Rather Be Healthy

Concerns About Water Fluoridation Safety Keep Mounting

Water fluoridation is considered one of the most notable advancements in public health, and cities around the US spend millions adding fluoride to communal water supplies each year.

But, as stated in the video above, 99 percent of that fluoridated water ends up on your lawn and in your toilet, where it’s really nothing but an environmental pollutant. Then there’s the issue of safety when ingested on a daily basis…

An increasing number of dentists and scientists are raising serious concerns about these chemicals, which by the way have never been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — the agency responsible for food and drug safety.

Many do not realize that fluoride is a drug that is available only with a prescription. Yet it’s added to municipal water supplies used by more than 180 million Americans, including infants and the elderly without any attention to personalized dosing or potential interactions.

This is a significant problem, because once you add it to the water supply, you have no way of determining how much of the drug any particular person will consume on any given day.

Also consider this: It is illegal, medical malpractice, and unethical for a physician to prescribe a drug without specifying dosage, and to fail to monitor your health for side effects from the drug.

Yet, your water authority is not only allowed, but encouraged to add a toxic drug — fluoride — to your drinking water without your consent and without any way of knowing who in your household is drinking it, how much, and the effect it is having.

Worse yet, while scientific studies have been done on pharmaceutical grade fluoride, none have been made on the fluoride that is actually used for water fluoridation. This chemical (hexafluorosilicic acid) is an industrial waste product that is likely to be even more toxic than medical grade fluoride.

It’s illegal to dump it into rivers and lakes or release the parent gases into the atmosphere. In fact, municipalities that decided to stop fluoridating their water had to keep going until all the chemicals were used up because they couldn’t afford the hazardous waste disposal fees!

Dr. William Hirzy from the EPA has even pointed out that if it goes into the air, it’s a pollutant. If it goes into the local water, it’s pollution. But if the public water utilities buy it and purposely pour it in our drinking water, it’s no longer a pollutant. All of a sudden, by some magic sleight of hand, it’s a beneficial public health measure…

Concerns About Water Fluoridation Safety Keep Mounting

One of the latest outspoken critics of fluoridation is Daniel M. Merfeld, Ph.D. Professor of Otology and Laryngology at Harvard Medical School, who has stated that:1

“Most European countries do not fluoridate their water, because such mass medication is considered ineffective and unethical.”

After reviewing the evidence, Professor Merfeld agrees that water fluoridation is indeed a form of unchecked mass medication. According to Merfeld, there are “three indisputable facts” with regards to fluoridation that makes it a highly questionable practice:

1) Fluoridation provides an uncontrolled fluoride dose.

2) Fluoridation began before research showed that fluoride’s benefits were due to topical application not ingestion.

3) Fluoridation began before all its side effects were known. When water is fluoridated, the dose is uncontrolled as the amount ingested varies with water intake. Can you imagine your health care professional telling you to just put your prescription drugs in your water, ingest the drugged water when you are thirsty, and go ahead and share your drugged water with others? Of course not!

For those who listen to the propaganda that dental health improved after water fluoridation was instituted should take note that dental health actually improved across the board even in areas that did not add fluoride to their water, simply because better dental care and dental hygiene became available around the same time.

“In fact,” professor Merfeld says, “research shows no significant difference in the number of cavities for US communities with and without fluoride in the drinking water. As another example, the vast majority of West European countries do not fluoridate; yet the dental health of Western Europe is no worse than for US communities that fluoridate.”

The Health Ramifications of Mass Medicating with Fluoride

In the early 1990’s Dr. William Marcus, a senior scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), released a memorandum outlining the adverse effects of fluoride in drinking water. For example, tests showed fluoridated drinking water caused bone and liver cancer in animals. Dr. Marcus was subsequently terminated from his position with the EPA. He later won a wrongful termination suit against the agency and was reinstated, as it was determined that “his employment was terminated solely because he questioned and opposed the EPA’s fluoride policy.”

So much for scientific freedom and public safety. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. But that’s not all. Evidence suggests that swallowing fluoride can also cause:

Weakened bones, and fatal bone cancer (osteosarcoma)

Impaired mental development, lowered IQ, and dementia

Gastrointestinal problems

Hyperactivity and/or lethargy

Arthritic symptoms

Kidney issues

Lowered thyroid function

Chronic fatigue

Disrupted immune system

This is what the science is telling us about the ramifications of fluoride use. And yet, rather than taking the precautionary approach and stopping fluoridation until we know more, our policymakers continue to blindly forge ahead; refusing to give the scientific evidence the attention it deserves. Interestingly enough, a toxicology review is actually required by statute to ensure that fluoride-delivery agents, such as Hexafluorosilicic acid, are safe. But no such review exists for Hexafluorosilicic acid… It is a man-made, bioaccumulative toxin, and you cannot use dilution as a defense for adding a contaminant to public drinking water.

And yet, it’s being done…

According to the EPA’s local’s president, Bill Hirzy, a chemist in the EPA’s Office of Toxic Substances, water fluoridation remains a government policy because of “institutional inertia [and] embarrassment among government agencies that have been promoting this stuff as safe.”

In October last year, the world’s leading expert on fluoride toxicity and author of “The Case Against Fluoride,” Dr. Paul Connett, gave the following presentation in Wichita, Kansas. In it, he addresses the dangers of adding fluoride to communal water supplies, and the health risks associated with drinking fluoridated water. To learn more from the foremost expert in this field, I recommend listening to Dr. Connett’s presentation.

Why is the American Dental Association Ignoring the Science?

According to a 2006 report on water fluoridation produced by the US National Research Council, the benefits from fluoride are topical only, and cannot be achieved through ingestion. It also detailed positive associations between fluoride ingestion and bone fractures, cancer, reduced IQ and dementia.

Meanwhile, the American Dental Association (ADA), which is mired in conflicts of interest with the amalgam industry, has had “amalgam safety” and “universal water fluoridation” as their top two highest goals for their National Oral Health Agenda2 as of 2009. Furthermore, the ADA, one of the most influential trade lobbies in the US3, 4 believes that:5

“All communal water supplies containing less than the optimal level of fluoride should be adjusted to an optimum level. Toward this end, the ADA is urging Congress and state legislators to make capacity-building funds readily available to help communities establish, upgrade and maintain an effective public water fluoridation infrastructure.”

The ADA spent $2.56 million on their lobbying efforts last year, and more than half of its lobbyists (11 out of 20) have previously held government jobs,6 again demonstrating the revolving doors between government and industry. This is a key feature found among most highly effective lobbying groups.

The ADA is also one of the most secretive when it comes to its funding. It was one of just a handful of groups that declined to provide information to The Chronicle about their responses to Senator Charles E. Grassley, who in 2009 asked 33 nonprofit health and medical groups to report how much money they received from pharmaceutical, medical-device, and insurance companies, and how they disclose such information to the public.7, 8

The association has also spent much of its time defending the dental profession against lawsuits that charge the mercury used in fillings causes health problems.

The ADA has close ties with the world’s leading supplier of dental mercury (amalgam) fillings, Henry Schein, and has steadfastly refused to admit that placing neurotoxic mercury in your mouth might not be a good idea. In recent years, many dentists have reconsidered this archaic practice and about half of all American dentists are now mercury-free, but the ADA’s dismissal of the evidence has led to low-income children being disproportionately harmed. Amalgam is still the primary filling material used in many underprivileged children due to it being the least expensive alternative. Henry Schein also makes sure uninsured children receive their toxic wares via “charity” programs like the annual Give Kids a Smile program9 to which it donates dental supplies.

Is There a Better Way to Address Tooth Decay?

In a recent opinion piece by Lauen Ayers — a local chapter leader of the Weston A. Price Foundation — commenting on the proposed fluoridation plan for Sonoma County, CA, she writes:10

“Instead of slapping fluorosilicic acid on the problem like a band-aid, we should get to the source of the problem – the tidal wave of sugar that inundates children every day, as UCSF pediatric endocrinologist Robert Lustig, MD, explains in ‘The Bitter Truth.’

In the USDA breakfast and lunch program, 50 to 65 percent of the calories are from carbohydrates. Sugar is added to everything from applesauce to taco sauce because sugar hits the opiate receptors in the brain, making children addicts. Posters of veggies can’t make kids ‘Just Say No’ to the sugar-added foods. It’s up to adults to get rid of sugary non-foods.

…Sugar companies also donate to the ADA and similar groups. In 1949 the Sugar Research Foundation proclaimed their mission: ‘to find out how tooth decay may be controlled effectively without restriction of sugar intake.’ Coincidentally, a year later the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation. … Even fluoride at 0.2 mg/L can harm salmon; if fluoridation passes, our water would have 0.7 mg/L, three times as much!”

Clearly, this absurd practice of adding Hexafluorosilicic acid to drinking water to prevent tooth decay is based more on politics than science. Why should a water department be given the power to medicate anyone when they don’t take a health history, they don’t pass out a listing of side effects, monitor the dose or the effect? This is tantamount to gross negligence. In early 2011, the EPA announced11 that 41 percent of American teenagers have dental fluorosis and recommended cutting the parts per million down to 0.7 ppm. At the time, EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, Peter Silva, stated:

“EPA’s new analysis will help us make sure that people benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the same time avoiding the unwanted health effects from too much fluoride.”

The only safe level when considering the addition of fluoride to drinking/bathing water is ZERO. I predict that water fluoridation will become known as one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated against the public in the 20th and 21st century. That oft-quoted phrase that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century was created by a Public Relations firm, not hard-core facts. It’s time to stop quoting that drivel.

In his 2012 article Poison is Treatment—Edward Bernays and the Campaign to Fluoridate America12, James F. Tracy reveals the PR campaign that created this fake public health measure:

“The wide-scale U.S. acceptance of fluoride-related compounds in drinking water and a wide variety of consumer products over the past half century is a textbook case of social engineering orchestrated by Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the “father of public relations” Edward L. Bernays,” he writes. “The episode is instructive, for it suggests the tremendous capacity of powerful interests to reshape the social environment, thereby prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways that are often harmful to themselves and their loved ones.”

I highly recommend taking the time to read Tracy’s informative expose on how good PR can trump science and keep you in the dark for decades, lest you dig a bit deeper. In the future, water fluoridation will be compared to tobacco science, DDT science, asbestos science, and thalidomide science — all grossly manipulated to hide an incredibly costly truth.

Water fluoridation was invented by brilliant schemers who needed to get rid of toxic industrial waste that would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars for proper disposal. They duped politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements, which is not science, and sold them on a “public health” idea in which humans are utilized to filter this poison through their bodies, while 99 percent simply goes down the drain. Adding insult to injury, they now MAKE hundreds of millions of dollars selling this hazardous industrial waste, rather than having to pay for its disposal. Hexafluorosilicic acid manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors are laughing all the way to the bank, seeing how they’ve finagled municipalities across America to pay them for poison.

Children Tend to Suffer the Greatest Health Effects

Water fluoridation came about as the result of a massively successful PR campaign, originally aimed to protect aluminum and steel producers from lawsuits against the fluorine pollution coming from their plants. Fluoride is in fact a toxic substance that accumulates in the human body over time, where it has been shown to wreak havoc with enzymes and produce a number of serious adverse health effects, including neurological and endocrine dysfunction. No less than 25 human studies have also linked fluoride with lowered IQ in children, including recent research from Harvard. Approximately 50 percent of the fluoride that you ingest each day ends up accumulating in your bones over a lifetime.

