Even though I live in America now, I still like to keep an eye on the British press to see what's going on in Britain. A little while ago, I came across an article in one of Britain's biggest newspapers, The Guardian. I found the article funny, but at the same time, shocking.
The headline of the article went like this: The 59 Ingredients in a Fast Food Strawberry Milkshake. Now, that's not a very good start. Is it? Fifty-nine ingredients. So, I looked a little further, and it turns out that in one fast food restaurant strawberry milkshake from a big fast food chain, there are two ingredients that are notably absent: Milk and Strawberries!! Does that put you off for life already? Well, let's see if I can put you off a bit further.
It turns out that the strawberry flavor they use to flavor their milkshakes is actually made from 40 different chemicals. Let me read you a couple of the names of these chemicals. This is just the strawberry flavor. Forty different chemicals.
* Amyl valerate
* Anethol
* Ethyl lactate
* Methylphenylglycidate (Oh, my word! That's a mouthful and a half!)
* Ionone
* Maltol
* Methyl benzoate
That's just to name but a few of those 40 ingredients that go into their strawberry flavoring.
Now, I don't know about you, but I've had strawberry milkshakes from fast food chains before, and some of them are very, very tasty. But after finding out that there's 59 ingredients, and that both milk and strawberries are absent from these milkshakes, I can definitely say I've been put off for life, and I hope you are as well.
So, is there a healthy alternative? Of course! And in a future video, I will be showing you how to make your own raw, very healthy, strawberry milkshake, start to finish, in only one minute. So, I hope you'll going to enjoy that recipe.
But in the meantime, now that you've got this information about fast food restaurants' strawberry milkshakes, (and I'm sure this goes for their other milkshakes as well) I hope you will want to avoid them like the plague. I know I sure will.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Judge lets off rapist of girl, 10
June 25, 2007
A JUDGE spared a man who raped a girl of ten in a park — because she wore a “provocative” frilly bra and thong.
Window cleaner Keith Fenn, 25 — who could have got life in jail — will be free in just FOUR MONTHS after admitting twice having sex with the child.
Judge Julian Hall decided to be lenient because the girl “didn’t look 10”.
He caused fury earlier this year by freeing another paedophile, telling him to buy his six-year-old victim a new bicycle.
The judge referred to the 10-year-old as a “young woman”, and called her “very disturbed, very needy and sexually precocious”.
He told Oxford Crown Court: “She liked to dress provocatively. She was 10. She’d been in care since she was four.
“Did she look 10? Certainly not. She looked 16.”
Fenn, of Oxford, got two years’ jail but will soon be free because of time spent awaiting sentence. Accomplice Darren Wright, 34, of Henley-on-Thames walked free after getting just nine months.
Last night, campaigner Dr Michele Elliott of children’s charity Kidscape called the sentences “beyond pathetic”.
The NSPCC added: “There’s no excuse.”
A JUDGE spared a man who raped a girl of ten in a park — because she wore a “provocative” frilly bra and thong.
Window cleaner Keith Fenn, 25 — who could have got life in jail — will be free in just FOUR MONTHS after admitting twice having sex with the child.
Judge Julian Hall decided to be lenient because the girl “didn’t look 10”.
He caused fury earlier this year by freeing another paedophile, telling him to buy his six-year-old victim a new bicycle.
The judge referred to the 10-year-old as a “young woman”, and called her “very disturbed, very needy and sexually precocious”.
He told Oxford Crown Court: “She liked to dress provocatively. She was 10. She’d been in care since she was four.
“Did she look 10? Certainly not. She looked 16.”
Fenn, of Oxford, got two years’ jail but will soon be free because of time spent awaiting sentence. Accomplice Darren Wright, 34, of Henley-on-Thames walked free after getting just nine months.
Last night, campaigner Dr Michele Elliott of children’s charity Kidscape called the sentences “beyond pathetic”.
The NSPCC added: “There’s no excuse.”
Many Benefits of Birth at Home
By REBECCA GARDINER
Monday, 02 July 2007
• Howick and Pakuranga Times
ONLY two per cent of Kiwi women do it, but one Bucklands Beach mother says she’d do it all again in a flash.
A little more than nine weeks ago, Rachel Springett gave birth to a healthy baby boy in the comfort of her own home.
While the vast majority of New Zealand women opt for hospital births, Ms Springett chose to have her third child at home.
The decision was an easy one for the former Howick Primary schoolteacher, who was already mum to two teenage daughters before the arrival of baby Tane.
“It’s really empowering,” she says. “You have more control to be able to be yourself and you’re more likely to trust your instincts. [Labour] has become so medicalised. It’s such a natural thing but women often don’t trust themselves.”
