GenuTrain S Knee Brace by Bauerfeind - 11041304010605

GenuTrain S Knee Brace by Bauerfeind - 11041304010605

 

Product Description

GenuTrain S Knee Brace by Bauerfeind

The Bauerfeind GenuTrain S knee brace has been constructed with medial/lateral sidebars in a modern, thermoplastic material. It is very stable, light and reshapable. This makes the GenuTrain S ideal for treating knee sprains and recovering from knee surgery and ACL injuries. Direct contact between the non-elastic straps and the anatomically contoured joint bars of the GenuTrain S assures a good fit. The GenuTrain S is made of a soft knitted breathable material that provides extreme comfort while a circular viscoelastic shaped insert provides additional knee support.

The GenuTrain S also boasts new lateral tightening loops that facilitate a better fit. Features a pull-up sleeve application with straps for support. The GenuTrain S knee support is available for the left and right knee. The Genutrain S now features new lateral sidebars which are:

Made from a very light and stable high-tech plastic

Anatomically Contoured and available in right and left version

Thermoplastic and shapable

Commonly helpful with such conditions as:

• Knee strains or sprains - A sudden or violent twist or wrench of a joint causing the stretching or twisting of ligaments and often rupture of blood vessels with hemorrhage to the tissues.
• Knee instability
• Post arthroscopy
• Recurrent knee pain
• Pre and post-operative knee inflammation - A response from an injury that may be characterized by redness, heat, pain, swelling and loss of function.
• Chondromalacia - (Runner's Knee)- Aching pain behind the kneecap. Pain begins and progresses slowly. It appears in healthy, athletically active young people.
• Adolescent knee pain
• Osgood-Schlatter's disease
• Arthritis / osteoarthritis - Inflammation of joints.
• Degenerative joint disease (osteoarthritis) - (Degenerative Joint Disease)- Arthritis of middle age characterized by degenerative and sometimes hypertrophic changes in the bone and cartilage of one or more joints and a progressive wearing down of opposing joint surfaces with consequent distortion of joint positioning usually without bony stiffening.

Size is determined by loosely measuring:
Point 1: Loose circumference at 4 3/4" below center of the knee.
Point 2: Loose circumference at 5 1/2" above center of the knee.

Color: Nature 

 

To purchase this item click here

 

A Lifelong Fight Against Trans Fats

Fred Kummerow, 99, in his lab at the University of Illinois where he still directs research.

By MELANIE WARNER

Published: December 16, 2013 

  In 1957, a fledgling nutrition scientist at the University of Illinois persuaded a hospital to give him samples of arteries from patients who had died of heart attacks. 

 Fred Kummerow in 1953. 

When he analyzed them, he made a startling discovery. Not surprisingly, the diseased arteries were filled with fat — but it was a specific kind of fat. The artificial fatty acids called trans fats, which come from the hydrogen-treated oils used in processed foods like margarine, had crowded out other types of fatty acids.

The scientist, Fred Kummerow, followed up with a study that found troubling amounts of artery-clogging plaque in pigs given a diet heavy in artificial fats. He became a pioneer of trans-fat research, one of the first scientists to assert a link between heart disease and processed foods.

It would be more than three decades before those findings were widely accepted — and five decades before the Food and Drug Administration decided that trans fats should be eliminated from the food supply, as it proposed in a rule issued last month.

Now, Dr. Kummerow (KOO-mer-ow) is still active at age 99, living a few blocks from the university, where he runs a small laboratory. And he continues to come to contrarian conclusions about fat and heart disease.

In the past two years, he has published four papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals, two of them devoted to another major culprit he has singled out as responsible for atherosclerosis, or the hardening of the arteries: an excess of polyunsaturated vegetable oils like soybean, corn and sunflower — exactly the types of fats Americans have been urged to consume for the past several decades.

The problem, he says, is not LDL, the “bad cholesterol” widely considered to be the major cause of heart disease. What matters is whether the cholesterol and fat residing in those LDL particles have been oxidized. (Technically, LDL is not cholesterol, but particles containing cholesterol, along with fatty acids and protein.)

“Cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease, except if it’s oxidized,” Dr. Kummerow said. Oxidation is a chemical process that happens widely in the body, contributing to aging and the development of degenerative and chronic diseases. Dr. Kummerow contends that the high temperatures used in commercial frying cause inherently unstable polyunsaturated oils to oxidize, and that these oxidized fatty acids become a destructive part of LDL particles. Even when not oxidized by frying, soybean and corn oils can oxidize inside the body.

If true, the hypothesis might explain why studies have found that half of all heart disease patients have normal or low levels of LDL.

“You can have fine levels of LDL and still be in trouble if a lot of that LDL is oxidized,” Dr. Kummerow said.

This leads him to a controversial conclusion: that the saturated fat in butter, cheese and meats does not contribute to the clogging of arteries — and in fact is beneficial in moderate amounts in the context of a healthy diet (lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and other fresh, unprocessed foods).

His own diet attests to that. Along with fruits, vegetables and whole grains, he eats red meat several times a week and drinks whole milk daily.

He cannot remember the last time he ate anything deep-fried. He has never used margarine, and instead scrambles eggs in butter every morning. He calls eggs one of nature’s most perfect foods, something he has been preaching since the 1970s, when the consumption of cholesterol-laden eggs was thought to be a one-way ticket to heart disease.

“Eggs have all of the nine amino acids you need to build cells, plus important vitamins and minerals,” he said. “It’s crazy to just eat egg whites. Not a good practice at all.”

Dr. Robert H. Eckel, an endocrinologist and former president of the American Heart Association, agreed that oxidized LDL was far worse than nonoxidized LDL in terms of creating plaque.

But he disputed Dr. Kummerow’s contention that saturated fats are benign and that polyunsaturated vegetable oils promote heart disease. “There are studies that clearly show a substitution of saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats leads to a reduction in cardiovascular disease,” said Dr. Eckel, a professor at the University of Colorado.

Robert L. Collette, the president of the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils, a trade association, says oil manufacturers work with their customers to take precautions against oxidation.

“Oxidation is something that consumers can detect,” he said. “Therefore, it is in everyone’s best interest to control it.”

