Bjoangtx, I think you're 100% right there, it's not just finding things that reduce your stress, it's training yourself to use them. We women have a tendency to tell ourselves that we'll just get through the tough times and then fall apart, but it's important to learn that stress needs to be released.

That's probably why the red wine helped with the low WBC!

An article published in the September 3, 2010 issue of the journal Cell reports the discovery of researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine of the mechanism used by omega-3 fatty acids in lowering insulin resistance and chronic inflammation.

Recent research revealed that five members of a family of molecules known as G protein-coupled receptors respond to free fatty acids. Using cell cultures, Jerrold Olefsky, MD and colleagues found that exposure to omega-3 fatty acids activates one of these cellular receptors. The receptor, known as GPR120, is located on macrophages in mature fat cells and, when activated, prevents the macrophages from causing inflammation.

The researchers compared the effects of diets supplemented with the omega-3 fatty acids EPA and DHA in mice bred to lack the GPR120 receptor and normal mice. Prior to receiving EPA and DHA, both groups of animals received high fat diets for 15 weeks to induce obesity and insulin resistance. While the normal mice experienced enhanced insulin sensitivity and reduced inflammation after 5 weeks of omega-3 supplementation, mice lacking the receptor failed to benefit from the omega-3 fatty acids. The insulin-sensitizing ability of EPA and DHA was the same or greater than that found for the drug rosiglitazone in a separate group of normal obese mice.

"It's just an incredibly potent effect," enthused Dr Olefsky, who is a professor of medicine and associate dean of scientific affairs for the UC San Diego School of Medicine. "The omega-3 fatty acids switch on the receptor, killing the inflammatory response."

"Omega-3s are very potent activators of GPR120 on macrophages -- more potent than any other anti-inflammatory we've ever seen," he remarked, adding that activation of GPR120 by omega-3 blocks all inflammatory pathways.

"This is nature at work," he observed. "The receptor evolved to respond to a natural product – omega-3 fatty acids – so that the inflammatory process can be controlled. Our work shows how fish oils safely do this, and suggests a possible way to treating the serious problems of inflammation in obesity and in conditions like diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease through simple dietary supplementation."

The Essential Anticancer Guide

Medical Establishment Acknowledges Role of Chemicals and Pesticides in Cancer Epidemic

May 11th, 2010 - by: David Servan-Schreiber, M.D., Ph.D.

Every year a committee delivers a report to the US President on how the billions of dollars earmarked for fighting cancer are being used. On May 6 that committee handed in its work for 2010, alerting the President to the gaps in research regarding the environmental causes of cancer. This year, for the first time, this high-brow panel of oncologists courageously pointed the finger at chemicals and other environmental factors that are likely to cause cancer.

In their introduction, the signatories of the report that was handed to President Obama note that the incidence of cancer in children has been rising regularly, a fact that can’t be explained by the usual excuses for rising cancer rates in the population over the past thirty years (aging of the population, increasing use of cancer screening). By definition, as I wrote in Anticancer, neither the increasing age of our population, nor the improvement of screening, have any role in rising rates of cancer in children. Indeed, as the panel now acknowledges, the only plausible explanations have to do with changes in our environment and life-style.

The panel criticizes the current "reactionary" approach, which consists in waiting for proof of the toxicity of a contaminant before measures are taken to reduce people's exposure.

The authors underline the need for a new approach based on the precautionary principle. They criticize the ineffectiveness of the agencies set up to do scientific evaluations -- which are excessively influenced by industry and related lobbies. They point out that it is no longer acceptable that a product or chemical be considered “safe” simply because the company producing it affirms that it has conducted internal research establishing safety.

The panel presents to the President a number of arguments that have long been made by activists that have been concerned about a laissez-faire approach to regulating chemicals in terms of their possible effects on health.

Firstly, even when a pollutant is present in our environment at levels beneath the regulatory maximum, it may nonetheless become toxic because of interaction with other pollutants. The committee asks for more research on this often-neglected "cocktail effect".

Secondly, the authors call -- "urgently" -- for more research regarding the effect of cell phones and their increased dissemination among teenagers and young children in particular.

Below are the specific recommendations that the report states most need to be conveyed to the public in the short term:

* Avoid endocrine disruptors, especially for children and pregnant women. (This includes a number of pesticides, but also children toys made with plasticizers such as phtalhates)
* If you work in a polluted environment, don't go home in your work clothes and work shoes.
* Filter your drinking water (particularly in areas where it may contain industrial chemicals or high levels of pesticides)
* Don't keep your food or water in containers containing Bisphenol A or phtalates (hard plastic containers)
* Prefer organic food. Avoid overcooked meat.
* Have the level of radon in your home evaluated.

I addressed all these themes in my book, Anticancer, and I continue to do so regularly on this site and in my public lectures. I'm deeply satisfied to see that these concerns are starting to be recognized by the oncologists who contribute to setting policy at the highest levels in the United States. It is important that they begin to recognize that these are not issues relevant only to a few agitated activists. These concerns are motivated by solid scientific studies and they should be at the core of any future policy to contain the current cancer epidemic.

The 2010 President’s Cancer Panel report is available from the US National Cancer Institute’s Web site at:
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm