Apocalypse? Change in Consciousness?

I confess to not liking TV in general, although I have enjoyed most of the shows on "Ancient Aliens" because they seem plausible to me.  For months now the same channel has carried segments about The End Times (Apocalypse) delivered by various prophecies from the Mayan Calendar and the Hopi Indians to Nostradamus. The chapters of Revelations from the King James Version of the Christian New Testament fits right in, with descriptions of gruesome stages to destruction.

I'm sure there are people who hold the subconscious fear that the prophecies may be right. There have been days when even I have thought it would be fitting and justified, in order to wipe out the greed/evil being carried out this lovely blue planet. But, would it, really? I worry that any survivors would still carry the concept of greed in their hearts.

Wikipedia has this to say: An apocalypse, translated literally from Greek, refers to a revelation of something hidden, although this sense did not enter the English language until the 14th century. In religious contexts it is usually a revelation of hidden meaning - hidden from human knowledge in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception. 

In the Revelation of John, the last book of the New Testament, the revelation which John receives is that of the ultimate victory of good over evil and the end of the present age. In chapter 20, John receives a vision of a thousand-year reign of the Christ/Messiah upon the earth. 

I interpret that reign as a Time of Peace and Love regardless on one's religious beliefs, and the end of an "age", not the end of the world. I also don't think it will be a pleasant passage, as greed/power doesn't give up easily.

Not everyone follows the Judea-Christian beliefs, but most of us in this country have grown up exposed to them, along with the many other religious faiths around the world that hold in common the belief in good vs. evil. 

However, I think in order to wipe out Evil, there will have to be a change in Consciousness rather than mass destruction with few survivors. The possibility that Monsanto, on Dec. 21, 2012, would awaken with a change of heart staggers my imagination.

Indentured Politicians - What's in it for Them??

I came across an interesting term recently, new to me but maybe not to you. It really explains a LOT! The term is "Indentured Politicians". Does that need any explanation? LOL.

But just in case it needs explanation, "indentured politicians" are those who "owe favors" to the big contributors to their election campaigns, and the politicians return the "favor" by voting in favor those contributors when new laws (and other regulatory federal legislation) come up for votes, rather than voting the requirements of the population they are charged to represent. I'm posting my thoughts about this here because I believe it explains why the regulatory agencies for our food systems have gone bonkers.

When it takes millions of dollars (or sometimes billions of dollars depending on the office sought) to be successful in a political campaign, is it any wonder why big corporations see an advantage to finance a candidate who will favor the corporation's interests in future legislation?

One interesting question I have, is why a candidate will spend millions of dollars campaigning for a position that pays far less than they spend to get there? What else is in it for them? The current salary (2011-2012) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. House Representatives are elected for a 2 year term, and Senate representatives for 6 years.

In order for a member of the House of Congress to qualify for a pension, they would have to be elected 3 times, for a total 6 year payout of $1,044,000, which is far less total salary than what they spent to get it. A Senator only has to serve 1 term (6 years) to qualify for a pension; same pay for 1 Senate term of 6 years that a Congressional Representative gets for 3 terms (6 years, $1,044,000), far less than either spent to get there.

So, where's the payoff for election to federal office, when you consider cost to get there versus salary once there? It certainly IS NOT in the salary, and probably not even in Employee Benefits, although the overall "esteem" of the Office no doubt strokes their ego. That STILL doesn't cut it in the money balance.

• In a complex system of calculations, administered by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.
• During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.
• From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year. ($3,000 of 1855 dollars would be worth: $78,947.37 in 2012)

Please note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to receive a pension.

The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (80% of the current pay of $174,000 is $139,200. I could live on that!)

President's Salary
Effective January 1, 2001, the annual salary of the president of the United States was increased to $400,000 per year, including a $50,000 expense allowance. Please note that the Presidential salary doubled in 2001.

The increase was approved as part of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-58), passed in the closing days of the 106th Congress.

