What Your Pets Eat – Is it Healthy?

by Elaine McBee

Rich asked me to dig up these articles after I had a conversation with Lannie about them. It took me several days to find all of them. I hope they help you with your cat as much as they did with mine.

I will begin with an article I read in Better Nutrition (June 2005) by Ann N. Martin. Titled How Safe is a Raw Diet? When I read this article, I began to remember how many articles I had read with opposing viewpoints.

She begins with the concept that the Biologically Appropriate Raw Food (BARF) [humor?] diet is composed of raw meat, bones, vegetables, sometimes grains, and the question, “How safe is it?” She began researching this in 1995 and sought opinions from veterinarians, breeders, and people who had, or were, feeding this diet to their animals. Also consulting research studies, decided that she would never feed her pets raw foods.

Her reasons are these: Bacteria, Nutritional Problems, Bones, and Enzymes. Let us take a look at each one.

Bacteria - “pets are just as susceptible to the bacteria and parasites in raw meats as humans are.” She cites Salmonella, E.coli, campylobacter and trichinosis causing severe illness and death. “Center for Disease Control (CDC) has found that a high percentage of meat and poultry contains at least one strain of bacteria. Hence the agency advises that you thoroughly cook meat and poultry. Toxoplasmosia, a parasite found in warm-blooded animals, can also be transmitted from raw or undercooked meat.”

David T. Roen, DVM, writes, “A veterinary neurologist told me the other day that they have seen an increase in seizure disorders in dogs and cats caused by toxoplasmosis, especially in areas where raw meat diets are trendy.” Now, if you saw the chart Rich included in Issue 75 you will see that grains harbor all sorts of bad, toxin-producing microbes, which will produce these symptoms as well and maybe instead of.

Another vet, Geoff Stein, DVM, writes, “The problem with these ‘natural’ diets is the misguided assumption that ‘natural’ is better. It’s ‘natural’ for wolves to die of salmonella once in a while.” He added that wolves would probably be healthier if they ate cooked meat.

“A case study published in 2003 in the Journal of American Animal Hospital Association, involved cats that developed salmonellosis as a result of a raw diet. ‘The salmonellosis caused gastrointestinal upset, weight loss, and anorexia, leading to both cats’ deaths.’ ” [only 2 cats?]

In my college Microbiology text, I decided to check up on Salmonella, as that is one organism these all cite as causing death and disease in wild animals and in this study.

Principles of Microbiology (ninth edition, 1981) states this about Food infection - Salmonella. Found in eggs, poultry and meats.

Onset of illness: within 7-72 hours after consumption

Clinical features [what it causes]: diarrhea, severe abdominal pain, fever, prostration [incapacitating].

Toxin involved: none.

Outcome – Recovery: a few days (death rarely).

Appropriate eye roll here….Did they forget their schooling???

The text goes on to say, “Insufficiently cooked meat of infected animals may convey disease to humans, but usually salmonellas reach the food (often, but not necessarily, meat) from outside sources. Such sources are the intestinal contents of animals (especially rats and mice) that have contacted the food incriminated, and (probably most important) human carriers of the bacteria.”

“Prevention of Salmonella food poisoning depends on cleanliness in handling food, proper cooking of food, proper refrigeration of food that has been cooked, and detection of carriers. Frequent and careful hand-washing by food handlers is mandatory.” Because of this eggs are pasteurized if cracked by mechanical means in food processing.

“Other organisms sometimes infecting food are: Clostridium perfringens, Bacillus cereus, Proteus bacilli, and E. coli. In outbreaks traced to these, it has been assumed that the microbes were able to multiply in food, especially in meat, that has stood at room temperature overnight or longer.”

At mercola.com, Beth Taylor and Steve Brown write most of the pet nutrition articles. (Mar 2005) They say, “Dogs and cats live in a bacterial world. Your dog (or cat) goes out for a short walk in the garden. She absorbs just a few grams of soil, and then comes in and licks her pads. In those two grams of soil, there were probably billions of bacteria of hundreds of different species, some friendly and others not. Consumption of bacteria is natural for dogs and cats.”

