Karppaus ei aiheuta diabetesta

Itsehoidon artikkelit | Päivitetty 2.9.2014

Suuri suomalainen "hiilihydraattitutkimus" hämmentää ihmisiä.

Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitoksessa (THL) tehtyä Minna Similän  väitöskirjaa Glycemic Index in Epidemiologic Study of Type 2 Diabetes on uutisoitu mediassa harhaanjohtavasti, niin että karppaus muka aiheuttaisi diabetesta. 

Väitöstyö ei anna mitään tukea tällaisille väitteille, sillä tutkimuksessa ei ollut mukana ainuttakaan karppaajaa.

Pidän valitettavana sitä, etteivät toimittajat perehtyneet itse tutkimukseen, vaan tyytyivät THL:n harhaanjohtavaan tiedotteeseen. "[Ruoan] matala glykemiaindeksi ei liittynyt diabetesriskiin", lukee väitöskirjassa. "Karppaus aiheuttaa diabetesta", otsikoivat lehdet, vaikka tutkimuksessa ei ollut ainuttakaan karppaajaa.

- Uutisointi on herättänyt ihmetystä myös Ruotsissa ja muualla ulkomailla.

Uutinen on absurdi, sillä on fysiologisesti ja biokemiallisesti mahdotonta, että vähähiilihydrattinen VHH-ruokavalio voisi suurentaa veren sokeripitoisuutta ja aiheuttaa insuliiniresistenssiä ja diabetesta.

Katsokaamme, mikä tutkimus oikein oli. 
Tutkija teki yhden (!) ateriakokeen, johon osallistui 11 henkilöä, ei lähes 26 000, kuten media antaa ymmärtää. Ateriakoe kesti vain yhden päivän, ei 12 vuotta, eikä siitä voida tehdä mitään johtopäätöksiä hiilihydraattien ja diabetesriskin suhteista. Kokeessa terveet, normaalipainoiset henkilöt söivät Oululaisen ruisleipää, Vaasan hiivaleipää, Raision Elovena-puuroa ja amerikkalaista perunamuussia. Ne vaikuttivat hyvin eri tavoin koehenkilöiden veren sokeripitoisuuteen. Tällainen koe ei ole mikään tohtorinväitöstyö.

Toiseksi Similä käsitteli tilastollisesti lähes 30 vuotta sitten Setti-tutkimuksessa kerättyjä kyselylomaketietoja. Tutkimus alkoi 1985 ja siihen osallistui lähes 26 000 miestä, iältään 50–59 v, kaikki suurtupakoitsijoita. Tupakointi lisää tunnetusti diabeteksen riskiä. Miehille annettiin ruoan lisänä beetakaroteenia tai E-vitamiinia tahi molempia taikka lumetta, ja seurattiin mahdollista sairastumista keuhko- ja muihin syöpiin, ei diabetekseen.
Miehet olivat täyttäneet monisivuisen kyselylomakkeen, jolla tiedusteltiin 276 eri ruoka-aineen syöntiä. He ilmoittivat kuitenkin syöneensä 821 eri ruokalajia!
- Muutaman sivun täytön jälkeen ruutuihin alkoi siis tulla mitä sattuu. 

Kyselylomakkeiden tiedot ole luotettavia, eikä niistä voida päätellä mitään diabetesriskistä, etenkään kun tutkimusta ei ollut edes suunniteltu tähän tarkoitukseen. Lomakkeiden tiedoista tutkija sitten yritti laskeskella taulukoiden avulla miesten syömien hiilihydraattien määrää ja suhteuttaa sitä diabetesriskiin. Hän myöntää itsekin menetelmän olevan "rajallinen". Kelan tilastojen mukaan 12 vuoden aikana (1985–1997) 1098 aineiston miestä sairastui diabetekseen. Sairastumisella ei voitu havaita yhteyttä ruokavalion glykemiaindeksiin eikä annettuihin ravintolisiin. Väitöstyö ei oikeuta missään tapauksessa päättelemään, että karppaus aiheuttaisi diabetesta! 

Karppaus sopii hyvin diabeetikolle, sanoo diabeteslääkäri, sisätautiopin dosentti Juha Saltevo Iltalehdessä 13.4.2012. "Jos potilas syö leipää maltillisesti ja käyttää leivän päällä voita, sillä ei ole vaikutusta juuri mihinkään. Sen voin voi syödä", sanoo Saltevo.
__

Hiilihydraatit ja diabetes – intuition ja tieteellisen näytön kipinöintiä

Minna Similä

"DIABETES JA RUOKAVALIO

Käsitykset diabeteksen kannalta parhaasta mahdollisesta ruokavaliosta ovat vaihdelleet huomattavasti eri aikoina. Ennen kuin verensokerin nousuun liittyviä aineenvaihdunnallisia tapahtumasarjoja ymmärrettiin, ongelmaa yritettiin hoitaa esimerkiksi nälkiintymisen ja 

vuodelevon yhdistelmällä, hiilihydraattien välttämisellä tai toisaalta syömällä erittäin suuria määriä sokeria (Blades ym. 1997, Moran 

