"Easy Way to Reduce Occasional Constipation, Gas, and Bloating – Just Take This"

And free your body of accumulated toxins and other waste material that have been building up like a septic tank.* Also known to provide an energy boost and may help you keep your waistline slim and trim...*

enerally, things of higher value, or those things perceived as being of higher value, simply cost you more. And that pretty much applies across the board from the place you call home, to the cars you drive, and to many of the consumables you buy as well.
But every once in a while, something comes along that becomes an exception to all this. Sometimes the exception is strictly a marketing ploy of some sort... to con you into believing you're getting more value for your hard-earned money than you really are.
For example, many automobile manufacturers compare their products to higher end vehicles.... These manufacturers might try to convince you their vehicle has all the bells and whistles comparable to the higher-end vehicle... but at half the price.
At first blush, you might start believing what they say is true.
But when you dig deeper, you may find their vehicle may have most of the tangible features of the luxury cars, but the quality doesn't come close. Or, when you test drive their vehicle, the road-feel is not anywhere near that of the more expensive vehicle.
This is by no means an endorsement for any auto brand, but simply an example of how value exceptions can sometimes end up being misleading... and how they really require you to be on your toes to watch out for them... to do your homework.
And in the complex world of nutritional supplements, it's important for you to know...

How Perceived vs. Actual Health Value Can Be Very Dicey

Don't be fooled by very low-priced
supplements. Many are made from
cheap, unhealthy synthetic ingredients.

Many supplements claim to provide great benefits at very low prices. But when you dig deeper you often find out that cheap, synthetic ingredients were used.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, the producers of more expensive supplements try to convince you a special process or hard-to-find ingredient is needed to justify the higher cost... in my opinion, often times this is simply a marketing ploy.
For every one that makes it through my rigorous acceptance gauntlet, dozens upon dozens more get rejected.
I truly believe that with what I'm about to show you, you'll see why I consider this to be one of the best health values for your money*... a true value exception with facts to back it up... a situation where I believe you simply will get more value for the same amount of money.
To get started, let's take a brief trip back in time...

The History Behind Fermented Foods and Their Health Benefits

History provides us a few clues on how different cultures promoted their intestinal health before modern times. Years ago, people used fermented foods like yogurt and sauerkraut - as food preservatives and as support for intestinal and overall health.

Ancient Indian culture (as well as today),
promoted intestinal health with a raw yogurt
drink called lassi - full of probiotics

Here are a few examples...

• During Roman times, people ate sauerkraut because of its taste and benefits to their overall health.
• In ancient Indian society, it became commonplace (and still is) to enjoy a before-dinner yogurt drink called a lassi. These Indian traditions were based on the principle of using sour milk as a probiotic delivery system to the body.
• Bulgarians are known both for their health and their high consumption of fermented milk and kefir.
• In Asian cultures, pickled fermentations of cabbage, turnips, eggplant, cucumbers, onions, squash and carrots still exist today.
• People of the Ukraine consume probiotics from foods like sauerkraut, raw yogurt, and buttermilk.

The interesting thing was most of these dietary habits were born from tradition... at the time, no one really knew or understood why they were so healthy to your digestive system.*

How Probiotics Got Their Start - An Uphill Battle
Against Big Pharma

Well, things changed in the early 1900s, when Russian scientist Elie Metchnikoff (Nobel Prize 1908) proposed that the Balkan population enjoyed excellent health due to consumption of large quantities of fermented milks containing beneficial bacteria.*
These 'good' bacteria were later defined as probiotics, which comes from Greek terminology meaning 'for life.'
In the 1950s, the USDA licensed a probiotic formula for use in the digestive tract of pigs. Later on in the 1970s, the effectiveness of the probiotics in that role in pigs was discovered. Probiotics were later pioneered for human use.
So, what took so long to bring probiotics to the forefront in human health enhancements?*
I believe that the mere fact that large pharmaceutical companies were able to leverage millions of dollars to market their products pushed probiotics out of the way... relegated them to the back-burner.
But today, the health trend has clearly begun to shift toward natural nutrition. And that has allowed probiotics to resurface and gain the attention they deserve.
And that's why I spend so much of my time researching factual data on how to provide you with the best probiotic formula available.
All this is well and good, but...

Why Are Probiotics So Vital to Your Health?*

Why do many caesarean-section infants have
less-than-optimal health after birth?

From the very first breath you take, you're exposed to probiotics.
How so?
On the way through the birth canal during a normal delivery, a newborn gets dosed with bacteria from their mother. This event starts colonization in the infant's gastrointestinal (GI) tract of 'good' bacteria. Compelling new research now shows many caesarean-section infants have less-than-optimal health after birth. This is most likely because they are not exposed to the mother's healthy bacteria in the birth canal which would then serve to populate its own GI tract.
As you mature, you're faced with many threats to the beneficial bacteria in your gut... from chlorinated drinking water... to overly-processed foods.
The 'good' bacteria in your gastrointestinal system can only provide you with optimum health if the proper balance of different types of bacteria is maintained in your gut.*
This is where probiotics can have a profound effect... not just on your GI health, but on your overall health as well.* Keep in mind, 80% of your immune system actually lives in your gut.
Probiotic formulas are available with many different types of bacterial strains... with the most common being Lactobacillus acidophilus. But as you'll find out shortly, not all probiotics are created equal... and not all probiotic formulas are properly produced to provide optimal benefits.*
In general, if formulated properly, the major benefits of a high-quality probiotic are to...

• Aid you in digesting food, particularly hard-to-digest foods and foods to which some individuals are more sensitive.*
• Enhance the synthesis of B vitamins and improve calcium absorption*
• Help you keep a healthy balance of intestinal microflora*
• (In women) Promote vaginal health*
• Support your overall immune function*

And more...
I strongly believe the key to an optimal probiotic formula is through science-backed research by a qualified non-biased laboratory... and through a manufacturer with rigorous high-quality process standards in place.
You'll see more evidence of this unwavering belief I have coming up...

When's the Best Time to Take a Probiotic Supplement?

One of the confusing issues with probiotic supplements hinges around timing... when is the best time to take them?

When's the best time to take a probiotic?
See my recommendations here

Recommendations are pretty much all over the place on the best time to take them around meal times.
I can tell you when it comes to this, my team and I have carefully researched this issue and even consulted with the one of the foremost authorities and pioneers on probiotics...
The bottom line... my recommended approach and timing for taking a probiotic supplement are...

• Take it prior to eating breakfast with a glass of pure water
• Wait 10-15 minutes after taking it before you eat because stomach acid from your meal could impact some of the 'good' bacteria (you could lose 5-10%)
• Avoid taking it within 3 hours of taking any antibiotic

And talking about meals and probiotics, something I hear quite often is...

"If I Eat Yogurt, Should I Still Take Probiotics?"

You are probably wondering why using nearly any commercial yogurt might not be as beneficial as a probiotic supplement. After all, traditional cultures have been consuming cultured, fermented foods like yogurt for years for digestive health promotion.

Most commercial yogurts are not a good source
of probiotics. Heat pasteurization significantly
reduces most of the 'good' bacteria benefits

The problem arises because...