The long arc of Fred Kummerow’s life and career illustrates the frustratingly slow pace of science and the ways in which scientific conformity can hinder the search for answers. Born in Germany just after World War I broke out, he moved to Milwaukee with his family when he was 9. His father, who worked at a cement block factory, did not have the money to send him to college, so Dr. Kummerow worked full time at a drug distribution company while attending the University of Wisconsin in the evenings. After he earned a Ph.D. in biochemistry, his first job was at Clemson University in South Carolina, where he helped prevent thousands of deaths in the South from pellagra, a disease resulting from a deficiency of vitamin B3.

His early research on trans fats was “resoundingly criticized and dismissed,” said Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, who credited Dr. Kummerow with prompting his desire to include trans fats in the Nurses’ Health Study. A 1993 finding from that study, which showed a direct link between the consumption of foods containing trans fats and heart disease in women, was a turning point in scientific and medical thinking about trans fats.

“He had great difficulty getting funding because the heart disease prevention world strongly resisted the idea that trans fats were the problem,” Dr. Willett continued. “In their view, saturated fats were the big culprit in heart disease. Anything else was a distraction from that.”

At an age when life itself is an accomplishment, Dr. Kummerow said he had no intention of stepping away from the work that has consumed him for six decades. He continues to work from home and talks daily to the two scientists who work in his lab, which receives funding from the Weston A. Price Foundation.

His wife of 70 years, Amy, died last year at age 94 from Parkinson’s disease; he has three children, three grandchildren and a great-grandchild.

He takes no medications, and his mind shows no sign of aging: He has an encyclopedic recall for names, dates and, more impressive, complex scientific concepts. After his muscles became inflamed from a blood pressure drug that he has since stopped taking, he started using a wheelchair combined with a walker.

His most significant health problem, appropriately enough, was an artery blockage at age 89 — probably a result of the inevitable effects of aging, not diet.

Bypass surgery took care of the blockage, and the fact that he now has an artery from his arm running into his heart has made him even more determined to keep working. Heart disease remains the leading cause of death for Americans, and he would like to stick around to continue funding research that will help change that.

“What I really want is to see trans fats gone finally,” he said, “and for people to eat better and have a more accurate understanding of what really causes heart disease.”

 

Airial Deluxe Pulse Oximeter - MGMQ3200

Airial Deluxe Pulse Oximeter - MGMQ3200

Product Description

Accurately displays SpO2 and pulse rate. Dual color high resolution provides an easy to read OLED display. Features a pulse bar and Plethysmograph and offers 6 multi-directional display modes for easy reading from all sides. Feather weight designless than .06 lbs with ten adjustable brightness settings and auto power off feature with a low battery indicator. Accomodates a wide range of fingers from pediatric to adult. Pulse Rate 30-235 bpm. Measurement accuracy at 30-100; +/- 2 bpm and at 101-235; +/- 2%. 2 year warranty. 

 

If you would like to purchase this item click here

 

F.D.A. Questions Safety of Antibacterial Soaps

By SABRINA TAVERNISE

Published: December 16, 2013 

After years of mounting concerns that the antibacterial chemicals that go into everyday items like soap and toothpaste are doing more harm than good, the Food and Drug Administration said on Monday that it was requiring soap manufacturers to demonstrate that the substances were safe or to take them out of the products altogether.

The proposal was applauded by public health experts, who for years have urged the agency to regulate antimicrobial chemicals, warning that they risk scrambling hormones in children and promoting drug-resistant infections, among other things. Producers argue that the substances have long been proved to be safe.

“It’s a big deal that they are taking this on,” said Rolf Halden, the director of the Center for Environmental Security at Arizona State University, who has been tracking the issue for years. “These antimicrobials have taken on a life all of their own,” Dr. Halden said. “Their use has really proliferated.”

Studies in animals have shown that the chemicals, triclosan in liquid soaps and triclocarban in bar soaps, can disrupt the normal development of the reproductive system and metabolism, and health experts warn that their effects could be the same in humans. The chemicals were originally used by surgeons to wash their hands before operations, and their use exploded in recent years as manufacturers added them to a variety of products, including mouthwash, laundry detergent, fabrics and baby pacifiers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the chemicals in the urine of three-quarters of Americans.

The F.D.A. said that accumulated scientific information has prompted it to re-evaluate whether these chemicals are safe when used over long periods of time. The agency also said there was no evidence that the substances were any more effective in preventing infection than plain soap and water.

The proposed rule does not require producers of the soaps to take them off the market immediately. The F.D.A. has given companies a year to produce data showing that the chemicals are both safe and effective. If they cannot prove, the chemicals will need to be removed from the products, the agency said. The rule is open for public comment for 180 days. It does not apply to hand sanitizers, which will be considered separately.

The move seemed to rattle the industry, which said in a statement that it was “perplexed that the agency would suggest there is no evidence that antibacterial soaps are beneficial,” because it has long provided data to the agency showing the soaps’ safety and efficacy, including at a public meeting in 2008.

Changing the products could have a major financial impact. An estimate by the market research firm Kline & Company found that antimicrobial and antibacterial hand soaps represented about half of the $900 million market for liquid hand soaps in the United States in 2012. However, the use of triclosan in the $2.2 billion toothpaste market has been decreasing because of growing public concern over the ingredient, said Carrie Mellage, a vice president of consumer products at Kline.

Federal regulators started to look more closely at the chemicals in the 1970s, with the F.D.A. first creating regulations to control them in 1978. But very little has been done since, public health advocates complain, partly because of agency slowness, but also because of industry lobbying. The Natural Resources Defense Council, frustrated by the inaction, filed a lawsuit in 2010 to force the agency to issue a final rule. Mae Wu, a lawyer with the council, said that under a settlement signed with the F.D.A. last month, the agency committed to taking final action by 2016.

The F.D.A.’s move followed one last week that would phase out the use of antibiotics in animals raised for meat, and another in November that all but banned the use of trans fats in prepared foods. Taken together, the moves seemed to indicate that the F.D.A. is back in action after a long silence during months of bitter political battles that dragged on for months, even after the 2012 election, public health advocates said.

“I think they’re ready to take on hard issues that they did not before,” said Dr. Stuart Levy, a professor of medicine and microbiology at Tufts University and the president of the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics.

