Eating carbohydrates makes you store belly fat. Eating protein puts on muscle. Most people know that. But a recent study¹ in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that when you over eat on a low protein diet, you store bad fat around your organs including the liver, kidneys and pancreas. But if you eat a high protein diet, you add muscle and increase your resting metabolism and muscle mass. Since muscle burns seven times as many calories as fat, that's a good thing.

In the study, researchers admitted 25 brave volunteers to a hospital ward for 12 weeks. They controlled everything they ate and did. But they made them all overeat about 1,000 calories a day. The only different was where the calories came from - protein or carbs.

The low protein group (5% protein) lost 1.5 pounds of muscle, and gained 7.5 pounds of fat. The high protein group (25% protein) gained 6.3 pounds of metabolically active muscle. They also gained fat because they were being force fed. But even though they gained more total weight, they were LESS fat than the low protein group.

This has important implications for our thinking about calories.

Bottom line: Not all calories are the same. Some calories make you store fat, while others make you store muscle.

Pune: In an incredible quirk of fate three sisters are afflicted by one of the rarest condition in the world, affecting just one in a billion.

The Sangli sisters are suffering from a rare genetic disorder known as werewolf syndrome - where they are covered from head to toe in thick hair.

Savita, 23, Monisha, 18, and 16-year-old Savitri Sangli, who live in a small village near Pune, inherited the hypertrichosis universalis disorder from their father.

Hypertrichosis universalis is a genetic mutation, in which cells that normally switch off hair growth in unusual areas, like the eyelids and forehead, are left switched on.

The girls have abnormal hair growth on their faces, affecting their eyebrows, nose and giving them appearance of having a beard.

Chocolate is clearly one of the most enjoyed foods on the planet, and has one of the oldest documented histories of use going back to 1100 BC. And yet many still harbor guilt about consuming it because they associate it with "candy" and have never been exposed to the research indicating it may actually be closer to a "medicine."

Now, new research from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has revealed that the consumption of chocolate, or its active constituents (cocoa, flavan-3-ols), reduces a broad range of risk factors for cardiovascular disease including insulin resistance. The researchers looked at 42 acute and long-term studies and found a 33% median reduction in insulin resistance following chocolate consumption.

What is so unique about this new study is that chocolate consumption is generally believed to elevate blood sugar and blood insulin levels; not only does it disprove this myth but it sheds additional light on why chocolate consumption (especially dark, organic) may be beneficial in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

2011 was the first year in more than two decades during which there were no deaths from whooping cough. In 2010, 10 infants died from the disease. The number of people who became infected also dropped from 9,000 in 2010 to just 3,000 in 2011.

The state passed a law requiring students in grades 7 to 12 to get vaccinated, but many parents chose to opt out of the program.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

"[D]eaths ... can be prevented if cases are identified and treated quickly ... Pertussis is a bacterial disease that infects the respiratory system. It can be particularly dangerous for infants".

It's a good time to reflect back on the SCARE that was created over people not getting pertussis vaccines. Now it's been revealed that those vaccines require six follow-up booster shots just to continue to work ... if they work at all. More likely than not, the vaccine provides NO protection in any case, as the strain that is causing the damage is not actually in the vaccine.

Researchers from Boston University and Harvard University found more than 100 different prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications and dietary supplements contain phthalates as inactive ingredients. That is, the chemicals do not act as medicines but instead carry and deliver the medicinal ingredients.

It's no secret that pharmaceuticals contain phthalates. The chemicals are sometimes listed as ingredients, and they have been measured in urine in people with chronic diseases - such as cystic fibrosis - who take a lot of medications.

What's surprising is the extent of their use in such different types of products, including nutritional supplements. The exposures and possible health risks from the widespread sources remain unknown. However, any increase in exposure levels to these chemicals from dietary and medicinal sources is concerning because of health effects associated with certain phthalates.

Never saw a headline like this? Neither have I. That's because it doesn't happen.

Cholesterol doesn't harm, maim, or kill. It is simply used as a crude - very crude - marker. It is, in reality, a component of the body, of the cell wall, of lipoproteins (lipid-carrying proteins) in the bloodstream. It is used a an indirect gauge, a "dipstick," for lipoproteins in the blood to those who don't understand how to identify, characterize, and quantify actual lipoproteins in the blood.