"Sec. 644. (a) Increase in Annual Compensation.--Section 102 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking '$200,000' and inserting '$400,000'. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect at noon on January 20, 2001."

Vice President's Salary
The salary of the vice president is currently (for 2011) $230,700. (BTW, who IS our VP [yes, I do know his name] and what does he do? I never see his name in the news.)

Presidential Retirement and Maintenance
Under the Former Presidents Act, each former president is paid a lifetime, taxable pension that is equal to the annual rate of basic pay for the head of an executive federal department -- $199,700 in 2011 -- the same annual salary paid to secretaries of the Cabinet agencies.

Each former president and vice president may also take advantage of funds allocated by Congress to help facilitate their transition to private life. These funds are used to provide suitable office space, staff compensation, communications services, and printing and postage associated with the transition. As an example, Congress authorized a total of $1.5 million for the transition expenses of outgoing president George H.W. Bush and Vice President Dan Quayle.

So, where IS the payoff? It sure doesn't appear to favor Joe Citizen who voted for Representation in Congress.

Giving up Sodas

Photo by fimoculous 

The New York Times posted a couple of articles recently about doctors and under-the-table payments. One article is Who Else is Paying Your Doctor? and the other is Drug Firms to Report Money Paid to Doctors. I think that's a good start (at least for reporting), maybe actually enabling us to know who pays our doctors, assuming we can ever find the reports... but I think there's much more to health care than "the doctor".

It seems to me that prevention is the least expensive way to be healthy, and going to doctors for treatments once you become ill is the most expensive. Plus, when something goes wrong (as it eventually will with a poor diet) the doctors may not "cure" you. They may merely prescribe drugs, treatments, or maybe operations that permit you to live with your afflictions. 

It has been five years since I had surgery to remove my gallbladder, but in retrospect I think it could have been prevented if I had known as much about eating right, and real food, as I do now. If so, I wouldn't have had the surgical expense and aftercare, the trauma to my body being cut open, and I sure wouldn't have the resulting adhesions that now double me over occasionally.

Drugs and/or operations are for the most part just crutches after the injury. Eating right is far cheaper in the long run, and the resulting quality of life is far greater... and that's the advantage of prevention over treatment.

The problem is that we are complacent, even with less than optimal health, and no one wants to give up their sodas, diet sodas, artificially sweetened fake coffee creamers, donuts, chips, McD's and other junk food. We even fool ourselves into believing that sweetened fruity, non-fat yogurt is actually healthy! No one wants to increase their food budget with organic salad greens, fruits, vegetables and free-range eggs/meats in place of sodas, chips, donuts, burgers, fries and pizza, even though they would probably come out cheaper without the junk in the grocery line, not even even considering the additional cost of medical care later on.

Our Disposable Elderly

Dinner Time Parking at Adult Care by ol slambert

Whatever happened to multi-generational living in homes? Why did we give up the responsibility of personal care of the now-elderly folks in our families... those same folks who hand-fed us and changed our diapers, wiped our tears and put band-aids on scraped knees when we were mere helpless infants and children?

I guess my real question is, why did I? Were the subtle messages broadcast over the years about the elderly being disposable so strong in my psyche? The message that we never needed to plan ahead for elder care because someone else would care for them... (usually with money provided by our tax system, and the gained profits for BigPharma meds and "medi-care")?

That we needn't ever get our hands dirty changing their adult diapers if they became incontinent? That message rode right along on the message about throwing things "away"... "away" being simply some "other place" where we didn't have to look at the mountains of our unwanted things, or dirty, smelly garbage, or the unpleasant drooling mouth of a stroke victim who still needs to be fed.

Until about a hundred years ago, it was accepted that families would care for the elderly in their own homes, however unpleasant it might get to be, or however cantankerous they might be. It was also accepted that as the younger generations married, they might still live at home too, and raise their families in the same home with their parents, and maybe even grandparents. I am coming to believe the interactions and responsibilities of multi-generations living together were healthy for everyone, on many levels we don't see or even acknowledge today.

