Up for some good news? The Eat Safe, Eat Smart Buy-Cott (what to buy, not what not to buy!) is nearly ready. Your source of GMO-free, organic products with just a click is nearly hear. We have a great selection of products from chocolate to deodorant for you to chose from. This site is meant to please you so we are taking the unusual step of asking you to help us put the finishing touches on it.
Just go to www.EatSafeEatSmart.com and take a look at the site. Then tell me at email@example.com what you like and what you don’t like about it. Let me know if there is something we forgot or a whole product line you love and feel should be there. Tell us if the format works for you and tell us what doesn’t work for you.
We’ll change it and make it right so you can have a site which offers you the best in Safe, Smart food and products!
Five days is not much time to see results when you change your diet. So the remarkable study by Chensheng Lu of Emory University in Atlanta is all the more astounding. Lu and his colleagues recruited 23 families in suburban Seattle which had children between 3 and 11 years old and showed that in just 5 days on organic foods, the levels of deadly pesticides in the children dropped so low they were undetectable! Prior to the study, all of the children ate conventionally grown and produced food (that includes produce with 5 number codes on the little tags that begin with either a “4” [grown with pesticides] or “8” [genetically modified]).
The study consisted of 5 days during which the 23 test families and their children, between 3 and 11 years old, substituted organic fruits, vegetables, fruit juices, cereals and pastas for conventional ones. The families made the same meals that they would have with conventional foods and followed the same dietary habits, just substituting the organic foods supplied by Lu and his team.
The results showed that in those 5 short days, the levels of two dangerous organophosphate pesticides became undetectable in the children’s urine. Parents collected two daily urine samples from their children to allow researchers to see what the impact of the change in diet was on the pesticide levels. Both before and after the test period, when they were eating conventional food, the pesticides were detectalbe in the children’s urine.
So when children were given a rest from pesticides for just 5 days, their bodies were able to detoxify and get rid of those dangerous chemicals. Perhaps it would take adults longer, since these toxins build up in fats, but doesn’t it seem reasonable to cut down the toxic burden of your body when you know that the toxins are poisonous, nerve poisons, in fact?
Is organic food worth the approximately 25% price premium? You tell me: what is your Central Nervous System worth? How about your child’s (or your mother’s or your brother’s) brain and nerves? And given that the cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other epidemics which are making us so sick and killing us so rapidly are primarily the result of toxins in the food supply and environment, doesn’t it seem reasonable to eat as much clean, safe, smart food as possible? Think of what you will save on medication and hospital co-pays later on!
Of course, that means that the organic food supply must be worth spending that extra money on. We pushed back the degraded organic standards shamefully being pushed by the major corporate interests in the Organic Trade Association last week. The OTA wanted a rider attached to the Agricultural Spending Bill which would have allowed many, many contaminants in the organic food supply with no notification to consumers about what they were buying or consuming. Our letters and those of other activists succeeded, with the help of Sen. Patrick Leahey of Vermont, in putting the matter before the Secretary of Agriculture “for further study”. Let’s help with that study: write a quick letter to your Congressional delegation and let them know how important maintaining organic standards is to you.
And take a suggestion from a doctor who knows what the health impact of organophosphate pesticides is: spend the extra money on organic food. It’s your life, your body, your health and your choice! Do it before there’s a diagnosis of cancer, heart disease, dementia, seizures, etc. in your family. Prevention really is the best medicine. And if there is already a health problem for you or a loved one, going organic will make things better by lowering the toxic burden the body has to struggle with.
Watch for our new website, www.EatSmartEatSafe.info to help you make those healthy choices!
Yours in health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD
It’s Pink Ribbon time when we are all urged do our best to walk and talk for a “Cure”. That’s right; it’s Breast Cancer Awareness Month again. Never mind that the last thing the “cancer cure industry” wants is a cure for cancer. After all, cancer is the single most economically productive disease in the history of mankind. Never mind that valid, successful and inexpensive cures for cancer are ruthlessly suppressed by the cancer industry, including the shameful performance of my profession, organized medicine. Pink Ribbon Season means well crafted messages to maneuver women all over America to have mammograms and undergo dangerous and often unnecessary treatment for it in the common event that the diagnosis of breast cancer is wrong.