She describes the day as “perfect” and says she’d recommend homebirth to anyone.
“Having the familiar background made me relax so much more. It just made me feel ‘this is right’. I totally trusted the midwifes. They talked me through it the whole time. I never felt unsafe. The hospital’s just 15 minutes away so it was there as a backup.”
Ms Springett says giving birth at home was also an eye-opener for her partner Wayde and two daughters.
“Society has lost that passing down of mothering skills. My girls learnt so much,” she says.
“[My partner] thought it was a real plus — he wasn’t just hanging around going ‘oh my god’.”
Mother-of-three Lesley Hinson has been a New Zealand registered midwife since 1986 and is a strong advocate of planned homebirths.
Along with several other midwives, she recently led an information evening at Howick’s Crawford Medical Centre for those interested in homebirth.
In New Zealand, homebirths aren’t “the norm” and many women just “go with the flow”, says Ms Hinson.
“We’re all victims of the society we live in. We’re all conditioned to what we grew up with.
“Society gets the image that every baby needs to be born with all the emergency equipment around it. If we don’t promote [homebirth] they don’t think about it.”
She says homebirth is an option for a woman who’s had an uncomplicated pregnancy, has previously given birth and is in good health.
“Some people choose homebirths because they want that privacy. What most women like is that their husband doesn’t need to go anywhere. They’re more relaxed in their own place.”
Midwives are trained to deal with emergencies and don’t hesitate to refer their patients to hospital if there’s a problem during labour, adds Ms Hinson.
“We don’t hang around, but I can’t remember the last time I had to transfer a baby in.”
Although she’s an advocate of planned homebirth, Ms Hinson stresses the final decision of where to have their baby is up to the woman concerned.
“Homebirth is not the average person’s plan, depending on who you know and what you’ve been exposed to. If I meet people and they choose to go into hospital then that’s fine.
“Every woman’s different and every baby’s different. Our group is promoting planned homebirths. We give people information and they make their choices,” says Ms Hinson.
The next information evening on planned homebirths is in August.
For details, contact Joyce on 537-1808, or Clare 533-0233.
Monday, 02 July 2007
• Howick and Pakuranga Times
ONLY two per cent of Kiwi women do it, but one Bucklands Beach mother says she’d do it all again in a flash.
A little more than nine weeks ago, Rachel Springett gave birth to a healthy baby boy in the comfort of her own home.
While the vast majority of New Zealand women opt for hospital births, Ms Springett chose to have her third child at home.
The decision was an easy one for the former Howick Primary schoolteacher, who was already mum to two teenage daughters before the arrival of baby Tane.
“It’s really empowering,” she says. “You have more control to be able to be yourself and you’re more likely to trust your instincts. [Labour] has become so medicalised. It’s such a natural thing but women often don’t trust themselves.”
She describes the day as “perfect” and says she’d recommend homebirth to anyone.
“Having the familiar background made me relax so much more. It just made me feel ‘this is right’. I totally trusted the midwifes. They talked me through it the whole time. I never felt unsafe. The hospital’s just 15 minutes away so it was there as a backup.”
Ms Springett says giving birth at home was also an eye-opener for her partner Wayde and two daughters.
“Society has lost that passing down of mothering skills. My girls learnt so much,” she says.
“[My partner] thought it was a real plus — he wasn’t just hanging around going ‘oh my god’.”
Mother-of-three Lesley Hinson has been a New Zealand registered midwife since 1986 and is a strong advocate of planned homebirths.
Along with several other midwives, she recently led an information evening at Howick’s Crawford Medical Centre for those interested in homebirth.
In New Zealand, homebirths aren’t “the norm” and many women just “go with the flow”, says Ms Hinson.
“We’re all victims of the society we live in. We’re all conditioned to what we grew up with.
“Society gets the image that every baby needs to be born with all the emergency equipment around it. If we don’t promote [homebirth] they don’t think about it.”
She says homebirth is an option for a woman who’s had an uncomplicated pregnancy, has previously given birth and is in good health.
“Some people choose homebirths because they want that privacy. What most women like is that their husband doesn’t need to go anywhere. They’re more relaxed in their own place.”
Midwives are trained to deal with emergencies and don’t hesitate to refer their patients to hospital if there’s a problem during labour, adds Ms Hinson.
“We don’t hang around, but I can’t remember the last time I had to transfer a baby in.”
Although she’s an advocate of planned homebirth, Ms Hinson stresses the final decision of where to have their baby is up to the woman concerned.
“Homebirth is not the average person’s plan, depending on who you know and what you’ve been exposed to. If I meet people and they choose to go into hospital then that’s fine.
“Every woman’s different and every baby’s different. Our group is promoting planned homebirths. We give people information and they make their choices,” says Ms Hinson.
