Just one more bit of evidence that drugs almost always have deleterious side effects. When will the public become aware that there are much, much better alternatives? Big money talks and the media listens. We only hear what they want us to. If you want more Truth you have to SEEK.
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating whether four drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other immune system diseases might increase the risk of cancer in children.The FDA has received reports of 30 cases of cancer among children and young adults treated with the drugs. The agency did not make clear how many children had taken the drugs.The drugs involved are:
1. Enbrel, sold by Amgen and Wyeth2. Remicade, sold by Johnson & Johnson and Schering-Plough 3. Humira, sold by Abbott Laboratories4. Cimzia, sold by the Belgian company UCB."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/28/do-arthritis-drugs-cause-cancer.aspx?source=nl
(Be sure to read Dr. Mercols’s comments too.)
One more reason to seek out the benefits of alternative medicine in its many forms. Most effective alternative therapies have very low if any side effects. One example is ozone therapy.
“Ozone has been used successfully on scores of diseases in Europe, especially Germany, for over 50 years. Over 6,000 articles on the medical usage's of ozone are in the world literature. Nearly every disease process responds favorably to any therapy that effectively increases cellular oxygen content. Furthermore, the safety profile of proper ozone administration is virtually unparalleled. I had the opportunity to witness multiple intravenous ozone treatments in the office of Dr. Horst Kief in West Germany. It is a very simple, very safe procedure. In a survey of German ozone therapists, 5,579,238 ozone treatments on 384,775 patients demonstrated a side effect rate of only 0.0007%, and the side effects were uniformly minor and not even remotely life-threatening. On the other hand, over a million patients are hospitalized annually in the US. due to side effects of prescription medication, and over 100,000 of such individuals die from such drug usage. If one person in the U.S. dies even indirectly from the usage of a vitamin product or an herbal concoction, the FDA quickly moves to outlaw accessibility to such a product, but they remain strangely blinded to the carnage wrought annually by our pharmaceutical industry.”
The politics of AIDS and Ozone
by Thomas Levy, MD
http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/politicsofozone.html
|
|
|---|
DRUGS VS. OZONE THERAPY
Just one more bit of evidence that drugs almost always have deleterious side effects. When will the public become aware that there are much, much better alternatives? Big money talks and the media listens. We only hear what they want us to. If you want more Truth you have to SEEK.
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating whether four drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other immune system diseases might increase the risk of cancer in children.The FDA has received reports of 30 cases of cancer among children and young adults treated with the drugs. The agency did not make clear how many children had taken the drugs.The drugs involved are:
1. Enbrel, sold by Amgen and Wyeth2. Remicade, sold by Johnson & Johnson and Schering-Plough 3. Humira, sold by Abbott Laboratories4. Cimzia, sold by the Belgian company UCB."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/28/do-arthritis-drugs-cause-cancer.aspx?source=nl
(Be sure to read Dr. Mercols’s comments too.)
One more reason to seek out the benefits of alternative medicine in its many forms. Most effective alternative therapies have very low if any side effects. One example is ozone therapy.
“Ozone has been used successfully on scores of diseases in Europe, especially Germany, for over 50 years. Over 6,000 articles on the medical usage's of ozone are in the world literature. Nearly every disease process responds favorably to any therapy that effectively increases cellular oxygen content. Furthermore, the safety profile of proper ozone administration is virtually unparalleled. I had the opportunity to witness multiple intravenous ozone treatments in the office of Dr. Horst Kief in West Germany. It is a very simple, very safe procedure. In a survey of German ozone therapists, 5,579,238 ozone treatments on 384,775 patients demonstrated a side effect rate of only 0.0007%, and the side effects were uniformly minor and not even remotely life-threatening. On the other hand, over a million patients are hospitalized annually in the US. due to side effects of prescription medication, and over 100,000 of such individuals die from such drug usage. If one person in the U.S. dies even indirectly from the usage of a vitamin product or an herbal concoction, the FDA quickly moves to outlaw accessibility to such a product, but they remain strangely blinded to the carnage wrought annually by our pharmaceutical industry.”
The politics of AIDS and Ozone
by Thomas Levy, MD
http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/politicsofozone.html
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating whether four drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other immune system diseases might increase the risk of cancer in children.The FDA has received reports of 30 cases of cancer among children and young adults treated with the drugs. The agency did not make clear how many children had taken the drugs.The drugs involved are:
1. Enbrel, sold by Amgen and Wyeth2. Remicade, sold by Johnson & Johnson and Schering-Plough 3. Humira, sold by Abbott Laboratories4. Cimzia, sold by the Belgian company UCB."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/28/do-arthritis-drugs-cause-cancer.aspx?source=nl
(Be sure to read Dr. Mercols’s comments too.)
One more reason to seek out the benefits of alternative medicine in its many forms. Most effective alternative therapies have very low if any side effects. One example is ozone therapy.
“Ozone has been used successfully on scores of diseases in Europe, especially Germany, for over 50 years. Over 6,000 articles on the medical usage's of ozone are in the world literature. Nearly every disease process responds favorably to any therapy that effectively increases cellular oxygen content. Furthermore, the safety profile of proper ozone administration is virtually unparalleled. I had the opportunity to witness multiple intravenous ozone treatments in the office of Dr. Horst Kief in West Germany. It is a very simple, very safe procedure. In a survey of German ozone therapists, 5,579,238 ozone treatments on 384,775 patients demonstrated a side effect rate of only 0.0007%, and the side effects were uniformly minor and not even remotely life-threatening. On the other hand, over a million patients are hospitalized annually in the US. due to side effects of prescription medication, and over 100,000 of such individuals die from such drug usage. If one person in the U.S. dies even indirectly from the usage of a vitamin product or an herbal concoction, the FDA quickly moves to outlaw accessibility to such a product, but they remain strangely blinded to the carnage wrought annually by our pharmaceutical industry.”