Cholesterol itself never killed anybody, any more than a bad paint job on your car could cause a fatal car accident.

What kills people is rupture of atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary arteries. For all practical purposes, you must have atherosclerotic plaque in order for it to rupture (much like a volcano erupts and spews lava). It's not about cholesterol; it's about atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque might contain cholesterol, but cholesterol is not the thing itself that causes heart attack and death.

The Wall Street Journal carried this report of a new proposed classification of the various forms of gluten sensitivity: "New Guide to Who Really Shouldn't Eat Gluten."

This represents progress. Progress in understanding of wheat-related illnesses, as well as progress in spreading the word that there is a lot more to wheat-intolerance than celiac disease. But, as I mention in the letter, it falls desperately short on several crucial issues.

Mobile phone owners were urged to limit their use last night after the World Health Organisation admitted they may cause cancer.

The UN's health agency advised 'pragmatic' measures to reduce exposure, such as using hands-free kits and texting instead of calling.

The disturbing report marks the first time the WHO has linked mobiles with cancer, and follows earlier research linking just half an hour's use a day with up to 40 per cent higher odds of brain cancer.

However the mobile phone industry was quick to point out that the devices had not been directly shown to cause cancer.

More than 70million mobile phones are now in use in Britain - more than one for every man, woman and child. Worldwide, the total tops five billion.

Dr Christopher Wild, director of the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, said: 'Given the potential consequences for public health, it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones.

'Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure, such as hands-free devices and texting.'

IARC's conclusion follows a week-long review of all available scientific evidence by 21 scientists from 14 countries, including fresh research that has yet to be published.

"Life is electrical. A new medicine and a new Earth will arise from this premise!"

- Capt. Randall

We have all been alive since the first spark in the beginning, carrying the flame of life through the epochs and are of the primordial mother cell, all of us. The oneness of all living is exceeded only by the fact we are all (one) matter, born of the original energy that blasted the worlds into existence. You are me, the rock, the ocean and the galaxy. I'd say EVERYTHING is pretty closely related.

The molecules that surround us are the same ones that construct our bodies and perpetuate life out of air, water and soil. These molecules may be packed with electrons or hungry for some, and this determines their behavior and associations (redox). Electrons themselves capture the power of photons and radiant heat from the Sun as the common currency of energy. Have-not molecules seek out those that have, and take them or share, and in sharing become larger. Large enough to build cells, large enough to build DNA and carry information and large enough to generate magnetic fields and... consciousness.

It stands to reason that if molecules build cells and our bodies, that they must be of the correct elemental type and charge...and be capable of performing the business of cells, the biochemistry of life. Just as Dr Frankenstein infused his monster with gobs of electricity, we must quantitatively supply electrons to the body we live in and its cells must generate more. When through inappropriate nutrition or charge-robbing toxins and toxic thoughts our actual measurable voltage drops, our molecules begin to act erratically, cells refuse oxygen, immune systems grow weak and DNA malfunctions. Unchecked, this condition spirals down into disease, YES, MOST ALL DISEASE.

When a healer's efforts are organized to reverse these negative conditions, magically cells regain function and the monster rises robust and healthy. These efforts must be directed at the inventory of molecules AND their energetic condition, their electron balance. Once an overwhelming electron presence is restored, oxygen becomes available, mitochondria fire up their furnaces and the grid is brought to full power.

Chemotherapy is an accepted method by the mainstream medical establishment as a means to fight against cancer, but its effectiveness and reliability is highly in question. Now, research even brings into question the effect chemotherapy has on your entire hereditary line, with researchers linking chemotherapy drug usage with DNA mutations that extend to your offspring.

You probably know somebody who has undergone some cancer treatment at one point or another. The effects of chemotherapy on the body are highly destructive, and often leave the cancer patient in a worse state than they were in before.

Unfortunately, using an unnatural chemical substance to effectively blast the cancer cells has the same effect on the healthy functioning cells as well. As a result, most chemotherapy patients are highly damaged by the process and sometimes sustain injuries that are irrevocable.

Three common drugs used for chemotherapy have been found to cause DNA mutations within the users. This is already highly dangerous, but according to new research, this damage may have the ability to pass into future generations. These findings shed light on the long term negative effects pharmaceuticals are having on our bodies. If the bodily effects were not enough to cope with, the use of these treatments may actually have a long term effect on the health of those to come afterward.