STOP USING GMO "FOODS". NOW!

They are NOT real food.

*!*!*

I’m adding a special recommendation to my list for healthy living.

I've long told anyone who would listen that they can maintain – even regain – health by following some basic rules:

• Eat good food; eliminate processed carbohydrates and all sugars. Avoid all dairy that is from cows treated with growth hormone.
•  Drink clean water – filtered to remove toxins, especially fluoride.
• Avoid drugs, legal or otherwise, especially statins, PPIs, and synthetic hormones.
• Take a daily probiotic.
• Moderate exercise, 45 minutes three to four days a week.

The addition is ... AVOID ALL PRODUCTS THAT CONTAIN GMOs.

GMOs (genetically Modified Organisms) may well be the one thing that initiates and promotes bad health IN ALL LIVING BEINGS.  It damages us, our children, farm animals, and our pets.

Educate yourself by becoming familiar with the Non-GMO Project. Read their website. Download and use the apps they recommend. Eliminate all GMOs from your diet – and your pets’ – and tell the grocery stores you want to purchase non-GMO food for your family.

Yes, this JUNK is approved by our FDA, but that doesn't make it safe. It also casts serious shadows on exactly who our FDA is protecting. It certainly doesn't seem to be us.

We recently watched the movie, “Genetic Roulette”. It is disturbing, but so enlightening.  

Alpha Base Without Iron

The Alpha Base Difference:  • Excellent mineral sources, and a 2:1 Magnesium to Calcium ratio. • USP/NF ingredients wherever available. • Fully reacted minerals have a higher assimilation rate than others. • High levels of antioxidants, reducing free radical damage. • Formulated as the base regimen for all other Ortho Molecular products, ensuring that when taken properly, patients will be assured of non-conflicting dosages.
Alpha Base is the multivitamin/mineral formula I use and recommend. It is of the highest quality and it certainly meets the all of the requirements for a basic supplement.      Contrary to popular belief, most people do not need extra iron. Therefore we do not recommend anyone take additional iron without specific orders from their doctor. Larry Frieders, The Compounder
Click Here for more information

Nicotine Lollipops and THE Regulators

We received a call from THE regulatory agency last week. I was being "invited" to a conference call scheduled for this morning at 11:00 am eastern time. I was out of town and missed the first call. Being the persistent bureaucrats, they called again yesterday and spoke to my wife. She asked what the topic was and but didn't receive a clear answer - something about the compounded nicotine lollipops we have sold.

I received another call this morning about 10:00 central time asking if I was going to call in to participate in the conference call. The caller sounded like she was in a steel drum. Actually, it was a speaker phone. It was clear to me that she wasn't alone. This was an interesting scenario playing out: numerous official-regulator-people against me.

The combined salaries of THE calling regulators was probably greater than my gross sales for a year. Regardless, they were interested in talking to me. I inquired about the topic and about how many people were on their end of the call. It seems there were "4 or 5" listening in. I voiced my concerns and THE regulators agreed to call back with more details about the topic of the conference call. Yes. They did what they said.

Again, the speaker phone was in play, so I turned mine on as well.

Four of THE agents introduced themselves. There may have been dozens more in the room, but I believed them when they said there were only four. Why would I doubt THE regulators?

After citing numerous documents from THE official regulations, I was informed that I could continue to make and sell lollipops if I complied with yadda, yadda, yadda. I said, "that isn't going to happen, so we'll just stop making the lollipops". However, I asked to receive an official letter from THE regulators.

I figure I'd like to have something solid, in hand, to prove that I have accurately understood what THE regulators want me to do. Of course, I'll comply. After all, THE regulators were concerned about a whopping 285 lollipops I've sold over the past two years - some of which were purchased by and analyzed by THE regulators themselves.

In the end, it seems THE regulators have saved the day by getting me to stop the sale of nicotine lollipops without a direct prescription from a doctor.

I think nicotine supplements are a decent way to gradually cut back on cigarette smoking. The lollipop has advantages over the other products on the market. Some of the addiction associated with smoking is the involvement of the hands - putting the cigarette to the mouth, puffing, then moving the cigarette away. Sucking on a lollipop keeps the person's hands busy while they get the dose of nicotine.

From my perspective, it's far superior to slapping on a patch, chewing gum, or sucking on a lozenge. Where's the hand involvement in those activities? From that perspective alone, I suggest that an excellent way to offset the nicotine from a cigarette is to use one of our lollipops. Ask your doctor to prescribe them and you can get started today.

Doctors can also prescribe one of the potent antidepressants, which have been claimed to help people quit smoking. The side effects of the drug might kill the user (or someone in their immediate vicinity), but that would be fine because it is approved by THE regulators and made by a drug company.

