Tales

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Dangerous Supplements You Should Stay Away From

Dangerous Supplements You Should Stay Away From


Dangerous Supplements You Should Stay Away From


April 27- 2011
Curated by Rene Volpi via deefoster







Natural Does not Mean Safe!

We are living in a time when more and more people appear to be more health conscious than ever before. The health and wellness industry is a growing trend, accounting for billions of dollars in health and wellness products, such as herbal and natural supplements.
Many, however, do not realize that they are putting themselves in grave danger when taking natural supplements in an attempt to either improve their health or to combat certain illnesses and diseases.
I believe that too many believe the hype and buy in too quickly before taking the time to do the necessary research to ensure that what they are taking is not going to have any harmful side effects.
You should always remember, what is safe for someone else may not necessarily be safe for you. For example, there are some herbal supplements that can cause lethal side effects when taken with certain medications and may cause dangerous reactions if your have certain preexisting conditions, such as high blood pressure or diabetes, just to name a few.

Dangerous Supplements

Here are a list of supplements that have been identified has having some serious potential to cause a lot of damage. I recommend that you stay away from these supplements and at the very least do some further research before you take these.
  • Kava - Used for anxiety. This supplement may cause liver damage and has already been banned in Canada, Germany and Switzerland.
  • Comfrey - Used for the treatment of cancer, couch and also used to treat heavy bleading during menstrual cycle. Possible danger includes liver damage and cancer.
  • Germanium - Used in the treatment of liver problems, pain infections and arthritis. Possible side effects are kidney damage and even death.
  • Coltsfoot - Used for sore throat, asthma and bronchitis. Side effects include liver damage and cancer.
  • Bitter Orange - Used for allergies, nasal congestion and weight loss. Dangerous side effects include stroke, fainting, heart attack and even death
  • Aconite - Used for gout, joint pain and inflammation. Dangerous side effects include vomiting, low blood pressure, toxicity and even death.

Tips to Protect Yourself

If you are considering adding herbal and other natural supplements to your diet, here are some tips to ensure that you make the safest choices in natural supplements.
  1. See your Doctor. Always check with your doctor before adding any supplements to your doctor. Some supplements could cause dangerous reactions to any medication you may already be taking.
  2. Stay away from supplements for weight loss, body building and sexual enhancement. According to the FDA, these types of supplements could possible contain trace amounts of prescription drugs and steroids.
  3. Only purchase supplements that show the "USP Verified" seal. This organization verifies the quality and purity of the raw materials.
  4. Don't take more than indicated on the container. Taking more does not increase the benefits and could result in over dosing and toxicity.
  5. See your doctor immediately if you start to experience any symptoms as the result of taking supplements.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Libya: British photographer killed in Misurata - Telegraph

Libya: British photographer killed in Misurata - Telegraph

Curated by Stillmind on 4-20-2011

Libya: British photographer killed in Misurata

Tim Hetherington, a leading British photojournalist, has been killed while covering the fighting in the Libyan city of Misurata, the Foreign Office has confirmed.

Libya: British photographer reported killed in Misurata
Image 1 of 2
Tim Hetherington died from a mortar round while on the front line

Mr Hetherington, who had won a World Press Photo of the Year award for his coverage of Afghanistan and had also made prize-winning film documentaries, was said by friends and colleagues to have died from a mortar round while on the front line.

The photographer, who was on assignment for the news agency Panos, is the first known British casualty of the Libyan conflict.

An American colleague, Chris Hondros, who was working for Getty, was reported to be in a critical condition after sustaining brain injuries in the attack. Two other journalists were said to have been injured in the incident.

One of those injured was reported to be Guy Martin, a British photographer with Panos, who was receiving treatment in hospital last night.

The photographers were among a group caught by mortar fire on Tripoli Street, the main thoroughfare leading into the centre of Misurata, according to reports.

Spanish photographer Guillermo Cervera said: “It was quiet and we were trying to get away and then a mortar landed and we heard explosions.”

A colleague who was with them and was at the hospital confirmed the death on a Facebook page, prompting condolences from other foreign correspondents.

Mr Hetherington, 40, who was from Liverpool but had dual British and American nationality, read English literature at Oxford University before becoming a photographer and film-maker.

He spent eight years in West Africa, covering the Liberian and Sierra Leone civil wars there, before working in Afghanistan.

His first film, Restrepo, which covered the lives of a platoon of soldiers in Afghanistan, which was last year nominated for an Oscar.

Mr Hondros, 41, had been nominated for a Pulitzer prize in 2004 and also lectured and wrote on war in the United States.

Both men lived in New York.

James Golston of ABC-TV News USA, who worked with Mr Hetherinton on Nightline, a documentary about the war in Afghanistan, described him as “one of the bravest photographers and filmmakers I have ever met”.

He said: "During his shooting for the Nightline specials he very seriously broke his leg on a night march out of a very isolated forward operating base that was under attack.

