Show Of The Week June 18 2012

 

Special Note

“I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man!!!!!

– Thomas Jefferson “

 

Today’s Environment Influences Behavior Generations Later:

Chemical Exposure Raises Descendants’ Sensitivity to Stress

 

Genetic Mutation in African Malaria Parasite Shown to Give Resistance to Best Drugs

 

Chernobyl Deaths Top a Million Based on Real Evidence

 

Estriol- Benefits

New protein study could shake up sports nutrition market-Or Kill It!

************************************************************************

Today’s Environment Influences Behavior Generations Later:

 

Chemical Exposure Raises Descendants’ Sensitivity to Stress

Researchers have seen an increased reaction to stress in animals whose ancestors were exposed to an environmental compound generations earlier. —ScienceDaily (May 21, 2012) — Researchers at The University of Texas at Austin and Washington State University have seen an increased reaction to stress in animals whose ancestors were exposed to an environmental compound generations earlier.—The findings, published in the latest Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, put a new twist on the notions of nature and nurture, with broad implications for how certain behavioral tendencies might be inherited.[U1] –The researchers — David Crews at Texas , Michael Skinner at Washington State and colleagues — exposed gestating female rats to vinclozolin, a popular fruit and vegetable fungicide known to disrupt hormones and have effects across generations of animals.[U2] The researchers then put the rats’ third generation of offspring through a variety of behavioral tests and found they were more anxious, more sensitive to stress, and had greater activity in stress-related regions of the brain than descendants of unexposed rats.—We are now in the third human generation since the start of the chemical revolution, since humans have been exposed to these kinds of toxins,” says Crews. “This is the animal model of that.”—“The ancestral exposure of your great grandmother alters your brain development to then respond to stress differently,” says Skinner. “We did not know a stress response could be programmed by your ancestors’ environmental exposures.”[U3] The researchers had already shown exposure to vinclozolin can effect subsequent generations by affecting how genes are turned on and off, a process called epigenetics. In that case, the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance altered how rats choose mates.[U4] The new research deepens their study of the epigenetics of the brain and behavior, dealing for the first time with real-life challenges like stress. It also takes a rare systems biology approach, looking at the brain from the molecular level to the physiological level to behavior.—“We did not know a stress response could be reprogrammed by your ancestors’ environmental exposures,” says Skinner, who focused on the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance and genomics aspects of the paper. “So how well you socialize or how your anxiety levels respond to stress may be as much your ancestral epigenetic inheritance as your individual early-life events.” This could explain why some individuals have issues with post-traumatic stress syndrome while others do not, he says. Crews says that increases in other mental disorders may be attributable to the kind of “two-hit” exposure that the experiment is modeling.[U5] “There is no doubt that we have been seeing real increases in mental disorders like autism and bipolar disorder,” says Crews, who focused on the neuroscience, behavior and stress aspects of the paper. “It’s more than just a change in diagnostics. The question is why? Is it because we are living in a more frantic world, or because we are living in a more frantic world and are responding to that in a different way because we have been exposed? I favor the latter.” The researchers also saw intriguing differences in weight gain, opening the door to further research on obesity. Story Source-The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Washington State University. The original article was written by Eric Sorensen. –Journal Reference-David Crews, Ross Gillette, Samuel V. Scarpino, Mohan Manikkam, Marina I. Savenkova, and Michael K. Skinner. Epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of altered stress responses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 21, 2012 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1118514109

 

****************************************************************************

Genetic Mutation in African Malaria Parasite Shown to Give Resistance to Best Drugs

 

