This is a post I wrote for one of my other blogs, "Body Mind Freedom". I have posted it here in its entirety because I believe it is a perfect example of a system that is fundamentally flawed.
My take may surprise you ...
"New research suggests that "5-a-day" is not all it's cracked up to be.
After tracking half a million people in the UK and Europe for over ten years, this latest study concluded that consuming fruit and vegetables only reduced cancer risk by a paltry 2.5%.
So is the message confusing?
BBC Breakfast interviewed Professor Sikora who has studied cancer for 30 years. While admitting he was surprised, he acknowledged that the study was "the best ever" of its type.
Is that a compliment, or an indictment?
He then went on to state that cancer was a "statistical quirk", the result of genetics (not your fault) and environment (not your fault either, except for smoking which you could quit).
Other notable experts scrambled to do damage control, pointing out that eating fruit and vegetables reduced obesity which was second only to quitting smoking in terms of risk-reduction clout. The point was also made that eating fruit and vegetables has a positive (though unquantifiable) effect on heart disease and stroke risk.
When the dust settled, what should the man on the street be thinking?
Well, if a cancer expert of over three decades is to be believed, then cancer is out of your control and nothing you can do will make a hill of beans difference especially if you already don't smoke.
So why try at all?
Why not just join the millions who are only too happy to abrogate responsibility for their own health?
After all, if you can catch it early then you may be able to survive on a cocktail of drugs for the rest of your wretched existence. Now there's something to look forward to ... a lifetime of medical dependence.
A perfect customer of a system that depends on imperfection for continued credence.
It's illegal to suggest that anything but conventional medical "wisdom" has any answers to the cancer conundrum. Cancer treatment is a multi-billion dollar industry and anyone other than those qualified by the establishment questioning the system are deemed as charlatans and quacks.
What a business model!
If treatment results in "cure" then it's the miracle of modern medicine. If a patient gets sick then that was an inevitability that no-one could have prevented. Remission is always temporary.
So don't bother. Here's your licence to "live" your life as if there is no tomorrow. Consequences are outside your sphere of influence and you are in safe hands if fate does strike.
The three most prevalent cancers (breast, prostate and colon) have increased dramatically in recent years. As our gene pool couldn't have changed that dramatically, we are told that this is because modern medicine is helping people to live longer. Cancer risk increases with age ... and that has nothing to do with the choices you make.
Oh ... and car emissions and bovine flatulance have increased to unprecedented levels! Must be the environment too.
I'm assuming you have read my disclaimer and are clear that my opinion is of absolutely no import whatsover. For an opinion that counts, go see your doctor.
But here's what I think anyway.
1. "5-a-day" is nowhere near enough. It is a start ... but chilled leechies in syrup and canned peas hardly qualify. Saying they do is part of the problem. Poor assumption. Even poorer application.
2. Insufficient quantities of fruit and vegetables combined with excessive quantities of cooked animal products (meat, dairy, eggs) and processed "food" is still a recipe for disaster ... so what did this study really tell us?
3. If a study touted by an expert as "the best ever" is flawed before it ever started because it is based on disinformation and erroneous assumptions to begin with ... then what can we assume about all research? And this is before we take agendas and funding out of the equation.
4. Conventional medicine, including cancer management, is big business. That being the case, there is no money in prevention, only treatment. If you believe the experts, you will always be a victim.
In conclusion, you can add the results of this study to the pile of other meaningless, hugely wasteful and expensive research that we like to proclaim as "evidence-based" science.
Or you can choose to get informed. Sure fate is always a possibility. But that is an entirely different issue.
Knowledge is power ... and freedom."
That's it. I hope you enjoyed it. Please, as with this madness about "organic" being a bunch of baloney ... do not use this as justification to consume less fruit and vegetables.
Eventually people will stop covering their behinds and start telling the full truth. Until then, continue to be vigilant about what we are told should be considered as sacrosanct.
Have an awesome week!
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Thursday, 25 March 2010
Variable Blood Pressure Now Thought to Increase Risk of Stroke
In a series of studies published by “The Lancet”, researchers from both the UK and Sweden examined the effect of the month-to-month variability of blood pressure on stroke risk.
This research suggests that the extent of fluctuation is a bigger predicator of risk than the average figure … which flies in the face of guidelines followed by GP’s for decades!
The leader of this research, Professor Peter Rothwell of the Department of Clinical Neurology at the University of Oxford, believes that these findings now have “major implications” with respect to how GP’s identify and treat those most at risk of stroke.
