Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Alternative/natural solution-based discussions of topics like health, medicine, science, food, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

No By Dr. Mercola

It’s hard to imagine what could be controversial or even illegal about planting a couple of rows of tomato plants, green peppers and a cucumber vine … but depending on where those vegetables are planted, they have been the subject of great debate – even prosecution.

Across the United States and Canada a war is being waged against urban homeowners who want to plant gardens on their own property.

From Quebec to Oklahoma to New Jersey to Michigan and Georgia, people who have the “audacity” to try growing their own fresh, organic foods are being forced to pull up their plants, or in some cases, have been forced by the city to dig them up.

Cities Cracking Down on Vegetable Gardens

In Drummondville, Quebec, Josée Landry and Michel Beauchamp planted what some have called “a gorgeous and meticulously-maintained edible landscape full of healthy fruits and vegetables.” Rather than planting grass or ornamental flowers, this couple chose to use their land to grow food (in a rather attractive way, I might add … the picture of their garden is in the featured article).

The “problem,” the town says, is that a vegetable garden may only take up 30 percent of a yard’s area, and theirs takes up nearly the whole space. Due to this town code, they’ve been ordered to remove their garden in two weeks or less.

If it sounds ridiculous to you that a city government would spend time and money to pursue and even prosecute a resident for -- of all things -- planting a vegetable garden, be prepared to be amazed, as this is not an isolated case. Far from it …

* In 2011, Julie Bass of Oak Park, Michigan was charged with a misdemeanor and threatened with jail time for planting a vegetable garden in her front yard

* In British Columbia, Dirk Becker was threatened with six months in jail for converting an acre of his 2.5-acre lot into an organic farm. What's even more unsettling about the charges in this case is that the lot was literally stripped bare down to a gravel pit before this.

The owner spent over a decade healing the land and converting it into a self-contained ecosystem that is now home to thriving vegetable crops, fruit trees, bees, butterflies, birds, frogs, dragonflies and more. But because the area is zoned a "residential" lot, the local government is calling on him to "cease all agricultural activity" or pay the consequences.
* Earlier this year, city inspectors bulldozed more than 100 types of plants, including garlic chives, strawberry and apple mint, being grown by Denise Morrison in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The inspectors said her plants were too tall, but city code allows for plants over 12 inches if they’re meant for human consumption, which hers were. Morrison is now suing the city for violating her civil rights.1
* Steve Miller was fined $5,200 for growing vegetables in his Clarkston, Georgia backyard, which he not only consumed but also sold at farmers markets and shared with friends.2

Why are Vegetable Gardens Demonized and Lawns Embraced?

Legal codes that outlaw planting vegetables on a large percentage of your yard, or restrict them to only certain areas, like the backyard out of view of the public, truly defy all common sense.

New York Times author Michael Pollan was one of the first to tackle the absurdity of the pursuit of lush green lawns – which he says are a “symbol of everything that’s wrong with our relationship to the land” – over environmentally friendly and productive landscapes like vegetable gardens, meadows or orchards.

Unlike a vegetable garden, which gives back in the form of fresh produce and a symbiotic relationship with soil, insects and wildlife, a lawn gives nothing, yet requires significant chemical treatments and meticulous mowing and watering to stay within society’s confines of what a properly “manicured lawn” should be. Writing in The New York Times Magazine, Michael Pollan said it best in his article “Why Mow? The Case Against Lawns”:3

“Like Jefferson superimposing one great grid over the infinitely various topography of the Northwest Territory, we superimpose our lawns on the land. And since the geography and climate of much of this country is poorly suited to turfgrasses (none of which are native), this can’t be accomplished without the tools of 20th-century industrial civilization -- its chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and machinery.

For we won’t settle for the lawn that will grow here; we want the one that grows there, that dense springy supergreen and weed-free carpet, that Platonic ideal of a lawn we glimpse in the ChemLawn commercials, the magazine spreads, the kitschy sitcom yards, the sublime links and pristine diamonds.

… Need I point out that such an approach to “nature” is not likely to be environmentally sound? Lately we have begun to recognize that we are poisoning ourselves with our lawns, which receive, on average, more pesticide and herbicide per acre than just about any crop grown in this country.

Suits fly against the national lawn-care companies, and interest is kindled in “organic” methods of lawn care. But the problem is larger than this. Lawns, I am convinced, are a symptom of, and a metaphor for, our skewed relationship to the land. They teach us that, with the help of petrochemicals and technology, we can bend nature to our will. Lawns stoke our hubris with regard to the land.

What is the alternative?

To turn them into gardens. I’m not suggesting that there is no place for lawns in these gardens or that gardens by themselves will right our relationship to the land, but the habits of thought they foster can take us some way in that direction.

Gardening, as compared to lawn care, tutors us in nature’s ways, fostering an ethic of give and take with respect to the land. Gardens instruct us in the particularities of place. They lessen our dependence on distant sources of energy, technology, food and, for that matter, interest … The garden suggests there might be a place where we can meet nature half way.”

Is it Your Constitutional Right to Grow Food on Your Land?

If you choose not to rely on the food sold in your supermarket, want to control the conditions in which your food is grown, or even if you can't afford the prices at the supermarket, what other option do you have than to raise your own? And why should it be illegal for a person to plant food on any area of the land they own and pay taxes on?

When governments start meddling with the issue of food freedom, including the ability to grow your own food on your own land, it is a serious affront, as most people would agree this is an absolute, basic, and unalienable right. The good news is that many residents are now fighting back. Last year after Julie Bass was legally threatened for growing vegetables in her front yard,

Facebook pages were created in her support and local media outlets aired the story as well. Probably as a result of the backlash, the city backed down and quietly dropped the charges, although the city ordinance stating that only "suitable" plant material is allowed in a front lawn has not been changed, which means the charges could be reinstated at any time.

As people are becoming more interested in where their food comes from, and in securing food that is grown responsibly and without chemicals, the interest in backyard (and front yard) veggie gardens is only going to continue to grow – and it’s time for local ordinances to reflect this.

The featured article states:4

“It’s not the 1950s anymore: Not everyone needs to grow a perfectly manicured lawn, especially when vegetable gardens can look just as attractive, improve the soil (instead of requiring tons of pesticides), and provide fresh food. If the problem is that these types of front yards are illegal in current city codes, then the codes need to change, along with people’s assumptions that a burnt-out, water-sucking lawn is better than a few patches of thriving tomato plants and string bean vines.”

If you're thinking of planting veggies but are not sure where to begin, Better Homes & Gardens has a free All-American Vegetable Garden Plan5 that can be put into a 6x6 area. It's a great starting point for beginners. You can also visit a few local plant nurseries around your home, especially those that specialize in organic gardening. The employees are likely to be a great resource for natural planting tips that will help your garden thrive.

Even if you only have access to a patio, you can still grow some of your own veggies using containers. Tomatoes, herbs, cucumbers, lettuce, and peppers are examples of plants that thrive in containers, but the sky is really the limit. If, for whatever reason, you are unable to garden or prefer not to then you can still access healthy vegetables grown locally by supporting local farmer's markets

problem growing gardens in our town... encouraged by Dr M, who also notes difficulties elsewhere:

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Sleeping and melatonin production...
By Dr. Mercola

When you climb into bed for the night, is your bedroom “littered” with dim light from streetlights, passing traffic, a computer, night-light or television set?

Even if the light is so dim that you can easily sleep through it, light pollution can prompt biological changes that have a very significant, and potentially serious, impact on your physical and mental health.

Obvious examples would be the glow that can be seen from miles outside of a big city, or the absence of stars in the night sky if you live in an urban environment.

More subtle examples of light pollution are the strips of light that come in around your curtains at night, or even the glow from your clock radio.

All of these light sources disrupt the natural rhythms of nature, as like most other creatures, humans need darkness. When this natural rule is violated, the consequences can be steep …

Dim Light at Night May Lead to Depression

A study done with hamsters at Ohio State University Medical Center has found that chronic exposure to dim light at night can cause signs of depression after just a few weeks.1 The study also showed changes in the hamsters’ hippocampus similar to brain changes seen in depressed people. They pointed out that rates of depression have risen along with exposure to artificial light at night:

“Exposure to artificial light at night (LAN) has surged in prevalence during the past 50 years, coinciding with rising rates of depression.”

The link could be due to the production of the hormone melatonin, which is interrupted when you’re exposed to light at night. There are many studies that suggest melatonin levels (and by proxy light exposures) control mood-related symptoms, such as those associated with depression -- especially winter depression (aka, seasonal affective disorder, or SAD).

In a study published by researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU), it was found that melatonin relieved SAD.2 The study found insomniacs have a circadian misalignment in which they are “out of phase” with natural sleeping times.

This misalignment can be corrected either by exposure to bright lights (during daylight hours), or by taking a melatonin supplement at a certain time of day. While your body will begin to produce melatonin only after it’s dark outside, the level of melatonin produced is related to the amount of exposure you have had to bright sunshine the previous day; the less bright light exposure the lower your melatonin levels.

Yet another study about melatonin and circadian phase misalignment found a correlation between circadian misalignment and severity of depression symptoms.3

Studies have also linked low melatonin levels to depression in a variety of populations, including multiple sclerosis patients4 and post-menopausal women.5 Clearly, anything that negatively effects melatonin production is likely to have a detrimental effect on your mood. Melatonin’s immediate precursor is the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is a major player in uplifting your mood.

Too Much Light at Night May Also Contribute to Cancer

Normally, your brain starts secreting melatonin around 9 or 10 pm, which makes you sleepy. These regularly occurring secretions thus help regulate your sleep cycle.

The good news is the condition appears to be reversible by simply going back to regular light-dark cycles and minimalizing exposure to artificial light at night. But when light receptors in your eyes are triggered, such as by the glow from your television set, they signal your brain to 'stay awake.' To do that, your brain stops secreting melatonin, which is not only a hormone but also a potent antioxidant against cancer.

Melatonin is secreted primarily in your brain and at night it triggers a host of biochemical activities, including a nocturnal reduction in your body's estrogen levels. It’s thought that chronically decreasing your melatonin production at night -- as occurs when you’re exposed to nighttime light – thereby allows your body to be exposed to higher estrogen levels, which increases your risk of developing estrogen-sensitive cancers, such as breast cancer.6

In addition to dampening your mood and increasing your cancer risk, a confused body clock from too much light exposure at night can result in increased appetite and unwanted weight gain.

Light at Night Might Even Make You Fat

Exposure to light during the night can seriously impact your body's internal clock, even leading to metabolic changes and weight gain. In fact, mice that were exposed to dim light during the night gained 50 percent more weight over an eight-week period than mice kept in complete darkness at night.7 They also had increased levels of glucose intolerance, a marker for pre-diabetes.

The weight gain occurred even though the mice were fed the same amount of food and had similar activity levels, and the researchers believe the findings may hold true for humans as well.

When mice were exposed to nighttime light, they ended up eating more of their food when they would normally be sleeping and this lead to significant weight gain. However, in a second experiment when researchers restricted meals to times of day when the mice would normally eat, they did not gain weight, even when exposed to light at night.

This suggests that the timing of your meals, for instance eating late at night when you'd normally be sleeping, may throw off your body's internal clock and lead to weight gain. In this case, the artificial light, such as a glow from your TV or computer, can serve as a stimulus for keeping you awake and, possibly, eating, when you should really be asleep.

In other words, while it's typically thought that your biological clock is what tells you when it's time to wake up or go to sleep, light and dark signals actually control your biological clock. In turn, your biological clock regulates your metabolism. So when your light and dark signals become disrupted it not only changes the times you may normally eat, it also throws your metabolism off kilter, likely leading to weight gain.

More Consequences of Nighttime Light Exposure

Your circadian rhythm has evolved over many centuries to align your physiology with your environment. However, it is operating under the assumption that you're still behaving as your ancestors have for countless generations: sleeping at night and being awake during the day.

If you push these limits by staying up late at night, depriving yourself of sleep, or even being exposed to the glow from your computer when you should be sleeping, your body doesn't know whether it should be producing chemicals to tell you to go to sleep, or gear up for the beginning of your day.

But maintaining this natural circadian rhythm affects far more than just your sleep pattern. Your body actually has many internal clocks -- in your brain, lungs, liver, heart and even your skeletal muscles -- and they all work to keep your body running smoothly by controlling temperature and the release of hormones.

Disrupting your natural rhythm can also make you more vulnerable to disease, including not only cancer, as mentioned above, but also many others. A report from the American Medical Association highlighted the health risks that changes in circadian rhythms pose: 8

* Carcinogenic effects related to melatonin suppression, especially breast cancer
* Obesity
* Diabetes
* Depression and mood disorders
* Reproductive problems

Researchers concluded:

“The natural 24-hour cycle of light and dark helps maintain precise alignment of circadian biological rhythms, the general activation of the central nervous system and various biological and cellular processes, and entrainment of melatonin release from the pineal gland. Pervasive use of nighttime lighting disrupts these endogenous processes and creates potentially harmful health effects and/or hazardous situations with varying degrees of harm.”

The Damage is Reversible!

Even though too much light at nighttime causes undeniable health damage, it appears you can undo some of the harm by turning out the lights … in the featured study, the hamsters depressive symptoms went away when they were allowed eight hours of darkness each day.

For you, this may mean turning off your laptop and television earlier than normal, or conducting a light check of your bedroom to wipe out any light pollution creeping in. Even very low levels of light can be enough to suppress melatonin production, so it’s important to keep your sleeping environment as pitch-black as possible. If your bedroom is currently affected by light pollution, you will notice a major improvement when you eliminate it. To get your room as dark as possible, consider taking the following actions:

* Install blackout drapes
* Close your bedroom door if light comes through it; if light seeps in underneath your door, put a towel along the base
* Wear an effective face mask that blocks out light -- a very inexpensive solution and very easy to implement when you are travelling. Many hotels I stay at during my travels do not have blackout drapes so I use this to get darkness at night. Also useful for sleeping on planes at night.
* Get rid of your electric clock radio (or at least cover it up at night)
* Avoid night lights of any kind
* Keep all light off at night (even if you get up to go to the bathroom) -- and this includes your computer and TV (computer screens and most light bulbs emit blue light, to which your eyes are particularly sensitive simply because it's the type of light most common outdoors during daytime hours. As a result, they can disrupt your melatonin production)
* If possible, avoid working any night shifts.
* Please note that red light has a wavelength that has minimal impact on your melatonin production. I actually use a red LED alarm clock in my normally very dark room so I know what time it is, as the alarm will cause adrenal stress.

Neat Gadget to Help Evaluate Your Sleep Quality

Over the last two years I have been playing with an interesting device that monitors your sleep at night. It measures

* Total time slept, including when you fall asleep and wake up
* Type of sleep, including, deep sleep, light sleep and REM
* Number of times and how long you were awake during the night

The company has worked with a number of prominent sleep scientists and they have reviewed the data above and developed an algorithm for creating a single sleep score that you can easily monitor over time. The advantage of this is that you can play with a number of different variables such as what time you go to bed, exercise levels, and different foods, and objectively analyze its impact on your sleep pattern.

Initially I was reluctant to use the device and did not for some time as the device actually transmitted the data in real time to a clock radio. Although that is still possible, I do not recommend using this mode due to the EMF exposure. So rather you can merely use it as a sensor that records the data and in the morning you can use Bluetooth to transfer to your smartphone or tablet device. It is a really slick device and I consider it an important part of my health strategy. You can pick it up on Amazon for about $90.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Today, Dr Mercola warns about side-effects of statin drugs. If you are among the tens of millions taking statins, or if you know someone taking these Big Pharma drugs, I recommend that you research the issue. As always, each of us can take responsibility for our own health, and base it on our study and prayers (and NOT just follow "doctor's orders"). Our health is our responsibility, and we can trust the Lord to guide us in health matters (D&C 89).
By Dr. Mercola

Tens of millions of Americans are taking cholesterol-lowering drugs—mostly statins—and some "experts" claim that many millions more should be taking them. I couldn't disagree more.


Statins are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, that is, they act by blocking the enzyme in your liver that is responsible for making cholesterol (HMG-CoA reductase).

The fact that statin drugs cause side effects is well established—there are now 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk. For starters, reported side effects include:
Muscle problems, polyneuropathy (nerve damage in the hands and feet), and rhabdomyolysis (a serious degenerative muscle tissue condition) Anemia
Acidosis Sexual dysfunction
Immune depression

Cataracts
Pancreas or liver dysfunction, including a potential increase in liver enzymes Memory loss




Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects, but cognitive problems and memory loss are also widely reported. A spectrum of other problems, ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also occur. There is evidence that taking statins may even increase your risk for Lou Gehrig's disease, diabetes and even cancer. Statins currently available on the U.S. market include1 :
Advicor (lovastatin with niacin) – Abbott Crestor (rosuvastatin) - AstraZeneca Mevacor (lovastatin) – Merck Simcor (niacin/imvastatin) – Abbott
Altoprev (lovastatin) – Shionogi Pharma Lescol (fluvastatin) – Novartis Pravachol (pravastatin) -- Bristol-Myers Squibb Zocor (simvastatin) – Merck
Caduet [atorvastatin with amlodipine (Norvasc)] – Pfizer Lipitor (atorvastatin) - Pfizer Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) – Merck/Schering-Plough

Statin Drugs: A Surprising Cause of Diabetes

Statins have been shown to increase your risk of diabetes through a few different mechanisms. The most important one is that they increase insulin resistance, which can be extremely harmful to your health. Increased insulin resistance contributes to chronic inflammation in your body, and inflammation is the hallmark of most diseases. In fact, increased insulin resistance can lead to heart disease, which, ironically, is the primary reason for taking a cholesterol-reducing drug in the first place! It can also promote belly fat, high blood pressure, heart attacks, chronic fatigue, thyroid disruption, and diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and cancer.

Secondly, statins increase your diabetes risk by actually raising your blood sugar. When you eat a meal that contains starches and sugar, some of the excess sugar goes to your liver, which then stores it away as cholesterol and triglycerides. Statins work by preventing your liver from making cholesterol. As a result, your liver returns the sugar to your bloodstream, which raises your blood sugar levels.

Now, it's important to realize that drug-induced diabetes and genuine type 2 diabetes are not necessarily identical.

If you're on a statin drug and find that your blood glucose is elevated, it's possible that what you have is just hyperglycemia—a side effect, and the result of your medication. Unfortunately, many doctors will at that point mistakenly diagnose you with "type 2 diabetes," and possibly prescribe another drug, when all you may need to do is simply discontinue the statin in order for your blood glucose levels to revert back to normal. So if friends or loved ones you know are on a statin (and one in four Americans over 45 are) and they are told they have diabetes, please do them a favor and tell them about the information in this article.

Major Statin Drug Study Found to Be Flawed

A study known as the JUPITER trial initially suggested cholesterol-lowering statin drugs might prevent heart-related death in many more people than just those with high cholesterol. But two years after its publication in 2008, researchers came out saying the JUPITER results are flawed -- and that they do not support the benefits initially reported. Not only is there no "striking decrease in coronary heart disease complications", but a more recent report has also called into question drug companies' involvement in such trials.

According to a report by ABC News2 :

"... major discrepancies exists between the significant reductions in nonfatal stroke and heart attacks reported in the JUPITER trial and what has been found in other research ... 'The JUPITER data set appears biased,' [the researchers] wrote in conclusion."

If You Take Statins, You MUST Take CoQ10

Statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which can have devastating results. If you take statin drugs without taking CoQ10, your health is at serious risk. Unfortunately, this describes the majority of people who take them in the United States. CoQ10 is a cofactor (co-enzyme) that is essential for the creation of ATP molecules, which you need for cellular energy production. Organs such as your heart have higher energy requirements, and therefore require more CoQ10 to function properly. Produced mainly in your liver, it also plays a role in maintaining blood glucose.

Physicians rarely inform people of this risk and only occasionally advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement. As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure.

Coenzyme Q10 is also very important in the process of neutralizing free radicals. So when your CoQ10 is depleted, you enter a vicious cycle of increased free radicals, loss of cellular energy, and damaged mitochondrial DNA. If you decide to take a CoQ10 supplement and are over the age of 40, it is important to choose the reduced version, called ubiquinol. Ubiquinol is a FAR more effective form—I personally take it daily for its many far ranging benefits. As for dosage, Dr. Graveline, a family doctor and former astronaut, made the following recommendation in a previous interview on statins and CoQ10:

* If you have symptoms of statin damage such as muscle pain, take anywhere from 200 to 500 mg
* If you just want to use it preventively, 200 mg or less should be sufficient

Statins Impair Numerous Biological Functions

Statin drugs also interfere with other biological functions, including an early step in the mevalonate pathway, which is the central pathway for the steroid management in your body. Products of this pathway that are negatively affected by statins include:

* All your sex hormones
* Cortisone
* The dolichols, which are involved in keeping the membranes inside your cells healthy
* All sterols, including cholesterol and vitamin D (which is similar to cholesterol and is produced from cholesterol in your skin)

It's still uncertain whether statins actually deplete your body of vitamin D, but they do reduce your body's natural ability to create active vitamin D (1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol). This is the natural outcome of the drug's cholesterol-reducing ability, because you need cholesterol to make vitamin D! It's the raw material your body uses for vitamin D conversion after you've exposed your skin to sunlight. It's also well-documented that vitamin D improves insulin resistance, so needless to say, when you take a statin drug, you forfeit this 'built-in' health-promoting mechanism, which is yet another clue as to how statins can cause diabetes.

Ninety-Nine Out of 100 People do Not Need Statin Drugs

That these drugs have proliferated the market the way they have is a testimony to the power of marketing, corruption and corporate greed, because the odds are very high— greater than 100 to 1—that if you're taking a statin, you don't really need it. The ONLY subgroup that might benefit are those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, as this makes them resistant to traditional measures of normalizing cholesterol.

And, even more importantly, cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease.

If your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, then you should know that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher. HDL percentage is a far more potent indicator for heart disease risk. Here are the two ratios you should pay attention to:

1. HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be above 24 percent. If below 10 percent, you have a significantly elevated risk for heart disease.
2. Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be below 2.

I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who were actually at low risk for heart disease due to their elevated HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen many people with cholesterol levels under 200 who had a very high risk of heart disease, based on their low HDL. Your body NEEDS cholesterol—it is important in the production of cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories and is vital to your neurological function. There is also strong evidence that having too little cholesterol INCREASES your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson's disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior.

Statins Should NEVER Be Used By Pregnant Women

One in four Americans over the age of 45 is now taking these drugs, and few are properly warned about the related health risks. Part of the problem is that many doctors are not even aware of all the risks. A study published last spring highlighted this dilemma.

Most disturbingly, the researchers found that physicians were lacking in awareness of the teratogenic risks3 (ability to cause fetal malformations) of statins and other cardiovascular drugs they prescribed for their pregnant patients. The study followed an earlier report, which had concluded statins should be avoided in early pregnancy due to their teratogenic capability4 . An even earlier 2003 study5 had already established that cholesterol plays an essential role in embryonic development, and that statins could play a part in embryonic mutations or even death...

Indeed, it's difficult to look at these facts and not reach the conclusion that the pharmaceutical industry is quite willing to sacrifice human lives for profit. Statins are in fact classified as a "pregnancy Category X medication" meaning, it causes serious birth defects, and should NEVER be used by a woman who is pregnant or planning a pregnancy.

Parents Beware: Outrageous Push to Put Kids on Statin Drugs!

In a bold attempt to increase profits before the patent runs out, Pfizer has introduced a chewable kid-friendly version of Lipitor. Its US patent for Lipitor expired in November 2011, and seeking to boost sales of the drug, children have become the new target market, and the conventional medical establishment is more than happy to oblige.

Researchers and many doctors are now calling for universal school screening of children to check for high cholesterol, to find those "in need of treatment." In addition, older siblings, parents and other family members might be prompted to get screened as well, the researchers say, which would uncover additional, previously undiagnosed adults in need of the drug.

This is clearly NOT the way to improve public health. On the contrary, it could produce a new, massive wave of extremely dire health consequences in just a few years time.

So rather than improving school lunches, which would cost about a dollar a day per child, they'd rather "invest" ten times that for tests and drugs that in no way, shape, or form address the root cause, which is an improper, unhealthy diet! All they're doing is allowing all the industries to maintain or increase their profits: Big Pharma; Big Sugar; Big Corn and the processed food industry.

Who pays?

You, and your children! And in far more ways than one!

Optimizing Your Cholesterol Levels, Naturally

There's really no reason to take statins and suffer the damaging health effects from these dangerous drugs. The fact is that 75 percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels. Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol. It follows, then, that my primary recommendations for safely regulating your cholesterol have to do with modifying your diet and lifestyle:

* Optimize your vitamin D levels. Research by Dr. Stephanie Seneff has shed additional light on the extreme importance of appropriate sun exposure for normalizing your cholesterol levels and preventing heart disease. For more information, please see this previous interview.
* Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your diet. Ideally, you'll also want to consume a good portion of your food raw.
* Make sure you are getting plenty of high quality, animal-based omega 3 fats, such as krill oil.
* Other heart-healthy foods include olive oil, coconut and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats as appropriate for your nutritional type.
* Exercise daily. Make sure you incorporate peak fitness exercises, which also optimizes your human growth hormone (HGH) production.
* Address your emotional challenges. My favorite technique for stress management is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
* Avoid smoking or drinking alcohol excessively.
* Be sure to get plenty of good, restorative sleep.

Unlike statin drugs, which lower your cholesterol at the expense of your health, these lifestyle strategies represent a holistic approach that will benefit your overall health—which includes a healthy cardiovascular system.

The Baycol Statin Recall and Safety Issue:

In August 2001, Bayer AG, the maker of Baycol (cerivastatin), a popular cholesterol-lowering drug used by about 700,000 Americans, pulled the medicine off the market after 31 people died from severe muscle breakdown, a well-recognized side effect of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Related articles follow:

Statins: Is the Danger in the Dose? Here is the hard data on Baycol-associated adverse reactions. If you or someone you know is taking one of the statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, this is a "must-read" article by Jay Cohen, MD to help you understand the potential dangers that this exposes you to.

Baycol Pulled From Market as Numerous Deaths Linked to It

Baycol, a cholestrol-lowering drug (statin), has been voluntarily pulled off the market because of numerous deaths associated with its use.

The Baycol Recall: How Safe is Your Statin?

With the recall of Baycol, patients are now searching out a new drug to take its place, but are other statins really safe? Here are some precautions necessary for anyone taking Baycol or any statin.

Baycol: Another Fluoride Drug Bites the Dust

Baycol is just one of many fluoride drugs to be pulled from the market due to health hazards posed. Read about this and some of the others in this informative article written by Andreas Schuld and Wendy Small.

BMJ: Bayer faces potential fine over cholesterol lowering drug

Bayer might have to pay a fine to the German government of about $23,400 for withholding from the German authorities information on the drug's potentially fatal interaction with another drug.

Lipitor Tied to Liver, Kidney Injury, as Well as Muscle Damage

It seems that Baycol is not alone among cholesterol lowering drugs in posing serious dangers to the public. A number of legal actions are also being pursued against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of the Lipitor.

Excerpts from Public Citizen's Health Research Group's Petition to Require a Box Warning on All HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ("Statins"):

" ... Public Citizen, representing 135,000 consumers nationwide, hereby petitions the FDA pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21, U.S.C. Section 355(e)(3), and C.F.R. 10.30, to add a black box warning and additional consistent bolded warnings about this serious problem to the label of all statins marketed in the United States."

"Doctors and the public must be warned to immediately discontinue use of statin drugs at the onset of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness."

"Prompt cessation of the use of statins at the first sign of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness and prompt evaluation by a physician including a blood test for creatine phosphokinase (a measure of muscle destruction) may avoid the progression to more extensive muscle damage, rhabdomyolysis and death."

"Rhabdomyolysis has been reported with all statins currently marketed in the United States."

About the Experts

Joseph Mercola, DO

Founder and Owner of Mercola.com.

Uffe Ravnskov, MD

Born 1934 in Copenhagen, Denmark Graduated 1961 from the University of Copenhagen with an M.D. 1961-1967: Various appointments at surgical, roentgenological, neurological, pediatric and medical departments in Denmark and Sweden. 1968-1979: Various appointments at the Department of Nephrology, and the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 1975-79: As an assistant professor at the Department of Nephrology. 1973: PhD at the University of Lund. 1979-2000: A private practitioner. Since 1979 an independent researcher. A specialist in internal medicine and nephrology. Honored by the Skrabanek Award 1998.

For more information about him, see Dr. Ravnskov's Web site.

Jay Cohen, M.D

Jay Cohen, M.D., is an associate professor of Family and Preventative Medicine and of Psychiatry at the University of California in San Diego. He is the author of two books and has numerous papers published in peer-reviewed journals. His book, Over Dose: The Case Against the Drug Companies, is an outstanding read.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

PROCESSED FOODS AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

By Dr. Mercola

I recently visited Joel Salatin at his Polyface farm in Virginia. He’s truly one of the pioneers in sustainable agriculture, and you can take a virtual tour through his various farm operations in the video above.

As a physician, it’s patently obvious to me—and I’m sure most of you viewing this--that the food we eat plays a major role in our health. As a society, we’ve strayed quite far from our dietary roots and become so disconnected from our food sources that our health is now in serious jeopardy.

About 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods1, and the health of the average American is a testament to the abject failure of such foods to support good health. Fortunately, more and more people are now beginning to recognize this, and are making efforts to get back to real food.

Two Models of Food Production

As Joel discusses in this interview, there are basically two different models of food production today, and there’s growing conflict between them. The first, and most prevalent, is the large-scale agricultural model that takes a very mechanistic view toward life, whereas the other—the local, sustainable farm model—has a biological and holistic view.

“As a culture, we view life as fundamentally mechanical; we’re asking “How do we grow the pig faster, fatter, bigger cheaper?” And that’s all that matters.

... Our side asks, “How do we make the pig happier, more piggy, and more expressive of its pigness?” We recognize the fundamental honor and sacredness of that life form or that being, if you will. That’s the fundamental difference,” Joel says.

“The amalgamation of farms has followed a mechanistic view. Machinery does run more efficiently when it runs 24/7. A bigger earthmover is more efficient than a smaller earthmover, because the bucket’s bigger and still only takes one operator to move more cubic yards of material. A mechanistic view does move a culture toward size, scale, and toward an inability to account for some of these unseen things.

But what’s happening now is E.coli, salmonella, mad cow disease, C. diff, and MRSA. I call that the biological Profit and Loss Statement that is starting to come to the fore and create awareness that, “Oh, maybe just growing it faster, fatter, bigger, cheaper isn’t all there is. Maybe there is more. Maybe it does matter if the earthworms are healthy. Maybe you can’t just replace earthworms with fossil fuel fertilizers.”

I think this is an excellent point. The widely adopted factory farm “bigger is better” food system has reached a point where the fundamental weaknesses of it are becoming readily apparent, and food borne disease and loss of nutrient content are just two of the most obvious side effects.