ScienceDaily (Apr. 27, 2012) — Scientists have identified genetic mutations[U6] in the deadliest malaria parasite in Africa that are giving it resistance to one of the most powerful anti-malarial drugs. The researchers say their findings are a further warning that the best weapons against malaria could become obsolete.–The artemisinin group of drugs are the most effective and widely used treatments for malaria. They are most powerful and less likely to be resisted by the malaria parasite when used with other drugs as artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs). But the new study confirms previous suggestions that mutations in a key part of the parasite can provide resistance to artemether, one of the two most effective artemisinins.—The research group, led by a team at St George’s, University of London, discovered artemether resistance in parasite samples taken from 11 of the 28 malaria-infected patients in the study. On average, artemether’s effectiveness was reduced by half. Each parasite was found to have the same genetic mutations.[U7] —The patients were infected by malaria parasite-carrying mosquitoes while travelling abroad, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, home to 90 per cent of the one million people killed worldwide each year by malaria.—Study lead Professor Sanjeev Krishna said: “Artemether and ACTs are still very effective, but this study confirms our fears of how the parasite is mutating to develop resistance. Drug resistance could eventually become a devastating problem in Africa, and not just in south east Asia where most of the world is watching for resistance. Effective alternative treatments are currently unaffordable for most suffering from malaria[U8] . Finding new drugs is, therefore, crucial.” In the study, published online April 27, 2012 in BioMed Central’s open access journal Malaria Journal, the researchers tested samples from patients infected with the Plasmodium falciparum parasite. This parasite causes the deadliest form of malaria, and is responsible for nine out of 10 malaria deaths. [U9] The parasites were assessed for their sensitivity to four artemisinins — artemisinin itself, artemether, dihydroartemisinin and artesunate.—The 11 parasites showing artemether resistance had the same genetic mutations in an internal system called the calcium pump. This is used to transport calcium, crucial for the parasite to function. The researchers already suspected that the calcium pump — which they first showed was a target for artemisinins to work on in 2003 — had the potential to develop artemisinin resistance. But this had been difficult to confirm until now.—Artemether resistance was strongest in several cases where a separate mutation in another transport system — a protein called pfmdr1, already associated with drug resistance — also occurred.—The effectiveness of the other artemisinins was not significantly affected by the mutations. This may be because they were able to work on other transport systems in the parasite, compensating for the effects of resistance mutations in the calcium pump.—However, Professor Krishna added: “At the moment, we do not know if the other artemisinins will follow suit, but given the shared chemistry they have with artemether it is tempting to think that they would.”—He added that resistance could be a result of the increasing use of ACTs, 300 million doses of which were dispensed worldwide in 2011. Greater use could offer the parasites more opportunities to develop genetic mutations that provide resistance. This could, the researchers say, lead to a repeat of how the parasite developed resistance to pre-artemisinin drugs such as chloroquine. Incorrect use of anti-malarials, such as not completing the treatment course or taking sub-standard drugs, could aid this process.—Professor Krishna said: “New drug development is paramount, but it is vital that we also learn more about how artemisinins work so we can tailor ACT treatments to be effective for as long as possible.”—-Story Source-The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of St George’s London, via AlphaGalileo. —Journal Reference-Dylan R Pillai, Rachel Lau, Krishna Khairnar, Rosalba Lepore, Allegra Via, Henry M Staines, Sanjeev Krishna. Artemether resistance in vitro is linked to mutations in PfATP6 that also interact with mutations in PfMDR1 in travellers returning with Plasmodium falciparum infections. Malaria Journal, 2012; 11 (1): 131 DOI: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-131

**************************************************************************

 

