How to Play Badminton Like a Pro: 5 Badminton Tips to Improve Your Game

Many people who don’t get coaching miss out on the opportunity to learn the correct techniques.

The badminton tips below will help you play like a pro. Here’s how to make it seem like you received professional coaching. Are you ready to step up your game and impress others?

1. Correct Forehand Strokes

The badminton forehand stroke is used most often during a badminton game. In order to play like a professional, perform the correct forehand stroke technique.

After you master this stroke, you can perform many types of shots, such as the badminton clear, drop shot, and smash.

After those shots, you can learn more complex shots, such as the badminton jump smash, attacking clear, and badminton drives.

2. Maximizing Wrist Action

You might have heard people mention that badminton is ALL ABOUT THE WRIST. Well this is true, but it’s only HALF true.

The power comes from your wrist action AND your swing (badminton stroke).

The KEY to maximise your badminton wrist action is to not grip your racket too tightly. When you are holding your racket too tightly, you are basically tensing your hand muscles, which restrict the movements of your wrist. Therefore you won’t be able to perform a quick flicking wrist action if you hold your racket too tightly.

3. Body Balance

When you don’t have good balance, it makes it harder to produce more power in your badminton strokes.

When you perform a powerful swing, you will most likely lose balance. Therefore, subconsciously you won’t perform a strong swing since you know you’ll lose balance after your strong swing.

Experienced or good badminton players will always know how to make use of their NON-RACKET ARM (arm that is not holding the racket) to maintain balance at all times.

Stretch out your non-racket arm to counter the weight of your badminton racket and the force of your swing.

4. Do Not Tense Your Muscles

Badminton is a game of speed rather than power. Powerful badminton shots such as the badminton jump smash comes from the speed of the player’s swing and wrist action.

Therefore focus on fast motions (fast swings).

In order to do this, be flexible.

In order to be flexible, don’t tense your body muscles! The key is to RELAX your body muscles to play better.

5. Master the Basics

How far can you go with your badminton skills? That depends on how well you know the basics.

First, grip your badminton racket correctly. If you’re not gripping your racket correctly, it’s hard to generate maximum power for your shots.

Second, know the difference stances to adopt for different situations.

Finally, good movement on the court is important. Badminton footwork helps you improve your defending as well as allowing you to strike quickly.

Erection and Ejaculation Problems – Ayurvedic Herbal Treatment

Sexual health is an important aspect of overall human health. Sexual dysfunction in the male usually consists of erection and ejaculation problems. These may cause infertility, disturbed relations with the female partner, depression and poor self-esteem. The various erection and ejaculation problems, and their Ayurvedic herbal treatment are discussed here.

Erectile dysfunction, often referred to as “impotence”, is defined as the inability to achieve and/or maintain an erection that is suitable for penetration. Treatment for this condition is aimed at correcting the known cause. Sometimes, simple counseling and explanation of the normal anatomy and physiology of penile erection, may suffice. High cholesterol and obesity can be treated with traditional Ayurvedic formulations like Medohar Guggulu, Triphala Guggulu, Arogya Vardhini, Lashuna ( Allium sativum), Kutki (Picrorrhiza kurroa), Psyllium (Plantago ovata), and Guggulu (Commiphora mukul). High blood pressure may be treated with Sarpagandha (Rauwolfia serpentina), Jatamansi (Nardostachys jatamansi), Sutshekhar Ras, and Saariva (Hemidesmus indicus). Diabetes may be treated with medicines like Gudmar (Gymnema sylvestre) and Amalaki (Emblica officinalis).

Erectile dysfunction may also be due to physical causes like inadequate blood flow to the penis, venous leakage, neurological defects and hormonal problems. These conditions may be treated using medicines like Agnitundi Vati, Vishtinduk Vati, Tapyadi Loha, Trayodashang Guggulu, Abhrak Bhasma, Kapikachhu (Mucuna pruriens), Bala (Sida cordifolia), Patol (Tricosanthe dioica), Nimba (Azadirachta indica), Triphala (Three fruits), Draksha (Vitis vinifera), Musta (Cyperus rotundus) and Kutaj (Holharrhina antidysentrica).

Ejaculation problems consist of premature ejaculation, delayed ejaculation, retrograde ejaculation and anejaculation.

Premature ejaculation is the commonest male sexual dysfunction. It is defined as ejaculation before the person wishes it, often within one to two minutes after penetration, though it can occur before or on penetration. This condition is often associated with performance anxiety or psychological trauma. It can be treated using medicines like Jayphal (Myristica fragrans), Talimkhana (Asteracantha longifolia), Parsik Yavani (Hyoscyamus niger), Brahmi (Bacopa monnieri), Jatamansi, and Shankhpushpi (Convolvulus pluricaulis).

Delayed ejaculation can be a natural consequence of ageing in men, or may result from diabetes or the use of medicines like anti-depressants. Medicines useful in this condition are: Shilajit (Purified Bitumen), Makardhwaja, Rasa Sindur, Keshar (Crocus sativus), Shweta Musli (Asparagus adscendens), Kapikacchu and Talimkhana.

Retrograde ejaculation is a condition caused by an incompetent bladder sphincter, in which the semen goes backwards into the bladder instead of coming out of the penis. This could be caused by prostate surgery, a spinal injury, diabetes, high blood pressure medication and congenital problems. This condition may be treated using medicines like Vishtinduk Vati, Tapyadi Loha, Trayodashang Guggulu, Patol, Nimba, Triphala, Draksha, Musta, Kutaj, Laxa (Biopurified Wax) and Bel (Aegle marmelos).

These medicines may also be used to treat anejaculation, in which a man is unable to ejaculate. This condition is comparatively rare, and may be wrongly diagnosed as azoospermia.

Androgen deficiency may cause a reduction in Testosterone levels, resulting in reduced libido and erection problems. The natural ageing process is also responsible for reduced libido along with other general symptoms like tiredness, irritability, osteoporosis and reduced muscle mass. All these conditions may be treated using medicines like Kapikacchu, Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera), Bala, Vidarikand (Ipomoea digitata), Shweta Musli, Amalaki and Shatavari (Asparagus racemosus).

Chronic depression may also adversely affect the sexual urge, and result in sexual dysfunction. This may be treated by using Laxmi Vilas Rasa, Shrung Bhasma, Arjuna (Terminalia arjuna) and Vacha (Acorus calamus).

This is, thus, a short description of the various erection and ejaculation problems, and their Ayurvedic herbal treatment. It is important to note that consistent and prolonged treatment is needed for most of the above mentioned problems to get significant results.

Checklist – Four Natural Sweeteners, Healthy Alternatives to Sugar

When it comes to making it sweet, one of the first things that people grab for is the sugar or, if they are trying to lose weight, an artificial sweetener. However, neither of those options are the healthiest ones to choose. There are healthier options.

1.  Stevia

Stevia is a wonderful alternative for sweetening.  Stevia is a herb that is a part of the sunflower family and is commonly known as sweetleaf, sweet leaf, sugarleaf, or simply stevia.  It is widely grown for its sweet leaves.  Its extracts have up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar and because it has a negligible effect on blood glucose and is known to enhance glucose tolerance, it is a much better choice than artificial sugars like Aspartame, Nutrasweet, Equal, Splenda, Sucralose, for people who are diabetic.

Stevia in most forms, other than the white powered forms, gives a long even energy and works in the body like a complex carb.  It is important to note that many of the extracts, are processed with alcohol and do not keep the plant properties intact; therefore it is important to pay close attention to how the stevia you may use is processed.

If you are a baker and wonder what you can use as a sweetener that is a healthier alternative, then Rapadura or Sucanat are good choices. They are both natural sugars which have many of the minerals, vitamins and nutritional value still intact.

2. Rapadura

Rapadura is a dried sugarcane juice that is common in Latin American countries, that comes in the form of a brick. It is the perfect unbleached, unrefined sweetener to use in place of refined sugars. And the unique processing of Rapadura gives it a mild, caramel-like flavor which is superb for baking and sweetening food and drinks.

3. Sucanut

Sucanut is a non-refined cane sugar that, unlike white sugar, is a pure dried cane sugar, retains its molasses content. Of all the major sugars derived from sugar cane, Sucanut ranks highest in nutritional value; although, as with most sugars, it is not a significant source of any nutrient apart from carbohydrate.

4.  Agave Nectar

Finally there is Agave Nectar, a sweetener that acts as a complex carb instead of a simple one. It is derived from a plant and due to its fructose content, Agave Nectar is remarkable in that its Glycemic Index (GI) and glycemic load are lower than most, if not all natural sweeteners on the market. This makes it a good alternative to honey as honey has a high GI.  Agave Nectar also naturally contains quantities of Iron, Calcium, Potassium & Magnesium which why it has the color it does.

There are other alternatives such as molasses, honey and maple syrup. However, due to some negative properties such as the fact that they can raise blood sugar quickly, they are not the best choices for a healthy sweetener; although they are still healthier alternatives to refined white sugar.

Refined white sugar, and let me add, most brown sugars, are unhealthy options for cooking, baking, drinking, and all sweetening needs. In order to find the natural sweetener that is best for you, do a taste test and choose the one that fits your needs. You may find it necessary to have two or three of these sweeteners in your home for whatever your food preparation needs are.

History of Psychotherapy

In the modern world, psychotherapy is used in order to help a patient with his or her specific set of mental problems. Treatment techniques include experimental relationship building, dialogue and behavioral change. But who came up with the methods and practices associated with psychotherapy?

Psychotherapy dates back throughout the ages as far back as the ancient Greeks, who were the first to classify mental disorders as a medical condition. Before this revelation mental disorders were steeped in superstition. Any abnormal behavior was considered a sign of malevolent entities. After the fall of Rome, the old belief that the supernatural was involved began to rise again, resulting in torture to try to and obtain a confession from the demons. Even still, some enlightened physicians such as Paracelsus began supporting the idea of using psychotherapy to treat patients.

English psychiatrist Walter Cooper Dendy came up with the term psycho-therapeia in 1853. Sigmund Freud then revolutionized the field of psychotherapy with descriptions about unconscious, infantile sexuality, dreams and his model of the mind of humans. After extensive work with neurotic patients, Freud came to believe that mental illness was due to repressing thoughts and memories in the unconscious. He also felt that treatment should include listening to the patient talk about his or her problems, allowing the memories to surface and the symptoms to subside.