Dr. Halden compared triclosan and triclocarban with static on a telephone call, interfering in the final message that is delivered to the body. He said awareness of the risks rarely made it beyond a narrow circle of public health experts, but he hoped that the F.D.A.’s move on Monday would change that.

“These chemicals interfere with the regulation of the human body,” he said, citing studies in animals. The chemicals accumulate in ground water and soil, and one study of human breast milk found the chemicals in the milk of 97 percent of the women tested, he said. “The fascinating thing is the public has not taken note of this issue.”

The gathering science that helped prompt the F.D.A.’s move includes studies on laboratory rats that showed decreases in thyroid hormone levels, said Dr. Colleen Rogers, a microbiologist at the F.D.A. Another agency official cited studies showing changes in animal cells’ ability to respond to estrogen and testosterone.

Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has pressed federal regulators to more closely control antimicrobials, welcomed the move, saying the chemicals had long “existed in a regulatory black hole, despite serious concerns about its impact on public health.” He said studies have linked triclosan to the disruption of other hormone functions important for fertility and puberty. He added that proper thyroid function is important for brain development, particularly in children.

The industry argued that the active ingredients in antimicrobial soaps are over-the-counter drugs that go through rigorous reviews by the F.D.A., including of data. Two trade groups, the American Cleaning Institute and the Personal Care Products Council, cited a review of two dozen studies they said showed washing hands with antimicrobial soaps produces “statistically greater reductions in bacteria on the skin” than with plain soap.

“In some instances, these products have been found to be critical in the reduction of infection and disease,” the groups said. They said they intended to file comments to the F.D.A. “reaffirming” that the use of antibacterial wash products does not contribute to antibiotic resistance.

The Henkel Corporation, which makes Dial soaps, some of which include the antimicrobials, said it “takes the proposal seriously,” and that it always makes sure “every ingredient in our products meets all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.”

Water-Based Personal Lubricant by Osbon - OSB1401

Water-Based Personal Lubricant by Osbon - OSB1401

 

 

Product Description

The Osbon water-based personal lubricant is necessary to create the seal and also assists in the loading of the ErecAid tension rings by Osbon. 

 

To purchase this item please click here

 

Are You Ready for Cold & Flu Season? Vitamin D and Other Simple, Inexpensive Tricks to Cure a Cold

By Dr. Mercola

Each year Americans catch more than one billion colds, making the cold virus the most common infectious disease in the United States. It's estimated that the average U.S. adult typically has two to four colds each year, while children may have up to 12. Colds account for more school absences and missed work than any other illness and are the number one reason people visit their physicians -- even though most physicians have little to offer in the form of treatment.

It's a widespread misconception that colds are caused by bacteria. Colds are actually triggered by viruses, which means if your physician prescribes you an antibiotic, it will be absolutely useless. More on this shortly, but before I delve into simple prevention and treatment strategies, it's important you know how colds are contracted in the first place.

How Do You Catch a Cold?

The most common way cold viruses are spread is not from being around coughing or sneezing, or walking barefoot in the rain, but rather from hand-to-hand contact. For instance, someone with a cold blows their nose then shakes your hand or touches surfaces that you also touch. Cold viruses can live on pens, computer keyboards, coffee mugs, and other objects for hours, so it's easy to come into contact with such viruses during daily life.

However, the key to remember is that just being exposed to a cold virus does not have to mean that you'll catch a cold. If your immune system is operating at its peak, it should actually be quite easy for you to fend off the virus without ever getting sick. On the other hand, if your immune system is impaired, it's akin to having an open-door policy for viruses—they'll easily take hold in your body. So the simple and short answer is, you catch a cold due to a poorly functioning immune system. There are many causes of a weakened immune system, but the more common factors are:

1.      Eating too much sugar and too many grains

2.      Not getting enough rest

3.      Ineffectively managing emotional stresses in your daily life

4.      Vitamin D deficiency, as discussed below

5.      Any combination of the above 

Vitamin D Deficiency: Another Reason You May 'Catch' a Cold

Research has confirmed that "catching" colds and flu may actually be a symptom of an underlying vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is a potent antimicrobial agent, producing 200 to 300 different antimicrobial peptides in your body that kill bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Suboptimal vitamin D levels will significantly impair your immune response and make you far more susceptible to contracting colds, influenza, and other respiratory infections.

In the largest and most nationally represented study of its kind to date, involving about 19,000 Americans, people with the lowest vitamin D levels reported having significantly more recent colds or cases of the flu -- and the risk was even greater for those with chronic respiratory disorders like asthma. At least five additional studies also show an inverse association between lower respiratory tract infections and vitamin D levels.

The best source for vitamin D is direct sun exposure. Even though for many of us, this just isn't practical during the winter, every effort should be made to attain vitamin D from UVB exposure as there are many additional benefits from this route other than vitamin D. The next best option to sunlight is the use of a safe indoor tanning device. If neither natural nor artificial sunlight is an option, then using an oral vitamin D3 supplement is acceptable—just beware that mounting evidence suggests supplements cannot compare to sun exposure, as UV radiation provides a number of health benefits you cannot get from a supplement.

Based on the latest research, many experts now agree you need about 35 IU's of vitamin D per pound of body weight. This recommendation also includes children, the elderly, and pregnant women.

However, keep in mind that vitamin D requirements are highly individual, as your vitamin D status is dependent on numerous factors, such as the color of your skin, your location, and how much sunshine you're exposed to on a regular basis. So, although these recommendations may put you closer to the range of what most people likely need, it is simply impossible to make a blanket recommendation that will cover everyone's needs.

The only way to determine your optimal dose is to get your blood tested. Ideally, you'll want to maintain a vitamin D level of 50-70 ng/ml year-round.

For an in-depth explanation of everything you need to know about determining your ideal vitamin D level, please review my recommendations about vitamin D testing. I strongly recommend that you also listen to my free one-hour vitamin D lecture, which covers in detail the importance of vitamin D to your overall health. The research is very clear. The higher your vitamin D level, the lower your risk of contracting colds, flu, and other respiratory tract infections.

How Long Do Colds Last … and How Can You Make Your Cold Go Away Faster?

Most uncomplicated colds last between eight and nine days, but about 25 percent last two weeks, and five to 10 percent last three weeks. Even the most stubborn colds will typically resolve in a few weeks' time; this is actually one of the ways you can distinguish a cold from allergies. A cold will last, at most, a few weeks, but allergy symptoms can last all season.