By the time I was in my 30's, nursing homes were accepted as the norm, and my father's mother was put in one. I never saw much of her after my parents divorced when I was 5, so I wasn't close to her. I wasn't even living in the same part of the country later on, and I don't know why she was put in a nursing home. I flew down and visited once; she was ambulatory (with a walker) and had all her mental and physical faculties. My retrospectoscope tells me now that she was angry about being thrown away, though. 

For 40 years since then, I have thought that nursing homes need to have a nursery or day school school attached, and an animal care facility... so that our elderly are not deprived of those daily interactions. I also believe they need a wheelchair-accessible garden so they can continue to grow flowers... or tomatoes. Now I am questioning if that's enough, and I'm thinking not.

I lamented (although I admit, not too loudly at the time) that I was unable to care for my Mother after her stroke and my sister sent her to me. My excuses were that ➀ I had no physical space unless she slept with me in my double bed (not happening!) and ➁ I didn't have the physical strength to lift her, whether for a bath or just to use the toilet (or get her up from the floor when she fell, which was often). The alternative was Assisted Living, so there she went... kicking and screaming the whole time... and indifferent to me when I visited. I believe she died of loneliness and a broken heart, not disease.


Now I wonder... had always known and believed that sooner or later I would have the responsibility to care for an aging parent, would I have planned accordingly, enough so that I could have done things differently? 

At this moment I am going through my step-mother's rapidly failing physical and mental health, and her desire (when lucid) to forsake all medication and end it all. Would I do differently? No, I'd do whatever it took to never be thrown adrift into a nursing home, if I was able to take such action. Most of us are never able, by the time we are candidates for nursing homes.

My step-mother probably had a huge say in my father's mother being put in a nursing home, rather than have Grandmother live with them. Is that action now a retribution? I doubt it, but who understands The Fates? My step-mother's home (for 30+ years) houses her oldest son and wife, 1st grandson, and now a great-grandson (whose mother abandoned him at birth).

My step-mother has lived in this multi-family household for many years, yet now she's mentally confused and in failing health after imagining herself as being discarded in recent years where meals, household responsibilities etc, are concerned. So I have to consider that just living with multi-generational family is not enough... it might also require good communications and interactions, as well as real food for good physical health. To be sure, that whole family has eaten the SAD diet (Standard American Diet) for many years, and no one in the household is in optimum or even acceptable health, not even the 12 year old chubby great-grandson.

But my point is: What have we lost, that thing deep and essential within ourselves, the pure need to connect to another... by treating our elderly as unloved, and unwanted trash to be thrown away?

2012... and Beyond

NASA Goddard Photo

The year 2012 should be interesting.

Many folks have an underlying (or at least partial) belief running through their subconscious mind that Nostradamus' and the Mayan "end of the World" scenarios might happen. However, most of our overt behavior indicates total disbelief not only in Doomsday predictions, but also in accepting the critical food/water/health situation worldwide. (Isn't the media wonderful?) Our changing weather patterns continue to impose hardships on many of our lives and gardens, giving credence to possible violent environmental changes that could be coming to this lovely blue planet we occupy.

Personally, I do not believe the "end of the world" will happen in December 2012. However, the environmental, economical and political changes are not only continuing, but increasing... and it could get right nasty down the road.

There is another prediction out there, proclaimed by many, that the "changes" will usher in a "thousand-year era of Peace". IMO, there is much that needs to be significantly altered before real Peace can happen.

On our food and health aspects for change, it is time for us to increase our awareness and ethical/moral responsibility beyond what the for-profit television and advertising media tell us... because ultimately our health/future Is NOT Up to Someone Else.

GMO's have proliferated simply because we didn't raise any flags in the beginning. It is our own fault. For too many years we have allowed ourselves to believe that others ("medical professionals and government officials?") know best, or at least know what they are doing. We are bombarded hundreds of times a day by subtle advertising messages indicating "they" are more educated and/or informed than we are, so the vast majority have given up individual responsibility for our own health and well-fare. Our self-inflicted ignorance has let the government (and us) buy into corporate hype of all kinds (which interestingly also put money in many, many pockets). 

