Browsing Posts of Author

There are an increasing number of teenagers suffering from eating disorder, especially females. I continue to be increasingly concerned by this obsession with body shape and weight. Quite often I get these slim young women who come in and tell me, “Doctor, I need to lose weight”. More often than not I have stopped being polite and I tell these women to have a life.

However we could wonder about the factors that influence individuals to refuse to maintain a minimally normal body weight, harbor an intense fear of gaining weight, exhibit significant distortion in the perception of the ideal shape or size of their bodies, as well as feel dissatisfaction with their body shape and size

A brief look at the history of attractive/desirable body types reveals that these trends were always influenced by public perception. The lower classes always looked towards the higher classes for their model of the desirable body types.

Various strategies are sometimes employed to temporarily or permanently alter the shape of a body. The most common included dieting and exercise. At times artificial devices were used or surgery was employed. Breast size could be artificially increased or decreased. Falsies, breast prostheses or padded bras may have been used to increase the apparent size of a woman’s breasts, while minimiser bras may have been used to reduce the apparent size. Breasts could be surgically enlarged using breast implants or reduced by the systematic removal of parts of the breasts.

Historically, the greatest efforts have been made to reduce a woman’s waistline. Boned corsets were used for several centuries, but during the twentieth century these were mostly replaced with more flexible foundation garments. Where corsets are used for waist reduction, it may been for temporary reduction by occasional use or permanent reduction by people who were often referred to as tightlacers. Liposuction is the common current surgical method of reducing the waist size.

Each society develops a general perception of what an ideal female body shape would be like. These ideals are generally reflected in the art produced by or for a society. The ideal or preferred female body size and shape has varied over time and continues to vary between cultures; but a preference for a small waist has remained fairly constant throughout history. A low waist-hip ratio has often been seen as a sign of good health and reproductive potential.

A low waist-hip ratio has also often been regarded as an indicator of attractiveness of a woman, but recent research suggests that attractiveness is more correlated to body mass index than waist-hip ratio, contrary to previous belief. Historically, according to Devendra Singh, there was a trend for slightly larger women in the 17th and 18th centuries, as typified by the paintings of Rubens, but that in general there has been a preference for a slimmer waist in Western culture. She notes that “The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part – a known marker of health and fertility – is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures.”

New research suggests that apple shape women have the highest risk of developing heart disease while hourglass shape women have the lowest. The waist-hip ratio (WHR) is a person’s waist measurement divided by the hip measurement. Notwithstanding wide cultural differences in preferences for female build, scientists have discovered that the waist-hip ratio of any build is very strongly correlated to attractiveness across all cultures. Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip circumference) are usually rated as more attractive by men from European cultures. Such diverse beauty icons as Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, and the Venus de Milo all have ratios around 0.7.

In other cultures, preferences vary, ranging from 0.6 in China, to 0.8 or 0.9 in parts of South America and Africa, and divergent preferences based on ethnicity, rather than nationality, have also been noted. WHR has been found to be a more efficient predictor of mortality in older people than waist circumference or body mass index (BMI). In the early days (18th Century) it was both class consciousness and the works of great artists like Botticelli and Michelangelo influenced public perception.

With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the growth of the printed media ( ie newspapers, television and the media), the popular perception of what looked good became what was fashionable. So the media has always influenced public perception. However what is happening now is that the divisions that existed between the different cultures and societies is dissolving (ie East and West, Indian and Chinese etc). We are witnessing the melding of different models of desired shapes.

Advertising in teen magazines and on television typically glamorizes skinny models who do not resemble the average woman. In fact, today’s models generally weight 23% less then the average woman. Considering the average person in the United States sees approximately 3,000 ads in magazines, billboards, and television every day, your teenager is getting the wrong message about body image much too often. Media targeting teenage girls are emphasizing the ideal of thinness as beauty. When you stop and think about the fact that the average height and weight for a model is 5’10” and 110 lbs, and the height and weight for the average woman is 5’4″ and 145 lbs, it’s easy to see why this creates a tremendous health risk for young girls.

This leads to starving young skinny women who have difficulty getting pregnant because their BMI is too low for healthy hormonal balance. If they do become pregnant, they often give birth to children who have subtle deficiencies that impact their physical and emotional health. These young women eventually develop osteoporosis in their later years because of their early dieting (See Blog on “Osteoporosis). “Oh what a tangled web we weave”. The media has a lot to answer for.

Be well
Dr Sundardas

In an effort to censor any online text that might inform consumers of the ability of natural products to protect consumers from H1N1 influenza A, the FDA has been sending out a round of warning letters, threatening to “take enforcement action… such as seizure or injunction for violations of the FFDC Act without further notice.”

“Firms that fail to take correction action,” the FDA warns, “may also be referred to the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations for possible criminal prosecution for violations of the FFDC Act and other federal laws.”

The message is crystal clear: No product may be described as protecting against or preventing H1N1 infections unless it is approved by the FDA. And which products has the FDA approved? Tamiflu (the anti-viral drug that most people will never have access to), and soon the new H1N1 vaccine that’s being manufactured at a cost of one billion dollars (paid to Big Pharma by the taxpayers). This vaccine, of course, will be utterly useless because H1N1 will undoubtedly mutate between now and the time the vaccine is ready, rendering the vaccine useless.

In other words, according to the tyrants at the FDA, the only products that may be marketed alongside the term “H1N1” are those products that either don’t work or aren’t available to most people. Anything that really works to prevent influenza infections — such as natural anti-virals, medicinal herbs, etc. — is banned from even mentioning H1N1 without the threat of being criminally prosecuted.

