Prostate cancer surgery once again found to be useless at saving lives, but successful at destroying sexual health Monday, July 30, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036622_prostate_cancer_surgery_mens_health.html#ixzz22DJuftkx (NaturalNews) Most men who undergo surgery for prostate cancer derive absolutely no benefit from the treatment, and instead become twice as likely to develop incontinence or impotence compared to men who skip the surgery. These are the eye-opening findings of a new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which reaffirms once again that prostate cancer surgery is basically just medical quackery. For his study, Dr. Timothy Wilt of the University of Minnesota (UM) School of Medicine evaluated 731 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, some of whom were told to have their prostates removed, and some of whom were told to simply undergo routine observation by their doctors. All the men were tracked and monitored in the years following their initial diagnosis.

10 years after their tumors were first discovered, 5.8% of the men who underwent prostate surgery ended up dying, while 8.4 percent of the men who were monitored apart from surgery ended up dying. According to the data, 47% of the men who underwent surgery died during the actual study, while 50% of the men who were monitored apart from surgery died during the study. After accounting for a margin of statistical error, the findings reveal that, regardless of whether or not a man diagnosed with prostate cancer undergoes surgery, his chances of dying are roughly the same as if he does nothing. But men who choose to forgo surgery are half as likely to suffer from urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction.

"We think our results apply to the vast majority of men diagnosed with prostate cancer today," said Dr. Wilt to the Chicago Tribune. He and others in the field of oncology are realizing that most men who receive prostate cancer surgery do not need it, and that undergoing this treatment could lead to other, often permanent, side effects and complications. Since the risk of dying from prostate cancer among those diagnosed with the condition is a mere three percent, opting for surgery, as many men do, is more often than not a mistake. Worse, many detected prostate tumors are not even malignant, a fact that, if more widely known, would probably deter many men from choosing invasive surgery.

Prevailing thoughts about cancer; however, seem to often override logical consideration and decision-making, as many men rush in to "do something" without fully evaluating the risks and benefits. This is also true in regards to the prostate cancer screenings, which have similarly been shown to be unreliable, and to often result in needless surgery and other treatments.

Sources for this article include: http://articles.chicagotribune.com http://www.naturalnews.com/036040_PSA_prostate_cancer_warning.html http://www.truthpublishing.com/prostatecancer_p/yprint-cat21245.htm Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036622_prostate_cancer_surgery_mens_health.html#ixzz22DJakrxt

GMO wars - Monsanto suing DuPont to see who will dominate the world's food supply

(NaturalNews) Biotechnology giant Monsanto is suing one of its largest rivals, DuPont, for what the company says are violations of a licensing agreement established between the two firms back in 2002. And at the very same time, DuPont is suing Monsanto for allegedly, illegally withholding important details from the federal patent office about its Roundup Ready trait, as well as for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive business practices that restrict competitive agriculture.

Many people are unaware of this, but DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred division, which produces seeds, several years ago tried to develop its own genetically-modified (GM) soybean product known as Optimum GAT that was intended to rival Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM soy product. When the original Optimum GAT product failed to perform as intended; however, DuPont decided to add Monsanto's Roundup Ready trait onto Optimum GAT's existing glyphosate-resistant trait, a fact that did not come to light until 2009.

Once DuPont's trait-blending activity became public knowledge, Monsanto initiated legal action against DuPont for allegedly using its own Roundup Ready trait in violation of the established licensing agreement between the two companies, which prohibited DuPont's creation of a GM soy product containing multiple GM traits. According to Monsanto, DuPont illegally used the Roundup Ready trait without a license in hundreds of seed lines back in 2008.

"For years, they told the world GAT was going to work," said George C. Lombardi, an attorney for Monsanto, during Monsanto's opening arguments before the jury. "When it failed, they relied on the Roundup Ready product." But DuPont, in its own defense, says Monsanto's Roundup Ready patent is unenforceable because it was not properly obtained. According to the company, Monsanto failed to disclose pertinent details in its patent filing about how Roundup Ready seeds work, and how they are made. In fact, DuPont alleges Monsanto actually lied to the federal government in order to obtain the patent, which means it cannot legally be considered valid.

