Dear Friends, 

This is a study that just came out from Stanford on the health benefits of organic vs. conventional foods. When I saw it reported on last night's news, shockingly the newscaster said the study showed no health benefit to eating organic and that the study showed organic foods are not more nutritious than conventional foods. Of course, on the news they were not discussing the HARM done from the pesticides, hormones and antibiotics because they claimed all the pesticide residue was "under legal limits".  I looked up the actual published study and it does, in fact state that organic is healthier due to less pesticides. Amazing how the real info does not get to the people! Beware of tricky reporting.  If you walked into the market and food was labeled SPRAYED WITH POISON, or NOT SPRAYED WITH POISON, which would you pick? Just because the government says a "little bit of poison" is okay, do you still want to consume it? Or feed it to your children? If you can afford organic, please consider it.  If not, consider planting a small garden to grow your own food with organic soil. It's a thrill to pick your own food and can be done on a small piece of land or in pots.

I will be discussing organic food and toxicity issues at length on my new talk show, The SUZANNE Show starting September 26th on Lifetime.

To review the study, click here.

Best Regards,

 

Suzanne Somers 

Human Growth Hormone "HGH" continues to be a hot-button with an incredible amount of misinformation put out in mainstream media. Recently on Anderson Cooper's show, Dr. Thomas Perls asserted that I got cancer due to taking HGH, when in fact I started taking it seven years after my cancer diagnosis. I think it's important to counter these attacks with information from experts on bioidentical hormones. This will give you an entirely different perspective on the risk/reward of HGH protocols. Frankly, I consider it one of the most important elements in my full complement of bioidentical hormones. Again, my levels are based on my blood work and I would never abuse the amounts, like some athletes have done. I take just what has been lost in the aging process to keep my system running optimally and protect against the diseases of aging. 

Ron Rothenberg MD, an authority on anti-aging, preventive and regenerative medicine discussed growth hormone in detail in my book Ageless and he has updated the information recently. 

 “Growth Hormone is one of the most studies compounds in medicine.  When growth hormone deficiency is present, growth hormone replacement therapy has widespread health benefits on quality of life, body composition, cognitive function, cardiovascular outcomes, bone density and exercise capacity.  Growth hormone replacement therapy has been studied with published results in major medical journals reporting on more than 100,000 patients.  All reports conclude that there is no increase in cancer risks either new cancers or recurrent cancers in patients with prior cancer.  There can be minor side effects of numbness in the extremities or achy joints or swelling but these can be reversed with decreasing the dose or stopping therapy.  Blood sugar can potentially become elevated if no lifestyle measures such as diet and exercise are included but with these lifestyle measures blood sugar and diabetes can actually improve.” 

Remember that knowledge is power! There is so much information at your fingertips, but to help you sift through the clutter.  Dr. Ron Rothenberg has compiled the facts on HGH along with an extensive reference list to back up the information:

GH is one of the most studied compounds in medicine with almost 100,000 journal references currently in Pubmed. We will review some key controversies relating to GH and provide an extensive list of references. 

• There is an exponential decline in GH release after 18-21 years of age and a 14% decline per decade after puberty.
• Low GH and its downstream hormone IGF-1 are associated with poor health and quality of life outcomes. When AGHD is treated with GH, there are usually increases in GH, IGF-1 and IGF Binding Protein 3 (IGFBP-3), which all have a role in clinical results. Although IGF-1 is pro-mitotic and taken out of context could promote cancer, IGFBP-3 is anti-cancer (Ingermann). The mechanism is explained by stimulation of anti-cancer gene p53. Teenagers with the highest GH and IGF-1 have low rates of cancer. When treating with GH a balance is produced between IGF-1 and IGFBP-3. (Scire) 

Below is a summary and review of GH and GHRT on different systems: 