Still, to me, the lollipop seems the best and safest method.

Appreciate that grain of salt

We live in a world where it seems things happen for a reason. If THIS, then THAT. Certain things probably CAUSE other things to happen.

It would be great if this were true. The fact is we don't know what causes anything. We perceive that two things are associated and sometimes the association is so strong that we connect the things in a cause-effect relationship.

 For every such relationship there is always an exception;

• pull the trigger and the gun doesn't fire,
• the match doesn't light the first time it's struck,
• the plastic baby bottle shatters when it falls three feet,
• people with a terminal disease get better and live a long life,
• not everyone who gets shot in the head dies,
• the treatment is often worse than the disease
• dead people are reported to have come back to life...

It would be great if this were true. The fact is we don't know what causes anything. We perceive that two things are associated and sometimes the association is so strong that we connect the things in a cause-effect relationship.

For every such relationship there is always an exception;

This means that nothing is 100% certain. However, we can't even be 100% certain about that comment because it might be possible that there are some things about which we can be perfectly certain. I can't come up with any right now, but it is still possible.

What am I driving at? Most of us want to believe that there are certainties and that there are real, certain things that cause other things. We want to believe that eating this thing or drinking that juice will cure our ills. We cite evidence and insist that our belief is certain. The problem is that, while some things are part of the cause, there are probably other things, many of them. We don't know all of the factors and I suggest we can't begin to know all of them. This is important, especially when it comes to health and well-being.

Health is commonly acknowledged to be one of the sciences.

Science is revered because it is through science that we have so many things. Just look around and pick something that isn't associated with a scientific discovery. In a practical sense, we can believe in the almost limitless power of science. After all, science got us to the stars and it helps us make amazing weapons. Entertainment wouldn't be near as dynamic without science. Despite all of the wonders of the process, science still fails us when it comes to health.

All of the "failure" we can think of might actually be the result of not having all the facts, or having facts and using them in a wrong way - but not knowing it. Here's an inane example that might make my point;

If we look at a graph of sneakers sold per year from 1970 to today, it would similar to a graph of obesity rates. A person could make a logical connection between sales of certain athletic shoes to obesity, going so far as to identify a positive correlation. That means that as sneaker sales climb, obesity rates also climb. This is inane because it is clear that there is something missing and we don't have to know the details of the missing parts to understand that the observed correlation between sneakers and obesity is not accurate.

The same kinds of missing elements are possible in all correlations and cause-effect situations. Think of the admonition to "take it with a grain of salt." This is more than just a saying. It holds a truth that tells us how to process and accept information we want to convert into a fact. While it might be a very good analysis, adding just one grain of salt (another detail, regardless of how small), can have devastating implications.

We have long held that there are differences between people. When I was in school we referred to this as "20% biological variability". The number might actually be 15%, 50%, or maybe even 100%, but the idea we were espousing is that what works for some people might not work for others. What is safe in clinical trials might prove deadly when used in larger populations.

This is important when the doctor tells us that we need a certain operation, or a drug. It is true when certain foods are said to be healthy - or even harmful. It is so often true that I suggest we elevate that single grain of salt to a new position of importance. It signifies all of the pieces of the cause-effect puzzle regardless of how many, how small, or how large. There is always something that can interfere with how we believe something will work.

The only reliable source of information about yourself is yourself.

Does this mean we can't trust anyone or anything? Of course not. It means we must be cautious, first listening to our own bodies, then evaluating how other information impacts us. Beliefs are important. We would not survive without them. Question beliefs - all of them. accept the ones that fit you and use them. Question them again and again as more information enters your world. Each data bit is another grain of salt that just might make things better, or at least make more sense.

Carbohydrate Detox - MISSION IMPOSSIBLE

I was asked to evaluate a 21 day detoxification program. Here's the basic premise;

"Removing sugar from your diet is the fastest way to lose fat and increase your energy. When your blood sugar is out of balance it causes depression, causes you to store sugar as fat instead of using it for energy, causing you to have highs and lows in your energy, and leading to diabetes."

I applaud every effort to cut back on simple carbohydrates - basically any carbohydrate that's white. These substances are a common part of every meal and snack in the Standard American Diet (properly referred to as SAD). The literature for this detox plan provides a list of over 40 sugars/carbs that must be eliminated from the diet for twenty-one straight days. If a person slips up once, they go back to day one and start over.

NO CARBS FOR 21 STRAIGHT DAYS.