Thus the many corporate tribes and alphabet government agencies motivated by... (power? greed? or something else??) have given us obesity and disease by catering to and building on a human weakness for convenience, sugar and other junk foods. We have become a nation of addicts... and we are addicted to all kinds of substances. For far too many people [including children], it is sugary beverages and junk foods, while for others it might be an escape into alcohol or drugs. But as with any addiction, we never think with 100% clarity under the influence... and will do almost anything to keep getting our "fix" in spite of what our minds know. 

As a nation, we eat more so called "food" and gain less energy (nutrition) from it all the time. The working mother eating the SAD diet (Standard American Diet) has NO energy left to prepare real food meals when she comes home from work, even if she could buy real food anymore in most places. (She says she doesn't have "time" but in reality, she also doesn't have the "energy".) So instead of having enough energy to prepare a real food meal, she barely has the energy to pick up junk fast food on the way home, or frozen boxed junk food to nuke for dinner for the family. Eating this way, she never gains a storehouse of energy for the next day, and simply repeats the process over and over, becoming more frazzled every day from lack of good nutrition. 

Adele Davis always said a food without nutrients would not support life, and her example was a loaf of factory bread left on the counter (unwrapped) for weeks. It might dry out, but it would not support any bacterial life to decompose it. If it won't even support bacterial life, how could it support life for us?? Recently someone left a McD's cheeseburger on the counter for a whole year, and nothing grew there either. It sustained no bacterial life. (Source)

Change is never easy, but for the most part it can be started in small steps. Two years ago when I changed my food intake drastically to eliminate adulterated foods all at once (including foods with added sweeteners), I thought I would starve to death during the first 2-3 weeks. It took a long time for me to learn to think outside the box and change from what I had been accustomed to eating for years, to finding real foods to eat. Then as I started feeling the increased energy every day from eating real food (and probably eliminating some built-up toxins during that time), I began to understand what sugar and chemical-laden foods do to my body.

Unfortunately over the last year, I have slowly added some adulterated foods back to my diet, and I really see the poor consequences, both in my energy levels... and my weight. The good news is that I never deviated from my commitment to eating only grass-fed meats. I'm doing much better now in avoiding chemical-laden packaged foods (thus no GMO's) but where I am still struggling is to get sugars out of my diet again. The traditional and accepted flush of sweet goodies over the holidays put me right back into sugar addiction, and I really cannot totally blame the food industry... They only make the stuff; it's my hand that lifts the cookie to my mouth. 

Then there are the sweets in other foods... "research and development teams have done studies and conducted taste panels that have found sweet sells. The more we sell sweet stuff the more people come to expect it. Sweet is found in loads of savory items. Sweet tomato sauces, crackers, salad dressings, mustards, coated chicken products, sausages, and more. Many of our fresh products are enhanced with sugar also. Butterball turkey, pumped brined pork loins, stewing hens. Our palates are being distorted by sweet." (Source)
 

Some small but positive steps:

Make a commitment to one family meal every week or two that contains only real foods. Nothing from a chemical-laden package (cookie/cake mix, packaged salad dressings, sweetened yogurt, BBQ sauce, yada, yada), no GMO's. You probably cannot escape the GMO's in the meats from factory meat animals, including chickens and their eggs, unless you can afford pastured meats... but start somewhere. No fake butters, no canola or soy oils (both GMO's), no sugar substitutes, nothing fake. I know many of the regular readers of this blog eat real foods almost exclusively... but perhaps just as many readers do not.

Make the time for a friendly email or telephone call to your local congressional representative saying you'd like to see food labels that state GMO or not, and hopefully even whether routine animal antibiotics in healthy animals were used. Tell them politely that you'd like to know what's actually in your food.

It may take years of persistence, but remember the soil in our yards is the result of eons of weathering effects on rocks that turned them into soil.

