Experience 20%-40% More Energy and Stamina
Brand New & Exciting Technology
Nothing Enters The Body
Doctor Recommended and Used
Click Here For More Info

You Are Invited to Visit

Oasis Advanced Wellness Health Forums

Featuring: "Ask The Doctor" Forum

We Welcome Your Participation and Insight!

By: Jenny Thompson
Health Sciences Institute

Imagine sitting down with your doctor to receive the shocking news that you have bone cancer and only a couple of years to live. Even worse, he tells you that your life expectancy will be considerably shorter unless you immediately begin an intensive round of chemotherapy.

Then imagine saying, "No thanks; no chemo for me," and going on to live for well over a decade.

Against the odds, that's what happened to Michael Gearin-Tosh, a don of English literature at Oxford University. In the e-Alert "Land of the Living" (3/11/03) I told you about Mr. Gearin-Tosh's remarkable book, "Living Proof: A Medical Mutiny," in which he describes the rigorous nutritional regimen he used to control his cancer.

"Living Proof" is not an attack on chemotherapy use, but it offers a reminder that the need for chemotherapy should always be questioned because this harsh treatment is sometimes prescribed for cancers that simply don't respond to chemo. Why? The answer to that question uncovers a disturbing business aspect of chemotherapy that few patients ever get a glimpse of.

--------------------------------------------
Offsetting costs
--------------------------------------------

Cancer patients often receive chemotherapy drugs in the offices of their oncologists. This procedure, now fairly standard, was established in the early 90's to avoid the high costs of administering the drugs in a hospital. The wrinkle that makes this situation unique is that the oncologists purchase the drugs themselves and bill their patients. And the wrinkle that makes this situation a potential problem is that oncologists typically charge patients far higher amounts than they pay for the drugs. This practice is known as "chemotherapy concession."

The oncologists say they require the additional revenue from selling the drugs to offset the cost of special facilities and staff to administer the drugs. And because chemotherapy has become such a standard treatment, virtually all prescriptions for it are covered by insurance or Medicare, so the markups are generally not paid for by patients.

At face value, this would seem to be reasonable. But I'm sure you won't be surprised to find out there's much more to it than that.

--------------------------------------------
Everyone pays
--------------------------------------------

The problem with this "concession" system it that it perpetuates the use of chemotherapy - a problem that can be broken down into three distinct problems.

PROBLEM 1: Taxpayers are footing a large portion of the payout that goes to oncologists.

According to the New York Times, the amount that the government pays may be more than $1 billion per year. That's $1 billion more than the actual cost of the drugs. This amount doesn't include the additional totals paid to doctors by insurance companies - totals for which there are no current estimates, although the chance is very good that the burden carried by insurance companies is at least equal to the amount carried by Medicare. And as we've often seen, when insurance claims rise, our insurance premiums follow.

The Times quotes Dr. Larry Norton, an oncologist and former president of the American society of Clinical Oncology, as saying that he and other doctors are just trying to "break even." Well, things are tough all over, but don't pass the hat just yet to help your local oncologist squeak by, because according the Medical Group Management Association, over the last ten years oncology has become one of the most lucrative fields of medical practice, largely due to the chemotherapy concession. By some estimates, two-thirds of a typical oncologist's total revenue comes from the concession.

--------------------------------------------
Research suffers
--------------------------------------------

PROBLEM 2: Because oncologists have a strong monetary incentive to prescribe chemotherapy (after all, they're just "breaking even"), they are less likely to refer patients to clinical research exploring possible cancer cures and less abrasive therapies.

Natural Health Line recently interviewed Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. - a clinical researcher who has treated cancer with nutrition for many years. When Dr. Gonzalez was recruiting patients for a federally funded study of a cancer treatment based on a nutrition regimen, enrollment in the trial was complicated by the fact that many oncologists were reluctant to refer patients and lose the revenue that the chemotherapy concession would bring.

--------------------------------------------
Hard to justify
--------------------------------------------

PROBLEM 3: The most important problem is the way chemotherapy concession affects the treatment of patients.

Two years ago, Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D. (an oncologist and bioethicist), presented the results of a study that examined the medical records of almost 8,000 cancer patients. Dr. Emanuel found that in cases where chemotherapy was administered in the final six months of life, ONE-THIRD of the patients suffered from cancers that are known to be unresponsive to chemotherapy!