It’s a proven fact that factory farmed and processed foods are far more likely to cause illness than unadulterated, organically-grown foods. For example, one study by the British government found that 23 percent of farms with caged hens tested positive for salmonella, compared to just over 4 percent in organic flocks, and 6.5 percent in free-range flocks. Contamination occurred most often at farms that contained the most birds, typically 30,000 or more.

This connection should be obvious, but many are still under the mistaken belief that a factory operation equates to better hygiene and quality control, when the exact opposite is actually true. A pig rolling in mud on a small farm is far “cleaner” in terms of pathogenic bacteria than a factory-raised pig stuck in a tiny crate, covered in feces, being fed an unnatural diet of genetically modified grains and veterinary drugs.

How YOU Can Help Change the Food System, Every Single Day

“The food system that we have right now is the summation of decades of billions and billions of individually made decisions: to buy a Snickers bar and not this, or buy potato chips instead of potatoes and lard and make them yourself,” Joel says.

“What we have is a physical manifestation of all these billions and billions of decisions. Where we will be in 20 years will also be a physical manifestation of where we are. Each one of us needs to understand the power of one, the power of that single decision, day by day. “

Whereas our ancestors, going back just a generation or two, were actively participating in the growing and procurement of their food, many children today have no idea where the food comes from or how it’s grown. But many are now sensing this disconnection from the sources of their food as a disconnection from life itself, and it’s no wonder, because that’s essentially what it is.

As the sustainer of life, food surely deserves to be regarded with some measure of reverence. And it certainly deserves to place high on anyone’s list of priorities in life. Home cooked food is also tied to culture and family traditions—both of which are also threatening to slip away as home cooked meals are replaced with the ultra-processed contents of hermetically sealed bags and jars...

“As we know, artisanal anything must be small-scale. The difference between a pot made on a potter’s wheel as an individual craft, as an extension of a person’s soul if you will, compared to a pot made in a mass-produced factory—the difference is that this one has character, integrity, and often has nuances that this one over here won’t have.

And certainly the same thing is true in food,” Joel says.

“Ultimately, we, as individuals, need to appreciate that we have created the food system that we have. I don’t like this, “It’s because of them. It’s because of that. It’s because of this.” Ultimately, we have the food system that we have, because that’s what we want.”

The question is, what kind of food system do YOU want? If every American decided to not eat at a fast food restaurant tomorrow, the entire system would collapse overnight. It doesn’t take an act of Congress to change the food system. All that is required is for each and every person to change their shopping habits.

“That’s why our slogan is, “We’re healing the land one bite at a time.” We want people to understand that when you eat, that is a decision that affects the landscape our children will inherit,” Joel says. “You can make that decision independent of politics and everything else. You could make that decision three times a day. And there are thousands of farmers like us (many of them smaller than us) around the country and around the world,that are waiting to serve that clientele.”

Resources for Consumers

A website called Real Food University2 offers a fascinating analysis of where our food comes from, and reveals that despite what you hear on the news, every year we produce less and less of the food we really need. From massive industrial farming conglomerates to feedlot- and confined animal operations (CAFOs) to contaminated imports, Real Food University delivers the scoop on what you probably have on your plate right now.

Fortunately there are ways to get around these food disasters, and sourcing your foods from a local farmer is one of your best bets to ensure you’re getting something wholesome.

As Joel explains, every state has a sustainable agriculture organization or biological farming organization that is the nucleus of the farmers in that state. You can also find an ever increasing number of “eat local,” and “buy local” directories, in which local farms will be listed. The following organizations can also help you locate farm-fresh foods in your local area:

1. Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

2. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.

3. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.

4. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.

5. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.

Resources for Farmers

For farmers who want to learn more, I suggest reading some of the books Joel Salatin has authored, such as The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer.

“To me, that really describes the paradigm, the heart and soul, and it’s a fun book,” Joel says.

“But beyond that, certainly in the pasture-based livestock, the Stockman Grass Farmer magazine is the world leader, published out of Jackson, Mississippi. It is the world leader in the whole pasture-based how-to. It’s pasture-based by farmers for farmers. Another one would certainly be Acres U.S.A. magazine, which is broader. It brings the grains in. But Acres U.S.A. would be a good one... Certainly link up with the local Weston A. Price chapter... Get linked up with what I call the “tribe”—the tribe that’s thinking differently.”

For a list of such organizations, please see my Sustainable Agriculture page.

His own website, PolyFaceFarms.com, also offers a wealth of information and resources for farmers and consumers alike, including an online store that also offers the actual physical hardware to make everything from fences to chicken feeders. Again, I can’t encourage you strongly enough to take the necessary steps and do what it takes to take control of the food that you’re eating, because the resources are out there. They exist. It may take a little time and effort, but it’s well worth it.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

A former FDA employee has become a whistleblower, disclosing clandestine activities within this government agency.

What happens to whistleblowers who have an interest in protecting the public AGAINST the government? Read on:
By Dr. Mercola

In the wake of shocking reports on how the FDA, terrified of being outed for its questionable practices, spied on its own employees in the hopes of rooting them out before they could become whistleblowers, a new story has emerged on how deep the deceit goes. From marginalizing safety reports to not reading them at all―and then going ahead and approving the drugs in question―the FDA once more stands accused of being little more than a rubber-stamping agency for Big Pharma.

Explosive revelations of an intensive spy operation by the FDA on its own scientists emerged last month. Using sophisticated spy software, the agency tracked and logged every move made by the targeted individuals. The program even intercepted personal emails and copied documents on their personal thumb drives.

The targeted scientists had expressed concern over the agency’s approval of dangerous medical imaging devices for mammograms and colonoscopies, which they believe expose patients to dangerous levels of radiation. Now, another whistleblower has stepped forward, and what he has to say about the agency’s drug safety reviews is shocking even to the jaded...

Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Systemic Suppression of Safety

Ronald Kavanagh was a drug reviewer for the FDA in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research from 1998 to 2008. In a recent interview he reveals how the FDA bypassed or ignored safety issues on major drugs approved during his employment. In an interview for the online news magazine Truth-Out he tells Martha Rosenberg1:

“In the Center for Drugs [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or CDER], as in the Center for Devices, the honest employee fears the dishonest employee.

There is also irrefutable evidence that managers at CDER have placed the nation at risk by corrupting the evaluation of drugs and by interfering with our ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs. While I was at FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs. We were prevented, except in rare instances, from presenting findings at advisory committees.

In 2007, formal policies were instituted so that speaking in any way that could reflect poorly on the agency could result in termination.
If we asked questions that could delay or prevent a drug's approval - which of course was our job as drug reviewers - management would reprimand us, reassign us, hold secret meetings about us, and worse. Obviously in such an environment, people will self-censor.”

According to Kavanagh, people would be shocked if they knew just how malleable safety data is. As examples, he points out that human studies are typically too short and contain too few subjects to get a clear picture of potential risks. In such a scenario, even a single case of a serious adverse event must be taken very seriously, and data from other longer term safety studies also need to be carefully analyzed. Kavanagh claims he has seen drug reviews where the medical safety reviewer completely failed to make such evaluations prior to the drug’s approval.

FDA Actively Thwarts Serious Safety Investigations

There’s no telling how many ineffective and/or dangerous drugs and medical devices have been approved and ushered into market through sheer intimidation and bullying, either by pharmaceutical companies or FDA management. Perhaps even more shocking are the revelations that some of the internal rules and regulations of the FDA are clearly designed to thwart serious safety reviews from the get-go.

According to Kavanagh:

“[H]uman clinical pharmacology trials are typically done in Europe, yet clinical pharmacology reviewers at FDA have been barred from analyzing this information prior to studies being conducted in the US. Without being able to do this, we are unable to detect evidence of risks early and cannot provide guidance that would help with the development of the drug in terms not only of safety and proving efficacy, but also with the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the drug's development.”

Another loophole that can put your health in serious jeopardy is that drug companies are not required to include adverse events on the drug’s label if the adverse reaction is:

* Below a certain percentage, and/or
* Below double the rate of the adverse event found in a placebo

According to Kavanagh:

“By this rule, certain serious and potentially lethal adverse events that eventually resulted in a drug being withdrawn from the market would not have had any mention of the adverse events made in the labeling at all.”

Kavanagh also claims to have discovered another common loophole used by pharmaceutical companies to circumvent safety issues. They’d simply submit bits and pieces of data to different places, effectively preventing the reviewer to pull it all together. Then, because the safety issues falsely appeared to be negligible, it would be decided that no further evaluation would be necessary...

“On one occasion, the company even told me they were going to call upper management to get a clear requirement for approval that they did not want to fulfill eliminated, which I then saw happen. On another occasion a company clearly stated in a meeting that they had "paid for an approval,” Kavanagh says.

“Sometimes we were literally instructed to only read a 100-150 page summary and to accept drug company claims without examining the actual data, which on multiple occasions I found directly contradicted the summary document. Other times I was ordered not to review certain sections of the submission, but invariably that's where the safety issues would be. This could only occur if FDA management was told about issues in the submission before it had even been reviewed.

In addition, management would overload us with huge amounts of material that could not possibly be read by a given deadline and would withhold assistance. When you are able to dig in, if you found issues that would make you turn down a drug, you could be pressured to reverse your decision or the review would then be handed off to someone who would simply copy and paste whatever claims the company made in the summary document.”

Examples of Dangerous Drug Approvals

In his interview, Kavanagh discusses some of the dangerous drugs that were approved in the face of unequivocal safety concerns. One is the nerve gas drug pyridostigmine—a prophylactic drug against the nerve agent Soman. The drug was approved under the "Animal Rule," which allows drugs to be approved based on animal data alone. There were multiple problems with this approval. First, the animal studies did not reflect how the drug would be used in humans. Second, the drug actually increases lethality if nerve agents other than Soman are used.

According to Kavanagh:

“This information was not secret - both FDA and DoD public documents acknowledge increased lethality with other nerve agents such as Sarin, and DoD and other government documents that are public also document that Saddam Hussein was not using Soman and was instead using these other nerve agents exclusively.

Yet because I raised this as an objection, I was immediately replaced as the primary reviewer so that I could not document my concerns and so that pyridostigmine could be approved. It's since been proposed that if we ever face the prospect of nerve agents in the future, that this approval will be used as a justification to convince the President at that time to waive informed consent without presenting a full picture.”

Pediatric drugs also end up posing unnecessary risks due to the FDA’s failure to adequately review safety risks, and the many scientific loopholes employed by pharmaceutical companies. For example, the following flawed parameters are typically used in pediatric drug studies:

* Dosages are based on approved adult dosages, without regard for metabolic differences between a developing child’s body and an adult
* Exposure studies oftentimes use overweight children, and include too few children to adequately evaluate risks
* No allowances are made for race, age, puberty, or actual weight

Dangers to pregnant women and their developing fetuses are also frequently ignored. All in all, the FDA appears to be engaged in a systematic hush-operation designed to give just about anything Big Pharma develops the green light. Essentially, dangerous drugs are given a rubber stamp of approval—the necessary go-ahead to make obscene profits while killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people every year. It is, quite simply, inexcusable. The mainstream media has a lot to answer for as well, as their lack of reporting on these issues contributes to the problem by keeping a lid on reality.

According to Kavanagh:

“FDA's response to most expected risks is to deny them and wait until there is irrefutable evidence postmarketing, and then simply add a watered down warning in the labeling. In fact, when patients exhibit drug toxicity, it is usually attributed to an underlying condition which we know is likely to make the drug toxicity worse. This also allows the toxicity to be dismissed as being unrelated to the drug in any way.

Consequently, toxicities are only attributed to the drug when the evidence is irrefutable. Thus the majority of cases where there is a contributing factor are simply dismissed. When you do raise potential safety issues, the refrain that I heard repeatedly from upper management was‚"where are the dead bodies in the street?" Which I took to mean that we only do something if the press is making an issue of it.”

FDA Safety Reviewers Made to Fear for Their Lives?

Kavanagh was not surprised to learn about the agency’s retaliation against the five whistleblowers, giving several examples of how he was personally intimidated, to the point of fearing for his life, and the safety of his children!

“After FDA management learned I had gone to Congress about certain issues, I found my office had been entered and my computer physically tampered with,” Kavanagh tells Rosenberg.

“... After I gave Representative Waxman's (D-CA) office a USB drive with evidence, FDA staff was admonished that it was prohibited to download information to USB drives. Then, after I openly reported irregularities in an antipsychotic drug review and FDA financial collusion with outsiders to Senator Grassley’s office and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I was threatened with prison if I should release trade secret information to Congress... [T]he Food Drug and Cosmetics Act explicitly allows communication of trade secrets by FDA employees to Congress, but since most people are unaware of this, FDA management can use the threat of jail for violation of the Trade Secrets Act, not only to discourage reviewers, but in my case they got Senator Grassley's staff to destroy the evidence I provided them.

The threats, however, can be much worse than prison. One manager threatened my children - who had just turned 4 and 7 years old - and in one large staff meeting, I was referred to as a "saboteur." Based on other things that happened and were said, I was afraid that I could be killed for talking to Congress and criminal investigators.”

We Now Know What Domestic Surveillance of Whistleblowers Looks Like

The following video features attorney, Stephen Kohn, executive director of the National Whistleblowers Center and attorney for the FDA whistleblowers in the recently revealed FDA spy operation against them2.

"For the first time, we now have a glimpse into what domestic surveillance of whistleblowers looks like in this country with the modern technological developments," Kohn says. "The agency [sought] to destroy the reputation of these whistleblowers forever."

[Been there, as a whistleblower myself. I have seen how they seek to "destroy the reputation of these whistleblowers", and to cut off their jobs.]

FDA Failures Place Health of Americans and Nation at Grave Risk

The FDA’s mission statement reads as follows:

“The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.”

In 2007, a report bearing the revealing title “FDA Science and Mission at Risk” by the Subcommittee on Science and Technology3, detailed how the FDA cannot fulfill its stated mission because:

1. Its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak
2. Its scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability, and
3. Its information technology (IT) infrastructure is inadequate

Furthermore, the report found that “the development of medical products based on “new science” cannot be adequately regulated by the FDA, and that the agency does not have the capacity to carry out risk assessment and analysis. Additionally, the agency’s science agenda “lacks coherent structure and vision, as well as effective coordination and prioritization.”

The fact that the FDA does not have its ducks in a row; has sorely misplaced its priorities; and is not working to fulfill its mission is clearly evidenced in the numerous cases where hundreds and sometimes thousands of complaints about dangerous drugs (like Vioxx and Avandia), vaccines (like Gardasil), and additives (like aspartame) are stubbornly ignored, while SWAT-style teams armed to the teeth are sent to raid supplement makers, whole food businesses, organic farmers, and raw dairies when oftentimes not a single incidence of harm can be attributed to their products.

According to the Science and Technology Subcommittee’s report, the failures of the FDA is placing the health of Americans, and indeed the economic health of the entire nation, at grave risk:

“The FDA constitutes a critical component of our nation’s healthcare delivery and public health system. The FDA, as much as any public or private sector institution in this country, touches the lives, health and wellbeing of all Americans and is integral to the nation’s economy and its security.

The FDA’s responsibilities for protecting the health of Americans are far-reaching. The FDA protects our nation’s food supply through regulatory activities designed to cover 80 percent of the food consumed in this country. The FDA also regulates all drugs, human vaccines, and medical devices, and hence plays a critical role in ensuring the appropriate safety and efficacy of rapidly emerging medical products.

... The FDA is also central to the economic health of the nation, regulating approximately $1 trillion in consumer products or 25 cents of every consumer dollar expended in this country annually.. Thus, the nation is at risk if FDA science is at risk. The Subcommittee concluded that science at the FDA is in a precarious position: the Agency suffers from serious scientific deficiencies and is not positioned to meet current or emerging regulatory responsibilities.”

Final Thoughts

One of the root causes for their utter abandonment of public safety is that the majority of the FDA’s funding comes from the very companies that it is seeking to monitor and evaluate. The FDA has progressively morphed into a mere pawn and instrument of the drug industry, which has little to do with drug safety, and everything to do with maximizing profits.

As Dr. David Graham—another prominent FDA whistleblower who blew the lid on the Vioxx scandal—stated in a 2005 interview:

“As currently configured, the FDA is not able to adequately protect the American public. It's more interested in protecting the interests of industry. It views industry as its client, and the client is someone whose interest you represent. Unfortunately, that is the way the FDA is currently structured.


Within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, about 80 percent of the resources are geared towards the approval of new drugs and 20 percent is for everything else. Drug safety is about 5 percent. The "gorilla in the living room" is new drugs and approval. Congress has not only created that structure, they have also worsened that structure through the PDUFA, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, by which drug companies pay money to the FDA so they will review and approve its drug.”

The only real solution isn't minor changes to the existing structure, but a complete reform of the FDA. But until then, please, don't risk your money or your life on a paradigm designed to profit from your ill health. Instead, switch to natural methods that will allow your body to heal itself without the need for the deadly drugs being pushed on you by the drug companies and the FDA.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Today Dr. Mercola presents data in favor of coconut oil... I'm going to use it more!
By Dr. Mercola

You're probably aware that in order to absorb all of the extremely healthy fat-soluble nutrients in your food, compounds like lutein, beta-carotene and vitamin E, for instance, you've got to eat them with some fat.

So perhaps you always add olive oil to your salads or eat your veggies with butter to absorb all of those valuable nutrients.

This is a smart health move, but did you know that not all oils are created equal when it comes to nutrient absorption? Some work better than others and can actually enhance the amount of nutrients your body receives from the food you eat.

Coconut Oil is Superior in Enhancing Nutrient Absorption

A new animal study compared the effects of feeding coconut oil (a saturated fat) versus safflower oil (a polyunsaturated fat) on the absorption of carotenoids from tomatoes. Coconut oil enhanced tissue uptake of tomato carotenoids to a greater degree than safflower oil, a benefit the researchers suggested may be due to coconut oil's medium chain fatty acids (MCFAs):1

"These results may have been due to the large proportion of medium chain fatty acids in coconut oil, which might have caused a shift in cholesterol flux to favor extrahepatic carotenoid tissue deposition."

Coconut oil is nature's richest source of healthy MCFAs. By contrast, most common vegetable or seed oils are comprised of long chain fatty acids (LCFAs). There are several reasons why these long-chain fatty acids are not as healthy for you as the MCFAs in coconut oil.

Why Choose an Oil Like Coconut Oil?

In addition to its ability to potentially allow you to absorb more antioxidants and other nutrients from your food, MCFAs are smaller than LCFAs, which means they permeate cell membranes easily, and do not require lipoproteins or special enzymes to be utilized effectively by your body. Further:

* MCFAs are easily digested, thus putting less strain on your digestive system. This is especially important for those of you with digestive or metabolic concerns.
* MCFAs are sent directly to your liver, where they are immediately converted into energy rather than being stored as fat.
* MCFAs in coconut oil can actually help stimulate your body's metabolism, leading to weight loss.

There are numerous studies showing that MCFAs promote weight loss, including one study that showed rats fed LCFAs stored body fat, while rats fed MCFAs reduced body fat and improved insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance.2 Yet another study found that overweight men who ate a diet rich in MCFAs lost more fat tissue compared to those eating a high-LCFA diet, presumably due to increased energy expenditure and fat oxidation from the MCFA intake. Researchers concluded:3

"Thus, MCTs may be considered as agents that aid in the prevention of obesity or potentially stimulate weight loss."

Coconut oil earns even more "points" because it's rich in lauric acid, which converts in your body to monolaurin – a compound also found in breast milk that strengthens immunity. Caprylic acid, another coconut fatty acid present in smaller amounts, is another antimicrobial component. Plus, using coconut oil as your primary cooking oil is important because it is the only one that is stable enough to resist heat-induced damage. When choosing a coconut oil, make sure you choose an organic coconut oil that is unrefined, unbleached, made without heat processing or chemicals, and does not contain GM ingredients. On the other hand, in the case of LCFA-rich vegetable oils:

* LCFAs are difficult for your body to break down -- they must be packaged with lipoproteins or carrier proteins and require special enzymes for digestion.
* LCFAs put more strain on your pancreas, your liver and your entire digestive system.
* LCFAs are predominantly stored in your body as fat.
* LCFAs, when oxidized, can both injure and deposit within arteries, contributing to both blood vessel inflammation and plaque build-up.

Polyunsaturated fats, which include common vegetable oils such as corn, soy, safflower, sunflower and canola, are absolutely the worst oils to use in cooking. These omega-6 oils are highly susceptible to heat damage because of their multiple double carbon bonds. If you've been shunning coconut oil because it's a saturated fat, you needn't worry. Saturated fats are actually essential and quite good for you.

Enzymes: Another Tool to Enhance Nutrient Absorption

Enzymes are composed of amino acids and are secreted by your body to help catalyze functions that would normally not occur at physiological temperatures. They literally make magic happen and are absolutely vital to your life.

More than 3,000 different enzymes have been identified, and some experts believe there may be another 50,000 we have yet to discover. Each enzyme has a different function—like 3,000 specialized keys cut to fit 3,000 different locks. In this analogy, the locks are biochemical reactions, which include not only energy production and absorption of oxygen, but getting nutrients into your cells.

Chronic malabsorption can lead to a variety of illnesses. Think about it—if your body doesn't have the basic nutritional building blocks it needs, your health and ability to recover from illness will be compromised. Enzyme deficiency results in poor digestion and poor nutrient absorption. This creates a variety of gastrointestinal symptoms, including:

* Constipation
* Bloating
* Cramping
* Flatulence and belching
* Heartburn and acid reflux

Many people are, unfortunately, lacking in the enzyme department, as diets heavy in cooked, processed, and sugary foods, combined with overuse of pharmaceutical drugs such as antibiotics, deplete your body's ability to make enzymes. Heating your food above 116 degrees F also renders most enzymes inactive for destroys them. This is one of the reasons it's so important to eat your foods raw. Raw foods are enzyme-rich, and consuming them decreases your body's burden to produce its own enzymes. The more food that you can eat raw, the better.

A Healthy Gut Encourages Optimal Nutrient Absorption

Similar to enzymes, your gut flora, the microorganisms living in your intestines, continually and dynamically affect your health. In fact, these beneficial bacteria secrete essential enzymes for us. The Lactobacillus genus of probiotics, for instance, got their name from the fact that they break down lactose (milk sugar) into lactic acid with the enzyme lactase. This, in fact, is one reason why culturing was invented in the first place, as only a limited number of individuals with a particular European genotype are capable of producing the lactase enzyme late into life -- most lose the ability soon after weaning from breast milk.

Good bacteria that you take in, either from fermented foods or in supplement form, also prevent the growth of less desirable ones by competing for both nutrition and attachment sites in the tissues of your alimentary canal. These friendly bacteria also aid digestion and nutrient absorption so that you're able to get more benefit from the foods you eat.

In fact, without good gut bacteria, your body cannot absorb certain undigested starches, fiber, and sugars. The friendly bacteria in your digestive tract convert these carbohydrates into primary sources of important energy. These bacteria also produce a secondary layer of indispensable fermentation byproducts such as bacteriocins (which fight infection), beta glucans (which modulate immunity), and the entire B group vitamin series, to name but only a few of the nutrients they are capable of producing for us. Through this continual process of biotransformation that happens 24-7 in our gut, we are in many ways vitamin- and "medicine"-producing factories!

Eating fermented vegetables, and other fermented foods, like kefir, regularly is one of the best ways to nourish your gut flora for optimal nutrient absorption.

The common thread that you may have noticed here is a traditional, healthy diet. When you eat the foods your body is designed for, foods like coconut oil and other fresh, raw, minimally processed sources of fat, protein and healthy carbs, you will naturally encourage your body to utilize all that it can from the healthy foods you eat. So remember, when you need an oil to add to your meals, choosing coconut oil over polyunsaturated vegetable oils like safflower oil may be a simple way to boost your body's nutrient intake for optimal health.

Just make sure that when you use coconut oil you are certain, like all your foods, you are getting the highest quality source possible.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Today Dr Mercola cites more evidence that Big Pharma is more interested in making profits than in restoring health.

Jesus healed people left and right. He still does, if we trust him. Yet he does not charge a penny.

Jesus is more interested in people than in making money! unlike Big Pharma.

In fact, I wonder -- if Jesus were on earth today as a man with a clinic, healing people of cancer, diabetes, etc. -- would the feds/big business shut him down?

What if he cleared out the money changers with a whip? would he be thrown in jail?

He called king Herod "that fox" and chided the ruling scribes and Pharisees for being "hypocrites" and "whited sepulchres". We see that Jesus was controversial and very outspoken.

Jesus was somewhat of an activist, I think, and I admire him for that and for speaking out.
By Dr. Mercola

Three anemia drugs -- Epogen, Procrit and Aranesp -- have been among the best-selling prescription drugs in the United States for years, generating more than $8 billion a year for their makers, Amgen and Johnson & Johnson.

They were blockbuster drugs that stimulate your body to produce new red blood cells, which supposedly helped boost kidney and cancer patients’ energy and, ultimately, enhanced their lives.

But now, after millions of people have taken these drugs, it’s come out that the benefits were “wildly overstated, and potentially lethal side effects, such as cancer and strokes, were overlooked.”1

Worse still, the Washington Post has uncovered a series of unsettling events that show just how far drug makers were willing to go to get rich …

Doctors Earned Profits of Up to 30 Percent Just for Prescribing the Drugs

And this was one of the first problems. Drug makers lobbied Congress in order to put a system into place so that doctors and hospitals would be reimbursed more for the drugs they prescribed to Medicare patients than what they actually paid for them. The markup could be as high as 30 percent, and the higher the dose prescribed, the more money they made.

According to Charles Bennett, endowed chair at the Medication Safety and Efficacy Center of Economic Excellence at the University of South Carolina, in the Washington Post:

“It was just so easy to do — you put this stuff in the patient’s arm, and you made thousands of dollars … An oncologist could make anywhere from $100,000 to $300,000 a year from this alone. And all the while they were told that it was good for the patient.”

Higher Doses Pushed to a Growing Number of Patients

Initially, patients with kidney disease, who often suffer from anemia, were the key target market for the drugs. If anemia is severe enough, blood transfusions are required to boost red blood cell counts. Epogen, Procrit, and, later, Aranesp, were able to accomplish the same boost in blood cells without the need for transfusions.

The Washington Post reported:

“The trouble would arise as the drugmakers won FDA approval for vastly expanded uses, pushing it in larger doses, for milder anemia and for patients with a wider array of illnesses. Very quickly, the market included nearly all dialysis patients, not just the roughly 16 percent who required blood transfusions. The size of average doses would more than triple. And over the next five years, the FDA would approve it to treat anemia in patients with cancer and AIDS, as well as those getting hip and knee surgery.

The key to their marketing was the claim that the drugs at higher doses could make patients feel better. By 1994, the drug’s label, approved by the FDA, advertised a range of benefits: “statistically significant improvements for . . . health, sex life, well-being, psychological effect, life satisfaction, and happiness.””

These claims, however, were based on a series of incomplete and never-published research, some of which were drawn out over a decade or more only to show inconclusive results. One safety study on cancer patients that was supposed to be finished in 2008 is still not complete, and won’t be until 2017, according to Amgen, which will be nearly 25 years after the drugs were approved for cancer patients.

And as it turns out, the claims that the drugs lead to improved quality of life have since been withdrawn because they don’t meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) standards of proof.

Higher Doses Increased Patients’ Risk of Dying – Study Results Missing Key Data

In 1998, the Normal Hematocrit Trial was published, which explored giving higher doses of drugs to dialysis patients in order to boost their red blood cell count above those generally achieved with transfusion.2 The study did, in fact, find that patients receiving the higher drug dose were dying or having heart attacks at a higher rate than those receiving the lower dose; the trial was actually halted because of this.

However, rather than sounding an alarm bell, when the study was published the authors downplayed the danger, calling the increased death and heart attack rate “not significant.” And while no difference was found in quality of life between patients receiving the higher or lower dose, this was not noted in the published study. (Four of the study’s eight authors were employed by Amgen, and two have served as consultants.)

As the years went by, health care providers and the drug companies continued to profit from the ever-rising doses of these drugs being prescribed – despite continued studies coming out questioning their safety. It wasn’t until years later, in 2011, that the FDA put out a safety announcement calling for more conservative dosing of the drugs “because of data showing increased risks of cardiovascular events.”3

The Washington Posted reported:

“For years, a small Bethesda-based nonprofit think tank, the Medical Technology and Practice Patterns Institute, had been publishing studies that challenged the conventional enthusiasm for the drug and the government policies that it said promoted their overuse.

Then in November 2006, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that kidney patients targeted for higher doses were linked to higher risks of hospitalization, strokes and death. In December, a group of Danish researchers said that it had stopped a trial of Aranesp in cancer patients because of an increase in deaths and tumor growths. And that was just the beginning of the bad news …”

The FDA Finally Cracks Down

The Danish research seemed to be the breaking point for the anemia drug trio.

“Then the FDA cracked down,” The Washington Post reported. “The drugs’ use was ruled out in cancer patients considered curable, it was ruled out in patients considered just slightly anemic, maximum recommended doses were lowered, and the agency told doctors in many cases to use the smallest amount possible to avoid a blood transfusion.

The agency also began to look askance at the alleged benefits, for which the evidence, in retrospect, seemed flimsy. There was no solid proof, under revised FDA guidelines for such measures, that use of the drugs leads to “statistically significant” improvements in happiness and other benefits, the agency said. Those quality-of-life claims, once so critical to the drug’s adoption, were removed from the label.

… Last year, nearly two decades after the Office of the Inspector General first suggested it, the economic incentives to use more of the drugs on patients in dialysis disappeared.”

No major class-action suits have so far been filed against the drugs’ makers; it is often difficult to prove the drugs were the cause of death, particularly because patients who received them were typically already facing chronic health problems. Still, Amgen has put aside a reported $780 million to settle various claims, including some for alleged illegal sales tactics – a paltry compensation to those who have lost loved ones. This is, unfortunately, just the latest drug scandal to be brought to the public’s attention … and it surely won’t be the last.

Pharma Giant Pfizer Fined for Bribing Officials in Eastern Europe and China

Earlier this month, it was revealed that U.S. pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and its subsidiary Wyeth have been charged with paying off officials, doctors and healthcare professionals in Eastern Europe and China to secure approval and registration of the companies’ products.

The company allegedly paid millions of dollars in bribes from 2001 to 2007. The bribery was so blatant and entwined in the sales practices that they even offered points and bonus programs to improperly reward foreign officials who proved to be the best customers, according to the head of the SEC’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Unit. Obviously, such corrupt pay-offs puts honest companies at a disadvantage, James McJunkin, assistant director of the Washington field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation pointed out.4

And that is the over-riding theme we see again and again – these companies are typically NOT honest, yet we trust them with the most sacred possession we have, our health. For punishment, Pfizer will be paying various fines ranging from $15 million to $26 million – barely a slap on the wrist for a company that makes billions of dollars a year.

Big Pharma’s Lack of Ethics, Regard for Patient Safety Seemingly Knows No Bounds

If it seems like the number of lawsuits that Big Pharma is settling―many of them out of court without going to trial―are rising, they are. From Merck's $950-million Vioxx deal to the latest announcement that Pfizer has made an $896-million settlement with Prempro victims, the deals show no signs of stopping. Most of the lawsuits are being filed in conjunction with, or aided by, the U.S. Department of Justice, many of them originating from former employees-turned-whistleblowers who divulged marketing misdoings by their employers.