Making matters worse, water fluoridation disproportionately harms young children, as they tend to suffer the greatest health effects. One important point to remember, which few pediatricians, dentists or other health professionals stress, is that you should NOT use fluoridated water when mixing infant formula.

According to Dr. David Kennedy, who produced and directed the documentary film Fluoridegate — An American Tragedy:

“One of California’s highest paid and most prolific Fluoridation advocate admits that giving an infant a formula made with fluoridated tap water will overdose the baby and cause the teeth to come in spotted and fluorotic. One can only wonder why such insanity persists in our country when it has been banned in so many other more advanced democracies.”

Call to Action as Portland Readies to Vote on Water Fluoridation

Portland, Oregon, gets its water from the Bull Run watershed, a 102-square mile protected watershed that is so pristine and pure the city was even granted a waiver from having to build a water treatment plant. In May, Portland residents will vote for or against adding risky fluoridation chemicals to their unusually pristine water supply. Not only will adding fluoride add to environmental chemical pollution and increase residents’ risks of dental fluorosis and other health concerns, it will also raise monthly water bills since adding these industrial waste chemicals costs millions of dollars.

Portland rejected water fluoridation in 1956, 1962, and 1980. But after more than a year of secretive planning, fluoride lobbyists convinced the Portland city council to add this toxic waste for their public’s consumption. Luckily, the citizens of Portland stood together by gathering enough signatures to force the decision to a vote on May 21, 2013.

Hopefully, with your help in spreading the message, Portland will once again stop this measure. If you live in Portland and want to sign up as a volunteer or pledge to vote No on water fluoridation on the City of Portland ballot, please do so on the Clean Water Portland Pledge Page.

Remember, these lobbyists are well funded, and we’re going to see a campaign similar to Prop 37 in California. The citizens need your help to keep Portland free of this contaminant. So, regardless of where you live, please help by donating to their campaign to ensure Portland’s pure water source remains that way.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Salt Awareness Week – 10 things to be aware of

Written by Zoë on March 11, 2013 – 19 Comments
Categories: Gov. Policy, Ingredients, Research

March 11-17 2013 is “Salt Awareness Week” in the UK – what exactly might we like to be aware of?

Let’s get some definitions out of the way first. Salt can be unrefined or refined. Unrefined salt is also known as sea salt. Unrefined (sea) salt comes with many valuable minerals and natural elements. Refined salt is also known as table salt. This is made up of sodium and chloride. There are approximately 2.4g of sodium in 6g salt. This means that approximately 40% of salt is sodium. You’ll see sodium on food labels, rather than salt.

Here are 10 things that you may find interesting about salt…

1) Like every other government target, the salt dictat has no evidence base

The NHS wants us to eat “no more than 6g salt per day.” (Ref 1) (which equates to 2,400mg sodium). Why? I have no idea and nor does the NHS. Why not 7? Why not 5? Why have a target at all? Goodness only knows. Just like 5-a-day, 14/21 alcohol units, 20-30g saturated fat, 18g fibre – none of these precise targets has precise evidence.

The NHS web site is supposed to provide evidence for government policy. Here is “Salt – the facts” which opens with “Many of us in the UK eat too much salt. Too much salt can raise your blood pressure, which puts you at increased risk of health problems such as heart disease and stroke” and then it goes on to tell you how to cut your salt intake. I don’t know about you but I found those ‘facts’ quite underwhelming.

2) We need to consume salt (and potassium) or we die

We die without salt. It’s as simple as that. Unlike cholesterol, which is also utterly life vital, our body doesn’t make salt. The term “essential nutrient” in nutrition mean that it is essential that we consume the nutrient. Salt is thus an essential nutrient. Fortunately it is in the majority of real foods, including water, and so ingestion of this vital mineral is not difficult.

Potassium is another essential dietary mineral. The potassium/sodium balance, is absolutely critical to the overall functioning of every cell in the human body. If salt levels fall too low, a condition called Hyponatremia can develop, which can be fatal. (Ref 2)

3) Salt has nothing to do with obesity

The inclusion of salt in the Academy of Royal Colleges obesity report (Ref 3) was quite bizarre because salt has nothing directly to do with obesity. It has no calories, no macronutrients (no fat, no protein, no carbohydrate) and therefore cannot directly impact obesity.

There may be an indirect argument that salt could encourage people to eat things. However, I would argue that people may desire doughnuts or biscuits (combinations of flour, sugar and salt), but that they would be unlikely to crave, say, anchovies, unless salt deficient for some reason. I would then expect a salt-deprived person to stop consuming anchovies once any salt deficiency were corrected and not to binge on them. The ‘but for’ test therefore points to the refined carbohydrates, containing salt, being substances of desire and not salt per se.

4) CASH has it in for salt

A charity called Consensus Action on Salt and Health (CASH) exists purely to campaign against salt. As the web site says: “CASH was set up in 1996 as a response to the refusal of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) to endorse the COMA recommendations to reduce salt intake.” (COMA stands for Committee On Medical Aspects of Food Policy).

The COMA report merely says (and I quote) “The panel recommends that the dietary intake of common salt should not be increased further and that consideration should be given to ways and means of decreasing it.”

The worst thing that the COMA report could say about salt was: “High salt intakes have frequently been linked with the prevalence of high blood pressure in communities but a mechanism whereby salt could lead to the development of essential hypertension has not been established.”

Hang on a second – so there are alleged “frequent links”, for which no evidence is presented and we don’t even know how salt could impact hypertension (high blood pressure)… (I’ll answer this for them in a minute – we’ve known how since Carl Von Voit’s work in 1860).

The COMA report continues “Cross-cultural studies show a statistical association between estimates of salt intake and the average blood pressure of a community but detailed investigations within a single community frequently fail to demonstrate such a relationship.” And CASH was set up because the CMO failed to take action against salt?!

5) ‘High’ blood pressure is in fact normal

If you look at figures 1 and 2 in this highly referenced article, the actual population normal/average blood pressure is 140/86. The European Society of Hypertension and the World Health Organisation both define blood pressure of 140/90 as the baseline for high blood pressure. So normal has been redefined as high. This enables drug companies to medicate many more people.

6) Salt can increase blood pressure, but so what?

There is a very simple mechanism by which salt can increase blood pressure (of which the COMA report didn’t seem to be aware). Salt provides sodium. The normal concentration of sodium in blood plasma is 136-145mM (mmol/Litre). One of the easiest ways for the body to maintain the concentration of sodium is to increase fluid levels if sodium rises. If we consume salty food, we want to drink more (that’s why bars put free bowls of peanuts on the counter) so step 1 is for the increased intake of sodium to lead to an increase in fluid intake. Step 2 means that the additional fluid is more likely to be retained because the body is back in sodium concentration equilibrium, albeit with more sodium and more water.

Water retention in the human body can raise blood pressure. However, there are three points to make here:

i) Raised blood pressure is a symptom. It’s not a problem per se. What the salt antagonists fail to provide is any evidence for a substantial and/or sustained increase in blood pressure as a direct result of any defined level of salt consumption.

ii) Salt opponents also fail to provide any direct causation between salt consumption and end point disease (e.g. heart disease) regardless of whether or not salt impacts blood pressure.

iii) A completely overlooked point is that any rise in water retention from consuming even a couple of grams of salt is incomparable to the impact of consuming 100g of carbohydrates – which we are encouraged to consume (a few times a day) in illogical parallel with the discouragement of salt intake.

We can store up to 500g of glycogen if we consume carbohydrates that are not used up for energy. We know that each gram of glycogen is accompanied by four grams of water. Hence we can gain 2.5kg (c. 5lb) overnight by consuming carbohydrates above human need. This is way more significant in terms of water retention and blood pressure than any impact of a couple of grams of salt – and yet carb consumption is recommended and salt consumption is demonised. Yet another example of our completely incomprehensible dietary advice.

7) Even if salt impacts blood pressure, and even if this matters, reducing salt intake substantially would have negligible impact

The 1994 COMA report (Ref 4) states: “Its [The review group] recommendation was to reduce salt consumption by an average of 3g/day. It has been estimated that this would reduce average systolic blood pressure by about 3.5mm Hg.” [systolic blood pressure is the first of the two numbers we get].

Gary Taubes noted the same in The Diet Delusion: “cutting our average salt intake in half, for instance, which is difficult to accomplish in the real world – will drop blood pressure by perhaps 4 to 5 mm Hg in hypertensives and 2 mm Hg in the rest of us.”

So, halve your salt intake and your blood pressure may go from 130/X to 127/X?

If you have ever had your blood pressure read frequently (while in hospital or getting ready for an operation or a baby), or if you have one of those blood pressure machines at home, you will know that you hardly ever get the same reading twice in a row. Even within a couple of minutes, your blood pressure can vary by more than a handful of points – more than the amount it could possibly change by if you managed to halve your salt intake.

8) CASH’s evidence on “Salt & Health” is completely lacking

For the seven years after its formation, Consensus Action on Salt & Health was relying upon the 1994 COMA report. Since 2003 they have relied upon a Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) report, called “Salt and Health”. (Ref 5)

Feel free to read the 134 page document. The summary will give you the key elements. The summary opens by saying: “Increased blood pressure, or hypertension, is the most common outcome that has been associated with high levels of salt intake. Hypertension is a major risk factor in the development of cardiovascular disease. The relative risk of cardiovascular disease increases as blood pressure rises even within what is considered the normal range of blood pressure, indicating that large numbers of people are at risk.”

i.e. the most common (the only?) outcome that salt intake has been associated with is increased blood pressure. If there were any direct association between salt intake and any actual disease, it would have been claimed.

Increased blood pressure in turn is then claimed to be a “major risk factor in the development of cardiovascular disease.” I disagree. High blood pressure (BP) (even when properly defined as actual high BP and not normal BP i.e. 140/86) is a symptom, not a cause. This makes blood pressure a condition observed at the same time as heart disease and not a risk factor. (It is far more likely the opposite direction of causation – heart disease causes high blood pressure – hence the symptom).

Notwithstanding this – the argument against salt still boils down to – we think salt is associated with blood pressure and we think blood pressure causes heart disease. So, by inference, they want us to think that salt causes heart disease.

The jewel in the crown of the anti-salt lobbyists is “The International Study of Salt & Blood Pressure” (Intersalt Co-operative Research Group, 1988). This study collected data on 24-hour urinary sodium excretion and blood pressure of over 10,000 adults in 52 population samples from 32 countries. Associations (note, not causation) were found between sodium excretion and blood pressure readings – until the four populations with very low salt intakes were removed from the analysis and then any statistical significance disappeared. (That latter point about the statistical significance disappearing was the view of the SACN Salt and Health report to give credit for honesty – it wasn’t my playing with numbers that led to this finding.)

Dr David Brownstein’s book Salt your way to health noted the findings from the Intersalt study as follows: “Although there was a slight relationship between blood pressure and sodium excretion in INTERSALT, a ‘smoking gun’ could not be found. This study showed a mild decrease in blood pressure (3-6mmHg systolic and 0-3mmHg diastolic) when there was a dramatic decrease in salt excretion.”