"(Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybean patent) is invalid and unenforceable because Monsanto intentionally deceived the United States Patent and Trademark Office on several occasions as it procured the patent," said Thomas L. Sager, DuPont Senior Vice President and General Counsel, in a recent statement.

The trial, which is expected to last several weeks, officially began on July 9, 2012. Some commentators believe the case will more than likely be settled rather than take its full course because neither Monsanto nor DuPont want to be hit with a surprise verdict. If the case does proceed; however, Monsanto's Roundup Ready patent could end up being declared null and void, which would be a significant victory for food freedom.

Sources for this article include: http://www.sfgate.com http://www.nasdaq.com http://www.bloomberg.com Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036596_Monsanto_DuPont_GMOs.html#ixzz21jCUZAXR

• Earthjustice & CBS QUESTION: Should you be more worried about being in a car accident or breathing in soot-laden air? If you said car accidents, you're wrong. Soot kills more than 3 TIMES as many people as car accidents in the US each year. These deaths - from asthma attacks to heart attacks to strokes - are caused by heavily polluted air, and nowhere is this problem more acute than in California's Central Valley. http://earthjustice.org/blog/2012-july/surprises-arise-at-clean-air-public-forum

(data courtesy of US Census Bureau and Society for Risk Analysis) 2010 http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-2290712.html What You Can't See Can Kill You CBS news One day last July, a power plant smokestack rained black soot on the farms and homes of Shippingport, Pa., CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports. The power co, First Energy, said it was a maintenance accident — and, according to local residents, warned them not to eat anything dusted by the soot. The accident, which had the power company power-washing a town, was an unusually severe and visible example of what Americans breathe — in much smaller amounts — every day. And not just from power plants: Trucks, cars and even fires produce microscopic soot particles and chemicals that can damage your lungs. "Particle pollution, soot, kills people," says Janice Nolan with the American Lung Association The American Lung Association is one of many leading medical groups demanding that the Bush administration adopt stricter controls on microscopic soot. These groups cite overwhelming evidence linking microscopic particles to fatal diseases. Tens of thousands of people die "every year, from soot-based heart attacks, cancer, strokes," Nolan says. Despite that evidence, when the Environmental Protection Agency had the chance to set a tough new annual emissions standard for soot this year, the agency declined. The EPA also declined a request by CBS News to explain that decision on camera, but in a written statement said, "EPA's air-quality standards are the most health-protective in U.S. history. ..." Dr. Roger McClellan, an EPA adviser, agrees with the agency; he says none of the research cited by critics proves that tougher standards will save lives. "They are just stretching the scientific data. And I think that has been used excessively to try to scare the public into thinking these are real deaths," McClellan says. However, in a 20-2 vote last year, an independent committee of scientists advising the EPA said tighter annual control on microscopic soot would save lives. When EPA dismissed this, critics said the Bush administration was ignoring science to go easy on industry. Meanwhile, the power co in Shippingport is now telling residents it's safe to eat vegetables if they're washed. But remember, the black rain that fell that day was pollution you could see. On every other day, it's what you can't see that could kill you. Copyright 2010 CBS. All rights reserved.

Medical Error Statistics - Horrible

Medical Error Statistics

Medical error statistics in the United States are enormous and alarming. The American medical system is the number one killer in the U.S. If you don't know how dangerous it is to take your prescription(s), to have surgery or to visit your doctor, the following information may be unbelievable to you. Did you know that the total number of medical errors and deaths equals SIX jumbo jets crashing every day? Yet, not many people know about this. Most of us know of someone who has been the victim of an "error", or even ourselves have been. The numbers can be overwhelming and astonishing: The error rate of ICU's (Intensive Care Units) would be like the post office losing over 16,000 pieces of mail every hour of every day Or like our banks wrongly cashing 32,000 checks every hour of every day, every year!

