Standard Process Vitamins

What standard process vitamins or other supplements should be takin with Prescribed thyroid meds? I have hypothyroid for over year take Armour 1 1/12 grain current TSH is 5.21 I use to take Standard process supplements Drenamin and dinotrophin DMG. I am feeling tired again and stressed what do others with hypothyroid take as supplements??

HOw long does it take for Hypothyroid meds to take effect and lower TSH levels? I am curious to know if anyone else has been throught he up and downs of thyroid meds? I started at 11. something and got down to 3.something recently I started feeling bad so I got my labs done came back it had gone up to 5.21! How could it go up and down like that?? He incresed my Armour to 2 grains. I still feel like crap! I feel like I did when I started except for the freezing in bed under the covers! But I am so TIRED again weight gain is awful, depression, muscle twitchs, pain! I have been adjusting meds since last August! And it is still not right! Has anyone else gone throught his. I started with Synthroid but it made me too shakey and I could not sleep then I went to Armour, I do not have any side effects from Armour and because it has both T3 and T4 I heard it was better. I am at a loss, how could I be getting worse and my meds are higher then they were when i felt good? Also I was taking Standard process vitamins for adrenal function and my husband says I felt better then?

how fast do we process vitamin D-3? processing speed in terms of standard units, say in supplements, a gel is usually 1000 to 5000 iu. how much iu do we process in a day?

Would an injection with various vitamins and a small dose of estrogen cause my husband to become sterile? Ok in my previous question I indicated that my husband began a feminization process. One aswereer said that the injections will make her sterile. She is supposed to start milking sessions (first appt this Monday) at a Sperm Bank) to obtain a large quantity of her sperm for my use when I need it for artifical insemmination and want to have more children. Currently im two months pregnant after insemmination by normal vaginal intercourse. Eventually the hormones will cause her to have breast development and reduce the size of her penis. She will reach a point where her penis will not be able to adequately penetrate me or remain erect. At the transgender salon she went to on thursday they gave her a complete makeover of just standard feminine beauty treatments: skin care, nails, hair, facial and makeup followed by clinic treatments consisting of three body piercings on the navel, upper lip, and tongue, installation of a device on the groin to prevent penile stimulation, and give her front a smooth feminine appearance and the injection of vitamins and estrogen. Is she sterile now after the injection? She is very good looking and would produce beautiful children and I want her sperm collected for that purpose at the sperm bank She and my girl friend Heather are out on a romantic weekend in a beautiful vacation spot. I texted Heather because of my worry over the injections and she said to me that she and Jamie and two handsome men are having a great time. The men and Heather paid for her makeover and feminization.

NAET Alleergy Elimination Technology. I wonder ..............? I have been suffering from BAD case of seasonal allergy this year, and got deep into sinus infection. That was back in Feb, March. Now, I have been on all sort of meds like Flonaise, Singulair, Allegra-D, Zpack,....I just learned about this NAET program and went to see a chiropractor who took a course on NAET. He did muscles test? (I never understand how it works, or is it a gimmick ? ) and sold me 5 product to take, one was homeopathy drop thing, and 4 are some kind of vitamins with other stuff in it by Standard Process Inc. He told me I am allergic to eggs and Chicken. LOL But I am suffering from Oak Pollen, the seasonal stuff~! He wants me back every week, and is going to eliminate allergy....what do you think of all this? I stop going to a conventional MD because...they did not really help me, and I hate chemical pills with side affects, etc. Anyways, I am bit confused, in the end, I just want to get better, and take care of aches, fatigue, ...just sick and sick and sick.

Explain the use of preparing standard solutions and titrations and describe how this may be carried...? ....out differently in industry I nee dmore work on it, any suggestions on ifo? Thanks It is important to prepare an accurate concentration of a standard solution of sodium thiosulphate. The concentration of iodine must also be correct, so the determination of vitamin C is correct. It is useful to prepare the standard solution before you carry the titration out first, as you can get practise in for getting the results accurate and it saves time doing it before doing the titration. Titration is carried out differently in industry, in hospitals as they titrate by hand, as it may be more accurate; however there is a cause for human error. In different industries the process is usually automated thereby eliminating human error, as the answers would be digital and not guessing, however for this there could also be the risk of systematic error, but this is a lot more quicker than the titrating by hand, where the accuracy is at most importance. Automated titration is also used in industry for titrating large amount of volumes. Also, in industry, different industries may also, measure the endpoint differently, as they may use a PH indicator, a potentiometer or a PH meter. However, you can not always trust the concentration on the bottle, as the concentration should be one number, but then the concentration could be 0.1 out, and this could effect your results overall. This is why you should check the concentration of the iodine, so then the results are accurate. The winemaker industry are moving away from old manual titrations, colour indicators, time consuming aeration oxidation tests and dilution calculations to more accurate, more dependable and faster methods. It is vital that instruments deliver information quickly, inexpensively but most of all with high accuracy.

Not losing enough weight, any suggestions for faster results? Sorry this is long =( bear with me please. Hi, well I decided to change my lifestyle (atleast for the next 6 months =P) to a much healthier one. I started on the 1st of july and weighed myself on the 31st and I lost 15 pounds. My goal is to eat 800 calories a day (but they usually make it to around 900 because of fruit snacks and stuff) and for that month i spent 2 hours a day 5 days a week on avg in the gym. My starting weight was 279 lb, im 6'3" and 17 years old. Weight was never really an issue for me till lately, because of exam stress and family problems, i gained about 10 lb in a month, and only then did clothes start looking bad on me, i always considered myself lucky, because i was overweight but still never lagged behind in terms of clothes and style, mainly because my body never reflected my weight. Only after my exams did I start to notice my clothes looking bad on me, so I slowly started controlling my appetite for about 2 weeks, then I started the diet.(Don't get me wrong, I didn't look thin or anything, but I didnt look 260lb either, i looked like a person who needed to lose 20lb at the most) Anyways, to make a long story short, I burn about 800 calories in the gym, and I eat around 900 calories a day while still feeling satisfied, I'm not crash dieting or anything, I'm just choosing low calorie food, e.g for breakfast I have a single slice of whole grain bread with 99-percent fat free turkey (2 slices, 30 calories each) with lettuce and low fat mayo (15 calories per spoonful). For dinner it's pretty much standard between grilled chicken Fillet with veggies or grilled fish Fillet with veggies (Totalling around 400 calories). And I have another one of those turkey sandwiches for lunch, and some fruit snacks whenever i feel hungry. I take 100-percent DRA multi vitamins & minerals. As for drinks its usually 2 cans of diet coke a day and 3 litres of water, and a cup of green tea a day on avg. ( Soda because it makes me feel full for atleast and hour or so =P planning on quiting it after i finish. I was expecting that a person of my weight should be losing much more weight, I'm weighing everything I eat and then using the calorieking.com website to calculate the calories I'm eating.Am I doing something wrong? Anyway to speed up the process?I was trying to reach 215 pounds by 1st october, as my uni starts a few days later, and I dont wanna be labeled anything which i can improve on. My target weight is 180 lb by december 12th (my bday =D) and I've already dropped a size, so im happy about that, I was just thinking that with all the effort im putting in I should have lost more weight. Theres a history of obesity on my fathers side of the family, and from my mothers side, they seem to have ALOT of digestive and heart/BP problems, but no diabetes on either side. Also I was wondering what the test for your metabolism/rate of metabolism is called? and has anyone tried the blood type diet, it seems a bit extreme for me, and i doubt i can stick to eating 3 ounces of chicken as my only meat for the whole week, but hey, if it'll speed things up, I dont mind trying it on ramadan next month, I'm gonna be fasting till 6 oclock anyway =P And I know this is kinda lame, but any diet pills that can speed up the calorie burning process, I dont want any of those enzymes pills that dont allow carbs and fats to be absorbed, coz trust me they DONT work =) I can't drink milk, I don't like the way it tastes, and I get digestive problems after it, I start feeling really heavy and have to bend my back forwards a little because my intestines hurt, and the example of my diet above isn't my daily regimen, I do eat cereal, omellettes cinnamon apples for breakfast ( don't know if that actually exists, but what i do is I cut 2 apples into 8 pieces and spread some cinnamon on them, and into the microwave for a minute YUMMY!) for dinner, I do sometimes grab a subway turkey 6inch sandwich, (273 clories woohoo =P) thx for the advice though =) Thank you for all the suggestions, i'm aiming for 180 pounds so i have a bmi of 22, But I love the motivation your all giving me =) thanks for all the help, I'll keave the question open for a few more answers then pick my favorite one =)

