test
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Monday, June 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Creative Bube Tube | Health Canada Approves Natural Product, Insect Defend Patch
As the mosquito season approaches, many people search for effective insect protection which remains free from the harmful chemicals found in most insect defence products. This is the first spring where they can be assured by Health Canada's full approval of the natural solution Insect Defend Patch (IDP) and the Natural Health Product number which it was issued on November 27th, 2012.
IDP has generated momentum for this product for over 5 years with the help of top advertising agency Creative Bube Tube, and this approval is a landmark event in the history of insect defence. The Insect Defend Patch, now also known as NPN #80037826 is the only Health Canada approved Natural Health Product proven to help reduce mosquito bites.
As one of the most stringent health organizations in the world, Health Canada's full approval gives the public assurance that using Insect Defend Patch has a positive effect in safely reducing mosquito bites. While pending this status, IDP had a temporary exemption number, and after a full review of their field test results and safety protocols, Health Canada put their stamp of approval on the natural insect defence product.
Approximately 1.3 million patches were sold within Canada in 2012 and with this approval the company looks forward to a promising distribution future, providing the public with a safe and natural mosquito defence product. Insect Defend Patch would like to extend a special thanks to all their retailers who supported them by carrying the patch while they were awaiting Health Canada's full approval.
Insect Defend Patch would also like to thank their partners and associates for their vision and support in helping them get to this level. These partners include, Creative Bube Tube (who created their special effects and animated television commercials), AKM Services International, For the Ages, Impact Sales and Marketing, World Famous Distribution, Best Pak, DSA Consulting, ARTURUS Testing, KGK Synergize, Marketech, Italo Labignan and Canadian Sport Fishing, Ronnie Whittick and last but not least, the CBC's Dragons' Den where Brett Wilson and Jim Treliving offered them the biggest deal ever in the show's history.
Most importantly the principals at Insect Defend Patch would like to thank their customers. The fact that they kept supporting the product and buying the patch because it works, says it all!
Creative Bube Tube
With representation from east to west in both the United States and Canada, Creative Bube Tube is a television and social media agency serving medium to large clients from across the globe in sports, pharmaceutical, health and lifestyle, food and beverage, automotive and many other industries. From creative ideation to results, they have produced over 400 television campaigns since opening in 2006.
IDP has generated momentum for this product for over 5 years with the help of top advertising agency Creative Bube Tube, and this approval is a landmark event in the history of insect defence. The Insect Defend Patch, now also known as NPN #80037826 is the only Health Canada approved Natural Health Product proven to help reduce mosquito bites.
As one of the most stringent health organizations in the world, Health Canada's full approval gives the public assurance that using Insect Defend Patch has a positive effect in safely reducing mosquito bites. While pending this status, IDP had a temporary exemption number, and after a full review of their field test results and safety protocols, Health Canada put their stamp of approval on the natural insect defence product.
Approximately 1.3 million patches were sold within Canada in 2012 and with this approval the company looks forward to a promising distribution future, providing the public with a safe and natural mosquito defence product. Insect Defend Patch would like to extend a special thanks to all their retailers who supported them by carrying the patch while they were awaiting Health Canada's full approval.
Insect Defend Patch would also like to thank their partners and associates for their vision and support in helping them get to this level. These partners include, Creative Bube Tube (who created their special effects and animated television commercials), AKM Services International, For the Ages, Impact Sales and Marketing, World Famous Distribution, Best Pak, DSA Consulting, ARTURUS Testing, KGK Synergize, Marketech, Italo Labignan and Canadian Sport Fishing, Ronnie Whittick and last but not least, the CBC's Dragons' Den where Brett Wilson and Jim Treliving offered them the biggest deal ever in the show's history.
Most importantly the principals at Insect Defend Patch would like to thank their customers. The fact that they kept supporting the product and buying the patch because it works, says it all!
Creative Bube Tube
With representation from east to west in both the United States and Canada, Creative Bube Tube is a television and social media agency serving medium to large clients from across the globe in sports, pharmaceutical, health and lifestyle, food and beverage, automotive and many other industries. From creative ideation to results, they have produced over 400 television campaigns since opening in 2006.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
KINSELLA: Why Mulcair will never be Canada's PM
The precise moment at which Thomas Mulcair became unfit to be prime minister of Canada is hard to pin down.
It arguably came in 2005, when his party adopted what has become known as the Sherbrooke Declaration -- in which the federal New Democrats accept that is possible to break up the country with 50% plus a single, solitary vote. When the NDP's own constitution requires two-thirds to be amended.