Chernobyl Deaths Top a Million Based on Real Evidence
Medical records from contaminated areas speak for themselves; doctors, scientists and citizens bear witness to the devastating health impacts of radioactive fallout from nuclear accidents Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Official denial by nuclear lobby—The Chernobyl disaster occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power -Plant near the city of Prypiat in Ukraine, then part of the Soviet Union, and close to the administrative border with Belarus.  A sudden power output surge prompted an attempt at emergency shutdown; but a more extreme spike in power output led to the rupture of a reactor vessel and a series of explosions. The graphite moderator was exposed, causing it to ignite, and the resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive fallout over large parts of the western Soviet Union and Europe. From 1986 to 2000, 350 400 people were evacuated
and resettled from the most contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. According to official post-Soviet data, about 57 % of the fallout landed in Belarus [1]. Chernobyl is widely considered to have been the worst nuclear accident in history and one of only two classified as a level 7 event on the International Nuclear Event Scale, the other being the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown in 2011 (see [2] Fukushima Nuclear Crisis, SiS 50).— From the beginning, the official nuclear safety experts were at pains to minimise the projected health impacts, as they are doing now for the Fukushima accident.  The UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) estimated a “global collective dose” of radiation exposure from the accident “equivalent on average to 21 additional days of world exposure to natural background radiation”. Successive studies reported by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) continued to underestimate the level of exposure and to understate health impacts other than [3] “psychosocial effects, believed to be unrelated to radiation exposure” resulting from the lack of information immediately after the accident, “the stress and trauma of compulsory relocation to less contaminated areas, the breaking of social ties and the fear that radiation exposure could cause  health damage in the future.”——The number of deaths attributed to Chernobyl varies widely [1]. Thirty-one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers. An UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The Chernobyl Forum [4] founded in February 2003 at the IAEA Headquarters in Vienna with representatives from IAEA and UN agencies including UNSCEAR, WHO,  the World Bank, and Belarus, Russia and Ukraine, estimates that the eventual death toll could reach 4 000 among those exposed to the highest levels of radiation (200 000 emergency workers, 115 000 evacuees and 270 000 residents of the most contaminated areas); the figure includes some 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome, 9 children who died of thyroid cancer and an estimated total of 3950 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia. The Union of Concerned Scientists based in Washington in the United States estimates another 50 000 excess cancer cases among people living in areas outside the most contaminated, and 25 000 excess deaths. A Greenpeace report puts the figure at 200 000 or more. The Russian publication, Chernobyl, by scientists Alexey V. Yablokov, Vassily B Nesterenko, and Alexey V. Nesterenko, translated and published by the New York Academy of Sciences in 2009, concludes that among the billions of people worldwide who were exposed to radioactive contamination from the disaster, nearly a million deaths had already occurred between 1986 and 2004. Most of the deaths were in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine [5] (see Truth about Chernobyl, SiS 47). The report drew on thousands of published papers and internet and printed publications. Those publications and papers, written by leading Eastern authorities, were downplayed or ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR. These agencies minimised their estimates by several ploys including [6]—– Underestimating the level of radiation by averaging exposure over a large regions, such as an entire country; so high exposure doses and health statistics of the most contaminated areas are lumped together with the less and least exposed

– Ignoring internal sources of radiation due to inhalation and ingestion of radioactive material from fallout
– Using an obsolete and erroneous model of linear energy transfer due to external sources of ionising radiation
– Not counting diseases and conditions other than cancers
– Overestimating the natural background radiation; today’s ‘background’ has been greatly increased by discharges from nuclear activities including tests of nuclear weapons, use of depleted uranium, and uranium mining
– Suppressing and withholding information from the public.
Nevertheless, the devastating health impacts did not escape the notice of the hundreds of doctors, scientists and other citizens who had to bear witness to the deformities, sicknesses and deaths of exposed babies, children and adults in their care. -Diversity of health impacts and their global extent over generations to come Alexei Yablokov, distinguished academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, spoke at the Scientific and Citizen Forum on adioprotection – From Chernobyl to Fukushima, 11-13 May 2012 in Geneva [7]. He is adamant that the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster can be clearly demonstrated by comparing the states of people’s health in areas receiving different amounts of additional radiation following the accident, instead of one based on average effective dose calculated by the ICRP and UNSCEAR which underestimates the true levels of irradiation. For example, there is a clear difference in mortality rates between highly contaminated provinces and less contaminated provinces of Russia (see Figure 1).  Yablokov is lead author of a massive report, now in its third enlarged 2011 edition [8], which has collated all the available evidence.

****************************************************************************

Estriol- Benefits

Estriol, an estrogen that has virtually been ignored by the mainstream medical community, is one of the three principal estrogens produced by the body. Estriol was originally thought to have little significance due to its weak estrogenic activity when compared with estrone and estradiol. Nonetheless, research has found that its weakness may very well be its strength. –Studies suggest that when the lower-potency estrogen, estriol, is administered topically, it does not increase the risk of hormone-dependent cancers of the breast or endometrium (uterine lining).1-3 However, having weaker estrogenic effects does not mean that estriol has none of the benefits that come with more potent estrogens. Studies suggest that estriol reduces symptoms of menopause, such as hot flashes and vaginal dryness, but with a better safety profile compared with more potent estrogens.1,4,5 This makes estriol a better choice for bioidentical hormone-replacement treatment regimes. –That is not all this ‘weak’ hormone is good for! Research suggests that estriol has benefits for bone density, heart health, multiple sclerosis, and postmenopausal urinary tract health.6-12 In this article, we will review the attributes of this ‘weaker’ estrogen, and why this estrogen is currently in the news.

