Health & Wellness


Nearly four percent of U.S. babies born before full-term without medical reason

© Phil Masturzo
Study showed that early elective deliveries made up more than 3 percent of U.S. births each year over the past 20 years.
New University of Minnesota research out this week is the first of its kind to show who is having early elective deliveries between 37 and 39 weeks gestation, and whether these deliveries happen following labor induction or cesarean.

Labor induction or cesarean delivery without medical reason before a baby is considered full-term at 39 weeks, or an "early elective delivery," is associated with health problems for mothers and babies.

The study, led by University of Minnesota School of Public Health Assistant Professor Katy Kozhimannil, Ph.D., M.P.A., in collaboration with Children's Hospital of Philadelphia researchers Michelle Macheras, M.A., and Scott A. Lorch, M.D., M.S.C.E., appears in this month's edition of the journal Medical Care.

Researchers reviewed data linking birth certificates with hospital records for all births in California, Missouri and Pennsylvania between 1995 and 2009. The three states represent approximately 20 percent of all U.S. births and encompass a wide range of sociodemographic characteristics and geographic locations.

"Our study showed that early elective deliveries made up more than 3 percent of U.S. births each year over the past 20 years. This may seem to be a small number, but with 4 million births a year in the U.S., each percentage point represents 40,000 babies," said Kozhimannil. "In addition, we showed that there are important sociodemographic differences in the chances a pregnant woman has an early electivecesarean or an early elective induction of labor."
Cupcake Pink

Elevated blood sugar relates to dementia

David Perlmutter, MD, FACN, ABIHM is a Board-Certified Neurologist and Fellow of the American College of Nutrition who received his M.D. degree from the University of Miami School of Medicine where he was awarded the Leonard G. Rowntree Research Award. After completing residency training in Neurology, also at the University of Miami, Dr. Perlmutter entered private practice in Naples, Florida where he serves as Medical Director of the Perlmutter Health Center and the Perlmutter Hyperbaric Center. He is recognized internationally as a leader in the field of nutritional influences in neurological disorders.

Dr. Perlmutter is also the author of the international #1 bestseller "Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth About Wheat, Carbs and Sugar - Your Brain's Silent Killers." Dr. Perlmutter explains what happens when the brain encounters carbs and gluten, why your brain thrives on fat and cholesterol, and how you can spur the growth of new brain cells at any age.

Comment: For more information, see:

- The Ketogenic Diet - An Overview
- Food for thought: Eat your way to dementia - sugar and carbs cause Alzheimer's Disease
- If You Have High Levels of Insulin Resistance, You Have a 65% Higher Risk of Alzheimer's
- High-carb diets increase rise of Alzheimer's disease


Ketogenic diet beats chemotherapy for almost all cancers says Dr Thomas Seyfried

The low-carb, high-fat ketogenic diet can replace chemotherapy and radiation for treating even the deadliest of cancers, said Dr. Thomas Seyfried, a leading cancer researcher and professor at Boston College.

In an exclusive interview, Dr. Seyfried discussed why the ketogenic diet has not been embraced by the medical community to treat cancer despite its proven track record both clinically and anecdotally.

"The reason why the ketogenic diet is not being prescribed to treat cancer is purely economical," said Dr. Seyfried, author of Cancer as a Metabolic Disease. "Cancer is big business. There are more people making a living off cancer than there are dying of it."

Comment: See the following links for more information:

- Low-carb ketogenic diet can combat brain cancer, says scientist Adrienne Scheck
- Low carb ketogenic diet can combat cancer because cancer is a metabolic disease
- Has cancer been completely misunderstood?
- 'World Cancer Day 2014' - The Cancer Pandemic: Forget Sugar! Blame The Smokers!
- Can a High-Fat Diet Beat Cancer?
- Diet for cancer cure: Starving cancer ketogenic diet a key to recovery
- 97 Percent of the time, chemotherapy does not work! Bigpharma greed and profits assure it's continued use, despite more effective and less toxic alternatives
- Terminal Cancer Patients Spend Final Days Suffering from Radiation Therapy That Does Nothing

On the ketogenic diet, see:

The Ketogenic Diet - An Overview

A great additional help is to reduce stress in the way of working on one's psychological issues and practicing meditation and breathing exercises. See the book When the Body Says No by Gabor Maté, M.D., for more information.


