| What's New Stay far, far away from household chemicals that can cause respiratory problems in children, pets and susceptible adults. Regardless of sensitivity level, ALL living creatures are getting far too many toxins in their systems which may need detoxing with NCD. Please use good, organic apple cider vinegar such as the Dynamite Super ACV, Dynamite Tea Tree Oil or even drugstore peroxide as chemical-free, anti-bacterial, anti-fungal alternatives. If you would rather choose more formal products, do try the excellent EcoSense products for which I have posted a number of chemical-free Spring Cleaning ideas here. Testimonials TRIBUTE TO A SPECIAL KITTY
(catalogue and brochure "cover girl") while she was alive.The canned cat food and liquid Purrrformance were vital for this feline princess pictured here in her 16th or 17th year.
went down. Her body just could not go anymore and she passed away very peacefully Feb. 10 at the age of 20 and 1/2. The reason it was so peaceful was due to the combination of the Tranquil and Relax internally and the Release externally. These amazing products enabled her to stop the almost non-stop yowling and anxiety that were keeping everyone up at night, allowing her (and me and "our" dog Taz) to rest peacefully for the last few weeks. This is the second time that I have found that Dynamite can help both the living and the dieing processes. Donna Covington CMT. OSHA'S EARS ARE STILL FINE! Hi Rowan - just wanted to let you know that after a year, Osha's ears are still just fine following his treatment with Solace! I'm going to get some more just in case, and some friends want some products, too. Everyone is so impressed about Osha's swift recovery after years of discomfort! Thank you! Jonni McAteer Did you know?... (from various sources)
Point to Ponder #1 - Mammograms offer no health benefits whatsoever, doctors conclude by David Gutierrez, NewsTarget.com 2/14/07 An increasing number of doctors are contesting the claim that annual mammograms decrease women's risk of dying from breast cancer. Danish researcher Dr. Peter Gotzsche first made this claim in a study published in "The Lancet" in October 2006. Gotzsche had re-analyzed the studies originally done on the benefits of mammograms and found them unconvincing. Since then, other doctors have begun to assert that in addition to failing to offer protection, mammograms — which involve exposing patients to radiation —may actually increase women's risk of cancer . "The latest evidence shifts the balance towards harm and away from benefits," said Dr. Michael Baum of University College in London. According to Canadian columnist Dr. W. Gifford -Jones, women between the ages of 40 and 49 who have regular mammograms are twice as likely to die from breast cancer as women who are not screened. "Experts say you have to screen 2,000 women for 10 years for one benefit," he wrote recently. Gifford-Jones also points to other risks, from the physical to the psychological. According to some authorities, the squeezing of women's breasts during mammograms may rupture blood vessels, causing cancer to spread to other parts of the body and actually increasing a patient's risk of death. He also pointed to the trauma suffered by women who receive false positives from their mammograms, and to the dangerous sense of security felt by those who receive false negatives. Studies show that mammograms fail to detect cancer 30 percent of the time in women aged 40 to 49. In addition, it can take eight years before a breast tumor is large enough to detect, by which time the cancer could have spread to other parts of the body. "Mammograms actually harm far more women than they help," said Mike Adams, author of "The Healing Power of Sunlight and Vitamin D ," a free report that teaches prevention strategies for breast and prostate cancer. "They are used more as a recruiting tool to ensnare women into a system of medical control based on false diagnosis and fear tactics. Most women then give in to chemotherapy, surgery or radiation treatments that may ultimately harm them or even kill them." DR. MOSS CONCURS from The Moss Reports by Ralph Moss, PhD http://www.cancerdecisions.com/020407.html Screening for early-stage cancer seems like such a logical idea that some people develop an almost religious belief in its utility. Put this together with the fact that there are indeed some Scrooge-like politicians who would cheerfully deny women the benefit of even inexpensive public health measures, and this makes for an atmosphere not conducive to calm discussion and reflection. At the end of the day, though, the only thing that matters is not medical ideology, but what actual benefit, if any, the masses of people are likely to derive from a large cancer screening campaign. Since 1997, the American Cancer Society (ACS) has repeatedly urged women to start annual mammography screening at age 40. "This new guideline is based on research evidence, which overwhelmingly points to a benefit from annual mammographic screening for women beginning at age 40," said Myles Cunningham, MD, then President of ACS. But, in fact, things have not proved so clear-cut. Many prominent experts believe that age 50 is soon enough to begin. It has turned out to be unexpectedly difficult to prove in a scientific way that mammograms given during a woman's 40s actually improve her chances of survival. The evidence from research remains conflicting. The latest blow to the "start-at-40" school was a London Institute of Cancer Research study that tracked 160,900 women over an average of 11 years. The women were divided into