• In women age 70-79, low IGFG-1 is associated with poor strength, difficulty walking and poor mobility – all contributing to poor quality of life. (Cappola)
• Low GH is associated with decreased longevity in humans, with more that 20 years decreased lifespan with low GH. (Beeson)
• Older men with higher IGF-1 do not show the same decrease in lean body mass and increase in fat mass- “GH determines life’s potential.” (Ruiz-Torres)
• Childhood or adult GH deficiency is associated with 2-3 times increase in mortality. (Stochholm)
• GH and IFG-1 have profound effects on the Central Nervous System and improve cognitive capabilities. (Nyberg)
• Higher IGF-1 is correlated with better cognitive function. (Aleman)
• GH/IGF-1 reverses osteoporosis and treatment with GH improves outcome in hip fractures. (Hedstrom, Van der Lely, Baum)
• GHRT improves cardiovascular function and reverses atherosclerosis and improves cardiomyopathy and improves exercise capacity in patients with congestive heart failure. (Gibney, Colao, Perot, Fazio Pfeifer)
• The lower the IGF-1, the greater possibility of cardiovascular disease. (Laughlin)
• IGF-1 is correlated with fitness. (Nindl)
• Endothelial Progenitor Cells (EPC’s) are the stem cells that maintain and repair the cardiovascular system. The quantity and quality of EPC’s is perhaps the best biomarker of aging with higher counts correlating with improved health outcomes. Any intervention that improves EPC’s should be considered a major intervention to improve health. IGF-1 through GH improves the number and function of EPC’s. EPC senescence is improved, probably through increasing telomerase activity and lengthening the telomeres of these critical stem cells. (Thum, Devin) 
• GH/IGF-1 are necessary for immune system function and for the maturation of T and B cells. (Clark, Burgess)
• GHRT decreases fat mass especially the dangerous abdominal visceral fat and is especially effective when combined with diet and exercise. The potential side of effect of increasing glucose and insulin is not present when diet and exercise are combined with growth hormone. (Albert, Johannssen, Christiensen, Franco)
• A possible side effect of GHRT is increasing glucose and insulin and even inducing type 2 diabetes. As demonstrated above and by Nam, when combined with diet and exercise this does not occur. Even if diabetes were to be induced it would be a temporary phenomenon that would be reversed and disappear when GHRT was discontinued. Type 2 diabetes will actually be improved by GHRT treatment. See the quote below from Nam: “Low-dose GH treatment combined with dietary restriction resulted not only in a decrease of visceral fat but also in an increase of muscle mass with a consequent improvement of the insulin resistance observed in obese type 2 diabetic patients.”
• Several studies have demonstrated the improvement in Quality of Life with GHRT. (Gilchirst, Gibney)
• A central question in GHRT is “Does GHRT increase the risk of cancer?” Multiple studies and reviews have concluded that there is no increase in cancer risk compared to the general population
• Jenkins review is aptly titled, “Does Growth Hormone Cause Cancer?” and provides the conclusion: “Extensive studies of the outcome of GH replacement in childhood cancer survivors show no evidence of an excess of de novo cancers, and more recent surveillance of children and adults treated with GH has revealed no increase in observed cancer risk .”
• Moltich’s review has similar conclusions: “Although there has been some concern about an increased risk of cancer, reviews of existing, well-maintained databases of treated patients have shown this theoretical risk to be nonexistent”
• In children with brain tumors treated with GH there was no increased risk of tumor progression, recurrence or new CNS or non-CNS tumor or leukemia. (Bogarin). The recurrence rate of the brain tumor was significantly less in the children treated with GH.
• No studies have proven an association between GH and malignancy. Van Bunderen concludes, “Mortality due to malignancies was not elevated in adults receiving GH treatment.”
• Savendaal recently reported results of mortality in more than 2,500 patients treated with GH as children for various causes including short stature. There were more than 46,000 person-years of observation. The 21 deaths were mostly caused by accidents or suicide. The authors state, “Importantly, none of the patients died from cancer or from a cardiovascular disease”
• Bell studied safety of GH in Children and concludes:   “The current data now comprise 20 years of GH therapy, 54,996 patients, and a cumulative 192,345 patient-years of treatment. With the longer time and expanded patient numbers, we continue to see no increase in new malignancies or recurrences of CNS tumors in rhGH treated children without risk factors, consistent with other reports.”  

Medicine should always be a work in progress. If future data leads to different conclusions our treatments should be modified appropriately. Considering the widespread benefits of GHRT for AGHD and the low risks reported, this treatment can improve quality of life and improve cardiovascular risks and cognitive function, body composition and bone density.

A quote from Sonsken:

“Growth hormone is essential for normal adult life, and without it life expectancy is shortened, energy and vitality reduced and the quality of this life is impaired. The medical case for GH replacement is now proven beyond any reasonable medical and scientific doubt.”

 

References: 

Ingermann  A. Identification of a novel cell death receptor mediating IGFBP-3-induced anti-tumor effects in breast and prostate cancer.  J. Biol Chem.  2010 Sep 24;285(39):30233-46. 

Scire G et al.  Growth hormone therapy does not alter the insulin-like growth factor-I/insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 molar ratio in growth hormone-deficient children. J Endocrinol Invest. 2008 Feb;31(2):15 

Cappola AR et al. Association of IGF-I levels with muscle strength and mobility in older women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001 Sep;86 (9): 4139-46 

Besson A et al. Reduced longevity in untreated patients with isolated growth hormone deficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Aug;88 (8):3664-7.  

Ruiz-Torres A et al. Ageing and longevity are related to growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor-1 secretion. Gerontology. 2002 Nov-Dec;48(6):401-7.  

Stochholm, K et al. Mortality and GH Deficiency a Nationwide Study. European Journal of Endocrinology. (2007)157 9-18 

Nyberg F. Growth Hormone in the Brain: Characteristics of Specific Brain Targets for the Hormone and Their Functional Significance. Front Neuroendocrinol 2000 Oct;21(4):330-348 

Aleman A et al. Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I and Cognitive Function in Healthy Older Men J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84:471–475, 1999 

Logobardi, J Endocinol Invest, May 1999

Bone density significantly improved with GH therapy 

H. Oxlund,  et al Growth Hormone and Mild Exercise in Combination Markedly Enhance   Cortical Bone Formation and Strength in Old Rats   Endocrinology, April 1998, p. 1899-1904 Vol. 139, No 4 

Colao A. Bone loss is correlated to the severity of growth hormone deficiency in    adult patients with hypopituitarism.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999 Jun;84(6):1919-24 

Hedstrom M. Hip fracture patients, a group of frail elderly people with low bone mineral density, muscle mass and IGF-I levels. Acta Physiol Scand 1999 Dec;167(4):347-50 

Van Der Lely et al. Use of human GH in elderly patients with accidental hip fracture. Eur J Endocrinol 2000 Nov;143(5):585-592 

Baum HB et al.  Effects of physiologic growth hormone therapy on bone density and body composition in patients with adult-onset growth hormone deficiency. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1996 Dec 1;125(11):883-90

Gibney et al.  The effects of 10 years of GH in adult GH deficient patients

J Endocrin Metab 1999 August 

Colao A et al. Beginning to end: Cardiovascular implications of growth hormone (GH) deficiency and GH therapy. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2006 May 9 

Perrot, A. et al. Growth Hormone Treatment in Dilated Cardiomyopathy J Card. Surg 2001;16:127-131 

Fazio, S et al. Effects of Growth Hormone on Exercise Capacity and Cardiopulmonary Performance in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Aug 14 

Pfeifer M et al. Growth Hormone (GH) Treatment Reverses Early atherosclerotic Changes in GH-Deficient Adults J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 453–457, 1999 

Borson-Chazot F. et al. Decrease in Carotid Intima-Media Thickness after One Year Growth Hormone (GH) Treatment in Adults with GH Deficiency J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 1329–1333, 1999 

Thum, T et al. Age-Dependent Impairment of Endothelial Progenitor Cells Is Corrected by Growth Hormone Mediated Increase of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1. Circulation Research February 16, 2007 

Devin JK et al. The effects of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-1 on the aging cardiovascular system and its progenitor cells. Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2008 Sep; 9(9):983-92. 

