Doctor Philpott Approved POLAR POWER MAGNETS "Negative Field" Magnetic Therapy Products. Dr Philpott is widely recognized as the worlds leading authoritiy on the use of biomagnets in magnetic therapy applications for pain relief, disease reversal and magnetic health enhancement. "I don't say that magnets healed you, you say that magnets healed you." William H. Philpott, M.D.
Forget everything you've ever read or heard about magnet therapy in the mainstream that didn't mention the importance of polarity! Polarity is the single most critical factor in the use and application of magnets to the body for healing! (biomagnetics) It is estimated that about 80% of all magnetic therapy products sold today are not proper polarity.
WHAT MAGNETIC THERAPY DOES
The biological response to a static positive magnetic field is acid-hypoxia. The biological response to the static negative magnetic fieldis alkaline-hyperoxia. Positive magnetic field therapy is limited to brief exposure to stimulate neuronal and catabolic glandular functions. Positive magnetic field therapy should be under medical supervision due to the danger of prolonged application, producing acid-hypoxia.
Negative magnetic field therapy has a wide application in such things as cell differentiation, healing, production of adenosine triphosphateby oxidative phosphorylation and processing of toxins by oxidoreductase enzymes and resolution of calcium and amino acid insoluble deposits. Negative magnetic field therapy is not harmful and can effectively be used both under medical supervision and self-help application. Some of the values of magnetic therapy are:
•Enhanced sleep with its health-promoting value by production of melatonin.
•Enhanced healing by production of growth hormone.
•Energy production by virtue of oxidoreductase enzyme production of adenosine triphosphate and catalytic remnant magnetism.
•Detoxification by activation of oxidoreductase enzymes processing free radicals, acids, peroxides, alcohols and aldehydes.
•Pain resolution by replacing acid-hypoxia with alkaline-hyperoxia.
•Reversal of acid-hypoxia degenerative diseases by replacement of acid-hypoxia with alkaline-hyperoxia.
•Antibiotic effect for all types of human invading micro-organisms.
•Cancer remission by virtue of blocking the acid-dependent enzyme function producing ATP by fermentation.
•Resolution of calcium and amino acid insoluble deposits by maintaining alkalinization.
•Neuronal calming providing control over emotional, mental and seizure disorders. “Magnetic therapy has been observed to have the highest predictable results of any therapy I have observed in 40 years of medical practice. ”William H. Philpott, M.D.
ABOUT WILLIAM H. PHILPOTT, M.D. William H. Philpott, M.D. has specialty training and practice in psychiatry, neurology, electroencephalography, nutrition, environmental medicine and toxicology.
JES Organics became a source for the superb American Made Polar Power magnet therapy products because these products were recommended to our founder by her doctor for Lyme Disease and the associated health issues and for her husband's osteoporosis.
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Saturday, May 29, 2010
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
by Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times
May 6th, 2010
The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.
The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.
I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.
Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.
In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”
It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president.
One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush.
“We wanted to let people know that we’re concerned, and that they should be concerned,” Professor Leffall told me.
The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary.
“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”
Industry may howl. The food industry has already been fighting legislation in the Senate backed by Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better known as BPA, from food and beverage containers.
Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades, and the evidence is still complex and open to debate. That’s life: In the real world, regulatory decisions usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting data. The panel’s point is that we should be prudent in such situations, rather than recklessly approving chemicals of uncertain effect.
The President’s Cancer Panel report will give a boost to Senator Feinstein’s efforts. It may also help the prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to improve the safety of chemicals on the market.
Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind — if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests.
One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems — not only cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism.
This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in many cases the evidence against a particular substance is balanced by other studies that are exonerating. To help people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report has a section of recommendations for individuals:
Particularly when pregnant and when children are small, choose foods, toys and garden products with fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins. (Information about products is at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or www.healthystuff.org.)
For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals, remove shoes when entering the house and wash work clothes separately from the rest of the laundry.
*Filter drinking water.
*Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in plastics that don’t contain BPA or phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics). *Microwave food in ceramic or glass containers.
*Give preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoid meats that are cooked well-done.
*Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural source of radiation linked to cancer.
Be an educated consumer, know what you are putting on your body. Use only truly natural organic personal care products. Buy Natural Organic Products
by Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times
May 6th, 2010
The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.
The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.
I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.
Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.
In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”
It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president.
One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush.
“We wanted to let people know that we’re concerned, and that they should be concerned,” Professor Leffall told me.
The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary.
“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”
Industry may howl. The food industry has already been fighting legislation in the Senate backed by Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better known as BPA, from food and beverage containers.
Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades, and the evidence is still complex and open to debate. That’s life: In the real world, regulatory decisions usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting data. The panel’s point is that we should be prudent in such situations, rather than recklessly approving chemicals of uncertain effect.