It may have come in late 2012, when the NDP leader refused to defend the flying of the Canadian flag at ceremonies at Quebec's National Assembly. Instead, Mulcair sent out one of his crypto-separatist MPs, who snapped that the banning of the Maple Leaf was Quebec's "own business." Or, it may have happened earlier this year, when Mulcair approved a move to rescind the Clarity Act, the 2000 legislation that governs the rules surrounding secession of a province. The federal NDP want to clear up unity "fairy tales," he said at the time.
Most likely, however, Mulcair ceased to be a contender for prime minister sometime in April, when a book was published in Quebec suggesting the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada actually conspired against Quebec's then-separatist government. In the book,La bataille de Londres, Quebec journalist Frederic Bastien claims Chief Justice Bora Laskin passed secrets to the Canadian and British governments on discussions between high court justices about the legality of constitutional repatriation. Bastien also accuses former Justice Willard Estey of slipping confidential information to the British government in 1980. Never mind that an unprecedented Supreme Court investigation found no evidence whatsoever to validate Bastien's claims.
Forget that Laskin and Estey were not merely two great jurists -- they were two of the greatest Canadians to have ever lived, and that they are not here to defend their good names. Never mind any of that. No, note this: When Bastien's corrosive conspiracy theories were trotted out, Mulcair giddily seized on them, and demanded an inquiry. And, when he got one, he dismissed the results, because they favoured Canada.
Said Mulcair recently: "It's a clear indication that the Supreme Court had no intention all along of ever dealing with this issue seriously."
Take another look at those words. Those are the words of a man who aspires to be prime minister -- smearing the highest court in the land, suggesting that it is lawless. That it is engaged in cover-up. As I said at an Ottawa conference this week -- as one of Mulcair's most ardent defenders angrily sat beside me -- those comments are beyond the pale. They are disgusting and despicable. And they disqualify Thomas Mulcair to be prime minister.
Why did Mulcair pursue such a reckless course? Why did he so irresponsibly seek to reopen old wounds and divide Canadians?
Because he knows he will never be prime minister. Because he knows that his current post, leader of the opposition, is the best he can ever hope for. Because he is always prepared to cut a deal with the separatists to advance his career, and to hell with Canada.
There's been a pattern in Mulcair's public life. At those points where history is watching, at those moments where he has been called upon to choose Canada or Quebec, he chooses the latter. At every juncture where he could have promoted Canada, Mulcair declined. He put his partisan interest ahead of the national interest.
At a certain point in a politician's career, a picture reveals itself. Mulcair's portrait is one that depicts an angry, bitter old man, one who is literally prepared to put the country at risk to curry favour with separatists. Mulcair is a disgrace. He isn't fit to be a dogcatcher, let alone prime minister of Canada.
warren.kinsella@sunmedia.ca
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Canada must do its part to protect continent
If the U.S. is once again asking Canada to join its antiballistic missile shield on the West Coast to help defend North America against new, long-range, potentially nuclear-capable North Korean missiles - the answer from Ottawa must be yes.
It is plain wrong for Canada to expect Washington to pay all the freight to defend North America. Having Canada in the program would also plug a possible gap in the existing North American shield between airbases at Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
Such a move by Canada would underscore the unity of Canadian and American security interests at a time when U.S. President Barack Obama is considering approving or denying permission to build the Canadian-owned XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. That is a project that is crucial to Canada's economic well-being in the 21st century.
Joining the missile defence shield would be in accord with the intense, little-known collaboration between Canada and the U.S. in the selection of drone targets in southern Afghanistan to defend combat troops when they were fighting there. Another not well known fact is that military relations between Canada and the U.S. are so seamless that three Canadian army generals serve in senior positions in major U.S. commands in the states of Washington, Texas and North Carolina. And a Canadian lieutenant-general is always the deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a bi-national organization responsible for defending Canada from airborne threats from Russia and China, and possibly North Korea and Iran. A Canadian rear-admiral was also the deputy commander of the world's largest naval exercise last summer off Hawaii, serving with two other Canadian one-leaf flag officers.
All this is to say that with little fanfare, Canada is already highly integrated into U.S. military planning. So why not include the missile shield, too?