Nindl BC et al. Circulating IGF-I is associated with fitness and health outcomes in a population of 846 young healthy men. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2011 Jun;21(3):124-8

Laughlin GA et al. The prospective association of serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and IGF-binding protein-1 levels with all cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in older adults: the Rancho Bernardo Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Jan;89(1):114-20.  

Clark  R. The somatogenic hormones and insulin-like growth factor-1: stimulators of lymphopoiesis and immune function. Endocr Rev. 1997 Apr;18(2):157-7 

Burgess W et al. The immune-endocrine loop during aging: role of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-I.  Neuroimmunomodulation 1999 Jan-Apr;6(1-2):56-68 

Christiansen, J. Effects of GH upon body composition.. Growth Hormone in Adults , 1996, Cambridge University Press

 Johannsson G et al.  GH treatment of abdominally obese men reduces abdominal fat mass, improves glusoce and lipoprotein metabolism and reduces diastolic BP. J Clin Endocinol Metab 1997;82:727-734

 Albert SG et al. Low-dose recombinant human growth hormone as adjuvant therapy to lifestyle modifications in the management of obesity.Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Feb;89(2):695-701. 

 Franco C et al. Growth hormone treatment reduces abdominal visceral fat in postmenopausal women with abdominal obesity: a 12-month placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Mar;90(3):1466-74 

Nam SY et al. Low-dose growth hormone treatment combined with diet restriction decreases insulin resistance by reducing visceral fat and increasing muscle mass in obese type 2 diabetic patients.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001 Aug;25(8):1101-7 

Gilchrist FJ  et al. The effect of long-term untreated growth hormone deficiency (GHD) and 9 years of GH replacement on the quality of life (QoL) of GH-deficient adults. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2002 Sep;57(3):363-70 

Gibney et al.  The effects of 10 years of GH in adult GH deficient patients J Endocrin Metab 1999 August 

Jenkins PJ et al. Does growth hormone cause cancer? Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2006 Feb;64(2):115-21.   

Molitch ME. Diagnosis of GH deficiency in adults--how good do the criteria need to be? J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002 Feb;87(2):473-6 

Bogarin R et al. Growth hormone treatment and risk of recurrence or progression of brain tumors in children: a review. Childs Nerv Syst. 2009 Jan 14 

 Van Bunderen C et al Does growth hormone replacement therapy reduce mortality in adults with growth hormone deficiency? Data from the Dutch National Registry of Growth Hormone Treatment in adults.

.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011 Oct;96(10):3151-9. Epub 2011 Aug 17. 

Sävendahl L,

Long-term mortality and causes of death in isolated GHD, ISS, and SGA patients treated with recombinant growth hormone during childhood in Belgium, The Netherlands, and Sweden: preliminary report of 3 countries participating in the EU SAGhE study.

]J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Feb;97(2):E213-7. 

Bell J, Long-term safety of recombinant human growth hormone in children. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2010 Jan;95(1):167-77. Epub 2009 Nov 11. 

Sonksen, P . The journal of growth hormone and igf research, 1998, 8, 275–276

  

Dear Friends,

They are going after Dr. Burzynski again. He was one of the lead doctors I interviewed in KNOCKOUT for his cutting-edge cancer treatments. He is in Phase III Clinical Trials and in my opinion, one of the best hopes we have for a cure.  PLEASE READ, CLICK THROUGH AND SIGN!!!

Sincerely,

Suzanne

Dear Friends, 

I was discussing the fluoride issue with Dr. Garry Gordon, a doctor I am iterviewing for my new book.  Last fall, a new study in the Journal of American Dental Association reported that fluoride is actually bad for teeth.  Of course, those of us who understand it is a toxin already know that - but now the CDC and AMA say that this recent study shows intake of fluoride during the first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and they now warn against using fluoridated water in infant formula.   

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is of a similar opinion. According to their website: "Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing ... enamel fluorosis." 

Sources:   Journal of the American Dental Association;October 14, 2010;  141(10):1190-1201;CDC May 28, 2010 

Fluorosis causes spotting on teeth, and in severe cases can cause orange or brown mottling of the teeth.  Sadly, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the damage that can be caused by fluoride.  In my opinion, these agencies who have been telling us it's safe for so long can't completely back track and announce, "Whoops! That toxic waste will kill you!"  So instead they find a gentle way to let us know it's best to avoid with the most vulnerable, like infants. 

Here is Dr. Gordon's response. 

 

Suzanne,  

Fluorine is very toxic for many patients and the dangers go far beyond the dental fluorosis issue, but at least that alone suggests proof that over 30% examined children have excessive fluorine already. We all need to know that fluorine is another mistake made by governmental agencies and now we even have CDC and ADA admitting that there are issues about fluorine excess showing up. 