So, the animals got the salmonella from the meat or from other things, even their human owners?

Now, Clostridium perfringens is one of the bacterium that causes gas gangrene, which is highly fatal. It does produce a toxin. Bacillus cereus is found in food and is highly heat tolerant. Proteus species are resistant to antibiotics and are normal flora in humans. Escherichia coli is also part of our normal flora. In other words if you take antibiotics these will remain and begin to take over when the other bacteria are killed off. They can also wreak havoc when outside of their natural habitat. Say through holes in the intestinal wall. [Candida albicans?] But I digress…

Let’s move on to her hypothesis on Nutritional Problems. “In March 2001, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association published a paper written by Lisa M. Freeman, DVM, and Kathyrn E. Michel, DVM, and their evaluation of raw foods diets for dogs. Five diets were tested, three were homemade, and the other two commercial. The findings of Freeman and Michel pointed out a number of problems with raw diets, including low phosphorus and potassium levels, calcium-to-phosphorous ratios of 0.15 and high concentrations of zinc -- all of which are areas of concern with growing puppies. The results …indicated that there are nutrition and health risks associated with raw food diets.” They sure left out a lot of information to jump to that conclusion! [I did not add the dots, she did.]

Maybe the pet owners should just add a good supplement for their pet. Oh, this other article (Prevention Magazine May 2005) states, “If Fluffy is moving a bit stiffly, it’s tempting to give glucosamine because you’ve heard it will help her joints. But Bartges (another DVM) cautions not to give supplements first and consult the vet later. ‘The vet must rule out health conditions, and you certainly don’t want to mask a problem by giving supplements,’ he says.” HA! Don’t help your pet by fixing the cause, wait and get pills from the vet! Ka-ching!!

She then points out a study undertaken between 1932 and 1942 called the Pottenger Study, which raw-foodists often point to as support. This article says, “this study provides no clear-cut consensus whether it was the raw meat, the cod liver oil, or the raw milk in the diet that promoted a mortality decrease in cats. Until the study can be replicated with today’s control standards, we can’t accurately interpret the results.”

OK, there was a decrease of mortality in cats on a raw foods diet….and you can’t accurately interpret that?

Let’s take a closer look at the Pottenger Study. According to the section from my copy of Eating in the Raw by Carol Alt, the Pottenger Study was a series of studies on cats. “These were simple experiments, to be sure; repeatedly, he would follow the cats through multiple generations, feeding the offspring in the same way as the parents, so the kittens of raw-food cats got nothing but raw, and those with parents eating cooked food, got the cooked. Simple enough, indeed. But the results were extraordinary: In the raw-foods group, the cats remained, through generation after generation, healthy and happy, with normal bone structure, healthy fur, and a resistance to allergies, arthritis, eye problems, and other degenerative diseases. They were happy cats who lived in peace with each other in their cat world. The cooked-food cats, after only one or two generations, suffered an epidemic of abnormalities in their bones, chronic skin problems, allergies, arthritis, and a host of degenerative illnesses. These animals also exhibited all manner of anti-social behavior to the point that their cat society began to break down. By the third generation, the animals were so deteriorated they could not even reproduce and the line came to an end. Each time Pottenger repeated the experiments, the results were the same: the raw-food animals stayed wonderfully healthy, generation after generation, the cooked-food animals suffered and eventually died out.”

And no one has been able to reproduce this study today?

Bones. Many diets encourage feeding raw bones. Four DVMs who responded, or she decided to quote to promote her theory, say not to feed raw bones to dogs as they cause broken teeth, perforations of the gastrointestinal tract, esophageal irritation, colitis and endodontic (tooth pulp) disease.

I feel that most of these can be attributed to moldy grains, not meaty bones. If you don’t have a healthy pet and you feed corn-based dry food, your pet will have weak bones and teeth and lack of digestive enzymes, just like the grains’ affect us, and be hurt by something as strong as raw bones.

