HealthBeat News

Category: Opinion

  • Breast Cancer Month – And That Little Pink Ribbon Again

    (Why the Little Pink Ribbon Has Me Seeing Red)

     

    By Dr. Dana Myatt

     

    October is “Breast Cancer Awareness Month,” and the little pink ribbons are as plentiful as Halloween candy.

     

    Have you ever given money to breast cancer research or purchased a “little pink ribbon” to show your support and solidarity? If you have, I believe you’ve been duped by Big Pharma’s and Big Government’s bogus “research projects,” and thrown good money toward a losing game.

    Before you shoot the messenger, let me explain why the “little pink ribbon” has me seeing red.

    Problems abound with breast cancer fund-raising and research:

    First, Money often doesn’t go to actual research.

    As much as 90% of revenues can be spent on “administrative” and “fundraising” costs. Depending on which charity your money goes to, the actual money generated for gifting can be less than 10%. That’s ugly.

    To find out which charities retain most of their revenues for genuine research contribution, check out your favorite charity at http://www.charitynavigator.org/

    For example, last year we reported that the Coalition Against Breast Cancer had a very poor record and spent the majority of it’s income on “administrative costs.” This year according to CharityNavigator.org the Coalition Against Breast Cancer has been shut down for fraud:

      • New York’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit to shut down Coalition Against Breast Cancer, calling it a sham charity, for fraudulently raising millions of dollars under the guise of fighting breast cancer, only to funnel the money to organization insiders and fundraisers.
      • In August 2011, The Wall Street Journal reported that two of the people behind this organization plead guilty to grand larceny, scheming to defraud and falsifying business records. They still face a civil lawsuit.

    The American Breast Cancer Foundation spends 76% of it’s income on administrative and fund-raising costs

    The United Breast Cancer Foundation spends 71% of revenues on admin and fundraising

    Even the mighty Komen Foundation has been hit with controversy this last year, and has been accused of overstating the supposed benefits of mammograms while downplaying the risks. Interestingly, General Electric, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of mammography machines, is a major corporate donor to the Komen Foundation…

    And “Think Before You Pink,” a service of Breast Cancer Action, offers some additional tips and insider information about donating to breast cancer research:

    When you “give to the cure,” you might want to verify where your money is going and how much of it is actually being spent on breast cancer research.

    Second, Money funds more conventional cancer research, but conventional research, diagnosis and treatments are not improving cancer mortality rates significantly.

    Conventional breast cancer treatments don’t work. At least not very well. Cancer research organizations that put money into Big Pharma are betting on the wrong horse.

    Despite press releases and proclamations which tell us that we’re “winning the war on breast cancer” (thanks, of course, to all of our collective millions of giving), the truth is that conventional cancer diagnosis and treatment have gotten us next to nowhere.

    According to statistics published by the National Cancer Institute, the breast cancer rate has declined 1.7% between 1998 and 2007. That, they say, is a “significant” change.(1)

    Of course, we are led to believe that this 1.7% drop is due to improvements in diagnosis (mammograms) and conventional treatment. But the statistics show otherwise.

    Instead, the single biggest drop in breast cancer rates of all time occurred in 2002-2003 when women flocked away from conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after news “broke” that it increased breast cancer risk. According to the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates fell 6.7% — a heck of a lot bigger drop than the 1.7% being touted – when over 40 million women stopped taking conventional hormone prescriptions. (2) Actually, the association between HRT and breast cancer was known as early as the 1960′s. (3) For shame.

    In Canada, a 9.6% drop in breast cancer rates was noted when hormone replacement therapy use declined.(4)

    Whether it be a 6.7% or a 9.6% drop, that’s a much bigger improvement that our 1.7% “statistically significant” decrease claimed in the US as a result of millions of dollars of mammogram screenings and expensive chemotherapy.

    The single biggest drop we’ve seen in recent years in breast cancer happened when women flocked away from conventional hormone therapy in droves. In other words, the best thing that conventional medicine has done to stem the tide of breast cancer is to have women “just say no” to a breast-cancer-causing conventional hormone treatment!

    So, the “significant” 1.7% decrease in breast cancer rates in over a decade includes the 6.7% drop in breast cancer due to women discontinuing conventional hormone replacement therapy. Instead of a new drug or surgical treatment being responsible for this modest decline in breast cancer rates, the decline is actually due to women avoiding a dangerous conventional drug.

