We can only be aware of the health news to which we are exposed. My mission is to help fill in at least a few of the gaps by casting a broad net (newspapers, database updates, radio shows, magazines, trusted websites) to find useful science-based facts that might be otherwise overlooked. Although there are tens of thousands of positive studies on natural approaches, the evening news and newspaper front pages typically only cover the dogmatic orthodox pharmaceutical-backed bits that are fed to them by those with sufficient funding to generate and spin news. (Cable competition and the internet have apparently caused media reporting budgets to be slashed.)
New Diet Guidelines: NBC news discussed the government’s newly reversed stance on eating foods that contain cholesterol. (Think eggs, shrimp, etc.) The fed’s original advice to avoid such foods was never based on science or even logic. We knew for a long time that 75% of the cholesterol in the blood stream is made in our livers. Unfortunately, when the government rescinds such a policy, they neither apologize for their earlier error nor compensate the victims of the bad advice — for example, in this case the egg industry, fishermen and the consumers whose health suffered. (In the future watch for them to walk back their current overblown condemnation of saturated fats and sodium.) The government guidelines also wisely recommended reducing sugar. I was surprised that on the NBC evening news broadcast that this fact, which is likely the most important, wasn’t even mentioned. Could it be that the network wanted to avoid static from all their sugar-peddling advertisers? (Think soft drinks, cereals, candy, cookies, pancakes, etc.)
FDA turns a blind eye to research fraud. The agency mantra is “evidence-based” and “scientific proof”. So, if a study is seriously flawed or fraudulent, shouldn’t the FDA call “foul”? Unfortunately, a recent study shows that they routinely turn a blind eye. It is already a major problem for us that drug research is conducted by the manufacturers themselves (fox guarding the chicken coop?). It has also been well documented that too often only studies showing drug benefit are published (not those showing lack of effect or even unusual harm). Could the fault be an institutional FDA bias due to these factors: (1) Much of the agency budget is paid for by pharmaceutical fees and (2) there is a revolving door of employees coming from and going to the industry?
A great deal of our information about health comes from advertising. Broccoli doesn’t advertise! Only 2 countries (the US and New Zealand) permit television advertising for drugs. I wish that number was zero. Advertising boosts pharmaceutical sales, but gives consumers the impression that drugs (and only drugs) solve problems. In fact, most medications only mask problems. Typically, the real answer is improvement in diet and lifestyle. Even when a drug is promoted for the prevention of a disease, there may be a better way. For example, likeable football legend Terry Bradshaw is paid to scare you into getting vaccinated for shingles. However, on last week’s show we talked about a safer homeopathic immunization. This site shows studies on that type alternative. By the way, you might be interested in my article on how to stop shingles in its tracks. Link here for studies and articles on Shingles vaccine side effects; how Chicken Pox vaccine may be increasing the rates of shingles and about remedies including the use of vitamin C for shingles.