For over fifty years, Freud’s methods and practices were mainly practiced in the field of psychotherapy. With the growth of American psychology, new instances of active therapy treatments came about.

Behavior therapy, which helps treat emotional and behavioral problems, provides much more of an emphasis on a person’s thoughts and feelings. As such, this has become a major type of treatment for a large variety of different psychiatric conditions.

In the 1940s, Carl Rogers focused on offering genuine acceptance as part of his interpersonal therapy. By the time the 1970s had arrived, over sixty different varieties of psychotherapy had been adapted. Psychotherapy is now used worldwide to treat patients suffering from various mental disorders.

Female Hair Loss – Internal and External Causes

When you hear the word “bald” you immediately think of a man with a pate and /or receding hairline. The reason behind this is you usually associate baldness with males but the truth is women too suffer from hair loss that can in severe cases lead to balding.

In women hair loss is a bit difficult to detect because women are not good at disguising thinning hair or receding hairline. However, loss of hair in women may be a bit different from men and the causes behind it also differ. Therefore if you are suffering from thinning hair you need to know the causes behind it.

Internal Causes of Hair Fall in Women

1) Androgenetic alopecia- This is one of the primary causes of hair loss in women and is also known as pattern baldness. This is a kind of hereditary hair loss and can affect women at any point of time. The follicles of the hair become extremely sensitive to the androgens. The follicles have androgen receptors and the androgen instructs the follicles to produce less hair. The hair becomes finer and thinner and the growing cycle become short. Though there is no loss of the actual hair follicles it may so happen that hair production is halted altogether.

2) Telogen effluvium- This is the second most common reason behind hair loss. And the nature of condition is responsible for this. In this case hair starts to thin and the reason behind it is any kind of trauma or stress. The stress and the tension interfere with the normal rate of hair growth. A very common example of this is pregnancy. As would- be mothers are tensed and stressed out they will suffer from loss of hair. This is why women suffer for massive hair fall and thinning of hair during pregnancy.

3) Alopecia areata- This is the third common cause of hair loss in women. In this case there may be small bald patches on the head. Though much is not known about this condition as of yet it is believed this condition is related to the deficiencies in the immune system. In women hair loss caused by alopecia areata is usually not very serious and the hair may grow back after a viable span of time. However in certain cases the condition might be severe and hair may not grow back.

External Causes of Hair Fall in Women

1) It may be caused by dyes and harsh chemicals

2) Certain drugs and medication can cause loss of hair

3) Lack of zinc and iron in the body

4) Lack of proteins and fatty acids

5) Infection caused by fungi, yeast and protozoa

6) Diseases like anemia, thyroid and liver problems

7) Stress

8) Treatments like chemotherapy

Characteristics of Bad Public Speakers

Congratulations! You’ve set your sights on a lofty goal, being one of the worst public speakers imaginable. It will take a while and require a lot of practice, but if you do your best at being the worst, soon nobody will want to hear you speak in public. Follow these simple rules, and you’ll soon develop a reputation as one of the worst public speakers around!

1) Mumble and Speak Softly: Good public speakers want their messages to be clear and precise, easy for listeners to follow, so in order to be the worst you need to be as incomprehensible as possible. Mumble when you talk and speak softly, so that none of your listeners can hear what you say or understand your words. If even the front row of your listeners has to lean in to hear you, you’re doing a great job.

2) Avoid Eye Contact: The last thing you want to do is look at the audience; they might mistakenly understand something you’ve said, or at least think that you genuinely want to connect with them. Instead, look almost every place else; the ceiling, your shoes, the walls, or behind you, away from the audience (perfect if you have a chalkboard or white board to stare at the whole time). As long as you are looking somewhere other than towards the audience, they’ll get the clue that you’re really not interested in them.

3) Move Constantly While Speaking: Whether it’s a simple nervous twitch or full blown pacing up and down the stage or other public speaking area, you want to make sure that you never stop moving. Not simply walking calmly or making a few hand gestures either; you want to be moving frantically and unpredictably, one minute circling the stage, the next minute waving your arms around randomly. At no point do you want your movements to have anything to do with what you are talking about; the less sense your actions make, the better.

4) Don’t Practice Beforehand: The very first time you say your speech should be when you are on stage, looking at an eager audience who expect you to talk like a professional. Even if you are an expert on the speech material (and why would you give a speech on something you know when you’re trying to give a bad speech?), if you don’t practice what you want to say, you’ll be sure to struggle with the speech, making long pauses as you try to find the words you’re seeking, and fill the speech with ums and ahs.

5) Don’t Write Down Your Speech: While we’re on the subject, you definitely don’t want to write down your speech or any notes about what you want to say. If you have notes, you might stay on track with your speech, covering the material you wanted to cover, and generally staying on track. If you do keep papers on you during your speech (perfect for if you need something to look at rather than your audience), make them random and unorganized, flip through them at regular intervals, and read the most boring and irrelevant parts throughout your speech.

There you go; if you want to be a horrible, atrocious, and downright bad public speaker, all you need to do is to follow these simple rules, and you’ll be widely known as the worst speaker by anyone in your audience. Keep it up for a few speeches, and nobody will ever ask you to speak again! (Or, you could do the exact opposite of what this article says, and you’ll end up giving a fairly solid, well liked speech. Why you would want to do that, I don’t know, but the possibility is there if you want.)

Latest Discussion on Heart Health!

Hearth health has become the biggest concern among people around the world these days. Now people are better informed and have gained information through various researches and clinical trials, they are more conscious about their heart health and have better control over their heart than their predecessors thus reducing risks of hearth related ailments to a large extent. 

Numerous researches have been conducted on heart health. The talk on ‘statins’ also figures prominently in discussion about the heart. Statins have been highly helpful in controlling cholesterol levels in the people suffering from heart disease. Statins act by effectively lowering the LDL (levels of bad cholesterol); though, they do slightly affect raising HDL (the levels of good cholesterol).

In the latest researches, it has been found that those who have had a heart attack or some other cardiac problem get more benefit by the immediate high-dose statin therapy.

Main advantages of statins are as follows:

Statin acts to reduce the risk of death, heart attack and it also minimizes the need for cardiac procedures.

Statin therapy proves beneficial for people with high levels of C – reactive protein (a substance in the liver, produced by the inflammation of arteries). It must be noted here that one can have low cholesterol but still s/he might be at the high risk of heart problem; if s/he has high levels of C-reactive protein.  

It has been found that statins are not only safe but also a well-tolerated in the majority of patients using it. 

In another research conducted in mice, it has been found that leafy greens can prove beneficial in reducing the chances of heart attack or stroke. It is due to the fact that nutrients in the veggies protect the heart from getting damaged. To reach at this conclusion, some mice were provided with the drinking water that contained nitrites or nitrates while others were given plain drinking water.

After a week’s time, the mice were given an induced heart attack to study their heart after the attack. It was found that the mice having nitrite or nitrate contained water had less heart attack damage compared to those mice that were drinking plain water. Diets comprising of cauliflower, spinach, collard greens, meat and broccoli are ideal.

In the ayurvedic approach to have good heart health, it has been pointed out that practicing transcendental meditation for 20 minutes twice in a day leaves a positive and considerable effect on the accumulation of fatty deposits in arteries. It plays a vital role in reducing pain in a number of patients if practiced regularly. However, the experts have added that meditation is used only as a supplement, so it must not be taken as a substitute to the existing heart problem therapy.

Angelcare Baby Monitor AC401 Review – Graco Baby Movement and Sound Monitor Deluxe

The Angelcare Baby Monitor Deluxe AC401 by Graco combines a quality sound monitor and a movement monitor in a single system. The under-the-mattress movement sensor pad detects your baby’s slightest movements, even when sleeping, and sounds an alarm only if no movement whatsoever is detected for 20 seconds.

The Angelcare baby monitor also transmits all other nursery sounds and has a movement indicator light showing if movement is being detected.The Angelcare baby monitor offers an optional tic feature, it will tick if movement is detected.

The Angelcare movement and sound monitor deluxe offers parents peace of mind and a good nights sleep knowing that your precious baby’s breathing patterns are being monitored around the clock. If you have any concerns about sleep apnoea or SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) then this high quality sound and movement baby monitor should ease your worries. It is the only baby monitor available (outside of the hospital system) that every parent rates it an impressive 5 out of 5.

Additional features:

The nursery unit has a soft nightlight and room thermometer, it’s temperature is displayed on the parents units, which can alert you when the temperature falls out of your pre-set range. The high-tech monitor enables all the units to share data and communicate with each other, if you change a setting on one parent unit that setting will automatically be changed on the other unit.

The Angelcare Baby Monitor comes with an out of range indicator, a parent’s unit locator, optional voice activation and a color LCD on each Parent’s unit which displays all of the data. The new Deluxe Angelcare model AC401 operates on both 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz frequencies. Its sound monitor operates on the 900 MHz frequency so there is no interference from 2.4 GHz equipment. The monitor has 8 channels to avoid interference and an 820′ range.

Important Installation Requirements:

Sensor Pad: Place a 1/2″ (6mm) masonite or plywood board measuring at least 16″x24″ under the crib mattress for stability, this is essential for a spring base. The sensor pads are placed on top of the board below the crib mattress. The sensor pads work under any standard crib mattress.

Nursery Unit: The nursery unit should be at least 38cm from the crib at all times.

Parent Unit Settings: Only 1 parent unit needs to be programmed as the 2nd unit automatically picks up the same settings of the 1st unit.

Tic, Movement and Sound Features:

The ‘tic’ feature is represented by a pendulum on the parent unit which monitors movement on the sensor pads, it makes an audible ticking noise.

The ‘face’ represents sound being monitored from the baby’s room.

The ‘Waves’ display are for movement. The sensor pads a very sensitive to movement.

There are 5 different combinations to choose from, sound only, movement only, sound and movement, movement and tic, also tic, sound and movement.

There is also an option of continuous sound reception or voice activation.

Alarm and Vibration:

The movement sensor pads that are placed under the mattress, have adjustable sensitivity, a dial at the back of the nursery unit adjusts the sensitivity of the sensor pads. A loud alarm sounds on the parents unit and the nursery unit if NO movement is detected after 20 seconds. The alarm is loud enough to wake even a heavy sleeper since the situation could be life threatening for the infant. Often the baby is also awoken from the alarm too, potentially avoiding a critical situation.