In Dr. Emanuel's words, "providing chemotherapy to patients with unresponsive cancers is hard to justify."

I'd say that's putting it mildly.

Specific types of cancer that are not responsive to chemotherapy include: pancreatic, melanoma, hepatocellular, renal cell, and gallbladder. If you are diagnosed with one of these cancers and are prescribed chemotherapy, it's time for a second opinion.

By: William Campbell Douglass II, MD - Daily Dose - http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/freecopy.html

If you've been a reader of mine for any length of time at all, you no doubt know how I feel about soy. If you don't, here's a brief summary of it: soy should be outlawed.

Despite its status as darling of the vegetarian "meat martyrs," soy is NOT a health food. In fact, it's neither healthy nor is it food, if your definition of that word includes some measure of actual nourishment. And it isn't merely worthless as a food, it's downright harmful. Hundreds of studies have linked soy proteins and derivatives to:

Heart disease
Cancer, especially of the breast
Allergies and reduced immunity
Thyroid dysfunction
Malnutrition and digestive problems
Nutrient deficiencies, including calcium (vital for the prevention of osteoporosis)
Reproductive disorders, cognitive and mental decline, and more.

And these are just the NATURAL side effects of soy foodstuffs. I shudder to think of how many other ills we're risking by ingesting the residues of the acid and alkaline baths, petroleum solvents, and God knows how many other hazardous chemicals involved in the manufacture of some of the most common soy variants...

These facts notwithstanding, soy byproducts and proteins have found their way into just about everything - usually in the place of truly healthy animal-based fats: Milk and milk substitutes, cheeses, yogurts, desserts, breakfast foods, and even many burger patties have some degree of soy content nowadays. In fact, it's estimated that 60% of the refined foods on store shelves and sold in fast-food joints have some kind of harmful soy protein in them.

And if those madcaps over at the Food and Drug Administration have it their way, the amount of soy Americans are consuming will likely double in the very near future. Why? Because they're about to allow the manufacturers of every Twinkie, breakfast cereal, veggie burger, energy bar, milk substitute, and every other doggone thing under the sun with harmful soy protein or byproduct in it to claim that it PREVENTS CANCER.

Yep, you read that right. Despite the findings of stacks of bona-fide research, the FDA is about to buckle yet again to the Big Food business (like it did with that Food Pyramid farce) and let them claim their soy- and sugar-saturated junk as the key to dodging cancer.

That is, they will unless YOU do something about it. Keep reading...

Absurd as the notion is, the FDA is about to give a big rubber stamp to refined-food makers that says "Prevents Cancer" on it. This, despite the fact that many toxicology texts list the plant estrogens found in soy protein products as CARCINOGENS. How can this happen, you ask? As usual, it's all about money. This move will mean billions in the pockets of American food makers, and who knows how many needless corpses in American morgues...

What really kills me is that the FDA doesn't think we're smart enough to see how shamelessly profit-driven this shenanigan is. Think about it: There are lots of safe, natural substances out there that REALLY DO prevent cancer. But does the FDA allow makers of these things to make that claim?

Of course not. The supplement and natural foods industries represent an insignificant source of income for the government next to the food business. Besides, people might stop taking those expensive drugs if they knew about the benefits of vitamins, herbs, minerals, and truly healthy foods - that would mean less money in the Feds' pockets in taxes and drug application and approval fees. But since the food industry will flood the government with corporate tax revenues generated by the sale of soy-inclusive products, they get to claim these foods prevent cancer.

You see, it doesn't matter if it's true, as long as it's truly profitable.

As you know, I don't often try to rally my readers to action. With a couple of notable exceptions in the past, I prefer to inform and expose, then let folks decide for themselves whether or not to get involved. But this time, I'm urging anyone who cares about not only their health, but their rights to unbiased government oversight of big business to take action now - because the clock is ticking...

The FDA must hear from Americans in sufficient numbers to make them think twice about giving the food industry carte blanche to bill their junk foods as the "magic bullet" for cancer. But you have to hurry - the deadline for input on the topic is Monday, April 11th, 2005. To let your voice be heard, do one of the following things, according to the Weston A. Price foundation (a leading crusader in the soy skirmish):

1) Submit your letter electronically via the following FDA website.

http://en.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=25 145505&u=227955

The specific FDA Docket number is: 2004Q-0151 - Qualified Health Claim: Soy Protein and Cancer. Attachments are permitted.