Believe me when I tell you that ALL fluorine should be destroyed, as the toxicity goes far beyond what you have been told. For one example, please know that fluorine makes the bones look white and dense and strong but they fracture easily. This means that by the time someone is being told they have osteopenia, what is being seen is often far worse than the x-ray reveals because the fluorine we all get and almost cannot avoid is making everyone's bones appear not too bad. 

But we have new knowledge today that what matters is elimination of fractures and now we see this bone health picture gets complex but bone health is essential for longevity. FACT: bones are breaking even when the bone density appears normal; in fact bone density is a poor predictor of future fracture risk. 

The more you study this fluorine issue, the more you will see we must add this to our growing long list of reasons we are all unhealthy today compared to what we could be. That list can get very long when we include GMO foods inducing leaky gut and unleashing an epidemic of food sensitivities, along with other toxins like the mandated flame retardants now in everything, PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl esters), dangerous vaccinations, and coal burning power plants polluting everything with lead and mercury.

Fortunately, we were born with lots of resilience so we appear to handle all the above for a time, but finally all this and the other contributing factors covered in my FIGHT program all come home to roost. 

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)

 

Hi Friends – Please read the following post from Dr. Nick Gonzalez.  He has outlined the important developments on the recent “consumer protection” bill which would make it virtually impossible to buy supplements without a prescription.  WE NEED YOUR VOICE!  This bill does NOT protect us.  It violates our rights.  
 
 
Dear Friends:
 
I am writing to alert you of two assaults against nutritional supplements against which we all need to mobilize.  Over the years I have witnessed many serious threats to supplements proposed by members of Congress and the FDA, always presented in the guise of “consumer protection.”  Invariably the proposed legislation or regulations have been onerous, repressive, and apparently intended to eliminate or seriously curtail the availability of most nutritional products, forcing the US into a European style situation where nutritionals are either forbidden (as in Norway) or become prescription items, and as a result, to the glee of pharmaceutical companies, their drugs become the primary option.  In the past, we here in the US have been able to mobilize to stop such intrusions, such as the ill-conceived McCain bill of a year ago.  But once again, the anti-nutrition forces have organized and mobilized, in ways I have not previously seen.
 
The first threat is Senator Durbin’s noble sounding Senate bill S1310, the "Dietary Supplement Labeling Act," ostensibly prompted because of a recent episode of melatonin tainted brownies.  Senator Durbin has long been an aggressive, vocal opponent of supplements and their availability as over the counter products.  He has long supported a “strong” FDA and the pharmaceutical industry.  In any event, this bill would give the FDA a new set of powers that could easily be used to badger honorable, honest supplement manufacturers providing  legitimate and useful products.  The FDA needs no new authority in terms of labeling, because it already has enormous power to regulate additives to food, and remove harmful or dangerous supplements from the marketplace.  Furthermore, the FDA has already mandated very stringent "Good Manufacturing Practice" regulations that promote standards and require manufacturers of nutritional supplements to provide the highest quality, legitimate products to consumers.  I believe this new legislation is part of an ongoing pattern to eliminate the availability of legitimate supplements so that Americans have no choice in their health care.

Senator Durbin, true to form, presented his legislation on the Friday before the July 4th weekend, presumably hoping that no one would notice. But the ever vigilant Alliance for Natural Health learned of the bill almost as soon as it was available, and sent out a much needed warning to begin mobilizing to stop it in its tracks. I would suggest you contact your Senators and Representatives, either by phone or e-mail, expressing your strong opposition to this bill.  Public outcry has stopped many similar bills in the past, and we can do it again, but it takes pressure, and effort, and energy.  Of course, be polite, but explain that the FDA already has sufficient power to regulate supplements, their labeling, and food additives.  And, express your wish that supplements be kept available for your use. Of course no one wants dangerous products in the marketplace, but most manufacturers are honest and honorable, providing health-promoting, high quality supplements.
 
About the same time Senator Durbin proposed his legislation, the FDA itself announced its plans to enforce an entire new set of regulations on supplement manufacturers that are so onerous, I doubt any company could comply or remain in business. In 1994, Congress passed the “Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act” (DSHEA), which in once sense did protect nutritional supplements available at the time from FDA over regulation, and protected manufacturers from overt FDA harassment. However, the bill also gave the FDA enormous power over any new supplements that might be developed after 1994, with the authority to require the expensive, and time consuming process normally reserved for synthetic pharmaceuticals before these new supplements could be made available to consumers.  Basically, if implemented, supplements would remain stuck in 1994, with manufacturers unable to provide new products in response to ongoing research in the field.

Furthermore, by enforcing this provision in DSHEA, the FDA could require supplements available prior to 1994 that have undergone any change whatsoever to undergo review, with the possibility that these products might be removed from the market until the lengthy review was completed.  Apparently, even if the particle size of a supplement has changed since 1994, the manufacturer would be required to petition the FDA for approval of the product.   As I read the new, complicated regulations, in my opinion any supplement manufacturer might be at risk and few could financially survive should the FDA enforce to the letter the regulations that it presented last week.
 
Nutritional supplements, because of the concern and integrity of the great majority of manufacturers, are extraordinarily safe and the FDA knows this. Our supplements for example are manufactured at an approved facility in compliance with the strict FDA Good Manufacturing Practices.  These products have been life-saving, proving effective even against advanced cancer.  We need these supplements for our patients.
 
The FDA already has the power it needs to "protect" the consumer.  These regulations are unnecessarily onerous and unreasonable.
 
For further information I suggest you consult the following website:  http://www.anh-usa.org/
 
I suggest you write your Senators and Representatives protesting both the Durbin bill and the new FDA regulations.  Always be polite.  But we need to stop Senator Durbin's bill and fight for the continued availability of nutritional supplements.
 