• Traditional yogurts were phenomenal sources of beneficial bacteria due to their raw and unpasteurized state.
• Most of today's yogurts are pasteurized, unless specially purchased raw and unpasteurized from a local farmer. Sadly, pasteurization radically reduces most of the benefits.
• Even most of the yogurts certified organic by the USDA are pasteurized in some fashion.

So what, in my opinion, is wrong with pasteurization?
Well, it basically kills or sterilizes most of the beneficial and other bacteria during the heat processing. And some yogurts (particularly the frozen ones), don't contain any live bacteria at all.
So, as great-tasting as many of them are, don't be fooled by yogurt products advertising live cultures beneficial to your digestive system... many have likely had the beneficial bacteria already reduced or wiped out by heat-intensive pasteurization processes.
To me, this is one of those cases where it appears that in our collective zeal to rid ourselves of every trace of infectious agents in our food supply and homes, we may have outdone ourselves.
As a whole, we're less exposed to bacteria now than in the past, including beneficial bacteria. Antibacterial products, hand sanitizers, and the like have made for a world that's a whole lot cleaner, but is it really that much healthier?
Due to strict food safety regulations, less bacteria (including the 'good' ones) survive the manufacturing process. Many overly-processed products, just like yogurt, undergo pasteurization or sterilization, which may destroy beneficial bacteria.
While this may be helpful in some ill-health prevention, it also means we are exposed to less health-enhancing bacteria.*
And with helpful bacteria less available in our food, I'm even more convinced how crucial it is to consider supplementation with high-quality probiotics.
But, I first must raise the caution flag and give you fair...

Warning: Make Sure You Get the High-Quality Solution

So, how do you go about finding a high-quality probiotic supplement?
First of all, before we're through, I'll help dispel some of your guess-work with my findings on some of the latest probiotic discoveries... and provide my recommendations as well.
But before I do that, there are some key factors I feel differentiate the good probiotic formulas from those that are questionable... and may even be a waste of your money.
Basically, without the following key factors, any probiotic formula can be suspect at best, unless it...

• Contains effective bacterial strains - it must be strain specific*
• Is viable and dose specific
• Remains stable and viable for long period of time
• Has the ability to survive the stomach and into the intestine
• Produces beneficial effects and thrives in the intestine*

This complicates the world of probiotics a bit because there are so many manufacturers out there making claims on digestive health promotion.
But you don't need to fall for any of the misconceptions... I'll help you dig through the maze and minutia as we go.

If Your Probiotic Formula Does Not Contain THIS, In My Opinion, You Shouldn't Waste Your Time

If your probiotic does not contain this specific
lactobacillus acidophilusbeneficial strain (DDS-1), you could
be wasting your time

One of the key formulation factors in a probiotic supplement that I already mentioned, is it must contain effective bacterial strains.* Now, as you can imagine, this is a rather complex issue.
But of all the strains produced over the years, there is one I believe exceeds all others... and to me, if the probiotic formula does not contain this strain, well quite frankly, you're not getting your best health-bang for the buck.*
I no longer consider taking a probiotic as part of my daily regimen without this strain!
This strain has the distinction of being one of the few bacterial species for which probiotic attributes have been shown to be effective.*
So what is this strain?
Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 is the name of this highly effective strain of beneficial bacteria*... and the 'DDS-1' is really important. There are other strains of Lactobacillus acidophilus out there, but without the DDS-1 specificity, your potential health benefits could come up short.*
It has been found that this specific probiotic strain possesses vital properties important to human health.* Research at a major Midwestern university showed how DDS-1 enhanced human health because it colonized well in the human gut.*
Research and studies suggest DDS-1 can be effective toward enhancing human health because it...

• Adapts well to the human body because of its human origin
• Is acid and bile resistant for intestinal survival
• Helps promote your digestive health*
• Aids in supporting your immune system*
• Contributes to the good balance of your intestinal flora*
• Produces significant quantities of lactase to potentially aid in lactose intolerance challenges*

I'm convinced Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 is one of the important and necessary strains in an effective probiotic supplement.* Without it, I believe you're not maximizing the potential of using this type of supplement.
But it's one thing to just explain how DDS-1 potentially enhances your health*... it's another to provide examples of clinical trials and research that provide compelling evidence...

Probiotic Superstrain - A Study in Health-Boosting Benefits*

Over the years, several studies have demonstrated the diverse effectiveness of DDS-1 and help validate its potential use as a probiotic.* Here are a few examples...

• From major Midwestern University and prestigious health center (2010) - Conducted a review of case studies to determine whether using a multispecies probiotic with DDS-1 could enhance bowel health.
  
  Results: After 60 days of treatment, most showed significant improvement in abdominal health, bloating and occasional elimination irregularities.* This study suggests that DDS-1 may help create a healthy balance of microflora in the gastrointestinal tract.*
• From Gut (2003) - DDS-1 helped to support the health of human epithelial cell lines when evaluated as part of a probiotic blend. *
• (1997) - In animal research, isolated evaluation of DDS-1 supported the normal production of immune components.* DDS-1 performed this better than three other strains of Lactobacillus acidophilus or Bfidobacterium bifidum.*

These are but a few examples why I believe DDS-1 plays a key role in optimal health when you use a probiotic supplement.*

Don't Spend Potentially More on a High-Quality Probiotic
If You Don't Have to...

One controversial area of discussion involving probiotic supplements involves survivability.
By survivability, I mean the ability of the 'good' bacteria released by the supplement to survive and reproduce in your intestinal tract.
Why is this so important?
Well, if the beneficial bacteria are destroyed by your stomach acid and intestinal bile, your GI tract won't be able to take advantage of the potential health benefits.*
Many theories abound on how to solve this... many I believe are not necessary and just waste your money. This gets back to the value perception issue once again.
Many probiotic manufacturers want you to believe that a special type of coating, called enteric coating, is necessary for the beneficial bacteria to survive. Basically, enteric coating is a type of layer put on the capsule itself to supposedly ensure survival of the beneficial bacteria in your GI tract.
I have several issues with enteric coating that can be summed up as follows...

• It's an expensive process - The cost you pay for a high-quality enteric coated probiotic supplement with significant numbers of CFUs often becomes highly inflated due to the expensive enteric coating process.
• In my opinion these enteric coatings are unnecessary for GI survival - According to probiotic experts, selecting specific acid and bile resistant strains coupled with high-quality manufacturing processes, negate the need for enteric coating. In fact, the process of enteric coating could potentially reduce the viability of live beneficial bacteria altogether.
• Many enteric coatings use synthetic ingredients - There are few uses of natural enteric coating because this adds even more cost. Most enteric coated probiotics are treated with a polymer of acrylic acid... a synthetic chemical often sprayed onto the capsule.

And what about raw, unpasteurized yogurt, sauerkraut, fermented milk and kefir consumed as traditional foods for generations to boost digestive health? The beneficial probiotic bacteria within these foods have not had difficulties surviving stomach acid and intestinal bile.
So, why would a high-quality probiotic supplement require some sort of coating to enhance the survivability of the contents?
Well, in my opinion, it doesn't. And I believe the added cost is not only an unnecessary expense to you, but may be an added health detriment as well... if the coating is synthetic.
Many probiotic manufacturers have created a perception of greater value to justify the higher cost of their enteric coated probiotics. Guess what? In my opinion, the value is not there so you can simply just avoid them.
I'll show you what I consider to be a much more robust and less costly solution coming up...

