Adhesive Found to be Toxic to Food

The interesting thing to consider when reading this news article is that many adhesive patches used to dose medicines have similar toxic components which do absorb via the skin.

D. Telegraph 24.5.10 "TOXIC CHEMICALS IN SUPERMARKET LABELS"
A highly toxic chemical in the glue in some supermarket labels can seep through packaging & contaminated food, a study has found. The chemical which is in the highest category because "it poses a particularly severe risk to health" is found is some of the sticky labels of meat & veg etc. There are EU rules of what can come into contact with food but it hadn't been realised that glue could seep through packaging. The harmful chemical is 2,4,7,9-tetramethyl dec-5-yne- 4,7-diol. The study looked at 4 acrylic adhesives & the 11 compounds found in them. The research was from Zaragoza University in Spain & was published on 24 May 2010 in Royal Society of Chemistry's "Journal of Materials Chemistry." See also http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/7756221/Toxic-chemicals-from-supermarket-labels-seep-through-packaging-and-contaminate-food.html

Zinc, A Benefit to People with HIV

It is a good sign to see more reports on the benefits of nutrient supplementation for people with chronic disease. See related Natural Health News 60+ posts - Different-approach-needed-for-HIV/AIDS

May 19, 2010

Daily Zinc Supplements May Slow CD4 Cell Loss and Reduce Diarrhea

Daily zinc supplementation may help slow disease progression, notably in people living with HIV who are unable to maintain viral loads below undetectable while on an antiretroviral (ARV) drug regimen, and reduce diarrhea, according to a new study published in the June 15 issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases (CID).

Adequate zinc levels are critical for immune function. However, according to Marianna K. Baum, PhD, RD, of Florida International University and her fellow CID study authors, zinc deficiency occurs in more than 50 percent of people living with HIV. In turn, Baum’s group set out to determine the safety and efficacy of long-term zinc supplementation as it related to HIV disease progression.
The randomized, controlled trial conducted by Baum’s team enrolled 231 HIV-positive adults with low plasma zinc levels (less than 0.75 milligrams per liter [mg/L]) to receive zinc supplements (12 mg of elemental zinc for women and 15 mg for men) or placebo for 18 months. The primary measurement of the study was immunological failure, defined as a CD4 count below 200 at any time point during the study.
The average age of the study participants was 43. Seventy-seven percent were black, and 73 percent were men. Though 62 percent of the study participants were receiving ARV therapy, 69 percent had detectable viral loads, indicating poor control of the virus with the regimens being used. About 34 percent of the patients had CD4 counts below 200 upon entering the study; 22 percent had CD4s between 200 and 350, and 44 percent had CD4s above 350.
Zinc supplementation for 18 months resulted in a 75 percent reduction in the likelihood of immunological failure, after controlling the data for age, sex, food insecurity, baseline CD4 cell count, viral load and ARV therapy.
Daily zinc supplementation also reduced the rate of diarrhea by more than half.
There was no evidence that taking zinc supplements actually reduced the risk of death, though the study was not designed or powered to examine this aspect. A total of 11 patients in the treatment arm died compared with eight in the placebo arm.
Baum’s group also reported that daily zinc supplementation was safe. Her group reported no serious side effects.
“The results of this study can be generalized primarily to HIV-infected populations with prevalent zinc deficiency, such as drug users, children, men who have sex with men, and populations in developing countries, as well as those with poor viral control while receiving [antiretroviral therapy],” the authors conclude. “This evidence supports the recommendation of zinc therapy as a safe, simple and cost-effective tool to improve the immune response and to reduce morbidity and should be considered as an adjunct therapy for HIV infection.”

Add Spices to Meat Helps Cut Cancer Risk

NB from herbalYODA: Adele Davis always suggested cooking meat at 300 degrees F and that was in the 1940s!
UPDATE: 5/31/10 - "Spices top the list of foods rich in antioxidants, explained Marianne Gillette, a vice president at McCormick & Company, whose background is in experimental taste research. One half teaspoon of ground cinnamon has as many antioxidants as a half cup of blueberries; a half teaspoon of dried oregano rivals three cups of raw spinach." Complete article

Spicing up red meat doesn’t just add oomph to hamburgers on the grill.
By Catherine Donaldson-Evans. 5/24/10

A new study suggests that when sprinkled on ground beef during cooking, spices like cumin, tumeric and rosemary help lower its cancer-causing carcinogens.

Lead author J. Scott Smith, a food chemistry professor at Kansas State University, has for years been working on methods to cut the amount of carcinogenic compounds known as heterocyclic amines, or HCAs, found in barbecued ground beef patties and other so-called “muscle foods.”

HCAs are produced when the meat is either grilled, barbecued, fried or boiled. Eating it means ingesting the dangerous compounds, which have been linked to increased risk of cancers of the stomach, lung, prostate, mammary glands, colon, rectum and pancreas, according to a news release.

In research backed by the Food Safety Consortium, Smith found that some spices containing antioxidants can reduce the levels of HCAs in ground beef patties by about 40 percent — if they’re added during cooking. “Cooked beef tends to develop more HCAs than other kinds of cooked meats such as pork and chicken,” Smith said in a statement. “Cooked beef patties appear to be the cooked meat with the highest mutagenic activity and may be the most important source of HCAs in the human diet.” Smith didn’t immediately return requests for comment from AOL Health.

Prior research he has done showed that rosemary extracts for sale online can stop HCAs from developing by 61 to 79 percent, and Thai spices can block the compounds by 40 to 43 percent.

Other studies indicate that meat cooked for fewer than four minutes in temperatures under 352 degrees Fahrenheit had low levels of HCAs, levels of which seem to increase as cooking temperatures and times rise.

The spices with antioxidants can block the HCAs before they even form during the heating process, but still allow for higher temperatures. In addition to cumin, coriander seeds, rosemary and tumeric, Smith also says he saw the same benefits in fingerroot and galangal.

The highest levels of antioxidant activity were found in tumeric, rosemary and fingerroot, with rosemary being the most effective at inhibiting HCA production, the study found.

Smith said he plans more studies on the potential benefits of marinades and powders when added to cooked beef patties.

