Medicare Premiums Set to Increase - DRASTICALLY

Well who would be surprised when reading this news story today.

The elderly will face another double-digit rise in their Medicare premiums next year, resulting in monthly payments of nearly $100.

The monthly premiums for supplementary medical insurance will rise from $88.50 to at least $98.40, the Bush administration projected Tuesday. That's an 11.2 percent increase, and it's possible the amount will be slightly higher.

The projections assume that Congress will reduce Medicare payment rates for physicians by about 4.7 percent next year. Many analysts don't believe such a cut will occur, and that means the cost of the insurance would go higher than current projections.

Mark McClellan, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the higher premiums are being generated through an increase in the volume of care provided Medicare patients. Doctors make greater use of imaging, physical therapy, lab tests and physician-administered drugs.

Physicians say that the increased volume usually equates to better care and healthier patients, but a fact sheet released by CMS on Tuesday said "use of these services varies substantially across practices and geographic areas, with no clear impacts on health."

"We can't keep pumping more money into a payment system that is not sustainable," McClellan said.

The premiums that beneficiaries pay help fund physician services and outpatient care, also known as Medicare Part B. Taxpayers also fund the program.

About 7 million of the poorest beneficiaries get their premiums paid for through government programs, and some retirees get help from their former employer as well. But the large majority of the nation's 43 million beneficiaries will have to pay the increase, McClellan noted.

Kirsten Sloan of the AARP said that one way to slow costs for seniors is to slow costs throughout the health care system through greater use of technology. She said legislation designed to take the paper work out of medical care could save money and reduce medical errors.

"We're going on several years of repeated double-digit increases, and it's also roughly three times the rate of the
Social Security (cost-of-living) increase," said Sloan, the AARP's national coordinator for health issues. "It puts a real squeeze, particularly on moderate-income seniors."

While McClellan said the Part B increases were going up faster than recent projections, he also noted that premiums for the new drug benefit have been lower than projected. The average premium was projected a year ago to be about $37 a month, but that average dropped to $24 a month as seniors and the disabled flocked to plans offering lower monthly premiums.

And of course Congress wants to limit your access to health promoting supplements, even though there are numerous physicians who care more for their patient's health safely with supplements than current insurance and pharmaceutical contolled mainstream medicine wants to allow.

Health is a commodity that it becoming more and more precious. Its greatest value is in becoming independently healthy with knowledge.

___

Natural Substances and Health Benefits

About a month ago I wrote about the failure of medicine today to think with an open mind.

I suppose I could address any topic in health care and see the same behavior. I hear stories every day from people about the difficulties they face in the health care system, and their hopelessness. Your health is a very precious commodity, and your health care provider needs to give it their full attention.

As a follow-up note to something I mentioned in "One More Time, with feeling" I am most pleased to report that a little girl's health status became free of parasites because of natural therapy with nutritional support, internal baths, herbs and essential oils.

If you want to insure that your right of access to natural therapies remains in tact, please visit this site.

Ever Think That Your LOW-FAT or NON-FAT Diet Craze Might Lead to Poor Health?

Review finds current vitamin D recommendations insufficient to achieve healthy blood levels

A review published in the July, 2006 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which sought to determine the optimal serum levels of the major circulating form of vitamin D [25(OH)D] for several health outcomes concluded that it would be necessary to consume at least 1000 international units of vitamin D per day to elevate blood serum levels in half the adult population to 75 nanomoles per liter, the minimum level that the researchers found to be advantageous for helping to preserve normal bone mineral density and lower extremity function, and aiding in the prevention of periodontal disease, falls, fractures, and colorectal cancer. Although there is evidence for vitamin D in preventing other diseases such as multiple sclerosis, tuberculosis, insulin resistance, osteoarthritis, hypertension, and cancers other than colorectal cancer, the authors did not include these diseases in the current review.