two groups. One group was offered annual mammography screening starting at age 40, while the other group was offered annual screening starting at age 50. While there was a decrease of 17 percent in breast cancer deaths in the younger women, this figure turned out not to be statistically significant – which is another way of saying that it very well may have been due to chance. Meanwhile, among the women in their 40s who received regular screenings, 23 percent had at least one false positive result compared to 12 percent of the women in their 50s. This was probably a reflection of the fact that younger women tend to have denser breast tissue, which makes early breast cancer lesions far more difficult to discern on x-rays. A false positive is an aberrant finding that after further investigation turns out not to be breast cancer. But this "scare" can be psychologically traumatizing: undergoing a biopsy procedure and then waiting days - or sometimes weeks - for the results can be extremely stressful. These false positives also waste a lot of a hospital's scarce medical resources, as doctors try to chase down illusory 'tumors' that turn out to be either benign growths or radiological glitches. Another consideration is that mammography involves repeated exposure to radiation. Despite assurances of how safe mammography now is, it is acknowledged by experts that the procedure (like all exposure to ionizing rays) does somewhat heighten the risk of radiation- induced cancer. This is particularly so when a mammogram has to be repeated because of questionable readings. The danger begins to add up when hundreds of thousands of women are being screened annually. According to the authors of the London study, the risk of radiation- induced cancer rarely outweighs the benefit. This is reassuring, unless you happen to be in that small percentage. The risk of radiation-induced cancer needs to be taken into account in making the decision as to when to begin regular screening mammography. The London study was published in the December 9, 2006 issue of the Lancet, a weekly journal notable for its objective reports on the benefits of cancer treatments. The lead author was Sue M. Moss (no relation), while Benjamin Djulbegovic, of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Fla., wrote an accompanying comment to the study. In a prepared statement, he said: "...the decision of whether to recommend screening mammography crucially depends on estimates of harm, which will never be zero." "Although the best estimates of harms from screening mammography seem to be less than the benefits, they remain too uncertain to conclude that screening mammography in this age-group is associated with a net benefit," he noted (emphasis added). "Benefit and harms need to be contrasted with each woman's individual risks for development of breast cancer," Djulbegovic concluded. "Every woman, with her physician's guidance, should decide whether regret will be greater if she develops breast cancer that could have been detected earlier by screening mammography, or if she develops breast cancer later in life as a result of screening mammography itself." After initial opposition, the National Cancer Institute finally agreed with the American Cancer Society in recommending mammography screening in younger women. But the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) task force continues to hedge its bets: "The precise age at which the benefits from screening mammography justify the potential harms is a subjective judgment and should take into account patient preferences," says the task force. "Clinicians should inform women about the potential benefits (reduced chance of dying from breast cancer), potential harms (e.g., false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies), and limitations of the test that apply to women their age. Clinicians should tell women that the balance of benefits and potential harms of mammography improves with increasing age for women between the ages of 40 and 70." But notice how the USPHS leaves radiation-induced cancers out of the equation! It is to the credit of the Lancet authors that they take this danger seriously. When you add the risk of radiation-induced cancer into the mix, I think it tips the scales against beginning mammographic screening for the average women in her 40s. (However, those at high risk of breast cancer, such as those who have BRCA 1 and 2 mutations, and those with first-degree relatives who have developed the disease, may decide that the risk-benefit ratio favors annual mammography starting before age 50.) This paper illustrates that the debate over the merits of screening mammography, especially for younger women, is still an open question, despite the sometimes dogmatic statements to the contrary that come from US cancer agencies. .............. I have long wondered how compressing delicate breast tissue between 2 metal plates and running harmful X-Rays through them could be conducive to health. Painful compression is in itself injurious to the tissue and when we know that even a single tooth XRay can be an overload on the system, it really makes one stop and wonder. There ARE alternatives including thermography or the measurement of heat that can be helpful for those who feel they must be alerted to what is going on in their breasts. Most important, however, would be prevention via proper alkaline diets, avoidance of manufactured foods and other chemicals as much as possible, detoxifying from heavy metals and chemicals that are within our cellular structures (see NCD), and the addition of fish liver