The 99 Percent Declaration

I've been watching the growing "Occupy" movement for several weeks with some curiousity, even though there seemed to be no particular agenda. Now a Working Group that includes pro bono lawyers and university students arrested in NYC for their peaceful demonstrations, have drafted The 99% Declaration. 

I will be following this closely because among other things, it addresses the greed prevalent in corporations that affect the laws of this country via political contributions and influence, which means they affect me. (Think BigAg, BigPharma, etc.)

The Working Group wants to draws up a formal petition of grievances voted by to-be-elected representatives of all congressional districts. The US Constitution provides for a petition of a list of grievances to present to the government, but apparently by Constitutional Law only a duly elected body can legitimize a list of demands from the People. Their proposal is only a starting proposal and sample list of just demands on the government, plus how they hope to accomplish it via elected representatives.

Their posted sample proposal includes a fair tax across the board (and cutting ALL tax loopholes), eliminating the contributions (open or hidden) that buy politicians, and a host of other proposals that sound sensible to me, from the War Machine to Health Care and Jobs. 

I encourage you to read the whole declaration... it's short and to the point. Who knows, it may even gain wide-spread support!

MacEverything... including Drugs?

We commonly now add "Mc" or "Mac" to a lot of words to create a quick visual impression. McMansions come immediately to mind!

I recently read a post about MacStatins where the author of the post (Stephen Guyenet) quoted a PubMed study: "Routine accessibility of statins in establishments providing unhealthy food might be a rational modern means to offset the cardiovascular risk. Fast food outlets already offer free condiments to supplement meals. A free statin-containing accompaniment would offer cardiovascular benefits, opposite to the effects of equally available salt, sugar, and high-fat condiments. Although no substitute for systematic lifestyle improvements, including healthy diet, regular exercise, weight loss, and smoking cessation, complimentary statin packets would add, at little cost, 1 positive choice to a panoply of negative ones." Mr. Guyenet and I both hope this statement was not a serious suggestion for fast food joints!

However, since there are now low-dosage statin drugs available over the counter, how far fetched is it in reality?

As Mr. Guyenet said, it would be far cheaper for industrial foods to add statins to foods (or make them available along with the condiments) than to educate the populace on how to eat well. A variety of studies show cultures that don't eat industrial foods are almost free of heart attacks.

Here's Stephan's alternative proposal: "Rather than giving people statins along with their Big Mac, why don't we change the incentive structure that artificially favors the Big Mac, french fries and soft drink? If it weren't for corn, soybean and wheat subsidies, fast food wouldn't be so cheap. Neither would any other processed food. Fresh, whole food would be price competitive with industrial food, particularly if we applied the grain subsidies to more wholesome foods. Grass-fed beef and dairy would cost the same as grain-fed."

Goodbye, Haagen-Dazs

Photo from joyosity's photostream

Haagen-Dazs is not quitting... I am quitting them. Or at least until they stop using rBGH (bovine growth hormone) milk in their ice cream. Several other major brands have now guaranteed their dairy products are rBGH-free: Ben and Jerry's, Starbucks, Yoplait yogurt, Dannon, Tillamook cheese, Chipolte restaurants, and many more.

Haagen Dazs, Breyers, Edy's, Nestle's, Baskin-Robbins and others have not.

rBGH is a genetically engineered bovine growth hormone developed and marketed by Monsanto for years until they sold it in 2008 to Elanco, a division of the Eli Lily drug company. The hormone is injected into cows to increase milk production by 10-15%. However, the drug causes many problems in dairy cows such as painful mastitis, deformed calves and lameness, and is linked to health problems in humans. It has been banned in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia and all 27 of the European Union countries since the year 2000, if not before. Of course, Monsanto assures us it is safe.