The President’s Cancer Panel report will give a boost to Senator Feinstein’s efforts. It may also help the prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to improve the safety of chemicals on the market.
Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind — if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests.
One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems — not only cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism.
This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in many cases the evidence against a particular substance is balanced by other studies that are exonerating. To help people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report has a section of recommendations for individuals:
Particularly when pregnant and when children are small, choose foods, toys and garden products with fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins. (Information about products is at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or www.healthystuff.org.)
For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals, remove shoes when entering the house and wash work clothes separately from the rest of the laundry.
*Filter drinking water.
*Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in plastics that don’t contain BPA or phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics). *Microwave food in ceramic or glass containers.
*Give preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoid meats that are cooked well-done.
*Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural source of radiation linked to cancer.
Be an educated consumer, know what you are putting on your body. Use only truly natural organic personal care products. Buy Natural Organic Products
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Cell Phones and Cancer
Dear Reader, (http://www.hsibaltimore.com/ealerts/freecopy.html
This hurts me just as much as it may hurt you. I confess, I'm a pretty regular cell phone user, so I've been disturbed by studies and reports that suggest a possible link between cell phone use and cancer. What's been missing is an analysis of long-term cell phone studies – something that's been hard to come by because cell phone use has been a widespread phenomenon for only slightly more than a decade.But now those first long-term studies are in, an analysis has been done, and the results are disturbing to say the least.
------------Calling out around the world----------------------
An x-ray creates ionizing radiation – a type of radiation that can increase cancer risk by disrupting normal DNA activity in your body's cells. Cell phones and microwave ovens emit non-ionizing radiation that does not affect DNA. So in theory, cell phones don't cause cancer – not by prompting DNA damage at any rate.But a 2005 study in Turkey showed that long-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RFEMF) from cell phones could increase free radical levels in the brain, raising the risk of brain cancer. Again – nothing conclusive, just theory.
Which brings us to this new study from researchers at Sweden's Örebro University.
The Örebro team examined two cohort studies (in which medical records for subjects who used cell phones were compared to the records of subjects who didn't use cell phones) and 16 case-control studies (in which cell phone use among subjects with cancer was compared to cell use among healthy subjects). All of the subjects who used cell phones had used them for 10 years or more. The studies were conducted in the U.S., Japan, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Britain.
Analysis of the research produced these results:
Most of the studies found a link between cell use and increased tumor risk
Several studies found that cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas – cancers of the cells that protect nerve cells
Several studies found a link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas – a benign tumor of the auditory nerve, which often results in deafness and balance problems
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more
-----------The good with the bad-------------
There is a ray of good news here.
Professor Kjell Hansson Mild (one of the authors of the study) told the UK newspaper The Independent, that newer cell phones emit less radiation compared to phones that were on the market in the 90s.
But that's about it for the good news. The Independent also reports that previous research conducted by Professor Mild and his colleague Professor Lennart Hardell showed that consistent use of cordless phones present about the same risk as cell phones in the development of malignant glioma and acoustic neuromas.
The professors note that greatest risk is among children due to the relative thinness of their skulls and the fact that their brains and nervous systems are still growing.
And there's one more disturbing development. When I checked the web site for the American Cancer Society, I found a page titled "Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?" Here's what the ACS has to say: "This represents a legitimate area of scientific controversy and should not be dismissed as a myth."
Uh oh. When an organization as seriously mainstream as the ACS doesn't rubber-stamp the cell/cancer link as bunk, you know someone in the medical establishment is nervous about this topic. Where to get Electropollution protection
This hurts me just as much as it may hurt you. I confess, I'm a pretty regular cell phone user, so I've been disturbed by studies and reports that suggest a possible link between cell phone use and cancer. What's been missing is an analysis of long-term cell phone studies – something that's been hard to come by because cell phone use has been a widespread phenomenon for only slightly more than a decade.But now those first long-term studies are in, an analysis has been done, and the results are disturbing to say the least.
------------Calling out around the world----------------------
An x-ray creates ionizing radiation – a type of radiation that can increase cancer risk by disrupting normal DNA activity in your body's cells. Cell phones and microwave ovens emit non-ionizing radiation that does not affect DNA. So in theory, cell phones don't cause cancer – not by prompting DNA damage at any rate.But a 2005 study in Turkey showed that long-term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RFEMF) from cell phones could increase free radical levels in the brain, raising the risk of brain cancer. Again – nothing conclusive, just theory.
Which brings us to this new study from researchers at Sweden's Örebro University.
The Örebro team examined two cohort studies (in which medical records for subjects who used cell phones were compared to the records of subjects who didn't use cell phones) and 16 case-control studies (in which cell phone use among subjects with cancer was compared to cell use among healthy subjects). All of the subjects who used cell phones had used them for 10 years or more. The studies were conducted in the U.S., Japan, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Britain.