oil to the daily diet. You might also want to read my new book Living Energetically to get a broader take on the whole cancer issue. Point to Ponder #2 - The Fluoride Deception: How a Nuclear Waste Byproduct Made Its Way Into the Nation's Drinking Water http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/17/1437211 Hailed as a harmless chemical that would prevent tooth decay, new evidence shows how fluoride could be linked to serious health problems. Fluoridation was first advanced in the US at the end of the second World War. Proponents argued that fluoride in water and toothpaste would help to protect teeth and prevent decay. Over the following decades, fluoride was added to public water supplies across the country. While the benefits of fluoridation have been held to be unquestionable, accumulating evidence points to a frightening prospect: that fluoride may have serious adverse health effects, including infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ. Now a new book, titled "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson examines the background of the fluoridation debate. According to Bryson, research challenging fluoride's safety was either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. He says fluoridation is a triumph not of medical science but of US government spin. Christopher Bryson, has reported science news stories for many media outlets including the BBC, Christian Science Monitor and the Discovery Channel. He was part of an investigative team at Public Television that won a George Polk Award for "The Kwitny Report." You can read the transcript of an interview with Christopher Bryson by clicking on the link above. ....... the best way to remove fluoride from your body is to detox with NCD. The ONLY way to remove fluoride from your drinking water if it is in your community, is to invest in a Reverse Osmosis filtration system. There is NO effective way to remove it from your bath/shower water (regular filters can only remove chlorine, NOT fluoride) and yet our bodies will absorb it from there almost as much as drinking it. Those of you who are familiar with my book, HorseSense, are familiar with Cathy Justus, the owner of 5 horses who died of fluorosis, who has since dedicated her life to stopping fluoride in drinking water. You can contact Cathy through www.justusoriginals.com. Point to Ponder #3 - Cancer Death Rate Drama by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D., The Moss Report (http://www.cancerdecisions.com/012807.html) The US cancer death rate declined by one-half of one percent between 2003 and 2004...and the world went wild. In fact, on January 17, 2007, President Bush paid a rare visit to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, MD, to bask in the reflected glory of this alleged turning point in the war on cancer. "Progress is being made," Bush claimed, after attending a roundtable discussion with cancer scientists. "We're spending about $28.6 billion here at the NIH, which was doubled from 15 years ago." However, the President failed to mention the equally significant fact that his administration has cut the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) budget by approximately $72 million between fiscal years 2005 and 2007. Bush called the decline in cancer deaths "the steepest drop ever recorded." While technically true, this statement gives the unmistakable - and misleading - impression that the decline in the number of deaths was both dramatic and precipitous. This is not the case at all. As the respected weekly Cancer Letter trenchantly pointed out, the number of cancer deaths had either risen or remained the same, on a year by year basis, for over 70 years since record-keeping began. Meanwhile, the widely trumpeted decline in US cancer deaths amounted to only a few thousand - a fraction of a percentage point of the overall toll taken by cancer in 2004. And in 2003 the fall was even smaller, amounting to less than four hundred fewer deaths. Yet on the announcement of that minuscule drop, also, scientists made a self-congratulatory mountain out of a statistical molehill. This year, the leaders of the cancer war, accompanied by legions of enablers in the mainstream media, seemed to lose all sense of proportion. This was "big news," they intoned, "very exciting;" we've "finally turned the corner," it is "highly gratifying," "no fluke," and so on. John R. Seffrin, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS), said, "The hard work towards preventing cancer, catching it early, and making treatment more effective is paying dramatic, lifesaving dividends." Wow! That's a heavy burden of unwarranted assumptions to place on the shoulders of such a small change in mortality statistics. Dr. Ahmedin Jemal, the epidemiologist who prepared the report for the ACS, declared that the decline "is not only continuing, but the decrease [in 2004] is much larger" [than that recorded for the previous year, 2003]. But "much larger" is a relative term. According to the figures released by the American Cancer Society (ACS) there were 553,888 US deaths from cancer in 2004. This compared somewhat favorably to the 556,902 cancer deaths in 2003. 