Licorice root proven effective against oral infections

A new study indicates that dried licorice root is effective against the bacteria which causes tooth decay and gum disease, both of which can lead to tooth loss. Reporting their findings in the American Chemical Society’s Journal of Natural Products, researchers say that…

Indian study proves that fluoride consumption causes brain, neurological damage

Consuming sodium fluoride, a toxic chemical commonly added to US water supplies to allegedly help prevent tooth decay, definitively causes neurodegenerative damage in the brain, spinal cord, and sciatic nerve. These are the findings of a recent study published in the…

Many medical journals have no policies regarding conflicts of interest in published research studies

(NaturalNews) The clinical trial analysis and research studies published in some medical journals — and that are used directly by doctors to diagnose and treat patients — could be posited in biased language due to secret financial ties to drug or medical device companies, and nobody would ever know it. Of 131 cancer journals sampled, a research team found that only 112 of them had any kind of policy requiring published research to state potential conflicts of interest — the other 19 had absolutely no policies whatsoever. Research that appears favorable to a new chemotherapy drug, for instance, might have been secretly prompted and funded by a drug company. But this disclosure would not be required in the 19 cancer journals sampled — and among the other 112, it may or may not be disclosed in a meaningful or consistent manner, the team found. Researchers presenting the findings on the drug in the journal could additionally have been paid to speak highly of it and minimize its side effects — and doctors and other readers would never know the difference. “Journals can’t even agree on what a conflict of interest means,” said Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim from Harvard Medical School in Boston, Mass., to Reuters Health concerning the findings. “It is certainly confusing to authors and to readers.” Back in 2009, an analysis by researchers from the University of Michigan (U-M) Comprehensive Cancer Center found that many clinical cancer studies published in reputable medical journals are directly connected to pharmaceutical companies. The analysis, which itself was published in the American Cancer Society journal CANCER , stated that conflicts of interest cause some researchers to report results that are favorable to drug companies, rather than those that are favorable to the actual truth (http://www.naturalnews.com/026314_cancer_research_studies.html). Kesselheim and his colleagues pored through 1,700 reports derived from various “high-impact” journals, and among the 27 that included editorials, only about half had any sort of conflict of interest disclosures. The others were falsely presented as having come from objective sources. “Physicians — like other professionals — are influenced by incentives, especially financial incentives,” added Kesselheim concerning the findings. “Conflicts of interest and financial relationships can have an impact on the research process and on the reporting of research, and they can also have an impact on physician behavior.” By itself, disclosure of financial and economic ties is not enough to fix the problem of research fraud Lack of consistency among disclosure policies in some journals, and the obvious lack of disclosure policies in others, are both highly problematic issues in medical research. But even if medical journals were to collectively agree on a consistent, standardized method of reporting conflicts of interest, this would not ultimately fix the problem of the inherent research fraud that persists behind the scenes. Speaking about their research concerning conflicts of interest in medical studies, U-M researchers suggested that cancer research in general is so deeply connected to the conventional cancer industry that comprehensive reform would be necessary in order to effectively clean up and restore integrity to the entire body of medical research that gets published today. “Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, and assistant professor of radiation oncology at U-M, in a media statement in 2009. “It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.” Ghostwriting is another major problem in medical journals, as drug companies routinely pay private consultants to pose as doctors and researchers, and write journal articles promoting various drugs and medical devices. In 2010, an investigation revealed that numerous drug companies including Wyeth (which has since become part of Pfizer), paid writers thousands of dollars to promote synthetic hormone replacement drugs like Prempro (http://www.naturalnews.com/029696_drug_companies_ghostwriting.html). The cancer industry is a racket, and almost all studies promoting expensive drugs are fraudulent Anyone who has been following NaturalNews for a while probably already knows that the cancer industry is a multi-billion-dollar profit machine that thrives on generating fear, and promoting grossly expensive, highly ineffective, treatments. Chemotherapy and radiation, which are the trademarks of conventional cancer treatment, are both completely ineffective at treating most major cancers — and yet these are primarily what cancer journals promote (http://www.naturalnews.com/027705_chemotherapy_fraud.html). These treatments costs tens of thousands of dollars a month, in many cases, and are touted as the only known methods of treating cancer — but in reality, they really do not treat anything, and typically kill patients faster than if they took nothing at all. But savvy natural health enthusiasts know that there are legitimate, alternative methods of both preventing and treating cancer without the use of deadly drugs, radiation blasts, and surgery. These include formal methods like the Gerson therapy (http://www.naturalnews.com/033045_Gerson_tapes_cancer.html), and everyday nutritional and lifestyle changes (http://www.naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?categoryid=14). In conclusion, a good rule of thumb to use when trying to decide whether or not a medical journal research paper is legitimate or not, is this: if it promotes expensive synthetic drugs or deadly treatments that have nothing to do with lifestyle and nutrition changes, it is likely an industry-funded treatment that should be avoided. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/22/us-transparency-cancer-idUSTRE76L60S20110722