    This also begs the question — if we are to believe that a 1.7% drop in cancer incidence is “significant,” how come the 2.7 increase between 1995-1998 was not also “significant”? And how come the 6.7% drop when millions of women stopped conventional HRT isn’t WAY significant? (1) Are we perhaps over-selling the “winning the war” statistics in order to give people a warm fuzzy and encourage them to keep contributing?

    Much more is known about how to prevent cancer than how to cure it.

    Of the millions of dollars raised and donated to conventional cancer research, how come none of this money — nay, not even a little bit of it — is spent educating women on prevention? After all, an ounce of prevention really IS worth a pound of cure.

    Forget the measly 1.7% decline in breast cancer rates over the past 9 years, let’s talk about what is known about prevention. The preventive aspects of breast cancer, and how much the risks can be lowered, make the “statistically significant 1.7%” look even more ridiculous. Consider the truly huge improvements in breast cancer rates that could be achieved with known preventive measures.

    Overweight/obesity. Fat cells manufacture estrogen. We already know about the estrogen/breast cancer connection. The fatter a woman, the more breast cancer risk, at least for post-menopausal females. How big is this risk?

    Women who gain 55 pounds or more after age 18 have a 50% greater risk of breast cancer compared with those who maintained their weight. A gain of 22 pounds or more after menopause was associated with an increased risk of 18%, whereas losing at least 22 pounds after menopause and maintaining the weight loss was associated with 57% lower breast cancer risk. In case you missed this, let me repeat, a whopping FIFTY-SEVEN PERCENT DECREASED RISK by losing 22 pounds. (5)

    This is incredible news. Instead of putting pink ribbons on buckets of fast-food chicken, why aren’t these “concerned” cancer organizations telling women to back away from the fried chicken, shed a few pounds and drop their risk of breast cancer like a rock?

    Exercise. Invasive, estrogen-receptor negative cancers (less common, more deadly) can be reduced 55 percent by long-term, strenuous physical activity or 47% by long-term moderate physical activity. This amounts to 5 hours of exercise per week. (6) Let’s see…. a 47% drop compared to a 1.7% drop? “Long-term means you start exercising when you are a young woman and continue weekly exercise throughout life. Shouldn’t some of the “little pink ribbon” money be spent educating young women about the profound reduction in cancer risk from a modest amount of exercise, instead of just selling annual mammogram screening?

    Even if you didn’t start exercising as a younger woman, it’s never too late to benefit. In one study from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) as little as 1.25 to 2.5 hours per week of brisk walking reduced a woman’s risk by 18%. (7) Let’s see… 18% vs. 1.7%… Did you hear any of this from the “little pink ribbon” sponsors?

    Alcohol contributes a small additional risk. Women who drink 2-5 drinks per day have 1 1/2 times the risk as non-drinkers. The effect is magnified in women who use conventional hormone replacement therapy. (8) This amounts to a small increase in risk, but remember — all the millions of dollars of “little pink ribbon” money have amounted to only a small decrease in risk.

    Why should you and I fund Big Pharma’s search for newer, deadlier, ineffective drugs that they are going to profit from? Fund your own darned drug studies I say …

    Alrighty, so you run your butt off in a “race for the cure,” to raise money to assist drug companies in researching more drugs. Some of these drugs cost upwards of $10,000/month to the patient (while costing the drug companies a pittance).

    And then YOU get breast cancer. Do you get a discount because you helped Big Pharma fund a drug that might increase your survival by maybe 8 weeks? NO. You, or more likely your insurer, will be paying full price for your treatment.

    Mike Adams sums this warped situation up succinctly:

    “For most diseases, the race for the cure is really just a way for drug companies to shift R&D costs to suckers. You fund the R&D, and then you get to pay full price for the drug they drummed up thanks to your generous donation. “ – Mike Adams

    Dr. Myatt’s Summary: millions of dollars spent over the last 3 decades and what do we have? A mere 1.7% reduction in breast cancer mortality. And most if not ALL of this decrease is due to declining use of conventional hormone therapy.

    On the other hand, we already know simple ways to slash breast cancer risk by up to 50% and more.