2004). Tiukoin rajoituksin onnistuttiin laskemaan joidenkin verensokeria, mutta toiset kuolivat ketoasidoosiin eli happomyrkytykseen"

_____

Tutkimus: nopeat hiilihydraatit eivät lisää kakkostyypin diabetesriskiä

11.4.2012 11:41

Nopeasti veren sokeripitoisuutta nostavat hiilihydraatit eivät näytä lisäävän riskiä sairastua tyypin 2 diabetekseen, ilmeni Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitoksen tutkija Minna Similän väitöstutkimuksessa.

Hän selvitti ruoan hiilihydraattien glykeemisen indeksin yhteyttä tyypin 2 diabetekseen sairastumiseen sekä sitä, miten rasvan tai proteiinin korvautuminen hiilihydraateilla vaikuttaa diabetekseen sairastumiseen.

Väitöstutkimuksen mukaan hiilihydraattien glykeeminen indeksi (GI) ei selittänyt sairastumista tyypin 2 diabetekseen. GI kuvaa aterianjälkeistä verensokerin nousua. Matala GI tarkoittaa hidasta verensokerin nousua, korkea GI nopeaa.

Ruokavalion keskimääräisellä GI:llä ei ollut merkitystä diabetekseen sairastumisessa eikä nopeiden hiilihydraattien korvautuminen hitailla hiilihydraateilla vaikuttanut johdonmukaisesti diabetesriskiin.

Suurempi ruoan hiilihydraattipitoisuus oli yhteydessä pienempään tyypin 2 diabeteksen riskiin. Diabetesriski oli pienempi myös, kun hiilihydraatit korvasivat kovaa rasvaa tai eläinperäistä proteiinia.

– Normaalipainon ylläpitäminen on edelleen tehokkain keino ehkäistä tyypin 2 diabetesta, Similä korostaa.

Tyypin 2 diabetekseen sairastumisen riskiä tutkittiin 25 943 keski-ikäisen tupakoivan suomalaismiehen seurantatutkimuksella. Tutkittavat saivat ravinnon hiilihydraatit pääasiassa vehnästä, rukiista, perunasta, sokerista ja maitotuotteista. Hiilihydraattien osuus energiansaannista oli keskimäärin 40 prosenttia. GI:n määritysmenetelmää arvioitiin ja ruoan GI:n vaihtelua tutkittiin ateriakokeessa, jossa tutkittavia oli 11.

Minna Similän väitöskirja tarkastetaan Helsingin yliopiston Lääketieteellisessä tiedekunnassa perjantaina 13.4.2012.
_
http://www.mediuutiset.fi/artikkelikommentointi/article466711.ece?action=comment&posting=798532

_____________
Minna Similä

Pediatric Dietician at Helsinki University Central Hospital

Finland, Research

Current	Helsinki University Central Hospital,  National Institute for Health and Welfare
Previous	National Public Health Institute
Education	University of Helsinki

_________

Täsmäkarppaus sopii hyvin diabeetikolle
Vhh-ruokavalio laihduttaa ja suojaa sydäntä paremmin kuin vähärasvainen

_________

Why is Glycemic Load More 
Significant Than Glycemic Index?

The glycemic index (GI) is a numerical system of measuring how much of a rise in circulating blood sugar a carbohydrate triggers–the higher the number, the greater the blood sugar response. So a low GI food will cause a small rise, while a high GI food will trigger a dramatic spike. A list of carbohydrates with their glycemic values is shown below. A GI is 70 or more is high, a GI of 56 to 69 inclusive is medium, and a GI of 55 or less is low.

The glycemic load (GL) is a relatively new way to assess the impact of carbohydrate consumption that takes the glycemic index into account, but gives a fuller picture than does glycemic index alone. A GI value tells you only how rapidly a particular carbohydrate turns into sugar. It doesn't tell you how much of that carbohydrate is in a serving of a particular food. You need to know both things to understand a food's effect on blood sugar. That is where glycemic load comes in. The carbohydrate in watermelon, for example, has a high GI. But there isn't a lot of it, so watermelon's glycemic load is relatively low. A GL of 20 or more is high, a GL of 11 to 19 inclusive is medium, and a GL of 10 or less is low.

Foods that have a low GL almost always have a low GI. Foods with an intermediate or high GL range from very low to very high GI.