The politics of AIDS and Ozone
by Thomas Levy, MD
http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/politicsofozone.html
DRUGS VS. OZONE THERAPY
Just one more bit of evidence that drugs almost always have deleterious side effects. When will the public become aware that there are much, much better alternatives? Big money talks and the media listens. We only hear what they want us to. If you want more Truth you have to SEEK.
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating whether four drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other immune system diseases might increase the risk of cancer in children.The FDA has received reports of 30 cases of cancer among children and young adults treated with the drugs. The agency did not make clear how many children had taken the drugs.The drugs involved are:
1. Enbrel, sold by Amgen and Wyeth2. Remicade, sold by Johnson & Johnson and Schering-Plough 3. Humira, sold by Abbott Laboratories4. Cimzia, sold by the Belgian company UCB."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/28/do-arthritis-drugs-cause-cancer.aspx?source=nl
(Be sure to read Dr. Mercols’s comments too.)
One more reason to seek out the benefits of alternative medicine in its many forms. Most effective alternative therapies have very low if any side effects. One example is ozone therapy.
“Ozone has been used successfully on scores of diseases in Europe, especially Germany, for over 50 years. Over 6,000 articles on the medical usage's of ozone are in the world literature. Nearly every disease process responds favorably to any therapy that effectively increases cellular oxygen content. Furthermore, the safety profile of proper ozone administration is virtually unparalleled. I had the opportunity to witness multiple intravenous ozone treatments in the office of Dr. Horst Kief in West Germany. It is a very simple, very safe procedure. In a survey of German ozone therapists, 5,579,238 ozone treatments on 384,775 patients demonstrated a side effect rate of only 0.0007%, and the side effects were uniformly minor and not even remotely life-threatening. On the other hand, over a million patients are hospitalized annually in the US. due to side effects of prescription medication, and over 100,000 of such individuals die from such drug usage. If one person in the U.S. dies even indirectly from the usage of a vitamin product or an herbal concoction, the FDA quickly moves to outlaw accessibility to such a product, but they remain strangely blinded to the carnage wrought annually by our pharmaceutical industry.”
The politics of AIDS and Ozone
by Thomas Levy, MD
http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/politicsofozone.html
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating whether four drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other immune system diseases might increase the risk of cancer in children.The FDA has received reports of 30 cases of cancer among children and young adults treated with the drugs. The agency did not make clear how many children had taken the drugs.The drugs involved are:
1. Enbrel, sold by Amgen and Wyeth2. Remicade, sold by Johnson & Johnson and Schering-Plough 3. Humira, sold by Abbott Laboratories4. Cimzia, sold by the Belgian company UCB."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/28/do-arthritis-drugs-cause-cancer.aspx?source=nl
(Be sure to read Dr. Mercols’s comments too.)
One more reason to seek out the benefits of alternative medicine in its many forms. Most effective alternative therapies have very low if any side effects. One example is ozone therapy.
“Ozone has been used successfully on scores of diseases in Europe, especially Germany, for over 50 years. Over 6,000 articles on the medical usage's of ozone are in the world literature. Nearly every disease process responds favorably to any therapy that effectively increases cellular oxygen content. Furthermore, the safety profile of proper ozone administration is virtually unparalleled. I had the opportunity to witness multiple intravenous ozone treatments in the office of Dr. Horst Kief in West Germany. It is a very simple, very safe procedure. In a survey of German ozone therapists, 5,579,238 ozone treatments on 384,775 patients demonstrated a side effect rate of only 0.0007%, and the side effects were uniformly minor and not even remotely life-threatening. On the other hand, over a million patients are hospitalized annually in the US. due to side effects of prescription medication, and over 100,000 of such individuals die from such drug usage. If one person in the U.S. dies even indirectly from the usage of a vitamin product or an herbal concoction, the FDA quickly moves to outlaw accessibility to such a product, but they remain strangely blinded to the carnage wrought annually by our pharmaceutical industry.”
The politics of AIDS and Ozone
by Thomas Levy, MD
http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/politicsofozone.html
Cedarberg SOD Tea
Cedarberg SOD Tea is nutritious health drink that is caffeine free, low in tannin and rich in anti-oxidants which are known to combat free radicals that are harmful to our body.
Unofficial impact factors
Posted in
impact factors,
open access
Biomed Central has calculated unofficial impact factors for many of its titles that are not yet covered in Journal Citation Reports -- they used ISI data to figure out the IFs for ~100 BMC titles. Seems like a great way to work around the delay between when a journal begins publication and when ISI begins tracking/calculating IFs.
More here on the Biomed Central blog and here on the BMC Impact Factor FAQ.
More here on the Biomed Central blog and here on the BMC Impact Factor FAQ.
X-RAY DANGERS AND PROTECTION
WANT TO GET YOUR MIND BLOWN? READ THIS:
“John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the leading experts in the world in these issues. He is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.
The evidence presented in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from Cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are x-ray-induced.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/07/x-ray-part-one.aspx
STILL WANT TO GET THAT X-RAY? IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? BEFORE I GET TO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUSELF FROM OVER EXPOSURE, BESIDES ABSTINENCE, CHECK OUT THE FACTS:
While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest non-therapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:
"Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact."