The movement monitor is used on average for 14 months, however the sound monitor can be used for as long as you find necessary.

There are 3 alarm settings: Alarm only, Vibration only or Alarm and Vibration.

Room Temperature Monitoring: The room temperature in the baby’s room is monitored on the parent unit, it’s represented by a ‘sun and snowflake’ icon. It can be programmed as a temperature range – lowest temperature setting to highest, the alarm will sound if the temperature moves outside of your pre-set conditions.

Hold Feature: To avoid the alarm going off when you pick up your baby, you must either remember to turn off the monitor or use the ‘Hold’ feature. The hold feature doesn’t seem to be used as much as turning off the monitor, but I would suggest it’s a safer alternative as it’s easy to forget things as a sleep deprived new mother, like turning the monitor back on. The Hold feature can be activated by holding down the ‘hold button’ until a flashing ‘H’ appears, this allows you to pick up your baby without turning off the monitor. The parents unit will beep every minute as a reminder that the monitor is on hold.

Extra Settings:

Mute:The monitor can be muted temporarily for 2 minutes.

Reception: There are 8 different channels available to avoid static and interference. To avoid feed-back keep both the parents unit and nursery unit at least 3m (10feet) apart, however static may occur if the 2 units are too far apart, they must also be set to the same channel to avoid distortion/interference.

Paging: To locate the parents unit press the clear button on the front of the nursery unit. This is useful when you have been walking around with a parent unit and left it somewhere.

How to avoid false alarms:

Turn off nursery unit or put parent unit on-hold before picking up your baby from the crib.

Don’t tuck any bedding under the mattress between the sensor pad and mattress.

Sensor pad must rest on a completely rigid surface.

The Angelcare Baby Movement and Sound Monitor Deluxe AC401 provides crisp, clear audio monitoring and very sensitive movement monitoring of your baby, you can rest easily knowing that your baby’s breathing motions are being closely watched when you aren’t able too, giving you that long awaited good nights rest.

The Angelcare Baby Monitor is of exceptional high quality, the next step up in quality to monitor a baby’s breathing, are the hospital grade monitors found in neonatal intensive care units. If you have been considering using an ‘audio only’ baby monitor, I would highly recommend upgrading to the Angelcare Baby Movement and Sound Monitor Deluxe, you wont regret the extra cost for the peace of mind it will give you when it comes to the health and safety of your precious baby.

Characteristics of Bad Public Speakers

Congratulations! You’ve set your sights on a lofty goal, being one of the worst public speakers imaginable. It will take a while and require a lot of practice, but if you do your best at being the worst, soon nobody will want to hear you speak in public. Follow these simple rules, and you’ll soon develop a reputation as one of the worst public speakers around!

1) Mumble and Speak Softly: Good public speakers want their messages to be clear and precise, easy for listeners to follow, so in order to be the worst you need to be as incomprehensible as possible. Mumble when you talk and speak softly, so that none of your listeners can hear what you say or understand your words. If even the front row of your listeners has to lean in to hear you, you’re doing a great job.

2) Avoid Eye Contact: The last thing you want to do is look at the audience; they might mistakenly understand something you’ve said, or at least think that you genuinely want to connect with them. Instead, look almost every place else; the ceiling, your shoes, the walls, or behind you, away from the audience (perfect if you have a chalkboard or white board to stare at the whole time). As long as you are looking somewhere other than towards the audience, they’ll get the clue that you’re really not interested in them.

3) Move Constantly While Speaking: Whether it’s a simple nervous twitch or full blown pacing up and down the stage or other public speaking area, you want to make sure that you never stop moving. Not simply walking calmly or making a few hand gestures either; you want to be moving frantically and unpredictably, one minute circling the stage, the next minute waving your arms around randomly. At no point do you want your movements to have anything to do with what you are talking about; the less sense your actions make, the better.

4) Don’t Practice Beforehand: The very first time you say your speech should be when you are on stage, looking at an eager audience who expect you to talk like a professional. Even if you are an expert on the speech material (and why would you give a speech on something you know when you’re trying to give a bad speech?), if you don’t practice what you want to say, you’ll be sure to struggle with the speech, making long pauses as you try to find the words you’re seeking, and fill the speech with ums and ahs.

5) Don’t Write Down Your Speech: While we’re on the subject, you definitely don’t want to write down your speech or any notes about what you want to say. If you have notes, you might stay on track with your speech, covering the material you wanted to cover, and generally staying on track. If you do keep papers on you during your speech (perfect for if you need something to look at rather than your audience), make them random and unorganized, flip through them at regular intervals, and read the most boring and irrelevant parts throughout your speech.

There you go; if you want to be a horrible, atrocious, and downright bad public speaker, all you need to do is to follow these simple rules, and you’ll be widely known as the worst speaker by anyone in your audience. Keep it up for a few speeches, and nobody will ever ask you to speak again! (Or, you could do the exact opposite of what this article says, and you’ll end up giving a fairly solid, well liked speech. Why you would want to do that, I don’t know, but the possibility is there if you want.)

I Caught My Husband Texting My Friend – What Does This Mean?

I recently heard from a wife who had casually looked over her husband’s shoulder when he was texting and saw the number and photo of her friend. (The husband’s phone had an app. that posted the recipient’s Facebook photo when you messaged them.) Of course, the wife immediately questioned the husband as to why he was texting her friend. He made light of the situation and the wife playfully tried to grab the phone. This escalated the situation as the husband snatched the phone back and demanded to know why she was suddenly so suspicious.

Needless to say, something that seemed so innocent at first suddenly took on a whole different vibe. The fact that the husband was extremely defensive about the text could have indicated that something odd was going on. By odd I don’t necessarily mean cheating or wrong doing, although you certainly can’t rule that out.

Sometimes, husbands and friends discuss wives behind those same wives backs. Sometimes, this is out of concern. Perhaps you’re dealing with a difficult issue and the people that you love are concerned. Maybe they are planning a surprise of some sort for you. None of these suggestions seemed plausible to the wife though. She told me that her husband really never seemed to like this friend and that the two of them really didn’t have any reason to need to communicate.

In this case, the wife really had a few choices depending on how much this bothered her and how far she really wanted to take it. She could casually approach her friend about the topic. She might say “hey, what’s the deal with you texting my husband? What are you two up to?” And, she might get a completely plausible answer. But frankly, if cheating was going on, the friend wasn’t likely to just come clean on the spot. Instead, she’d probably not only stammer, she’d likely immediately tell the husband and the two of them would proceed to hide their connection more carefully in the future.

The other option is to attempt to take a look at either of their phones. How feasible this plan is depends largely upon how closely they guard their phones. Sometimes, a quick look is all it takes to have your answer. Other times, they will have deleted their electronic trail because of guilt, but that doesn’t mean that you still can’t easily recover it. Another option is to forgo the phones all together (since they obviously know that you’re suspicious about the phones) and check other electronics like emails and your computer.

How far you want to go with this and which option you take will often depend largely on how odd and suspicious you find this whole situation. Some women just immediately get this odd and sinking feeling around the same time the cheating reaches a point where they the parties their guard down. Some women tell me they “just know” that cheating is happening based on their feelings, their husband’s reaction, or his body language. This often works out to be quite true. But some women either want to test out these “feelings” for themselves or would rather have concrete answers rather suspicions that aren’t quantifiable.

Cancer: A Historical Perspective By Lawrence Broxmeyer MD

Hodgkin’s cancer under attack

When Virginia Livingston was a student at Bellevue Medical College her pathology teacher mentioned, rather disparagingly, that there was a woman pathologist at Cornell who thought Hodgkin’s disease (a form of glandular cancer) was caused by avian tuberculosis [1]. This lady had published, but no one had confirmed her findings. Afterwards, Livingston compared slides of both. In Hodgkin’s, the large multinucleated giant cells were called Reed–Sternberg cells. They were similar to the giant cells of tuberculosis, which formed to engulf the tubercle bacilli. Livingston stored away in her memory that this lady pathologist was probably right but she would have a difficult time in gaining acceptance.

 By 1931, Pathologist Elsie L’Esperance was seeing ‘acid fast’ tuberculosis-like bacteria riddling her Hodgkin’s cancer tissue samples. And that germ, once injected into guinea pigs, caused them to come down with Hodgkin’s too, fulfilling Koch’s postulates. L’Esperance brought her stained slides to former teacher and prominent Cornell cancer pathologist James Ewing. Ewing initially confirmed that her tissue slides were indeed Hodgkin’s. But when he found out that her slides came through guinea pig inoculation of the avian (fowl) tuberculosis she had found in humans with Hodgkin’s, Ewing, visibly upset, said that the slides then could not be cancer.

It betrayed his checkered history of high-placed medical politician. In 1907, you could have approached Dr. James Ewing about a cancer germ, and he would have embraced you over it. At that time, both for he and the rest of the nations medical authorities, it was not a question of whether cancer was caused by a germ, but which one. Was not it Ewing, at one time, who had proclaimed that tuberculosis followed Hodgkin’s cancer “like a shadow”?

But shortly after, James Ewing, “the Father of Oncology”, sent a sword thru the heart of an infectious cause of cancer with “Neoplastic Diseases” [2], becoming an ambitious zealot for radiation therapy with the directorship of what would one day be called Sloan–Kettering squarely on his mind. His entry lay in prominent philanthropist James Douglas. A vote for Ewing, Douglas knew, was a vote for continued radiation and James Douglas began sizeable uranium extraction operations from Colorado mines thru his company, Phelps Dodge, Inc.[34].

Soon Sloan became known as a radium hospital and went from an institution with a census of less than 15% cancer patients, separated by partition, lest their disease spread to others, to a veritable cancer center. But the very history of radiation revealed its flaws, and by the early 1900s nearly 100 cases of leukemia were documented in radium recipients and not long thereafter it was determined that approximately 100 radiologists had contracted that cancer in the same way [3].

Still, Ewing, by now an Honorary Member of the American Radium Society, persisted.

Elise L’Esperance was anything but alone in linking Hodgkin’s to a germ called Avium or fowl tuberculosis. Historically Sternberg himself, discoverer of Hodgkin’s trade-mark Reed–Sternberg cell, believed Hodgkin’s was caused by tuberculosis. Both Fraenkel and Much [35] held, as L’Esperance, that it was caused by a peculiar form of tuberculosis, such as Avium or Fowl tuberculosis, and of all the cancers, debate over the infectious cause of Hodgkin’s waxed the hottest.

