Among the people reporting high debt stress in the new poll:
* 27% had ulcers or digestive tract problems, compared with 8 % of those with low levels of debt stress.
* 44% had migraines or headaches, compared with 15%
* 29% suffered severe anxiety, compared with 4%
* 23% had severe depression, compared with 4%
* 6% reported heart attacks, double the rate for those with low debt stress.
* More than half, 51%, had muscle tension, including pain in the lower back. That compared with 31% of those with low levels of debt stress.
Friday, October 31, 2008
2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Biblical Nutrition: The Bible Supports Foods from Both Plant & Animal Kingdoms
Part 1
Most Natural Health Coaches say "eat raw food & to not eat meat.
I can't help but feel that people have been somewhat misguided, preferring to hold on tenaciously to your view that a 100% raw, vegan diet as the ideal diet for man, rather than acknowledge the truth of what is recorded in the Bible. I believe that the ideal diet should be predominantly plant-based but supplemented by a small quantity of clean, whole, pesticide- and hormone-free animal products, e.g. raw milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, eggs, fish, beef, chicken, mutton, venison, etc. The list of clean meats are found in Leviticus 11:1-47 & Deuteronomy 14:1-29
Allow me to highlight a few Biblical truths:
• Jesus Christ, our Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all human beings, ate animal foods (meat, curds, milk), during His pre-incarnate appearances (e.g. to Abraham in Genesis 18), during His 3.5-year earthly ministry (I'm sure it was no different during His pre-public ministry days) and, think of it, after His resurrection (He ate broiled/barbecued fish on two occasions). If my Lord, who loved me so much that He was willing to go the cross for me, ate fish and gave fish to His children to eat (the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000), how can I possibly believe that eating fish is toxic to my body. Would such a benevolent God feed poison to His children? Jesus taught that fishes and eggs are good gifts which a loving father would not withhold from his children (Luke 11:11-13). He would not have used these examples if He knew that these were toxic. Jesus also ate bread, which was the staple food of the Jews, referring to Himself as the Bread of Life.
• We don't know for sure if pre-Flood man cooked their food, do we? How can you be so sure that they ate their food raw 100% of the time? We read in Genesis 4:22 that the pre-Flood descendants of Cain knew how to forge implements of bronze and iron. This could only be possible if they had been useing fire. Are you suggesting that generations of pre-Flood man who knew how to use fire for other industrial purposes never cooked their food? That is really quite hard to swallow.
• We don't know for sure if pre-Flood man never ate animal foods, do we? Abel was a keeper of flocks. He brought an animal sacrifice to the LORD (Genesis 4:2). Do you suppose he threw the meat away after the sacrifice? The descendants of Cain also kept flocks (Genesis 4:20). It is hard to imagine that pastoral farmers who kept large quantities of livestock never ate from his produce. What did they keep livestock for? For fur coats and skins only? Now we know that the earth's climate in those days was uniformly warm throughout the earth. Why would they need so much coats and skin to cover themselves? After taking the skin and coats, did they throw away the meat? What about the milk of cows, sheep and goats? Did they also abstain from these for hundreds, even thousands of years? I believe that it is possible that pre-Flood man ate some animal foods from time to time.
• We don't know for sure if pre-Flood man never fell sick, do we? In Romans 8:19-23 tells us that the whole creation had been suffering the pains of childbirth ever since the fall of man. I believe sickness entered the world the moment Adam and Eve fell. To say that pre-Flood man never fell sick is therefore a gross mistake.
• We don't know for sure if pre-Flood man never ate grains or tubers or certain plant foods which require cooking, do we? However, Genesis tells us that Cain was a tiller of the grounds. Could it be that he or pre-Flood man never cultivated grains which is a staple food of man for thousands of years and made large civilizations possible?
What I am saying is this: just because the Bible is silent on certain topics does not allow us to make controversial statements as if these were gospel truths.
In Part 2 I will cover:
Why did God shorten the lifespan of man and how did He do it? The answer to the first question is plain and simple. God shortened the lifespan of man as an act of His grace so that the wickedness and evil in the world would be kept under control. It is found in the Genesis passage itself (6:1-8). Imagine what would happen if Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini and other tyrants were able to live till 900?