! As the defender of Big Pharma, the FDA is also the destroyer of knowledge that seeks to remove educational statements from the internet. Truth has nothing to do with it — it is verifiably true that anti-viral herbs, probiotics and other natural products help protect consumers from influenza — but the FDA cannot allow such statements to remain online for the simple fact that people might become informed. And that, it seems, would be a dangerous precedent.

If people were informed about the healing and protective powers of herbs, they would no longer remain enslaved by the medical establishment. Profits would be lost. Power would evaporate. This is why people can never be allowed to attain any real knowledge about herbs, superfoods or nutritional supplements. And the FDA will threaten people with imprisonment just to make sure they don’t dare publish knowledge that the FDA does not want the people to see. The fact that nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults are clinically obese is worrisome for a whole new reason: Evidence emerging from a hospital in Michigan (and published by the CDC) appears to indicate that obese patients may be very easily killed by swine flu.

In the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s report on death and disease, researchers documented the case of ten swine flu patients at a Michigan hospital who became so ill they were put on ventilators. Three of the patients ultimately died from the infection. The kicker? Nine of the ten were obese, and two of the three who died were severely obese.

As reported by Reuters, CDC virologist Dr. Tim Uyeki said, “What this suggests is that there can be severe complications associated with this virus infection, especially in severely obese patients.”

Notably, five of the patients showed evidence of blood clots in their lungs, indicating severe cellular trauma in the lungs. Nine of the patients suffered from multiple organ failure, and six experienced kidney failure.
These findings are especially worrisome because nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults are now clinically obese. Combined with widespread vitamin D deficiency, nutritional deficiencies and pharmaceutically-induced immune suppression, the U.S. population is more vulnerable to a pandemic right now than any other population in the history of the world.

The people of the first world countries who have adopted a lifestyle similar to the Americans, in other words, are primed for a pandemic. Most of the deaths in Singapore from H1N1 are from people who have a history of health conditions that create free radicals and cytokines from inflammatory conditions ie diabetes, epilepsy, allergies or infections. Shockingly, most Asians may still be thinking that excess body fat is normal and that obese babies are just “chubby.” Should the circulating swine flu combine with seasonal flu this fall, it could devastate the immunologically vulnerable Asian population, potentially killing millions.
The number of patients reviewed in this study is quite small (only ten), but even so, this could be a warning sign of more deaths to come from infected, obese patients. Of course, there’s really no mystery why obesity may cause extreme vulnerability to swine flu infections: The virus kills through an inflammatory process, and obesity is, itself, a highly-inflammatory condition that only exacerbates the deadliness of the H1N1 virus.

Patients who have made themselves obese — for whatever reason — have also unleashed a storm of inflammatory cytokines in their blood, and these cytokines are precisely what get over-excited during the body’s response to a swine flu infection, leading to organ damage and death. This is precisely why people wishing to survive the coming pandemic must make a special effort to attain a high level of physical and nutritional health before such a pandemic arrives.

Being obese compromises your body’s immune system, liver, heart, lungs and kidneys. This puts a serious additional burden on your body, leaving few spare resources for fighting off infections. That’s probably why nine out of ten swine flu victims documented in the Michigan hospital were obese.

The bottom line in this study is quite clear: Don’t be obese during the next pandemic. If you are obese now, let this bit of knowledge provide whatever extra motivation you need to drop some excess body fat and reduce the inflammatory burden on your body’s organs. Obesity is, after all, readily reversed through simple changes in diet and exercise habits.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Listed below are nutrients that will improve your immune system against viral infections.
Protecting Yourself against the Swine Flu. on June 15, 2009

Diabetes management is something that many must deal with on a day to day basis. About 16 million Americans suffer from diabetes mellitus, a chronic disease in which the pancreas produces too little or no insulin, impairing the body’s ability to turn sugar into usable energy.

In recent years, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a fast-acting form of human insulin and several new oral diabetes drugs, including the most recent, Rezulin (troglitazone), the first of a new class of drugs called insulin sensitizers. This drug is designed to help Type II diabetics make better use of the insulin produced by their bodies and could help as many as 1 million Type II diabetics reduce or eliminate their need for insulin injections.

While it is treatable, diabetes is still a killer. Thus, diabetes management is extremely important. The fourth leading cause of death in America, diabetes claims an estimated 178,000 lives each year. So the treatment is aimed at holding the disease in check, reversing it where possible, and preventing complications.

Philip Cryer, M.D., a professor at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and president of the American Diabetes Association, believes that most people simply don’t understand the magnitude of the diabetes problem. “Diabetes is an increasingly common, potentially devastating, treatable yet incurable, lifelong disease. It’s the leading cause of blindness in working-age adults, the most common cause of kidney failure leading to dialysis or transplants, and is a leading cause of amputation,” he says. “The most recent estimate we have of diabetes’ cost [in terms of] direct medical care is $90 billion dollars annually–more than heart disease, cancer, or AIDS.”

At the heart of diabetes control are dietary management and drug treatment. The increasing emphasis on the importance of a healthy diet, the availability of glucose monitoring devices that can help diabetics keep a close watch over blood sugar levels, and the wide range of drug treatments enable most diabetics to live a near-normal life.
Managing the diet is easier now because of food labeling regulations that went into effect in 1994 (see “The New Food Label: Coping with Diabetes” in the November 1994 FDA Consumer).According to the Corn Refiners Association, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is no worse for you than any other dietary carbohydrate. Many health experts, however, disagree, warning consumers that HFCS is strongly correlated with diabetes and obesity.