How quickly you bounce back is typically defined by you and your collective lifestyle habits -- and this does not mean popping over-the-counter cough and cold remedies or fever reducers. In fact, as long as your temperature remains below 102 degrees Fahrenheit (38.9 degrees Celsius) there is no need to lower it. Cold viruses do not reproduce at higher body temperatures, so a slight fever should help you get rid of the virus quicker and help you to feel better much sooner.

You should avoid taking over-the-counter pain-relief medications as well, as a study showed that people who take aspirin and Tylenol (acetaminophen) suppress their body's ability to produce antibodies to destroy the cold virus. Aspirin has even been linked to lung complications including pulmonary edema, an abnormal buildup of fluid in your lungs, when taken in excess. You should use these medications only when absolutely necessary, such as if you have a temperature greater than 105 degrees F (40.5 degrees C), severe muscle aches or weakness.

Hydrogen Peroxide: A Simple Trick to Beat a Cold

I don't advise over-the-counter medications, but one simple treatment you can try that is surprisingly effective against upper respiratory infections is hydrogen peroxide. Many patients at my Natural Health Center have had remarkable results in curing colds and flu within 12 to 14 hours when administering a few drops of 3 percent hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) into each ear. You will hear some bubbling, which is completely normal, and possibly feel a slight stinging sensation. Wait until the bubbling and stinging subside (usually 5 to 10 minutes), then drain onto a tissue and repeat with the other ear. A bottle of hydrogen peroxide in 3 percent solution is available at any drug store for a couple of dollars or less. It is simply amazing how many people respond to this simple, inexpensive treatment.

Dietary Strategies to Kick a Cold

If you feel yourself coming down with a cold or flu, this is NOT the time to be eating ANY sugar, artificial sweeteners, or processed foods. Sugar is particularly damaging to your immune system -- which needs to be ramped up, not suppressed, in order to combat an emerging infection. So, if you are fighting a cold, you'll want to avoid all sugar like the plague, and this includes sugar in the form of fruit juice and even grains (which break down as sugar in your body).

Ideally, you must address nutrition, sleep, exercise, and stress the moment you first feel yourself getting a bug. This is when immune-enhancing strategies will be most effective. When you're coming down with a cold, it's time to address ALL of the contributing factors immediately, which includes tweaking your diet in favor of foods that will strengthen your immune response. Those factors are outlined in the table that follows.

Raw, grass-fed organic milk, and/or high-quality whey protein	Fermented foods such as raw kefir, kimchee, miso, pickles, sauerkraut, etc., which are rich in probiotics, or good bacteria. Scientific research shows that 80 percent of your immune system resides inside your digestive tract, so eating probiotic-rich foods or taking a high-quality probiotic will help support your immune health.
Raw, organic eggs from free-ranging, preferably local, chickens	Grass-fed beef
Coconuts and coconut oil	Animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil
Locally grown fruits and vegetables, appropriate for your nutritional type	Mushrooms, especially Reishi, Shiitake, and Maitake, which contain beta glucans (which have immune-enhancing properties)
Garlic, a potent antimicrobial that kills bacteria, viruses, and fungi. Ideally this should be in fresh form, eaten raw and crushed with a spoon just before eating.	Herbs and spices with high ORAC scores: Turmeric, oregano, cinnamon, and cloves.
Make sure you are drinking plenty of fresh, pure water. Water is essential for the optimal function of every system in your body, and will help with nose stuffiness and loosening secretions. You should drink enough water so that your urine is a light, pale yellow.	Chicken Soup. Yes, it does work! Chicken contains a natural amino acid called cysteine, which can thin the mucus in your lungs and make it less sticky so you can expel it more easily. Processed, canned soups won't work as well as the homemade version, however. For best results, make up a fresh batch yourself (or ask a friend or family member to do so) and make the soup hot and spicy with plenty of pepper. The spices will trigger a sudden release of watery fluids in your mouth, throat, and lungs, which will help thin down the respiratory mucus so it's easier to cough up and expel.

Three Cold-Busting Lifestyle Strategies

Vitamin D, check! Hydrogen peroxide, check! Healthy diet, check! We've covered several of the primary "weapons" you should have in your cold-fighting arsenal, but there are others, too.

1.      High-Quality Sleep and Plenty of It: Pay attention to how you are sleeping. If you aren't getting enough sleep, or enough restorative sleep, you'll be at increased risk for a hostile viral takeover. Your immune system is strongest when you're not sleep-deprived.

2.      Regular Exercise: Regular exercise is a crucial strategy for increasing your resistance to illness. There is evidence that regular, moderate exercise can reduce your risk for respiratory illness by boosting your immune system. In fact, one study found that people who exercised regularly (five or more days a week) cut their risk of having a cold by close to 50 percent. And, in the event they did catch a cold, their symptoms were much less severe than among those who did not exercise.

Exercise likely cuts your risk of colds so significantly because it triggers a rise in immune system cells that attack potential invaders. Each time you exercise you can benefit from this boost to your immune system. Ideally, establish a regular fitness program (such as Peak Fitness) now, to help you ward off colds and other illness.

However, if you're already feeling sick, don't overdo it. Over-exercising can actually place more stress on your body, which can suppress your immune system -- and you don't want that either. You might just go for a walk if you are coming down with a cold, or simply tone down your regular workout. Any rise in body temperature will be an unwelcome climate for a viral invader though, so some exercise is likely to be beneficial.

3.      Address Your Emotional Stress: Emotional stressors can also predispose you to an infection while making cold symptoms worse. Finding ways to manage daily stress will contribute to a strong and resilient immune system. My favorite stress buster is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), a system that helps balance your body's subtle energies and repair emotional "short-circuits." EFT may even help you overcome cold symptoms.

Supplements That Send Pathogens Packin'

Supplements can be beneficial for colds, but they should be used only as an adjunct to the lifestyle measures already discussed. Some of the more helpful options for cold (and flu) -- above and beyond vitamin D – are listed in the following table.