2) Or, send your letter in the body of an e-mail addressed to: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov

In the subject line of your e-mail, please insert the following: Docket: 2004Q-0151 - Qualified Health Claim: Soy Protein and Cancer. This phrase MUST APPEAR in the subject line.

3) I also suggest you send a duplicate of your letter to the FDA. Mail it to:

Division of Dockets Management Docket: 2004Q-0151 - Qualified Health Claim: Soy Protein and Cancer Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 (HFA-305) Rockville, MD, 20852

Your correspondence, in whatever form you choose, must reach the FDA no later than Monday, April 11, 2005.

Please take a few minutes to let them know how you feel. It may be the only way to prevent a health travesty of mammoth proportions.

By: Burton Goldberg

It's time to revise the scientific method to handle the complexities of alternative medicine.

The U.S. government has belatedly confirmed a fact that millions of Americans have known personally for decades-acupuncture works. A 12-member panel of medical "experts" recently informed the National Institutes of Health (NIH), its sponsor, that acupuncture is "clearly effective" for treating certain conditions, such as fibromyalgia, tennis elbow, pain following dental surgery, nausea during pregnancy, and nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy. The panel was less persuaded that acupuncture is appropriate as the sole treatment for headaches, asthma, addiction, menstrual cramps, and others.

The NIH panel reported that, in their view, "there are a number of cases" in which acupuncture works. As the modality has fewer side effects and is less invasive than conventional treatments, "it is time to take it seriously" and "expand its use into conventional medicine."

These developments are, naturally, welcome, and the field of alternative medicine should, by rights, be pleased with this progressive step. However, underlying the NIH's endorsement and qualified "legitimization" of acupuncture is a deeper issue that must come to light. I refer to a presumption so deeply ingrained in Western society as to be almost invisible to all but the most discerning eyes. The presumption is that the "experts" of conventional medicine are entitled and qualified to pass judgment on the scientific and therapeutic merits of alternative medicine modalities. They are not.

The matter hinges on the definition and scope of the term "scientific." The mainstream media is continually full of carping complaints by supposed medical experts that alternative medicine is not "scientific" and not "proven." Yet we never hear these experts take a moment out from their vituperations to examine the tenets and assumptions of their cherished scientific method to see if they are valid. They are not.

Medical historian Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D., author of the landmark four-volume history of Western medicine called Divided Legacy, first alerted me to a crucial, though unrecognized, distinction. The question we should ask is whether conventional medicine is scientific. Dr. Coulter argues convincingly that it is not.

Over the last 2,500 years, Western medicine has been divided by a powerful schism between two opposed ways of looking at physiology, health, and healing, says Dr. Coulter. What we now call conventional medicine (or allopathy) was once known as Rationalist medicine; alternative medicine, in Dr. Coulter's history, was called Empirical. Rationalist medicine is based on reason and prevailing theory, while Empirical medicine is based on observed facts and real life experience-on what works.

Dr. Coulter makes some startling observations based on this distinction. Conventional medicine is alien, both in spirit and structure, to the scientific method of investigation, he says. Its concepts continually change with the latest breakthrough. Yesterday, it was the germ theory; today, it's genetics; tomorrow, who knows?

With each changing fashion in medical thought, conventional medicine has to toss away its now outmoded orthodoxy and impose the new one, until it gets changed again. This is medicine based on abstract theory; the facts of the body must be contorted to conform to these theories or dismissed as irrelevant.

Doctors of this persuasion accept a dogma on faith and impose it on their patients, until it's proved wrong or dangerous by the next generation. They get carried away by abstract ideas and forget the living patients. As a result, the diagnosis is not directly connected to the remedy; the link is more a matter of guesswork than science. This approach, says Dr. Coulter, is "inherently imprecise, approximate, and unstable-it's a dogma of authority, not science." Even if an approach hardly works at all, it's kept on the books because the theory says it's good "science."

On the other hand, practitioners of Empirical, or alternative medicine, do their homework: they study the individual patients; determine all the contributing causes; note all the symptoms; and observe the results of treatment.

Homeopathy and Chinese medicine are prime examples of this approach. Both modalities may be added to because physicians in these fields and other alternative practices constantly seek new information based on their clinical experience.