Analysis of the research produced these results:
Most of the studies found a link between cell use and increased tumor risk
Several studies found that cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas – cancers of the cells that protect nerve cells
Several studies found a link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas – a benign tumor of the auditory nerve, which often results in deafness and balance problems
Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used
One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more
-----------The good with the bad-------------
There is a ray of good news here.
Professor Kjell Hansson Mild (one of the authors of the study) told the UK newspaper The Independent, that newer cell phones emit less radiation compared to phones that were on the market in the 90s.
But that's about it for the good news. The Independent also reports that previous research conducted by Professor Mild and his colleague Professor Lennart Hardell showed that consistent use of cordless phones present about the same risk as cell phones in the development of malignant glioma and acoustic neuromas.
The professors note that greatest risk is among children due to the relative thinness of their skulls and the fact that their brains and nervous systems are still growing.
And there's one more disturbing development. When I checked the web site for the American Cancer Society, I found a page titled "Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?" Here's what the ACS has to say: "This represents a legitimate area of scientific controversy and should not be dismissed as a myth."
Uh oh. When an organization as seriously mainstream as the ACS doesn't rubber-stamp the cell/cancer link as bunk, you know someone in the medical establishment is nervous about this topic. Where to get Electropollution protection
Friday, September 21, 2007
Just Five Minutes on a Cell Phone Can Trigger Cancer
Just five minutes of exposure to mobile phone radio wave emissions can trigger cellular changes that occur during cancer development, according to new research.
Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, found that mobile phone signals induced the production of natural chemicals that stimulate cell division and growth – central to the growth of tumors -- even at very low power levels.
Until now, the mainstream scientific assumption has been that electromagnetic radiation could only pose a health hazard as a result of thermal heating. However, this may not necessarily be the case.
According to Professor Rony Seger of the Weizmann Institute, “The real significance of our findings is that cells are not inert to non-thermal mobile phone radiation... The changes we observed were clearly not caused by heating.”
Other scientists are quick to point out that cell division occurs naturally, as tissues grow and constantly rejuvenate within the body, and that this study does not prove any health effects.
Graham Philips with the campaign group Powerwatch said, “Further research is required, however guidance based purely on thermal effects is clearly out of date.”
The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR), a government and industry-funded investigation into the potential health hazards of cell phones, launched in 2001, is scheduled to publish its final report next month. Telegraph.co.uk August 31, 2007
NOTE: We recently joined the Safe Wireless Initiative and have become involved in the education of others about this huge and growing 21st Century problem of electropollution. We found a reputable company that provides devices to protect us from electropollution. We starting protecting ourselves several weeks ago and have already noticed changes in how we feel. Let's face it, none of us are likely to give up our cell phones, computers and other electrical devices, they are part of our lives, but we need to at least protect ourselves from this growing environmental concern. Learn more about electropollution
Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, found that mobile phone signals induced the production of natural chemicals that stimulate cell division and growth – central to the growth of tumors -- even at very low power levels.
Until now, the mainstream scientific assumption has been that electromagnetic radiation could only pose a health hazard as a result of thermal heating. However, this may not necessarily be the case.
According to Professor Rony Seger of the Weizmann Institute, “The real significance of our findings is that cells are not inert to non-thermal mobile phone radiation... The changes we observed were clearly not caused by heating.”
Other scientists are quick to point out that cell division occurs naturally, as tissues grow and constantly rejuvenate within the body, and that this study does not prove any health effects.
Graham Philips with the campaign group Powerwatch said, “Further research is required, however guidance based purely on thermal effects is clearly out of date.”
The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR), a government and industry-funded investigation into the potential health hazards of cell phones, launched in 2001, is scheduled to publish its final report next month. Telegraph.co.uk August 31, 2007
NOTE: We recently joined the Safe Wireless Initiative and have become involved in the education of others about this huge and growing 21st Century problem of electropollution. We found a reputable company that provides devices to protect us from electropollution. We starting protecting ourselves several weeks ago and have already noticed changes in how we feel. Let's face it, none of us are likely to give up our cell phones, computers and other electrical devices, they are part of our lives, but we need to at least protect ourselves from this growing environmental concern. Learn more about electropollution
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Report Links Power Lines to Cancer
After looking at a database of 850 patients diagnosed with lymphatic and bone marrow cancers between 1972 and 1980, researchers from the University of Tasmania and Britain's Bristol University found that living near high-voltage power lines might increase the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and related conditions later in life. People who lived within 328 yards of a power line up to the age of five were five times more likely to develop cancer. Those who lived within the same range to a power line at any point during their first 15 years were three times more likely to develop cancer as an adult.