H. A. Bischoff-Ferrari of Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, along with colleagues at Harvard and Tufts University evaluated clinical trials and meta-analyses involving vitamin D and each of the selected health outcomes. They concluded that the most desirable serum levels of vitamin D began at 75 nanomoles per liter (30 nanograms per milliliter), and optimal levels are between 90 and 100 nanomoles per liter. These levels cannot be reached by most individuals with the current recommended intakes of 200 international units per day for younger adults and 600 international units per day for older adults. To bring vitamin D concentrations in at least 50 percent of the population up to optimal levels, the authors recommend at least 1000 IU vitamin D per day, and they remark that 2000 IU per day may be a safe recommended daily allowance.

“On the basis of this review, we suggest that, for bone health in younger adults and all outcomes in older adults, including antifracture efficacy, lower-extremity strength, dental health, and colorectal cancer prevention, an increase in the current recommended intake of vitamin D may be warranted,” the authors conclude. “Given the low cost, the safety, and the demonstrated benefit of higher 25(OH)D concentrations, vitamin D supplementation should become a public health priority to combat these common and costly chronic diseases.”

The fat soluable viatmins are A,D,E and K. Basically this means that you MUST have healthy fat in your diet to absorb and utilize these important substances. And, yes, the mineral 'calcium' is fat dependent too.

Some minerals, including calcium are fat soluable also. The integrity of the cell wall membrane depends on fat, as does a large part of the brain and nervous system.

Hormones are produced and work well because of fat in your diet.

Of course you want healthy fat and you want moderate amounts of it. Yes, fat for the health of it!

In case you aren't a health and nutrition nut like I am here is a little primer on those four vitamins I listed above:

Vitamin A
Vitamin D
Vitamin E
Vitamin K

Make these vitamins your friends. We have a great Food Plan for Biochemical Rebalancing we can send you with your donation.

And if you'd like to help us continue our work here, on our web site and in our newsletter, feel free to visit us, and consider purchasing your high quality vitamins and supplements from us too.

Drugs: The Generator

About a year ago a very dear and long ago friend from the 60s decided to leave this plane. I have been thinking of him a lot lately. This morning I decided to play the CDs I have of his wonderful music. This also makes me think about how he had so much trouble with his health, knowing part of his decision included these worries.
It doesn't surprise me in the least because I know so many people, especially as they are aging, fear for loss of health.
I am not outside that group, so I try to do things to help maintain my health and prevent any untoward events as much as they remain in my control. This has a lot to do with taking responsibility for my health. I hope that others will do this too, because they can, and should.
This article about vision and drugs takes me back a decade or more when so many research articles were in the media about vitamin C being the best protective treatment to prevent and perhaps reverse macular degeneration.
Vitamin C you say. Yes, you know that dangerous supplement that all humans need, at least about 3000 mg. daily, since we don't make any of our own. That supplement they want to limit your purchase to about 60 mg. daily, only because that amount prevents scurvy, but any more can be dangerous. (Hear my laughter here please!)
Now comes Lucentis at $1950 bucks a pop. And you might have to get it twice a month. This is an alternative to Avastin, a $17 a dose cancer drug used off-label for the same treatment. You know those off-label uses not FDA approved (if that means anything these days) that could very well bring about terryifying long-range problems.
If you read this BLOG, subscribe to herbalYODA Says! or visit the CHI website you probably know that we support natural healing, so we support high dose natural vitamin C. Maybe it might cost up to $30 a month for high quality vitamin C. And of course you get added benefits of health promotion for other concerns like heart health, et al. Then you can consider IV vitamin C too ( which works for many things including HepC, cancer, etc).
So maybe nostaligia wins today. Or maybe the fact that I am in my 60s and the only one in my family that does not wear corrective lenses and I don't have kidney stones from all that vitamin C I've been taking for decades.
Another effective treatment is the use of the Palma Christi. This is an Edgar Cayce remedy that many elderly clients of CHI have used. You could also try the natural eye wash protocol, as it has been around for at least 100 years now, and shows no untoward side effects. We haven't ever found any bodies either.
Now for more music from the heart of "Jon the Generator", please go here.
____________________________________________________

Drug approved to combat elderly blindness
By ANDREW BRIDGES, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 30, 8:44 PM ET

The first drug shown to significantly improve the vision of patients threatened by a major cause of blindness in the elderly won federal approval Friday.