Both GI and GL are listed here. The GI is of foods based on the glucose index–where glucose is set to equal 100. The other is the glycemic load, which is the glycemic index divided by 100 multiplied by its available carbohydrate content (i.e. carbohydrates minus fiber) in grams. (The "Serve size (g)" column is the serving size in grams for calculating the glycemic load; for simplicity of presentation an intermediate column that shows the available carbohydrates in the stated serving sizes has been left out.) Take, watermelon as an example of calculating glycemic load. Its glycemic index is pretty high, about 72. According to the calculations by the people at the University of Sydney's Human Nutrition Unit, in a serving of 120 grams it has 6 grams of available carbohydrate per serving, so its glycemic load is pretty low, 72/100*6=4.32, rounded to 4.

Disease Prevention

Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

After a high-glycemic load meal, blood glucose levels rise more rapidly and insulin demand is greater than after a low-glycemic load meal. High blood glucose levels and excessive insulin secretion are thought to contribute to the loss of the insulin-secreting function of the pancreatic beta-cells that leads to irreversible diabetes. High dietary glycemic loads have been associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) in several large prospective studies. In the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), women with the highest dietary glycemic loads were 37% more likely to develop type 2 DM over a 6-year period than women with the lowest dietary glycemic loads. Additionally, women with high-glycemic load diets that were low in cereal fiber were more than twice as likely to develop type 2 DM than women with low-glycemic load diets that were high in cereal fiber. The results of the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS), which followed male health professionals over six years were similar. In the NHS II study, a prospective study of younger and middle-aged women, those who consumed foods with the highest glycemic index values and the least cereal fiber were also at significantly higher risk of developing type 2 DM over the next eight years. The foods that were most consistently associated with increased risk of type 2 DM in the NHS and HPFS cohorts were potatoes (cooked or French-fried), white rice, white bread, and carbonated beverages.The Black Women's Health study, a prospective study in a cohort of 59,000 U.S. black women, found that women who consumed foods with the highest glycemic index values had a 23% greater risk of developing type 2 DM over eight years of follow-up compared to those who consumed foods with the lowest glycemic index values. In the American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II, which followed 124,907 men and women for nine years, high glycemic load was associated with a 15% increased risk of type 2 DM. Further, in a cohort of over 64,000 Chinese women participating in the Shanghai Women's Health Study, high glycemic load was associated with a 34% increase in risk of type 2 DM; this positive association was much stronger among overweight women.

A U.S. ecological study of national data from 1909 to 1997 found that increased consumption of refined carbohydrates in the form of corn syrup, coupled with declining intake of dietary fiber, has paralleled the increase in prevalence of type 2 DM. Today, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is used as a sweetener and preservative in many commercial products sold in the United States, including soft drinks and other processed foods. To make HFCS, the fructose content of corn syrup (100% glucose) has been artificially increased; common formulations of HFCS now include 42%, 55%, or 90% fructose. When consumed in large quantities on a long-term basis, HFCS is unhealthful and may contribute to other chronic diseases besides type 2 DM, including obesity and cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular Disease

Impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance are known to be risk factors for cardiovascular disease and type 2 DM. In addition to increased blood glucose and insulin concentrations, high dietary glycemic loads are associated with increased serum triglyceride concentrations and decreasedHDL cholesterol concentrations; both are risk factors for cardiovascular disease. High dietary glycemic loads have also been associated with increased serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of systemic inflammation that is also a sensitive predictor of cardiovascular disease risk. In the NHS cohort, women with the highest dietary glycemic loads had a risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD) over the next ten years that was almost twice as high as those with the lowest dietary glycemic loads. The relationship between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was more pronounced in overweight women, suggesting that people who are insulin resistant may be most susceptible to the adverse cardiovascular effects of high dietary glycemic loads. A similar finding was reported in a cohort of middle-aged Dutch women followed for nine years. Yet, studies to date have reported mixed results, and there is little evidence to indicate low glycemic index diets decrease the risk for CHD.

Obesity

In the first two hours after a meal, blood glucose and insulin levels rise higher after a high-glycemic load meal than they do after a low-glycemic load meal containing equal calories. However, in response to the excess insulin secretion, blood glucose levels drop lower over the next few hours after a high-glycemic load meal than they do after a low-glycemic load meal. This may explain why 15 out of 16 published studies found that the consumption of low-glycemic index foods delayed the return of hunger, decreased subsequent food intake, and increased satiety (feeling full) when compared to high-glycemic index foods. The results of several small, short-term trials (1-4 months) suggest that low-glycemic load diets result in significantly more weight or fat loss than high-glycemic load diets. Although long-term randomized controlled trials of low-glycemic load diets in the treatment of obesity are lacking, the results of short-term studies on appetite regulation and weight loss suggest that low glycemic-load diets may be useful in promoting long-term weight loss and decreasing the prevalence of obesity. A recent review of six randomized controlled trials concluded that overweight or obese individuals who followed a low-glycemic index/load diet experienced greater weight loss than individuals on a comparison diet that was either a high-glycemic index diet or an energy-restricted, low-fat diet. The length of the dietary interventions in these trials ranged from five weeks to six months.