Enzymes. “Raw food proponents also contend that a cooked diet removed enzymes from food, yet many add digestive enzymes to the raw diet as well.” “If a raw diet is full of enzymes, this shouldn’t be necessary,” says Lisa Newman, ND, president of the Natural Pet Care Association. She also writes that long-term use of enzyme supplements can cause the body to shut down its ability to digest nutrients.”  (That is true for people too.)

Maybe that is because digestive enzymes are grown on mold cultures. And someone fed something not necessary to a pet of his or hers. This is not a basis for everyone not feeding his or her pets raw food!

According to Beth Taylor and Steve Brown on mercola.com, “Balanced fresh food (meat, bone and vegetables) diets are more nutritious than the modern (dry food) diet, because raw, fresh foods provide much more complete and balanced nutrition than that found in highly processed foods. The natural diet of dogs and cats contains a variety of raw, real food, teeming with bacteria. These foods are high in protein and low in carbohydrate. In the natural diet, micronutrients include the natural, organic forms of vitamins and minerals, and thousands of different antioxidants. In dry food diets, many of the micronutrients are human-synthesized vitamins and minerals. Formulas contain only 23 components deemed “essential.” This is far fewer than are considered essential in human foods.” [Human baby formula only has 11, but that is another study.]  And let’s not forget, dogs and cats are carnivores, not omnivores.  They were never intended to eat grains.

Ms. Martin concludes her article with, “My pets aren’t wild animals, and I refuse to risk their health with diets that have caused illness and death. I’ve seen case after case of pets suffering while on a raw diet. If you’re going to feed your pet a raw diet, do your homework, read books, consult a veterinary nutritionist and consider the alternatives: a homemade diet with cooked meat or one of the non-mainstream, human-grade pet foods available at enlightened stores.”

I think she should do more research! If corn and other grains can hurt us the way they have since people began to silo the grains for storage, they can certainly cause these problems in our pets (witness the recent Diamond fiasco). Raw foods aren’t the problem, it is the mold and fungi growing in our grain supply and the additives placed in our foods made from molds such as xanthan gum and citric acid. Taylor and Brown (mercola.com) write, “Only a few of the animals that consume mycotoxin-contaminated foods will die quickly. Chronic, low level ingestion of these toxins causes cancer three to five years later. Consumption of mycotoxin-contaminated dry pet foods may be a major contributing factor to the cancer epidemic in pets.” This will happen to us as well.

We would do well to follow a mycotoxin-free diet and do the same for the pets we love and depend on.

Ever since we took our animals off corn-based food, they’ve been doing better. In fact, Shogie, who had arthritis, seems to no longer have any pain at all.  Same with Aiesha, our Thoroughbred mare.  She acts like a young filly again, and she’s 26 years old now.  She runs and bucks and frisks, with no sign of her previous stiffness or pain.  Go figure, eh?

Flatulence and Your Health

Submitted by Ruby McKissick

(Judging from all the spelling changes I made, I suspect this came from an Aussie website)

The odor of farts comes from small amounts of hydrogen sulfide gas[1] and mercaptans in the mixture. These compounds contain sulfur. Nitrogen-rich compounds such as skatole and indole also add to the stench of farts. The more sulfur-rich your diet, the more sulphides and mercaptans will be produced by the bacteria in your guts, and the more your farts will stink. Foods such as cauliflower, eggs, and meat are notorious for producing smelly farts, whereas beans produce large amounts of not particularly stinky farts.

Note 1: Science News suggests that marine microbes emitted enough hydrogen sulfide that the build-up in the atmosphere might have been the cause of this planet’s most major extinction of land animals 250 million years ago. Yes, this stuff is very toxic in large quantity. How did we get a quantity large enough to become lethal? Well, that might have taken millions or hundreds of millions of years, and I realize a human whose lifespan is only 80 years has a real problem conceiving of that time span, but it is another example of long-term build-up in the system, although this system happens to be Mother Earth.