Most Natural Health Coaches say "eat raw food & to not eat meat.
I can't help but feel that people have been somewhat misguided, preferring to hold on tenaciously to your view that a 100% raw, vegan diet as the ideal diet for man, rather than acknowledge the truth of what is recorded in the Bible. I believe that the ideal diet should be predominantly plant-based but supplemented by a small quantity of clean, whole, pesticide- and hormone-free animal products, e.g. raw milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, eggs, fish, beef, chicken, mutton, venison, etc. The list of clean meats are found in Leviticus 11:1-47 & Deuteronomy 14:1-29
Allow me to highlight a few Biblical truths:
• Jesus Christ, our Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the earth and all human beings, ate animal foods (meat, curds, milk), during His pre-incarnate appearances (e.g. to Abraham in Genesis 18), during His 3.5-year earthly ministry (I'm sure it was no different during His pre-public ministry days) and, think of it, after His resurrection (He ate broiled/barbecued fish on two occasions). If my Lord, who loved me so much that He was willing to go the cross for me, ate fish and gave fish to His children to eat (the feeding of the 4,000 and 5,000), how can I possibly believe that eating fish is toxic to my body. Would such a benevolent God feed poison to His children? Jesus taught that fishes and eggs are good gifts which a loving father would not withhold from his children (Luke 11:11-13). He would not have used these examples if He knew that these were toxic. Jesus also ate bread, which was the staple food of the Jews, referring to Himself as the Bread of Life.
• We don't know for sure if pre-Flood man cooked their food, do we? How can you be so sure that they ate their food raw 100% of the time? We read in Genesis 4:22 that the pre-Flood descendants of Cain knew how to forge implements of bronze and iron. This could only be possible if they had been useing fire. Are you suggesting that generations of pre-Flood man who knew how to use fire for other industrial purposes never cooked their food? That is really quite hard to swallow.
• We don't know for sure if pre-Flood man never ate animal foods, do we? Abel was a keeper of flocks. He brought an animal sacrifice to the LORD (Genesis 4:2). Do you suppose he threw the meat away after the sacrifice? The descendants of Cain also kept flocks (Genesis 4:20). It is hard to imagine that pastoral farmers who kept large quantities of livestock never ate from his produce. What did they keep livestock for? For fur coats and skins only? Now we know that the earth's climate in those days was uniformly warm throughout the earth. Why would they need so much coats and skin to cover themselves? After taking the skin and coats, did they throw away the meat? What about the milk of cows, sheep and goats? Did they also abstain from these for hundreds, even thousands of years? I believe that it is possible that pre-Flood man ate some animal foods from time to time.
• We don't know for sure if pre-Flood man never fell sick, do we? In Romans 8:19-23 tells us that the whole creation had been suffering the pains of childbirth ever since the fall of man. I believe sickness entered the world the moment Adam and Eve fell. To say that pre-Flood man never fell sick is therefore a gross mistake.
• We don't know for sure if pre-Flood man never ate grains or tubers or certain plant foods which require cooking, do we? However, Genesis tells us that Cain was a tiller of the grounds. Could it be that he or pre-Flood man never cultivated grains which is a staple food of man for thousands of years and made large civilizations possible?
What I am saying is this: just because the Bible is silent on certain topics does not allow us to make controversial statements as if these were gospel truths.
In Part 2 I will cover:
Why did God shorten the lifespan of man and how did He do it? The answer to the first question is plain and simple. God shortened the lifespan of man as an act of His grace so that the wickedness and evil in the world would be kept under control. It is found in the Genesis passage itself (6:1-8). Imagine what would happen if Hitler, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Mussolini and other tyrants were able to live till 900?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Prayer For Our Christian Nation
Prayer For Our Nation
'Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free. Amen!'
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,' and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called 'One nation under God.'
Think about this: If you forward this prayer to everyone on your e-mail list, in less than 30 days it would be heard by the world. One Nation Under God.
'Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, 'Woe to those who call evil good,' but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it politics. We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free. Amen!'
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, 'The Rest of the Story,' and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired. With the Lord's help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called 'One nation under God.'