Little-Known Complement Adds 'Spice' to Probiotic Formula

With much of the attention focused on probiotics, there is a little known complement to probiotics called prebiotics that play an important role in your digestion.*

Pure raw honey is an excellent source of prebiotics

So, what are prebiotics?
Prebiotics help keep beneficial bacteria healthy.* They basically are non-digestible foods that end up in your digestive system to help beneficial bacteria (probiotics) grow and flourish.*
The prebiotics that feed the 'good' bacteria in your GI tract primarily come from carbohydrate fibers called oligosaccharides that you don't digest.* They remain in your digestive system to help boost the growth of beneficial bacteria.*
Natural sources of prebiotics include …

• Fruits...
• Raw Honey...
• Legumes...

I believe adding prebiotics to a high-quality probiotic benefits the entire formula.* But this is a complex process and not easily produced at an economically feasible cost... until now. More coming up on how my probiotic solution provider has found a solution for this. But first...

If You're Currently Taking Or Are Considering Taking Probiotics, I Recommend That You Make Sure It Has These...

Here's my list of 'must-haves' in a probiotic formula. And if you're familiar with my current probiotic formula on my site, you'll recognize some identical requirements and some new ones as well.
See, as time goes on, research and technology are creating moving targets of improvement in probiotics... and I want to make sure you have every opportunity to take advantage of newly uncovered health-promoting properties.*
Now, to the demanding list... my 'must-haves' in a probiotic formula...

Contains specific super-strain Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 Shows high potency through independent lab test Works together with prebiotics for improved probiotic performance* Is stable at room temperature for at least 2 years Is non-dairy, free from soy, corn, wheat, and gluten, and is non-GMO Helps maintain a healthy flora, promotes digestion, and supports immune function* Adapts naturally to the human body due to its human origins Is acid and bile resistant to naturally survive the stomach and intestinal transit Produces natural enzymes, vitamins, lactic acid, and hydrogen peroxide Utilizes nitrogen packaging and is freeze-dried Comes available in vegetable-based capsules Is backed by academic and scientific research with patents and trademarks, and awards

Now, you can use these rigorous criteria to find a probiotic formula that matches up... but you'll probably have a difficult time.
Why is that?
Well, I set the bar about as high as I could based on new data my team and I uncovered. I really didn't expect to find any formula satisfying all of the requirements. At this point, you probably agree how challenging this is as well.
But, all I can say is I was pleasantly surprised when I found a new innovative formula that not only nailed my requirements, but exceeded them as well.
Here's what I found...

A Formula So Robust It Has Become a Cornerstone in
My Daily Supplement Regimen

You don't need to look any further. My new Complete Probiotics is the best of the best in providing everything I was looking for... and more.
Not only will it eventually completely replace the current probiotic formula on my site, it will immediately become part of my personal daily regimen... a rare occasion at best. In fact, I view high-quality probiotics as more important than a multi-vitamin.
Here's a breakdown of the 10 specific beneficial bacteria strains in Complete Probiotics to deliver health-promoting benefits...*

	Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 - You already know the extraordinary benefits of this superstrain. Because it is of human origin, it works exceptionally well in your GI tract.*
	Lactobacillus casei - Works with other helpful organisms, and helps to encourage the growth of other beneficial bacteria.*
	Lactobacillus plantarum - Has been shown to be resistant to low pH conditions and able to survive bile concentrations in your intestine.*
	Lactobacillus salivarius - Promotes intestinal health and helps support your oral health as well.*
	Lactobacillus rhamnosus - Assists your elimination and occasional intestinal discomfort by working to promote healthy intestinal microflora.*
	Lactobacillus brevis- Beneficial lactic acid bacteria that helps support your GI tract.*
	Bifidobacterium lactis- A friendly bacteria often found in raw yogurt known to help support healthy immune responses.*
	Bifidobacterium longum- Helps keep your digestive system running smoothly, and helps support your immune system.*
	Bifidobacterium bifidum- Helps promote a healthy balance of flora in your intestine.* This organism provides excellent support for a healthy balance of microflora.*
	Streptococcus thermophilus- High potency culture that helps maintain normal intestinal flora in your gut.*

Just as important as what specific beneficial strains are in Complete Probiotics are the strains purposely left out. The formulator eliminated Lactobacillus bulgaricus due to its possible antagonistic effects on Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1. And they removed the Lactospore strain as well, in favor of more preferable strains.
Plus, Complete Probiotics now have beneficial prebiotics in the form of Fructooligosaccharide (FOS).* This was not an easy task. But the chosen manufacturer already recognized the importance and health benefits when complementing probiotics with prebiotics... a total win-win scenario for you.*
As you already probably know, I've had a very good probiotic formula on my site for some time. Well, this new Complete Probiotics formula will now replace it.
Here's more on how the new Complete Probiotics totally shines...

Bile and Acid Resistance - The Proof is in the Test Results

Another area my new Complete Probiotics proves its weight in gold is in acid and bile tolerance.
You already know my feelings on enteric coating and how I believe it's a waste of your time and money. Well, the chart below shows you how well the strains that make up the Complete Probiotics formula resist and survive stomach acid and intestinal bile.
Very few manufacturers I looked at could actually provide testing info on the survivability of the specific strains in their formulas. If they could not demonstrate results, I passed them up.
Keep in mind, without these strains adequately resisting stomach acid and intestinal bile, your health benefits from the probiotic will likely be severely lacking.
Through testing, some Complete Probiotics strains demonstrated gastrointestinal acid and bile tolerances over 90%. So, don't waste your money on enteric-coated formulas.
Here's the test results...

Probiotics Strains	Acid Tolerance	Bile Tolerance
Lactobacillus acidophilus	++++ (>90% survival in HCL and pepsin (1%) at pH3 for 1 h at 37C )	++++ (>90% survival in 0.3% in bile salt containing medium)
Lactobacillus plantarum	++++ (>90% survival in HCL and pepsin (1%) at pH3 for 1 h at 37C )	++++ (>90% survival in 0.3% in bile salt containing medium)
Lactobacillus casei	++++ (>90% survival in HCL and pepsin (1%) at pH3 for 1 h at 37C )	++++ (>90% survival in 0.3% in bile salt containing medium)
Bifidobacterium lactis	++++ (>90% survival in HCL and pepsin (1%) at pH3 for 1 h at 37C )	++++ (>90% survival in 0.3% in bile salt containing medium)
Bifidobacterium bifidum	++++++	++++
Lactobacillus rhamnosus	+++ (>70% survival in HCL and pepsin (1%) at pH3 for 1 h at 37C )	++++ (>80% survival in 0.3% in bile salt containing medium)
Lactobacillus salivarius	+++ (>70% survival in HCL and pepsin (1%) at pH3 for 1 h at 37C )	++++ (>80% survival in 0.3% in bile salt containing medium)
Bifidobacterium longum	+++ (>70% survival in HCL and pepsin (1%) at pH3 for 1 h at 37C	++++ (>80% survival in 0.3% in bile salt containing medium)
Streptococcus thermophilus	+ (>60% survival in HCL and pepsin (1%) at pH3 for 1 h at 37C )	++++ (>90% survival in 0.3% in bile salt containing medium)
Lactobacillus brevis	++++++	++++

Legend:
++++ Excellent	+++Very Good	++ Good	+ Fair

Note: "Complete Probiotics" contains 80% probiotics strains that are >90% acid and bile resistance.
Since I'm replacing the current probiotics formula on my site with this one, let's take a look at some of the key areas that separate the two formulas...