Study: Homeopathic remedy helps treat migraine headaches naturally

(NaturalNews) A new study published in the journal Headache has found that a homeopathic preparation of ginger and the medicinal herb feverfew is effective at treating migraine headaches. Based on their findings, researchers found that 63 percent of those who took the remedy at the first signs of a migraine experienced pain relief, while only 39 percent of those taking a placebo experienced any perceived relief. Funded by PuraMed Bioscience, the study assigned 45 participants the homeopathic treatment, and 15 the placebo. None of the participants knew which treatment they had been assigned. At the first sign of a migraine, participants were instructed to place the preparation under their tongue for sublingual absorption. Roughly one-third of those taking the homeopathic remedy experienced complete relief within two hours. “The results are really intriguing, but definitely preliminary,” said Dr. Rebecca Erwin Wells, an instructor at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Massachusetts, concerning the findings. And although the study was funded by the company producing the remedy, she and others still consider its findings to be relevant and important for the development of complementary and alternative medicines. According to the University of Maryland Medical Center, feverfew has long been used as a European folk medicine to treat headaches, arthritis, and fevers. In fact, the name “feverfew” was first hatched after it was discovered that the herb effectively treated fever symptoms. For treating migraines, the center says adults can take 100-300 milligrams (mg) of the standardized extract up to four times daily. “We found that 50 percent of adults with migraine or severe headaches, which is 13.5 million Americans, used complementary and alternative medicine in the previous year,” added Wells. “We need more research to understand the mechanisms, benefits, side effects and risks of complementary and alternative therapies.” Sources for this story include: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/17/migraines-eased-after-ginger-and-herb-treatment

Healthy hips require plenty of vitamin D

(NaturalNews) Healthy bones cannot be maintained without adequate levels of vitamin D. And a recent study out of New Delhi, India, confirms what previous studies have already found concerning vitamin D’s critical role in bone health. According to recent data, more than 75 percent of people who experience hip fractures are vitamin D deficient, while fracture rates among those with adequate levels is far lower. Presented at the second annual 1st Asia-Pacific Regional Osteoporosis Meeting held in Singapore, the findings revealed that , based on a sampling of 90 hip fracture patients, most had vitamin D levels below 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL), which is recognized as being far too low. Only about 32 percent of patients in a control group, on the other hand, had low vitamin D levels. Previous research out of Scotland found that 98 percent of bone fracture patients had insufficient vitamin D levels. It also found that supplementing with vitamin D helped reduce overall occurrences of fractures by up to 50 percent (http://www.naturalnews.com/028965_vitamin_D_bone_fractures.html). According to the Vitamin D Council, a group of concerned citizens and scientists working to educate the public about the importance of vitamin D, healthy blood levels of vitamin D typically fall between 50 – 80 ng/mL. In order to maintain healthy levels, the group recommends that people expose themselves regularly to natural sunlight or take vitamin D3 supplements, especially during the winter when sun exposure is limited. It is also important to get adequate amounts of the nutrient co-factors needed for the body to properly utilize vitamin D. These co-factors include magnesium, zinc, vitamin K2, boron and vitamin A (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/more-vitamin-d-questions-and-answers.shtml). Vitamin D also helps increase calcium absorption, which is a primary reason why it improves the integrity of bones. Sources for this story include: http://www.iofbonehealth.org/newsroom/media-releases/detail.html?mediaReleaseID=161

News coverage about a flawed omega-3 study reveals truth about media’s inaccurate health reporting