Think about this: If you forward this prayer to everyone on your e-mail list, in less than 30 days it would be heard by the world. One Nation Under God.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Earth 8,000 miles
Earth 8,000 miles
Moon 283,000 miles away
Sun 93 million miles away
Closest star (in our galasey) 24 million x2 miles away
Sand 1/8 of an inch in size (earth)
Moon 1 1/4 inch away (dot)
Sun size of golf ball 34 feet away
Closest star - twice as far away as the sun
Is 40: to 48:
Galeo in AD 1642 stars un numberable
Bible Gen 15:5 'Look now toward heaven and number the stars if you can.
-Just keeps going teloscopes prove it
-God created it like putting up a tent when we go camping.
-Gods creating
Cols 1:15 Paul wrighting of Jesus '
Moon 283,000 miles away
Sun 93 million miles away
Closest star (in our galasey) 24 million x2 miles away
Sand 1/8 of an inch in size (earth)
Moon 1 1/4 inch away (dot)
Sun size of golf ball 34 feet away
Closest star - twice as far away as the sun
Is 40: to 48:
Galeo in AD 1642 stars un numberable
Bible Gen 15:5 'Look now toward heaven and number the stars if you can.
-Just keeps going teloscopes prove it
-God created it like putting up a tent when we go camping.
-Gods creating
Cols 1:15 Paul wrighting of Jesus '
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
When doctors go on strike does the death rate go down?
When doctors go on strike does the death rate go down?
January 4, 2008 Mortality statistics sometimes show a drop during a doctors' strike.
• 1. One example often cited is that of a monthlong strike by Los Angeles County physicians in 1976, during which the mortality rate for patients was seen to drop by 18 percent. But a 1979 study in the American Journal of Public Health showed that the overall area death rate remained unchanged, as enough personnel remained on duty to handle the real emergencies. Any seeming benefit to patients' health likely resulted from about 11,000 fewer operations (presumably elective) being performed that month than was typical, meaning that an estimated 50 to 150 patients who could have been expected to die didn't.
• 2. A four-month Israeli doctors' strike in 1983 was found to have some definable effects on public health - the percentage of cesarean sections increased somewhat, and one study suggested hypertension patients might have received worse treatment - but no observed impact on mortality. Nonetheless, the popular wisdom saw the work stoppage as a disaster: a detailed study of public perceptions afterward found that nearly one in four urgent-care patients (or their relatives) felt the strike had resulted in major health problems.
• 3. A 1984 doctors' strike in Varkaus, Finland, mainly meant fewer visits for colds and stomachaches; no significant harmful effects to the public were seen, researchers found, and the uptick in visits after the doctors returned to work suggested that patients were glad to have them back.
• 4. Another key example used to support the proposition that fewer doctors means fewer deaths comes from a June 2000 article in the British Medical Journal written during another Israeli strike; the author reported that in the three months after doctors walked out death rates fell significantly in affected cities. However, her data was by no means the result of a scientific study but consisted mostly of anecdotal reports from funeral home directors, who claimed they'd seen "the same thing in 1983." What is known is that, as in the LA strike, many thousands of elective surgeries were postponed but emergency rooms and chronic care departments remained open.
• 5. In 2003 a SARS outbreak closed four hospitals in Toronto, and all non-emergency services were suspended. Among other things, this led to the canceling of a quarter to a half of joint-replacement surgeries, 40 percent of cardiac surgeries, and as much as 93 percent of some outpatient procedures. The result? The greater Toronto area did see a slight dip in mortality rate relative to the prior two years, but so did the rest of Ontario, and the decrease wasn't statistically significant anyway.
So despite media suggestions to the contrary, doctors' going on strike doesn't seem to have much effect on the death rate one way or the other, and any reduction seen is probably the result of postponed or canceled nonemergency surgeries. And that figures: any surgery is risky, and some common procedures (like coronary bypass or aneurysm repair) have a death rate you just can't ignore. But leaving the tummy tucks out of it, most elective surgeries boast a pretty serious payoff, either in quality-of-life improvement right now or in medical trouble avoided down the line. If 600 people die each year as a result of hip-replacement surgery, does that mean the 200,000-plus patients that pulled through were fools to go under the knife?
January 4, 2008 Mortality statistics sometimes show a drop during a doctors' strike.