9) There is no evidence that salt causes heart disease; there is evidence that low salt is associated with heart attacks

A study of approximately 3,000 hypertensive subjects (men with high blood pressure) found that there was a 430% increase in myocardial infarction (heart attack) in the group with the lowest salt intake versus the group with the highest salt intake. (Ref 6) Knowing how vital salt is for human health, this should not be surprising – low-sodium diets have been shown to cause multiple nutrient deficiencies, including nutrients vital for heart health (calcium, magnesium, potassium and B-vitamins). (Ref 7)

The SACN report concluded: “There are insufficient reliable data on long-term effects of salt on cardiovascular disease outcomes to reach clear conclusions.” Quite.

10) Eat real food and never worry about salt

Nature puts sodium in real food – we would be dead if this hadn’t happened. Meat, fish, eggs, dairy products, water etc, all contain sodium. These substances also all contain potassium – the balance is taken care of for us. How clever. The most salty foods (seafood) tend to be found in sunnier climes where a) people need more salt to protect against fluids lost in sweat and b) where potassium rich fruits tend to be found as a counterbalance. Clever again.

Salt is not going to kill us. Lack of salt will kill us frighteningly quickly. We should ideally use sea salt rather than table salt – just to get the added minerals and elements – but table salt is not going to harm us either. Processed food contains a lot of added sodium – that’s not what’s going to harm us. The processed food per se is going to do that. The processed food, with its trans fats, sugars, flour, empty calories, lack of nutrition and addictive combinations of manufactured ingredients, is the source of harm – not any sodium contained within.

So just eat real food and don’t worry about salt.

p.s. The interesting twist to researching salt is that the motive for attacking this substance has not been as obvious as usual. The motive in the anti-fat movement is clear – it gives the ‘food’ industry the green light to make highly lucrative fake low-fat food. The motive in the anti-cholesterol movement is clear – it gives the drug industry the green light to make drugs worth tens of billions of dollars and ‘food’ companies can make spreads and other ‘cholesterol-lowering’ fake foods.

The common bad relationships between the ‘food’ industry and health campaigners can be found in the salt world. Check out p12 of the April 2012 Action on Salt annual report – the usual suspects from the ‘food’ industry are warmly thanked for their support.

Who gains by demonising salt? The lo-salt company clearly does. The founder of Consensus Action on Salt & Health, Professor Graham MacGregor, has personally done well out of founding the organisation. MacGregor is now chairman of action on salt. MacGregor is also chairman of the Blood Pressure Association. He sits on the board for the World Hypertension League and recently served as President of The British Hypertension Society. MacGregor was awarded 37th place on the Independent on Sunday’s list of people who have made Britain a “much, much better place.” (Ref 9) Salt has given MacGregor’s life purpose – I believe that he believes that salt is a bad thing. I also think that he is wrong.

As a final thought – have you heard of the expressions “salt of the earth” or “worth his/her salt”? We describe someone as the salt of the earth when they are as good and worthy as anyone can be. The word salary comes from the Latin word salarium and has the root sal or salt. In ancient Rome, salary meant the amount of money given to a Roman soldier to buy salt, which was an expensive but essential commodity. This explains the “worth his salt” expression. Our language is telling us the truth, our government is sadly not.

References

1) http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/salt.aspx

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001431/

3) http://www.aomrc.org.uk/about-us/news/item/doctors-unite-to-deliver-prescription-for-uk-obesity-epidemic.html

4) http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/salthealth/Recommendations%20on%20salt/42491.pdf

5) http://www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/sacn_salt_final.pdf

6) Alderman “Low urinary sodium is associated with greater risk of myocardial infarction among treated hypertensive men.” Hypertension. 1995

7) Engstrom et al “Nutritional consequences of reducing sodium intake.” Ann. Intern. Med. 1983.

8) http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends18/0001098818_AC_20100430_E_C.PDF

9) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/the-ios-happy-list-2012–the-100-7661358.html?action=gallery&ino=37

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Written by Zoë on February 28, 2013 – 4 Comments
Categories: Conflict, Ingredients, Media comments, Obesity, Other Diets

The last week in February (2013) saw headlines all over the world: “Mediterranean diet shown to ward off heart attack and stroke.” The Guardian ran with “Mediterranean diet ‘cuts strokes and heart attacks in at-risk groups‘.” The Sydney Morning Herald announced “Mediterranean diet cuts risk of first heart attack by 30%”.

The world headlines were all based on this article in the highly respected New England Medical Journal. The researchers’ own headline was “Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet”.

Someone I follow on twitter – Rob Lyons (@robspiked) captured it beautifully when I was having my usual rant about people not knowing what the real Mediterranean diet is. Rob replied: “@zoeharcombe no, that’s the diet Mediterraneans eat. This is the ‘Mediterranean Diet’, a mythological diet invented by US researchers.” How true!

The study

Let’s get the facts on the table first. The study involved 7,447 people. 57% were women. The women were aged 60 to 80 and the men were aged 55 to 80. The Guardian was right that they were at-risk groups, as only people with type 2 diabetes or at least three other “major risk factors” (smoking, obesity, family history of heart disease etc) were included in the study. The Sydney Morning Herald was also right about the first heart attack, as only people with no cardiovascular disease at enrollment were admitted to the study.

The diet

This is where we need Rob in our minds. The real Mediterranean diet is high in meat (if it moves, it is eaten – rabbit, pork, beef, chicken, turkey, game, snails etc); fish; cheese; eggs; cream; vegetables & salads; fruits in season and white grains (white bread, white rice, white pasta). Those who eat more of the real food are slim. Those who eat more of the pasta become “Italian mammas”.

The first reference in the study is thus wrong. It claims “The traditional Mediterranean diet is characterized by a high intake of olive oil, fruit, nuts, vegetables, and cereals; a moderate intake of fish and poultry; a low intake of dairy products, red meat, processed meats, and sweets; and wine in moderation, consumed with meals.”

This is what Americans, who have never been to the Med, fantasise that the Mediterranean diet is. However, the truth is that the French/Italians/Greek etc are eating their body weight in red meat and cheese and “wine in moderation” would have an Italian rolling in the aisles. Here are the top wine drinking countries in the world. The prime Mediterranean countries, France and Italy, are in the top five. But for the staggering consumption of the Vatican City, they would be higher! 😉

Anyway – allowing for the fact that American researchers don’t know what the real Mediterranean diet is, let’s see what the study diet actually was. The 7,447 people were divided into three groups. The study says that they were randomly assigned so, by luck, they appear to have been fairly equally distributed between groups so that there are no obvious confounding differences where, for example, one group has ended up with more than its share of smokers, older people, obese people etc. For once, we can look at the diet as the primary difference to observe.

Two groups were put on this Fictitious Mediterranean Diet (FMD from now on) and the control group were put on a low-fat diet. The two groups on the FMD were also told to avoid soda drinks, bakery goods, spreads, red and processed meat (apart from the red meat, this is excellent advice). The low-fat diet group was told to have at least three servings a day of bread, pasta, potatoes, rice etc – those nicely fattening products that raise triglyceride levels and damage arteries. The FMD group were told to have oily fish. The low-fat group were told to avoid it.

Group 1 doing the FMD was given additional olive oil and group 2 was given 30g of mixed nuts per person per day. The article details that one litre of extra-virgin olive oil was given to group 1 each week and that they were encouraged to consume 50g or more per day. The nut group were given 15g walnuts, 7.5g hazelnuts and 7.5g almonds daily. That’s at least 440 extra calories with virtually no nutrients for the olive oil group (some vitamin E and K but nothing else). The nut group would get approximately 200 extra calories with far more nutrients. Nuts have virtually every vitamin and mineral – many in good amounts. They have protein (olive oil doesn’t – it’s a pure fat).

The fat content in both oil (100%) and nuts (c. 65%) is huge – way higher than the 7% fat content of sirloin steak or the 4% fat content of pork chops. This was a daft study. Why tell groups to avoid natural fat in real food (meat, dairy, eggs) and to replace it with very high fat interventions? (We’ll see why when we see the funders of the study!)

The results

The objective of the study was to measure “primary end points” defined as a major cardiovascular event – a heart attack, stroke or death.

There were 288 such incidents – 96 in the olive oil group, 83 in the nut group and 109 in the low-fat (current government dietary advice) group.

When the incidents in each group were presented as a percentage of person years (i.e. number of people in each group times the average years of follow-up), the incident rate was 0.81% for the olive oil group; 0.80% for the nut group and 1.12% for the low-fat group. As ever, the headlines are big, the real numbers are small. Barely 1 person in 100, in the highest risk groups for cardiovascular disease, at the worst possible age to have cardiovascular disease, actually had an incident during the 5 year study. For the nut and oil groups it was slightly less than 1 person in 100, for the low-fat group it was slightly more than 1 person in 100.

When the incident rate numbers are weighted so that the control group is 1.00, the oil group is 0.73 and the nut group is 0.72. This is relative risk, not absolute. It’s the oldest trick in the book to play to make numbers seem far more dramatic than they are. This is where the headline nonsense of “30% lower risk” comes from. Plus, we always need to remember that this is association, not causation.

The trial was intended to last 6 years. The researchers stopped at 4.8 years – this is usually positioned as “the differences were just so great that we could not morally continue to disadvantage the control group any longer”. A couple of points on this:

1) look at the graph on p8 of the New England Medical Journal paper. The gap between the intervention and control groups is starting to close at the point the experiment is stopped. I’ve seen this convenient ending of trials before.

2) the disadvantage for the control group is that they are following a low-fat diet – not that they are missing out on nuts and/or olive oil. That’s why the headline of the article should have been: “Low-fat diets are associated with cardiovascular disease” Which the media would have likely reported as: “Low-fat diets cause heart disease”. (Except they wouldn’t because the media just loves a good old eulogy about the Fictitious Mediterranean Diet.)

The bottom line

This could have been a very useful study. It could have been an original study to prove that our current low-fat, high-carb, starchy food, diet advice is doing more harm than good. It was essentially comparing a low-fat diet with a real food diet, but with an unnecessary messing around of natural fat delivery mechanisms (being told to avoid natural fat in meat and dairy and to replace it with unnatural levels of olive oil/nuts). Given the nutrition in nuts vs. olive oil, I was surprised that there was no difference between these two groups. This also reinforces the fact that the difference observed was about the low-fat diet being bad and not olive oil or nuts being good.

So why not just do a straight study comparing real food with its natural fat intact and our fake food/low-fat government dietary advice? Who would fund such a study? The funders of this study included: Hojiblanca and Patrimonio Comunal Olivarero (extra-virgin olive oil); the California Walnut Commission; Borges (almonds) and La Morella Nuts (hazelnuts). In the really, really, small print at the end of the article, we also discover that the author conflicts note: “Dr. Ros serves on the board of ‘his institution’ – the California Walnut Commission”; “Dr. Salas-Salvadó is on the board of and receives grant funding from ‘his institution’ – the International Nut and Dried Fruit Council”; Dr. Lamuela-Raventos receives funding from PepsiCo – their snack division does nuts; and Dr. Serra-Majem reports serving on the boards of the Mediterranean Diet Foundation (I never knew there was such a thing!)