Into this arena L’Esperance stepped in 1931, with few listening. She would publish Studies in Hodgkin’s Diseases [4] in an issue of Annals of Surgery. It proved to be the one legacy that no one, not even Ewing, who would soon die from a self-diagnosed cancer, could take away.

Dr. Virginia Livingston

 “Our (cancer) cultures were scrutinized over and over again. Strains were sent to many laboratoriesfor identification. None could really classify them. They were something unknown. They had many forms but they always grew up again to be the same thing no matter how they were cultured. They resembled the mycobacteria more than anything else. The tubercle bacillus is a mycobacterium or fungoid bacillus.”–Virginia Livingston, 1972

Virginia Wuerthele-Caspe Livingston was born in Meadville, Pennsylvania and went on to obtain impeccable credentials. Graduating from Vassar, she received her M.D. from N.Y.U. The first female medical resident ever in New York City, with time Livingston became a Newark school physician where one day a staff nurse asked medical assistance.

Already diagnosed with Reynaud’s syndrome, the tips of this nurses fingers were ulcerated and bled intermittently. Livingston diagnosed Scleroderma. But upon further examination there was a hole in the nasal septa, something that Livingston had previous seen in the mycobacterial diseases TB and Leprosy.

So Livingston approached dermatologist Eva Brodkin and a pathologist for confirmation, all the while convinced that mycobacterial infection was causing the Scleroderma. She then preformed cultures from a sterile nasal swab – mycobacteria appeared, everywhere [1]. Injected into experimental chicks and guinea pigs, all but a couple died. Upon autopsy, the guinea pigs had indeed developed the hardened skin patches of Scleroderma. . . some of which were cancerous.

Momentum builds

Livingston, now possessed, solicited fresh sterile specimens of cancer from any operating room that would give them to her. All cancer tissues yielded the same acid-fast mycobacteria. New Jersey Pathologist Roy Allen confirmed her findings. Livingston and Allen then found that they could actually differentiate malignant from benign tissue by their mycobacterial content [5]. But still the explanation for why the cancer germ showed so many different forms was elusive.

Try as she might, part of Virginia Livingston’s problems in an American validation of her multi-shaped cancer germ lay firmly entrenched in the history of medicine, especially in the constantly changing field of microbiology. Louis Pasteur could handle being quickly rushed off a Paris Academy of Sciences podium to escape harsh reaction to his suggestion that children’s milk be boiled first, but he could not tolerate his rival Pierre Bechamp’s statement that a single bacteria could assume many, many forms. On his deathbed, Pasteur was said to have changed his mind when he said: “The terrain is everything”, meaning the culture or milieu that bacteria grew on or in could change their shape or characteristics. But it was too late and even today, most conventional microbiologists deny the existence of such form changing (or pleomorphic) germs.

Robert Koch, Father of Bacteriology and discoverer of tuberculosis, could have helped. When he first worked with the bacteria anthrax, he noticed that anthrax’s classical rod shape became thread-like inside the blood of laboratory mice. And then, after multiplying, they changed again, into the same assumed spore-like forms he later documented in tuberculosis as well.

Aware of what she faced, yet undismayed   Livingston methodically went about proving cancers true cause. First in her line of attack were the long suspected and well-publicized tumor agents of Rous, Bittner and Shope. By photomicrographs, Livingston and her group demonstrated acid-fast mycobacterial forms in each of these so-called “viral” cancers. This included the famed Rous chicken sarcoma.

Early on, Virginia Livingston had decided that she needed help in validating her cancer germ and nobody knew the shapes and staining capacities of mycobacterial-related germs better than Dr. Eleanor Alexander-Jackson of Cornell. As far back as 1928, Eleanor Alexander-Jackson, bacteriologist, had discovered unusual and to that point unrecognized forms of the TB bacillus, including its filterable forms. By 1951, Alexander-Jackson was considered the expert TB microbiologist at Cornell.

In the same year, another American, H.C. Sweany proposed that both the granular and other forms of tuberculosis that passed thru a filter caused Hodgkin’s cancer [6]. This was subsequently supported by studies by Mellon, Beinhauser and Fisher [7,8]. Mellon prophetically warned that tuberculosis could assume both its characteristic red acid-fast forms as well as blue nonacid-fast forms indistinguishable from common germs such as Staphylococci, fungi and the Corynebacteria and that this would surely perplex modern microbiologists.

When organized medicine choose to ignore these studies, Jackson warned that a so-called cure for TB could be as short-lived as it took classical TB rods, for the moment gone underground as a nonacid-fast form, to resurface one day and spring back towards destruction. Although American medicine had no serious time for Alexander-Jackson or her discoveries, it would not disturb her for as long as she focused on tuberculosis and its cousin, leprosy. But when her focus shifted towards Livingston’s cancer germ, it would move to destroy her. She simply posed too great a threat.


By December of 1950 Livingston, who would go on to write over 17 peer reviewed articles by the end of her career, wrote, together with Jackson and four other prominent researchers, what still stands as a milestone on the infectious nature of cancer [9].

At the AMA’s 1953 New York exhibit, participants interest was particularly riveted towards an exhibit of Livingston’s cancer germ, live. The press, muzzled by Sloan Kettering’s head, Cornelius Rhodes, was not allowed to interview or report on this exhibit. Above, the cancer germs seemed indestructible, surviving a five-day experience of intolerable heat from closed-circuit microscopy [1].

As Livingston and Jackson’s work on the cancer germ became more and more convincing, her opponents surfaced and became more and more vocal.

Also with recognition, came visitors. One a pathologist from Scranton, Dr. George Clark, told Livingston he had cultured Dr. Thomas Glover’s famed cancer germ from human cancer and developed metastasizing tumors in animals from it.

Clark assured Livingston that Glover was on to the same bacterial pathogen that she was. For more than two hundred years, the same organism had been discovered and rediscovered, named and renamed, each discoverer adding to what was known about the cancer germ, but thus far to no avail.

US studies take hold

Clark knew Glover as part of an investigative team of the US Public Heath Service headed by George W. McCoy in 1929. Glover had just become too well known to be ignored. His cancer serum was working.

Much was at stake. The Country was already committed to the idea that cancer could not possibly be an infectious disease, and Glover was saying that he had already isolated the cancer germ.

Actually, he had not, but few would believe that it was really his young, tobacco-chewing assistant, Thomas Deaken who had isolated it. Deaken worked his way up New York’s health and hospital system from the most menial positions to laboratory assistant. With neither formal medical or scientific training, this laboratory assistant nevertheless learned laboratory protocol [10]. Incredibly Deaken engineered a geranium based culture medium, managing to grow out acid-fast, tubercular bacteria. Then he inoculated mice and dogs, producing cancer with metastatic spreadin every case [10]. Sometime between 1917 and 1918 Thomas Daeken, laboratory assistant, produced a specific anti-cancer sera by injecting horses with the human cancer germ. Moreover, the sera worked whether in prevention or cure of his cancerous laboratory animals. But Glover had come to the point where he needed someone to lend credibility to his work, and that someone, came in the form of Dr. Thomas J. Glover of Toronto.

It will always be to Glover’s credit that he saw the importance and application of Deaken’s work from day one. A contract was quickly drawn up and executed. Glover rushed back to open a Canadian cancer clinic in Toronto. The serum worked in many but not all cases; but as Glover’s reputation grew, so to did the interest in him of Canada’s organized medicine. A subpoena giving him 21 days to submit a full presentation of his treatment was issued. But Glover was not cooperating. Glover was in trouble and would soon be chased out of Canada [10].

By 1926, and now in the US, Glover published Progress in Cancer Research, presenting over 50 cases, most of which went into remission with Glover’s Serum [11]. It sparked additional notoriety, both here and abroad. In 1929, Livingston’s friend Dr. George Clark joined Dr. George McCoy, then head of the Hygienic Lab of the US Public Health Service. Their intended destination: Glover’s laboratory, now at New York’s Murdock Foundation. Glover was under investigation and McCoy wanted him to repeat his work, this time under Health Service surveillance and in Washington. Glover complied, and he and his team went to the nations capital to prove their case at what was to one day become the National Institute of Health.

McCoy, the investigator, impressed by Glover’s work, rather than come down on Glover, instead issued a 1937 letter to Surgeon General Parran, which spoke in glowing terms of the great importance and significance of Glover’s cancer findings.

Soon thereafter, McCoy was abruptly and mysteriously replaced by Dr. R.H. Thompson. Parran, a product of organized medicine, had a definite agenda. The question before him was whether to publish Glover’s now finished Washington report or not and Parran, despite continued committee approval, was not about to, sending Glover into a cold rage which ended with him walking away from Washington to publish independently.Meanwhile, Glover’s serum, which had helped and saved so many was subjected to cursory animal studies and a review without clinical trials before being condemned by Government agencies.

Glover would eventually return to Canada, but he would never again answer questions as to just what had happened in America.

Focus on breast cancer

Virginia Livingston now went specifically after breast cancer. Thirty sterile cancerous breasts were transported from operating room to lab. Cancers were isolated from each breast and when axillary tissue from under the arm was supplied, the cancerous portion was cut from this too. Livingston and Jackson found the cancer germ everywhere, and in the case of underarm glands, even when the pathology report was negative, the cancer microorganism surfaced [1].

Champion of toxic chemotherapy, Cornelius Rhoads replaced Ewing at Sloan. Rhoads, head of chemical warfare during the Korean war, was deeply committed to chemotherapy and the huge grants it brought from the pharmaceutical industry.

It is poorly recognized that the chemotherapy or “chemo” used against cancer began as a weapon of mass destruction par excellence [12]. When the Axis folded, nitrogen mustard, declassified, first came under real medical scrutiny for cancer. Initially evaluated for lymphosarcoma in mice, human studies soon followed as more and more variants of nitrogen mustard were concocted and tried [12].

Other related classes of chemotherapeutic agents followed and so did their repercussions. Most had the potential to cause a second entirely different cancer [13]. Even tamoxifen for breast cancer was associated with a two to three-fold increased risk of cancers of the lining of the uterus (endometrial), some of which were high grade with a poor forecast [14].