More on Meat and Your Health: Well-Done Meats Increase Bladder Cancer Risk
Study Suggests Adding Spices to Meat Cuts Cancer Risk - AOL Health

Suncreen May be Hiding the Facts

Today the BIG NEWS is about Sunscreen.  Numerous problems remain even after many years of known issues with the chemical ingredients in these products.  Some products listed as safe in the EWG report contain titanium dioxide, which if you note is mentioned in my 2008 posts that follow.  This raises concerns!.

The sad part is that this information has taken so long to get to the public!

Originally posted May 2008


It is very important to take the time to read labels when purchasing sun screen.

You might also want to increase use of vitamin B1 and make a vitamin C solution for a spray bottle. Both help act as sunscreens.

We also suggest using our anti-oxidant organic lotion following sun exposure to prevent dryness and maintain lubricity of your skin.

The following information from another colleague has some valuable tips. We exchanged information a year or so ago and it helped him update his recommendations.

Should you get sunburn, a good way to tame the sting is a tea bath or applying plain tea to those hot, red areas. Many people like to use pure aloe vera.

and another post from July 2008 84% of Sunscreens Unsafe or Ineffective

Sunscreens Revisited -
Sunny weather is here again and with it comes concerns about sun exposure and sunburn. The sun is beneficial for its ability to induce vitamin D production in our bodies. For those people who take cod liver oil in the winter for its vitamin D value, it may be prudent to switch during the sunny summer months to fish oil or krill oil as an omega 3 supplement, which do not contain vitamin D. It may be possible to build up too high a level of vitamin D in the bloodstream. Be aware, however, that research has failed to show any toxicity from vitamin D3 supplementation in adults at dosages as high as 4,000 to 10,000 IU. The synthetic Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) has shown toxic potential. We cannot get too much vitamin D from sun exposure.

Sunscreens are necessary for days with hours of time spent in the sun, especially kids playing baseball, or playing at the park, or swimming. As for sunscreens, I am very concerned about the use of ingredients in most commercial brands. Many of these chemical sunscreens have carcinogenic and/or hormone disrupting effects. These include cinnamates, PABA, oxybenzone, salicylates, benzophenones, and triethenolamine, among others. These ingredients are absorbed through the skin, and can be found in plasma and urine samples after their use in humans. I don't consider them safe for anyone, especially children.

Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is contained in many "natural" sunscreens, but this metal has also been implicated as a potential problem in humans. Titanium dioxide has the ability to cause DNA damage in human cells. Although the Environmental Protection Agency has not identified any carcinogenic effects of TiO2, its ability to alter DNA strands is a cause for concern.

Zinc oxide is the only completely safe sunblocking agent. In addition zinc oxide also has anti-inflammatory effects that can help to mitigate damage caused by UV radiation. Zinc oxide blocks both UVA and UVB radiation. Excellent sunscreen products that contain only zinc oxide as the active ingredient are made by UVNaturalUSA.com. Their Sport 30 is the most water repellent of their products. These sunscreens use a transparent zinc oxide that does not create a white mask on the skin. They can be ordered through many online sources and health food stores. These sunscreens are safe for most infants as well. A thin layer works well. If swimming, reapply every 2 hours.

Enjoy the sunny weather. Avoid getting sunburned and be prudent about sun exposure at midday. Wear a hat. Protect your eyes with UV sunglasses. Use a zinc oxide sunscreen. And have fun.

Titanium Dioxide Studies -

Chemical oxidation and DNA damage catalyzed by inorganic sunscreen ingredients.
Dunford R, Salinaro A, Cai L, Serpone N, Horikoshi S, Hidaka H, Knowland J
University of Oxford, Department of Biochemistry, UK.
This is now a known carcinogen titanium dioxide (TiO2) has been noted (US Federal Register, 43FR38206, 25 August 1978) to be an unsafe physical sunscreen because it
reflects and scatters UVB and UVA in sunlight.
However, TiO2 absorbs about 70% of incident UV, and in aqueous environments this leads to the generation of hydroxyl radicals which can initiate oxidations. Using chemical methods, we show that all sunscreen TiO2 samples tested catalyze the photo-oxidation of a representative organic substrate (phenol). We also show that
sunlight-illuminated TiO2 catalyses DNA damage both in vitro and in human cells. These results may be relevant to the overall effects of sunscreens.
PMID: 9414101, UI: 98074912 45: Toxicol Lett 1995 Oct;80(1-3):61-7
*****
Deleterious effects of sunscreen titanium dioxide nanoparticles on DNA: efforts to limit DNA damage by particle surface modification
Serpone, Nick; Salinaro, Angela; Emeline, A.
Proc. SPIE Vol. 4258, p. 86-98, Nanoparticles and Nanostructured Surfaces: Novel Reporters with Biological Applications, Catherine J. Murphy; Ed.
(c) 2001 SPIE--The International Society for Optical Engineering.
Abstract - Sunlight can have deleterious effects on humans: causes sunburns and is the principal cause of skin cancers. Usage of TiO2 (and ZnO) in sunscreen lotions, widely used as UVA/UVB blockers, and intended to prevent sunburns and to protect consumers from skin cancers (carcinomas and melanomas) is examined. Although used to mineralize many undesired organic pollutants, TiO2 is considered to be a safe physical sunscreen agent because it reflects and scatters both UVB (290-320 nm) and UVA (320-400 nm) sunlight; however, it also absorbs substantial UV radiation which, in aqueous media, yields hydroxyl radial ((DOT)OH) species. These species cause substantial damage to DNA (J. Photochem.Photobio.A:Chem.,111(1997)205). Most importantly, sunlight-illuminated sunscreen TiO2 particles catalyze DNA damage both in vitro and in human cells (FEBS Letters, 418 (1997)87). These results raise concerns on the overall effects of sunscreens and raise the question on the suitability of photoactive TiO2 as a sunscreen component without further studies. The photocatalytically active nature of these metal oxides necessitates some changes since even the TiO2 specimens currently used in suncreams cause significant DNA strand breaks.