Breast Cancer Awareness Month is, simply put, a corporate strategy , sponsored by, among others, Astra Zeneca, which makes Tamoxifen. Every word, walk and wink associated with the ubiquitous pink ribbon must pass their approval process. Perhaps you have noticed that, under their guidance, “prevention” has become “early detection” and early detection means, pure and simple, mammograms.
But do mammograms detect cancer? Well, no, not particularly well. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon pathology examination, show any presence of cancer.. How’s that? After an invasive technique like mastectomy (removal of a breast), lumpectomy (removal of a lump) or biopsy (sample material removed from the area for study), the false positive rate is between 70 and 80%? Right. But the cost is anywhere between $250-$500 per woman per year. You do the math. Industry can well afford to support those “Walk for the Cure” Events. Except they should be renamed “Walk for the Profit”.
Well, when a mammogram says there is no cancer, that’s correct, isn’t it? Actually mammograms are shockingly bad at finding cancers that really are there. Dr. Samuel Epstein in his book, The Politics of Cancer, notes that the false negative rate is, according to the National Cancer Institute, about 40 percent among women ages 40-49. The National Institutes of Health says that mammograms also miss 20 percent of malignant tumors in women.
But at least they can’t do any harm, right? Wrong. Mammograms currently deliver about 1 rad per breast per screening for a glandular dose of 0.1 rad per breast or a total glandular dose of 0.2 rad.. The National Cancer Institute estimates that each rad in a woman between the ages of 35 and 50 increases the risk of breast cancer by 1% so a bilateral mammogram each year increases a woman’s rate of breast cancer by 20% over each decade of screening! This is not a negligible risk.
But wait! There’s more.
Since mammography was introduced, Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), the most common form of breast cancer has increased by 328% and 200% of this increase may be largely caused by mammography!Radiation, like that delivered by mammography equipment, is associated with sharp increases in breast cancer. In fact, Dr. John W. Gofman, an expert on the health impact of ionizing radiation, believes that 75% of breast cancer can be prevented by avoiding ionizing radiation altogether! Now, that’s good for us, but it’s not good for the people who make mammography equipment. Prevention is, unfortunately, very bad business if you make detection equipment or treatment options for a preventable condition like breast cancer. And there are a host of studies showing that mammography is, at best, a major question and, at worst, a serious problem.
Mammography also may spread existing cancer because, during the procedure, massive, and painful, pressure is applied to the breast. This may cause existing cancer cells to spread before immune processes can kill them (which a healthy immune system does routinely).
And, if you are unlucky enough to carry predisposing genes (Oncolgene A-T, BRCA1 and BRCA2), you are particularly susceptible to even small amounts of radiation and will perhaps be among the estimated 10,000 women who will succumb this year to breast cancer directly caused by mammography.
So what do I, as a woman, as a physician and as a health advocate suggest? First of all, I recommend finding, and using regularly, another screening technology called “thermography” which detects cancer sooner, far more accurately and with no harm at all to the body since it relies on heat emitted by your body and takes a sensitive heat picture of your body. Because malignancies grow extra blood vessels, they emit more heat so they are detectible early and without danger. So, from where I sit,
1. Women under 35 are not well served by mammograms as a screening tool and should not allow mammograms to be performed
2. Although the American Cancer Society advocates mammogram screening for woman 40-49 every two years, I suggest thermography, not mammography, for all women of all ages along with any one of several high sensitivity biochemical tests for cancer. Please note that many experts, especially those whose incomes depend, directly or indirectly, on mammography and treatment for cancers –even false positive cancers — do not agree with my conclusions. Although many experts feel that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure, many feel that for women over 55 the risk is high enough to warrant the significant risk of mammograms.
In 1997, NIH appointed a consensus panel to evaluate the risk of mammography. They found no evidence that mammograms for this age group save lives and may do more harm than good. Rather than coming to a conclusion, the panel advised women to weigh the risks with their doctors and decide for themselves.
I do not have mammograms. I also do not have the approval of the Pink Ribbon people to tell you this. (Tamoxifen is another, sad, deadly story. We’ll talk about it another time.) In the mean time, walk for a cure because exercise reduces the risk of breast cancer. Eat for a cure because sensible, natural diets reduce the risk of breast cancer. Laugh for a cure because stress and loneliness reduce immune competence. Pray for a cure because people with sincere religious convictions live longer and healthier than those without them.
Yours in radiation-free health and freedom,
Rima E. Laibow, MD