A 1991 report by Rural Vermont, a nonprofit farm advocacy group, revealed serious health problems with the rBGH-injected cows that were part of a Monsanto-financed study at the University of Vermont. Problems included an alarming rise in the number of deformed calves and dramatic increases in mastitis, a painful bacterial infection of the udder which causes inflammation, swelling,¹¹ and pus and blood secretions into milk¹². To treat mastitis outbreaks, the dairy industry relies on antibiotics. Critics of rBGH point to the subsequent increase in antibiotic use (which contributes to the growing problem of antibiotic resistant bacteria) and inadequacies in the federal government's testing program for antibiotic residues in milk¹³. The FDA relies on pasteurization to kill off bacteria, hormones and antibiotics in milk.

Injecting rBGH into dairy cows increases the amount of a substance called IGF-1 in their milk, by as much as six-fold (source). Why does that matter? The European Commission's authoritative international 16-member scientific committee reported the excessive levels of IGF-1 found in the milk of cows injected with rBGH may pose serious risks of breast, colon and prostate cancer.

How serious is the increased risk? According to an article in the May 9, 1998 issue of the medical journal The Lancet, pre-menopausal women with even moderately elevated blood levels of IGF-1 are up to seven times more likely to develop breast cancer than women with lower levels. (source) There are many links to studies about cancer risks from rBGH here.

How this nasty Monsanto drug became part of our dairy industry is well-noted in this article by John Robbins (son of Irving Robbins who co-founded Baskins-Robbins). Some of the other offensive moves by Monsanto and collusion by the FDA are reported (scroll down in the article) here. 

Several of my friends have developed breast cancer, and some had radical mastectomies. I'm appalled at the FDA for allowing continued use of unmarked rBGH in our milk supply (cheese, butter and yogurt are included, too). We are not allowed to buy raw milk because we "might" get foodborne illnesses, but we can have all the milk we want that could cause cancer.

So, Goodbye Haagen Daz... Goodbye Baskin-Robbins, Edy's, Breyers and anyone else who still uses rBGH in milk and milk products.

Heart Attacks, Supplements, Natural Vitamins and Minerals

Recently, the New York Times ran a piece about the correlation between heart attacks and supplemental calcium, based on this research posted in the British Medical Journal. The report concluded that calcium supplements increase the risk of myocardial infarctions (what we call heart attacks) by about 30% over five years. 

One of the problems I see with the report is that people believe what they read in reputable publications, whether it's the NYT or the BMJ. Actually, people tend to believe what the read in any publication, and if it is medical or nutritional research, that goes double. The average person has little training in medical research, and takes on faith what they read by someone with a degree, or in 'prestigious institution' publications.

My own in-depth look into medical and nutritional reports in general is what has brought me to the place where I now look closely at all research before I believe anything. Who paid for the research? Who benefits financially? What data did they choose to omit because it disproved their hypothesis?

In my opinion, the report above is in total alignment with the belief that we are too stupid to manage our own health. 

Even according to The Alliance for Natural Health, the report by the BMJ has some serious flaws. 

"It was another example of bad research, poorly constructed from a scientific point of view. But it does contain an element of truth that we all need to understand.

First, the research itself: Daniel Fabricant, PhD, vice president of scientific regulatory affairs for the Natural Products Association, said the results of this study go against years of research showing the benefits of calcium supplementation, and suggested that the authors of the research “cherry picked” the fifteen studies from hundreds of available research studies in the area.

Andrew Shao, PhD, senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), said that their conclusions are “dramatically overstated….Seven of the fifteen trials evaluated had no, or incomplete, data on cardiovascular outcomes…. Further, the researchers chose to exclude any trials administering calcium plus vitamin D—including the Women’s Health Initiative, which found calcium plus vitamin D had no effect on the risk of coronary heart disease or stroke.” 

This last point—about taking calcium with vitamin D—is vital but still incomplete.

Supplemental calcium should never be taken alone. It needs additional magnesium, vitamin D, omega–3 fatty acids, and vitamin K (in particular, vitamin K-2, which is especially important). Without these essential co-factors, the calcium may end up in our blood vessels or our heart, where it causes harm, rather than our bones, where it is needed. 

So long as these co-factors are taken as well, many studies have shown that added calcium plays an important role in building and maintaining bone mass—and also reduces the risk of colon cancer.