How My New Formula Clearly Brings Added Value

One thing I achieved with the new Complete Probiotics formula is providing you a higher health value probiotic at about the same price as the current formula.
This is certainly not a marketing spin or ploy, and you'll see shortly how what you'll pay for Complete Probiotics is not an increase over the previous formula... plus, in my opinion, you'll be getting so much more value for your overall health.*
Here are just some of the key areas in which I improved the formula to provide you even more real probiotic value...

Key Comparison Items	New Complete Probiotics	Current Probiotic Formula
Colony forming units (CFU) per capsule - measurement of viable microbes (beneficial bacteria) in the probiotic.	A minimum of 70 billion CFU per serving are guaranteed through the product expiration date. However, to compensate for storage temperature variances, up to 90 billion CFU are packed into each capsule to enhance potency throughout shelf life.	66 billion CFU per capsule.
10 beneficial probiotic strains?	Yes - And 2 marginal strains (L. bulgaricus and lactospores) replaced with more effective strains.*	Yes - Actually 11 strains but 2 of the strains (L. bulgaricus and lactospores) have since been shown to provide only marginal benefits.
Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 specific strain?	Yes - Included in the robust formula is the DDS-1 specific strain.	Lactobacillus acidophilus strain comes in the formula but not specifically DDS-1.
Fortified with prebiotics?	Yes - Fructooligosaccharide (FOS) prebiotic used to boost the formula and overall GI benefits.*	Prebiotics are not included in this formula.

The bottom line... I believe you get more health value with the new Complete Probiotics formula as compared to the current formula, and it won't cost you more.* This is truly one of those times where the value exception is real and not just a marketing illusion.

Taking It Along When You Travel

Whenever I travel, I always take along the best
probiotic formula I know of to help keep my GI tract in
optimal shape

When it comes to probiotics, I've always taken my best formula along whenever I travel... particularly, when I travel outside the US.
Why?
Well, when you visit other countries, there's always a chance your digestive system can be sensitive to different foods (e.g., spices) that you are not used to. This can cause not only occasional digestive discomfort, but may stress you out as well.
Who wants to be in another country either on business or vacation, and have to deal with occasional digestive discomfort? Well, I certainly don't... and that's why I take along a high-quality probiotic to help make sure my GI tract is in optimal shape.*
And with Complete Probiotics you have what my team and I consider to be the best probiotic formula we could find and it's perfect for traveling because it...

• Has a shelf life of 2 years at room temperature - Unlike some other probiotic formulas with shorter shelf lives, Complete Probiotics is stable longer at room temperature.*
• Can help you during times of digestive stress* - If while traveling, your GI tract is affected by new and exciting foods (e.g., spices), you can take additional servings (recommended 4-6 capsules) to help give your digestive system the additional support it needs.*
• Becomes part of your travel pack - Conveniently fits into any travel pack you bring along on your trip.

With the new Complete Probiotics formula and all of its distinct health advantages, I plan to never travel without it.* I recommend you consider doing the same.
When it comes to producing a top probiotic supplement, there's one area I never take shortcuts on and never underestimate the...

Critical Importance of a High-Quality Manufacturer

Without an excellent manufacturer who practices the highest-quality standard practices, I believe any probiotic formula's stability and longevity would be suspect at best.
Well, I not only will tell you how the manufacturer of Complete Probiotics is one of the finest I've encountered, I'll disclose the type of evidence I uncovered that totally convinced my team and me.
Here's a list of impressive milestones this manufacturer has achieved and built its reputation on since it became a probiotic pioneer in 1979...

• First to introduce Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 commercially
• First to introduce quality control standard CFU/gm, now used worldwide
• First to introduce non dairy, gluten free, and non-GMO probiotics
• First to introduce nitrogen packaging to enhance stability
• First to introduce acid and bile resistant probiotics
• First to introduce the combination of probiotics with prebiotics

To go along with all these ‘firsts,’ my manufacturer of choice has also received many awards, with one of the most recent and prestigious being the...

• 2010 Frost & Sullivan Award for “Customer Value Enhancement of the Year” in the North American probiotics market

Frost & Sullivan is known worldwide for its innovative research, analysis, and marketing expertise. Based on its recent analysis of the probiotics market, Frost & Sullivan recognized our selected manufacturer for their innovations in quality control and probiotic products to address specific areas of health.*

• Said a Frost & Sullivan Senior Research Analyst referencing this award..."In the crowded probiotics market, where multiple manufacturers offer different products with generic health claims, growth is driven by specific validated claims for your products..."

It's clear to me, and one of the compelling reasons why I selected them, that the producer of Complete Probiotics is driven to deliver specific beneficial strains (like DDS-1) to improve your GI health*... and the Frost & Sullivan award further supports their innovative drive.
The DDS-1 superstrain of Lactobacillus acidophilus, held as both a patent and US trademark by this high-quality company since 1979, has been crucial to driving growth and further innovation... just the type of company I want to produce Complete Probiotics.

How This Formula Stacks Up Against My Demanding Must-Have Criteria

Let me summarize many of the advantages of the new Complete Probiotics using my rigorous must-have selection criteria (from above)...

Selection Criteria	Complete Probiotics?
Contains specific super-strain Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1?	Yes - The manufacturer holds patent and US trademark on DDS-1.
Shows high potency through independent lab test?	Yes - Guaranteed to provide a minimum of 70 billion CFU and as many as 90 billion to ensure potency throughout shelf life.
Works together with prebiotics for improved probiotic performance?	Yes -The manufacturer successfully added intestinal-beneficial prebiotics to complement the probiotics.*
Is stable at room temperature for at least 2 years?	Yes - Provides flexibility with storage and travel needs at room temperature.
Is non-dairy, free from soy, corn, wheat, and gluten, and is non-GMO?	Yes - One of the industry innovators and first to accomplish this.
Helps maintain a healthy flora, promotes digestion, and supports immune function?*	Yes - Performs this extraordinarily well with strain specific probiotics and prebiotics.*
Adapts naturally to the human body due to its human origins?	Yes - Soil and animal-origin microorganisms are not natural inhabitants of the human body.
Is acid and bile resistant to naturally survive the stomach and intestinal transit?	Yes - Testing has demonstrated high survivability of beneficial bacteria.
Utilizes nitrogen packaging and is freeze-dried?	Yes - Takes advantage of these innovative processes to help ensure stability.
Comes available in vegetable-based capsules?	Yes - Provides this delivery.
Is Generally Recognize as Safe (GRAS)?	Yes - GRAS notification was filed with the FDA and the agency stated no objection.
Is backed by academic and scientific research with patents and trademarks, and awards?	Yes - DDS-1 patent and US trademark, and many awards including 2010 Frost & Sullivan

Well, it's clear to me that not only does Complete Probiotics pass my demanding criteria for a high-quality probiotic formula, but in my opinion, it also delivers more health value than the previous offering on my site...* all for about the same price.
This formula will now move to the top of my must-take list... as I plan to take it every day.  I only take a few supplements and this is one that I take EVERY morning on an empty stomach 30 minutes before I eat...