The litigation and settlements are starting to rattle the drug industry, which is becoming no stranger to billion-dollar settlements. Most likely near the end of 2012, Johnson & Johnson reportedly will settle for as much $2.2 billion for its fraudulent marketing of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

That amount rivals what was the largest health care fraud settlement to date -- $2.3 billion paid by Pfizer in 2009, also for illegally promoting uses of four of its drugs. However, now it's come out that GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to a whopping $3-billion settlement – the largest in U.S. history for health care fraud -- with the U.S. government, again for advertising drugs for unapproved uses, along with using gifts to persuade doctors to prescribe the drugs.5

Unfortunately, Americans are disproportionally supporting this behemoth of an industry. Americans, including children, are the most drugged people in the entire world, with the average adult taking 11 prescription drugs—each of which comes with an average of 70 different potential side effects that are then typically addressed with even more drugs...

The situation has gotten out of hand, especially since there's a mountain of evidence supporting the use of alternatives, and there's very strong evidence that some "alternative" treatments, such as diet and exercise, are FAR more effective, not to mention safer, than any of the drugs currently in use. My site is chock full of free comprehensive recommendations that can serve as an excellent starting point to break free from this fatally flawed paradigm. The tools I provide on this site will help you to reduce your reliance on the broken health care system, including its overuse of drugs, and provide you with the tools and resources to Take Control of Your Health.

User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13007

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by Original_Intent »

So, if Dr. Mercola is correct below, once again the "conventional wisdom" of lots of small meals throughout the day is exactly the WRONG thing to do.
By Dr. Mercola

If you're already off to a good start on a healthy fitness plan, and you're looking for ways to take it to the next level, then you might want to consider intermittent fasting. In essence this fitness-enhancing strategy looks at the timing of meals, as opposed to those fad plans where you eat just one or two things for several days in a row.

On intermittent fasting, the longest time you'll ever abstain from food is 36 hours, although 14-18 hours is more common. You can also opt to simply delay eating. For example, skipping breakfast may be just the thing to get you off a plateau in your fitness routine. The issue of fasting is a major shift from my typical recommendations. I've not been a major advocate for it in the past, but as many of you who have been reading this site for years know, I am always learning.

To that end, I've now revised my personal eating schedule to eliminate breakfast and restrict the time I eat food to a period of about six to seven hours each day, which is typically from noon to 6 or 7 pm.

Your Ancestors Rarely Had Access to Food 24/7
So it makes sense that our genes are optimized for to this type of feeding schedule. It takes about six to eight hours for your body to metabolize your glycogen stores and after that you actually start to shift to burning fat. However if you are replenishing your glycogen by eating every few hours, you make it far more difficult for your body to actually use your fat stores as fuel.

On the days that I exercise in the morning, I will have two scoops of Pure Power Protein about 30 minutes after the workout to provide nutrients, especially leucine, for muscle growth and repair. Interestingly, since adopting this approach for the past few months I have lost two inches from my waist size and gained three pounds, which means I have lost body fat and gained muscle mass. Just broke 33 inches for my waist and am maintaining my 180 pounds.

A growing body of research suggests that intermittent fasting may in fact be a key weight loss tool. It appears particularly powerful when combined with exercise—i.e. working out while in a fasted state. According to some fitness experts, such as Ori Hofmekler—whose guest commentary is featured below—fasting may indeed push your exercise program to the next level.

It can also boost general health and longevity, but as Ori explains later in this article, there are tradeoffs—you cannot achieve maximum fitness and maximum longevity at the same time. You have to chose one or the other and tailor your diet and fitness regimen to achieve your intended goal. Gender differences also come into play when fasting, which you need to be aware of.

For the last several months I have been experimenting and not eating breakfast and compressing the time that I eat into a 6-7 hour window. I do this nearly every day of the week and it has helped me drop my body fat percentage effortlessly. Interestingly, hunger is not much of a problem as I have shifted to upregulate my fat burning enzymes. I am convinced that having periods of 12-18 hours of fasting is likely highly beneficial. The other variable I am currently in the process of evaluating if dinner would be the better meal to skip. Skipping breakfast is far easier and logistically and socially more acceptable, but avoiding dinner might be better from a health perspective.

Boost Fitness Results and Weight Loss with Intermittent Fasting
Exercising on an empty stomach has been shown to have a number of health and fitness benefits. It may even be a key to keep your body biologically young. This is most easily accomplished if you exercise first thing in the morning, before breakfast.

Part of the explanation for why exercising while fasted is beneficial is that this regimen complements your sympathetic nervous system (SNS) along with your capacity to burn fat. Your body's fat burning processes are controlled by your SNS, which is activated by exercise and by lack of food. Another reason is that fasting can trigger a dramatic rise in human growth hormone (HGH), also known as "the fitness hormone." Recent research found fasting raised HGH by 1,300 percent in women and 2,000 percent in men!1

The combination of fasting and exercising maximizes the impact of cellular factors and catalysts (cyclic AMP and AMP Kinases), which force the breakdown of fat and glycogen for energy.

This is why training on an empty stomach will effectively force your body to burn fat. Exercise and fasting also yield acute oxidative stress, which keeps your muscles' mitochondria, neuro-motors and fibers intact. (You may have heard of oxidative stress before in a negative light, and indeed, when it is chronic it can indeed lead to disease. But acute oxidative stress, such as occurs due to short intense exercise or periodic fasting, actually benefits your muscle.)

Regardless of when you choose to exercise, remember that you need to eat 30 minutes after your workout, which will effectively break your fast. If you exercise in the late morning or early afternoon, you could break your fast by including 20 grams net protein from a fast-assimilating source like a high-quality whey protein concentrate 30 minutes before you start your exercise, and then have another recovery meal 30 minutes after.

Intermittent Fasting for General Health and Longevity
There's plenty of research showing that fasting has a beneficial impact on longevity in animals. There are a number of mechanisms contributing to this effect. Normalizing insulin sensitivity is a major one as insulin sensitivity is critical for the activation of the mTOR pathway, which along with IGF-1 plays an important part in repairing and regenerating your tissues including your muscles and thereby counteracting the aging process. The fact that it improves a number of potent disease markers also contributes to fasting's overall beneficial effects on general health. For example, modern science has confirmed fasting can help you:

•Normalize your insulin sensitivity, which is key for optimal health as insulin resistance (which is what you get when your insulin sensitivity plummets) is a primary contributing factor to nearly all chronic disease, from diabetes to heart disease and even cancer
•Normalize ghrelin levels, also known as "the hunger hormone"
•Promote human growth hormone (HGH) production, which plays an important part in health, fitness and slowing the aging process
•Lower triglyceride levels
•Reduce inflammation and lessening free radical damage
While much of the research is profoundly positive, questions have been raised about certain studies where results in human subjects have been less than ideal. Below, fitness expert Ori Hofmekler delves into some of the pitfalls that plague some of the human studies on intermittent fasting, which make the results of such studies unreliable. He also offers a few caveats to successful IF, such as the necessity to avoid the standard American diet when you do eat, as your body requires high quality nutrients when you're doing intermittent fasting. He also reviews some of the gender differences, and why you need to decide on a goal—either maximum fitness, or maximum longevity.

Guest Commentary by Ori Hofmekler
Studies on animals reveal that intermittent fasting (IF) can improve health and extend lifespan similar to calorie restriction. Both regimes have shown to protect against diabetes, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disorders and cancer. Animals on IF have demonstrated some major physiological changes, including:

•Decreased plasma insulin
•Decreased blood sugar concentrations
•D blood pressure
•Decreased heart rate
•Enhanced immune function
•Reduced body fat
Human Trials on Intermittent Fasting
That's how animal respond to a low feeding frequency. But what about humans? Is the human body programmed for a low meal frequency? Only a few experimental studies have tested the effect of intermittent fasting (IF) on humans. Apparently there have been conflicting reports concerning the results.

There were some indications of adaptation issues among subjects who did not become 'habituated' to the low meal frequency – particularly the alternate day fasting. Subjects seemed to feel increased hunger and desire to eat, and a decreased feeling of fullness during these trials.

The one meal per day's results were particularly confusing, as they indicated that though some health improvements were attributed to that regimen, they were only marginal, and they came along with both adverse and beneficial side effects such as increased blood pressure, increased cholesterol (good and bad), decrease in circulating triglycerides, decreased cortisol, and decreased body fat, respectively.

Overall, the findings showed only modest changes in body composition, decreases in some cardiovascular risk factors, and some improvements in cognitive function. These seem like minor benefits compared to the dramatic results shown in animal studies.

Why Do Results from Human IF Trials Differ from Animal Studies?
Though a possible explanation could be that the human response to fasting is different than that of animals, the real reason seems to be in the studies themselves. Apparently, a couple of design flaws have rendered some of these studies unfit for IF trials. Take a look for instance at the initial human study on reduced meal frequency by the American Society for Nutrition – three meals per day versus one meal per day.

That study had two notable flaws:

1.The subjects on the one meal per day were force-fed a fixed amount of calories, often despite their spontaneous tendency to stop eating due to the feeling of fullness.
2.The study's diet design was based on the typical American diet's food ratio – high carbs – low protein – low fiber (carbs 50 percent, protein 14.5 percent, fiber 1 percent).
The point is: force feeding and the typical American diet's food ratio are inherently counter-effective to IF and therefore yield misleading results in IF trials. Here is how...

Forced Feeding Shatters Your Adaptive Response to Fasting
Fasting has a profound effect on your food cravings as it has shown to shift cravings toward more subtle tasting, nutrient dense, satiety-promoting foods, which can then lead to a spontaneous decrease in your overall calorie intake. This is probably part of an early adaptation mechanism to food scarcity, which encourages intake of maximum nutrients from minimum food.

And when that adaptive response takes place, it transforms your body to become eaner, healthier and increasingly resilient to hunger and fasting. Force-feeding abolishes this adaptive feature.

This means that under the study's terms, the subjects on the one meal per day plan could not possibly adapt to that regimen. However, if they were allowed to choose their foods freely and stop eating upon feeling satiety, they would have probably become increasingly adept to fasting, and the study's results would have been very different. The second flaw in the diet design was that it was based on the typical American diet's food ratio, and that food ratio is counter-effective to IF.

The Typical American Diet's Food Ration Negates the Benefits You Get from IF
The typical American diet and its high glycemic food ratio will never complement intermittent fasting, certainly not the one meal per day. Shoving in 40 percent of the daily calories from refined carbs alone in one sitting will affect your insulin and your health more than when that amount is divided into three or several meals.

Yes, if you eat the typical American portions of chocolate, pie, milkshake or ice cream, you'd better cut these into as many meals as possible. And note that the typical American diet with its high carb, low protein, low fiber ratio is known to promote hunger and weight gain; and it certainly lowers your capacity to endure fasting.

So what can you learn from these studies? What should be your right food ratio when following an IF regimen? What should be your right food choices? And what should be your right fuel food?

•Proper Food Ratio: high protein, low carbs, high fiber. Having a low glycemic food ratio is critical to the viability of your intermittent fasting. Your ideal ratio would be: high protein – low carbs – high fiber. That ratio has proven to be most effective in promoting satiety and resisting hunger. The high protein part serves to nourish and retain your lean tissues whereas the low carb-high fiber ratio helps optimize your insulin and sustain a healthy metabolism. This dietary ratio has also shown to be most effective in decreasing body fat while sparing muscle tissue.
•Proper Food Choices: Quality protein, green and fibrous vegetables, nutrient dense fruits, good fat. Your protein should come from chemical-free, preferably organic whole food sources – fish, pastured eggs, legumes and dairy. Note that dairy protein, particularly whey, isn't just ok for IF, it actually enhances the benefits you get from fasting via its unique content of immune supportive, anti-inflammatory, and tissue regenerating nutrients which include bioactive peptides, leucine, and calcium.
For fiber and carbs use whole and fibrous plant foods such as greens, cruciferous vegetables, roots, legumes, corn kernels, wild rice, oats and barley.

To support your antioxidant and anti-inflammatory defenses, use nutrient dense fruits such as berries, cherries, citrus, papayas and apples; other powerful options in this category include dark chocolate (no sugar added), green tea and quality non-denatured whey protein. Your fat fuel should come from nuts, seeds, avocadoes, olives, extra virgin olive oil, coconut oil or whole dairy.

Fat will Typically Accommodate Your Fasting Better than Carbs
Fat fuel will generally accommodate your fasting better than carb fuel, as it has a longer and more profound effect on your satiety and your ability to sustain energy during fasting. Fat fuel increases ketogenesis – an energy pathway that involves production of ketone bodies, byproducts of fat metabolism – known to serve as your body's preferred fuel during fasting, when glycogen reserves are depleted, and glucose supply is limited.

Ketone bodies have shown to sustain brain and body functions; and incredibly, they have also demonstrated the capacity to protect against neuronal disease, seizures, and age related brain diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's. There are however some exceptions to the above.

Cases where Dietary Fat Should Not Be Your Primary Fuel
Fat should not be your primary fuel if you suffer from a condition of impaired fat metabolism such as:

•Hyperlipidemia
•Cholesterol disorder
•Obesity related insulin resistance
•Liver disease
The other reason for not having fat as a primary fuel relates to your type of exercise. If you're a power lifter or engaged in sheer strength training, fat should not be used as your main fuel. Max strength performance requires carbohydrate fuel, as you predominantly use your fast glycolytic fibers (Type IIB white fibers), which are inherently carb dependent and have a very limited capacity to utilize fat.

Beware of Differences Between Gender, and Individual Health Goals
Gender is another important factor in human and animal studies. Female-specific responses to fasting raise an interesting scientific phenomenon. Researchers have been finding evidence that there is indeed a tradeoff between virility and longevity of organisms.

Apparently the same genes that promote human longevity may trigger biological mechanisms that suppress female reproductive capacity.

Hence, fasting and intense exercise protocols, known to promote longevity, also lower estrogen level and thereby modulate body composition and suppress female reproductive capacity. This is apparently part of an early adaption mechanism to primordial conditions of food scarcity and hardship, which requires increased strength and durability on the account of reproductivity. Hence, hard conditions are not biologically suitable times for pregnancy and child bearing.

I discussed this issue with Dr. Marc Mattson, Prof. of Neurosciences at Johns Hopkins University a few years ago. According to Mattson, women who fast or are on calorie restriction, have the tendency to get leaner, become increasingly addicted to physical exercise, and lose their menstrual cycle. Nonetheless, they seem to gain substantial improvements in all main biological markers of longevity – i.e. increased insulin sensitivity, increased GH secretion, improved lipid profile, improved anti-inflammatory cytokine profile, improved cognitive function, etc.

Note that fasting triggers the longevity gene SIRT-1, which regulates mitochondrial energy production along with the gene transcription promoter protein PGC-1α, which increases mitochondrial biogenesis and density in the muscle. Yes, mitochondrial energy utilization efficiency is a key to longevity.

One of the most notable benefits of fasting is its profound anti-inflammatory effect. Fasting increases production of anti-inflammatory cytokines while suppressing pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α and IL-6. Note that pro-inflammatory cytokines produced by fat cells (adipokines) are associated with insulin resistance, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and a shorter life span; whereas anti-inflammatory cytokines, such as adiponectin and IL-15, are associated with improved insulin sensitivity, increased thermogenesis, decreased fat storage, increased muscle regeneration and increased life span.

Finally, in view of the current epidemic of excess estrogen in females and males, caused by estrogenic chemicals and foods (such as petrochemicals and soy), fasting and IF can be used as an effective therapeutic strategy to balance estrogen and prevent related metabolic disorders and cancer.

Summary Points
•Don't blindly trust human studies on IF as some of these show misleading results due to major design flaws.
•Don't even think about intermittent fasting if you eat the typical American portions of high glycemic junk food.
•When following an IF regimen you need to make it low glycemic and high in protein and fiber. Eat whole foods, possibly high in dairy and whey protein, along with nutrient dense antioxidant foods.
•Adjust your fuel food according to your specific condition and type of training.
•Your intermittent fasting regimen must make sense. The length of your fasting intervals should be optimized to yield maximum biological impact. What really counts is your net fasting time (period between meals minus digestion time.) It takes your body roughly 5-8 hours to fully digest a meal and shift into a fasting mode. Three to six hours of "not eating" between meals will not be sufficient to put your body in a fasting mode and therefore will fail to get you the results you're looking for.
•The female-specific response to fasting or intermittent fasting is no different than the female response to intense exercise. There is indeed a tradeoff between benefits and side effects. And the question "should women fast" raises the same issues as the question "should women exercise intensely".

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

That's right, O_I.
BTW, fasting also gives the digestive system a rest.

I was losing weight slowly this way, then took a trip and put some back on, ugh; need to get back to it:
Exercising on an empty stomach has been shown to have a number of health and fitness benefits. It may even be a key to keep your body biologically young. This is most easily accomplished if you exercise first thing in the morning, before breakfast.

Part of the explanation for why exercising while fasted is beneficial is that this regimen complements your sympathetic nervous system (SNS) along with your capacity to burn fat. Your body's fat burning processes are controlled by your SNS, which is activated by exercise and by lack of food. Another reason is that fasting can trigger a dramatic rise in human growth hormone (HGH), also known as "the fitness hormone." Recent research found fasting raised HGH by 1,300 percent in women and 2,000 percent in men!1

The combination of fasting and exercising maximizes the impact of cellular factors and catalysts (cyclic AMP and AMP Kinases), which force the breakdown of fat and glycogen for energy.

This is why training on an empty stomach will effectively force your body to burn fat.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

"Chocolate can be good for you"! Consider for your food storage?
By Dr. Mercola

It’s a real pleasure to once again interview Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, who has a number of diverse areas of expertise, and many in which we share an interest. The subject of this interview is chocolate.

There have been quite a few interesting scientific studies emerging about chocolate over the past few years. There’s also a lot of confusion about chocolate—what type to eat and how much, types to avoid, etc., so I hope to dispel some of the myths on this subject.

Chocolate can be used therapeutically, but only if it’s the right kind. Chocolate is like anything else: garbage in, garbage out. Consuming poor quality chocolate, such as chocolate loaded with sugar and chemicals, is no more beneficial to your body than a drinking a soda.

Chocolate Terminology

It’s first helpful to understand the distinction between cacao, cocoa and chocolate. Here are some definitions:

* Cacao: Refers to the plant, a small evergreen tree of the species Theobroma cacao, cultivated for its seeds, also known as cacao beans or cocoa beans
* Cocoa: Refers to the powder made from roasted, husked and ground cacao seeds, from which most of the fat has been removed
* Cocoa butter: The fat component of the cacao seed
* Chocolate: The solid food or candy made from a preparation of cacao seeds (roasted); if the cacao seeds are not roasted, then you have “raw chocolate,” which is also typically sweetened

Is Chocolate YOUR Favorite Vegetable?

The number of health benefits now associated with the cocoa bean is really quite impressive, including benefits to your heart and blood vessels, brain and nervous system, improved insulin sensitivity, and even possibly slowing down the rate at which you age. Cacao’s benefits are related to compounds naturally occurring in the bean, including epicatechin and resveratrol.

Cacao contains an antioxidant called epicatechin, thought to help shield your nerve cells from damage. Norman Hollenberg, a professor of medicine at Harvard who has spent years studying the Kuna people of Panama who consume up to 40 cups of cocoa a week, believes epicatechin is so important it should be considered a vitamin. The Kuna have less than a 10 percent risk of stroke, heart failure, cancer and diabetes, which are the most prevalent diseases ravaging the Western world.

Besides epicatechin, cacao is also high in resveratrol, a potent antioxidant found in red wine, known for its ability to cross your blood-brain barrier to help protect your nervous system.

One 2012 meta-analysis found that eating chocolate could slash your risk of cardiovascular disease by 37 percent and your stroke risk by 29 percent. Another 2012 meta-analysis, this one in the UK1, found that cocoa/chocolate lowered insulin resistance, reduced blood pressure, increased blood vessel elasticity, and slightly reduced LDL.

Dr. Golomb explains how the health benefits of cocoa require a relatively narrow dose range. There is a “Goldilocks curve”—too little or too much means no significant benefit occurs. Dr. Golomb reports that, in a rat study done at UC San Diego:

“…Epicatechin derived from cocoa has favorable effects, but with a relatively tight dose response range. A modest amount consumed every day by these rats increased the production of mitochondria (energy-producing elements in cells), increased capillary action (meaning access to blood, oxygen, nutrients, etc. of muscle tissue), and actually lead to weight loss despite no fewer calories consumed and despite increased muscle capacity and endurance in these rats.”

The following table highlights the wide range of positive health benefits science suggests are conferred by the cocoa bean. (To read the studies, go to the chocolate page at GreenMedInfo.com.)
Anti-inflammatory Anti-carcinogenic Anti-thrombotic, including improving endothelial function Lowers Alzheimer’s risk
Anti-diabetic and anti-obesity Anti-inflammatory (including 17 percent reduction in C-reactive protein) Cardioprotective (including lowering blood pressure, improving lipid profile, and helping prevent atrial fibrillation) Improved liver function for those with cirrhosis
Neuroprotective Improves gastrointestinal flora Reduces stress hormones Reduces symptoms of glaucoma and cataracts
Slows progression of periodontitis Improves exercise endurance May help extend lifespan Protects against preeclampsia in pregnant women

Cocoa and Your Blood Vessels

One of the ways chocolate can provide cardiovascular benefit is by assisting with nitric oxide metabolism, as described in an article by Ori Hofmekler.2

In addition to being essential for muscle function, sexual health, and insulin sensitivity, nitric oxide protects your heart by relaxing your blood vessels and thereby lowering your blood pressure. However, nitric oxide production produces adverse reactions and toxic metabolites, which must be neutralized by your body so they don’t result in oxidative damage to your blood vessel lining (by peroxynitrite oxidation and nitration reactions). Cocoa polyphenols protect your body from these metabolites and help counter the typical age-related decline in nitric oxide production.3

What to Look for When Selecting Chocolate

The closer your cocoa is to its natural raw state, the higher its nutritional value. Ideally, your chocolate or cocoa should be consumed raw (cacao).

When selecting chocolate, you can optimize its nutritional punch by looking for higher cacao and lower sugar content. In general, the darker the chocolate, the higher the cacao. However, cacao is fairly bitter, and the higher the percentage cacao, the more bitter it is. The flavanols are what make the chocolate bitter, so manufacturers often remove them. But, it’s those flavanols that are responsible for many of chocolate’s health benefits.

To counteract the bitterness, most chocolate is sweetened, so it’s a matter of balancing nutritional benefit with palatability.

Although raw cacao is the most nutritious form, most of the health studies to date involve consumption of cocoa or chocolate, not raw cacao. But the results are STILL significantly positive. This fact suggests a good portion of the nutritional benefit of chocolate is retained after processing. Your goal then is to find a chocolate that’s as minimally processed as possible, but still palatable. You don’t want to eliminate too many of the health benefits by eating a product that contains a lot of sugar and chemicals. Choose chocolate with a cocoa/cacao percentage of about 70 or higher.

If you can tolerate the flavor of raw cacao, then that’s the absolute best option.

Milk chocolate is not a good choice as it contains pasteurized milk, which is not good for you, and large quantities of sugar. White chocolate is also high in sugar and contains none of the phytonutrients, so is not a good choice either. Dark chocolate is your best option.

How to Make Your Own Chocolate

That is why I believe that, if you are convinced of the value and benefits of chocolate, one of the best ways to consume it is to make it from high-quality materials yourself. I describe how to do that in the video below. This is a recipe I created from scratch and there are no specific measurements. You can simply use raw cocoa butter and that will give you a finished candy that melts, or you can add raw pastured butter and coconut oil, which have their own health benefits. If you use these ingredients the candy will melt at a lower temperature and you will most likely need to keep it in the refrigerator to keep it from melting.

Ingredients to Steer Clear Of

Read your labels carefully and evaluate each product for the following:

* Type of sweetener: Not only should you choose chocolate with low sugar content, but you should also look at what form of sugar it contains. Honey is sometimes used to sweeten raw chocolate products, which is a good choice (in moderation). If you can find chocolate sweetened with stevia or lo han, that would be preferable to cane sugar, fructose or high fructose corn syrup. Strictly avoid any product containing artificial sweeteners.

Fructose will reverse some of the positive benefits of chocolate. For example, fructose breaks down into a variety of waste products that are bad for your body, one of which is uric acid. Uric acid drives up your blood pressure by inhibiting the production of nitric oxide in your blood vessels, which helps your vessels maintain their elasticity. So, excess fructose can lead to elevated blood pressure, as a result of nitric oxide suppression.
* Genetically engineered cocoa beans: Select chocolate products that are certified organic so that you be sure they aren’t genetically engineered (GE). Most chocolate today (even dark chocolate) is GE, unfortunately.4 Also opt for fair-trade products.
* Type of fat: Fat in chocolate, as long as it’s the right kind, is a good thing. It slows down the absorption of sugar, lessening the insulin spike. Ideally, the type of fat in your chocolate bar should be what is contained in the natural plant—cocoa butter. The primary fatty acid in cocoa butter is stearic acid, which is the only saturated fat that favorably affects HDL, without adversely affecting LDL, according to Dr. Golomb.

Coconut oil would be the next best fat in chocolate. Make sure you avoid soybean oil (and any other form of soy), and other vegetable oils and trans fats.

How Much Chocolate Should You Eat and How Often?

There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to dosing yourself with chocolate. But here are some basic guidelines.

In general, it seems preferable to consume smaller amounts of chocolate at more frequent intervals, much like the principle of split dosing for supplements, in order to ensure a steadier stream of nutrients in your bloodstream. According to Dr. Golomb, studies show people eating chocolate more than five times per week have a lower body mass index. That said, if you eat chocolate 20 times a day, you’re going to have a problem due to the sheer quantity you’re consuming! Daily consumption in divided doses (two to three times per day) is probably beneficial, as long as you aren’t going overboard in quantity, and as long as you’re eating high quality chocolate.

According to Ori Hofmekler, in order to fully benefit from chocolate, you’d have to consume about 3.5 to 7 ounces per day. He states:

“The problem is that even the healthiest dark chocolate brands today are not designed for such a large consumption.Yes, a moderate serving of three to four ounces of dark chocolate per day may be sufficient enough to affect your blood sugar and waist size.”

There is no simple answer. It depends on your insulin sensitivity, your activity level, your overall health, and the particular composition of the chocolate you’re eating. You’ll just have to exercise your best judgment here. If you avail yourself of a chocolate free of these additives and very low in sugar, then you can consume more of it without the downside.

Ori also writes:

“When purchasing chocolate, check the ingredients on the back label. If the chocolate has sugar additives such as cane sugar, malt, maple, honey, dates, rice syrup, tapioca syrup, coconut sugar, molasses or fructose, restrict consumption of this product. And the same holds true for chocolates made with sugar alcohol or artificial sweeteners, which are known for their bloating, digestive disrupting and toxic side effects.”

If Chocolate Causes You Adverse Reactions…

A certain group of people have trouble sleeping when they use caffeine, and some of the compounds in chocolate, such as theobromine, do have caffeine-like effects. Some people are slow to metabolize caffeine, whereas others metabolize it quickly and are not adversely affected. If you don’t usually have a problem with chocolate but suddenly develop one, it’s possible you could be reacting to something in that particular chocolate. Dr. Golomb points out that recently, copper has been appearing in chocolate crops, originating in fungicides, and this can include organic chocolate crops.

She states:

“High copper to zinc ratios have been linked unfavorably to depression, aggression, and various other things, which you know, some studies actually seem to link chocolate consumption at least observationally to.”

Also, in 2005, some processed chocolate was found to be contaminated with lead. When this was discovered, it was assumed the cocoa plants had been tainted by leaded gasoline. However, lead levels were found to be 60 times higher than could be accounted for by this, and it was never determined whether the lead contamination came from the shipping or the manufacturing process.

Bottom line is, listen to your body, and be careful about the source of your chocolate. If you experience caffeine-like or other negative effects from your chocolate, then you should probably avoid it. Also seriously consider making your own chocolate which can go a long way towards satisfying your sweet tooth in a healthier way.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Dr Mercola takes on vaccination programs in Africa which seem to put a priority on shots rather than on food and water for the starving:
By Dr. Mercola

As one of the world's most well-known and respected voices, Microsoft founder Bill Gates has a unique opportunity to call attention to important social issues and make a huge impact worldwide.

Unfortunately Gates, through his foundation, has been partnering with not only biotech giant Monsanto to hoist genetically modified seeds on third-world countries, but also with Big Pharma, to whom he pledged $10 billion to provide vaccinations to children around the world.

This is billed as a humanitarian effort to save lives, but what children in developing countries need is healthy food, clean water and better sanitation.

These are the keys to preventing the spread of infectious disease, and they are being wholly ignored by the likes of Bill Gates and other vaccine proponents – at the children’s expense!

The Aftermath of a Bill Gates Vaccine Campaign …

An American family, the Gianelloni’s, visited a village in Uganda shortly after a Bill Gates vaccine campaign swept through and discovered what Bill Gates’ money does for hungry, sick children – essentially nothing.

The family found that the children were starving, living on one meager meal a day. Their only water source was the same stagnant stream that they bathed in. They had no sewage or sanitation. But, thanks to Gates, they were now vaccinated against measles and polio. Never mind that the most pressing epidemics in the area were actually Yellow Fever, malaria, HIV/AIDs and diarrhea …

Worse yet, one little girl who had received a measles vaccine two weeks earlier was now suffering with the measles as a result! After this blogger left, thanks to her and the mission group that arrived with her, the village had a water tank and clean water system, a cow, and a year’s worth of rice and beans. You can probably understand why the blogger made this comment about Gates’ “philanthropy”:

“I don’t care who you are or what side of the vaccine philosophy you fall under, there is no logic in the world that can explain that going into a remote village and giving children who only eat one meal a day and have never had clean drinking water, a vaccine.

Seriously? Think about it. Can you imagine walking up to this precious little girl and saying ”I know you are starving, but here is a measles vaccine instead. I promise this will make you much healthier than food or water”. It’s a scary day when simple logic no longer exists.

Food & Water, nope. Vaccines, yep. And innocent children suffer the consequences. It’s absurd."

Food, Water, Sanitation is What’s Needed to Help Prevent Disease

The most vulnerable of the world's children are those in the poorest countries where death and disease are often a result of malnutrition and lack of adequate sanitation and clean drinking water. In many third-world countries, children are often battling some sort of infection 200 days out of the year. Vaccines can be devastating to these already immunosuppressed children, as well as to adults, because vaccines often weaken and confuse the immune system, which ultimately increases the recipient’s susceptibility to the very infectious diseases vaccines are designed to prevent.

Nonetheless, emerging vaccine markets like third-world countries will soon outgrow developed markets by hundreds of billions of dollars. Emerging markets are areas of the world that are beginning to show promise as a profitable venture for many products, including vaccines. And emerging markets – primarily in developing countries in Southeast and Central Asia, and Africa – have been on vaccine makers' radar for quite some time.