The next information evening on planned homebirths is in August.
For details, contact Joyce on 537-1808, or Clare 533-0233.
Baby Dies From Toxic Breast Milk
Codeine prescribed for postnatal pain can produce deadly concentrations of morphine in breast milk.
A lawsuit over the death of
Tariq's mother Rani was prescribed Tylenol 3 for lingering episiotomy pain. Although Tariq was initially healthy, he developed increasing lethargy after the seven-day mark, and after 11 days he was brought to a pediatrician due to concerns about his skin color and poor feeding. Two days later, Tariq died.
Tariq was found to have high blood levels of acetaminophen, and a blood concentration of morphine six times higher than would normally be considered safe in a neonate. Tylenol 3 contains both acetaminophen and codeine, which is metabolized to morphine in the body. However, not everyone metabolizes codeine at the same rate. Rani Jamieson was an ultra-rapid metabolizer of codeine to morphine, which means that the opiate built up in her breastmilk very fast.
While ultra-rapid metabolization of codeine occurs in about 1 percent of Caucasians, it occurs in as much as 30 percent of some African and Asian populations.National Review of Medicine June 15, 2007
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
| Mothers must use extreme caution when taking any drugs while breastfeeding, because those drugs could be transferred to your baby. Prescription drugs like Tylenol 3 are not the only danger. The excessive acetaminophen you can get from regular Tylenol, even without the codeine, can be extremely dangerous. Because some 5 billion over-the-counter medications are sold in the But you, or your baby, could suffer from serious side effects and possibly die unintentionally if you don't take them with the proper care. Even environmental chemicals like rocket fuel are sadly now being found in breast milk. But nonetheless, breastfeeding is without a doubt the healthiest way to feed your baby. Breastfed infants have added protection against:
So although this child died from breastfeeding, that in no way discounts its value as breastfeeding is not only incredibly good for your baby, it's good for moms, too! |
Related Articles:
Another Tragic and Unnecessary Death
The Sunscreen Myth: How Sunscreen Products Actually Promote Cancer
The hard-hitting NewsTarget piece linked below explains in detail how the idea that sunscreen prevents cancer is nothing more than a myth promoted by industries seeking to make a profit off of human suffering.
In fact, sunscreen actually promotes cancer by blocking your body's absorption of ultraviolet radiation, and therefore blocking the production of vitamin D in your skin.
Studies have shown that vitamin D can prevent as many as 77 of all cancers. In addition, most sunscreen lotions also contain cancer-causing chemicals.
A portion of the profits from the sale of these lotions is then donated to organizations such as the American Cancer Society, which in turn runs public service ads encouraging the use of sunscreens.
Proper nutrition is a better way to prevent sunburn then sunscreen lotion. Berries and microalgae such as spirulina, astaxanthin, and blue-green algae can make the body naturally resistant to sunburn, as well as similar radiation damage to the eyes and optic nerve.
NewsTarget.com June 15, 2007Dr. Mercola's Comment:
| How many people know that not getting enough sun KILLS 50,000 people from cancer deaths every year in the US alone? The myth that the sun is detrimental to your health, and that sunscreen is a necessity to guard against cancer is one of the most pervasive hoaxes in our society today. Not only do sunscreens promote cancer by blocking your vitamin D production, they are also likely carcinogens all by themselves. A study in the April 2004 Journal of Chromatography found that there is significant penetration of all sunscreen agents they studied into the skin. So when you use most sunscreens, your body is absorbing synthetic chemicals, and with experts' recommendations to apply generous amounts of the product every few hours, you will likely be absorbing a fair amount. Some of these chemicals are quite dangerous. Octyl methoxycinnamate (OMC), which is present in 90 percent of sunscreen brands, was found to kill mouse cells even at low doses. Sunburn should always be avoided, but there are many all-natural ways to protect yourself from sunburn that you can use instead of resorting to the toxic infusions of commercial sunscreens. Boosting your skin's "internal sunscreen" from within with effective antoxidants from whole fresh vegetables and fruits like goji berries (not the juice), raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, are far healthier options. Additionally, slathering on some aloe vera gel can also be helpful. I recommend testing your vitamin D levels to make sure you're not deficient before resorting to sunscreen of any kind. For more information about the vital importance of vitamin D from sunlight, please review my article Reduce Your Risk of Cancer With Sunlight Exposure, if you haven't already seen it. You might also want to keep an eye out for my forthcoming book, Dark Deception, which is due to be published in 2008. It will take an in-depth look at all of the various issues relating to sunscreen, cancer, vitamin D, and sunlight. |
Related Articles:
Slathering on Sunscreen Does Not Prevent Cancer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)