Up until now numerous patients monitoring hypertension from home would report to their GP’s that their blood pressure was “all over the place”. This was considered not nearly as serious as the magnitude of their average reading taken each month.
In fact, guidelines suggest a one-off fluctuation should be discounted and treatment indicated only when consistent hypertension has been measured. People with so-called episodic hypertension are often not treated according to Joe Korner, director of communications at the Stroke Association (UK).
As a result of these findings, we now may have a keener appreciation of the damage caused to blood vessels by fluctuations of blood pressure over many years.
It is well established that some medications increase the extent of fluctuation (and therefore the risk of stroke) more than others … and that patients routinely report variations by as much as 20-30 mm of mercury per month!
Interestingly enough, beta blockers used to control hypertension are unpopular because they make people feel tired. Now this family of medications has been shown in a separate study by “The Lancet Neurology” to increase blood pressure variations more than other protocols.
Perhaps even a sick, tired, over-medicated body still has the ability to sense that such interventions are counter-productive to health?
Guidelines related to stroke risk and the relationship with blood pressure are up for review in the UK in the next few months and the Stroke Association is calling for these national benchmarks to be overhauled as a result of these new findings.
But here’s what I find so sad …
In all the discussion I have seen related to this, not one word has been uttered about natural alternatives to blood pressure medications.
Doctors around the world routinely document cases where patients respond favorably to less conventional protocols such as medically-supervised fasting combined with diet and lifestyle changes.
Why do these cases not receive the attention they surely deserve?
Instead, the resounding takeout from these findings has been to keep the blinkers on and give drugs that produce the most steady blood pressure levels.
Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation notes with caution that current practice is not “wrong” but he does acknowledge that this may indeed impact the way doctors identify candidates for treatment and the drug protocols that are prescribed.
I understand that medical science is constantly advancing and cannot possibly have all the answers. But what I don’t understand is why the conventional medical community won’t accept this.
Their arrogance and single-mindedness costs lives and causes untold suffering, yet we still hold them in such high esteem. Why won’t they think outside the box?
Surely in the interests of broader public health, medical research should be focusing on ways to wean people off drugs, not just finding the “perfect” drug?
Until this culture changes, people will continue to get sicker.
This research suggests that the extent of fluctuation is a bigger predicator of risk than the average figure … which flies in the face of guidelines followed by GP’s for decades!
The leader of this research, Professor Peter Rothwell of the Department of Clinical Neurology at the University of Oxford, believes that these findings now have “major implications” with respect to how GP’s identify and treat those most at risk of stroke.
Up until now numerous patients monitoring hypertension from home would report to their GP’s that their blood pressure was “all over the place”. This was considered not nearly as serious as the magnitude of their average reading taken each month.
In fact, guidelines suggest a one-off fluctuation should be discounted and treatment indicated only when consistent hypertension has been measured. People with so-called episodic hypertension are often not treated according to Joe Korner, director of communications at the Stroke Association (UK).
As a result of these findings, we now may have a keener appreciation of the damage caused to blood vessels by fluctuations of blood pressure over many years.
It is well established that some medications increase the extent of fluctuation (and therefore the risk of stroke) more than others … and that patients routinely report variations by as much as 20-30 mm of mercury per month!
Interestingly enough, beta blockers used to control hypertension are unpopular because they make people feel tired. Now this family of medications has been shown in a separate study by “The Lancet Neurology” to increase blood pressure variations more than other protocols.
Perhaps even a sick, tired, over-medicated body still has the ability to sense that such interventions are counter-productive to health?
Guidelines related to stroke risk and the relationship with blood pressure are up for review in the UK in the next few months and the Stroke Association is calling for these national benchmarks to be overhauled as a result of these new findings.
But here’s what I find so sad …
In all the discussion I have seen related to this, not one word has been uttered about natural alternatives to blood pressure medications.
Doctors around the world routinely document cases where patients respond favorably to less conventional protocols such as medically-supervised fasting combined with diet and lifestyle changes.
Why do these cases not receive the attention they surely deserve?
Instead, the resounding takeout from these findings has been to keep the blinkers on and give drugs that produce the most steady blood pressure levels.
Professor Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation notes with caution that current practice is not “wrong” but he does acknowledge that this may indeed impact the way doctors identify candidates for treatment and the drug protocols that are prescribed.
I understand that medical science is constantly advancing and cannot possibly have all the answers. But what I don’t understand is why the conventional medical community won’t accept this.
Their arrogance and single-mindedness costs lives and causes untold suffering, yet we still hold them in such high esteem. Why won’t they think outside the box?