Chemical oxidation and DNA damage catalysed by inorganic sunscreen ingredients
FEBS Letters, Vol 418, 24 November 1997, pages 87-90
Copyright © 1997 Federation of European Biochemical Societies. Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
Rosemary Dunford, Angela Salinaro, et al.
University of Oxford, Department of Biochemistry, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QU, UK Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Concordia University, Montreal, Que. H3G 1M8, Canada Department of Chemistry, Meisei University, Hino-shi, Tokyo 191, Japan

Abstract - Titanium dioxide (TiO2) has been noted (US Federal Register, 43FR38206, 25 August 1978) to be a safe physical sunscreen because it reflects and scatters UVB and UVA in sunlight. However, TiO2 absorbs about 70% of incident UV, and in aqueous environments this leads to the generation of hydroxyl radicals which can initiate oxidations. Using chemical methods, we show that all sunscreen TiO2 samples tested catalyse the photo-oxidation of a representative organic substrate (phenol). We also show that sunlight-illuminated TiO2 catalyses DNA damage both in vitro and in human cells. These results may be relevant to the overall effects of sunscreens.

Today, 24 May 2010 - from EWG.org
http://www.ewg.org/2010sunscreens/press
http://www.ewg.org/Sunscreen_or_smoke_screen%3F

Wakefield Banned in the UK

With all the recent flak about heretical personages in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, this comes close to a revival of the Inqusition.

It amazes me that in the so-called modern age of science there are so many that work to prevent people from looking into other than the mainstream viewpoint.  It also enrages me that such good research is discarded out-of-hand along with such concerted effort to cover up what may actually be the truth.

It is good to know that parents may be smarter than political pundits that try to protect turf and $$$, so many now are doing their own research because they don't buy in to the propaganda.

Dr Wakefield's book, Callous Disregard

UK bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine  By MARIA CHENG, AP

LONDON -Britain's top medical group ruled Monday that a doctor who claimed autism was linked to a childhood vaccine can no longer practice in the U.K.

The General Medical Council also found Dr. Andrew Wakefield guilty of "serious professional misconduct" as it struck him from the country's medical register. The council was investigating how Wakefield and colleagues carried out their research, not the science behind it.

When the research was published a dozen years ago, British parents abandoned the measles vaccine in droves, leading to a resurgence of the disease. Vaccination rates have never recovered and there are outbreaks of measles in the U.K. every year.

In 1998, Wakefield and colleagues published a study alleging a link between autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. Most of the study's authors renounced its conclusions and it was retracted by the journal in February.

Many other studies have been conducted since then and none have found a connection between autism and the vaccines. Wakefield moved to the U.S. several years ago and the ruling does not affect his right to practice medicine there or in other countries.

In 2005, Wakefield founded a nonprofit autism center in Austin, Texas, but quit earlier this year.

In January, Britain's medical council ruled that Wakefield and two other doctors acted unethically and showed a "callous disregard" for the children in their study. The medical body said Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them 5 pounds (today worth $7.20) each and later joked about the incident.

In a statement then, Wakefield said the medical council's investigation was an effort to "discredit and silence" him to "shield the government from exposure on the (measles) vaccine scandal."

In Monday's ruling, the medical council said Wakefield abused his position as a doctor and "brought the medical profession into disrepute."

Read also:http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2010/01/circle-game.html

Dangers of Irradiated Food

GLOWING BURGERS - originally reported by Leaflady.org in 1998.    

What's Wrong with Food Irradiation

• 
  
  Food irradiation exposes food to the equivalent of 30 million chest X-rays.
• 
  
  Irradiation creates new chemicals in foods called radiolytic products. Some of these products are known cancer-causing substances (like benzene in irradiated beef). Others are unique to the irradiation process and no one knows what effects these have on human health.
• 
  
  Irradiation destroys essential vitamins and nutrients that are naturally present in food. No studies have been done to show that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe. Safer, well-tested alternatives to irradiation exist.
• 
  
  Irradiation plants pose environmental threats to workers and surrounding communities. The transportation of nuclear materials to irradiation facilities also poses severe public health risks.
  
  Already posted on Natural Health News 
  

  Food Irradiation Fallout, 10 years old

  Apr 15, 2008

  Food irradiation exposes food to the equivalent of 30 million chest X-rays. Irradiation creates new chemicals in foods called radiolytic products. Some of these products are known cancer-causing substances (like benzene in irradiated ...

  http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

  
  

  Lettuce and Spinach subject to more tainting

  Aug 21, 2008

  Irradiated fats tend to become rancid. Even at low doses, some irradiated foods lose 20% of vitamins such as C, E, K, and B complex. Because irradiation breaks down the food's cell walls, accelerated vitamin losses occur during ...

  http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

   

  Irradiated Foods May Cause Serious Brain Damage

  May 30, 2009

  Some of the damage in the cats was reversible when they were taken off the irradiated food diet, showing promise for people with MS leading a more normal life with dietary intervention. However, the newly developed myelin was not as ...

  http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/

Cell Phone Study Inconclusive

A good commentary from some one who clearly understands how to lie with poorly formed studies and how to lie with statistics -

Let the SPIN Begin

PHOTO: Maram_Manie 

See also: http://www.scribd.com/doc/31647477/Andrew-Goldsworthy-Witness-Statement-April-2010

Contact Congress Now to Save Supplements

Natural Products Association Urging Congressional Opposition to Expanded FTC Authority

Association calls for action as legislation moves to critical stage

Published Friday, May 21, 2010 3:00 pm

WASHINGTON, DC - (May 21) On May 20, the Financial Services Reform Bill (H.R. 4173/S. 3217) passed the Senate without a controversial provision expanding the powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The bill now moves to a conference committee, where the House and Senate negotiate over the differences in their bills. The House version contains the FTC powers provision.

Today, the Natural Products Association (NPA) remobilized its membership base of more than 10,000 retail, manufacturing, wholesale and distributor locations. “We again asked our members to take action on this important issue by contacting their members of Congress, urging them to focus on strengthening the stability of our economy, not regulating industries that had nothing to do with the financial crisis,” said John Gay, NPA’s CEO and executive director. “At a time when businesses are struggling to both survive and create new jobs, adding burdensome new regulations and ceding more authority over our members’ businesses to the FTC is just what the economy does not need.”

The FTC powers provision received very little attention during a legislative process largely overshadowed by debate on such topics as derivative regulation and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. A proposal for Congress to delegate such sweeping new regulatory authority deserves more thorough deliberation.

“NPA members responded strongly to the first call to urge Senators to oppose any FTC powers amendment while they were considering the legislation, and I think they can take some credit for keeping the provision off the Senate bill,” said Gay. “Now we need to carry that message to both the House and Senate as they seek to iron out the differences between their versions of the legislation.”