Below is a letter I sent my own Senators.  Feel free to adopt it as your own
 
 
Re:  Opposition to Senator Durbin's bill S1310, the "Dietary Supplement Labeling Act."
 
Dear Senator Gillibrand:
 
I am writing because I need your help.  On the Friday before the July 4th weekend, Senator Durbin - hoping his actions would not be carried in the media before a major holiday - introduced the above referenced legislation, the "Dietary Supplement Labeling Act."  Though couched in terms about consumer protection, the bill really seems designed to give the Food and Drug Administration extraordinary new levels of regulatory authority over dietary supplements, which it does not need to perform its job, and which will add new onerous regulatory hurdles onto legitimate, honest supplement manufacturers in this country.
 
The FDA already has the authority to supervise supplement manufacture and remove harmful or dangerous supplements from the marketplace, It has already put in place very stringent "Good Manufacturing Practice" regulations that promote standards and require manufacturers to provide the highest quality, legitimate products to consumers.  I believe this new legislation is part of an ongoing pattern to eliminate the availability of legitimate supplements so that Americans have no choice in their health care.
 
Americans by the tens of millions use supplements daily, and want these products to remain available to them.  As a physician who uses specially designed supplements in his practice, I know the value of properly formulated nutritional products. The supplements I utilize are specially designed according to very strict specifications, and quite literally, the lives of hundreds of my patients depend on these products.
 
At the same time Senator Durbin proposed his legislation, the FDA itself announced its plans to enforce an entire new set of regulations on supplement manufacturers that are so onerous, I doubt any company could comply or remain in business.  It appears, judging by what I have read, the FDA seems intent to use harmless sounding regulations that do not require Congressional approval to eliminate the supplement industry from this country. I can think of no other rational explanation.
 
Nutritional supplements, because of the concern and integrity of the great majority of manufacturers, are extraordinarily safe and the FDA knows this.  The FDA already has the power it needs to "protect" the consumer.  These regulations are deliberately onerous and unreasonable.
 
For further information I suggest you consult the following website:   http://www.anh-usa.org/
 
Please help stop Senator Durbin's bill.  Please reign in an out-of-control FDA.  My patients need their supplements.
 
I would be happy to talk to any of your aides, I would welcome a visit to my office to show the results of our practice, and our desperate need that our supplements remain available. .
 
Sincerely,
 
Nicholas Gonzalez, MD

Dear Friends, 

I recently posted to my friends on Facebook, asking about their sweetener of choice.  Huge response!  I get so many questions on this, I though I would give you my opinion… it’s just another one to add to group, but here’s my POV.  Some of this is based on research I have collected from the medical experts with whom I surround myself, and some is just based on my personal views.   

The pink – saccharin: This has been around since the 60s and 70s. At first everyone thought it was the miracle sugar substitute.  Then it got a “causes cancer” wrap – of course, proven and disproven depending upon the article you read or expert you consult.  It’s very concentrated.  Not a good source for baking as it does not hold up to heat and leaves an aftertaste if you use a lot of it. 

My personal opinion: Many years ago I recommended this product as an alternative to sugar (you will see references for it in my early books). I felt it was better than aspartame if you were going to use an artificial sweetener.   With the information I have today, I still think it is the least offensive of the artificial sweeteners, however, I do not use it or any artificial sweeteners. 

The blue – aspartame:  Took the spotlight from the pink in the 80s.  Again, this was the miracle NEW sweetener.  Less aftertaste, and didn’t seem to have that cancer causing issue that had freaked out so many with saccharin.  Then in the late 90s we started to see reports that maybe this artificial sweetener was dangerous as well.  There was a particularly nasty online article that took off virally - slandering aspartame (mostly from diet soda drinkers) and linking it to cancer, brain tumors, lupus, and multiple sclerosis.  Many sources say this “chain letter” is anecdotal, from anonymous sources and scientifically implausible.  Upon reading it again today, I see Dr. Russell Blaylock was quoted in it all those years ago, stating, “The ingredients stimulate the neurons of the brain to death, causing brain damage of varying degrees.”

In 2008 I interviewed Blaylock for my book, Breakthrough, and he cited two new studies by one of the biggest cancer research institutes in the world, The Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences in Italy. The results confirmed that aspartame breaks down in the body to formaldehyde, which breaks up the DNA and leaves the body with double-strand breaks, most associated with cancer induction. He states, “We had good evidence before that aspartame most likely produced cancer, and now we know it does for sure.” (For more information, read Breakthrough, p. 38.)

My personal opinion: I don’t use any artificial sweeteners, and certainly not this one.

Aspartame is still sold and added to over 6,000 products. The FDA does not report any safety issues. 

To read the viral piece on aspartame with the rebuttals, click here. 

The yellow – sucralose:  “Made from sugar so it tastes like sugar.” That means it’s natural, right?  Around the turn of the century, the new yellow packets became the rage (once aspartame was exposed).  One of the big benefits is that it measures just like sugar – making it easier to use in baking.  Come to find out, sucralose is made by taking a sugar molecule and adding chlorine to it. I am always shocked when I tell people this and they say, “So? What’s the problem with chlorine?” 

I interviewed Dr. Steven Hotze in Breakthrough, who states, “Toxins are the big problem. How about Splenda? It’s sucralose, which is chlorinated hydrocarbon, which is toxic. Any chlorinated hydrocarbon in the world is toxic, carcinogenic. Splenda was originally made as a pesticide-go dump it on your ant beds and come back tomorrow to see all the dead ants.”  (Breakthrough, p. 345)

My personal opinion: I don’t use any artificial sweeteners. 

