Rather Be Healthy

Can faith in a higher power help you overcome mental illness, the most common of which is depression?

To find out, researchers at McLean hospital, a psychiatric institution affiliated with Harvard Medical School, asked 159 patients with prominent symptoms of depression how strongly they believed in a god.1 They also asked how credible the patients thought their treatment was, and how effective they believed it would be in relieving their symptoms.

The patients’ symptoms were assessed when admitted, and again upon release from the program.

Of the participants, 71 percent reported believing in a god or a higher power to some extent. Those whose belief in a god was stronger, regardless of the god or religious affiliation (including non-affiliation), were twice as likely to respond well to the treatment and experiencing better outcomes, such as:
•Lessening of depression
•Reductions in self-harm
•Increases in psychological well-being (peace of mind, ability to have fun, general satisfaction)

As reported by The Atlantic:2

“The researchers point out that people who believed in a god, or were affiliated with a religion, were also more likely to believe their psychiatric treatment was credible and to expect positive results.

It may be, they write, that ‘the tendency to have faith in conventional social constructs’ can be generalized both to religion and the medical establishment. Since other studies have shown that faith in a given treatment is an important predictor of its effectiveness, that could help explain the association with improved outcomes found here.”

The Stigma of Mental Illness Within the Church

The recent suicide of 27-year-old Matthew Warren,3 youngest son of Pastor Rick Warren, founder of the mega-church Saddleback Valley Community Church in California, brought mental illness back into view for many within the confines of religion.

NPR4 recently featured an interview with journalist and evangelical Christian Christine Scheller on the sometimes complicated relationship between faith and mental illness. Scheller also lost her son to suicide five years ago. (For a transcript of this program, please see the original source page.)5

This is a Flash-based media clip and may not play on mobile devices.

While the stigma of mental illness does not cling to all denominations, some churches can tend to marginalize mental health problems and view them as issues that are best approached by reading the bible or praying. In Scheller’s experience, the anti-psychiatry rhetoric used in some churches can delay much-needed treatment. When it became clear that Scheller’s younger son also suffered with depression, she decided to ignore the advice of the church, opting instead to seek professional help for her son.

“[S]tigma about mental illness is not unique to the evangelical community. We have our own particular ways in which it’s stigmatized, but it’s a pervasive problem,” she says.

Depressive Thinking Can Go Viral

In related research published in the journal Clinical Psychological Science, researchers suggest that certain types of depressive thinking can “go viral,” spreading to others living in close proximity. As reported in Time Magazine:6

“Although many people see depression as a chemical imbalance in the brain, scientists say social context and the way you see yourself and the world can be critical in causing and sustaining the illness… ‘Thinking styles are a really important factor in risk for depression,’ says the study’s lead author Gerald Haeffel, associate professor of clinical psychology at Notre Dame University. ‘How one thinks about life stress and negative moods is one of the best predictors that we have of future depression.’”

The two thinking styles explored in the study were:
•Rumination; constant brooding or worrying about what might go wrong
•Hopelessness

Both of these thinking styles have previously been linked to depression. But whereas the first places your focus on your negative mood, the other reflects on your lack of self worth and the consequences of an event. Says led researcher Haeffel:

“For example, a person who feels hopeless might lose a job and see it as a personal failure and a sign that he will never be employable again. A more resilient person might blame the economy or see the situation as an opportunity to get a better position.”

The latter, hopelessness, was not found to be contagious, but rumination was. A suggested reason for this is because hopelessness centers around your own thoughts and deeply embedded beliefs about yourself, and so therefore may be less likely to have a major influence on the way others think about themselves and their lives. Ruminating and constant brooding, however, which focuses on all the bad things that might happen and sees the worst in every situation, is a mode that is more easily spread and mirrored by others.

“Interestingly, depression symptoms themselves were not contagious: simply having a roommate with symptoms of the disorder did not increase risk of developing the mental illness. But those who picked up a ruminative style of thinking from their roommates during the first three months of school had more than double the number of depressive symptoms of those who either weren’t exposed to this perspective or didn’t adopt the rumination three months later. And the risk was magnified if they experienced high levels of stress,” Time reports.

Positive Thinking Is Contagious Too!

Fortunately, the study also found that healthier modes of thinking were equally contagious, with the capacity to make a roommate adopt a more optimistic outlook as well. More than likely, you didn’t need a study to take notice of this. Most people will at some point or another have encountered someone in their life that either made you feel more positive or negative, simply by spending time with them.

A question they could not answer, however, was what the determining factor was that decided which roommate would adopt a thinking style more closely mirroring that of the other. Why are some people’s thinking styles more likely to dominate, rather than be influenced?

“Such information could enhance the current findings and contribute to new ways of treating and preventing depression,” Time writes. “The results suggest that depressive thinking styles can still be influenced during young adulthood — so this risk factor can be minimized even if it has already developed during high school or earlier. Targeting ruminative thinking might also enhance therapy.

“The therapist could assess if people in the patient’s life are modeling and providing adaptive cognitive feedback about stress and negative life events,” says Haeffel. “The therapist could then provide those with negative thinking styles with information about the contagion effect along with training that would help them identify negative thought patterns and provide examples of more adaptive ways of thinking.”

The Slow Opening Up to ‘Spiritual Science’

In 1993, only three of the United States’ 125 medical schools offered any sort of course work exploring the area of spirituality and medicine. Today over 90 of these medical schools have formal courses where they explore randomized controlled studies and the effects of spiritual practices on longevity and health outcomes—a sure sign that what was once considered taboo is beginning to receive the discussion and serious investigation it deserves. Dr. Larry Dossey has written 11 books primarily focused on consciousness, spirituality, and the impact of spirituality on your health, including the book Healing Words: The Power of Prayer and the Practice of Medicine.

“I think we’re opening up,” Dossey said when I interviewed him, three years ago. “I’m sure you remember, about 40 years ago when meditation burst upon the scene in medicine, it was put down. It was called California Woo woo. Nobody wanted to have anything to do with it. But now nobody raises an eye about meditation and yoga, even in medicine. We’re in the same place with spirituality that we were with meditation about 20 years ago. People know you can’t ignore it. The correlation between spiritual practice and health outcomes is just too strong.

For example, the data shows that people who follow some sort of spiritual path in their life live on average seven to 13 years longer than people who do not follow a spiritual practice… We have a huge spectrum of data that shows, I think compellingly, that your thoughts really matter when it comes to getting well.”

Most ancient cultures knew this, and there are few lines dividing spirituality; the mind, and medicine in these cultures. Ironically, modern science now allows us to rediscover these ancient truths, which fell by the wayside with the advent of medical science and its narrow focus on individual parts as opposed to investigating the connections within the whole. Going back to where we started, David Rosmarin, the lead researcher of the featured study in which those with a stronger faith in God experienced far better treatment outcomes for their depression, said:

“Given the prevalence of religious belief in the United States — more than 90 percent of the population — these findings are important in that they highlight the clinical implications of spiritual life. I hope that this work will lead to larger studies and increased funding in order to help as many people as possible.”

The Rise of Energy Psychology

Many people avoid energy psychology as they believe it is an alternative form of New Age spirituality, yet nothing could be further from the truth. It is merely an advanced tool that can effectively address some of the psychological short circuiting that occurs in emotional illnesses. It is not any competition at all with any religion but merely an effective resource you can use with whatever spiritual belief you have.

My favorite technique for this is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), which is the largest and most popular version of energy psychology.

EFT was developed in the 1990s by Gary Craig, a Stanford engineering graduate specializing in healing and self-improvement. It’s akin to acupuncture, which is based on the concept that a vital energy flows through your body along invisible pathways known as meridians. EFT stimulates different energy meridian points in your body by tapping them with your fingertips, while simultaneously using custom-made verbal affirmations. This can be done alone or under the supervision of a qualified therapist.7 By doing so, you help your body eliminate emotional “scarring” and reprogram the way your body responds to emotional stressors.

While the following video will teach you how to do EFT, it is VERY important to realize that self-treatment for serious mental health issues is NOT recommended. For serious or complex issues you need someone to guide you through the process as there is an incredible art to this process and it typically takes years of training to develop the skill to tap on deep-seated, significant issues.

