The poster child of bad dietary choices

As you have probably heard, the World Health Organization and some U.S. government authorities recently recommended a change in the official dietary guidelines. They have backed off of making fats the villain (finally!) and are suggesting that folks cut back on sugar and refined flours (finally!). The studies have been piling up for decades, but changing the establishments’ minds is much slower than turning an aircraft carrier (with its anchor dropped). That is due in part to bureaucratic paralysis of analysis. But, change is also resisted by considerable vested financial interests and by those with a professional reputation at stake. (The guys with the old ideas just do not want to now be wrong.)

I’ve been preaching about the evils of sugar and its first cousin flour since the early 1980’s (shortly after I learned that those cute little maple sugar characters were not health food just because they were sold in a health food store). Sugar raises the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, liver disease and contributes to Alzheimer’s disease. Sugar hampers our immune system and to make matters worse, tumor cells use proportionately more sugar than normal cells. Therefore, high sugar levels offer a double-barreled way to increase cancer risk. On a happier note, reducing blood sugar can cause tumor cells to die.  Sugar bonds with proteins in our cells (glycation) which basically carmelizes them and acts to prematurely age them. Not enough to worry you yet? Click to read Dr. Nancy Appleton’s 143 ways that sugar ruins our health. (In proofing this document, my husband asked if there is anything good about sugar. It tastes good flavor and has helpful cooking properties, but it is not a nutritional necessity.)

Soft drinks are the poster child of bad dietary choices in part because they are the source of over 1/3 of America’s intake of added sugars. They also lack nutritional benefit and contain phosphoric acid that isn’t good for bones, teeth and our probiotics. Diabetes incidence increases with just one daily soda. High fructose corn syrup is used to sweeten most sodas. It is addictive and (like we need more of the poison) it is a source of mercury (from the processing). At a very basic level, fructose reduces the energy (ATP) inside cells, reduces the repair of genes and generates uric acid (the cause of gout).

Well then, can’t we just switch to diet soft drinks? Unfortunately, no. Pepsi will drop aspartame from some of its beverages this August due to consumer pressure. If they were replacing it with a natural sweetener, I might be a bit more impressed. However, the substitutes will be Splenda and Ace K (acesulfame potassium) which raise their own questions. Artificial sweeteners in general are linked to weight gain and other problems in part because they are hard on our crucial gut microbes—our life-saving probiotics. Also, as our radio guest Kenah Smith described, her tests showed that most of them (except erythritol) feed yeast. Yeast overgrowth can cause all manner of trouble. Please send a link to this post to anyone you know who drinks pop.

It is really hard to beat pure filtered water as our basic beverage and we should use it to make green tea and even coffee which do have health benefits.

Are stress tests worth the cost and risk?

Let’s call her Betty. She was excited about her planned trip to Florida to be with one of her daughters for Mother’s Day. That was until a 6 PM urgent call from her cardiologist’s office insisting on seeing her the next day. Of course, anxiety ensued and the flight to Florida was cancelled. Betty and her family started to hold their collective breath as they waited for the appointment the following afternoon. The reason given was to follow up on the results of a “nuclear stress test”. (The name sounds a bit as though they thought she’d visited the Fukushima meltdown.) It is actually a cardiac test procedure defined by the Mayo Clinic at this link where you can also learn the reasons given for its use. A monitored treadmill workout is a stress test commonly used to see how the heart performs. But, docs can also approximate that by injecting a radioactive indicator dye and a chemical to make the patient’s heart race.

Certainly there are serious situations where such a test is medically necessary. But, unless that is the case, knowing that the damage from radiation can accumulate forever, I am not keen on having that dye circulating thru my body (and brain). A heart-stressing drug is also not very appealing. Never mind any long-term concerns, the immediate risks of the nuclear stress test include heart attack and potentially fatal heart rhythm irregularities. (Irregular heartbeat is responsible for those sudden-death heart attacks in people who did not have any of what are considered the usual risk factors such as high cholesterol.*) They call those stress test effects “rare”, but they can’t predict who will have them. When something like that happens to you or a loved one, slim odds are not much comfort.

