Welcome to Sott.net
Wed, 23 Aug 2017
The World for People who Think

Health & Wellness
Map

Ambulance

UK midwives renege on campaigning for natural childbirth


The college no longer wants people to think there is anything wrong with caesareans. Doctors have welcomed the change in language .
Midwives are backing down on their decade-long campaign for natural childbirth - because they say it makes women feel like failures.

Pregnant women will no longer be told that they should have babies without medical intervention as part of an overhaul of professional guidance.

The Royal College of Midwives have announced they want to avoid giving the impression that interventions such as caesareans and epidurals are abnormal.

Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the college, denied that the 'campaign for normal birth' which has run since 2005, has compromised the safety of women and unborn children.

She admitted, however, that it had 'created the wrong idea' and would be ended.

Health

How to decrease the lectin content in your food

Lectins1 - sugar-binding plant proteins that attach to cell membranes - may be a hidden source of weight gain and ill health, even in an otherwise healthy diet. In fact, since lectins are present in most plant foods, if you're eating a whole food diet yet find yourself still struggling with weight gain and/or stubborn health problems, lectins may well be a hidden culprit.

Many lectins are proinflammatory, immunotoxic, neurotoxic and cytotoxic. Certain lectins may also increase blood viscosity, interfere with gene expression and disrupt endocrine function.

The problem with recommending an altogether lectin-free diet is that this would eliminate most plant foods,2 which should ideally make up the bulk of your diet. Moreover, in small amounts, some lectins can be quite beneficial,3 so 100 percent avoidance is likely neither possible nor ideal. They key then becomes finding a happy medium where the worst lectins are avoided, and the effect of others are tempered through proper preparation and cooking.

How Lectins Can Wreck Your Health

Before we get into strategies to reduce lectins in your diet, let's review the reasons why. As explained in Dr. Steven Gundry's 4 book, "The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in 'Healthy' Foods That Cause Disease and Weight Gain," some plant lectins can contribute to leaky gut by binding to receptor sites on your intestinal mucosal cells, thereby interfering with the absorption of nutrients across your intestinal wall.

As such, they act as "antinutrients," and can have a detrimental effect on your gut microbiome by shifting the balance of your bacterial flora. Among the worst culprits are wheat germ agglutinin (WGA), found in wheat and other seeds in the grass family.5

Comment: Beyond Gluten-Free: The Critical Role of Chitin-Binding Lectins in Human Disease


Eggs Fried

A vascular surgeon explains why he ditched statins for more meat and less sugar, lowering his cholesterol in the process

© Fotolia
For eight years, I faithfully popped atorvastatin pills, without side effects. Then, one day last May, I stopped. It wasn't a snap decision; after looking more closely at the research, I'd concluded statins were not going to save me from a heart attack

When I had a routine health checkup eight years ago, my cholesterol was so high that the laboratory thought there had been a mistake. I had 9.3 millimoles of cholesterol in every litre of blood - almost twice the recommended maximum.

It was quite a shock. The general practitioner instantly prescribed statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs that are supposed to prevent heart disease and strokes. For eight years, I faithfully popped my 20mg atorvastatin pills, without side effects. Then, one day last May, I stopped. It wasn't a snap decision; after looking more closely at the research, I'd concluded statins were not going to save me from a heart attack and that my cholesterol levels were all but irrelevant.

Folder

The Poison business: The Monsanto papers reveal media, science, and regulatory collusion

Major tectonic shifts have occurred around the historically secretive multinational corporate structure of Monsanto, forcing transparency, furthering the public debate, and assisting lawsuits that expose the true nature of Monsanto's toxic product and its multi-level collusion to hide the fact of its carcinogenicity.

The public and regulatory pushback against Monsanto's flagship herbicide Roundup® and its active ingredient glyphosate has slowly simmered for years and now appears to be hitting breakaway speeds. A large regulatory blow to Monsanto was the 2015 decision of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to give glyphosate a Group 2A designation of being "probably carcinogenic to humans." The second blow came in June 2017 when California state's health officials added glyphosate to the list of chemicals that can cause cancer under California's Proposition 65.

Comment: The "Poison Papers" represent a vast trove of rediscovered chemical industry and regulatory agency documents and correspondence stretching back to the 1920s. Taken as a whole, the papers show that both industry and regulators understood the extraordinary toxicity of many chemical products and worked together to conceal this information from the public and the press.
But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the 'extensive' work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much). As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product's active ingredients.
"EPA's minimal standards do not require human health data submissions related to the formulated product - here, Roundup. Instead, EPA regulations require only studies and data that relate to the active ingredient, which in the case of Roundup is glyphosate. As a result, the body of scientific literature EPA has reviewed is not only primarily provided by the industry, but it also only considers one part of the chemical ingredients that make up Roundup."
Meanwhile, if that's not enough for you, Donna Farmer, Monsanto's lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she "cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer" because "[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup."



Footprints

Why flip-flops are not the best choice for daily footwear

Especially in colder climates, summertime means the bliss of putting away coats and boots and hauling out shorts and flip-flops. It's great to step outside, wriggle your toes and literally cool your heels without restriction. Best of all, you can just slip them on and go - no lacing, zipping or buckling required. But are flip-flops your best bet for foot health? You probably already know the answer is not so much.