Research Backs the Use of EFT for Depression

I have been a fan of energy psychology for many years, having witnessed its effectiveness in my medical practice and in my own personal life. However, studies have been few and far between as science has been trying to “catch up” with clinical experience. That has finally started to change. Several studies have been published in the last few years, showing just how safe and effective EFT really is.

For example, the following three studies show remarkable progress in a very short amount of time for people with a history of trauma:
1.A 2009 study8 of 16 institutionalized adolescent boys with histories of physical or psychological abuse showed substantially decreased intensity of traumatic memories after just ONE session of EFT.
2.An EFT study9 involving 30 moderately to severely depressed college students was conducted. The depressed students were given four 90-minute EFT sessions. Students who received EFT showed significantly less depression than the control group when evaluated three weeks later.
3.In a study of 100 veterans with severe PTSD10 (Iraq Vets Stress Project),11 after just six one-hour EFT sessions, 90 percent of the veterans had such a reduction in symptoms that they no longer met the clinical criteria for PTSD; 60 percent no longer met PTSD criteria after only three EFT sessions. At the three-month follow-up, the gains remained stable, suggesting lasting and potentially permanent resolution of the problem.

[The Iraq Stress Project is still recruiting veteran volunteers. If you are a veteran and interested in participating, you can get more information here.]

Other Lifestyle Changes to Consider for Depression

I strongly believe that energy psychology is one of the most powerful tools for resolving emotional issues, and I think strengthening your faith can be a very important aspect of mental and emotional health as well. The effectiveness of any energy psychology technique will be significantly improved if you combine it with the following:
•Dramatically decreasing your consumption of sugar (particularly fructose), grains, and processed foods. (In addition to being high in sugar and grains, processed foods also contain a variety of additives that can affect your brain function and mental state, especially artificial sweeteners.)
•Getting adequate vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 deficiency can contribute to depression and affects one in four people.
•Optimizing your vitamin D levels, ideally through regular sun exposure. Vitamin D is very important for your mood. One study found that people with the lowest levels of vitamin D were 11 times more prone to be depressed than those who had normal levels.
•Getting plenty of animal-based omega-3 fats. Omega-3 fats are crucial for good brain function and mental health,12 and most people don’t get enough from diet alone. So make sure you take a high-quality omega-3 fat, such as krill oil.
•Evaluating your salt intake. Sodium deficiency actually creates symptoms that are very much like those of depression. Make sure you do NOT use processed salt (regular table salt), however. You’ll want to use an all natural, unprocessed salt like Himalayan salt, which contains more than 80 different micronutrients.
•Getting adequate daily exercise. Exercise is one of the best-kept secrets to preventing depression

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

The vast majority of the published scientific literature on cancer and cancer research is inherently flawed and non-reproducible, reveals a new review published online in the journal Nature. Researchers C. Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis found that a mere 11 percent of 53 papers on cancer published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals was solid, while the other 89 percent could not be reproduced, implying that it may be false or at the very least misleading.

Preclinical studies are the basis upon which the scientific community at large determines how best to develop treatments for disease, including potential new approaches to treating cancer. But such studies, though sure to contain some minor flaws from time to time, appear to be missing the boat in major ways on a regular basis. And the end result of this intrinsic failure is a cancer treatment system that is not only outdated but potentially completely misguided.

“The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value – that although there might be some errors in detail, the main message of the paper can be relied on and the data will, for the most part, stand the test of time,” wrote the authors about their findings. “Unfortunately, this is not always the case.”

Based on a review of 53 published papers on cancer, Begley and Ellis discovered that only six of them could be reproduced and confirmed in a clinical setting. And the worst part was that the 53 papers were considered to be “landmark,” which means they are generally recognized as having had a significant impact on cancer research due to presenting some new cancer treatment approach or novel therapy for targeting cancer cells.

“[I]t looks like the scientific literature is contaminated with a growing number of tainted studies, which may reach 89 percent, the results of which are not reproducible by any means,” writes Eleni Roumeliotou for GreenMedInfo.com about the shocking findings. “This means that to an extent, we have based our healthcare and clinical guidelines on fake studies that reported untruthful results in order to accommodate the interests of industrial corporations.”

Many cancer studies influenced by Big Pharma conflicts of interest
The fact of the matter is that a considerable amount of published scientific research is questionable at best due to influence from the pharmaceutical industry. A similar but unrelated study that looked at research funding found that at least 17 percent of published research papers in general were conducted with serious conflicts of interest, which more often than not stemmed from drug industry funding that steered the research in a pre-determined direction.

“Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough,” says Dr. Reshma Jagsi, M.D., author of a University of Michigan (UM) study that found a considerable percentage of cancer research to be tainted by conflicts of interest. “It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.uofmhealth.org

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e.html

http://www.greenmedinfo.com

http://www.cancer.org

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23277767

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

Collecting rainwater now illegal in many states as Big Government claims ownership over our water

Many of the freedoms we enjoy here in the U.S. are quickly eroding as the nation transforms from the land of the free into the land of the enslaved, but what I’m about to share with you takes the assault on our freedoms to a whole new level. You may not be aware of this, but many Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.

As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from “diverting” water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use.

Check out this YouTube video of a news report out of Salt Lake City, Utah, about the issue. It’s illegal in Utah to divert rainwater without a valid water right, and Mark Miller of Mark Miller Toyota, found this out the hard way.

After constructing a large rainwater collection system at his new dealership to use for washing new cars, Miller found out that the project was actually an “unlawful diversion of rainwater.” Even though it makes logical conservation sense to collect rainwater for this type of use since rain is scarce in Utah, it’s still considered a violation of water rights which apparently belong exclusively to Utah’s various government bodies.

“Utah’s the second driest state in the nation. Our laws probably ought to catch up with that,” explained Miller in response to the state’s ridiculous rainwater collection ban.

Salt Lake City officials worked out a compromise with Miller and are now permitting him to use “their” rainwater, but the fact that individuals like Miller don’t actually own the rainwater that falls on their property is a true indicator of what little freedom we actually have here in the U.S. (Access to the rainwater that falls on your own property seems to be a basic right, wouldn’t you agree?)

Outlawing rainwater collection in other states
Utah isn’t the only state with rainwater collection bans, either. Colorado and Washington also have rainwater collection restrictions that limit the free use of rainwater, but these restrictions vary among different areas of the states and legislators have passed some laws to help ease the restrictions.

In Colorado, two new laws were recently passed that exempt certain small-scale rainwater collection systems, like the kind people might install on their homes, from collection restrictions.

Prior to the passage of these laws, Douglas County, Colorado, conducted a study on how rainwater collection affects aquifer and groundwater supplies. The study revealed that letting people collect rainwater on their properties actually reduces demand from water facilities and improves conservation.

Personally, I don’t think a study was even necessary to come to this obvious conclusion. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that using rainwater instead of tap water is a smart and useful way to conserve this valuable resource, especially in areas like the West where drought is a major concern.

Additionally, the study revealed that only about three percent of Douglas County’s precipitation ended up in the streams and rivers that are supposedly being robbed from by rainwater collectors. The other 97 percent either evaporated or seeped into the ground to be used by plants.

This hints at why bureaucrats can’t really use the argument that collecting rainwater prevents that water from getting to where it was intended to go. So little of it actually makes it to the final destination that virtually every household could collect many rain barrels worth of rainwater and it would have practically no effect on the amount that ends up in streams and rivers.

It’s all about control, really
As long as people remain unaware and uninformed about important issues, the government will continue to chip away at the freedoms we enjoy. The only reason these water restrictions are finally starting to change for the better is because people started to notice and they worked to do something to reverse the law.

Even though these laws restricting water collection have been on the books for more than 100 years in some cases, they’re slowly being reversed thanks to efforts by citizens who have decided that enough is enough.

Because if we can’t even freely collect the rain that falls all around us, then what, exactly, can we freely do? The rainwater issue highlights a serious overall problem in America today: diminishing freedom and increased government control.

Today, we’ve basically been reprogrammed to think that we need permission from the government to exercise our inalienable rights, when in fact the government is supposed to derive its power from us. The American Republic was designed so that government would serve the People to protect and uphold freedom and liberty. But increasingly, our own government is restricting people from their rights to engage in commonsense, fundamental actions such as collecting rainwater or buying raw milk from the farmer next door.

Today, we are living under a government that has slowly siphoned off our freedoms, only to occasionally grant us back a few limited ones under the pretense that they’re doing us a benevolent favor.