2004's figure thus represented a decline of 3,014 deaths, just over half of one percentage point. In 2003, by comparison, there were 557,271 deaths, just 369 fewer than 2002's total. While any drop in cancer mortality is certainly good news, we have to ask whether the small declines recorded in these two successive years represent some decisive turning point in the war on cancer (as nearly everyone has unquestioningly assumed) or whether it may simply be a statistical glitch in an otherwise unremittingly grim picture. Are we seeing "light at the end of the tunnel," as Larry Norton, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, told Public Broadcasting System's Jim Lehrer or could it be the headlight of an approaching train? Of course, politicians of all stripes were quick to seize the opportunity and exploit it to the full. However, it remains to be seen whether this tentative two-year trend (spanning the years 2002- 2004) will be sustained into the present day. While I join in appreciating each and every extra life that is not lost to cancer, there are good reasons for skepticism about the self-congratulatory mood that has overtaken the oncology profession in the light of this news. For example, one need look no further than the American Cancer Society's own recently- released publication, 2007 Cancer Facts & Figures, an annual review that gives a good statistical projection for cancer incidence and mortality in the current year. For 2007, the ACS projects a cancer death figure of 559,650. But wait a minute. Isn't this actually 5,762 more deaths than those recorded for the year 2004, the year that triggered the recent Presidential celebration? According to statistics given in consecutive editions of Cancer Facts & Figures, which are available online, US cancer deaths for the last five years were as follows: 2002 557,650 2003 556,902 (a decline of 369 over previous year) 2004 553,888 (a decline of 3,014 over previous year) 2005 570,280 (an estimated increase of 16,392 over previous year) 2006 564,830 (an estimated decline of 5,450 over previous year) 2007 559,650 (an estimated decline of 5,180 over previous year) Perhaps there is some logical explanation for the steep increase in 2005, although I have yet to see one. One is hard pressed to find anyone who has even noticed this less than encouraging projection, although such statistics are easily available at the ACS Web site (www.cancer.org). I came across only one publication that pointed out this discrepancy: the SeniorJournal.com, which tracks trends of interest to Baby Boomers (see below). The SeniorJounal's headline read: "Cancer Society Predicts Cancer Deaths to Increase in 2007 Despite Long Rate of Decline." This seems to me to be a more accurate and newsworthy way of reporting the story. Yes, the absolute number of US cancer deaths did decline a little between 2002 and 2004; however, this year's projected death toll is already more than it was at the end of 2003. Unfortunately, this inconvenient fact does not fit the propaganda needs of those who are committed to the notion that we are making slow but steady progress in the war on cancer. By and large, the media latched uncritically onto the ACS and NCI press releases, and ignored any inconvenient truth that might disturb the rosy picture that these organizations systematically project. (The issue may be further clouded by the fact that in 2006, ACS statisticians modified their method of tallying cancer mortality. They claim that they now utilize a new and more accurate method of projecting mortality figures, including a larger sample that includes 86 percent of the population. One can only be thankful for improved scientific record keeping. But I read no analyses claiming this new method affected estimates of the overall cancer death rate.) If the projected 2007 figures prove accurate, as those for previous years generally have, then the alleged "turnaround" in the cancer mortality figures between 2002 and 2004 will turn out to have been a temporary phenomenon, a statistical hiccup that, absent the political agendas of the various key players, would normally have passed without notice outside of a narrow circle of biostatisticians. There are also other reasons for skepticism. It is no secret that cancer is primarily a disease of one's later years. According to government (SEER) data, the median age of US cancer patients at death is 73 years. Of course, this varies by tumor type as well as other factors: for example, the average age at death is 69 years for breast cancer, 71 for lung cancer, 75 for cancers of the colon and rectum, etc. Ethnicity is also relevant: for example, African-Americans in general die of cancer at a younger age than so-called Caucasians. All other things being equal, however, a nation's death tally from cancer largely depends on the age of its population. Put another way, the larger the senior citizen segment of the population, the more cancer deaths there will be overall. As is well known, a great many people alive today were born in the post-World War II era, between 1946 and 1958. They are collectively known as the Baby Boom generation. (Some experts now contend that the definition of this postwar generation should be expanded to include people born through 1964.) This cohort began when GIs returned from the War and the US economy expanded rapidly. The birth rate during this period was more than 50 percent greater than for the preceding generation, which was born during the Depression years. In fact, there were over 79 million babies born into the Baby Boom generation. In the next few years, as these Baby Boomers enter their senior years, cancer incidence will also tend to increase. In about ten to fifteen years, the Baby Boomers will start to die of the diseases of old age, including, of course, cancer. The impact of such demographics will then be solidly felt on national mortality figures for cancer, as well as other diseases. Thus, unless something changes radically in the sphere of cancer treatment or prevention, we can expect that there will be a steady upturn in the overall cancer death statistics, coinciding with the aging of the Boomer generation, and that this will continue for a decade or longer. The reality of rising cancer mortality figures in an aging population will hit us hard, and it is something for which our leaders appear unprepared, both intellectually and practically. It is likely to make all the current talk about the decline in cancer mortality, and the conquest of cancer, sound increasingly hollow. ........ so many cancers are caused also by toxins in our environments from home, to work, to community. Routine detoxification, eating only whole, organic/wild foods, taking bio-available and balanced supplements such as the Dynamite basics, and keeping a good attitude tend to be tried and true ways to both avoid cancer in the first place or recovering from it if present. Read the true story of a Stage 4 cancer survivor. Point to Ponder #4 -- Light that can cure you -- By Reed Karaim http://www.usaweekend.com/07_issues/070204/070204health.html Healing the human body with a beam of light sounds like something out of a classic Star Trek episode. But even Dr. McCoy never dreamed of the futuristic ways that today's doctors are finding to use different kinds of light in medicine. Researchers are exploring everything from penetrating beams of light that seem to repair heart tissue after a heart attack to "light therapy" that appears to improve Alzheimer's patients' ability to sleep through the night. Doctors are remedying the side effects of cancer treatments, severe acne and other ailments just by shining high-intensity light in varying colors on the affected area. In these ground-breaking therapies, light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, most often are used to apply concentrated doses of light to patients. LEDs are not lasers, so tissue does not get hot, and the treatment is pain-free. "It represents a quantum leap in medicine," says Harry T. Whelan, M.D., who is a professor of neurology at the Medical College of Wisconsin and a leading researcher in the field. "It's a change from the standard medical models of drugs and surgery, where you are basically either poisoning or cutting the patient." Light apparently works on human tissue at the cellular level, transferring energy to the mitochondria, which function as microscopic power plants, helping the body repair itself. Light also can speed up or slow down certain chemical processes in cells. The secret to the many ways that light can be used in medicine lies in the varying wavelengths of different colors of light. "These are essentially the different colors of the rainbow, and each has a different effect on human tissue," says David Goldberg, M.D., director of Skin Laser & Surgery Specialists of New York & New Jersey, who has been doing research in the field for two decades. Here's a survey of the bright new field of light treatment: Near infrared light The long wavelengths of near infrared light, next to red on the spectrum and invisible to the human eye, can penetrate deeply into human tissue. For that reason, it may be the light treatment with the most dramatic potential for revolutionizing medicine. Working with patients at the Children's Hospital of Wisconsin, professor Whelan and his colleagues have used infrared light to treat "severe mucositis," oral sores that are a side effect of chemotherapy and radiation treatment and leave patients unable to either eat or drink. "We've essentially eliminated severe mucositis here in the ward," Whelan says. Bigger applications could be ahead. Tests on animals have shown success reversing blindness by stimulating retinal cells in the eye. Animal studies also indicate that infrared light can help cut a heart attack's severity by up to 50% and repair tissue afterward. Red light Red light, which does not penetrate as deeply as near infrared, seems to help wounds heal more quickly. In addition, the light can be used to remove certain precancerous skin cells without scarring, Goldberg says. But what many people may be most interested in is red light's ability to reverse aging. Used in conjunction with near infrared, the light promotes collagen formation, which smooths out wrinkled skin. "You're not going to take somebody who is 60 and turn them into a 20-year-old," Goldberg cautions, "but it is very clear that you can take people's skin and make them look younger and more vibrant." Red light also has an anti-inflammatory effect and can kill bacteria, as can blue light. In fact, Goldberg has had success using red and blue light together to treat severe cases of acne. He says that light therapy "has revolutionized the treatment of skin." Blue light Besides its use as an antibacterial agent, blue light has a special ability to reset the biological clock. The reason seems to be tied to the thousands of years humans toiled almost completely outdoors. "We are blue-sky-sensitive creatures," says Mariana Figueiro, assistant professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's Lighting Research Center, based in Troy, N.Y. Studies by Figueiro and others indicate "blue light boxes" are far more effective than full- spectrum sunlight boxes of equal intensity at fighting seasonal affective disorder, commonly known as the winter blues. Studies at Harvard Medical School in Boston and the Lighting Research Center also indicate that a dose of blue light, depending on when it is given, can increase alertness or help fight insomnia. In particular, Figueiro's studies show that exposure to blue light in the evening makes Alzheimer's patients more likely to sleep through the night. Ultraviolet light Ultraviolet light, which exists just below violet on the spectrum, can be used to keep bacteria and viruses from reproducing. A study by the Lighting Research Center is now underway in which the air being circulated through a Manhattan office and retail building is treated with UV light in the vents. "It's potentially an efficient way to sterilize the air," says Andrew Bierman, who is a researcher at the center. UV light is being used in water treatment plants, and New York City is now building the world's largest UV treatment facility, which will be able to treat 2 billion gallons of water a day. ........ Light Therapy has actually been in existence for many years as a form of Vibrational (energy) Therapy; I speak of it in my book Energetic Living. My friend Jana Sullivan holds a patent for a wonderful, affordable, light/sound machine that has worked wonders for us and many friends (and pets) for years - learn more about it, and how to order, on her website http: //lightsoundtechnology.com/index.php. POINT TO PONDER #5 -- And They Call Us Horse Lovers by Robert Miller, DVM http://www.equine-reproduction.com/articles/Horse-Lovers.shtml The Nation was shocked when Barbaro broke down shortly after leaving the gate at the Preakness. I saw the repaired fractures in TIME magazine. What I think happened is that the sesamoid bone fractured, a common injury. As a result, the fetlock collapses causing the pastern bone to explode into multiple fragments, probably with the next stride or two. The last time the general public was exposed to a racetrack tragedy like this was when the great filly, Ruffian, fractured; the injury eventually resulting in her death. The news media focuses on great champions like these, but what most people don't realize is that such injuries are relatively common occurrences in horse racing. Part of the cause is that we have bred athletic power into our racing breeds far exceeding what nature requires for the horse to survive in its natural environment. All wild horses need to do is outrun a big cat. We have selectively bred for speeds that the anatomy of the horse cannot always cope with. In addition, we train and race them long before they are mature. The immature are often capable of spectacular athletic performance. Every time I watch an Olympics and I see gymnasts as young as 13, 14 or 15 years of age, I wince at the thought of the damage I know is occurring to some of their bodies. I started a year of gymnastics at 17 years of age, and I wasn't very good, but I still managed to do damage that manifested itself many years later. Fortunately, I was drafted into the Army at 18, which ended my gymnastic career. Half a century ago, when I was cowboying, "colts" were started at four years of age or older. Once in a while, one might be started as a three-year-old. Despite some very hard work, barring accidents, those ranch horses were still sound and working into their 20's. I'm not opposed to racing. It's a great sport and has motivated mankind to produce truly great horse breeds. But I am opposed to any practices which contribute to premature crippling of otherwise healthy horses. Some years ago, the annual convention of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (A. A.E.P.) was held in Dallas. The same week, the national cutting horse futurities were being held in nearby Fort Worth. Three colleagues from Sweden told me that they wanted to see the cutting horses. So, one evening, after the day of scientific lectures had ended, I accompanied the three Swedish vets to Fort Worth. After watching several horses perform, the senior Swede, a professor from the vet school in Upsula, Sweden, said, "This is incredible! It must take many years to obtain such performance from a horse." "But," I answered, "this is a futurity." "I do not understand this word," he said. "These are colts," I explained. "These are just three-year-olds." He looked shocked, turned to his companions and explained to them in Swedish and then said to me in English, "I have only two comments: One, it must take great skill to be able to train a horse to do this in so brief a time. And, two, what is happening to their poor legs?" Today, we have all sorts of futurities - reining, cutting, barrel racing, etc. I have tried many times to get owners to postpone arduous training to give the colt a chance to mature. Most of the time, I was ignored. The lure of winning something or making some money was too great to resist. My strategy when the owner insisted on going ahead with training and/or competition that I felt was premature was to say, "That's okay. You go ahead. What you are doing is very good for my business." Why is it that the protests against over-using young horses come primarily from the people who profit from such abuse - the veterinarians? Is it because we best understand the trauma being inflicted upon immature skeletons, joints, ligaments and tendons? Just as I am not opposed to racing, if properly conducted, I am not opposed to horse shows or competitive equine events. Horse shows, like all livestock shows, were conceived of long ago to "improve the breed". They were designed to demonstrate and reward the people who were doing the best job of breeding, of selecting bloodstock, and of creating superior bloodlines. Unfortunately, human nature, vanity and greed have corrupted the horse show industry. We see grotesque caricatures of the original character of each breed. Stock horses, the working ranch breeds, are shown in Western Pleasure