I BEGAN TO LOOK INTO THIS WHEN MY MOTHER CAME DOWN WITH CANCER. BY THE WAY, IT WAS PROBABLY CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF DRUGS FOR ANOTHER CONDITION, WHICH SAVED HER LIFE BUT WITH THE PRICE OF BEING A CARCINOGEN ACCORDING TO HER PRESCRIBING MD.
EVEN A MAINSTREAM MAG LIKE TIME MAGAZINE ADMITS THE DANGER: IF THIS DOESN’T SCARE YOU WHAT WILL?
Too much radiation at one body site can cause skin conditions resembling severe burns or local cancers. Widely distributed over the body so that it penetrates much of the blood-forming marrow, excessive radiation can cause leukemia. If it strikes the gonads (ovaries or testicles), excessive radiation—i.e., by best estimate, beyond 10 roentgens*—can cause mutations in the genes, which, in turn, may mean deformities in the patient's descendants. Dangers, by sites:
Dental. The average dental X ray now delivers 5 r., but this is only to the jaw: the "scatter" radiation reaching the gonads from this is a mere .005 r. in a man and .001 r. in a woman. It would thus take 2,000 X rays to deliver a presumably damaging 10 r. to a man's gonads. Even so, notes the Journal of the American Dental Association, the currently used 5-r. doses are unnecessary. In the same issue, Radiologist Lewis E. Etter of Pittsburgh tells dentists how (by using higher voltages, better filters, faster films, shorter exposures) they can cut down the total radiation used in each exposure to a piddling .1 r. The National Bureau of Standards has developed another way to reduce X-ray exposures: a panoramic machine (see cut) which photographs the entire mouth with a single, sharply focused exposure instead of 14 separate plates.
Chest. The conventional shot at a 6-ft. range on a film 14 by 17 in. delivers .06 to .1 r. to the chest, about .001 r. to the gonads. At the 24-in. ranges used in mass chest surveys, the dosages go as high as 2 r. to the chest, but the scatter to the gonads is scarcely increased. But fluoroscopy, in which the image is viewed instantaneously on a screen, takes longer, may entail 3 to 10 r. per minute to the chest and .1 to .4 r. per minute to the gonads.
Prenatal. X rays of pregnant women may endanger the fetus. Oxford University researchers report that among the mothers of British children who had died of leukemia X rays of the pelvis during pregnancy (necessarily exposing the entire fetus to radiation) had been twice as common as among the mothers of other children. This was no conclusive finding, but a warning flag against haphazard X rays of the pregnant.
Arms & Legs. X rays of limbs to detect possible fractures, or arthritic deposits in joints, usually require only short exposures. The radiation used is not enough to damage bone marrow, is far enough from the gonads for safety.
Therapeutic. Although the amounts of radiation required in medical treatment, e.g., for cancer, average much higher than those in diagnosis, they are generally safer. Treatment usually is given by a radiologist who uses elaborate shielding to protect parts of the body not intended to be irradiated. In some cases, radiologists take a calculated risk of damaging some healthy tissues for the sake of attacking the cancer and prolonging life.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862407,00.html
YOU HAVE GOT TO READ THIS:
“X-rays and other tests that involve the use of barium meals and dyes may not be as safe and routine as your doctor would have you believe.
Ten cases of pulmonary oedema - where fluid collects in the lungs - have been reported to the UK drug regulators following one of the tests, and three people died from the reaction. In all, it is estimated that 0.04 per cent of these tests can result in a serious reaction, although up to 10 per cent report mild effects, such as a heat sensation.” TO SEE THE COMPLETE CHILLING STORY:
http://www.wddty.com/03363800371090024820/hidden-dangers-of-routine-x-ray-tests.html
THE POINT IS, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE CAN RECOMMEND THE BEST ARTICLE ON PROTECTION FROM ALL KINDS OF IONIZING RADIATION WHETHER IT BE X-RAYS OR THE REALLY HARD STUFF THAT COMES FROM NUCLEAR DECAY OF RADIO ISOTOPES ETC. YOU WILL DO YOUSELF A FAVOR BY STUDYING IT AND PROCURING THE LISTED ITEMS FOR ANY EVENT FROM TERRORISM TO A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, FROM TV EXPOSURE TO ISOTOPES IN OUR FOOD, AIR AND WATER, ETC. AND IT IS FREE!!! BEST.
RADIATION PROTECTION FROM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT OR ATTACK
***Some tested ways to protect against radiation in the environmentand possible fallout from dirty bombs or nuclear explosions***
SOME OTHER SOURCES:
Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.
X-ray danger: get the big picture: your cumulative radiation dose is growing. Do you really need to add to it?
“John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the leading experts in the world in these issues. He is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.
The evidence presented in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from Cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are x-ray-induced.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/07/x-ray-part-one.aspx
STILL WANT TO GET THAT X-RAY? IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? BEFORE I GET TO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUSELF FROM OVER EXPOSURE, BESIDES ABSTINENCE, CHECK OUT THE FACTS:
While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest non-therapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:
"Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact."
I BEGAN TO LOOK INTO THIS WHEN MY MOTHER CAME DOWN WITH CANCER. BY THE WAY, IT WAS PROBABLY CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF DRUGS FOR ANOTHER CONDITION, WHICH SAVED HER LIFE BUT WITH THE PRICE OF BEING A CARCINOGEN ACCORDING TO HER PRESCRIBING MD.
EVEN A MAINSTREAM MAG LIKE TIME MAGAZINE ADMITS THE DANGER: IF THIS DOESN’T SCARE YOU WHAT WILL?