Fight back against enslavement
As long as people believe their rights stem from the government (and not the other way around), they will always be enslaved. And whatever rights and freedoms we think we still have will be quickly eroded by a system of bureaucratic power that seeks only to expand its control.

Because the same argument that’s now being used to restrict rainwater collection could, of course, be used to declare that you have no right to the air you breathe, either. After all, governments could declare that air to be somebody else’s air, and then they could charge you an “air tax” or an “air royalty” and demand you pay money for every breath that keeps you alive.

Think it couldn’t happen? Just give it time. The government already claims it owns your land and house, effectively. If you really think you own your home, just stop paying property taxes and see how long you still “own” it. Your county or city will seize it and then sell it to pay off your “tax debt.” That proves who really owns it in the first place… and it’s not you!

How about the question of who owns your body? According to the U.S. Patent & Trademark office, U.S. corporations and universities already own 20% of your genetic code. Your own body, they claim, is partially the property of someone else.

So if they own your land, your water and your body, how long before they claim to own your air, your mind and even your soul?

Unless we stand up against this tyranny, it will creep upon us, day after day, until we find ourselves totally enslaved by a world of corporate-government collusion where everything of value is owned by powerful corporations — all enforced at gunpoint by local law enforcement

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

Blockbuster documentary ‘$tatin Nation’ reveals the great cholesterol cover-up;

An amazing new film that questions the false medical narrative on statin drugs has just been launched on the Natural News video delivery platform. Called “$tatin Nation,” the film features a dozen interviews with top medical doctors, authors and even patients who are now standing up and publicly questioning the medical myths we’ve all been taught about cholesterol and statin drugs.

Promising to expose the “Great cholesterol cover-up,” $tatin Nation is a must-see film for anyone currently taking statin drugs or considering taking them.

Cholesterol drugs are based on the intentional misreprentation of medical evidence
$tatin Nation is the first film to publicly question the Big Pharma narrative on statin drugs. It explores these three shocking facts that are now emerging in the medical literature:

1) People with high cholesterol tend to live longer

2) People with heart disease tend to have low levels of cholesterol

3) Cholesterol-lowering on a population level does not reduce the rate of heart disease

Huh? But your doctor told you exactly the opposite, right? That’s because your doctor has been brainwashed or bribed by the drug companies that now generate $29 billion dollars a year from selling statin drugs.

Your doctor needs to see this film! Show him the trailer at:
http://programs.naturalnews.com/Statin_Nation__NN.htm

Meet filmmaker Justin Smith
Justin Smith, the creator of $tatin Nation, is also the author of $29 Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol. He has a degree in engineering and was a competitive cyclist before turning to research and filmmaking.

Here’s some Q&A with Justin Smith:

Why did you make this film?

I have made this film out of sheer frustration with the current situation. To date, most of the information that people receive about this subject is provided directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical companies. This information is heavily biased, of course, toward increasing company profits, with a disregard for peoples’ health.

In the film, you raise some important issues concerning statin medications. How would you like people to react to this?

My approach, with this film, is to provide people with information to make better informed decisions about their own health. Each person should make a personal decision about the issues raised. I hope that the film will prompt more people to ask their doctor important questions like: if I take this cholesterol medication, how much longer might I live? This question is important because most people will not receive any life extension from statins. While statins may, in some cases, slightly reduce the risk of heart problems, at the same time statins also increase the risk for other serious diseases. So, overall there is usually no net benefit.

There is some evidence that cholesterol medications can be beneficial for middle-aged men who have already had at least one heart attack. However, the benefit here has got nothing to do with cholesterol lowering. It relates to the positive effects that statins can have on inflammation and plaque stabilization. In this situation, there is some life extension, but it is difficult to say how much. The life extension even here may still only be a few days or weeks and this, of course, has to be balanced against the adverse effects of statins.

In addition, there is a well established connection between low cholesterol levels and a shorter life span. So, even if the statin was beneficial during middle-age, the adverse effects are likely to drastically outweigh any positive effects as the person reaches old age.

Was the film commissioned / How was the film funded?
I desperately wanted to make this film and I knew that getting it commissioned would be difficult and time consuming. Therefore. I invested some money myself and managed to raise money from crowd funding.

In addition, I managed to build a crew of people who are also passionate about this subject and would be willing to work on a deferred payment basis. The crew have all been willing to defer their payment until the film is released.

Originally, I planned to go through the traditional route (festivals and commissioning editors etc.) once the film was finished. However, I am concerned that this might take several months to a year, possibly longer, and I have a burning desire to expose this issue as soon as possible.

Personally, I feel that the timing is right to present this information to people. I hope to gain the interest of a major broadcaster in the UK, in the United States, or elsewhere but in the meantime I plan to release the film online via video on demand.

Do you think that people can freely consume cholesterol-rich foods?

Well, the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol simply clog-up the arteries has never been proven scientifically. It was just an idea.

In addition, there are many fascinating facts, such as the foods that contain cholesterol also contain large amounts of the nutrients that we know protect the heart. We have been told to avoid cholesterol-rich foods, but these foods often contain antioxidants and high levels of vitamins that keep our arteries healthy.

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

3 So-Called “Healthy” Foods that You Should STOP Eating (if you want a lean healthy body)

by Mike Geary, Certified Personal Trainer, Certified Nutrition Specialist
Author of the best-seller: The Truth About Six Pack Abs

I was reading a statistic in a nutrition book recently, and this is going to shock you…

Now before I tell you the statistic, let’s keep an important fact in mind… according to well renowned nutrition author Michael Pollan, and his amazing book called In Defense of Food, humankind has historically consumed approximately 80,000 different species of edible plants, animals, and fungi, and approximately 3,000 of those have been widespread foods of the human diet.

Now get ready for a shocking and appalling statistic…

Currently, the average adult eating a typical modern western diet in countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, etc consumes approximately 67% of their total caloric intake from only 3 foods — CORN, SOY, AND WHEAT (and their derivatives).

What would be considered a reasonably healthy amount of corn, soy, and wheat in the human diet? Based on hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and what the natural diet of our ancestors was (indicating what our digestive systems are still programmed to digest most effectively), this would probably be in the range of about 1% to 4% MAX of our total calories from corn, soy, and wheat.

Considering that modern humans are eating 67% of their total calories from corn, soy, wheat… you can see why we have massive problems in our health, and our weight!

It’s not a surprise that we have so many intolerances and allergies, specifically to soy and wheat (and gluten intolerance)… the human digestive system was simply never meant to consume these substances in such MASSIVE quantities.

Keep in mind that these massively high levels of corn, soy, and wheat in our modern human diet is a relatively new phenomenon that originated from the economics of the multi-billion dollar corn, soy, and wheat industries. It really HAS been all about the money… NOT about our health!

By “derivatives” of corn, soy, and wheat, this means the food additives such as:
•high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
•corn oil
•soybean oil (hydrogenated or plain refined)
•soy protein
•refined wheat flour
•hundreds of other food additives such as maltodextrin, corn or wheat starch, soy lecithin, mono and diglycerides, etc, etc

This doesn’t surprise me… consider how much soda or other sweetened drinks (with loads of HFCS) that the average person drinks daily… this is a LOT of calories from just 1 sole corn derivative. Even marinades, salad dressings, ketchup, breads, and 100’s of other foods contain loads of belly-fattening HFCS!

Also think about how many processed foods we have that are either fried in soybean or corn oil… and even if the foods are not fried in these oils, these oils are additives to almost every processed food… chips, candies, cakes, salad dressings, tomato sauces, burrito wraps, corn chips, breaded chicken, etc, etc. This is a LOT of calories from these 2 other corn and soy derivatives… both of them EXTREMELY UNHEALTHY!

On top of that, think about how much breads, cereals, pastas, muffins, and other highly processed wheat products that most people consume each day. Again, this is LOADS of unhealthy, blood-sugar spiking, nutrient-poor calories, that more than half of the population has some degree of intolerance to anyway.

It gets even worse!

Not only are we eating 67% of our total calories from corn, soy, and wheat… but because of the economics involved (specifically with cheap corn and soy) we are also feeding most of our farm animals corn and soy now too… again amplifying the amount of corn and soy that passes through the food chain and (from a biochemical standpoint) ends up in our bodies.

Probably the 2 worst examples of this blatant mismanagement of our food supply is how our factory farmed chickens and cows are fed.