Flashback. Betty started having routine stress tests starting several years ago when had chest pains.* At the time, blood tests and an EKG did not show a heart attack, so perhaps we couldn’t blame the doc for exercising an “abundance of caution” and doing a stress test. The stress test also found nothing. But, Betty was now on a hamster wheel that she cannot easily get off of because routine tests are a legal safety net for doctors and the bread and butter income of cardiology. At an average cost of $3,800 (some as high as $10,900) the clinic has a powerful incentive to continue to recommend stress tests for years on end. (Health insurance coverage may blind us to these ridiculous costs, but they do increase our premiums.) We will not be told to stop testing because we are apparently healthy. The testing will continue until ultimately some sort of problem is identified.

It could be worth the worry, risk and expense if the nuclear stress tests are all that they are cracked up to be as a predictor of treatable heart disease and consistently saved lives. However, they may be no better than flipping a coin. According to this journal article, cardiology may be quietly moving away from the use of stress tests.

The truth is that most of us have something wrong that could be found if docs look hard enough–but that doesn’t mean it is a threat to our health. For example, detailed exams of the spines of folks who are pain-free and fully functional often reveal cracks in vertebrae and bulges in disks. They would likely never cause an issue. Overused diagnostic tests can not only themselves cause harm, but they also find things that aren’t there (false positives) or issues that don’t need to be fixed or that cannot be fixed or for which the treatment is worse than the disease. (…hence the debate over mammograms and PSA). Over–testing and over-treatment are major concerns of ethical experts in medicine today.

Return to the saga. Betty and three of her loving daughters (some took time off of work) arrived for the appointment. They waited an agonizing hour and a half, imagining the worst. If this appointment was so important that an immediate consultation was required, why didn’t the doctor see Betty? Instead a staff person did and asked “so what brings you in today?” It turns out that the “news” was just that the test showed a shadow of something…possibly a borderline scarring of the heart. But, it could have been a testing error and they weren’t sure, so Betty should keep coming back for more testing.
I want to know what in the heck they would have done if they had confirmed scarring of the heart. They certainly wouldn’t remove the scar because it is just healed tissue. Would they possibly blame the damage on “inflammation” and give her an anti-inflammatory drug to prevent more scarring?*
It seems we should give more thought to the question: “Are stress tests worth the cost and risk?” We probably should also read Sherry Rogers, MD’s book Is Your Cardiologist Killing You?

*Non-heart attack chest pains can be caused by severe indigestion or cramps in the pectoral muscles of the chest. The mineral magnesium relieves muscle cramps and it helps normalize irregular heartbeat (which is often found in conjunction with heart scarring). Magnesium is also anti-inflammatory. Most anti-inflammatory drugs on the other hand are hard on the GI Tract and often lead to prescriptions for an acid-blocker like Nexium. Those drugs in turn lower the body’s store of magnesium thereby increasing heart attack risk. If cardiologists want to save more lives, they should order red blood cell magnesium tests on their patients or go ahead and write a “prescription” for magnesium. Oops, that won’t pay the clinic’s rent.

Food safety – Ice cream to GMO’s

There is now a lot of empty space on grocery store shelves where the Blue Bell ice cream used to be. That is a bit sad for those of us for whom this brand was our favorite cheat. But, infinitely sadder is that families lost loved ones because of a disease attributed to Listeria bacteria in the ice cream. Listeria bacteria are the third-leading cause of deaths from food contamination. It is a bit of a puzzle how it came to contaminate the creamery since pasteurization is supposed to kill listeria and presumably Blue Bell would have made its ice cream from pasteurized milk.

The ultimate source of the various pathogens that affect our food supply is less mysterious. Campylobacter, Listeria, Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli are found in food products largely because of the farming and processing practices used by giant agribusiness. Animals are raised in unhealthy conditions and therefore become good homes for the bad bacteria. (Interestingly, cows fed on grass even for a couple of weeks are much less prone to harbor these bacteria.) You can’t even avoid the problem by becoming a vegetarian because manure from these animals is used as fertilizer and the farm runoff can also contaminate vegetable crops. Those problems are compounded by government inspections of producers, processors and manufacturers which are already inadequate and getting worse. (I discuss many of these problems in my upcoming book on probiotics.)

Animals are given antibiotics to fatten them and to prevent diseases that they might get from crowding. Antibiotics are even sprayed on plant crops. In both cases, these drugs create antibiotic-resistant strains and kill good bacteria that might otherwise later protect us. That brings me to an important point about humans.