Studies also show artificial sweeteners are addictive.  This addiction makes us crave more and more sweet foods and can actually cause weight gain, rather than weight loss – which is the reason most people use these products anyway.

The green – stevia:  Stevia is 100% natural, extracted from a plant in South America, it has a low glycemic index and there are no controversial reports on the health or safety of this natural sweetener.

My personal opinion: I use this product now and then, but I do not like the licorice aftertaste.  I have not had luck baking with it due to this aftertaste. It’s less offensive in coffee, but I like my coffee without sweetener anyway.

The real stuff - raw sugar, honey, white sugar: All are accepted by the body as sugar.  I use them in moderation.  I prefer honey of the three, then raw sugar, then white sugar.  All cause increases in insulin, our fat storing hormone. Controlling this hormone, so that our food is burned as fuel rather than stored as fat, is a key tenant to my weight loss plan, Sexy Forever, so I moderate my use of all of these sugars.

My personal opinion: Much better choices than artificial sweeteners, but I use them only in moderation to keep my weight and health in check.

Agave – 100% natural.  I have been using agave nectar as a low-glycemic liquid sweetener for the past five years or so.  It’s the consistency of honey, but is not supposed to spike insulin, like honey.  I really like the taste and consistency of this product.  Love it on Greek yogurt with a little cinnamon.  Now there is controversial information that the manufacturing process turns this natural sweetener into a syrup, similar to high fructose corn syrup – stating that agave nectar is actually 90% fructose.  Still, fructose is 20 on the glycemic index as opposed to sugar which is 100! 

My personal opinion: I use agave, but only organic agave to make sure there are no chemicals in the extraction process. So far I have believed this is a healthy, natural alternative to sugar or honey, with a lower glycemic index.  The recent news about the manufacturing process turning this into a product similar it high fructose corn syrup is on my radar.  I need more information.  My ears are open for the next round of research. 

The purple one - All Natural SomerSweet:  This is my signature sweetener.  It’s 100% natural.  It has taken me years to develop it.  When I first debuted original SomerSweet, I didn’t have the information I have today and it contained a very small amount of artificial sweetener.  We have since reformulated to All Natural SomerSweet which is a 100% natural product - and I couldn’t be more thrilled to have all artificial sweeteners out of my system.  Knowledge is power.  As I learn, I adjust.  And I pass along my information to you.  All Natural SomerSweet spoons into coffee tea just like sugar, but what I really love about this product is how it bakes!  I use it cup for cup in place of sugar in recipes with excellent results.  And it’s only 5 on the glycemic index so it won’t spike my insulin. Great for those on my Sexy Forever plan. 

Ingredients: All Natural SomerSweet is mostly made from inulin, which is a chicory fiber. This is a pre-biotic soluble fiber – something your body needs anyway.  It also contains erythritol – a natural substance found in pears, melons, grapes, mushrooms and wine.  While erythritol is categorized as a sugar alcohol, it has no gassy side effects. Additionally, there is a small amount of fructose found in our inulin blend, but it’s such a low amount, we still boast 0 sugars per serving.  Lastly, citrus peel extract rounds out the flavor. 

My personal opinion: Great for cold or hot drinks.  Excellent for baking. No aftertaste.  The fiber may cause you to “move” a little, but that’s a good thing! Start slowly and build your way up.   Available in individual packets or cans. 

As a special offer for my Facebook friends, enter coupon code FACEBOOK at checkout and receive 50% off your first order of All Natural SomerSweet Packets*! (limited time while supplies last).

For more information on All Natural SomerSweet, click here.

Sincerely,

Suzanne Somers          

Tomorrow I will be co-hosting THE TALK on CBS, with special guest, my best friend – Barry Manilow!!! 

Barry has a brand new album out, called, “15 Minutes” with all new original songs.  I love this album. Like “Paradise Café”, this collection of songs tells a story about the price of fame. For you Manilow lovers, I can only say, “He’s back!” stirring lyrics, passionate arrangements, with the single “Bring on Tomorrow” already hitting #1 in England. Yes, he’s my best friend, and he’s also a genius.     

Later in the show (and here’s a hard left turn!), we will be focusing on The President’s Cancer Panel. This report from last year is a comprehensive 240 page document confirming the link between toxins and cancer.  While the dangerous effects of cancer-causing chemicals and toxins on the American people and worldwide has long been speculated, this report alarmingly confirms that “The true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated.” 

I was shocked then, and even more shocked now that this subject did not hit the mainstream media in a more newsworthy fashion.  Here is a U.S. government panel breaking ranks with traditional medical establishment to warn they have unequivocally linked the toxins in our environment to the rising cancer rates. 

AND NO ONE REALLY TALKED ABOUT IT!  According to the World Health Organization, deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue rising, to an estimated 12 million in 2030. Where are these toxins coming from?  What is the state of our food supply?  How can we protect ourselves and our children?  This is an important show where we will discuss these concerns and provide information to help you and your family reduce your toxic burden. 

Please tune into this important discussion on THE TALK – and read The President’s Cancer Panel  CLICK HERE .

Sincerely,  

Suzanne Somers

For more information, please visit www.SuzanneSomers.com

 

Dear Friends, 

I like the natural approach to health.  I also am very excited about cutting edge, non-drug solutions to everyday common complaints.  Nanotechnology is not only the future, but nanotechnology is now. What seems like inaccessible therapies are now available in simple non-drug patches.  Years ago I started interviewing scientist, David Schmidt, who developed the LifeWave patches utilizing nanotechnology.  Since that time I do not recall ever reaching for an over the counter or pharmaceutical method for pain relief.  The patches are non-transdermal, meaning nothing enters the skin.  In the simplest terms, you could say they work similarly to accupressure by stimulating the light waves in your body.   