The drug, called Lucentis, treats the wet form of age-related macular degeneration, a disorder where blood vessels behind the retina leak blood and fluid, worsening vision and often causing blindness. An estimated 90 percent of the 1.4 million Americans who have lost their eyesight due to the disorder have the wet form.

Lucentis, made by Genentech, Inc., a South San Francisco, Calif., biotechnology company, inhibits the growth of blood vessels when injected into the eye. Other Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments can arrest progression of the disease, which can lead to blindness in just weeks or months, but none has been shown to significantly reverse deteriorating vision.

Genentech may find Lucentis competing against another of its drugs, the cancer treatment Avastin. Avastin is increasingly used to treat macular degeneration for as little as $17 a dose. Lucentis will cost $1,950 per injection, or more than 100 times as much. Each drug is typically injected monthly or bimonthly.

Lucentis and Avastin both block the same protein believed responsible for the blood vessel growth. Early results from Lucentis trials led doctors more than two years ago to begin experimenting with Avastin to treat age-related macular degeneration, commonly called AMD.

"It gave physicians and patients great hope we are going to be able to improve vision in our patients rather than just slow down the loss of vision," Dr. George Williams, an American Academy of Ophthalmology spokesman, said of the early results.

Since then, at least 10,000 macular degeneration patients have received Avastin injections, a so-called "off-label" use of the drug.

"It's become a worldwide phenomenon," said Dr. Philip Rosenfeld, a professor of ophthalmology at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute in Miami, who pioneered its use for AMD.

The FDA does not sanction using Avastin to treat macular degeneration. Genentech stresses that it has not studied the safety or effectiveness of Avastin in treating the disease, nor does it plan to do so.

"We believe Lucentis is a much better choice," said Dr. Hal Barron, Genentech's chief medical officer. "I really believe when treating patients, you have to look at the wealth of data supporting its use and the quality of that data."

The National Eye Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, has received an outside proposal to conduct a study comparing Avastin and Lucentis in treating AMD, said the government institute's Dr. Maryann Redford.

Genentech engineered Lucentis to better penetrate the retina while reducing inflammation, Barron said. Lucentis also clears the body faster than Avastin, and better targets the protein important to vessel formation, he added.

Still, the anticipated cost of Lucentis may constrain its use, since Avastin is far cheaper when vials of the cancer drug are divvied up and used to treat macular degeneration.

"The bottom line is, wherever price does matter, Avastin will probably be used as first-line therapy. But wherever price is not an issue, like in Medicare patients and Medicaid patients, Lucentis will be used," Rosenfeld said.

Neither drug is a cure for age-related macular degeneration. Lucentis is most effective when injected monthly, said Dr. Wiley Chambers, deputy director of the FDA's Division of Anti-infective and Opthalmologic Products. The disease is named for the macula, the central portion of the retina responsible for detailed central vision.

The two other FDA-approved therapies to treat macular degeneration are Novartis AG/QLT Inc.'s Visudyne, which combines a light-sensitive drug and laser therapy to seal leaking blood vessels, and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc./Pfizer Inc.'s Macugen, which is injected into the eye. Both slow the progression of the disorder but typically reverse its effects in only 5 percent to 10 percent of patients, Chambers said.

Lucentis' most commonly reported side effects include conjunctival hemorrhage, eye pain, floaters, increased eye pressure and inflammation.

In clinical trials, nearly 95 percent of participants given monthly injections maintained their vision at one year, compared with the approximately 60 percent who did after receiving another treatment, the FDA said. Approximately one-third of the Lucentis patients also reported improved vision after a year.

Genentech said it would start shipping Lucentis on Friday.

Optimum Nutrition 100% Whey VS. Dymatize Elite Whey

I've been meaning to write this review for a long time seeing all the questions about "which whey is the best?" and most people recommending ON 100% whey!