According to NaturalNews, these quotes tell you how bad the problems is:

Roughly $40 billion in federal subsidies are going to pay corn growers, so that corn syrup is able to replace cane sugar. corn syrup has been singled out by many health experts as one of the chief culprits of rising obesity, because corn syrup does not turn off appetite. Since the advent of corn syrup, consumption of all sweeteners has soared, as have people’s weights. According to a 2004 study reported in the American journal of Clinical Nutrition, the rise of Type-2 diabetes since 1980 has closely paralleled the increased use of sweeteners, particularly corn syrup.
There is a Cure for Diabetes: The Tree of Life 21-Day+ Program by Gabriel Cousens

Since the fructose in corn syrup does neither stimulate insulin secretion nor reduce the hunger hormone ghrelin, you will continue to feel hungry while the body converts the fructose into fat. The resulting obesity increases the risk of diabetes and other diseases. Since you obviously cannot expect to receive much help from those who only know how to treat the effects of illness and not its causes, you may need to take your health into you own hands.
Timeless Secrets of Health & Rejuvenation: Unleash The Natural Healing Power That Lies Dormant Within You by Andreas Moritz

More than half of the carbohydrates being consumed are in the form of sugars (sucrose, corn syrup, etc.) being added to foods as sweetening agents. High consumption of refined sugars is linked to many chronic diseases, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Generally, the term “dietary fiber” refers to the components of plant cell wall and non-nutritive residues. Originally, the definition was restricted to substances that are not digestible by the endogenous secretions of the human digestive tract.
Textbook of Natural Medicine 2nd Edition Volume 1 by Michael T. Murray, ND

The following are tips to prevent or manage diabetes (Type 2);

1) If you have a history of diabetes in your family, recognize you will have a higher tendency to do so. Very often diabetes is a disease of denial.

2) Watch your weight. DO not let it exceed more than 5% of your optimum body weight when you wer at your healthiest. Studies have shown that every 5% increase to correlate to a 200% risk of mature onset diabetes. (Weight gain and the Risk of Developong Insulin Resistance Syndrome . Everson SA, et al. Diabetes Care 1998;21(10):1637-43)

3) Exercise regularly and lifelong. Studies have shown, it helps to protect against diabetes.(The Protective Effect of Good Physical Fitness when young on the Risk of Impaired Glucose Tolerance when Old)Takemura Y, et al. Prev Med 1999;28(1):14-9 )

4) Watch your carbohydrates really carefully if you are at high risk. Use complex carbohydrates.
(Heterogeneity in associations between macronutrient intake and lipoprotein profile in individuals with type 2 diabetes) Mayer-Davis EJ;Levin S;Marshall JA, Diabetes care Oct 1999 22(10) p1632-9)

5) Follow the blood type diet. The lectins in food which are antagonistic to your blood cells can lead to pancreatic damage.

Be well
Dr Sundardas

Much of the treatment for prostrate cancer is completely unwarranted. Remember, the majority of prostate cancer is pseudodisease. Most men die with it, not of it.

What Tests Should You Get?
So which tests should you get and when should you get them? It depends on who you listen to. Unfortunately, there’s no clear consensus among expert panels and advocacy groups, so confusion reigns.

I hesitate to make blanket recommendations. However, before you have a test, I strongly encourage you to understand both the pros-the slim but potentially lifesaving possibility that early-stage, clinically significant cancer will be found and treated-and the cons-the high risk of false positives, additional testing, anxiety, and unnecessary treatment. That way, you’ll be better prepared to deal with the outcome, whatever it may be.

Think Twice
I understand that this is an emotionally charged issue. Cancer is scary and the treatments for it are as frightening as the disease itself. If you have symptoms of cancer, by all means see a doctor and discuss appropriate testing. Otherwise, think twice. If your physician orders a cancer screening test, question its necessity. Doctors sometimes suggest these tests for all the wrong reasons: fears of malpractice, financial incentives, and even patient demand. Find out what course would be recommended if your results were positive. Then review the information in this article, and make your own educated decision. Next time you hear that someone who died of cancer would have been saved if only he’d had regular testing, realize that’s nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. And, whatever you do, don’t let anyone make you feel irresponsible if you elect not to undergo cancer screening.

Two major Issues Associated with Ageing and Cancer are :
A) Anabolic/Catabolic Balance – Anabolism refers to cellular buildup. Catabolism refers to cellular breakdown. These two processes are involved in ageing. As you age poorly, catabolism increases much faster than it should.

“BIOMARKERS”- By William Evans, PhD and Irwin H. Rosenberg MD,Tufts University, Huyman Nutrition Research Centre on Ageing, Publisher – Fireside, Simon and Schuster – A very good book to read about this process.

B) Oxidative Stress –Environmental Damage and Hidden Infections. Oxidative Stress is a significant marker in disease and ageing. As we age faster, oxidative stress increases faster

A surprising number of studies report that excess serum insulin (hyperinsulinemia) is a major health problem. It appears that excess insulin promotes hypertension by impairing sodium balance. Too much insulin harms the kidneys. The vascular system is severely damaged by prolonged exposure to excess insulin. By acting as a catalyst in promoting cell growth, excess insulin increases the risk and progression of certain cancers. Excess insulin is a contributory factor to benign prostate enlargement because it promotes overgrowth of prostate cells. One of the first class markers for Syndrome X is the Hip to Waist ratio.

For people trying to reduce body fat, excess insulin suppresses the release of growth hormone and prevents fat from being released from fat cells. High serum insulin is associated with the development of abdominal obesity and a number of health problems, including atherosclerosis and impotence. Obesity is associated with excess insulin and reduced insulin sensitivity, both risk factors for Type II diabetes.