This is the meaning of empirical: it's based on experience, then continually tested and refined-but not reinvented or discarded-through the doctor's daily practice with actual patients. For this reason, homeopathic remedies don't become outmoded; acupuncture treatment strategies don't become irrelevant.

Alternative medicine is proven every day in the clinical experience of physicians and patients. It was proven ten years ago and will remain proven ten years from now. According to Dr. Coulter, alternative medicine is more scientific in the truest sense than Western, so-called scientific medicine.

Sadly, what we see far too often in conventional medicine is a drug or procedure "proven" as effective and accepted by the FDA and other authoritative bodies only to be revoked a few years later when it's been proven to be toxic, malfunctioning, or deadly.

The conceit of conventional medicine and its "science" is that substances and procedures must pass the double-blind study to be proven effective. But is the double-blind method the most appropriate way to be scientific about alternative medicine? It is not.

The guidelines and boundaries of science must be revised to encompass the clinical subtlety and complexity revealed by alternative medicine. As a testing method, the double-blind study examines a single substance or procedure in isolated, controlled conditions and measures results against an inactive or empty procedure or substance (called a placebo) to be sure that no subjective factors get in the way. The approach is based on the assumption that single factors cause and reverse illness, and that these can be studied alone, out of context and in isolation.

The double-blind study, although taken without critical examination to be the gold standard of modern science, is actually misleading, even useless, when it is used to study alternative medicine. We know that no single factor causes anything nor is there a "magic bullet" capable of single-handedly reversing conditions. Multiple factors contribute to the emergence of an illness and multiple modalities must work together to produce healing.

Equally important is the understanding that this multiplicity of causes and cures takes place in individual patients, no two of whom are alike in psychology, family medical history, and biochemistry. Two men, both of whom are 35 and have similar flu symptoms, do not necessarily and automatically have the same health condition, nor should they receive the same treatment. They might, but you can't count on it.

The double-blind method is incapable of accommodating this degree of medical complexity and variation, yet these are physiological facts of life. Any approach claiming to be scientific which has to exclude this much empirical, real-life data from its study is clearly not true science.

In a profound sense, the double-blind method cannot prove alternative medicine is effective because it is not scientific enough. It is not broad and subtle and complex enough to encompass the clinical realities of alternative medicine.

If you depend on the double-blind study to validate alternative medicine, you will end up doubly blind about the reality of medicine.

Listen carefully the next time you hear medical "experts" whining that a substance or method has not been "scientifically" evaluated in a double-blind study and is therefore not yet "proven" effective. They're just trying to mislead and intimidate you. Ask them how much "scientific" proof underlies using chemotherapy and radiation for cancer or angioplasty for heart disease. The fact is, it's very little.

Try turning the situation around. Demand of the experts that they scientifically prove the efficacy of some of their cash cows, such as chemotherapy and radiation for cancer, angioplasty and bypass for heart disease, or hysterectomies for uterine problems. The efficacy hasn't been proven because it can't be proven.

There is no need whatsoever for practitioners and consumers of alternative medicine to wait like supplicants with hat in hand for the scientific "experts" of conventional medicine to dole out a few condescending scraps of official approval for alternative approaches.

Rather, discerning citizens should be demanding of these experts that they prove the science behind their medicine by demonstrating successful, nontoxic, and affordable patient outcomes. If they can't, these approaches should be rejected for being unscientific. After all, the proof is in the cure.

Few aware of how many genetically modified products they eat, study finds.

TRENTON, N.J. - Can animal genes be jammed into plants? Would tomatoes with catfish genes taste fishy? Have you ever eaten a genetically modified food?

The answers are: yes, no and almost definitely. But according to a survey, most Americans couldn't answer correctly even though they've been eating genetically modified foods - unlabeled - for nearly a decade.

"It's just not on the radar screen," said William Hallman, associate director of the Food Biotechnology Program at the Rutgers Food Policy Institute, which conducted the survey.

Today, roughly 75 percent of U.S. processed foods - boxed cereals, other grain products, frozen dinners, cooking oils and more - contain some genetically modified, or GM, ingredients, said Stephanie Childs of the Grocery Manufacturers of America.

Despite dire warnings about "Frankenfoods," there have been no reports of illness from these products of biotechnology. Critics note there's no system for reporting allergies or other reactions to GM foods.