This is head to head review that is going to concentrate on the typical three main aspects when considering protein powders:

1.Price
2.Taste
3.Mixability

Dymatize has 40mg of an enzyme blend
Optimum Nutrition has 25 mg of enzyme blend

Flavors being reviewed are
ON 100% whey: Rocky road , Chocolate , Chocolate mint
Dymatize Elite: Cafe Mocha, Rich chocolate, Berry blast

ON 100% whey

Price
$28.89

Taste
(In skim milk 6-7 oz)
Rocky Road: Great at first but gets old way too fast [ 7/10]
Chocolate: Not a great chocolate taste but not bad [7.5/10]
Chocolate Mint: A refreshing taste, the mint adds a nice flavor [8/10]

(In water 4-6oz)
Rocky Road: Terrible [3/10]
Chocolate: Better but still bad [4/10]
Chocolate Mint : As bad as chocolate [4/10]

Mixability
ON 100% has good mixability not clumpy and pretty instantized shake it a few times and you have a good mix [9/10]

Dymatize Elite

Price
$25.69

Taste
(in 6-7 oz of skim milk)

Berry Blast: Weird berry taste not bad at all but wouldn't want to buy 5lbs of it [7/10]
Rich Chocolate: This is pretty good! Better than ON 's chocolate [8.5/10]
Cafe Mocha: This Can't be real! Greatest protein taste ever has a good taste of mocha in it, it just can't taste that GOOD!!! If you are a coffee lover like I am, then this flavor is for YOU! [9.75/10]

(in water 5-6 oz)

I only tried cafe mocha with water and some crushed ice and it is by FAR the best protein taste in water that is actually GOOD!!! Comparing this to ON 100% whey in water I will give it [9/10] absolutely AMAZING.

3. Mixability: Dymatize mixability is not as good as ON 100%, but with a few more shakes it mixes nicely so all it needs is some patience. [8/10]

Overall
My choice is definitely going to Dymatize Elite for the following reasons:
- The flavors are much better than ON 100% whey
- It is less expensive -- better bang for your buck
- 40 mg of enzyme blend vs. 25 mg of ON's 100% whey (less protein farts!)
- The taste is not just better it is stronger and not faint like ON 100% (little more sugary taste which I like)
- You can actually like the taste of this whey in water for a nice post workout shake

The only thing better about ON 100% whey in my opinion is the mixability but that does not bother me at all. I'd rather drink something that tastes good than whey that will save me 10 seconds of shaking time.

*Notice: Dymatize does not list the Amino acid break down but it is not going to vary significantly enough between similar blends, so I would definitely not hold this against Dymatize although it would be nice to list them.

I have yet to try butter toffee from Dymatize as I heard great things about it

I hope this was a helpful review to all those that wanting to know how Dymatize Elite compares to ON 100% whey

More Info: Dymatize Elite Whey, 5lbs, Cafe Mocha

MERCK'S GARDASIL VACCINE NOT PROVEN SAFE FOR LITTLE GIRLS

..."This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls."

Merck says that this vaccine, at $360 a series, will not have data on vaccination of little boys until 2008. Of course adding to the already heavy overlay of harmful vaccines will do little but raise money for Merck in the meantime. The Feds are also boosting profits by tying the expense into the national program for recommended vaccines.

And don't fail to overlook the glamourous capaign of stars and starlets travelling around the country to help you make a bracelet through for an alleged educational organization funded by Merck - www.maketheconnection.org/

A more insidious drug company strategy involves directly influencing so-called consumer organizations. A report in 2003 warned:
"Pharmaceutical companies are pouring millions of dollars into patient advocacy groups and medical organisations to help expand markets for their products. Many groups have become largely or totally reliant on pharmaceutical industry money, prompting concerns they are open to pressure from companies pushing their products.15"

The influence of pharmaceutical companies over consumer groups is a big concern, according to Martyn Goddard, the health policy officer with the Australian Consumers' Association. "Drug companies find it very easy to recruit consumer groups and they do it very cheaply," he said. "There's almost no such thing as clean money for most consumer organisations.15" With this money comes drug company influence on what these organizations say and the treatments they recommend." from Jay S. Cohen, MD

I think it would be great if Merck would fund CHI so it can do education from the point of view that there is a requirement to provide all the risks and actual benefits of any drug or vaccine. Maybe 'Make the Connection' will share some of their bounty with us as well. CHI helps people learn to make those forgotten informed decision that make taking a drug or vaccine legal. Always question the 'authorities' about forced questionable pharmaceuticals for your best health.