Most fart gas comes from swallowed air and consists largely of nitrogen and carbon dioxide, the oxygen having been absorbed by the time it reaches the anal opening. These gases are odorless, although they often pick up other (and more odiferous) components on the way through the bowel. They emerge from the anus in fairly large bubbles at body temperature. A person can often achieve a good sound with these voluminous farts, but they are commonly (but not always!) mundane with respect to odor, and don't feel particularly warm.

Another major source of fart gas is bacterial action. Bacterial fermentation and digestion processes produce heat as a byproduct as well as various pungent gases. The resulting bubbles of gas tend to be small, hot, and concentrated with stinky bacterial metabolic products. These emerge as the notorious, warm, SBD (Silent-But-Deadly) type, often in amounts too small to produce a good sound, but excelling in stench.

On average, a person produces about half a liter of fart gas per day, distributed over an average of about 14 daily farts. Whereas it may be difficult for you to determine your daily flatus volume, you can certainly keep track of your daily numerical fart count. You might try this as a science fair project: keep a journal of everything you eat and a count of your farts. You might make a note of the potency of their odor as well. See if you can discover a relationship between what you eat, how much you fart, and how much they smell.

Fart travel time depends on atmospheric conditions such as humidity, temperature, wind speed and direction, the molecular weight of the fart particles, and the distance between the fart transmitter and the fart receiver. Farts also disperse (spread out) as they leave the source, and their potency diminishes with dilution. Generally, if the fart is not detected within a few seconds, it will be too dilute for perception and will be lost into the atmosphere forever.

Exceptional conditions exist when the fart is released into a small, enclosed area such as an elevator, a small room, or a car. These conditions limit the amount of dilution possible, and the fart may remain in a smellable concentration for a long period of time, until it condenses on the walls. The fart stinks immediately upon emergence, but it takes several seconds for the odor to travel to the farter's nostrils. If farts could travel at the speed of sound, we would smell them almost instantly; at the same time we hear them.

Is it true that some people never fart? No, not if they're alive. People even fart shortly after death.

Do women fart? Yes, though more men take more pride in it than most women. There is a large variation among individuals in the amount of fart gas produced per day, but the variation does not correlate with gender. I have read that men fart more often than women. If this is true, then women must be saving it up and expelling more gas per fart than men do.

Do men's farts smell worse than women's farts? Based on what I have experienced of women's farts, all I can say is that I hope not.

At what time of day is a man most likely to fart? A man is mostly likely to fart first thing in the morning, while in the bathroom. This is known as “Morning Thunder” and with good resonance, it can be heard throughout the house.

Why are beans so notorious for making people fart? Beans contain sugars that we humans cannot digest. When these sugars reach our intestines, the bacteria go wild, have a big feast, and make lots of gas! Other notorious fart-producing foods include corn, bell peppers, cabbage, milk, and raisins. A friend of mine had a dog who was exceptionally fond of apples and turnips. The dog would eat these things and then get prodigious gas. A dog's digestive system is not equipped to handle such vegetable matter, so the dog's bacteria worked overtime to produce remarkable flatulence.

What things other than diet can make a person fart more than usual? People who swallow a lot of air fart more than people who don't. This can be cured somewhat by chewing with your mouth closed. Nervous people with fast moving bowels will fart more because less air is absorbed out of the intestines. Some disease conditions can cause excess flatulence. And going up in an airplane or other low-pressure environment can cause the gas inside you to expand and emerge as flatulence. (On the ski slope, we used to call this “jet propulsion assist.”) J

Is a fart really just a burp that comes out the wrong end? No, a burp emerges from the stomach and has a different chemical composition than a fart. Farts have less atmospheric gas content and more bacterial gas content than burps.