Nevertheless, Cornelius Rhoads remained committed to the treatment, and at the same time prepared a series of major roadblocks to stop Livingston.

In 1950, he barred her from presenting her paper on the cancer germ at the New York Academy of Sciences by discrediting Irene Diller, the symposiums sponsor, chief-editor of the respected journal Growth, and a prominent cancer researcher. Diller, like many, had accepted a gift from a pharmaceutical house at one point. Livingston came across Diller in a Life Magazine article which talked about a Philadelphia cancer researcher who was observing strange fungus-like filaments protruding from cancer cells. Livingston and Alexander-Jackson convinced her that her fungal forms (the prefix – myco in mycobacteria denotes a germ with fungal properties) were part and parcel of the cancer microbe, and that crucial to its identification was acid-fast staining.

Dr. Eleanor Alexander-Jackson’s elation over the groups infectious breast cancer findings came to an abrupt halt when she was informed by her private physician Frank Adair that she too had it. A radical mastectomy was done at Sloan on Adair’s advice.

While anxiously waiting for the outcome, Dr. Virginia Livingston heard her name paged on Sloan’s overhead. Rhoads wanted to speak to her regarding Jackson’s ongoing surgery. It was urgent. Alexander-Jackson was still in the operating room and the radical mastectomy had been done. In Rhoads office, the two adversaries faced off. incredibly, Rhoads was after permission to go after a cancerous lymph node deep in the middle of Eleanor’s chest. Livingston bristled.

“We have been looking for a tumor such as she has.” said Rhoads.Apparently a radical was not enough. He was seeking permission to try a new surgical technique which went after the deep chest node. Livingston had had enough. Just the thought of the cruel, disfiguring procedure made her sick.

“Not on your life.” She shot back, as she left [1].

The single most convincing study of how bacteria causes cancer

By 1965, Edith Mankiewicz, Director of labs at Montreal’s Royal Edward Chest Hospital and assistant professor of bacteriology at McGill, by examining human cancer tissue, established mycobacteria-like germs inside cancer [15]. In the bibliography of one of her landmark papers is reference to a personal communication with Dr. Eleanor Alexander-Jackson. One of the cancers under Mankiewicz’s trained eye was lung cancer. Lung cancer,or bronchogenic cancer, was first reported in the nineteenth century at a time when it was practically unknown-while mycobacterial disease of the lung, primarily tuberculosis, was so rampant as to be called ‘white plague’ or in certain circles: ‘captain of the men of death.’ By the middle of the seventeenth century, one in five deaths was due to tuberculosis and at the end of the nineteenth century, there was fear that it would destroy the very civilization of Europe. So difficult was it to differentiate tuberculosis from the newly discovered bronchogenic cancer that it was only after cases first mistakenly diagnosed as lung cancer were operated on that the benefits of surgical resection of tuberculosis were recognized [16].

Mankiewicz not only showed the cancer germ in malignant tissue but significantly demonstrated how it probably evolved from tuberculosis and related microorganisms when some of the viral phages that lived in them jumped germs, bringing genetic materials which altered the target germs virulence and made them drug resistant. In fact beneath her microscope lay a pictorial of how the cancer germ emerged from TB-like bacilli to create pre-malignant change in mammalian tissue [15].

By 1970, Sakai Inoue, a PhD from Maebashi, Japan and Marcus Singer, a doctor at Case Western’s Developmental biology, completed the single most convincing study of how bacteria cause cancer altogether, with TB-like mycobacteria. Supported by grants from the American Cancer Society and the National Institute of Health, their study used cold-blooded animals, namely the newt or salamander and thefrog. But similar studies showed its applicability to mice [17] and humans [18,19]. Inoue:

 “An organism similar to the mycobacterium described here has been isolated and cultured from tumors and blood of tumerous mammals, including man, and when injected into miceand guinea pigs, has been reported to yield a chronic granulomatous disease, neoplasm (cancer), or some intergrade.”                     –Inoue and Singer, 1970

Back in the spring of 1953, Sakai Inoue noticed an adult salamander with a hard mass on its stomach. He removed the mass, which turned out to be malignant. Then he injected tissue from the mass into healthy animals. Again, cancer developed.

In the work that followed, Inoue and Singer, from electron micrographs, knew that bacteria were involved, bacteria which stained acid-fast……..mycobacteria [20]. Inoue inoculated three other types of mycobacteria, into healthy animals. All came down with cancer, something that did not happen when other germs such as staphylococcus or streptococcus were used. Amazingly Inoue and Singer even noted regressions in some of the cancers, especially if very dilute solutions of the germs were used to initiate them. Furthermore, since cancers stemming from ‘carcinogens’ were structurally identical to mycobacterial induced cancers, the investigators results suggested that such ‘carcinogens’ might merely be factors that activate preexisting infection. The phages inside mycobacteria are viruses known to be activated by carcinogens such as UV light and chemicals [21].

Mankiewicz, five years previously, had shown that these phages, once activated, could cause pre-malignant changes in mammalian tissue [15].

Sakai Inoue and Marcus Singer’s study should have once and for all convinced Virginia Livingston’s opponents of the veracity of her results, and that she was not mistaking common contaminants such as staph. or strept. for the cancer germ. . .but it did not.

The politics of cancer

It was public knowledge in early 1951 that the Black-Stevenson Cancer Foundation intended to award two huge Black grants of $750,000 towards cancer research and that the first would go to Livingston’s group at Newark’s Presbyterian; with an equivalent amount to go to The Memorial Center for Cancer (now Sloan-Kettering), which Rhoads headed. The trustees having already decided this, the actual allocation was left in the hands of Newark lawyer Charles R. Hardin, but fate intervened.


“Hardin, the lawyer in charge of allocation, soon would lie dying of cancer at Memorial and while still alive was prevailed upon by design of Rhoads to sign a paper giving Rhoads power over how Presbyterian’s grant was to be spent. And that wasn’t going to include further research towards an infectious cause forcancer.”                   -Livingston, 1972

Still Rhoads was not finished. Livingston, already world-recognized, took her cancer microbe and a guest named George Clark to Rome’s Sixth International Congress for Microbiology, a trip paid for by her husband’s firm as a consultant to British industry. In Rome, Livingston met Emy Klieneberger-Nobel at the Lister institute. Klieneberger-Nobel was a pioneer uncovering bacteria without cell walls which led them to assume many forms [32]. She called them ‘L-forms’ in deference to the Institute at which she worked. Her exploration also covered bacteria with cell-wall breeches. In either case, the resulting germs, called ‘cell-wall-deficient’ assumed many forms (pleomorphic). Livingston immediately saw Klieneberger’s work as clearing a large part of the confusion over her many-formed cancer germ.

Livingston’s trip to Rome’s Congress of Microbiology was punctuated by a stop to visit von Brehmer in Frankfort. Von Brehmer’s vaccination techniques, long respected throughout Europe, were now licensed by the German government.

During the war, Wilhelm von Brehmer’s scrimmage with the Nazi medical establishment went right to the top. Severely criticized for saying that cancer was an infectious disease, the struggle eventually found its way to Hitler himself, who, puzzled, yet interested, ordered an inquiry on the matter at the 1936 Nuremberg Party Conference. Subsequently, the committee formed came down hard on von Brehmer’s views. Nevertheless, unperturbed, he somehow persisted into the legendary status he now maintained.

Big names began to join the conference, including Nobel Laureates Fleming and Waksman. By the time Virginia Livingston returned to the States, the Rome conference had been highlighted by several news services. Beginning with the New York Times and The Washington Post, other papers quickly followed suite: the cancer germ had been found. Reaction quickly followed. At The New York Academy of Medicine, spokesman Iago Gladston, fresh from executive session, held his own sort of news conference:

“This is an old story and it has not stood up under investigation. Microorganisms found in malignant tumors have been found to be secondary invaders and not the primary cause of malignancy.”- Livingston, 1972.

Livingston returned to Newark. Her Chief, James Allison, contacted her with the bad news. Since they had lost Black-Stevenson funding, he wanted her to close up Presbyterian’s research and move back to Rutgers’s home campus in distant New Brunswick. And in still another cost-cutting gesture, she was informed that her close friend and associate Eleanor Alexander-Jackson would have to go. Shocked, Livingston made arrangements to leave Rutgers altogether. Barely unpacked from Europe, Livingston’s husband would now be hounded by the IRS regarding where they got the funds for the European trip. Someone had implied the money came from his wife’s grants. This did not bear out and the couple demanded to know who had instigated the inquiry.

“Someone high up in New York in cancer.” The IRS agent replied [1].

Parallels with plant cancer

By 1925 Mayo’s Charles Mayo became interested in Erwin Smith’s discovery of cancer in plants, called crown gall. Livingston and Jackson, sensing a possible link between Smith’s work and their own, went to the Bronx Botanical Garden to request cultures of Bacterium tumefaciens, the plant cancer germ he had discovered. No mere accident led Virginia Livingston towards Smith’s work. Smith stained his plant cancer germ with Fuchsin, long used to spot tuberculosis. And Smith’s bacteria, like Livingston’s, had many shapes. He had stumbled across B. tumefaciens in 1904, when he received some New Jersey daisies with overgrowths superficially resembling olive tuberculosis, a known disease of plants, but which proved to be plant cancer.

Smith had long suspected a bacterial cause for human cancer and criticized pathologists for drawing:

“Too sharp a demarcation between malignant tumors, on the one hand, where the cells of the animal or human host, acting under some unknown stimulus are responsible for the tumerous growth and granulomata (benign tumors) on the other hand, such as tuberculosis and actinomycosis, where a visible microbe isresponsible for the primary tumor, and the direct migration of this microbe for any secondary tumors that may appear.” -Rogers, 1952

Smith’s conclusion:

“At the bottom, I think the distinction between such a disease, for example as tuberculosis or leprosy and malignant tumors is not as sharp as some histologists have been inclined to believe”.   -Rogers, 1952

It could be said that at one time the entire medical and scientific community was set on fire by Erwin Frink Smith’s discovery of the bacteria that caused plant cancer. Twice honorably mentioned in The Journal of the American Medical Association, their Editorial “Is Cancer of Infectious Nature?” mentions how Smith’s work made “a very strong case in favor of his view of the infectious cause of cancer in general.” (JAMA, 1912)

By 1921, Margaret Lewis, of the Livingston Network, approached Frink Smith regarding her planned chicken inoculations with B. tumefaciens. Lewis would go on to elicit the cancer sarcoma from chick embryos using B. tumefaciens.