classes traveling in a manner that would drive a working cowboy crazy. With lowered heads, going in a downhill manner, these horses greatly magnify the forces placed upon the forelimbs. Once again, good for us vets. It produces income, but the horses suffer. The wonderful Tennessee Walking Horse is shod and shown in distorted gaits that can only be called "grotesque". If it weren't for the frequent veterinary checks, which are mandatory, can you imagine how many endurance racing horses would die because of their riders' consuming desire to win? I remember the early endurance races. Saddlebreds, with surgically distorted tails, and gingered anuses, are exhibited with the pupils of their eyes dilated with atropine. How many people who sincerely consider themselves to be "horse lovers" wean foals at three months of age, or even earlier, which nature never intended? How many horses, a gregarious species, spend their lives locked in box stalls? How many horses in the U.S.A, like so much of our human population, are damaged healthwise by excessive nutrition? Such abuses exist in ever breed, every discipline, in every equine sport. We need to step back and analyze what we are doing. One of my clients was a prosperous, educated couple. They were very congenial, and they owned three Quarter Horses. One day, they called me to come to their home to worm their horses and check them over and booster their vaccinations. When I arrived, I found only two horses, so I asked where the third one was. "Oh, he's in training as a reining horse, with ____________" (a successful and notoriously brutal trainer who also happened to be one of my clients). I said, "Oh, I see." Then the wife said, "We know how cruel he is to the horses, but he wins!" I never felt the same toward those people, again. This same trainer (he's been dead for many years) once said to me, "Doc, why can't you guys cut the tails on my horses? Why do you make me drive 300 miles round trip to get my tails done?" He was referring to the illicit surgical paralyzing of the tail, common in reining horses so they can't switch their tails. ALL of the horses in his barn had their tails cut. I said, "Were you ever beaten in a show by a horse that you knew had its tail cut?" "Oh sure," he said. "Lots of times." "Well," I told him, "I didn't cut the tail nor did my partners. We won't do anything against the association rules." This same guy, a world-class competitor, kept every horse in his barn on Serpecil, a tranquilizer not approved by FDA for use in horses. I have no idea where he got the drug, but somebody was selling it to him. I believe that a conspiracy exists in the horse show industry. The trainers are judges, and the judges are trainers. Too often, they scratch each others' backs. If Western Pleasure horses were shown as they were 50 or 60 years ago, a good amateur could turn out a champion. But it takes a real pro to produce the freaks seen in today's Western Pleasure classes. And, after the horse goes back to the owner from the trainer and is no longer winning, it has to go back to the trainer for a "tune-up". A few days before I wrote this article, I got back from Bishop Mule Days, a unique event I attend every year that has no equal anywhere in the world. I had the pleasure of seeing Western Pleasure mules that WERE NOT "peanut rollers". The trend began some years ago, but the mule people balked at it and ruled it out. GOOD FOR THEM! You see, to be a mule lover, you REALLY gotta love horses! ....... and Cathy Justus (who lost a number of horses to fluorosis and has dedicated her life to bringing awareness to others and who is shown in my book HorseSense), justusoriginals@pagosa.net, noted in an email to me: "Being the weight is heaviest on the front that would stand to reason with a front leg being broken. Since fluoridation started 60 years ago the incidence in pressure fractures in children has increased tremendously and steadily. (fluoride causes osteoporosis) Since Barbaro's leg shattered into pieces instead of a clean break that also would point to such a problem in the bone." I think this an awareness we all need to keep in mind for all who are dear to us. For a more natural way to raise and handle horses, do purchase a copy of my HorseSense! Point to Ponder #6 -- A Miracle Baby http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/20/tiny.baby.ap/index.html MIAMI, Florida (AP) --Amillia Sonja Taylor, born Oct. 24 after just under 22 weeks in the womb, is almost ready to go home. Doctors say Amillia is the first baby known to have survived after a gestation of fewer than 23 weeks. She was just 9½ inches long and weighed less than 10 ounces when she was delivered by Caesarean section. Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks. Amillia, the first child for Eddie and Sonja Taylor of Homestead, now weighs 4½ pounds. She has suffered respiratory and digestive problems, as well as a mild brain hemorrhage, but doctors believe the health concerns will not have major long-term effects. “Her prognosis is excellent,” said Dr. Paul Fassbach, who has cared for Amillia since her second day. Amillia was conceived in vitro and has been in an incubator since birth. She will continue to receive a small amount of supplemental oxygen even after she goes home. “We weren’t too optimistic,” Dr. William Smalling said Monday. “But she proved us all wrong.” Neonatologists who cared for Amillia say she is the first baby known to survive after a gestation period of fewer than 23 weeks. A database run by the University of Iowa’s Department of Pediatrics lists seven babies born at 