Those seeking to contact their members of Congress should go to www.NPAinfo.org

Oil Spill Dispersant (COREXIT ®EC9500A and EC9527A)

Corexit: Dr. Susan Shaw warns people of the serious effects of Corexit saying it, “Ruptures red blood cells, causes internal bleeding, liver and kidney damage and allows crude oil to penetrate into cells and all  organ systems.” The combination of oil and Corexit is extremely toxic and absorbs through skin. Solvents in the dispersants penetrate the skin carrying the oil into the cells, and then circulates into the organs creating extreme toxicity.

EPA testing for mortality is inadequate states marine biologist and toxicologist Dr. Chris Pincetich.  His background is in testing the impact of chemicals on marine life. He further states that Corexit disrupts the cell wall membrane. EPA mortality uses a 96-hour time frame: Pincetich found that fish exposed to pesticides remained alive at 96 hours, but were dead at two weeks.  In this way EPA claims that the chemicals are non-lethal for the purposes of their testing.

EPA has problems too at the BP of the Northwest (www.silvervalleyaction.com).

What You May Not Know About the Oil Spill

Some information about Corexit, the dispersant used in the Exxon Valdez catastrophe and what seems to be making people sick in the Gulf as a result of it being used in the BP explosion. 

'Corexit is lethal in as little as 2.6 parts per million where oil is lethal in 11 parts per million meaning that Corexit is over 4 times more toxic than oil. Furthermore scientific studies show that oil dispersed with Corexit is 11 times more lethal than oil alone. In fact the study referenced showed that crude oil was lethal at 4250 parts per million to kill fish but combination of oil mixed with Corexit was lethal in as little as 317.7 ppm.' read more

• More to read here

• Government hides spill data

• Governments and the spill

• More on the toxicity of Corexit

• http://www.grist.org/article/2010-05-06-use-of-toxic-chemical-dispersants-to-fight-the-oil-spill-a-murky/

• http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/oil_spill/dispersants_hcp_info.htm

Also from CDC information: Type of Dispersants used on the Mississippi Canyon Oil Spill -Based on the information provided to NIOSH, two dispersants are currently being used for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill response. These dispersants are COREXIT® EC9527A and COREXIT 9500 made by the Nalco Company in Naperville, Illinois. Both products contain 10-30% sulfonic acid salt (detergent) and 1-5% propylene glycol, which are regarded as non-hazardous substances. In addition, COREXIT EC9527A contains between 30-60% of 2-butoxyethanol (solvent) and COREXIT 9500 contains between 10-30% of petroleum distillates (solvent).

2-butoxyethanol, also called butyl cellusolve, is a widely used cleaning agent. The potential human health effects of 2-butoxyethanol have been studied. Dispersants containing 2-butoxyethanol may irritate the skin. 2-butoxyethanol vapors or mists can cause respiratory irritation such as coughing.
Several occupational exposure limits (OELs) have been established for 2-butoxyethanol. The legally enforceable OEL in the United States is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). For airborne 2-butoxyethanol the OSHA PEL is 50 parts per million (ppm) for up to a full work shift.
The NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit (REL) for 2-butoxyethanol is 5 ppm, also for up to a full work shift. The NIOSH REL is intended to minimize potential long-term health effects to workers, primarily hemolysis of red blood cells (RBCs). Hemolysis of RBCs has been found in animals exposed to 2-butoxyethanol, but recent data suggests that human RBCs are less susceptible to these effects. Both the OSHA PEL and NIOSH REL contain guidance to minimize skin contact with 2-butoxyethanol.

NB: butylcellusolve is a very toxic substance and is often used in home cleaning products.

Other articles regarding the oil spill can be found here, including photos of the Santa Barbara oil clean up utilizing straw (1969) and other options that seem to be desperately needed.  As noted on 27 May, during a radio interview, it was noted that at Santa Barbara CA, oil still remains after 40+ years.

Oil dispersant qualities are found in colloidal solutions made from seed-bearing plant materials; similar products have been used in the Exxon Valdez oil spill. You can purchase a Made-in-the-USA colloidal product here.

See Also OilGator

Gulf of Mexico oil spill: clean-up boats recalled after crews suffer health problems (Courtesy: Rense.com)
Also refer to this post

LOOKUP MSDS SHEETS

This article is ranked 1 of 2,270,000, 27 May.

Posted 6/9/10: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/06/bp-oil-spill-dispersants-ingredients

Watch Out for Fluoride Damage in New Colgate Products

Fluoride is a known poison.  
It has been scientifically proven that amounts of fluoride under 1 PPM is toxic to humans, and poisonous especially to children and pets.

Can you wonder what damage Colgate can do with their new "Pro Clinical line: Renewal" product?

One fluoride research colleague tells me that if FDA and Health Canada were actually doing their job, these products would never get to market.

"Colgate is stepping up their game.

Known as a go-to brand for your average daily toothpaste, Colgate has now partnered with research scientists and dentists to launch a professional range of products that are available at the drugstore.

The new Pro Clinical line includes whitening, cleaning and renewal toothpastes that take their technology from a trip to the dentist's chair for a cleaning.

The Daily Whitening toothpaste is formulated with ProLuminex silica crystals that remove and prevent stains with exfoliation-like action. Meanwhile, Daily Cleaning contains Prophy-Silica buffers that are similar to what the dentist uses when your teeth are polished during a cleaning, while Daily Renewal is fortified with 1500 ppm of fluoride -- the highest amount allowed without a prescription -- to strengthen and solidify enamel, as well as protect teeth from corrosive food acids that cause decay.

Colgate claims that study participants saw results in as little as three weeks, with full results shown after six weeks of regular twice-daily brushing. We've used it for a week, and are already loving the results."

Fluoride erodes teeth and gums while promoting cavities.

Solid Nutrition prevents cavities along with cleaning your teeth, simply.  Soap and water can do a fine job!

More on dental health -
http://www.leaflady.org/dental_health.htm
http://www.leaflady.org/health_benefits_of_dandelions.htm
http://www.rense.com/general33/sympr.htm
http://www.rense.com/general11/fk.htm
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2006_09_17_archive.html

Thermography 90, Mammogram 50

A great boost for the benefits of thermography over breast-cancer-causing mammogram.  It is more effective and better for women under 50.