Surprise! How the American diet has failed

© Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg News
Enriched, and ingrained.
If you took a little bit of dairy, added a slightly larger serving of vegetables, fruits and proteins, and then piled on as many superfluous oils, fats, and grains as possible, you'd have a mock, but also a reasonably accurate picture of the modern American diet.

The Americans on average eat nearly 2,600 calories a day, almost 500 more than they did thirty years ago, according to the USDA, which uses food production data, along with spoilage and waste estimates, to approximate per capita consumption.

That increase alone should be enough to raise an eyebrow (or three hundred million), but what's most troubling isn't the increase in our caloric intake, so much as its make-up. Over 92% of the uptick in per capita caloric intake since 1970 is attributable to oils, fats, and grains. Thirty years ago, the combination was responsible for roughly 37% of our daily calories; today, it makes up closer to 47% of our diet.

Comment: While the author mentions oils and fats in the article, he is not clear or specific in his definition about what 'types' of oils and fats are bad and/or good.

Processed oils, such as vegetable oil, soy, canola and corn are toxic! The comment in the article below gives plenty of 'food for thought'


Attorney refutes Dr. Offit's vaccine exemption criticism

Pediatrician and pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit, who once said a child can safely receive 10,000 vaccines at once, has spoken out repeatedly against vaccine religious exemptions, implying that his opinion is more important than the fundamental moral tenets of a variety of world religions.

Pediatrician and pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit has spoken out repeatedly against vaccine religious exemptions.

For example, in one speech (PDF), he implies that since the Old and New Testaments and the Qur'an predate vaccines, these religions can't be opposed to vaccines. Sadly, Offit appears to suffer from a largely undiagnosed condition common among medical doctors, egoencephalitis (inflammation of the ego part of the brain), which causes its victims to mistakenly believe that their medical degree bestows upon them infinite, authoritative knowledge about everything. Surely one of the 250 vaccines currently in clinical trials or awaiting FDA approval addresses this concern, so there may be hope yet for Dr. Offit.

Dramatic recovery In Parkinson's patient with gluten free diet

Could gluten's toxicity extend to the nervous system, producing symptoms identical to classical Parkinson's disease? A new case study adds to a growing body of research indicating that wheat's neurotoxicity is greatly underestimated.

From schizophrenia to mania, autism to peripheral neuropathy, the central nervous system is particularly sensitive to its adverse effects.
A remarkable new case report describing the dramatic recovery of a 75-year-old Parkinson's disease patient after following a 3-month long gluten free diet reveals the need to explore whether there is an increased prevalence of silent or symptomatic celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity both in those afflicted with Parkinson's disease and the related multi-factorial neurodegenerative condition known as Parkinsonism.

Published in the Journal of Neurology,[i] the report notes that celiac disease often manifests with only neurological symptoms, even in advanced age. This may strike the reader as surprising, considering gastrointestinal complaints are the most commonly noticeable symptom; and yet, when the voluminous published literature on gluten related adverse health effects is taken into account, so-called 'out of intestine' expressions of intolerance to gluten-containing grains are far more common than gut-related ones, with no less than 200 distinct adverse health effects implicated. You can read our summary of the biological carnage exacted by this 'king of grains' here: Wheat: 200 Clinically Confirmed Reasons Not To Eat It. You will notice that harm to the brainfigures high on the list. From schizophrenia to mania, autism to peripheral neuropathy, the central nervous system is particularly sensitive to its adverse effects.
Alarm Clock

Teens not only eat the most sugar - they're seriously affected by it too

© Getty images
New research looks at how the adolescent brain responds to sugar consumption.

It's no secret that teenagers love sugar. One-fifth of the daily diet of a typical American adolescent comes from added sugar - more than any other age group. Half that sugar comes from sweetened beverages such as soda, energy drinks, and sports drinks. But there's more that sets a teen's relationship with sugar apart from an adult's sweet tooth. Not only do teens eat more of it, but it affects their brains differently too. That could have repercussions far more severe than a few cavities.