References:
†Mercola.com "The Newfound Link Between Probiotics and Your Weight"

This Makes You Flabby - and Virtually Forces You to Overeat

Fructose consumption rates continue to rise worldwide, despite the fact that a growing collection of studies clearly demonstrate that consuming excessive amounts of fructose (primarily in the form of high-fructose corn syrup) is the fastest way to destroy your health.
Half of the U.S. population over the age of two now consumes sugary drinks on a daily basis, and that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  Unnecessary calories from fructose-laden drinks and processed foods of all kinds can quickly add several pounds a year to your weight and rob you of your health.
Over the last several years, fructose has been revealed as a major culprit or exacerbating factor in:

Elevated blood pressure, and nocturnal hypertension	Insulin resistance / Type 2 Diabetes	Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
Elevated uric acid levels, which can result in gout and/or metabolic syndrome	Accelerated progression of chronic kidney disease	Intracranial atherosclerosis (narrowing and hardening of the arteries in your skull)
Exacerbated cardiac abnormalities if you're deficient in copper	Genotoxic effect on the colon	Metastasis in breast cancer patients and pancreatic cancer growth
Tubulointerstitial injury (injury to the tubules and interstitial tissue of your kidney)	Obesity and related health problems and diseases	Arthritis

A Calorie is Not a Calorie...

Dr. Lustig, a Professor of Clinical Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at UC San Francisco, has been on the forefront of the movement to educate people about the health hazards of sugar, and I highly recommend viewing his presentation, The Trouble with Fructose, above. He's a compelling speaker and does an excellent job of laying down the facts in an easy to understand manner.
One of the primary problems with fructose is that it is isocaloric but not isometabolic, meaning that while you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or any other nutrient, including glucose, the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count. This explains why calorie counting doesn't work. You simply have to take the quality or source of the calories into account in order to successfully lose weight.
Fructose metabolism is quite different from glucose (dextrose) metabolism in that it places the entire burden on your liver, and this accounts for many of its devastating health effects. Furthermore, people consume fructose in enormous quantities these days, which has made the negative effects that much more profound. Without getting into the very complex biochemistry of carbohydrate metabolism, it is important to have a general understanding of how your body handles these sugars.
Below is a summary of the main differences between glucose and fructose metabolism, which explains why I keep repeating that fructose is by far the worst type of sugar there is:

• After eating fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver. But with glucose, your liver has to break down only 20 percent.
• Every cell in your body, including your brain, utilizes glucose. Therefore, much of it is "burned up" immediately after you consume it. By contrast, fructose is turned into free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (the damaging form of cholesterol), and triglycerides, which get stored as fat.
• The fatty acids created during fructose metabolism accumulate as fat droplets in your liver and skeletal muscle tissues, causing insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Insulin resistance progresses to metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes.
• Fructose is the most lipophilic carbohydrate. In other words, fructose converts to activated glycerol (g-3-p), which is directly used to turn FFAs into triglycerides. The more g-3-p you have, the more fat you store. Glucose does not do this.
• When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in 40 calories being stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!
• The metabolism of fructose by your liver creates a long list of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout.
• Glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain's communication with leptin, resulting in overeating.

Interestingly enough, glucose has been found to further accelerate fructose absorption, so when you MIX glucose and fructose together, you absorb more fructose than if you consumed fructose alone! This is yet another important piece of information for those who want to make a better effort at controlling their weight.
Anyone who still tries to tell you that "sugar is sugar" in an effort to defend high fructose corn syrup is seriously unaware of the current research, which clearly demonstrates that there are major differences in how your body processes these sugars. The bottom line is: fructose leads to increased belly fat, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and diabetes, along with a long list of associated chronic diseases.

Should Fructose be Government Controlled?

The second video above is another presentation by Dr. Lustig called "How to Have a Sweet Ending," given at the UCSF Center for Obesity, Assessment, Study and Treatment. In it, he lays out his ideas for how to curb the consumption of sugar. ccording to Dr. Lustig, efforts at educating the public have failed, and he believes the government must intervene, and essentially force the people to change their ways. In response, De Coster, writing on LewRockwell states:

"He believes that a massive policy of taxation, regulation, and interdiction, at both a societal and an individual level, is necessary to force the reduction of sugar consumption. He has, in fact, called for a global policy to eradicate sugar addiction. Lustig is not calling for a few misplaced laws, here and there, to protect you from yourself. Rather, he is trying to justify a global crusade against freedom of food choice on the basis that "our toxic environment cannot be changed without government/societal intervention."
Among Lustig's suggested interventions are controls on advertising and marketing, government counter-campaigns (taxpayer-funded, government propaganda), and raising prices via actual price fixing and/or taxation. Moreover, he advocates a policy that mimics the iron law of alcohol policy – reducing the availability of sugar-based products by way of age limits for purchase ("carding kids for Coke"), licensing and zoning controls on sales outlets, and regulating the hours of operation and density of fast food outlets through a series of government-issued permits."

Is government intervention the solution to this problem? What do you think?  I'd love to hear what you think on this issue, so please do share your thoughts and ideas in the Vital Votes forum below.
Personally, I have to agree with De Coster that Dr. Lustig's ideas sound a lot like the invocation of the new Food Safety Modernization Act, which stands poised to do far more harm than good. I think there's a real danger in trying to regulate or tax ANY kind of food out of existence. After all, it's not the sugar in and of itself that is toxic—it's the MASSIVE doses that people consume, and honestly... personal responsibility and educated choice needs to enter the picture sooner or later. Your diet, after all, is front and center when it comes to taking control of your health, which is something everyone needs to do if they truly want to live a long and healthy life.
I believe the current situation can change, but enough people need to understand the simple truths of healthy eating and refuse to buy sugar-laden processed foods and pass on the daily sodas. Earlier this year, Dr. David Ludwig, a Harvard-affiliated pediatrician wrote a commentary in JAMA, offering his suggestions on how to turn this disease-producing diet trend around. These are reasonable ideas, but I don't think we can sit around and wait for government to fix this mess. Instead, do what you can to help educate others
His suggestions include:

• Restructuring agricultural subsidies
• Regulating the marketing of food to children
• Adequately funding school lunch programs
• Using existing and future technologies to allow the food industry to retain profits while producing more healthful products

How to Reverse the Obesity- and Related Chronic Disease Trends

I believe there are two primary dietary recommendations that could make all the difference in the world for most people, leading to a swift reversal in the horrific disease trends we're currently facing:

1. Severely restricting carbohydrates (sugars, fructose, and grains) in your diet, and
2. Increasing healthy fat consumption

I recently wrote about this recommendation in-depth, so for more details, please see This Substance Fools Your Metabolism - and Tricks Your Body into Gaining Pounds. If you want to shed excess pounds and maintain a healthy weight long-term, and RADICALLY reduce (and in many cases virtually eliminate) your risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer, then get serious about restricting your consumption of fructose to no more than 25 grams per day, with a maximum of 15 grams a day from fresh fruit. If you're already overweight, or have any of these diseases or are at high risk of any of them, then you're probably better off cutting that down to 10-15 grams per day; fruit included.
That's the first step. My nutrition plan lays out the rest in a simple to follow, step-by-step manner. If you haven't taken the time to review it yet, I highly recommend doing so. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. And the information is free.