While the goal is laudable, the process to achieve it is laughable - and for all practical reasons, IMPOSSIBLE. I can't come up with a single legitimate reason why anyone would publish such a program - unless the goal was to assure failure and then steer the person into a different form of treatment or therapy. That would be despicable, but I can't rule it out.

Let's start with the idea that processed carbs aren't good for us and couple that with the fact that they're everywhere we turn. The goal should be to eliminate them, but it can't be achieved. Now what?

Let's be real and make a conscious effort to avoid those kinds of things as much as possible. Perhaps we can consume fewer of them, less often, and in smaller amounts.

Instead of eating empty carbs every meal of every day (21 per week), do you think you could eat them only 10 meals a week (50% of the time), or even 4 meals per week (under 20%)? The key to my suggestion is that we should be consciously aware of foods that can be harmful and choosing to NOT eat them just because they're on the plate in front of us.

Instead of large orders of fries, eat part of a small order. There's no sin in leaving some mashed potatoes on your plate - regardless of how many starving people in the world would love to have them. Eat some plain yogurt instead of the packaged ones with fruit and sugar (a lot of sugar). No, don't switch from sodas to diet sodas - skip the soda altogether and have a glass of water or iced tea without adding sugar.

The most important pieces to this health puzzle are KNOWING the dangers, UNDERSTANDING that they are to be avoided, and then CHOOSING to cut back.

I use an 80/20 rule. As much as I would like to be perfectly healthy and always eat what's best for me, I have decided that if I'm good at least 80% of the time, I'm doing well. I think everyone can use this 80/20 approach to live a long, disease-free life.

What do you think?

Health or Health Care?

After reading this article at Mercola.com, I've come to a conclusion:

The whole damn system is screwed up.

People are being harmed and some of them even die, and one is too many. Drug makers know what they're doing and they should be held responsible for the damage they do in spite of knowing better.

I'm talking about personal responsibility not those silly financial "punishments" dished out every so often, such as the fines mentioned in the above article. GlaxoSmithKline is paying out $3 billion in fines - $1 billion to settle criminal charges, and $2 billion to cover civil liabilities. In 2009 Pfizer was similarly fined $2.3 billion to settle similar charges.

Who the heck actually pays those fines? The customers. You and Me. The "company" and it's officers don't pay a nickel and they take no personal responsibility and nobody goes to jail for any nefarious thing they do. Instead of punishing people who knowingly sell toxic drugs to unsuspecting patients, we throw kids in jail for smoking weed. The shareholders allow the criminals to stay in their jobs because the company's stock values remain high. In fact, the same people who mislead and distort the truth about their products receive beautiful bonus checks on a regular basis. If, by some remote chance, they run afoul of the stockholders of one drug company, they lay low for a short time and reappear at the head of just another drug company. They all seem to be in it together and there is no shame and certainly no effort to change the way they do their business. Yes, the pun is intended.

Let's keep in mind that the problems I'm focusing on are not unique to the drug industry. There has been almost a universal change in attitude, mostly in the "west", the industrialized countries - usually lead by the United States. 

Nobody is responsible for anything anymore.

A teacher once punched me in the mouth for being a "wiseass". I surely had it coming. I called my dad to pick me up and take me to the orthodontist because my braces were screwed up. What did dad do when I got in the car? I got a quick backhand and a verbal dressing down. I was solely responsible for getting bonked and he had to pay for it - just because I was his kid. There wasn't a single mention about how that teacher had overstepped his bounds. Today, a dirty "look" from a teacher seems sufficient grounds for a complaint to the school... "Nobody looks a MY KID that way and gets away with it!" The blame is ALWAYS focused on someone else.

Fixing it all is fairly straight forward. Sadly, nobody seems to WANT to fix it. It would mean that we'd all have to pull up our big girl panties and understand that when we point a finger of blame at anyone, we are pointing three at ourself.

The blame game is ongoing: The current president blames the last president. The Democratic party blames the Republican party. The movie stars blame their current temporary companion. The states blame the Federal government. The wage earners blame those who get government benefits. People blame their genetics and believe that there are things that MAKE THEM sick - and that it is someone's fault.

There is a constant din about "health care', yet there is nary a word spoken about real health. Instead, all the whining is about the cost and who is going to pay for it. Health care costs would drop in a heartbeat if people stayed healthy instead of running to a doctor for every sniffle. And, this mania about annual doctor visits add huge amounts of cost - often based on treatments for diseases that don't even exist, such as "pre hypertension" and "pre cancer".