Is it possible and/or difficult to use an IV drip without medical assistance.? I suffer from a sever reaction to alcohol whereby after even 3 or 4 standard drinks i will wake the following day feeling lethargic, nauseous, vomiting and with flu like symptoms akin to a heavy hangover for most people such that i will often not be able function properly or to get up from bed the entire day. Increasingly the effects are now lasting 2 and sometimes even 3 days whereby i will feel weak fatigued and flu-ish. I have researched and tried almost all suggested techniques to prevent the onset of these symptoms including: consuming large amounts of water whilst and after drinking, taking vitamin B supplements, eating greasy foods, as well as many other 'home remedies' to no avail whatsoever. This led me to wondering whether it is feasible that one could acquire a drip and use it domestically in a responsible and non-dangerous manner. Perhaps there is a product which makes the process more friendly and safer for the layman? I would really appreciate your advise on this matter

answer asap please :) two quizzes? 1. Which of the following is NOT an essential nutrient? (Points: 2) water alcohol vitamins minerals 2. Which of the following is a micronutrient? (Points: 2) carbohydrates vitamins lipids alcohol 3. ________ are examples of inorganic nutrients. (Points: 2) Vitamins Lipids Carbohydrates Minerals 4. For dinner, Bill consumes 255 grams of carbohydrate, 70 grams of protein, and 50 grams of fat. In addition, Bill decides that he wants a glass of wine with his meal. If he drinks one glass of wine containing 8 grams of alcohol, how many total kilocalories does he consume in this meal? (Points: 2) 56 kilocalories 540 kilocalories 1,675 kilocalories 1,806 kilocalories 5. Jose's lunch contains 121 grams of carbohydrate, 40 grams of protein, and 25 grams of fat. What percent of kilocalories in this meal come from fat? (Points: 2) 19% 26% 34% 42%. 6. Which of the following are examples of carbohydrate-rich foods? (Points: 2) butter and corn oil beef and pork wheat and lentils bacon and eggs 7. Which of the following nutrients is organic? (Points: 2) minerals water protein both minerals and water 8. The dietary standard that has been established regarding nutrients about which more research is needed to determine human requirements is the: (Points: 2) DRI. RDA. AI. UL. 9. Which of the following is required on all food labels? (Points: 2) the net contents of the package ingredient list the name and address of the vendor all of these 10. Healthier fat sources include ________ and canola oil. (Points: 2) butter lard margarine olive oil 11. Cell membranes are PRIMARILY composed of: (Points: 2) sugars. phospholipids. proteins. sterols. 12. What are probiotics? (Points: 2) specialty foods in which nutrients have been added antibiotics that are specific to harmful bacteria while protecting healthful bacteria live microorganisms naturally found in or supplemented to food products foods known to have disease-fighting effects 13. What is chyme? (Points: 2) ulcerations of the esophageal lining healthy bacteria of the small intestine mixture of partially digested food, water, and gastric juices substance that allows for the emulsification of dietary lipid 14. Which best explains why carbohydrate digestion ceases when food reaches the stomach? (Points: 2) Carbohydrate is completely digested in the mouth. Salivary enzymes cannot function in the acid environment of the stomach. Carbohydrate is completely absorbed in the esophagus. Intestinal bacteria are needed for carbohydrate digestion. 15. Bob eats his breakfast and his GI tract will now begin the process of digesting and absorbing the nutrients from this meal. What is the order in which each of the organs of the GI tract will work to achieve this process? (Points: 2) mouth: esophagus: small intestine: stomach: large intestine mouth: esophagus: stomach: small intestine: large intestine mouth: stomach: esophagus: small intestine: large intestine mouth: stomach: esophagus: large intestine: small intestine 16. Digestion and absorption occur at the ________ level. (Points: 2) tissue organ system organism 17. What is the term that describes the process in which nutrients pass through the wall of the gastrointestinal tract? (Points: 2) digestion absorption elimination segmentation 18. Which of the following carbohydrates is the end product of photosynthesis? (Points: 2) glycogen galactose lactose glucose 19. What is the major monosaccharide found in the body? (Points: 2) glucose fructose galactose glycogen 20. Which of the following is a disaccharide? (Points: 2) sucrose fructose galactose glucose 21. In the body, the major storage sites for glycogen are the: (Points: 2) muscles and liver. kidney and muscles. liver and kidney. liver and pancreas. 22. Which of the following hormones is released when your blood glucose levels fall too low? (Points: 2) insulin estrogen bile glucagon 23. Which of the following is associated with the development of ketosis? (Points: 2) a diet that contains too much fat a diet that contains insufficient fat a diet that contains too much carbohydrate a diet that contains insufficient carbohydrate 24. Which of the following

Is Indian Food less nutritious than Japanese, Chinese or Korean Food? The Indian diet is predominately carbohydrate based with a lesser portion of protein (vegetable based protein) and lack other vital mineral, vitamins because of the overcooking and the nutritional value is lost through this process. The high oil content and excessive spicing may dampen the taste and deliver food that lack natural flavor and texture. Such condiments as coconut milk, ghee, vegetable oil, milk and limited use of yogurt had made the taste muted and blending is highly dependent on the cook's creativity and skill. This is where the Indian Food can never attain International status like French, Chinese,Italian,American or even Thai Food ( Fusion of Indian and Chinese cooking with blend of South East Asian). The Indians must wake up to this reality and face the fact that these true undoubtedly. It is naive, arrogant and ignorant to support something without justification and realistic analysis of standard of Indian Food internationally. Certainly if you weight or diet conscious you certainly not touch Indian food. Ask any French person in french fashion industry or in Europe whether they would include Indian food in their menu. Certainly not I can assure you if your conscious of your slimline figure and weight and health you will avert Indian food from your daily diet. Pramadonna of the bygone days of Bollywood are living legacy of obese culture of Indian Film Industry

Please review my short notes for Human Nutrition class and tell me if I'm on the right track for my exam? 1.) List and define the four characteristics of a healthy diet? Adequate, Provides enough energy, nutrients and fiber to maintain a persons health. Moderation, Eating the right amount of foods. Idea is to maintain a proper weight. Utilize our body's metabolism. Variety, Eat a lot of different foods ensures that we intake necessary vitamins and minerals. Balance, Proper balance of nutrients. 2.) Know the parts of the food label? 5 components of a food label. 1. Statement of idenity. 2. Name and address of the manufacture. 3. Ingreidients list. 4. Net Contents. 5. Nutrial facts panel; a. Servings size and servings per container. b. calories from fat/serving. d. nutrients e. percent daily valiues % DV < 5%= less nutritious <20%=more nutritious 3.) What agency governs the food label? It's the FDA, they also govern the food pyramid. 4.) Define Nutrition, Any chemicals found in foods that are important to human growth and function. Define Wellness, Wellness is the standard view of health. Physical, emotional and spiritual. 5. Basic structure of essential nutrients; 6k cal carbs, (highest) fats 9 k cal, proteins 4 k cal. 6. What are the Micronutrients ? Vitamins which are organic. Minerals, which are inorganic. 7. Know the food guide pyramid. Know the top tip ( Red meat and butter. Also simple carbs), servings for fruits and vegetables 2-3 servings each day. What part are legumes in? The nuts which are fourth to the top. 8. Know definitions of the following; Why are food range different in adults? Because we are all different size adults. Children's servings are more concrete. Appetite, Psycho-social desire for a specific food. Hunger, Physiological sensation that drives us to find food and eat. Satiation, feeling full, proteins is the fastest way to reach satiation. Also fats and carbs. 9. 3 process of digestion, digestion, absorption, elimination. In that order. 10. Pathways of digestion; mouth, stomach, intestines, large and small intestines, anus. 11. Know the function of each organ. Small intestine, absorption. Stomach, chemical digestion. 3 excessary organs; Gall bladder emulsifiesys fat by releasing bile. Liver, chemical factor. Pancreas, release digestive enzyme and insulin. Levels organization; cell tissue, organ system, individual. Ok I have listed a very basic study guide. Now I have a 50 multiple choice and 25 matching exam tomorrow. And I have other notes to review. Do you have any hints, and do you think I will do ok?

Why is a diet consisting of 90%-95% fruit and 5-10% green leafy vegetables crazy? 1. Fruits are naturally appealing, does your mouth water when you look at a field of wheat? 2. Our closest living relatives eat mostly fruit(some also eat some greens, or nuts and seeds, or other animals from time to time, but usually when there is little fruit). 3. Fruits have a large variety of vitamins in reasonable amounts. 4. Greens have a large variety of minerals in reasonable amounts. 5. What you're eating probably isn't giving you much more nourishment than eating fruit, and you're probably a. deficient or b. dependent on multivitamins if you eat the SAD(standard american diet), you're probably forced to drink more water to stay hydrated(btw if we lived naturally in a rain forest we'd probably get all of our necessary water from fruit and rainfall absorbed through the skin which has already been distilled by the clouds it came from) and probably retaining water if you don't, and you are probably getting too much of some things, mainly fat and protein(which is found in reasonable amounts in fruit), which becomes fat or causes excess waste unnecessarily taxing your organs in the process. 30bananasaday.com 80/10/10 author: Dr. Douglas Graham Check em out, why is this so crazy?!?!?! Amaretta - I'm in the process of going back to 811, when I was 811 for 3 weeks I had no stomach pains what so ever, I didn't keep track of how my poo came out however. Care to explain why humans can't live on just fruit and green leafy vegetables? Go over to 30bananasaday.com, there are many people doing it very successfully, and seeing great improvements to their health. What you're saying is we weren't born with the ability to fully nourish ourself and we need to eat dehydrating cooked, processed, or unappealing food with a small variety of vitamins and minerals in large amounts and take supplements and other pharmeceuticals to be properly nourished? Wow, I guess nature really screwed up bad with humans. We even start out as children loving sweet-tasting foods! Insane, utterly insane. darkfyra_wolf - almost all fruits have 80% or more of their calories in carbohydrates, 10% or less in fat and 10% or less in protein, 80/10/10. 80/10/10 or 811 promoters beleive this is the ideal amount of carbs, fats and protein for the human body, and it makes the most sense, follows natures law, and if you looked into it you'd find many people who've seen marvelous results on 811. If you thought fat and protein was non existant in fruit, you were wrong. I myself am very heavy and for the 3 weeks I was 811 I felt hydrated, energetic, and I was eating 2000-3000 calories a day, fully satisfying my gut without the heavy, bloated feeling. Each week I gained muscle and lost 5+ pounds of excess body fat just going on a 30 minute walk each day(before going raw I barely exercised, partially because I didn't feel energetic, note I was cooked vegan). The only thing that made me eat cooked food was my attachment/addiction to it. My mom makes some damn good home-made vegan chili :). Jason - there's no such thing as incomplete protein, at least not if you're talking the word incomplete literally, there are only protein, and amino acids. The body needs sugar to make cells, and daily values are usually set liberally high or uneccesarily low for things that have been deemed "bad." You also must realize most people get their sugar from the refined stuff, not fruit. You also must know we don't know everything about the human body, and it's estimated we only know a small portion of the vitamins and minerals found in food, by not eating our species-appropriate diet, we could be missing out on even more important vitamins and nutrients. BTW, I didn't look at your sites, I'll take a look at them tonight before I go to bed or when I wake up tomorrow, but I highly reccomend you take a good look at the people that you're taking advice from, I take advice from people that look fit, vibrant and healthy without cosmetics, not people that look like they're about to keel over Jason - the first site says REFINED sugars. Jason - that list includes fruits that are processed/cooked/sulfured/etc, and I stick by what I said regarding the daily values being set liberally high or unneccessarily low. Also about your list of fruits, I love bananas, I enjoy apples, but they're not my favorite rasins are dehydrated, and even when sun dried I'd only consider eating them if I needed a lot of carbs but didn't have much time to eat, like if I was biking/running for extended periods of time(unlikely this will happen in the near future, as im not exactly an athete), they obviously have no water content so I probably would be satisfied and I feel that raisins do probably have too much sugar, too sweet and it's bleh, grapes are on the edge for me as it is, peaches are ok, I prefer the nectarine variety. I dislike cranberries and plums.