One reason that vaccine makers are interested in these parts of the world is that that's where most of the world's deaths from major infectious diseases occur. The only problem has been that, until recently, making vaccines for undeveloped countries with no money to pay for them was not exactly a profitable goal for vaccine makers.

Concerned that developed countries would have little or no resources for addressing serious infectious diseases if vaccine makers continued their pull-out, the World Health Organization and the G8 – the top developed countries in the world – responded with a plan for enticing vaccine companies to stay in the business. That plan was called Advance Market Commitments (AMCs).

AMCs Guarantee Drug Company Profits

Under AMCs, developed countries make legal, binding agreements to purchase vaccines that are needed in low-income countries. The purchase guarantees a bottom line for the manufacturers. In return, the manufacturers promise to sell those vaccines at reduced prices in the countries where they are most needed.

The idea is simple: "rich" nations sign legally binding commitments to purchase and/or finance an AMC vaccine once it's ready for market. In return for the guaranteed market and income, drug companies promise to sell the new vaccine to "poor" countries at vastly reduced prices.

To speed up the process, the World Health Organization "prequalifies" AMC vaccines in an approval process that slices years off the time it normally takes a vaccine to make it to market.

Unfortunately, legally binding, advance market commitments to purchase vaccines that are mostly needed in third-world countries could backfire on developed countries that don't need – or want – certain vaccines.

For instance, HPV (human papillomavirus) statistics show that HPV causes 4,000 deaths from cervical cancer per year in the United States, compared to 274,000 worldwide, 88 percent of which are in developing countries. So why were the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix -- which have known safety issues -- introduced in the U.S. and Europe, first, instead of going straight to where they're needed most, if not to help sell huge quantities of the vaccine at premium prices, in anticipation of it becoming an AMC?

Even Gates and a Leading Vaccine Maker Admit Clean Water is Key

Malaria is another one of the top neglected diseases that world health leaders want to address with AMCs, but the ability to resist diseases like malaria requires a strong immune system, and for that, you require good nutrition, clean drinking water, and sanitation. If we want to help people in other countries to lower their malaria rates, and rates of other infectious diseases (like infection-associated diarrhea, which is one of the most common, and most preventable causes of death among children in the developing world) it would be wise to focus on these basics first.

Infectious organisms are more likely to penetrate the bodies of malnourished children due to inadequate vitamin C, which causes their skin to break down more easily and facilitates the entry of bacteria and other pathogens. The same is true for vitamin A deficiency, another common third-world problem, which results in increased susceptibility to infection and which could be rectified in individuals for pennies a day. Also, the living conditions of third-world children are often so poor that they are exposed to inordinately large numbers of pathogens, from which they have little defense.

In order to eradicate infectious disease from a nation, you also have to first address compromised immune systems. If you hit immune suppressed children with a potent, adjuvant-loaded vaccine, you're far more likely to create new disease, not eradicate it.

With all of the billions being poured into vaccines to “save” the children, how many water purification systems could have been built? How many sanitation facilities? How many rations of meat and fresh produce?

Even Bill Gates himself has admitted that vaccines alone don't eradicate disease. In a Wall Street Journal article about the resurgence of polio in African countries, Gates said that's why he is revamping his disease fight to incorporate health, hygiene, and clean drinking water programs into vaccination programs.1 Polio spreads, after all, largely through feces-contaminated water, so ignoring that major risk factor while trying to eradicate the disease is ignorant, to put it nicely.

What's really interesting is that at least one major vaccine maker has also echoed these sentiments, as evidenced on the front page of GlaxoSmithKline's presentation to shareholders in June 2010:2

"With the exception of clean drinking water, vaccines are the most cost-effective public health measure," GSK said.

What if, just what if, the same amount of money that has been spent on vaccines over the past decade had been spent on sanitation facilities, toilets, healthy food and clean water instead?

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

Increasing numbers of vaccines are being introduced not only in third-world countries but also in the developed world, and it's simply not wise to blindly depend on the information coming directly from the vaccine makers' PR departments, or from federal health officials, agencies or foundations that are mired in conflicts of interest with industry ...

No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, it is a basic human right to be fully informed about all the risks of medical interventions and pharmaceutical products, like vaccines, and have the freedom to refuse if you conclude the benefits do not outweigh the risks for you or your child.


Unfortunately, the business partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is too close and is getting out of hand. There is a lot of discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use.

We cannot allow that to continue.

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand your rights under the law to make voluntary vaccine choices, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact.

Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at http://www.NVICAdvocacy.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen you will be put in touch with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard. So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Right now, in California, the personal belief exemption is under attack by Pharma-funded medical trade organizations and public health officials trying to get a bill (AB 2109) passed that would require parents to get a medical doctor's signature to file an exemption for personal religious and conscientious beliefs. Watch NVIC's 90-second public service message and learn more about what you can do if you are a California resident.

Internet Resources

To learn more about vaccines, I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at http://www.NVIC.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

* NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
* If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
* Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or state officials for making independent vaccine choices.
* Vaccine Ingredient Calculator (VIC): Find out just how much aluminum, mercury and other ingredients are in the vaccines your doctor is recommending for you or your child.
* Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) on MedAlerts. Search the government's VAERS database to find out what kinds of vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths have been reported by patients and heath care workers giving vaccines.

Find a Doctor Who Will Listen to Your Concerns

Last but not least, if your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to punish those patients and parents, who become truly educated about health and vaccination and want to make vaccine choices instead of being forced to follow risky one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.

If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor (or government official), do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media, if you or your child are threatened.

That said, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate and connect with a doctor who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child, and isn't just competing for government incentives designed to increase vaccination rates at any cost.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Next Dr Mercola challenges the X-ray scanners used by TSA -- gotta love this guy. Interesting read:
By Dr. Mercola

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) first began using advanced imaging technology in airports nationwide in 2007. But just how "tested," and how safe, are the TSA's backscatter machines?

The TSA1 and Department of Homeland Security will tell you they've been extensively tested and that these machines are very safe. But if that's true, why did both houses of Congress file bills this year demanding that the TSA and DHS produce proof of their safety claims with an independent laboratory study?2,3

Could it be that Congressmen―who often fly as part of their jobs―are worried that maybe those safety claims are not as documented as the TSA claims?

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has been making similar demands of the TSA through lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests for several years. The group has even filed a lawsuit to suspend the deployment of body scanners at US airports, pending an independent review:4

"On July 2, 2010, EPIC petitioned5 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to suspend the body scanner program, stressing its core assertion that "the TSA has acted outside of its regulatory authority and with profound disregard for the statutory and constitutional rights of air travelers.

EPIC asserted that the federal agency's controversial program violated the Administrative Procedures Act, the Privacy Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and the Fourth Amendment.

On July 15, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled6 that the agency had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by implementing body scanners as a primary screening method without first undertaking public notice and comment rulemaking.

The Court ordered the agency to 'promptly' undertake the proper rulemaking procedures and allow the public to comment on the body scanner program. To date, the agency has made no visible progress toward complying with the Court's order."

So far, this is what EPIC has found through an FOIA request:

* TSA employees have identified cancer clusters allegedly linked to radiation exposure while operating body scanners and other screening technology. However, the agency failed to issue employees dosimeters—safety devices that would warn of radiation exposure.
* The DHS has publicly mischaracterized the findings of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), stating that NIST "affirmed the safety" of full body scanners. NIST has stated that the Institute did not, in fact, test full body scanners for safety, and that the Institute does not do product testing.
* A Johns Hopkins University study revealed that radiation zones around body scanners could exceed the "General Public Dose Limit."
* A NIST study warns airport screeners to avoid standing next to full body scanners.

Rouge Federal Agency Refuses to Comply with the Law

On July 18, The Washington Times ran an editorial7 about the TSA's defiance of the courts. Remember, it's been over a year since the D.C. Circuit court ruled the TSA had to "promptly" comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public hearings and a 90-day public comment period. In a November 9, 2011 affidavit, TSA acting general manager James Clarkson responded that "While TSA has prioritized the rulemaking directed by the Opinion, TSA has many important rulemakings in progress, many of them required by statute," essentially telling the court and the rest of us that they're too busy to address it.

On July 17, 2012, EPIC again asked the D.C. Circuit court of appeals to compel the agency to comply with the law, and the court has now demanded the TSA respond by August 30.

"It's a widely held belief that the agency's hasty embrace of expensive, X-rated x-ray machines has more to do with closed-door lobbying efforts of manufacturers than a deliberate consideration of the devices' merits," The Washington Times states.8

"The last thing TSA wants is the public-relations disaster of having to collect and publish the horror tales from Americans subjected to humiliation from the nude photography and intrusive 'pat-down' groping sessions. Scanner manufacturer Rapidscan Systems, which has invested $2.2 million in wining and dining administration officials and lawmakers since 2007, probably isn't keen on broader public discussion either."

The Security Implications of Nude Body Scanners

On March 6, 2012 engineer Jonathan Corbett posted a video on YouTube, demonstrating how easily the "nude body scanners" can be defeated, and why these machines actually make air travel LESS safe, if we're actually worried about terrorists boarding planes with guns and other lethal objects on their person.

Furthermore, as explained by Miles O'Brien in the video in the next section below, these machines are also unlikely to detect certain explosives, and likely would NOT have caught the infamous "underwear bomber"—the case that presaged the rapid release of these backscatter scanners in the first place.

Corbett was one of the first to sue the United States when the scanners were initially rolled out, charging that the machines were a violation of the 4th amendment of the US constitution. In July, he filed a petition to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. Corbett also claims he was falsely arrested by TSA agents at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport last year.

According to The Washington Times:9

"As part of the agency's convoluted legal defense, TSA officials argue transportation security officers are not law enforcement officers because they 'do not have the authority to execute searches.' That's a rather curious assertion for an agency whose sole mission is to rifle through the belongings of others.

It's time to admit the post-Sept. 11 experiment in having the government take over airport screening duties has been a colossal flop. TSA has defied the Administrative Procedures Act, an appellate court, the public will and common decency. It's not enough just to pull the plug on the scanners; the plug should be pulled on TSA itself."

WeWontFly.com also recently posted a story of a family traveling with a .22 caliber pistol, magazine, and seven rounds of ammunition in their luggage—not once, but twice, at Charlotte's international airport and JFK in New York—without any of the items being detected by the TSA.10

The Health Implications of Backscatter X-Ray Machines

So, getting back to the health implications of the backscatter scanners. As explained in the following video, the machines work by emitting a narrow beam of high-intensity (ionizing) radiation, which quickly moves across your body in a sweeping, rotating motion. One of the worries with the technology is the potential for mechanical malfunctions, which could result in the high-intensity beam stopping in one location and resulting in over-exposure.

As reported by Miles O'Brien in a NewsHour broadcast11 on December 1, 2011, the European Union actually banned scanning devices that expose the public to ionizing radiation, even if the exposure is miniscule, at the end of last year. The reason for the decision was quite simply, "because there are alternatives." The US would do well to consider such logic as well... Especially when you consider the dubious nature of the alleged safety testing of these machines.

Watch Behind the Backscatter on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.

Could Backscatter Scanners Cause Cancer?

As summarized by WeWontFly.com:

"Backscatter X-ray uses ionizing radiation, a known cumulative health hazard, to produce images of passengers' bodies. Children, pregnant women, the elderly, and those with defective DNA repair mechanisms are considered to be especially susceptible to the type of DNA damage caused by ionizing radiation.

Also at high risk are those who have had, or currently have, skin cancer.

Ionizing radiation's effects are cumulative, meaning that each time you are exposed you are adding to your risk of developing cancer. Since the dosage of radiation from the backscatter X-ray machines is absorbed almost entirely by the skin and tissue directly under the skin, averaging the dose over the whole body gives an inaccurate picture of the actual harm."

Last year, ProPublica published a letter to John Holdren, senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology, written by five professors who reveal that there has not actually been any verifiable scientific testing of the safety of airport scanners -- and that the levels of radiation being used are likely much higher than the public has been led to believe. These scientists believe the high quality images produced cannot possibly be obtained with the low levels of radiation described, and that the actual level may be 45 times higher than what the manufacture is claiming.

The supposed "testing" of the Rapiscan Secure 1000, the most widely deployed X-ray scanner, was actually performed on a mock-up of spare parts "said to be similar to those that are parts of the Rapiscan system." In addition, none of these tests have ever been peer reviewed—the data and even the names of the researchers who carried out the tests have been kept secret from the public.

According to the letter, as printed by ProPublica:12

"The problem remains that the safety of the X-ray airport scanners has not been independently verified... the Johns Hopkins report,13 which is the more detailed and significant because it refers to the widely deployed Single Pose system, does not hold to critical principles of scientific reporting... [T]here is no way to repeat any of these measurements ... The tests were performed by the manufacturer using the manufacturer's questionable test procedures ... [T]he independent testing of the safety of these specific scanners has not been rigorous nor has it been held to the standards usually associated with new devices".

... It is still unclear how much damage to cells occur with low dose x-rays. One of the most important points in the 'Red Flags' section of our letter of April 2010 was that potential x-ray damage, primarily to skin cells and adjacent tissues, would lead to a 'damage response' by the cells.

Thus, damaged cells would show DNA damage of various kinds and/or an increase in concentration of many proteins that attempt to repair the damage. Being able to demonstrate that the x-irradiation does not induce the 'damage response' as compared to a control sample just exposed to background radiation would establish that the machines at least do not have a high (potentially damaging) x-ray intensity.

Interestingly, the 8-page HHS letter response did not even comment on this crucial point.

The research community has the methodology to unambiguously determine in a very sensitive way whether there is damage to cells after x-irradiation from the airport scanners. For example, a recent study using tissue culture cells... has shown that with low dose x-rays (1 mSv, a dose coming within 100 to 1,000 times that of the potential x-ray scanner dose), the cells have unrepaired DNA double-strand breaks that are detectable for several days...

Because... the whole body is exposed to the x-ray scanning... and therefore many cells could, summed up in toto, be damaged... Where are the studies utilizing mutant mice... looking for enhanced mutations/cancer? This does not have to be an exhaustive search, but a small pilot study looking for mutations/cancer to confirm that the beam intensity is truly small would be sufficient. In summary, this kind of research has not been done with the x-ray scanners.

An additional point regarding biological damage from x-ray sources is that usually radiation biology deals with the integrated radiation dose. However, there is a phenomenon known as dose rate... which could significantly influence damage. Dose rate, however, is poorly studied. In the few documented studies... it was shown that for the same overall dose, a 2-5 fold increase in damage can result from a high dose rate (for the short exposure) compared to a reduced dose rate (at a longer exposure time). The x-ray airport scanners can be characterized by a high dose rate... which adds additional unknowns for the potential damage by this radiation..."

History Tells Us to Beware of Ionizing Radiation Technology Safety Claims

How can we be certain that errors will not occur with the X-ray scanners when malfunctions are virtually always a risk of using technology? For example, even CT scans were once deemed to have far lower levels of radiation than we know they have today.

As Dr. Russell Blaylock says:

"As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high; it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays."

A 2007 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine14 estimated that 0.4 percent of all cancers in the US may be attributable to the radiation from CT studies – confirming how profoundly inaccurate original safety assessments of this technology were, as well as how harmful X-ray-based diagnostic technologies really are. These errors of the past should indeed serve as cautionary tales when making safety claims for brand new technologies.

How many times will a belated "oops!" suffice before we demand the return of the precautionary principle, as is already being followed in Europe?

Hopefully, the TSA will comply with the court's demands for a response by August 30. We need to have public hearings about the many issues, running the gamut from potential health hazards to violations of privacy and good-old-fashioned decency, posed by these invasive scanners.

Who Stands to Gain Financially from Full-Body Scanners?

As in so many other instances, our legal and civil rights system is being willfully manipulated and trampled, and our health is put at risk, all for the sake of private and corporate profits. In this case, the former homeland security chief and co-author of the PATRIOT act, Michael Chertoff, is a primary promoter of full-body scanners, and is a paid consultant for the companies that sell them!

The mandate to use these scanners is yet another blatant conflict of interest that erodes personal freedom in the name of "security" and places corporate profits ahead of public health.

Tips for Reducing Your Cumulative Radiation Load While Flying

Europe has already taken a strong stance against the use of these scanners, and in the United States if we have enough people objecting to this new technology we can get them to stop using it altogether. It is far too man-power intensive for agents to manually inspect everyone with the enhanced pat down. In 2010, when massive numbers of people were planning on opting out in protest, they shut all the X-ray scanners off that day and ran people through the older ones. If 10 percent of us choose to opt out regularly, my guess is that they will shut the machines off permanently.

Personally, as a very frequent air traveler, I ALWAYS opt-out of the x-ray scanner. Even if the radiation dose is minute (and that's a big IF), I'm not willing to risk my health by exposing my entire body to any avoidable dose on a regular basis. Fortunately, I fly frequently enough that in Chicago I am TSA PRE, which means I get to use a special security line and do not have to take off my shoes or belt, or take the computer out of my bag, and there is no total body scan or pat down done.

An interesting point you will want to consider is that in order to use the body scanner you must be able to raise your arms above your head. If you can't, then TSA has to send you through the FAR safer magnetic scanner and they typically do NOT pat you down.

If you're exposed to other forms of radiation through CT scans, mammograms and other medical procedures, your exposure could easily reach dangerous levels, and this is why it makes sense to avoid unnecessary radiation exposures as much as possible. One of the strategies I use is to take 8-10 mg of astaxanthin regularly as it has been shown to lessen ionizing radiation damage.

If you opt out of the scanner and go for the pat-down, I also suggest you keep hygiene in mind. Make certain that TSA agents put on a fresh pair of gloves before touching you and your child.

As for the humiliation factor that these enhanced TSA security checks present, I would encourage you to contact your local government officials and state representatives, or join the "We Won't Fly" campaign, which also lists 24 additional ways you can make your voice heard on this issue.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

this weekend, Dr Mercola warns about the effects of sugar - fructose - HFCS - on the BRAIN and on OBESITY:

By Dr. Mercola

It's a fact that excess dietary fructose can harm your body by setting up the conditions for diabetes, obesity, and fatty liver, but what does it do to your brain? Studies have not addressed this question—until now.

A new UCLA study1 is the first to show how a steady diet high in fructose can damage your memory and learning. The study was published in the Journal of Physiology.

Researchers investigated the effects of high-fructose syrup, similar to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a cheap sweetener six times sweeter than cane sugar, which is used in most soft drinks, processed foods, condiments, and even many baby foods.

The team sought to study the effects of a steady intake of this super-processed, concentrated form of fructose, which is quite dissimilar from the naturally occurring fructose in fruits. They fed rats a fructose solution as drinking water for six weeks, then tested their ability to remember their way out of a maze.The results certainly grabbed the researchers' attention.

Too Much Sugar Makes You Stupid!

The rats fed fructose syrup showed significant impairment in their cognitive abilities—they struggled to remember their way out of the maze.
They were slower, and their brains showed a decline in synaptic activity. Their brain cells had trouble signaling each other, disrupting the rats' ability to think clearly and recall the route they'd learned six weeks earlier.

Additionally, the fructose-fed rats showed signs of resistance to insulin, a hormone that controls your blood sugar and synaptic function in your brain.

Because insulin is able to pass through your blood-brain barrier, it can trigger neurological processes that are important for learning and memory. Consuming large amounts of fructose may block insulin's ability to regulate how your brain cells store and use sugar for the energy needed to fuel thoughts and emotions. The average American consumes roughly 47 pounds of cane sugar and 35 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup per year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture2.

Researchers concluded that a high fructose diet harms your brain, as well as the rest of your body. But there is even more to this story.

A second group of rats was given omega-3 fatty acids in the form of flaxseed oil and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), in addition to the high fructose diet. After six weeks, this group of rats was able to navigate the maze better and faster than the rats in the non-DHA group.

The researchers concluded that DHA is protective against fructose's harmful effects on the brain. DHA is essential for synaptic function—it helps your brain cells transmit signals to one another, which is the mechanism that makes learning and memory possible. Your body can't produce enough DHA, so it must be supplemented through your diet.

HBO Documentary Series: "The Weight of the Nation"

The HBO Weight of the Nation documentary is a collaboration among the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Kaiser Permanente, and several other health-related organizations. The entire series can be viewed free of charge from their website.

Sadly however, HBO chose to interview many who did not understand the foundational causes of obesity, and their editors chose to continue many myths that are simply incorrect, like using insulin for type 2 diabetes; a calorie is a calorie and you simply need to burn more to lose weight, for example, both of which are utter nonsense. If you have time, the four hour series is useful to watch and has some powerful illustrations and statics that are true, just be warned it is filled with loads of misleading dietary fallacies.

It is projected that 42 percent of Americans will be obese by 2030, which is expected to cost the nation roughly half a trillion dollars per year in additional health costs.

Clearly, that will affect YOU, whether you are among the 42 percent or not.The obesity problem cannot be solved by waiting for the food industry to be struck by a wave of altruism. Big business always has and always will be driven by healthy profits, not healthy people. America has cultivated a toxic culture that has written real food and exercise right out of the script.

The facts are sobering3:

* Americans today consume an average of 600 more calories per day than they did in 1970
* Seventy-five percent of Americans now drive to work, a 300 percent increase since 1960
* In 1969, 42 percent of kids walked or biked to school, versus less than 20 percent today
* Fewer than five percent of adults meet the minimum guidelines for physical activity, and one in four adults gets no physical activity at all
* Currently, only four percent of elementary schools, eight percent of middle schools, and two percent of high schools provide physical education

Drugs are a TERRIBLE Answer to the Diabetes Epidemic

Skyrocketing obesity rates are accompanied by escalating rates of type 2 diabetes. This makes perfect sense when you realize the two problems share the same primary cause: insulin resistance. As was confirmed in the UCLA fructose study, a major driver of insulin resistance and therefore a major driver of increasing diabetes rates, is excessive fructose consumption. According to the CDC's 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet4:

* Diabetes affects 25.8 million people, which is 8.3 percent of the total U.S. population
* Among Americans age 65 or older, 26.9 percent have diabetes and 50 percent have pre-diabetes
* Among Americans age 20 or older, 79 million people (35 percent) have pre-diabetes
* Among Americans age 20 or younger, 215,000 have diabetes
* Overall, if you have diabetes, your risk for death is about TWICE that of people of similar age who don't have diabetes

Most conventional physicians are quick to pull out the prescription pad as a first-line defense against type 2 diabetes—but the price you pay for diabetes drugs is a high one. In fact, taking glucose-lowering drugs is typically far more dangerous than the disease itself and actually has the potential to radically increase your risk of death from heart attacks, and all other, causes.

Avandia (rosiglitazone) is the poster child for the dangers of diabetes drug treatment. A 2007 study in the New England Journal of Medicine5 linked Avandia to a 43 percent increased risk of heart attack, and a 64 percent higher risk of cardiovascular death, compared to patients treated with other methods. It took nearly 10 years of the drug being on the market for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to take action and restrict access to this dangerous drug, whereas the European Medicines Agency banned it altogether.But now another diabetes drug has been drawn into the spotlight.

Whistleblower Exposes Deadly Effects of Diabetes Drug Actos

Actos, a type-2 diabetes drug manufactured by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, is now the subject of hundreds of lawsuits. It was pulled from the market by both France and Germany a year ago after being found to cause bladder cancer and other tumors. But now, a whistleblower, Dr. Helen Ge, has come forward with a lawsuit of her own stating that the drug company is benefiting from "tens of billions of dollars in sales" at the expense of the lives of people still taking the drug6,7,8.

Dr. Ge worked in the Takeda's pharmacovigilance division, where she was in charge of reviewing side effects of Actos as reported by patients and physicians. She then prepared safety reports that were filed with the FDA―reports that Ge says she was ordered to water-down or not report at all, so Actos would look better than it actually was.

Dr. Ge believes Actos is even more dangerous than Avandia.

She believes that, besides bladder cancer and tumors, Actos is also connected to heart attacks and stroke, suicide, schizophrenia, homicidal ideation, and renal failure. Dr. Ge claims Takeda concealed reports from regulators about hundreds of heart failure cases directly related to the drug in an attempt to drive sales. Dr. Ge filed her lawsuit in September 2011. Actos is still being sold in the United States.

Getting Off The Path of Dietary Madness

But what can be done to derail this obesity freight train that seems to be speeding out of control? The obesity epidemic is different from naturally occurring epidemics in that it is completely human-created. The good news is it has the potential of a human-directed reversal, which begins with expanding awareness about the gravity of the problem. If you are one of my long-term readers, you already know I've been committed to expanding this awareness for decades. In one of the featured articles, best-selling author David Sirota lists what he believes are five of the most promising ways to reverse these trends and the science-based rationale for each9 :

* Taxing junk food. Multiple studies confirm that this strategy does indeed work—people's food choices are affected by price.
* Stop subsidizing junk food. Stop giving money to corn and soy growers and start paying farmers to produce real food like fruits and vegetables—the foods that will improve the nation's health. There is NO inherent reason junk food should cost less than fresh fruits and vegetables.
* Ban junk food in schools. Nearly half of public and private schools surveyed sold sweet or salty snack foods in vending machines or other places, and in most schools, school lunches are not much better
* Stop glorifying unhealthy eating habits. It's time the media are held accountable for equating America with hot dogs, apple pie, and cheesesteaks, and the message this sends to America's youth
* Start broadening our understanding of obesity. There is no denying the abundance of science disproving conventional wisdom that "a calorie is a calorie"—it's time for the mainstream to wake up and acknowledge the factors responsible for obesity, particularly massive quantities of fructose and refined grain products that Americans are consuming each day.

What Have You Got to Lose?

Solving this problem is going to require significant changes on personal, community, and nationwide levels. The Weight of the Nation website10 lists a wide variety of action steps you can take on all of these levels. But the best first step is to take an honest look at your own personal lifestyle habits—and start making some changes there.

Whether you need some slight dietary tweaking or a total nutritional overhaul, here are some basic strategies you can implement today to get yourself off the "path of dietary madness":

* Avoid as much sugar as possible, especially fructose. This is especially important if you are overweight or have diabetes or pre-diabetes, high cholesterol, or high blood pressure. Limit your fructose intake to 25 grams per day (refer to this chart to see the fructose content of common whole foods).

If you want to use a sweetener occasionally, consider using the herb stevia, or organic cane sugar or organic honey in moderation. Avoid agave syrup, as most commercial products are just highly processed sap consisting almost entirely of fructose.
* Consume your sugar with fiber. Fiber helps modulate the impact of sugar by slowing absorption. The perfect sweet food is a piece of fruit, which contains fiber as well as beneficial antioxidants.
* Eat a well balanced diet, tailored to your specific body type. It should consist of ample raw foods, fresh organic produce, grass pastured meat and dairy, raw nuts and seeds, and naturally fermented foods. Avoid processed foods, genetically engineered foods, and foods with added chemicals. For more information, refer to my total nutrition plan.
* Get plenty of high quality omega-3 fats from both plant and animal sources. As the study above showed, omega-3's are crucial to modulating the damaging effects of sugar—and have MANY other benefits. My favorite animal-based omega-3 source is krill oil.
* Optimize your vitamin D level.
* Exercise every day. Exercise improves insulin sensitivity, reduces stress and cortisol levels, suppresses ghrelin (the appetite hormone), speeds up your metabolism, strengthens your bones, and even lifts your mood.
* Rehydrate with fresh, pure water.
* Get plenty of sleep.
* Manage your stress.

How Fructose Turns ON Your "Fat Switch"

If you have ever struggled losing weight and keeping it off, you already know what a challenge that can be. Dr. Richard Johnson, chief of the Division of Renal Diseases and Hypertension at the University of Colorado has published hundreds of articles and two books on this topic: The Sugar Fix, and most recently, The Fat Switch, which presents a groundbreaking approach to preventing and reversing obesity. According to Dr. Johnson, based on his decades of research:

"Those of us who are obese eat more because of a faulty "switch" and exercise less because of a low energy state. If you can learn how to control the specific "switch" located in the powerhouse of each of your cells – the mitochondria – you hold the key to fighting obesity."

There are five basic truths that Dr. Johnson explains in detail in his new book that overturn current concepts:

1. Large portions of food and too little exercise are NOT solely responsible for why you are gaining weight
2. Metabolic Syndrome is A NORMAL CONDITION that animals undergo to store fat
3. Uric acid is increased by specific foods and CAUSALLY CONTRIBUTES to obesity and insulin resistance
4. Fructose-containing sugars cause obesity not by calories but by turning on the fat switch
5. Effective treatment of obesity requires turning off your fat switch and improving the function of your cells' mitochondria

I highly recommend picking up a copy of this book, which has been described as the "Holy Grail" for those struggling with their weight. Dietary sugar, and fructose in particular, is a significant "tripper of your fat switch," so understanding how sugars of all kinds affect your weight and health is imperative.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Dr Mercola warns of doctor fatigue and errors; explaining some of his personal experiences as an MD:

By Dr. Mercola

A substantial portion of U.S. doctors suffer from burnout on the job, according to a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.1

Of the nearly 7,300 doctors who participated in the survey, nearly half had at least one symptom of burnout; 38 percent had high emotional exhaustion scores; and 30 percent had high depersonalization scores (viewing patients more like objects than human beings) – twice the rate of the general population of working adults.

Burnout was most common among doctors at the "frontline of care," such as those working in emergency rooms, general internal medicine, or in family medicine. Nearly 60 percent of doctors in these specialties reported high levels of burnout.

Doctors also report being dissatisfied with work-life balance more frequently than other working adults, with more than 40 percent of doctors reporting dissatisfaction compared to 23 percent in other professions.

The main complaint was excessive work hours – on average, doctors worked 50 hour weeks, with nearly 38 percent of doctors working 60 hours a week.

According to the authors of the study, US doctors are burning out "at an alarming level," as previous years' polls have placed physician burnout levels between 30-40 percent.

"This high rate of burnout has consequences not only for the individual physicians, but also for the patients they are caring for," said Dr. Tait Shanafelt of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who led the research, Reuters reports.2

"'Previous studies have shown burned-out doctors are more prone to thinking about suicide and to making medical errors than are their peers,' Shanafelt added...

'It's not clear why burnout strikes so many doctors, said Shanafelt, adding that excessive workloads are only part of the equation. Other possible reasons include too much paperwork, loss of professional autonomy and a higher patient load to make up for declining reimbursement rates.

There is a sense that the volume of patients that need to be seen is increasing and it's taking away some of the time needed to build a relationship and give the best care possible,' Shanafelt told Reuters Health. 'That starts to build cynicism, I think.'

Shanafelt worried that as more and more people get health insurance under President Obama's Affordable Care Act, the pressure on primary care providers would increase 'at a time where those individuals are already quite stretched."

My Experience with the Flawed System

Having gone through conventional medical training, I can tell you the entire system seems to set the physician up for burnout. I spent four years in medical school after four years of college and then did a three year family medicine residency. After that I served as the chairman of the family medicine department at St. Alexius Medical Center for some time while I was starting my private practice.