    Until some of the “little pink ribbon” money goes toward public education about how to reduce risks, and some of the money goes to research non-toxic treatments, and until the “little pink ribbon” folks don’t whore their honor by allowing their icons on junk food and toxic perfumes, I’m keeping my money closer to home.

    References

    1.) Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Ruhl J, Howlader N, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Cronin K, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Stinchcomb DG, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/, based on November 2009 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2010. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html#incidence-mortality

    The joinpoint trend in SEER cancer incidence with associated APC(%) for cancer of the breast between 1975-2007, All Races Female

    Trend Period

    -0.5 1975-1980

    3.9* 1980-1987

    -0.1 1987-1995

    2.7 1995-1998

    -1.7* 1998-2007

    If there is a negative sign before the number, the trend is a decrease; otherwise it is an increase. If there is an asterisk after the APC then the trend was significant, that is, one believes that it is beyond chance, i.e. 95% sure,

    2.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2007/breastincidencedrop

    3.) McCarthy JD. Influence of two contraceptives on induction of mammary cancer in rats. Am J Surg. 1965 Nov;110(5):720-3.

    4.) Breast Cancer , accessed 10-26-10: http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/new_research/20100924.jsp

    5.) Morimoto LM, White E, Chen Z, et al. Obesity, body size, and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer: the Women’s Health Initiative (United States). Cancer Causes Control. Oct 2002;13(8):741-751.

    6.) NCI website accessed 10-26-10:

    Ref: http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/ncicancerbulletin/archive/2008/102108/page8

    7.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

    8.) http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/DetailedGuide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

  • Big Pharma Buys Big Government In $80+ Billion Deal

    Must Corporate Wealth Always Lead To Greed And Corruption?

     

    Opinion By Nurse Mark

     

    The debate leading up to the passage of President Obama’s Health Care legislation was fierce, acrimonious, and expensive – and now new details are emerging, showing how expensive, who was spending what and why they were spending it.

    It is no secret that Big Pharma is beyond wealthy. The largest of the pharmaceutical companies have bigger budgets than many small and even medium sized countries. Collectively, they can, and apparently do, buy and sell governments.

    A recent news article published in Bloomberg Businessweek offers some startling and disturbing information about the wealth and influence that these mega-corporations wield.

    Here is a small excerpt from the Bloomberg Businessweek article “Drugmakers Vowed to Campaign for Health Law, Memos Show” By Drew Armstrong on May 31, 2012:

    Drugmakers led by Pfizer (PFE) Inc. agreed to run a “very significant public campaign” bankrolling political support for the 2010 health-care law, including TV ads, while the Obama administration promised to block provisions opposed by drugmakers, documents released by Republicans show.

    The internal memos and e-mails for the first time unveil the industry’s plan to finance positive TV ads and supportive groups, along with providing $80 billion in discounts and taxes that were included in the law. The administration has previously denied the existence of a deal involving political support.

    While this sort of behavior is not restricted to the Democrat party (Republican politicians could probably be expected to be just as mesmerized by the glitter of Big Pharma’s gold and just as eager to offer “deals” in exchange for it) it seems just a little bit unethical to me, as it must have seemed to the Obama Administration since the article tells us “The administration has previously denied the existence of a deal involving political support.” If this deal were not unethical, why would the administration feel a need to deny it?

    I invite you to follow the link above and read this article for yourself. Here also is a link to a statement by Congressman Joe Pitts who is investigating this affair; http://pitts.house.gov/press-release/investigation-reveals-white-house-role-backroom-health-care-deal

    What’s right? What’s wrong? Who knows! But one must ask: Just what good could have been done with $80 billion dollars had it been put to a different, more honorable use?

  • My Uncle The Drug Pusher

    Uncle Sam Allows, Even Helps Fuel A New Generation Of Opiate Addicts

     

    By Nurse Mark

     

    While our government wages a ruinous and futile “War On Drugs” and wastes time and resources with an undeclared war on vitamins and natural supplements” and sends armed swat teams to raid the sellers of such dangerous things as raw milk it is turning a blind eye to – and even supporting – the efforts of Big Pharma to turn America into a nation of opiate addicts.