In one decade, the deaths caused by conventional medicine are approximately 8 million. This is more than all the casualties from all the wars America has ever fought in. And that's just one decade. According to a new Medicare study: • Less than 15% of medical errors involving hospitalized Medicare patients are both recognized and reported • When preventable medical errors and harmful events are reported, these reports rarely inform significant changes designed to lessen reoccurrence • Well-over 100,000 hospitalized Medicare patients experience at least one medical error in any given month

Beat Cancer -DJP Baking Soda Protocol worked for me in Beating Stage IV Metasticized Cancer

DJP Baking Soda Protocol  This creates a high pH (8+) thereby kills Cancer Cells, and has worked for me, 7+ yrs. after following a modified Macrobiotic “Plant Based Diet” to restore/rebuild my immune system,  As Anyone Can !   I am not providing medical advice, simply “revealing my experiences and protocol”, resulting in eliminating Stage IV Metasticised cancer. This is 8-1-2014 !

  I Did “NO” Chemo, NO Radiation, Minimum Drugs .    We all Require - 4mos. To change our blood - Do ORGANIC Plant Based Diet, NO CHEMICALS, AVOID Any forms of SUGAR-Eat Organic food-for about 1 month, LOTS of DEEP breathing, then Initiate as follows:
• 1st day-1 Teaspoon of BS soda with 1 cup room temp water 2x day (away from meals), 2 Teaspoons of Black Strap molasses (“BSM”) Heat @ “LOW” temp in pan for 5 min. STIR a lot to fully combine your sugar and BSM into “YOUR own Trojan Horse” to benefit your body-immune system. The molasses/maple syrup targets cancer cells (which consume 15X more glucose than normal cells) and the baking soda, (which is dragged into the cancer cell by the maple syrup/BSM), being very alkaline, is a rapid shift in pH thereby killing the cancer cells in hrs). We have 100 Trillion cells. 
• 2nd day – repeat, also Do LOTS of DEEP breathing (30x-3-10x day or more). OXYGEN KILLS cancer cells
• 3rd day – same Cancer cells gobble up sugar so when you use sugar it’s like sending in “your own Trojan horse”. The sugar is “not” going to encourage the growth of the cancer colonies as the alkaline baking soda (14pH) is going to kill the cells before they have a chance to grow.
• 4th day – same 2X day goal get to 8.0 - 8.5 pH and hold 4-5 days and cancer cells dormant  at pH 7.5+ and kills cancer cells @ 7.8-8.5. My pH was 8.53 on 3rd day with a blood and urine test
.• 5th day - started taking the solution - 2 tspns BS and 2 Tsps BSM 2X day
• 6th day– repeat 2 Tspns BS and 2 Tspn of BSM and 1 cup of water 2x a day. My pH measured 8.5. That is what happens with cesium chloride/BS done by Italian Dr. Simoncini, mild nausea is good as it means the dead cancer cells are being discarded by your body.
• 7th – All ok - lips tingled- an Oxygen Euphoria from a lot deep breathing. Oxygen assists in killing bone/ALL cancer! Also on day 7, increased BS to 3 Tspns. got a slight headache, backed off to 2 Tspns BS- I was a bit uncomfortable/nervous and had a slight headache, so I reduced it. I had slight confusion. Do 30+ DEEP breaths several times per day – VERY IMPORTANT !
• 8th day – double dose 3x a day to get pH high- could some be health issues with too much BS Potassium 200+mg intake is IMPORTANT. Filtered water also and Exercise/walk 30 min. daily.
• 9th day – A little diarrhea, a little weak feeling, really began to up my potassium intake. All experts said that high dosage of potassium (also with cesium chloride) is very important. Oxygenation euphoria all day from deep breathing. Ok KILLING cancer cells more important !
• 10th day - Headache more persistent, body sweats SO- I cut back to a solution 2x a day; not 3x.
• 11th day – down to 1.5 Tspns to control headache, bit of loose stools, slight headache, night sweats. I cut back felt overloaded- 8.5 goal achieved and I wanted to maintain pH 8.0+ for 4-5 days.              NOTE: Key Points: Take BS solution 2 hrs before or 2 hrs after eating, to give stomach acids time to digest food. Eat HIGH potassium organic foods, SUPPLEMENTS, vitamins, minerals, herbs as recommended for Cesium/Baking Soda Therapy by others with noted successes.
• Watch blood pressure-take Potassium. IMPORTANT –Temporary High pH-BAD for Cancer cells! Take: Calcium 3000 mg, Vit. D/D3 10,000 iu's, Astralagus, Spirulina, CoQ10-200 mg, easy, Tumeric- Walking 30+ min a day Maitake d-fraction, Potassium 200 mg, Milk Thistle 1000 mg, Sevent Flower, Sun Chlorella, Herbal ALOE Force, Magnesium • Seek to maintain ORGANIC Diet to let your Immune System rebuild from MANY years of harmful chemicals, etc, in Pkgd/Fast foods! Eat brown rice, oats, beans & lots of GREEN veggies & some fruits, NO fruit w/cancer. Pay for Organic now or pay Drs. Later
• Room temp filtered water, Green teas- Kukicha, Bancha-Hojicha, Dandelion Root, Pu-erh.
• Organic only, quality fish - NO Farm Raised. Human blood pH should be slightly alkaline (7.2 - 7.45). A pH of 7.0 is neutral. A pH below 7.0 is acidic. A pH above 7.2 is alkaline. Easy, or NO- Eating Most acidic foods– Beer/Wine/Liquor, Drugs, Dairy/Butter, Sugars, Sodas, Table Salt, Pork/Bacon/ Poultry/Beef, Easy on fish & related-clams-muscles-lobster, etc.