Today I heard an ad on the radio warning us to get our vasucular systems checked and get treatment if we have a possibility of an aneurysm. I'm confident you've heard you ought to have your uric acid levels checked - even when you don't have any symptoms of gout. Your levels could be rising and might cause a problem. Of course there's a drug treatment for that. More drugs and treatments for diseases that don't exist and probably never will. All adding to the overall COST of health care. We aren't healthier by any means, yet the costs keep going up.

Cancer has long been a "problem" and it will remain so for a long time - or at least until the money runs out. Wear your pink ribbons. Walk here. Run there. Give, give, give. All that effort. All those dollars. Do you know that the options for treating breast cancer are barely different than they were forty years ago? However, in that time, there are significantly more breast cancers diagnosed. Throwing money at it doesn't seem to help, yet we will throw more money at it.

The issue is money, not health. It is always about money.

Some researchers are finally acknowledging that PSA tests for prostate cancer are inaccurate and misleading. While the government is now suggesting that they NOT be done, numerous urologists are arguing that men still need the tests. They don't work. They are expensive. They cause unnecessary surgery, drug use, and radiation therapy. They are an abomination, yet the medical specialists are insisting we still have the test performed.

Doctors pour statin drugs down our throats and we pay for them - and suffer the debilitating side effects - even though there is no evidence that cholesterol does any harm. Want some obvious evidence? You've heard that you probably need vitamin D supplements. Why? Vitamin D is made in our bodies by the combination of cholesterol and sunlight. Wait. We're taking drugs to lower our cholesterol and we slather on gunk to keep the sun off our skim. No cholesterol plus no sunlight equals low vitamin D.

The newest craze is "LOW T", the shocking discovery that men's testosterone levels decline with age. Of course, a few office visits, some lab tests, and some prescriptions will cure the "disease". I could write reams on this scam, yet all the guys I know are queuing up to pay for the visits, tests, and testosterone - even though they don't need it AND it might be harmful.

Seems that nobody cares as long as the money continues to flow.

Mammograms are harmful, yet they are still recommended for practically all women over forty.

• More costs.
• More limp diagnoses.
• More squashed breasts.
• More pain.
• Less health.

Those in charge have no interest in cures, health, or affordability. It is about power and money - mostly money.

Do I REALLY Agree with Walgreen's?

My daughter Lydia recently attended a concert at Ravinia. The printed program contained an ad from Walgreens that read:

"Sometimes, the best medicine isn't medicine at all. We're about helping people feel better. But we'll be the first to admit that occasionally, the best remedy for body, mind and soul is a blanket under the stars."

Ravinia is an outdoor venue north of Chicago where most of the patrons enjoy concerts from their blankets on the lawn. Some sit and listen and others go way out, bringing wine, glassware, and fine dining utensils - making the evening an event to remember. The reference to the blanket may only be focused on the Ravinia experience, but I want to believe that there is a solid part of Walgreens' philosophy that supports wellness, and feeling better over using more drugs.

Now, I am not suddenly becoming an apologist for "big box" drug stores, but I must applaud this effort. If you agree with me, consider making your feelings known to Walgreens. If you don't leave me a comment.

You can contact Walgreen's and tell them what you think. Use this link; Contact Walgreen's

Cataracts, tachycardia, arrhythmia and caffeine

I had cataract removal in 1977 and 1979 – at the age of 31 and 33. The doctors were stunned and made a test subject of me in a text book they were preparing.  Some years later I developed tachycardia and a variety of arrhythmias. Once, when I had been consuming inordinate amounts of caffeine I ended up in the hospital emergency department because of the rhythm problems. I was monitored for two days (no coffee during that time) and all seemed well – though the electro physiologist INSISTED I have a cardiac ablation. His office staff actually threatened me if I refused the procedure, but that's another story.

I did not have the ablation.

In the meantime I was prescribed atenolol (a beta blocker) to help control the arrhythmias. After improving my diet and eliminating caffeine, the problems diminished dramatically. I stopped the atenolol. The rhythm issues started again a few years later, so I again decreased caffeine and started taking atenolol when needed. That worked a little, but I was still experiencing a few bouts of rapid heart rate a couple of times a week. I wanted to not take drugs, but I sure didn't want electrical ablation of my heart.

During that time I discovered that there is a correlation between nitric oxide levels, heart rate, and humming. No, this is not a joke. Nitric oxide in the blood seems to calm the heart, slowing the rate, and the humming vibrates the nasal passages - the area in the body that can produce more nitric oxide when stimulated. Therefore, I tried humming when my heart rate seemed to be changing. Success. That's a trick anyone can use when confronted with a runaway heart rate. Also, massaging the vagus nerve can slow and calm an arrhythmia. The vagus nerve runs behind the eyes and also up the sides of the neck near the carotid arteries. Gentle massaging of these areas is also known to calm a runaway heartbeat.