Nearly every product with a corn or soy ingredient, and some containing canola or cottonseed oil, has a GM element, according to the grocery manufacturers group.

Little knowledge of GM products

In the Rutgers survey, less than half the people interviewed were aware GM foods are sold in supermarkets. At the same time, more than half wrongly believed supermarket chicken has been genetically modified.

So far, non-processed meat, poultry, fish and dairy products, and fruits and vegetables (both fresh and frozen) are not genetically modified.

GM food first hit supermarkets in 1994, with the highly touted Flavr Savr tomato, altered to give it a longer shelf life and better flavor. It flopped, in part due to disappointing taste, and disappeared in 1997, said Childs.

By 1995, farmers in several countries had planted millions of acres of GM corn and soybeans, and processed products containing them were in grocery stores.

Genetic modification of crops involves transferring genes from a plant or animal into a plant. Nearly all GM changes so far are to boost yields and deter insects and viruses, cutting the use of pesticides, thus making farming more productive and affordable - a particular aid to developing nations.

More than 80 percent of the soy and 40 percent of the corn raised in this country is a GM variety. Global plantings of biotech crops - mostly corn and soybeans and much of it for animal feed - grew to about 200 million acres last year, about two-thirds of it in the United States.

The one billionth acre will be planted this spring, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

New foods on the horizon

Experts say within several years there will be new GM foods with taste and nutrition improvements: cooking oils with less trans fat, tastier potatoes and peanuts that don't trigger allergies.

At North Carolina State University, one of the biggest U.S. plant breeding programs, scientists are developing drought-tolerant wheat and are a couple years from field testing GM peanuts that have no life-threatening allergens, said Steven Leath, associate dean for health research.

At Rutgers University's agricultural college, plant biology professor Nilgun Tumer and colleagues modified potatoes to better keep their flavor when processed as French fries and to limit browning when sliced, but she said farmers haven't adopted the new varieties. Now her team is trying to give tomatoes a gene to make a compound that helps prevent cancer and osteoporosis.

Lisa Lorenzen, a liaison to the biotech industry at Iowa State University said most Americans haven't worried about GM foods because they trust the regulatory system. She said many Europeans oppose GM foods because they don't trust governments that wrongly insisted for years that the beef supply, tainted by mad cow disease, was safe.

Worries about gene-altered products grow

Opponents say genetically modified foods could cause allergic or toxic reactions and harm the environment. Worries include the mixing of GM crops with regular ones either by handlers, or pollen - already documented - and GM foods being sold where they're not approved.

On Tuesday, a Swiss biotech company said it mistakenly sold U.S. farmers an experimental, unapproved GM corn seed, and tons of the resulting corn was
sold between 2001 and 2004. U.S. government agencies say there was no health or environmental risk.

In 2000, recalls, lawsuits and public uproar followed disclosure that StarLink GM corn, approved only for animal use, had gotten into taco shells and chips.

University plant scientists, industry, the Food and Drug Administration and numerous European science agencies say GM foods are safe.

"Nobody's been able to prove that anyone's even gotten the sniffles from biotechnology," Childs said.

But Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said there's no system to track health problems caused by GM foods.

Her group, along with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has long pushed for labeling - only required when GM products have properties different from ordinary foods, such as a higher nutrient content. They contend consumers deserve a choice if they want to avoid GM foods and they also want government regulation.

Currently, companies developing GM foods voluntarily send their data to the FDA, but there's no official approval before products go on sale.

"It's left up to the good nature of Monsanto or DuPont or other companies to do the right thing," said Gregory Jaffe, director of the biotechnology project at CSPI.

Organic gardening has become increasingly popular over the last several years. Whether we know it or not, many of us already practice forms of organic gardening. We just don't give it any thought.

Organic gardening is the practice of growing fruits and vegetables, using only things found in nature. Absolutely no man-made chemicals are used. Although we usually do not think of it, Organic Gardening concepts also apply to the world of flowers, trees, shrubs, and even your lawn. It is gardening without harmful and artificial chemicals, or other products not naturally found in nature. Commonly today, chemicals and non-natural products are used for fertilizing, and for control of insects, disease, and weeds.

Did you Know? Organic food sales are over $10 Billion! It's no small cottage industry.

If you are not completely sold on organic gardening, you can still bring it's benefits to yourself, your family, and the environment by applying those organic concepts that work best for you and your crop. Any organic methods that you employ will benefit you and the environment.

