MD "Discovers" Nutrition Through Cancer

MSNBC produces again. Here's an article about an MD who had cancer, chemo failed...well they probably don't believe it did...but his cancer came back, so to me that's a fail. His oncologist said he could eat whatever he wanted, that it wouldn't make a difference. And the MD learned that his cancer specialist didn't know as much as he thought he did.

Some highlights:

1. It's a little known fact that nutrition is barely taught in med schools.

2. Food has healing "powers"

3. Natural cancer-fighting is not an oxymoron

4. To date there's no alternative approach that can cure cancer

5. The medical establishment is slow to embrace a natural anticancer approach despite available research

In regards to number 4, I'd like to point out that there aren't many, if any, scientific articles that support the effectiveness of an alternative approach to cancer, but that does not mean one doesn't exist. If you're religious, remember there's no scientific evidence that God exists either.

As for #5, how much money do you think there is in cancer? How much money is donated to "find a cure" for breast cancer? How much money is spent on these ribbon campaigns? How much money does Big Pharm put in its pocket from the sale of $30,000 treatments? How much money would Big Pharm lose if people spent a fraction of that money at their local farmer's market? Is there an incentive for food to be promoted or proven to be an effective cancer remedy? I've heard rumors of the FDA banning the term "anticancer" when it comes to food. That's an interesting thought isn't it?

Are You Alive or Living?

I'd like to get back to this, although I feel as though this is a good thought exercise for you to participate in yourself. So whatever I write will be my thoughts and it's up to you to think about it on during your next boring office meeting or commute.

The dictionary on my computer (Mac) define each of these words with the other, implying that there is no difference. Dictionary.com does the same thing. But I believe these words have deeper meaning.

To me, being alive is simple. It's the act of breathing, having a beating heart. But to be living requires more. It's about what you do. To differentiate between the two I can only think of the unfortunate ones on life support. They are alive, but they are not living life. They aren't able to enjoy what life has to offer.

I believe there are tons of people in the world who are only alive. They wake up each day, drag themselves to a job they hate so that they can pay the bills. Treat themselves to drive through for dinner, and return home to sit in front of the television for the night. Rinse and repeat tomorrow. Doesn't sound like much of a life does it? I wouldn't classify it as one. This person is not living.

What about sickness? So many people are sick. Obviously you can be alive and be sick, that's a no brainer. But how often does sickness interfere with living?

Or what about subluxation? I believe a healthy interference-free nervous system is crucial to living. How many of your senses are altered, even minutely, that restrict the way you experience the world? How does your attitude affect your life? And since upper cervical subluxations are related to depression, there's a potential spinal connection too.

I could probably go on with this for a while, and I don't have the answers so don't be offended by anything I said. I just thought the differences between being alive and living were an interesting thought exercise. Hopefully I've provoked some thought in you.

4800 Deaths by Medicine Reported in the First Quarter

This is a remarkable article by MSNBC.com. During the first three months of 2008, 4,800 people DIED as a direct result of the medications they were taking. This means that a reported 20,000 people die each year from something they believe will save their lives, or in some way improve it. Did you catch that? REPORTED! The watch group who tallies these deaths say that only a fraction of deaths are reported. So in reality, more than 20,000 people die each year just from taking medicine. Please refer back to my Death By Medicine article for more astounding numbers associated with allopathic medicine.

So what gets me, is all the fuss over strokes caused by chiropractic. Chiropractic does NOT cause even 100 strokes a year...and even if it did, not every stroke would result in death. Yet, chiropractors are constantly defending themselves when it comes to strokes. If chiropractic resulted in even half the number of tragedies as "traditional" medicine, we as a profession would be shut down. Why is it that allopathic providers can continue to write prescriptions for these deadly medicines? Why is it that drug companies aren't held accountable for all these deaths? WHY AREN'T THESE DRUGS BEING PULLED OFF THE MARKET??? Who's looking out for you? Is it possible that the second largest government lobbiers (drug companies, behind insurance companies) have something to do with all this? Is this why the FDA hasn't put an outright ban of these drugs or done more to protect the quality of drugs imported from China?

I'm incredibly surprised to see this story in the mainstream media, but I wish it was front page news. The American people should be outraged! After all, we're all brainwashed by these drug ads we see on TV, they're going to make our aches and pains go away...not harm us, and certainly not kill us, despite the length of side effects list. It's time people start to realize that their sickness is making someone a lot of money, and it's not in medicine's best interest to make that sickness go away. If you were healthy, why would you need the latest designer drug? How would that increase someone's bottom line? It's time to educate yourself, because who's going to protect you?

Alive vs Living

One of my clinicians mentioned this the other day. I thought it was brilliant. Unfortunately I have to study for an exam right now so I can't write about it. But I'll ask you to think about what these terms mean and how they impact your life. Hopefully I'll find myself some time later this week to jot down my thoughts.

