heart disease

[Guest guest]

Lynn,

It looks like Bee is elsewhere busy. So I thought I'd help you.

Go to Files then >Treatments then >>Heart Disease, Irregular Heartbeats

Treatments is in the first set of ABCs, so scroll slowly.

Hope this helps.

Chris.

[Guest guest]

>

> My Dad had a small heart attack about a week ago. Now he is home from

> the hospital & trying to do as his doctor recommends. The diet he was

> told to follow is low fat, low salt, & low chorlesterol.

>

> What foods are heart-friendly?

==>Hi Lynn, Low-fat and low-cholesterol are exactly the wrong things

to do. Also low-salt is okay if he is eliminating table salt, but a

good natural ocean sea salt like Celtic is very important for health.

Did you know that the whole Cholesterol Theory is a total scam?

Heart disease is not caused by good natural saturated fats such as

butter, lard, coconut oil, lard and other natural occurring fats.

The best article to read was just posted on my new website " Foods that

Damage, Foods that Heal " which has information about the best foods

which are heart healthy, and about heart attacks and the Cholesterol scam:

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/heal13.php

Also there is a lot of great information at:

1. http://www.westonaprice.org (do a search on their site with

" heart " , " cholesterol " and " fats " .

2. http://www.thincs.org (The International Network of Cholesterol

Skeptics) (THINCS) is a steadily growing group of scientists,

physicians, other academicians and science writers from various countries.

The founder of THINCS is Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, who wrote the book

" The Cholesterol Myth " ; http://www.ravnskov.nu/uffe.htm

The best, Bee

[Guest guest]

Or you can go to the new website and find the same

article here, printer friendly:

Heart Disease, Irregular Heartbeats, etc.

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/treat12.php

Our hope is that you guys will use the website over

the files on since they contain the same things

and it's easier to use the website.

Luv,

Debby

San , CA

--- chrisruehl <chrisruehl@...> wrote:

> Lynn,

> It looks like Bee is elsewhere busy. So I thought

> I'd help you.

>

> Go to Files then >Treatments then >>Heart Disease,

> Irregular Heartbeats

>

> Treatments is in the first set of ABCs, so scroll

> slowly.

>

> Hope this helps.

> Chris.

-------------

Become a mentor. Nothing will reveal your weaknesses faster. Nothing will better

motivate you to overcome your weaknesses.

My son Hunter Hudson (10/11/04) http://debbypadilla.0catch.com/hunter/

[Guest guest]

I learned this fact years ago and I am much happier and healthier for

it.Thanks for sayin it out loud.

>

> Saturated Fat and Cholesterol does not cause heart disease...that's a

> myth.

>

> http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

>

[Guest guest]

I read the link below about Vit K and how that saves your heart and

diminishes the risk. Its calcium in the veins of the heart that causes

heart failure,plus a lack the 'hot stuff'...cayenne.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2000/feb00-report.html

[Guest guest]

Did anyone else have trouble opening this link. I tried several timesa and will

not open.

Cheers, Doug

Re: Heart disease

I read the link below about Vit K and how that saves your heart and

diminishes the risk. Its calcium in the veins of the heart that causes

heart failure,plus a lack the 'hot stuff'...cayenne.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2000/feb00-report.html

[Guest guest]

Onened OK just now. Figure??

Cheers, Doug

Re: Heart disease

I read the link below about Vit K and how that saves your heart and

diminishes the risk. Its calcium in the veins of the heart that causes

heart failure,plus a lack the 'hot stuff'...cayenne.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2000/feb00-report.html

[Guest guest]

I just tried then and it worked.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

After reading this article on Vit. K, I am wondering how to supplement for it.

This article said synthetic vit k was toxic, so we don't want that. It said the

values in food were much lower than originally thought, but I didn't get a clear

idea about how much of what foods would be a therapeutic level. Perhaps there

is a whole food supplement for vit. K, but even in supplement form I wouldn't

know how much to take for it to be effective. The article said, Forty-five

milligrams a day were used in osteoporosis studies without any ill effect. Then

it said, Generally, 10 mg/day is recommended. It really wasn't clear to me if

this general recommendation was high enough to give the benefits they were

talking about, and how much of what foods would supply 10 mg. Earlier the

article did say that in the nurses study, that those who ate lettuce everyday

slashed their risk of hip fracture 50% compared to those who ate it once a week

or less, so making sure you get your salad every day would be a good place to

start if that's not already happening. Does anyone have more insight into using

vit. K? Thanks.

Blessings,

Kathy

[Guest guest]

Hi Tice and Kathy and others !