With all the recalls I thought I would share:? this is an actual research page I found when working for a home vet and she loved it so much that she put it on her page..read it with an open mind...and think...here is her page also if you are interested..http://www.carinrennings.com (Don't read if you have a weak stomach) What's Really for Dinner? The Truth About Commercial Pet Food, by Tina Perry Cow brains. Sheep guts. Chicken heads. Road kill. Rancid grain. These are a few of the so-called nutritionally balanced ingredients found in the commercial pet food served to companion animals every day. More than 95 percent of US companion animals derive their nutritional needs from a single source: processed pet food. When people think of pet food, many envision whole chickens, choice cuts of beef, fresh grains, and all the nutrition that a dog or cat may ever need -- images that pet food manufacturers promote in their advertisements. What these companies do not reveal is that instead of whole chickens they have substituted chicken heads, feet, and intestines. Those choice cuts of beef are really cow brains, tongues, esophagi, fetal tissue dangerously high in hormones, and possibly diseased and even cancerous meat. Those whole grains have had the starch removed for corn starch powder and the oil extracted for corn oil, or they are hulls and other remnants from the milling process. Grains used that are truly whole have usually been deemed unfit for human consumption because of mold, contaminants, poor quality, or poor handling practices. Pet food is one of the world’s most synthetic edible products, containing virtually no whole ingredients. Pet food manufacturers have become masters at inducing companion animals to eat things cat and dogs would normally spurn. Pet food scientists have learned that it's possible to take a mixture of inedible scraps, fortify it with artificial vitamins and minerals, preserve it so that it can sit on the shelf for more than a year, add dyes to make it attractive, and then extrude it into whimsical shapes that appeal to the human consumer. For this, pet food companies can expect to earn $9 billion in sales in 1996. Scraps and Byproducts For years, many care givers have tried to avoid feeding their companion animals people food leftovers, having been warned by veterinarians about the heath problems they can cause. Yet much scrap material from the human food industry is ending up in dogs and cat’s dinner bowls. What the consumer purchases and what the manufacturer advertises are often two entirely different products, and this difference threatens the animals healthy, especially as they age. Learning to read ingredient labels and taking the time to read them carefully is crucial to making an educated choice when purchasing pet food. Ingredients are listed in descending order of weight (heaviest first) under standards established by the Center for Veterinary Medicine for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The name of the product (in most states) is dictated by the regulations of the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). The trouble is, AAFCO standards can lead to deceptive product names due to the weight and volume variations between wet and dry ingredients. Also, the average consumer has no idea what the definitions for the listed ingredients mean. Preservatives, vitamins, minerals, flavorings, and cereal make up most of what the companion animal eats. It is not happenstance that four of the top five major pet food companies in the United States are subsidiaries of major multinational food production companies: Colgate Palmolive (which produces Hills Science Diet), Heinz, Nestle, and Mars )see The Corporate Connection). From a business standpoint, multi-national food companies owning pet food manufacturers is an ideal relationship. The multinationals have captive market in which to dump their waste products, and the pet food manufacturers have a direct source of bulk materials. Both make a profit from selling scraps that originate from places far worse than the dinner table. In his 1986 book Pet Allergies veterinarian Al Plechner sums up what goes into companion animals food: Condemned parts and animals rejected for human consumption are routinely rerouted for commercial pet foods. A similar fate applies to so-called 4-D animals. These are food animals picked up dead, or that are dying, diseased, or disabled, and do not meet human-food qualifications. They are processed straightaway for companion animal consumption. Little goes to waste. Says Plechner, Food processing refuse of all sorts winds up in your animals dinner bowls. Moldy grains. Rancid foods. Meat meal. The latter is ground-up slaughterhouse discards often containing disease-ridden tissue and high levels of hormones and pesticides, the very things that may have contributed to the death of the steer or hog. A decade later, his words still apply. When cattle, swine, chickens, lambs, or other animals meet their ends at a slaughterhouse, the choice cuts -- lean muscle tissue and organs prized by humans -- are trimmed away from the carcass for human consumption. Whatever remains of the carcass (bones, blood, pus, intestines, ligaments, subcutaneous fat, hooves, horns, beaks, and any other parts not normally consumed by humans) is, according to the pet food industry, perfectly fit as a protein source for cat and dog food. The Pet Food Institute, the trade association of pet food manufacturers, acknowledges in its 1994 Fact Sheet the importance of using byproducts in pet foods as additional income for processors and farmers. The purchase and use of these ingredients by the pet food industry not only provides nutritional foods for pets at reasonable costs, but provides an important source of income to American farmers and processors of meat, poultry, and seafood products for human consumption. Many of these remnants are indigestible and provide a questionable source of nutrition. The amount of nutrition provided by meat byproducts, meals, and digests varies from vat to vat of this animal protein soup. A vat filled with chicken feet, beaks, and viscera is going to make available a lower amount of protein than a vat of breast meat. James Morris and Quinton Rogers, professors with Department of Molecular Biosciences at the University of California at Davis Veterinary School of Medicine, assert that there is virtually no information on the bio-availability of nutrients for companion animals in many of the common dietary ingredients used in pet foods. These ingredients are generally byproducts of the meat, poultry and fishing industries, with the potential for wide variation in nutrient composition. Claims of nutritional adequacy of pet foods based on the current AAFCO nutrient allowances (profiles) do not give assurances of nutritional adequacy and will not until ingredients are analyzed and bioavailability values are incorporated. Meat byproducts, the catch-all term of the pet food industry, is a misnomer because these byproducts contain little if any meat. Byproducts contain little if any meat. Byproduct are animal parts leftover after the meat has been stripped from the bone. Chicken byproducts include heads, feet, entrails, lungs, spleens, kidneys, brains, livers, stomachs, noses, blood, and intestines free of their contents. What the pet food manufactures fail to mention is that most byproducts, digests and meals are also filled with other substances, such as cancerous tissue cut from the carcass, plastic foam packaging containing spoiled meat from supermarkets, ear tags, spoiled slaughterhouse meat, road kill, and pieces of downer animals. Canned Cannibalism Another source of meat that isn't mentioned on pet food labels is pet byproducts, the bodies of dogs and cats. In 1990 the San Francisco Chronicle reported that euthanized companion animals were found in pet foods. Although pet food company executives and the National Renderers Association vehemently denied the report, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the FDA confirmed the story. The pets serve a viable purpose by providing foodstuff for the animal feed chain, said Lea McGovern, chief of the FDA's animal feed safety branch. Because of the sheer volume of animals rendered and the similarity in protein content between poultry byproducts and processed dogs and cats, rendering plant workers say it would be impossible for purchasers to know the exact contents of what they buy. In fact, Sacramento Rendering cited by inspectors five times in the past two years for product-labeling violations. Grease and Grain The most nutritious dry pet food is no better than the worst if animals will not eat it. Pet food scientists have discovered that spraying the kibble or pellets with a combination of refined animal fat, lard, kitchen grease, and other oils too rancid or deemed inedible for humans makes an otherwise bland or distasteful product palatable. Animal fat is mainly packing house waste or supermarket trimmings from the packaging of meats. Animals love the taste of this sprayed fat, which also acts as a binding agent to which manufacturers may add other flavor enhancers. The pungent odor wafting from an open bag of pet food is created by this concoction. Restaurant grease has become a major component of feed-grade animal fat over the last 15 years. Often held in 50-gallon drums for weeks or months in extreme temperatures, this grease is usually kelp outside with no regard for its safety or further use. The rancid grease is then picked up by fat blenders who mix the animal and vegetable fats together, stabilize them with powerful antioxidants to prevent further spoilage, and then sell the blended products to pet food companies. Rancid, heavily preserved fats are extremely difficult to digest and can lead to a host of animal health problems, including digestive upsets, diarrhea, gas, and bad breath. Once considered filler by the pet food industry, the amount of grain products included in pet food has risen over the last decade as the American population has focused its attention away from consuming beef and toward a healthier diet of grains and vegetables. Commonly two of the top three pet food ingredients are some form of grain products. For instance, Alpo's Beef Flavored Dinner lists ground yellow corn, soybean meal, and poultry byproduct meal as its top three ingredients. 9 Lives Crunchy Meals lists ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, and poultry byproduct meal as its top three ingredients. Of the top four ingredients of Purina's O.N.E. Dog Formula -- chicken, ground yellow corn, ground wheat, and corn gluten meal -- two are corn-based products from the same source. This is an industry practice known as splitting. When components of the same whole ingredient are listed separately (ground yellow corn and corn gluten meal) it appears that there is less corn than chicken, even when the whole ingredient may weigh more than the chicken. Soy is another common ingredient in many pet foods. It is used by the manufacturers to boost the claimed protein content and add bulk so that when animals eat a product containing soy they will fell more sated. Tofu is suitable for humans, but most forms of soybean do not agree with a dog or cat's digestive system. Like many other pet food ingredients, soy is virtually unusable by an animal's body. Being obligate carnivores, cats have little ability to digest any nutrients from soy. The problem is worse for dogs because they lack the essential amino acid to digest soy products. Soy has also been linked to bloat and gas in many dogs. Additives and Processing Pet food industry critics note that many of the ingredients (such as corn syrup and corn gluten meal) used as humectants to prevent oxidation also bind water molecules in such a way that the food actually sticks to the animal's colon and may cause blockage. Blockage of the colon may cause an increased risk of cancer of the colon or rectum. Two-thirds of the pet food manufactured in the United States contains synthetic preservatives added by the manufacturer. Of the remaining third, 90 percent includes ingredients already stabilized by synthetic preservatives. Because most pet food contains large percentages of added fat, a stabilizer is needed to maintain the quality of the food. Sodium nitrite, often used as a coloring agent, fixative, and preservative, has the ability to combine with natural stomach and food chemicals (secondary amends) to create nitrosamines, powerful cancer-causing agents, according to A Consumer's Dictionary of Food Additives. Many pet foods advertised as preservative-free do not contain preservatives. Almost all rendered meats have synthetic preservatives added as stabilizer, but manufacturers aren't required to list preservatives they themselves haven't added. Premixed vitamin additives can also contain preservatives. In the 1003 Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, veterinarian Philip Roudebush reported finding low concentrations of synthetic antioxidant preservatives in all analyzed samples of products labeled as chemical free or all-natural. Other types of additives depend on whether the pet food is semi-moist, dry or canned. Because semi-moist food contains 25-50 percent water, antimicrobial preservatives must be used. Propylene glycol was frequently used in cat food until it was pulled in 1992 for causing a variety of health problems. Processing greatly alters the nutritional value of the food ingredients. Veterinarian R. L. Wysong states in Rationale for Animal Nutrition: Processing is the wild card in nutritional value that is, by and large, simply ignored. Heating, freezing, dehydrating, canning, extruding, pelleting, baking and so forth, are so commonplace that they are simply thought of as synonymous with food itself. Because the ingredients that pet food companies use are not wholesome, and harsh manufacturing practices destroy what little nutritional value the food may have had in the first place, the final product must be fortified with vitamins and minerals. Questionable Nutrition How, then, can any pet food be guaranteed to be 100 percent complete or nutritionally adequate? As long as it meets the AAFCO minimum standards, such a guarantee can be on the label. Yet in 1994, feed tests conducted by the New York State Agriculture Department showed 7 percent of all pet foods analyzed failed chemical analyses for guaranteed nutrients. Other states report similar findings, with failure of analyzed feed ranging from to 12 percent. Even if a pet food meets AAFCO standards, certain nutritional requirements (for example, lysine) can vary between species by as much as seven-fold. Although manufacturers clam that millions of companion animals can thrive on a diet consisting of nothing by commercial pet food, research and an increasing number of veterinarians implicate processed pet food as a source of disease or as an exacerbating agent for a number of degenerative diseases. For example, kidney disease is on of the top three killers of companion animals. According to Plechner, the extra protein and harsh ingredients of many pet foods place an overload on the kidneys. Left untreated, the toxic buildup leads to vomiting, loss of appetite, uremic poisoning, and death. Wysong adds, In the last few years, large statistical studies have shown the link between the diet (of processed foods) and a variety of degenerative diseases, including cancer, heart disease, allergies, arthritis, obesity, dental disease, etc. After extensive research, the Animal Protection Institute (API) published a Pet Food Investigative Report to educate companion animal care givers about pet food ingredients, ingredient definitions, labeling, and dietary ailments resulting from processed commercial pet food, including the most commonly know brands. Yet, whether such food is purchased at the supermarket, pet store, or from a veterinarian, it makes little difference in terms of the quality -- only in the cost. Since the report was published earlier this year, API has conducted more research on holistic pet care and pet food alternatives, but still claims that the vast majority of pet foods available on the market today provide less that optimum nutrition for companion animals. It is sad to think that the food provided by animal care givers to their four-legged friends could be hazardous to the animals'; health and longevity. Care givers should assume responsibility for providing as healthful a diet as possible for the animals in the care. Consumers should be informed: speak with a holistic practitioner or herbalist, or consult your veterinarian (but be aware that a veterinarian's knowledge of nutrition may be limited to the two weeks of nutrition he or she had veterinary school 20 years ago). Although the ideal solution would be for companion animals to be fed only wholesome homemade and/or vegetarian diets, this is not an optician for everyone -- the cost and time commitment is sometimes prohibitive. By taking more moderate steps, however, care givers can still greatly improve companion animals' diet and quality of life. EDIT: On Carin Rennings page she lists recommended diets... she really researched them and its really helpful....go check it out..smile EDIT EDIT: sorry but it is still happening to the person that said its not... when I did my research I asked around and found out that the people that picked up the dead pets from the vets offices that did not want a private creamation actually had a company come in and pick the bodies up...really sick...valley protien I think was the name of the company... I am not just trying to "SCARE" people ...here is more proof....read this article JUST WRITTEN!! and see for yourself whats in your pet foods!! http://www.petfoodreport.com/aboutpetfood.htm#ingredients Edit: as far as ill timing and such... I think its just the right time!! people need to open their eyes...so sorry you 2 feel that way...smile http://www.api4animals.org/facts.php?p=359&more=1