Toxic Breastmilk???

My nutrition teacher suggested that breast milk was one of the most toxic substances you could feed an infant. This immediately rose objections from almost every student in our class...I was surprised by several things. The fact that so many people seemed to be paying attention at least as much as I was, and that they all seemed to realize the importance of breast milk and that this notion could be extremely detrimental to many kids.

She says that [the average American] bodies are exposed to TONS of chemicals. We consume steroids in our food, we sleep on mattresses and pillows soaked in fire-retardant chemicals, BPA in our milk, carcinogens in the strawberries, lead on our children's toys, paint on our walls, dyes in our clothes, oh and all the aspirin/tylenol/chemicals-we-call-medicine we pop like candy. So maybe there is something to this theory.

On the flip side, mother's milk is the ONLY food substance that is made specifically for baby. Imagine that, mom intuitively knows what it is baby needs, takes it from her own body and gives it to her child. Included in this are all sorts of protective immunity factors, called immunoglobulins, to protect baby for at least the 1st 6 months of life. Not a man made formula has ever been able to adequately duplicate breast milk, despite billions of dollars of research. Even if they could add all the vitamins and minerals, there's some debate over whether or not isolated chemical formula of these nutrients is as beneficial as the whole food. I'll leave that another blog.

I was most surprised that my teacher seemed to rank soy formulas above breast milk. The soy that's consumed in the US is not the same soy consumed in the East that does provide them with health benefits. Our soy is heavily processed, and ends up mimicking estrogen in our bodies, which aren't needed until baby girl reaches reproductive age, hopefully not for another 12 or 13 years! Besides, estrogen isn't something we should consume, rather, our bodies have the ability to make what we need. Here's a good website that covers the dangers of soy formula in detail.

Ultimately, mom has control over the quality of her milk. Mom needs to realize before she gets pregnant that what she puts into her body before, during and after pregnancy (if breast feeding), or doesn't put into her body has a tremendous effect on baby. This includes what mom surrounds herself with, however I admit, it's a bit overwhelming to think you've got to change your mattress, bedsheets, an entire new (organic) wardrobe - including shoes, carpet, paint...everything in your home to be chemical free. But you should start doing research about which items are most harmful (hint, cleaning products top that list) and work to start replacing the worst offenders. If mom can detox her body, then there will be no doubt about it, breast milk far outshines its competitors when it comes to baby's health.

Exercise Your Way to Health...In Just 2 Hours??

The Health and Human Services Department has released its "new" set of exercise guidelines. To achieve "health", you need to exercise as little as 2 hours a week. Oppose to the old guideline of 30 minutes of exercise on most days of the week. In my calculation, out of 7 days (in a calendar week), 4 would qualify as "most". And 4 * 30 minutes of exercise is still 2 hours. So way to go guys, you've changed nothing.

What I'd like to know is how did they come up with this number? And HOW do they figure that 2 hours a week is enough for MOST adults to get healthy? Considering 60% (that's most isn't it?) of US adults are OBESE, I think they're going to need a lot more than 2 hours a week worth of exercise...and for how many weeks do they need to exercise before health is achieved? Do you see where I'm going with this? Unfortunately, I think they failed in their attempt to clear up any confusion, because I'm actually more confused.

I'll give them credit though, their intentions are good, and if you tell people they're going to need to exercise an hour for every day, they'll feel defeated before they even start. But people should be encouraged to talk to the doctors, chiropractors would be good candidates for this since we have extensive knowledge about how the body is suppose to move to stay healthy. You and your doctor can develop a healthy exercise plan together, something that you feel is manageable.

But some tips. To loose weight, no matter how you look at it, the number of calories going into your body (via food) MUST be less than those going out (usually in the form of typical activities of daily living and extra physical activity). A deficit of 500 calories a day will create a weight loss of a pound a week. Doesn't sound like much, but losing weight slowly, 1-2lbs per week, has been shown over and over again to be more effectively kept off. And a simple 10% reduction of your current body weight can have HUGE health benefits! So that should be your goal right from the start.

REMEMBER!! Before starting an exercise program, consult your doctor! You don't want to do too much at once and cause yourself some kind of harm.

High Fructose Corn Syrup - Another Thought

So I just watched ANOTHER "high fructose corn syrup is wonderful" commercial. I was struck by the well structured comment, "...and it's nutritionally the same as sugar." Notice, they didn't say "it's healthy, just like sugar!"

Nutritionally, sugar is a nightmare. There's absolutely no actual nutritional value in terms of vitamins and minerals. It's just a carbohydrate, which does provide the energy and has some benefit...if you're starving.