Cows are fed mostly corn in factory feedlot farms, even though their digestive systems are only meant to eat grass and other forage. This makes the cows sick (hmm… E-coli anyone?), alters the omega-6 to omega-3 ratio of the fats to unhealthy levels, and also diminishes the healthy CLA fats that would occur naturally in grass-fed beef. All of these problems go away if our cows are fed what they were made to eat naturally – grass and other green forage!

Our chickens are also fed a diet of mostly corn and soy and crowded in tight pens in horrendous conditions… when the fact is that a chicken was meant to roam around the outdoors eating a mixture of greens, insects, worms, seeds, etc. When chickens are kept inside in tight quarters and fed only grains, it leads to an unhealthy meat for you to eat, and less healthy eggs compared to free-roaming chickens allowed to eat an outdoors diet.

Our food supply has gotten so screwed up that we’re even feeding our salmon and other farmed fish corn and soy…again because of the economics involved. How ludicrous is this, considering that fish are meant to eat a diverse diet of smaller fish, worms, bugs, etc. Again this makes farm raised fish unhealthy in terms of nutrition compared to their wild counterparts. If you want to see something even scarier about farm-raised fish, watch this quick video about the toxic fish you might be buying.

So even when you’re eating chicken, beef, and fish, you’re still essentially getting even MORE corn and soy into your body (from a biochemical standpoint) …considering that the cows, chickens, and farmed fish ate mostly soy and corn.

So it’s actually WORSE than just 67% isn’t it!

Why is it so unhealthy to consume 2/3rds of our calories from corn, soy, and wheat?

Well, this section could encompass an entire book, so to keep this short, I’ll just throw out a few random reasons…
•Skews the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats in our diet to as high as 30:1, when a natural ratio of 1:1 to 2:1 in our ancestral human diet is considered healthy.
•Problems with gluten intolerance (related to heavy wheat consumption that is rampant)
•Problems with weight gain, blood-sugar swings, and reduced insulin sensitivity (and progression of diabetes) due to excessive refined corn and wheat flours, as well as HFCS in our diet
•Soy and corn are the most genetically modified crops (which also allows more pesticides and herbicides to be used, which are usually “xenoestrogens”)
•Many of the pesticide and herbicide residues in these crops are xenoestrogens, which can increase “stubborn” belly fat
•Soy products and derivatives contain a double-whammy of xenoestrogens as well as phytoestrogens… again creating an environment in your body for fat storage, carcinogenic effects, and even “man boobs” for some men in very severe cases
•The feeding of corn and soy to animals reduces the health and nutritional benefits (and micronutrient levels) of those animal products
•and the list could go on and on and on…

So how do you avoid all of this overwhelming amount of corn, soy, and wheat in our food supply, and finally take control of your weight and your health?

1. Don’t purchase processed foods! It all starts with your grocery cart discipline… choose only 1-ingredient foods such as fruits, veggies, beans, eggs (free roaming), nuts, seeds, and meats from grass-fed or free roaming animals that are raised correctly. Organic is preferred. Only resort to junk foods or processed foods on a 1-day per week “cheat day” but ONLY when dining out… that way, the processed foods aren’t in your house to tempt you.

2. Get most of your carbs from fruits and veggies instead of grains.

3. Avoid store bought salad dressings as they almost always contain soybean oil and HFCS (instead, try my homemade healthy salad dressing)

4. Make sure that your tomato sauces don’t have HFCS and soybean oils… look for sauces made with olive oil instead. Remember to avoid unhealthy canola oils too!

5. If you like guacamole (one of the healthiest snacks on the planet!), try veggie sticks with guacamole instead of genetically-modified, oil-soaked corn chips

6. If you like hummus, try veggies sticks with hummus instead of pita chips or other bread.

7. Reduce your cereal, bread, and pasta intake by having these foods only on “cheat days” and stick to more of the 1-ingredient foods I mentioned in #1 above. Try some of these healthy snacks as good alternatives (yes, I know that one of the 13 snacks on there has sprouted grain, which is fine on occasion).

I could go on with more examples, but I think that’s good for now.

So with all of this said… Is my diet perfect? Well, no of course not! Nobody is perfect, and I can give in to temptation on occasion just like anybody else.

However, I’d estimate that my corn/soy/wheat consumption is only about 2-4% of my total caloric intake compared to 67% for the average person. The way that I achieve this is to simply not bring any corn, soy, or wheat products into my house, so I’m never tempted by it. Therefore, at least 6 days/week, I eat virtually no corn/soy/wheat, except for the occasional piece of sprouted grain toast a couple times a week (which is a better option than typical “whole grain” bread).

I do, however, give in and sometimes eat breads, pasta, and even corn chips, etc. when I’m dining out. I see these as my cheat meals and try to do this no more than once per week. I still completely eliminate sodas and deep fried foods though…they are just TOO evil!

Please share this article with your friends and family on email, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums, etc… this is one of the MAJOR reasons that we are so unhealthy and overweight as a society… 67% of our calories from just 3 foods (and their derivatives) is an appalling statistic! Don’t give in to the marketing machine that is the corn, soy, and wheat industries! Take control of your OWN health instead of letting big corporations take control of your health.

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

Studies Show 5 Proven Tricks to Eat Less Calories

by Mike Geary, Certified Personal Trainer, Certified Nutrition Specialist
Author of best-selling program – The Truth About Six Pack Abs

I found most of these five tricks (that are proven to help you eat less food and less overall calories) while reading a fascinating book recently called 59 Seconds by Richard Wiseman. I think you’ll find these very helpful if you’re looking to control your caloric intake and reduce your body fat.

These tricks were tested in scientific studies and are quick and easy to implement. I thought these were VERY interesting…

Trick #1 to Eat Less — Several studies prove that the size of the bowl, plate, or spoon that you use can directly influence how much food and calories you consume.

Richard Wiseman, in the book 59 Seconds, talks about one study conducted where party guests were randomly given either 17 or 34-ounce bowls and 2 or 3 ounce spoons, and allowed to help themselves to ice cream. It was found that the party guests given the large spoons and large bowls had eaten 14% and 31% more ice cream respectively, than the people using the smaller spoons or smaller bowls. Interesting huh!

Another study conducted at the University of Pennsylvania used a bowl of M&Ms that were left in the hallway of an apartment building. A sign next to the bowl told people to help themselves to the M&Ms. Some days a tablespoon sized scoop was used in the M&Ms and on other days, a larger scoop was used in the bowl. The researchers found that the larger scoop caused people to take TWICE the amount of M&Ms on average compared to the people that had used the smaller scoop.

I’ve also seen studies referenced in the past that showed that people who used larger plates consumed more calories than those using smaller plates.

The lesson — Use smaller plates, bowls, and silverware and you may inadvertently reduce your calorie intake. This also means saying NO to seconds and thirds!

Trick #2 to Eat Less — You’ve probably heard before that eating slower can help you to eat less because it gives time for the fullness signal to reach your brain and thereby shut off your appetite before you’ve eaten too much.

However, this study below found a twist on this!

According to Mr. Wiseman in the book 59 Seconds, a study at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center had overweight participants eat a meal at 3 different speeds:

a) their normal rate
b) half their normal rate
c) their normal rate at first, followed by half their normal rate (normal-slow combo)

The results were interesting… Eating at the slower rate caused the men to eat less, but not the women (that’s weird!). However, the 3rd group that combined the normal pace at first with the slower rate after that caused both the men and women to have a large reduction in their appetite and eat less. The normal-slow combo was found to be more effective than just the slow-only group. Why? I have no idea, but those are interesting results!

Mr. Wiseman stated that the lesson here to eat less is “to start at your normal speed but then savor each and every mouthful”.

Trick #3 to Eat Less — According to the book 59 Seconds, a series of experiments conducted in offices compared putting chocolates right on people’s desks vs placing the chocolates six feet away. In another experiment, the chocolates were put inside either transparent or opaque jars. When the chocolates were placed on the person’s desk instead of 6 feet away, people ate on average 6 more chocolates per day per person. Also, the chocolates in the transparent jars were eaten 46% more quickly than the opaque jars.

Just shows… out of sight, out of mind! As you may already know, I recommend never even having junk food around your house at all…that way, you’re never tempted by it and you’re forced to only eat healthy foods… but then you can use your weekly cheat meals to eat junk food out at a restaurant. That way the junk food is never in your house to begin with!

