STROKE signs

Stroke has a New Indicator     They say if you email this to ten people, you stand a chance of saving one life. Will you send this along?  Blood Clots/Stroke - They Now Have a Fourth Indicator,  theTongue  I will continue to forward this every time it comes around! STROKE: Remember the 1st Three Letters.....S. T. R.   STROKE  IDENTIFICATION It only takes a minute to read this. A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3 hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough.  RECOGNIZING A STROKE Thank God for the sense to remember the '3' steps - STR. Read and Learn! Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify. Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to recognize the symptoms of a stroke. Now doctors say a  bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three simple questions: S  *Ask the individual to SMILE. T  *Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK    A SIMPLE SENTENCE  (Coherently)  (i.e.  Chicken Soup) R  *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS. If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call emergency number immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher. New Sign of a Stroke -------- Stick out Your Tongue NOTE:  Another 'sign' of a stroke is this: Ask the person to 'stick' out his tongue. If the tongue is 'crooked', if it goes to one side or the other that is also an indication of a stroke. A cardiologist says if everyone who gets this e-mail sends it to 10 people; you can bet that at least one life will be saved. I have done my part. Will you?

How Do Soft Drinks Affect Us?

How Do Soft Drinks Affect Us?

More and more, many of us exchange drinking regular water with soft drinks. But soft drinks are not a healthy alternative, as we well know. But how unhealthy is it really? What potential adverse effects can drinking a certain amount of soft drinks lead to? This infographic was prepared and summarized to get these important points across.

By Alexandra Sifferlin 

5 Things You Should Know About Chicken Pox and Shingles

The news raised questions about how likely adults are to get chicken pox and how chicken pox is related to a condition that’s more common among adults, shingles. So here are some quick facts about the infections.

If you never had chicken pox as a child, can you still get the infection as an adult?
Yes. Although most cases of chicken pox occur before age 10, adults who have never contracted the infection are still at risk.
Can chicken pox be more severe in adults?
Most people get chicken pox when they are young, but the symptoms can be more severe among people who catch the infection in an older age. They include loss of appetite, fever, headache, tiredness and rashes, all of which can be more taxing on the health of elderly adults.
What is shingles, and how is it different from chicken pox?
Shingles, also known as zoster or herpes zoster, is a painful skin rash caused by the same virus responsible for chicken pox: the varicella zoster virus. Even if you had chicken pox in the past, you can still contract shingles. That’s because the chicken-pox virus remains in the body, lying dormant in the roots of nerves, and can reactivate many years later. It’s not clear why the virus reawakens — in some people it never does — but researchers believe that the virus is triggered as the immune system weakens with age or in conditions of stress.
About 1 out of 3 people in the U.S. is affected by shingles at some point in their lives, with the majority of cases occurring in men and women ages 60 and older.
Shingles is less contagious than chicken pox and cannot be passed from person to person. However, the varicella zoster virus can be spread from a person with shingles to someone who has never had chicken pox. The unfortunate recipient might develop chicken pox, but not shingles.
How long is a person contagious with the chicken pox or shingles?
The infection can take anywhere from 10 to 21 days to develop after exposure to someone with chicken pox or shingles. People with chicken pox are contagious a couple days before their rash appears and remain so until all of their blisters have scabbed. A person with shingles, on the other hand, can only spread their infection while their skin rash is still blistering. They’re not contagious before the blisters occur, and are no longer contagious once the rash starts to scab.
What’s the best way to prevent chicken pox and shingles?
To avoid chicken pox, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends two doses of the chicken-pox vaccine — which is 98% effective — for kids, adolescents and adults who have not had chicken pox. Adults who have not had the disease and may be in close contact with young children who are likely to be infected should consider getting vaccinated. Children should receive the first dose when they are between 12 months old and 15 months old, and a second dose when they are 4 years old to 6 years old. The U.S. started chicken-pox immunizations in 1995, so Walters would not have been vaccinated as a child.
There is also a shingles vaccine. Zostavax is recommended for people ages 60 and older since they are most vulnerable to the infection. Currently, the CDC doesn’t have a recommendation for the vaccine in people ages 50 to 59, but the Food and Drug Administration did approve the shot for this age group as well. According to the CDC, shingles-vaccination rates among adults are low, but there was a 16% increase in people ages 60 and older who were immunized in 2011. While the vaccine cannot protect you completely from a bout with shingles, it can make the rashes less painful and help clear them up more quickly.
 http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/29/5-things-you-should-know-about-chickenpox-and-shingles/

Antibiotics and the Meat We Eat

By DAVID A. KESSLER

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/opinion/antibiotics-and-the-meat-we-eat.html?_r=2&

Published: March 27, 2013 

SCIENTISTS at the Food and Drug Administration systematically monitor the meat and poultry sold in supermarkets around the country for the presence of disease-causing bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. These food products are bellwethers that tell us how bad the crisis of antibiotic resistance is getting. And they’re telling us it’s getting worse.