Perhaps the simplest method of evaluating the toxic effects of excess insulin is to look at its effects on human mortality. One early study showed that over a 10-year period, the risk of dying was almost twice as great for those with the highest levels of insulin compared to those with the lowest. The scientists stated that hyperinsulinemia is associated with increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, independent of other risk factors (NIH 1985). Aging people experience a wide range of degenerative diseases that are directly attributable to elevated insulin.

Most of us want to grow old and age gracefully. We know that the most common enemies to growing old gracefully are heart disease (50% of men, 33% of women), cancer (33%), diabetes (12%) and hypertension (12%).

It takes 8 years for a tumour/growth to become significant enough to be detected on a X-ray or scan. It takes another 8 to 15 years for the tumour/growth to first start . So it takes anything from 16 to 23 years for you to develop a growth/tumour.

So before a tumour/growth develops or you become ill:
• Your cells start ageing faster (Biological Age)
• Your metabolic rate slows down and you becomes fatter (BMI)
• Specific systems in your body slow down or dysfunction
• Your hip waist ratio changes for the worse (Syndrome X)
• Your cells becomes more dehydrated and you lose muscle mass (Fluid Levels)
• Your saliva and urine become more and more acidic (< Ph6.8)

I have developed a system to measure these changes called the
Optimal Health Assessment.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

www.naturaltherapies.com/cell rejuvenation program.htm

For more than 15 years, I’ve been warning patients about the downside of mammograms, PSA testing, and the overall concept of cancer screening. It hasn’t been a popular position. Today, however, there’s a small but growing band of researchers, clinicians, and expert panels who are speaking out against the unbridled use of these tests. One of them, H. Gilbert Welch, MD, a professor at Dartmouth Medical School, has laid out very persuasive arguments in an aptly titled book, Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here’s Why. In this straightforward and well-referenced book, Dr. Welch raises several concerns about cancer screening.

1. Few People Benefit From Screening
For starters, the majority of folks who are screened receive no benefit. That’s because, despite scary statistics, most people will not get cancer. Let’s look at breast cancer as an example.

According to government statistics, the absolute risk of a 60-year-old woman dying from breast cancer in the next 10 years is 9 in 1,000. If regular mammograms reduce this risk by one-third-a widely cited but by no means universally accepted claim-her odds fall to 6 in 1,000. Therefore, for every 1,000 women screened, three of them avoid death from breast cancer, six die regardless, and the rest? They can’t possibly benefit because they weren’t going to die from the disease in the first place.

If mammograms worked as touted, death from breast cancer would be rare, since three-quarters of American women 40 and older get regular screenings (a total of 33.5 million per year). The modest decline in the death rate from the mid-1970s, when mammography was introduced, through the present can be attributed to factors other than screening, such as changes in treatment and the dramatic decrease in the use of Premarin and other cancer-promoting hormone replacement drugs. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that mammograms do not substantially reduce risk of death from breast cancer.

2. The Most Deadly Cancers Are Missed
The flip side is that some people who are screened get cancer and die anyway. Test results aren’t always accurate. Sometimes cancer is there, but it’s missed (false negatives). In the case of mammograms, it could be a question of a poor-quality test or a radiologist who overlooked something. Even experienced radiologists don’t always interpret test results the same, and sometimes they just plain get it wrong.

The most likely reason that cancer is overlooked, however, is due to the nature of cancer itself. The deadliest cancers grow very rapidly. Screening can detect slow-growing cancers in their early stages, but you can see how aggressive cancers could be missed if you’re only looking for them once a year. Depending on the cancer’s growth cycle, it could crop up just months after screening and be far advanced by the time the next test rolls around.

3. The Pitfalls of False Positives
Far more common than false negatives are false positives-those cancer scares that occur when you’re told that your test is suspicious but, after further evaluation, turns out to be nothing. False positives lead to confirmatory testing such as ultrasound of the breast and prostate, CT scan of the lung, colonoscopy, and colposcopy of the cervix. These tests are at best inconvenient and at worst extremely unpleasant, as anyone who’s had a colonoscopy knows. They also often lead to biopsies, which are far more invasive and could possibly promote the spread of cancer.

Unfortunately, false positive rates are incredibly high. For mammography, it’s close to 10 percent. For every 100 women screened, 10 will require further workup. If you repeat this screening test every year for 10 years, your cumulative risk of having at least one false positive rises to 65 percent. This means that more than half of all women will get the terrifying news that their mammogram is abnormal-the first step on the slippery slope of intervention.

False positive rates are high for PSA as well, especially among older men. Some estimate that three-quarters of men who have a prostate biopsy based on an elevated PSA level do not have cancer. And lifetime false-positive risk for Pap smears is 75 percent.
Another consideration is the psychological trauma of cancer screening. Being told you might have cancer is a harrowing experience, and the lag time between retesting and getting a clean bill of health can be months.

4. Unnecessary Treatment
Even worse than the sound and fury created by false positives is unnecessary treatment. Yes, some lives are saved due to early detection and treatment. But not all cancers are the same. Some are deadly, treated or not; others are not fatal regardless of treatment. Dr. Welch calls the latter pseudodisease-small, slow-growing or nonprogressive cancers that you’d never know existed were it not for screening tests. Yet all too often, these innocuous tumors are attacked with a vengeance, often to the detriment of patients.

A prime example is prostate cancer. Since 1975, its incidence has more than doubled. But rather than having an epidemic of prostate cancer, what we have is an epidemic of detection. Although many more men are being diagnosed and treated, the death rate from prostate cancer has held steady at 3 percent.