• 1. One example often cited is that of a monthlong strike by Los Angeles County physicians in 1976, during which the mortality rate for patients was seen to drop by 18 percent. But a 1979 study in the American Journal of Public Health showed that the overall area death rate remained unchanged, as enough personnel remained on duty to handle the real emergencies. Any seeming benefit to patients' health likely resulted from about 11,000 fewer operations (presumably elective) being performed that month than was typical, meaning that an estimated 50 to 150 patients who could have been expected to die didn't.
• 2. A four-month Israeli doctors' strike in 1983 was found to have some definable effects on public health - the percentage of cesarean sections increased somewhat, and one study suggested hypertension patients might have received worse treatment - but no observed impact on mortality. Nonetheless, the popular wisdom saw the work stoppage as a disaster: a detailed study of public perceptions afterward found that nearly one in four urgent-care patients (or their relatives) felt the strike had resulted in major health problems.
• 3. A 1984 doctors' strike in Varkaus, Finland, mainly meant fewer visits for colds and stomachaches; no significant harmful effects to the public were seen, researchers found, and the uptick in visits after the doctors returned to work suggested that patients were glad to have them back.
• 4. Another key example used to support the proposition that fewer doctors means fewer deaths comes from a June 2000 article in the British Medical Journal written during another Israeli strike; the author reported that in the three months after doctors walked out death rates fell significantly in affected cities. However, her data was by no means the result of a scientific study but consisted mostly of anecdotal reports from funeral home directors, who claimed they'd seen "the same thing in 1983." What is known is that, as in the LA strike, many thousands of elective surgeries were postponed but emergency rooms and chronic care departments remained open.
• 5. In 2003 a SARS outbreak closed four hospitals in Toronto, and all non-emergency services were suspended. Among other things, this led to the canceling of a quarter to a half of joint-replacement surgeries, 40 percent of cardiac surgeries, and as much as 93 percent of some outpatient procedures. The result? The greater Toronto area did see a slight dip in mortality rate relative to the prior two years, but so did the rest of Ontario, and the decrease wasn't statistically significant anyway.
So despite media suggestions to the contrary, doctors' going on strike doesn't seem to have much effect on the death rate one way or the other, and any reduction seen is probably the result of postponed or canceled nonemergency surgeries. And that figures: any surgery is risky, and some common procedures (like coronary bypass or aneurysm repair) have a death rate you just can't ignore. But leaving the tummy tucks out of it, most elective surgeries boast a pretty serious payoff, either in quality-of-life improvement right now or in medical trouble avoided down the line. If 600 people die each year as a result of hip-replacement surgery, does that mean the 200,000-plus patients that pulled through were fools to go under the knife?
"I Oppose the Irradiation of Produce” Ken Anderson
Washington, D.C., on August 26, 2008 – The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced its decision to allow the irradiation of fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce in an attempt to kill E. coli and other bacteria that cause food-borne illnesses. The move comes in response to a petition filed by The National Food Processors Association, a trade group representing major food companies, and ignores the concerns of scientists and consumers about how irradiation can affect the safety and nutritional value of food.
"Irradiation is a smoke screen intended to prevent consumers from addressing the real root of food contamination: the unsanitary conditions associated with ‘factory farming’ compounded by the lack of environmental responsibility exhibited by many food producers,” said Frank Herd, Jr, Executive Director of Citizens for Health.
Contamination of produce is nothing new. The past decade has seen 20 E. coli outbreaks linked to produce grown in California, including two related to spinach, and just this year there were incidents of salmonella connected with tomatoes and jalapenos.
Besides being the source of 3/4ths of the nation’s spinach, California is home to nearly 5 million cows which produce 15 million tons of manure every year - manure that ends up in nearby waterways, including the ditches and channels of irrigation water for crops like spinach. Dried manure can even blow onto neighboring fields in clouds of dust.
Therefore it is no surprise that in 2006, when California spinach contaminated with E. coli sickened over 200 people, and killed three, the FDA and the State of California investigated and found the same strain of E. coli in cattle feces at a nearby ranch.
"We all know that radiation has the power to kill, and proponents of irradiation believe this is the best approach to ridding food of some bacteria,” said Herd. “However, we should not be focused on using draconian methods to sanitize food that has already been contaminated when we can stop food-borne illness at its source – the huge animal feedlot operations that pollute our waterways and irrigation water with raw manure that often carries dangerous bacteria.”