But this is only part of the story. While the F.D.A. can see what kinds of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are coming out of livestock facilities, the agency doesn’t know enough about the antibiotics that are being fed to these animals. This is a major public health problem, because giving healthy livestock these drugs breeds superbugs that can infect people. We need to know more about the use of antibiotics in the production of our meat and poultry. The results could be a matter of life and death.

In 2011, drugmakers sold nearly 30 million pounds of antibiotics for livestock — the largest amount yet recorded and about 80 percent of all reported antibiotic sales that year. The rest was for human health care. We don’t know much more except that, rather than healing sick animals, these drugs are often fed to animals at low levels to make them grow faster and to suppress diseases that arise because they live in dangerously close quarters on top of one another’s waste.

It may sound counterintuitive, but feeding antibiotics to livestock at low levels may do the most harm. When he accepted the Nobel Prize in 1945 for his discovery of penicillin, Alexander Fleming warned that “there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to nonlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.” He probably could not have imagined that, one day, we would be doing this to billions of animals in factorylike facilities.

The F.D.A. started testing retail meat and poultry for antibiotic-resistant bacteria in 1996, shortly before my term as commissioner ended. The agency’s most recent report on superbugs in our meat, released in February and covering retail purchases in 2011, was 82 pages long and broke down its results by four different kinds of meat and poultry products and dozens of species and strains of bacteria.

It was not until 2008, however, that Congress required companies to tell the F.D.A. the quantity of antibiotics they sold for use in agriculture. The agency’s latest report, on 2011 sales and also released in February, was just four pages long — including the cover and two pages of boilerplate. There was no information on how these drugs were administered or to which animals and why.

We have more than enough scientific evidence to justify curbing the rampant use of antibiotics for livestock, yet the food and drug industries are not only fighting proposed legislation to reduce these practices, they also oppose collecting the data. Unfortunately, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, as well as the F.D.A., is aiding and abetting them.

The Senate committee recently approved the Animal Drug User Fee Act, a bill that would authorize the F.D.A. to collect fees from veterinary-drug makers to finance the agency’s review of their products. Public health experts had urged the committee to require drug companies to provide more detailed antibiotic sales data to the agency. Yet the F.D.A. stood by silently as the committee declined to act, rejecting a modest proposal from Senators Kirsten E. Gillibrand of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, both Democrats, that required the agency to report data it already collects but does not disclose.

In the House, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Louise M. Slaughter of New York, also Democrats, have introduced a more comprehensive measure. It would not only authorize the F.D.A. to collect more detailed data from drug companies, but would also require food producers to disclose how often they fed antibiotics to animals at low levels to make them grow faster and to offset poor conditions.

This information would be particularly valuable to the F.D.A., which asked drugmakers last April to voluntarily stop selling antibiotics for these purposes. The agency has said it would mandate such action if those practices persisted, but it has no data to determine whether the voluntary policy is working. The House bill would remedy this situation, though there are no Republican sponsors.

Combating resistance requires monitoring both the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in our food, as well as the use of antibiotics on livestock. In human medicine, hospitals increasingly track resistance rates and antibiotic prescription rates to understand how the use of these drugs affects resistance. We need to cover both sides of this equation in agriculture, too.

I appreciate that not every lawmaker is as convinced as I am that feeding low-dose antibiotics to animals is a recipe for disaster. But most, if not all of them, recognize that we are facing an antibiotic resistance crisis, as evidenced by last year’s bipartisan passage of a measure aimed at fighting superbugs by stimulating the development of new antibiotics that treat serious infections. Why are lawmakers so reluctant to find out how 80 percent of our antibiotics are used?

We cannot avoid tough questions because we’re afraid of the answers. Lawmakers must let the public know how the drugs they need to stay well are being used to produce cheaper meat.

David A. Kessler was commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration from 1990 to 1997. 

FDA to crack down on antibiotics in animals reared for meat

Regulators announce new guidelines for drug firms to phase out some antibiotics as a growth enhancer in livestock.The Food and Drug Administration is taking steps toward phasing out the use of some antibiotics in animals processed for meat in the US, citing a potential threat to public health.