Be good to your immune system - It WILL be good to you with - ORGANIC Food !  NO HEAL NO CURE is an AMA standard, along with ignore Causes.
Baking Soda –Molasses “BSM” also done with success by others: maple syrup can be used instead of molasses • Jim Kelmun 75, (truck driver), treated 200+ terminal cancer sufferers, 185 lived @ least 15 years. Jim has been threatened with jail by authorities unless he stops administering his remedy – as he has no medical degree! Jim’s Remedy – Maple Syrup & BS (Baking soda). Mix 1 part BS to 1-3 parts syrup. Heat LOW HEAT, stir rigorously in a pan for 5 min. 2 tspns per day 1st week, 1 tspn per day for 2 weeks. Stop Remedy after 3 weeks.
1931 Dr. Otto Warburg, 2X Nobel Prize Winner proved that all forms of cancer are characterized by 2 basic conditions: acidosis and hypoxia (lack of oxygen). “Cancerous tissues are acidic, healthy tissues are alkaline. Cancer can't survive in an alkaline body or in Oxygen. All people with Cancer have a pH that is too acidic. High pH kills cancer cells ! ! 99% of terminal cancer victims are 1,000x more acidic than normal.
A Few Related “GOOD” Internet Searches and Authors to read of 100,000+-- I researched:
• Dr. Caldwell B Esselstyn, Jr, Heart • Cesium Chloride, China Study
• Forks over Knives –Heart Issues • http://sanjayguptamd.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/29/sanjay-gupta-reports-the-last-heart-attack/ • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wZendyXhU4
• Vernon Joshtini, Dr.Otto Warburg
• http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/19/heart.attack.proof.diet/index.html-CNN 8-22-11 Dr. Gupta
• The pH Miracle–R. Young,   Dr. Sanjay Gupta-CNN,   Bill Clinton,   Dr. Essesltyn, Search - donportercancer, Wolf Blitzer's Interview with Bill Clinton, Drs. Caldwell Esselstyn, Dean Ornish - How to Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease with a Plant-Based Heart Diet, http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/gupta/site/2011/08/29/sgmd.last.heart.attack.cnn  http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/09/24/tsr.blitzer.clinton.doctors.cnn Drs. Esselstyn and Ornish explain on national TV just how a Plant-Based Diet can prevent or reverse heart disease. Bill Clinton’s had past heart issues, noted the Diet’s similarity to an organic strict Plant Based Cancer Diet. Bill Clinton had quadruple bypass surgery to repair blocked arteries after experiencing chest pain. 2-10: Clinton had 2 stents placed in 1 of his previously-treated arteries, after one of his bypass grafts completely closed up. 5-10 The stents fail to prevent further cardiovascular blockages. CAUSE was not corrected. Clinton decides to read the medical literature about preventing/reversing heart disease. Bill discovers that there is only 1 way to do this--a strict PLANT BASED DIET loaded with green leafy vegetables, without meat, chicken, fish, dairy, or oils. Two physician's who are pioneers in this treatment approach are Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn & Dr. Dean Ornish.- Clinton decided to conduct his own personal clinical trial. Dr. E sselstyn- Zero cardiovascular events have occurred in Dr. Esselstyn's original group of 17 compliant patients that he has followed for over the past 25 yrs. Esselstyn continues to work with 100's of other patients who have similar success stories. There is no mortality, no morbidity, no expense from following a plant-based diet--if you eat in a way that makes the cap over your plaque super strong! Like most Americans, Wolf Blitzer didn't seem to understand why bypass surgery or stents cannot cure cardiovascular disease. These procedures only treat emergency blockages. Statins are no guarantee that it won't happen again. Too bad Dr. Esselstyn didn't have a chance to tell Blitzer this: "Some people think the "diet" is extreme. Half a million people a year will have their chests opened up and a vein taken from their leg and sewn onto their coronary artery. Some people would call that extreme." "The elephant in the room when we talk about stents & bypass surgery--those procedures don't protect from new heart attacks. Stents & bypasses are used to treat large arterial blockages don't seek CAUSE- it's IGNORED. . According to many research studies only a small % of heart attacks are caused by the largest build-up of plaque. The rest are caused by the more numerous newer blockages that are far more inflamed and much more likely to rupture than the larger older, more stable plaques. So this is why those procedures don't treat the disease.
Drs. and AMA are treating the symptoms- NOT the Cause A NO HEAL NO CURE AMA policy to Max Revenues. Organic Food is the BEST Medicine. Pay NOW or Drs. Later - Try Farmers Markets. STOP chemicals from entering our bodies and OVERWHELMING OUR IMMUNE SYSTEMS & allowing many diseases, EAT a strict ORGANIC Plant Based Diet to Maximize your Health.  