Food contamination causes 3,000 deaths each year in the US. It is always reported in instances of these food-borne illnesses (just like with epidemics of contagious diseases) that those most affected are those who have weakened immune systems. Obviously, we should work on ours. One important part of that is to strengthen our probiotics because 70+ % of our immune system is in the gut! Also, those who block stomach acid with drugs for heartburn are removing their first line of defense.

The government should also be more concerned about another longer term food-borne threat: Genetically Modified Organisms—GMO crops. (This is another topic that I cover in my new book which I hope it will be out soon). There is growing evidence that these crops (mainly corn, soy, canola and sugar beets so far) are harmful as well as the herbicides typically used in conjunction with them. Learn more at NonGMOProject.org.

Unfortunately, there is such big money behind GMO’s that it is a battle to even get GMO products properly labeled. Join the fight. JustLabelIt.org is one effort. Food safety — ice cream to GMO’s, it is up to us. You can help by expressing your opinion to your elected officials. It is easy—just click the applicable links below to read a summary of the issue, look at the bill and/or just enter your zip code to take action:

Federal – Take action here. Read the bill here. This is a very bad bill that would override state’s rights to require labeling.
Alaska –  Listen to a hearing here.  Read the bill here.  Take action here.
Arizona –  Take action here. Read the bill here.  
Connecticut – Take action here.  Read the bill here.  
Florida – Take action here. Read the bill here.  
Hawaii – Take action here. Read the bill(s) here.  
Illinois – Take action here. Read the bill here.
Indiana – Take action here. Read the bill(s) here.  
Maine – Take action here. Read the bill here. A public hearing on the bill is scheduled for Thursday, April 30 at 12pm in Cross Building Room 214.   
Minnesota – Take action here. Read the bill(s) here.  
Missouri –  Take action here. Read the bill here.  
New York – Take action here. Read the bill(s) here.  
Oklahoma – Take action here. Read the bill(s) here.  
Oregon –  Take action here. Read the bill(s) here.  
TEXAS– Take action here. Read the bill here.  

Thanks to the National Health Freedom Coalition for this handy information and the work they do. And thank you, Dr. Oz for taking the risk to take a stand.

The Human Body Instruction Manual

We depend on our cars which are expensive to replace. Therefore, we usually drive in the right gear, change the oil, use the correct fuel, rotate the tires, etc. We know what to do for the car because we have an instruction manual for it.

The closest thing we have to The Human Body Instruction Manual is to look back thousands of years to our “hunter / gatherer” ancestors. Although they were apparently gorgeous, humans did not live long then because sanitation was poor; there was no medical care in emergencies; the food supply was unpredictable and a hunter might end up being some creature’s dinner. And yet, we react to our environment and diet just as they did because our physiology and chemistry is still pretty much the same.

The health complaints and chronic diseases of modern life can be thought of as a gradual accumulation of minor insults from not following the instructions. We get too much of some things and too little of others. I could easily list a hundred examples, but here is just one for this week from the “too little” category.

Too little SUNSHINE:  We still desperately need the vitamin D that our skin produces in the sun. As you may know D is more of a hormone than a vitamin and every cell in the body needs it. Low levels of vitamin D are associated not just with osteoporosis, but also depression, diabetes, cancer, thyroid disease, loss of muscle strength and much more.

Just to give you an idea how intertwined some of these issues can become: vitamin D is thought to lower cholesterol, blood pressure and atherosclerosis. For even more reasons, low levels are associated with worsened cardiovascular outcomes. If a person is put on a statin-type cholesterol-lowering drug, a lack of D may worsen side effects such as muscle weakness. One potential side effect of statins is heartburn. If a person with heartburn is given an acid-blocking drug (as described in my book on acid reflux), one side effect can be low magnesium. (Even the FDA warns about that.) Among 300 other things, magnesium is important to keep the heart beating regularly.

We’ve been advised to limit sun exposure to avoid skin cancer and besides, most of us are too busy to be outside long enough. Sunscreen and tinted windows block the D-forming rays if we do venture out. Foods are not a good source. The D we want is D₃, but what is usually added to milk is D₂. To achieve optimum blood levels (perhaps 50-70 ng/L) usually takes D₃ supplementation of at least 5,000 IU a day. Those with very dark skin need to work even harder at building blood levels because they are naturally protected from even accidental sun exposure. Vitamin D is very safe–the risk is in being too low. Learn more on this page in our Library and this one and at the non-profit VitaminDCouncil.org.