I need help, i dount understand!!!? 1. The Krebs Cycle produces _____. A. NADH B. ATP C. Carbon dioxide D. All of the above E. None of the above 2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that _____. A. Energy is always being created B. Entropy is always decreasing C. The conversion of energy is always less than 100% 3. Lipids include all the following Except _____. A. Fats B. Oils C. Proteins D. Waxes 4. Rudolf Virchow proposed that cells come only from other cells. A. True B. False 5. Replication is the name of the process given to making an exact copy of a DNA molecule (prokaryote) or molecules (eukaryote) for a new daughter cell during the process of cell division. A. True B. False 6. The genetic code states that the codons are made up of only double bases. A. True B. False 7. Chlorophyll is a green pigment that contains special _____ called chloroplasts. A. Lysosomes B. Nucleus C. Plastids D. Ribosomes 8. If meiosis did not occur each child would have twice the number of chromosomes of his mother and father A. True B. False 9. A _____ is a substance that speeds up a chemical reaction without being used up. A. Protein B. Vitamin C. Catalyst D. Lipid 10. The bases _____ have thymine and cytosine. A. Purines B. Pyrimidines 11. The Human Genome Project's initial goal was to map the entire human genome by the year 2005. A. True B. False 12. All prokaryote cells contain a cell membrane, nucleus, and chloroplasts. A. True B. False 13. In snap dragon plants, a flower homozygous for the red allele (RR) is red in color; homozygous for the white allele (WW) results in a white flower, but a heterozygous with RW results in a pink flower is an example of _____. A. Co-dominance B. Incomplete dominance C. Pleotropy D. Epistasis E. Sex Linkage 14. The process of glycolysis begins with the breakdown of _____. A. Glucose B. G3P C. Sucrose D. Maltose 15. RNA is a rigid, ladder like molecule that is very stable. A. True B. False 16. All scientists use the English system of measurement as their standard system of measurement. A. True B. False 17. The 'backbone' of DNA is composed of _____. A. Carbohydrates and lipids B. Lipids and proteins C. Sugars and phosphates D. Lipids and Starches 18. _____ form when electrons are shared. A. Covalent bonds B. Ionic bonds 19. After cytokinesis, the daughter cells return to interphase to begin the cell cycle anew. A. True B. False 20. Carrier testing can be used to help couples learn if they carry a certain genetic disease and may pass it on to their children. A. True B. False 21. The DNA in a nucleus can be used over and over again in the process of making proteins because it serves merely as a template from which hundreds of thousands of copies of messenger RNA (mRNA) can be made A. True B. False 22. In _____ the stationary phase is a high-boiling liquid and the mobile phase is an inert gas. It is used to determine small amounts of substances. A. Electrophoresis B. Gas chromatograph C. Spectrophotometers D. Polymerase chain reaction E. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 23. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) molecules are used to drive chemical reactions. A. True B. False 24. The _____ revolves to allow the objective lenses to rotate. A. Base B. Stage C. Eyepiece D. Nosepiece E. Coarse adjustment F. Fine adjustment G. Objective lenses H. Light source I. Arm 25. A theory is based on much observation and experiments. A. True B. False 26. The meter is used as the base unit for _____ in SI. A. Volume B. Temperature C. Length D. Time E. Mass 27. The daughter cells of meiosis contain varying combinations of chromosomes; the daughter cells of mitosis are identical. A. True B. False 28. Hydrogen bonding plays a very important role in understanding the chemistry of water, DNA, and proteins. A. True B. False 29. Each diploid human cell contains _____ pairs of homologous chromosomes. A. 46 B. 23 C. 96 D. 36 30. _____ is the field of study that develops hardware and software to handle enormous amounts of data. A. Genetics B. Ecology C. Mathematics D. Bioinformatics E. Biochemistry 31. _____ is the control center of the cell and directs all of the processes that occur within the cells. A. Nucleus B. Organelle C. Plasma membrane D. Cytoplasm 32. Using the Scientific Method, what should you do once your experiments are done? A. Discard all the data that doesn't support your hypothesis B. Keep the data in a safe place and not use it again C. See if the data supports your hypothesis D. Change the results to support your hypothesis 33. Plants are green because they absorb and use the green light from the sun during photosynthesis. A. True B. False 34. Gene-sequencing machines can read hundreds of thousands of nucleotids a day. A. True B. False 35. A fertilized egg is called a _____. A. Gamete B. Somatic cell C. Sperm D. Zygote 36. A tumor that spreads is said to be _____. A. Benign B. Metastasize C. p53 D. Stayfast 37. Eukaryotic chromosome contains DNA and a protein _____. A. RNA B. Lipid C. Glucose D. Histone E. Sugar 38. Gene-sequencing machines can read hundreds of thousands of nucleotides a day. A. True B. False 39. Milk and meats are good sources of proteins. A. True B. False 40. The most common building material used in the construction of cells is _____. A. Carbohydrates B. Lipids C. Proteins D. Nucleic Acids 41. Messenger RNA _____ is what gets translated into protein A. tRNA B. mRNA C. rRNA D. sRNA 42. Between divisions, the cell is in _____; where the cell spends most of its time performing the functions that make it unique. A. Mitosis B. Meiosis C. Metaphase D. Interphase E. Pepaphase 43. Gene transfer or gene therapy—holds potential for treating or even curing such genetic and acquired diseases as cancers and AIDS by using normal genes to supplement or replace defective genes or bolster a normal function such as immunity. A. True B. False 44. During cell division, DNA is in a condensed form called _____. A. RNA B. Histone C. Chromatin D. Chromosomes 45. The daughter cells are somewhat smaller than the parent (mother cell) but have the same DNA and other material as the parent cell. A. True B. False 46. Mitochondrial DNA analysis (mtDNA) can be used to examine the DNA from samples that cannot be analyzed by Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) or Short tandem repeat (STR. A. True B. False 47. The most common cloning vectors are _____, which are small circular pieces of DNA found in some bacteria. A. Lipids B. Plasmids C. Amino acids D. Glucose E. Lysosomes 48. Asexual reproduction involves the union of gametes to form a zygote. A. True B. False 49. Examples of _____ (composed of single molecule) are glucose, galactose, and fructose. A. Monosaccharides B. Disaccharides C. Polysaccharides 50. Carbohydrates are the main source of energy for our bodies; our muscles and brain especially need them. A. True B. False the frist to anweser this right i will give best anweser to.