Yes!  Thermography's accuracy rate is 90% versus mammogram's 50%.

It is well past time the ensconced ACS wakes up to newer, better, and safer screening for breast cancer.

Big Insurance needs to wake up as well!

Scan that spots breast cancer like a heat seeking missile

By Jerome Burne
Last updated at 10:30 AM on 18th May 2010

A technology originally developed by the U.S. military for night vision could soon help young women cut their risk of developing breast cancer.

A study due to be published on Wednesday found that this technology - used in medical scanning - vastly improved the chances of spotting early signs of a tumour in women under the age of 50.

The breast tissue of younger women tends to be denser, which makes conventional mammogram scans less reliable.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1279215/Scan-spots-breast-cancer-like-heat-seeking-missile.html#ixzz0oZuR7YuR

The web site mentioned in this article promotes MRI and ultrasound, also less cancer promoting than mammogram and doing a better diagnostic job as well.

Dense breast increases cancer risk

Published: May 21, 2010 at 1:04 AM

ROCHESTER, N.Y., May 21 (UPI) -- Seventy-four percent of U.S. woman say they have had a mammogram, while 66 percent say they get mammograms on a regular basis, a survey indicates.
However, the national poll by Harris Interactive of 599 adult women age 40 and older, conducted April 28 to 30, indicates 95 percent of women age 40 and older do not know their breast density and nearly 90 percent do not know denser breast increases the risk of breast cancer.
Nancy M. Cappello, founder of Are You Dense, a non-profit organization dedicated to informing the public about dense breast tissue, says the survey indicates 9 percent of doctors discuss breast density with women.
"Prior to finding out I had advanced breast cancer, I had annual mammograms, I ate healthy and exercised and didn't have a first-degree relative with breast cancer. But I didn't have all the information I needed," Cappello says in a statement. "What I didn't know was that I have dense breast tissue and like two-thirds of pre-menopausal women and one quarter of post-menopausal women, I have a much lower chance of having breast cancer detected by a mammogram."
However, Dr. Rachel Brem of George Washington University Medical Faculty Associates in Washington says although ultrasound is a proven tool in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, it has not typically been used for screening.
"Several studies have shown that for women with dense breast tissue, supplementing mammograms with ultrasound can increase detection from 48 percent to 97 percent."
More information is at: areyoudense.org.

http://leaflady.org/women.htm
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/better-to-screen-you-with-thermography.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/10/ultrasound-in-cancer-detection.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/02/women-kept-in-dark-when-it-comes-to.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/01/dangers-of-screening-mammography.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2008/09/radiation-of-any-kind-iincreases-cancer.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2009/11/better-to-rethink-mammogram.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2010/03/halo-breast-test.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2005/10/breast-health-awareness-day.html
http://naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com/2007/10/think-before-you-pink.html
and there are over 30 more posts found here at Natural Health News

"Healthy Options"***

Interesting reading regarding "Healthy Options"*** for children

***Healthy Options is an educational series established by CHI in 1995, in conjunction with corporate wellness programs and community education in the Puget Sound area.  These programs continue today under the aegis of The Oake Centre for natural heatlh education

Thinking Required

Yes, Globalization is a Factor in Health Reform -

Please carefully consider the points raised in this article, make a point to read it.

Older Adults Need More Vitamin D

Not only do older people require more vitamin D, but so do people of color, people who do not go in the sun, those wearing clothing that fully covers the body from head to toe, but those dealing with obesity (this group may need up to 5x greater doses).

Find our many articles on Vitamin D using the search box.  You can also order the vitamin D test and your quality vitamin D supplements to help support Natural Health News.

By Mike Stones, 18-May-2010

Older adults suffering vitamin D deficiency need higher remedial doses than younger adults, according to a new research review.

The study, Correcting poor vitamin D status: Do older adults need higher repletion doses of vitamin D3 than younger adults?, concluded that: “The doses and total time for repleting older adults with vitamin D3 appeared to be greater than for younger adults, in part due to the lower starting baseline vitamin D status.”

Oral supplementation

To ensure almost all patients receive sufficient vitamin D, a daily dose of 125 mcg (5000 IU) is required for older people, aged 65 and above, while for younger patients, below the age of 65, a rate above 50 mcg (2000 IU) was sufficient.

The results applied whether Vitamin D was taken daily or as a bolus oral supplementation. Adults classed as deficient were those with levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D less than 75 nmol/L.

The researchers further concluded that several regimens, such as loading with a high dose (12500 mcg) of vitamin D3 and then giving 1250 mcg monthly, provide enough vitamin D3 for most patients to achieve and maintain 25(OH)D levels at or above 75 nmol/L.

According to the research review, a promising loading regimen is to provide calcidiol (25(OH)D) itself.

Since information on repletion with vitamin D2 has been published recently, the researchers decided to focus on the use of vitamin D3 from dietary supplements, prescriptions for large oral doses, and bolus dosing or injections.

Most published dosing regimens failed to achieve 75 nmol/L in almost all subjects, whether young adults (below 65 years) or older adults (above 65 years).

The authors, Susan Whiting, College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Mona Calvo, US Food and Drug Administration, noted many differences among studies, including baseline levels, endpoints, study duration, and compliance.

Adverse effects

All the studies reviewed reported that subjects were free of adverse effects, indicating that the vitamin D3 protocols were safe during the observed dosing periods.

Meanwhile, the researchers noted that: “Vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency is at epidemic proportions worldwide. In temperate countries more than half of the population is at risk and worldwide, even in tropical countries, vitamin D deficiency is a very serious concern due to changes in living and working conditions.”

Vitamin D has been shown convincingly to have many functions beyond its role in calcium and bone health, they added.

In addition to maintaining normal blood levels of calcium and phosphorus, Vitamin D aids in the absorption of calcium, helping to form and maintain strong bones. Recently, research also suggests vitamin D may provide protection from osteoporosis, hypertension, cancer, and several autoimmune diseases.

Source: Molecular Nutrition and Food Research -

Title: Correcting poor vitamin D status: Do older adults need higher repletion doses of vitamin D3 than younger adults? Authors: S. Whiting, M.Calvo

Older adults need higher remedial doses of vitamin D deficiency: Study: "Older adults suffering vitamin D deficiency need higher remedial doses than younger adults, according to a new research review."