Cancer

Evidence that high overall dietary glycemic index or high dietary glycemic loads are related to cancer risk is inconsistent. Prospective cohort studies in the U.S., Denmark, France, and Australia have found no association between overall dietary glycemic index or dietary glycemic load and breast cancer risk. In contrast, a prospective cohort study in Italy reported a positive association between breast cancer risk and high-glycemic index diets as well as high dietary glycemic loads. A prospective study in Canada found that postmenopausal but not premenopausal women with high overall dietary glycemic index values were at increased risk of breast cancer, particularly those who reported no vigorous physical activity, while a prospective study in the U.S. found that premenopausal but not postmenopausal women with high overall dietary glycemic index values and low levels of physical activity were at increased risk of breast cancer. In a French study of postmenopausal women, both glycemic index and glycemic load were positively associated with risk of breast cancer but only in a subgroup of women who had the highest waist circumference (median of 84 cm [33 inches]). Higher dietary glycemic loads were associated with moderately increased risk of colorectal cancer in a prospective study of U.S. men, but no clear associations between dietary glycemic load and colorectal cancer risk were observed in a prospective studies of U.S. men, U.S. women, Swedish women, and Dutch men and women. However, one prospective cohort study of U.S. women found that higher dietary glycemic loads were associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer. One meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies suggested that glycemic index and glycemic load were positively associated with colorectal cancer, but a more recently published meta-analysis did not find glycemic index or load to be significantly associated with colorectal cancer. Two separate meta-analyses reported that high dietary glycemic loads were associated with increased risk of endometrial cancer. Although there is some evidence that hyperinsulinemia (elevated serum insulin levels) may promote the growth of some types of cancer, more research is needed to determine the effects of dietary glycemic load and/or glycemic index on cancer risk.

Gallbladder Disease

Results of two studies indicate that dietary glycemic index and glycemic load may be positively related to risk of gallbladder disease. Higher dietary glycemic loads were associated with significantly increased risks of developing gallstones in a cohort of men participating in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study and in a cohort of women participating in the Nurses' Health Study. Likewise, higher glycemic index diets were associated with increased risks of gallstone disease in both studies. However, more epidemiological and clinical research is needed to determine an association between dietary glycemic index/load and gallbladder disease.

Disease Treatment

Diabetes Mellitus

Low-glycemic index diets appear to improve the overall blood glucose control in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). A meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials that included 356 diabetic patients found that low-glycemic index diets improved short-term and long-term control of blood glucose levels, reflected by clinically significant decreases in fructosamine and hemoglobin A1C levels. Episodes of serious hypoglycemia are a significant problem in people with type 1 DM. In a study of 63 men and women with type 1 DM, those randomized to a high-fiber, low-glycemic index diet had significantly fewer episodes of hypoglycemia than those on a low-fiber, high-glycemic index diet.

Lowering Dietary Glycemic Load

Some strategies for lowering dietary glycemic load include:

- Increasing the consumption of whole grains, nuts, legumes, fruits, and nonstarchy vegetables
- Decreasing the consumption of starchy high-glycemic index foods like potatoes, white rice, and white bread
- Decreasing the consumption of sugary foods like cookies, cakes, candy, and soft-drinks

See the table below for the glycemic index and glycemic load values of selected foods. Foods with higher glycemic index values are at the top of the table, while foods with lower glycemic index values are at the bottom of the table. To look up the glycemic index values for other foods, visit the University of Sydney's GI Web site.

Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load Values for Selected Foods  (Relative to Glucose)
Food	Glycemic Index (Glucose=100)	Serving size	Carbohydrate per serving (g)	Glycemic Load per serving
Dates, dried	103	2 oz	40	42
Cornflakes	81	1 cup	26	21
Jelly beans	78	1 oz	28	22
Puffed rice cakes	78	3 cakes	21	17
Russet potato (baked)	76	1 medium	30	23
Doughnut	76	1 medium	23	17
Soda crackers	74	4 crackers	17	12
White bread	73	1 large slice	14	10
Table sugar (sucrose)	68	2 tsp	10	7
Pancake	67	6" diameter	58	39
White rice (boiled)	64	1 cup	36	23
Brown rice (boiled)	55	1 cup	33	18
Spaghetti, white; boiled 10-15 min	44	1 cup	40	18
Spaghetti, white; boiled 5 min	38	1 cup	40	15
Spaghetti, whole wheat; boiled	37	1 cup	37	14
Rye, pumpernickel bread	41	1 large slice	12	5
Oranges, raw	42	1 medium	11	5
Pears, raw	38	1 medium	11	4
Apples, raw	38	1 medium	15	6
All-BranT cereal	38	1 cup	23	9
Skim milk	32	8 fl oz	13	4
Lentils, dried; boiled	29	1 cup	18	5
Kidney beans, dried; boiled	28	1 cup	25	7
Pearled barley; boiled	25	1 cup	42	11
Cashew nuts	22	1 oz	9	2
Peanuts	14	1 oz	6	1

 Understanding Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load

• More articles on Glycemic

//

12 WAYS TO REDUCE YOUR CANCER RISK - Diet

Diet 

Have a healthy diet:
     • Eat plenty of whole grains, pulses, vegetables and fruits.
     • Limit high-calorie foods (foods high in sugar or fat)
        and avoid sugary drinks.
     • Avoid processed meat; limit red meat and foods high in salt.