Zinc: When taken within the one day of the first cold symptoms, zinc can reduce the duration of your cold by about 24 hours and reduce the severity of your symptoms, according to a Cochrane Review of 15 clinical trials	Vitamin C: A very potent antioxidant; use a natural form such as acerola, which contains associated micronutrients. You can take several grams every hour till you are better, unless you start developing loose stools.
Oregano Oil: The higher the carvacrol concentration, the more effective it is. Carvacrol is the most active antimicrobial agent in oregano oil.	Propolis: A bee resin and one of the most broad-spectrum antimicrobial compounds in the world; propolis is also the richest source of caffeic acid and apigenin, two very important compounds that aid in immune response and even fight cancer.
A tea made from a combination of elderflower, yarrow, boneset, linden, peppermint and ginger: drink it hot and often for combating a cold or flu. It causes you to sweat, which is helpful for eradicating the virus from your system.	Olive leaf extract: Ancient Egyptians and Mediterranean cultures used it for a variety of health purposes, and it is widely known as a natural, non-toxic immune system builder.

Remember This Tip: Wash Your Hands Sensibly

Washing your hands frequently is one of the easiest ways to wipe out germs and viruses and reduce your chances of becoming sick. Thorough hand washing truly is an important preventative measure, as you are at far greater risk of passing on an infection by shaking someone's hand than by sharing a kiss. One report found that regular hand washing may be even more effective than drugs in preventing the spread of respiratory viruses, such as influenza.

When you wash up, plain soap and water will do. Do not make the mistake of using antibacterial cleansers, as their widespread use is leading to strains of resistant bacteria or "superbugs," which cause the ingredients to lose effectiveness for the times when they really are needed, such as for surgeons prior to surgery. Furthermore, the active ingredient in most antibacterial products is triclosan, an antibacterial agent that kills bacteria and inhibits bacterial growth. Not only does triclosan kill bacteria, it's also been shown to kill human cells.

Antibacterial soaps are no more effective than regular soaps. And one study found people who used antibacterial soaps and cleansers developed cough, runny nose, sore throat, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and other symptoms just as often as people who used products that did not contain antibacterial ingredients. So, there is absolutely no reason to use antibacterial soap when plain soap is safer, and just as effective

Too Much Hand-Washing Can Backfire

There is another important caveat to remember. Your skin—not the soap—is actually your primary defense against bacteria. Resist the urge to become obsessive about washing your hands. If you wash them too frequently, you can actually extract many of your skin's protective oils, causing your skin to crack and bleed. It is rare for a germ on your skin to cause a problem -- it is typically only an issue when you transfer that to your nose, mouth, or an open wound, like cracked skin. Therefore, excessive hand washing can actually be counterproductive by providing potentially dangerous pathogens an entry into your body.

Avoid the Antibiotics!

More than 300 different viruses can cause colds, so each time you have a cold it is caused by a distinct virus (i.e. adenovirus, rhinovirus, parainfluenza virus, coronavirus). A virus is much smaller than a bacteria; it is a tiny cluster of genetic material surrounded by a protein wrapper.

There are currently NO drugs available that can kill these viruses. Antibiotics, including penicillin, do not have any effect on viruses, but unfortunately have been vastly over-prescribed for this very (useless) purpose. That, coupled with the excessive use of antibiotics in livestock, has contributed to a steep rise in antibiotic-resistant diseases. Antibiotic-resistant infections now claim more lives each year than the "modern plague" of AIDS and cost the American health care system some $20 billion a year!

Furthermore, according to one meta-analysis, the health risk from overuse of antibiotics is also a very personal one, as opposed to simply raising the occurrence of antibiotic resistance in the general population over time. Whenever you use an antibiotic, you're increasing your susceptibility to an antibiotic-resistant infection -- and you can become the carrier of this resistant bug and spread it to others.

When Should You Call Your Physician?

Sinus, ear, and lung infections (bronchitis and pneumonia) CAN be bacterial, and if so, may respond to antibiotics. If you develop any of the following symptoms, these are signs you may be suffering from a bacterial infection rather than a cold, and you should call your physician's office:

·         Fever over 102 degrees Fahrenheit (38.9 degrees Celsius)

·         Ear pain

·         Pain around your eyes, especially with a green nasal discharge

·         Shortness of breath or a persistent uncontrollable cough

·         Persistently coughing up green and yellow sputum

Generally speaking, however, if you have a cold, medical care is not necessary. Rest and attention to the lifestyle factors noted above will help you to recover quickly and, if you stick to them, will significantly reduce your chances of catching another one anytime soon.

Jamar Hand Dynamometer - 5030J1

Jamar Hand Dynamometer - 5030J1

Product Description

Jamar Hand Dynamometer - Hydraulic
Jamar Hand Dynamometer is ideal for routine screening of grip strength and initial and ongoing evaluation of clients with hand trauma and dysfunction. Jamar® Hand Dynamometer is virtually leak-proof hydraulics and isometric design ensure accurate, reproducible results and years of reliable service. Jamar Hand Dynamometer is built to last, a shock-resistant rubber cap protects the stainless-steel gauge and a wrist strap prevents accidental damage if dropped. Jamar Hand Dynamometer has dual-scale readout displays isometric grip force from 0 - 200 lbs. Peak-hold needle automatically retains the highest reading until reset. Jamar Hand Jamar® Hand Dynamometer's handle easily adjusts to five grip positions, from 1 3/8" - 3 3/8", in half-inch increments.

Warranted for one full year. The warranty does not cover calibration. See below for information on a convenient and economical way to calibrate your Jamar® Hydraulic Hand Dynamometer. CE Marked. Latex free. Made in USA.

Calibration and repair of your evaluation instruments in an ISO 9002 Registered Lab TECH ONE is the only Lab approved by Sammons Preston Rolyan for calibration and repair of hand Jamar® Hydraulic Hand Dynamometers, pinch gauges and other evaluation tools. In our continuously updated (ISO 9002) A2LA accredited registered lab, our technicians give each unit a complete 9-point tune-up that includes:

A thorough cleaning

Visual inspection for leaks

Lubrication

Zero-point adjustment

Force application and adjustment

Inspection and/or replacement of crystal

Verification of peak-hold function

Check handle clearance

Inspection and improvement of cosmetics

NOTE: If parts or repairs are required, additional charges may apply.

Jamar Hand Dynamometer comes with a carrying/storage case and complete instructions.
One year manufacturer's warranty.