Related Links:

  This Popular Drink May Be Almost as Hazardous to Your Health as Soda

  Why High-Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Insulin Resistance

  This Addictive Commonly Used Food Feeds Cancer Cells, Triggers Weight Gain, and Promotes Premature Aging

New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research

In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings.
His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.
It seems fairly evident that the cancer industrial complex is a highly lucrative, well-oiled system that tends to support funding for expensive drug treatments that don't address the cause of the problem, and have yet to make a significant dent in the decrease of the overall cancer rate in the US despite investing hundreds of billions of dollars.
Much of the support comes from flawed and biased "research" studies that support the use of expensive drugs as detailed in the featured articles. 
Researchers, too, are well aware of the notoriety and money to be found in cancer research … particularly what may be deemed successful cancer research (which unfortunately is often measured by the discovery of new drug treatments).
But, as with many areas of medical research, it's important to read between the lines of "scientifically proven" studies, even those that are well accepted.
Often what you'll find is the research gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to control and deceive. Case in point, here again we have an example of widely accepted, published research that turned out to be fabricated.

10 Years of Cancer Research Down the Drain

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health reported in August 2011 that final action has been taken against Sheng Wang, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, Cancer Research Center. ORI states:

"The Respondent engaged in research misconduct by fabricating data that were included in two (2) published papers."

This includes:

• Oncogene February 2009, which found that HIC1, a protein thought to suppress tumor growth, is a "central molecule in a novel mechanism controlling cell growth and that the disruption of this HIC1-mediated pathway may lead to abnormal cell proliferation and, ultimately, cancer."
• Molecular Endocrinology December 2009, which found "reintroducing HIC1 into resistant breast cancer cells restored their sensitivity to the estrogen antagonists, indicating the existence of a novel regulatory mechanism for growth control of breast cancer cells."

Specifically, six of the eight figures in the Oncogene paper and six of the seven figures in the Molecular Endocrinology study were said to contain data from fabricated experiments. Though Wang is now required to retract the papers, and he reportedly stopped working for Boston University in July, he will only be ineligible for federal funding for 2 years.
Further, the fabricated research may continue to live on, as it has been cited by other studies and once a finding is accepted in the medical community, it's very hard to make it go away. Unfortunately, scientific retractions are actually becoming increasingly common.
 As the Wall Street Journal reported:

"Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide …
At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist …"

Fabricated Research is More Common Than You Might Think

Peer-reviewed research published in medical journals gets the golden star of approval in the media, yet many, if not most, of the findings are incredibly misleading. One of the best exposé's into this muddled system came from none other than Dr. Marcia Angell, who was the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
In her book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposed many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted, and said flat out:

"Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time."

For instance, in 2009 Dr. Scott Reuben, who was a well-respected, prominent anesthesiologist, former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. and a former professor at Tufts University's medical school, allegedly fabricated the data for 21 studies! 
Dr. Reuben succeeded in getting numerous studies published, and those studies were accepted as fact and swayed the prescribing habits of doctors. It was only due to a routine audit raising a few red flags that a larger investigation was later launched.
So how did those false studies, or any studies for that matter, become worthy of being published? Part of the problem may be the peer-review process itself, as this puts researchers in charge of policing other researchers' results, and most do not want to insult a fellow researcher's work with negative comments.
As written in Gaia Health:

"It's all about money. Get published in a major medical journal and your future is made. Most peer reviewers are doing their own studies. That's what makes them peers. They want to be able to publish. Therefore, they are not particularly inclined to make more than perfunctory negative comments. Obviously, they don't want to alienate the authors of papers, since they either are or hope to become published themselves.
Peer review is a farce. The only kind of review that makes real sense is professional independent reviewers. Yet, for decades we've had peer review trotted out as the be-all and end-all in determining the legitimacy of papers. It's been unquestioned, while a little examination of the concept demonstrates that it's nearly certain to result in fraudulent work being passed as good science."

It's almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting process, as peer reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. And although the system is based on the best of intentions, it lacks consistent standards and the expertise of the reviewers can vary widely from journal to journal.
Given that cancer research is such a lucrative business right now -- the National Cancer Institute, which gave the grant money to support Dr. Sheng Wang's fabricated research, had a $5.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 -- the stakes are exceptionally high. So it stands to reason that it may be subject to even more fraud and manipulation than less lucrative research prospects.
As The Economist reported, there were more new cancer drugs in development in 2010 than any other therapeutic area. Drug makers are well aware that a blockbuster cancer drug could easily earn them profits in the billions, even if the drug is only borderline effective. It is abundantly clear that profit is a primary motive of these companies so it should not be a surprise that they have moved in this direction, and this is where the abundance of research is focused as well.

Why You Might Want to Think Twice Before Donating to Anti-Cancer Charities

A lot of people put their faith in charity organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS), dutifully donating money to help in the "war on cancer."  But in the report titled American Cancer Society—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.
For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that's just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!
The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.

"Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention. Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding," Dr. Epstein writes.

Many also do not realize that when you donate money to the American Cancer Society, the majority of it may never go further than the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives.
Meanwhile, global cancer rates have doubled in the last three decades, and their "war on cancer" strategy completely ignores, and oftentimes denies, the obvious links between cancer and toxic exposures through pesticide-laden foods, toxic personal care products, cancer-causing medical treatments and drugs, and industrial pollution. We CAN turn this trend around, but to do so the medical and research communities must stop focusing on drug treatments and overlooking the methods that can actually have a significant impact on preventing this disease.

My Top 12 Tips for Cancer Prevention

Rather than put your health in the hands of cancer researchers willing to do just about anything to discover the next cancer drug breakthrough, take control of your health by following the cancer-preventive lifestyle changes below.

1. Avoid Fructose and Sugar
   
   It's quite clear that if you want to avoid cancer, or are currently undergoing cancer treatment, you absolutely MUST avoid all forms of sugar -- especially fructose -- and this is largely due to its relation to insulin resistance. According to Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, as much as 80 percent of all cancers are "driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells," Gary Taubes reports.
   
   Some cancer centers, such as the Cancer Centers of America, have fully embraced this knowledge and place their patients on strict low-sugar, low-grain diets. But conventional medicine in general has been woefully lax when it comes to highlighting the health dangers of this additive.
   
   As a standard recommendation, I strongly advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day including fruits. But for most people it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less, as you're virtually guaranteed to consume "hidden" sources of fructose if you drink beverages other than water and eat processed food.
2. Optimize Your Vitamin D Level
   
   There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths -- which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States -- could be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population.
   
   On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial.
   
   If the notion that sun exposure actually prevents cancer is still new to you, I highly recommend you watch my one-hour vitamin D lecture to clear up any confusion. It's important to understand that the risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure.
3. Exercise
   
   If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn't immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer. One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells.
   