There is strong evidence that people can reduce their risk of cancer by adopting healthy dietary and activity behaviours.
In European populations, people who follow a healthy lifestyle that adheres to the recommendations for cancer prevention have an estimated 18% lower risk of cancer compared with people whose lifestyle and body weight do not meet the recommendations. This risk reduction was estimated for a healthy lifestyle that includes: being a normal body weight (a body mass index [BMI] between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m²) and avoiding foods that promote weight gain, such as sugary drinks and fast foods; being moderately active for at least 30 minutes per day; breastfeeding (for women); eating mostly foods of plant origin; limiting intake of red meat;
 - avoiding processed meats; and limiting consumption of alcoholic drinks.

What is a healthy diet?

A healthy diet is the right amount and variety of different foods that provide all the calories (energy) and nutrients to meet the particular needs of your body. This will allow it to grow and develop normally during childhood, and to maintain normal function in adulthood, so as to reach old age with minimal disease and disability.

The right amount and variety of foods and drinks will differ from person to person according to age, body size, and lifestyle. Whereas some people will have unusual needs, such as athletes or people with certain medical conditions, for most of us the right balance of different foods and drinks is quite similar.

There are different ways of achieving dietary balance. This can be illustrated in different ways depending on the dietary habits in different countries.

A healthy diet is mainly plant foods, with plenty of vegetables and fruits, some pulses (legumes) like beans and peas, and wholegrain bread and other starchy foods like pasta and rice (see an example in Figure 1). In addition, modest amounts of lean meat, poultry or fish, and reduced-fat dairy products, or vegetarian alternatives may be included. Other foods are important to include in modest amounts in a healthy diet, like some vegetable oils (e.g. olive oil and rapeseed oil), and nuts and seeds. Little, if any, added salt is required. To avoid weight gain, high-calorie foods like confectionery, cakes, and snacks should not be eaten too often or in large amounts. Alcohol is best avoided entirely to help prevent cancer. Highly processed commercial products that are rich in animal fats and sugars (such as “fast foods” and sugary drinks should be avoided as much as possible.

As well as the right variety of foods, it is important to eat the right amount of food – this is best done by checking your weight on a weekly basis (or waist circumference from time to time, for instance once a month.

Figure 1: Example of healthy plate

Source: © peanutpie - iStockphoto.co

Green Tea 100% Natural

Vihreä tee on eniten tutkittuja luonnon tuotteita. 

Parhaiten tunnetut ainesosat ovat puriinialkaloideja, kofeiini (josta teen yhteydessä joskus käytetään nimitystä teiini), teobromiini, sekä teofylliini, joka on myös tehokas astmalääke.
Katekiinit (tärkein ryhmä) 
Ehkäisee ikäihmisten muistin heikkenemistä  

• Polttaa kaloreita/laihduttaa
• Parantaa insuliiniherkkyyttä
• Suojaa auringon UV-säteiltä
• Estää syöpää
• Pienentää kasvainten kokoa
• Estää mutaatiota
• Estää vapaita radikaaleja
• Alentaa kohonnutta kolesterolia
• Estää verenpaineen nousua
• Tappaa bakteereja
• Tappaa influenssaviruksia
• Estää kariesbakteereja
• Estää pahanhajuista hengitystä

Kofeiini (teiini): Piristää ja virkistää, Diureetti
C-vitamiini:       Ehkäisee stressiä, Ehkäisee flunssaa
B-vitamiinit:      Edistää hiilihydraattien aineenvaihduntaa
Aminobutyyrihappo (GABA): Alentaa kohonnutta verenpainetta
Flavonoidit:       Vahvistaa verisuonten seinämiä
Polysakkaridit:  Alentaa kohonnutta verensokeria
Fluori:               Estää hammasmätää
E-vitamiini:        Hidastaa vanhenemista, Suojaa soluja
Theaiini (aminohappo): Antaa tyypillisen maun vihreälle teelle

Ainesosissa on runsaasti kasviantioksidantteja, jotka tuhoavat elimistössä syntyviä haitallisia vapaita radikaaleja. Niitä syntyy elimistössä ylimäärin sekä ulkoisista että sisäisistä syistä. Ulkoisia aiheuttajia ovat muun muassa ympäristömyrkyt, ilman epäpuhtaudet (kaupunki-liikenne- ja teollisuuspäästöt), otsoni, UV-säteily ja tupakansavu. Sisäisiä syitä radikaalien syntyyn ovat muun muassa tulehdustaudit ja muut pitkäaikaissairaudet (esim. nivelreuma), runsas kahvin ja alkoholin käyttö sekä monet lääkkeet.