Organic Tip:

** Place fruits like pumpkin and squash on a bed of sand. Snails and slugs do not like sand and will not cross over it. You will not need to use slug and snail poisons.

The major benefits of organic gardening are many:

Less harmful chemicals on the food you and your family may eat. This is reason enough.

Less harm to the environment.

Cost savings as alternate sources can save you money.

You will feel better knowing you are doing your part.

Ways we Practice Organic Gardening Today:

Organic Gardening takes many forms. It includes:

Use compost for mulch and fertilizer.

Use only plant matter for mulching.....no plastics. Leaves and straw work great.

Use manures for fertilizer in place of chemical fertilizer.

Learning and applying proper techniques to grow healthy plants and avoid plant disease.

Acquiring natural insect enemies, such as Ladybugs for aphids and preying mantis, to control insect problems.

Using natural insecticides and deterrents such as garlic or soap sprays to deter insects. No insecticides or pesticides.

Use natural insect predators like Preying Mantis and Ladybugs. If they do not exist in your area, companies sell them.

Use a little extra muscle power to control weeds versus getting out the weed killer.

A willingness to give up a little portion of your crop to the bugs in order to produce and consume healthier food for you and your family.

Conserve and recycle. By using natural materials like manure, composted weeds and kitchen scraps we are using organic materials and reducing what goes into the waste stream.

GARDEN TIPS YOU CAN USE

#1 If your old garden hose leaks in several places, put it aside for the hot, dry summer days. Cut it in several new places, plug the one end and attach it to a faucet. It makes an excellent lawn sprinkler.

#2 To make an old fashioned rain barrel, buy a 30 gallon plastic garbage can, cut a small hole in the lid, and place it under a down spout with the spout through the hole. Then insert a cheap plastic spigot near the bottom of the can.

#3 Discarded shipping pallets make great compost bins. Place one pallet on the ground, and drive 2 metal support poles per side into the ground. Then slip the pallet sides over top of the poles and your bin is complete.

#4 A small extension curtain rod makes a good support for tall plants. As the plants grow, the rod can be adjusted so that it is always the right height.

#5 When pruning, close all tree wounds with expandable foam (like Great Stuff or pruning paint) to prevent borers.

#6 Learn to tell bulbs' noses from their basal plates, and plant them heads up.

#7 Picking off flowers frequently encourage most annuals to flower more abundantly.

#8 Garlic to the rescue: if you put 1 or 2 garlic cloves into your rose bushes, they will never be bothered by aphids or other insects.

#9 You can remove the faded flowers from bulbs, but the foliage must be left on to provide the bulb with food for next year's flowers.

#10 If you have naturalized bulbs in your lawn, don't cut foliage or the bulbs will deteriorate rapidly.

#11 To start up to 12 plants at a time, use a clean egg carton as a seed starter container. Punch holes in the bottom of each section for drainage, and fill with professional potting mix.

#12 For no mess watering of your hanging plants, let a few ice cubes slowly melt into the soil.

#13 A dose of caster oil saves ferns: add 1 tbsp. castor oil and 1 tbsp. children's shampoo to a quart of warm water, and give each plant a 1/4 cup of the mixture.

#14 A drop of mineral oil added to the silk of corn will prevent the worms from eating your corn. Has worked well for me.

#15 Always mix your plant food with very warm water because plants will take it up faster.

#16 A cedar stake the size of a pencil placed in the soil of your house plants will discourage soil insects.

#17 Place egg shells in the microwave for three minutes, remove, crush into a fine powder, and place them in a cloth sachet. Then drop the sachet into your house plant watering can.

#18 To keep bugs out of the soil of your house plants, simply sprinkle pencil sharpening shavings on top of the soil.

#19 The best indoor insect repellent for house plants is pieces of moth ball crystals applied directly to the surface of the soil.

#20 To kill snails and slugs, fill an old pie tin with beer and 3 drops of vinegar, and bury it at ground level. The little critters will drown themselves.

#21 The best mouse trap bait is pumpkin seeds; you'll find that mice can't resist them.

#22 When planting early vegetables, put on south side of house or shed.This will protect from northern winds, and allow walls to absorb heat and then release that heat at night.

#23 Test for pH of soil by mixing the soil with distilled water into a slurry and let stand one hour. Place a piece of litmus paper into the slurry for 1 minute, remove, and rinse with distilled water and match against pH color chart. Alkaline or acid.