   For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly may reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive.It's important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as those described in my Peak Fitness program.
   
   These exercises activate your super-fast twitch muscle fibers, which can increase your body's natural production of human growth hormone. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
4. Get appropriate amounts of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats.
5. Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
6. Engage in activities that help you reduce your stress levels, such as exercise, meditation, journaling, music, gardening, etc. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed.
7. Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
8. Maintain an ideal body weight.
9. Get appropriate amounts of high-quality sleep.
10. Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
11. Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
12. Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them. Better yet eat as many of your foods raw as you can.

Related Links:

  The Root Cause of Cancer Almost Universally Ignored by Doctors...

  90 Year-Old Powerful Natural Cancer Therapy You've Probably Never Heard Of

  Basis of Many Medical Studies Found to be Proved Fatally Flawed

Still Getting Mammograms? Check Out This Surprising NEW Data

Radiologists often rely on specialized "CAD" computer software to find suspicious areas in mammograms. 
But a large new study showed that the technology has failed to improve breast cancer detection.  In fact, it increases a woman's risk of getting a "false positive" result and being told she had an abnormal mammogram when she's actually cancer-free.
The study analyzed 1.6 million mammograms taken between 1998 and 2006. Some experts say that in light of the new evidence, radiologists should use more discretion in interpreting CAD results.
According to CNN:

"CAD is now used in roughly three of every four screening mammograms ... The detection rate for noninvasive breast abnormalities improved at radiology facilities that adopted CAD technology, but, crucially, the rate did not improve for invasive breast cancers, the dangerous type that invade healthy tissue in the breast or other parts of the body."

Updated Federal Advisory Board Recommendations

You have to wonder why--when science clearly confirms that a conventional recommendation is useless-- it receives virtually no exposure in the media to inform the public of this change.
This is precisely what happened with the recommendation of routine mammography, which was conclusively shown to be useless in most women under the age of 50.
As of November 2009, routine mammograms are no longer recommended across the board for all women starting at the age of 40. Citing ineffectiveness and increased risk of harm in premenstrual women, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a federal advisory board, changed their recommendation from annual to bi-annual mammography screenings, and raised the recommended starting age to 50. Since then, the use of mammography has begun to drop.
However, not everyone agrees with the Preventive Services task force recommendation, and a few organizations have banded together to condemn the revised guidelines. Last month, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued their breast cancer screening guidelines, recommending:

• Mammography every 1-2 years for women aged 40-49 years
• Annual mammogram for women age 50 or older

Still, these squabbles aside, there are serious questions about whether mammography should be the preferred screening method at all. I personally do not recommend it.  Dr. Virginia A. Moyer, chair of the Preventive Services task force, according to CNN, responded by saying:

"... the recommendation was based on a recognized modest benefit shown by studies in human subjects. Recommendations from other organizations are based on evidence of lower quality, and the task force is extremely strict about the level of evidence it can accept..."

Concerns about Lack of Safety and Effectiveness of Mammograms Continue

Time and again, studies published in prestigious medical journals have shown that mammography isn't all it's cracked up to be. The federal task force indicated that this was their impression as well; hence the shift in their recommendation in 2009. For example:

• Mammograms miss up to a third or more of all breast cancers, as reported by Medscape, depending on the composition of your breast tissue and the type of cancer. 
• Mammography and its subsequent tests, such as MRIs and stereotactic biopsies, may actually cause cancer.
• False positives (a diagnosis of cancer when it turns out to be non-cancerous) are notorious in the industry, causing women needless anxiety, pain and, often, invasive and disfiguring surgical procedures. This is the MAJOR danger of mammography, as it radically increases the number of women who will be misdiagnosed and plugged into a system designed to cut, poison, and burn them unnecessarily without addressing the underlying reasons of what caused the cancer.
• CAD computer software used as an aid to locate suspicious areas in mammograms has been shown to be ineffectual for improving breast cancer detection, and increases your risk of getting a "false positive" result.

The final insult to injury is the latest in a long row of blows against the cancer detection industry. In the featured study above, 1.6 million mammograms from 90 radiology facilities across the US were analyzed. It was determined that the use of computer assisted software, which should be helpful in the detection of breast cancer, was not helpful after all.
As reported by CNN:

"The detection rate for noninvasive breast abnormalities improved at radiology facilities that adopted CAD technology, but, crucially, the rate did not improve for invasive breast cancers, the dangerous type that invade healthy tissue in the breast or other parts of the body. Moreover, in facilities that began using CAD the percentage of women with abnormal mammograms who were accurately diagnosed (a measure known as "positive predictive value") dropped, from 4.3% to 3.6%. Rates of false-positives and "recalls" -- being called back for further testing -- increased slightly after facilities implemented CAD."

These results echo those from a study published in 2007, which also concluded that:

"The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer."

Mammography Is a Source of Radiation-Induced Damage

Another recent study further fuels concerns about the use of mammography, especially in women predisposed to breast cancer, and strengthens the recommendation to avoid mammograms if you're under the age of 50. The study assessed the radiation-induced DNA damage in epithelial breast cells in women with high- and low risk of breast cancer. The results showed that women with a family history of cancer, placing them at high risk, were at significantly greater risk to suffer irreparable double-strand DNA breaks from mammography, and the effect was exacerbated with dose repetition. 
The authors concluded that:

"This study highlights the existence of double-strand breaks induced by mammography and revealed by γH2AX assay with two major radiobiological effects occurring: a low-dose effect, and a Low and Repeated Dose (LORD) effect. All these effects were exacerbated in high-risk patients.These findings may lead us to re-evaluate the number of views performed in screening using a single view (oblique) in women whose mammographic benefit has not properly been proved such as the 40-49 and high risk patients."

This isn't the first time scientists have come to the conclusion that using mammography as a tool for early detection and "prevention" of lethal cancer may in fact, in many cases, do far more harm than good. Yet you don't see major warning about the risks in the media, nor do any mammography centers provide information on these risks, so the women are not given full disclosure, making it impossible for them to give any type of valid informed consent for this procedure.
According to the Cancer Prevention Coalition, radiation from routine mammography poses a significant cumulative risk (over time) of causing breast cancer. And according to the BreastCancerFund.org, lower-energy X-rays provided by mammography result in substantially greater damage to DNA than would be predicted, and suggests that risk of breast cancer caused by exposure to mammography radiation may be greatly underestimated.
Dr. Samuel Epstein, probably the leading scientist in the world who truly understands this issue, has been warning people for years about the dangers of mammography, explains:

"The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening..." "The high sensitivity of the breast, especially in young women, to radiation-induced cancer was known by 1970. Nevertheless, the establishment then screened some 300,000 women with X-ray dosages so high as to increase breast cancer risk by up to 20 percent in women aged 40 to 50 who were mammogramed annually."

Does Mammography Save Lives?

