying the effect of environmental factors, particularly the effects of various diets on microflora and allergies. Scientists have suggested that the “western diet,” which is high in processed fat and sugar is responsible for a number of health problems. They hypothesized that today’s modern diet does not provide the body with appropriate nutrients to maintain a healthy mix of microflora in the GI tract.

Huffnagle said he hopes that antibiotic prescriptions will eventually be accompanied by supplemental dietary instructions after the medication’s use ends, to help rebuild a healthy mix of microflora.

Such a diet should be high in raw fruits and vegetables, he explained, since other laboratory results have shown that plants produce dietary antioxidants the human body needs to fight infection. These antioxidants, concentrated primarily in the rind or skin of fruits and vegetables, could help to restore the normal mix of gut microflora.

Results of the study, as well as a multitude of anecdotal evidence also suggest that many people who have developed allergies may be able to alleviate their allergy symptoms simply by making dietary changes, Huffnagle said.

And, Huffnagle and Noverr succeed in determining how microflora in the GI tract communicates with the immune system, treatment or prevention of allergies and inflammatory diseases may become a reality.

By Ben Kim, D.C.

Have you ever sat or stood in front of an x-ray machine, covered with a bulky lead apron, waiting for someone who was standing behind a lead wall to press a button that would send ionizing radiation through your body? I don’t know about you, but I have never felt super comfortable having that tube pointed at my head or body.

I have long believed that the widespread misuse of x-rays is one of the deadliest mistakes being committed by health practitioners. Before I get into some of the realities of how x-rays are misused, here are some startling points about x-rays and other forms of ionizing radiation that are used for diagnostic purposes, like CT scans and fluoroscopy:

For decades, the scientific community has known that x-rays cause a variety of mutations.
X-rays are known to cause instability in our genetic material, which is usually the central characteristic of most aggressive cancers.
There is no risk-free dose of x-rays. Even the weakest doses of x-rays can cause cellular damage that cannot be repaired.
There is strong epidemiological evidence that x-rays are a known cause of almost every type of human cancer.
There is strong evidence that x-rays are a significant cause of ischemic heart disease.

If all of the points listed above are true, then how is it that our society has come to use x-rays so frequently and almost without a thought to the harmful consequences of all forms of ionizing radiation? Part of the answer to this question is that most health care practitioners have been educated to believe that the benefits of taking x-rays for diagnostic purposes far outweigh the negative consequences of ionizing radiation. This attitude is well represented by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who have this to say about x-rays:

“For the exposures encountered in conventional radiography [x-rays], the risk of cancer or heritable defects (via damaged ovarian cells or sperm cells) is very low. Most experts feel that this low risk is largely outweighed by the benefits of information gained from appropriate imaging. X-rays are monitored and regulated to provide the minimum amount of radiation exposure needed to produce the image.”

I strongly disagree with the NIH on this topic.

While I believe that x-rays can be extremely useful in certain situations, I also believe that they are usually taken unnecessarily and for the wrong reasons. Here are a few examples:

Medico-legal protection In today’s society

I believe that the majority of health practitioners think first and foremost about protecting themselves against legal action. Rather than devote all of their energy to thinking about what is absolutely best for their patients in the short and long term, they perform diagnostic tests and give recommendations that fall in line with their professional “standards of practice”. This is undoubtedly so that if the patient does not do well, the doctor has records to prove that he gave perfectly competent care according to his profession's standards of practice. In deciding whether to do an x-ray or to go without it, I believe that most doctors make this decision based on their standards of practice vs. what they would do for their own children.

The Feeling that Something Has Been Done Many patients want their doctors to do something. They don’t want to hear about what they should be eating or how much rest they should be getting. Some patients almost feel cheated if their doctors don’t perform a blood test, take an x-ray, or do some other diagnostic test that makes them feel like answers are on the way. A doctor who does not give in to these expectations runs the risk of not having enough patients to make a living.