F     The body naturally makes three estrogen hormones—estradiol, estrone, and estriol. Since estriol possesses the weakest estrogenic effects of the three, it has been largely overlooked by the medical community.

  • Many studies show that estriol offers a wealth of potential health benefits—without the dangers that sometimes accompany higher-potency estrogens and synthetic or horse-derived hormones.
  • Studies suggest that estriol helps relieve menopausal symptoms while benefitting bone and urinary tract health. Estriol may also help improve cardiovascular risk factors and even shows promise in reducing the brain lesions of multiple sclerosis.
  • The most reliable way to measure estriol levels is through 24-hour urine collection.
  • Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, the FDA has recently claimed that estriol is not safe. You can act now to help preserve consumers’ access to bioidentical hormones such as estriol by visiting http://www.homecoalition.org.

Fear of cancer prevents many women from restoring youthful hormone levels. When applied through the topical (transdermal) route, estriol is not associated with increased cancer risk. Other methods women can use to prevent hormone-related cancers include consuming regular amounts of vitamin D,  and Bioflavonoids, Tumeric,Rosemary,Parsley,Dandelion, Hawthorn Berry, Black tea and Black Tea extracts, Celery Root, regulating meat and high-fat dairy intake.—

Estriol and Hormone Replacement Therapy

In addition, several studies suggest that bioidentical estrogen has less health risk when given with low doses of bioidentical progesterone.26,27— if you are on hormone-replacement therapy (HRT) and have never heard of estriol, you might be wondering why not? Before the 1970s, estriol was thought to have significance only during pregnancy we saw the beginning of hormone-replacement therapy with patented equine estrogens such as Premarin® and synthetic progestins as found in Provera®. By the 1990s, one-third of menopausal women were taking Premarin®. Research uncovered the increased incidence of breast cancer, increased risk of blood clotting, and increased cardiovascular risk associated with the use of these horse-derived and synthetic hormones (used in combination in the patented medication Prempro®).13 The medical community began to wonder if using hormones from pregnant horses was such a good idea. In an effort to find a safer alternative, many patients and practitioners began looking into ‘natural’ hormone-replacement treatment using bioidentical hormones, which are identical to those produced naturally within the body. Bioidentical-hormone replacement was pioneered in the 1980s as a treatment for menopause by Dr. Jonathan Wright in Washington state. ——-Interest in estriol increased as it was discovered that estriol was safer than horse-derived and synthetic hormones in relation to cardiovascular health and potentially cancer risk. Unfortunately, many doctors have not adopted its use, and many bioidentical hormone-replacement regimes use only estradiol, a more potent estrogen
with increased associated risks.-
— The benefits of estriol may, in part, be explained by the mixed pro-estrogenic and anti-estrogenic effects of this interesting estrogen hormone. Scientists Melamed et al. investigated the mixture of stimulating and non-stimulating effects posed by estriol upon estrogen receptors. When estriol is given together with estradiol, the estradiol-specific stimulation to cells is decreased. This little-appreciated scientific fact helps to explain how estriol can reduce pro-carcinogenic effects of more powerful estrogens like estradiol. However, when estriol is given alone over a long period of time, it can produce a more complete pro-estrogenic effect, explaining why symptom relief is achieved when menopausal women take estriol.2 Experimental studies suggest that both estriol and tamoxifen (a synthetic anti-estrogen) have protective effects against radiation-induced cancer of the breast[U10] .14— Most of the research cited in this article used oral estrogen as the route of administration. However, for enhanced safety, topical estriol would be a better choice. Several studies have shown that transdermal estrogen confers less health risk as a route of administration than oral estrogen.3,21-25 Clinical experience of many doctors over the past 20-30 years suggests that transdermal estrogen is also more effective for some women. This is largely thought to be due to the ‘first-pass effect’—meaning that orally ingested drugs are often first metabolized in the liver, before having any activity in the body. Orally ingested estrogen hormones are among these drugs that are first metabolized in the liver before exerting their effects in the body. Physicians experienced in hormone replacement often observe that women treated with oral estrogens show high levels of estrogen metabolites in 24-hour urine specimens, suggesting that most of the orally ingested hormones are being excreted.———- In a prospective study funded by the US Army and performed at the Public Health Institute, Berkeley, California, researchers compared estriol levels during pregnancy with breast cancer incidence 40 years later. Results revealed that of the 15,000 women entered in the study, those with the highest levels of estriol relative to other estrogens during pregnancy had the lowest cancer risk. In other words, as the relative level of estriol increased during pregnancy, risk of breast cancer decreased 40 years later. In fact, women with the highest level of estriol during pregnancy had 58% lower risk for breast cancer compared with women who had the lowest serum estriol levels. The authors also noted that Asian and Hispanic women had higher estriol levels compared with other racial groups. Interestingly, Asian and Hispanic women have the lowest breast cancer rates. The authors concluded, “If confirmed, these results could lead to breast cancer prevention or treatment regimens that seek to block estradiol estrogen action using estriol, similar to treatment based on the synthetic anti-estrogen tamoxifen.”15 —In another study, Takahashi et al. studied the safety of estriol treatment for Menopausal symptoms. Fifty-three women with either surgically induced or natural menopause were given 2 mg of oral estriol/day for 12 months. Endometrial and breast assessments done with endometrial biopsy and breast ultrasound, respectively, found normal results in all women. The authors concluded that over a 12-month period, “estriol appeared to be safe and effective in relieving symptoms of menopausal women.”1—In one investigation, 52 postmenopausal women were given 2 mg, 4 mg, 6 mg, or 8 mg/day of oral estriol for six months. In all patients, vasomotor symptoms of menopause (such as hot flashes) were decreased. The most improvement was experienced by women taking the highest dose of 8 mg. There were no signs of endometrial hyperplasia confirmed by endometrial biopsy over the six-month treatment period. Mammograms were obtained on six of the patients who had mammary hyperplasia at the study’s outset, and no further changes were seen.8- Although the oral route of administration of estriol appears relatively safe over the short-term, the transdermal route is preferred for long-term use. For example, Weiderpass et al. found an increased risk of endometrial atypical hyperplasia and endometrial cancer with oral use of estriol, but not with transdermal estriol over at least a five-year period. Compared with no use of estriol, those who took oral estriol for at least five years had a significantly greater risk, compared with individuals who did not take any estriol. Women using topical estriol for at least five years did not have any increased risk.