Many cattle, hog and poultry producers give their animals antibiotics regularly to ensure that they are healthy and to make the animals grow faster. Now, the agency has announced that it will ask pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily stop labeling drugs important for treating human infection as acceptable for that growth promotion in animals.
If the companies sign on — and one major company has already said it will — using those antibiotics to promote growth in animals would be illegal. Prescriptions would be required to use the drugs for animal illnesses.
The FDA has been debating how to address the issue of antibiotics in meat for several years as consumers have become more aware of the issue and are clamoring for antibiotic-free meat. McDonald's, among other companies, has moved to limit the drugs in their meat, pushing many animal producers to go along.
The FDA move is designed to limit antibiotic-resistant diseases in humans. Repeated exposure to antibioticscan lead germs to become resistant to the drug so that it is no longer effective in treating a particular illness.
Antibiotic resistance is a growing public health problem. In September the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released sobering estimates that more than 23,000 people a year are dying from drug-resistant infections.
The biggest risk is from germs spread in hospitals, and it's not clear how much of the problem is related to the use of drugs in meat. Still, the FDA says this is one step toward decreasing resistance.
"We need to be selective about the drugs we use in animals and when we use them," said William Flynn of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. "Antimicrobial resistance may not be completely preventable, but we need to do what we can to slow it down."
The new guidance will give the companies three years to comply.
Michael Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner of foods, said he believes asking industry to make the changes is the fastest way to help phase the drugs out. If the FDA made the process mandatory, he said, the agency would have had to move forward with a complex regulatory process that could take years.
"We have high confidence based on dialogue with industry that this initiative will succeed," Taylor said.
Drug company Zoetis, a leading manufacturer of animal antibiotics, has already said they will comply.
"This reflects our continued commitment to antibiotic stewardship and represents the many ways that Zoetis promotes the responsible use of antimicrobial drugs in animals," the company's statement said.
Animal agriculture groups will not have much of a choice in the matter if drug companies sign on and make the drugs' use illegal. But many antibiotics will still be available for those producers to use, just not those that the FDA has classified as most important for treating human infections. Some of the antibiotics that could not be used in animals are penicillins and tetracyclines, the FDA said.
Many animal groups signaled support for the FDA guidance after it was announced Wednesday, including the National Pork Producers Council. Still, Dr. Liz Wagstrom of the pork producers' group said the FDA action will mean "real change" in the way antibiotics are used on the farm, as some animals may not grow as quickly and producers may see more disease. She said she does not know how much it will cost the industry.
Some advocates pushing to rid the animal food supply of antibiotics said the FDA did not go far enough. Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York, a microbiologist, said the FDA should have made the action mandatory. The guidance "falls woefully short of what is needed to address a public health crisis," she said.
Others hailed the agency move as progress.
"We commend FDA for taking the first steps since 1977 to broadly reduce antibiotic overuse in livestock," said Laura Rogers of The Pew Charitable Trusts' human health and industrial farming campaign. "There is more work to do, but this is a promising start, especially after decades of inaction."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/dec/11/fda-crackdown-antibiotics-animals-meat

Are you an oyster lover?

Here are some benefits of eating oysters:

1. Oysters contain more zinc than any other food. Zinc is necessary for proper growth and development, strengthens the immune system and promotes healing.
2. Oysters are heart healthy. They are high in omega – 3 fatty acids, potassium and magnesium which can help reduce your risk of heart attack, stroke and lower blood pressure.
3. Oysters can help you lose weight! They are low in calories, low in fat and a good source of protein which makes you feel fuller after eating.
4. Oysters are a good source of other essential nutrients. These include vitamins A, E, and C, zinc, iron, calcium, selenium, and vitamin B12.
5. Oysters can help improve your energy. They are a good source of iron which helps the body transport oxygen to individual cells giving you more energy.
6. Oysters can help lower your cholesterol. A study done by the University of Washington found that eating oysters can help raise the HDLs (good cholesterol levels) and lower the LDL’s (bad cholesterol levels).

Other interesting tidbits about oysters:

1. Oysters taste better in cooler weather. Spawning, which occurs in the warmer months of May, June, July and August, affects the taste. They are not bad, just not as tasty as in the cooler months.
2. Oysters  are considered to be an aphrodisiac. American and Italian researchers found that they were rich in amino acids which trigger increased levels of sex hormones. Their high zinc content aids the production of testosterone.
3. Oysters can be safely eaten in non “R” months. The rule of thumb before refrigeration was not to eat oysters in months whose names have no “R”. This would be May through August when the hot weather would not allow for safe storage of the oysters. Thankfully, for all us oyster lovers, refrigeration makes it possible to eat them all year round!
4. Oysters are good for your garden. Oyster shells are high in calcium which helps balance your soil’s pH. Calcium also helps build strong cell walls which leads to healthier plants. BUT – don’t just throw your oyster shells in the garden though, they should be ground – or you could just purchase the ground oyster shell lime at the local garden center.
5. Oysters can contain harmful bacteria. Be sure of your source! Oysters are filter feeders meaning that they concentrate anything present in the surrounding water. In the gulf coast area, there would occasionally be warnings (after heavy rains causing the potential for water contamination), not to eat the bay seafood.
6. Shucking (opening) oysters is a competitive sport. Shucking oyster competitions are held worldwide. There is even a Guinness World Oyster Opening Championship in Galway, Ireland.
7. Eating oysters is environmentally friendly. They are on the Seafood Watch list as a “best choice”. This means that seafood in this category is abundant, well-managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.
I knew I liked oysters – now I have other reasons besides just the taste!

How about you – are you an oyster lover?

Pineapple Smoothie for acne problems and constipation

Pineapple Smoothie
Mix the following in a blender.
1-2 cups of fresh pineapples
1/2 cups apple slices
1/4-cup fresh apple juice
1/2-cup almond milk (more or less as needed)
1 banana
1-tablespoon lecithin
2-tablespoons flax seeds
2 teaspoons bran (wheat, oat or rice)
You can add more lecithin if you like. Lecithin does not have a taste. This smoothie is jam packed with fiber.

http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2013/07/six-smoothie-recipes-for-constipation-and-acne-relief-2497306.html