Trick #4 to Eat Less — This trick was reported based on a Georgia Tech study. The study essentially found that people tend to subconsciously eat bigger portions of food when their plate is the same color as their food.

It seems like an odd association, but remember that a lot of these are always subconscious things that we don’t realize are happening. In this particular study, the scientists theorized that less color contrast between plate and food makes our brains work harder to figure out appropriate portion sizes. More color contrast between plate and food would make people eat slightly smaller portions subconsciously.

Trick #5 to Eat Less — Studies have found that people eat significantly more when they are distracted by TV, movies, games, or other distractions. In one experiment mentioned in the book 59 Seconds, people who were more absorbed by a movie ate significantly larger amounts of popcorn compared to those that were paying less attention to the movie.

In another experiment, people who actively listened to a detective story during lunch (being distracted by the story), ate 15% more food than those who sat in silence during their lunch.

The lesson — ditch the TV and other distractions and focus on your food! Enjoy every bite of your food and you will naturally consume less calories while enjoying your food more.

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

Research has shown that pesticides and other agricultural chemicals are neurotoxins and can cause disruptions to your neurological system and your brain. The reason why neurotoxins still enjoy widespread use on our fresh food supply is really more about the bottom line for farming operations than it is about the science of human health.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers 60 percent of herbicides, 90 percent of fungicides, and 30 percent of insecticides to be carcinogenic. All of these toxins are permitted on conventional farms, and any number of them can end up on your plate when you purchase conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables.

The increased use of genetically engineered Bt hybrid plants1 and soil insecticides also increases the chemical load in food — particularly processed foods.

These man-made neurotoxic chemicals can bioaccumulate in your body, as they resist breaking down in water and also accumulate and store in fat, where they can remain for long periods of time.

In short, this means your body has a very hard time getting rid of them once they enter your body. The answer, of course, is to limit your exposure as much as possible, giving your body a chance to eliminate the toxins you do inadvertently ingest. One food that can help with detoxification is fermented foods.

Updated Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce

Your best bet is to buy only organic fruits and vegetables, as synthetic agricultural chemicals are not permissible under the USDA organic rules. That said, not all conventionally grown fruits and vegetables are subjected to the same amount of pesticide load.

And with food prices rising, many are looking for ways to buy the healthiest foods possible at the lowest cost.

One such way would be to focus on purchasing certain organic items, while “settling” for others that are conventionally-grown. To do this, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG’s) annual Shoppers’ Guide to Pesticides in Produce.2

Of the 48 different fruit and vegetable categories tested by the EWG for the 2013 guide, the following 15 fruits and vegetables had the highest pesticide load, making them the most important to buy or grow organically:

Apples

Celery

Cherry tomatoes

Cucumbers

Grapes

Hot peppers

Nectarines (imported)

Peaches

Potatoes

Spinach

Strawberries

Sweet bell peppers

Kale

Collard greens

Summer squash

In contrast, the following foods were found to have the lowest residual pesticide load, making them the safest bet among conventionally grown vegetables. Note that a small amount of sweet corn and most Hawaiian papaya, although low in pesticides, are genetically engineered (GE). If you’re unsure of whether the sweet corn or papaya is GE, I’d recommend opting for organic varieties:

Asparagus

Avocado

Cabbage

Cantaloupe

Sweet corn (non-GMO)

Eggplant

Grapefruit

Kiwi

Mango

Mushrooms

Onions

Papayas (non-GMO. Most Hawaiian papaya is GMO)

Pineapple

Sweet peas (frozen)

Sweet potatoes

What to Look Out for in the Meat Isle

Many people are still in the dark about the vast differences between Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and organically-raised, grass-fed or pastured meats, both in terms of contamination and nutrient content. It’s important to understand that when you raise animals in a CAFO — away from the animals’ natural environments and diets — you dramatically increase the risk of pathogenic contamination that can make you ill.

Take beef, for example. Most CAFO cows are fed grains (typically genetically engineered grains, which make matters even worse), when their natural diet is plain grass. Grain diets create a much higher level of acidity in the animal’s stomach, which E. coli bacteria need to survive. Meanwhile, E. coli contamination is actually quite rare in organic beef for this reason — the cows just aren’t susceptible to those kinds of disease-causing bacteria and viruses when they eat what they were designed to eat.

Also beware that bacterial contamination of meat-glued steak — a cost-saving scam that is far more common than you might think — is hundreds of times higher than a solid piece of steak; therefore, if you cook your steak rare, which is ordinarily the most healthful way to cook your meat, you’re at a much greater risk of contracting food poisoning.

You’d think that since the meat is being raised in ways that are known to encourage disease-causing organisms, there’d be stringent requirements on testing. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. For example, there is no federal requirement for meat grinders to test their ingredients for E.coli prior to selling them. And most retailers do not test either. In August 2008, the USDA issued a guideline urging meat processors to test their ingredients before grinding. But the guideline is only optional and has been met with criticism and resistance from the meat industry.

Want Safer Meat? Buy Organic Pastured/Grass-Fed

It’s no surprise then to discover that pathogenic contamination of meat products is quite high. What’s worse, the routine use of low-dose antibiotics in CAFO’s has led to a dramatic and rapidly rising presence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

According to a recent NPR report,3 data published by a joint government program4 from tests conducted on supermarket meat samples collected in 2011 by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, reveals the presence of several disease-causing bacteria, including the super-hardy antibiotic-resistant versions of salmonella, Campylobacterand E. coli. After analyzing the data, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) highlighted some of the startling implications in its own report,5 aptly named “Superbugs Invade American Supermarkets.” The EWG points out that many of the meats tested contained “startlingly high levels” of antibiotic-resistant bacteria on:
•81 percent of ground turkey
•69 percent of pork chops
•55 percent of ground beef
•39 percent of chicken breasts, wings and thighs

One of the best ways to avoid contaminated meat is to avoid meat from animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO’s), aka “factory farms,” and buying organic, pastured or grass-fed meats instead. Growth promoters such as antibiotics are not permitted in organic animal farming, and organically-raised animals are also healthier as a result of being pastured, so overall you’re getting far “cleaner,” healthier meat.

“To be safe, consumers should treat all meat as if it may be contaminated, mainly by cooking thoroughly and using safe shopping and kitchen practices (see EWG’s downloadable Tips to Avoiding Superbugs in Meat),”6 EWG suggests.7

Beware of Pesticides in Chinese Imports, Study Warns

Another related study warns about the pesticide load found in produce imported from China. The analysis was done by Food Sentry, an American food inspection analyst. After analyzing close to 1,000 reported food violations spanning 73 countries, China was identified as having the most violations. A second study focused on the Chinese violations only, over a 15-month period. As reported by Food Navigator,8 pesticides were the number one complaint. Thirty-two pesticides were identified in Chinese fresh produce and spices, in excess of the permissible amounts. Chinese seafood was also found to be high in antibiotics and other drugs. Other chemicals found in levels exceeding allowable amounts in food included:
•Sulfur dioxide
•Sulfites
•Formaldehyde
•Coloring dyes
•Sodium saccharine

The most concerning chemical was sodium hydroxide, aka caustic soda or lye, found in dairy. Excessive lead levels were also found in kelp and cardamom, and infant formula was found to contain excessive levels of mercury. According to Food Navigator:

“The study also found that economically motivated adulteration — the intentional adulteration of a food for economic gain — continues to be an issue in China. Examples of this included counterfeit eggs that were man-made from various substances and chemicals, synthetic shark fin, synthetic abalone and counterfeit peanut oil made from other oils.”

USDA Ruffles Feathers with New Poultry Inspection Policy

While all manner of food fraud and contamination issues continue to rise, the White House administration is about to dramatically scale back the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) oversight of chicken- and turkey slaughterhouses. As reported by Mother Jones:9

“Currently, each factory-scale slaughterhouse has four USDA inspectors overseeing kill lines churning out up to 140 birds every minute. Under the USDA’s new plan, a single federal inspector would oversee lines killing as many as 175 birds per minute. That would mean there are three fewer inspectors for a production line running 25 percent faster…

[O]n April 10, the administration released a prospective USDA budget indicating that the agency plans to implement the new rules by September 2014. And in testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture on April 16, Vilsack said the rules would be finalized ‘very soon,’ declaring that the plan ‘will allow the poultry industry to continue to be profitable, and allow us [the USDA] to save some money as well.'”