If I pull a muscle or have a headache, I put on my LifeWave IceWave patches and usually within 15 minutes the pain is gone.  When I work out with weights,  I put on my LifeWave Energy Enhancer patches and I have much more energy and endurance and find my workout to be so much easier and more effective.  Everyday I wear a LifeWave Y-Age Glutathione patch to detox my body from the environmental assault.  At night I wear a Y-Age Carnosine patch to repair any cellular damage that might have occurred during the day from toxins or chemicals.  If I gain a little weight, I'd never reach for diet pills, I just wear my LifeWave SP6 Complete patches which diminishes my appetite. 

I don't agree with sleeping pills as a means to get needed sleep because as I've written about in my books, sleeping pills do not promote real sleep. Instead, you go into a suspended state where none of the healing hormone work your body needs can happen.  I have never taken sleep medications, but every night I have a ritual....I turn down the lights in the house, (this lowers cortisol), light candles, play soft music, take a hot bath, put on my LifeWave Silent Night patch, chew a couple of GABA tablets (turns off the noise and the lists), take my Sleep Renew (time-released melatonin), and within 15 minutes I am gone for the next eight hours. Good, real, healing, quality sleep.   

Every time we take pharmaceutical or over the counter medicines we are putting chemicals into our bodies.  The toxic assault has reached catastrophic proportions and in order to save ourselves from the damage done to us by the environment, finding non-drug remedies is especially appealing and life affirming.  Think of all the chemicals I am avoiding by the remedies I described above.  I am the ambassador for LifeWave.  I volunteered for the job because I think these patches are so appealing. 

CLICK HERE for more information on LifeWave or to order the patches (this link allows you to order directly). Use them for a month and see how much better you feel. I can't say enough about the benefits of LifeWave. 

Sincerely,  

 

Suzanne Somers

 

 

For more information, visit SuzanneSomers.com.

 

Hi Friends,

What a privilege it is to have direct dialogue with so many medical experts.  Please see the email I received this morning from Dr. Nick Gonzalez. Pass along to any family and friends in Japan – and excellent information should the radiation exposure spread to the US.

Sincerely,

 

Suzanne Somers

 
Dear Suzanne,

Regarding additional information on radiation exposure, I would suggest as one of the most important and powerful tools, the simple “salt and soda” bath, consisting of one cup of baking soda and one cup of salt in a warm water bath.  Stay soaking in the bath for at least one half hour, up to an hour.  The salt and soda create an ionic current that draws out radioactive ions from our bodies through the skin.  After WWII, our US doctors used this to help decontaminate Japanese exposed to radiation from the two bombs.  We use this routinely for patients who must undergo radiographic scanning such as CT scans which expose them to considerable radiation – up to 1000 times the radiation of a chest X-ray.
 
Also sodium alginate, three capsules three times a day is very effective – we use this seaweed extract to draw out heavy metals, but it is an excellent detoxicant for radiation exposure when used along with the baths.  It should be taken on an empty stomach for best effect.
 
Bentonite liquid seems to neutralize everything and anything – I take a tablespoon daily in the AM, with radiation exposure I would go up to a quarter cup daily until the threat passed.  More would be fine, if there is a severe exposure danger.  II like the Sonne’s brand, available in virtually any health food store.  Bentonite is a clay that has a remarkable ability to complex with toxic metals, pollutants, and poisons, and very quickly, then allows the body to excrete the neutralized junk efficiently.
 
Anyway, my two cents worth.
 
Regards,
 
Nick Gonzalez

Hi Friends,  

This is my response to Tara Pope’s article yesterday in the New York Times.  I have no idea if they will print my letter but I thought you'd like my perspective.  Her article follows my response.  

Sincerely, 

Suzanne Somers 

 

Half Right...by Suzanne Somers 

Tara Pope reports in today's New York Times that estrogen has benefits of lowering the risk of breast cancer and heart attacks.  This information has been available for some time.  

But, Ms. Pope ignores the existence of biodidentical hormone replacement therapy.  Ms. Pope explains that Premarin is 'chemically similar' to female human estrogen.  Yet bioidentical estrogen is ' biologically identical', an exact replica, of female human estrogen.  Premarin is made from pregnant mare's ( horse) estrogen.  A horse has 34 different estrogens, NONE of which is identical to a human female.

Why would any woman want to take a chemical that is 'similar', when the real thing exists? 

With the population of the world being bombarded by the greatest environmental assault in the history of mankind, do we really need to add yet another chemical to our already toxic bodies?

How long are we going to ignore true natural hormone replacement?

The Women's Health Initiative blew the whistle on synthetic hormones; Premarin, Prempro, Provera, in 2002.  It spotlighted the 'dangerous, harmful, and even fatal' effects of these unnatural synthetic drugs and in particular the use of progestins, which actually gave women breast cancer.  As a result the WHI urged women not to take these dangerous hormones.

Bioidentical hormones give back quality of life to women and men.  They are not used by most doctors out of ignorance.  They were not taught in medical school and are too lazy to do research to see the tremendous benefits.  THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE RECORDED INCIDENCE OF CANCER WITH ANYONE TAKING BIODENTICAL HORMONES.

Synthetic hormones cannot make that same claim. 

Our medical schools teach allopathic medicine only.  This is because of tremendous funding from pharmaceutical companies to our universities.  Big pharma is not interested in non-patentable medicines of any kind. 

I have been on bioidentical hormones for 15 years.  My health has never been better as well as my quality of life.  I have written several books on the subject, all of which have appeared on the New York Times Best Seller lists.