NOTE: By law this equipment has to be calibrated at least once a year. For calibration we recommend company B&L Engineering. In case your unit cannot be calibrated it will be replaced with brand new product on discounted price. To get your rebate just name WisdomKing.com as your referring contact.
B&L Engineering could be reached at:
Phone: (714) 505-9492 or Email: info@bleng.com. 

To purchase this item click here

 

Exercise as Potent Medicine

By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS

Exercise can be as effective as many frequently prescribed drugs in treating some of the leading causes of death, according to a new report. The study raises important questions about whether our health care system focuses too much on medications and too little on activity to combat physical ailments.
For the study, which was published in October in BMJ, researchers compared how well various drugs and exercise succeed in reducing deaths among people who have been diagnosed with several common and serious conditions, including heart disease and diabetes.
Comparative effectiveness studies are a staple of science, of course, especially in pharmaceutical research. Scientists often track how well one drug treats a condition compared with the outcome if they use a different drug. But few studies have directly compared drugs with exercise, and even fewer have compared outcomes in terms of mortality or whether the intervention significantly lessens the chance that someone with a disease will die from it, despite treatment.
So Huseyin Naci, a graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and Dr. John Ioannidis, the director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center at the Stanford University School of Medicine, decided to create a comprehensive comparison of the effectiveness of drugs and exercise in lessening mortality among people who had been diagnosed with one of four diseases: heart disease, chronic heart failure, stroke or diabetes. They chose these particular conditions because those were the only ones for which they could find studies that had examined whether exercise lessened the risk of death among patients with that disease, Mr. Naci said.
He and Dr. Ioannidis then gathered all of the recent randomized controlled trials, as well as previous reviews and meta-analyses of older experiments relating to mortality among patients with those diseases, whether they had been treated with drugs or exercise.
They ended up with data covering 305 past experiments that, collectively, involved almost 340,000 participants, which is an impressive total. But most of the volunteers had received drugs. Only 57 of the experiments, involving 14,716 volunteers, had examined the impact of exercise as a treatment.
Still, the numbers were large enough that Mr. Naci and Dr. Ioannidis could create an elaborate network of cross-references, comparing the outcomes when people received certain drugs, followed exercise regimens or, occasionally, both. The exercise routines, typically part of rehabilitation programs, usually involved walking or other aerobic routines but sometimes consisted of weight training or other exercises.
The researchers compared mortality risks for people following any of the treatment options.
The results consistently showed that drugs and exercise produced almost exactly the same results. People with heart disease, for instance, who exercised but did not use commonly prescribed medications, including statins, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or antiplatelet drugs, had the same risk of dying from — or surviving — heart disease as patients taking those drugs. Similarly, people with diabetes who exercised had the same relative risk of dying from the condition as those taking the most commonly prescribed drugs. Or as the researchers wrote in statistics-speak, “When compared head to head in network meta-analyses, all interventions were not different beyond chance.”
On the other hand, people who once had suffered a stroke had significantly less risk of dying from that condition if they exercised than if they used medications — although the study authors note that stroke patients who can exercise may have been unusually healthy to start with.
Only in chronic heart failure were drugs noticeably more effective than exercise. Diuretics staved off mortality better than did exercise.
Over all, Dr. Ioannidis said, “our results suggest that exercise can be quite potent” in treating heart disease and the other conditions, equaling the lifesaving benefits available from most of the commonly prescribed drugs, including statins. Statins are at the center of a debate about new treatment guidelines that could vastly expand the number of people taking the drugs.
The results also underscore how infrequently exercise is considered or studied as a medical intervention, Dr. Ioannidis said. “Only 5 percent” of the available and relevant experiments in his new analysis involved exercise. “We need far more information” about how exercise compares, head to head, with drugs in the treatment of many conditions, he said, as well as what types and amounts of exercise confer the most benefit and whether there are side effects, such as injuries. Ideally, he said, pharmaceutical companies would set aside a tiny fraction of their profits for such studies.
But he is not optimistic that such funding will materialize, without widespread public pressure.
For now, Mr. Naci said, he hopes that this new study will prompt smaller-scale negotiations. “We are not suggesting that anyone stop taking their medications,” he said. “But maybe people could think long and hard about their lifestyles and talk to their doctors” about whether exercise could and should be incorporated into their care.

NBC Says It's Useless, But It May Slash Your Risk of 16 Different Cancers:

The Media’s Profound Ignorance About Nutrition Misses the Mark Yet Again

 

 

By Dr. Mercola

According to researchers at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research,¹ vitamin supplements are probably useless when it comes to preventing heart disease and/or cancer.
Their analysis is being used by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to update its recommendations on supplement use, and the findings were recently reported by NBC News² under the headline: “Vitamins don’t prevent heart disease or cancer, experts find.”
But is this really an accurate evaluation of the available evidence? A strong rebuttal³ to NBC’s reporting was immediately issued by Dr. Andrew Saul,⁴ editor of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service.
Dr. Saul has over 35 years of experience in natural health education; Psychology Today named him as one of the seven natural health pioneers in 2006.

“I would like to apologize for NBC News. It seems that the organization that brought us Lowell Thomas, John Cameron Swayze, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley has lowered its standard of reporting,” he writes.

“NBC's supplement-bashing headline article... displays an ignorance of clinical nutrition that is difficult to ignore, and, thanks to its media prominence, can't be.

Of vitamin supplementation, NBC specifically said that a ‘very extensive look at the studies that have been done show it may be a waste of time when it comes to preventing the diseases most likely to kill you.’ The ‘very extensive look’ encompassed 24 preselected studies. It looks like they just possibly may have missed a few...”