Radiation is one of the more destructive forces in nature, and scientific studies have documented that irradiation can dramatically lower the nutritional content of foods, particularly vitamin A and folate, an essential B vitamin. The FDA's own proposal concedes that irradiation will make spinach less nutritious.
Citizens for Health also opposes allowing irradiated foods to be labeled as “pasteurized”, a sign that food companies acknowledge growing scientific and consumer concern about the process and want to conceal from consumers the fact that foods are being irradiated.
"Irradiation is a smoke screen intended to prevent consumers from addressing the real root of food contamination: the unsanitary conditions associated with ‘factory farming’ compounded by the lack of environmental responsibility exhibited by many food producers,” said Frank Herd, Jr, Executive Director of Citizens for Health.
Contamination of produce is nothing new. The past decade has seen 20 E. coli outbreaks linked to produce grown in California, including two related to spinach, and just this year there were incidents of salmonella connected with tomatoes and jalapenos.
Besides being the source of 3/4ths of the nation’s spinach, California is home to nearly 5 million cows which produce 15 million tons of manure every year - manure that ends up in nearby waterways, including the ditches and channels of irrigation water for crops like spinach. Dried manure can even blow onto neighboring fields in clouds of dust.
Therefore it is no surprise that in 2006, when California spinach contaminated with E. coli sickened over 200 people, and killed three, the FDA and the State of California investigated and found the same strain of E. coli in cattle feces at a nearby ranch.
"We all know that radiation has the power to kill, and proponents of irradiation believe this is the best approach to ridding food of some bacteria,” said Herd. “However, we should not be focused on using draconian methods to sanitize food that has already been contaminated when we can stop food-borne illness at its source – the huge animal feedlot operations that pollute our waterways and irrigation water with raw manure that often carries dangerous bacteria.”
Radiation is one of the more destructive forces in nature, and scientific studies have documented that irradiation can dramatically lower the nutritional content of foods, particularly vitamin A and folate, an essential B vitamin. The FDA's own proposal concedes that irradiation will make spinach less nutritious.
Citizens for Health also opposes allowing irradiated foods to be labeled as “pasteurized”, a sign that food companies acknowledge growing scientific and consumer concern about the process and want to conceal from consumers the fact that foods are being irradiated.
"I am often asked if network marketing is a pyramid scheme."
"I am often asked if network marketing is a pyramid scheme."
"My reply is that corporations are really pyramid schemes. A corporation has only one person at the top, generally the CEO, and everyone else below. A true network marketing business is the exact opposite of a traditional business model. The network marketing business is designed to bring you to the top not keep you at the bottom. A true network marketing business does not succeed unless it brings people to the top."
- Robert Kiyosaki
and I say the same thing Ken Anderson
"My reply is that corporations are really pyramid schemes. A corporation has only one person at the top, generally the CEO, and everyone else below. A true network marketing business is the exact opposite of a traditional business model. The network marketing business is designed to bring you to the top not keep you at the bottom. A true network marketing business does not succeed unless it brings people to the top."
- Robert Kiyosaki
and I say the same thing Ken Anderson
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Vote for Healthcare not Sickness care!
There is no way that a third-party payer or a government bureaucracy can be as concerned about your health as you are. We need to be alert not to give away this right of personal health control.
Health care has become sickness care. Medicare is a good example. Medicare only pays for certain medical procedures, drugs, hospital or nursing home stays, and has strict rules about what they will pay for and what they will not pay for. Insurance companies often use these same rules.
Government and insurance companies control their costs by cutting coverage or by limiting procedures. If you are interested in an integrative medicine approach for your health care, you will find that the government will not pay for integrative medical treatments, nutrients, herbs, or vitamins.
Having “Universal Health Care” sounds politically enticing until we become aware of these limitations. If we buy into these political promises, we will find that we will have Universal Sickness Care without any attention paid to our wellness.
Our current health care problems will continue to multiply until we, as individuals, can choose the kind of insurance program we want and are able to decide what nutritional programs, procedures and treatments we want and are best for us.
We need to own our health insurance and not have it tied to our job or dispensed by the governmental bureaucracy.