Too much radiation at one body site can cause skin conditions resembling severe burns or local cancers. Widely distributed over the body so that it penetrates much of the blood-forming marrow, excessive radiation can cause leukemia. If it strikes the gonads (ovaries or testicles), excessive radiation—i.e., by best estimate, beyond 10 roentgens*—can cause mutations in the genes, which, in turn, may mean deformities in the patient's descendants. Dangers, by sites:
Dental. The average dental X ray now delivers 5 r., but this is only to the jaw: the "scatter" radiation reaching the gonads from this is a mere .005 r. in a man and .001 r. in a woman. It would thus take 2,000 X rays to deliver a presumably damaging 10 r. to a man's gonads. Even so, notes the Journal of the American Dental Association, the currently used 5-r. doses are unnecessary. In the same issue, Radiologist Lewis E. Etter of Pittsburgh tells dentists how (by using higher voltages, better filters, faster films, shorter exposures) they can cut down the total radiation used in each exposure to a piddling .1 r. The National Bureau of Standards has developed another way to reduce X-ray exposures: a panoramic machine (see cut) which photographs the entire mouth with a single, sharply focused exposure instead of 14 separate plates.
Chest. The conventional shot at a 6-ft. range on a film 14 by 17 in. delivers .06 to .1 r. to the chest, about .001 r. to the gonads. At the 24-in. ranges used in mass chest surveys, the dosages go as high as 2 r. to the chest, but the scatter to the gonads is scarcely increased. But fluoroscopy, in which the image is viewed instantaneously on a screen, takes longer, may entail 3 to 10 r. per minute to the chest and .1 to .4 r. per minute to the gonads.
Prenatal. X rays of pregnant women may endanger the fetus. Oxford University researchers report that among the mothers of British children who had died of leukemia X rays of the pelvis during pregnancy (necessarily exposing the entire fetus to radiation) had been twice as common as among the mothers of other children. This was no conclusive finding, but a warning flag against haphazard X rays of the pregnant.
Arms & Legs. X rays of limbs to detect possible fractures, or arthritic deposits in joints, usually require only short exposures. The radiation used is not enough to damage bone marrow, is far enough from the gonads for safety.
Therapeutic. Although the amounts of radiation required in medical treatment, e.g., for cancer, average much higher than those in diagnosis, they are generally safer. Treatment usually is given by a radiologist who uses elaborate shielding to protect parts of the body not intended to be irradiated. In some cases, radiologists take a calculated risk of damaging some healthy tissues for the sake of attacking the cancer and prolonging life.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862407,00.html
YOU HAVE GOT TO READ THIS:
“X-rays and other tests that involve the use of barium meals and dyes may not be as safe and routine as your doctor would have you believe.
Ten cases of pulmonary oedema - where fluid collects in the lungs - have been reported to the UK drug regulators following one of the tests, and three people died from the reaction. In all, it is estimated that 0.04 per cent of these tests can result in a serious reaction, although up to 10 per cent report mild effects, such as a heat sensation.” TO SEE THE COMPLETE CHILLING STORY:
http://www.wddty.com/03363800371090024820/hidden-dangers-of-routine-x-ray-tests.html
THE POINT IS, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE CAN RECOMMEND THE BEST ARTICLE ON PROTECTION FROM ALL KINDS OF IONIZING RADIATION WHETHER IT BE X-RAYS OR THE REALLY HARD STUFF THAT COMES FROM NUCLEAR DECAY OF RADIO ISOTOPES ETC. YOU WILL DO YOUSELF A FAVOR BY STUDYING IT AND PROCURING THE LISTED ITEMS FOR ANY EVENT FROM TERRORISM TO A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, FROM TV EXPOSURE TO ISOTOPES IN OUR FOOD, AIR AND WATER, ETC. AND IT IS FREE!!! BEST.
RADIATION PROTECTION FROM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT OR ATTACK
***Some tested ways to protect against radiation in the environmentand possible fallout from dirty bombs or nuclear explosions***
SOME OTHER SOURCES:
Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.
X-ray danger: get the big picture: your cumulative radiation dose is growing. Do you really need to add to it?
X-RAY DANGERS AND PROTECTION
WANT TO GET YOUR MIND BLOWN? READ THIS:
“John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the leading experts in the world in these issues. He is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.
The evidence presented in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from Cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are x-ray-induced.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/07/x-ray-part-one.aspx
STILL WANT TO GET THAT X-RAY? IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? BEFORE I GET TO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUSELF FROM OVER EXPOSURE, BESIDES ABSTINENCE, CHECK OUT THE FACTS:
While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest non-therapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:
"Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact."
I BEGAN TO LOOK INTO THIS WHEN MY MOTHER CAME DOWN WITH CANCER. BY THE WAY, IT WAS PROBABLY CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF DRUGS FOR ANOTHER CONDITION, WHICH SAVED HER LIFE BUT WITH THE PRICE OF BEING A CARCINOGEN ACCORDING TO HER PRESCRIBING MD.
EVEN A MAINSTREAM MAG LIKE TIME MAGAZINE ADMITS THE DANGER: IF THIS DOESN’T SCARE YOU WHAT WILL?
Too much radiation at one body site can cause skin conditions resembling severe burns or local cancers. Widely distributed over the body so that it penetrates much of the blood-forming marrow, excessive radiation can cause leukemia. If it strikes the gonads (ovaries or testicles), excessive radiation—i.e., by best estimate, beyond 10 roentgens*—can cause mutations in the genes, which, in turn, may mean deformities in the patient's descendants. Dangers, by sites:
Dental. The average dental X ray now delivers 5 r., but this is only to the jaw: the "scatter" radiation reaching the gonads from this is a mere .005 r. in a man and .001 r. in a woman. It would thus take 2,000 X rays to deliver a presumably damaging 10 r. to a man's gonads. Even so, notes the Journal of the American Dental Association, the currently used 5-r. doses are unnecessary. In the same issue, Radiologist Lewis E. Etter of Pittsburgh tells dentists how (by using higher voltages, better filters, faster films, shorter exposures) they can cut down the total radiation used in each exposure to a piddling .1 r. The National Bureau of Standards has developed another way to reduce X-ray exposures: a panoramic machine (see cut) which photographs the entire mouth with a single, sharply focused exposure instead of 14 separate plates.