Dr. Saul ‘Apologizes’ for NBC ‘Hatchet Job’ Reporting on Vitamins

Dr. Saul then goes on to list 19 studies⁵ showing strong correlations between vitamin use and reduced risk of heart disease and cancer. If you’re in doubt, I suggest you to take a look at some of those studies before you swallow NBC’s “hatchet job on vitamins,” as Dr. Saul puts it. Below is a handful. For the full list, please see Dr. Saul’s article.⁶

• JAMA 2012:⁷ Multivitamin supplements were found to reduce cancer risk by eight percent.
• International Journal of Cancer 2011:⁸ A mere 10 ng/ml increase in serum vitamin D levels was associated with a 15 percent reduction in colorectal cancer incidence and 11 percent reduction in breast cancer incidence.
• American Heart Journal 2011:⁹ Each 20 micromole/liter (µmol/L) increase in plasma vitamin C was associated with a nine percent reduction in heart failure mortality. According to Dr. Saul, if everyone were to take 500 mg of vitamin C per day—the dose required to reach a healthy level of 80 µmol/L—an estimated 216,000 lives could be spared each year.
• International Journal of Cancer 2011:¹⁰ While the NBC declared that “Vitamin E does no good at all in preventing cancer or heart disease,” this study found that gamma-tocotrienol, a cofactor found in natural vitamin E preparations, decreases prostate tumor formation by a respectable 75 percent.
• International Journal of Cancer 2008: Here, 300 IUs of vitamin E per day reduced lung cancer risk by 61 percent.

Were Those Really the Best Studies They Could Find?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It’s worth noting that study selection for the featured review was done by two investigators who “independently selected and reviewed fair- and good-quality trials for benefit and fair- and good-quality trials and observational studies for harms.”
What this means is that they didn’t assess the consensus found in available research, but rather “independently” picked and chose which ones they wanted to include in the analysis.
Out of the more than 12,760 study abstracts screened, a total of 26 studies were selected for inclusion in their analysis. Selected for inclusion were studies looking at the following supplements’ effects on heart disease or cancer:

Multivitamins	Beta-carotene	Vitamin E	Selenium	Vitamin A
Vitamin C	Folic acid	Vitamin D	Vitamin D with calcium	Calcium

Also notable is the fact that for a study to be included in the review, it had to use supplement doses lower than the upper tolerable limit set by the US Food and Nutrition board.^{11, 12} For vitamin D, this means a dose limit of 100 IUs a day for adults! Research suggests most adults need about 35 IUs per pound of body weight in order to obtain therapeutically relevant serum levels.  This dose of vitamin D is worthless as most adults require doses 50 times greater. So it is no surprise they found no effect as they were not testing for clinical significant levels. Remember, the devil is in the details.

Vitamin D May Be Critical for Cancer Prevention

Their conclusion on vitamin D is in stark contrast to an ever growing number of studies showing that vitamin D (with or without calcium) has tremendous protective effect against cancer. For example, a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine¹³ concluded that a serum 25(OH)D level of more than 33 ng/mL was associated with a 50 percent lower risk of colorectal cancer.
Another study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition¹⁴ that same year found that after four years of follow up, cancer-free survival was 77 percent higher in women who received 1,100 IU vitamin D and 1,450 mg calcium per day, compared to those who received either a placebo or calcium by itself. Theories linking vitamin D deficiency to cancer have been tested and confirmed in more than 200 epidemiological studies, and understanding of its physiological basis stems from more than 2,500 laboratory studies.
According to Carole Baggerly, founder of GrassrootsHealth, 90 percent of ordinary breast cancer may be related to vitamin D deficiency. In fact, breast cancer has been described as a “vitamin D deficiency syndrome.” The way vitamin D interferes with breast cancer’s ability to spread is by affecting the structure of those cells—without adequate vitamin D, they fall apart and are forced to “overmultiply” in order to survive. Previous research has shown that optimizing your vitamin D levels can reduce your risk for as many as 16 different types of cancer, including pancreatic, lung, ovarian, breast, prostate, and skin cancers.

Most Important—Maintaining Optimal Vitamin D Serum Levels

Of utmost importance is the maintenance of a therapeutically beneficial serum level year-round. Here, studies indicate that the bare minimum for cancer prevention is around 40 ng/ml. Research suggests an ideal level might be around 60-80 ng/ml. A 2009 review article¹⁵ titled: “Vitamin D for Cancer Prevention: Global Perspective,” published in Annals of Epidemiologya states that:

“Higher serum levels of the main circulating form of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), are associated with substantially lower incidence rates of colon, breast, ovarian, renal, pancreatic, aggressive prostate and other cancers.

Epidemiological findings combined with newly discovered mechanisms suggest a new model of cancer etiology that accounts for these actions of 25(OH)D and calcium. Its seven phases are disjunction, initiation, natural selection, overgrowth, metastasis, involution, and transition (abbreviated DINOMIT). Vitamin D metabolites prevent disjunction of cells and are beneficial in other phases.

It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half... The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium.

Smart Supplementation Could Save Healthcare System BILLIONS Each Year

Although Dr. Saul doesn’t mention it, the NBC also failed to mention the recent report on vitamins produced by the Council for Responsible Nutrition Foundation, titled: “Smart Prevention—Health Care Cost Savings Resulting from the Targeted Use of Dietary Supplements.”¹⁶ This report concluded that—based on the scientific evidence of benefit— supplementation at preventive intake levels could save the American healthcare system more than $11 BILLION each year. Steve Mister, president of the Council for Responsible Nutrition Foundation¹⁷ told Drugstore News:¹⁸

“Chronic disease takes a huge toll on people’s quality of life, and the healthcare system spends a tremendous amount of money treating chronic disease, but has failed to focus on ways to reduce those costs through prevention. We already knew that the dietary supplements identified in the report can play a role in reducing the risk of certain chronic diseases; we felt compelled to find out if they could also contribute to healthcare cost savings by reducing the medical events associated with those conditions. This new report says emphatically that they do.”

How to Reduce Cost of Heart Disease by More Than $4 Billion Annually

The “Smart Prevention” report examined the effect of eight different dietary supplement regimens on four chronic diseases: heart disease, diabetes, age-related eye disease, and bone disease, and assessed the potential health care cost savings if American adults were to take these supplements at therapeutic dosages.
Unfortunately, this report also failed to review many of the benefits of vitamin D, which is one of the most widely beneficial and least expensive supplements on the market.  Again, a growing number of vitamin D experts estimate it could cut the rate of cancer by half. If this were to be factored into the equation, the health care savings could likely go up by a factor of 1,000 or more, and there would be trillions of dollars of savings instead of billions.
Now, in the case of heart disease, use of omega-3 supplements among adults aged 55 and over diagnosed with coronary heart disease could reduce annual hospital costs by more than $2 billion on average, saving the health care system close to $16.5 billion between 2013 and 2020, according to the “Smart Prevention” report. Use of vitamins B6 and B12 among the target population could also reduce hospital costs by an average of more than $1.5 billion annually, saving the health care system more than $12.1 billion between 2013 and 2020. (Again, vitamin D would also radically lower the cost of heart disease as it has profound benefits in cardiac health, but unfortunately the authors didn’t factor vitamin D in into this equation.)