Vihreäteeuute nopeuttaa rasvan palamista, todettiin äskettäin tutkimuksessa, joka tehtiin Geneven yliopistossa. Koehenkilöille annettiin vihreää teetä kapseloituna uutteena; puolet koehenkilöistä sai vastaavia lumekapseleita. Tutkijat mittasivat aineenvaihdunnan nopeutta 24 tunnin ajan. Teeuutetta saaneiden kalorit paloivat neljä prosenttia nopeammin ja kokonaisenergian kulutus lisääntyi lähes viisi prosenttia.

Vihreän teen laihduttava vaikutus perustuu sen sisältämiin katekiini-polyfenoleihin. Tutkijat korostavat nimenomaan, ettei kyse ole pelkästään teen sisältämän kofeiinin (teiinin) vaikutuksesta, vaan kofeiinin ja katekiiniaineiden yhteisvaikutuksesta, joka kiihdyttää aineenvaihduntaa.
_http://graviola.fi/osta-graviolaa/#!/HIMALAYA-HERBAL-GREEN-TEA-10-bags-India/p/34641112/category=8815702

THE POWER OF GREEN TEA

You Knew It Was Coming: U.S. Department of Defense Begins Safety Testing For Ebola Vaccine

OCTOBER 1, 2014 by DAVE MIHALOVIC 

As expected and predicted, just as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has told the public about the first U.S. diagnosed patient infected with the Ebola virus.

The Defense Department is conveniently accelerating the manufacture of clinical trials for the vaccine.
What a surprise!

Using Junk Science To Promote Fear

Ebola - Another Round For The Propaganda Matrix. Don't Be Fooled Yet Again

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke at a gathering of top government and military officials and infectious disease experts from 44 countries to attend the Global Health Security Agenda, or GHSA, Summit hosted by President Barack Obama.

Hagel said that because DoD maintains a longstanding research program to defend troops against infectious diseases, including Ebola, it has been able to provide critical diagnostic tools to help with the outbreak in West Africa.

The department stated they are also accelerating the manufacture of potential treatments and starting clinical trials for a vaccine candidate.

This presents eerie similarities to the pandemic H1N1 flu timeline in 2009 when the flu pandemic hype began and vaccines were announced.

The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) was launched in Washington DC and Geneva on February 13, 2014 followed by the Helsinki meeting in May 5-6, 2014

Ebola Vaccine Well On Its Way

"On Wednesday," Hagel added, "we received approval to begin safety testing for one [Ebola] vaccine candidate that will be conducted here at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research." 

The most fascinating aspect of the Ebola vaccine manufacturing process is how quickly they have brought it to the trials phase. It is virtually impossible for vaccine manufacturers to produce and deliver these drugs in the timeline they have proposed.
It typically takes several years from the point of initial vaccine development to human clinical trials, a process which the manufacturers claim is being done in weeks and months.

The only way it would have been possible was through years of planning and procurement.

Canadian firm Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation is developing a vaccine for Ebola under a $140 million project funded by the US Department of Defence. They have been working on an Ebola treatment called TKM-Ebola for the past few years.
However, there is no possible way they can assess the safety and serious adverse events associated with these vaccines in such a short time period of time.

Diseases like Ebola often have difficulty attracting investment, as pharmaceutical companies rarely see a large payday in tackling a disease that has rare outbreaks and affects a low-income area of the world.

It is clear that the US government has been keeping tabs on Ebola for a while now. It holds the patents on a strain of the Ebola virus known as Bundibugyo (EboBun) that was found in Uganda. It is although not clear whether it is the same strain that has created the current epidemic. The patent, awarded in October 2012 to five scientists led by Jonathan S Towner, is now deposited with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It’s crucial to understand that these vaccines are experimental, will be essentially untested for long-term toxicity and that makes them extremely dangerous to the human immune system. They must be avoided, even if mandated.

The dominant media globally has been getting into high gear fear-mongering about Ebola to convince people voluntarily to submit to jeopardizing their health and well-being.

Many facets of the the alternative media are not helping either with many blogs and websites causing more panic than is necessary in an otherwise very uneducated population when it comes to Ebola.


Can The Government Force You To Vaccinate?

Actually they can.
By declaring a national emergency, the U.S. government can potentially enforce laws designed for dealing with deadly pandemics such as bringing about mandatory vaccination programs.