It’s human nature, when given a diagnosis of cancer, to want to get rid of it. But prostate cancer treatment is not benign. Surgical complications include difficulty urinating (17 percent), urinary incontinence (28 percent), and inability to have an erection (more than 50 percent). Radiation damages the rectum and can cause diarrhea and bowel urgency. Side effects of androgen suppression range from sexual dysfunction to risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Be well
Dr Sundardas

http://www.naturaltherapies.com/cancer.htm

As the computer visual display (VDU) unit became more common in the workplace, the issue of radiation hazards associated with the prolonged use of VDU’s were tested by reputable laboratories and found to emit no detectable levels of X- rays. A similar study by Canadian Radiation Protection Bureau researchers arrived at the same conclusion. World Health Organisation (WHO) experts endorsed similar findings. Given such reassurances, the temptation has been to conclude that VDU’s are harmless. However, deeper more haunting statistics suggest that health problems from VDU’s could arise from electromagnetic radiation.

The early research did not consider all the relevant data. Since 1979 small clusters of miscarriage and birth defects among VDU users in a dozen or more office locations have been reported. Due to the low level of X-ray radiation around VDU’s, authorities often dismissed the increased incidence of these abnormalities as chance occurrences, while others argued alternately that the reported defects could be hereditary.

In 1982 Delagado and others reported powerful inhibitory effects on chicken embryos produced by weak 100 H2 {28} electromagnetic fields. The following year Ubeda and others also observed ‘teratogenic” changes or monstrous mutations to chicken embryos exposed to low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields of 100Hz. The most deterious effects were observed with a weak magnetic field strengths of about 1 micro Tesla, with stronger and weaker fields less effective.

Since the original work of Delgado and co-workers, several more recent studies have confirmed that weak electromagnetic fields are capable of interacting with biological systems of specific frequencies and intensities. Since magnetic field strength pulses of up to 400,000 microtesla have been reported with VDU’s it follows that weak magnetic pulses will exist even at a considerable distance from the units.

With approximately half the workforce using VDU’s being women of childbearing age, the health implications are enormous. McDonald and co-workers who studied births in the Montreal area in 1984, reported, that the rate of spontaneous abortion in 2609 current pregnancies with no VDU use was 5.7% compared to 8.3% for 588 with weekly exposure of less than 15 hours and 9.4% for 710 pregnancies with VDU use greater than 15 hours per week.

In 1988 Goldhaber and co-workers found in a case control study of pregnancy outcome that there exists: “Significantly elevated risk of miscarriage for working women who using VDU’s for more than 20 hours per week during the first trimester of pregnancy compared to other working who reported not using VDUs”. The increased risk could not be explained by age, education, occupation, smoking, alcohol consumption on other maternal characteristics.

Reported cases of foetal damage from VDU’s.:

1. In 1979, four out of seven pregnant VDU operates who had worked on the classified advertising department of the Toronto Star gave birth to infants with defects. One had a club foot, another a deft palate, a third an underdeveloped eye and the fourth had multiple heart abnormalities. None of the mothers had smoked or taken drugs during the pregnancies.During that period, three other employees at the Star who didn’t work on VDU’s gave birth to normal babies.

2. Due to excessive fetal retardation and birth defects among the off-spring of women and animals exposed to radioactive fields in Eastern Europe, pregnant women in Czechoslovakia have been specifically prohibited from working in areas where the “safe” level of micro-waves was exceeded. The Czech standard is one-thousandth the recommended American guideline.

The following items also possess a significant electromagnetic field; television, electric razors, electric blankets, electric-power transmission and distribution networks, fluorescent lights, electric clocks, hair dryers and electric heaters, microwave ovens, personal radio transmitters. Research done by Dr. Robert O. Becker M.D. appears to indicate that all of the above appliances at times have radiation levels that sometimes exceed current safety levels of radiation.

The rise of phenomena such as electromagnetic – hypersensitivity syndrome has been verified by several scientists, like Robert Becker M.D. and Dr. William Rae. It refers to the phenomena whereby an individual develops an allergy due to electro-magnetic fields. Chronic-fatigue syndrome has also been linked to electro-magnetic fields.

While Dr. Becker says that it is too premature to conclude that brain lesions of the autistic children match those of the experimental animals, he points out that the apparent onset of autism as a clinical condition in the 1940’s coincided with the marked increase in the use of electro- magnetic energy.

A simple way of measuring if you are outside the direct influence of the electric field of an appliance is outlined below; To check the level of radiation from your TV set, simply turn on your small battery-operated AM radio. Tune it to a spot on the dial where you cannot hear a station and turn the volume up to maximum. Hold the radio about a foot away from the front of the TV and switch the TV on. If you then move the radio away from the TV you will reach a distance at which the noise disappears. This method can be used for devices that give off radio-frequency fields such as computers and stereos. It will not work for devices that give off 60-H3 only such as electric stoves and hair dryers. The distance at which the “white” noise disppears is the safe distance. To be absolutely safe, pregnant mothers should minimize exposure to VDU’s computers and micro-wave ovens.

be well
Dr Sundardas
http://www.naturaltherapies.com/ELECTRODERMAL%20SCREENING.htm

Pthalates used in food packaging could be linked to childhood obesity, according to two recent studies conducted by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine that included research conducted on more than 900 children in East Harlem and surrounding communities. The studies have added to a growing body of evidence that link phthalates to health problems.

One of the studies, according to the Mount Sinai researchers, focused on 400 girls in the East Harlem community. The results showed that the heaviest girls had the highest levels of  HYPERLINK “http://www.naturalnews.com/phthalates.html” phthalates metabolites in their urine.

Another significant research project called Growing Up Healthy in East Harlem examined the diet and other factors for 520 East Harlem children aged 6-8 with the results indicating that the level of phthalates in the children tested was higher than the national average.