Splenda, Sucralose: What it Does

Just to remind everyone that thinks using this product is good.  And if you are watching A1C you might want to avoid it all together.


Studies have shown that sucralose can:

* Cause the thymus to shrink by as much as 40% (the thymus is your immune powerhouse - it produces T cells)
* Cause enlargement of the liver and kidneys
* Reduce growth rate as much as 20%
* Cause enlargement of the large bowel area
* Reduce the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50%
* Increase the pH level in the intestines (a risk factor for colon cancer)
* Contribute to weight gain
* Cause aborted pregnancy low fetal body weight
* Reduce red blood cell count

Particular warning to diabetics:  Researchers found that diabetic patients using sucralose showed a statistically significant increase in glycosylated hemoglobin, a marker that is used to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. According to the FDA, "increases in glycosolation in hemoglobin imply lessening of control of diabetes."

The Lethal Science of Splenda

Safe Sweetening: natural stevia herb with no additives, Just Like Sugar (see info in right hand column)

Phone Folly

It never ceases to amaze me that so-called experts that get interview time on network or cable TV are so out of touch with the most current  data and research.

Take the comments of  Dr Otis Brawley,  chief medical Officer at the American Cancer Society, on a recent edition of Larry King.
 
Dr. Brawley, an oncologist and obviously someone with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, would have you believe that using Blue Tooth or a wired cell phone head set is safe.

I hate to alert Dr. Brawley to the facts of Blue Tooth use, but it has been associated with hearing loss as well as the development of neuromas on the side of the head most frequently used. 

He must also have missed Dr Geroge Carlo's seminal studies completed over a decade ago that indicates the risks of using wired head sets.

Current EMF warnings urge cell phone users to use the speaker phone function on the phone and to keep it at the farthest distance possible, or to text rather than talk.

Air tube head sets are recommended over wired, but may have some concern, and using an EMF guard is advised.

But then, the cancer industry might be reduced in size and expense if we looked to other real experts in the field.

So, Larry, when can we get some people who know the facts to be interviewed on your show?



Dr. Carlo's websites:
Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) - SPPI is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to advancing scientific and policy debate in the public health arena.
Safe Wireless Initiative (SWI) - SWI is a program under the Science and Public Policy Institute dedicated to informing the public about the wireless radiation safety issues.
Mobile Telephone Health Concerns Registry (MTHCR) - Operating under the SPPI, the MTCHR was created to gather voluntary information directly from cellular telephone users, particularly those with concerns relating to cell phone use and subsequent health effects. Designed to count and track these effects, the Registry is a critical step toward further scientific understanding of how to control those health risks.

Thank You

Once again I'm taking the time to thank all of my readers, new and old, along with all of the new subscribers to herbalYODA Says!, our every-other-month newsletter.

I also wish to thank all of you who support this work through your purchases of the excellent products we offer, as posted in the right hand column.

We are happy to see more people taking the time to send in their comments about the issues we're looking at to help keep you up-to-date and well educated on those things that can impact your health.

If you have an issue you'd like to see addressed, let us know.

Keep reading!

 PHOTO CREDIT

Update on CODEX

UPDATE: 17 May, 2010 - International Advocates for Health Freedom was the first to call the Codex international threat to health freedom in 1996 via an article by John C. Hammell in Life Extension Magazine. More about CODEX

For the most in depth CODEX information and interrelated issues stay up-to-date with IAHF.

Use the search box to find more than two dozen CODEX related articles on Natural Health News

Prepared by Alliance for Natural Health this new Codex flyer is part of our joint efforts to bring credible, up-to-date information to interested consumers and practitioners.

Originally posted 5/19/08 - The Codex Alimentarius Commission is an inter-governmental body with over 170 member countries, established in 1963, within the framework of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Its primary stated purpose is “protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade.” The Commission also promotes coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations (INGOs). Guidelines and standards are used as a benchmark for regional/national legislation and in World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes. Work is conducted through nearly 30 committees, each dealing with specific areas of food, and decisions are based on consensus voting by member countries. INGOs do not have voting rights, but may influence proceedings. Most INGOs present at Codex meetings represent transnational corporation interests.

New Health Law Brings More From Big Insurance Lobbyists

If you haven't quite figured out that Big Insurance is acting to protect Big Insurance under alleged "health reform" then you should refer to other posts on Natural Health News that explain how there were numerous back office deals with Obama and this industry prior to bill passage.

Most of what has changed will do very little to improve health care quality of service, and you should be watching at every step.

Health Insurance Companies Try to Shape Rules
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Health insurance companies are lobbying federal and state officials in an effort to ward off strict regulation of premiums and profits under the new health care law.

The effort is, in some ways, a continuation of the battle over health care that consumed Congress last year.

Insurance lobbyists are trying to shape regulations that will define “unreasonable” premium increases and require them to pay rebates to consumers if the companies do not spend enough on patient care.
For their part, consumer groups say they worry that their legislative victories could be undone or undercut by the rules being written by the federal government and the states.

The health care overhaul provides a classic example of how the impact of a law depends on regulations needed to interpret it. The rules deal with relatively technical questions but go to the heart of the law, pushed through Congress by President Obama and Democratic leaders with no Republican support.
More than 40 provisions of the law require or permit agencies to issue rules. Lobbyists are focusing on two whose stated purpose is to ensure that consumers “get value for their dollars.”

One bars insurers from carrying out an “unreasonable premium increase” unless they first submit justifications to federal and state officials. Congress did not say what is unreasonable, leaving that to rule writers.

Another provision, effective Jan. 1, requires that a minimum percentage of premium dollars be spent on true medical costs related to patient care — not retained by insurers as profit or used to cover administrative expenses. Insurers must refund money to consumers if they do not meet the standards, known as minimum loss ratios.

Michael W. Fedyna, vice president and chief actuary of Aetna, underlined the importance of this issue, saying no other aspect of the law would be so “influential in shaping the future of the health care marketplace in the United States.”

The definition of medical loss ratio will “determine the willingness of health plans to enter new markets and remain in existing markets,” he said.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said the definition would be just as important for consumers and small businesses.

“The health insurance industry has shifted its focus from opposing health care reform to influencing how the new law will be implemented,” he said.