It was eight years ago that Paul Martin's Liberal government and his foreign minister Pierre Pettigrew rejected the last formal U.S. request for Canada to participate in continental missile defence. It was supposed at the time that this had sent a strong signal south that Ottawa would not always do its neighbour's bidding, and that by refusing to join in this part of the defence of North America, it was refusing to join the U.S in a new international arms race.
But the missile shield has never been about an American military offensive overseas or the positioning of missiles with strike capability on Canadian soil. It has been solely about the defence of the continent.
The ground has shifted a lot since 2005. Russia, and especially China, have both continued to improve their long-rang missile capabilities while North Korea and Iran have been investing vast sums to develop intercontinental missiles that they could potentially marry with their nuclear weapon programs.
This is scary stuff, as are the latest bizarre and bellicose antics of North Korea's relatively new leader Kim Jong-un, whose forces have been testing new midrange missiles and have been openly developing the Unha-3 ballistic missile, which is designed to reach targets well inside Canada. It was because of this emerging threat that the U.S. announced a few weeks ago that it was deploying more anti-ballistic or interceptor missiles in Alaska and California and why scientists and engineers with the U.S.-based National Research Council reckoned that it would only take about 40 minutes for a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) to reach North American. The council recommended in a highly technical report last year that there should be a more a robust missile defence capability to cover the continent's western approaches and noted that much of Atlantic Canada was poorly defended if Iran ever achieves an ICBM capability.
While Canada received kudos for taking on a significant combat role for five years in southern Afghanistan, and without the caveats that hobbled most European NATO armies over there, in defence matters, as in politics at home or abroad, the question is usually not what did you do for me yesterday but what will you do for me tomorrow.
It got little attention in Canada but former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton was dismayed last year when Canada rebuffed her request to continue its modest contribution to AWACs early-warning radar crews that operate under the NATO flag in Germany.
This decision was symbolic in all the wrong ways. It not only unnecessarily aggravated NATO and the U.S. at a time when every positive gesture counts as Washington considers a pipeline that will affect Canada's economy for years to come. It also killed a small operation in Germany that did not cost much money.
Furthermore, those couple of hundred Canadian air force pilots and radar operators based there represented Canada's last tangible military contribution to the alliance in Europe. When those crews leave in July it will mark the end of 74 consecutive years of a Canadian military presence in Europe.
Canada must do its part to protect its citizens and North America from North Korean or Iranian ICBM's by joining the anti-ballistic missile shield. It would be grossly irresponsible not to do so.
Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Canada+must+part+protect+continent/8280351/story.html#ixzz2RN9vJkFM
It is plain wrong for Canada to expect Washington to pay all the freight to defend North America. Having Canada in the program would also plug a possible gap in the existing North American shield between airbases at Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
Such a move by Canada would underscore the unity of Canadian and American security interests at a time when U.S. President Barack Obama is considering approving or denying permission to build the Canadian-owned XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico. That is a project that is crucial to Canada's economic well-being in the 21st century.
Joining the missile defence shield would be in accord with the intense, little-known collaboration between Canada and the U.S. in the selection of drone targets in southern Afghanistan to defend combat troops when they were fighting there. Another not well known fact is that military relations between Canada and the U.S. are so seamless that three Canadian army generals serve in senior positions in major U.S. commands in the states of Washington, Texas and North Carolina. And a Canadian lieutenant-general is always the deputy commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a bi-national organization responsible for defending Canada from airborne threats from Russia and China, and possibly North Korea and Iran. A Canadian rear-admiral was also the deputy commander of the world's largest naval exercise last summer off Hawaii, serving with two other Canadian one-leaf flag officers.
All this is to say that with little fanfare, Canada is already highly integrated into U.S. military planning. So why not include the missile shield, too?
It was eight years ago that Paul Martin's Liberal government and his foreign minister Pierre Pettigrew rejected the last formal U.S. request for Canada to participate in continental missile defence. It was supposed at the time that this had sent a strong signal south that Ottawa would not always do its neighbour's bidding, and that by refusing to join in this part of the defence of North America, it was refusing to join the U.S in a new international arms race.
But the missile shield has never been about an American military offensive overseas or the positioning of missiles with strike capability on Canadian soil. It has been solely about the defence of the continent.
The ground has shifted a lot since 2005. Russia, and especially China, have both continued to improve their long-rang missile capabilities while North Korea and Iran have been investing vast sums to develop intercontinental missiles that they could potentially marry with their nuclear weapon programs.