They include;

1. International Health Regulations under the WHO, 
2. National Emergencies Act, 
3. National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, and the 
4. Model State Emergency Health Powers Act.

As it stands, if a high level pandemic is declared, the WHO can override all government established rights and freedoms and the constitution itself.

So the key is to educate as many people as possible, not about hiding in bunkers or survival methods by way of violence, but through the empowerment of natural health strategies and genuine methods of assisting our fellow human. Without that, everything else is a waste of time.

Sources:
globalresearch.ca
defense.govreuters.com

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment

___

AUGUST 6, 2014 by DAVE MIHALOVIC

Ebola - Another Round For The Propaganda Matrix. Don't Be Fooled Yet Again

Every few years, just like clock work, the Center For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and The World Health Organization (WHO) conspire on a new global threat to scare the living daylights out of people. Both these organizations will spread lies of unfathomable magnitude in an attempt to disrupt and instill fear to ultimately exert control and obtain compliance on populations. They've done it before with the flu and they're doing it again with Ebola.

Look no further back than 2009 during the flu pandemic hype, and we have the perfect example of a fabricated international orchestration of deception designed to get billions hooked on the fear bandwagon so that Big Pharma could sell millions of anti-virals and vaccines for a flu that was no more dangerous than the common cold.

Manipulating data, promoting falsehoods, continually misinforming the public and using all forms of media to publicize "a deceptive plan", are all effective strategies currently deployed to extend a massive psychological operation to world populations.

The orchestrators of pandemics have historically used the same tactics to achieve their goals. Incrementalism plays a large part in priming the populace for vaccination programs so that administering them becomes a voluntary process rather than forced. The incremental approach gradually integrates all demographic and psychographic factors such as age, sex, family size, language, culture, education, job responsibilities, geography, religion, and how every company, product and service could affect response. It is inclusive of all scenarios that could detrimentally affect the operation. By experimenting through the decades, the orchestrators have learned the best psychological tactics through trial and error.

Using Junk Science To Promote Fear

Both the WHO and CDC claim that by employing their monitoring standards on outbreaks from different parts of the world, they are able to obtain sufficient information to make tentative conclusions about how the epidemics may evolve in the coming months. Much of their clever phrasing is convincing enough to conceal the fact that all their disease policies on response and preparation recommendations are based on pure speculation and junk science.

The reporting that Ebola is spreading faster in Africa than efforts to control it is based on substantial misinformation. In particular, late last week it was announced that two Americans who had been infected with Ebola were going to be flown back to the US, specifically to Emory University, for treatment, a development that ramped up the fear engine within the media (and the alternative media) about the Ebola virus to even greater heights.

One of the problems is that officials will not collect data on the spread of Ebola based on accurate systematic lab confirmation since they will use unreliable methods such as polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The end point results of conventional PCR are not very precise and end point detection has a very short dynamic range with little chance of detecting the differences between dead or live microorganisms. The CDC is testing all suspected Ebola patients through this method. The PCR method WILL NOT identify if a person is infected with Ebola at contagious levels. Finding trace amounts of Ebola through this method usually means little yet this is how they identify and report to the media that a person is infected.

They will only refer to "confirmed cases" and do not distinguish between confirmed and non-confirmed case. It would appear that the "non-confirmed" cases are categorized as confirmed cases and the numbers are then used by the CDC to prove that the disease is spreading when it isn't. 

Also, suggesting that the human immune system is incapable of addressing Ebola without chemical assistance is also a complete lie. During the Spanish influenza epidemic of 1918, more than 80 percent of the people treated with allopathic drugs died. Yet, 80 percent of the people who took natural remedies survived. For example, the seeds of the African bitter kola tree have properties that can kill the ebola virus. Also coffee, fermented soy, homeopathic spider venom and vitamin C, may all hold promise as anti-Ebola virus therapies, despite the common belief that nothing can stop this lethal virus from spreading uncontrollably worldwide.

Squashing the innate abilities of human immune system to heal and promoting chemicals is simply another attempt to propagate the need for vaccines. A Canadian pharmaceutical company called Tekmira has been at work for the past few years on an Ebola treatment called TKM-Ebola. Diseases like Ebola often have difficulty attracting investment, as pharmaceutical companies rarely see a large payday in tackling a disease that has rare outbreaks and affects a low-income area of the world.

But TKM-Ebola has attracted the interest of the government. The Defense Department awarded it a contract for $140 million in 2010, after the vaccine proved completely effective in treating non-human primates in chimps. The government's interest in vaccinating against Ebola is largely rooted in preventing bioterrorism attacks, where the disease could be used a weapon. 

How Does Ebola Become a Deadly Infection and Why Vaccines Are Not The Answer? 