About 40 percent of children in East Harlem are considered to be overweight or obese. “When we say children, I’m talking about kindergarten children, we are talking about little kids,” said Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai, one of the lead researchers on one of the East Harlem studies. “This is a problem that begins early in life.”

Health concerns over phthalates have been debated for more than 10 years, as shown by a New York Times article from 1999 that describes opposing views on their use and mentions an FDA investigation into the matter. At that time, a major concern was the use of  HYPERLINK “http://www.naturalnews.com/chemicals.html” chemicals in children’s toys.

Previous reports linking phthalates to  HYPERLINK “http://www.naturalnews.com/health.html” health disruptions have shown that they are connected to abdominal  HYPERLINK “http://www.naturalnews.com/obesity.html” obesity, insulin resistance, poor semen quality in men, and changes in reproductive organs in infant boys.

Phthalates can be found in personal care products like cosmetics, shampoos, soaps, lotions, paint and pesticides. They are also used to make  HYPERLINK “http://www.naturalnews.com/plastics.html” plastics more pliable. Phthalates are absorbed into the body and are a type of endocrine disruptor – a category of chemical that affects glands and hormones that regulate various bodily functions.

Increasingly when I am doing hair mineral testing on young children because of health issues, I am noticing higher amounts of toxic substances like lead, arsenic, mercury and tin. Substances like boron, copper and iron which are supposed to be nutritional become toxic at higher levels. The parents then ask me, “Where does it come from? How could all these heavy toxic substances and heavy metals be impacting them?” That’s when I tell them about the 100, 000 or more toxic substances that re now present in the environment that were not present before. The various authorities have not even established safety levels for multiple chemicals in the human body.

The FDA continues conducting ongoing investigations into potential risks, but notes that while there have been studies on laboratory animals demonstrating carcinogenic effects of certain chemicals, “there are no studies in humans that are adequate to serve as the basis for regulatory decision-making.”

Other packaging chemicals that have recently caused consumer concern include Biosphenol A (BPA) and perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). PFCs, which are found in grease-resistant packaging such as that used in microwaveable popcorn bags and pizza boxes, have been linked to infertility in women.

My wife’s colleague passed on this information to me. One of her friends whose father works for the government health inspection passed on his information. Their job is to inspect all hawkers, their cooked food, their store hygiene, etc. They found sugar cane juice has the highest content of bacteria among all food. In fact, it has exceeded the set limit.

Hence, these guys had to find out why. They went round all sugar cane stores and watched the way the hawkers handled their sugar cane, wash their glasses, their entire
procedure. But they couldn’t find the problem.

One day, they stayed till closing time and discovered some shocking facts! Whenever, the hawkers closed their stores, they would wash the floor with detergent.. As we know, the
remaining sugar canes will be placed at the back of the store, vertically standing and as sugar canes are very porous, they tend to absorb whatever liquid around them. Besides the soapy water, the dirt on hawkers’ boots, cats’ urine, etc, will all be absorbed?? Now, whenever I eat at a hawker centre, I would warn all my friends about this and of course I stopped drinking my favorite sugar cane juice.

A friend, who loved sugar cane juice, was pregnant. She was always drinking sugar cane juice. Anyway, one day she miscarried and the fetus was already like 6 or 7 months old,
I think. When the doctors did an autopsy to find out why all of a sudden the fetus had died inside her, they found traces of some chemical substance, which was found in cat urine… Large traces of it.

While it would not be able to harm adults, it was extremely toxic to babies, what more a fetus? So they tried to determine how this cat urine thing could have ended up in
the fetus. This meant that it had to be digested by the mother, right? And the only logical conclusion they could come up with was that since these sugar cane juice stall holders just leave the canes lying around on the wet and dirty floor, it would not be impossible to think that stray cats could have peed on those sugar canes or near those sugar canes. So think carefully the next time you order that favorite sugar cane juice!

Be well

Dr Sundardas

One important reason is the big delay — and advantage — women have over men in terms of cardiovascular disease, like heart attack and stroke. Women develop these problems usually in their 70s and 80s, about 10 years later than men, who develop them in their 50s and 60s. For a long time, doctors thought the difference was due to estrogen. But studies have shown that this may not be the case, and now we know that giving estrogen to women post-menopause can actually be bad for them. “http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1635370,00.html” \t “_blank”

One reason for that delay in onset of cardiovascular disease could be that women are relatively iron-deficient compared to men — especially younger women, those in their late teens and early 20s — because of menstruation. Iron plays a very important part in the reactions in our cells that produce damaging free radicals, which glom onto cell membranes and DNA, and may translate into aging the cell. In fact, in our diets, red meat is the main source of iron, and lack of iron is probably one major reason that being vegetarian is healthy for you. There was a very good study looking at the intake of red meat and heart disease in Leiden in the Netherlands: in regions where people didn’t eat red meat, those populations had half the rate of heart attack and stroke compared to the populations that did eat red meat.

Another more complicated possibility [for women’s longevity] is that women have two X chromosomes, while men have one. (Men have an X and a Y.) When cells go through aging and damage, they have a choice in terms of genes — either on one X chromosome or the other.

Consider it this way: you have a population of cells, all aging together. In some cells, the genes on one X chromosome are active; in other cells, by chance, the same set of genes, with different variations, are active on the other X chromosome. Don’t forget, we all have the same genes — the reason we differ is because we express different variations of those genes, like different colors of a car. Now, if one set of variations provides a survival advantage for the cells versus another, then the cells with the advantage will persist while the other ones will die off, leaving behind more cells with the genes on the more advantageous X chromosome. So, in women, cells can perhaps be protected by a slightly better variation of a gene on the second X chromosome. Men don’t have this luxury and don’t get this choice.