ADD, Autism and Dyslexia

If you know a child or an adult with any of these issues, please check out our new Library page of information and resources.

FDA threat to homeopathy

Well, I missed my chance to send a good April Fools’ Day email yesterday. I could have satirically announced that the American Medical Association and our government finally realized that non-toxic non-invasive natural remedies like nutritional therapies and homeopathy are much better first steps in healing most complaints (especially chronic conditions) than drugs and surgery. Then I would have said, “April Fools!”

As it turns out, there actually is a joke here, but a sick one headed in the opposite direction. As reported in this short GreenMedInfo.com article, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA ) is suddenly interested in Homeopathy and has announced a public hearing. With limited seating and only 3 weeks’ notice (in government terms that is NO notice) which gives insufficient time to rally opposition, it smells like a kangaroo court. (…and one where the kangaroo pens have not been cleaned in a long time.)

Government seems to have a (perhaps willful) lack of understanding about and antipathy for complimentary therapies in general. Not long ago mainstream medicine ridiculed acupuncture mercilessly, but they did not go after it aggressively. Homeopathy seems to be a much more direct threat to the financial interest of pharmaceutical industry that controls medical practice, education and regulation in the US. The FDA threat to homeopathy seems menacing.

The agency’s “interest” was supposedly aroused because homeopathy has now become big business. That bothers me on the face of it. Homeopathy has been safely practiced for 200 years and regulated by the FDA for 40. FDA wasn’t concerned that a relatively small number of licensed practitioners used the homeopathic remedies. They apparently didn’t care about the many of us consumers, chiropractors, athletes and massage therapists that have long used Arnica Montana for strains and minor injuries or about the cosmetic surgeons who found it of benefit in reducing swelling and bruising. The FDA started to perk up when Zicam spray, Cold-EEZE lozenges and Oscillococcinum for colds and flu gained market share (because they work). Could it be that the growing use of homeopathy is now viewed as a sizable financial threat to the pharmaceutical industry that is the agency’s reason to be?

Never mind that homeopathy is routinely used in Europe, India and other countries and is often reimbursed by insurance and even government health plans—there is also science. On the radio show we recently talked about homeoprophylaxis, a well-studied safer alternative for vaccines. There are also clinical studies showing that this form of energy medicine works in other applications. Of course, those with no knowledge of energy medicine find it very easy to mock homeopathy because it isn’t based on the same principle as pharmaceutical drugs. Many of the critics have a financial interest in opposing homeopathy, but even if they are just mired in outdated dogma, do we want these myopic control freaks to foster regulations that limits our freedom of access?

The FDA has no incentive to listen to the public or to powerless alternative practitioners. However, Congress controls their funding, so we need to let our legislators know our feelings. Click here to find out who represents you in DC. Simply enter your zip code and it will show you pictures, facts and their addresses, including email.

In case you are not familiar with Homeopathy, remedies contain the energetic message of certain substances, but not the original toxic molecules. The signals they send to our cells actually work in a somewhat similar way to the immunizations of which orthodoxy is so fond. Here is a link to some basic information about the field. This link is to a very interesting book on the history of homeopathy and the celebrities (queens, athletes and movie stars) that use it.

Even if the critics were right (and they clearly are not) and homeopathics offered only a placebo effect, that is a powerful force. Consumers using homeopathy for everyday complaints are at least protected from the side effects of typically over-prescribed medication with chemicals that have never been found on the planet before. Obviously, we do want all types of remedies regulated to assure safety and prevent fraudulent practices. If FDA was doing that in a fair unbiased manner that recognized the benefits of homeopathy, I wouldn’t have a complaint.

I love my Fitbit and my standing desk!

The studies just keep rolling in to make it clear that too much sitting is a giant risk factor for diseases of all kinds…in fact virtually everything that worries us. I list a lot of benefits of movement in this article: 16 Reasons to Exercise + Tips. (I just added links to studies on Alzheimer’s disease and improving breast cancer treatment.)