As ever – follow the money and all shall be explained!

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Written by Zoë on February 27, 2013 – 13 Comments
Categories: Dieting, Gov. Policy, Media comments, Obesity, Research

New Australian Dietary Guidelines were published on February 18th 2013. Hundreds of pages of information are available here. The main “Eat for health: Australian Dietary Guidelines” document alone is 226 pages.

The latest guidelines acknowledge the extent of the problem: “If current trends continue in Australia, it is estimated that by 2025, 83% of men and 75% of women aged 20 years or more will be overweight or obese.” (p12) This is also a tacit admission that the 2003 guidelines haven’t helped. So are the 2013 guidelines any better?

I am very familiar with the 2003 Australian Dietary Guidelines, as I analysed them in some detail in my 2010 book The Obesity Epidemic: What caused it? How can we stop it? Let’s look at the revised (2013) guidelines in comparison to the 2003 ones, to see if Australian advisors have come up with anything to change this predicted trajectory of obesity.

The three key guidelines

The dietary guidelines for Australians are set by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Like the USA guidelines, the Australian guidelines have the stated aim of promoting the potential benefits of healthy eating to reduce the risk of diet-related disease and also to improve the community’s health and wellbeing. The Australian government has been providing nutrition advice for more than 75 years. The 2003 document was the third edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Australian Adults. The second edition was published in 1992. The NHMRC has also published Dietary Guidelines for Children and Adolescents and the Dietary Guidelines for Older Australians was published in 1999.

The three main pieces of advice in the 2003 dietary guidelines were:

1) Enjoy a wide variety of nutritious foods:

– Eat plenty of vegetables, legumes and fruits;

– Eat plenty of cereals (including breads, rice, pasta and noodles), preferably whole grain;

– Include lean meat, fish, poultry and/or alternatives;

– Include milks, yoghurts, cheeses and/or alternatives. Reduced-fat varieties should be chosen, where possible;

– Drink plenty of water.

2) Take care to:

– Limit saturated fat and moderate total fat intake;

– Choose foods low in salt;

– Limit your alcohol intake if you choose to drink;

– Consume only moderate amounts of sugars and foods containing added sugars.

3) Prevent weight gain: be physically active and eat according to your energy needs.

The three main pieces of advice in the 2013 dietary guidelines are:

Guideline 1: To achieve and maintain a healthy weight, be physically active and choose amounts of nutritious food and drinks to meet your energy needs.

Guideline 2: Enjoy a wide variety of nutritious foods from these five groups every day:

– Plenty of vegetables, including different types and colours, and legumes/beans;

– Fruit;

– Grain (cereal) foods, mostly wholegrain and/or high cereal fibre varieties, such as breads, cereals, rice, pasta, noodles, polenta, couscous, oats, quinoa and barley;

– Lean meats and poultry, fish, eggs, tofu, nuts and seeds, and legumes/beans;

– Milk, yoghurt, cheese and/or their alternatives, mostly reduced fat (reduced fat milks are not suitable for children under the age of 2 years).

And drink plenty of water.

Guideline 3: Limit intake of foods containing saturated fat, added salt, added sugars and alcohol.

a) Limit intake of foods high in saturated fat such as many biscuits, cakes, pastries, pies, processed meats, commercial burgers, pizza, fried foods, potato chips, crisps and other savoury snacks.

b) Limit intake of foods and drinks containing added salt.

c) Limit intake of foods and drinks containing added sugars such as confectionary, sugar-sweetened soft drinks and cordials, fruit drinks, vitamin waters, energy and sports drinks.

d) If you choose to drink alcohol, limit intake. For women who are pregnant, planning a pregnancy or breastfeeding, not drinking alcohol is the safest option.

The order has changed, and the 2013 guidelines are more verbose (I left some detail out), but that’s it. Nothing here will make a difference therefore.

The fundamental error

The 2013 guidelines spell out the fundamental error nicely for us with this extract (p16):

“The estimated Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDR) related to reduced risk of chronic disease are:

– 20–35% of total energy intake from fat;

– 45–65% from carbohydrate;

– 15–25% from protein.”

This basic lack of understanding about macronutrients (what we know as carbs, fat and protein) and what humans need in their food, is at the heart of the problem. Both sides of the nutritional debate would agree that protein intake of approximately 15-25% is healthy. The real food side would not worry if it went higher, but only as part of a natural intake of real food. Both sides would agree that unnaturally high levels of protein can be dangerous (they can deplete vitamin A and cause liver damage through excessive demands placed with protein metabolism).

Given that everything must add to 100%, if we agree on protein, the only debate we can have is over fat vs carbohydrate. Real foodies say “eat fat, fear carbs.” Dietary advisors say “eat carbs, fear fat.” Real food tends to be naturally high in fat (meat, fish, eggs, dairy, nuts, seeds, avocados, olives, oils etc). Fake food tends to be naturally high in carb (pasta, bread, cereals, and all wheat derivatives).

When fat was first demonised in the UK in the 1984 nutritional guidelines, it was fascinating to see the rationale positioned as – we don’t know that carbs are good, but we think that fat is bad and people need to eat something, so it needs to be carbs. The exact same rationale was given to me by the Food Standard Agency in 2009 when I wrote to them and asked why they recommended carbs over fat.

A basic understanding of human nutrition needs would confirm that the main part of our calorie need is to service what we call our Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) – the things that the body needs to do each day, even if we’re lying in bed all day and don’t move (i.e. when we don’t need energy to move).

An average woman, doing exercise 1-3 times a week, needs approximately 2,000 calories a day. Approximately 1,500 of these are for BMR needs – cell repair, fighting infection, building bone density, running the body etc. The macronutrients needed to do these jobs are fat and protein. Carbs, as dietary advisors love to tell us, are for energy. And that’s all they are for. Our average woman needs approximately 500 calories for energy. These can come in the form of fat or carbohydrate (the body will use protein if it has to, but as a last resort). So eating 100% of our intake in the form of fat and protein would meet 100% of our needs. Eating 100% of our intake in the form of carbohydrate would meet 25% of our needs. The remaining 75% of carbohydrate would be surplus to requirements. The body would not be able to use this for BMR and would store the carbohydrate as fat. That’s how we get fat and sick.

The Australian government is telling its citizens to eat 45-65% of their calorie intake in the form of carbohydrate. Ian Thorpe (if he still swims) may be able to use up this kind of energy intake. Your average Australian will not. The Australian government is making its citizens fat and sick with this one piece of advice alone.

Servings of carbohydrate

The amount of carbohydrate specifically recommended in the 2003 guidelines was quite spectacular. Pregnant women, breastfeeding women, women over the age of 60, men over the age of 60 all had individual and specific recommendations. The standard advice for women aged 19-60 (not pregnant or breastfeeding) and men aged 19-60 was as follows:

Women 19-60

Men 19-60

Cereals/grains

4-9 servings

6-12

Vegetables

5

5

Fruit

2

2

Dairy

2

2

Lean meat/fish/pulses

1

1

“Extra foods” (Junk basically)

0-2

0-3

Sample serves are:

– Cereals/grains – 1 serving would be 2 slices (60 grams) bread, 1 cup cooked rice, pasta or noodles;

– Vegetables – 1 serving would be 75 grams cooked vegetables, 1 cup salad vegetables, 1 small potato;

– Fruit – 1 serving would be 1 medium piece (150 grams) of fruit, 1 cup diced pieces or canned fruit, 1 cup fruit juice;

– Dairy – 1 serving would be 1 cup (250 millilitres) fresh milk, 2 slices (40 grams) cheese, 1 small carton (200 grams) yoghurt;

– Lean meat/fish/pulses – 1 serving would be 65-100 grams cooked meat or chicken, 80-120 grams cooked fish fillet, 2 small eggs, 1 cup cooked pulses.

An Australian woman, following this 2003 optimally healthy eating advice, could eat 12 slices of bread, three cups of pasta, five small potatoes, two cups of fruit juice, a cup of cooked beans and two servings of junk food every day. This is a staggering amount and proportion of carbohydrate. If I ate a fraction of that, I would be fat in no time.

P39 of the 2003 NHMRC report actually spelled out how to ensure that Australian citizens consume this evolutionary unprecedented level of carbohydrate:

– “Consume breads with each meal;

– Regularly use rice, couscous, pasta or noodles to accompany hot dishes;

– Eat breakfast cereals daily;

– Include whole grain cereals as extenders to soups and casseroles;

– Use oats in crumble toppings on desserts;

– Choose grain-based snacks such as low-fat cereal bars, muffins and popcorn.”

Strewth! And Aussies wonder why they got fat!

The 2013 guidelines are little changed from these 2003 carbohydrate feast tips. The food groups have changed a little (beans and pulses mainly). The main adult category has been changed from 19-60 year olds to 19-50 year olds. Advice for the over 50s is for slightly fewer servings than the servings recommended for the 19-50 year olds.

– Cereal and grain servings have been revised to be a minimum of 6 for both men and women aged 19-50, as opposed to the previous ranges of 6-12 for men and 4-9 for women.

– Vegetable servings are now a minimum of 6 portions for men and 5 for women. Beans and pulses are now part of this vegetable group, however, so someone could have 5-6 portions of baked beans a day and tick the box.

– Dairy has increased to a minimum of 2.5 servings a day – up from 2 servings a day. Dairy Australia is a partner of the Dieticians Association of Australia. Enough said!

– Australian advisors have gone nuts for beans and pulses – they appear in both the vegetables category and in the lean meat/fish/pulses category. The servings in this latter group have gone up since the 2003 guidelines from 1 serving for men and women to a minimum of 3 servings for men and 2 for women.

Those minimums are inexplicable. While admitting that the country is heading towards 83% of men and 75% of women being overweight or obese within the next 10-15 years, minimum food intakes are being emphasised.

The Plate

Let’s finally look at the Australian summary diagram for ‘healthy’ eating. The 2003 plate can be seen here.

The 2013 plate is barely different.

The Australian plate was already better than the UK eatbadly plate for the following reasons: a) it had no implied brands – no cornflakes implying Kelloggs, no cola implying Coca-cola, no baked beans implying Heinz etc b) it had no junk segment – the junk is off the plate with the message “Only sometimes and in small amounts” and c) it separates fruit from vegetables, noting the significant difference between the two.

The 2013 Australian plate is clearer (not least just for being pictured head on and not at a 3D angle) and the grains segment seems to have been slightly reduced in favour of the vegetables/pulses segment, but the differences are tiny.

The bottom line is that Australians are still being told to base their meals on starchy foods – the exact substances that we used to know to be fattening. They still are fattening – we were not wrong about carbs. But our unfounded fear of fat has led to advice to eat carbs instead. It is our fear of fat that has made us fat and not fat itself.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Physical Therapy as Good as Surgery for Osteoarthritic Knees and Torn Meniscus

By Dr. Mercola

Arthroscopic knee surgery for osteoarthritis is one of the most unnecessary surgeries performed today, as it works no better than a placebo surgery.

Proof of this is a double blind placebo controlled multi-center (including Harvard’s Mass General hospital) study published in one of the most well-respected medical journals on the planet, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)1 over 10 years ago.