It is unarguably true that many people are taking calcium in the wrong way. The answer is NOT to stop taking it. There are enough cases of bone loss (osteoporosis) as it is. And the potential side effects of osteoporosis drugs are truly scary.

Here are some of my thoughts on supplements (and I do take some supplements):

Calcium occurring in a natural food form (lots of green leafy vegetables, dairy products like milk, cheese and yogurt, almonds, fish...) was not considered in the research above, but only calcium in supplement pill form, maybe even without magnesium in the compound. So we have no idea if calcium in food form might increase heart attacks; I somehow doubt it.

I don't really know what is true in that research controversy, but maybe I don't need to know if I look to Real Foods for much of my calcium, other minerals, and vitamins.  (Vitamin D is one exception, which I posted here.)

What is true of calcium tends to be true of all vitamins and minerals... they are naturally occurring in our Real Food supply, and our bodies can absorb and use their natural forms appropriately. No one overdoses on vitamins and minerals found in Real Foods.

This assumes, of course, that we know what foods to eat for the vitamins we need. Fast Food does not supply the vitamins we need, and so-called 'vitamin-fortified' foods like breakfast cereals either do not contain the proper balance of vitamins, or they contain vitamins in a form our bodies cannot utilize.

The other thing that is true is that all vitamins and other supplement pills are not alike, and many of the least expensive ones are imported, mainly from China, or are synthetically derived from coal tar.

Now, BigPharma is working to get a bigger cut of the vitamin market, notably the B vitamins which protect against heart attack and stroke. I expect we will see B vitamins like B6, B9 and B12 available by prescription soon, perhaps in response to research like the report above on calcium and heart attacks.

Of course, we all know you can get all those same B vitamins from Real Foods like animal protein (red meat and eggs are best), and some fruits and vegetables, don't we?? 

ps... The B vitamins are water-soluble, which means your body doesn't store any extra B's; you have to replenish them daily.

Vitamins, Couch Potatoes, and Government Regulation

July 4th, Independence Day, the day we celebrate our adoption of the Declaration of Independence, seems a good time to post this. Without any fanfare or media coverage, President Obama quietly signed an Executive Order June 10, 2010, Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council.

Sec. 5. National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy.
Not later than March 23, 2011, shall develop and make public a national prevention, health promotion, and public health strategy (national strategy)

(c) contain a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States...

The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) the Secretary of Labor;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Education;
(6) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(7) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(8) the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission;
(9) the Director of National Drug Control Policy;
(10) the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council;
(11) the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs;
(12) the Chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(13) the head of any other executive department or agency that the Chair may, from time to time, determine is appropriate.

One of the things this order does is to assure the USA becomes fully compliant with Codex:

Sec. 6. Reports.
(g) contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under subsection (d) of this section.

The CDC doesn't have a good track record with complementary and alternative medicine... and Vitamins and herbs, under Codex, are considered toxic substances which would be under strict regulation.

The U.K. is already under Codex, as are many European nations. Until 1996, the average German citizen could buy 500 mg Vitamin C tablets.. or 400 IU capsules of Vitamin E. Today the highest dosage available without a prescription is 200 mg Vitamin C, and 45 IU Vitamin E. (If I am coming down with a cold, I take 2,000 mg Vitamin C every 4 hours for 24 hours (per Linus Pauling, I think it was.) Works wonderfully.) In addition, our bodies need Vitamin C to work with Vitamins A and D for optimum health, and our foods contain far less of these natural vitamins with the increasing soil nutrient deficit.

In Norway, citizens can purchase 2.4 mg of vitamin B1, 2.8 mg of B2, 4.2 mg of B6, and 32 mg of niacin. Any dosage for these vitamins that exceed this level requires a prescription.
In Canada, any herb making health improvement claims is classified as a drug. In Europe, the European Economic Community (EEC) has said if an herb is medicinal, it is medicine and should be sold as a drug.