    A recent analysis by The Associated Press paints a disturbing picture of an explosion of prescription drug abuse over the past decade:

    Nationwide, pharmacies received and ultimately dispensed the equivalent of 69 tons of pure oxycodone and 42 tons of pure hydrocodone in 2010, the last year for which statistics are available. That’s enough to give 40 5-mg Percocets and 24 5-mg Vicodins to every person in the United States.

    A group called The Alliance For Natural Health expanded on this AP article bringing some information of their own into the picture – tying together the various financial and other conflicts of interest that exist between the drug companies and our government agencies that are supposedly responsible for our safety and well-being:

    As Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, pointed out in her 2004 book The Truth about the Drug Companies, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) employs more lobbyists in Washington than there are members of Congress. Since 2007, the group has spent more than $20 million annually on lobbying in Washington to see that its interests are protected.

    The DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) is supposed to set “quotas” of amounts of drugs that a drug company can manufacture and sell, so that these drugs do not flood the country and end up in the hands of addicts. Former DEA official Gene Haislip says however that DEA won’t block a drug company’s requests for a quota increase “if that company is supporting members of Congress who have the power to block the agency’s funding.”

    It looks like 20 million dollars a year buys a lot of support. A watchdog organization called OpenSecrets.org has compiled research showing how drug company money finds it’s way to Washington. Interestingly, the top two recipients of Big Pharma money in the years 2011/2012 are Barack Obama at $362,879 and Mitt Romney at $263,735.

    The OpenSecrets.org list of top 20 pharmaceutical / health care products recipients can be found here.

    Drug giant Pfizer was the largest “contributor” in 2011 / 2012, lining congressional pockets to the tune of $848,899. They are hardly alone in their largess though – a more complete list of the payoffs can be found here, on the OpenSecrets.org site.

    We have written about the drug-pushing tendencies of our government agencies before – The Drug Pushers in Your Neighborhood is just one of many articles to discuss the cozy relationship between Big Pharma and the FDA and other government regulators – but this latest information regarding the incestuous nature of relations between DEA, Big Pharma, and congress is particularly alarming.

    Is there any doubt that as long as this unrestricted lobbying is allowed to buy congressional favor we will continue to be a nation in trouble?

     

    Sources:

    http://www.anh-usa.org/big-pharma-whistles-and-dea-comes-running/

    http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20120405_ap_painkillersalessoararoundusfueladdiction.html?c=r

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPwb6NNjRK5X1NR3XKLO4B5PJu6g?docId=3d8960c42a3a430ca5f6437ca964c857

    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=h04

    http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2012&ind=h04

  • Eat Meat And Die?

    Opinion By Nurse Mark

     

    Sigh… here we go again…

     

    The latest academic exercise in statistics massaging and manipulation is all over the news.

     

    Eating “Red Meat” will kill you!

     

    So says the sensation-mongering press, supported and encouraged by Big Agra – who of course would be happy to see us all increase our consumption of wheat, corn, soybeans, potatoes, and other Monsanto-ized, genetically-modified, Roundup-ready staples.

    The press is predictably trotting out all the usual vegetarian and vegan diet promoters such as Dean Ornish for their comments, and they are just as predictably chanting with a unified voice “see, we told you so – eating animals is eeeeevil!”

    Folks, I need to make a disclaimer here, because this article is going to generate all kinds of hate mail from vegetarians and vegans who will be offended that their beliefs are being questioned: I am not a doctor – and I have never played one on TV. Neither am I a statistician – nor have I ever played one on TV.

    I have no personal objection to anyone’s wishes to follow any diet that they want to, for whatever reason they want.

    Indeed, I am especially sympathetic to and respectful of those who say they are willing to follow a challenging-to-adhere-to and potentially mal-nutritive diet for “ethical” and “moral” reasons – just as long as they don’t try to impose their ethics and morals on me. I have a little more trouble with those who claim that vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally superior – yes, it’s possible to have a nutritionally complete diet that way, but it is tricky and a lot of hard work…

    I am getting a little tired though of the constant haranguing by successive groups of “experts” who are using statistically massaged retrospective studies that rely on peoples memories of what they ate some time in years past to try to tell me what I must eat in the future.

    Folks, let’s be honest – how many of you can remember exactly what you ate for dinner last Wednesday? I know I sure can’t!