The USDA is expected to save $90 million over three years by reducing the number of inspectors. But these savings are dwarfed by the savings to be made by the poultry industry — dominated by Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Purdue, and Sanderson — which stands to save nearly $257 million annually.

Illogically enough, the USDA claims this plan will actually improve poultry product safety and prevent anywhere from three to five thousand foodborne illnesses per year. How could that be, you may wonder. The answer lies in new rules that would permit poultry producers to put all the poultry through an antimicrobial wash, using chlorine and other chemicals. The lone USDA inspector will continue what has been done in the past, which is to visually inspect the birds for obvious surface defects and fecal contamination.

Needless to say, I cannot recommend eating anything that has been washed in chlorine and antimicrobial chemicals. We already have a problem with antibiotics causing antibiotic-resistant pathogens when used in the animals’ feed. I cannot foresee the situation getting anything but worse by dousing each bird in antimicrobials on the outside as well…

Healthy Shopping Guidelines

Buying your food from a local organic source is the ideal way to ensure that it’s both fresh and high-quality. I strongly advise you to avoid wilted vegetables of any kind, because when vegetables wilt, they lose much of their nutritional value. In fact, wilted organic vegetables may actually be less healthful than fresh conventionally farmed vegetables.

For tips on cleaning your fruits and veggies, please see my previous article: 7 Tips for Cleaning Fruits, Vegetables. Regardless of where you shop, the following tips and guidelines can teach you the tricks of healthy shopping, whether you’re shopping at Whole Foods or a regular grocery chain:

Learn to identify:

High-quality food — Whether you’re shopping at a supermarket or a farmer’s market, here are the signs of a high-quality, healthy food:

Grown without pesticides and chemical fertilizers (organic foods fit this description, but so do some non-organic foods)

Not genetically modified

Contains no added growth hormones, antibiotics, or other drugs

Does not contain any artificial ingredients, including chemical preservatives

Fresh (keep in mind that if you have to choose between wilted organic produce or fresh conventional produce, the latter may be the better option)

Did not come from a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO)

Grown with the laws of nature in mind (meaning animals are fed their native diets, not a mix of grains and animal byproducts, and have free access to the outdoors)

Grown in a sustainable way (using minimal amounts of water, protecting the soil from burnout, and turning animal wastes into natural fertilizers instead of environmental pollutants)

Organics – There are a few different organic labels out there, but only one relates directly to foods: the USDA Organic seal. It’s the best way to ensure you’re getting what you pay for when shopping organic.

The labeling requirements of the NOP10 apply to raw, fresh products and processed products that contain organic agricultural ingredients. In order to qualify as organic,11 a product must be grown and processed using organic farming methods that recycle resources and promote biodiversity. (For the complete National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances under the USDA organic label, see this link.)

Genetically modified foods – Avoiding genetically engineered (GE) food is just as important for your health as seeking out high-quality organics. In fact, they go hand-in-hand. Unfortunately, GE ingredients are everywhere, so whenever you use pre-made, pre-packaged, processed foods of any kind, genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) becomes an issue. The ResponsibleTechnology.org has created a Non-GMO Shopping Guide, available for free at NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.12 By making sure to avoid all GM food products, you will actively help change not just your own health for the better, but the entire food industry.

Other health-harming ingredients – This is quite a bit trickier, since there are a vast number of additives, preservatives and food colorings that can wreak havoc with your health in the long term. However, I would suggest starting with the most obvious culprits, including MSG, artificial sweeteners, and fructose. Here are helpful guidelines for each:
•MSG – A great resource on how to find hidden sources of MSG, please see the website MSGMYTH.com13 for detailed listings
•Fructose – Any time you see ‘corn syrup’ or any variation thereof, on the label, avoid it, especially if it’s at the top of the list of ingredients.
•In his book, The Sugar Fix, Dr. Richard Johnson reviews the effectiveness of reducing fructose intake to help prevent or treat obesity. His book also provides detailed tables showing the content of fructose in different foods, including whole foods, like fruits – an information base that isn’t readily available elsewhere.

ALL artificial sweeteners should be avoided, including:
•Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet, Canderel, and AminoSweet)
•Sucralose (Splenda)
•Acesulfame K (Sunett, Sweet One)
•Saccharin (Sweet ‘N Low, Sugar Twin)

To optimize your diet you need to educate yourself on what ‘healthy food’ really is. It’s the only way to ensure you won’t keep falling for harmful processed food fads like no- or low-fat (which usually means it’s loaded with harmful fructose or sugar instead), or no or low sugar diet foods (which instead contain artificial sweeteners, which are even worse for you). There are few, if any, shortcuts to real health and it all starts with what you feed your body, so make educated choices. Lastly, for tips on how to prolong the shelf life of fresh produce, see my previous article Where Do You Store Produce In Your Fridge For Maximum Shelf Life?

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

Survey Finds Teen Misuse And Abuse Of Prescription Drugs Up 33 Percent Since 2008

One in four teens has misused a prescription drug at least once in their lifetime, according to new survey results from the partnership at Drugfree.org and the MetLife Foundation.1

This represents a 33 percent increase in the past five years!

Among one of the most commonly abused class of drugs are stimulants like Ritalin and Adderall, of which one in eight teens (13 percent) said they had taken even though it wasn’t prescribed to them.

Prescription drugs don’t hold the same stigma as illegal recreational drugs, even though they can be just as deadly, leading teens to regard them as a “safe” way to get high.

In many cases, parents only add to this assumption, not only because they may take multiple prescription drugs themselves but also, as the survey reported, because close to one-third of parents believe prescription stimulants can improve their teen’s academic performance.

One in Six Parents Believe Prescription Drugs Give a Safer “High” Than Street Drugs

Another shocking belief held by one in six parents was that using prescription drugs to get high is safer than using street drugs. This might explain why 86 percent of teens said their parents had not talked to them about the risks of abusing prescription drugs. In fact, it’s often the parents’ own medicine cabinets that become their children’s “drug dealers” …

Some teens even describe having “skittles parties,”2 where they combine a mix of pills they took from their parent’s medicine cabinet into one big bowl, then take a few just for fun.

Sadly, some teens pay for this one “bad” decision with their lives. Drug fatalities more than doubled among teens and young adults between 2000 and 2008, and these drug-induced fatalities are not being driven by illegal street drugs.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the most commonly abused prescription drugs like OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax and Soma now cause more deaths than heroin and cocaine combined.3 As written in the Baltimore Sun:4

“According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, prescription drugs are second to marijuana as the drug of choice for today’s teens. In fact, seven of the top 10 drugs used by 12th-graders were prescription drugs.

More than 40 percent of high school seniors reported that painkillers are “fairly” or “very” easy to get. They also reported that they believed that if they were to get caught, there was less shame attached to the use of prescription drugs than to street drugs. This mirrors the perceptions of their parents, who when queried said that they felt prescription drugs were a safer alternative to drugs typically sold by a drug dealer.”

There’s Nothing “Safe” About Prescription Drug Abuse

If you have a teenager or pre-teen in your life that you care about, please make it a point to sit down and talk to them about the dangers of taking prescription drugs just “for fun.” Far from being “safer” than illegal street drugs, they can sometimes kill in just one pill.

Be sure to let them in on this simple fact: in many cases there’s no difference between a recreational street drug and a prescription drug. For example, hydrocodone, a prescription opiate, is synthetic heroin. It’s indistinguishable from any other heroine as far as your brain and body is concerned. So, if you’re hooked on hydrocodone, you are in fact a good-old-fashioned heroin addict.

Worse, pain-killing drugs like fentanyl are actually 100 times more potent than natural opioids like morphine, making the addictive potential and side effects associated with prescription drug use much higher. Among the most commonly abused prescription medications, along with their risks, which you can share with your teen, include:

Opioids (Painkillers)

Morphine, codeine, oxycodone, hydrocodone and fentanyl all fall into this category. These drugs are not only addictive, they can lead to slowed breathing and death if too much is taken.

Stimulants

These include drugs such as Ritalin, Concerta and Adderall (the latter of which actually contains amphetamine, known and sold on the street as “speed” or “crank”), which are often used to teat ADHD, narcolepsy and even sometimes depression. Along with being highly addictive, stimulants sometimes lead to feelings of hostility and paranoia, along with risks like irregular heartbeat, heart failure and seizures.