On January 31, 1925, an English abstract in the authoritative German Kinische Wochenschrift, written by Ferdinand Blumenthal, trapped Smith’s attention. Blumenthal, with assistants Meyer and Auler had shown that human cancer bore a microorganism closely resembling tumefaciens which in turn caused malignant tumors in plants as well as animals, complete with spread or metastasis.

Paula Meyer had worked with Friedlander on the human cancer germ since 1923. Her particular discovery was of a bacteria inside breast cancer which she called PM for Paula Meyers. She had also discovered closely related strains from 15 other human cancers. Smith examined stained slides of Meyer’s cancer germ from human breasts. It looked much like B. tumefaciens. Meyer’s germs were short rods, single or paired, and they stained with the same Fuchsin that he had used [22].

Moreover, when Blumenthal and Meyer inoculated their human cancer germ PM into plants, the tumors looked exactly like crown gall. That PM could produce plant cancer was now for Erwin Frink Smith beyond a shadow of a doubt. But it could not be B. tumefaciens itself, because no strains that he had tested grew at body temperature in warmblooded animals. His conclusion: that human cancer was probably due to some other microbe, possibly a mycobacteria, that had similar chemical activities to B. tumefaciens.

Seibert rules out contaminants in the cancer germ

The only time that Dr. Florence Siebert, long part of established medicine, ran into resistance and suppression, was when she decided to have a closer look at Livingston’s cancer germ. One of America’s finest Ph.D. – Biochemist’s, while still at Yale she resolved the mystery of the many fevers coming from distilled water for injection and thought to be caused by fever-producing ‘pyrogens’, quickly proving that these were in fact bacterial contaminants. Having solved the mystery of pyrogens, Siebert was asked by Dr. Esmond Long to stay on at the University of Chicago to develop the Tuberculin skin test. Long suggested a European trip to learn techniques practiced on the continent [23]. At thePasteur Institute of Paris, Seibert exchanged ideas with Boquet, Calmete and Guerin: the three investigators who presented to the world its only recognized vaccine for tuberculosis, called BCG [23]. Seibert returned to the US and when Long left Chicago to head laboratory operations at the Henry Phipps Institute in Philadelphia, she accompanied him.

By 1903, Henry Phipps, wealthy partner of Andrew Carnegie, sought a charitable outlet for his wealth. He then joined Lawrence F. Flick, a doctor with a vision to open a center solely dedicated to the study, treatment and prevention of Tuberculosis.

Still working off grants from the National Tuberculosis Association, Seibert was asked at Phipps to continue her work for a skin test using Koch’s original Old Tuberculin (OT). Seibert refined and purified the protein in her TB skin test. She named it PPD-S, both because it was a purified protein derivative and was intended to serve as a standard (S) for the US Government, which it eventually became. Then, after 30 years in tuberculosis research, Seibert turned towards cancer. In 1948, Margaret Lewis of Philadelphia’s Wistar Institute asked Seibert to do a nucleic acid analysis on Wistar rat tumor extracts, which Seibert agreed.

Next, Irene Diller, who networked extensively with Livingston, asked Seibert to look at her slides of the cancer microbe. Seibert relates what she saw:

“I saw tiny, round, coccoid organisms, many of which were magenta in color. The slides had been stained with Ziehl-Neelsen reagent, which we regularly used to stain our tubercle bacilli red. When I learned that she had isolated them from a rat tumor and could do so regularly from tumors in general, as well as from blood of leukemic patients, I asked,”Could you find them in the rat sarcoma tumorI am studying?”    -Seibert, 1968

Diller agreed to try. Lewis allowed Seibert to forward the tissue sections. The results came back. The same cancer germ appeared. Seibert immediately saw the implications:

“This looked terribly important to me, and I was thenceforth willing to do whatever I could to help in this promising field. We did help by studying the immunological relationship to our tubercle bacilli, as well as to the “atypical” bacteria closely related to our tubercle bacilli.” – Seibert, 1968

Seibert was even more impressed with how Diller, following the footsteps of Livingston and Jackson, proved, thru Koch’s postulates, that her germ was the cancer germ:

“It is based on her (Diller’s) work that I am willing to say I believe she has foundthe cause of cancer, which I think no one can refute, and this work should be welcomed and confirmed by other cancer researchers, and not be ignored, even in view of the great stir at present about viruses.” -Seibert, 1968

Florence Seibert joined Livingston’s crusade in earnest in the 1960s, turning her cancer organism over to Frank Dunbar, chief of laboratories at the Southwest Tuberculosis Hospital in Tampa. Dunbar’s conclusion: her multi-formed germ did not belong to his groups of known “atypical” mycobacteria,even though they did have some of the properties of the mycobacteria [23].

Experimental medicine for the masses

Eventually Virginia Livingston gained university affiliations in San Diego working out of the University of San Diego with Dr. Gerhard Wolter of nearby San Diego State. In 1970, Wolter and Livingston discovered actinomycin-like compounds produced by the cancer germ, one of which, Actinomycin D or Dactinomycin, depite its toxicity, was being used in cancer. Livingston was aghast that her own discovery was being used this way. She cautioned that not only did actinomycins arrest the maturation of cells and inhibit the immune response but that they also inhibited enzymes and decreased hormone levels, stimulating the body to increase its hormone production [1]. 

She was puzzled as to why anyone would want to use a devastating substance like Actinomycin D for the subsequent treatment of cancer. Yet it was being done. Even more disturbing was the way in which organized medicine was responding to the hormonal disruption in the body caused by her cancer germ.

By 1966, Charles Huggins of the University of Chicago went to Stockholm and received a Nobel Prize for determining the effects of sex hormones on cancer that had spread. Following this, the practice of castrating cancer victims came into vogue. Consequently, someone came to the conclusion that if castration helped initially, any recurrence would better be treated by cutting out the adrenal glands, housed on top of each kidney.

And since this never produced earth-shaking results, a new procedure was devised to cut through the nose and remove the pituitary-the master gland of the body, lodged near the brain. Virginia Livingston had established that abnormal hormonal stimulation was coming from the toxic materials and hormonal derangers manufactured by her germ. In response America was chopping out the glands of its cancer patients.

White Knight

In The Cancer Microbe, Dr. Alan Cantwell Jr. acknowledged the invaluable help of four women who pioneered the early microbiology of cancer: Virginia Livingston, M.D.; Eleanor Alexander-Jackson, PhD; Florence Siebert PhD and Dr. Irene Diller [24]. Cantwell grew up reading that all germs responsible for the important diseases were supposed to have been already discovered. But much to his dismay, once a physician-researcher, he encountered the one left out: Livingston’s cancer germ. And although he knew that the many-shaped germ had long been considered a mere contaminant or secondary invader or even non-existent, Cantwell, like Seibert, knew better. Cantwell first contacted Virginia Livingston thru the suggestion of a colleague who had heard her on radio and immediately sensed their common ground, which was, by then, the acid-fast bacteria found in Scleroderma and cancer. Despite her meticulous research, Cantwell knew that Livingstone had already been branded by traditional medicine as a charlatan, leaving what he thought to be perhaps the major discovery of the 20th century largely discredited [24].

By 1971, Cantwell had published on Scleroderma in the highly respected Archives of Dermatology and had no further intention of pursuing Livingston’s germ. Livingston, Jackson, Diller and Seibert had each drawn considerable fire from the medical establishment and despite Livingston’s persistent overtures towards him, there was no way he wanted in. By 1974, Lida Mattman’s Cell Wall Deficient Forms [25], reconfirmed for Cantwell as well as others that many bacteria, but especially tuberculosis and the mycobacteria existed naturally in many forms – a cycle of growth which involved “cell-wall-deficient forms” ranging from viral look-a-likes to bacterial forms to granules and then on to larger globoid shapes. But most physicians and laboratory scientists were being taught little about cell-wall deficient bacteria.

Cantwell’s silence threshold was exceeded forever when he again saw the cancer germ in the skin of the chest wall of a young woman who had lost both her breasts to metastatic cancer. Removing this patients skin lumps, Cantwell and colleague Dan Kelso at first cultured Staph. epidermiditis, a common contaminant. But as their cultures aged, the seeming Staph cocci became large globoids, rods and yeast-like forms – with acid-fast TB-like granules everywhere [25].

Tracking down specimens of the woman’s original cancer, removed a year earlier, Cantwell not only isolated the variable acid-fast cancer germ in the tumor itself, but in surrounding specimens taken from the woman and thought by pathologists to be normal. This in effect established that the germ existed in the victims tissues before it became cancerous.

In a series of peer-reviewed, penetrating articles, Cantwell found the cancer microbe in three other cancers: Hodgkin’s, Kaposi’s cancer of the skin and a rarer skin cancer called mycosis fungoides.

It became obvious to Dr. Alan Cantwell after twenty years of microbe hunting that the old tenets of microbiology were not much use when it came to showing an infectious cause of cancer. In man as well as in nature, bacteria were constantly changing forms and evolving in their lifetime. The cancer microbe, unstable by nature, was no exception [25]. But 25 years after removing the metastatic breast nodules from the skin of a young mother and finding them variably acid-fast, there remained no cure for a germ which though tuberculosis-like, seemed indestructible. And a germ without a cure, as shown by the mixed reception to Koch’s discovery of tuberculosis, even decades later, fostered it’s own resentment and disbelief, a resentment and disbelief which Virginia Livingston never stopped facing.


“It seems to me that it is entirely rational to state that the reason the BCG vaccine is effective not only against tuberculosis, but leprosy as well as cancer is because of the fact that the cancer germ is closely related to the BCG since it is in the same family, the Actinomycetales.          -Livingston, 1972

When Florence Seibert met Boquet, Calmete and Guerin in Paris to discuss their BCG, the only recognized vaccine for tuberculosis in the world, made from cow or bovine tuberculosis, none of them had any idea that it would one day be used against cancer. But in fact, currently, this diluted vaccination of Mycobacterium bovis or cow tuberculosis is the most effective treatment for transitional cell carcinoma, a cancer of the urinary bladder. Moreover, BCG is the most successful therapy of its kind, called ‘immunotherapy’ [26]. Within ‘immunotherapy’, it soon became fashionable to suppose that BCG or cow tuberculosis somehow ‘bolstered’ the immune system, but noted immunologist Steven Rosenberg held that the immune system was highly specific. One immune stimulant such as BCG should not stimulate a response from another immune stimulant, cancer [27].