    And then to ask people to remember not only what they ate at each meal in months and even years past, but to remember how large each specific serving size was? I sure couldn’t give you an honest answer!

    Further, this most recent “study,” titled “Red Meat Consumption and Mortality – Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies” and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine manages to do some additional sleight-of-hand in it’s interpretation and use of “data.”

    That “red meat” that they refer to as being so deadly? It turns out that it really isn’t the “red meat” you or I might be thinking of – which would be a nice juicy, grass-fed, free-range, cooked-rare beef steak. Nope, for the purposes of this study, “red meat” includes hamburger, bacon, sausage, salami, bologna, “and other processed meats.”

    Now, all those things may be tasty, and they may be distantly related to animal protein (can you say “pink slime” – also in the news recently? Yep, that would probably qualify as “red meat” for this study!) but they are not what I think of as healthy red meat. Further, these other pseudo-meat products are most likely filled with nitrates, nitrites, dyes, food colors, artificial flavors, hormones, antibiotics, and other not-so-healthy chemicals. Do we think this might have skewed their results just a little bit?

    Then there is the statistical magic of “controlling for variables” – that is, the researchers acknowledge that there are a whole bunch of things other than diet that can affect a person’s health and longevity – so they employ the statistical sleight-of-hand of “controlling for variables” to make these troublesome things go away and stop getting in the way of the desired study results.

    To be fair, the researchers in this study have done what researchers do best – they have solicited and gotten the funding grants that pay their continued salaries, and they have gathered and presented their information in a manner consistent with what those findings were intended to show. Let’s be honest; if you can’t produce work that appeals to those who foot the bills, well, the money dries up and you are out of work – right? If those who pay the bills want results that support their agenda then that is what the results had better support. (What – you thought those people work for free?)

    The press, on the other hand, have done what the press does best – that is, to sensationalize the reporting of this information. This is no different that the sensationalist reporting that gave us “Taking vitamins causes early death” articles following another recent “retrospective study” that relied on people’s memories of what vitamins they took in years past. The press know that truth and fairness are boring – and boring doesn’t sell newspapers (or radio or TV ads). So the press sells “excitement” and we get headlines telling us that  Red meat will kill you, or Vitamin use causes early death, or Pink Slime is taking over our schools…

    Here are my thoughts on this issue:

    Be vegetarian or even vegan if you wish – just don’t try to force your beliefs on me because I don’t believe it’s a healthy way to eat.

    I’m going to continue to eat a high protein, high fat, low carbohydrate diet, similar to the one that my caveman ancestors probably enjoyed. That means that my meats are going to be just as organically raised and free of hormones and antibiotics as they can possibly be.

    Mankind has spent millions of years climbing to the top of the food chain as a carnivore – I’m going to celebrate that by letting herbivores do the hard work of converting all that plant material into a nice, tasty, nutritious steak for me!

  • Seven Silly Health Mistakes Smart People Make

    Seven Silly Health Mistakes That Lots Of Smart People Make

     

    By Nurse Mark and Dr. Myatt

     

    Even Really Smart People make mistakes sometimes – here are some o fthe more common ‘Oopsies” that we see here at The Wellness Club:

    1 – Lots of smart people don’t bother to update their supplement and drug protocol annually. In fact, some go for years and years, taking the same drugs and supplements. Those drugs and supplements might have been right for them way back then when they were prescribed, and who knows – maybe they are right for them now.

    But, and this is a big “but, ” people change, and their needs change. They might need more, or less, or different altogether.

    Heck – you get your car checked over once a year (you do, don’t you!?!), if you have an investment portfolio we’ll bet you review that annually, if you are a pilot your skills are reviewed regularly – so why don’t folks do an annual health and supplement review? We don’t know, but it can be a costly mistake in terms of expensive drug prescriptions that may no longer be needed or have even become harmful, supplement protocols that could be tweaked for maximum benefit or to have supplements removed or added as necessary.

    2 – A lot of otherwise really smart people don’t bother to get updated blood tests every year. Yes, we know, nobody likes needles – but it is all over before you know it, and the information that is gained could literally be a lifesaver. Basic blood tests are inexpensive – even if you pay for them yourself – and your doctor can help you to know what they mean and to spot any irregularities or changes from last year.