Marketing

If you have already read about my first working experience as a chiropractor, you may remember the chiropractor who took full-spine x-rays on all of his patients. It was absolutely clear to me that the majority of his x-rays were taken for marketing purposes. If you study radiology, you will learn that everyone develops degenerative changes around their spines as they age – this is to be expected, just like wrinkling of your skin. Perhaps you can imagine how a health practitioner can paint these normal, degenerative changes and other clinically irrelevant findings in a frightening way to persuade a patient to receive his or her treatments.

If you don’t have any training in radiology, and your health practitioner points to x-rays that show areas of your spine that are worn down or “out of alignment”, and you are told that you are in danger of developing crippling arthritis in the years ahead if you don’t receive his or her treatments, what are you to do? Many health practitioners are fully aware of the authoritative power and influence that x-rays can have on selling their treatments, and many of them don't hesitate to use this power and influence to its fullest extent. If you are skeptical about this, you need to participate in a practice management seminar to experience firsthand how some practitioners are finely trained to translate using x-rays to making money.

So what does all of this mean for you the next time that your doctor recommends taking an x-ray?

Some Practical Recommendations on Taking or Not Taking X-rays

If a health practitioner recommends that you have an x-ray or CT scan done, find out exactly what the health practitioner is looking for. More importantly, find out what the practitioner will recommend that you do for each possible finding. If you cannot see yourself following through on any of the practitioner’s recommendations for each possible finding, it seems logical not to expose yourself to dangerous ionizing radiation in the first place. If your practitioner is unwilling to address all of your concerns, you really need to find a practitioner who will.

If you decide that taking an x-ray will help you figure out what the problem is and/or help you figure out how to get better, ask the person who will take the x-ray exactly what the dose will be. If he or she cannot tell you exactly what the dose will be, it is likely that you will be exposed to a higher dose than is necessary. If this is the case, you need to find another x-ray facility, one that is fully committed to using the lowest possible dose for its x-rays.

If you have x-rays taken, know that these x-rays belong to you. If you don't feel good about your doctor's interpretation of your x-rays, you can take your x-rays to other practitioners to ask for as many other opinions as you wish. You may be asked to sign a form in order for your doctor or x-ray facility to release your x-rays to you, but make no mistake about it - your x-rays belong to you.

I believe that babies, growing children, and pregnant women should not be exposed to any x-rays – even dental x-rays – unless they are faced with a life or limb-threatening situation. Fetuses, babies, and growing children have rapidly growing cells that are much more susceptible to genetic damage when exposed to ionizing radiation than the slower growing cells of adults. A pregnant woman shouldn’t even have an x-ray taken at the dentist’s office, because her thyroid gland won’t be protected by the lead apron that covers her body. Ionizing radiation to the thyroid gland of a pregnant woman can interfere with the physical and mental development of her child.

If you want to learn more about the relationship between x-rays and your health, I highly recommend that you read Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease: Dose-Response Studies with Physicians per 100,000 Population, by John Gofman, MD, PhD. The harmful effects of ionizing radiation listed at the beginning of this article are from his book.

Dr. Gofman is one of the few scientists in this world who has had the courage to fight for greater public awareness of the dangers of ionizing radiation.

Dentists Alerted to Fluoride’s Health Damage in Journal of American Dental Association
Dentists Rarely Admit Fluoride's Adverse Effects

New York (PRWEB) February 12, 2005 -- “The combination of gastric problems, difficulty in swallowing, leg muscle pain, and pain in the knee and hip joints is a key indicator of fluoride toxicity, and patients using high-concentration home fluoride treatments should be monitored for these symptoms,” is reported in the January 2005 Journal of the American Dental Association. (1)

After ruling out other causes, a physician theorized his mouth-cancer patient’s unrelated ailments were caused by his dentist-prescribed high-dose daily fluoride regimen. The dentist contacted the American Dental Association’s (ADA) research center which confirmed fluoride toxicity, reports the study’s authors, F.C. Eichmiller, DDS, Director, American Dental Association Foundation’s Paffenbarger Research Center and colleagues.

“ The patient visited his physician with complaints of gastric distress, dysphagia, difficulty in swallowing when eating or drinking, soreness of the leg muscles and knee joints, and general malaise,” Eichmiller and colleagues write.

