Ovulation Predictor Kits Reviewed!

Clearblue Fertility Monitor                                 

Best ovulation predictor kit

Pros

• Easy to use
• Results are easy to understand
• Highly accurate

Cons

• Must purchase additional test strips monthly
• Does not work for cycles less than 21 days or greater than 42
• Takes several minutes to offer readings                                                                              
  

  Bottom line

  Many women say they owe their conception to the Clearblue Fertility Monitor. Numerous studies show the monitor, which analyzes both estrogen and luteinizing hormone (LH) to predict ovulation several days before it occurs, is among the most accurate means of predicting fertility. Reviewers say the results are easy to understand and the monitor is simple to use. There are a few notable flaws, especially for the price, but overall it's an excellent means of predicting ovulation.
  

  Performance

  Clinically proven accuracy. Numerous studies have been conducted involving the Clearblue Fertility Monitor, and all find it to be an effective means of predicting ovulation and fertility. The tests compare it to other ovulation prediction methods, including cervical mucus self-assessment, basal body temperature tracking, saliva readings, and other predictor kits that test LH. It's consistently found to be among the most reliable, helping to predict not only ovulation but the days leading up to it. It's worth noting a few -- but not all -- of the studies are conducted by researchers employed by the manufacturer of Clearblue. Some reviewers say that Clearblue helped them conceive.
  

  Ease of use

  Digital reading makes monitoring a breeze. Reviewers say the Clearblue Fertility Monitor is very simple to use. A few find the instruction manual lacking, but overall reviewers find it very easy to get results and understand them. Reviewers love that the device can predict when they will ovulate, and many say it helped them conceive in the first month. There are a few complaints, particularly given the high price tag of this product: Users dislike that they need to purchase test strips separately. A few also complain that it's not easy to get data off the device onto a computer. Of note: The monitor does not work for women with a cycle greater than 42 days or less than 21.Also for Direct Access to Brand Name Products&Services like this visit our Partners at http://ebuys-onlineproducts-services.weebly.com

GreenEarthMeds News and Reviews: Your thyroid is UNDER ATTACK.!!

GreenEarthMeds News and Reviews: Your thyroid is UNDER ATTACK.!!: Last week, the FDA approved a new kind of insulin that doesn't need to be given by injection. It is inhaled, and it's for both typ...

Your thyroid is UNDER ATTACK.!!

Last week, the FDA approved a new kind of insulin that doesn't need to be given by injection. It is inhaled, and it's for both types 1 and 2 diabetics.

Could this be what those with diabetes have been hoping for -- an insulin treatment that can allow them to take fewer shots, or even none at all? It sounds too good to be true.

And it is.

In researching this new insulin, I found some very important things that your doctor may not tell you, or even know himself.

It will be hitting the market very soon. So before you're told about this "pain free" and easy way to take insulin, here's what you need to know right now.
No free lunch


The drug is called Afrezza, and it's a fast-acting, inhaled insulin powder that's delivered through a small device that looks like an asthma inhaler.

It's coming on the market already wearing a black box warning -- one for acute bronchospasm. That's a sudden restriction in your ability to breath, just like an asthma attack.

Because of that, the FDA says that people with asthma or lung disease shouldn't go near the drug. And anyone who is planning on taking it needs to have a thorough examination first to make sure their lungs are healthy enough to use it.

But even those with lungs in tip-top shape can be harmed by Afrezza.

In the drug's trials they found a "decline" in lung function in those taking the drug -- and these were people who had no lung problems at all!

And this damage to the lungs started in just the first 3 months of therapy. Since patients were only tested for two years, the FDA has no idea if they ever got their lung function back to normal even after they stopped using the drug.

But it gets even worse.

It looks like Afrezza may actually cause lung cancer.

That makes sense, considering that the only other inhalable insulin on the market had the same terrible side effect. The other drug was Pfizer's Exubera, and it was only made for two years. Pfizer "said" it stopped selling the drug for financial reasons -- it just didn't catch on with patients.