Chest. The conventional shot at a 6-ft. range on a film 14 by 17 in. delivers .06 to .1 r. to the chest, about .001 r. to the gonads. At the 24-in. ranges used in mass chest surveys, the dosages go as high as 2 r. to the chest, but the scatter to the gonads is scarcely increased. But fluoroscopy, in which the image is viewed instantaneously on a screen, takes longer, may entail 3 to 10 r. per minute to the chest and .1 to .4 r. per minute to the gonads.
Prenatal. X rays of pregnant women may endanger the fetus. Oxford University researchers report that among the mothers of British children who had died of leukemia X rays of the pelvis during pregnancy (necessarily exposing the entire fetus to radiation) had been twice as common as among the mothers of other children. This was no conclusive finding, but a warning flag against haphazard X rays of the pregnant.
Arms & Legs. X rays of limbs to detect possible fractures, or arthritic deposits in joints, usually require only short exposures. The radiation used is not enough to damage bone marrow, is far enough from the gonads for safety.
Therapeutic. Although the amounts of radiation required in medical treatment, e.g., for cancer, average much higher than those in diagnosis, they are generally safer. Treatment usually is given by a radiologist who uses elaborate shielding to protect parts of the body not intended to be irradiated. In some cases, radiologists take a calculated risk of damaging some healthy tissues for the sake of attacking the cancer and prolonging life.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862407,00.html
YOU HAVE GOT TO READ THIS:
“X-rays and other tests that involve the use of barium meals and dyes may not be as safe and routine as your doctor would have you believe.
Ten cases of pulmonary oedema - where fluid collects in the lungs - have been reported to the UK drug regulators following one of the tests, and three people died from the reaction. In all, it is estimated that 0.04 per cent of these tests can result in a serious reaction, although up to 10 per cent report mild effects, such as a heat sensation.” TO SEE THE COMPLETE CHILLING STORY:
http://www.wddty.com/03363800371090024820/hidden-dangers-of-routine-x-ray-tests.html
THE POINT IS, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE CAN RECOMMEND THE BEST ARTICLE ON PROTECTION FROM ALL KINDS OF IONIZING RADIATION WHETHER IT BE X-RAYS OR THE REALLY HARD STUFF THAT COMES FROM NUCLEAR DECAY OF RADIO ISOTOPES ETC. YOU WILL DO YOUSELF A FAVOR BY STUDYING IT AND PROCURING THE LISTED ITEMS FOR ANY EVENT FROM TERRORISM TO A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, FROM TV EXPOSURE TO ISOTOPES IN OUR FOOD, AIR AND WATER, ETC. AND IT IS FREE!!! BEST.
RADIATION PROTECTION FROM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT OR ATTACK
***Some tested ways to protect against radiation in the environmentand possible fallout from dirty bombs or nuclear explosions***
SOME OTHER SOURCES:
Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.
X-ray danger: get the big picture: your cumulative radiation dose is growing. Do you really need to add to it?
“John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the leading experts in the world in these issues. He is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.
The evidence presented in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from Cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are x-ray-induced.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/07/x-ray-part-one.aspx
STILL WANT TO GET THAT X-RAY? IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? BEFORE I GET TO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUSELF FROM OVER EXPOSURE, BESIDES ABSTINENCE, CHECK OUT THE FACTS:
While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest non-therapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:
"Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact."
I BEGAN TO LOOK INTO THIS WHEN MY MOTHER CAME DOWN WITH CANCER. BY THE WAY, IT WAS PROBABLY CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF DRUGS FOR ANOTHER CONDITION, WHICH SAVED HER LIFE BUT WITH THE PRICE OF BEING A CARCINOGEN ACCORDING TO HER PRESCRIBING MD.
EVEN A MAINSTREAM MAG LIKE TIME MAGAZINE ADMITS THE DANGER: IF THIS DOESN’T SCARE YOU WHAT WILL?
Too much radiation at one body site can cause skin conditions resembling severe burns or local cancers. Widely distributed over the body so that it penetrates much of the blood-forming marrow, excessive radiation can cause leukemia. If it strikes the gonads (ovaries or testicles), excessive radiation—i.e., by best estimate, beyond 10 roentgens*—can cause mutations in the genes, which, in turn, may mean deformities in the patient's descendants. Dangers, by sites:
Dental. The average dental X ray now delivers 5 r., but this is only to the jaw: the "scatter" radiation reaching the gonads from this is a mere .005 r. in a man and .001 r. in a woman. It would thus take 2,000 X rays to deliver a presumably damaging 10 r. to a man's gonads. Even so, notes the Journal of the American Dental Association, the currently used 5-r. doses are unnecessary. In the same issue, Radiologist Lewis E. Etter of Pittsburgh tells dentists how (by using higher voltages, better filters, faster films, shorter exposures) they can cut down the total radiation used in each exposure to a piddling .1 r. The National Bureau of Standards has developed another way to reduce X-ray exposures: a panoramic machine (see cut) which photographs the entire mouth with a single, sharply focused exposure instead of 14 separate plates.