Tests by the physician showed thickening of the esophagus walls and other irregularities of this muscular tube that carries food from the mouth to the stomach. “Many of these symptoms might have been considered normal sequelae of the head-and-neck cancer treatment if not for the latent onset of joint and muscle pains,” they report.

Eichmiller’s team monitored the patient’s urinary fluoride levels while fluoride treatments were lowered until his symptoms disappeared. When fluoride treatments were stopped completely and brushing just once a day with fluoridated toothpaste, this patient’s symptoms disappeared without any increase in tooth decay, the researchers report.
 
Eichmiller’s team advises dentists that “When prescribing fluoride for compromised patients, clinicians should keep in mind both the dosage and method of administration. Lack of saliva could lead to less dilution of the gel or dentifrice, less ability to expectorate efficiently, longer retention in the mouth and a greater proportion of ingested material. Patients also may apply too much fluoride or use it too often in an effort to prevent the development of caries. In addition, the symptoms of fluoride toxicity can be fairly subtle and easily masked by other local and systemic problems in these patients,” they write.

Clinicians who prescribe these high-concentration fluoride products even to non-cancer patients “must closely monitor the patient’s compliance with the treatment regimen, minimize the dosage by using well-fitting custom trays and small quantities of gel or dentifrice, instruct patients to expectorate as much fluoride as possible and advise them to promptly report any gastric problems or joint and muscle pain,” the researchers write.

Recently a woman’s bone pain and stiffness was diagnosed as fluoride toxicity from drinking two gallons daily of instant tea.(2) Tea is naturally fluoridated.

The cancer patient in this article was prescribed a 2% fluoride treatment (possibly containing 12,300 ppm fluoride) He was instructed to put 1 milliliter to 2mL of the gel into each of two custom-made trays, apply for three minutes, then expectorate the excess and to avoid rinsing or drinking for 30 minutes after removal of trays. However, the patient did it twice a day for four months before he was diagnosed with fluoride toxicity.

Fluoridated toothpaste contains 1,000 ppm and artificially fluoridated water has approximately 1 ppm.

Painful and sometimes crippling skeletal fluorosis is common in countries where water and/or food supplies contain naturally high levels of fluoride such as in Nalgonda, India.
(3a, 3b)

“ Since so many dentists and physicians still need to be taught fluoride’s side effects, we wonder how many arthritic patients really are manifesting fluoride toxicity,” says Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “Drinking fluoridated water will exacerbate their disease since fluoride accumulates in the bones even at the low levels injected into our water supplies.”

References:
(1) Journal of the American Dental Association, “Controlling the fluoride dosage in a patient with compromised salivary function,” Frederick C. Eichmiller, D.D.S.; Naomi Eidelman, Ph.D.; Clifton M. Carey, PhD., Vol. 136, page 67 -70, January 2005 e-mail protected from spam bots
(2) “Potentially Harmful Fluoride Levels Found In Some Instant Teas,” 2/9/05 Science Daily http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050205124905.htm
(3a) http://www.nalgonda.org/flourosis.php
(3b) “Indian villagers crippled by fluoride,” April 2003, BBC article: http://www.nalgonda.org/BBC.htm

Reported by the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
Contact: Paul S. Beeber, President and General Counsel New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc PO Box 263 Old Bethpage, NY 11803 
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.fluoridealert.org
Previous News Releases: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Fluoridation-News-Releases

By TODD ACKERMAN

In a small but potentially alarming new study, local scientists have linked the most popular drug used to treat attention-deficit problems with increased risks of cancer.

The study of 12 children on Ritalin found every one experienced a significant increase in their level of chromosome abnormalities — occurrences associated with increased risks of cancer and other adverse health effects.

"Assuming it holds up, this study doesn't mean these kids are going to get cancer, but it does mean they're exposed to an additional risk factor," said Marvin Legator, a professor of environmental toxicology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston and the study's principal investigator and senior author. "Smoking doesn't mean you'll get cancer. It's a risk factor."