Is it harmful to hold in farts? There are differences in opinion on this one. Certainly, people have believed for centuries that retaining flatulence is bad for the health. Emperor Claudius even passed a law legalizing farting at banquets out of concern for people's health. There was a widespread belief that a person could be poisoned or catch a disease by retaining farts. Doctors I have spoken to recently have told me that there is no particular harm in holding in farts. Farts will not poison you; they are a natural component of your intestinal contents. The worst thing that can happen is that you may get abdominal pain from the gas pressure. But one doctor suggested that pathological distention of the bowel could result if a person holds in farts too much.

How long would it be possible to not fart? As I understand it, a captive fart can escape as soon as the person relaxes. This means that a lot of people who assiduously refrain from farting during the day do so at great length as soon as they fall asleep. Having been on a great many overnight field trips, long bus trips, and trans-Pacific flights, I can personally vouch for the fact that lots of people do fart voluminously as they doze off. So the answer to the question would be, you can refrain from farting as long as you can stay awake!

Do all people fart in their sleep?  I have not made a scientific study of this, but I don't think all people fart in their sleep. I think mainly those who refuse to fart when they're awake do so when dozing off. For other people, toilet training takes such a strong hold that they let nothing pass their sphincters in sleep. For these people, the gas accumulates in the night and they vent it upon awakening.

Where do farts go when you hold them in? How often have you held in a fart, intending to release it at the first appropriate opportunity, only to find that the fart has disappeared when you are ready for it? I asked several doctors where the fart goes. Does it leak out slowly without the person knowing it? Is it absorbed into the bloodstream? What happens to it? The doctors agree that the fart is neither released nor absorbed. It simply migrates back upward into the intestine and comes out later. It is reassuring to know that such farts aren't really lost, just delayed.

How can one cover up a fart? There is a company called Fartypants that sells underwear designed to absorb the odor of farts. If you should be caught without your Fartypants, another ploy is to blame the dog or cat, if one should be present, or complain about how the wind must be blowing from the direction of the paper mill. As for the sound... if you are in a large group of people, act oblivious and innocent, or glance quickly at the person next to you, as if you think he/she did it. Other strategies include coughing or suddenly moving your chair so that people think that they misheard the fart. If you are with one other person, you can act as if nothing happened, and the other person may believe he was mistaken in thinking he heard a fart. Another strategy is not to cover it up, but to proudly proclaim the fart as your own grand accomplishment and to issue a challenge to the others to outdo that one if they think they can.

I know this might have come off as just humor, but we have a couple dogs here that produce very serious hydrogen sulfide emissions, usually while we are on the couch at night attempting to enjoy a movie. This has caused, on occasion, both of us humans to jump up and temporarily evacuate the living room. Pewie, yucko, kaka! Now that’s not really fair - they don’t fart nearly as much as they used to.  No corn in their food means less farts for them, and less eye-watering and choking for us.  I swear, sometimes we could see the gas cloud coming...

Reader Q&A

Q: I just found out xylitol can kill dogs. Because you promote the use of xylitol, maybe you should pass that on to your readers.

A: Here’s what ASPCA says: According to Dr. Eric Dunayer, Consulting Veterinarian in Clinical Toxicology for the ASPCA Animal Poison Control Center, dogs ingesting significant amounts of gum or candies solely or largely sweetened with xylitol may develop a fairly sudden drop in blood sugar, resulting in depression, loss of coordination and seizures. "These signs can develop quite rapidly, at times less than 30 minutes after ingestion of the product. More at:

http://www.aspca.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1101&page=NewsArticle&id=16803&security=2220

Xylitol is perfectly safe for human consumption, even beneficial in a few areas, though too much is likely to give you diarrhea (check out the Wikipedia entry for xylitol). It can be made from birch bark, raspberries, plums, and corn. I would suggest, due to the nature of problems with corn, that even humans not eat that type. The site where I got the above statement did not say which variety was used, nor did they state what part of the xylitol caused this reaction (where’s the chemical analysis?).