It’s very unclear [how big an effect that could have]. I’ve seen men who have done horrendous damage to themselves over time with smoking and drinking and who still get to 100 and older — though that’s very, very rare. They might have the right combination of some really special genetic variations that we call “longevity enabling genes” — which we’re on the mad hunt for.

Meanwhile other individuals may do everything right and only make it into their 80s. That may be because they have what we call “disease genes,” some genetic variations that are relatively bad for them. Now some of these [disease genes] may be on the X chromosome, [meaning that women who have the second X chromosome with which to compensate, would have an advantage]. But it’s really still a very complicated puzzle to tease out.

There are a few other reasons that men die earlier in life more often than women. Men in their late teens and 20s go through something called “testosterone storm.” The levels of the hormone can be quite high and changeable, and that can induce some pretty dangerous behavior among young men. They don’t wear their seatbelts; they drink too much alcohol; they can be aggressive with weapons and so on and so forth. These behaviors lead to a higher death rate.

Another area where we see higher death rates among men is among the depressed — especially older men. If they attempt suicide, they are more likely to succeed than women.

Overall, about 70% of the variation around average life expectancy — [just over 80 for women and just over 75 for men in the U.S.] — is probably attributable to environmental factors — your behaviors and your exposures. Probably only 30% is due to genetics. And that’s very, very good news. There’s so much we can do. Most of us should be able to get into our late 80s. What’s more, to get to older ages, like the centenarians, you are necessarily compressing the time you’re sick to the end of your life. It’s not a case where the older you get, the sicker you get. It’s very much the case that the older you get, the healthier you’ve been.

But, in general, there are maybe three things men do worse than women. They smoke a lot more. (That gender gap is fortunately shrinking, since men are smoking less and less.) They eat more food that leads to high cholesterol. And, perhaps related to that, men tend not to deal with their stress as well as women. They may be more prone to internalizing that stress rather than letting go — though that’s a fairly controversial point. Nonetheless, stress plays a very important role in cardiovascular disease.

Generally men unless they cannot work, are disabled by pain and cannot move or they are so sick and have a nervous breakdown, they maintain this veneer of stolidity and the attitude that says “I am fine”. Whereas women prefer to be proactive and prefer to preempt trouble generally.

My personal opinion is that women are more proactive, more sensitive to pain and seek earlier intervention. They are more interested in intervention before the quality of life is compromised. So serious issues are discovered earlier. Men wait until what happens to them creates an impasses in their ability to work or be effective. This may be one factor that accounts for increased life span.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

When I first became exposed to the literature about the systemic links between dental problems and other health conditions, I was absolutely flabbergasted. Eventually I started testing my patients for dental issues. It was astounding. For every case of cancer, severe unmanageable diabetes, chronic infections, there was always a dental issue. I have exploring this link now for almost 12 years of my twenty years in practice and the evidence continues to stack up.
Over the last ten years there has been a growing body of evidence linking periodontal disease and systemic diseases. Every day new research is making the link stronger. Periodontal infection is the advanced stages of gum disease that causes bone loss. The bone loss is irreversible. Gingivitis is the early stage of gum disease and with early detection, treatment and proper oral hygiene can be reversed. Periodontal infection has been associated with other systemic disorders that would not on the surface appear related.

Periodontal disease is a potential risk factor for:

*        infective endocarditis (damaged heart valves)
*        cardiovascular diseases (arteriosclerosis, coronary thrombosis ischemic heart
disease, stroke)
*        diabetes
*        respiratory problems
*        pancreatic cancer
*        behavioral and psychosocial status  

Not only is there an indirect link between periodontal infections and systemic disorders, but periodontal disease is infectious or communicable and can be passed between family members. It makes sense that infection in the mouth can find its way to other parts of the body. Initially it was thought that the bacteria in the mouth that cause periodontal disease were directly infecting different sites in the body, like the heart or lungs or artificial implants. This is true. However, there is more to it than that.  

The body recognizes the bacteria in the mouth as a chronic infection and uses its defense mechanism to fight it. The body calls upon itself to manufacture blood constituents, such as neutrophils, eosinophils, and mast cells, to physically fight the infection. This process occurs with all infections. The problem is that as an infection becomes chronic, the body continues to manufacture these blood constituents, and release a pseudo hormone called c-reactive protein. It is this protein that inflames the internal walls of the arteries and compromises blood flow in areas that may have a predisposition.  

Tooth problems are at the root of a wide variety of acute and chronic health conditions and dental foci account for a large proportion of regulatory blockages. Teeth lie on the acupuncture meridian lines of the body and problem teeth can create havoc further up or down the line.

Probably the most common problem found on dental exams is a mouth full of amalgam fillings. Amalgam literally means “mixed with mercury,” and mercury accounts for 50 percent of dental-filling material. Excepting plutonium, mercury is probably the most toxic element known, and while it has been used in dental fillings for more than 160 years, its use has always been controversial. Beginning in the 1830s, when it was first introduced, then again in the 1920s, and most recently in the 1970s, many dentists, doctors, and scientists have argued that mercury leaches out of the filling material and
accumulates in body tissue. The most common sites of detrimental influence are the nervous system, brain, and kidneys. Many research studies now confirm amalgam-filling leaching. In his book, It’s All in Your Head, Dr. Hal Huggins lists five categories of medical problems associated with mercury toxicity from amalgams:

Neurological disorders: including tremors, seizures, MS, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease), Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s;

Emotional disturbances: including depression and anxiety;

Immunological diseases: including systemic lupus, scleroderma, and rheumatoid arthritis;

Cardiovascular problems: including unexplained heart pain, high and low blood pressure, tachycardia, and irregular heart beat;

Connective tissue disorders; including osteroarthritis and collagen disease.