Internship and residency training typically, and certainly in my case, was exhausting both physically and emotionally. The schedule provides little free time to do much of anything besides patient care.

Residency work weeks can often reach 80 hours, which leave little time for exercise, shopping, preparing meals, or cleaning your home, let alone maintain close personal relationships. This acute time pressure is combined with an enormous responsibility of caring for very sick individuals in precarious situations, where a misdiagnosis or incorrect order could frequently be a matter of life or death.

I did virtually all of my residency training in an inner city hospital very similar to Cook County Hospital in Chicago, which one of my old favorite TV series, ER, was based out of. I really enjoyed that show and even wrote a eulogy for Dr. Greene when he died I actually did spend about three months at Cook County doing an endocrinology rotation so I have a strong basis to make the comparison.

The hardest rotations though were the medicine and surgery rotations, as you were on call in the hospital and were available to be paged at any time during the night by the nursing staff for new admissions or medical emergencies. Not only is it a challenge to provide reasonable care at night, but even more so the following day when you were sleep deprived, as some nights you simply did not sleep much, if at all.

The Bullying Culture of Medical School

Then there's the medical hazing that regularly occurs during rounds, in which you review the patients with students and senior medical staff who grill the residents and students for complex differential diagnosis or obscure bits of information about the pathology of the patients' disease.

This certainly has its purpose in molding students and residents to morph into professionals who can assume the responsibly and provide competent care to patients when there's no supervision. However, knowing what I know now of course, a good portion of the process was fatally flawed as they were simply training you to become skilled in the administration of drugs, and rarely, if ever, addressed the foundational cause of why that person was in the hospital. (Of course, this doesn't apply to all cases, especially in emergency room situations or cases of acute trauma.)

But there are other forms of bullying taking place as well – something most people would never consider possible. After all, isn't the medical industry run by adult professionals?

A recent article in The New York Times discusses the bullying culture of medical school, stating:3

"For 30 years, medical educators have known that becoming a doctor requires more than an endless array of standardized exams, long hours on the wards and years spent in training. For many medical students, verbal and physical harassment and intimidation are part of the exhausting process, too.


It was a pediatrician, a pioneer in work with abused children, who first noted the problem. And early studies found that abuse of medical students was most pronounced in the third year of medical school, when students began working one on one or in small teams with senior physicians and residents in the hospital. The first surveys found that as many as 85 percent of students felt they had been abused during their third year.

They described mistreatment that ranged from being yelled at and told they were 'worthless' or 'the stupidest medical student,' to being threatened with bad grades or a ruined career and even getting hit, pushed or made the target of a thrown medical tool."

What could be the root of such mistreatment? While I don't proclaim to have the answer, I have to wonder if over-work and exhaustion isn't at the heart of this problem as well. Virtually any parent with more than one child who has suffered many sleepless nights nursing and tending children will probably be able to tell you it's tough keeping your cool when you're flat out exhausted and emotionally drained.

At What Price is Freedom to Practice Medicine?

After surviving the medical training, the next step is to earn a living, which comes with enormous financial pressures. This was a bit easier when I started my practice nearly 30 years ago and student loan debt was far lower. At the time, you could get a medical degree for about $50,000, but now students graduate with loans three times that; some as high as $250,000, not including any undergraduate debt they might have accumulated. This is before any rent, mortgage or auto expenses.

This financial pressure really limits their opportunity to go into private practice, where they would incur yet additional expenses and an even longer time to develop the revenues to become debt free. So the vast majority of physicians, over two-thirds, are not in private practice but employed by hospitals or large medical groups

Private practice allows physicians to enjoy the autonomy of running their own practice. Setting their own schedule, developing their own philosophy of care, deciding how much time to spend with each patient, and even something as simple as choosing how to decorate the office, which can boost morale, are some of the freedoms of private practice.

All of these factors tend to help prevent burnout, but most physicians are not able to reap these benefits.

However, for the minority of physicians who are able to start a private practice, the challenges certainly continue, as one needs to address reimbursement concerns from insurance companies whose major business purpose seems to be denying payment.

Making matters worse, physicians with integrity, who seek to practice what they are convinced will help their patients even if it conflicts with the "standard of care" are regularly paraded through hospital committees to defend their positions.

State medical boards will typically seek to have a day with outliers who choose to practice natural medicine. I personally have had to defend my license twice before the medical board in Illinois. Both times it was a result of anonymous skeptics who felt the information I was providing on the website was medical heresy and I should be prosecuted for it. I prevailed each time, but at significant cost and time. Ten years ago I even had to sue them in the Supreme Court for freedom of speech issues, but I prevailed.

Many other natural medicine physicians have to defend their license with the state medical board as a result of peer harassment for not complying with the drug model. It's a sad and frustrating fact that many doctors will do everything in their power to defend this model by attacking those who have differences of opinion about its merit.

The Challenges of Patient Care

Even once the factors mentioned above are addressed, one has to take care of patients. Some will follow your advice and implement the nutritional and lifestyle changes prescribed and typically experience profound improvements after having seen the best and brightest in conventional medicine and come up short-handed... Those provide the kind of joyful feedback that makes the entire process worthwhile.

However, there are a fair number of people who remain unconvinced that natural medicine can actually "work," or worse yet, simply are non-compliant with the program and less than honest in their follow-up visits. This makes it very difficult to determine what precisely is the problem – their non-compliance or that they are truly non-responsive to the treatment.

To top it all off there is the issue of scheduling. How do you schedule patients in a way that makes everyone happy? To balance the time necessary to properly address their problems yet still create enough revenue to pay all your expenses?

Once you have that nut cracked, then you have to solve the challenge of how to address patients who have some new problem that takes much longer than you anticipated, and you have a waiting room full of patients you are scheduled to see. This is compounded by 'no-shows' and patients who come late for their appointment.

In addition to the challenges of patient care, one has to adeptly manage all the clinical staff and keep them happy, while following the complex array of federal rules and regulations applied to a small business owner.

Physician Burnout: Part of the Puzzle of Why U.S. Health Care is So Dangerous


Last but not least, there's the ever-increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance, which, aside from being just the cost of doing business as a doctor, raises health care costs across the board. According to a 2010 report4, medical malpractice liability costs the U.S. healthcare system more than $55 billion a year, the vast majority of it – nearly $46 billion annually – in "defensive" medical practices such as extra tests and scans, which are often ordered by doctors in order to 'cover their behinds.'

This causes virtually any doctor you interact with to order expensive and very frequently unnecessary tests, not so much to figure out what is going on with you but to protect themselves against future litigation or reprimands from hospital committees or state medical boards. These statistics alone hint at the problems inherent with conventional medicine, which has been, and still remains, one of the leading causes of death in the U.S.

Eight years ago, I posted the comprehensive, footnoted research article, Death by Medicine, on this website. Authored in two parts by Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, and Dorothy Smith PhD, it described in excruciating detail how the modern American medical system had bumbled its way into becoming the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. From medical errors to adverse drug reactions to unnecessary procedures, the authors took statistics straight from the most respected medical and scientific journals and investigative reports by the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), and showed that on the whole American medicine caused more harm than good.

A 2010 analysis in the New England Journal of Medicine found that, despite efforts to improve patient safety in the past few years, the health care system hasn't changed much at all. Instead, 18 percent of patients were harmed by medical care (some repeatedly) and over 63 percent of the injuries could have been prevented. In nearly 2.5 percent of these cases, the problems caused or contributed to a person's death. In another 3 percent, patients suffered from permanent injury, while over 8 percent experienced life-threatening issues, such as severe bleeding during surgery. In all there were over 25 injuries per 100 hospital admissions!

Can physician burnout have something to do with these abysmal statistics? Of course it must play a rather significant role...

For the Record – What is a D.O.?

As most of you probably know, but might forget from time to time, I am an osteopathic physician, also known as a "DO". DOs are licensed physicians who, similar to MDs, can prescribe medication and perform surgery in all 50 states. DOs and MDs have similar training, requiring four years of study in the basic and clinical sciences, and the successful completion of licensing exams. But DOs bring something extra to the practice of medicine.

Osteopathic physicians philosophically are committed and more likely to practice a "whole person" approach, treating the entire person rather than just symptoms. Focusing on preventive health care, DOs help patients develop attitudes and lifestyles that don't just fight illness, but help prevent it, too. Unfortunately from my perspective there is no significant difference between DOs and MDs in using conventional allopathic strategies for chronic disease, as they typically rely on drugs and surgery rather than lifestyle changes.

As a Patient, How Can You Avoid the Risks Inherent with Physician Burnout?

Hopefully, this helps give you a peek into the complexities that can easily contribute to physician burnout.

So what is the solution?

Well, from my perspective there isn't any easy one, other than to simply minimize your interactions with the conventional system, because even if they have successfully navigated all the land mines above, they will likely still be advising strategies that in no way shape or form address the underlying cause of your disease. One of the reasons I am so passionate about sharing the information on this site about healthy eating, exercise, and stress management is because it can help keep you OUT of the doctor's office, or even worse, the hospital.

In her book, Death by Modern Medicine, Dr. Carolyn Dean talks about how, for well over a century, the definition of health care has been pills-and-drugs. It's a deliberately schemed and manipulated paradigm that's been packaged and sold through:

* The insurance industry's (including Medicare's and Medicaid's) methodology for payment, which doesn't recognize nutritional care or proven naturopathic approaches to health care
* Direct-to-Consumer advertising
* Influencing physicians and other health care providers through gifts, honoraria for speaking engagements, and financial support for training programs, which is simply another form of advertising
* Intense lobbying by PhRMA and individual drug makers

You can use the internet, and this site, to find well-proven strategies that will address the vast majority of ANY chronic health problem you struggle with. If you have an acute injury, of course you need to seek immediate competent care. However the very first step for any chronic health challenge would be to follow my Nutrition Plan as that will likely improve, if not completely eliminate, more than 80 percent of your health challenges.

I want to emphasize that it doesn't really matter what your health problem is, applying the Nutrition Plan is the first step to getting better. It has the absolute best information I have learned over the last 30 years to help you Take Control of Your Health.

In the unusual case where you are not getting better, it will be wise to seek a health coach or medical professional that can guide you through complicating factors that may be impairing your progress. Typically, it is best to use the time honored local social networking strategy of asking as many people in your community who the best practitioners are for your problem. You can typically find many good referrals from people in independently-owned health food stores. But be sure to get a clear consensus and ask as many people as you can, as choosing a doctor is a very important step, and you want to make sure you get it right.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Dr M warns about shots again, particularly measles shots:
By Dr. Mercola

Four infants between nine and 14 months of age recently died within 24 hours of receiving their measles and DPT (diphtheria, pertussis and tetanus) vaccines in the Doti area of Nepal, a small country between India and China.

The children allegedly began vomiting profusely just hours after the vaccination, and "developed a deathly pallor." Two more children were hospitalized following their shots.

According to a recent report in The Himalayan1, the Doti District Public Health Office (DPHO) has stated the primary investigation suggests the measles vaccine was the cause of death.
Other infants who received other vaccines, but not the measles vaccine, have not developed any life-threatening side effects.

"The vaccines that were administered to infants were not expired though, said DPHO, adding that the vials of measles vaccines had labels showing expiry date of September 2013," The Himalayan reports. "...Kadamandau locals ...staged a sit-in in front of the hospital demanding a thorough investigation and punishment to the guilty. Doti-based human rights organizations also demanded that a probe be launched immediately."

In response, the Child Health Division under the Ministry of Health and Population has formed a committee to investigate the deaths. This case is reminiscent of a story from 2010, when nine-month-old twin girls in Ghaziabad, India died approximately 15 minutes after receiving a measles vaccine. Similar deaths in two other regions in the country were also reported at the time.

Vaccine-Related Deaths are Not Limited to Third-World Countries

A quick search of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)2 reveals nearly 5,100 U.S. deaths related to various vaccines, as of this writing. The vast majority of deaths – nearly 60 percent – occurred in children under the age of three. Just over 360 of the reported deaths in the US have been related to any of the measles-containing vaccines.


With over 70 vaccines included, VAERS is a phenomenal tool that can help you easily identify which vaccines are significantly associated with specific side effects. It is important to know, though, that only a tiny fraction of the reactions are actually reported to VAERS.

Studies have estimated that less than 10 percent, to as little as ONE percent, of side effects are ever reported, so the true side effects, and deaths, are easily FAR higher than the reported statistics represent. This means there may have been anywhere from 50,000 to 500,000 deaths in the US alone from measles vaccines.

The truth is that while vaccines may be touted as safe, ALL vaccines and other pharmaceutical products carry a risk of injury or death. This is something that the media or nearly every health professional fails to make clear. Most take the position that everyone should be forced to have mandatory vaccines to help eliminate disease, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence to support this one-size-fits-all strategy.

Last month, I interviewed Dr. Larry Palevsky, a former fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and trained at the New York University School of Medicine, about childhood vaccinations, in which he shares the dire truth about the lack of safety of many childhood vaccines. There are so many unanswered questions that it really boils down to a roll of the dice as to whether the vaccine will ultimately protect you or harm you.

Download Interview Transcript

According to Dr. Palevsky:

"I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals. But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.

* Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?
* Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it's injected into your body?
* Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? And is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?

More and more studies are coming out to show that:

* The proper studies haven't been done and antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
* There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection
* There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system
* There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain and there are foreign DNA particles that get into your body

For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied... n my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we're trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe."

MMR Vaccine has Long History of Being More Reactive than Other Vaccines

There are vaccines that historically have been associated with more side effects than others, and the combination measles, mumps and rubella vaccine – MMR shot – is one of those.

The health risks associated with the MMR vaccine has been in the news for about 15 years, and questions about the safety of the vaccine recently re-emerged – at least in Europe – when the Italian health ministry conceded that the MMR vaccine caused autism in Valentino Bocca, a now nine-year-old boy, who suffered brain inflammation and permanent brain damage after he was vaccinated.

According to his parents, the change in his behavior was immediate. That same night he refused to eat, and he developed diarrhea during the night. It quickly went downhill from there. While his parents immediately suspected the vaccination, they were told this was "impossible." Valentino progressively regressed, and received the diagnosis of autism a year later. In the final analysis, the Italian Health Ministry disagreed with the initial conclusion of the pediatrician, conceding that the vaccine was indeed at fault.

It's well worth noting that this story was completely ignored by US media, and serves as a potent example of how health information is censored. Is it any wonder so many Americans are still in the dark about vaccine hazards? Whether hearing about this case in the US media would sway you to believe vaccines are risky or not, the fact is that you were not even allowed to learn about it in the first place.

Get Informed Before You Vaccinate

No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks and have the ability to refuse to allow substances you consider to be harmful, toxic or poisonous to be forced upon you. Unfortunately, the partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is getting closer and closer. There is a lot of discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use.

We cannot allow that happen!

It's vitally important to know your legal rights and understand your options when it comes to using vaccines and prescription drugs.

For example, your doctor is legally obligated to provide you with the CDC Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) sheet and discuss the potential symptoms of side effects of the vaccination(s) you or your child receive BEFORE vaccination takes place. If someone giving a vaccine does not do this, it is a violation of federal law. Furthermore, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also requires doctors and other vaccine providers to:

* Keep a permanent record of all vaccines given and the manufacturer's name and lot number
* Write down serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination in the patient's permanent medical record
* File an official report of all serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

If a vaccine provider fails to inform, record or report, it is a violation of federal law. It's important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that you have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you do not want you or your child to receive. At present, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 18 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination. But vaccine exemptions are under attack in a number of states, and it's in everyone's best interest to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand your rights under the law to make voluntary vaccine choices, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact.

Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at http://www.NVICAdvocacy.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen you will be put in touch with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Internet Resources

I also encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at http://www.NVIC.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

* NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
* If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
* Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or state officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Find a Doctor Who will Listen to Your Concerns

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to punish those patients and parents, who become truly educated about health and vaccination and want to make vaccine choices instead of being forced to follow risky one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.

If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor (or government official), do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives, or local media if you or your child are threatened.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate and connect with a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

IMO, I would recommend staying away from vaccinations (see Dr Mercola's post above, for starters, and Jesus' warning in D&C 89 seems applicable also).

Onward -- APPS:
By Dr. Mercola

Did you know that 80 percent of doctors use smartphones and medical apps to help monitor and improve their health?1

And 40 percent of them also believe that health apps for mobile phones and tablets can help patients to monitor their fitness and eating habits, and thereby cut down on their number of office visits.

Technology can be a strong factor in helping you take control of your health, but there are now some 40,000 health apps to choose from – and it’s a completely rapidly growing, market.

It can take a serious time investment to determine which apps are actually helpful and provide accurate information, and which are merely a waste of your time.

Many of you know that I have a passion for technology in addition to health, so health apps, which combine the two, are invaluable to a “gadget geek” like me.

I have scanned many thousands of articles and downloaded several hundred applications, and the app suggestions that follow are among those I consider to be quite valuable.

6 Fitness Apps to Check Out

1. My Fitness Pal

This free app lets you track your activity and food/caloric intake using an activity log and food diary. I use this app nearly every day to record my food intake and help me keep track of my macronutrient ratios. It’s an incredibly easy way to monitor your food intake without a lot of fuss.

MyFitnessPal has an easy to use interface that allows you to access about 1 million food items in its database, plus you can also add your own foods and recipes at any time and access them from anywhere with an Internet connection. Once you enter new food nutritional information, it will be there for you the next time you need it.

I really love this app as it quickly and easily allows you to see the number of grams of carbs, fats and protein you're eating. I consider myself fairly sophisticated nutritionally, but I was really shocked when I found out what the actual numbers were. This is a very powerful tool and best of all it is free.

2. Nike+ Running

If you love running or jogging, this free app lets you map out runs, monitor your distance and speed, and even track calories burned. It will even track your location as you run using GPS, and lets you share goals and run information with those on your social networks.

3. Endomondo Sports Tracker

Another free app, this one is like having your very own personal trainer available at your fingertips. Along with the “usual” ability to track your heart rate, calories, speed, and distance during a workout, a built in GPS tracks your route on a map. Plus, when you enter your goals, an audio coach will give you feedback while you exercising to keep you motivated, and you can also share your workouts with friends and even track the workouts of your friends in real time.

4. Mother’s World and Period Tracker

These are actually two separate apps, but both are incredibly useful for women. Mother’s World is a pregnancy app that gives you updates about your pregnancy, nutritional information, exercises, and allows you to record baby movements, and even has tips for dealing with pregnancy emotions.

Period Tracker allows you to keep track of your menstrual cycle, ovulation, temperature, moods and PMS symptoms. It also has a health journal and a feature to connect with other women for support.

5. D Minder

Discerning how much vitamin D you’re actually getting when you are outside is a very complex individualized formula, which takes into account your location, weather, your skin color and more. After entering some basic information, such as your height and weight, skin type, location and time you are outdoors, D Minder helps you track and manage your vitamin D.

It will compute your generated vitamin D versus your target vitamin D, as well as track how long you can stay out in the sun and warn you when that time is up.

6. All-in Yoga

If you’re interested in creating an individualized yoga program, but don’t want to hire a one-on-one instructor, try this app. It lets you create a program based on your experience (beginner to advanced), time available and goals, as well as a database of more than 200 poses with detailed instructions. Also fun, it will give you a daily inspirational message to keep you on target.

And a Bonus App: Fitness Builder

There are loads of exercise applications on the net but Fitness Builder, in my experience, is the most comprehensive fitness database in the world. It contains the largest library of exercise images and videos, the most challenging workouts across all disciplines, access to a live personal trainer and a complete set of every fitness tool, and a calculator and tracking feature are available.

Most all of the apps I have are free, but this one costs $10 for the base version and it is worth every penny if you use it, as it helps you keep incredible records for your workouts.

Should You Consider a Tablet for Your Apps?

Apps are quickly becoming one of the most useful ways to harness the power of technology, but can you really get their full effect if you access them from a smartphone?

It depends on your usage, but if you plan to use fitness or other apps with any frequency, a tablet will make it much easier. Personally, the iPad is definitely one of my favorite gadgets. I simply do not travel without it, as it is a nearly ideal way to make use of electronic content. Every expert I have read gives it a significant advantage over other tablets and it will likely retain its lead for the next several years.

That said, if you’re in the middle of a workout and are looking to track your heart rate or calories burned, apps for your Blackberry or iPhone will make more sense, and can keep you informed and get you going no matter where you are, as long as you have a smartphone.

More Apps You Might Want to Consider – From Gauging Radiation Exposure to a Personalized “Magazine”

I also want to mention several other applications that you might find useful if you pull them up on your smartphone or iPad:

* The Galactic Radiation Calculator: Calculates how much radiation you're being exposed to when you fly in a plane.
* The NVIC Vaccine Ingredients Calculator: This simple-to-use application can help you evaluate the ingredients in specific vaccines to help you compare brands and create a vaccination plan for your child
* The True Food Shopper's Guide by the Center for Food Safety, which helps you identify and avoid genetically modified (GM) ingredients.
* The NON-GMO Shopping Guide by the Institute for Responsible Technology, which also helps you avoid GM foods. This guide is also available in Spanish.
* Flipboard is without question my favorite app. I have used RSS feeds for well over a decade, but Flipboard takes them to a new level. It is like a personalized magazine. It's actually one of the most popular apps on the Web, as you can easily find RSS feeds and blogs on any topic and easily add them.
* Zite is a lighter weight version of Flipboard but can also be useful for novices. It's a personalized digital magazine that updates virtually every time you open it up to crawl over half a million Web sites to find specific reading material that would be of interest to you. It is a snap to learn and use.
* Newspapers: Another justification for purchasing the iPad is that you can get free subscriptions to some of the best papers in the US as they all have free apps. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times and USA Today are all on my home page. Subscription to the WSJ costs hundreds of dollars a year but you can get virtually all of the articles for no charge on the app and for the ones you can't get, all you need to do is type the article headline in a search engine and it will give you a link to the full article where you can read it for free.
* The Weather Channel: If you want to know what the weather is now or will be in the near future, I don't know of a better app out there than this one. This free app is an absolute must have. Beautiful graphics allow you to easily compare different cities by a single swipe with colorful graphic 10-day predictions. Of course they have Doppler radar maps so you can easily see when rain or snow will likely hit your area. I use this nearly every day and suspect you might too.
* Dragon Dictate is another free app that is shockingly accurate and will allow you to dictate emails and texts on your phone or iPad.

What are YOUR Favorite Apps?

One of the primary reasons for posting this article was to get YOUR feedback. Many of you have been using apps for some time and I suspect you have found some good ones. So let's share! You can write a comment below to share your favorite apps and what your experience has been with them. This will not only help me but all the millions of others who read this site as well.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Discussion of the Standard American Diet (SAD) et al:
By Dr. Mercola

In recent years, as the pace of the US economic recovery has slowed, the number of Americans enrolled in the food stamp program has skyrocketed, recently reaching an all-time high of roughly 46 million Americans.

With so many people in need of assistance to purchase food for their families, the question of whether or not it is possible to truly eat healthy on a food-stamp budget has become all the more pressing.

Husband and wife filmmakers Yoav and Shira Potash tackled this inquiry with both their cameras and their stomachs in the acclaimed documentary film Food Stamped.

Can You Eat Healthy for $1 a Meal?

While food assistance varies from state to state, a typical food-stamp budget amounts to a paltry $1 per person, per meal.

At the start of Food Stamped, nutrition educator and filmmaker Shira Potash reveals that teaching healthy cooking classes to elementary students in low-income neighborhoods gave her the idea to take the food stamp challenge. As she says in the film, "Even though I can get kids excited about fruits and vegetables, can their families realistically afford to make the kinds of things we're introducing in school?"

In its depiction of a wide variety of people who receive food assistance dollars, Food Stamped shows that many of these Americans live in "food deserts" – areas without grocery stores, and perhaps only a convenience store where they can purchase their food.

Like all Americans, there's a decent chance that these low-income individuals may lack any knowledge of healthy eating and cooking, let alone the resourceful combination of skills and habits required to transform a $1-meal budget into a tasty, balanced diet for themselves and their families.

The filmmakers acknowledge that they had some advantages from the start. For one, Shira's experience as a nutrition educator provided her not only with the knowledge of what constitutes a healthy meal, but also the practice of how to prepare it. Meanwhile, the filmmakers took their food stamp challenge not in a food dessert, but in the "food-mecca" of Berkeley, California, a city with plentiful access to healthy food and farmer's markets.

On the other hand, Shira's filmmaker husband Yoav possesses no formal nutrition knowledge and was, more or less, dragged into the challenge by his health-crusading wife. In a humorous scene in which the couple traipses through the grocery store with their low-budget shopping list in hand, Yoav asks – incredulously – "You're choosing lettuce over coffee?" When Shira reminds Yoav of the high price of his daily habit, he mentions that perhaps he will have to "crash Alcoholics Anonymous meetings" for the free coffee.

While this filmmaking couple has a charming and light-hearted presence on-camera, when they are behind the camera they provide a deep and powerful look at the struggles many families face as they attempt to put three square meals on the table. The filmmakers visit food stamp enrollment clinics and tag along with low-income shoppers who tend to opt for the cheapest, most filling foods, such as white bread, factory-farmed ground beef, and ramen noodles.

Meanwhile, in interviews with Members of Congress who also took the food stamp challenge, Food Stamped shows how our elected officials – when forced to eat on meager budgets themselves – likewise fell prey to the allure of cheap convenience foods.

"The food that we ended up buying was the least healthy food," says Democratic Congressman Jim McGovern of Massuchusetts in a poignant interview featured in the film. "The less nutritious the food, the cheaper it is, the more you can afford."

Looking beyond our personal food choices, Food Stamped explores the faults in US food and farm policy. Why, for instance, is fresh produce hard to come by while fast-food restaurants seem to pop up on every corner?

Government Food Choices That Make or Break Your Health

If your meals consist of $1 burgers and super-size drinks, your diet may be cheap, but it is also excessively high in grains, sugars, and factory-farmed meats. This is a recipe for obesity, diabetes and heart disease, just to name a few calamitous conditions that befall those who consume "the Standard American Diet," which Food Stamped memorably depicts with a red frowny face and the abbreviation S.A.D.

In a wonderful distillation of the US Farm Bill, the documentary shows how we have the US government to thank for this cheap food. Farm subsidies, particularly for corn, lead to the production of high-fructose corn syrup, cheap fast food, animal factories, monoculture, and a host of other contributors to our unhealthful modern diet. (A U.S. PIRG report on federal subsidies used an "apples-to-Twinkies comparison" to reveal the shocking truth about where your tax dollars are really going.)2

As Food Stamped uses graphics to show the billions of taxpayer dollars given to commodity crops every year, food policy experts, such as Shereen D'Souza, Director of the California Food and Justice Coalition, describe how the US farm subsidies program is actually promoting foods that are extraordinarily high in calories, fat, and sugar.

By examining the farm subsidies program and government-assisted nutrition education efforts side by side, Food Stamped reveals the glaring contradictions is US food policy. In one USDA program, our tax dollars are subsidizing junk food , while across the hall another USDA program funds an anti-obesity campaign. This hypocrisy shows just how broken and wasteful our regulatory system really is. No wonder so many people fall into the junk-food trap.

The Allure of Junk Food That Keeps You Coming Back for More

For me, watching Food Stamped made me think about how many Americans purchase junk food not because of their own financial limitations, but simply because they choose to. Make no mistake: junk food is convenient, economically alluring, and engineered to appeal to your primal drive for calories, fat, sugar, and salt.

From the intense advertising to the lab-tested recipes, the junk food system is orchestrated to keep you buying more junk in lieu of real food. As you consume more and more of these highly processed products, you lose touch with the foundations of healthy eating – and your kids may grow up never knowing the value of a home-cooked meal.

The fact that manufacturers are able to keep pulling the wool over people's eyes, convincing them that these products are "foods" worthy of buying is nothing more than a marketing victory, albeit a very persuasive one.

One telling shot in Food Stamped reveals the ubiquity of fast-food with a simple but effective zoom-out. As the filmmakers visit a farmer's market in the low-income food desert of Watts, California, the camera reveals a Jack-in-the-box directly across the street from the farmers and the fresh produce. The implication is clear; on the one hand, the farmers and their produce have arrived in the ghetto, helping to make fresh and healthy food available in an area where it is sorely needed. On the other hand, the farmer's market is an occasional institution, operating just one day a week, while the fast food franchise pumps out its low-nutrient fare seven days a week, 365 days a year.

While it's possible to make the healthy choice, under these conditions, it's not easy.

And yet, Food Stamped provides inspiring glimpses of people like an African-American woman shopping at the Watts farmer's market patron who proudly conveys that her doctors tell her to "keep doing what I'm doing – a lot of fruits, a lot of vegetables, a lot of water, no fried foods."

But cost is just one factor. The convenience, pervasive presence, and the addictive nature of processed food are what drive so many Americans – rich or poor – to eat far too much junk.

In response, I want to highlight healthy foods that are very affordable, and also offer eight tips for stretching your food budget in a manner that is good for your health and your pocketbook

Healthy Foods That Are Under $1

I'm often surprised at the prices people are willing to pay for boxes of breakfast cereals that are full of nothing more than sugar, or for bags of chips that offer nothing good for your body whatsoever. And don't get me started on soda and all the other sugary drinks that flood our stores. In short, they are an absolute health disaster!

These pricey processed foods will eat up your grocery budget in the blink of an eye, and will cause disease in the long-term. In reality, any money spent on junk food is a waste, and purging these items from your grocery list is the first step to eating right on a budget.

Some of the healthiest foods are incredibly affordable, even under $1 a serving, such as:

Raw organic milk
Raw nuts and seeds
Two cage-free organic eggs
Avocado, berries and broccoli
Fermented foods you make at home

Getting back to the original question, is it possible to eat healthy even on a very limited budget, I believe it can be – if you keep these foundational rules in mind…

8 Tips for Stretching Your Food Budget and Still Eating Real Food

In order to protect your health, I believe you should spend 90 percent of your food budget on whole foods, and only 10 percent on processed foods (unfortunately most Americans currently do the opposite). This requires some strategy, especially if you're working with a tight budget:

Identify a Person to Prepare Meals. Someone has to invest some time in the kitchen. It will be necessary for either you, your spouse, some other family member or someone you pay to prepare the meals from locally-grown healthful foods.
Become resourceful: This is an area where your grandmother can be a wealth of information, as how to use up every morsel of food and stretch out a good meal was common knowledge to generations past. Seek to get back to the basics of cooking – using the bones from a roast chicken to make stock for a pot of soup, extending a Sunday roast to use for weekday dinners, learning how to make hearty stews from inexpensive cuts of meat, using up leftovers and so on.
Plan your meals: If you fail to plan you are planning to fail. This is essential, as you will need to be prepared for mealtimes in advance to be successful. Ideally this will involve scouting out your local farmer's markets for in-season produce that is priced to sell, and planning your meals accordingly, but you can also use this same premise with supermarket sales.

You can generally plan a week of meals at a time, make sure you have all ingredients necessary on hand, and then do any prep work you can ahead of time so that dinner is easy to prepare if you're short on time in the evenings.