Cancer requires an Acidic environment and can't exist in an oxygen environment. Alkaline or high pH creates oxygen and is fatal to cancer cells.

Use THERACURMIN daily.
Also use Herbal Aloe Force Daily

Both VERY Important

Disclaimer: I am not a doctor; thus, I have not been formally “miseducated.” I am not certified in medicine; therefore, there is no certificate or diploma disgracing the interior of my home or office and no monument to the biggest revenue generating fraud ever perpetrated on human kind. This Blog/website/Protocol is for educational purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for the diagnosis, treatment, or advice of a qualified, licensed medical professional. The facts presented are offered as information only, my experiences in beating Stage IV caner, not medical advice, and in no way should anyone infer that I am practicing medicine. A conscious effort has been made to present information on my experiences that are both accurate and truthful. My statements regarding alternative treatments for cancer have not been evaluated by the FDA.

Weighing in on Sugary Beverages and Obesity

Weighing in on Sugary Beverages and Obesity Posted: 06/26/2012 11:57 am Written in Collaboration with Jenny Shelby

Contained in one 20-ounce bottle of soda are 65 grams of sugar. This is equivalent to the sugar content of nearly three two-ounce chocolate candy bars or approximately 22 packets of table sugar. It is hard to imagine anyone adding 22 packets of sweetener to a morning cup of coffee, yet many Americans frequently consume this much sugar with just one large bottle of soda. Sugar-sweetened beverages, bought in convenience stores, restaurants, and vending machines worldwide, are finding a new home -- as fat deposited on the growing waistlines of Americans. In the United States, two-thirds of adults and one-third of children are overweight or obese. Research has demonstrated a significant link between sugar consumption and weight gain. Cakes, cookies, and other sweet treats are well-known indulgences, but a stealth culprit in America's obesity epidemic comes in liquid form. Sodas and other sugary drinks do not make consumers feel full, and therefore, people do not compensate for these calories by reducing the amount of food they eat throughout the day. This phenomenon leads to weight gain. As our country addresses a growing health, economic and national security crisis caused by obesity, public health officials are seeking to address the most significant source of added sugar in the American diet: sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs).