New research from Yale Medical School shows that sugar may change the still-developing adolescent brain by increasing blood flow to the parts of the brain that control reward and executive function.

Comment: Sugar is evil! It seriously messes with people's brain, regardless of age:


5 toxins that cripple your body and brain function

Ninety different symptoms have been documented as a result of aspartame consumption, including anxiety attacks, slurred speech, fatigue, depression, migraines, tinnitus, vertigo, heart palpitations, nausea, and muscle spasms.
With thousands of toxins circulating in the world, it can be very easy to just give up trying to avoid them. Our food supply has been denatured and our air and water have become dangerously polluted. However, there are toxins that we tend to expose ourselves to more commonly throughout our lives that disintegrate our bodies' optimal function. These 5 toxins will cripple your body and brain if left unchecked, so be aware of them, avoid them, and look for solutions to remove them.

Heavy metals

Heavy metals are not something that most people would concern themselves with in regards to food, air, water, and personal care products. But that would be a mistake as they are often at the root of many painful symptoms and disease processes.

Common exposure points to heavy metals include seafood, dental amalgams, vaccinations, personal care products, pots and pans, baking powder, smoke, paint, water, work sites, and chem trails. With the popularity of seafood, prevalence of mercury fillings, and an intense vaccination schedule, one can hardly get out of consuming heavy metals or them put directly into their body.

These deadly toxins can immediately wreak havoc causing chronic pain, fatigue, brain fog, confusion, poor memory, gastrointestinal problems, allergies, headaches, depression, skin problems, insomnia, paralysis, and more.

Learn more about heavy metals and how to remove them.
Light Saber

Prominent doctors declare their opposition to the planned expansion of statin prescribing

Sir Richard Thompson, President of the Royal College of Physicians, has pronounced himself along other prominent doctors against the statin industry.
There are, to my mind, two camps of doctors in terms of their attitude to statins. Some maintain these drugs are 'highly effective' and very safe (and might even be put in the water supply). Others (who bother to look objectively at the research) tell us that statins only help a small minority of people who take them, and have potential harms that are real but underplayed by statin proponents.

Well, some prominent doctors in the latter camp came out swinging recently in the form of a letter they have written to the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE - a body in the UK that sets healthcare policy and is considering recommending much wider the use of statins in people who are well).

The doctors raise a number of concerns about the planned expansion of statin prescribing and the evidence on which this mooted recommendation is based. The authors raise six major issues:

1. The medicalization of millions of healthy individuals
NICE is suggesting we treat ever more people who are healthy. The problem is, in healthy individuals with no evidence of cardiovascular disease, the benefits of statins are vanishingly small, though the hazards are real and significant.

2. Conflicting levels of adverse events
Many 'experts' claim that trials show statins rarely cause problems. Actually, there are many reasons why trials can simple missed harms (like screening out people who are intolerant to statins before the study starts or recognising harms once there is extreme derangement in blood values)

3. Hidden data
The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (CTT) regularly makes very pro-statin pronouncements based on the 'evidence' from trials given to them by drug companies. The problem is, no one is allowed to take a look at this data to verify it and assess its accuracy.

4. Industry bias
It is well recognised that industry funded studies tend to report more benefits and fewer harms than independently funded studies. The problem is, almost all the statin studies are industry-funded and subject to this bias.

Comment: As we have repeatedly said, the statin industry is the utmost medical tragedy of all times.

Cell Phone

Americans admit to dangerous distractions while driving

Road-trip season is upon us. Whether you're caravanning up to a beach house or dropping the kids off at camp, the summer months are some of the busiest on the roads. And that means it can be an exceptionally dangerous time, as well -- especially considering the results of a new Harris survey.

© The Onion
According to the Harris survey of more than 2,000 adults, Americans know what constitutes dangerous driving, but they still cop to doing it -- including driving while texting (!) and driving after too many drinks (!!). For example, despite a majority of those surveyed affirming that driving while talking on the phone is dangerous, 74 percent said they still did it. And while seven in 10 people knew that driving while talking on a hand-held phone was dangerous, only about half that number thought driving while talking on a hands-free device was also bad news. Though a minority, this group is right -- when it comes to traffic accident risk and reaction time, hands-free conversations have been comparable to hand-held in research.