After reading your queries and search for more knowledge on vitamin K, I

remember I've seen a reference on this subject. I'm referring to my reliable

booklet ( Vitamins and Minerals: 1996, 1998 by Geddes and Grosset Ltd,

Dale House, New Lanark, Scotland, UK).

For you and others, let me extract some important information on this subject,

indicated below.

1. Vitamin K, discovered in 1935 by Henrik Dam, is a fat-soluble vitamin with

three forms: Vit. K1(phytomenadione); Vit.K2 (menaquinane); and Vit. K3

(menadione). Vit.K1 is a yellow substance produced naturally in plants (but now

can be made artificially or laboratory-synthesized). Vit. K2, a slightly less

active form or compound with pale yellow color, synthesized by various

microorganisms that live in the the gastrointestinal tract of humans. Vit. K3 is

of synthetic origin and much less important compared to the first 2 forms. There

are also Vitamins K4 and K5 (synthetic, commercially produced ?) with twice the

biological effects over the natural vitamins K1 and K2. LIke Vit. E, Vit. K

exists as a group of similar chemicals, called quinones, essential for human

health.

2. Almost that of human's Vit.K requirement is covered by Vit. K2, produced

by our intestinal bacteria. Vit. K is naturally found or can be extracted from

green leafy vegetables as brassicas, seaweed, potatoes,alfalfa, nuts, liver,

eggs, wheat germ, fish, molasses, yoghurt, fish liver oils, dairy products, corn

and soya bean oils. Vit. K is resistant to heat, oxidation and high moisture

conditions, but could quicklt decompose on exposure to sunlight or UV light.

3. Like other fat-soluble vitamins, Vit K is absorbed with fat in the

intestines and then moves into the bloodstream via our lymphatic system.

4. Deficiency in Vit. K normally arises in people who do not eat enough green

vegetables and in those whose digestion and and absorption of fats (healthy) is

impaired. Moreover, deficiency in Vit.K1 may lead to onset of osteoporosis or

" brittle bone disease " . With adequate Vit.K, osteocalcin generation will bind

the calcium ions and bones will undergo calcification as normal.

5. Deficiency in Vit. K is likely triggered due to : alcoholism, liver and

intestinal diseases and in disturbances on fat absorption in the digestive

system. Long term use of antibiotics may suppress the natural bacterial flora of

the gastrointestinal tract producing Vit. K, with the tendency of internal

bleeding as blood lacks the necessary coagulation conditions.

6. The reference also mentioned that newborn babbies are given injections of

Vit. K to prevent internal hemorrhage as they do not have the intestinal

bacteria that produce Vit.K naturally. It is mentioned that for people starting

to take supplements of Vit. K must consult a medical doctor. It also mentioned

that no official RDA allowance but most adults requires at least 1 mg Vit. K/day

(as a supplement or naturally found in the human body?, not indicated)

Just trying to help ! Many thanks for the reference I cited ealier !

Cheers,

Sev Magat

Tice <ticesaved@...> wrote:

Hi,

After reading this article on Vit. K, I am wondering how to supplement for it.

This article said synthetic vit k was toxic, so we don't want that. It said the

values in food were much lower than originally thought, but I didn't get a clear

idea about how much of what foods would be a therapeutic level. Perhaps there is

a whole food supplement for vit. K, but even in supplement form I wouldn't know

how much to take for it to be effective. The article said, Forty-five milligrams

a day were used in osteoporosis studies without any ill effect. Then it said,

Generally, 10 mg/day is recommended. It really wasn't clear to me if this

general recommendation was high enough to give the benefits they were talking

about, and how much of what foods would supply 10 mg. Earlier the article did

say that in the nurses study, that those who ate lettuce everyday slashed their

risk of hip fracture 50% compared to those who ate it once a week or less, so

making sure you get your salad every day

would be a good place to start if that's not already happening. Does anyone

have more insight into using vit. K? Thanks.

Blessings,

Kathy

[Guest guest]

Vitamin K food sources.

http://www.susanbrownphd.com/hot_topics/vitamin_k.htm

>

> Hi,

>

> After reading this article on Vit. K, I am wondering how to

supplement for it. This article said synthetic vit k was toxic, so

we don't want that. It said the values in food were much lower than

originally thought, but I didn't get a clear idea about how much of

what foods would be a therapeutic level. Perhaps there is a whole

food supplement for vit. K, but even in supplement form I wouldn't

know how much to take for it to be effective. The article said,

Forty-five milligrams a day were used in osteoporosis studies without

any ill effect. Then it said, Generally, 10 mg/day is recommended.