#24 Don't throw away those extra seeds left over from planting. Most seeds will last in a dry cool place for about 3-4 years.

#25 Always check the soil before assuming plant is wilting because of lack of water. May not be.

#26 It is now thought that using railroad ties are harmful in or around vegetable gardens. The toxic material in the ties may leach out into the ground and end up in plants. Be careful.

#27 Don't put a garden over septic tanks, sitting water areas, buried utility lines. Don't put crop plants near old buildings that may give off chipped paint containing lead.

#28 When making a garden leave strips of the lawn with grass alone to make paths between the beds. Make the paths wide enough for the lawn mower and when you mow the clippings fall on the bed as grass mulch.

#29 For the compost pile - high carbon browns are nutshells, aged sawdust, chopped cornstalks, hay, straw, dry leaves, weeds, cover crops and moderate amount of paper.

#30 For the compost pile - high nitrogen greens are pet and human hair, seaweed, green manure crops, fresh grass clippings, tea bags, vegetable scraps, fruit scraps, coffee grounds, fresh leaves, weeds, milk and manure from cows, fowls, horses, pigs, sheep.

#31 Plant only proven crops that will grow in your area, check with county extension office or neighbors.

#32 Avoid planting related crops in the same spot year after year, for example in the tomato family the related crops are eggplant, pepper, potato and tomato.

#33 Don't throw away half full seed packets, most seeds stay good for years usually from 1 year to 6 years. Examples are beans - 3 years, carrots - 3 years, corn - 2 years. Remember to store in cool dry spot.

#34 When transplanting tomato plants try adding a blend of liquid seaweed and fish emulsion 2-3 days before you transplant.

#35 Do not soak bean seeds in water before planting, this will cause cracking and they will be brittle. Plant in warm soil only.

#36 Foliage spray rose plants with a mixture of 1 tablespoon liquid molasses with 1 ounce liquid seaweed in 1 gallon of water every 2-3 weeks. Many rose centers use this secret recipe.

#37 Thin bean plants when two true leaves are formed. Thinning will give good circulation to plant which is needed for disease prevention.

#38 When adding mulch to any garden try using a living mulch which is aged mulch that is basically mulch that turning to compost and mulch together. You get the best of both worlds.

#39 Since carrot seeds may be slow to germinate try spreading seeds on damp paper towels then put in refrigerator, when root tips appear mix with dry sand and plant outside.

#40 A strong spray of water directed on plants can blast away many pests like aphids and spider mites.

#41 Be careful if you are buying BT(Bacillus thuringiensis) to control pest caterpillars, cabbage loopers and codling moth larvae, remember they also attack butterfly caterpillars.

By Kevin Yamamura -- Bee Capitol Bureau

Assemblywoman Judy Chu believes some shampoos, deodorants and other everyday cosmetics are hazardous to your health.

Standing behind a lineup of beauty products Wednesday at the state Capitol, Chu said two ingredients - called phthalates - can lead to cancer, infertility and birth defects.

The European Union banned phthalates from cosmetics last year, and Chu, D-Monterey Park, wants to do the same in California. She submitted legislation Wednesday - AB 908 - that would prevent the sale and manufacture of products containing the chemical used to make nail polish flexible and keep skin moisturizer soft.

"There is no reason why women of childbearing age should continue to be exposed to chemicals that cause birth defects when there are viable alternatives," Chu said.

The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, which represents 600 cosmetic manufacturers, immediately criticized Chu's proposal as unwarranted. The trade group has insisted that products sold in the United States are safe for consumers.

Chu was joined Wednesday by state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, health advocates and several Marin County high school activists who have been raising concerns about the hazards of beauty products.

Migden has a separate bill, SB 484, that would require cosmetic manufacturers to report to the state Department of Health Services all ingredients that may cause cancer or harmful reproductive effects. She said many manufacturers label phthalates as "flavorings," which prevents consumers from knowing which products contain the chemical.

"If they're identified as carcinogens, the consumers of America ought to know about it," Migden said.

Chu tried to enact a phthalate ban last year, but her proposal was defeated when the Legislature's moderate Democrats would not support the plan. Her initial bill was blocked a year ago in the Assembly Health Committee.