Surely in the interests of broader public health, medical research should be focusing on ways to wean people off drugs, not just finding the “perfect” drug?
Until this culture changes, people will continue to get sicker.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Slim Girl Fat?
It had to happen sooner or later!
In an attempt to offer wise counsel to the family of a young girl, the NHS really hit a nerve.
Lucy Davies is a perfectly normal 5 year old who is active, enjoys cheerleading and ballet ... and walks a fair bit. Her parents received a letter from the NHS saying she was overweight.
Officials measured Lucy's height and weight and calculated her body mass index (BMI) fell outside the "normal" parameters for a girl of five ... by 1%! With this limited data, they determined she was unhealthy and at possible risk for heart disease and cancer.
Please!
The Bournemouth and Poole Primary Care Trust (in their infinite wisdom) decided this meant her parents should be appraised of the statistical risks ... by a generic letter generated as a result of flawed assumptions rooted in sheer ignorance.
How considerate! How thoughtful!
And how careless and totally insensitive. How on earth can some pencil pusher not see that sooner or later this was bound to happen? And where was all the discretion and human input in this equation.
Body Mass Index is a guideline, not the word of God!
This is a little girl and her family. They are real, live human beings and they should never, under any circumstances, be exposed to something so short-sighted and uni-dimensional.
Even if she was not "sporty" and did fall outside the "magic" range, why didn't someone contact the family and raise their concerns with a modicum of tact?
If I had no clue about what constitutes a healthy diet (and quite frankly that should apply to the parents of just about every child in the UK, because the experts themselves aren't even clear), I would still be a little defensive if all I got was a robotic, generic form letter that made me feel my kid was defective and that was my fault.
Even if it was couched in formal robot-speak.
I would expect a phone call saying that these were the numbers and maybe it was a good idea if I bought my child in for further evaluation and some good old-fashioned helpful (informed) input so I could put my mind at rest (or at least learn something that could be really beneficial to my child).
How many parents get a letter like this and immediately assume their child must go on diet?
And how healthy is that?
Obesity is a massive problem in the UK, because we have a diet mentality here. The fish stinks from the head. Some genius comes up with these policies (in spite of the known shortfalls and risks of over-relying on limited information).
And all in the name of helping parents who are none-the-wiser.
But then what do we expect from a nucleus of experts who believe that breakfast cereal, milk and yogurt constitute a healthy way to start your day?
Or that "5-a-day" is anywhere near enough, especially in view of what can be counted towards this.
Wake up people. Lives are at stake. These are our kids!
In an attempt to offer wise counsel to the family of a young girl, the NHS really hit a nerve.
Lucy Davies is a perfectly normal 5 year old who is active, enjoys cheerleading and ballet ... and walks a fair bit. Her parents received a letter from the NHS saying she was overweight.
Officials measured Lucy's height and weight and calculated her body mass index (BMI) fell outside the "normal" parameters for a girl of five ... by 1%! With this limited data, they determined she was unhealthy and at possible risk for heart disease and cancer.
Please!
The Bournemouth and Poole Primary Care Trust (in their infinite wisdom) decided this meant her parents should be appraised of the statistical risks ... by a generic letter generated as a result of flawed assumptions rooted in sheer ignorance.
How considerate! How thoughtful!
And how careless and totally insensitive. How on earth can some pencil pusher not see that sooner or later this was bound to happen? And where was all the discretion and human input in this equation.
Body Mass Index is a guideline, not the word of God!
This is a little girl and her family. They are real, live human beings and they should never, under any circumstances, be exposed to something so short-sighted and uni-dimensional.
Even if she was not "sporty" and did fall outside the "magic" range, why didn't someone contact the family and raise their concerns with a modicum of tact?
If I had no clue about what constitutes a healthy diet (and quite frankly that should apply to the parents of just about every child in the UK, because the experts themselves aren't even clear), I would still be a little defensive if all I got was a robotic, generic form letter that made me feel my kid was defective and that was my fault.
Even if it was couched in formal robot-speak.
I would expect a phone call saying that these were the numbers and maybe it was a good idea if I bought my child in for further evaluation and some good old-fashioned helpful (informed) input so I could put my mind at rest (or at least learn something that could be really beneficial to my child).
How many parents get a letter like this and immediately assume their child must go on diet?
And how healthy is that?
Obesity is a massive problem in the UK, because we have a diet mentality here. The fish stinks from the head. Some genius comes up with these policies (in spite of the known shortfalls and risks of over-relying on limited information).