Now I don’t know about you, but I have never offered my dogs candy or gum, nor would I serve them cake or any other sweets (no matter what type of sweetening agent was used in them - I am not silly enough to want a really fat dog). I intend to keep checking this out to find which form of xylitol was used in the ASPCA’s tests and if I find anything to contradict this, I will let you know. In the mean time, please refrain from giving your pets anything made with xylitol.

Q: I recently read where cooking chicken at 165 °F or higher will kill this bird flu virus and make the meat safe to eat. Will it do that for fungus too?

A: I have no reason to doubt the chicken cookers, although I also read that article and felt it was a bit of a “we told you so” follow-up to their years-long struggle to convince people that all fowl should be well done. In any case, yes, 160+ °F also kills molds and yeasts, but doing just that does not make any food “safe.” If that food actually contained fungi, the act of killing them (with heat or other methods) causes them to spew out mycotoxins. As we have said before, you cannot kill mycotoxins because they are not alive. They are a chemical, and that chemical must be heated above 269 °F to make it inert. There are some natural agents that will neutralize mycotoxins (such as oregano oil – OreganolŪ), but to use that on all your food will make everything taste quite Mediterranean. J We choose to just avoid the foods that we suspect contain fungi and/or their mycotoxins.

Q: You once used the term “living deliberately.” Can you expound on that?

A: I find that one to be pretty easy. To me, it means that because you are the only one responsible for your life and everything that happens to you during that life, then you need to pay very close attention to all your actions and even your thoughts. Keep a positive mental outlook, but watch where you put your feet (and in the case of this newsletter, what you put in your mouth). You cannot sow your wild oats on Saturday and pray for a crop failure on Sunday. I never want to hear an excuse that “the devil made me eat that candy” and even “God works in mysterious ways” is a cop-out. That’s blaming someone else for your actions. (You may conclude that I believe there are no coincidences or accidents and that all things have a cause and effect relationship – whether we understand it or not. While Chaos Theory is very entertaining, I have a strong belief in a well-structured and orderly Universe.) If you eat with wild abandon, then go to the doctor expecting him/her to make you well, you are not living deliberately (I don’t think that would even be called “living” at all – you’ve given away ownership of your health to someone else). Everything you do, you and you alone are responsible, so think seriously about everything before you do it. Make a plan. See yourself as successfully completing that plan. Now follow it.

Q: You often say we should take probiotics, but I found one that claims better results, requires no refrigeration, costs less, and my friend says it works for her. What do you know about <product name withheld to protect the guilty>?

A: Normally, I wouldn’t even answer this type of question in the newsletter, but there is enough evidence regarding this man and his products that I think you all deserve a couple links. I do not want to make all the negative statements about the person who started that company or the negative aspects of his product. I, personally, think he is a fraud and he is taking a whole lot of people to the cleaners. But that is my opinion. Here are a couple web sites you might want to check out – one from Magnolia in Austin, http://www.naturalhealthdetective.com/ and one from Moss Green, BellaOnline's Nutrition Editor http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art35133.asp both of whom have already made their statements to the world with regard to this guy.

But, just in case those two people have a personal axe to grind, I started checking more professional sources. I started with a company called Advanced Microbial Systems, who create microorganisms for environmental and agricultural applications. Unofficially, I was told not to ever recommend soil-based organisms (SBOs) for any human consumption and anyone who would do so must be totally ignorant of basic food and probiotic microbiology. Because that was an off-the-record comment, I then contacted BT Safety, LLC in Eden Prairie, MN, and talked to Susan Harlander, PhD. She passed me on to a couple folks who specialize in that area, who are apparently supplying data to the FDA in regards to SBOs. Some of their comments appear guarded because “there may be litigation pending against one company in particular.” Gee, I wonder who that could be? However, Randy Porubcan at BT Safety had this to say:

“There is a long and short answer to your question. First the short one: SBOs [when the term is used properly, which it is not on most public web sites, specifically those trying to sell you a product] are a species of Bacillus bacteria, not Lactobacillus or Bifidobacteria, and since there is a much greater history of Bacilli causing pathology in humans, SBOs are unpopular with the [professional] probiotic establishment. Also, they (SBOs) are cheap to make, more stable, and confuse plate counts since most spread all over a Petri dish.