But Legator said the study was too small for Ritalin to be considered a risk factor for cancer yet. He said he hopes larger studies refute the finding.

The study is the first to look at the potential chromosome-damaging effects associated with methylphenidate, the generic name for Ritalin, the most widely prescribed drug used to treat attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Between 1991 and 1999, U.S. sales of Ritalin and its variants, including Concerta and Metadata CD, increased more than 500 percent.

The study, conducted by researchers at UTMB and UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, will be published in an upcoming edition of the journal Cancer Letters. It was made available online Thursday.

Other medications cited

The study is just the latest to cast doubt on ADHD medication. Earlier this month, Canadian regulators suspended sales of Adderall amid reports of 20 deaths of patients, including 12 children, taking the drug between 1999 and 2003. In the same time period, American regulators logged seven sudden deaths of children taking Ritalin and Concerta. A third ADHD drug, Strattera, can cause severe liver injury.

In the study, researchers drew blood from children diagnosed with ADHD before they began taking Ritalin and again three months after, then employed a method of analysis that has detected 48 of the 53 known carcinogens in humans. All the children — 10 boys and 2 girls averaging 8.5 years old — were taking normal doses.

For all 12, blood analysis tests showed a twofold to threefold increase in abnormalities in the chromosomes, the bodies within cells that carry genes and genetic information. Most consisted of chromosome breaks, which are associated with an increased risk of cancer.

All people have chromosome abnormalities, typically about 1 percent. The children in the study had levels increased to 2 to 3 percent.

Legator said he was amazed by the consistency of the findings, that all 12 children showed the same result. But he and other investigators stressed that more research needs to be done — for instance, researchers didn't follow up so it's not known whether the chromosome abnormalities are permanent or go into repair once the patient goes off the drug.

Follow-up study planned

Study investigators said parents should respond cautiously to the study and not take their child off Ritalin if he or she is doing well. But Melissa Bondy, an M.D. Anderson epidemiologist who was part of the study, said she understood parents' natural reaction.

"My child was recently diagnosed with ADHD and it was very difficult to decide to use medication after knowing these results," said Bondy. "That's why we need to do further research."

The investigators said they plan to propose a follow-up study with hundreds of patients, multiple sites and longer study periods. Although there are millions of children on Ritalin, participation is limited by the need to enroll patients before they start treatment.

ADHD, the most common neurobehavioral disorder in childhood, affects 4 to 12 percent of U.S. school-age children. Symptoms include short attention span, impulsive behavior and difficulty focusing.

By Dr. Janet Starr Hull
Featured on http://www.truthaboutsplenda.com/resources/links.html
SPLENDA INTERVIEW from the December 2003 issue of Dr. Hull's Newsletters.

The following interview was conducted with Janet Starr Hull on the safety of sucralose found in Splenda®.

Q: What exactly is Splenda?

A: In a simple sentence, you would just as soon have a pesticide in your food as sucralose because sucralose (Splenda) is a chlorocarbon. The chlorocarbons have long been known for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the testing of sucralose reveals that it can cause up to 40% shrinkage of the thymus: a gland that is the very foundation of our immune system. Sucralose also causes swelling of the liver and kidneys, and CALCIFICATION of the kidney. Note: if you experience kidney pain, cramping, or an irritated bladder after using sucralose in Splenda, stop use immediately.

Q: So sucralose is not found as a natural compound in nature, like real sugar?

A: Absolutely not. No sugar molecule is compounded with chlorine anywhere in nature.

Q: Do you know how it is made in the laboratory?

A: I found this information from a statement from the manufacturer, actually. 'Sucralose is made from sugar, but is derived from sucrose (sugar) through a process that selectively substitutes three atoms of chlorine for three hydrogen-oxygen groups on the sucrose molecule. No artificial sweetener made in the laboratory is going to be neither natural to the body nor safer than unprocessed sugar', they claim. People need to stop searching for excuses to eat all the junk food they want without penalty. In the long run, no one benefits from this product but the corporations.

Q: The corporate researchers claim that the chlorine atoms are so tightly bound; they create a molecular structure that is exceptionally stable under extreme pH and temperature conditions. Do you agree?

