In a few weeks Beauty Reneux will have a new look.  We're excited, our website store will be all new with great photos of our products as they appear upon arrival in your mailbox. New look, same all natural quality and wearability with value pricing!  Keep checking us, it' coming soon. ...read more

October 26th, 2009   In my most recent post I suggested that anyone who had chosen to or was required to receive a vaccination for the H1N1 swine flu should be sure that they are vaccinated with the nasal mist form rather than the injectable form. The nose is the natural route to vaccinate for a respiratory infection and the nasal mist form of the vaccine is free of mercury-containing thimerosal.   I have heard that public health officials in Washington State, as part of their efforts to deal with H1N1 swine flu, have announced that they are suspending their restrictions on how much mercury can be injected into pregnant women or children under three years of age. Washington state law normally limits the amount of mercury that can be in vaccines for pregnant women and children under three. But now they say that for the next six months it's okay for these patients to be exposed to the higher levels of mercury found in injectable swine flu vaccine.   This makes absolutely no sense to me. Why wasn't this new advice for pregnant women and small children to receive flu vaccinations accompanied by a stipulation that it must be the thimerosal-free nasal mist that is administered, not the injectable vaccine? For that matter, why isn't the CDC suggesting such a step be taken on a national scale?   I've heard that the nasal mist form may not be as immunogenic as the injectable vaccine. That is, it doesn't stimulate as vigorous a response by the immune system. But we are talking about a population group—the unborn and infants—in which the nervous system is still in a critical state of development. All toxics—such as mercury—in the pregnant mother's body accumulate and are concentrated in the fetus. In addition, developing tissues and organs in the fetus are more susceptible to damage by toxics than the mother.   We showed wisdom in limiting the amounts of certain kinds of fish that pregnant women should consume because of the dangers of mercury toxicity for nervous system development in the fetus. Why should we abandon such valuable precautions, especially when an alternative is available?   No one has really identified a threshold dose at which mercury can be problematic for tiny fetuses. My opinion is there is no amount of this poison that is acceptable. As Tom Burbacher, a professor of environmental occupational health at the University of Washington told Newsweek magazine, "We still don't have enough data to say how long . . . mercury stays in the brain, but if you can reduce or eliminate your baby's exposure, why wouldn't you do that?" Why, indeed?   I am hopeful that after decades of manufacturing vaccines, we finally have the ability to develop vaccines that provide a measurable benefit to offset all the negative effects of injectable vaccines. Today's mercury-free nasal mist may be the advance we've been looking for all these years. Let's hope.   This issue is larger than the current flu epidemic, which will pass within months, and larger than the vaccination controversy, which will go on longer. It's about the human right to make informed, voluntary health care choices, a right that we must fight for today so our children and grandchildren will have it in the future. A wealth of information on how that right is being threatened, and an insightful spokesperson for how we can defend ourselves can be found here:http://www.nvic.org/default.aspx. Please go to it.Note: While I personally will not get a flu vaccination, my position on this issue is personal. Each person must make an informed decision for themselves and their family. What is most important is that you obtain the best information on both sides of the issue, rather than following the dictates of the government or special interest groups.Washington State Department of Health:www.doh.wa.gov/Publicat/2009_news/09-154.htmFlu Vac Wash 1 10/23/2009Note: This article was written by DR. Wentz ...read more

Metabolic syndrome is a combination of medical disorders that increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Type 2 diabetes has risen in United States to epidemic proportions. Involving multiple symptoms including overweight (particularly around your waist) , insulin resistance (a hormone made by your pancreas that helps to regulate the amount of sugar in your bloodstreams), elevated blood lipids (an elevated level of the blood fat called tryglicerides and a low level of high density of lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol-the good cholesterol), elevated blood glucose and high blood pressure. Having just one of these conditions is not diagnose as Metabolic Syndrome but it does contribute to your risk of serious disease. Research has shown that the Metabolic Syndrome is highly preventable and reversable, changing lifestyles such as diet and physical activity. Involving low-glycemic functional foods, a low-glycemic meals and the modest increases in physical activity offer a valuable approach for reversing Metabolic Syndrome and preventing type 2 diabetes and heart disease in at-risk people. Low-glycemic formulas as part of balanced diet is a healthy way to help control hunger and start losing weight. What is low-glycemic food or meals? The Glycemic Index (GI) was developed to rank different foods according to the extent to which they increase blood glucose following ingestion. Glycemic index and glycemic load are two characteristics of foods and diet that are relevant to this discussion. The glycemic index of a food is a measure of the rise in blood sugar that is produced by eating a set amount of that food. Foods with a high glycemic index produce large rises in blood sugar per unit of carbohydrate consumed. Foods with a low glycemic index produce small to modest rises in blood sugar per unit of carbohydrate consumed. The Glycemic Index scale (0-100%) is continuous. Nevertheless, a food is considered high glycemic if its GI score is greater than 70, moderately glycemic if its GI score is between 55 and 70, and low glycemic if its GI score is less than 55. Regards, Joan Leon #3902288 USANA Independent Associate http://www.myhealthandwealth.usana.com ...read more