"Informed consent can be effectively exercised only if the patient possesses enough information to enable an intelligent choice (AMA, 1999)."

---------------------------------------------------------

National Vaccine Information Center Criticizes FDA for Fast Tracking Licensure

Washington, D.C. - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is calling on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to just say "no" on June 29 to recommending "universal use" of Merck's Gardasil vaccine in all pre-adolescent girls. NVIC maintains that Merck's clinical trials did not prove the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine designed to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts is safe to give to young girls.

"Merck and the FDA have not been completely honest with the people about the pre-licensure clinical trials," said NVIC president Barbara Loe Fisher. "Merck's pre and post-licensure marketing strategy has positioned mass use of this vaccine by pre-teens as a morality play in order to avoid talking about the flawed science they used to get it licensed. This is not just about teenagers having sex, it is also about whether Gardasil has been proven safe and effective for little girls.


The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo.[1] A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial. Gardasil contains 225 mcg of aluminum and, although aluminum adjuvants have been used in vaccines for decades, they were never tested for safety in clinical trials. Merck and the FDA did not disclose how much aluminum was in the placebo.[2]

Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death [3] and that vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain, [4 5] as well as cause inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue. [6 7] Nearly 90 percent of Gardasil recipients and 85 percent of aluminum placebo recipients followed-up for safety reported one or more adverse events within 15 days of vaccination, particularly at the injection site.[8] Pain and swelling at injection site occurred in approximately 83 percent of Gardasil and 73 percent of aluminum placebo recipients. About 60 percent of those who got Gardasil or the aluminum placebo had systemic adverse events including headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia. [9 10] Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.

"Merck and the FDA do not reveal in public documents exactly how many 9 to 15 year old girls were in the clinical trials, how many of them received hepatitis B vaccine and Gardasil simultaneously, and how many of them had serious adverse events after being injected with Gardasil or the aluminum placebo. For example, if there were less than 1,000 little girls actually injected with three doses of Gardasil, it is important to know how many had serious adverse events and how long they were followed for chronic health problems, such as juvenile arthritis."

According to the Merck product manufacturer insert, there was 1 case of juvenile arthritis, 2 cases of rheumatoid arthritis, 5 cases of arthritis, and 1 case of reactive arthritis out of 11,813 Gardasil recipients plus 1 case of lupus and 2 cases of arthritis out of 9,701 participants primarily receiving an aluminum containing placebo. Clinical trial investigators dismissed most of the 102 Gardasil and placebo associated serious adverse events, including 17 deaths, that occurred in the clinical trials as unrelated.

"There is too little long term safety and efficacy data, especially in young girls, and too little labeling information on contraindications for the CDC to recommend Gardasil for universal use, which is a signal for states to mandate it," said Fisher. "Nobody at Merck, the CDC or FDA know if the injection of Gardasil into all pre-teen girls - especially simultaneously with hepatitis B vaccine - will make some of them more likely to develop arthritis or other inflammatory autoimmune and brain disorders as teenagers and adults. With cervical cancer causing about one percent of all cancer deaths in American women due to routine pap screening, it was inappropriate for the FDA to fast track Gardasil. It is way too early to direct all young girls to get three doses of a vaccine that has not been proven safe or effective in their age group."

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), founded in 1982 by parents of vaccine injured children, has been a leading critic of one-size-fits-all mass vaccination policies and the lack of basic science research into biological mechanisms and high risk factors for vaccine-induced brain and immune system dysfunction. As a member of the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), Barbara Loe Fisher urged trials include adequate safety data on pre-adolescent children and warned against fast tracking Gardasil at the November 28-29, 2001 VRBPAC meeting .[11]

Full 2001 FDA Transcript: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber01.htm#Vaccines & Related Biological

For more information go to www.NVIC.org.

Food Police in action on false facts

Standing Up To Big Pharma, Big Food, Big Medicine and Big Government

Dr. Eric Topol, a Cleveland cardiologist, one of the earliest critics of Vioxx, has learned the hard way that being outspoken and having integrity can carry a heavy price when speaking out.