A: They are testing these conditions in lab rats, and these types of corporate studies have forced and 'selective' results, in my opinion. Aspartame research is the proof of this! Test these chemicals on a child and see how stable it is - but that would be cruel. So, why then do we buy it and give it to our children? I don't buy into manufacturers' claims when it comes to human beings using ANY man-made chemical. Plus, I have learned over the past twenty-five years of aspartame research to value independent research above that which is funded by corporations.

Q: The corporations say sucralose is safe.

A: They said the same thing about aspartame, and look at the rampant disease and obesity taking over America since aspartame was put into the food supply over twenty years ago.

Q: Can sucralose cause cancer?

A: Any animal that eats chlorine (especially on a regular basis) is at risk of cancer. The Merk Manuel and OSHA 40 SARA 120 Hazardous Waste Handbook states that chlorine is a carcinogen and emergency procedures should be taken when exposed via swallowing, inhaling, or through the skin. It all depends upon how much you use and how often, your present and past health status, and the degree of other toxins you are putting inside your body. Good luck with this one....

Q: Sucralose has been thoroughly tested, they claim. Actually they have stated that sucralose is the most tested food additive in history. I quote, "...more than 100 studies on the safety of sucralose designed to meet the highest scientific standards have been conducted and evaluated over the course of 20 years."

A: I don't believe that for a second. They stated verbatim the same thing about aspartame. We are looking at the same scenario in so many ways. As with NutraSweet - no human studies, corporate payrolled researchers, selective result reporting, government involvement and personal financial interests and controlled media. I will say that sucralose is not as dangerous as aspartame.

Q: Splenda is approximately 600 times sweeter than sugar. How can that be?

A: As I stated before, the product is a forced product, not a natural sugar the body uses for fuel. People forget that sweetness is a by-product of foods; a bonus so to say. Forced sweetness, revved-up sweetness, and artificial sweetness - all altered foods that are a trap for people to get addicted to the sweeter tastes. People with eating disorders, children who are just learning about food, and people with illnesses are all being 'sold a bill of rubbish' in my opinion.

Q: The manufacturer claims sucralose doesn't react with other substances in the body and is not broken down in the body.

A: They claimed the same thing about saccharin, even though I feel saccharin is the only artificial sweetener with true merit. To answer your question, if the body is digesting properly, anything you put into the body will be assimilated. If it happens to be rancid, the stomach will throw it out immediately by vomiting or diarrhea. It is totally out of the realm of biological science to think the body will not immediately attack a toxic chemical. Henceforth, migraines from aspartame and diarrhea from Splenda. Now, to add a note to this: if the body is fed an indigestible product such as plastic (like in margarine) that it is incapable of dissolving through normal digestion, it will pass through undigested (if it doesn't get stuck in the gall bladder, that is.) So, if sucralose is indigestible due to its laboratory compounding, then we have yet another serious health problem to consider, don't you think? Technology is great, but we sure don't need to be eating it!

Q: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and government food authority committees and the Health Ministries in countries such as Canada, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, Argentina, and Brazil have confirmed the safety of sucralose. So have the countries of Colombia, Peru, Venezuela, Uruguay, Romania, Lebanon, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan, Tajikistan, China, South Africa, and Tanzania. What do you think of all these countries confirming Splenda's safety?

A: The history of aspartame has unfortunately proven that individuals within government agencies cannot and should not be trusted to make such empowering public decisions behind closed doors. Now, re-read this list of countries... Mexico, Jamaica, Tajikistan and Tanzania? These are the countries in which Splenda is now marketed? (See the final question.) As an international geographer, I can comfortably say that these countries are not nations with the same technology and mass marketing strategies to be compared with the United States. These countries are more concerned with birth control, food staples, hostile take-overs, and drought - not diet sweeteners. Compare apples to apples.

Q: Is sucralose safe for children?