But in 2008 -- the year after the company stopped making it -- it was forced to send a "dear doctor" letter out to warn physicians that the drug may cause lung cancer, as well as reduce lung function.

And it had to send that letter out even when there were very few patients who were still taking the drug. That's just how dangerous it was.

And there's no evidence that Afrezza will turn out to be any better.

But the FDA did what the FDA does. It went ahead and approved it anyway.

Now don't think that's because it's so much better than injected insulin, either. The FDA's own scientists had originally said that the drug is only "marginally effective" and may be "risky."

But the FDA is right on top of that risk. It's required that a "REMS" plan be put in place. That stands for "Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy," and it's a way to see how bad a drug is after it's approved by monitoring all the guinea pigs -- also known as patients -- who take it.

Now you may have never heard of the company who developed Afrezza, I know I didn't.

It's called MannKind, and it's named after its founder and head, Alfred E. Mann, an 88-year-old billionaire aerospace and medical device tycoon.

And Mr. Mann apparently was totally obsessed with bringing this drug to market. So much so that he kept it financed for years with his own money. And that was after two initial FDA turndowns.

He said that diabetes is a big problem and his company is "committed" to getting Afrezza in the hands, or lungs, of as many of these patients as possible.

Keep in mind, this may be a giant leap for MannKind. But it's a giant risk for you.

GreenEarthMeds News and Reviews: We all know that soda isn't healthy, but that does...

GreenEarthMeds News and Reviews: We all know that soda isn't healthy, but that does...: We all know that soda isn't healthy, but that doesn't always stop us from drinking it. But it turns out that when you really crav...

We all know that soda isn't healthy, but that doesn't always stop us from drinking it! Why?

We all know that soda isn't healthy, but that doesn't always stop us from drinking it.

But it turns out that when you really crave a Coke or Pepsi, and give in (despite your better judgment) it isn't your fault.

You see, those sodas (and most others) contain an additive that's addictive -- as addictive as cocaine!

And like that drug, it has effects on the brain. Effects that make you want more and more. You never get satisfied.

That's what research has already proven about high fructose corn syrup.

Of course, we all know that HFCS is bad stuff. But it turns out that the kind that's being put in sodas, and probably other foods, is even worse. It's not only addictive, but can make you pack on the pounds and up your risk for diabetes -- big time.

It's like HFCS on steroids...


A sweet poison


Dr. Francesco Leri is a neuroscience professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. He had a theory about food addiction, and when he put it to the test, he was shocked at what he discovered.

He got some high fructose corn syrup and mixed it with water in three different concentrations. And then he let his lab rats press a lever to have as much as they wanted.

He found that the rats craved the higher amounts. And the bigger the dose of HFCS they got, the more the rats behaved like drug addicts. They would work harder and harder to get their "fix."

"It's exactly what you notice with drug abuse," he said. "HFCS has effects that are beyond the sweetness in the mouth...effects on the brain."

And HFCS is not just bad news for rat brains.

Last year researchers tested people with large amounts of fructose in beverages. They found that when people are "high" on all that fructose they also don't know when to stop eating. They acted just like Dr. Leri's rats did.

Now, this will make perfect sense when you hear what Big Food is doing.

And the FDA isn't moving a muscle to stop it.

Food companies are secretly adding super high, dangerous amounts of fructose to drinks -- spiking HFCS to the point where it has even more fructose than FDA rules allow!

And this big fructose punch is probably in some "diet" and "light" foods too. One company that makes HFCS, Archer Daniels Midland, even advertises a super-strength version called HFCS 90. That's 90 percent fructose! And it says it's the "ideal choice for reduced calorie foods."

Dr. Michael Goran, of the Childhood Obesity Research Center at the University of Southern California, tested a bunch of popular sodas that listed HFCS as the sweetener.

What he found when he analyzed 34 popular drinks -- like Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper and Sprite -- was a "fructose-intense concoction that could increase one's risk for diabetes, cardiovascular disease and liver disease."

Alarmed, Goran said that people aren't "designed to process this form of sugar at such high levels."