Belly Piercing Experts? So, on Friday of last week i got my belly button pierced. everything was all good up until maybe 2 days ago when i realized the bar was way too small and my skin was being squeezed to fit into the bar. It was so bad it was getting to the point where the ball was actually sinking into my skin, and it was bleeding. Today, I went to a professional (obviously not the lady who pierced it for me) and asked for his opinion. he told me the piercer had definitely taken too much skin, and that the standard bar they use for belly rings would never fit. He suggested i take it out, so i did. its been about 6 hours and ive been rubbing the area with vitamin E and put a small dab of neosporin on the area which the ball had started sinking into.Since my piercing is so new and i took it out early in the process, i was wondering how long you guys thought it would take to heal? and how long should i wait until getting it repierced? because i know he won't use the same two holes, since they were way too far apart. as of now, the skin around it does not hurt anymore and basically feels how it felt before getting the actually piercing (besides the top area where the ball started sinking in) let me know what you guys think! thank you :)

Pediasure....says "use under supervision of a physician?"? I purchased some Pediasure for my son because he's 15 months- and still poor eater. He's getting better- but I would like to make sure he's getting his vitamins and minerals. I read the package VERY carefully- and found it to be suitable for my son. Well when you OPEN the package, on the individual bottles, it says "Use under supervision of a physician". You couldn't see this on the outer wrapper that wrapped all the bottles together. So now I have 8 bottles of Pediasure (which aren't cheap)- and am not sure if I should let my son have them. We are in the process of looking for a new ped- while I like ours, she is just really unhelpful and acts like she is too busy for us- and that's unacceptable to me. I have never asked for much of her time at all- by anyone's standards. Does anyone else use Pediasure- or does anyone know why the recommend using under supervision of phys.? i love my hero- thanks for you answer!! my son is not "underweight"- he was 20 pounds exactly at his 1 year, he is 22 pounds right now and he is 15months old. He was born 7 weeks early. He IS a poor eater- he doesn't like solids much, but he is getting much better. This is the reason I bought the Pediasure in the first place- because they make it seem so wonderful on the package for poor eaters. I think it sucks that I spend so much money ($10) on something that AFTER you open the package says use with physician. I even showed my mom and asked her to look at the outside to see if I missed something- and she too noticed that this phrase was NOT on the outer packaging. It sucks.

Directors of the UN Codex Alimentarius program say "nutrients are toxins." Will you help oppose this insanity? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF2mg5krIjc Codex Alimentarius Summarized in 7 Points There is much misinformation about Codex Alimentarius on the internet, and we have endeavoured to check our sources of information to bring you the most correct data possible. If you have any specific questions or queries you can email us at our email address here. Codex Alimentarius is most important to understand as it will have very serious impact in longer-term, especially if the risk assessment system that it proposes to use to establish maximum allowed dosages is not changed over the coming months. With the Codex Alimentarius Commission set to put in place international standards we could see: The degradation and undermining of organic standards so that “organic food” can contain various chemical additives and processing aids. Flagrant disregard of their own directive to protect consumer safety by setting standards that allow for significant residues of pesticides in foods (as much as 3275 including those that are suspected carcinogens or endocrine disrupters) An understatement of nutritional requirements for long term optimum health of the consumers it seeks to protect by setting unnecessarily low Nutrient Reference Values The forcing of therapeutic grade vitamins and minerals to be reclassified as drugs by default by setting very low maximum level dosages for supplements using flawed risk assessment methods The way paved for implementation of GM food plants and GM animals by arguing that world food requirements cannot be met without global implementation of GM animals World agricultural populations economically vulnerable to crop failures during natural disasters, droughts or floods by approving “Terminator” seeds for international trade If we allow Codex to implement these strategies eventually: The world population will not know what it is eating The world population will not know why it is getting sick The world population will not have access to information, natural nutrients or natural medicines that can make it well Codex Use Junk Science to Declare that “Nutrients are Toxins” The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has two committees which impact nutrition. One of them is the “Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses” (CCNFSDU). The host government for this committee is non other than the Federal Republic of Germany! This committee is chaired by the Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, a German physician who believes that nutrition has no role in health. This is the “head hauncho” for Codex nutritional policy, and he has stated that “nutrition is not relevant to health”. In 1994, as "barking mad" as it may sound, Dr. Grossklaus has also instituted the use of toxicology (Risk Assessment) to prevent nutrients from having any therapeutic impact on humans who take supplements in the name of "Public Safety"! The science of toxicology or Risk Assessment is the current method for assessing pharmaceutical drugs and is completely absurd and unscientific to apply to nutrients. While Risk Assessment is a legitimate science (it is a branch of toxicology), it is the wrong science for assessing nutrients! In fact, in this context, it is actually junk science. Biochemistry, the science of life processes, is the correct science for assessing nutrients. Codex Alimentarius treats nutrients as toxins, which is literally insane. Nutrients are not toxins - they are essential for life. http://www.healthfreedom.co.nz/codex_alimentarius.htm http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=184

How many of us have fed our babies junk food disguised as baby food? Lucky for me & mine, my Mum & Ma-in-law banned me from giving my baby anything processed till he was three...but this is awful... LONDON (Reuters) – Some baby foods contain as much sugar and saturated fats as chocolate biscuits or cheeseburgers, a British food pressure group said on Monday. Publishing results of a survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers, the Children's Food Campaign said Farley's rusks were 29 percent sugar and some Cow & Gate toddler biscuits contained trans fats, which have been linked to heart disease. "The results of this survey are staggering," said Christine Haigh, spokeswoman for the CFC. "Many foods marketed for babies and young children are advertised as healthy. In reality, in terms of sugar and saturated fat content, some are worse than junk food." The CFC survey found that 100g of Farley's Original Rusks, made by Heinz, contained 29g of sugar, more than that contained in the same weight of some chocolate digestive biscuits. Heinz Toddler's Own Mini Cheese Biscuits contained 7.3g of saturated fat per 100g, more than the 6.7g in an equal weight piece of a McDonald's quarter pounder burger with cheese. Cow & Gate, which makes a range of baby and toddler formula milks and foods, responded to the survey by halting production of its baby biscuits. "In discussion with the Food Standards Agency we have already taken the decision to discontinue our baby biscuits, when we became aware of the presence of hydrogenated fat, which contains a very small amount of trans fats," a spokeswoman said. Heinz defended its Farley's rusks as an "ideal weaning food for babies from around four months." "Farley's Rusks have been enjoyed by generations of babies, and some adults too, for 120 years," it said in a statement. "Enriched with vitamins and minerals, the unique Farley's Rusk recipe has remained virtually unchanged." The CFC, part of food and farming campaign group Sustain, said it examined the nutritional content of 107 baby and toddler foods available in UK supermarkets in March. It found only half the products were low in saturated fat, salt and sugar, as defined in Britain's Food Standards Agency guidance.