The law requires insurers to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on health care services and “activities that improve health care quality” for patients.

Insurers are eager to classify as many expenses as possible in these categories, so they can meet the new test and avoid paying rebates to policyholders.

Thus, insurers are lobbying for a broad definition of quality improvement activities that would allow them to count spending on health information technology, nurse hot lines and efforts to prevent fraud. They also want to include the cost of reviewing care by doctors and hospitals, to determine if it was appropriate and followed clinical protocols.
Some consumer advocates, like Carmen L. Balber of Consumer Watchdog, favor a strict, narrow definition of quality improvement activities, limited to those that produce measurable benefits to individual patients.

Alissa Fox, a senior vice president of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, said that if the definition is too narrow, “health plans will come under enormous pressure to cut back quality improvement activities, including highly effective programs to reduce hospital infection rates.”

But Charles N. Kahn III, president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a trade group, said he feared that the quality improvement category would become a “catchall for a wide variety of expenses not directly related to patient care.”

Under the new law, insurers in the large group market are generally supposed to spend 85 percent of customers’ premiums on “clinical services” and quality-enhancing activities. The minimum is 80 percent for coverage sold to individuals and small groups.

Insurers and insurance regulators say that some companies will be unable or unwilling to meet the new standards. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/health/policy/16health.html?ref=health

Nell's Own? Perhaps Not as it Seems

Newman's Own Organics -- now a separate company -- seems to be shamelessly exploiting the word "organic" to help sell products that are not, in fact, certified organic.

"Some food companies have found a way to cast their processed foods as organic without going through the inconvenience of using certified organic ingredients in their products. By incorporating "organic" into their names, these companies have been able to display the magic word on the packaging of food products that are not in fact certified organic."  Read the whole story here -

Treat Soy with Caution

I am glad to see this at last, because, again, it is something I have been teaching and writing about for several decades. SOY is NOT a food for health -

You can learn more at www.leaflady.org

"I suspect soya was first targeted by western women who were determined to find alternative remedies to HRT to alleviate the uncomfortable symptoms of the menopause. They looked to the east and discovered that oriental women did not have the same menopausal problems. Why was that? Could it be their diet and, if so, what was different about it? Soya was the answer. Then they realised that breast cancer is relatively unknown in the region. Two and two were put together and the sales of soya accelerated. However, no one looked at the bigger picture and the difference in lifestyles."Complete article

RoundUp Ready Crops: Just as Predicited

UPDATE: 17 August - New weed strategies needed, scientists say

UPDATE: May 17 - Burning Monsanto Hybrid Seeds
Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails in South Africa

NB: "It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature"


Originally posted 5/14/10: I've been writing about the issues associated with Monsanto's RoundUp for over a decade now.

My first concern was safety as I learned early-on that this chemical spray had risks of cancer.

I learned more and read many reports soon after it was first marketed that it would develop resistance. Now this truly has come to fruition. I just wish more people had listened to those who were doing this research sooner than later.

According to a new report published in the New Scientist RoundUp is now facing serious resistance issues.

I can't say I am surprised but I would be much more pleased to see this herbicide taken off the market.

Briefly

New Scientist 15.5.10 "EVOLUTION OF WEED RESISTANCE DEALS BLOW TO POPULAR HERBICIDE"
More & more weeds are becoming resistant to glyphosate herbicide, originally marketed by Monsanto as Roundup. In 1996 Monsanto began selling GM crops which contained a gene making them resistant to glyphosate. This was so more of this chemical could be used without damaging the crops. Worldwide 100 million hectares are planted with glyphosate-resistant crops, but there are now at least 9 species of weeds who have evolved to be resistant to glyphosate.
Read complete article

For your home garden it is possible to grow specific plants that you can use to make your own fertilizers and other plant treatments. You may order a copy of my book, "My Happy Garden" to learn more.

Read More and look for the several other RoundUp related articles at Natural Health News using the search box.

Photo Credit 

Related sites: 
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto
http://www.laleva.cc/pharma/monsantofiles.html
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=4088

Progestin Found to Enhance Metastasis

COLUMBIA, Mo., May 13 (UPI) -- U.S. researchers say animal models indicate hormone therapies may increase the chance of breast cancer metastasis.

Researchers at the University of Missouri in Columbia said metastasis -- the spreading of cancer beyond the lymph nodes -- was more likely when taking the hormone progestin. Progestin is a hormone used to counteract the potentially negative effects of estrogen therapy.

"In our study, we found that progestins increase the number of blood vessels that are responsible for transporting existing cancer cells," Salman Hyder says in a statement. "The more the blood vessels increase, the higher the chance of cancer cell metastasizing."

Hyder says the negative effect of progestins was worse in the absence of a protein that suppresses tumors called P53.

The researchers tested several different progestins on breast cancer tumors in an animal model. They found all types acted similarly to increase the likelihood of cancer spread.

Hyder's study has been accepted for publication in Menopause: The Journal of The North American Menopause Society. SOURCE

Note that Progestin is mentioned in a TV commercial for NuvaRing indicating its presence in this drug aimed at younger women for birth control and cycle irregularities.

Family Health Costs Up 7% or More in One Year

Perhaps it is time now to look at other ways to remain or get healthy. Contact us for more information: we've been educating folks on how to get well and stay healthy naturally for decades through our "Healthy Options" programs and our " Health Matters" publishing. Our "Health Forensics" and "Health Detective" programs may also be of great help.

One overlooked cost booster may be the RAC or Post-Payment Recovery Contractor (RAC) Audit.

Karen L. Smith, MD
"The escalating costs of health care cannot be subsidized by monies taken from the businesses of small physician practices."

Of all the hassles third-party payors have imposed on physicians, few are more onerous than Medicare’s “Recovery Audit Contractor” program, aka the RAC Audits. Under this program, free-agent auditors contracted by Medicare’s managed care subsidiaries, comb through claims data looking for indicators of overpayment, and then try to reclaim.

The auditors--some call them bounty hunters--may lack medical training, but they don’t lack incentive: they keep a slice of any reclaimed fees. They can show up unannounced, operate with impunity, and cause enormous personal and professional upheaval.