I generally do try to practice what I preach, but activity is hard when what I do most of the time is one way or another on the computer. Walking on the treadmill for 20-30 minutes a day and going to the gym twice a week was just not making up for all the sitting. So, I started using a standing desk part of the time as an experiment. As you can see, it was a pretty tacky affair made from a cardboard file storage box and a piece of fiber board. However, I used it often enough that I decided to buy a real one–an adjustable model that I saw in an airline magazine.

This looks better, right? And it is more versatile because I can adjust the height to quickly go back to sitting when I tire. While I stand I try to wiggle a bit and suck in my middle to work on the core strength.

I also wondered how much I do move around and so when I was headed to a trade show in California, I asked husband Bill if I could borrow the Fitbit I had given him for Christmas. This activity and sleep tracker is worn around the wrist all the time. (It is even shower-proof). I found that a natural products trade show is very good exercise (but you can get in trouble snacking on the samples). About the second day the thing started flashing lights at me and vibrating. That startled me and I thought that I had broken it. However, it was just telling me was that I had exceeded the 10,000 step goal for the day. Wow, that is a lot of walking! I see reports on my cell phone and I’m often surprised to see that I might have walked 1,000 steps before breakfast or that on a day when I was on the treadmill I still only did 5,000. I am being motivated to park further away when I run errands and to go with Bill on the dog walks. Sadly, Fitbit doesn’t seem to give me credit for standing while I type.

The sleep monitoring utility is also very interesting and useful. It shows not just how much time I was asleep, but also how much tossing and turning I did. I can see that I sleep better when I eat better and take my magnesium at bed time. (And probably even better after I stop worrying about Natural HealthFest.) There are other Fitbit models that include watches and more brands, but I’m not familiar with them.

Wrong tests for supplements, silly health food

I just returned from the biggest trade show in the natural products industry. (It is so big that I’m not sure that one end of the exhibit hall is in the same zip code as the other end.) Due to appointments with current and prospective radio show sponsors, I didn’t see all the booths in spite of walking more than 5 miles a day. However, I did see a generous sampling and here is a bit of what I found:

FOODS. Although there were wonderfully nutritious foods in the hall, there were also many offerings that seem to be just capitalizing on fads and raised questions in my mind. Is there no practical limit to the number of coconut waters that the market can absorb? Isn’t a refined starchy snack still bad for us even if made from non-GMO grain? Are we expected to ignore the sugar content in gluten-free “s’mores”? Isn’t a candy bar made of organic ingredients still a candy bar? Does sprinkling kale on Twinkies® really turn them into health food?

The bottom line idea is that we want to eat whole real foods that are as unprocessed and close to nature as possible and prepared with a minimum of sugar and additives. Of course, we do aim for those foods to be organic, non-GMO and if you like, gluten-free.

SUPPLEMENTS. Fine high quality supplement manufacturers (such as our sponsors) are very concerned about an unfair attack on nutritional supplements that is being waged by the Attorney General (AG) of New York state, Eric Schneiderman. This politician seems to be grandstanding to get attention from the media. He has publicly embarrassed a number of retailers and many manufacturers by claiming that several types of supplements contain non-active materials rather than what the product labels say is inside. He has forced companies to stop selling the products. If Mr. Schneiderman was correct, he would be doing a good thing. But, sadly, there seems to be no scientific basis for his claims. While DNA testing famously solves crimes, the DNA barcode procedure NY employed in its study is suitable neither to identify herbal extracts nor to quantify the other encapsulation ingredients that are allowed to be used.

Fortunately, not all of the media has been bamboozled into spreading his misinformation. Bless, Nicola Twilley for doing some real investigative reporting of the facts for her New Yorker article, entitled How Not to Test a Dietary Supplement. Using several reliable sources, the author confirms what the supplement industry spokespersons have been saying (even in defense of their competitors). The U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) is the well-respected final authority on such matters. They describe themselves as “a scientific nonprofit organization that sets standards for the identity, strength, quality, and purity of medicines, food ingredients, and dietary supplements manufactured, distributed and consumed worldwide. USP’s drug standards are enforceable in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, and these standards are used in more than 140 countries.” Author Twilley quotes the organization as saying “The U.S.P. does not currently recommend DNA bar coding in any of its standards.”