Why do Veterinary Associations "certify" Crappy dog foods such as this one that that a friend gave.? I'm currently looking after 8 four week old puppies that I got from a friend. Their mother was run over. My friend gave me the following canned dog food along with another crap dog food called "Super Saver". Its called "No Name® meat mix" its 624 g Ingredients: water sufficient for processing, meat by-products, chicken, poultry by-products, soybean meal, barley, textured soy protein product, wheat middlings, ocean fish, tricalcium phosphate, salt, guar gum, choline chloride, vitamins (vitamin E, AB12, D3 supplements, thiamin mononitrate, biotin, riboflavin supplement) minerals (ferrous sulfate, zinc, oxide, copper proteinate, manganous sulfate, potassium iodide, sodium selenite) iron oxide. I know that this is crap dog food because I had asked earlier about this and Super Saver. My question is: Why does this dog food say "Certified by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association to meet its Nutritional Standards"??? I have heard many people on here talk about how bad dog foods similar to "No Name® meat mix" that come from the super market for .99 cents a can, are to feed to any dog or puppy, so why is this Association putting their name on this "garbage food"??? I already know about euthanized dogs, cats and dead livestock being used as Meat By-Products, but do these Vets have any idea about that, or do they just refuse to believe that it really goes on? By the way: I haven't fed this food to the puppies since I was told about how bad it is. Oops, I didn't notice that I spelled "That" two times. Mac, I have read these about dogs and cats being used in dog food, I think you should, too, then tell me what you think. http://earthislandprojects.org/eijournal/fall97/fe_fall97petfood.html It mentions the drugs that are used to euthanize the shelter animals being inside crap pet food. This is an article about West Coast Rendering which has been known to be a big supplier of these Mystery Meat By-Products that are in many super market pet foods. They talk with the owner about using dead dogs and cats. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_12_26/ai_115041999

Has anyone here read the report from Consumerlab about St. John's Wort? I have answered many hundreds of questions on depression, recommending Kira and Perika brands, but am unable to afford their subscription fee, and would dearly like to know which of the 4 below passed their tests, so I can better help depressed people: CVS review Nature's Bounty review Rite Aid review FreeLife Depeze review Nature's Sunshine review Solaray review Kira review Nature's Way Perika review Standard Process review L.A. Naturals review New Chapter review Vitamin Shoppe review Nature's Answer review Puritan's Pride review Vitamin World review ~~~ https://www.consumerlab.com/reviews/St_Johns_Wort/stjohnswort/

What do you think about the Government placing a literal ban on Vitamins and Minerals? What do you think of this, if this goes in effect on December 31st 2009, we can say bye bye to nutrition or eating healthy... Here's the article: Public Meeting to Address Agenda Items for the 32nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission Congressional and Public Affairs (202) 720-9113 Alexandra Tarrant WASHINGTON, June 3, 2009 - The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is sponsoring a public meeting to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft U.S. positions that will be discussed at the 32nd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), to be held in Rome, Italy, June 29-July 4, 2009. The public meeting is scheduled for Monday, June 8, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Room 107-A, Jamie Whitten Federal Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. Attendees must present photo identification at the door. Documents and agenda items related to the 32nd Session of CAC will be available at http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp. Written comments may be submitted by interested parties by e-mail to the U.S. Codex Office, USDA. Comments may be sent to Barbara.McNiff@fsis.usda.gov. For further information concerning the 32nd Session of the CAC, contact Barbara McNiff by e-mail at Barbara.McNiff@fsis.usda.gov, by phone at (202) 690-4719, or by fax at (202) 720-3157. For further information about the public meeting or to request a sign language interpreter or any other special accommodation, contact Jasmine Matthews, U.S. Codex Office, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, by e-mail at Jasmine.Matthews@fsis.usda.gov or uscodex@fsis.usda.gov or by phone at (202) 690-1124 or fax at (202) 720-3157. Codex Alimentarius (World Food Code) Summarized in 7 Points HealthFreedomUSA.org, the website of the Natural Solutions Foundation, is beholden to no one: our only interest is health freedom. Rima E. Laibow, MD, successful natural medicine physician since the 1970s, has studied 16,000 pages of Codex documentation. Her conclusion is that people who say that Codex is consumer protection, voluntary, or harmless are, at best, seriously mistaken. Codex Alimentarius will go into global implementation by December 31, 2009, unless We, the People, avert it. 1) Started in 1962 by UN, Imposed by WTO Sanctions Codex Alimentarius was created in 1962 as a trade Commission by the UN to control the international trade of food. Its initial intentions may have been altruistic but it has been taken over by corporate interests, most notably the pharmaceutical, pesticide, biotechnology and chemical industries. Monsanto and Bayer are big proponents. Being a member country of Codex means that this organization decides what we eat. Codex Alimentarius is backed up by the crippling trade sanctions of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Any non Codex-compliant nation would face huge economic punishment since they would automatically lose in any food-trade dispute with a Codex compliant country. 2) Nutrients Classified as Toxins Based on Junk Science Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has two committees which impact nutrition. One of them, the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses (CCNFSDU), is chaired by Dr. Rolf Grossklaus, a physician who believes that nutrition has no role in health. This is the top-guy for Codex nutritional policy, and he has stated that nutrition is not relevant to health. As unbelievable as it may sound, Dr. Grossklaus actually declared nutrients to be toxins in 1994 and instituted the use of toxicology (Risk Assessment) to prevent nutrients from having any impact on humans who take supplements! It is worth mentioning that Dr. Grossklaus happens to own the Risk Assessment company advising CCNFSDU and Codex on this issue. This company makes money when its toxicology services are used for the assessment of nutrients. Here in the U.S. we call that a conflict of interest. Codex is made up of thousands of standards and guidelines. One of them, the Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG), is designed to permit only ultra low doses of vitamins and minerals (and make clinically effective nutrients illegal). How can the VMG restrict dosages of vitamins and minerals? By using Risk Assessment (toxicology) to assess nutrients. While Risk Assessment is a legitimate science (it is a branch of toxicology), it is the wrong science for assessing nutrients! In fact, in this context, it is actually junk science. Biochemistry, the science of life processes, is the correct science for assessing nutrients. Codex Alimentarius treats nutrients as toxins, which is literally insane. Nutrients are not toxins - they are essential for life. No matter what Codex Alimentarius officials say to convince you that Risk Assessment is a science-based approach to nutrients, it is not. And it is worth repeating that Dr. Grossklaus, the head of Codex Alimentarius, owns the Risk Assessment c

Is it good to drink milk? The text is too long but worthwhile read....? "MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated their effort. The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk. Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese, butter, and yogurt. Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for schools. Cow's milk became "normal." You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it makes them ill. There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader: If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood. Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating what their professors learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution? I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific literature on the subject of milk. Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies. How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer. I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and what happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'. Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago. WHAT IS MILK? Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning. IS ALL MILK THE SAME? Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal? Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one. Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans. Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations. Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves. Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect? In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared. In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding. In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk. WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding; that's how. The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer Reports, May 1992: 330-32). Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only 4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows. As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk is the safest product we have." Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990). What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent of the milk samples showed drug traces. Let's focus in on this because it’s critical to our understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more powerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per billion. One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder that require ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, it’s in the study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc. IT GETS WORSE Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it-- dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had only half the levels of contamination). A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems. Just scan these titles: 1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906 3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15 There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are transmitted to the infant. A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk- borne infections and contaminants, and said: Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end? In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented: It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy. I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases. In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years of life. Here is his quotation: I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved. OTHER PROBLEMS Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association (251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety precautions. All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3 months and diabetes risk.". Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher levels of serum antibodies to cows’ milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study: We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than normal. The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group compared to children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase? The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to do with the disease. The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear evidence that the children had a raging auto immune disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400 children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairy products during the first nine months of life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or the results will be confounded by the transmission of the cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association says: "It does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein" that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association in the past? LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF! I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds. Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation-- if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014). This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in Public Health. As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this: "How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern California. What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion (both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured particles? If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the intestinal wall. An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off. They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details on this business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic and not a human health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the political pressures are too great. You're on you own. What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)? Several articles tackle this one: 1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985 In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990. One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)! An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year? 1930. Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his article follow: The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane. This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause disease. Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years). For most cancers there was no association between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If one drank two glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma. There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man. The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are reported as infected each month. The British public is concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob- Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is "remote." The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the disease does not exist in the United States. However, there may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein have developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the ill "downer cows." The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929- 30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must. The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993. A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in the animal kingdom. OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE? Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators. Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis, but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine. Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk. For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference. There are not many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects: Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality. WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows' milk? It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of amino acids (proteins). Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H egsted in England has been writing for years about the geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below. Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most important such article appeared recently in the British Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day. (Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people living on a natural diet without milk. For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, don’t look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet. To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis. If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper, but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a deterrent to good bone health. THE PROTEIN MYTH Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to "make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in. As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein- -"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein. For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of California in San Francisco. First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary! Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.) Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals. IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE? Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new- borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years. What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose. Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow" milk from another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it? Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people. How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.) What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s). One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders. The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy. LOW FAT One additional topic: the matter of "low fat" milk. A common and sincere question is: "Well, low fat milk is OK, isn't it?" The answer to this question is that low fat milk isn't low fat. The term "low fat" is a marketing term used to gull the public. Low fat milk contains from 24 to 33% fat as calories! The 2% figure is also misleading. This refers to weight. They don't tell you that, by weight, the milk is 87% water! "Well, then, kill-joy surely you must approve of non-fat milk!" I hear this quite a bit. (Another constant concern is: "What do you put on your cereal?") True, there is little or no fat, but now you have a relative overburden of protein and lactose. It there is something that we do not need more of it is another simple sugar-lactose, composed of galactose and glucose. Millions of Americans are lactose intolerant to boot, as noted. As for protein, as stated earlier, we live in a society that routinely ingests far more protein than we need. It is a burden for our bodies, especially the kidneys, and a prominent cause of osteoporosis. Concerning the dry cereal issue, I would suggest soy milk, rice milk or almond milk as a healthy substitute. If you're still concerned about calcium, "Westsoy" is formulated to have the same calcium concentration as milk. SUMMARY To my thinking, there is only one valid reason to drink milk or use milk products. That is just because we simply want to. Because we like it and because it has become a part of our culture. Because we have become accustomed to its taste and texture. Because we like the way it slides down our throat. Because our parents did the very best they could for us and provided milk in our earliest training and conditioning. They taught us to like it. And then probably the very best reason is ice cream! I've heard it described "to die for". I had one patient who did exactly that. He had no obvious vices. He didn't smoke or drink, he didn’t eat meat, his diet and lifestyle was nearly a perfectly health promoting one; but he had a passion. You guessed it, he loved rich ice cream. A pint of the richest would be a lean day's ration for him. On many occasions he would eat an entire quart - and yes there were some cookies and other pastries. Good ice cream deserves this after all. He seemed to be in good health despite some expected "middle age spread" when he had a devastating stroke which left him paralyzed, miserable and helpless, and he had additional strokes and d ied several years later never having left a hospital or rehabilitation unit. Was he old? I don't think so. He was in his 50s. So don't drink milk for health. I am convinced on the weight of the scientific evidence that it does not "do a body good." Inclusion of milk will only reduce your diet's nutritional value and safety. Most of the people on this planet live very healthfully without cows' milk. You can too. It will be difficult to change; we've been conditioned since childhood to think of milk as "nature's most perfect food." I'll guarantee you that it will be safe, improve your health and it won't cost anything. What can you lose? es esta pagina link http://notmilk.com/kradjian.html The most important information dissemination my. Not that, but I can make your text too long jajaja. If I write bad is that I am leading a translator jaja