It is no mystery that you will be eating lunch around noon every day so rather than rely on fast food at work, before you go to bed make a plan as to what you are going to take to work the next day. This is a marvelous simple strategy that will let you eat healthier, especially it you take healthy food from home in to work.
Avoid food waste: According to a study published in the journal PloS One,4 Americans waste an estimated 1,400 calories of food per person, each and every day. The two steps above will help you to mitigate food waste in your home. You may also have seen my article titled 14 Ways to Save Money on Groceries. Among those tips are suggestions for keeping your groceries fresher, longer, and I suggest reviewing those tips now.
Buy organic animal foods. The most important foods to buy organic are animal, not vegetable, products (meat, eggs, butter, etc.), because animal foods tend to concentrate pesticides in higher amounts. If you cannot afford to buy all of your food organic, opt for organic animal foods first.
Keep costs down on grass-fed beef. Pasture-finished beef is far healthier than grain-fed beef (which I don't recommend consuming). To keep cost down, look for inexpensive roasts or ground meat. You may also save money by buying an entire side of beef (or splitting one with two or three other families), if you have enough freezer space to store it.
Buy in bulk when non-perishable items go on sale.
If you are fortunate to live near a buyer's club or a co-op, you may also be able to take advantage of buying by the pound from bins, saving both you and the supplier the cost of expensive packaging.
Frequent farmer's market. You may be surprised to find out that by going directly to the source you can get amazingly healthy, locally-grown, organic food for less than you can find at your supermarket. This gives you the best of both worlds: food that is grown near to you, cutting down on its carbon footprint and giving you optimal freshness, as well as grown without chemicals, genetically modified seeds, and other potential toxins.

Just as restaurants are able to keep their costs down by getting food directly from a supplier, you, too, can take advantage of a direct farm-to-consumer relationship, either on an individual basis or by joining a food coop in your area. Many farmer's markets are now accepting food stamps, so this is an opportunity most everyone can join in on.

While the film Food Stamped doesn't spell out these steps, it's clear that filmmakers Shira and Yoav Potash exerted considerable effort in the planning and preparation of their meals. The point for them was not to score an A+ on their nutrition report card (revealed at the end of the film), but instead to take audiences on an entertaining and highly informative journey. For that, they do deserve an A+.

While their trek began at the intersection of the economic recession and the obesity epidemic, it never really ends. Instead, it weaves its way into your grocery list and your own thoughts about what you consume. While there have been many films that explore food and health issues, Food Stamped does so with freshness, intelligence, and an appropriate sense of both humor and hope. In the face of a multi-billion dollar processed food industry, this low-budget documentary packs both a punch and a crunch. I highly recommend it.
We are enjoying the produce from our local farmers' market at this time!
Hmmmm... raspberries and tomatoes!

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

This about depression from another source:
10 Ways to Stay Depression-Free
By Catherine Winters, Special to Lifescript
Published July 12, 2012
You finally beat depression. But even after the sadness lifts, your symptoms may return. So how can healthy habits like ditching the booze, getting more vitamin D or practicing yoga help? We talked to experts about the top 10 natural ways to manage moods...

After months of battling depression, you’re feeling normal again.

Your doctor or therapist has given you tools for staying positive, and you know the warning signs of a depressive episode so you can get help as soon as you sense them.

Now’s the time to enjoy life – and to take better care of your physical and mental well-being.

Depression is a lifelong, chronic condition, and it needs to be maintained like any other disease.

“You have to approach depression the same way you would diabetes. There’s a vigilance you have to maintain for a balanced life,” says Alan Manevitz, M.D., associate professor of clinical psychiatry at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York City.

Besides medication or therapy, that means practicing healthy habits associated with better moods.Healthy living is an important part of self-care, Manevitz says. For example, when you eat right, brain cells get appropriate nutrition so “the brain works at its maximum,” he explains.

And exercise releases endorphins, brain chemicals that act as natural antidepressants.

Here are 10 lifestyle changes that can keep you feeling your best.

1. Lose the booze.
People with chronic depression sometimes use alcohol to self-medicate.

Drinking releases neurotransmitters that may make you feel better, but only temporarily. And as you develop a tolerance, you need larger amounts, and then it becomes even more of a depressant on your central nervous system, Manevitz says.

If you’re taking antidepressants, alcohol can also increase their side effects, making you drowsy, more intoxicated than usual, or in some cases, causing a blood pressure spike that could lead to a stroke, according to the Mayo Clinic.

2. Work up a sweat.
Exercise is great for mental well-being, says Jasper Smits, Ph.D., director of the Anxiety Research and Treatment Program at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

It can head off a recurrence of mild to moderate depression, or help you overcome an episode, according to his team’s research.

With severe depression, exercise can augment traditional treatments, including psychotherapy or antidepressant medication, adds Smits, co-author of Exercise for Mood and Anxiety: Proven Strategies for Overcoming Depression and Enhancing Well-Being (Oxford University Press).Researchers are still determining how physical activity helps, but evidence suggests it may act as a form of behavioral activation, a depression treatment strategy that encourages people to be productive rather than inactive.

“If you’ve been productive, your mood improves,” Smits says.

Smits recommends aiming for the government’s physical-activity recommendations: 150 minutes per week of moderately intense movement (brisk walking, water aerobics, gardening); 75 minutes of vigorous activity (jumping rope, running, hiking); or a combination of the two.

Multiple studies have found benefits from doing 20-60 minutes of exercise per session, so aim for at least 20 minutes. But if you’re new to exercise or short on time, that doesn’t mean you should skip it.

“Even a 10-minute walk has short-term positive effects on mood,” Smits says.

3. Eat like a Spaniard.
Closely following a Mediterranean diet is strongly associated with lower depression risk, according to a 2009 Spanish study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

Researchers speculate that the diet’s heart-healthy benefits – reducing inflammation, improving blood vessel function and decreasing the risk of metabolic syndrome – may play a role in keeping the brain fit.Mediterranean-style eating is simple: When you’re grocery shopping, fill your cart with fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains, olive oil, beans, fish, poultry, nuts and low-fat dairy. Meanwhile, cut back on refined carbs, fatty meats and highly processed foods.

4. Get your zzz’s.
It’s no surprise that too little rest can worsen your mood, but depression itself can keep you from sleeping through the night, according to the National Sleep Foundation.

The connection between the conditions is significant: People with regular insomnia are nearly 10 times more likely to have significant depression, and 17 times more likely to develop anxiety, according to a 2005 University of North Texas study.

If you’re having trouble sleeping – whether or not you’re currently depressed – talk to your doctor or a sleep expert so you can get the 7-9 hours you need.

5. Get more vitamin D.
Low levels of vitamin D have long been linked to depression. And research is ongoing about whether the fat-soluble vitamin can improve rates of seasonal affective disorder (SAD), or winter depression.

SAD hits when days get shorter and there’s less sunlight, our prime natural source of vitamin D. But we don’t always get enough of the vitamin in summer, either, because the sunscreen we slather on to protect against skin cancer blocks D-producing rays.It’s also hard to get the amount of D we need from food. Only certain fish (salmon, sardines, tuna, mackerel and cod), D-fortified milk and a few other foods contain much of this important nutrient.

How much do you need? Expert opinions vary. Government recommendations suggest 200 international units (IU) per day until age 50, 400 IU between 51 and 70, and 600 IU after that.

But some researchers recommend considerably more. Vitamin D expert Michael F. Holick, M.D., Ph.D., professor of medicine, molecular medicine physiology and biophysics at Boston University Medical Center, thinks adults actually need closer to 1,500-2,000 IU of vitamin D per day.

Since one 8-ounce glass of milk only has about 100 IU, your best bet is taking a multivitamin or vitamin D supplement.

Read more about this and other supplements in 4 Natural Mood-Boosters: Do They Work?

6. Embrace your inner yogi.
Yoga relaxes you, but does it fight depression? Researchers at Boston University School of Medicine think it could. And the more you practice, the better off you may be.

In their study, published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine in 2007, participants spent three hours a week either walking or practicing Iyengar yoga, a form of hatha yoga that uses blocks, belts and other props to ensure correct body alignment during postures.

Their moods and anxiety levels were measured at the start of the study and at weeks 4, 8 and 12.MRI brain scans were also done to measure levels of a neurotransmitter called gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), low levels of which are associated with mood and anxiety disorders.

At the end of the study, the scans showed higher GABA levels in the participants who practiced yoga. (Those new to the discipline saw a 13% increase, while experienced yoga practitioners had a 27% rise.) By contrast, those who only walked had no bump in GABA levels.

According to researcher Chris Streeter, M.D., associate professor of psychiatry and neurology, yoga boosts the activity of the parasympathetic nervous system, which is associated with rest and rejuvenation.

So why didn’t walking offer the same benefits? In this study, participants were limited to ambling around the periphery of a gymnasium. Walking outside or walking faster could make it a more effective mood booster, Streeter says.

The key to getting the most out of any workout is to choose a physical activity you like and do it in a setting you’ll enjoy, she adds.

7. Just say om.
People who practiced transcendental meditation (TM), a form of “mantra meditation” in which you mentally repeat a sound, had fewer depression symptoms than those who didn’t, according to researchers who presented two studies at a 2010 meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

In fact, participants with clinically significant depression who meditated twice a day for a year had an average 48% reduction in symptoms.Not only does TM decrease psychological stress, it may also reduce a person’s reactions to environmental stress and reduce the amount of brooding about problems, says lead study author Sanford Nidich, Ed.D., senior researcher at the Institute for Natural Medicine and Prevention at Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield, Iowa.

It may also have a positive effect on serotonin, the brain’s feel-good chemical, Nidich adds.

You don’t need to join a particular group to learn healthy meditation techniques – just read How to Meditate to get started.

8. Keep your cool.
Too much mental stress can harm your ability to maintain a steady mood. But stress overload varies by person – some can't function outside a calm environment, while others may do fine in stressful situations.

For example, “some people thrive as a fireman or ER doctor,” Manevitz says. “Others get so stressed out they’re vulnerable to depression.”

His solution? Balance your life based on the amount and kinds of stress you can handle. “You need to know what your abilities and trigger points are.” 9. Kick the habit.
Here’s another reason to put away that pack: Women who smoke have a greater risk of developing major depression than non-smokers, according to a 10-year Australian study published in 2008 in the British Journal of Psychiatry.

Among heavy smokers – those who smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day – the depression risk was more than double that of non-smokers: 15% of the smokers studied went on to develop major depression, while only 6.5% of the non-smokers did.

Smoking can be another way of self-medicating for a depressed mood, so ask your doctor or therapist to help you quit.

Read on for a no-fail quit smoking guide.

10. Build a support system.
People who care about you can help you through tough times, and that includes mental illnesses.

In fact, a 2005 study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry reported that women who feel more loved and have more support from friends and family members face lower risk for major depression.If you have a tendency to isolate yourself, make an extra effort to spend time with friends and family. Support groups, social clubs and interest-based organizations can also help bring you out of your shell.

Learn more about managing your moods in our Depression Health Center.

How Much Do You Know About Depression?
Depression is an extremely disabling disorder. Despite all the progress in diagnosing and treating this disease, many people still are in the dark when it comes to understanding depression. How much do you really know? Take this depression quiz, which includes information from Dr. Lawson Wulsin's book, Treating The Aching Heart, and see how well you know fact from fiction.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Today Dr Mercola quotes from another researcher, re; intermittent fasting.

By Ori Hofmekler

The intermittent fasting approach has been getting increased recognition these days. But 10 years ago, it was a different story.

When I introduced The Warrior Diet concept about 12 years ago, it was highly criticized by mainstream fitness authorities as an "extreme and dangerous" approach to dieting. Telling people to skip breakfast and lunch was like committing dietary heresy.

The Warrior Diet book was the first to offer a diet plan based on intermittent fasting. Yes, at that time, it felt like I was the only person in the world arguing for substituting the frequent feeding approach of several meals per day with one meal per day.

Then, a few years later, studies on intermittent fasting (conducted by Dr. Marc Mattson/NIH) shocked the world with the news that this "radical" pattern of eating yielded a substantial increase in the lifespan of rodents along with outstanding improvements in major health markers including insulin sensitivity, body composition and neuro-regeneration capacity. Since then, a growing number of health and fitness gurus have been jumping on the intermittent fasting (IF) wagon. Just Google intermittent fasting and check for yourself.

Multiple websites and many bloggers are now claiming credit for their IF plan. The variations include fasting all day, every other day, every third day, twice per week, once per week, or once every other week. Some recommend skipping breakfast or skipping dinner, whereas others advise "eating only when hungry," or "not eating when not hungry."

Incredibly, even Andrew Weil is now blogging in favor of IF. According to Weil, simply eating three meals per day with no snacks should be called in America "a form of intermittent fasting"… yes indeed, to be popular in this country, a diet plan must be easy to follow… But fasting is never easy. And there is always a reason to avoid fasting. Virtually all IF websites are happy to give you these reasons.

Plenty of Reasons (or Perhaps Excuses) to Avoid Fasting

They tell you: don't fast if you're hypoglycemic; don't fast if you're diabetic; don't skip meals if you suffer from heartburn, or don't get yourself overstressed with fasting if you're already overstressed.

It is also very popular these days to say, "fasting is not for everyone"… hence, if you're looking for a reason to avoid fasting, that's the easiest one to pick.

Note that there are cases that may prohibit long-term fasting, such as with young children, type I diabetics (on insulin medication), or in the case of clinical myopathy (muscle wasting disease). Nonetheless, even in these or similar cases, the exclusion of fasting is not necessarily wise, as fasting could be potentially useful as a therapeutic strategy. Fasting has shown to improve conditions of metabolic disorders, lower the need for insulin medication, and help relieve inflammation.

So how can fasting benefit you?

To figure that out, you need to take a look at the science behind fasting. You need to know how fasting induces its beneficial effects on your body, and what meal frequency allows you to take maximum advantage of that.

How Fasting Benefits Your Body

Scientists acknowledged three major mechanisms by which fasting benefits your body, as it extends lifespan and protects against disease:

Reduced oxidative stress – Fasting decreases the accumulation of oxidative radicals in the cell, and thereby prevents oxidative damage to cellular proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids associated with aging and disease.
Increased insulin sensitivity and mitochondrial energy efficiency – Fasting increases insulin sensitivity along with mitochondrial energy efficiency, and thereby retards aging and disease, which are typically associated with loss of insulin sensitivity and declined mitochondrial energy.
Increased capacity to resist stress, disease and aging – Fasting induces a cellular stress response (similar to that induced by exercise) in which cells up-regulate the expression of genes that increase the capacity to cope with stress and resist disease and aging.

There is Only One Fasting Regimen that Makes Sense in Practice...

So given the above, what kind of fasting regimen will benefit you most?

If you learn the facts behind human biology and how your body is programmed to thrive, you will realize that almost every popular IF program today, including alternate day fasting, once or twice a week fasting, and once every other week fasting are, in the best case, only partially beneficial.

Most IF programs cannot and will not yield the results you're looking for. The reason: Your body operates around a 24-hour cycle that dictates your innate circadian clock. Most IF programs are not designed to accommodate that cycle.

Most IF Programs Disregard Your Circadian Clock

Your innate clock is an essential factor in your life as it controls all your circadian rhythms. Called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus (SCN), it is located in your hypothalamus, where it regulates how your autonomic nervous system operates along with your hormones, your wake and sleep pattern, your feeding behavior, and your capacity to digest food, assimilate nutrients, and eliminate toxins.

What happens when you go against your innate clock?

If you're routinely disregarding your innate clock – working during sleeping hours, or feeding at the wrong time – you'll sooner or later pay the consequences with symptoms that may include disrupted sleep, agitation, digestive disorders, constipation, chronic fatigue, chronic cravings for sweets and carbs, fat gain, and lower resistance to stress.

Note that chronic disruptions in circadian rhythms have been linked with increased risk for chronic inflammatory disease and cancer. Most IF programs overlook this issue. Their timing of feeding is either random or wrong.

But the timing of your feeding is not something you can afford overlooking. There is a dual relationship between your feeding and innate clock. And as much as your innate clock affects your feeding, your feeding can affect your innate clock. Routinely eating at the wrong time will disrupt your innate clock and devastate vital body functions; and you'll certainly feel the side effects as your whole metabolic system gets unsynchronized.

Your Biological Feeding Time is at Night

So when is your right feeding time?

Your body is programmed for nocturnal feeding. All your activities, including your feeding, are controlled by your autonomic nervous system which operates around the circadian clock. During the day, your sympathetic nervous system (SNS) puts your body in an energy spending active mode, whereas during the night your parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS) puts your body in an energy replenishing relaxed and sleepy mode.

These two parts of your autonomic nervous system complement each other like yin and yang. Your SNS, which is stimulated by fasting and exercise, keeps you alert and active with an increased capacity to resist stress and hunger throughout the day. And your PSNS, which is stimulated by your nightly feeding, makes you relaxed and sleepy, with a better capacity to digest and replenish nutrients throughout the night. This is how your autonomic nervous system operates under normal conditions.

But that system is highly vulnerable to disruption.

If you eat at the wrong time such as when having a large meal during the day, you will mess with your autonomic nervous system; you'll inhibit your SNS and instead turn on the PSNS which will make you sleepy and fatigued rather than alert and active during the working hours of the day. And instead of spending energy and burning fat, you'll store energy and gain fat. This is indeed a lose-lose situation. Unfortunately, most IF programs fail to recognize this.

Most IF Programs Miss the Boat

Let's take a brief look at some of the most notable IF regimens.

Alternate day fasting. This program seems to be the most difficult to handle. Followers of this regimen have been complaining of a significant increase in hunger and a chronic excruciating desire to eat on their fasting day. But what makes this IF program even more problematic is the adaptability issue – as followers seem to be just as hungry on the last day of fasting as on their first day. There have also been reports of side effects such as sleeping disorders, constipation, and a persistent fatigue among the followers.

The alternate day fasting has one major caveat: the 24 hours fast seems too long to handle (both physically and mentally). This regimen has been shown to cause sleeping issues due to the fact that night fasting turns on the SNS which keeps you alert and anxious rather than relaxed and sleepy during the night – thereby disrupting your sleep-wake cycle.

Furthermore, based on epidemiological evidence, it seems that the human body is programmed for a daily cycle of 24 hours and its optimum fasting threshold should be within the range of 18 hours. Anything beyond that may put your body in a starvation-catabolic mode which if done chronically, may lead to metabolic shutdown's symptoms such as underactive thyroid, decreased sex hormones, loss of muscle mass, and declined energy.
Once a week or twice a week fasting. Both once or twice a week seem to be easier to follow than the alternate day fasting, only that these regimens are less effective than the alternate day fasting. Eating 3-4 square meals every day for most of the week is a serious compromise of the original IF concept, as it minimizes the weekly impact of fasting to merely 1-2 days per week.
Fasting every other week or every month. Worse than that is "fasting every other week" or every month. These IF programs seem to target the typical American dieter who is constantly looking for an "easy to follow" program to lose weight or improve health. The motto "better fasting once or twice per month than not fasting at all" is just an excuse to choose mediocrity over excellence.
Skipping dinner. The skipping dinner approach goes against your innate clock. This regimen may cause sleep disorders and similar side effects as the alternate day fasting diet, only that skipping dinner is less effective than the alternate day fasting due to its shorter fasting time.

Advocates of skipping dinner argue that breakfast is an important meal and should not be skipped. Nonetheless, the science clearly indicates the opposite – the typical breakfast antagonizes the SNS and disrupts healthy circadian rhythms.

There is growing evidence that the typical breakfast is the most harmful meal of the day. A study by the Human Nutrition Research France1 indicated that the typical high energy breakfast caused major adverse effects in the short and long terms. These included a strong inhibition of fat burning throughout the day, increase in serum triacylglycerol, decrease in HDL (good cholesterol), and over-glycemic reactions. The researchers concluded that high-energy breakfast does not appear to be favorable to health; they also indicated that the study's results do not support the current advice to consume more energy at breakfast.

Note that the average consumption of energy at breakfast among breakfast eaters is between 15-20 percent of total daily energy intake. The typical breakfast composition: 12 percent of calories from protein, 25 percent from fat and 63 percent from carbohydrates.

Other reports coming from epidemiological surveys have been indicating that the consumption of a high energy breakfast leads to a significant higher energy consumption for the whole day. Furthermore, a big breakfast has shown to yield only a limited satiety effect which lasts merely 2 hours after breakfast. Overall, science confirms that the typical high carbohydrate breakfast tends to increase fat storage, increase body weight, and increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and long term health.

Note that some of the healthiest societies in the past did not eat breakfast; the word breakfast was not part of their vocabulary. The typical breakfast did not exist during Biblical times. In the original Hebrew text of the Bible, breakfast is called "pat shacharit" which meant a tiny piece of bread at dawn – nothing more. And there isn't a single mention of breakfast in the new testament; supper was the main meal of the day (hence, the Last Supper). The ancient Greeks and Romans were very particular about eating their main meal at night. According to Plutarch and Cicero, only slaves and farm animals were fed breakfast and lunch, as contrary to free men and soldiers who ate one meal per day at night.
Skipping breakfast. Skipping breakfast is certainly a better idea than skipping dinner. This protocol seems to be particularly viable for those who exercise during the morning hours. In this case a specially modified high protein lunch can serve as a post exercise recovery meal. The skipping breakfast regimen is nevertheless problematic.

Proponents of this approach speculate that skipping breakfast after a night fast yields about 16-18 hours of fasting including sleeping time. That seems good in theory but in reality this regimen doesn't yield as many hours of fasting as claimed.

Here is why: What really counts is your net fasting time, the gap between your meals minus digestion time. It typically takes your body between 6-8 hours to fully digest a hearty evening meal (depends on your meal density – content of protein and fat, etc). If for instance you start your evening meal at 8pm and finish eating at 9-10pm, your body will only shift into a fasting state by the early morning hours (about 3-6am). Hence, your body will not be in a fasting state for most of the night.

So when you skip your morning meal until noon, your net fasting time is merely 6-9 hours. That might be good but not enough to grant maximum impact. So what is the ideal way to fast? What should be your right meal frequency?

The One Meal Per Day Plan

The one meal per day plan is the only regimen that can accommodate your innate clock and maximize the beneficial effects you get from IF on a daily basis. That's if your food choices and meal timing are adequate.

The one meal per day yields 14-16 hours of net fasting time provided that you have a window of about two hours to finish eating. And in the case that you have a feeding window of four hours, you're still left with 12-14 hours of daily net fasting – sufficient to get you the results you're looking for.

Other IF regimens yield a net fasting time that is either too long or too short. And most of these programs cause adverse side effects as they fail to accommodate your innate clock.

Can the One Meal Per Day Regimen Satisfy Your Physical Needs?

The one meal per day regimen can accommodate your physical needs, but you need to know how to modulate this regimen to fit your specific condition. For instance, if you routinely exercise during the day you'll need to feed your muscle after your workout with a low glycemic recovery meal made with fast assimilating protein, such as that from high quality whey. You can also feed your muscle before your workout as this will help increase your capacity to sustain intense exercise.

Can One Meal Per Day Accommodate Intense Training?

If you're engaged in max strength conditioning or MMA training, you should feed your muscle before and after your workout. Only in this case, your pre-workout meal should consist of protein and carbs. Note that max strength exercise work your fast glycolytic muscle fibers (Type IIB white fibers), which are inherently carb dependent. Having fast assimilating protein and carbs before your workout can help load glycogen in your muscle, nourish your fast fibers; and boost your max strength performance.

Your best choice for your pre-exercise and post-exercise meal is quality whey protein, derived from raw milk of pasture-fed or grass-fed cows. For pre-workout carbs use nutrient dense fruits such as berries, which can swiftly fuel your muscle with carbs and antioxidants and thereby enhance your performance while reducing the oxidative stress in your muscle to allow a faster recovery after your training.

Having an oatmeal or porridge an hour before training can be a viable option in case you're engaged in prolonged intense training sessions. Again, make sure your post-exercise recovery meal is low glycemic with no sugar added, to support your insulin and accommodate your IF. High glycemic meals negate the benefits you get from fasting.

Foods That Can Be Safely Consumed During Fasting

So is it ok to eat whey protein during fasting? What other foods could be safely consumed during the fast? How often can you eat these foods and how much?

In the Warrior Diet Book, I introduced the concept of "undereating" as a viable alternative to water fasting. Undereating means minimizing your food intake to small servings of specific foods, which you're allowed to consume in a certain frequency during your fast. If done properly, undereating can yield the same benefits of fasting and even more. Let me explain.

Most foods negate the effects of fasting, but there are some exceptions. Some foods can be safely eaten without compromising your fast. These include fast assimilating nutrient-dense foods such as quality whey protein, green vegetables and berries. But you need to know how much you're allowed to consume and how often.

What makes these foods complimentary to fasting are the following properties:

They're rich in antioxidant and anti-inflammatory nutrients
They target the same genes as fasting
They induce similar effects to those you get from fasting

Having small servings of whey protein, green vegetables or berries during your fast isn't just ok, it may actually increase the benefits you get from fasting.

Being fast assimilating, these foods nourish your body without taxing your digestion, as they enhance the anti-inflammatory and metabolic modulating effects of your fasting. They also increase your body's antioxidant defenses against reactive oxygen species (ROS) which tend to accumulate in your body during fasting and exercise as byproducts of fat breakdown and detox. ROS are unstable and highly reactive molecules which search, bind to, and destroy cellular lipids, proteins and DNA. The above foods help protect your body from that oxidative damage.

Most importantly, non-denatured whey protein, green vegetables and berries contain nutrients (antioxidant polyphenols, flavons, resveratrol, cyanidins, indoles, in plants; leucine, calcium and immune factors in whey) that target the same genes and pathways as fasting and exercise. Most notable among these are the SIRT-1 gene (the longevity gene) and the transcriptional co-activator PGC-1α, known to counteract oxidative stress and inflammatory pathways associated with declined health and increased mortality. SIRT-1 and PGC-1α increase mitochondrial biogenesis and thereby prevent the typical decline in mitochondrial function (and decreased cellular energy) associated with aging and disease.

How Much, and How Often Can You Eat These Foods?

You can have a small serving of whey protein (20-30g net protein) every 3-6 hours, depending on your level of physical activity. Those who do not exercise can have one or two servings of whey protein during their daily fast.

Similarly, you can have 8oz of berries or green vegetables (or freshly squeezed green vegetable juice) every 3-6 hours while you fast. Do not mix berries with whey unless you use that blend as a pre-workout meal to support your strength conditioning.

Having a small serving of whey protein, berries or greens will hardly affect your body's negative energy balance throughout the fast. Hence, if you eat them at the right amount and frequency, the above foods will not compromise your IF.

It may take science another 10-15 years to figure out the difference between water fasting and that mode of undereating. Nonetheless, based on what we know today about the nutritional properties of whey, berries and greens, and based on testimonials coming from Warrior Diet followers, and my own experience, I can tell you that having these foods during the fast isn't just making it easier, but also makes it more effective and beneficial to your body than a sheer water fast.

Summary of Key Points

The one meal per day is the only regimen that can maximize the benefits of your IF on a daily basis.
Eat your main meal at night to accommodate your circadian clock.
Whey protein, berries and greens compliment your fast if you know how much to consume and how often.
If you exercise during the day, have a recovery meal after your workout consisting of whey protein with no sugar added.
If you're engaged in super intense training, have a pre-workout meal consisting of whey protein and berries.
If you're engaged in prolonged intense training, have a bowl of oatmeal with your whey protein about an hour before your workout.

The Science Behind Circadian Rhythms


Circadian regulation of immune response and resistance to disease. Recent studies published by the PNAS, January 2012, revealed the existence of a specific nuclear receptor that mediates circadian regulation of innate immunity and resistance to disease. This circadian regulation is controlled by an internal mechanism which is highly conserved in humans and animals and orchestrates the daily patterns of diverse physiological processes such as wake/sleep cycles, feeding, and metabolism.

According to the researchers, many diseases exhibit a disrupted circadian rhythmicity in their pathology… and lifestyles that disrupt the inherent timing system, such as chronic shift work, are associated with increased risk of cancer, metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease and cerebrovascular disease.

The researchers indicated that inflammatory diseases in particular exhibit strong time-of-day symptoms. They concluded that in humans, circadian rhythms are driven by a complex of feedback loops that mediate gene activities throughout a period of 24 hours and speculated that daily risk of infection is likely to be a direct consequence of wrong timing of activity and feeding.
The 24 hours cycle. A study by Czeisler et al. at Harvard University found that the range for normal healthy adults of all ages to be quite narrow: 24 hours and 11-16 minutes. This innate clock resets itself daily to the 24 hour cycle of the Earth's rotation.
The sympathetic/parasympathetic division. Based on biology textbook (see Wikipedia – autonomic nervous system), the sympathetic and parasympathetic divisions typically function in opposition to each other. Consider sympathetic as "fight or flight" and parasympathetic as "rest and digest" or "feed and breed."

The sympathetic nervous system – corresponds with energy generation, and inhibits digestion. The parasympathetic nervous system – promotes "rest and digest" response, along with calming of the nerves.
Light and the innate clock. According to a 2010 study, completed by the Lighting Research Center, daylight has a direct effect on performance and wellbeing. The research showed that students who experience disruption in lighting schemes in the morning experienced disruptions in sleep patterns. Removing circadian light in the morning delays the dim light melatonin onset by 6 minutes a day, for a total of 30 minutes for five days.
Feeding and the innate clock. The feeding clock mechanism is the same as the light/dark driven clock controlled by the innate master clock – the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) which is a cluster of neurons in the hypothalamus. But the machinery that inter-regulates feeding and the innate clock is located in a different part of the hypothalamus (DMA).

Recent studies reveal that mice on a daily 4 hours feeding window shifted their circadian rhythms so that their peak physical activity was before feeding and not after. This rhythm continued even if the mice were kept in constant darkness. Hence, the animals are inherently programmed for post action feeding and not the other way.

If You Didn’t Fast, Don’t Eat Breakfast

When you think about it from an evolutionary perspective, the idea of "having to wait for a meal"… especially the first one of the day, is actually so intuitively logical that it is somewhat tragic that people misunderstand the statement that "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" as an invitation to start binging the very moment they get up, instead of waiting for lunch or even dinner to begin stuffing junk down their gullets.

Actually this is quite ironic, because if we take a look at the etymological origins of the word "breakfast," it's plain obvious that this is not - as in Germany, where it is called "Frühstück" = "the first piece," the first meal of the day, but the meal that breaks the fast! Unfortunately, though, fasting has become something, the average TV watching couch-potato of the Western hemisphere is a total foreigner to.

The answer to the endlessly debated question of whether or not you should have breakfast is – as long as we understand "breakfast" correctly, i.e. as "breaking the fast" – stupidly simple: Without fasting there is no "break(ing the)fast"! Our diurnal metabolic rhythm is geared towards cyclic fasting and feeding patterns, where the feeding hours have always been shorter than the fasting hours.