Internal Medicine Journal September 2007; 37(9):614-9
Physorg.com August 24, 2007
Protection from Electropollution
Internal Medicine Journal September 2007; 37(9):614-9
Physorg.com August 24, 2007
Protection from Electropollution
Monday, September 17, 2007
Role of Nutrition in Treating and Managing Chronic Pain
By Hal S. Blatman, MD
Healing from pain is like healing from any other malady, and nutrition plays a significant role in the healing process. When we consider the relationship of food and healing, there are three rules to live by.
Do not put poison into your body.
Give the body the best octane to run.
Provide the body with the best raw materials to build new parts and repair old parts.
I suggest that patients never put poisons into their body including margarine and aspartame which is frequently marketed under the name “NutraSweet.” Margarine puts hydrogenated fat into our body. This is a dangerous substance that has been linked to several chronic diseases. Aspartame converts in the body to methanol and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is embalming fluid and has been linked to cancer. Methanol causes brain injury, and in many people, also pain. Drinking more than 2 diet sodas per week may form more methanol in your body than you can detoxify, causing this substance to build up in your system. It may take two months to detoxify when you stop ingesting aspartame.
The human body is a high performance, biochemical Ferarri. Look at any 10 yr old. They take off from a dead stop at the crack of a bat, corner hard at each base, and wear out their tires. Just like the Ferarri, we are built to run on 100 octane fuel. Too many of us try to run on budget 20 octane fuel, run out of energy, and wonder why. The three biggest low energy foods culprits are:
Sugar
Wheat
Potatoes
The worst of these are sugar and white flour. Most people will function better, have less fatigue, pain and irritable bowel symptoms if they avoid these foods.
In addition to high-octane fuel, the Ferrari uses racing oil. Our bodies also run best on racing oil. The oil we eat is the fat that becomes the most important of the raw materials our bodies use to build new parts.
Believe it or not, fat does not make people fat. People more likely get heavy because they eat low octane fuels. Good fat also does not cause heart attacks. Macadamia nuts are very high in fat, and eating them has been shown to lower bad cholesterol in people.
We need fat to run. Among other things, the fats we eat become the raw materials making cell membranes. Cell membranes function to bring good things into the cell, and send bad things out of the cell. In white blood cells, cell membranes contribute to immune system function by killing invading organisms. We need healthy fat diets and remember, low or no fat diets are generally not healthy for us.
Hal S. Blatman, MD is the founder and medical director of The Blatman Pain Clinic, and a globally recognized specialist in myofascial pain. He is board certified in both Pain Management and Occupational and Environmental medicine.
Healing from pain is like healing from any other malady, and nutrition plays a significant role in the healing process. When we consider the relationship of food and healing, there are three rules to live by.
Do not put poison into your body.
Give the body the best octane to run.
Provide the body with the best raw materials to build new parts and repair old parts.
I suggest that patients never put poisons into their body including margarine and aspartame which is frequently marketed under the name “NutraSweet.” Margarine puts hydrogenated fat into our body. This is a dangerous substance that has been linked to several chronic diseases. Aspartame converts in the body to methanol and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is embalming fluid and has been linked to cancer. Methanol causes brain injury, and in many people, also pain. Drinking more than 2 diet sodas per week may form more methanol in your body than you can detoxify, causing this substance to build up in your system. It may take two months to detoxify when you stop ingesting aspartame.
The human body is a high performance, biochemical Ferarri. Look at any 10 yr old. They take off from a dead stop at the crack of a bat, corner hard at each base, and wear out their tires. Just like the Ferarri, we are built to run on 100 octane fuel. Too many of us try to run on budget 20 octane fuel, run out of energy, and wonder why. The three biggest low energy foods culprits are:
Sugar
Wheat
Potatoes
The worst of these are sugar and white flour. Most people will function better, have less fatigue, pain and irritable bowel symptoms if they avoid these foods.
In addition to high-octane fuel, the Ferrari uses racing oil. Our bodies also run best on racing oil. The oil we eat is the fat that becomes the most important of the raw materials our bodies use to build new parts.
Believe it or not, fat does not make people fat. People more likely get heavy because they eat low octane fuels. Good fat also does not cause heart attacks. Macadamia nuts are very high in fat, and eating them has been shown to lower bad cholesterol in people.
We need fat to run. Among other things, the fats we eat become the raw materials making cell membranes. Cell membranes function to bring good things into the cell, and send bad things out of the cell. In white blood cells, cell membranes contribute to immune system function by killing invading organisms. We need healthy fat diets and remember, low or no fat diets are generally not healthy for us.
Hal S. Blatman, MD is the founder and medical director of The Blatman Pain Clinic, and a globally recognized specialist in myofascial pain. He is board certified in both Pain Management and Occupational and Environmental medicine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)