Chu said she stands a better chance this year because she believes the European Union ban will help push state lawmakers to follow suit. The Assembly Health Committee also has a new chairwoman, Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, D-Alameda. Chan has submitted related legislation, AB 319, that would ban phthalates from toys intended for children 3 years old or younger.

At the same time, five of the six largest U.S. cosmetic manufacturers have agreed to stop using phthalates, building momentum in the industry away from the chemicals, said Janet Nudelman, director of program and policy for the Breast Cancer Fund.

Breast cancer prevention activists have been increasing the pressure on cosmetics manufacturers, arguing that the chemicals pose a particular threat to women's health. Breast Cancer Action executive director Barbara Brenner said she believes cosmetic chemicals such as phthalates contribute to the disease.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is responsible for regulating the cosmetics industry, but the agency does not test products before they are sold. The FDA also does not require manufacturers to register with the government nor submit ingredient lists.

The National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has found that animals exposed to high levels of the cosmetic ingredient dibutyl phthalate, known as DBP, suffer reproductive problems. The toxicology program had "some concern" for women of reproductive age exposed to higher levels of DBP but "negligible concern" for other exposed adults.

California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has one phthalate - di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, known as DEHP - on its Proposition 65 list of chemicals that pose reproductive risks. The agency also has proposed that DBP be included on the list.

Michael Thompson of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association said Wednesday that the agency's actions should be sufficient to regulate phthalates in California. His organization also said manufacturers do not use DEHP in cosmetics.

"California has the toughest health and environmental rules in the world and should be proud of them," Thompson said. "Outsourcing its decision-making to the European Union or any other body is not prudent."

But Migden suggested the federal government has been too lax in regulating the cosmetics industry and said many consumers are unaware that FDA does not test products before they are sold.

"These are known, registered carcinogens, and we ought to insist that not one degree be present in our products," Migden said. "Other substitutes that are good enough for Chanel and the Europeans should be good enough for the consumers and workers of America."

   Getting the body healthy is like any other new thing you are learning. It takes practice and consistency to make it a part of your life. At first it may seem like hard work. But the more you practice it the easier it gets. Stay focused and refuse to allow anyone or anything to disrupt your learning process. Very soon you will begin to feel and see the rewards of your consistent desire, discipline & determination!

--Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP 

Advanced Health & Wellness

visit us online at:
www.oasisadvancedwellness.com

www.menopause-pms-progesterone.org
www.oasisserene.com

Advanced Health & Wellness - March
Advanced Health & Wellness - February
Advanced Health & Wellness - January
Advanced Health & Wellness - December

OasisAdvancedWellness.com Blog
Natural-Health-Wellness Blog

New Info Posted Daily!

AROMATHERAPY

If you are not feeling well or fighting a cold or virus there are a few essential oil combinations that are useful to use in a bath.

Lavender and Tea Tree
Lavender and Eucalyptus
Ravansara and Tea Tree (Some say this is the best)

3 drops of each oil (6 drops total per bath) then go straight to bed. Chances are whatever you were fighting will never materialize.

A great tasting gentle and effective way
to add fiber to your diet and not pounds.

Designed to be used on a regular basis just like food. It gently cleanses and nourishes the digestive tract. Great tasting and easy to use. You can sprinkle it on yogurt, salad, cereals, bake with it or just mix it with juice. The ALL ONE Totally Fiber Complex is a blend of 26 different ingredients from whole food sources chosen for their cleansing and healing properties.

ALLERGIES - ASTHMA - BRONCHITIS -

COLDS - PETS - SMOKERS?

IONIC AIR PURIFICATION IS THE ANSWER...

Unmatched Ionic Power. Featuring an unprecedented 25 ionizing pins, a significant boost in ionic power over existing ionic air purifiers. Unlike heavily advertised ionic air purifiers, the XJ-2100 circulates air-cleaning negative ions throughout a room.

99.5% Removal Rate of Particles in Chamber.

No Filters to Replace. Just wipe off the metal plates, which attract pollutants like a magnet. The XJ-2100's collection plates are very easy to remove, clean and reinsert.

XJ-800 Car Ionizer

Make sure the air in your car is clean & safe!

The XJ-800 Car Ionizer eliminates cigarette smoke and removes pollution and allergens from the air in your car. This product has an ultra-high ion output with a fan and ultra-low power consumption. It can be used anywhere, including the home.