Even though this NY AG used the wrong tests for supplements and is way off base with at least the bulk of his accusations, that hasn’t stopped him from using his office’s powerful bullhorn to scare consumers away from supplements that might have helped them; to damage the business of innocent companies; and even to recruit AG’s in other states in what appears to be an effort to make himself look like a crusader and a leader among his peers. Is it malice or just a reckless lack of due-diligence? Whatever it is, it may take lawsuits to slow down this ill-conceived witch hunt. In any case, I hope the voters of NY are not fooled into voting for this guy again. If you would like to make your voice heard before this nonsense spreads to wherever you live, here are some easy ways: Email Attorney General Letitia James, Email the Attorney Generals of other states.

Three “new” ideas about peanut allergy

Nuts in the news…peanuts that is (and never mind that they are technically beans). Planter’s Mr. Peanut logo looks very sophisticated and reminds us that peanuts contain nutrients that appear protective against heart trouble and other diseases. The PB and J sandwich which is decidedly not so high-brow, has long been a lunch box staple. The growing problem of severe peanut allergies is nothing to sneeze at. (Pun not intended and barely tolerated.) These allergies can cause a life-threatening closing of airways. Avoiding peanuts has cramped Moms’ style in packing lunches that their youngins wouldn’t be looking to trade. The sensitive are so, well, sensitive that the mere opening of a bag of peanuts can put enough peanut essence into an airplane cabin to create a threat. The mystery has been why the incidence of allergy to peanuts has quadrupled. We may now have clues to three possible mechanisms regarding the cause of the phenomenon and/or potential solutions.

1.    The conventional wisdom preached by experts was to wait until babies were up to 3 years old before exposing them to peanuts. It was even hinted that mothers should avoid allergic foods during pregnancy. As it turns out, there really wasn’t science to back up those recommendations. A new study conducted in the UK and published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that introducing peanuts as early as 4 months of age reduced the risk of developing a peanut allergy by 80%. That was even among those with eczema or who were for other reasons deemed likely to become allergic to peanuts. I’m happy to report that this story made the evening news. Reporters did not mention that the prior abstinence advice may have been responsible for the sharp increase in peanut allergy. (Bad advice deserves more than an “oh well” because kids die from peanut allergy.) Parents should consult their pediatrician to make sure this idea is appropriate for their baby and double check the specific protocol. This reminds me of a similar situation. Children living in modern overly-sanitized surroundings seem to develop other allergies and immune problems. Because they are not exposed to normal environmental bacteria and traditional childhood diseases, their immune systems are not properly educated to differentiate what is actually a serious threat deserving of life-long immune protection and what is friendly.

2.    Hopefully we can keep babies from becoming allergic to peanuts, but what about the older kids? The conventional wisdom has been that once you have a peanut allergy you are stuck with it. However, a procedure used by progressive allergists called food immunotherapy seems to help. The practice starts with exposure to extremely small oral doses in highly controlled amounts and gradually increasing doses. Another study (unrelated, but again in the UK) tested children aged 7–16 years with a wide range of allergy severity. Roughly 62% were desensitized. (Immunotherapy is medical and not a do-it-yourself project.) This is quite similar to a folk remedy for inhalant allergies. It uses loose bee pollen granules available in health food stores and farmers’ markets. (Local pollen is more likely to address the specific pollen that is bothering a person.) The person eats one single tiny granule. Assuming that he or she does not react to that, the 2nd day dose is doubled to 2 granules. The amount eaten continues to double each day up to a teaspoonful.

3.    The conventional wisdom has been that our gut bacteria are unrelated to allergy. Interestingly, a third study (this one in Australia) provided subjects a gradually increasing daily dose of peanut for 18 months along with probiotic bacteria (Lactobacillus rhamnosus). At the end of the study 89.7% receiving the treatment were desensitized compared to only 7.1% of those receiving a placebo. (Parents are cautioned not to try this without professional guidance because some subjects did experience serious reactions in the process.) More study is needed to clarify the role of the probiotic. However, many studies have shown that children given probiotics are less allergic in general while those given antibiotics are more allergic. The more deeply I investigate probiotics, the more impressed I am with how they help to educate our immune systems.

It is a relief to know that there may now be help for those who have dangerous reactions to even an accidental exposure to traces of peanut. But, before we go crazy with goobers, we should remember what Doug Kaufmann tells us: peanuts are a crop that is very frequently contaminated with mycotoxins made by molds during storage. And, perhaps we should not always accept the ‘conventional wisdom without question.

Health news notes

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.