Chest. The conventional shot at a 6-ft. range on a film 14 by 17 in. delivers .06 to .1 r. to the chest, about .001 r. to the gonads. At the 24-in. ranges used in mass chest surveys, the dosages go as high as 2 r. to the chest, but the scatter to the gonads is scarcely increased. But fluoroscopy, in which the image is viewed instantaneously on a screen, takes longer, may entail 3 to 10 r. per minute to the chest and .1 to .4 r. per minute to the gonads.
Prenatal. X rays of pregnant women may endanger the fetus. Oxford University researchers report that among the mothers of British children who had died of leukemia X rays of the pelvis during pregnancy (necessarily exposing the entire fetus to radiation) had been twice as common as among the mothers of other children. This was no conclusive finding, but a warning flag against haphazard X rays of the pregnant.
Arms & Legs. X rays of limbs to detect possible fractures, or arthritic deposits in joints, usually require only short exposures. The radiation used is not enough to damage bone marrow, is far enough from the gonads for safety.
Therapeutic. Although the amounts of radiation required in medical treatment, e.g., for cancer, average much higher than those in diagnosis, they are generally safer. Treatment usually is given by a radiologist who uses elaborate shielding to protect parts of the body not intended to be irradiated. In some cases, radiologists take a calculated risk of damaging some healthy tissues for the sake of attacking the cancer and prolonging life.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862407,00.html
YOU HAVE GOT TO READ THIS:
“X-rays and other tests that involve the use of barium meals and dyes may not be as safe and routine as your doctor would have you believe.
Ten cases of pulmonary oedema - where fluid collects in the lungs - have been reported to the UK drug regulators following one of the tests, and three people died from the reaction. In all, it is estimated that 0.04 per cent of these tests can result in a serious reaction, although up to 10 per cent report mild effects, such as a heat sensation.” TO SEE THE COMPLETE CHILLING STORY:
http://www.wddty.com/03363800371090024820/hidden-dangers-of-routine-x-ray-tests.html
THE POINT IS, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE CAN RECOMMEND THE BEST ARTICLE ON PROTECTION FROM ALL KINDS OF IONIZING RADIATION WHETHER IT BE X-RAYS OR THE REALLY HARD STUFF THAT COMES FROM NUCLEAR DECAY OF RADIO ISOTOPES ETC. YOU WILL DO YOUSELF A FAVOR BY STUDYING IT AND PROCURING THE LISTED ITEMS FOR ANY EVENT FROM TERRORISM TO A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, FROM TV EXPOSURE TO ISOTOPES IN OUR FOOD, AIR AND WATER, ETC. AND IT IS FREE!!! BEST.
RADIATION PROTECTION FROM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT OR ATTACK
***Some tested ways to protect against radiation in the environmentand possible fallout from dirty bombs or nuclear explosions***
SOME OTHER SOURCES:
Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.
X-ray danger: get the big picture: your cumulative radiation dose is growing. Do you really need to add to it?
X-RAY DANGERS AND PROTECTION
WANT TO GET YOUR MIND BLOWN? READ THIS:
“John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the leading experts in the world in these issues. He is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.
The evidence presented in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from Cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are x-ray-induced.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/07/x-ray-part-one.aspx
STILL WANT TO GET THAT X-RAY? IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? BEFORE I GET TO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUSELF FROM OVER EXPOSURE, BESIDES ABSTINENCE, CHECK OUT THE FACTS:
While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest non-therapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:
"Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact."
I BEGAN TO LOOK INTO THIS WHEN MY MOTHER CAME DOWN WITH CANCER. BY THE WAY, IT WAS PROBABLY CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF DRUGS FOR ANOTHER CONDITION, WHICH SAVED HER LIFE BUT WITH THE PRICE OF BEING A CARCINOGEN ACCORDING TO HER PRESCRIBING MD.
EVEN A MAINSTREAM MAG LIKE TIME MAGAZINE ADMITS THE DANGER: IF THIS DOESN’T SCARE YOU WHAT WILL?
Too much radiation at one body site can cause skin conditions resembling severe burns or local cancers. Widely distributed over the body so that it penetrates much of the blood-forming marrow, excessive radiation can cause leukemia. If it strikes the gonads (ovaries or testicles), excessive radiation—i.e., by best estimate, beyond 10 roentgens*—can cause mutations in the genes, which, in turn, may mean deformities in the patient's descendants. Dangers, by sites:
Dental. The average dental X ray now delivers 5 r., but this is only to the jaw: the "scatter" radiation reaching the gonads from this is a mere .005 r. in a man and .001 r. in a woman. It would thus take 2,000 X rays to deliver a presumably damaging 10 r. to a man's gonads. Even so, notes the Journal of the American Dental Association, the currently used 5-r. doses are unnecessary. In the same issue, Radiologist Lewis E. Etter of Pittsburgh tells dentists how (by using higher voltages, better filters, faster films, shorter exposures) they can cut down the total radiation used in each exposure to a piddling .1 r. The National Bureau of Standards has developed another way to reduce X-ray exposures: a panoramic machine (see cut) which photographs the entire mouth with a single, sharply focused exposure instead of 14 separate plates.
Chest. The conventional shot at a 6-ft. range on a film 14 by 17 in. delivers .06 to .1 r. to the chest, about .001 r. to the gonads. At the 24-in. ranges used in mass chest surveys, the dosages go as high as 2 r. to the chest, but the scatter to the gonads is scarcely increased. But fluoroscopy, in which the image is viewed instantaneously on a screen, takes longer, may entail 3 to 10 r. per minute to the chest and .1 to .4 r. per minute to the gonads.
Prenatal. X rays of pregnant women may endanger the fetus. Oxford University researchers report that among the mothers of British children who had died of leukemia X rays of the pelvis during pregnancy (necessarily exposing the entire fetus to radiation) had been twice as common as among the mothers of other children. This was no conclusive finding, but a warning flag against haphazard X rays of the pregnant.