Despite this monumental finding, some 510,000 people in the United States undergo arthroscopic knee surgery every year.2 And at a price of anywhere from $4,500 to $7,000 per procedure, that adds up to billions of dollars every year spent on this surgery.

Osteoarthritis of the knee is one of the primary reasons patients receive arthroscopic surgery. This is a degenerative joint disease in which the cartilage that covers the ends of the bones in your joint deteriorates, causing bone to rub against bone.

Arthroscopic knee surgery is also commonly performed to repair a torn meniscus, the crescent-shaped fibrocartilaginous structure that acts like a cushion in your knee.

Many might think that this problem, surely, would warrant surgery. But recent research3 shows that physical therapy can be just as good as surgery for a torn meniscus, adding support to the idea that when it comes to knee pain, whether caused by osteoarthritis or torn cartilage, surgery is one of the least effective treatments available…

Physical Therapy as Good as Surgery for Torn Cartilage and Arthritis

The featured study, also published in NEJM,4 claims to be one of the most rigorous studies yet comparing treatments for knee pain caused by either torn meniscus or arthritis. According to the Washington Post:5

“Researchers at seven major universities and orthopedic surgery centers around the U.S. assigned 351 people with arthritis and meniscus tears to get either surgery or physical therapy. The therapy was nine sessions on average plus exercises to do at home, which experts say is key to success.

After six months, both groups had similar rates of functional improvement. Pain scores also were similar.

Thirty percent of patients assigned to physical therapy wound up having surgery before the six months was up, often because they felt therapy wasn’t helping them. Yet they ended up the same as those who got surgery right away, as well as the rest of the physical therapy group who stuck with it and avoided having an operation.”

Another study6 published in 2007 also found that exercise was just as effective as surgery for people with a chronic pain in the front part of their knee, known as chronic patellofemoral syndrome (PFPS), which is also frequently treated with arthroscopic surgery.

The study compared arthroscopy with exercise in 56 patients with PFPS. One group of participants was treated with knee arthroscopy and an eight-week home exercise program, while a second group received only the exercise program. At the end of nine months, patients in both groups experienced similar reductions in pain and improvements in knee mobility.

A follow-up conducted two years later still found no differences in outcomes between the two groups.

In an editorial about the featured study,7 Australian preventive medicine expert Rachelle Buchbinder of Monash University in Melbourne urges the medical community to change its practice and use physical therapy as the first line of treatment, reserving surgery for the minority who do not experience improvement from the therapy.

“Currently, millions of people are being exposed to potential risks associated with a treatment that may or may not offer specific benefit, and the costs are substantial,” she writes. “These results should change practice. They should also lead to reflection on the need for levels of high-quality evidence of the efficacy and safety of surgical procedures similar to those currently expected for nonoperative therapy.”

Placebo Surgery Works as Well for Osteoarthritis as Arthroscopic Surgery

Buchbinder points out the importance of sham surgery to determine the true value of operative treatments. Unfortunately, many surgeons are reluctant to take on such research. Many doctors consider them unethical because patients could undergo risks with no benefits. But it has been done. The study I mentioned at the start of the article that was published in 2002,8 evaluated arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis. A total of 180 participants were randomly assigned to either have the real operation or sham placebo surgery in which surgeons simply made cuts in their knees.

Those in the placebo group received a drug that put them to sleep. Unlike those getting the real operation, they did not have general anesthesia to avoid unwarranted health risks and complications. In the end, the real surgery turned out to be no better at all, compared to the sham procedure. According to the authors:

“At no point did either of the intervention groups report less pain or better function than the placebo group. For example, mean scores on the Knee-Specific Pain Scale were similar in the placebo, lavage, and débridement groups… at one year [and] at two years… Furthermore, the 95 percent confidence intervals for the differences between the placebo group and the intervention groups exclude any clinically meaningful difference. In this controlled trial involving patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, the outcomes after arthroscopic lavage or arthroscopic débridement were no better than those after a placebo procedure.”

Outcomes in Tennis Elbow Significantly Improved by Novel Therapy

People suffering from chronic tennis elbow may also want to consider the alternatives to arthroscopic surgery. According to the largest multi-center study to date on the use of platelet rich plasma (PRP) treatment for lateral epicondylar tendinopathy (“tennis elbow”), 84 percent of patients reported significantly less pain and elbow tenderness at six months following the treatment, compared to those who received a placebo.

What is PRP?

Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) is a component of whole blood that contains a number of growth factors that takes advantage of your body’s natural healing process. A small amount of your own blood is drawn, and using a centrifuge machine, the blood is spun to separate and concentrate the specific platelets and growth factors sought. The PRP is then injected into the site of injury to help jumpstart the natural healing process. The treatment has garnered some attention for its potential in treating problems such as:

Osteoarthritis of the knee

Shoulder injuries

Hip, spine and neck injuries

Rotator cuff tears

Chronic plantar fasciitis

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries

Ankle sprains

Tendonitis

Ligament sprains

The research was presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). According to Medical News Today:9

“In this study, 230 patients suffering from chronic tennis elbow who had failed traditional therapies were treated at 12 U.S. medical centers. Patients were randomized and received either an injection of PRP made from their own concentrated blood platelets, or a placebo, administered with an analgesic at the site of pain.

At 12 weeks, 55.1 percent of PRP patients reported improved pain scores compared to 47.4 percent in the control group, and 37.4 percent reported less elbow tenderness versus 48.4 percent in the control group. At 24 weeks, 71.5 percent of the PRP patients had improved pain scores compared to 56.1 percent in the control group, and 29 percent reported less elbow tenderness compared to 54 percent in the control group. At six months, 83.9 percent of the PRP-treated group reported significantly less pain and elbow tenderness, compared to 65.9 percent of the active control group.”

If You Have Joint Pain, Exercise is an Important Must

The notion that exercise is detrimental to your joints is a misconception, as there is no evidence to support this belief. Instead, the evidence points to exercise having a positive impact on your joint tissues — if you exercise sufficiently to lose weight, or maintain an ideal weight, you can in fact reduce your risk of developing joint pain due to osteoarthritis rather than increase your risk. Exercise can also improve your bone density and joint function, which can help prevent and alleviate osteoarthritis (a major cause of joint pain) as you age.

For example, previous research10 has shown that people with rheumatoid arthritis, which causes joint pain, stiffness and deformities, who did weight training for 24 weeks improved their function by up to 30 percent and their strength by 120 percent. Unfortunately, many with joint pain are missing out on these potential benefits. Research11 published in 2011 found that over 40 percent of men and 56 percent of women with knee osteoarthritis were inactive, which means they did not engage in even one 10-minute period of moderate-to-vigorous activity all week…

Exercise, along with a healthy diet, can help you to jumpstart weight loss if you’re overweight, and this can lead to tremendous improvements in your joint pain. According to a 2012 article by Harvard Health Publications:12

“Each pound you lose reduces knee pressure in every step you take. One study13 found that the risk of developing osteoarthritis dropped 50 percent with each 11-pound weight loss among younger obese women. If older men lost enough weight to shift from an obese classification to just overweight — that is, from a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher down to one that fell between 25 and 29.9 — the researchers estimated knee osteoarthritis would decrease by a fifth. For older women, that shift would cut knee osteoarthritis by a third.”

Special Considerations for Exercising With Joint Pain

There are some factors to consider, particularly if your pain worsens with movement, as you do not want to strain a significantly unstable joint. Pain during movement is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms of osteoarthritis, and typically this is the result of your bones starting to come into contact with each other as cartilage and synovial fluid is reduced.

If you find that you’re in pain for longer than one hour after your exercise session, you should slow down or choose another form of exercise. Assistive devices are also helpful to decrease the pressure on affected joints during your workout. You may also want to work with a physical therapist or qualified personal trainer who can develop a safe range of activities for you. Your program should include a range of activities, just as I recommend for any exerciser. Weight training, high-intensity cardio, stretching and core work can all be integrated into your routine.

My most highly recommended form of exercise is Peak Fitness, and this program can be used by virtually everyone. However, if you’ve already developed osteoarthritis in your knee, you’ll want to incorporate exercises that strengthen the quadriceps muscle at the front of your thigh. And, rather than running or other high-impact exercise, you may be better off with non-weight-bearing exercises like swimming and bicycling.

Natural Tips for Pain Relief and Cartilage Loss

Cartilage loss in your knees, one of the hallmarks of osteoarthritis, is associated with low levels of vitamin D. So if you’re struggling with joint pain due to osteoarthritis, get your vitamin D levels tested, then optimize them using appropriate sun exposure or a safe tanning bed. If neither of these options are available, supplementation with oral vitamin D3 along with vitamin K2 can be considered.

Sun exposure is your best option though, because when your skin produces two types of sulfur in response to sun exposure: cholesterol sulfate, and vitamin D3 sulfate. Sulfur plays a vital role in the structure and biological activity of both proteins and enzymes. If you don’t have sufficient amounts of sulfur in your body, this deficiency can cascade into a number of health problems, including impacting your joints and connective tissues.

In addition to making sure you’re getting high amounts of sulfur-rich foods in your diet, such as organic and/or grass-fed/pastured beef and poultry, Dr. Stephanie Seneff, a senior scientist at MIT, recommends soaking your body in magnesium sulfate (Epsom salt) baths to compensate and counteract sulfur deficiency. She uses about 1/4 cup in a tub of water, twice a week. It’s particularly useful if you have joint problems or arthritis.

Methylsulfonylmethane, commonly known by its acronym, MSM, is another alternative that may be helpful. MSM is an organic form of sulfur and a potent antioxidant, naturally found in many plants, and is available in supplement form. As for glucosamine and chondroitin, two animal products marketed as food supplements for the relief of joint pain, the results from studies evaluating these supplements have been mixed, and many do not appear to be getting any significant relief from either of them.

Pain Relieving Supplements

For joint pain, I recommend avoiding anti-inflammatory drugs like non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and analgesics, like Tylenol, which are often recommended to osteoarthritis patients. Chronic use of these types of medications is associated with significant side effects such as kidney and/or liver damage. Safer, and very effective, options to help relieve joint pain include:
•Astaxanthin: An anti-inflammatory antioxidant that affects a wide range of inflammation mediators, but in a gentler, less concentrated manner and without the negative side effects associated with steroidal and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. And it works for a high percentage of people. In one study, more than 80 percent of arthritis sufferers improved with astaxanthin.
•Eggshell membrane: The eggshell membrane is the unique protective barrier between the egg white and the mineralized eggshell. The membrane contains elastin, a protein that supports cartilage health, and collagen, a fibrous protein that supports cartilage and connective tissue strength and elasticity.

It also contains transforming growth factor-b, a protein that supports tissue rejuvenation, along with other amino acids and structural components that support the stability and flexibility of your joints by providing them with the building blocks needed to build cartilage.
•Hyaluronic acid (HA): Hyaluronic acid is a key component of your cartilage, responsible for moving nutrients into your cells and moving waste out. One of its most important biological functions is the retention of water… second only to providing nutrients and removing waste from cells that lack a direct blood supply, such as cartilage cells.