According to the authors: “An average of $4.23 billion per year and a cumulative savings of $34 billion from 2013 to 2020 in avoidable hospital utilization costs is potentially realizable if all US adults over the age of 55 diagnosed with CHD were to use phytosterol dietary supplements at protective levels.
Likewise, potential total cost savings among the same target population given the use of the psyllium dietary fiber at preventive daily intake levels would be an average hospital utilization cost avoidance of $4.38 billion per year and cumulative savings of $35.05 billion from 2013 to 2020.
The potential net health care cost savings of phytosterols and psyllium dietary fiber supplementation, after accounting for the cost of supplement utilization, would be an average annual savings of $3.32 billion per year and $2.48 billion per year, respectively, after accounting for the costs of supplementation utilization from 2013 to 2020.”

Who Benefits by Scaring You Away from Dietary Supplements?

Earlier this summer, a flurry of media reports told readers to beware, if not outright be afraid, of taking supplements. Two of the primary figureheads in his summer drive of anti-alternative health PR were Dr. Paul Offit and Senator Dick Durbin. Offit, notorious for his claim that infants can tolerate 10,000 vaccines at once, penned a New York Times article with the unambiguous headline: “Don't Take Your Vitamins.”¹⁹ The featured NBC article²⁰ again brought Offit’s radical opinions to the fore:

“Dr. Paul Offit... says he is not surprised by the findings. But he doubts the millions of Americans who buy vitamins will stop because of this recommendation. ‘They are constantly hearing information from those who market these products that they are good for you, that they boost your immunity, that they reduce stress’... Offit said the review could have done more to highlight some of the dangers of overdosing on vitamins.... ‘I would like to see someone step forward and say there’s harm.’”

Of course he would. Take away nutrition, and the only thing you have left to battle disease with is drugs, surgery, and vaccines. While it’s important to remember that a) there is a major difference between natural whole-food supplements and pharmaceutical grade synthetic vitamins and minerals, and b) that supplements should only be taken in addition to, NOT in place of, a healthy diet, I believe Big Pharma mouthpieces are standing on quicksand when it comes their claim that supplements are harmful, or do more harm than good in the long term.

Data Shows the Safety of Supplements

The March 2013 GAO Dietary Supplements report,²¹ for example, showed how incredibly safe supplements are—particularly when compared to drugs and vaccines. Since 2008, the supplement industry has been required to report adverse events to the FDA’s adverse effects reporting (AER) system, pursuant to the 2006 Act. Consider the following statistics comparing dietary supplement AERs with drug AERs from the 2013 GAO report2 for the year 2008:

• 1,080 dietary supplement AERs were reported to FDA4
• 526,527 prescription drug AERs were reported4
• 26,517 vaccine AERs were reported4

When you do the math, there were 488 times as many adverse events reported from prescription drugs as from dietary supplements. In all, the number of AERs is miniscule compared to the hundreds of millions of supplement servings consumed each year.²² In fact, according to a 2007 National Health Interview Survey,²³ more than half of American adults (157 million individuals) take nutritional supplements. Further compare that to the statistic that about the same number of people—just over half of all Americans—take two or more prescription drugs,²⁴ and the difference in safety between supplements and drugs becomes even clearer. Other data further supports the remarkable safety record of dietary supplements. For example:

• In 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reversed its long-standing anti-vitamin stance with the publication of two scientific reviews (based on 30 years’ worth of scientific papers looking at vitamins in relation to chronic diseases), both of which recommended daily multivitamin supplementation for all adults.²⁵
• Data from the US National Poison Data System’s annual report, which tracked data from 57 U.S. poison centers, showed vitamin and mineral supplements caused zero deaths in 2010. For comparison, pharmaceuticals caused more than 1,100 of the total 1,366 reported fatalities.
• FDA-approved drugs cause 80 percent of poison control fatalities each year.²⁶ Poison control centers report 100,000 calls, 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations and nearly 500 deaths each year from acetaminophen (Tylenol) alone.
• Data from the European Union indicate that pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times as likely to kill you as dietary supplements. You’re actually more likely to be struck dead by lightning or drown in your bathtub than have a lethal reaction to a dietary supplement.

Take Control of Your Health with Proper Nutrition and Lifestyle

Granted, there are poor-quality supplements out there—many of which, by the way, are produced by large pharmaceutical companies—that are made with synthetic ingredients that could potentially do more harm than good, especially in mega doses, which I don’t recommend. Yet the overall safety record of supplements, despite some inferior products being used, really speaks volumes. The same cannot be said for drugs, where even drugs perceived as more or less harmless, such as acetaminophen, actually cause more adverse event reports than supplements.
About 90 percent of each dollar Americans spend on food is spent on government-subsidized, disease-inducing denatured processed foods that tend to leave you vulnerable to nutritional deficiencies. Drugs clearly cannotfix this problem, although conventional medicine surely tries by throwing prescriptions at each and every symptom that is, ultimately, rooted in poor nutrition. In this respect, there’s clearly a place for properly selected, high-quality whole food dietary supplements, taken at therapeutic dosages.
Furthermore, certain nutrient deficiencies, such as vitamin D for example, are rampant now that everyone has been scared away from sun exposure. This is tragic, since the evidence is quite clear that optimizing your vitamin D levels can have a highly protective effect against a wide variety of chronic disease, including but not limited to heart disease and cancer. The featured review in NO WAY disputes such evidence, considering the studies they chose to include.
Ideally, you’d get most or all necessary nutrients from whole food—or in the case of vitamin D, from appropriate sun exposure—but there are cases in which a supplement can be helpful to counteract a deficiency. If you’re eating a wholesome diet you’re FAR less likely to end up with nutritional deficiencies, however. Last but not least, you may sign up for the peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service free of charge at orthomolecular.org. You can also freely access the entire OMNS archive at that link.