When a stimulant is combined with another medication, such as an over-the-counter cold medicine that contains a decongestant, it can cause dangerously high blood pressure or irregular heart rhythms.

Depressants

Used to treat anxiety and sleep disorders, medications such as Valium, Xanax, Ambien, and Sonata are also addictive, and cause side effects like confusion, drowsiness and impaired coordination. This can be especially risky among teens if they then get behind the wheel to drive, as it increases the risk of accidents. Further, if these drugs are combined with alcohol or pain medications, the results can be deadly.

In the Popular Science infographic above,5 you can see rankings of some of the deadliest drugs in the US, according to data from the CDC. What is striking about this graphic is not only the steady rise in drug-related deaths, but also the fact that close to 60 percent of the drug overdose deaths involve pharmaceutical drugs such as opioids (oxycodone, hydrocodone, and methadone), anti-anxiety drugs, antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs – the very same drugs often preferred by teens for a “safer” high.

Politicians are Worried About Soda … but What About Prescription Drugs?

Soda taxes and other measures to lower soda consumption is a hot topic among politicians. Obviously, helping teens to drink less soda is an admirable and important public health goal, but what about the abuse of prescription drugs? One American dies every 19 minutes from an accidental prescription drug overdose,6 a phenomenon now being described as “the biggest man-made epidemic in the United States.”7 Yet, this is a soaring public health epidemic that receives far too little attention from the media and lawmakers alike.

Unfortunately, we’re living in an era when the drug industry is praised and revered for their “life-saving” medications, when in reality even their proper use often takes lives unnecessarily. Drugs are known to cause well over 125,000 deaths per year in the US when taken correctly as prescribed – and still the FDA allows fast-track approvals and countless new additions of poorly tested drugs to the marketplace that must later be withdrawn due to their lethal consequences.

This “FDA approval” makes teens believe that taking a few pills here and there is no big deal, and parents add to this flawed belief by often giving medications to their kids when they’re not really necessary – a practice that often starts at a very young age.

Nearly Half of Parents Give Cold Meds to Kids When They Shouldn’t

In children under the age of 4, common over-the-counter cough and cold medications can lead to allergic reactions, increased heart rate, slow breathing, confusion, hallucinations, drowsiness, sleeplessness, convulsions, nausea and constipation. This is why, since 2008, labels on these drugs state that they’re not intended for children under 4. Yet, according to a new survey, the University of Michigan C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, more than 40 percent of US parents give these cough and cold medications to their children aged 3 and younger.8

There is a common perception that if you’re coughing, sneezing or have a low-grade fever, you must take a medication to get rid of it. In reality, coughing and sneezing are tools your body uses to get rid of viruses and irritants, and fever also helps to kill bacteria and viruses.

So if you take a drug to stop these natural protections, you are actually stopping your body’s healing process — and in the long run it will likely take you even longer to feel better. That, combined with the serious risks these drugs can pose to children, makes a strong case against their use … yet many parents still reach for such medications at the first hint of a sniffle. For kids, this sends the message that drugs are necessary to make you “feel better” – a belief they may keep when they reach their teenage years …

Novartis Drug Company Being Sued for Illegal Kickback Scheme

You probably wouldn’t trust that a drug dealer on the street had your best interests at heart … you would assume they’re mostly interested in making a profit. But make no mistake – the leading pharmaceutical companies are also among the largest corporate criminals in the world, behaving as if they are little more than white-collar drug dealers.

In one of the most recent examples, the US government sued the drug company Novartis for giving pharmacies discounts and rebates to switch kidney transplant patients from competitors’ drugs to their own anti-rejection drug Myfortic. Medicare and Medicaid reportedly paid tens of millions of dollars in reimbursements to the pharmacies as a result of the illegal kickback scheme, which has reportedly been going on since 2005.

This is not an isolated incident, either. A 2010 study analyzed trends in criminal and civil actions against drug companies, and revealed that the drug industry is the biggest defrauder of the federal government under the False Claims Act.9 Despite stiffer financial penalties, criminal activity has increased dramatically in recent years. These white-collar criminals are the same ones behind the supposedly “safe” medications sitting in your medicine cabinet; if they’re willing to defraud the federal government, what makes you think they’re not willing to defraud you, too?

12 Signs Your Teen May be Abusing Prescription Drugs

Prescription drug abuse often goes unnoticed by parents until it’s too late, so be sure to keep a close eye out for the following signs that your teen may be abusing prescription drugs:

Changes in sleeping habits or energy level

Changes in mood or personality

Changes in personal hygiene or appearance

Changes in friends

Loss of appetite

Changes in grades or dedication to schoolwork

Constricted eye pupils (“pinpoint pupils”), which may be a sign of opiate use

Poor decision making

Restlessness or impulsive behavior

Missing medications around your home

Loss of interest in activities, sports, etc.

Sudden weight loss

If you notice these signs or otherwise suspect that your teen may be abusing prescription drugs, talk to them immediately about the dangers and seek professional help if necessary

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

Systemic insecticides known as neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. Two prominent examples, imidacloprid and clothianidin, are used as seed treatments in hundreds of crops. Virtually all of today’s genetically engineered Bt corn, for instance, is treated with neonicotinoid insecticides.

Bee colonies began disappearing in the United States shortly after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowed these new insecticides on the market, and a debate has since been raging over whether or not these chemicals are indeed contributing to the serious honeybee die-offs that have been occurring around the world.

Now the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has released a report that may put the debate to rest, as they’ve ruled neonicotinoid insecticides are essentially “unacceptable” for many crops.

Is This the ‘Death Knell’ for Neonicotinoids?

The European Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks associated with the use of three common neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – with particular focus on:
•Their acute and chronic effects on bee colony survival and development
•Their effects on bee larvae and bee behavior
•The risks posed by sub-lethal doses of the three chemicals

One of the glaring issues that EFSA came across was a widespread lack of information, with scientists noting that in some cases gaps in data made it impossible to conduct an accurate risk assessment. Still, what they did find was “a number of risks posed to bees” by the three neonicotinoid insecticides.

The Authority found that when it comes to neonicotinoid exposure from residues in nectar and pollen in the flowers of treated plants:1

“…only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable.”

As for exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” According to certain environmental groups, the ruling could be the “death knell” for neonicotinoid pesticides.2

Pesticides Also Linked to Honeybee Colony Failures

Exposure to pesticides has been associated with changes in bee behavior and reductions in colony queen production, both of which could have detrimental impacts on the life of the colony. Last year, the impact of pesticides on individual bee behavior, and its subsequent impact on the colony as a whole, was also revealed. Bees given access to two commonly used agricultural pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:3
•Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae
•A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest
•A higher death rate among worker bees
•An increased likelihood of colony failure

The researchers said:

“Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.

We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”

What Makes Neonicotinoid Pesticides so Toxic?

Neonicotinoid insecticides are known as systemic chemicals because they disrupt the central nervous system of insects, leading to paralysis and death. It’s been suggested that even sub-lethal doses of the insecticides may be negatively impacting bees.

Because neonicotinoids are water soluble and very pervasive, they get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and generate long-term toxicity to the hive. They enter the vascular system of the plant and are carried to all parts of it, as well as to the pollen and nectar. Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees. Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honeybee hives on the verge of collapse.

In addition to immune dysfunction and opportunistic diseases, the honeybees also appear to suffer from neurological problems, disorientation, and impaired navigation. These effects have great consequence, as a bee can’t survive for more than 24 hours if she becomes disoriented and unable to find her way back to the hive.

Bayer Downplays EFSA’s ‘Death Knell’ Report

Bayer, a leading manufacturer of the neonicotinoid pesticides at the heart of the debate, has gone on record stating EFSA’s report “did not alter existing risk assessments and warned against ‘over-interpretation of the precautionary principle.'”4 In other words, it sounds as though they’d rather farmers continue using their pesticides without question, even if there are major concerns that they’re decimating bee populations worldwide. Bayer also noted that they are ready to work with the European Commission to address any “perceived data gaps.”