23 weeks between 1994 and 2003. ...... this story reminds me that my mother, in 1904 in New York, was born at just under 27 weeks of gestation over a hundred years ago. She survived even with such "primitive" care although due to heavy incubator oxygen, she had serious vision difficulties all her life. At the time, she was the youngest child in NY to have survived such a limited gestation. DYNAMITE 2007 SPRING CONFERENCE! March 16-18 ... Come celebrate Dynamite Marketing's 25th Anniversary! To learn more, go to WWW.DYNAMITEMARKETING.COM Recipes of the Month - Crockpot Chicken Don't know about you, but this time of year cranks our tastebuds toward chicken. While plain roast chicken is very easy and healthful, sometimes we just want more, especially if we're getting some typical March weather. The simplest way I have found to make tasty and healthful chicken is in the crockpot - all the work is done way ahead of time and you can come home to a wonderful home-cooked meal! Here are some suggestions to whet your appetite. Serve on your choice of grain - try quinoa instead of rice - it cooks a lot faster! I am using only free-range chicken breasts in the recipes since they seem most popular, but actually small thighs, drumsticks and wings (all bone in) are frequently more flavorful and always more nutritious. ASIAN CHICKEN Cut 1.5# boneless chicken breasts into 1” pieces and place into crock pot. Add: 4@ thinly/diagonally sliced carrots, green onions, & celery, 8oz @ mung bean sprouts & sliced water chestnuts (or pea pods and sliced mushrooms), 1 cup chicken broth, 1 Tbs honey, 1/3 cup soy sauce, 1/4 tsp @ crushed red pepper flakes & ground ginger and 1 clove crushed garlic. Stir, cover and cook on low for 6 to 8 hours. Turn to high. Stir 1/4 cup cornstarch into 1/2 cup cold water until dissolved and then stir into the crock pot liquids. Keeping cover slightly ajar to allow steam to escape, cook until thickened, about 15 to 30 minutes. MEDITERRANEAN CHICKEN Cut 1.5# boneless chicken breasts into 1” pieces and place into crock pot. Add: 2 cups sliced mushrooms, 15oz can diced tomatoes, 1 9oz package frozen artichoke hearts, 1 cup chicken broth, 1 chopped onion, 1/2 cup sliced black olives, and 1/4 cup dry white wine. Stir in 3T quick cooking tapioca, 2/4 tsp thyme, 1/4 tsp @ NTM salt & pepper. Add chicken; spoon some of the tomato mixture over the chicken. Cover: cook on low heat for 7 to 8 hours or on high heat for 3 1/2 to 4 hours. FRUITED CHICKEN Cut 1.5# boneless chicken breasts into 1” pieces and place into buttered crock pot. Add: 1 cup crushed pineapple, 4 Tbs lemon juice (juice of 1lemon), 4 Tbs soy sauce, 3 cups mashed peaches (can be frozen/thawed slices). Stir together, cover and cook on low 6-8 hours. SUPER EASY TEX-MEX CHICKEN Cut 1.5# boneless chicken breasts into 1” pieces and place into crock pot. Pour in a jar of your favorite piquante sauce, stir, cover and cook on low 6-8 hrs. Words of Wisdom .... Natural Laws (Thank you, Nancy!) Law of Mechanical Repair: After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch or you'll have to pee. Law of the Workshop: Any tool, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner. Law of Probability: The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act. Law of the Telephone: If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy signal. Variation Law: If you change lines (or traffic lanes), the oneyou were in will start to move faster than the one you are in now (works every time). Law of the Bath: When the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings. Law of Close Encounters: The probability of meeting someone you know increases when you are with someone you don't want to be seen with. Law of the Result: When you try to prove to someone that a machine won't work, it will. Law of Bio-mechanics: The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach. Law of the Theatre: At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle arrive last. Murphy's Law of Lockers: If there are only two people in a locker room, they will have adjacent lockers. Law of Rugs/Carpets: The chances of an open-faced jelly sandwich landing face down on a floor covering are directly correlated to the newness and cost of the carpet/rug. Law of Location: No matter where you go, there you are. Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about. Brown's Law: If the shoe fits, it's ugly. Oliver's Law: A closed mouth gathers no feet. Lupton's Law: As soon as you find a product that you really like, they will stop making it. .
Rowan & John |
Tarryall.net
. . . a Guide for Living Energetically
. . . a Guide for Living Energetically
NEWSLETTER
March 2007
Daylight Savings - 11th
St. Patrick's Day - 17th
Vernal Equinox - 21st
March 2007
Daylight Savings - 11th
St. Patrick's Day - 17th
Vernal Equinox - 21st
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| There is a certain majesty in simplicity which is far above all the quaintness of wit. Alexander Pope To laugh often and love much... to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others... to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived... this is to have succeeded. Ralph Waldo Emerson Only when we know little things do we know anything; doubt grows with knowledge. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
| the FDA. This information in not intended to treat, diagnose, cure or prevent any disease. All material provided is for educational purposes only. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health condition, and before undertaking any diet, exercise or other health program. |