Unfortunately, the process of normal aging reduces the amount of HA synthesized by your body. Oral hyaluronic acid supplementation may effectively help most people cushion their joints after just 2 to 4 months.
•Boswellia: Also known as boswellin or “Indian frankincense,” this Indian herb is one treatment I’ve found to be particularly useful against arthritic inflammation and associated pain. With sustained use, boswellia may help maintain steady blood flow to your joints, supporting your joint tissues’ ability to boost flexibility and strength.
•Turmeric / curcumin: A study in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine found that taking turmeric extracts each day for six weeks was just as effective as ibuprofen for relieving knee osteoarthritis pain. This is most likely related to the anti-inflammatory effects of curcumin — the pigment that gives the turmeric spice its yellow-orange color.
•Animal-based omega-3 fats: These are excellent for arthritis because omega-3s are well known to help reduce inflammation. Look for a high-quality, animal-based source such as krill oil.

Make Surgery Your Last Option Rather than Your First…

The steps outlined above should help to significantly slow down any further deterioration or loss of motion in your joints, and provide you with drug-free pain relief. And remember, whether you have osteoarthritis in your knees or a torn meniscus, arthroscopic knee surgery has been shown to be no better than placebo surgery, and physical therapy and exercise has repeatedly been shown to be just as effective as surgery, and perhaps even more so in some cases.

So please, carefully weigh your options; the risks and the benefits. As reported in the featured article,14 NOT resorting to the “fix” promised by surgery may actually be the magic you’re looking for:

“Surgery costs about $5,000, compared with $1,000 to $2,000 for a typical course of physical therapy… Robert Dvorkin had both treatments for injuries on each knee several years apart. Dvorkin, 56, director of operations at the Coalition for the Homeless in New York City, had surgery followed by physical therapy for a tear in his right knee and said it was months before he felt no pain.

Then several years ago he hurt his left knee while exercising. ‘I had been doing some stretching and doing some push-ups and I just felt it go ‘pop.’’ he recalls. ‘I was limping, it was extremely painful.’ An imaging test showed a less severe tear and a different surgeon recommended physical therapy.

Dvorkin said it worked like a charm — he avoided surgery and recovered faster than from his first injury. The treatment involved two to three hour-long sessions a week, including strengthening exercises, balancing and massage. He said the sessions weren’t that painful and his knee felt better after each one. ‘Within a month I was healed,’ Dvorkin said. ‘I was completely back to normal.’”

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Probiotic supplements during the first trimester of pregnancy can help women lose weight after their child’s birth, according to new findings.

Researchers report that supplements containing Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium were associated with less central obesity, defined as a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more or a waist circumference over 80 centimeters. Women were given the supplements during their first trimester of pregnancy and continued them until they stopped exclusive breastfeeding, up to six months.

Probiotics are live microorganisms that confer health benefits when consumed.

Previous research found that microbial populations in the gut are different between obese and lean people, and that when the obese people lost weight their microflora changed.

Multiple studies have shown that obese people have different intestinal bacteria than slim people, and the functioning of this gut microflora can impact your waistline.

After all, inside your gut is a living ecosystem, full of both good and bad bacteria. The functioning of this gut microflora in your body can be likened to that of an ant farm, working together as an intelligent whole to perform an array of functions, which include extracting calories from the foods you eat.

One reason the microflora in your gut could play a key role in obesity is because it appears the microbes flourishing in an overweight body are much more efficient at extracting calories from food.

In fact, one study showed a family of bacteria known as firmicutes was more plentiful in obese people (20 percent more), whereas another bacteria called bacteroidetes was almost 90 percent lower.

Firmicutes appear to be more efficient at taking calories out of complex sugars and depositing those calories in fat. When these microbes were transplanted into normal-weight mice, they suddenly gained twice as much fat. And in a human study, obese people who lost weight increased their bacteroidetes, while the numbers of firmicutes decreased.

Another way your gut bacteria influences your weight is through a single molecule in your intestinal wall, which is activated by the waste products from gut bacteria. When activated, the molecule slows the movement of food through your intestine, allowing you to absorb more nutrients and thus gain weight.

Why Probiotics are Especially Important During Pregnancy

Nearly everyone can benefit from optimizing the balance of good vs. bad bacteria in their gut using probiotics, but if you are pregnant or planning to be, this is of utmost importance to you and your new baby.

As this new study showed, simply taking a high-quality probiotic may help you to regain your figure after pregnancy, but the benefits go well beyond this. Research shows giving pregnant women and newborns doses of good bacteria can:
•Protect babies from developing eczema in childhood
•Help prevent childhood allergies by training infants’ immune systems to resist allergic reactions
•Help optimize your baby’s weight later in life
•Improve the symptoms of colic, decreasing average crying times by about 75 percent
• Reduce your risk of premature labor

Babies that are given the best start nutritionally by being breastfed (the source of your first immune-building good bacteria) also tend to have intestinal microflora in which beneficial bifidobacteria predominate over potentially harmful bacteria.

So aside from taking probiotics during pregnancy, the first way you can encourage your newborn’s gut health to flourish is by breastfeeding.

How to Increase Your Levels of Good Bacteria

Positively influencing the bacteria growing in your body is relatively easy, and involves taking in plenty of good bacteria while discouraging the growth of bad varieties.

One of the most important steps you can take to do this is to stop consuming sugary foods. Eating a healthy diet low in sugars, grains and processed foods will generally cause the good bacteria in your gut to flourish, and naturally build up a major defense against excessive amounts of bad bacteria that can damage your health.

But even with an extremely low-sugar diet there are other factors that negatively influence your gut bacteria, including:
•Antibiotics
•Chlorinated water
•Antibacterial soap
•Agricultural chemicals
•Pollution

All of these factors help to kill off your good bacteria. This is why it’s a wise choice to “reseed” your body with good bacteria from time to time by taking a high-quality probiotic supplement or eating properly fermented foods like natto and kefir — which are naturally rich in good bacteria.

Since helpful bacteria are increasingly absent in most people’s diets, it is important to purposely include fermented foods that contain live probiotic bacteria in your diet, or take a probiotic supplement regularly.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Recent studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the makeup of your intestinal flora can have an impact on your weight, and your propensity to gain or lose weight.

Most recently, research1 also suggests that as much as 20 percent of the substantial weight loss achieved from gastric bypass, a popular weight loss surgery, is actually due to shifts in the balance of bacteria in your digestive tract. According to co-author Dr. Lee M. Kaplan:2

“The findings mean that eventually, treatments that adjust the microbe levels, or ‘microbiota,’ in the gut may be developed to help people lose weight without surgery.”

Gut Microbes May Be Behind Weight Loss After Gastric Bypass

To investigate the potential link between gastric bypass surgery and alterations in gut flora, fattened-up mice were divided into two groups. The test group underwent gastric bypass surgery while the control group received sham surgery. After the sham surgery, the controls were further divided into two groups: One received a fatty diet; the other a weight-loss diet.

In the test group, the microbial populations quickly changed following surgery, and the mice lost weight. In the control group, the gut flora didn’t change much, regardless of their diet. After the bypass surgery, the test group was found to have more of certain types of microbes,3 including:
•Gammaproteobacteria, particularly Escherichia species, which can help prevent inflammation and maintain intestinal health, although some species of Escherichia are pathogenic
•Akkermansia bacteria, which can feed on mucus found in your intestines

According to the featured article:4

“Next, the researchers transferred intestinal contents from each of the groups into other mice, which lacked their own intestinal bacteria. The animals that received material from the bypass mice rapidly lost weight; stool from mice that had the sham operations had no effect.”

More Research Shows Your Gut Bacteria Impacts Your Weight

Previous research has also shown that lean people tend to have higher amounts of various healthy bacteria compared to obese people. For example, one 2011 study5 found that daily intake of a specific form of lactic acid bacteria could help prevent obesity and reduce low-level inflammation.

In this study, rats given the bacterium while in utero through adulthood put on significantly less weight than the control group, even though both groups of rats ate a similar high-calorie diet. They also had lower levels of minor inflammation, which has been associated with obesity.

Similarly, gut bacteria have also been shown to impact weight in human babies. One study6 found babies with high numbers of bifidobacteria and low numbers of Staphylococcus aureus — which may cause low-grade inflammation in your body, contributing to obesity — appeared to be protected from excess weight gain.

This may be one reason why breast-fed babies have a lower risk of obesity, as bifidobacteria flourish in the gut of breast-fed babies. Probiotics also appear beneficial in helping women lose weight after childbirth when taken from the first trimester through breastfeeding.

Two other studies found that obese individuals had about 20 percent more of a family of bacteria known as firmicutes, and almost 90 percent less of a bacteria called bacteroidetes than lean people. Firmicutes help your body to extract calories from complex sugars and deposit those calories in fat. When these microbes were transplanted into normal-weight mice, those mice started to gain twice as much fat. This is one explanation for how the microflora in your gut may affect your weight.

Yet another study from 20107 showed that obese people were able to reduce their abdominal fat by nearly five percent, and their subcutaneous fat by over three percent, just by drinking a probiotic-rich fermented milk beverage for 12 weeks. Given that the control group experienced no significant fat reductions at all during the study period, this is one more gold star for probiotics.

Probiotics have also been found to benefit metabolic syndrome, which often goes hand-in-hand with obesity. This makes sense since both are caused by a diet high in sugars, which leads to insulin resistance, fuels the growth of unhealthy bacteria, and packs on excess weight.

Diet and Environmental Factors Affect Your Gut Flora

I have long stated that it’s generally a wise choice to “reseed” your body with good bacteria from time to time by taking a high-quality probiotic supplement or eating non-pasteurized, traditionally fermented foods such as:
•Fermented vegetables
•Lassi (an Indian yoghurt drink, traditionally enjoyed before dinner)
•Fermented milk, such as kefir
•Natto (fermented soy)

One of the reasons why fermented foods are so beneficial is because they contain lactic acid bacteria, which of course has health benefits over and beyond any weight-loss benefits, as well as a wide variety of other beneficial bacteria. Ideally, you want to eat a variety of fermented foods to maximize the variety of bacteria. But eating fermented foods may not be enough if the rest of your diet is really poor. Your gut bacteria are an active and integrated part of your body, and as such are vulnerable to your lifestyle. If you eat a lot of processed foods, for instance, your gut bacteria are going to be compromised because processed foods in general will destroy healthy microflora and feed bad bacteria and yeast. Your gut bacteria are also very sensitive to:
•Antibiotics
•Chlorinated water
•Antibacterial soap
•Agricultural chemicals
•Pollution

The Hidden Health Hazards of Antibiotics in Meat

A related news story highlights one hidden source of antibiotics that can have a significant and long-term impact on your gut flora and overall health. Writing for the New York Times,8 David A. Kessler, former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1990 to 1997, warns that antibiotic-resistant pathogens in livestock are on the rise as a result of the fact that, in the US, antibiotics are routinely fed to livestock not only to fight infection, but to promote unhealthy (though profitable) weight gain.

“While the F.D.A. can see what kinds of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are coming out of livestock facilities, the agency doesn’t know enough about the antibiotics that are being fed to these animals,” he writes. “This is a major public health problem, because giving healthy livestock these drugs breeds superbugs that can infect people. We need to know more about the use of antibiotics in the production of our meat and poultry. The results could be a matter of life and death. … It may sound counterintuitive, but feeding antibiotics to livestock at low levels may do the most harm.