About the Author

Ori Hofmekler is the author of The Warrior Diet, The Anti-Estrogenic Diet, Maximum Muscle Minimum Fat, and Unlock Your Muscle Gene.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

The Latest Sneak Attacks in a Coordinated Effort to Eliminate Vaccine Exemptions
September 18 2012 | 33,183 views | + Add to Favorites


By Dr. Mercola

The featured article in the latest newsletter from Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) gets straight to the point with its headline:1 Back to School – Is the Child Sitting Next to Yours Immunized?

The article goes on to berate vaccine exemption options and parents who use personal belief exemptions to opt-out of vaccines for their children. It stops short of ordering parents to march into their children's classrooms and demand to know who's vaccinated and who's not (health privacy laws prevent that anyway).

It peppers you with enough scare tactics – along with links to information on vaccine exemptions and states that allow personal belief exemptions – to leave readers convinced they need to do something to stop vaccine exemptions.

All across the United States, people are fighting for their right to choose not to be injected with vaccines against their will, and this is just the latest tactic in a coordinated effort aimed at eliminating all vaccine exemptions.

The Gates Foundation is even funding surveillance of anti-vaccine groups. Seth C. Kalichman, professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut recently received a $100,000 grant to establish an Anti-Vaccine Surveillance and Alert System.

The intention is to "establish an internet-based global monitoring and rapid alert system for finding, analyzing, and counteracting misinformation communication campaigns regarding vaccines to support global immunization efforts," GreenMedInfo.com reports.2

My strong guess is that some of the best sources for truthful information like NVIC.org and this web site have already been targeted by the Gates Foundation.

In light of that, it's not surprising that vaccine groups are trying to turn citizens against each other in an effort to squelch opposition and free will on this matter. According to CHOP:

"...these decisions, often referred to as personal belief exemptions, have been traced to recent cases of pertussis, measles and mumps in several states. Currently, 20 states allow personal belief exemptions.

Many people do not realize that these choices put not only their own children at risk, but also those around them because the more people in a community who are immune to a disease, the lower the chance that the disease will spread throughout the community. This is called herd immunity. So, even those who may not be immune will have a decreased chance of getting the disease."

First of all, there are only 18 states – not 20 – that allow personal belief, philosophical or conscientious belief exemptions to vaccination, in addition to 48 states that allow religious belief exemptions. To find out which non-medical vacine exemptions are allowed in your state laws, look at a map of states and get a copy of your state vaccine requirements on NVIC's website at: http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state- ... ments.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unvaccinated Population Falsely Blamed for Ineffective Vaccines

Recent disease outbreaks were traced back to personal belief exemptions... Really?

That's just not reality, and if you take the time to look into the truthfulness of that statement, you'll see it simply does not hold up. Many outbreaks of pertussis (whooping cough), measles, and mumps have occurred primarily in people who were vaccinated, and no one seems to be able to fully explain how that is the fault of those who are unvaccinated...

If the vaccine theory was correct, these people should have been protected because they were vaccinated. Published studies into the outbreaks have revealed that a lot of the blame should be placed on ineffective vaccines – not on the unvaccinated minority.

Consider the following findings about the last two whooping cough (pertussis) outbreaks.

In 2010, the largest outbreak of whooping cough in over 50 years occurred in California. Around that same time, a scare campaign was launched in California by Pharma-funded medical trade associations, state health officials and national media, targeting people opting out of receiving pertussis vaccine, falsely accusing them of causing the outbreak.

However, research published in March of this year3 shows that 81 percent of 2010 California whooping cough cases in people under the age of 18 occurred in those who were fully up to date on the whooping cough vaccine. Eleven percent had received at least one shot, but not the entire recommended series, and only eight percent of those stricken were unvaccinated.

According to the authors:

"This first detailed analysis of a recent North American pertussis outbreak found widespread disease among fully vaccinated older children. Starting approximately three years after prior vaccine dose, attack rates markedly increased, suggesting inadequate protection or durability from the acellular vaccine." [Emphasis mine]

B. pertussis whooping cough is a cyclical disease with natural increases that tend to occur every 4-5 years, no matter how high the vaccination rate is in a population using DPT/DTaP or Tdap vaccines on a widespread basis. Whole cell DPT vaccines used in the U.S. from the 1950's until the late 1990's were estimated to be 63 to 94 percent effective and studies showed that vaccine-acquired immunity fell to about 40 percent after seven years.

In the study cited above, the researchers noted the vaccine's effectiveness was only 41 percent among 2- to 7-year-olds and a dismal 24 percent among those aged 8-12. With this shockingly low rate of DTaP vaccine effectiveness, the questionable solution public health officials have come up with is to declare that everybody has to get three primary shots and three follow-up booster shots in order to get long-lasting protection4 – and that's provided the vaccine gives you any protection at all!

The Washington State Secretary of Health also declared a pertussis epidemic on April 3, 2012, in response to a 1,300 percent increase in pertussis cases compared to 2011.5 Scientists are now considering adding a seventh inoculation6, in order to boost protection against whooping cough.

According to a recent article and video by KPBS:7

"New research confirms the whooping cough vaccine is failing at a higher rate than expected, and scientists are considering adding a seventh dose to the national immunization schedule published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Two recent studies8 have found the majority of people getting sick are up to date with their immunizations."

Mumps and Measles Vaccines are Also Failing

Mumps: In 2010, more than 1,000 people in New Jersey and New York were also sickened with mumps. In the US, children typically receive their mumps vaccination as part of the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises children to receive their first dose between 12 and 18 months, and their second between the ages of 4 and 6.

This vaccine is supposed to improve immunity to measles, mumps and rubella… yet 77 percent of the 1,000+ who came down with mumps were vaccinated. Similarly, in 2006, when mumps infected more than 6,500 people in the United States, cases occurred primarily among college students who had received two doses of MMR vaccine. At that time, just about the only people who were truly immune to mumps were older Americans who had recovered from mumps as children, and therefore had received natural, lifelong immunity.
Measles – The 1989 measles epidemic in the region of Quebec was largely attributed to incomplete vaccination coverage – until a study9 into the outbreak disclosed that the outbreak occurred in a population that had 99 percent vaccination coverage. The researchers concluded that: "Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak."

Conflicts of Interest – Not Science – Influence Most Vaccine Recommendations

The CHOP newsletter is delivered by email periodically to anyone who signs up for it, and almost always contains advice on getting all children vaccinated. The Vaccine Education Center10 at CHOP says it's funded by endowed chairs and "does not receive support from pharmaceutical companies."

But it neglects to mention that the hospital indirectly benefits from drug company money that helps fund endowed chairs like Merck's Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology, which is currently held by Paul Offit11, who not only is very public about his belief that infants could theoretically safely handle 10,000 vaccines all at once; he also openly opposes personal belief vaccine exemptions.12 Rarely is it mentioned that Offit has a financial stake in the vaccine industry, as he invented one of the vaccines CHOP promotes. He's also served on the scientific advisory board of Merck.

Offit's personal beliefs about forcing people to involuntarily use vaccines, which violates the informed consent ethic in medicine, along with the inaccurate statements he makes about vaccine safety, which are not backed by solid scientific evidence, are echoed throughout CHOP's pro-forced vaccination propaganda. For example, one of their Q&A brochures13 answers the question: Can too many vaccines overwhelm an infant's immune system? with the following statement:

"No. Compared to the immunological challenges that infants handle every day, the challenge from the immunological components in vaccines is minuscule. Babies begin dealing with immunological challenges at birth. The mother's womb is a sterile environment, free from viruses, bacteria, parasites and fungi. But after babies pass through the birth canal and enter the world, they are immediately colonized with trillions of bacteria, which means that they carry the bacteria on their bodies but aren't infected by them. These bacteria live on the skin, nose, throat and intestines. To make sure that colonizing bacteria don't invade the bloodstream and cause harm, babies constantly make antibodies against them.

...Given that infants are colonized with trillions of bacteria, that each bacterium contains between 2,000 and 6,000 immunological components and that infants are infected with numerous viruses, the challenge from the 150 immunological components in vaccines is minuscule compared to what infants manage every day."

This is an astounding comparison and shockingly ignorant of foundational physiology.
Not only do these ignorant statements dismiss and disparage the role of beneficial gut bacteria – which we now know are absolutely essential and vital for human health and well-being – and characterize normal gut bacteria as potentially harmful, but there is a false characterization of the immunological challenge posed by multiple vaccines, each of which can contain either live or killed viruses and a number of different adjuvants and chemicals, injected into the tiny body of an infant. CHOP even takes Offit's ridiculous claim that infants can safely handle 10,000 vaccines at one time to brand new heights, stating that:14

"The purpose of vaccines is to prompt a child's body to make antibodies, which work by preventing bacteria and viruses from reproducing themselves and causing disease. So, how many different antibodies can babies make?

The best answer to this question came from a Nobel Prize-winning immunologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology named Susumu Tonegawa, who first figured out how people make antibodies. Tonegawa discovered that antibodies are made by rearranging and recombining many different genes, and found that people can make about 10 billion different antibodies.

Given the number of antibody-producing cells in a child's bloodstream, and the number of immunological components contained in vaccines, it is reasonable to conclude that babies could effectively make antibodies to about 100,000 vaccines at one time." [Emphasis mine]

The Difference Between Natural and Vaccine-Induced Immunity

Many still believe vaccines provide identical immunity to that obtained when you are naturally exposed to an infection, This widespread misconception needs to be corrected.

The presumed result of a vaccination is to help you build immunity to potentially harmful organisms that cause disease. What many fail to appreciate is that your body's immune system is already designed to do this in response to naturally-occurring infectious agents that you are constantly exposed to throughout life. One major difference between vaccine-induced immunity and natural immunity stems from how you're exposed to these organisms.

Most organisms that cause infection enter your body through the mucous membranes of your nose, mouth, lungs or your digestive tract.

These mucous membranes have their own immune system, called the secretory IgA immune system. It is a different system from the one activated when a vaccine is injected into your body. Your IgA immune system is your body's first line of defense and its job is to address the infectious microorganism at their entry points, thus reducing or even eliminating the need for activation of your body's entire immune system.

However, when a laboratory altered or created infectious microorganism is injected into your body with a vaccine and, especially when combined with an immune adjuvant, such as aluminum, your IgA immune system is bypassed, stimulating your immune system to mount a very strong inflammatory response.

Vaccines can also trigger such a strong inflammatory response that the inflammation becomes chronic and leads to chronic illness or disability. (People with a personal or family history of severe allergy or autoimmunity should be cautious about vaccination because they already have a genetic predisposition to inflammatory responses that do not resolve and can lead to chronic health problems.)

Injecting these lab-altered microorganisms into your body in an attempt to provoke an atypical, temporary immunity is clearly not the same way your body develops naturally-acquired immunity. Your immune system simply was not designed to be injected with lab altered disease-causing organisms in this manner. While I am a great fan and avocate of technology it is very clear to me that this is one reason why vaccines almost always only provide a much more temporary immunity compared to naturally acquired immunity.

Additionally, this plays a large role in why vaccines have the potential to do serious damage to your health.

Since vaccines bypass your natural first-line defense (your lgA immune system), they are clearly inferior to natural immunity and fail to provide the same kind of long lasting protection from future disease as they provide typically inferior immunity compared to that your body would acquire by experiencing and healing from the natural disease. In the case of mumps, for instance, immunity is typically permanent for those who contract the disease during childhood.

What You Need to Know about "Herd Immunity"

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases describes vaccine-induced herd immunity, also labeled "community immunity" by public health doctors as follows:

"When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines – such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals – get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as 'community immunity.'"

The problem is that there is in fact such a thing as natural herd immunity. But what they've done is they've taken this natural phenomenon and assumed that vaccines will work the same way. However, vaccines do not confer the same kind of immunity as experiencing the natural disease, and the science clearly shows that there's a big difference between naturally acquired herd immunity and vaccine-induced herd immunity.

To learn more, I urge you to listen to the following video, in which Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses the concept of herd immunity.

Download Interview Transcript

Barbara explains:

"The original concept of herd immunity is that when a population experiences the natural disease… natural immunity would be achieved – a robust, qualitatively superior natural herd immunity within the population, which would then protect other people from getting the disease in other age groups. It's the way infectious diseases work…

The vaccinologists have adopted this idea of vaccine induced herd immunity. The problem with it is that all vaccines only confer temporary protection… Pertussis vaccine is one the best examples… Pertussis vaccines have been used for about 50 to 60 years, and the organism has started to evolve to become vaccine resistant. I think this is not something that's really understood generally by the public: Vaccines do not confer the same type of immunity that natural exposure to the disease does."

Vaccine professionals would like you to believe they are the same, but they're qualitatively two entirely different types of immune responses.

"In most cases natural exposure to disease would give you a longer lasting, more robust, qualitatively superior immunity because it gives you both cell mediated immunity and humoral immunity," Barbara explains. "Humoral is the antibody production. The way you measure vaccine-induced immunity is by how high the antibody titers are. (How many antibodies you have, basically.)

But the problem is, the cell mediated immunity is very important as well. Most vaccines evade cell mediated immunity and go straight for the antibodies, which is only one part of immunity. That's been the big problem with the production of vaccines."

Vaccines are designed to trick your body's immune system into producing protective antibodies needed to resist any future infection. However, your body is smarter than that. The artificial stimulation of your immune system produced by lab altered bacteria and viruses simply does not replicate the exact response that your immune system mounts when naturally encountering the infectious microorganism.

According to Barbara:

"The fact that manmade vaccines cannot replicate the body's natural experience with the disease is one of the key points of contention between those who insist that mankind cannot live without mass use of multiple vaccines and those who believe that mankind's biological integrity will be severely compromised by their continued use.

...s it better to protect children against infectious disease early in life through temporary immunity from a vaccine, or are they better off contracting certain contagious infections in childhood and attaining permanent immunity? Do vaccine complications ultimately cause more chronic illness and death than infectious diseases do? These questions essentially pit trust in human intervention against trust in nature and the natural order, which existed long before vaccines were created by man."

Why We Must Defend Vaccine Exemptions

The religious exemption to vaccination is now under heavy attack across the country. In the video below, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), discusses this important exemption, and why it's so vital we defend our right to opt out of vaccinations for medical, religious, or conscientious belief reasons.

All Americans need to know their options for legally opting-out of vaccinations, and you also need to know why it's so important to protect this legal option, whether you choose to use every federally recommended vaccine for yourself and your children or not.

Download Interview Transcript

Get Informed Before You Vaccinate

No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks and have the ability to refuse to allow substances you consider to be harmful, toxic or poisonous to be forced upon you.

Unfortunately, the partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is getting closer and closer. There is some seroius discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent to medical risk-taking when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use. We cannot allow that happen!

It's vitally important to know your legal rights and understand your options when it comes to using vaccines and prescription drugs.

For example, your doctor is legally obligated to provide you with the CDC Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) sheet and discuss the potential symptoms of side effects of the vaccination(s) you or your child receive BEFORE vaccination takes place. If someone giving a vaccine does not do this, it is a a violation of federal law. Furthermore, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 also requires doctors and other vaccine providers to:

Keep a permanent record of all vaccines given and the manufacturer's name and lot number
Write down serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths that occur after vaccination in the patient's permanent medical record
File an official report of all serious health problems, hospitalizations, injuries and deaths following vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)

If a vaccine provider fails to inform, record or report, it is a violation of federal law. It's important to get all the facts before making your decision about vaccination; and to understand that you have the legal right to opt out of using a vaccine that you do not want you or your child to receive. At present, all 50 states allow a medical exemption to vaccination (medical exemptions must be approved by an M.D. or D.O.); 48 states allow a religious exemption to vaccination; and 18 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious belief exemption to vaccination. But as mentioned earlier, vaccine exemptions are under attack in a number of states, and it's in everyone's best interest to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions.

What You Can Do to Make a Difference

While it seems "old-fashioned," the only truly effective actions you can take to protect the right to informed consent to vaccination and expand your rights under the law to make voluntary vaccine choices, is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level, and it is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights will have the greatest impact.

Signing up to be a user of NVIC's free online Advocacy Portal at http://www.NVICAdvocacy.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; gives you access to practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. You will get real-time Action Alerts about what you can do if there are threats to vaccine exemptions in your state. With the click of a mouse or one touch on a Smartphone screen you will be put in touch with YOUR elected representatives so you can let them know how you feel and what you want them to do. Plus, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have all the information you need to make sure your voice is heard.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Contact Your Elected Officials

It is so important for you to reach out and make sure your concerns get on the radar screen of the leaders and opinion makers in your community, especially the politicians you elect and are directly involved in making vaccine laws in your state. These are your elected representatives, so you have a right and a responsibility to let them know what's really happening in your life and the lives of people you know when it comes to vaccine mandates. Be sure to share the "real life" experiences that you or people you know have had with vaccination.

Internet Resources

I also encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at http://www.NVIC.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;:

NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment by doctors or state officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Find a Doctor Who will Listen to Your Concerns

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don't want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the medical establishment in an effort to punish those patients and parents, who become truly educated about health and vaccination and want to make vaccine choices instead of being forced to follow risky one-size-fits-all vaccine policies.

If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor (or government official), do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media if you or your child are threatened.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they're starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate and connect with a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.




User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Exercise helps combat cancer -- surprised?

By Dr. Mercola

Mounting evidence shows that exercise can not only help cancer patients get well but also help keep their cancer from recurring. Yet, few oncologists tell their patients to engage in exercise beyond their simple daily, normal activities.

And many cancer patients are reluctant to exercise, or even discuss it with their oncologist.

A recent study1 by the Mayo Clinic investigated exercise habits among cancer patients and their clinicians' roles in providing related counseling, and found that:

"Participants overwhelmingly cited usual daily activities as their source of 'exercise.' Symptoms, particularly treatment-related, discouraged participation, with fear of harm being a significant concern only among younger women. Exercise was recognized as important for physical and mental well-being, but seldom as a means to mitigate symptoms.

...Although respondents preferred to receive guidance from their oncologist, none reported receiving more than general encouragement to 'stay active.' A lack of direction was typically accepted as a sanction of their current activity levels. Participants appeared less receptive to guidance from ancillary health professionals."

An Important Conversation You'd Be Wise to Have With Your Oncologist

Fear that exercise might be harmful appears to be largely unfounded, though it's certainly understandable. It can be difficult to be enthusiastic about exercise if you struggle with nausea, fatigue, and other detrimental side effects from the treatment. However, it may be helpful to focus on the benefits you can reap from exercise. For example, research has shown that exercising during and after cancer treatment can:

Reduce your risk of dying from cancer
Reduce your risk of cancer recurrence
Boost energy and minimize the side effects of conventional cancer treatment (see additional listing below)

The fact that most oncologists overlook this vital aspect of their patients' care is highly unfortunate, especially considering how most patients defer to their recommendations. However, it's not unexpected. Conventional doctors are trained to prescribe drugs, not exercise.

Ideally, they'd prescribe exercise in the same manner drugs are prescribed – in specific "doses" and intervals. To do this properly, oncologists would be wise to develop relationships with personal trainers, and prescribe training sessions for their patients. If you have cancer, I would highly recommend discussing exercise with your oncologist, and/or work with a trained fitness professional who can help you devise a safe and effective regimen.

Exercise Needs to Be Part of Standard Cancer Care

A recent report issued by the British organization Macmillan Cancer Support2 argues that exercise really should be part of standard cancer care. It recommends that all patients getting cancer treatment should be told to engage in moderate-intensity exercise for two and a half hours every week, stating that the advice to rest and take it easy after treatment is an outdated view.

The organization offers loads of helpful information about the benefits of exercise for cancer patients on their website, and also has a number of videos on the subject, available on their YouTube channel.3
Professor Robert Thomas discusses the benefits of physical activity after cancer treatment.



According to Ciaran Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support:4

"Cancer patients would be shocked if they knew just how much of a benefit physical activity could have on their recovery and long term health, in some cases reducing their chances of having to go through the grueling ordeal of treatment all over again..."

Indeed, the reduction in risk for recurrence is quite impressive. Previous research has shown that breast- and colon cancer patients who exercise regularly have half the recurrence rate than non-exercisers.5 Macmillan Cancer Support also notes that exercise can help you to mitigate some of the common side effects of conventional cancer treatment, including:
Reduce fatigue and improve your energy levels Manage stress, anxiety, low mood or depression Improve bone health
Improve heart health (some chemotherapy drugs and radiotherapy can cause heart problems later in life) Build muscle strength, relieve pain and improve range of movement Maintain a healthy weight
Sleep better Improve your appetite Prevent constipation
How Exercise Can Improve Cancer Outcome

This topic is near and dear to my heart, as I went to medical school in large part because I wanted to use exercise as a therapeutic tool to help people get healthier. I strongly believe that without fitness, it is virtually impossible to achieve optimal health. Lack of exercise can also severely hamper your recuperative efforts once disease has set in.

A 2005 study6 by researchers at Harvard Medical School found that breast cancer patients who exercise moderately for three to five hours a week cut their odds of dying from cancer by about half, compared to sedentary patients. In fact, any amount of weekly exercise increased a patient's odds of surviving breast cancer. This benefit remained constant regardless of whether women were diagnosed early on or after their cancer had spread.

Similarly, researchers investigating the impact of physical activity on cancer recurrence and survival in patients with stage III colon cancer found those who were more active cut their risk of recurrence in half.7

One of the primary reasons exercise works to lower your cancer risk is because it drives your insulin levels down, and controlling your insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks. It's also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die. This theory was demonstrated in two studies published in 2006. In one, mice who used running wheels developed fewer and smaller skin tumors.8 The second study found that exercise reduced the number and size of intestinal polyps.9

The studies also found that the number of tumors decreased along with body fat, which may be an additional factor.
This is because exercise helps lower your estrogen levels, which explains why exercise appears to be particularly potent against breast cancer.

If you're male, be aware that athletes have lower levels of circulating testosterone than non-athletes, and similar to the association between estrogen levels and breast cancer in women, testosterone is known to influence the development of prostate cancer in men. Strength training may be of particular benefit. In one 2009 study10, men who regularly worked out with weights and had the highest muscle strength were between 30 percent and 40 percent less likely to lose their life to a deadly tumor.

Other research has shown:

Exercising moderately for six hours a week may reduce colorectal cancer mortality11
Three hours per week of moderate-intensity physical activity may lower risk of prostate cancer mortality by about 30 percent12, and lower the rate of disease progression by 57 percent13

Of course, exercise also improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood, whose job it is to neutralize pathogens throughout your body. The better these cells circulate, the more efficient your immune system is at locating and defending against viruses and diseases, including cancer, trying to attack your body.

Exercise Tips for Cancer Patients

I would strongly recommend you read up on my Peak Fitness program, which includes high-intensity exercises that can reduce your exercise time while actually improving your benefits.

Now, if you have cancer or any other chronic disease, you will of course need to tailor your exercise routine to your individual circumstances, taking into account your fitness level and current health. Often, you will be able to take part in a regular exercise program – one that involves a variety of exercises like strength training, core-building, stretching, aerobic and anaerobic – with very little changes necessary. However, at times you may find you need to exercise at a lower intensity, or for shorter durations.

Always listen to your body and if you feel you need a break, take time to rest. But even exercising for just a few minutes a day is better than not exercising at all, and you'll likely find that your stamina increases and you're able to complete more challenging workouts with each passing day. In the event you are suffering from a very weakened immune system, you may want to exercise at home instead of visiting a public gym. But remember that exercise will ultimately help to boost your immune system, so it's very important to continue with your program, even if you suffer from chronic illness or cancer.

Intense Workouts May Also Be Safe for Heart Patients

Another group of people often discouraged from exercise are those suffering with heart problems, but even here the mindset is starting to change. In an about-face in the way patients recovering from heart attacks or heart surgery are typically treated, a new study14 suggests high intensity workouts may in fact be a safe choice. The study followed 4,800 Norwegian heart patients who did aerobics. Only three cardiac arrests occurred in over 170,000 hours of intensive exercise in these patients.

According to Reuters:15

"The number was too small to say for sure that high impact workouts are just as safe as moderate ones, but they show the overall risk of exercise bringing on cardiac arrest is fairly low, according to the authors. There is plenty of evidence that the harder people work out, the more benefit they gain in cardiovascular function, said Oeivind Rognmo, a researcher at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim and lead author of the study..."

The participants completed both moderate- and high intensity workouts, spending a combined total of 129,456 hours working out at moderate intensity and 46,364 hours at high intensity. Moderate intensity workouts included an hour of walking, or other exercises resulting in exertion at 60-70 percent of maximum heart rate. The high intensity workouts consisted of four-minute-intervals (cycling, running, or cross country skiing), pushing their heart rate up to 85-95 percent of maximum, followed by four-minute-long rest periods.

During the more than 129,000 combined hours of moderate exercise, one person died from cardiac arrest. And during over 46,000 combined hours of high-intensity workouts, two suffered cardiac arrest during or within an hour of exercise, but both survived. According to the lead author:16

"We found that both types of intensities were associated with low event rates... I think (high intensity training) should be considered for patients with coronary heart disease."

Remember to Listen to Your Body

One of the key principles I teach and believe in is to listen to your body. This applies no matter what your current state of health is. If your body will not allow you to exercise, either due to pain or worsening of your underlying condition, then you have no practical option but to honor your body's signals and exercise less.

Even though your body desperately needs the exercise to improve, you will only get worse if you violate your current limitations. So you may have to start with as little as just minutes a day. That's okay. As your body gradually improves so will your tolerance to exercise, and you'd be wise to do as much as your body will allow in order to achieve a high level of health.


Additional Strategies to Help Prevent Cancer

While exercise is an important facet of cancer prevention and treatment, it's certainly not the only one. I believe the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strictly applying the healthy lifestyle recommendations below:

Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
Optimize your vitamin D.
Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature's most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I'm aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.
Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide – a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried – has been found to increase cancer risk as well.
Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
Improve your insulin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and making sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It's important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
Drink a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily.
Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
Curcumin.
This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer. For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.17 It's important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I've provided several absorption tips here.
Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk
Make sure you're not iodine deficient, as there's compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein18, author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein's book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are too high.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Broccoli vs Sugar -- you make the choice
By Dr. Mercola

Mounting scientific studies have demonstrated that broccoli is one of nature's most valuable health-promoting foods. Science has proven time after time that Mother Nature is the best physician, and food is the best medicine.

A recent study, published in the American Journal of Hypertension,1 adds to the mounting scientific evidence about broccoli's noteworthy health benefits. A compound in broccoli, glucosinolate, produces a metabolite called sulforaphane that can significantly improve your blood pressure and kidney function, according to this latest animal study.

Sulforaphane is an organic sulfur compound found in cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, horseradish and arugula – but it's highest in broccoli sprouts.

Sulforaphane has been shown to have antidiabetic and antimicrobial properties, and also kills cancer stem cells, which slows tumor growth. Researchers believe eliminating cancer stem cells is key to controlling cancer.

This is something current chemotherapies cannot do, but food can! This latest research confirms broccoli's benefits go beyond cancer prevention.

In this 2012 study, hypertensive rats with impaired kidney function were given sulforaphane. The natural compound improved the rats' kidney function and lowered their blood pressure by normalizing a process called DNA methylation.

The Food You Eat Actually Changes Your DNA

What is DNA methylation?

Without getting too far adrift in biochemistry, DNA methylation2 is the process by which a methyl group (one carbon atom attached to three hydrogen atoms) is added to part of a DNA molecule. DNA methylation is a crucial part of normal cell function, allowing cells to "remember who they are and where they have been" and is important in regulating gene expression. DNA methylation also suppresses the genes for things you DON'T want, such as viral and other disease-related genes. Abnormal DNA methylation plays a crucial role in the development of nearly all types of cancer.

Broccoli sprouts have also been shown to inhibit Helicobacter pylori (the bacteria thought to cause gastric ulcers), protect your heart, and may offer protection against UV radiation damage to your skin when applied topically.3 The sulforaphane from broccoli plays a role in activating more than 200 different genes. And you don't have to consume a truckload of broccoli to reap its benefits.

In fact, a 2008 study published in PLoS One4 found that just four servings of broccoli per week could protect men from prostate cancer. One serving of broccoli is about two spears, so that's only 10 broccoli spears per week.

Researchers believe hypertension (and kidney dysfunction) may result from a disturbance in DNA methylation, and it may just be that sulforaphane improves blood pressure and kidney function by ameliorating this problem. So, any food that mediates DNA methylation is very helpful toward keeping you healthy – and broccoli is one of the BEST! But if you hate broccoli, don't fret. Broccoli sprouts aren't your ONLY salvation if you suffer from hypertension or kidney trouble.

Hypertension is a Stroke's Best Friend

You are generally diagnosed with pre-hypertension if your blood pressure is between 120/80 and 140/80, and anything above 140/80 is generally diagnosed as hypertension ("high blood pressure"). Hypertension is dangerous because it typically shows no warning signs or symptoms, and in its complete silence, can cause a stroke. Drugs advertised to "treat" hypertension will not change or in any way address the underlying cause of your hypertension. That's the bad news.

The good news is that more than 85 percent of those who have hypertension can normalize their blood pressure with some basic lifestyle modifications.

The REAL Cause of Most Hypertension May Surprise You

High blood pressure is typically related to your body developing resistance to insulin. As your insulin level rises, your blood pressure rises. Most physicians – even cardiologists – do not understand the crucial connection between blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and insulin.

Dr. Richard Johnson, author of the book The Fat Switch, masterfully ties together the connection between hypertension, kidney disease, obesity and diabetes in his previous book, The Sugar Fix, which is one of the best books written on this issue. Dr. Johnson is the Chief of the Kidney Disease and Hypertension Division at the University of Colorado, and I would encourage you to listen to his interview.

Download Interview Transcript

According to Dr. Johnson, there is one major factor linking ALL of the health problems listed above: high dietary fructose. While sugar (sucrose) is a major source of fructose, it may not be quite as bad as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Americans on the whole are fructose addicts. HFCS is added to sodas, fruit juices, and nearly all processed foods lining supermarket shelves. HFCS in soda is a major source of calories in the typical American diet, so it's no wonder diabetes has risen to epidemic proportions. In fact, the use of high fructose corn syrup in the U.S. diet increased a staggering 10,673 percent between 1970 and 2005, according to a major USDA report.5 That statistic is no major surprise considering that, in addition to soda and sweetened beverages, processed foods account for more than 90 percent of the money Americans spend on their meals.

Unlike glucose, which is burned by fuel in every cell in your body, fructose, if not immediately consumed as fuel, is metabolized into fat by your liver, which can set the ball rolling toward insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. I highly recommend getting a fasting insulin level test, which must be ordered by your doctor. The level you want to strive for is about 2 to 3. If it's above 5, then you have a problem and you definitely need to get your insulin level down as you are at risk for cardiovascular problems.