And all in the name of helping parents who are none-the-wiser.
But then what do we expect from a nucleus of experts who believe that breakfast cereal, milk and yogurt constitute a healthy way to start your day?
Or that "5-a-day" is anywhere near enough, especially in view of what can be counted towards this.
Wake up people. Lives are at stake. These are our kids!
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Gordon Brown Ditches KitKat for Bananas!
Hyping up a BBC magazine report on BBC Breakfast yesterday, it was revealed that Gordon Brown has replaced his 4-a-day KitKat habit with 9 bananas a day.
OK, so someone has told him that he needs to be sharp, not brain dead. That's good for a PM right?
What struck me though was that the two intrepid anchors on BBC Breakfast were actually seriously deliberating whether this switch over made sense. They even had a nutritionist sitting there sagely nodding her head about the relative merits of the two.
And the discussion centered on calories!
It's a "good" thing because of course bananas are only about 100 calories (versus the 230 or so in a standard KitKat 4-finger).
But isn't it a shocker that Mr Brown has nine bananas? Nine!!! (Gasp, shock, horror!)
No, assured our friendly nutritionist ... it's ok, although that does equate to 900 calories!
And here I was hoping that it was patently, stupidly obvious that bananas are infinitely more healthy than chocolate because they are a real food ... Nature's perfect package.
Not because they are less than half the calories.
Let's be frank. With attitudes like this, the UK has absolutely no chance in the fight against obesity.
So remember, boys and girls, eat your 5-a-day, drink lots of milk, enjoy your cheese and yogurt, take your fish oils, eat lots of meat ... and hope that the NHS will still be viable when you become diseased and dependent.
Or you could eat bananas. Lots of them. Plus any other fresh, whole, raw, organic plant that appeals to you at your local produce reseller. Also, dance often, sleep plenty and enjoy sunshine, fresh air and good company.
Then you can get old and have the best health insurance in the world.
Being truly healthy.
Let's face it, KitKats are great ... because they taste awesome on occasion. But if you want to grow up to be an aspiring politician, you best eat your bananas now!
OK, so someone has told him that he needs to be sharp, not brain dead. That's good for a PM right?
What struck me though was that the two intrepid anchors on BBC Breakfast were actually seriously deliberating whether this switch over made sense. They even had a nutritionist sitting there sagely nodding her head about the relative merits of the two.
And the discussion centered on calories!
It's a "good" thing because of course bananas are only about 100 calories (versus the 230 or so in a standard KitKat 4-finger).
But isn't it a shocker that Mr Brown has nine bananas? Nine!!! (Gasp, shock, horror!)
No, assured our friendly nutritionist ... it's ok, although that does equate to 900 calories!
And here I was hoping that it was patently, stupidly obvious that bananas are infinitely more healthy than chocolate because they are a real food ... Nature's perfect package.
Not because they are less than half the calories.
Let's be frank. With attitudes like this, the UK has absolutely no chance in the fight against obesity.
So remember, boys and girls, eat your 5-a-day, drink lots of milk, enjoy your cheese and yogurt, take your fish oils, eat lots of meat ... and hope that the NHS will still be viable when you become diseased and dependent.
Or you could eat bananas. Lots of them. Plus any other fresh, whole, raw, organic plant that appeals to you at your local produce reseller. Also, dance often, sleep plenty and enjoy sunshine, fresh air and good company.
Then you can get old and have the best health insurance in the world.
Being truly healthy.
Let's face it, KitKats are great ... because they taste awesome on occasion. But if you want to grow up to be an aspiring politician, you best eat your bananas now!
Thursday, 4 February 2010
The "Mediterranean Diet" Is Not Healthy!
Everybody knows the Mediterranean diet is healthy, right?
Wrong!
We've been brainwashed. This misconception all started way back in the 60's when studies were released making claims about this diet.
But dig a little deeper and here's what you find:
The data was taken in the 50's ... a time of post-war recovery (poverty and starvation). On the island of Crete! Only!
Where people trudged up and down mountains for 9 miles a day. Where they did hard manual labor behind a plough. And where they ate what they could get ... which was vegetables and a little fish!
By the way, which country is the Mediterranean? Israel? France? Spain? Northern Italy ... or Southern Italy? Algeria?
The whole concept is quite ridiculous actually!
Let's face it. Most people view the Mediterranean diet as basically the stuff we're used to eating, plus maybe some olive oil and wine.
And we've been sold a bill of goods on olive oil and wine too! But who cares if it tastes good?