”The long answer: Many SBOs, such as most Bacillus subtilis strains, are [relatively] harmless and have been used in probiotics in Asia for decades. Other species, such as Bacillus cereus, Bacillus coagulans, and even Bacillus licheniformis, have been known to cause food poisoning. The anthrax bacillus is a close relative of B. cereus. Such close relationships hint at the possibility that in vivo genetic plasmid transfer might occur from a Bacillus pathogen to a Bacillus non-pathogen. Also, Bacillus species form spores (Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria do not) and since spores are smaller than active bacteria, they could enter the blood stream and potentially cause septicemia (this has been a worry with people that have leaky gut syndrome which includes all autistic children). The FDA is silent on most of these issues since they do not regard probiotics as pharma-active and would not act unless a blatant pathogen was included in a product and then who knows.”

Another of their researchers provided me with a long list of places to check and I suspect I can write a whole article on SBOs after I have read all that material. Look for that in the next newsletter because obviously there is more to this than can be answered here.

Miscellaneous BS

1. It was not until several doctor visits later that Bregman-Rodriguez was diagnosed with a fungal eye infection, a difficult-to-treat condition that can cause blindness. Some U.S. doctors are seeing a disturbing number of such infections in contact lens wearers.

The fungus, called Fusarium, is commonly found in plant material and soil in tropical and subtropical areas. Without eye-drop treatment, which can last two to three months, the infection can scar the cornea and blind its victims. The full story at:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12170589/

Now I have to say a couple things here. It is nice that allopaths have indeed recognized that fungi presents a problem, but… well, come on folks, Fusarium is not restricted to the tropics. Is this some lame attempt to make this sound like a disease that will only happen to people who live in hot humid areas? All readers of this newsletter have Fusarium right outside their doors. Whether or not you get a problem from this depends not on whether or not you live in southern states or have contacts, but what you body’s balance is. If you are already overloaded with fungal issues (molds, yeasts), you will be more prone to this type of problem. Now if those nice doctors would just wake up to this…

2. Simple lifestyle changes can help combat, and sometimes reverse, the memory loss that comes with getting older, Small says. And while there are no guarantees, these changes may prevent or delay Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia.

Improve your diet. Research suggests a heart-healthy diet is also good for the brain, says Elizabeth Edgerly, chief program officer for the Alzheimer’s Association of Northern California and spokesperson for the group’s “Maintain Your Brain” campaign.

Avoid high fat, high cholesterol foods, and choose those rich in omega-3 fatty acids (fish, beans, walnuts), antioxidants (dark-skinned fruits and vegetables) and vitamins. Check with your doctor before adding vitamin supplements. Tobacco and excess alcohol are no-no’s. Full story at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12172384/

I still contend that it is not age that determines the loss of memory or other brain functions. It is, rather, the accumulation of toxins (specifically neurotoxins, although some mycotoxins also degrade nerves/neurons). In other words, the more bad food you eat, the quicker you will reach critical mass and start suffering dementia or Alzheimer’s, etc. Add to that, I also have a “use it or lose it” mindset here. The more you exercise your brain (try thinking logically for yourself on a regular basis rather than just accepting what the TV says), the longer you will retain full use of it.

3. The word is finally out: The FDA has concluded that there is more benzene in soda pop than what is permitted in water. Even so, the FDA still believes there are no safety concerns about benzene in soft drinks, or sodas, said Laura Tarantino, the agency’s director of food additive safety.