If the New York Times is truly fair and balanced then Ms. Pope needs to be challenged.  She has written a book on synthetic hormone replacement.  Let her read the many studies and efficacy on biodidentical hormone replacement therapy and report fairly. 

April 5, 2011, 4:02 pm

Estrogen Lowers Breast Cancer and Heart Attack Risk in Some
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Photo: Andrea LaCroix of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle found that estrogen lowers breast cancer risk in some women.

In a finding that challenges the conventional wisdom about the risks of some hormones used in menopause, a major government study has found that years after using estrogen-only therapy, certain women had a markedly reduced risk of breast cancer and heart attack.

The research, part of the landmark Women’s Health Initiative study, is likely to surprise women and their doctors, who for years have heard frightening news about the risks of hormone therapy. But most of those fears are related to the use of a combination of two hormones, estrogen and progestin, which are prescribed to relieve hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause, and have been shown to increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.

The new findings, reported Tuesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, come from 10,739 women in the Women’s Health Initiative study who had previously had a hysterectomy, the surgical removal of the uterus. Nationwide, about one-third of women in their 50s have had a hysterectomy.

While other women in the study were taking combination hormone therapy, women without a uterus took estrogen alone or a placebo for about six years and were followed for nearly 11 years. The estrogen-only group was not given progestin, which is prescribed only to protect the uterus from the harmful effects of estrogen. Although all the women in the estrogen study stopped using the treatment in 2004, the investigators have continued to monitor their health, as is typical in large clinical trials.

The most surprising new finding relates to breast cancer. The women with hysterectomies who used estrogen alone had a 23 percent lower risk for breast cancer compared with those who had taken a placebo. This is in stark contrast to the higher risk of breast cancer shown in the estrogen-progestin part of the trial.

“The decreased risk of breast cancer in this group is something we totally didn’t expect when we started the W.H.I. hormone therapy trials,” said Andrea Z. LaCroix, the study’s lead author and a professor of epidemiology at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “This study differentiates estrogen alone from estrogen and progestin in a very big way. I hope it gets across to women, because we are not reversing ourselves.”

Indeed, the investigators emphasized that the results do not change recommendations concerning combination hormone therapy for the two-thirds of menopausal women who still have a uterus. The Women’s Health Initiative data have consistently shown that the combination of estrogen and progestin raises breast cancer risk, and the treatment should be used only to relieve severe menopause symptoms, using the lowest dose for the shortest possible time.

An accompanying editorial in the journal was skeptical about the results, arguing that the design of the Women’s Health Initiative, which is skewed toward older women and stopped all forms of hormone treatment after several years of use, does not match the way doctors typically prescribe treatment to women in their 50s at the onset of menopause.

Dr. Graham Colditz, an author of the editorial and professor of surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said he thought data collected from observational studies that show a higher risk of breast cancer associated with estrogen use were more reliable than the data gathered from the Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial.

“The finding doesn’t reflect how hormones are used in the U.S. at the moment,” Dr. Colditz said.

The trial has, however, been held up for years as the gold standard for medical research, and its findings linking combination hormones to breast cancer and heart problems led to significant changes in the way doctors around the world treated menopause.

A major caveat in interpreting the new estrogen data is that the study used conjugated equine estrogens, which are estrogen compounds derived from the urine of pregnant mares and marketed by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals under the brand Premarin. The brand has fallen out of favor with many women who are choosing treatments that contain estradiol, which is chemically similar to a woman’s natural estrogen. It is not known whether the benefits of estrogen shown in the Women’s Health Initiative would be replicated using a different type of estrogen.

Nobody knows why estrogen treatment alone appeared to lower breast cancer risk in the study, but one explanation may be that in menopausal women with low levels of natural estrogen, the effects of estrogen drugs induce cell death in existing tumors. Nobody is suggesting that women start using estrogen to prevent breast cancer, but the finding opens a potentially new avenue of research in the prevention of the disease.

“We need to look closely at these findings to see if we can learn more about ways to prevent breast cancer in women,” said Dr. JoAnn Manson, a Women’s Health Initiative investigator and an author of the study who is chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the estrogen-only group in the trial, use of the hormone was not associated with any significant risks or benefits pertaining to blood clots, stroke, hip fracture, colon cancer or overall death rates.

But there were surprising differences in the risks and benefits of estrogen use on heart risk when comparing the youngest and oldest women in the study. Women who were in their 50s when they first started using estrogen also had significantly fewer heart risks, including almost 50 percent fewer heart attacks, compared with those assigned to the placebo group.

The data indicate that for every 10,000 women in their 50s, those using estrogen would experience 12 fewer heart attacks, 13 fewer deaths and 18 fewer adverse events like blood clots or stroke in a given year, compared with those taking a placebo.

But the risks of estrogen use were pronounced in older women. For every 10,000 women in their 70s, using estrogen would cause 16 extra heart attacks, 19 extra deaths and 48 serious adverse events.

“The big message there is that the data look much more favorable for younger women and much riskier for older women,” said Dr. LaCroix.

Dr. Rowan Chlebowski, another author of the study and a medical oncologist at Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, said the findings underscore the fact that the risks and benefits of menopause hormones change depending on a woman’s health status, her age and the type of hormone used.

Dr. Chlebowski previously led research that showed cancer risks associated with combination hormone therapy, but he says the new data on estrogen alone show that in certain women, estrogen use to relieve menopausal symptoms is a “good choice.”

“When you look at the debate, people are saying hormones are good or not good — it’s been all or nothing. This calls attention to the fact that there are differences,” said Dr. Chlebowski. “I hope that separation will become clearer now.”