It really wasn't clear to me if this general recommendation was high

enough to give the benefits they were talking about, and how much of

what foods would supply 10 mg. Earlier the article did say that in

the nurses study, that those who ate lettuce everyday slashed their

risk of hip fracture 50% compared to those who ate it once a week or

less, so making sure you get your salad every day would be a good

place to start if that's not already happening. Does anyone have

more insight into using vit. K? Thanks.

>

> Blessings,

> Kathy

>

>

[Guest guest]

you are not understanding me.

Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age), maybe he remembers when heart

disease was called a man's disease. It had to do with Dx, not research LOL.

oh maybe I can google it.

gracia

Gracia, this is pure silliness. OF course it was CALLED a man's disease -

but only because women weren't considered important enough to study. I

KNOW that you know this - as you have commented on it before. ALL medical

studies were pretty much based (and some still are ) on the male - the

breadwinner, the IMPORTANT one in the family structure.

There was no such belief if one was educated and understood that studies

were done on males and not females, therefore there was no info on females.

We still face that battle today on many drug issues, as you well know.

Deliberately misstating the meaning to suit your purpose for this list won't

really change the facts. The facts are that men were the control group - no

one cared (or recognized) that the female form was perhaps functioning

differently.

Dusty

Recent Activity

a.. 20New Members

Visit Your Group

Meditation and

Lovingkindness

A Group

to share and learn.

Health

Healthy Aging

Improve your

quality of life.

Sell Online

Start selling with

our award-winning

e-commerce tools.

.

[Guest guest]

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

no

women were not DYING of heart disease, even when they were menopausal. I

think women STARTED dying from heart disease 10-20 years after men.

I do know that most research was done on males!

gracia who has no fear of fats! as long as they are real ones.

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Gracia,

The only fat I fear is my own. LOL

Roni

Gracia <circe@...> wrote:

no

women were not DYING of heart disease, even when they were menopausal. I think

women STARTED dying from heart disease 10-20 years after men.

I do know that most research was done on males!

gracia who has no fear of fats! as long as they are real ones.

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

To date, there is no evidence that bio's are any different than any other

hormone. There has been no study done on them to validate that statement.

It is very dangerous to state that bios are cancer protective. Hormones are

hormones and I have two neighbors who both have had breast cancer which was

estrogen dependent and was discovered years aftr they began their BIO

estrogen. The gal directly next door had a double mastectomy and 5 yrs of

Tamoxifen... and the gal down the street had a lumpectomy, chemo and

radiation. I use bio estradiol and have had to have biopsies of the

endometrial tissue because of endometrial proliferation - precursor to

endometrial cancer.

Again, if you read the sites I sent - there is no hard, fast proof YET than

estrogen is cardio protective.

I am fully aware of the WHI study being done with Mares Urine - the problem

is that no large, long term studies HAVE BEEN DONE on anything other than

that and until they are and until they prove or disprove the benefits of

hormones beyond the time when our bodies produce babies - they should be

treated with a wary eye and full disclosure to the patient of potential side

effects. Having said that, I am a user of bio's because of a serious

female issue, Vestibulitis and Vulvodyina, caused by severe lack of

estrogen. It was a quality of life choice for me, but I am vigilant for

signs of problems.

Dusty

Re: heart disease

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

With so many neighbors with breast cancer I wonder how much is environmental

?

crystal

" Aslan, " said Lucy, " you're bigger. "

(Deep soft voice) " That is becuase you are older, little one, " answered he.

" Not because you are? "

" I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger. "

------ Lucy and Aslan in Prince Caspian

-- Re: heart disease

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Or low vitamin D..., low hormones, or perhaps environmental too.

Neil

_____

From: hypothyroidism [mailto:hypothyroidism ]

On Behalf Of Crystal

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:13 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: RE: heart disease

With so many neighbors with breast cancer I wonder how much is environmental

?

crystal

" Aslan, " said Lucy, " you're bigger. "

(Deep soft voice) " That is becuase you are older, little one, " answered he.

" Not because you are? "

" I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger. "

------ Lucy and Aslan in Prince Caspian

-- Re: heart disease

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

<http://www.hormoneandlongevitycenter.com/naturalestrogenandprogesterone/vie

w_index.nhtml> View the index page

<http://www.hormoneandlongevitycenter.com/pages/images/trans_pix.gif>

<http://www.hormoneandlongevitycenter.com/pages/images/trans_pix.gif>

<http://www.hormoneandlongevitycenter.com/pages/images/trans_pix.gif>

<http://www.hormoneandlongevitycenter.com/pages/images/trans_pix.gif>

Breast Cancer and BHRT

Bioidentical hormones are again shown be superior to synthetic hormones, and

this is continuing proof that bioidentical hormones are not associated with

breast cancer while synthetic versions significantly increase the risk of

breast cancer.