Unfortunately, the American diet is loaded with sugar and without getting too far into the biochemistry of it, it's killing us. Excessive carbohydrates is leading to a myriad of health problems, such as diabetes and cancer. Never mind the omega-6 fatty acids associated with grain products (such as CORN!!) that are leading to an omega-3:omega-6 imbalance that has STRONG implications in the development of an inflammatory state of the body. This inflammatory state also leads to a myriad of health problems, such as diabetes and cancer.

Let's not be fooled by these HFCS commercials. And I'm not so naive to think you will cut sugar and/or HFCS out of your diet cold turkey, but let's remember, variety and moderation is the key when it comes to your diet.

Just a teaspoon of this grape flavored poison, and your body can stop functioning the way it was meant to!

So once again the FDA fails to protect us by refusing to place a ban on child cold medications. They recommend that parents not use these meds, but won't out right ban them??

They say there's not enough information to determine that the drugs are dangerous. The same is on the flip side. There's not enough information to prove that these drugs are safe...or beneficial because drug trials cannot be performed on children, especially those under 2 years of age. Considering the risk to benefit ratio, which is high risk: little benefit, no parent should be fooled by advertising that their child needs these drugs.

There are many reasons why children don't NEED these drugs, first of all, they have amazing immune systems. Kids can play in the dirt, crawl on the floor, put all kinds of things in their mouths and come out fine. This is because they are protected by antibodies given by mom in utero. After birth, if mom breast feeds (and she should!!), more protective antibodies are provided, giving the child the opportunity to be exposed to germs and not get sick. These germs are introduced to the body, and the body begins to build its own army of antibodies. Sterilizing everything your child touches with Lysol limits his or her exposure to germs and therefore the body doesn't get to build an army against it. Eventually, when your child is exposed, (it's bound to happen!) the body doesn't know what to do about it and the child gets REALLY sick. Especially if the germs have mutated into superbugs that are no longer resistant to all the antibiotics that are routinely given for every little sniffle (Side note, most colds are caused by a virus and antibiotics are not effective on viruses)

When a cold germ does gain access to your child's body the immune system kicks into work. I've written about this before, but it's worth repeating. Mucus is produced to trap the bacteria/virus so that it can be expelled from the body. This leads to runny noses and productive coughs. The respiratory tract also catches invaders and initiates the cough reflex to get that stuff out of there. Body temperature rises in attempt to provide an environment too hot for the germs to survive. Diarrhea might develop, in attempt to wash the germs from that end too. Whatever your symptom might be, its a defense mechanism of the body to kill or rid itself of the harmful invader.

Ask yourself:

1. Does it really make sense to take a drug to limit mucus production, cough, or reduce fever?

2. What do you think the over all effect on your child's immune system will be if you continuously provide them with drugs that suppress the immune system's protective mechanisms?

3. What will be the over all effect on your child's immune system if you continue to sterilize everything in your home?

Interesting things for you to consider today:

*The rates of asthma increased with the introduction of vacuum cleaners in our homes.

*Children who have pets in the home are less likely to develop asthma.

Wellness

After I wrote yesterday's article I started thinking about why I was so upset about this financial mess. Because I'm young I have my whole future ahead of me. Considering all the work I've put in over the last 6 years, I should have a blindingly bright successful future. I'm finishing up my last year of school, I just got married in April. I'm hoping to move back to Pittsburgh, buy a home and set down roots...and start tackling those student loans that I've been accruing. All that is so close to being within reach, and then greedy people who weren't happy with the millions they were already making screwed up the economy, and I'm not sure how I'll be able to buy a practice to make the rest of my dreams come true. But ultimately, that effects my wellness.

That might be a new concept to people. We think of health as being pain-free, of being symptom free. But health is really about how well you are. And being well is about not only the body, but the mind and spirit as well. Therefore it includes all aspects of your life.

Being financially healthy affects our mind. If we're stressing about how we're going to get this month's bills paid, it will eventually degrade our health (let's not go into not being able to afford true health care). There are lots of things that affect our minds.

Being spiritually well. What does that mean? I think it refers to your faith, your conscious, your ability to look in the mirror each night. How do you feel when you know you've done something wrong? Do you feel healthy? Sometimes guilt drives people to insanity. Is that well?

When you understand how complex the human body is, I can't see why we continue to view health in terms of symptoms. We are severely limiting our capabilities by not trying to achieve wellness in all aspects of our lives. I don't know of another profession who addresses wellness as completely as chiropractic does. We thoroughly study the physiology of the body, as well as all the organ systems individually and hands down have the best grasp of the human body as being the sum of all its parts and are best equipped to enable the body to heal itself.

P.S. Billy Mays is selling affordable health insurance now... Does anyone else find that extremely outrageous?