“We haven’t changed our view that right now, there is not a safety concern, not a public health concern,” she said. “But what we need to do is understand how benzene forms and to ensure the industry is doing everything to avoid those circumstances.”  More at:

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10212

Now, if you have been practicing the double-speak language lesson you might have learned in the last few newsletters, reinterpret that last paragraph “with intent to deceive.” I suspect that the FDA was paid a huge sum of money by the soda pop makers to hush this up, and the FDA said OK, but you gotta do something to fix this before some smart doctor proves someone died because of it. Think about it.

4. U.S. House Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) has proposed a Health Freedom Protection Act, which would put an end to FDA censorship of nutritional supplement claims and allow supplement makers to explain the true benefits of their products. More at:

http://www.newstarget.com/019314.html

I have long thought this guy would make the best president this country ever had, but he won’t run because his views are too controversial and the power brokers would shoot him before he got sworn in.

5. Researchers found that women who took antibiotics for more than 500 days or who had more than 25 prescriptions in the course of a 17-year period more than doubled their risk of breast cancer compared with women who had not taken any antibiotics.  Full story at:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/17/antibiotics.cancer/

As we have said time and again, antibiotics are mycotoxins, and there is a definite link between fungi and the cellular mutations that create this thing called cancer.

6. Here’s a real contradiction: Britain confirmed on Thursday the deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu, blamed for the deaths of more than 100 people worldwide over the past three years, had reached its shores. “The lab results lead us now to believe we are dealing with H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza in a swan,” Scotland’s chief veterinary officer Charles Milne told a news conference. More at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12184366/ The article goes on to suggest how dangerous this is, etc., etc. Yet here’s another article on the same date: No bird flu crisis in Britain, officials say. “The risk of this particular virus passing into humans is extremely low. It’s unlikely to occur unless there is any very close contact between a diseased bird and an individual,” Scotland’s chief medical officer Harry Burns said Thursday. More at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12206582/ OK, folks, make up your minds. Is it a crisis or not? I say not.

7. More contradictions? CHICAGO - Many young children are too heavy for standard car-safety seats, and manufacturers are starting to make heftier models to accommodate them, according to research on the obesity epidemic’s widening impact. And they’re still calling this the “obesity epidemic.” See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12122112/ Yet in another article: But the percentage of women who are overweight seems to have peaked, leading some experts to wonder if the U.S. obesity epidemic may soon be leveling off. I seriously doubt that. This will never level off until everybody gets it through their tiny brains that fast/junk food and prepackaged meals are not good for you. Every time I go to the “big city” I see more fat people than at any time in my life and most of them are women. Please don’t think I am picking on fat people. I used to be one and I used every excuse in the books as to why it wasn’t my fault. I have since woken up. Read their version at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12153886/

8. Here’s a good “bait and switch” tactic: WASHINGTON - A huge federal study in people — not rats — takes the fizz out of arguments that the diet soda sweetener aspartame might raise the risk of cancer. More at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12155793/ The problem with this is that very few have every suggested that aspartame causes cancer. We, and many others, claim it is a neurotoxin and you’re going to ruin your brain as well as its ability to communicate with the rest of your body (your whole nervous system) by drinking that stuff. Yet this is not what they are addressing. Maybe they think you will have forgotten what it was you originally thought was wrong with aspartame and continue drinking that poison now that they have implied it really isn’t bad after all. Bull!

9. For those of you who have a really technical bent, I enjoyed this one: The Mayo Clinic group identified a new signaling mechanism by which natural killer cells initiate a toxic response against cancers and viruses – an important piece of information when designing therapies that stop, reverse or protect against cancer. Natural killer cells are blood cells that have an innate ability to kill tumor cells and virus-infected cells. For example, when an NK cell encounters a new tumor developing, it may generate signals that will kill the tumor and clear it from the body. However, depending on the signals it receives, it may also communicate the opposite message – and promote disease – by generating signals that block the destruction of tumors or viruses. More at: http://www.news-medical.net/?id=17032 For the medical professionals reading this, on that link is also a place where you can sign up for a weekly newsletter giving you the latest in your area of expertise. Even though it is allopathic, there’s some good stuff there. J