In fact, Bayer plans to open the North American Bee Care Center by July 2013. The Center is intended to be a research hub as well as promote “the active promotion of bee-responsible use of Bayer products along with communication activities worldwide.”5

Of course, it’s highly unlikely that any forthcoming research from Bayer’s North American Bee Care Center will find pesticides at fault… already, a report funded by the chemical industry has come out stating that banning neonicotinoid pesticides would cost farmers more than $980 million in lost food production.6 Yet, if these chemicals truly are killing off bee colonies, we stand to lose much, much more than that…

Bees Pollinate 70 Percent of the World’s Food

There are about 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food, globally. Of these, 71 are pollinated by bees.7 In the United States, a full one-third of the food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated major food shortages could result. There is also concern that the pesticides could be impacting other pollinators as well, including bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others, which could further impact the environment.

If honeybees disappear, so, too, will all of these other innovations and any new developments that may be honeybee-inspired in the future, such as these contributions to human health, including:
•Playing an important role in human medicine; raw honey, which has potent anti-inflammatory and anti-infective properties, is being used for wound healing and treating coughs, while “stun” chemicals from bee stings are being looked at as an effective anesthetic for humans.
•Propolis, the “caulk” honey bees use to patch holes in their hives, may slow the growth of prostate cancer and has powerful immune-modulating effects, along with potent antioxidant and anti-microbial action, and healing, analgesic, anesthetic, and anti-inflammatory properties.
•Bee pollen, which is often referred to as a superfood because it contains a broad range of nutrients required by your body. About half of its protein is in the form of free amino acids that are ready to be used directly by your body and can therefore contribute significantly to your protein needs.
•Honeybees have helped make scientific discoveries in many fields, including the aeronautics industry, which used the design of the six-sided honeycomb to help design aircraft wings; honeybee communication systems have even been adopted by computer programmers to help run Internet servers more efficiently.8

Do You Want to Get Involved to Help Protect Honeybees?

The documentary film Vanishing of the Bees recommends four actions you can take to help preserve our honeybees:
•Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)
•Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.
•Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.
•Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

If you are interested in more information about bee preservation, the following organizations are a good place to start.
•Pesticide Action Network Bee Campaign9
•The Foundation for the Preservation of Honey Bees10
•American Beekeeping Federation11
•Help the Honey Bees12

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

EPA Slapped with Lawsuit over Ongoing Bee Deaths

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to protect bees from neonicotinoid pesticides, according to a lawsuit against the agency, filed by beekeepers and environmental groups. Said Paul Towers, spokesperson for the Pesticide Action Network (PAN), one of the groups involved in the lawsuit:

“Despite our best efforts to warn the agency about the problems posed by neonicotinoids, the EPA continued to ignore the clear warning signs of an ag system in trouble.”

Lawsuit Maintains the Link Between Neonicotinoids and Bee Die Off Is ‘Crystal Clear’

Neonicotinoid pesticides are a newer class of chemicals that are applied to seeds before planting. This allows the pesticide to be taken up through the plant’s vascular system as it grows, where it is expressed in the pollen and nectar.

These insecticides are highly toxic to bees because they are systemic, water soluble, and pervasive. They get into the soil and groundwater where they can accumulate and remain for many years and present long-term toxicity to the hive as well as to other species, such as songbirds.

Neonicotinoids affect insects’ central nervous systems in ways that are cumulative and irreversible. Even minute amounts can have profound effects over time.

The disappearance of bee colonies began accelerating in the United States shortly after the EPA allowed these new insecticides on the market in the mid-2000s. The lawsuit alleges that the EPA allowed the neonicotinoids to remain on the market despite clear warning signs of a problem.

It also alleges the EPA acted outside of the law by allowing conditional registration of the pesticides, a measure that allows a product to enter the market despite the absence of certain data.

European Food Safety Authority Ruled Neonicotinoids ‘Unacceptable’

The EPA’s continued allowance of neonicotinoids becomes all the more irresponsible in light of recent findings by other government organizations. Earlier this year, for instance, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a report that ruled neonicotinoid insecticides are essentially “unacceptable” for many crops.1 The European Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks associated with the use of three common neonicotinoids – clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam – with particular focus on:
•Their acute and chronic effects on bee colony survival and development
•Their effects on bee larvae and bee behavior
•The risks posed by sub-lethal doses of the three chemicals

One of the glaring issues that EFSA came across was a widespread lack of information, with scientists noting that in some cases gaps in data made it impossible to conduct an accurate risk assessment. Still, what they did find was “a number of risks posed to bees” by the three neonicotinoid insecticides. The Authority found that when it comes to neonicotinoid exposure from residues in nectar and pollen in the flowers of treated plants:2

“…only uses on crops not attractive to honeybees were considered acceptable.”

As for exposure from dust produced during the sowing of treated seeds, the Authority ruled “a risk to honeybees was indicated or could not be excluded…” Unfortunately, neonicotinoids have become the fastest growing insecticides in the world. In the US, virtually all genetically engineered Bt corn crops are treated with neonicotinoids.

Serious Risks to Bees Already Established

One of the observed effects of these insecticides is weakening of the bee’s immune system. Forager bees bring pesticide-laden pollen back to the hive, where it’s consumed by all of the bees.

Six months later, their immune systems fail, and they fall prey to secondary, seemingly “natural” bee infections, such as parasites, mites, viruses, fungi and bacteria. Pathogens such as Varroa mites, Nosema, fungal and bacterial infections, and Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) are found in large amounts in honeybee hives on the verge of collapse.

Serious honeybee die-offs have been occurring around the world for the past decade but no one knows exactly why the bees are disappearing.

The phenomenon, dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is thought to be caused by a variety of imbalances in the environment, although agricultural practices such as the use of neonicotinoid pesticides are receiving growing attention as more research comes in. As written in the journal Nature:3

“Social bee colonies depend on the collective performance of many individual workers. Thus, although field-level pesticide concentrations can have subtle or sublethal effects at the individual level, it is not known whether bee societies can buffer such effects or whether it results in a severe cumulative effect at the colony level. Furthermore, widespread agricultural intensification means that bees are exposed to numerous pesticides when foraging, yet the possible combinatorial effects of pesticide exposure have rarely been investigated.”

This is what the Nature study set out to determine, and it was revealed that bees given access to neonicotinoid and pyrethroid pesticides were adversely affected in numerous ways, including:
•Fewer adult worker bees emerged from larvae
•A higher proportion of foragers failed to return to the nest
•A higher death rate among worker bees
•An increased likelihood of colony failure

The researchers said:

“Here we show that chronic exposure of bumble bees to two pesticides (neonicotinoid and pyrethroid) at concentrations that could approximate field-level exposure impairs natural foraging behavior and increases worker mortality leading to significant reductions in brood development and colony success.

We found that worker foraging performance, particularly pollen collecting efficiency, was significantly reduced with observed knock-on effects for forager recruitment, worker losses and overall worker productivity. Moreover, we provide evidence that combinatorial exposure to pesticides increases the propensity of colonies to fail.”

Why the Food Supply Could Be Dependent on Urgent Action by the EPA

The EPA acknowledges that “pesticide poisoning” may be one factor leading to colony collapse disorder,4 yet they have been slow to act to protect bees from this threat. The current lawsuit may help spur them toward more urgent action, which is desperately needed as the food supply hangs in the balance.

There are about 100 crop species that provide 90 percent of food globally. Of these, 71 are pollinated by bees.5 In the US alone, a full one-third of the food supply depends on pollination from bees. Apple orchards, for instance, require one colony of bees per acre to be adequately pollinated. So if bee colonies continue to be devastated, major food shortages could result.

There is also concern that the pesticides could be impacting other pollinators as well, including bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths and others, which could further impact the environment.

Four Steps to Help Protect the Bees

If you would like to learn more about the economic, political and ecological implications of the worldwide disappearance of the honeybee, check out the documentary film Vanishing of the Bees. If you’d like to get involved, here are four actions you can take to help preserve and protect our honeybees:
1.Support organic farmers and shop at local farmer’s markets as often as possible. You can “vote with your fork” three times a day. (When you buy organic, you are making a statement by saying “no” to GMOs and toxic pesticides!)
2.Cut the use of toxic chemicals in your house and on your lawn, and use only organic, all-natural forms of pest control.
3.Better yet, get rid of your lawn altogether and plant a garden or other natural habitat. Lawns offer very little benefit for the environment. Both flower and vegetable gardens provide excellent natural honeybee habitats.
4.Become an amateur beekeeper. Having a hive in your garden requires only about an hour of your time per week, benefits your local ecosystem, and you can enjoy your own honey!

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