Japan Leads the Way in Child Health: No Compulsory Vaccines. Banned Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) Vaccine
I don’t much trust the drug companies (or the medical establishment for that matter) and I take no prescription drugs. I’m especially suspicious of drugs that are advertised on TV.
I eat right, get exercise, and I trust my body to know what it needs and to use it’s built-in mechanisms to stay well. I make occasional exceptions after I’ve exhausted all other approaches and I’ve done my research. The last one was 4 years ago when I took antibiotics and anti fungal meds to deal with a severe digestion problem.
Everyone ought to read the new book, Do You Really Need That Pill?: How to Avoid Side Effects, Interactions, and Other Dangers of Overmedication by Jennifer Jacobs, MD. I happen to know her personally, as she is one of my bridge friends.
And watch this 60 Minutes expose on how drug companies and their minions in government put profits ahead of the public’s health and welfare: Ex-DEA agent: Opioid crisis fueled by drug industry and Congress.
# # #
This article, How highs and lows in testosterone levels ‘shock’ prostate cancer cells to death, reports some research that was conducted at John Hopkins University that suggests a cheap and effective treatment for prostate cancer may soon be available.
According to the article,
“researchers reported that results from 47 men who have completed at least three cycles of bipolar androgen therapy (BAT) showed that the strategy was safe and effective. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels fell in the majority of the men, tumours shrank in some men, in several the disease did not progress and this included some whose disease continued to be stable for more than a year. One man appears to have been “cured”, in that his PSA levels dropped to zero after three months and have remained so for 22 cycles of treatment, with no trace of the disease remaining. The researchers are planning to treat a group of 60 men in total.”
Read the full article here.
I’m a longtime fan of Dr. Andrew Weil and consider him to be the foremost leader in the field of holistic health. He is Clinical Professor of Medicine and Director of the Program in Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona. His medical philosophy leans heavily toward disease prevention, primarily through proper diet, exercise, and wholesome lifestyle choices.
I recently read his book, Eating Well for Optimum Health: the essential guide to food, diet, and nutrition , and I strongly recommend it. You will find in this book important information about the various food groups—carbohydrates, fats and protein, critiques of the various “fad diets,” and specific advice on what to eat (and drink), what to avoid, and how to enjoy delicious wholesome foods. Healthy eating does not mean sacrificing satisfaction for health, quite the contrary, it’s just a matter of taking the time to inform yourself of a few basic facts, reading labels, and making the right choices. –t.h.g.
Game of Chicken
Posted: 27 Jul 2017 06:56 AM PDT
Global trade once made us rich. Now it unleashes a full-spectrum assault on our well-being.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 26th July 2017
What’s wrong with chlorinated chicken? It’s not as if chlorine is absent from our lives: we drink it in tap water every day. Surely it’s a small price to pay for the trade deal with the US the British government seeks? There are several answers to this question, that range from the instrumental to the existential. Let’s begin with the immediacies.
Washing chicken carcasses with chlorine allows farmers and processors to save the money they might have spent on systemic sanitation, throughout the chicken’s life and death. You need only dunk the meat in a chlorine bath to kill any accumulated germs. Does it work? It is true to say that rates of foodborne illness are similar between the EU and North America*. But chlorine-washed chicken, remarkably, could be the least offensive of the US meat regulations a trade deal might force us to adopt. It has been pushed to the fore because it’s less politically toxic than the issues hiding behind it.
While European Union rules, that currently prevail in the UK, take a precautionary approach to food regulation, permitting only products and processes proven to be safe, the US government uses a providential approach, permitting anything not yet proved to be dangerous. By limiting the budgets and powers of its regulators, it ensures that proof of danger is difficult to establish.
An investigation by Reuters discovered that chicken companies in the US use a wide array of antibiotics as routine feed supplements, both to prevent disease and as growth promoters. Among these drugs are some listed by the US Food and Drug Administration as “critically important” in human medicine. They’re administered to the chickens in low doses, creating perfect conditions for bacterial resistance and the emergence of new superbugs.
Further reports reveal that chickens are dosed with antihistamines, to make their meat more tender. Some carcasses contain steroids and ketamine. A hormone injected into US cattle to fatten them more quickly, according to the latest scientific paper on the subject, “promotes breast cancer cell growth”. And all this is before Trump completes his assault on the US regulatory system.
Trade agreements today have little to do with reducing tariffs, most of which have already been eliminated. Now they have two principal functions. The first is to extend intellectual property rights, that tends to raise prices and help the biggest corporations eliminate smaller competitors. The second is to “harmonise” regulations. When you have an asymmetric deal – between a very large country with low standards and a smaller one with higher standards – there is going to be only one outcome. We will end up with US standards. How many people in this country, offered a vote on the matter, would accept such a deal?
But there are still bigger issues in this game of chicken. On the day that the Adam Smith Institute published its misleading report, the Guardian carried an article by a consultant called Colin Cram, complaining that the UK is not engaging sufficiently in China’s Belt and Road programme: a series a vast infrastructure schemes the Chinese government is funding to facilitate its exports (Manchester’s Airport City is one component). The UK, Mr Cram claimed, “must” become a full participant in this programme, “massively revitalising its infrastructure so that all parts of the country, not just the south-east, can engage with these huge markets”. That’s because we suffer from a deficit of air pollution, noise, climate change and plastic waste. We must accelerate the Gadarene rush over the environmental cliff.
A study published by researchers at the London School of Economics last year discovered that the regions that voted most strongly for Brexit were those that had been hit hardest by “the Chinese import shock”. Anger towards immigration, they argue, became a proxy for the loss of manufacturing jobs and incomes: many of the strongest Leave votes were in places with the least immigration. Their data suggests that Brexit was globalisation’s blowback. But our government wants to seize this opportunity to accelerate the process. So much for taking back control.
So the existential question the chicken issue raises is this: why do we want more trade? What is it for? The old promise was that trade led to prosperity. But what if we have enough already? What if enhanced global trade, far from promoting well-being, now undermines it?
To people of Mr Cram’s mindset, rainforests and ancient woodlands, coral reefs and wild rivers, local markets and lively communities, civic life and public space are nothing but unrealised opportunities for development. Where we see the presence of beauty, tranquillity and wonder, they see the absence of palm oil plantations and soybean deserts, container ports and mega dams, shopping malls and 12-lane highways. For them, there is no point of arrival, just an endless escalation of transit.
Nowhere is a place in its own right: everywhere is a resource waiting to be exploited. No one is a person in their own right; everyone is a worker, consumer or debtor whose potential for profit generation has yet to be realised. Satiety, well-being, peace: these are antithetical to globalised growth, which demands constant erasure and replacement. If you are happy, you are an impediment to trade. Your self-possession must be extinguished.
So this is where the chickens come home to roost. Enhanced global trade now threatens our health, our sovereignty, our democracy. Once, it made us rich. Today it impoverishes us.
* This article previously stated that the Adam Smith Institute’s claim that the rates of Salmonella infection in the two continents were “not out of line” was false. I had failed to notice that an item marked Non-typhoidal S.enterica in the WHO report cited by the ASI referred to a Salmonella species. My apologies.
This video, Why Are American Health Care Costs So High? goes a long way toward answering that question.