A: The manufacturer actually made this statement for disclosure: "One should note, however, that foods made with low-calorie sweeteners are not normally a recommended part of a child's diet, since calories are important to a growing child's body." Pay attention....Children should not be encouraged to grow-up on fake foods. But just like cigarettes and alcohol, do what I say and not what I do? And we wonder why the younger generation is angry, ill, and ridden with ADD/ADHD and diabetis?? How many kids do you see taking a sip of mom or brother's diet cola?

Q: Who manufactures and markets sucralose?

A: McNeil Specialty Products Company (MSPC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, along with Tate & Lyle PLC, a world leader in sweeteners and starches, all share responsibility for developing and manufacturing sucralose for commercial use. Sucralose is the first product from McNeil Specialty, whose mission is to develop and market innovative food ingredients that help consumers control, maintain and improve their health. Internationally, McNeil Specialty markets sucralose in the United States, Canada, Latin America, the Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand, and the Middle East; Tate & Lyle markets sucralose in Africa, Asia, Europe and Canada. Internationally, McNeil Specialty markets sucralose under the name SPLENDA® Brand Sweetener. SPLENDA® is a registered trademark of McNeil Specialty Products Company.

Electric Light Just Latest Of Many Suspects
By WILLIAM HATHAWAY

Richard Stevens wants to shed some light on the murky origins of breast cancer.

The University of Connecticut cancer epidemiologist says there still is no scientific consensus about why the incidence of the disease is so much higher in the developed world.

The literature on breast cancer is littered with discredited theories about environmental and lifestyle factors that may contribute to the onset of the disease.

"We knew more about the cause of breast cancer 20 years ago than we do today," Stevens said. "What we do know is that it must have something to do with industrialized society."

Only a few theories have withstood scientific scrutiny, and no single factor explains a great percentage of breast cancer cases.

But that hasn't stopped people from looking for new explanations.

Now, Stevens and a few other researchers are focusing on a little-known suspect - electric light.

Their theory that artificial light can cause breast cancer is simple. Prolonged periods of exposure to artificial light disrupt the body's circadian rhythms - the inner biological clocks honed over thousands of years of evolution to regulate behaviors such as sleep and wakefulness. The disruption affects levels of hormones such as melatonin and the workings of cellular machinery, which can trigger the onset of cancer, Stevens theorizes.

"Mankind has only been exposed to these light sources for 150 years or so," Stevens said.

So far, the theory is based largely on suggestive, but inconclusive, observational studies. For instance, night-shift workers such as nurses tend to be more prone to develop breast cancer than day-shift workers, and blind women are less likely to have breast cancer than women with sight.

In a recent study, Stevens and scientists at Yale University School of Medicine identified a possible genetic mechanism that could help explain how artificial light could trigger breast cancer. Pre-menopausal women with a variation of a "clock gene," which helps govern the regulation of the body's response to night and day, tend to have a higher risk of cancer.

"I'm not saying this is a cause, but that the evidence shows it is worth investigating," Stevens is quick to caution.

The fact that the origins of breast cancer still are being debated - and that new theories are emerging more than three decades after the United States declared a war on cancer - illustrates just how stealthy breast cancer is.

Scientists estimate that about nine out of 10 breast cancer cases are triggered by environmental and lifestyle factors rather than inherited risk. Smoking has long been identified as a cause of lung cancer, and a virus, human papillomavirus, causes cervical cancer.

But with breast cancer, researchers are not sure what lifestyle or environmental causes women should worry about.

Some widely circulated theories have little data to support them and have been largely rejected by the scientific community. Antiperspirants and wire bras fall into this category, according to the National Cancer Institute. In 2003, the institute convened 100 breast cancer experts who concluded there is no evidence that miscarriages or abortions increase the risk of breast cancer.

Yet epidemiologists such as Stevens say other risk factors must exist and they urge that more studies be conducted.

"We absolutely need studies," said Deborah Winn, chief of the clinical and genetic epidemiology research branch of the National Cancer Institute. "If we have those answers, we might have the potential to improve prevention."

While the number of deaths from breast cancer has declined over the years, the incidence of the disease has increased slowly over the decades in the developed world, most studies show. And when a woman from a low-risk country moves to a high-risk country, her risk of breast cancer increases as well.