The Fructose-Insulin Connection

What is the link between fructose and blood pressure? Fructose in your diet raises your blood pressure in three key ways:

When your liver breaks down fructose, uric acid is produced as a byproduct. Uric acid also drives up your blood pressure by inhibiting nitric oxide in your blood vessels. Nitric oxide helps your blood vessels maintain their elasticity. When you consume large amounts of fructose, increasing uric acid levels drive up your blood pressure. If your uric acid levels are chronically elevated, you have an increased risk for hypertension, kidney disease, metabolic syndrome and diabetes. Large amounts of fructose also place a great strain on your liver, which is responsible for most of the metabolic burden.
As metabolic physician and nutrition expert Dr. Ron Rosedale has explained, insulin stores magnesium. If your insulin receptors are blunted and your cells grow resistant to insulin, you can't store magnesium, so it passes out of your body through urination. Magnesium relaxes muscles; so, when your magnesium level is low, your blood vessels will constrict rather than relax, which further raises your blood pressure.
Insulin causes your body to retain sodium, which in turn causes fluid retention. Fluid retention results in elevated blood pressure and can ultimately lead to congestive heart failure.

If your blood pressure is elevated and you consume a lot of sugar – especially in the form of fructose (such as high fructose corn syrup) – lowering your blood pressure might be as simple as cutting all forms of sugar and grains out of your diet. Normalizing your blood glucose levels will normalize your insulin and bring those blood pressures down into a healthy range. I strongly advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day, or as low as 15 grams if you have high blood pressure, are overweight, or diabetic.

The fructose in whole fruits is generally healthy, unless you consume large amounts, and/or in the form of fruit juices or dried fruits. Still, if you have any of the health issues just mentioned and you're consuming large amounts of fruit, you would be wise to restrict your fruit intake to under 15 grams of fructose per day as well until your condition has normalized.

Tips for Achieving a Healthy Blood Pressure without Drugs

Besides drastically reducing or eliminating fructose consumption, there are some basic lifestyle modifications that will help optimize your blood pressure, improve your liver and kidney function, and reduce your overall risk for disease. Make sure you address each of the following:

Use exercise as a drug. Physical activity is by far one of the most potent "drug" there is, especially for increasing insulin sensitivity and normalizing blood glucose and blood pressure levels. We have developed a comprehensive fitness program that includes high intensity interval burst-type activity, stretching, and resistance training, which are all important components of a complete fitness program.
Follow a good nutrition plan that's right for your body. It should be rich in fresh, organic vegetables, raw nuts and seeds, raw organic dairy, eggs from pastured hens, grass-fed meats, healthy fats such as coconut oil and animal-based omega-3, and plenty of fresh pure water.
Optimize your vitamin D levels. Sunlight, and the vitamin D it causes your body to produce, has a normalizing effect on your blood pressure. Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome.

The best source for vitamin D is direct sun exposure. But for many of us, this just isn't practical during the winter. The next best option to sunlight is the use of a safe indoor tanning device. If neither natural nor artificial sunlight is an option, then using oral vitamin D3 supplements is your best bet. If you wish to take an oral vitamin D3 supplement, follow my dose recommendations, which are based on the latest scientific research. The only way to know your optimal dose is to get your blood tested. Ideally, you'll want to maintain a vitamin D level of 50-70 ng/ml year-round.

For an in-depth explanation of everything you need to know about vitamin D, please listen to my FREE one-hour vitamin D lecture.
Manage your stress. Stress puts the "tension" into hypertension! The long-term activation of your stress-response system can disrupt nearly all of your body's processes, and elevated blood pressure is one of many negative effects. Finding a way to deal with life's everyday stressors is a necessity for good health. My preferred tool is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
Get plenty of deep, restorative sleep each night.

WARNING to Those Taking Blood Pressure Medications

I rarely recommend the use of drugs, but in some cases it may be appropriate to keep taking them as a temporary measure until you are healthy enough to wean yourself off. If you have serious hypertension, this is one of those cases.

If you are on medication for high blood pressure, please do not discontinue it without consulting your healthcare provider. Stroke risk is a serious concern. As you gradually make the necessary lifestyle changes, your need for medication will lessen, and eventually you'll probably be able to discontinue the drug altogether. It takes determination and commitment, but it IS possible – I've seen it many times! So keep taking your medications as prescribed, working with your healthcare provider, and keep eating your broccoli.

What's the Secret Key to Eliminating Hypertension?

Humans are genetically programmed to seek energy-dense foods, which served us well for thousands of years, when food was scarce. However this is maladaptive in today's environment of readily available, cheap, high-calorie but nutritionally bankrupt foods.

The standard American diet has tripped our "fat switch," as Dr. Johnson discusses in his new book, which results not only in unwanted pounds but also in related health problems such as hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease. Once you understand how fructose-rich foods activate your body's "fat switch," you can finally say goodbye to many of your most nagging health problems.[/code]

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

I agree with Dr Mercola, based on lots of evidence, that aspartame is dangerous.

IIRC, Donald Rumsfeld has made a LOT of money from the sale of this substance.

By Dr. Mercola

More than 90 countries have given the artificial sweetener aspartame the green light to be used in thousands of food and beverage products.1

Two hundred times sweeter than sugar, aspartame allows food manufacturers to produce sweet foods they can market as “low calorie,” “diet,” or sugar-free,” appealing to hundreds of millions of consumers looking to cut sugar from their diets.

No doubt about it, the less sugar you include in your diet, the better. But replacing sugar with aspartame is not the solution, and in fact is likely to be even worse for your health.

Despite assurances from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other public health agencies that aspartame is safe, the research says otherwise…

So What the Heck is Aspartame Made Of?

Virtually all of the marketing material emphasizes the fact that aspartame is natural and made of two amino acids, the building blocks of protein. But, like many deceptions, this is only partially true. While there are two amino acids that comprise 90% of aspartame, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, they are held together in a methyl ester bond that comprises 10% of the molecule.

The methanol is released from the aspartame within hours of consumption after hydrolysis of the methyl group of the dipeptide by chymotrypsin in the small intestine. Once this methyl ester bond is broken it liberates free methyl alcohol or methanol, which is commonly called wood alcohol. The problem with methanol is that it passes into your blood-brain barrier and is converted into formaldehyde, which causes the damage. You may recognize formaldehyde as embalming fluid.

Interestingly, methanol is only toxic in humans. All other animals are able to detoxify it before it causes damage.

Methanol is a toxin that destroys the myelin tissue in your body, which is the insulating material around your nerves that allows nerve signals to travel properly. Once injured, one can have what are called demyelinating symptoms that are commonly seen in diseases like MS and also migraines that can include bizarre and inconsistent visual field disruptions.

My sister that helped me start my practice in 1985 is actually one of the people that develops these symptoms when exposed to aspartame. In the late ‘80s I helped to diagnose her with this sensitivity and she has avoided it for over 25 years.

Why is Methanol So Toxic?

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in your body. Many experts believe formic acid is the problem but the real problem is the formaldehyde, which is a deadly neurotoxin and carcinogen. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol "is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic."2

They recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. But according to Woodrow Monte, Ph.D, R.D., director of the Food Science and Nutrition Laboratory at Arizona State University:3

“When diet sodas and soft drinks, sweetened with aspartame, are used to replace fluid loss during exercise and physical exertion in hot climates, the intake of methanol can exceed 250 mg/day or 32 times the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended limit of consumption for this cumulative toxin.

Further, he states that due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans.

“There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol,” he said.

Symptoms from methanol poisoning are many, and include headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen that causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and may cause birth defects. The researchers in the featured study then reasoned that the aspartame-induced methanol exposure was likely possible for oxidative stress in the brain.

New Study Shows Aspartame Damages Your Brain

A newly published study with rats investigated the chronic effect of aspartame on oxidative stress in the brain. Researchers found that there was a significant increase in lipid peroxidation levels, superoxide dismutase activity, GPx levels and CAT activity, showing that chronic exposure of aspartame resulted in detectable methanol in the blood, which may be responsible for the generation of oxidative stress and damage in the brain.4

So the study found that aspartame exposure did result in “detectable levels” of methanol in the blood. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounters the enzyme chymotrypsin.

Are Artificial Sweeteners Stressing Out Your Brain?

Oxidative stress can be defined as the state in which damaging free radicals outnumber your antioxidant defenses. Oxidative stress tends to lead to accelerated tissue and organ damage.

Case in point, earlier this year another study investigated the effect of long-term intake of aspartame on the antioxidant defense status in the rat brain and also found it leads to oxidative stress.5 Male rats that were given a high dose of the artificial sweetener exhibited a lowered concentration of reduced glutathione (the active, antioxidant form of glutathione), and reduced glutathione reductase activity, a sign of increased oxidative stress-induced damage in the body.

Glutathione deficiency has also been linked to age-related diseases such as Alzheimer's. Examination also revealed mild vascular congestion – an obstruction of the normal flow of blood within the brain – in these rats. Researchers concluded:

"The results of this experiment indicate that long-term consumption of aspartame leads to an imbalance in the antioxidant/pro-oxidant status in the brain, mainly through the mechanism involving the glutathione-dependent system."

Adding to the problem, one of the amino acids in aspartame, aspartic acid is capable of crossing your blood-brain barrier. There it attacks your brain cells, creating a form of cellular overstimulation called excitotoxicity, which can lead to cell death.

Your blood-brain barrier, which normally protects your brain from excess aspartate, as well as toxins, is not able to adequately protect you against the effects of aspartame consumption because it:

Is not fully developed during childhood
Does not fully protect all areas of the brain
Is damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions
Allows seepage of excess aspartate into the brain even when intact

That excess aspartate slowly begins to destroy neurons, and the large majority (75 percent or more) of neural cells in a particular area of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are noticed. Then, when they do occur, they may or may not be associated with aspartame consumption, even though examples of chronic illnesses that are made worse by long-term exposure to excitatory amino acid damage include:
Multiple sclerosis (MS) ALS Memory loss
Hormonal problems Hearing loss Epilepsy
Alzheimer's disease and dementia Parkinson's disease Hypoglycemia
AIDS Brain lesions Neuroendocrine disorders

Why Was Aspartame Ever Approved?

If it causes brain damage, why is aspartame allowed in our food and drinks? The truth of the matter is the FDA rejected aspartame not once but multiple times. The scientific data just did not support it as a safe product. But the FDA is a federal agency subject to the political winds, and the people in charge of the agency have repeatedly and notoriously been accused of many conflicts of interest, both economically and ethically.

In 1975, the FDA came to the conclusion that aspartame should not be allowed on the market. They requested that further studies be conducted. The FDA's next move was to set up a public board of inquiry composed of outside experts to investigate the safety of aspartame, and in 1980 that board unanimously rejected aspartame's request for approval. Another internal FDA panel convened in 1980 also rejected aspartame for approval.

So it was three strikes against aspartame at this point, four strikes if you count the Bressler Report. This report was compiled in 1977 after FDA scientists looked into the field studies conducted on aspartame. The Bressler Report uncovered fraud and manipulation of data so serious that the FDA forwarded their files to the Chicago U.S. Attorney's office for prosecution.

Basically the results of the scientific data were fairly clear up until 1980: Aspartame was a dangerous, brain-tumor-causing man-made poison and the company trying to get it into the food supply was recommended for prosecution by the FDA. You would think that would be the end of aspartame, right?

Not by a long shot.

For more details on the story of how aspartame made it through the FDA approval process despite warning signs of potential health hazards and alleged scientific fraud, please watch the 60-Minutes report below, as Mike Wallace does a nice job of summarizing an otherwise very long story.

Did You Know Aspartame May Make You Fat?

If you’re one of the people who suffers from headaches/migraines, vision problems, fatigue, anxiety attacks, abdominal pains or other symptoms when you consume aspartame, deciding to eliminate it from your diet was probably an easy choice.

For the rest of you, doing so based on the possibility that it could “one day” cause symptoms of brain damage is much more abstract, and probably much less likely to make you take action today.

That’s why I want to share with you one of the major deceptions surrounding artificial sweeteners like aspartame, which is that they will help you lose weight by avoiding sugar.

This is a MYTH. Research has shown that artificial sweeteners can:

Stimulate your appetite
Increase carbohydrate cravings
Stimulate fat storage and weight gain. In fact, diet sodas, which are well-known sources of artificial sweeteners, may actually double your risk of obesity!6

So much for being a dieter's best friend... The point is, if you’re having a hard time giving up aspartame based on its potential to damage your brain, maybe the fact that it could make you pack on the pounds in the very near future will motivate you toward positive change.

My Favorite Tool for Addressing Artificial Sweetener Addictions

Artificial sweeteners tend to trigger enhanced activity within your brain's pleasure centers, yet at the same time provide less actual satisfaction. This separation of the taste of sweetness from caloric content means that when you consume artificial sweeteners, your brain actually craves more of it because your body receives no satisfaction on a cellular level by the sugar imposter. This can actually contribute to not only overeating and weight gain, but also an addiction to artificial sweeteners.

In order to break free, be sure you address the emotional component to your food cravings using a tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). More than any traditional or alternative method I have used or researched, EFT works to overcome food cravings and helps you reach dietary success. If diet soda is the culprit for you, be sure to check out Turbo Tapping, which is an extremely effective and simple tool to get rid of your soda addiction in a short amount of time.

If you're determined to sweeten your foods and beverages, I urge you to consider using stevia extract – a safe and natural sweet herb, which is my personal sweetener of choice. Lo Han is another herbal sweetener that doesn’t have the aftertaste of stevia that many object to.
Please note -- the connection between sodas with Aspartame and dementia/ Alzheimer's.

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Excellent article follows, about getting up off that chair!
I have two spots where I put my lap-top and type while standing and moving around a bit, stretching occasionally also. In fact, I'm standing right now, and doing knee-bends.

By Dr. Mercola

According to recent research, if Americans cut back on the amount of time spent sitting down, it could add years to your life expectancy.

Unfortunately, most people spend a large portion of each day in a seated position. It's hard to avoid these days, as computer work predominates, and most also spend many precious hours each week commuting to and from work.

The study estimates that reducing the average time you spend sitting down to less than three hours a day could increase your life expectancy by two years.1 Reducing the time you spend watching TV to less than two hours a day could increase it by 1.4 years.

As reported by NBC News:2

"The study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that sitting itself is deadly. While previous studies have looked at the health risks to the individual, the new study examines the risk of sitting for the whole population, said study researcher Peter Katzmarzyk, of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La. The research 'elevates sedentary behavior as an important risk factor, similar to smoking and obesity,' Katzmarzyk said.

Other studies have found our culture of sitting may be responsible for about 173,000 cases of cancer each year.

Because U.S. adults spend, on average, between 4.5 and five hours a day sitting down, a significant shift in the population's behavior would be needed to have an effect on life expectancy, Katzmarzyk said. This might be achieved through changes at the workplace, such as the use of standing desks, and by watching less TV..."

Obesity Panacea3 made a good point in its report on this study:

"These sorts of theoretical studies obviously need to be taken with a large dollop of salt (just like the recent Australian study4 which estimated that every hour of TV viewing shortens your life by 25 minutes). The point is simply that there is a non-negligible impact of sitting/TV viewing on mortality, and given the extremely high prevalence of these behaviors at the population level, they can have noticeable impact on the lifespan of the population as a whole."

How to Increase Activity Levels on the Job

While sitting down is not the only thing that can cause trouble (adopting any particular posture for long periods of time can slow down your circulatory system), sitting is one of the most pervasive postures in modern civilizations. So how can you increase your activity levels if you have a "desk job," as so many of us do these days?

One of the things I do to compensate for the time I spend sitting each day is to regularly do Foundation exercises developed by a brilliant chiropractor, Eric Goodman. These exercises are used by many professional and elite athletes, but more importantly can easily address the root cause of most low back pain, which is related to weakness and imbalance among your posterior chain of muscles. It is easily argued that these imbalances are primarily related to sitting. I have recently interviewed Dr. Goodman and he shares his comments on the featured report below.

Here are two video demonstrations: "The Founder," which helps reinforce proper movement while strengthening the entire back of your body, and "Adductor Assisted Back Extension," which will teach you how to properly extend your spine.

Powerful New Way to Compensate for Sitting – Foundation Trainng

I recently learned of Dr. Eric Goodman's work through his TED presentation and was excited about the simplicity and elegance of his approach to address this issue. Many elite and professional athletes are big fans of his work. I asked him to comment on this article and he wrote the following:

"Many lifestyles require that people sit very often. While this may not be ideal, it is certainly ok. No law of nature requires that our body begins to deteriorate as soon as you sit down; it's actually the simple repetition that gets you. Fortunately there is a lot you can do to help counterbalance this, starting today.

You have some important anatomy happening in and around your hips, pelvis, spine and stomach. Unfortunately, these are precisely the areas that get the worst of your weight when you sit all day. It is because of this that teaching your pelvis and spine to remain supported while we sit, and more importantly, while you stand, is of the utmost importance.

Think about it for a moment, we are all very muscular animals… well, at least we have the ability to be very muscular animals. If sitting all day teaches your back, butt and leg muscles that it is ok to remain squishy and act more as a cushion than a support structure, you should do exactly the opposite to counter it. You have to let your muscles feel what they have accidentally forgotten, the feeling of being used for their original purpose.

Get up!

Stand up throughout the day to stretch your body appropriately, the way it is meant to be stretched. The simple act of standing as tall as possible for a minute or two will help break the pattern of sitting, as long as you repeat it frequently. Be sure that while standing you take full deep breaths to expand your torso as well. We often have very shallow breath while we sit, counter that with big deep breaths as often as you can throughout the day.

My opinion is that people should not go longer than 30 minutes in a chair without standing, deep breathing, walking and stretching. If you think I am crazy for asking that much of you, then I suggest you not go longer than 20 minutes.

Helpful Tips You Can Do Now:

You will do less harm by sitting upright on the front edge of your chair. Back rests tend to promote excessive rounding of the spine, and tend to push people into what's called an anterior head carriage. The further forward your head goes the shorter your hip flexors will remain and that just leads to all sorts of movement problems.
When sitting for a while try to keep your chest (sternum) in front of your chin. As soon as the head starts to fall forward you enter the compression and degeneration danger zone. Play around to see if you can feel a difference.
Think of lengthening the distance between the rib cage and the pelvis when you stand. This will lengthen your hip flexors.
If you have a life that keeps you sitting frequently, and you haven't tried Foundation Training yet, please do. Our work will likely help you. At least watch my TED talk and learn an important trick to counter balance the effects of sitting all day."

Regular Exercise May Not Be Enough to Compensate for Excessive Sitting...

I am a major proponent of exercise and believe it is absolutely essential if you are going to achieve any level of high-level health and wellness. Interestingly, previous research has suggested that even if you have a regular fitness regimen, it might not be enough to compensate for excessively sedentary behavior during the remaining hours of each day due to the adverse metabolic effects sitting down generates.

One 2009 study5 highlighted much of the recent evidence linking sitting with biomarkers of poor metabolic health, showing how total sitting time correlates with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and other prevalent chronic health problems. According to the authors:

"Even if people meet the current recommendation of 30 minutes of physical activity on most days each week, there may be significant adverse metabolic and health effects from prolonged sitting – the activity that dominates most people's remaining 'non-exercise' waking hours."

In other words, even if you're fairly physically active, riding your bike to work or hitting the gym four or five days a week – you may still succumb to the effects of too much sitting if the majority of your day is spent behind a desk or on the couch. Researchers have dubbed this phenomenon the "active couch potato effect."

The Price You Pay for a Sedentary Lifestyle

A number of studies have looked into the health ramifications of leading a sedentary lifestyle. The research linking too much sitting with increased risks of disease and premature death is quite eye-opening:

Men who were sedentary for more than 23 hours a week had a 64 percent greater risk of dying from heart disease than those who were sedentary less than 11 hours a week, according to a 2010 study in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.6
A study of more than 17,000 Canadians7 found that the mortality risk from all causes was 1.54 times higher among people who spent most of their day sitting compared to those who sat infrequently.
Sitting time is a predictor of weight gain, according to a study of Australian women,8 even after accounting for calories consumed and leisure time physical activity, such as exercise time.
The risk of metabolic syndrome rises in a dose-dependent manner depending on your "screen time" (the amount of time you spend watching TV or using a computer). Physical activity had only a minimal impact on the relationship between screen time and metabolic syndrome.9
People who use a computer for 11 hours or more a week, or watch TV for 21 hours or more a week, are more likely to be obese than those who use a computer or watch TV for 5 hours a week or less.10

More Exercises You Can Do

I recently interviewed Dr. Goodman and he comprehensively described his program but that interview will not be out for a while. In the meantime he also had these useful suggestions to share:

"When it comes to your core, 'It's all in the hips, baby.' Every muscle that directly connects to the pelvis should be considered a piece of your core. To say it another way, your athletic ability, flexibility, balance and strength are all rather dependent on powerful hips. Here are some muscles that it would be a good idea to strengthen:

Glutes: These are the powerhouses of the body. They do not work alone.
Adductors (Inner thigh muscles): your built in traction system. When the adductor group of muscles remains strong you have increased in hip stability, stronger arches in the feet, and a pelvic brace using a couple of the strongest muscles in the body.
The deep lower back muscles: facilitate the proper integration of the Posterior Chain of Muscles. Simply put, a weak lower back changes every aspect of your movement patterns for the worse.
The abdomen and hip flexors: Think of the front of your body as a window that shows what is happening at the spine and pelvis. If the front is always too tight, the back is not working properly.
The Transverse Abdominal muscle: A built in bracing system. When the transverse abdominus is tightened against the other muscles among this core group, the entire system becomes stronger.

In order to better stabilize your pelvis you need an integrated approach at strengthening all of the muscles surrounding it. Focusing on the abdomen and hip flexors excludes roughly 80% of the muscles which allow stable powerful movement from the integrated core of the body. I speak about adaptation very often, in this case by allowing our bodies to adapt to a seated position we have stopped using many of our most important muscles effectively. These core muscles are not able to function as they should without proper length, strength and balance.

You've got to get reacquainted with your posterior chain of muscles, get the back of your body stronger, and start by connecting the deepest layers. Use these 2 simple exercises to feel what I am talking about: (Founder and integrated back extension) I know what happens on the other end of this, I've had the personal reward of changing my movement patterns for the better. I used it to avoid back surgery at a young age and I now surprise myself daily at what I am able to do without pain.

A simple shift of patterns can lead to extraordinary, life changing results. Enjoy the process!
"

User avatar
BroJones
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8247
Location: Varies.
Contact:

Re: Dr. MERCOLA --> alternative health and fitness

Post by BroJones »

Probiotics

By Dr. Mercola

Probiotics, i.e. beneficial gut bacteria have been heavily featured in the media lately, and for good reason. Researchers are increasingly realizing just how essential your intestinal microflora really is to your health.

The easiest way to improve the makeup of bacteria in your gut is to include traditionally fermented foods in your diet, but in an emergency situation, a novel procedure called fecal microbiota transplant may be the difference between life and death.

Who Knew a Fecal Transplant Could Be a Life Saving Procedure?

Such was the case with Kaitlin Hunter, a California woman who developed a potentially lethal bacterial infection in her colon after spending a month in the hospital recuperating from a serious car accident.

As reported by CNN Health:1

"In the hospital after her accident, doctors followed standard care and put Hunter on antibiotics to prevent an infection. In spite of the antibiotics – or possibly because of them – Clostrium difficile (C. diff) infected her colon, causing severe stomach pain, diarrhea and vomiting...

It's believed that antibiotics, which kill harmful infection-causing bacteria, also weaken the beneficial, healthy bacteria percolating in the colon. With the colon's defenses down, C. diff grows rampant, releasing a toxin and inflaming the colon.

C. diff infections kill about 14,000 people in the United States every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the number and severity of total cases have increased dramatically over the past decade."

A fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) involves taking donor feces (the donor is typically a spouse or relative; in the Kaitlin's case, it was her mother) and transferring it to the patient during a colonoscopy. In this way, the patient receives a transplanted population of healthy bacteria that can combat the overgrowth of pathogenic bacteria.

Recent research has shown the procedure to be very effective against recurrent Clostridium difficile infections. In a study2 published earlier this summer, FMT had a 91 percent primary cure rate, meaning resolution of symptoms without recurrence within 90 days of FMT. The secondary cure rate was 98 percent. Here, resolution of symptoms occurred after one additional course of vanomycin either with or without probiotics and/or a repeat FMT.

Antibiotics Without Probiotics Can Be a Dangerous Proposition

Kaitlin had received nine rounds of antibiotics, so it's no wonder such a dangerous infection could get foothold in her colon. In this particular case, the fecal transplant likely saved her life.

However, I would dissuade you from thinking this procedure is a magical route to fix less than life threatening conditions. Furthermore, it's important to understand that you have the power to prevent such a dangerous condition from occurring in the first place. It would certainly be nice if more doctors understood the importance of reseeding the gut with probiotics during and after a course of antibiotics, to reduce the health risks to their patients. However, as in so many other instances, many doctors still overlook this critical step, and this is where knowledge and self-responsibility comes into play.

Any time you take an antibiotic, it is important to take probiotics to repopulate the beneficial bacteria in your gut that are killed by the antibiotic along with the pathogenic bacteria. And you certainly don't need a doctor's prescription or permission for this.

If you're in a hospital setting, you're not likely to be served fermented foods, but you could have a family member or friend bring some in, or ask your doctor to sign off on a probiotics supplement. Outside a hospital setting, your best bet is to incorporate traditionally fermented foods in your diet, so you're constantly maintaining a healthy bacterial balance.

Other Infections that Can Be Treated with Probiotics

Clostridium difficile infections are very serious, and since the cure rate with beneficial bacteria is so high for this type of infection, it can give you an idea of the power of probiotics for other, far less lethal ailments. For example, another type of infection that is far more common than C. diff. is Candida albicans.

An overgrowth of Candida, a type of yeast, can cause a variety of chronic health problems in both men and women. Under normal circumstances Candida albicans is a harmless part of your skin, intestines, and for women, your vagina. But Candida cells develop rapidly, and if your system is out of balance from eating unhealthy foods, taking certain prescription drugs, or fighting an illness for example, Candida can quickly grow out of control.

Vaginal yeast infections tend to occur when the normal acidity of a woman's vagina changes, allowing the yeast to multiply. It's estimated that up to 75 percent of women have had at least one vaginal yeast infection in their lifetime, which typically is accompanied by intense itching, burning with urination and sometimes a thick, white discharge. Up to 80 million Americans – 70 percent of them women – suffer from yeast-related problems, and if you suffer from yeast infections (especially if they're recurrent) you should also be on the watch for other symptoms of Candida overgrowth, such as:
Chronic fatigue Weight gain
Food allergies Irritable bowel syndrome
Migraines PMS



As with all yeast-related problems, the infection occurs because your system has become run down or out of balance, allowing the Candida that already exists in your body to multiply out of control, causing illness. You may also fall into the trap of treating the infection with an over-the-counter anti-fungal cream, and then assuming that when the symptoms disappear the problem is cured. However, these creams only treat the symptoms and do nothing about the underlying yeast overgrowth that caused the problem to begin with.

How to Harness Your Gut Bacteria for Better Health

Do you suffer from gas and bloating? Constipation or diarrhea? Fatigue? Headaches? Sugar cravings? All of these are signs that unhealthy bacteria of one type or another have taken over too much real estate in your gut, which is actually quite common considering how vulnerable your gut bacteria are to environmental insults. It's important to realize that your lifestyle can and does influence your gut flora on a daily basis. Therefore, to protect your microflora, you'll want to avoid:

Antibiotics
Chlorinated water
Antibacterial soap
Agricultural chemicals
Pollution

Poor diet is another enemy to healthy gut bacteria. Sugar is enemy number one, as it actually nourishes the bad or pathogenic bacteria, yeast, and fungi in your gut. Hence, dramatically limiting or eliminating sugar and fructose is an essential step to optimize your gut health. Processed foods also promote bad bacteria – partly due to the high fructose content in most processed foods, but also because of the processing, which essentially "kills" the food.

One of the major side benefits of eating a healthy diet like the one described in my nutrition plan is that it helps your beneficial gut bacteria to flourish. A critical part of a healthful diet is fermented foods, as they will actively "reseed" your body with good bacteria, and can do so far more effectively and inexpensively than a probiotic supplement. It's unusual to find a probiotic supplement containing more than 10 billion colony-forming units.

But when my team tested fermented vegetables produced by probiotic starter cultures, they had 10 trillion colony-forming units of bacteria. Literally, one serving of vegetables was equal to an entire bottle of a high potency probiotic! So clearly, you're far better off using fermented foods. Again, when choosing fermented foods, steer clear of pasteurized versions, as pasteurization will destroy many of the naturally-occurring probiotics. Examples of traditionally fermented foods include:

Fermented vegetables
Lassi (an Indian yoghurt drink, traditionally enjoyed before dinner)
Fermented milk, such as kefir (like fermented vegetables, a quart of unpasteurized kefir also has far more active bacteria than you can get from a probiotic supplement)
Natto (fermented soy)

Learn to Make Your Own Fermented Vegetables

Fermented vegetables are my favorite as they're both easy to make, and one of the tastiest types of fermented food. To learn how to inexpensively make your own, review the following interview with Caroline Barringer, a Nutritional Therapy Practitioner (NTP) and an expert in the preparation of the foods prescribed in Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride's Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS) Nutritional Program. In addition to the wealth of information shared in this interview, I highly recommend getting the book Gut and Psychology Syndrome, which provides all the necessary details for Dr. McBride's GAPS protocol.

Although you can use the native bacteria on cabbage and other vegetables, it is typically easier to get consistent results by using a starter culture. Caroline prepares hundreds of quarts of fermented vegetables a week and has found that she gets great results by using three to four high quality probiotic capsules to jump start the fermentation process. If you're not quite ready to make your own, Caroline also prepares the vegetables commercially. I used hers for a month before I started making my own batches. You can find her products on http://www.CulturedVegetables.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or http://www.CulturedNutrition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Download Interview Transcript

How to Reduce Chances of "Healing Crisis"

There is one precaution that needs to be discussed here, and that is the potential for a so-called "healing crisis," provoked by the massive die-off of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other harmful pathogens by the reintroduction of massive quantities of probiotics. It can significantly worsen whatever health problem you're experiencing, before you get better.

The reason for this is because when the probiotics kill off the pathogens, those pathogenic microbes release toxins. These toxins are what's causing your problem to begin with; be it depression, panic attacks, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, or any other symptom. When a large amount of toxin is suddenly released, your symptoms will also suddenly increase. So, if you've never had fermented foods before, you need to introduce them very gradually.

Dr. Campbell-McBride recommends starting off with just ONE TEASPOON of fermented vegetable, such as sauerkraut, with ONE of your meals, and then wait for a couple of days to see how you react. If it's manageable, you can have another helping, and gradually increase your portion. If you feel worse, stop. Let the side effects subside, and then have just a tiny amount again. Some may even need to start with just a teaspoon of the juice ferment to start. Then move on to two teaspoons per day, and so on.

It's important to realize that besides containing massive amounts of beneficial bacteria, fermented foods also contain many active enzymes, which act as extremely potent detoxifiers. As Dr. Cambell-McBride explains:

"Healing goes through two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, and one step back. But you will find that the next layer is smaller. The die off and the detox will not last as long as the previous one... We live in a toxic world, and many of us have accumulated layers and layers of toxicity in our bodies. The body will clean them out, but you will find that each layer will last shorter and not be as severe... Eventually, you will come to complete, radiant health. You will feel 100 percent healthy, no matter how ill you were before."

Post Reply