Over the years I have heard of the occasional success with treating cancer by diet alone.   But, that would be pretty rare.  Cancer is a complex disease and there are so many different causes and types that there is no one single answer and then no one can be sure that they had the right answer anyway.

If it is of help I can share with you what I would do if I was unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with cancer.

The first thing I would do is to invest in almost every non invasive test I could.   These would include blood, urine, stool and pH tests.   I would have everything that measures organ function tested and levels of other bio-markers.   I would also include a full panel of hormone tests.

In essence, what it was all about is that the plaintiffs claimed that the named manufacturers were selling fish oils in California which contravened Proposition 65 which required a warning on their label if certain contaminants, in this case PCBs exceeded a level as set out in Proposition 65.

This level was set at 90 ppb (parts per billion) which the same specification set by the WHO (World Health Organization) and CRN (Council for Responsible Nutrition). There is only one organization (non- governmental) that has a lower level in their specifications. That is IFOS (International Fish Oil Standards) which is a private organization. Their standards are lower (or higher when it comes to purity) at 45ppb.

The US  FDA has just given the go ahead for AstraZeneca the manufacturer of Crestor the statin drug to promote it to ‘healthy’ individuals who have elevated levels of C-Reactive Protein (CRP).  CRP is the test used to measure the levels of inflammation in the blood. 

Inflammation in the blood is considered by many experts to be a more reliable indicator of a potential heart attack or stroke than cholesterol alone.   I agree with this and have been writing about this for the last seven years…but, it is only now that this is getting recognition by mainstream medicine.   Why?  Well there have been studies that show that statins do help reduce CRP.   This is what AstraZeneca are hanging their ‘hat’ on because there are now good profits to be made.

Why do I say it is ‘amazing’?   Because this policy by the FDA is not going to save lives but rather start millions of more innocent consumer on the slippery slope down the road to poor health and drug dependency.

The first one is by Stephen Daniels.   The full article can be viewed by clicking here.
The second one is by Shane Starling.  That full article can be viewed by clicking here

In defence of omega-3
04-Mar-2010

The best way to survive a shark attack is to fight back, so say survivors. Events this week suggest the sharks may be beginning to circle the good ship omega-3, and now is the time for industry and academia to start fighting back.

First, the BBC runs an article on it website with the title, “The cult of omega-3”, which left a very fishy taste in this reader’s mouth. On the other side of the pond, legal action was announced in a San Francisco court over allegations of excessive limits for the pollutant polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) in some omega-3 supplements.

And all this in a week that celebrated Omega-3 Awareness Day.

Magic versus science

The BBC’s article set out to examine if the reputation of omega-3 is worthy. If you haven’t read the article, I suggest you have a look. It starts with the statement: “Hardly a week goes by without a new health claim being made of eating oily fish. But is it really as magical as we are told?”

There is nothing wrong with the first sentence. I report on the potential benefits of omega-3 every week. The studies are published in high-quality, peer-review journals and come from good researchers at good universities. Indeed, such is the mass of omega-3 science, and the subsequent amount of reporting on the topic, that some of my colleagues suggest: “Every day is omega-3 day!”

And to answer the BBC’s question, nobody said it was magical. We’re talking about science here, not magic.

A few weeks ago I did an entry advising about some imminent changes to this blog and the release of a new Xtend-Life blog with additional contributors.  I said it was about a week away and as you will have noticed that has still not happened.

It is almost ready to go but we had some technical issues which have had to be resolved first.   For example, the sign up pages for the newsletter.   Instead of having just the one which has not been active for some time we will have two.

One will be an electronic version of our monthly hard copy newsletter which now goes out with each customers order, and the other will be a simple weekly one which will be a summary of the posts made on the new Xtend-Life blog over the previous week.   This will make it simple for readers to keep in touch and just select the items they are interested in.

Our IT people are working on putting the finishing touches to everything.  When will it go live?  Well I won't risk being definitive but I am pushing it as hard as practical and hopefully it will be within days...but...we will see.

So...I thought that it was appropriate that I gave an explanation.  So, for readers who are interested, here it is:

The forum can be viewed by clicking here

Hello All,

This forum has just been brought to my attention so I felt it would be appropriate to address the main question which has been asked...'why do we not include an SPF factor in our skin care products?'

There are two prime reasons.

1. Is that for normal day to day use it is truly not needed.  Yes, I appreciate that this is contrary to what is promoted by various 'authorities' but I personally believe it to be incorrect information.  How many people are really exposed to excessive amounts of sunlight in their normal day?   Most people work, or spend a high percentage of their time inside.

How many people would actually get their face sunburnt in a normal day if they did not wear a sunscreen?  I would think not many.   Most people only get burnt when they are at the beach or exposed to extended outdoor activities in the middle of the day during the summer.

We have always advocated the use of a sunscreen to avoid getting sunburnt but that is the only time they should be used.

As I am sure many people are now aware, there is a serious deficiency of Vitamin D in the majority of people.  This in turn is triggering off a number of avoidable degenerative diseases.  Some people in an attempt to correct this are jumping on to the current fad of taking high dose Vitamin D supplements.  But, as a supplement manufacturer we do not advocate that either, as high dose Vitamin D supplements can also cause a detrimental effect in the body.