He said that all that fructose "is processed almost entirely in the liver where it is converted to fat."

And that can make you a sitting duck for diabetes. Stay Informed!

GreenEarthMeds News and Reviews: Irrefutable proof we are all being sprayed with po...

GreenEarthMeds News and Reviews: Irrefutable proof we are all being sprayed with po...:                                                                                                       America is being doused every minute ...

Irrefutable proof we are all being sprayed with poison: 571 tons of toxic lead 'chemtrailed' into America's skies every year!

                                                                                                      America is being doused every minute of every day with the toxic heavy metal lead as it is burned in "avgas" -- aviation gas, the fuel that powers most piston-driven aircraft (i.e. anything with a propeller). A grand total of 571 tons of lead are dumped each year into the air over our heads from aircraft alone, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1)

According to a scientific paper titled, "Lead and Halogen Contamination from Aviation Fuel Additives at Brackett Airfield," (2) X-Ray Fluorescence instrumentation was used to analyze lead, chlorine and bromine content in avgas liquids. The tests showed avgas contains the following:

Lead: 48 ppm
Bromine: 42.6 ppm
Chlorine: 605.2 ppm

Lead is a highly toxic heavy metals that causes bone diseases, brain damage and cancer. Chlorine is a highly-reactive chemical with powerful oxidative properties. The fact that both are being sprayed daily into the air above America is inexcusable.

964 tons of lead released into the air (from all sources)

How much lead is being "chemtrailed" across America due to aviation fuel? According to General Aviation News (3), about 681,000 gallons of avgas were burned each day in 2013.

Avgas weighs approximately 6 lbs per gallon, meaning over 4 million pounds of avgas is burned each day, or over 1.8 million kg of avgas.

If lead is 48 ppm in avgas, that means each kg of avgas contains 48 mg of lead. Multiplied by the 1.8 million kg of avgas burned each day, this means avgas fuel is emitting 86.4 kg of lead PER DAY in the skies over our heads. Over a year, that's 31,536 kg of lead dumped directly into our air, and that lead falls onto our farming soils, forests, lakes, rivers, streams, oceans, children's playgrounds, cattle ranches, and so on.

The National Emissions Inventory says that lead emissions are even higher than what I've calculated here. "Piston-engine aircraft are the chief source of lead emissions in the United States, emitting 57% of the 964 tons of lead put into the air in 2008, according to the most recent figures from the National Emissions Inventory," reports the NIH. (4)

Small aircraft pilots dismiss the problem

Some pilots seem inclined to dismiss this problem entirely. "I'm hooked on lead. Maybe not in the way a junkie is addicted to drugs, but hooked nonetheless," writes Air & Space Magazine columnist David Freed, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. (5) "The tetraethyl lead added to aviation fuel helps keep the engine of my four-seat, 48-year-old Piper Cherokee running smoothly. And that keeps me happy."

He goes on to lament the idea that cleaner lead-free fuels might make him unable to afford to fly: "We live in dread of fuel costs continuing to rise and of FAA airworthiness directives, which often require us to pay for expensive, usually safety-related modifications. Will a government-mandated switch to unleaded fuel ultimately break the bank, leaving us little recourse but to quit flying and sell our airplanes...?"

Later in his article, he does acknowledge that lead is a public health hazard, but he explains that his airplane contributes virtually nothing to the problem: "But is the exhaust from my airplane's 180-horsepower engine really that significant a national health threat...?" he asks. He's right that his one airplane isn't much of a factor in all this, but in a collective sense, if you combine all the piston-driven aircraft flown by pilots like Freed, it becomes a huge issue nationwide. Avgas emissions are the number one source of lead emissions into the skies of America.