The precise mechanism as seen by a 1993 University of Illinois study was that initially cancer cells seemed to eat (or phagocytize) and kill the Mycobacteria bovis in BCG. But then, suddenly, the cancer cells too died. Although investigators in the study admitted the relationship wasn’t clear, a strong ‘tumoricidal agent’, inside the Mycobacteria was pointed to [28]. Livingston felt that investigators were probably unwittingly looking at was a common phenomena in nature known as ‘lysogeny’. Lysogeny is what happens when one colony of a similar bacteria kills another by hurling viral phage weaponry towards it, without itself being harmed.

By the late 1970s Virginia Livingston could no longer ignore Chisato Maruyama of Japan and sent John Majnarich of Seattle’s BioMed Laboratories to Japan to have a closer look. In 1935, Maruyama, of the Nippon Medical School began to develop a vaccination against tuberculosis which turned out to be good against cancer. The Maruyama vaccine was similar to BCG, but instead of using cow tuberculosis as its base, the Japanese version used human tuberculosis.

Chisato Maruyama had long noted that patients with either the Mycobacteria tuberculosis or leprosy seldom had cancer [33]. By the 1970s Maruyama’s vaccine was proving quite successful in that he claimed that half of the 8000 cancer patients he had treated had benefited [29].

Livingston’s legacy

By the early 1970s Virginia Livingston, badly beaten by the medical establishment, was ready to launch a counterattack in the form of a fascinating study which showed that her cancer microbe secreted humanchoriogonadotropic hormone (HCG) – a growth hormone long associated with cancer. Initially, despite laboratory evidence to the contrary, her contention that a bacteria could produce a human hormone was not believed. But then reports from traditional bastions such as Allegheny General, Princeton and Rockefeller University confirmed her findings.

Livingston believed that this growth hormone, secreted by her cancer germ built up uncontrollably to stimulate tumor growth, turning normal cells into malignant ones when either the body’s immune system was weak or essential nutrients were deficient. Dr. Hernan Acevedo of Allegheny, in fact, showed that all cancer cells had the hormone [30].

Livingston’s discovery, a medical milestone, gave further impetus to a microbial theory of cancer with well over a century of research behind it. Yet despite this, the premise behind an infectious cause was stubbornly refused by orthodox medicine.

Virginia Livingston was past 80 when she died on June 30th, 1990. Just months before, a subpoena was issued to her prohibiting her vaccinations, made from the patient’s own cancer germ (autogenous), with which she had had great success. Following this, her vaccine was stigmatized as an “unproven method” in the March–April 1990 issue of CA – The Journal of the American Cancer Society[31] with references to her mistaking several different type of bacteria, rare and common for a unique microbe. This despite droves of research papers establishing mycobacteria as either coming before or coexisting with cancer. Ironically, Acevedo, who could not stop lauded her discovery that the cancer germ could manufacture human growth hormone was instrumental and key to the society’s damaging conclusion.

Yet when questioned by this author approximately a decade later, Acevedo admitted that he had ignored acid-fast forms which were indeed present in the cancer preparations Livingston sent to him. He felt these irrelevant, and mentioned that besides, the technology was not available at the time to pursue these acid-fast forms further.

On such fuzzy logic, it seemed that perhaps the most important scientific cancer lead in this or any other century was buried.


The striking analogy between cancer and tuberculosis was noticed long before the tubercle bacillus was discovered. In 1877, Sir John Simon clearly

pointed out this analogy and in fact argued very strongly in favor of a microbial origin of cancer. But by 1910, certain American medical powers did an 180 degree rotation, deciding that cancer was not caused by a microbe and that anyone who thought otherwise was a heretic, a charlatan or a quack.

But Virginia Livingston was none of these. Rather she was a symbol of painstaking research and dedication at the height of post World War II American medical technology. Opponents of Livingston said that she saw “contaminants” of a group of commonly encountered germs. But Florence Siebert, an expert on contaminants who standardized the present day tuberculin skin test for the US government, saw no contaminants present and Dean Burk, then Head of Cell Chemistry at the NCI went so far to say that Livingston’s cancer germ was as real and certain as anything known about cancer [29]. Yet in the subsequent suppression of Livingston and her many colleagues by the medical establishment a picture emerges, and it is not a very pleasant one.

Virginia Livingston gained international status when she discovered that her cancer germ produced human growth hormone, long associated with malignancy. However, at first even this was not believed. Had she gained the same stature regarding identifying the cancer germ itself, by today there probably would be no cancer. At this time there is admittedly no cure for Livingston’s cancer germ. Suppression led to its own disinterest in cure and each year a multitude must suffer and die as a result.


[1] Livingston, Virginia Wuerthele-Caspe, Cancer: a new breakthrough, Los Angeles: Nash Publishing; 1972.

[2] Ewing J. Neoplastic diseases. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B.Saunders; 1919.

[3] Hunter D. The diseases of occupation. 6th ed. Boston: LittleBrown and Company; 1978.

[4] L’Esperance E. Studies in Hodgkin’s disease. Annal Surg1931;93:162–8.

[5] Livingston V, Allen RM. Presence of consistently recurringinvasive mycobacterial forms in tumor cells. Microscop Soc Bull 1948;2:5–18.

[6] Sweany HC. Mutation forms of the tubercle bacillus.JAMA1928;87:1206–11.

[7] Beinhauer LG, Mellon RR. Pathogenesis of noncaseatingepitheloid tuberculosis of hypoderm and lymph glands. Arch Dermatol Syph 1938;37:451–60.

[8] Mellon RR, Fisher LW. New studies on the filterability of pure cultures of the tubercle group of microorganisms. JInfect Dis 1932;51:117–28.

[9] Livingston V, Alexander-Jackson EA. Cultural properties andpathogenicity of certain microorganisms observed fromvarious proliferative and neoplastic diseases (published under Virginia Wuerthele-Caspe). Am J Med Sci 1950;220:636–48.

[10] Boesch M. The long search for the truth about cancer. NewYork: GP Putnam’s Sons; 1960.

[11] Glover T, Scott M. A study of the rous chicken sarcoma No.1. Can Lancet Practioner 1926;66(2):49–62.

[12] Goodman LS, Gilman A. The pharmacologic basis of therapeurtics. 5th ed. New York: MacMillan; 1975.

[13] Skirvin JA, Relias V, Koeller J. Long term sequelae of cancerchemotherapy. Highlights Oncol Practice 1996;14(2):26–34.

[14] Pukkala E, Kyyronen P. Tamoxifen and toremifene treatmentof breast cancer and risk of subsequent endometrial cancer: a population-based case-control study. Int J Cancer2002;100(3):337–41.

[15] Mankiewicz E. Bacteriophares that lyse Mycobacteria and Corynebacteria and show cytopathogenic effect on tissuecultures of renal cells of Cercopithecus aethiops. Can Med Assn J 1965;92:31–3.

[16] Dubos R. The white plague: tuberculosis. New Brunswick,NJ: Man & Society Rutgers University Press; 1987.

[17] Aaronson JD. Spontaneous tuberculosis in salt water fish. JInfect Dis 1926;39:315.

[18] Wuerthele-Caspe VE, Alexander-Jackson E, Smith LW. Someaspects of the microbiology of cancer, J Am Woman’s Med Assoc 8:7.

[19] Alexander-Jackson EA. A specific type of microorganismisolated from animal and human cancer. Bacteriol Org Growth 1954;18:37–51.

[20] Inoue S, Singer M. Experiments on a spontaneously originatedvisceral tumor in the Newt, Triturus pyrrhogaster.Annal NY Acad Sci 1970;174:729–64.

[21] Lwoff, A. Biologic order (Karl Taylor compton lectures),Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1962.

[22] Rogers III AD. Erwin Frink Smith: a story of North Americanplant pathology. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society; 1952.

[23] Seibert FB. Pebbles on the Hill of a Scientist, in: Florence B.Seibert, author/publisher, St. Petersberg, FL 1968.

[24] Cantwell Jr A. The cancer microbe. Aries Rising Press; 1990.

[25] Mattman LH. Cell wall deficient forms – stealth pathogens.2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1993.

[26] Schneider B. Specific binding of Bacillus Calmette–Guerinin urothelial tumor cells. In vitro World J Urol 1994;1216:337–44.

[27] Rosenberg SA, Barry JM. The transformed cell/unlockingthe mysteries of cancer. New York: GP Putnam’s Sons;1992.

[28] Devados PO, Klegerman ME. Phagocytosis of Mycobacteriumbovis BCG organisms by murine S180 sarcoma cells. Cytobios 1993;74(296):49–58.

[29] Martin W. Medical heroes and heretics. Old Greenwich, CT:The Devin Adair Company; 1977. 

[30] Acevedo H. Human choriogonadotropin–like material inbacteria of different species: electron microscopy andimmunocytochemical studies with monoclonal and polyclonal antibodies. J Gen Microbiol 1987;133:783–91.

[31] Congress of the United States Office of Technology Assesment.Unconventional Cancer Treatments US Govt PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C; 1990.

[32] Klieneberger-Nobel E. Origin, development and significanceof L-forms in bacterial cultures. J Gen Microbiol 1949;3:434–42.

[33] Moss RW. Cancer therapy. the independent consumer’sguide to non-toxic treatment and prevention. New York: Equinox Press; 1997.

[34] Rusch HP. The beginnings of cancer research centers in theUnited States. J National Cancer Inst 1985;74(2):391–403.

[35] Fraenkel E, Much H. Uber die Hodgkinsche Krankheit(Lymphomatosis granulomatosa), insbesondere deren Atiologie. Z Hyg 1910;67:159–200.

© Copyright 2010

What is Sinus Pressure? – Nurse’s Sinus Problem Guide

If you’re suffering from sinus symptoms like sinus pressure or pressure and pain you may be wondering what’s causing it. You may be suffering from facial or cheek pain (or other possible sinus symptoms) and wonder if it’s related to your sinuses or whether it’s a sinus problem. In any case, sinus pressure is caused by inflamed, infected or blocked sinus cavities or pressure can occur if your sinus cavities become filled with mucus.