************************************************************************

New protein study could shake up sports nutrition market-Or Kill It!

A study out this week could add a new player to the protein market that’s long been dominated by whey.–At the Experimental Biology meeting in San Diego on Monday, Blake Rasmussen, PhD, of the University of Texas Medical Branch, presented findings that show a blend of protein sources—50 percent casein, 25 percent whey, 25 percent soy—was superior to whey alone for prolonging muscle building and recovery after exercise.[U11] “Whey protein has been given considerable notice as the gold standard ingredient after exercise to enhance muscle growth,” Rasmussen said. “The main problem with whey is it’s fast digesting—the anabolic response in muscle is only about an hour. We wanted to prolong the anabolic response with other protein sources. We found muscle protein synthesis is elevated for a longer amount of time with a protein blend versus whey protein.”[U12] The combination of protein blends was determined in Rasmussen’s previous preclinical work with rats.–Soy, whey and casein protein are all absorbed at different rates during digestion[U13] . Whey protein is referred to as a “fast” protein because it is rapidly absorbed, between 30 and 60 minutes, Rasmussen said. Soy is an intermediate protein, taking between 60 and 120 minutes to digest. And casein is a slow protein, requiring between three and five hours to digest.-“The combination gives you a quick increase in protein synthesis, and it gets sustained,” said Rasmussen. “It’s a prolonged delivery to muscle that the muscles use for recovery.”-The double-blind, randomized clinical trial followed 19 young adults before and after ingestion of about 19 grams of protein from the blend or about 17.5 grams of whey protein alone.

“Your muscles don’t recover in 30 minutes. It takes at least 24 to 48 hours for your muscles to recover after a resistance exercise,” said Greg Paul, global marketing director for sports nutrition and weight management at Solae, a soy supplier that sponsored the study.[U14]

Not just for athletes anymore?—It was only five years ago when research showed that protein should be an important part of sports nutrition products. Before then, the game was typically provided by the likes of Gatorade-style drinks: with fast carbs and electrolytes such as potassium and sodium.–Whey became the go-to protein source in beverages because it quickly fed muscles. Whey also appears better than soy for producing muscle synthesis because of the presence in whey of the amino acid leucine, which has been shown to uniquely act as a stimulatory signal for muscle protein synthesis. But for athletes and weekend warriors alike, using a blend of protein sources that absorb in the body over time means muscles are being fed until the next meal.