“He had the strength and character to walk for four hours through the night on his shattered ankle without complaint and under fire, enabling that whole team to reach safety.”

Mr Hetherington last year described some of his experiences in Afghanistan as “pretty traumatic events”.

He said: “The thing about the wars in Afghanistan, they've been known as the ghost wars, you know, because not often does one really see the enemy.”

Mr Hetherington wrote on his Twitter profile last night: “In besieged Libyan city of Misurata. Indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of Nato.”

A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We are offering consular assistance to the family.”

Sunday, April 10, 2011

The Difference Between Darfur and Libya.

Intervention in Libya, why not Darfur?

Listen NowListen Now
imagePhoto of Darfur refugees in a camp along the Chad-Sudan border in 2007 (Image by Jeb Sharp)
International forces didn't intervene in the Darfur crisis, so why did it happen so quickly in Libya?
This story was originally covered by PRI's The World. For more, listen to the audio above.
The pace of the Libya intervention has stunned the people of Darfur and the activists who worked so hard to protect them. Back in 2004, the assumption was that if you raised a loud enough outcry, governments would act to stop mass atrocities. In Libya the outcry had barely begun when governments intervened. The difference has not gone unnoticed by Rebecca Hamilton the author of "Fighting for Darfur: Public Action and the Struggle to Stop Genocide".
"What Libya has that Darfur never had, still does not have to the present day, and desperately needs, is a unified international commitment to do civilian protection," said Hamilton.
Hamilton says Libya underscores for her how the battle to protect civilians takes place in the realm of global geo-politics. In this case it was the Arab League's request to the UN Security Council to enforce a no fly zone and protect civilians that made the difference.
"Without that then you would have had China in particular doing what it did in Darfur–and which is its typical position–which is to threaten to veto anything that looks interventionist," said Hamilton.
"But with the Arab League specifically requesting to the UN Security Council that they do this, I think that led to China agreeing to abstain and let such a strong civilian protection resolution go through."
The Arab League was willing to forsake Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in a way it was never ready to forsake Sudanese President Omar al Bashir. Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy says a key motivating factor in the Libya intervention was the widespread desire to see Gaddafi fall.
"The Arab League generally has no love for Gaddafi," said Knights. "Many of the key players have a strong desire to see Gaddafi fall because of prior disagreements and bitter conflicts that they've had with him. Likewise the West has long-lasting grudges against Gaddafi whether they be the U.S., the British, the French."
Even so, it wasn't a given that the Arab League would sideline Gaddafi, notes Rebecca Hamilton. At the height of the outcry over Darfur, the Arab League stood by Sudanese President Omar al Bashir.
"I think what made the difference is the high-level defections of some of Gaddafi's closest inner circle," said Hamilton.
"And that again is something that you have not had in Sudan. Bashir's inner circle have stayed tight and in support of him. But I think that when Gaddafi's inner circle started to split it was easier for regional bodies like the Arab League to say, well we can stand beside Libya, whilst isolating Gaddafi."
But Hamilton says there's another striking reason things have played out differently in Libya and Darfur.
"If I had to put it in one word, I'd say Iraq," said Hamilton.
"The problem during the early days in Darfur was that it was really only the U.S. government that was leading the charge for civilian protection, and it was in many ways the worst-placed actor to do so in the context of the recent invasion in Iraq. It just looked like hypocrisy and double standards for the Bush Administration to be talking about human rights in Darfur whilst you had Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and all of the other consequences of Iraq."
It also made it easy for President Bashir of Sudan to paint any discussion of an international peacekeeping force for Darfur as an American-led attempt to invade yet another Muslim country. But things are different today. Time has passed. There's a different administration in the White House, and the rest of the world is less cynical about US motives. There is surprising support for the Libya intervention in the Arab World.
But even if there had been similar agreement on Darfur there's another glaring difference between the two cases, according to Robert Pape of the University of Chicago.
"The main difference between Darfur and Libya is actually the geography," said Pape.
Pape points out that Libya is close to Europe and right on the coast. That means Gaddafi's forces are vulnerable to NATO's sea-based air power. Darfur, by contrast, is in western Sudan, hundreds of miles from the sea, with mountainous terrain and lots of small arms fire. Protecting civilians there is a different proposition.
"As a result, nearly every plan that was serious included significant numbers of ground troops," said Pape. "The African Union put together the smallest plan for 2000 ground forces, the UN began to look at this and very quickly the number got up to 30,000 ground troops. And once you're talking about tens of thousands of ground troops going into a very hostile environment, now we begin to balance out the humanitarian goal with the serious risk of life to ourselves."
The UN Security Council did eventually deploy a peacekeeping force to Darfur, but not before hundreds of thousands of people had died and millions had been displaced. Even now, says Rebecca Hamilton, there's an urgent need for international pressure for a peace settlement and the enforcement of a ceasefire in Darfur.

There was an error in this gadget
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...