When he accepted the Nobel Prize in 1945 for his discovery of penicillin, Alexander Fleming warned that ‘there is the danger that the ignorant man may easily underdose himself and by exposing his microbes to nonlethal quantities of the drug make them resistant.’ He probably could not have imagined that, one day, we would be doing this to billions of animals in factory-like facilities.”

The link between antibiotic use in livestock and antibiotic-resistant disease is so clear that the use of antibiotics as growth promoters in animal feed has been banned in Europe since 2006.9 In sharp contrast, according to the first-ever report by the FDA10 on the topic, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) used a whopping 29 million pounds of antibiotics in 2009, and according to Kessler, that number had further risen to nearly 30 million pounds in 2011, which represents about 80 percent of all reported antibiotic sales that year.

What’s more, on December 22, 2011, the FDA quietly posted a notice in the Federal Register11 that it was effectively reneging on its plan to reduce the use of antibiotics in agricultural animal feed – a plan it has been touting since 1977.

Instead, the agency decided it will continue to allow livestock producers to use the drugs in feed unabated. Only one class of antibiotics, cephalosporin, has been restricted from use in livestock.12 This class of antibiotics, which are regularly prescribed to humans, are implicated in the development and spread of drug-resistant bacteria among humans that work with, and/or eat, the animals. As of April 5, 2012, the antibiotics are no longer be allowed for use in preventing diseases in livestock, although they are still allowed for treatment of illness in livestock.

The Food and Drug Industries Don’t Want You to Know the Facts

As stated by Kessler, we have more than enough evidence that using antibiotics as growth promoters is threatening human health. Yet the drug and food industries are doing everything they can to block proposed legislation that would limit this practice, and both the FDA and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions aid and abet them. For example, the Committee took no action on a proposal from Senators Kirsten E. Gillibrand (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), which would require the FDA to report data on agricultural antibiotics that it already collects but does not disclose. According to Kessler:

“’In the House, Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Louise M. Slaughter of New York, also Democrats, have introduced a more comprehensive measure. It would not only authorize the FDA to collect more detailed data from drug companies, but would also require food producers to disclose how often they fed antibiotics to animals at low levels to make them grow faster and to offset poor conditions.

This information would be particularly valuable to the F.D.A., which asked drugmakers last April to voluntarily stop selling antibiotics for these purposes. The agency has said it would mandate such action if those practices persisted, but it has no data to determine whether the voluntary policy is working. The House bill would remedy this situation, though there are no Republican sponsors.’ …Lawmakers must let the public know how the drugs they need to stay well are being used to produce cheaper meat.”

How to Avoid Hidden Antibiotics in Your Food

This is one of the many reasons why I always recommend buying your meat, whether beef or poultry, from a local organic farmer rather than your local supermarket. The only way to avoid this hidden source of antibiotics is to make sure you’re only buying organic, grass-fed, free-range meats and organic pasture-raised chickens, as non-medical use of antibiotics is not permitted in organic farming.

If you live in an urban area, there are increasing numbers of community-supported agriculture programs available that offer access to healthy, locally grown foods even if you live in the heart of the city. Being able to find high-quality meat is such an important issue for me personally that I’ve made connections with sources I know provide high-quality organic grass-fed beef and bison, free-range chicken and ostrich, all of which you can find in my online store. The farms our supplier uses have three USDA inspectors on hand that regularly inspect the packaging facility. Additionally, all of the cattle are grass-fed on open pastures, and E. coli 0157 testing is performed daily. You can eliminate the shipping charges though if you find a trusted farmer right in your area.

The Weston Price Foundation has chapters all over the world and many of them are connected with buying clubs in which you can easily purchase these types of foods locally. Another resource you can try is Local Harvest, which you can use to find farmers’ markets, family farms, and other sources of safe, sustainably grown food in your area.

For Optimal Health, Tend to Your Gut

The micro-organisms living in your digestive tract form a very important “inner ecosystem” that influences countless aspects of health, including your weight. More specifically, the type and quantity of organisms in your gut interact with your body in ways that can either prevent or encourage the development of many diseases, including heart disease and diabetes, and may help dictate the ease with which you’re able to shed unwanted pounds.

Since virtually all of us are exposed to factors that destroy beneficial bacteria in the gut, such as antibiotics (whether you take them for an illness or get them from contaminated animal products), chlorinated water, antibacterial soap, agricultural chemicals and pollution, ensuring your gut bacteria remain balanced should be considered an ongoing process.

Cultured foods like raw milk yogurt and kefir, some cheeses, and fermented vegetables are good sources of natural, healthy bacteria. So my strong recommendation would be to make cultured or fermented foods a regular part of your diet; this can be your primary strategy to optimize your body’s good bacteria. If you do not eat fermented foods frequently, taking a high-quality probiotic supplement is definitely a wise move. In fact, this is one of the few supplements recommended for everyone. A probiotic supplement can be incredibly useful to help maintain a well-functioning digestive system when you stray from your healthy diet and consume excess grains or sugar, or if you have to take antibiotics.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

New Norovirus Strain Behind Recent Outbreaks in US

A new type of norovirus, named GII.4 Sydney because it was first detected in Australia, was the main culprit behind the norovirus outbreaks that sickened many Americans this past fall and winter.

According to a report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than half of the 266 norovirus outbreaks reported between September and December 2012 were caused by GII.4 Sydney, which has now officially replaced the previously predominant strain GII.4 New Orleans.1

What is Norovirus?

Noroviruses are the leading cause of gastroenteritis — or stomach flu — in the US. They generally cause a nasty infection that leads to diarrhea, abdominal pain and vomiting within 24-48 hours of exposure.

Though the symptoms can be quite debilitating, most people recover on their own within a few days. Those most at risk of complications (typically dehydration) are infants, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems.

Norovirus is spread through direct contact with an infected person as well as through contaminated food and water. The CDC estimated that most of the GII.4 Sydney outbreaks resulted from direct person-to-person contact while 20 percent were foodborne and 1 percent was waterborne.

The elderly living in nursing homes and children in day care facilities are often among those hardest hit, due to their close proximity with others and the highly contagious nature of these viruses.

That said, noroviruses are also a major food poisoning risk and are strongly associated with so-called “complex foods” – foods that contain a number of ingredients so that the specific culprit cannot be pinpointed. Often these foods came from restaurants, which suggests contamination may have occurred during preparation or cooking – all the more reason to prepare your own foods at home!

The CDC report noted that both long-term care facilities and restaurants were among the most frequently reported settings for GII.4 Sydney outbreaks in 2012.

Norovirus Now a Greater Threat Than Rotavirus

Rotavirus is another type of virus that causes stomach flu and its related symptoms like severe diarrhea and vomiting. It used to be the leading cause of stomach flu in the United States, but now a study funded by the CDC found that since the introduction of the rotavirus vaccine, norovirus has replaced rotavirus and become the leading cause of stomach flu in US children.2

This may sound like a grand triumph for the rotavirus vaccine (which was found to be contaminated with pig DNA in 2010 and is linked to fatal bowel problems), but instead what has happened is that another similar group of viruses has taken the rotavirus’ place. Are children really better off now that they’re being infected with norovirus instead of rotavirus?

Hardly, and of course the conventional “solution” is to state that we mustn’t worry because there are several norovirus vaccines in various stages of development, including one that is in phase III clinical trials.

A Vaccine for Every Virus?

The notion that we must develop a vaccine to protect children from every circulating virus is overly simplistic at best and potentially dangerous at worst.

The CDC stated that new norovirus GII.4 strains have emerged every two to three years, replacing previously predominant GII.4 strains. Similar to the flu vaccine, which has poorly demonstrated effectiveness, a new norovirus vaccine would need to be developed every couple of years to keep up with the rapidly changing strains.

And this is not taking into account the fact that when children are infected with several strains of rotavirus or norovirus in the first few years of life, they typically develop natural lifelong immunity. This is not the case for vaccine-acquired immunity, which typically requires “booster” shots to remain effective – if they are effective at all. According to the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC):

“Today, even though almost all US infants receive vaccines for rotavirus, and despite efforts to improve the management of childhood rotavirus-associated diarrhea, hospitalizations of children in the U.S. with the disease have not significantly declined in the past two decades.”

Certainly no parent wants his or her child to be sick with the stomach flu, but this “right of passage” provides natural immunity that will protect your child against that particular strain for life. While rotavirus and norovirus are very contagious and do cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in young children each year, this is mostly in developing countries where poverty contributes to poor sanitation, hygiene and nutrition.

In the US, rotavirus causes only 20 to 60 deaths among children under 5 each year3 while noroviruses cause just 800 deaths (among all age groups) in the US annually.4 Typically, when a child in the US contracts rotavirus or norovirus, and most do, only rest and fluids are required to recover.

Washing Your Hands is One of the Best Deterrents to the Stomach Flu

That age-old advice to wash your hands remains one of the best strategies for preventing the stomach flu. Washing your hands (and your children’s hands) with soap and water if you’ve been in a public place and before eating is essential. Be careful not to over-wash your hands, however, as this can create tiny cuts in your hands where a virus can enter. Other common sense measures for preventing the stomach flu include:
•Trying not to touch your eyes, mouth or nose (which is how the virus enters), especially if your hands are not clean
•Avoiding sharing utensils, drinking cups, hand towels, etc. with others

That said, Americans actually touch about 300 different surfaces every 30 minutes … so it’s rather unrealistic to think that you can avoid ever coming into contact with an infectious virus. But this needn’t send you into panic mode, as just because you’re exposed to a virus does not mean you will get sick. The determining factor? The health of your immune system! So, along with the practical precautions mentioned above, preventing the stomach flu involves keeping your immune system healthy by following these five steps to boost your immune system health.

What to do if You Get the Stomach Flu

Even if you’re very healthy and very careful, there’s a good chance that you (and your kids) may come down with a case of the stomach flu at some point or another. If this happens, make sure the vomiting and diarrhea does not cause you to become dehydrated, as that can cause serious problems, even death.

If you begin to become dehydrated, it is vital that you go to an emergency room for evaluation. This is especially important for children who can become dehydrated much quicker than adults. At the emergency room they will typically insert an IV into your vein and provide rehydration fluids directly into your bloodstream, which rapidly eliminates the danger of dying from fluid loss.

Initially, however, the following simple protocol is often very effective in clearing up the stomach flu long before you get to this point. If you have thrown up, put your stomach at complete rest for at least three hours. That means you should have absolutely nothing to eat or drink, including no water nor the folklore favorite of crackers and soda.

Once three hours have passed and no further vomiting has occurred then small amounts of water can be sipped slowly. Again, only after your stomach has stabilized and no additional vomiting is occurring, small amounts of water can be sipped and if that is tolerated you can gradually increase the water. Do this for one to two hours and if that is tolerated then you are ready for the final phase … large doses of a high-quality probiotic, taken every 30 to 60 minutes until you feel better.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Argentina—A Poster Child for the Health Hazards of GMO Crops

Roundup Ready soy is now being cultivated on a massive scale across the globe, along with the exponentially increasing use of the herbicide Roundup. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” soy beans are genetically modified to survive otherwise lethal doses of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the company’s herbicide Roundup.