The original proposals for Codex came from Germany. They were made by a panel sponsored by three giant drug companies: Hoechst, Bayer and BASF. These companies resulted from the disbandment of I.G. Farben after World War II. BASF (of Germany) and LaRoche Holding AG (of Switzerland) recently pleaded guilty to the largest antitrust conspiracy as yet uncovered to fix vitamin prices. Each paid hefty fines. Source

As you ponder this, understand that Codex decisions override those of individual countries. When complaints are filed, they are settled by world courts with little concern about whether Americans get enough Vitamin C every day. Severe trade restrictions can be used by the World Health Organization to twist arms of nations into compliance.

Another disturbing clause is under Sec. 3, Purposes and Duties:

(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;

Who are the "relevant stakeholders"???

Who will enforce "appropriate exercise"... an armed Homeland Security Officer?

Per the President's order, he expects "changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition..."

I wonder what effect this might have on all the proven harmful GMO foods on our grocer's shelves? HA! Fat Chance.

There is a silver lining. This is our wake-up call to start eating right and get healthy. We can learn what's really good for us and not go by marketing propaganda, whatever the source. We can grow fruit, vegetables and herbs. We can raise backyard chickens and rabbits. We can plant Rugosa Roses for their wonderful rose hips full of Vitamin C. We can take responsibility for ourselves, our own bodies.

Pharmacies vs Health Foods

Chicken or the Egg...

Photo from cornalie's photostream

I'm not one for taking pills (pharmaceuticals) even though it looks like another one may be added to my regime, depending on results of the thyroid tests I just had done at the University of Virginia last week.

I have to question my own self whether it's the chicken or the egg syndrome. Do I not like taking pills because of all I've learned about Big Pharma over the years? Or do I just not like relying on something external to fix an internal "dis-ease"?

I'd guess most of us think most drugs are priced way too high so Big Pharma can make big profits, but I'd guess we also accept the costs of research and development are not cheap, either. Then, there's the matter of trust in any drug. I sadly remember the 10,000+ Thalidomide babies born with deformities in the late 1950's and early 1960's.

Recently, a large research fraud was exposed about a doctor who had published dozens of favorable research articles in medical journals for Pfizer and Merck pharmaceuticals. The doctor's study on Celebrex to reduce pain during post-surgical recovery was positive, yet he never even enrolled a single patient in the study!

Another study just released by the Senate Finance Committee shows GlaxoSmithKline deliberately hid evidence of harm from their diabetes drug Avandia. The document even shows FDA's own scientists had concluded that Avandia was responsible for more than 83,000 heart attacks yet still allowed the drug to be marketed.

I said I don't like to take pills, but I'm usually okay with taking an antibiotic if I have an infection, and reluctantly take a beta blocker only because I know I must to prevent additional harm to my body. However, anything I do take gets vetted on the internet for contra-indications, drug reactions, and so on.

That brings me to supplements. I take a few, mostly D3, calcium and Omega-3. I believe there are some supplements (but not all that many) on the market that make vast, unsupported claims and should be controlled or removed. We are too quick to believe the hype without reading the fine print. I also believe that in this age of nutritionally-deficient food, some supplements are necessary even though how much of any of them our bodies can utilize varies.

I was glad to see Senator McCain's Bill (Dietary Supplement Safety Act S-3002) looks dead in it's current form, but I still think Congress will try to pass some legislation to have total control over dietary supplements. Unfortunately, Codex Alimentarius will probably prevail in the long run despite fears of over-regulation: "It is reported that in 1996 the German delegation put forward a proposal that no herb, vitamin or mineral should be sold for preventive or therapeutic reasons, and that supplements should be reclassified as drugs." The proposal was accepted by the Commission, but not enacted because of protests. (See Codex link for source.)

What frightens me is that on the surface, Codex sounds protective of the public safety, but I fear it merely gives control to Big Pharma. Frankly, I think I am intelligent enough to choose to take any vitamin or dietary supplement without a doctor's visit and subsequent prescription.