Other disorders: including chronic fatigue, mental confusion, and digestive problems.

Root canal-treated teeth present another common dental problem. Studies done in the 1930s by Dr. Weston Price, a well-known dental research scientist, showed that root canal-treated teeth are always infected, even if the infection is sub symptomatic. He did a series of experiments in which he placed the root canal-treated teeth of his patients who had degenerative diseases, under the skin of laboratory animals, usually rabbits. In almost every case the animal came down with the very same disease as the patient. He would then place a healthy, non-root canal-treated tooth under the skin and the animal remained healthy. His studies revealed that very toxic bacterial forms are associated with root canal-treated teeth.

Have you seen your dentist recently? I have.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

According to the Washington, D.C. based Environmental Working Group
(EWG), manufacturers dumped more than one billion pounds of toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water between 1990 and 1994. EWG also estimates that
manufacturers contributed about 450 million additional pounds via sewage.

In the 1940’s, a billion pounds of synthetic chemicals were produced each year. By the 1980’s, production was up to 500 billion pounds. And 1000 new chemicals are introduced each year. Yet the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act only addresses 100 contaminants.

Of the thousands of chemicals found in the water, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) sets safety levels for only 60. Even with only these 60 standards, the EPA reports almost 1/2 of all municipal water supplies in the U.S. annually violate Federal health standards. In recent years, serious violations have affected over 120 million people. Wells are not much better, with 2/3 of them in violation of at least one of the Safe Drinking Water Act standards. The sorry condition of water in the U.S. is reflected in the remark by President Clinton that 40% of American waterways are unfit to swim
in and in fact will not support life.

We live in a world surrounded by toxins. Every year, 2000 new chemicals will be released on the market, some not fully tested for their effect on the human body. Some are so called PBT’s or Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins, meaning they exist in the environment and our food chain for a long time. These are substances such as DDT, PCB’s, Dioxins and plasticizers. Their effects range from immuntoxicity to endocrine disruption and some may even be carcinogenic. This is compounded by the grasshopper effect, where toxins move from temperate to cold climates. Endogenous toxins are also created in the form of the end products of our metabolism, such as histamine and adrenaline. If these are not detoxified and excreted, they can be as harmful as external toxins.

With the process of industrialisation and urbanization, many time-saving and labour saving devices and innovations have been introduced. We have become a society of mass consumers. We have also developed the habit of instant gratification. Whomsoever could satisfy this need for instant results be it in the arena of food, beverages, entertainment or even medical needs stood to make a fortune. This often resulted in the indiscriminate usage of chemicals, food additives, automation, chemical fertilizers and drugs. We are experiencing the side-effects now.

According to the Washington, D.C. based Environmental Working Group
(EWG), manufacturers dumped more than one billion pounds of toxic chemicals into rivers, lakes and other bodies of water between 1990 and 1994. EWG also estimates that
manufacturers contributed about 450 million additional pounds via sewage.

In the 1940’s, a billion pounds of synthetic chemicals were produced each year. By the 1980’s, production was up to 500 billion pounds. And 1000 new chemicals are introduced each year. Yet the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act only addresses 100 contaminants.

Pesticides are another problem. Two billion pounds of pesticides are used every year. That’s eight pounds for every American. These pesticides enter water systems via disposal sites, animal waste, runoff, sewage, etc. After reviewing published (but not publicized) State data and conducting its own tests, EWG found that a single glass of
Midwestern tap water has three or more pesticides in it. In China, Taiwan and other Asian countries, the presence of chemicals and pesticides in water is reducing the fertility rates of males and females. Even though the incidence of infectious disease is down, the incidence of illness due to environmental toxicity due to water borne pollution is up.

Pesticides are another problem. Two billion pounds of pesticides are used every year. That’s eight pounds for every American. These pesticides enter water systems via disposal sites, animal waste, runoff, sewage, etc. After reviewing published (but not publicized) State data and conducting its own tests, EWG found that a single glass of
Midwestern tap water has three or more pesticides in it.

The following excerpt from Tap Water Blues, produced by the EWG and Physicians for Social Responsibility, states: “Every spring, farmers across the Corn Belt apply 150 million pounds of five herbicides–atrazine, cyanazine, simazine, alacholor and metolachlor to their corn and soybean fields. Every spring, rains wash a substantial
portion of those chemicals into the drinking water of 11.7 million people in the Midwest and Louisiana. According to this article, none of these herbicides are removed by the conventional city municipalities drinking water treatment technologies that are used by more than 90% of all water utilities in the United States.”

A deficiency of specific nutrients may allow some toxins to produce severe damage to our cells by a process of free radical oxidation as we have already discussed above. Oxidation also occurs dramatically when fats inadequately protected by anti-oxidants like Vitamins C and E become rancid. Too much cholesterol/fat in your arteries causes oxidation, damage to their lining and eventually arteriosclerosis. On the obvious level, free radical damage can take the form of poor quality skin and lack lustre hair. It can aggravate whatever skin problems you may have. It can rob you of your energy and leave you feeling lethargic, tired and yes, even depressed. Oxidising heavy metals such as lead, excessive iron or copper and cadmium produces similar damage; as do free radicals in smoke and alcohol. Cells so affected can become cancerous or part of an arthritic or any other inflammatory process. In general free-radical activity can be held responsible for any if not all forms of degenerative disorders from cancer to diabetes.
What are you doing to drink clean water, detoxify and eat clean, healthy food?

Be well

Dr Sundardas