Arms & Legs. X rays of limbs to detect possible fractures, or arthritic deposits in joints, usually require only short exposures. The radiation used is not enough to damage bone marrow, is far enough from the gonads for safety.
Therapeutic. Although the amounts of radiation required in medical treatment, e.g., for cancer, average much higher than those in diagnosis, they are generally safer. Treatment usually is given by a radiologist who uses elaborate shielding to protect parts of the body not intended to be irradiated. In some cases, radiologists take a calculated risk of damaging some healthy tissues for the sake of attacking the cancer and prolonging life.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862407,00.html
YOU HAVE GOT TO READ THIS:
“X-rays and other tests that involve the use of barium meals and dyes may not be as safe and routine as your doctor would have you believe.
Ten cases of pulmonary oedema - where fluid collects in the lungs - have been reported to the UK drug regulators following one of the tests, and three people died from the reaction. In all, it is estimated that 0.04 per cent of these tests can result in a serious reaction, although up to 10 per cent report mild effects, such as a heat sensation.” TO SEE THE COMPLETE CHILLING STORY:
http://www.wddty.com/03363800371090024820/hidden-dangers-of-routine-x-ray-tests.html
THE POINT IS, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE CAN RECOMMEND THE BEST ARTICLE ON PROTECTION FROM ALL KINDS OF IONIZING RADIATION WHETHER IT BE X-RAYS OR THE REALLY HARD STUFF THAT COMES FROM NUCLEAR DECAY OF RADIO ISOTOPES ETC. YOU WILL DO YOUSELF A FAVOR BY STUDYING IT AND PROCURING THE LISTED ITEMS FOR ANY EVENT FROM TERRORISM TO A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, FROM TV EXPOSURE TO ISOTOPES IN OUR FOOD, AIR AND WATER, ETC. AND IT IS FREE!!! BEST.
RADIATION PROTECTION FROM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT OR ATTACK
***Some tested ways to protect against radiation in the environmentand possible fallout from dirty bombs or nuclear explosions***
SOME OTHER SOURCES:
Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.
X-ray danger: get the big picture: your cumulative radiation dose is growing. Do you really need to add to it?
“John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the leading experts in the world in these issues. He is a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor.
The evidence presented in his book, Radiation from Medical Procedures in the Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease, strongly indicates that over 50% of the death-rate from Cancer today, and over 60% of the death-rate from Ischemic Heart Disease today, are x-ray-induced.”
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/04/07/x-ray-part-one.aspx
STILL WANT TO GET THAT X-RAY? IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? BEFORE I GET TO SOME OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO TO PROTECT YOUSELF FROM OVER EXPOSURE, BESIDES ABSTINENCE, CHECK OUT THE FACTS:
While doses from diagnostic and interventional radiology are very low relative to doses used for cancer therapy, diagnostic and interventional x-ray doses today are far from negligible. The widely used CT scans, and the common diagnostic examinations which use fluoroscopy, and interventional fluoroscopy (e.g., during surgery), deliver some of the largest non-therapeutic doses of x-rays. In 1993, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation warned, appropriately, in its Annual Report:
"Although the doses from diagnostic x-ray examinations are generally relatively low, the magnitude of the practice makes for a significant radiological impact."
I BEGAN TO LOOK INTO THIS WHEN MY MOTHER CAME DOWN WITH CANCER. BY THE WAY, IT WAS PROBABLY CAUSED BY A COMBINATION OF DRUGS FOR ANOTHER CONDITION, WHICH SAVED HER LIFE BUT WITH THE PRICE OF BEING A CARCINOGEN ACCORDING TO HER PRESCRIBING MD.
EVEN A MAINSTREAM MAG LIKE TIME MAGAZINE ADMITS THE DANGER: IF THIS DOESN’T SCARE YOU WHAT WILL?
Too much radiation at one body site can cause skin conditions resembling severe burns or local cancers. Widely distributed over the body so that it penetrates much of the blood-forming marrow, excessive radiation can cause leukemia. If it strikes the gonads (ovaries or testicles), excessive radiation—i.e., by best estimate, beyond 10 roentgens*—can cause mutations in the genes, which, in turn, may mean deformities in the patient's descendants. Dangers, by sites:
Dental. The average dental X ray now delivers 5 r., but this is only to the jaw: the "scatter" radiation reaching the gonads from this is a mere .005 r. in a man and .001 r. in a woman. It would thus take 2,000 X rays to deliver a presumably damaging 10 r. to a man's gonads. Even so, notes the Journal of the American Dental Association, the currently used 5-r. doses are unnecessary. In the same issue, Radiologist Lewis E. Etter of Pittsburgh tells dentists how (by using higher voltages, better filters, faster films, shorter exposures) they can cut down the total radiation used in each exposure to a piddling .1 r. The National Bureau of Standards has developed another way to reduce X-ray exposures: a panoramic machine (see cut) which photographs the entire mouth with a single, sharply focused exposure instead of 14 separate plates.
Chest. The conventional shot at a 6-ft. range on a film 14 by 17 in. delivers .06 to .1 r. to the chest, about .001 r. to the gonads. At the 24-in. ranges used in mass chest surveys, the dosages go as high as 2 r. to the chest, but the scatter to the gonads is scarcely increased. But fluoroscopy, in which the image is viewed instantaneously on a screen, takes longer, may entail 3 to 10 r. per minute to the chest and .1 to .4 r. per minute to the gonads.