(NaturalNews) Scientists have conducted numerous studies (http://www.naturalnews.com/omega-3.html) over the past decade showing the remarkable health benefits of omega-3 fatty acids — the kind of “good” fat found in cold water fish like salmon and some plant foods such as walnuts. Recently, Dutch researchers published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine which involved adding a small amount of marine source omega-3s to the diets of heart patients. Instead of actually reporting the details of this study and placing the findings in the context of previous scientific research, the mainstream media went, predictably, for the easy headline. The result? Widespread inaccurate and even downright misleading headlines and sloppy reporting that hinted — and even sometimes declared — the Dutch study was proof omega-3s aren’t so great for the heart after all. For example, Time magazine blared: “Omega-3 May Reduce Heart Risks Less Than Thought”. Another case in point: “Omega-3 Fats No Magic Answer to Heart Problems” declared U.S. News and World Report . The latter article also started off with the highly questionable statement that “Omega-3 fatty acids might not be as potent a weapon against heart disease as some research has shown, a new study suggests.” So what exactly was wrong with this coverage? It distorted the specific facts of a scientific study — which is not only bad journalism but denies the public accurate information about medical research. First of all, the new study does not conclude, nor prove, that “omega-3s may reduce heart risks less than thought”. Instead, it shows only that a low dose of omega-3s failed to offer any additional cardiovascular protection to a very specific group of people — those diagnosed with heart disease who had already suffered from heart attacks and who were all taking an “optimal”, i.e. multi, regimen of all kinds of prescription drugs (for cholesterol, hypertension, and to prevent blood clots). The new study, as the majority of mainstream media failed to even mention, did nothing to refute previously clinically substantiated findings that omega-3s (in high enough doses) overall reduce the risk of second heart attacks as well as the risk of sudden death. In fact, the Dutch researchers behind the new study admitted — if reporters bothered to actually read the research thoroughly — that one obvious explanation for their findings was that the omega-3s simply didn’t do anything to override or change the combined power of all the cardiac drugs the nearly 5,000 heart patients in the study were taking. A similar German study last year came up with the same results. And, just like the Dutch research, the German scientists’ conclusions in no way negate the long-term health protective value of omega-3s for people who are not already heart patients taking multiple drugs. The head researcher of the 2009 German study, Jochen Senges, said in a media statement that while his research team could not find any additional benefits of omega-3s within a year after patients were placed on multiple heart drugs “…it would be incorrect to say that omega-3 fatty acids are not effective.” So what did the new Dutch research actually show? The scientists added low doses of omega-3s to four different kinds of margarines and gave them to heart patients every day for more than three years. At the end of this period, the low dose omega-3s from fish oils hadn’t added any heart protection to the patients who, as stated earlier, were all taking a variety of Big Pharma prescription meds. In fact, about 14 percent of the heart attack patients had experienced another major cardiovascular event, and some had died. Women in the study who consumed low dose fish derived omega-3s added to ALA (alpha-linolenic acid, the plant-form of omega-3s) were almost one third less likely to develop more cardiac complications. However, this was deemed to be not quite enough of an impact to be statistically significant. Bottom line: the Dutch study showed low doses of omega-3s don’t do anything to help people who already have heart disease and have had myocardial infarctions and who also take a variety of drugs. But the research does not negate the host of previous studies that have found cardioprotective benefits at higher doses. And it certainly does not mean — as the spurious U.S. News and World Report headline implied — that all the well documented studies showing omega-3s do have important cardiovascular benefits were somehow just an attempt at “magic”. For a detailed analysis of what the growing body of scientific research has revealed about omega-3s and heart health, check out a study just published in the journal Thrombosis and Haemostasis that has received virtually no media attention. Among the conclusions of a team of Italian scientists from the University of Milan: omega-3 fatty acids reduce overall mortality and mortality due to heart attacks and sudden death in patients with congestive heart disease; fish oil rich in omega-3s reduces heart rate, a major risk factor for sudden death; and consuming adequate omega-3s leads to a 10 to 33 percent net decrease in triglyceride levels. For more information: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1003603 http://www.schattauer.de/en/magazine/subject-areas/journals-a-z/thrombosis-and-haemostasis/contents/archive/issue/special/manuscript/13498.html