We can make better decisions about our personal health than any state or federal bureaucrat, or third party insurance provider.
Don’t give away this right!
Walther Meyer MD
Note: And I agree with him.
Health care has become sickness care. Medicare is a good example. Medicare only pays for certain medical procedures, drugs, hospital or nursing home stays, and has strict rules about what they will pay for and what they will not pay for. Insurance companies often use these same rules.
Government and insurance companies control their costs by cutting coverage or by limiting procedures. If you are interested in an integrative medicine approach for your health care, you will find that the government will not pay for integrative medical treatments, nutrients, herbs, or vitamins.
Having “Universal Health Care” sounds politically enticing until we become aware of these limitations. If we buy into these political promises, we will find that we will have Universal Sickness Care without any attention paid to our wellness.
Our current health care problems will continue to multiply until we, as individuals, can choose the kind of insurance program we want and are able to decide what nutritional programs, procedures and treatments we want and are best for us.
We need to own our health insurance and not have it tied to our job or dispensed by the governmental bureaucracy.
We can make better decisions about our personal health than any state or federal bureaucrat, or third party insurance provider.
Don’t give away this right!
Walther Meyer MD
Note: And I agree with him.
Sticker labels on fruit, shows from Genetically Modified to organic
Sticker labels on the fruits actually tell you how the fruits have been grown - whether they were organically grown or conventionally grown with pesticides and herbicides; oh, and let's not forget about the genetically engineered fruits.
Conventional Fruit Labels
Four digits and does not start with 9
Organic Fruit Labels
Five digits and starts with number 9
Genetically Modified Fruits
Start with the digit 8
Stores aren't obligated to tell you if a fruit has been genetically modified.
Okay, so if you come across an apple in the store with labels 4922, it's an conventional apple grown with herbicides and harmful fertilizers.
If it has a sticker 99222, it's organic and safe to eat.
If it says 89222, then RUN!!!! It has been genetically modified (GMO). Absolutely deadly...precancerour tumors in rats within 10 days of eating it shown in study after study when even only one gene has been changed!!!
So next time you go shopping, remember these critical numbers and know how to avoid purchasing inorganic and GMO fruits.
Shop Safe.
Ken Anderson
Conventional Fruit Labels
Four digits and does not start with 9
Organic Fruit Labels
Five digits and starts with number 9
Genetically Modified Fruits
Start with the digit 8
Stores aren't obligated to tell you if a fruit has been genetically modified.
Okay, so if you come across an apple in the store with labels 4922, it's an conventional apple grown with herbicides and harmful fertilizers.
If it has a sticker 99222, it's organic and safe to eat.
If it says 89222, then RUN!!!! It has been genetically modified (GMO). Absolutely deadly...precancerour tumors in rats within 10 days of eating it shown in study after study when even only one gene has been changed!!!
So next time you go shopping, remember these critical numbers and know how to avoid purchasing inorganic and GMO fruits.
Shop Safe.
Ken Anderson
Saturday, October 4, 2008
JAMA said in July 2000 drugs killed 106,000 Americans
Number three killer in USA
J.A.M.A. in their July 2000 issue stated that medical mistakes, infections, and properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs were the number three killer of American citizens. 106,000 people died from taking properly prescribed therapeutic doses of pharmaceutical drugs alone. That does not include mistakes or interactions. Example: "Here Mr. Johnson, this should help- damn, we've lost him!"
If you include patients who died from medical mistakes, infection, and while receiving outpatient care, the number goes to 483,000 people a year who die from seeking medical care.
That's like three fully loaded 747 jet liners crashing every day 365 days a year! No wonder there has been such a demand for alternative, natural, and holistic healing.
I have been studying a new approach to whole body wellness and am very pleased with what I have found so far. I am curious what other people are doing out there about the obviously wrong direction our current health care system is going.
J.A.M.A. in their July 2000 issue stated that medical mistakes, infections, and properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs were the number three killer of American citizens. 106,000 people died from taking properly prescribed therapeutic doses of pharmaceutical drugs alone. That does not include mistakes or interactions. Example: "Here Mr. Johnson, this should help- damn, we've lost him!"
If you include patients who died from medical mistakes, infection, and while receiving outpatient care, the number goes to 483,000 people a year who die from seeking medical care.