    For those using hormones (even “bio-identical’ hormones or hormone precursors,) shame on you if you aren’t getting updated hormone tests each year!

    3 – Why are so many smart people “penny-wise and pound-foolish” when it comes to their supplements? We like a good bargain as much as the next fellow, but sometimes folks work just a little too hard to save a nickel. Remember, the most expensive supplement (or drug for that matter) is the one that doesn’t work!

    So you saved a few bucks on those discount vitamins at Super Bob’s Big Box Discount Emporium – but if they don’t get the job done, or are made with nasty synthetics or chemicals, you really didn’t save anything – you wasted your money on junk.

    Or, lots of folks will see their holistic doctor, get some great advice and recommendations, and then ignore that advice and buy some unproven wonder-product based on it’s marketing claims.

    Which leads us to the next item:

    4 – Lots of smart people like to take some really esoteric stuff and don’t bother to cover their bases with the “essentials” – good, solid, basic vitamins, minerals, trace minerals, and nutritional supplements like fish oil and CoQ10.

    It’s great that they use a wonderful immune-supporting formula, or take the finest of ginseng, or the latest, greatest antioxidant formula, or a super-duper bone-health product – but if they are not getting their daily basics it’s all for naught. If someone is deficient in the basic vitamins and minerals all the ginseng or calcium in the world is not going to make them healthy!

    If you want to see what an optimal daily multiple vitamin should look like, please see the label facts for Dr. Myatt’s Maxi Multi. And to see what an optimal plant-food / phytonutrient formula should look like, see Dr. Myatt’s Maxi Greens.

    Oh, and here’s a money and time-saving trick – don’t buy Dr. Myatt’s vities – print out the label facts and hop on down to your local health food store and find something just as good or better there, and probably cheaper. Really. Go ahead. Good Luck.

    Interestingly, we’ve seen a lot of people who were taking bunches of separate products, each intended to address some need or other, who were able to reduce the number of supplements they took (and reduce the cost too!) by simply covering the basics with some good, solid, daily “essentials.”

    5 – Then there are smart people who get most everything else right, but forget about the really, really basic things that can make-or-break their health: Sleep, food, water – little things that many of us take for granted, but that can turn around and bite you in the health if you don’t pay attention.

    Sleep – are you getting at least eight hours (or more!) of quality sleep each night? With no lights on to disturb your circadian rhythm? Oh, right – you are too busy and there’s just not enough time – we’ve heard all the excuses, and none of them wash. You can do without sleep for a little while, but it will exact a toll eventually – in altered hormone levels, unbalanced neurotransmitters, and more.

    No problem, you say – I can get to sleep any time I want – I just take that really great little sleeping pill my doctor prescribed for me… Um, here’s a dirty little secret for you: drug-induced sleep is not the same as “real” sleep.

    Many of the popular sleep drugs can result in somnambulism – sleep-walking – and people have been known to drive automobiles, eat uncontrollably, even commit serious crimes, all while asleep under the influence of these drugs.

    “But I gotta get some sleep – I need those drugs to make me sleep – I can’t sleep any other way!” you say. Well, that does seem to be a problem for a lot of smart and successful and wealthy people like, oh, say, Michael Jackson… and how’s that working for him?

    Insomnia can be corrected – primary insomnia (“can’t fall asleep”), secondary insomnia (wide awake in the “wee hours”), each responds well to some basic holistic sleuthing and natural remedies. A good naturopathic doctor can help – no spooky drugs required.

    Food – sure, you get plenty to eat, but is it clean, wholesome food? Or is it meat that is filled with antibiotics and growth hormones from the farm, or laced with chemicals and preservatives. Here’s a nasty little secret about preservatives: they work by halting cellular respiration. They stop the cells of the meat from using oxygen and they can do the same for your cells. And those hormones? Do we really think it is a good thing to be dosing ourselves with unknown amounts of hormones with each forkful? Or, howzabout those farm-raised fish, swimming through their own excrement? Mmmm… tasty!