Music benefits the brain, research reveals

(NaturalNews) Northwestern University scientists have pulled together a review of research into what music — specifically, learning to play music — does to humans. The result shows music training does far more than allow us to entertain ourselves and others by playing an instrument or singing. Instead, it actually changes our brains. The paper, just published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience , is a compilation of research findings from scientists all over the world who used all kinds of research methods. The bottom line to all these studies: musical training has a profound impact on other skills including speech and language, memory and attention, and even the ability to convey emotions vocally. So what is it that musical training does? According to the Northwestern scientists, the findings strongly indicate it adds new neural connections — and that primes the brain for other forms of human communication. In fact, actively working with musical sounds enhances neuroplasticity , the brain’s ability to adapt and change. “A musician’s brain selectively enhances information-bearing elements in sound. In a beautiful interrelationship between sensory and cognitive processes, the nervous system makes associations between complex sounds and what they mean,” Nina Kraus, lead author of the Nature paper and director of Northwestern’s Auditory Neuroscience Laboratory, explained in a statement to the media. “The efficient sound-to-meaning connections are important not only for music but for other aspects of communication.” For example, researchers have found that musicians are better than non-musicians in learning to incorporate sound patterns for a new language into words. Their brains also appear to be primed to comprehend speech in a noisy background. What’s more, children who have had music lessons tend to have a larger vocabulary and better reading ability than youngsters who haven’t had any musical training. And children with learning disabilities, who often have a hard time focusing when there’s a lot of background noise, may be especially helped by music lessons. “Music training seems to strengthen the same neural processes that often are deficient in individuals with developmental dyslexia or who have difficulty hearing speech in noise,” Dr. Kraus stated. The Northwestern researchers concluded their findings make a case for including music in school curriculums. “The effect of music training suggests that, akin to physical exercise and its impact on body fitness, music is a resource that tones the brain for auditory fitness and thus requires society to re-examine the role of music in shaping individual development,” they wrote. In addition to musical training, listening to music has also been shown to have some remarkable beneficial effects on the body. For example, as NaturalNews has previously reported, Tel Aviv University scientists found that premature infants exposed to thirty minutes of Mozart’s music daily grew far more rapidly than premature babies not exposed to classical music (http://www.naturalnews.com/028011_music_premature_babies.html) and researchers at the University of Florence in Italy documented that listening to classical, Celtic or Indian (raga) music once a day for four weeks significantly reduced the blood pressure in people suffering from hypertension (http://www.naturalnews.com/023479_blood_pressure_hypertension.html). For more information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20648064 http://www.soc.northwestern.edu/brainvolts/

Rats fed junk food pass down cancer risk through multiple generations of offspring

(NaturalNews) A recent study out of Georgetown University Medical Center has concluded that what you eat can affect your children’s and grandchildren’s health, even if they eat healthy themselves. Sonia de Assis and her colleagues observed that rats fed fatty, unhealthy food pass on an increased cancer risk to their children and grandchildren. The study, which was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research in Washington, D.C., illustrates that a fatty diet can actually contribute to “epigenetic” DNA modifications, which are inherited changes in DNA patterns. Essentially, one’s offspring can inherit DNA changes caused by their parents’ unhealthy diets and other environmental factors. The findings also seem to explain why diseases like breast cancer are more likely to manifest in certain family lines and not in others. If epigenetic DNA changes are altering genes like BRCA1 and BRCA2, then this would explain why some people are more prone than others to develop certain degenerative diseases. “We think that there may be other means of transmission that are not genetic that can account for breast cancer,” explained de Assis in response to the study’s findings. And Assis’ perspective is warranted based on her findings. According to Breastcancer.org, only about 20-30 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have any family history of breast cancer. This means that the other 70-80 percent must be developing it for reasons other than simply genetics. If a person’s parents or grandparents ate a diet rich in processed, chemical-laden foods throughout their lives, then the DNA changes that likely occurred in their bodies may be passed down to their children. Even if they themselves didn’t develop cancer, the children will be more likely to develop it, based on the findings of the study. And if the children also eat junk food diets that lack proper nutrients, antioxidants, vitamins and other necessary life components, then their children will be even more prone than they were to develop degenerative diseases like cancer. But your personal diet and lifestyle choices are still the primary deciding factors for whether or not you develop a degenerative disease. Even if your parents and grandparents ate unhealthy diets all their lives does not mean that you have to get sick. Eating a strong, healthy diet and regularly exercising will do wonders for your health. Sources for this story include: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18799-rats-on-junk-food-pass-cancer-down-the-generations.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/understand_bc/statistics.jsp