Olive oil is basically refined fat which is hugely calorific relative to any nutritional benefits, especially in the quantities the olive oil importers have been telling us to consume it in.
And wine is not heart healthy. Its a protoplasmic poison that screws up your circulation and adds ... you guessed it, more empty calories!
But we think it's a health food.
That's just obscene!
Another case of research out of context ... or scientists standing so close to the woods, they can't see the trees.
So let's take a look at this "paragon of virtue" today. Crete. Where the Mediterranean diet emanated from.
The place where people live longer and have a low incidence of heart disease. Or so we're told.
In very rough terms, the inhabitants of Crete today consume at least twice the saturated fat they did when data was collected back in the 50's.
They also consume three-and-one-half times the trans-fats and cholesterol they did ... and about half the fiber.
Sort of like us.
Which means they've got a one-way ticket to all the nasties that go along with a diet that is totally inappropriate for human beings.
So much for the Mediterranean diet.
Oh yeah, did you know that Spain actually tops the USA in the obesity tables? Both are in the top 20 countries. The USA has a third of their population that is obese (old figures, I'm guessing) and Spain exceeds 40%!
But Spain makes good red wine and cold pressed olive oil and sells a bunch of it all over the world!
The New England Journal of Medicine (something I seldom quote) remarked way back in 2003 that it was "unfortunate" that the main message people got from the whole Mediterranean hype was to eat more olive and canola oil.
Why?
Because they are only adding more calories to a diet that is already beleaguered by excess calories.
It went on to say that the message "should be" to eat more fruit, vegetables and legumes ... and fewer foods rich in saturated fats.
Yes, I know ... olive oil is a mono-unsaturated fat. But it is still calorie-dense and refined from olives so it has no fiber.
Next week ... the Atlantic diet. Eat like an Atlanticasian! (Disclaimer: intentional parody here).
I'll drink to that!
Wrong!
We've been brainwashed. This misconception all started way back in the 60's when studies were released making claims about this diet.
But dig a little deeper and here's what you find:
The data was taken in the 50's ... a time of post-war recovery (poverty and starvation). On the island of Crete! Only!
Where people trudged up and down mountains for 9 miles a day. Where they did hard manual labor behind a plough. And where they ate what they could get ... which was vegetables and a little fish!
By the way, which country is the Mediterranean? Israel? France? Spain? Northern Italy ... or Southern Italy? Algeria?
The whole concept is quite ridiculous actually!
Let's face it. Most people view the Mediterranean diet as basically the stuff we're used to eating, plus maybe some olive oil and wine.
And we've been sold a bill of goods on olive oil and wine too! But who cares if it tastes good?
Olive oil is basically refined fat which is hugely calorific relative to any nutritional benefits, especially in the quantities the olive oil importers have been telling us to consume it in.
And wine is not heart healthy. Its a protoplasmic poison that screws up your circulation and adds ... you guessed it, more empty calories!
But we think it's a health food.
That's just obscene!
Another case of research out of context ... or scientists standing so close to the woods, they can't see the trees.
So let's take a look at this "paragon of virtue" today. Crete. Where the Mediterranean diet emanated from.
The place where people live longer and have a low incidence of heart disease. Or so we're told.
In very rough terms, the inhabitants of Crete today consume at least twice the saturated fat they did when data was collected back in the 50's.
They also consume three-and-one-half times the trans-fats and cholesterol they did ... and about half the fiber.
Sort of like us.
Which means they've got a one-way ticket to all the nasties that go along with a diet that is totally inappropriate for human beings.
So much for the Mediterranean diet.
Oh yeah, did you know that Spain actually tops the USA in the obesity tables? Both are in the top 20 countries. The USA has a third of their population that is obese (old figures, I'm guessing) and Spain exceeds 40%!
But Spain makes good red wine and cold pressed olive oil and sells a bunch of it all over the world!
The New England Journal of Medicine (something I seldom quote) remarked way back in 2003 that it was "unfortunate" that the main message people got from the whole Mediterranean hype was to eat more olive and canola oil.
Why?
Because they are only adding more calories to a diet that is already beleaguered by excess calories.
It went on to say that the message "should be" to eat more fruit, vegetables and legumes ... and fewer foods rich in saturated fats.
Yes, I know ... olive oil is a mono-unsaturated fat. But it is still calorie-dense and refined from olives so it has no fiber.
Next week ... the Atlantic diet. Eat like an Atlanticasian! (Disclaimer: intentional parody here).
I'll drink to that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