Sodas, sweet fruit juices, and even chocolate milk add, on average, an additional 140 calories per day to the American adult's diet. While this may not seem like much, sugary soft drinks account for 7 percent of total caloric intake in the United States and equate to an excess of 15 pounds per year per person, without any nutritional benefit. Adolescent consumption is even higher than that of adults: Youth (between the ages of 12 and 19) consume, on average, 327 calories each day in sugary drinks. Obesity is not the only health-damaging complication of excess sugar intake in the American diet.

It increases the risk of many debilitating and costly chronic diseases, including Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and some types of cancer. One study found that women who drink one or more sugary soft drinks per day have a risk of developing diabetes nearly twice the rate of women who consume only one sugary drink every month. Rates of diabetes in the United States continue to rise, paralleling rising rates of obesity. Diabetes affects 8.3 percent of the total U.S. population, and 26.9% of adults age 65 or older. The diabetes rates among adolescents in the U.S. have skyrocketed. In 2008, 23% of youth age 12 to 19 had diabetes or pre-diabetes, a dramatic increase from 8 percent in 2000. Public health experts are now focusing like a laser on this threat to our nation's health. The recent "Life's Sweeter National Soda Summit," convened by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, marked the first time that a broad range of national and local public health leaders gathered together to review the scientific evidence and to brainstorm new strategies to reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in the United States. Keynote speakers included Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and CT Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, leaders in developing anti-obesity policies. Both Nutter and DeLauro emphasized the important role that elected officials can play in raising awareness and developing effective health policies to address the growing obesity epidemic in our country.

Conference speakers and participants noted that public health officials and policymakers are up against "Big Soda" in addressing obesity in America, which strikingly resembles the roadblocks put up by "Big Tobacco" during the establishment of anti-smoking campaigns. Mayor Nutter called upon the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to produce a scientific report about the relationship of soda consumption and obesity in the United States, "a comprehensive study of what effects sugary drinks have on the body," similar to what the surgeon general and CDC produced on the health-damaging effects of tobacco use in 1964. Unlike the national tobacco control and prevention public health campaign that commenced in the 1960s, the public health community's mobilization against SSB consumption is just beginning to gain traction on a national scale. Prominent health officials at the National Soda Summit, from Los Angeles to New York, lamented the lack of a unified national message. Different localities have conducted regional studies and adopted unique slogans and approaches, but there has yet to be one cohesive national campaign to tie together the themes of Boston's "Don't Get Smacked By Fat" or New York's "Pouring on the Pounds." Some city and state strategies to reduce soda consumption have, in fact, seized national attention. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently proposed a 16 ounce limit on the size of soft drinks sold in restaurants, street carts, and movie theaters in the city. This announcement provoked an outcry by some groups against the perceived intrusion on personal freedoms. Yet, it is this kind of public health regulatory strategy that has been essential in reducing tobacco use, decreasing motor vehicle accidents, and advancing progress on a range of other health issues. The health costs of consuming SSBs are enormous, and the sale of these products has high stakes. At the National Soda Summit, former Coca-Cola marketing executive Todd Putnam explained the soda industry's goal of obtaining a greater "share of stomach," selling more soda every day per person to increase profits. Putnam explained how soda advertisements target children and minorities, expanding into new demographics to build lifelong customers. A study from the Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that children's exposure to soda advertisements doubled in just two short years between 2008 and 2010. Sophisticated advertising campaigns contain messages that make people feel the need to regularly consume sugar-sweetened beverages,