Karen L. Smith, a solo integrative family physician in Raeford, NC, spent the last five years fighting a RAC Audit. It began in 2005, when badge-bearing auditors representing Cigna Medicare showed up, claiming she’d been over-payed $1,551 for 91 billed services. Using an imaginary sample of 2,935 Medicare patients (Dr. Smith only had 1,287 Cigna Medicare patients) and an extrapolation formula known only to them, they claimed she owed the Fed $48,245!

With the help of a coding consultant and a good lawyer, she appealed, and CMS reviewers reduced her “obligation” to just over $18,000. Believing she had done no wrong, she considered further appeals but the legal fees and emotional toll dissuaded her. “The ‘Guilty until proven innocent’ audit we endured utilized sampling and extrapolation calculations that were not verified,” Dr. Smith says.
See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4Sq7oDCgo&feature=email

Family of four healthcare costs $18,074
SEATTLE, May 11 (UPI) -- The cost of healthcare for a U.S. family of four is $18,074, an increase of $1,303 from last year -- the highest ever, a consulting firm says.

The Milliman Medical Index, created by Milliman Inc., an independent actuarial and consulting firm based in Seattle, tracks the changes in average annual healthcare costs for a U.S. family of four among 14 metropolitan areas covered by an employer-paid preferred provider organization.

"The cost of group insurance continues to increase at a historically-consistent pace, even with reform now the law of the land," study co-author Lorraine Mayne, Milliman principal and consulting actuary, says in a statement.

"The cost of group insurance continues to increase at a historically-consistent pace, even with reform now the law of the land. While there will be short-term cost implications, especially for particular employees and certain employers, this year reflects a continuation of the prevailing cost trends."

The healthcare cost for the family of four is calculated by the number, type and cost of healthcare services and how much the employee's health plan pays the medical providers for the services.

The medical costs range from more than $20,000 in New York, Miami and Chicago to $16,071 in Phoenix, the study said.

The complete Milliman Medical Index is at www.milliman.com.
© 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

US cancer costs double in 2 decades, blamed on more patients

I appreciated what I heard Ted Turner say today about how the news business has become almost totally a reading of the AP wire releases.

I wonder where the AP story is that addresses the concern regarding why it is that there is such a sharp rise in cancer patients. Don't hold your breath for this story coming from AP, but it is something you can expect to read more about at Natural Health News - Stay Tuned, it may be the topic of an upcoming program on herbalYODA Says! LIVE.

By MIKE STOBBE, AP Medical Writer – Mon May 10
ATLANTA – The cost of treating cancer in the United States nearly doubled over the past two decades, but expensive cancer drugs may not be the main reason why, according to a surprising new study.

The study confounds conventional wisdom in several respects. The soaring price of new cancer treatments has received widespread attention, but the researchers conclude that rising costs were mainly driven by the growing number of cancer patients.

The study also finds cancer accounts for only 5 percent of total U.S. medical costs, and that has not changed in the last few decades.

"I will say I'm a bit surprised," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society, who said he would have expected the proportion of cancer costs to rise.

The researchers also found that private insurers now cover a greater share of cancer treatment costs — about 50 percent — while patients' out-of-pocket costs have fallen over the past two decades.

Though taken aback by some of the findings, Lichtenfeld and other experts did not dispute the study, which compared medical cost data from the late 1980s to that of the early 2000s. But they said the picture surely has changed in the last several years.

The study is being called the first to combine national cancer costs for all types of payers and see how they've changed over time. The figures are reported in 2007 dollars.

It found that cancer treatment costs rose from nearly $25 billion in 1987 to more than $48 billion by the end of 2005.

The rise in costs is mainly due to an increase over 20 years in how many cancer patients there are, said the study's lead author, Florence Tangka of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The researchers used data from national telephone surveys done in 1987 and from 2001 through 2005, which gathered information on medical conditions as well as who paid the bills. More than 164,000 people were surveyed.

The study did not offer precise estimates of how the number of people treated for cancer changed from the late 1980s to the early 2000s. But it showed dramatic increases in the number of cancer cases covered by the government's Medicare and Medicaid programs. Medicare, which covers the elderly and disabled, has consistently covered about a third of the nation's cancer costs. Medicaid accounts for only 3 percent.

The U.S. population is aging, and older people tend to get cancer at higher rates, Tangka noted.

Better and more advanced treatments mean more people with cancer are remaining alive, so the spending increases represent money well spent, said Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy researcher at Emory University who has focused on the cost of health care.

"It seems like we're buying increases in survival," Thorpe said.

The study is being published in Cancer, a medical journal of the American Cancer Society.

The researchers also found:

_The percentage of cancer costs from inpatient hospital care fell from 64 percent to about 27 percent. A shift to less expensive outpatient care, along with cost containment efforts by large health insurers, helped keep down increases in the costs per patient, the authors said.

_The proportion of cancer costs paid by private insurance rose from 42 to 50 percent.

_The proportion of costs paid out of pocket by patients — including copayments and deductibles — dropped from 17 percent to 8 percent.

Those last two findings surprised some experts.

Recent government reports have found that the percentage of Americans with private health insurance has been shrinking and recently hit its lowest mark in 50 years. Yet the study found that the proportion of cancer treatment costs paid by private insurance rose.

And companies have been tightening or cutting employee benefits, causing out-of-pocket costs to go up for many patients. Yet the study found that the proportion of bills paid by patients declined.

That last finding in particular was striking, said Lichtenfeld, the cancer society's deputy chief medical officer.

He alluded to widely reported increases in personal bankruptcies prompted by medical bills. "There's no question that the out-of-pocket costs for some patients have risen dramatically," Lichtenfeld said.

The rising price of certain treatments also should be acknowledged, he said.

The challenge of rising prices was recognized by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), which last year released its first guidelines counseling cancer doctors on how to talk to patients about deciding between less expensive chemotherapy drugs made more sense than newer, more expensive products.

The study did not add in the cost of diagnostic tests and scans, which are cost drivers. And the data does not include the last five years, which saw some extremely pricey cancer drugs come on the market.

The picture may have changed since the study's data was collected and the U.S. economy deteriorated, said Dr. Neal Meropol, a Case Western Reserve University cancer expert who worked on the ASCO guidelines.

Newer treatments along with wider testing are driving up the overall cost of cancer care, Meropol said.

"My concern is that costs are getting shifted to patients and there is a potential for increasing disparities" in cancer care, he added.

Still, no focus in prevention.