Again, the humming and massage fixes were only temporary and I wanted something better.

By chance, six months ago I noticed a report connecting caffeine consumption with reduced levels of taurine and l-carnitine in some people. Also, by chance, I attended a presentation that mentioned the cardiac benefits of taurine and l-carnitine, both ingredients in a natural supplement product, Cardimax. I started taking two of those capsules twice daily and I can report that I am not having bouts of irregular or rapid heartbeats. There are no side effects except better heart rate, some improved memory, and a better ability to focus. I still have a cup or mug of coffee most days, yet my heart keeps a steady rhythm.

Is this a cure? Maybe. I'd prefer to think I have recognized some important things about my physiology and I've found a way to compensate for problems that cause high heart rate for me.

What's in Cardimax?

• Hawthorne Extract, long known to be a tonic for the heart.
• Taurine and L-Carnitine, both known to balance calcium and potassium, which are vital for heart function. Taurine also reinvigorates natural killer cells of our immune system.
• Quercetin, a bioflavonoid with numerous beneficial properties against high blood pressure.

My personal experience can certainly not be interpreted as proof that Cardimax does anything positive. Yet, using this product is the only change I've made recently in my life and my heart rhythm is normal and I don't have "attacks" of arrhythmias. Therefore, I heartily recommend Cardimax to anyone who is concerned about heart health, high blood pressure, and high heart rates.

Relieve Itching with Naltrexone Cream?

Naltrexone seems to offer numerous health benefits, particularly at low doses. For years, we've been making naltrexone HCl capsules. We can make any strength the doctor orders, but the most common are 3.0mg and 4.5mg. Lower strengths are often ordered so the patient can adjust their dose to find one that's best for them. These oral doses are taken at bedtime and seem to offer great symptom relief for many people with immune disorders (multiple sclerosis, arthritis, psoriasis, irritable bowel disease, Crohn's, and so on). Dr. Bernard Bhari (one of the original prescribers of LDN) once told me that he'd suggest trying LDN for any and all conditions that are associated with the immune system. It is safe and there have been limited reports of side effects - which is to be expected in that the daily doses are in the range of 1% of the standard approved amounts.

In addition, some doctors order transdermal doses (applied to the skin in a base that helps drive the medication into the body). There are many reports about how effective this can be for the treatment of conditions such as ADHD. This is particularly helpful for people who respond well to naltrexone, but who cannot swallow capsules or tablets.

I have recently become aware of studies in Korea where naltrexone is made into a cream and applied to burn patients to relieve itching. The authors report relief in about 40% of the patients and claim that scratching is reduced in 44.5% of the users. This suggests that naltrexone topical cream would also be helpful for relieving itching from any cause - from bug bites, to severe topical rashes, such as eczema.

People who suffer from itches to the point where their scratching can be harmful might want to talk to their doctor and compounding pharmacist about using a naltrexone cream for relief. We've made such a preparation and find that strengths of 0.5% to 1.0% seem to be equally effective against minor itching.

People who find the common anti-itching products ineffective may want to try naltrexone. It isn't available commercially, but your compounding pharmacist can make it for you. Naltrexone is a drug that requires a prescription, but that shouldn't be difficult to obtain. Just ask your doctor to order "Naltrexone 0.5% Topical Cream", specify the amount and allowed refills. The cream is applied 3 to 5 times daily as needed to relieve itching. 

J Burn Care Res. 2009 Mar-Apr;30(2):257-60; discussion 261. Efficacy of naltrexone in the treatment of chronic refractory itching in burn patients: preliminary report of an open trial. Authors: Jung SI, Seo CH, Jang K, Ham BJ, Choi IG, Kim JH, Lee BC. Department of Neuropsychiatry, Hallym University Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

Pruritus (itching) constitutes a source of severe distress for burn patients. The authors administered naltrexone to burn patients suffering from itching that was refractory to treatment with antihistamine and anticonvulsant medications to examine the efficacy of this medication as a treatment for pruritus in burn patients. Nineteen burn patients admitted to the Hallym Burn Center at Hangang Sacred Heart Hospital in Seoul, Korea, with burns over 40.32% (+/-18.3) of their total body surface were recruited for this study. The mean number of postburn days before naltrexone treatment was 157.3 days (+/-114.7). The authors observed a significant decrease in itching sensations after 2 weeks of treatment with naltrexone (z = -3.32, P = .001). Scratching activity was also decreased in 44.5% (+/-20.5) of subjects. The authors propose that naltrexone constitutes a potential antipruritic medication for burn patients suffering from treatment-refractory itching.