and to react with indignation when suggestions to limit consumption are proposed. One soda co has recently announced a plan to increase advertising by $500 to $600 million this year alone for its sugar-sweetened beverages, some of which contain a whopping 77 grams of sugar in a 20-ounce bottle. Another major soda company also recently revamped its business plan to direct an additional $550 to $650 million toward marketing and branding, on top of its approximately $3 billion advertising budget. Yet the high costs of soda advertising cannot compare to the medical costs of obesity and diabetes, which have been estimated at $147 billion annually in the United States. In fact, obesity-related diseases account for 21 percent of all medical spending in America, an estimated cost of $190 billion annually. However, in contrast to the enormous amounts spent on soda advertising by companies, public health media campaigns to reduce SSB consumption in a typical major American city are limited to a budget of only one to two million dollars. The National Soda Summit generated a great deal of public discussion, and captured the attention of "Big Soda" as well. In response to public alarm about SSB consumption, the American Beverage Association (the public relations arm of beverage companies) has populated the internet with advertisements to counter these concerns -- to "clear it up" as to whether soda is actually linked to obesity. It should be noted that "clearing it up" is the responsibility and role of the public health community to convey scientific facts about the health consequences of sugary drink consumption, not soda companies with their advertising campaigns. Given the health damaging effects of these products, the appropriateness of soda advertising, especially to children, must be further examined.

With strong public policy leadership, a movement to educate the public about the risks of sugar-sweetened beverages is beginning to take shape. The success of the anti-tobacco campaign can serve as a model for reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption in America. Smoking has decreased by 50% in the last 50 years due to the implementation of a broad range of effective strategies by governments, advocates, NGOs, health professionals, and educators. Thus, public health groups must develop innovative, multifaceted campaigns to promote healthy eating. Early intervention and prevention strategies should begin with America's youth. The practice of advertising unhealthy products to children must be curtailed. Already public schools have begun to eliminate soda and sugar-sweetened beverages from their campuses, and the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act is beginning to improve the nutritional content of school lunch programs, as children consume one-third to one-half of their daily calories at school. Significantly reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is a key component in solving America's obesity crisis. That's why just last week, the American Medical Association (AMA), the nation's largest organization of physicians, formally adopted a policy addressing this issue.

The AMA recognizes that while a number of factors contribute to the obesity epidemic, taxes on beverages with added sweeteners are one way to finance consumer education campaigns and obesity-related programs. Where taxes on beverages with added sweeteners are implemented, the revenue generated should primarily be used for programs to prevent or treat obesity and related conditions. The AMA also will advocate for more research on the long-term health effects of SSBs, particularly for children. The bottom line: Reducing excessive consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is a critical step forward. To significantly improve nutrition and boost physical activity for Americans, all sectors of society must be mobilized to develop innovative strategies and work together: individuals, families, communities, government, NGOs, researchers, health professionals, the food and beverage industry, the media, policymakers, and private industry. Only then can we truly tip the scales on obesity in the United States and achieve better health for all. Rear Admiral Susan Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.A. (ret.) is the Public Health Editor of the Huffington Post. She is also the Director of the Health and Medicine Program at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, D.C., a Clinical Professor at Georgetown and Tufts University Schools of Medicine, and Chair of the Global Health Program at the Meridian International Center. Dr. Blumenthal served for more than 20 years in senior health leadership positions in the Federal government in the Administrations of four U.S. Presidents, including as Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, the first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Women's Health, as a White House Advisor on Health, as Chief of the Behavioral Medicine and Basic Prevention Research Branch and as Chair of the Health and Behavior Coordinating Committee at the National Institutes of Health. Admiral Blumenthal has received numerous awards including honorary doctorates and has been decorated with the highest medals of the US Public Health Service for her pioneering leadership and significant contributions to advancing health in the United States and worldwide. Named by the New York Times, the National Library of Medicine and the Medical Herald as one of the most influential women in medicine, Dr. Blumenthal is the recipient of the 2009 Health Leader of the Year Award from the Commissioned Officers Association and was named a Rock Star of Science by the Geoffrey Beene Foundation. To learn more about Susan Blumenthal, M.D., visit 4globalhealth.org Jenny Shelby is a rising senior at Yale University, studying sociology and public health as a Yale Global Health Fellow. She leads Yale's largest undergraduate community service organization, Community Health Educators, serving as Co-Coordinator to mobilize a group of over 150 student volunteers who provide comprehensive health education in New Haven public schools. Jenny is currently a Health Policy Intern at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, D.C. For more by Susan Blumenthal, M.D., click here.