Why Islam Forbids Pork? Why Islam Forbids Pork? By: Rashid Shamsi (The Muslim World League Journal, Rajab 1420 - October 1999) Food and drink have direct effect on our health. That is why Islam has prescribed regulations about our food and drink. It lays great emphasis on our physical as well as moral health, because both of these are equally important for a healthy society. The abstention from eating pork is one of the steps taken by Islam to practise hygiene and to attain purity of soul. Islam, for the cultivation of inner faculties, insists upon the cleanliness of body and the purification of soul through Salaat (prayers) Zikr (remembrance of Allah) and other devotional duties. Islam teaches us how to attain the virtues and how to give up bad habits because both good and bad grow in the man according to his upbringing, education and environment. A human being has natural desires: food, sleep and sex being the three primary ones. He has also other natural emotions: sorrow, happiness, love, fear, disgust and avarice etc. Islam doesn't recommend the complete abrogation of these impulses but offers a method of controlling them through religious education and discipline. The prohibition of eating pork in Islam is relevant in this context. There is a saying in English that "a man becomes what he eats." According to physicians and medical experts, pork is a harmful diet. Consumption of swine-flesh creates lowliness in character and destroys moral and spiritual faculties in a man. Body and Soul The life of a man is a compound of body and soul. Anything, which is harmful for the body, hurts the soul as well. Consumption of swine-flesh reduces the feeling of shame and as such the standard of modesty. Those nations, which consume pork habitually, have a low standard of morality with the result that virginity, chastity and bashfulness are becoming a thing of the past in Europe today. The number of unwed mothers is on the increase despite of the use of pills and other contraceptives. According to a report, 60 to 70% of girls in Sweden become mothers before marriage. The formula of "skin to skin is no sin" is taking its toll but there is hardly any feeling of shame or remorse over the end-result. Since the European nations have become addicted to wine and pork, sexual freedom with all its attendant evils has got ingrained in their culture. Consequently, homosexuality has been legalized by the British Parliament. The Holy Qur'an has prohibited the swine-flesh, hence the Muslims would not dare touch it. The Bible has also forbidden swine-flesh, but Christians disregarded this order and started consuming it. The Europeans now proclaim that pork is a very powerful diet, rich in protein. Some of them further argue that since there is a great scarcity of food-stuff in the world and swines are available in abundant quantity, they should be consumed in the diet to overcome the food shortage. If this argument is true, why don't they use dog's meat as dogs too are available in abundance? The Europeans perhaps hate the mere mention of dog's meat in the same way as the Muslims shun pork. Another wrong notion about swine-flesh is that its consumption lengthens life-span, although this is a pure myth and absurdity. On the contrary, people, who abstain from pork and liquor, have a longer span of life. The Muslims in Central Asia bear a testimony to this truth. However, in the consumption of flesh Muslims are required to be selective and to distinguish between Halaal (Lawful) and Haraam (Unlawful). This step leads automatically to the deeper understanding of the need for the cultivation of a pure human nature. As blood is virtually our life-stream and whatever we consume ultimately affects the blood system, it is, therefore, necessary to exercise choice in the selection of our food and drinks as part of the requirements of the Shariah. There are certain food and drinks specified by Allah, and His Messenger Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as forbidden. The prohibition of these food and drinks is not by any means an arbitrary action or an unwarranted decree of Allah. It is the first and foremost a divine intervention in the best interest of man and for his own benefit. The reasons behind the Divine intervention are numerous. They are of a nature intellectual and spiritual, moral and mental, physical and economic. And the sole purpose is to show man how to develop himself according to an upright course of life in order to be a healthy unit in the structure of the family, then of society and eventually of humanity at large. Reliable medical doctors and social scientists are able to realize how those food and drinks forbidden by Islam are harmful and destructive to the human spirit and morality as well as to the physique and moral fibre of man and to verify the benefits of Islamic legislations on the subjects. The prohibition is based on the aim of the purification of one's nature, because food, when consumed, doesn't merely enter the stomach and intestines and become excreta. It is absorbed and metabolized into the system and circulated to all parts of the human body, including the brain, and this in no small way affects man's nature. Take a look at the nature of the pig for example. The pig is naturally lazy and indulgent in sex, it is dirty, greedy and gluttonous. It dislikes sunlight and lacks the spirit and will to "fight." It eats almost anything, be it human excreta or anything foul and unwholesome. Amongst all animal flesh, pork is the favoured cradle of harmful germs. Pork also serves as a carrier of diseases to mankind. It is for this reason that its flesh is not suitable for consumption. Some people have argued that the "modern pig" reared in farms is given only clean foods, therefore, its flesh should be consumable. The answer is that you may feed the pig on clean, wholesome food, but you can't change its nature. It is still a pig and will always stay so. A pig is not a plant and you cannot change it by bud-grafting. Medical Reports Dr. E. Kazim. M.D. in his article "Medical aspects of forbidden foods in Islam" (July 1981 issue of Muslim Journal has described diseases carried or caused by the flesh of the swine. He writes: The pig is a scavenger. It is an omnivorous animal. It eats everything. There are many diseases carried from swine to man, particularly parasite infestations. Lately extensive research has been focused on senility-old age is characterized by hardening of inner lining of the blood vessels of the heart, brain etc. a process called atheroselerosis. When a clot forms, it results in coronary thrombosis or a heart attack, cerebral thrombosis or stroke. Different dietary factors are responsible for atheroselerosis. Gross atheroma may be produced in rabbit by feeding it with cholesterol, but when you add lard (derived from hog fat) to the cholesterol, the incidence of atheroma is increased and thus you would produce coronary thrombosis, and myocardial infraction. Besides, lard contains 2800 units of vitamin D per 100 grams and no vitamin A at all. Lately vitamin D has been held responsible for atheroma, by causing increased absorption of calcium in the blood vessels. In human beings, serum cholesterol is not dependent on the intake of cholesterol in the diet, but depends upon the proportion of animal fats in the diet, which elevates the beta-lipo protein level in the blood. Animal fats contain saturated fatty acids and these saturated fatty acids have been found to be as one of the causes of atheroma in man. Medium fat bacon contains 25% proteins and 55% fat. According to medical research, the fat content in pork is more than any other meat (beef, mutton etc.) and it takes longer to digest. Dr. M Jaffer in an article in the Islamic Review (London) of January 1997 issue has listed 16 kinds of harmful germs, which have been discovered in pork in modern researches and the diseases, which could be caused by them. The number of patients suffering from tapeworm disease is the highest in the world among pork eating nations. Other diseases attributed to pigs are caused by tri-chinelia spirates and intestinal worms occupy first place among such nations too. Dr. Glen Shepherd wrote the following on the dangers of eating pork in Washington Post (31 May 1952). "One in six people in USA and Canada have germs in their muscles - trichinosis 8 from eating pork infected with trichina worms. Many people who are infected shows no symptoms. Most of those, who do have, recover slowly. Some die; some are reduced to permanent invalids. All were careless pork caters". He continued "No one is immune from the disease and there is no cure. Neither antibiotics nor drugs or vaccines affect these tiny deadly worms. Preventing infection is the real answer." After reading the statement of Dr. Shepherd, one can realize that there is no real guarantee of safety when eating pork that one would not be affected by trichina worm. That is why modern doctors advise three prohibitions during illness: no liquor, no pork and no smoking. Muslims follow the divine law which is much higher than the medical advice. The Glorious Qur'an says, "So eat of the lawful and good food which Allah has provided for you, and thank the bounty of your Lord if it is Him you serve. He has forbidden for you only carrion and blood and swine-flesh and that which has been immolated in the name of any other than Allah; but he who is driven thereto, neither craving nor transgressing, Lo! then Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." (16:114-115) The above is the order from the Creator of the universe and the Supreme Law-Giver. All Muslims are under the obligation to obey it. This is a plain and straightforward answer to those, who usually ask why Muslims abstain from eating pork. Nevertheless, there is no sin, if a Muslims is forced by famine or starvation to eat pork in order to save his life.