It’s a win-win for Monsanto. But it’s a loss for just about everyone else. Not to mention a health hazard for the environment, and the animals and humans that eat these crops.

Argentina’s Bad Seeds

One of the countries most affected by genetically engineered soy is Argentina, whose population is being sickened by massive spraying of herbicides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, is blamed for the dramatic increase in devastating birth defects as well as cancer.

In the film People and Power — Argentina: The Bad Seeds, film maker Glenn Ellis investigates the destructive and health-harming trends associated with the burgeoning use of genetically engineered soy.

In Cordoba, he speaks to Alternative Nobel Laureate Professor Raul Montenegro about the problems associated with excessive pesticide use.

“Montenegro, a world-renowned biologist, looked the part of a pioneer, in a khaki shirt and jungle boots. ‘I have pesticide in me,’ he said, almost as soon as he opened the door. Here we all have pesticide in our bodies because the land is saturated with it. And it is a huge problem. In Argentina biodiversity is diminishing. Even in national parks, because pesticides don’t recognize the limit of the park,” Ellis writes.1

More than 18 million hectares in Argentina are covered by genetically engineered soy, on which more than 300 million liters of pesticides are sprayed. Studies strongly suggest that the glyphosate these crops are doused with can cause cancer and birth deformities; both of which are occurring at increasing rates in areas where spraying is done.

Sterility and miscarriages are also increasing. Experts warn that in 10 to 15 years, rates of cancer, infertility and endocrine dysfunction could reach catastrophic levels in Argentina.

Birth Malformation Skyrocketing in Agricultural Centers of Argentina

Ellis also met with Dr. Medardo Vasquez, the neonatal specialist who heads up the Children’s Hospital in Cordoba. Dr. Vasquez tells him:

“I see new-born infants, many of whom are malformed. I have to tell parents that their children are dying because of these agricultural methods. In some areas in Argentina the primary cause of death for children less than one year old is malformations.”

Ellis is also shown a chart of two steeply climbing graphs, rising in tandem with each other — one representing the increase in soya plantations over the last 15 years; the other the rise in birth defects across the province during that same time. In the village of Malvinas Argentinas, which is surrounded by soy plantations, the rate of miscarriage is 100 times the national average, courtesy of glyphosate.

Aside from chemical spraying, silos containing genetically engineered crops is another contributing factor. The chemically treated crop produces contaminated dust, which is then ventilated outdoors without filtration, where it is carried with the winds and breathed by the local residents.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Monsanto still maintains its innocence. In a written statement to Ellis, the company said:

“Roundup® brand agricultural herbicides have a long history of safe use when used according to label directions in more than 100 countries around the world. Comprehensive toxicological studies have demonstrated that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup® branded agricultural herbicides, does not cause birth defects or reproductive problems.”

Stunning Report Illustrates Nutritional Deficiencies and Hazards of GMO Corn

In related news, a report given to MomsAcrossAmerica2 by an employee of De Dell Seed Company (Canada’s only non-GMO corn seed company) offers a stunning picture of the nutritional differences between GMO and non-GMO corn. Clearly, the former is NOT equivalent to the latter, which is the very premise by which genetically engineered crops were approved in the first place. Here are a small sampling of the nutritional differences found in this 2012 nutritional analysis:
•Calcium: GMO corn = 14 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 6,130 ppm (437 times more)
•Magnesium: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 113 ppm (56 times more)
•Manganese: GMO corn = 2 ppm / Non-GMO corn = 14 ppm (7 times more)

GMO corn was also found to contain 13 ppm of glyphosate, compared to zero in non-GMO corn. The EPA standard for glyphosate in American water supplies is 0.7 ppm. In Europe, the maximum allowable level in water is 0.2 ppm. Organ damage in animals has occurred at levels as low as 0.1 ppm… GMO corn was also found to contain extremely high levels of formaldehyde. According to Dr. Huber, at least one study found that 0.97 ppm of ingested formaldehyde was toxic to animals. GMO corn contains a staggering 200 times that amount! Perhaps it’s no wonder that animals, when given a choice, avoid genetically engineered feed like the plague.

GE Crops are NOT the ‘Most Tested’ Product in the World

It’s important to realize that genetically engineered (GE) foods have never been proven safe for human consumption over a lifetime, let alone over generations. Monsanto and its advocates claim genetically engineered crops are “the most-tested food product that the world has ever seen.” What they don’t tell you is that:
•Industry-funded research predictably affects the outcome of the trial. This has been verified by dozens of scientific reviews comparing funding with the findings of the study. When industry funds the research, it’s virtually guaranteed to be positive. Therefore, independent studies must be done to replicate and thus verify results
•The longest industry-funded animal feeding study was 90 days, which recent research has confirmed is FAR too short. In the world’s first independently funded lifetime feeding study, massive health problems set in during and after the 13th month, including organ damage and cancer
•Companies like Monsanto and Syngenta rarely if ever allow independent researchers access to their patented seeds, citing the legal protection these seeds have under patent laws. Hence independent research is extremely difficult or nearly impossible to conduct. If these scientists get seeds from a farmer, they sue them into oblivion as one of their favorite tactics is to use the legal system to their advantage. Additionally, virtually all academic agricultural research is controlled by Monsanto as they are the primary supporters of these departments and none will risk losing their funding from them
•There is no safety monitoring. Meaning, once the GE item in question has been approved, not a single country on earth is actively monitoring and tracking reports of potential health effects

Why Did President Obama Sign Monsanto Protection into Law?

In a move that has stunned and angered many Americans, President Barack Obama recently signed into law a spending bill that included a devastating provision that puts Monsanto above the law. As reported by Salon Magazine:3

“That bill, the HR 933 continuing resolution,4 was mainly aimed at averting a government shutdown and ensuring that the federal government would continue to be able to pay its bills for the next six months. But food and public safety advocates and independent farmers are furious that Obama signed it despite its inclusion of language that they consider to be a gift to Monsanto Company and other firms that produce genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops.

The protests come on the heels of a massive petition campaign organized by the advocacy group Food Democracy Now, which gathered the signatures of more than 200,000 people who wanted Obama to veto HR 933 in order to stop Section 735 — the so-called ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ — from being codified into law. But Obama ignored it, instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”

The provision, innocently called the “Farmer Assurance Provision,” which opponents have dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act,” limits the ability of judges to stop Monsanto and/or farmers growing their genetically engineered seeds from growing or harvesting those crops, even if courts find evidence of potential health risks. In essence, it strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect you and the environment, and permits biotech companies unrivaled freedom to plant untested GE crops regardless of the risks, and leaves victims — be it farmers or consumers — without legal recourse.

“…those who are angry at Obama for signing the bill are also incensed with Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., who is accused of failing to give the amendment that inserted the language a proper hearing,” Salon writes.

“In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement. “This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate.”

Not surprisingly, Monsanto’s fingerprints are all over this. One of the rider’s biggest supporters, Senator Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) allegedly worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill. Blunt recently told Politico:5

“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it. But it is only a one-year protection in that bill.”

While that may lull some back into apathy, you should be aware that a “mere” one-year protection can equate to millions of dollars worth of profit for Monsanto and other biotech companies. And that’s not even addressing the more disturbing aspect of it, which is the suspension of constitutional principles in favor of corporate benefit. It’s completely outrageous, and there is no excuse good enough. It also sets a dangerous precedent that will undoubtedly be misused and abused to the fullest down the line.

In the video above, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show addresses, in his usual fashion, the reported “fact” that most Congressmen were completely unaware of the provision included in the bill they passed–this despite the fact that Senator Jon Tester brought it up on the Senate floor, calling the provisions “giveaways” that have no place in this bill…

Keep Fighting for Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods

While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November, by a very narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where the people’s initiative 522, “The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act,” will require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. As stated on LabelitWA.org:

“Calorie and nutritional information were not always required on food labels. But since 1990 it has been required and most consumers use this information every day. Country-of-origin labeling wasn’t required until 2002. The trans fat content of foods didn’t have to be labeled until 2006. Now, all of these labeling requirements are accepted as important for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also says we must know with labeling if our orange juice is from fresh oranges or frozen concentrate.

Doesn’t it make sense that genetically engineered foods containing experimental viral, bacterial, insect, plant or animal genes should be labeled, too? Genetically engineered foods do not have to be tested for safety before entering the market. No long-term human feeding studies have been done. The research we have is raising serious questions about the impact to human health and the environment.

I-522 provides the transparency people deserve. I-522 will not raise costs to consumers or food producers. It simply would add more information to food labels, which manufacturers change routinely anyway, all the time. I-522 does not impose any significant cost on our state. It does not require the state to conduct label surveillance, or to initiate or pursue enforcement. The state may choose to do so, as a policy choice, but I-522 was written to avoid raising costs to the state or consumers.”

Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply because we didn’t have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food companies. Let’s not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any way you can, regardless of what state you live in.
•No matter where you live in the United States, please donate money to these labeling efforts through the Organic Consumers Fund.
•If you live in Washington State, please sign the I-522 petition. You can also volunteer to help gather signatures across the state.
•For timely updates on issues relating to these and other labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers Association on Facebook, or follow them on Twitter.
•Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to actively support the Washington initiative.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

Splenda®, also known as sucralose, is an artificial, chemical sweetener. You might eat lots of it without knowing in certain “light” foods, “reduced sugar”, or other diet foods.

Despite advertisements stating “Made from Sugar, so it Tastes like Sugar”, which attempt to confuse consumers, Splenda® is not natural and contains no elements of natural sugar.

You may also be surprised to learn that Splenda® contains chlorine. Yes, the same chlorine that goes in swimming pools. And here’s the worst side effect:

Just like chlorine kills off micro-organisms in swimming pools, Splenda® and sucralose kill off healthy bacteria that lives in your gut — healthy bacteria that is VITALLY important to virtually every aspect of your health.

Recently, a study at the University of Duke confirmed this very finding. Not only is sucralose a heavily-processed, chemical artificial sweetener, but it’s also damaging to your gut health, which goes on to affect every other aspect of your health.

Here’s a direct quote from that study:

“Splenda® suppresses beneficial bacteria and directly affects the expression of the transporter P-gp and cytochrome P-450 isozymes that are known to interfere with the bioavailability of nutrients. Furthermore, these effects occur at Splenda® doses that contain sucralose levels that are approved by the FDA for use in the food supply.”

Did you know that 70-80% of your immune system finds it’s home in your gut? In fact, there are more than 100 TRILLION living bacteria in your gut that control many aspects of your health, and due to things like the ingestion of artificial sweeteners like Splenda®, most folks have created a massive bacterial imbalance in their body.

But, it doesn’t just stop with the use of Splenda® or other artificial sweeteners. There are MANY other factors that are contributing to the bacterial imbalances that MILLIONS of folks are silently suffering from all around the world… one of those other aspects is drinking chlorinated water from the tap. It’s best to use a filter to filter out chlorine so you’re not harming your gut flora.

Unlike the gut-damaging sucralose mentioned above, let’s look at 10 foods that help to restore a healthy bacterial balance in your belly by killing off the bad bacteria while at the same time giving you loads more of the vitally important, beneficial bacteria that is so critical to both your health and fat loss goals.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.