That's like three fully loaded 747 jet liners crashing every day 365 days a year! No wonder there has been such a demand for alternative, natural, and holistic healing.
I have been studying a new approach to whole body wellness and am very pleased with what I have found so far. I am curious what other people are doing out there about the obviously wrong direction our current health care system is going.
Friday, October 3, 2008
FDA
FDA,
Prescription drugs kill over 100,000 people a year (AMA stats) and this doesn’t include over doses-these are properly prescribed doses. If that many people died on airplanes they would be grounded! Please take a look.
http://www.mercola.com/dvd/prescription_for_disaster.htm
Prescription drugs kill over 100,000 people a year (AMA stats) and this doesn’t include over doses-these are properly prescribed doses. If that many people died on airplanes they would be grounded! Please take a look.
http://www.mercola.com/dvd/prescription_for_disaster.htm
Thursday, October 2, 2008
There is NO Flu vaccine success, None.
New research on the flu vaccine is confirming something I've been saying for years – the vaccine's effectiveness, particularly among the elderly, has been greatly exaggerated.
The Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle recently analyzed previous studies on the flu vaccine and found that researchers were mostly looking at healthy patients who were active and able to get to their doctors' offices each year for a shot.
They weren't using – or basing their analysis on – a representative sample of America's elderly population. And if you're only analyzing relatively healthy people, the results are going to be skewed positive.
This research puts a little more fertilizer on the seeds of doubt planted four years ago by a Dutch study that has been the only one with a large number of patients getting placebos. That one found that the vaccine prevented flu about 57 percent of the time for folks between the ages of 60-69, but that the rate plummeted to 23 percent for those over 70. For four decades, public health authorities have strongly advised the vaccine for people over 65. Fortunately, some researchers are starting to wonder why, despite a big increase in the number of elderly getting the flu vaccine in recent decades, there hasn't been a corresponding decline of the death rate in this age group.
Here's the truth: the vaccine is not a cure-all. It's based on a best guess of what this year's flu strain will be – and there's no guarantee vaccine makers will guess correctly. Docs need to give their patients an honest assessment of what the flu vaccine can – and can not – do, and also show them how to build their immune systems with vitamins, exercise and better food choices.
The Group Health Center for Health Studies in Seattle recently analyzed previous studies on the flu vaccine and found that researchers were mostly looking at healthy patients who were active and able to get to their doctors' offices each year for a shot.
They weren't using – or basing their analysis on – a representative sample of America's elderly population. And if you're only analyzing relatively healthy people, the results are going to be skewed positive.
This research puts a little more fertilizer on the seeds of doubt planted four years ago by a Dutch study that has been the only one with a large number of patients getting placebos. That one found that the vaccine prevented flu about 57 percent of the time for folks between the ages of 60-69, but that the rate plummeted to 23 percent for those over 70. For four decades, public health authorities have strongly advised the vaccine for people over 65. Fortunately, some researchers are starting to wonder why, despite a big increase in the number of elderly getting the flu vaccine in recent decades, there hasn't been a corresponding decline of the death rate in this age group.
Here's the truth: the vaccine is not a cure-all. It's based on a best guess of what this year's flu strain will be – and there's no guarantee vaccine makers will guess correctly. Docs need to give their patients an honest assessment of what the flu vaccine can – and can not – do, and also show them how to build their immune systems with vitamins, exercise and better food choices.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Can MSG cause obesity? Article from Dr. Briffa
We have known for a long time that MSG is not good for us. Now, with this study, we KNOW it is correlated with body fat increases. Most of us no longer cook with MSG (remember Accent?) but we need to pay attention to the prepared foods we eat. Become a label reader and ask the waiter at your restaurant to have your food prepared without MSG. Better yet, do not frequent restaurants that use MSG. - cm
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a food ingredient which is used to enhance flavour and palatability. It is the glutamate – an amino acid - part of the MSG molecule that does the job in this respect. MSG (and/or other sources of glutamate) can be found in a wide range of processed foods with the blessing of our Governments and food agencies. However, there has been lingering concern that glutamate might have some adverse affects on health, in a way that parallels the situation with the artificial sweetener aspartame.