(David Freed, by the way, is the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the Cordell Logan aviation mystery novels. He's a great writer and obviously a thoughtful, intelligent person... almost certainly a likeable guy and a valuable contributor to society in many ways as an investigative journalist. For example, he authored an 8,600-word expose in The Atlantic which detailed how "the FBI pursued the wrong suspect in a string of anthrax murders following 9/11." Obviously, this is the kind of investigative journalist we like to support in the mainstream media -- people who ask real questions and search for truth. So to be clear, I'm not attacking him in a personal sense over his article; I only hope he reconsiders the importance of the aviation industry getting the lead out of its fuels and thereby out of our skies. We need thoughtful, intelligent people on the leading edge of this issue if we ever hope to have lead-free avgas become a reality.)

As the following EPA chart shows, avgas is the No. 1 source of lead emissions, followed by "industry" in the No. 2 spot, then coal-fired power plants third ("electric generation").



By the way, where does all this lead end up? Much of it appears in the food supply, of course, because plants absorb lead from soils and grazing animals eat and concentrate toxins from plants. This is why heavy metals are often higher in milk or meat than in raw grass. It's also part of the reason why I keep finding lead in so many foods when I run atomic spectroscopy tests in my ICP-MS laboratory. Click here to see lead results on cacao, grasses, pet treats, protein products and more.

If I ever happen to fly airplanes, you can bet I'll find a way to burn unleaded gasoline. I'm not going to streak across the sky dumping toxic heavy metals into the atmosphere, especially since part of my current mission is to explore ways that society can develop cleaner food with lower heavy metals. Even better, I would hope to one day see a huge breakthrough in battery power density that could result in, believe it or not, electric airplanes. (Yes, it seems impossible today because it would require at least a 1000-fold increase in battery power density. But humans are really good at achieving remarkable breakthroughs, so I'm going to remain optimistic on this point and hope the scientists can find a far better way to store power than today's current old-school chemical batteries.)

Lead was removed from automobile gasoline by the EPA

As you explore all this, keep in mind that lead used to be added to regular gasoline for many decades. Lead helped engines run better and improved gas mileage. But it also resulted in millions of pounds of lead being dumped directly into the environment, increasing lead contamination of soils and causing people to inhale lead with every breath.

Children's IQs in America noticeably dropped during those "lead years," and IQs were restored to higher levels once lead was removed from gasoline. Today, it is illegal to add lead to gasoline and burn it in vehicles.

But it's perfectly legal to burn lead in aviation fuel. "Avgas is one of the few fuels in the United States that still contain lead, leaving it the single largest source of lead emissions in the country," reports the National Institutes of Health (4). "Concern over the health effects of lead has sparked a contentious effort to finally get the lead out of avgas -- something the aviation and petroleum industries have been attempting for more than two decades, to no avail."

The NIH goes on to describe the harmful effects of lead:

Lead is a well-documented neurotoxicant that is particularly harmful to children, who are typically exposed when they ingest or inhale lead-containing dust in the home. In recent years, serious harm to cognitive and behavioral functions including intelligence, attention, and motor skills has been demonstrated in children with much less lead in their blood than previously thought to cause harm, and it is now understood there is no safe level of lead exposure.

When will we decide to stop poisoning ourselves?

What's clear in all this is that as long as we keep burning lead in avgas, we're going to keep suffering the health effects on the ground. In an age where the academic achievements of American children are routinely overshadowed by children in India, China or Korea, the continued dumping of IQ-damaging lead into our atmosphere seems absurd. What you dump into the sky falls onto the soils and eventually makes its way into the food supply, too, so burning lead in airplanes sooner or later results is all of us eating lead on our dinner plates.

How big of a problem is this in the really big picture? Arguably it's not the most urgent problem we face. Even I would argue that our nation's power grid vulnerability to high-altitude EMP weapons is a far greater threat to us all (especially with North Korea playing around with long-range ballistic missiles carrying with nuclear weapons).

In an era when war seems to be breaking out in the Middle East, and the global banking system seems forever on the verge of collapse, it's difficult for society to focus on the more subtle (but chronic) long-term problems like lead in avgas. But this is a problem that can be solved with a phased switchover to mogas (unleaded fuel). All that's required is some leadership by the FAA and EPA working together to clean up our aviation industry and get the lead out of our skies. As Always Stay Informed!