In 2004, Dr. Topol published a paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association that first raised concerns that Vioxx, a painkiller, could cause cardiovascular problems.

During one of the class action lawsuits against Merck, the maker of Vioxx, Dr. Topol was called to testify. He reportedly accused Merck of scientific misconduct by misrepresenting its own laboratory findings about the drug's safety.

Less than a week after this testimony, Dr. Topol was fired as chief academic official of a medical college in Cleveland. The reason given by college officials was 'administrative reorganization.'

Dr. Topol was quoted in a newspaper report as saying his firing was a direct consequence of his outspokenness. "The hardest thing in the world is just trying to tell the truth, to do the right thing for patients, and you get vilified. No wonder nobody stands up to the (drug et al) industry."

Now we have the AMA, quoting on their web site that it is the organization that is helping doctors help patients.

The AMA is calling for measures to reduce sodium intake in U.S. diet and urges the FDA to revoke "generally recognized as safe" status for salt in an effort to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease.

"Cardiovascular disease remains the number one killer of Americans. People who reduce dietary sodium intake are taking an important step in preventing future health problems," said AMA Board Member and practicing cardiologist J. James Rohack, MD. "We hope these recommendations will encourage food manufacturers and restaurants to modify their current practices of adding unhealthy amounts of sodium to their products."

The standard pitch for decades has been that excess sodium greatly increases the chance of developing hypertension, heart disease, and stroke. Research shows most Americans consume two to three times the amount of sodium that is healthy, with an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the daily intake of sodium coming from processed and restaurant foods.

"Just one cup of canned soup can contain more than 50 percent of the FDA recommended daily allowance," explains Dr. Rohack. "A serving of lasagna in a restaurant can put a diner over their recommended daily sodium allowance in just one meal. These examples stress the importance of a national reduction in the amount of sodium in processed and restaurant foods."

The recommendations adopted today include:

* urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to revoke the "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) status of salt and to develop regulatory measures to limit sodium in processed and restaurant foods;
* calling for a minimum 50 percent reduction in the amount of sodium in processed foods, fast food products and restaurant meals to be achieved over the next decade;
* working with appropriate partners to educate consumers about the benefits of long-term, moderate reductions in sodium intake;
* discussing with the FDA ways to improve labeling to assist consumers in understanding the amount of sodium contained in processed food products and to develop label markings and warnings for foods high in sodium.

The AMA is confident the implementation of these recommendations would reduce sodium intake, result in a better educated consumer, and eventually lower the incidence of hypertension and cardiovascular disease in this country.

Now if you try to go to the core of this issue you find some very interesting things. *Some studies show it might be 'chloride' that is the culprit.
*Some studies show that it is the processing of salt, when heated to 1400 degrees F that drives out impurities, minerals, and any water in the compound that makes 'salt' the problem.

The AMA and obviously the FDA and perhaps the USDA have not looked at the food industry to take a more active role in addressing all the 'salt' in food and other consumer products. Then we have the upcoming artificial salt flavoring approved for consumption by humans without any labeling requirements. No one has look at soda. The AMA recently tabled the issue to limit the intake of soft drinks, so perhaps the pressure is on the medical mafia to ignore this source of dietary sodium.

You know you gotta start reading the labels.

And, just maybe the AMA oughta start paying more attention to the work of one of their own, Dr. John Laragh, who believes that salt is a critical factor in health.

It is true that pigs often eat their young. You might ask why, and when you do you find that the answer lies in having too little salt. You also might ask about al those salt licks used for animal health. Then you could ask just why animal studies are looked at so akin to humans. And I suppose the string could go on for more than a few miles on this one.

So where do I think this should go?

Just maybe to the use of natural salt*, you know, the funny looking stuff that is often in color but no matter the form, still is replete with precious minerals not burned out by processing.

This is just another call from me to say "Hey!" "How about reading some labels..."

It might just be that easy.

*natural salt information is readily available from the Leaflady

and look for her acclaimed book - The Road to Health Natural Care Series: Blood Pressure Care Naturally