One concern about aspartame has been that, despite being virtually devoid of calories, it might be contributing to the burden of overweight and obesity rather than helping here. It seems that in the case of aspartame, this substance has some capacity to stimulate appetite.
Some have leveled a charge that MSG may promote weight gain on the basis of experiments which show it has the potential for this unwanted side-effect in animals. However, until recently, the relationship between MSG consumption and weight had not been assessed in humans.
That changed on the publication of a study this month in the journal Obesity [1]. The study, conducted in China, assessed the relationship between MSG consumption and body mass index (BMI) in 752 men and women aged 40-59. The researchers divided the participants in this study into three bands, according to MSG consumption. Compared to those in the lowest consumption band, those in the highest were found to be 2.75 times more likely to have a BMI of more than 25.
This link between MSG consumption and increased body weight may have many explanations. The two obvious ones are that MSG somehow led individuals to consume more food or be less active. However, in this study, the authors accounted for these potential factors, which means that the link between MSG consumption and increased body weight appears to be independent of these factors.
The suggestion here is that MSG/glutamate may have one or more metabolic effects in the body that might predispose consumers to weight gain. As it happens, administering MSG to animals has been shown to induce various changes that promote fat accumulation including suppression of fat breakdown (lipolysis) [2]. The free full text version of this study is linked to below, which details other effects of MSG that might affect body weight in the long term.
What is required now is for more work to be done to assess what effects MSG might have on human physiology that might cause weight gain.
Because, if one of the most commonly used food additives does indeed have the potential to cause weight gain, then it’s only right that we should know.
References:
1. He K, et al. Association of Monosodium Glutamate Intake With Overweight in Chinese Adults: The INTERMAP Study. Obesity 2008;16(8):1875–1880
2. Dolnikoff M, et al. Decreased lipolysis and enhanced glycerol and glucose utilization by adipose tissue prior to development of obesity in monosodium glutamate (MSG) treated-rats. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25(3):426-33.
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is a food ingredient which is used to enhance flavour and palatability. It is the glutamate – an amino acid - part of the MSG molecule that does the job in this respect. MSG (and/or other sources of glutamate) can be found in a wide range of processed foods with the blessing of our Governments and food agencies. However, there has been lingering concern that glutamate might have some adverse affects on health, in a way that parallels the situation with the artificial sweetener aspartame.
One concern about aspartame has been that, despite being virtually devoid of calories, it might be contributing to the burden of overweight and obesity rather than helping here. It seems that in the case of aspartame, this substance has some capacity to stimulate appetite.
Some have leveled a charge that MSG may promote weight gain on the basis of experiments which show it has the potential for this unwanted side-effect in animals. However, until recently, the relationship between MSG consumption and weight had not been assessed in humans.
That changed on the publication of a study this month in the journal Obesity [1]. The study, conducted in China, assessed the relationship between MSG consumption and body mass index (BMI) in 752 men and women aged 40-59. The researchers divided the participants in this study into three bands, according to MSG consumption. Compared to those in the lowest consumption band, those in the highest were found to be 2.75 times more likely to have a BMI of more than 25.
This link between MSG consumption and increased body weight may have many explanations. The two obvious ones are that MSG somehow led individuals to consume more food or be less active. However, in this study, the authors accounted for these potential factors, which means that the link between MSG consumption and increased body weight appears to be independent of these factors.
The suggestion here is that MSG/glutamate may have one or more metabolic effects in the body that might predispose consumers to weight gain. As it happens, administering MSG to animals has been shown to induce various changes that promote fat accumulation including suppression of fat breakdown (lipolysis) [2]. The free full text version of this study is linked to below, which details other effects of MSG that might affect body weight in the long term.
What is required now is for more work to be done to assess what effects MSG might have on human physiology that might cause weight gain.
Because, if one of the most commonly used food additives does indeed have the potential to cause weight gain, then it’s only right that we should know.
References:
1. He K, et al. Association of Monosodium Glutamate Intake With Overweight in Chinese Adults: The INTERMAP Study. Obesity 2008;16(8):1875–1880
2. Dolnikoff M, et al. Decreased lipolysis and enhanced glycerol and glucose utilization by adipose tissue prior to development of obesity in monosodium glutamate (MSG) treated-rats. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001;25(3):426-33.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