This resulting pressure in the sinus cavities can cause a feeling of tightness, pressure, pain and a blocked up or congested feeling, especially in the nasal passages, cheek, forehead or jaw. This pressure can also be felt in the teeth often making people think they have a toothache and head to the dentist.

The sinuses are important because the mucus in the cavities cleans and moistens the nasal passages and throat. You may once in awhile actually feel this mucus going down the back of your throat.

You have four sets of sinus cavities. Each set has openings into the nose to allow the mucus to drain and to get an exchange of air. When the cavities get inflamed and the openings (Ostia) narrow then the mucus is blocked and can’t get through into the nasal passages. When this blockage of the drainage occurs we may feel sinus pressure. This pressure can also be felt if a vacuum occurs which causes negative pressure and this will also cause a feeling of pressure and pain.

Sinus pressure is usually one of the symptoms of sinusitis, which includes sinus infections. This pressure and pain may leave a tight feeling.

This tightness can be felt behind the eyes, in the forehead or even the top of the head, in the jaw, cheeks and even in the ears. You can feel a pounding sometimes in your head, often referred to as a sinus headache or even in your face.

And you may think you have a toothache as mentioned or other type of dental pain.

Your sinus cavities must be kept clear of anything that may cause them to become blocked. Allergies, smoke, perfume fumes, dust mite droppings, chemical fumes, dust, animal dander, animal hair, animal fur, mold, pollen, etc. can all irritate and inflame the sinuses causing them to swell and block the openings.

Now besides blocked mucus (a quart must move through every day) drainage, air also gets trapped. You may feel very uncomfortable. The sinus pressure will be more severe and you may feel more pain. Many people refer to this feeling as a sinus attack.

You can cure or get rid of sinus pressure and sinus problems including sinusitis, sinus infections etc. with natural home treatment, by yourself. Antibiotics are generally not used since most sinus infections are caused by mold. Medications can just make things worse. There are many home treatments that you can do that will cure your sinus pressure right away.

Poisoned In The Home – Black Mold Symptoms And Treatment

Black mold is bad news for your body, and if exposed, you need to get your symptoms treated quickly. Until recently, people generally didn’t believe that so many common problems were caused by black mold. But, recent research has been looking into the symptoms and treatment of black mold exposure.

The number one treatment is… you guessed it, prevention! I know, if you are suffering from exposure symptoms, it’s already too late, but if you make your house a hostile alien environment for that nasty black mold, your symptoms will disappear.

There are toxic and non-toxic varieties of mold. First, let’s look at ways to treat your non-toxic mold suffering.

Non-Toxic Mold

The most common black mold symptoms resemble those of a common cold, or what we usually refer to vaguely as “allergies.” Since mold trouble is often associated with poor ventilation, one way to treat your stuffy nose and sinus trouble is to simply open the windows and get some fresh air. Then, after you feel better, creep around the house and find the mold and kill it.

You’ll often experience these symptoms in certain parts of the house only. Your nose will tell you which part of your house is harboring the mold. If, for example, you get stuffed up when you go into the basement, you know there’s a mold problem there.

There is no effective treatment to mold if you don’t get rid of it. And, there is no way to get rid of mold unless you get rid of the conditions that cause the mold. Keep your house dry and well-ventilated, and check often the areas where mold is prone to grow.

Toxic Mold

Toxic mold is a different story and it is altogether more serious. Symptoms can be pretty wide-ranging. Doctors have identified at least 50 symptoms associated with black mold. Some of the most common include:

-Cold or sinus symptoms: runny nose, stuffy nose or headache

-Sore throat

-Persistent cough

-Itchy or red eyes

-Rashes or hives

-Nausea and fever


-Fatigue or general malaise

-Memory or hearing loss


-Shortness of breath

-Lightheadedness and dizziness

This is a pretty big list, but it’s not everything. Some of these are very serious symptoms. With all of them, it’s difficult to tell if the cause is mold-related or not. The proper diagnosis is essential for the proper treatment.

If you suspect there may be mold in your house, you should hire a licensed mold inspector to take samples. When you see the doctor, tell them that you believe you may have mold, and this will help them diagnose you.

These symptoms tell you that there is a toxic form of mold in your home, and your doctor may recommend a detox program. Mold spores have gotten into your respiratory system and dispatched mircotoxins throughout your body. That is why you experience such wide-ranging symptoms like memory loss or stomach trouble. Learn to stop toxic black mold from our site.

Aside from removing the cause, there are other treatments available. Your doctor may prescribe antihistimines or other nasal decongestants. These will not remove the allergy, but will provide temporary relief from symptoms. At the very least, they’ll help you breath better.

If it is determined that your particular allergy is a form of asthma, your doctor will provide tougher stuff. This may include an inhaler and stronger drugs.

Severe cases may involve immunotherapy. With immunotherapy, a doctor gives you shots of a small quantity of the irritant that is causing your allergic reaction. Following the strict regiment of shots and drugs over time, your body will develop its own immunity to the allergen. Immunotherapy has shown remarkable results in the treatment of asthma and other allergies, but it is used only for particularly severe cases.

Before seeing your doctor, make sure you know in detail what is causing the allergy. You should know how much mold you’ve been exposed to and where in the house it is. This will help you to answer their questions so they can provide the best treatment possible.

How Did the Tradition of the Easter Bunny Begin?

Easter is one of the most popular and observed holidays, but many of the things that we associate with Easter seem somehow out of place or unusual. Children everywhere have heard how the Easter Bunny hides eggs for kids to find or gives out candy, but how did such a bizarre tradition begin? Here is some information on the origin of the Easter Bunny, Easter eggs, and the holiday itself. Hopefully, this will help answer some of your children’s questions, and maybe yours as well!


The main importance of Easter is as a Christian holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. According to the Christian faith, Jesus was crucified on Good Friday, three days before Easter, and was resurrected on Easter Sunday. Although Easter is now a popular secular holiday, many people see it as primarily a religious celebration. Easter is closely associated with the Jewish tradition of Passover, an eight day feast commemorating the freedom of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt.

While most holidays, like the 4th of July in the United States or the Christian holiday of Christmas, occur on the same date every year, Easter has no fixed date, although it always falls on a Sunday. Easter is usually celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal, or Spring, equinox, March 21. This means that Easter can occur anytime between March 22 and April 25. However, some churches in Eastern countries choose to celebrate Easter based on the date of Passover instead of the previous formula.

The name Easter comes from the Norse goddesses “Ostra” or “Ostern,” who were feasted on the vernal equinox. The early Christian church adopted the name for this feast in order to placate Teutonic people who still wanted to observe the pagan fertility ritual, but were willing to recognize the Christian resurrection at the same time.

The Easter Bunny

The Easter Bunny is the colorful and friendly rabbit that brings gifts, including decorated eggs and candy, on the night before Easter Sunday. While the true origin of the Easter Bunny is open to debate, one popular theory is that a man named Oschter Haws left colorful eggs for good children in the 18th century. This, in turn, led to Easter egg hunts.

The rabbit, a long-time symbol of fertility and spring, is a natural choice to be used for Easter decorating. There are cute stuffed bunnies, rabbit figurines, bunny coloring pages, and lots of other items with a rabbit theme. The Easter Bunny is a friendly symbol of spring, popular among children for hundreds of years.

The Easter Eggs

Spring is a time of renewal. New life and new growth are powerful themes. In addition to the aforementioned Easter Bunny, eggs are another important symbol of Easter. Easter eggs are the most used decoration for the occasion, but tiny baby chicks or plush ducks are also popular.

The egg tradition is not strictly related to the pagan celebration, but has ties to Christianity as well. It is said that when Jesus was on the cross, there were eggs at the base of the cross which were stained red with the blood of Christ. This is the presumed origin of painting eggs red, or other colors. Many Christians follow a tradition of praising the resurrection of Christ over the painted eggs.

Today, we paint the Easter eggs many different colors, even including pastel, multi-colored eggs. The tradition of tapping the eggs while saying an incantation praising the resurrection of Jesus Christ has become a game where people tap the eggs until the hardest egg is discovered. The egg that remains unbroken the longest is the winner.

That concludes this brief survey of the Easter tradition. As you can see, it has changed a lot over the years. Hopefully, this will answer any questions from the kids. Have fun decorating your house with painted eggs, stuffed bunnies, and plush chicks. Happy Easter!

How to Tighten Your Vagina Naturally – This is How to Tighten Your Vagina Without Having Surgery!

Does your sexual partner complain that your vagina is getting loose? A vagina usually loosens as you get older. Other factors that can cause this problem are: childbirth, surgery, being overweight and specific medical conditions that lead to urinary and bowel incontinence. However, even young women in their early 20s who never had a child and even some teenagers may suffer from this embarrassing problem. In these cases the causes may be poor sexual health, a sedentary or non-active lifestyle or the insertion of large objects inside the vaginal tract. Having a loose vagina can decrease sexual gratification for both partners, cause you embarrassment and stress, make you feel insufficient in bed and ruin the sexual relationship between you and your partner.

So, how can you tighten a loose vagina?

You can do that by training your pelvic muscles. These muscles are like any other muscle in your body. If you don’t “work them out” frequently, they will become weak and atrophy. This form of atrophy is very common in post-menopausal women and can also lead to uterine prolapse, sometimes referred to as fallen womb. To tighten your vagina you will need to follow a set of exercises called Kegel. The aim of Kegel exercises is to strengthen your pc muscles, which are the ones that you use during urination, sexual intercourse, bowel movements and childbirth.

How Does The Kegel Exercise Work?

To perform the Kegel properly you need to wait until you really need to urinate. Once you are urinating, you need to stop the flow of urine, hold the squeeze for 5 seconds and then release. This will show you exactly which muscle you need to exercise in order to get the best results. Of course, after you get the hang of it, you can perform the exercise lying in bed or sitting on a chair. For this to work, you need to make it a habit and repeat this exercise at least 10 times per day.

Tightening your vagina can have amazing benefits:

  • You can make sex more enjoyable for you and help your partner experience more pleasure at the same time.
  • You can enjoy multiple orgasms, because your vagina will be more sensitive to sexual stimuli.
  • You can feel more confident about yourself.
  • You can gain more control over your pelvic muscles and avoid urinary incontinence in the future or cure it if you are already suffering from it.
  • You can have an easier childbirth and enjoy faster recovery after giving birth.

Now Pay Close Attention here-