Unequal risks for breast cancer associated with different hormone

replacement therapies: results from the E3N cohort study. Fournier A,

Berrino F, Clavel-Chapelon F. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2007

One of the largest studies to date comparing the risk of breast cancer with

the use of natural bioidentical hormones and synthetic hormone replacement

therapy demonstrates that the natural hormones have significantly less

associated risk of breast cancer. This study published a 2007 issue of

Breast Cancer Research reported the association between various forms of HRT

and the incidence of breast cancer in over 80,000 postmenopausal women who

were followed for over 8 postmenopausal years. This study found that,

compared to women who never used any hormone replacement therapy, women who

used estrogen only (different preparations analyzed together) had an

increased risk of breast cancer that was 1.29 times those who never used

estrogen. If a synthetic progestin was used in combination with estrogen,

there was a significant increase in the risk of breast cancer compared to

those on the estrogen only that was 1.69 times the risk of those who never

used estrogen.

If, however, a woman used natural progesterone in combination with estrogen,

the increased risk of breast cancer was eliminated, having no increase risk

o f breast cancer as compared to those who never used estrogen. In addition,

estriol containing products was found to have a further protective effect

against breast cancer, resulting in a lower risk of breast cancer than even

those who did not use any hormone replacement.

This study adds to the mass of previous medical literature that demonstrates

the superior safety of bioidentical hormone replacement as compared to

synthetic hormones.

_____

From: hypothyroidism [mailto:hypothyroidism ]

On Behalf Of Dusty

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:08 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: RE: heart disease

To date, there is no evidence that bio's are any different than any other

hormone. There has been no study done on them to validate that statement.

It is very dangerous to state that bios are cancer protective. Hormones are

hormones and I have two neighbors who both have had breast cancer which was

estrogen dependent and was discovered years aftr they began their BIO

estrogen. The gal directly next door had a double mastectomy and 5 yrs of

Tamoxifen... and the gal down the street had a lumpectomy, chemo and

radiation. I use bio estradiol and have had to have biopsies of the

endometrial tissue because of endometrial proliferation - precursor to

endometrial cancer.

Again, if you read the sites I sent - there is no hard, fast proof YET than

estrogen is cardio protective.

I am fully aware of the WHI study being done with Mares Urine - the problem

is that no large, long term studies HAVE BEEN DONE on anything other than

that and until they are and until they prove or disprove the benefits of

hormones beyond the time when our bodies produce babies - they should be

treated with a wary eye and full disclosure to the patient of potential side

effects. Having said that, I am a user of bio's because of a serious

female issue, Vestibulitis and Vulvodyina, caused by severe lack of

estrogen. It was a quality of life choice for me, but I am vigilant for

signs of problems.

Dusty

Re: heart disease

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

crystal-

that is a great question. most of my friends and fellow colleagues who are

providers believe that the environment has a great impact on today's diseases

and cancers. there is so much toxicity out there with all the chemicals, the

hormones and antibiotics that are in the animal feed; the list goes on- that has

been directly linked to causing many diseases and cancers- by changing the DNA

in the person or by triggering a predisposition in the person's genetic map to

cause cancer. or disease.

remember brokovich (sp?) who proved that pacific G & E contaminated the

ground water which caused all those people to develop cancers? that maybe

happening in your area.....

nancie

From: Crystal

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:13 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: RE: heart disease

With so many neighbors with breast cancer I wonder how much is environmental

?

crystal

" Aslan, " said Lucy, " you're bigger. "

(Deep soft voice) " That is becuase you are older, little one, " answered he.

" Not because you are? "

" I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger. "

------ Lucy and Aslan in Prince Caspian

-- Re: heart disease

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

Not my area but dusty's. We do live in a toxic environment! I also believe

chlorine is extremely toxic and damages our health!

cw

crystal-

that is a great question. most of my friends and fellow colleagues who are

providers believe that the environment has a great impact on today's

diseases and cancers. there is so much toxicity out there with all the

chemicals, the hormones and antibiotics that are in the animal feed; the

list goes on- that has been directly linked to causing many diseases and

cancers- by changing the DNA in the person or by triggering a predisposition

in the person's genetic map to cause cancer. or disease.

remember brokovich (sp?) who proved that pacific G & E contaminated the

ground water which caused all those people to develop cancers? that maybe

happening in your area.....

nancie

From: Crystal

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:13 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: RE: heart disease

With so many neighbors with breast cancer I wonder how much is environmental

?

crystal

" Aslan, " said Lucy, " you're bigger. "

(Deep soft voice) " That is becuase you are older, little one, " answered he.

" Not because you are? "

" I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger. "

------ Lucy and Aslan in Prince Caspian

-- Re: heart disease

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

http://www.breastcancerchoices.org

Gracia

With so many neighbors with breast cancer I wonder how much is environmental

?

crystal

"

Recent Activity

a.. 19New Members

Visit Your Group

Meditation and

Lovingkindness

A Group

to share and learn.

Health

Early Detection

Know the symptoms

of breast cancer.

Best of Y! Groups

Discover groups

that are the best

of their class.

.

[Guest guest]

most definitely. chlorine is extremely toxic to the body, especially if the

exposure is over a long period.

From: Crystal

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:43 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Re: heart disease

Not my area but dusty's. We do live in a toxic environment! I also believe

chlorine is extremely toxic and damages our health!

cw

crystal-

that is a great question. most of my friends and fellow colleagues who are

providers believe that the environment has a great impact on today's

diseases and cancers. there is so much toxicity out there with all the

chemicals, the hormones and antibiotics that are in the animal feed; the

list goes on- that has been directly linked to causing many diseases and

cancers- by changing the DNA in the person or by triggering a predisposition

in the person's genetic map to cause cancer. or disease.

remember brokovich (sp?) who proved that pacific G & E contaminated the

ground water which caused all those people to develop cancers? that maybe

happening in your area.....

nancie

From: Crystal

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:13 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: RE: heart disease

With so many neighbors with breast cancer I wonder how much is environmental

?

crystal

" Aslan, " said Lucy, " you're bigger. "

(Deep soft voice) " That is becuase you are older, little one, " answered he.

" Not because you are? "

" I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger. "

------ Lucy and Aslan in Prince Caspian

-- Re: heart disease

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck

[Guest guest]

not actually. women were 10--20 years behind the men--but I don't know when

the time frame was.

Gracia

> Gracia wrote:

>>

>> no

>> women were not DYING of heart disease, even when they were menopausal.

>

> Two large and recent studies that contradict your statements. The first

> is a report of a large study in the 1990s, but it references the earlier

> studies, when women were indeed dying. - Chuck

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Like everyday in the shower!

cw

most definitely. chlorine is extremely toxic to the body, especially if the

exposure is over a long period.

From: Crystal

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:43 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: Re: heart disease

Not my area but dusty's. We do live in a toxic environment! I also believe

chlorine is extremely toxic and damages our health!

cw

crystal-

that is a great question. most of my friends and fellow colleagues who are

providers believe that the environment has a great impact on today's

diseases and cancers. there is so much toxicity out there with all the

chemicals, the hormones and antibiotics that are in the animal feed; the

list goes on- that has been directly linked to causing many diseases and

cancers- by changing the DNA in the person or by triggering a predisposition

in the person's genetic map to cause cancer. or disease.

remember brokovich (sp?) who proved that pacific G & E contaminated the

ground water which caused all those people to develop cancers? that maybe

happening in your area.....

nancie

From: Crystal

Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 8:13 PM

hypothyroidism

Subject: RE: heart disease

With so many neighbors with breast cancer I wonder how much is environmental

?

crystal

" Aslan, " said Lucy, " you're bigger. "

(Deep soft voice) " That is becuase you are older, little one, " answered he.

" Not because you are? "

" I am not. But every year you grow, you will find me bigger. "

------ Lucy and Aslan in Prince Caspian

-- Re: heart disease

Gracia,

You wrote:

>

> you are not understanding me.

> Chuck is older than the hills out west (my age),

Guilty as charged.

>...maybe he remembers when

> heart disease was called a man's disease.

Indeed. There was a time when most research was restricted to men to

avoid the complications of female reproductive hormones. When I reviewed

grant proposals for the NIH in the late 1980s they were trying to

reverse this by giving preference to research specifically aimed at

women. That was what led to the discovery that estrogen seems to protect

against cardiovascular conditions. After menopause, the risk for women

is now know to catch up to men. That was one of the reasons for

encouraging HRT, until they figured out they were trading heart problems

for cancer.

It was not a conspiracy of diagnosticians. There is a very real

difference in risk prior to menopause.

Chuck