    And your vegetables – were they sprayed with pesticides or chemically treated to prevent spoiling? A lot of that stuff just doesn’t wash off…

    It is well worth spending a little extra for organic produce, free-range eggs and poultry, grass-fed hormone-and-antibiotic-free meats and dairy products and the like wherever possible. But beware: with the increase in demand for these foods, the scammers have been busy. We often see products with phrases like “All Natural” and “Healthy Choice” emblazoned on them that are anything but natural or healthy. Get into the habit of actually reading the nutrition facts box and the fine print – you’ll be amazed at what some manufacturers will try to slip past your notice!

    Now, your water. Yep, plain ol’ water. We take it for granted – but it is vital to life and unfortunately it is often not as healthy and pure as it should be. Many municipal water supplies contain massive amounts of chlorine, or bacteria, or both. Fluoride is still a fact of life in many water supplies despite it’s toxicity. And our water supplies are increasingly tainted with industrial pollutants and even you neighbor’s drugs – after they have passed through your neighbor that is…

    But a lot of smart people buy bottled water to drink (which is often just municipal water put into plastic bottles) or use a water filter for their drinking water (which is probably better than buying bottled water…) So? What about the water (and other chemicals) that they absorb through their body’s largest organ, the skin? Yep, there they are, enjoying that nice, hot  shower with the pores of their skin wide open and soaking up all that chlorine and fluoride and who-knows-what-else…

    A whole-house water filtration system is a great solution, but can be expensive. A shower-head water filter is a lot more economical, and a good drinking water filter in the kitchen will likely not break the bank either. And don’t forget the cooking water! Aquasana is a water filter company that we are familiar with and recommend.

    6 – It seems like a lot of otherwise really smart people (like doctors!) fall for the Big Pharma promise of instant symptom relief instead of thinking their problems through and addressing the cause of the problem. Got a headache? Do you really believe that it’s because you have an Aspirin or Tylenol deficiency? Got high blood pressure? Are you sure that it’s a medicine deficiency? Are you sure that “hyperglycemia” is an Actos (diabetes drug) deficiency?

    We were not born with all these drugs in our body keeping is in normal health – and we do not become deficient in drugs as we age.

    We do become deficient in vitamins and other nutrients when our diet is not optimal, and stress and overweight and even wear and tear can cause our body’s delicate chemical balances to be thrown off – but these are things that can usually be corrected with diet and careful supplementation of things that nourish the body. There is usually no need to hammer on the body’s systems with the brute force of drugs.

    7 – One more mistake that smart people make frequently, probably because they really are smart and they are accustomed to researching and finding information on their own, is that they get their medical advice from a variety of sources.

    Unfortunately, those sources are usually not trained in medicine – they are the proverbial “butcher, baker, and candlestick-maker” who, while experts in their own fields, and filled with anecdotal stories of the miraculous cure experienced by the next-door neighbor to their Aunt Effie’s daughter-in-law, they really have little more to offer than “try XXX – it really helped my friend, and he had something kinda like you do…”

    When you need tax advice do you consult your car mechanic? When you need to diagnose a car problem do you ask your accountant? When you need someone to look after your books do you call on a carpenter? No? Well then, why would you get and follow medical advice from any of those people? Especially when there are highly trained medical people available who would be happy to help you…

    Or, better yet, there are some really smart people who actually go out and earn themselves a medical degree – from the “University of Google.” They plug their complaint into the Google search engine, push the button, and Voila! – instant education!

    Try using the search term “hypertension” – we just did and Google gave “About 65,500,000 results”. For the math challenged, that is sixty-five and a half million results. Everything from scholarly articles from the National Institutes for Health (N.I.H.) to “advertorials” promoting Viagra for hypertension in women. Yikes! How is a person to know what is real and what is hype?

    Then there are the really, really, really smart people:

    These are the people who recognize that they are very smart in whatever field of endeavor they are really smart in, and they know that there is not enough time in a day for them to become really smart in every other subject – especially one as complicated as medicine. These are the people who are smart enough to know that there are other people who are really smart at medicine (though they might not know much about tax law or hotel management) and they seek out those smart medical people when they need medical advice.

    They carefully and faithfully follow the advice that they receive – though there is always some give-and-take, and much discussion about goals and strategies. After all, really smart people want to be actively involved in they medical care and demand to be a part of the decision-making process for their health regimens and strategies.

    Those are the people we like the best, here at The Wellness Club!