There can be no doubt that Ebola is a dangerous and frightening disease and even though it can kill an 90 percent of its victims it would not in the developed world, largely because of two factors. The first is the person's health in general -- his or her immune system and ability to bounce back from a viral infection. The second is the type of exposure he or she got. Recovery may be more likely if it wasn't a severe exposure -- meaning, perhaps they were exposed to someone who was only early on in the illness, and the amount of virus in the bodily fluids was not yet that high. A 90 percent kill rate would be near impossible in any developed nation. 

Dr. Nahid Bhadelia, M.D., the associate hospital epidemiologist at Boston Medical Center and director of Infection Control at Boston University's National Emerging Infectious Disease Laboratories says that in addition to what is known about Ebola, it requires a known marker on the surface of human cells themselves, which it uses to gain entry into the cells. Researchers have found in a laboratory setting that some people's cell lines actually lack this marker, or it may be mutated somehow, so that the Ebola can't get into the cells. However, Ebola research is still very much in its infancy, and knowledge about how the virus behaves is still evolving.

One of the best ways to preventing the spread of Ebola is to help the body's immune system create an effective response to the virus. Ebola does appear to be a uniquely pathogenic virus to which the human body has yet had adequate time to properly adapt, and therefore it is instructive to point other potential natural therapies that have been studied in the past:

• Garcinia kola: As reported in 1999, extracts from the seeds of this traditional African medicinal herb were found to"...inhibit this virus [Ebola] in cell culture at non-toxic concentrations."
• Vitamin C: According to the late Dr Robert Cathcart, MD, who had extensive experience treating deadly infections with high dose vitamin C, "the Ebola virus kills by way of free radicals which can be neutralized by massive doses of sodium ascorbate intravenously." Indeed, Ebola virus disease -- as is the case with viral hemorrhagic disease in general -- resembles features of acute scurvy, andvitamin C is well known to have a broad range of benefits, including immune-boosting and antiviral properties, with an incredibly high safety margin.
• Homeopathic interventions: A study published in 1999 explored the therapeutic potential of a homeopathic preparation of the six-eyed spider venom (Sicarius) at treating symptoms associated with Ebolavirus infection.
• Estradiol: A 2013 analysis, titled "A systematic screen of FDA-approved drugs for inhibitors of biological threat agents," found that estradiol exhibited anti-Ebola virus activity in vitro, indicating the relevance of hormonal factors and perhaps gender in susceptibility to the disease -- as well as a possible therapeutic role for estradiol if future clinical research confirms bears these findings out.

There are a wide range of natural compounds that have yet to be evaluated for their direct anti-Ebola activity and/or immune boosting properties, and that may be highly relevant to the goal of preventing and curing it. The most important consideration is that no infection -- including highly lethal ones like Ebola occurs in a vacuum. Psychological, biological, environmental and sociopolitical factors all determine the incidence, spread and virulence of viral infections. 

In a widely shared Onion article from a few days ago, scientists "announced" that an Ebola vaccine was still 50 white people away. This was a jab at pharmaceutical companies, who, cynics think, will only set their R&D wheels in motion if there's money on the horizon. 

There are several strains of Ebola. The current strain is ZEBOV, or Zaire virus, but there are also Sudan and Cote d'Ivoire versions. It would be impossible to design a vaccine that would work against all of them. Vaccines have an established record of failure in fast-moving epidemics. Donald Allegra, chair of infection control at Newton Medical Center in New Jersey, remembers trying to halt the advance of measles in a Cambodian refugee camp in the 1970s. "We vaccinated 10,000 kids, but didn't have an effect on the outbreak," he said. "Vaccines and acute outbreaks don't work very well together."

Unlike cells, the Ebola virus cannot use its genetic material by itself. Living matter reproduces and passes on genetic material as a blueprint for growth and subsequent reproduction. However, the Ebola virus like other viruses needs a living cell in order to function and reproduce; otherwise it's just playing dead. It can't divide by binary fission like bacteria. A vaccine facilitates the virus and provides an optimal environment to host cells where it is then forced to expend all of its energy and resources to help the virus replicate and make hundreds of more viruses. It does this through unchecked immune suppression which affects T-cells. Vaccination provides the gateway to allow natural immunity to fail and allow this process to a greater extent by suppressing cellular immunity. The poor, weak cell usually bursts like an overinflated balloon from all the viruses and is destroyed in the process. Then, the replicated virus attaches itself to a new, unaffected host cell, and the viral infection continues. Vaccination will never solve the Ebola puzzle.

Adenovirus vaccines, which have been used in Liberia, Guinea, and Liberia, can have serious adverse reactions. Should any population confide in vaccination for the Ebola virus, they would cause an untold number of deaths.

Sources:huffingtonpost.com
theatlantic.comgreenmedinfo.com
vox.com

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

_____

The Healthiest Children In The Future Will Be Unvaccinated – By Dave Mihalovic, Naturopathic Doctor