This is scary stuff, as are the latest bizarre and bellicose antics of North Korea's relatively new leader Kim Jong-un, whose forces have been testing new midrange missiles and have been openly developing the Unha-3 ballistic missile, which is designed to reach targets well inside Canada. It was because of this emerging threat that the U.S. announced a few weeks ago that it was deploying more anti-ballistic or interceptor missiles in Alaska and California and why scientists and engineers with the U.S.-based National Research Council reckoned that it would only take about 40 minutes for a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) to reach North American. The council recommended in a highly technical report last year that there should be a more a robust missile defence capability to cover the continent's western approaches and noted that much of Atlantic Canada was poorly defended if Iran ever achieves an ICBM capability.
While Canada received kudos for taking on a significant combat role for five years in southern Afghanistan, and without the caveats that hobbled most European NATO armies over there, in defence matters, as in politics at home or abroad, the question is usually not what did you do for me yesterday but what will you do for me tomorrow.
It got little attention in Canada but former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton was dismayed last year when Canada rebuffed her request to continue its modest contribution to AWACs early-warning radar crews that operate under the NATO flag in Germany.
This decision was symbolic in all the wrong ways. It not only unnecessarily aggravated NATO and the U.S. at a time when every positive gesture counts as Washington considers a pipeline that will affect Canada's economy for years to come. It also killed a small operation in Germany that did not cost much money.
Furthermore, those couple of hundred Canadian air force pilots and radar operators based there represented Canada's last tangible military contribution to the alliance in Europe. When those crews leave in July it will mark the end of 74 consecutive years of a Canadian military presence in Europe.
Canada must do its part to protect its citizens and North America from North Korean or Iranian ICBM's by joining the anti-ballistic missile shield. It would be grossly irresponsible not to do so.
Read more: http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Canada+must+part+protect+continent/8280351/story.html#ixzz2RN9vJkFM
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Sweden's Norberg will not defend curling title at Sochi
Sweden's Winter Olympic gold medallist Anette Norberg will not defend her title at Sochi next year, the Swedish Curling Association said in a statement on Wednesday.
Norberg has decided to retire from curling, citing a lack of time and motivation to continue a career that saw her win 23 championship medals over almost 20 years.
Described by the Association as "one of the most successful curling players of all time," Norberg won three world championships and seven European titles in addition to Olympic gold medals in 2006 and 2010.
"Curling has been my life for so many years, so obviously I'm going to miss it a lot," Norberg said in the statement.
"But life as a curling player at elite level is very demanding, and I feel that I lack the time and the dedication necessary."
Despite cementing her place in Swedish sporting history when her team beat Canada in the 2010 final to defend their Olympic title, Norberg was by no means certain of a chance to represent Sweden at the Sochi games next year.
Sweden's curling association has recently preferred to send a team led by Norberg's rival Margaretha Sigfridsson to international competitions.
"Obviously it's sad for the curling world that a profile like Anette has decided to stop playing, but luckily we have other teams that can shoulder her responsibilities," curling association general secretary Stefan Lund said in the statement.
"Anette will not disappear from the curling arena. In some way she will be still here and a part of the exciting journey towards the future that Swedish curling is on."
Norberg has decided to retire from curling, citing a lack of time and motivation to continue a career that saw her win 23 championship medals over almost 20 years.
Described by the Association as "one of the most successful curling players of all time," Norberg won three world championships and seven European titles in addition to Olympic gold medals in 2006 and 2010.
"Curling has been my life for so many years, so obviously I'm going to miss it a lot," Norberg said in the statement.
"But life as a curling player at elite level is very demanding, and I feel that I lack the time and the dedication necessary."
Despite cementing her place in Swedish sporting history when her team beat Canada in the 2010 final to defend their Olympic title, Norberg was by no means certain of a chance to represent Sweden at the Sochi games next year.
Sweden's curling association has recently preferred to send a team led by Norberg's rival Margaretha Sigfridsson to international competitions.
"Obviously it's sad for the curling world that a profile like Anette has decided to stop playing, but luckily we have other teams that can shoulder her responsibilities," curling association general secretary Stefan Lund said in the statement.
"Anette will not disappear from the curling arena. In some way she will be still here and a part of the exciting journey towards the future that Swedish curling is on."
Monday, March 18, 2013
The most notorious health myths
We are bombarded with health tips every day, but some of those messages may be harmful if you don’t get the facts straight.
Dr. Jacob Teitelbaum, author of Real Cause Real Cure, spoke with Dr. Manny Alvarez, senior managing health editor for FoxNews.com, about some of the most notorious health myths.