As the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) reports, 198,437 emergency room visits in 2014 were due to shoe-related injuries, and flip-flops were blamed for 25,300 of them.1

Podiatrist and foot and ankle surgeon Dr. Christina Long, from Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, says summer is the time people with flip-flop-related foot conditions start showing up at her door. Most of them are due to the unstructured nature of flip-flops, which result in a lack of support for your feet. Medicine Net quoted Long:
"Flip-flops don't offer any arch or heel support, and you have to grip them with your toes to keep them on. Wearing them for too long or for the wrong activity can cause a lot of different problems."2
Dr. Jordan Metzl, from the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, says he sees a lot of people coming in for help with pain due to suddenly wearing flip-flops every day after having worn better-constructed shoes all winter.3 Much of the pain comes from having too much pressure placed on your tendons and bones, known as "overuse" injuries, and even from altering your foot structure.

Alarm Clock

Surprise! Big Pharma is hindering treatment of the opioid addiction epidemic

© AP Photo/David Dermer
Paul Wright, in treatment for opioid addiction in June 2017 at the Neil Kennedy Recovery Clinic in Youngstown Ohio, shows a photo of himself from 2015, when he almost died from an overdose.
"A crippling problem." "A total epidemic." "A problem like nobody understands." These are the words President Trump used to describe the opioid epidemic ravaging the country during a White House listening session in March.

The percentage of people in the U.S. dying of drug overdoses has effectively quadrupled since 1999, and drug overdoses now rank as the leading cause of death for Americans under 50.

Drugs do exist to reverse opioid overdoses or treat long-term opioid addiction. But while opioids have become easier and easier to obtain through illicit markets and sellers on the dark web, a drug that could save countless lives has become increasingly out of reach.

Water

267 contaminants found in America's tap water

Research conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) revealed that hundreds of contaminants are present in U.S. tap water. To be exact, EWG revealed that 267 out of 500 contaminants were detected during tests conducted by more than 48,000 utilities companies across 50 states. This shows that no matter where you live in the U.S., your tap water is very likely contaminated.

Of the 267 contaminants found,
  • 93 were linked to an increased risk of cancer,
  • 78 were associated with brain and nervous system damage,
  • 63 were connected to developmental harm in children or fetuses,
  • 38 were contaminants that could cause fertility issues; and
  • 45 were endocrine disruptors.
Here are a couple more important details about EWG's findings:
  • Over 80% of water systems had known or likely carcinogens at levels that exceeded health guidelines
  • More than 19,000 public water system had lead levels considered potentially-harmful for formula-fed babies, at above 3.8 parts per billion

Syringe

Clinical Rheumatology study: Vaccine manufacturers & FDA regulators caught hiding risks of HPV vaccines

A new study published in Clinical Rheumatology exposes how vaccine manufacturers used phony placebos in clinical trials to conceal a wide range of devastating risks associated with HPV vaccines. Instead of using genuine inert placebos and comparing health impacts over a number of years, as is required for most new drug approvals, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline spiked their placebos with a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant and cut observation periods to a matter of months.

Researchers from Mexico's National Institute of Cardiology pored over 28 studies published through January 2017-16 randomized trials and 12 post-marketing case series-pertaining to the three human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines currently on the market globally. In their July 2017 peer-reviewed report, the authors, Manuel Martínez-Lavin and Luis Amezcua-Guerra, uncovered evidence of numerous adverse events, including life-threatening injuries, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths, reported after vaccination with GlaxoSmithKline's bivalent Cervarix vaccine and Merck's quadrivalent or nine-valent HPV vaccines (Gardasil and Gardasil 9). Pharmaceutical company scientists routinely dismissed, minimized or concealed those injuries using statistical gimmicks and invalid comparisons designed to diminish their relative significance.

Health

Lung cancer rates among non-smokers doubled in the last decade; air pollution blamed

The number of lung cancer cases among non-smokers has doubled in the last decade, with experts blaming air pollution on the rise.

If the trend continues, the number of deaths from lung cancer among non-smokers will leapfrog those among nicotine users in a decade.

Previously, nine in ten cases of the disease were linked to cigarette use, but this proportion has decreased as more people shun the habit.

The increase in lung cancer rates among non-smokers was noted by experts at the UK's largest cancer surgery centre, London's Brompton Hospital and Harefield NHS Trust, The Times reported.

National data regarding lung cancer among non-smokers is hard to obtain, so other researchers are yet to notice the trend.

However, a similar trend has been observed in America.

Comment: One obvious question: If pollution can cause lung cancer in never-smokers can't it cause lung cancer in smokers too? And finally...Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer


Pills

From prescription to addiction: Investigation shows Big Pharma bribed 68,000 doctors to push deadly opioids

© Real Leaders
More than 68,000 doctors received payments in excess of $46 million - in the span of just 29 months - from Goliath pharmaceutical corporations pushing opioid painkillers, researchers in a groundbreaking investigation of Big Pharma's and the epidemic of legal and illicit opiates plaguing the United States.

Money to push opioids found one doctor in 12, and the rampant destruction wrought upon countless American families forced to cope with loved ones dependent on prescription painkillers, or on heroin sought when those ran out, proves circumstantially the dollars did their job.

"The next step is to understand these links between payments, prescribing practices, and overdose deaths," Scott Hadland, a pediatrician and author of the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, told the Washington Post.

Comment: Trump declares opioid crisis a 'national emergency'
"The opioid crisis is an emergency, and I'm saying officially right now it is an emergency. It's a national emergency," President Trump told reporters before a security briefing on Thursday at his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.

"We're going to spend a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money on the opioid crisis."

Trump told reporters the drug crisis afflicting the US is a "serious problem the likes of which we have never had" and said he's drawing up documents "to so attest."
The question now is will Trump and his 'documents' go after Big Pharma and their role in the opioid epidemic?