I NEED HELP WITH ALCOHOL FACTZ PLZZ!!! I PICK BESST ANSWER? A chronic liver disease caused by excessive alcohol consumption is known as: Cardiac sympathy Cirrhosis Pancreatitis Parkinson’s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gender, emotion, mental status, and amount of time throughout consumption are a few factors that can change the effects each time alcohol is consumed by an individual. true false -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All 50 states enacted a BAC limit of .08 as the legal limit for drunk drivers over the age of 21. true false -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following does NOT have the same alcohol content as a 12 oz. beer: Depends on the type of beer 5 oz. glass of wine 1.5 oz. of 80 proof distilled spirits (shot) none of the above -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The best way to avoid a dangerous situation involving drunk driving is to: Avoid alcohol and drugs altogether because you don’t need them anyway. Do what your friends tell you to do. Drink just a little or limit your drug intake. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All of the following are symptoms of alcoholism except for: craving physical dependence tolerance (you have to drink more and more to get “buzzed.”) self-control -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alcohol in the stomach… is partially absorbed from the stomach. interferes with digestion of essential vitamins and minerals. can lead to gastritis and ulcers from long term use. All answers are correct. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drinking alcohol can effect the heart, liver, stomach, and brain. true false -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are the driver of a vehicle, there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. True False -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moderate to Excessive Binge Drinking can cause: health benefits for the heart, including reducing chance of heart attack Cardiac Arrhythmia (abnormal rhythms) and sudden cardiac death reduction in blood pressure and/or chance of stroke -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mandatory license plate revocation is ineffective against drunk driving. true false -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________ are more likely to become alcoholics. children adults woman children of alcoholic parents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which of the following is a problem a baby may have if the mother drinks alcohol while she is pregnant? motor skills problems hearing and vision problems premature birth may include problems with motor skills, hearing and vision -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are less alcohol-related fatalities for 18, 19, and 20 year olds than for the population over 21. true false -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to research what would be the single most effective deterrent for drinking and driving? Automatic license revocation Inability to post bail if arrested Jail sentence -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This law imposes potential liability on the host of a party if alcohol is served to an obviously intoxicated person or a minor. adult liability social host MADD law minor party law -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), is a standard used to: Determine what type of alcohol had been consumed Determine how many total drinks have been consumed Determine between sobriety and intoxication Determine how long since your last alcoholic drink -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Examples of important functional skills that are not visible to others, but are affected by alcohol, are thinking skills like evaluating risk and processing information. This means that steering, braking, lane changing, and response time could be affected in a driver that has been dr

Does anyone feed Ziwipeak? Does this sound like a good diet? My dog is currently on a BARF diet, but now that she's older I want to cut down on the raw meats as her immune system might not be up to be par to handle it. ZiwiPeak Dog Food is a complete natural diet, for daily vitality, prepared with care beneath the Bay of Plenty's celebrated peak, Mt Maunganui. The peak health of dogs depends on the sustenance they get from meat. ZiwiPeak Dog Food is formulated on the same balance of meat ingredients, that dogs would find by hunting in the wild. ZiwiPeak Dog Food allows you to feed your dog the diet nature intended with the nutritional excellence of a healthy, meat diet containing essential vitamins and minerals. ZiwiPeak Dog Food ingredients are ranch-raised (free of antibiotics and hormones) on New Zealand's green fields and fished from its clear blue waters. With no colors, preservatives, fillers or grains, ZiwiPeak Dog Food is suitable to feed your dog at any stage of life - from puppy to mature adult. Most importantly, they love the taste! ZiwiPeak Dog Food Benefits - Gently air-dried meat jerky style pieces Offer better nutrient quality than kibble which is cooked at high-heat and formed at high-pressure. - Matches your dog's digestive system Over the centuries dogs have evolved their own anatomical specialization, especially in relation to digestion. It is evident in the ratio of gastrointestinal tract to total body length which is considerably lower than the omnivorous pig or the herbivorous sheep. This specialization particularly suits a diet high in protein and fat and low in carbohydrates. - Avoids weight control difficulties Recent studies in the United States reveal that as many as 40% of the nation's dogs may be obese. The most common (but not only) reason is that they are eating over-large portions of higher carbohydrate foods and not getting the exercise they need to burn off the calories. Nutritionally sound, meat-based diets require less food intake by dogs. - Fully complies with regulatory standards ZiwiPeak Dog Food is formulated by animal health professionals to ensure it fully complies with industry requirements (AAFCO) as a nutritious diet for dogs. - Reduces flatulence and stool volume Unlike grain-based diets, dogs can more fully digest ZiwiPeak food, thereby reducing the flatulence and stool volume associated with high carbohydrate diets. This is particularly advantageous for dog owners living in more confined urban environments such as apartments. - Free of any preservatives, fillers or grains A good number of cheaper dog foods contain high levels of carbohydrates in the form of low quality grains and grain by-products. Add to this the popular use of preservatives, various colorings and a rich assortment of fillers and you have a large line-up of commercial foods that are more likely to be hindering, rather than helping, your dog to achieve optimum energy and health. - Provides readily usable essential vitamins Dogs are unable to produce minerals and can only produce some vitamins. They cannot, for example, synthesis sufficient Vitamin D to meet their requirements, so this vitamin needs to be incorporated into their diet. This is achieved by including foods in the diet that are rich in Vitamin D, such as liver and fish oil. - Contains valuable ingredients Joint problems are more evident in some breeds of dogs than others. Ingredients like New Zealand mussel, and venison connective tissue (which provides digestible levels of Chondroitin and Glucosamine) are included in ZiwiPeak 'Cuisine' products to nutritionally support long-term joint health. - Offers your dog wider nutritional benefits As dogs hunting in the wild would eat virtually the whole animal, and derive the nutritional benefits of consuming items like the liver, heart, kidneys and stomach lining (tripe), these should also form a small part of a naturally healthy diet as they do with ZiwiPeak Dog Food. - Retains the original nutritional value For dogs to derive the most benefit from their food, it is important to retain as much as possible of the original nutritional value during the processing of the dog food. Air-drying the product to reduce the moisture (and thereby naturally preserving it), then sealing it in an airtight package, is an effective way of retaining the nutritional value of the protein and vitamins for your dog. - Mirrors a 'wild' hunting diet Despite parting evolutionary company with wolves over 10,000 years ago, dogs still thrive on the sort of natural, predominantly meat diet they would ingest if they were hunting in the wild. A diet that stimulates optimum energy and good health. Highly processed foods and high levels of carbohydrates, on the other hand, cannot be easily metabolized by dogs. ZiwiPeak Dog Food Details ZiwiPeak LAMB Dog Food The ranch-raised lamb used in ZiwiPeak Dog Food is a pure source of high quality protein and fats. Lamb provides these essential proteins and fats that dogs

Help me lose weight! List healthy foods, and examples of meals.? Hello. Let me cut to the chase- I am 14 and 200 pounds. Dun Dun Dun. XD Anyways, my goal is to drop to 150 in TWO years, alright? I know it's completely do-able, but could I have some help to get me started? The thing is, I want to lose weight the 'real' way, by that I mean not eating all diet foods but normal, healthier foods and exercise. (That word makes me cringe, lol) Can the nice community of Yahoo! Answers help me out here by listing some healthy/normal foods you like for breakfast, lunch, snack, dinner, and occasionally desert? Also examples of meals? There is one more big problem... I'm addicted to caffeine. I am pretty much powered by caffeine on weekdays. If I don't drink at least 3 diet sodas a day with caffeine I will get a serious headache. (Average day is around 6.) By serious I mean when we didn't go to the store my head made me sick to my stomach and I had to come home from school and miss the next day. I want to break this addiction as well, but I don't want to just not drink it because I fucking love it and I don't want to get physically hurt during the process. XD I was thinking about going on a low-carbohydrate diet but really, that's not very healthy, is it? Please give more than one options for each food category as examples. Also, what amount of food-categories do I need again? One more thing, salad is not something I 'enjoy' unless there is quite a bit of ranch dressing on it...but I'll force myself to eat it if I have to. I love tomatoes. I hate carrots plain but I will eat them with ranch again...I love tomatoes and carrots with ranch, but ranch is probably horrible for you. Are granny-smith apples (the green ones) worse for you than the standard red ones? Thanks. Oh, one more thing- is this too much vitamins? I've started taking two vitamin Es and one vitamin C a day. Not at one time, I'll usually take 1 E or an E and C in the morning then an E later. Is this too much? omg you guys are dumbshits and wont even answer my question