Myth #1: Arthritis medication is the best treatment for arthritis.
According Teitelbaum, more than 30,000 unnecessary deaths occur each year from arthritis medications.
“If you take a look at things like ibuprofen or the standard arthritis medication, 16,500 bleeding ulcer deaths a year in the United States from those medications – and the doubling and tripling of heart attack and stroke risk.”
While Teitelbaum says it’s better to be on medication than to be in pain, there are natural remedies for arthritis that are much safer. End Pain, which is a mix of willow bark and boswellia, has shown to be twice as effective as ibuprofen in studies, Teitelbaum noted. Also, Curamin and boswellia were found to be more effective than Celebrex. And rather than getting side effects, the natural remedies provide side benefits – such as decreasing the risk of Alzheimer’s disease and the risk of cancer.
Myth #2: You need to take calcium to treat osteoporosis.
A very controversial claim Teitelbaum makes is that taking calcium is for osteoporosis can actually do more harm than good.
“Osteoporosis is not calcium deficiency, and the calcium has very little benefit,” he said. “But recent studies show that it can increase heart attack deaths up to 31 percent – which is massive.”
Instead of taking unnecessary calcium, Teitelbaum says to simply drink more milk and other natural sources of the element. But more importantly, since the calcium isn’t exactly needed, individuals with osteoporosis can take minerals, such as Strontium – which has been shown to be almost twice as effective as medications. Magnesium, vitamin D, boron and other nutrients help increase bone density and the production of healthy new bone.
Myth #3: Antacids are necessary to treat indigestion.
Many Americans suffer from indigestion, and numerous medications purport to relieve symptoms from the embarrassing condition. However, Teitelbaum says that antacids don’t exactly treat the source of the problem.
“Indigestion is not too much stomach acid; it’s poor digestion,” Teitelbaum said. “If you don’t have what you need to digest your food, you eat this big mega-meal, and an hour later, it’s still sitting in your stomach.”
In order to aid digestion, Teitelbaum suggests taking digestive enzymes, such as Digest Gold. Whatever brand you use, make sure they are 100 percent plant-based enzymes. Probiotic culture found in yogurts and supplement are also helpful in the lower abdomen, relieving gas, bloating, diarrhea and constipation.
Myth #4: Avoid the sun.
Teitelbaum said the myth that people should avoid the sun at all costs probably results in tens of thousands of unnecessary cancer deaths each year.
“Most of the deadly skin cancers, called melanomas, are not in sun-exposed areas,” he said. “They’re increasing because of poor immune function, from poor sleep, poor nutrition and other factors.”
The skin cancers caused by sunshine are usually not the dangerous kinds, Teitelbaum said. Instead, sunshine is critical for vitamin D, an important hormone and vitamin. Without vitamin D, individuals can have an increased risk of breast cancer, autoimmune disease, multiple sclerosis and diabetes.
Also, Teitelbaum has simple advice to balance damage versus benefit when it comes to the sun: “Avoid sunburn, not sunshine,” Teitelbaum said.
Myth #5: Heart failure is a death sentence.
One of the biggest causes of death for many Americans is heart failure, but the condition does not necessarily mean a person’s time is up.
“It’s very easy to improve heart muscle function using natural remedies that play very well with the medication,” Teitelbaum said. “Certainly blood thinners that you want to get through doctors are okay before you add anything to those, but things like Coenzyme Q10, 200 mg a day will markedly improve heart function.”
Ribose, a simple energy nutrient, can help heart function, along with Acetyl Carnitine, magnesium and B-vitamins. Ultimately these supplements help improve muscle function.
“The heart beats more efficiently, and therefore the symptoms often go away,” Teitelbaum said.
Myth #6: Thyroid screenings are accurate.
When it comes to the thyroid screening methodology doctors use today, Teitelbaum says doctors don’t understand what ‘normal’ means. He says it means you’re not in the highest or lowest 2 percent of the population.
“You have to treat the person, not just the blood test,” Teitelbaum said. “People whose thyroid levels are in the low-normal range, versus high-normal, have a 69 percent increased risk of dying of heart attack. People with mild, low thyroid – where many doctors say we don’t need to treat it – if you do treat it, their heart attack risk goes down by more than 30 percent.”
Patients who are treated for mild to low thyroid often see increased energy levels, weight loss, and healthier skin and hair – among other benefits, Teitelbaum added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)