The reason why women are urged to get regular mammograms is to catch the cancer early enough to deliver life-saving treatment. But research shows that mammography fails at this mission as well... A recent article in the prestigious British Medical Journal compared breast mortality rates in a variety of different countries before and after the introduction of routine mammography screening, demonstrating that the screening has had virtually nothing to do with the reductions in breast cancer mortality.
The authors write:

"From 1989 to 2006, deaths from breast cancer decreased by 29% in Northern Ireland and by 26% in the Republic of Ireland; by 25% in the Netherlands and by 20% in Belgium and 25% in Flanders; and by 16% in Sweden and by 24% in Norway. The time trend and year of downward inflexion were similar between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and between the Netherlands and Flanders. In Sweden, mortality rates have steadily decreased since 1972, with no downward inflexion until 2006.
Countries of each pair had similar healthcare services and prevalence of risk factors for breast cancer mortality but differing implementation of mammography screening, with a gap of about 10-15 years.
The contrast between the time differences in implementation of mammography screening and the similarity in reductions in mortality between the country pairs suggest that screening did not play a direct part in the reductions in breast cancer mortality."

This is quite noteworthy!
Rather than falling for claims that mammography is responsible for reduced breast cancer mortality, one should begin to look around for the real cause behind this across-the-board drop—because teasing out whatever that is, would be quite helpful—as opposed to pushing mammography, which has been shown to have little or no impact on mortality rates.
Unfortunately, the industry is extremely reluctant to accept this fact. As a perfect example, CNN recently reported Apparently they did not review the above results, which completely negate the claim that mammograms play a direct role in reducing mortality...on this very issue, stating that:

"While breast care experts acknowledge that mammography is imprecise and can lead to false positives, undue anxiety and overtreatment, they say it is the best tool they have for detecting breast cancer and that the benefits far outweigh any potential harms. Mammography has helped reduce breast cancer mortality in the United States by nearly one-third since 1990, according to the American College of Radiology."

The Profit-Driven Motives of Mammography Recommendations

In a previous article, published in the International Journal of Health Services in 2001, Dr. Samuel Epstein wrote:

"Mammography screening is a profit-driven technology posing risks compounded by unreliability… Mammography is not a technique for early diagnosis. In fact, a breast cancer has usually been present for about eight years before it can finally be detected. … In striking contrast, annual clinical breast examination (CBE) by a trained health professional, together with monthly breast self-examination (BSE), is safe, at least as effective, and low in cost."

According to a 2008 report by market analysts Medtech Insight, breast cancer screening is a $2.1 billion-a-year business, centered around mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound. Unfortunately, when something is this profitable, the concern and emphasis when evaluating safety and efficacy tends to center on loss of income rather than on what best serves the patient.  When it comes to business decisions, it seems the patient's best interest nearly always is factored out of the equation, and this seems to be the case with mammography…

Mammography-Related Devices Approved Without Valid Scientific Evidence

You might be surprised to learn that many mammography-related devices have been approved without any scientific evidence to back up their safety and effectiveness.  In a 2009 article posted on HealthCentral.com, Terry Matlen reported that nine FDA scientists had raised the red flag and shared their concerns in a letter to the then president-elect Obama, alleging that "'gross mishandling' by FDA managers was putting the country at risk," and asking for a restructuring of the agency.
Matlen writes:

"[T]he scientists cited a breakdown of the independent scientific review process at the FDA as far back as 1998, when Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's choice to head the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote about the issue in his book, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis." In that book, Daschle described how mammography computer-aided detection devices were not appropriately approved, thus setting into motion a chronic breakdown of the FDA's system. 
Daschle noted that these devices were not backed by clinical evidence showing they were effective in detecting breast cancer, thus causing undue biopsies for thousands and thousands of women. For the past three years, FDA scientists and physicians have recommended five times that these mammography devices not be approved without valid clinical, scientific evidence."

This seems to fly in the face of an industry that prides itself on adhering to science-based medicine, doesn't it?
Of course, many mammography proponents will argue that any drawbacks are "theoretical." But the bottom line is they're really just trying to protect their bottom lines by denying the truth as evidenced by the many studies indicating that mammography is both risky and ineffective. The price you pay for being misled is your health; perhaps even your life, if you're one of the women whose mammograms miss the cancer, or if you end up being one of those whose cancer might be the result of the procedure itself.

Take Control with Regular Self-Exams

Breast self-exams have long been recommended as a simple way for women to keep track of anything unusual in their breasts. However, after studies indicated that this too, in and of itself, does not reduce breast cancer mortality rates, many experts began recommending a more relaxed approach known as "breast awareness."
Breast awareness is really self-explanatory. It means you should regularly check your breasts for changes, but you can do so in a way that feels natural to you. In other words, you don't have to do it on the same day each month, or using any particular pattern. Instead, simply be aware of what's normal for you so you can recognize anything out of the ordinary.
Changes to keep an eye out for include:

A new lump or hard knot found in your breast or armpit	Change in the size, shape or symmetry of your breast	Redness or scaliness of the nipple or breast skin	Any suspicious changes in your breasts
Dimpling, puckering or indention in your breast or nipple	Swelling or thickening of the breast	Nipple discharge, especially any that is bloody, clear and sticky, dark or occurs without squeezing your nipple	Changes in your nipple such as tenderness, pain, turning or drawing inward, or pointing in a new direction

What Can You Do to Actually PREVENT Breast Cancer

While it is certainly helpful to identify cancers as soon as possible, even better would be to engage in lifestyle changes that would dramatically reduce or virtually eliminate your risk of developing breast cancer to begin with. This includes:

• Optimize your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). When JoEllen Welsh, a researcher with the State University of New York at Albany, injected a potent form of vitamin D into human breast cancer cells, half of them shriveled up and died within days. It was as effective as the toxic breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, without any of the detrimental side effects and at a tiny fraction of the cost.
  
  If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects.
• Normalize your insulin levels. A primary way to accomplish that is to avoid sugar, especially fructose, as well as grains (including organic ones). Aside from causing insulin resistance, all forms of sugar also promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
  
  Also make sure to exercise regularly, especially with Peak 8, as exercise is one of the best ways to optimize your insulin levels.
• Get plenty of natural vitamin A. There is evidence that vitamin A also plays a roll in helping prevent breast cancer. It's best to obtain it from vitamin A-rich foods, rather than a supplement. Your best sources are organic egg yolks, raw butter, raw whole milk, and beef or chicken liver.
  
  Beware of using oral supplements as there's some evidence that vitamin A can negate the benefits of vitamin D. Since appropriate vitamin D levels are crucial for your health in general, not to mention cancer prevention, this means that it's essential to have the proper ratio of vitamin D to vitamin A in your body.
  
  Ideally, you'll want to provide all the vitamin A and vitamin D substrate your body needs in such a way that your body can regulate both systems naturally. This is best done by eating colorful vegetables (for vitamin A) and by exposing your skin to safe amounts sunshine every day (for vitamin D).
• Avoid exposure to xenoestrogens, such as phthalates and BPA. These chemicals mimic natural estrogen, which is a breast cancer promoter.
• Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase breast cancer risk as well.
• Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
• Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally once you cut out sugar, fructose and grains, and start to exercise. It's important to lose excess body weight because fat produces estrogen.
• Drink a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information
• Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
• Take curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful in the treatment of breast cancer. It shows immense therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis. It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption tips here.

Related Links:

  What If You Went through a Mastectomy, Only to Discover Your Diagnosis Was False?

  Stop! Read This BEFORE You Get that Mammogram…

  Can these Vegetables Fight Breast Cancer?