The addition of soy is also important because of soy’s particular properties including as an antioxidant and as an anti-inflammatory, which are both key attributes in muscle building beyond anabolic[U15] effects.

And this could lead to the next great demographic for protein products: the elderly.–“Protein blends are useful for sports nutrition,” said Rasmussen, “but also for those interested in aging and maintaining muscle mass as we age. This could potentially be a great intervention for aging.”[U16] -To date, products targeting elderly nutrition with protein-centric value propositions are few and far between. The trend of aging baby boomers, coupled with research demonstrating the value of protein blends in maintaining muscle mass, ought to be of interest to marketers and product developers. [U17]

 

TOP D


[U1]Again Not Genetic as they perpetrate—but a preconditioning to create the anomaly intended—an experiment of control and dependency and debilitation

[U2]Disruptor of the endocrine system—then what happens when you add several different disruptors of the endocrine system? Sterilization!!

[U3]Imagine the duress our lineage will have as a result of the –soy poisoning—chemtrail poisoning-vaccination poisoning –genetically modified food poisoning-environmental—they will be beyond xenophobic and will be told they have a genetic disposition to XYZ infections or conditions or potential invasion from a pathogen specific to there DNA structure—all lies—a direct result of intervention of a evil kind causing this to occur in 3 generations

[U4]It would appear they would possibly chose as a direct result of those who also would have hade these inherited genes –further compounding the problem and  causing  more issues

[U5]A Binary attack to hit and violate at the same time causing a breakdown

[U6]How interesting —we have a GMM= genetically  modified malaria—doe that not make you go hmmmmm wonder how it got genetically enhanced to resist what once cured it !!?—Is it not interesting that we have a new species of Malaria now—apparently the old one was not killing people off fast enough so now the pharma’ have decided to make this  a better pathogen

[U7]WARNING WARNING—Understand this—Genetic Mutation–

[U8]Interesting—if they had the  money they could be relieved but no money and they are held hostage by the IMF—what a crock

[U9] 90% kill ratio—-am I the only one seeing this is not a natural cause—weoponized malaria??

[U10]Utilizing black tea in a concentrated form  has actually the same effect as tamoxifen without the unwanted side effects

[U11]You never Mix a casein with a Soy they are highly allergenic and will cause all kinds of intestinal break down–The soy itself is an idigestible protein that cause intestinal and pancreatic cancers—avoid this

[U12]This is true—but the issue is how it is blended—the idea that you can mix a good egg or animal protein wih the whey would make this far superior to there method and without the allergens associated  with the Soy

[U13]This is true whey is in and out in about 2 hours casein in and out in about 4-6 hours-Soy can take a month due to the fact it does not digest and in fact causes intestinal disruptions and pancreatic shutdown—so they are right in the blending but wrong in how they blend

[U14]NOW YOU SEE WHO DID THE STUDY- A CONFLICT OF INTREREST SINCE THEY  TRIED TO PATENT SOY-AND THE ISRAELI GOV’T STOPPED THEM FROM ATTAINING THIS AND IN FACT GAVE SOME OF THE HARSHEST CRITIQUE ON SOY AND WHO COULD EAT IT—ESSENTIALLY NO ONE BASED ON THOSE STUDIES

[U15]This is at  best  a fabrication go to the soy links at http://augmentinforce.50webs.com

and read for your self the 4 studies that are there—even the FDA since 1904  knew Soy was toxic and not meant to consume

[U16]If this is followed this will exacerbate an already compromised colon and or pancreas—this advice Should not be followed at all—this was obviously done by someone trying to get ahead at the elderly expense

[U17]This is a form of  euphanasia—food poisoning the elderly

Advertisements

About Health Axis

Searching for the truth in health and nutrition. Sharing information and ideas across the globe.
This entry was posted in The Remedy Show notes, Tony Pantellresco's Articles, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s