Prenatal. X rays of pregnant women may endanger the fetus. Oxford University researchers report that among the mothers of British children who had died of leukemia X rays of the pelvis during pregnancy (necessarily exposing the entire fetus to radiation) had been twice as common as among the mothers of other children. This was no conclusive finding, but a warning flag against haphazard X rays of the pregnant.
Arms & Legs. X rays of limbs to detect possible fractures, or arthritic deposits in joints, usually require only short exposures. The radiation used is not enough to damage bone marrow, is far enough from the gonads for safety.
Therapeutic. Although the amounts of radiation required in medical treatment, e.g., for cancer, average much higher than those in diagnosis, they are generally safer. Treatment usually is given by a radiologist who uses elaborate shielding to protect parts of the body not intended to be irradiated. In some cases, radiologists take a calculated risk of damaging some healthy tissues for the sake of attacking the cancer and prolonging life.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,862407,00.html
YOU HAVE GOT TO READ THIS:
“X-rays and other tests that involve the use of barium meals and dyes may not be as safe and routine as your doctor would have you believe.
Ten cases of pulmonary oedema - where fluid collects in the lungs - have been reported to the UK drug regulators following one of the tests, and three people died from the reaction. In all, it is estimated that 0.04 per cent of these tests can result in a serious reaction, although up to 10 per cent report mild effects, such as a heat sensation.” TO SEE THE COMPLETE CHILLING STORY:
http://www.wddty.com/03363800371090024820/hidden-dangers-of-routine-x-ray-tests.html
THE POINT IS, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. WE CAN RECOMMEND THE BEST ARTICLE ON PROTECTION FROM ALL KINDS OF IONIZING RADIATION WHETHER IT BE X-RAYS OR THE REALLY HARD STUFF THAT COMES FROM NUCLEAR DECAY OF RADIO ISOTOPES ETC. YOU WILL DO YOUSELF A FAVOR BY STUDYING IT AND PROCURING THE LISTED ITEMS FOR ANY EVENT FROM TERRORISM TO A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, FROM TV EXPOSURE TO ISOTOPES IN OUR FOOD, AIR AND WATER, ETC. AND IT IS FREE!!! BEST.
RADIATION PROTECTION FROM NUCLEAR ACCIDENT OR ATTACK
***Some tested ways to protect against radiation in the environmentand possible fallout from dirty bombs or nuclear explosions***
SOME OTHER SOURCES:
Evidence for a lack of DNA double-strand break repair in human cells exposed to very low x-ray doses.
X-ray danger: get the big picture: your cumulative radiation dose is growing. Do you really need to add to it?
Friday humor: David Sedaris
The Fresh Air David Sedaris interview is up on the NPR site -- he talks about his latest book (When you are engulfed in flames).
(he's touring now too -- dates are up in Ticketmaster, including a Nashville date this fall!)
(he's touring now too -- dates are up in Ticketmaster, including a Nashville date this fall!)
More on procrastination
Posted in
procrastination
This feature on NPR's Talk of the Nation fits in really well with my ongoing struggle to trick myself into doing things that I need to do but don't really want to do :) -- How to Be a Productive Procrastinator
including "the inner mechanics of lolly-gagging"...
And here's one of my favorite cartoons ever - "Tales of Mere Existence: Procrastination"
Why do today what you can do the day after tomorrow? Procrastination expert Timothy Pychyl and self-professed "structured procrastinator" John Perry discuss the latest research on this type of behavior and how to prioritize what's really important.
including "the inner mechanics of lolly-gagging"...
And here's one of my favorite cartoons ever - "Tales of Mere Existence: Procrastination"
Finding the right word
I'm a huge fan of Roget's Thesaurus; a battered print copy inherited from my dad (copyright 1962) sits on the shelf above my desk and I use it at least weekly. I know I'm not alone in my love of words, and a Lifehacker post today confirms it! A whole group of word-related sites and webapps -- "Best Online Language Tools for Word Nerds."
Organic milk's shelf life
I've idly wondered about this from time to time but never tried to find an answer - why does organic milk last so much longer than regular milk? I started buying it partly because of the antibiotic issue, but have kept buying it because it suits my erratic like/dislike relationship with milk. This weekend, Scientific American briefly looked at why organic milk lasts so long, which turns out to be due to ultrahigh temperature processing instead of the way that it's produced.
Breakthrough Man Sexual Powerfull Secrets That Herbalist Sites Do Not Want You To Find Out About !
Posted in
A Sex Power Secret
Yes, I have found breakthrough Men Sexual Powerful Secrets That Herbalist Sites Do Not Want You To Find Out About !. If you a men you will notice that your sexual desire will reduce with the increasing of your age. However this is normal conditions for men because the men hormone or androgen will decrease with age.
However I have discovered that in Malay traditional there is a simple exercisers that have been kept for secret among Malays that live in southeast Asia for every long time to maintain the manhood of man among Malays. With these exercisers, if practice everyday, will kept man sexual organ and desire, more healthier without the needs of taking any aphrodisiacs nor matter it is herbal or conventional medication.
Because sex is very important in man life, these secret exercise is traditionally taught form generation to generation to ensure the man have good and maintain powerful sexual health. Here the video that perform by my friends.
However I have discovered that in Malay traditional there is a simple exercisers that have been kept for secret among Malays that live in southeast Asia for every long time to maintain the manhood of man among Malays. With these exercisers, if practice everyday, will kept man sexual organ and desire, more healthier without the needs of taking any aphrodisiacs nor matter it is herbal or conventional medication.
Because sex is very important in man life, these secret exercise is traditionally taught form generation to generation to ensure the man have good and maintain powerful sexual health. Here the video that perform by my friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)