That's why suspicion centered on factors such as diet or pollutants such as pesticides.

Scientists believed for years that high levels of dietary fat accounted for differences in the rates of breast cancer in the developed and undeveloped worlds. But fat has largely been exonerated in breast cancer, Stevens said. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that even a diet heavy on fruits and vegetables did not protect women from the disease. And while pesticides can cause cells in laboratory dishes to turn cancerous, they have never been conclusively linked in large-scale studies to clusters of breast cancer cases.

There are plenty of oddities in the breast cancer epidemiology studies. Obesity is a risk factor for women - but only after menopause. Prior to menopause, obese women tend to get breast cancer less often than thinner peers.

Science, however, does say with great certainty that at least one factor plays a crucial role in the development of breast cancer: the female hormone estrogen, said Dr. Melinda Irwin, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology and public health at the Yale University School of Medicine.

For instance, Irwin notes that girls who get their first periods early in life and women who enter menopause late in life - in both cases, increasing their exposure to estrogen - are clearly at greater risk of breast cancer than their peers. Women who give birth to children before the age of 30 have a lower risk of breast cancer than women who give birth after 30 and women who never become mothers at all. Women who take hormone replacement therapy are also at higher risk.

Irwin has also done research that suggests that exercise, which can lower estrogen levels, offers women some protection against the development of breast cancer.

But Stevens and others believe other elements of modern lifestyle and environment must play a role in increasing the risk of breast cancer.

In the mid-1980s, Stevens investigated connections between cancer and the use of electric power. The work helped set off a controversial debate over whether there was a link between electric power lines and the development of cancer. It got him thinking about the potential role of electric lighting.

For most of human history, people slept or rested during dark hours - and produced the hormone melatonin. Melatonin levels regulate circadian rhythms and may, some studies suggest, affect estrogen levels as well. Artificial light tends to disrupt those rhythms, with reduced levels of melatonin believed to lead to an increase in estrogen production.

The light theory of breast cancer has received a boost in recent years with the discovery of clock genes, a group of about eight genes that help regulate circadian rhythms. It turns out that clock genes play an important role in the activation of genes governing cell cycle regulation and apoptosis, or cell suicide. Malfunctions in these processes have been linked to the development of cancer.

But for now, the light theory is firmly on the fringe of scientific consensus.

Many scientists believe that the search for environmental and lifestyle triggers for breast cancer will not turn up one major villain, but many different culprits that account for small percentages of breast cancer cases.

"I think we will be hard-pressed to find a single etiology to breast cancer. A woman's body is so complex and exposed to so many different things," said Dr. Kristen A. Zarfos, assistant professor of surgery and medical director of the University of Connecticut Health Center Women's Specialty Health Program.

"It might be a combination of small effects of a lot of things we know about," Stevens conceded. "But if not, then what is it? It is frustrating that major drivers have just not emerged for breast cancer as they have for other major cancers."                                                       

   Realize that every morning is a chance to began fresh and anew.  The mistakes of yesterdy are forever gone.  When you really grasp this concept you will become a person of less worry and anxiety while blossoming into a person of great joy, happiness, well-being and peace. 

--Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP 

Advanced Health & Wellness

visit us online at:
www.oasisadvancedwellness.com

   Visit Our Other Sites  

www.menopause-pms-progesterone.org
www.oasisserene.com

   Missed Previous Issues?   

Advanced Health & Wellness - February
Advanced Health & Wellness - January
Advanced Health & Wellness - December

A Dozen Life Tips

1. Never pass up the opportunity to go for a joy ride.
2. Allow the experience of fresh air and the wind in your face to be pure ecstasy.
3. When loved ones come home, always run to meet them.
4. When it's in your best interest, practice obedience.
5. Let others know when they've invaded your territory.
6. Run, romp, and play daily.
7. Eat with gusto and enthusiasm.
8. Be loyal and trust-worthy.
9. Never pretend to be something you're not.
10. If what you want lies buried, dig until you find it. Never, never, never give up! 
11. Avoid biting when a simple growl will do.
12. Delight in the simple joy of a long walk.