Monday, August 31, 2009

Uh oh, the news is in

Cell phones cause brain tumors.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Caloric science is inherently flawed

Caloric science is flawed for several reasons. Don't believe the hype and don't worry about calories.

For one thing, it assumes 100% absorption, but we all absorb and excrete different amounts.
#2. It assumes that all calories are burned the same; but refined carbs are absorbed quickly, giving us a sharp spike in blood sugar and then a hunger-inducing crash.
#3 It assumes the same exercise done by different people will cost the same amount of calories, but it'll be a lot more effort for a heavy person to climb up a hill than someone who is in shape.
#4 It assumes the amount of energy released by combustion (burning) in the lab is the same amount as would be released when broken down enzymatically in the gut; but these are very different environments and processes.
#5 People in Asia eat 25-40% more calories than their American counterparts, but have less obesity. This is because of the types of calories they ingest.

If we eat like the Asians, we will look like the Asians (thin). When they eat like us, they look like us (not thin)

Learn more in The Asian Diet: Simple secrets for eating right, losing weight, and being well

Fact Check: Health care myths taking hold

found at yahoo! and written by Calvin Woodward of the Associated press.

WASHINGTON – The judgment is harsh in a new poll that finds Americans worried about the government taking over health insurance, cutting off treatment to the elderly and giving coverage to illegal immigrants. Harsh, but not based on facts.

President Barack Obama's lack of a detailed plan for overhauling health care is letting critics fill in the blanks in the public's mind. In reality, Washington is not working on "death panels" or nationalization of health care.

A new NBC News poll suggests some of the myths and partial truths about the plans under consideration are taking hold.

Most respondents said the effort is likely to lead to a "government takeover of the health care system" and to public insurance for illegal immigrants. Half said it will probably result in taxpayers paying for abortions and nearly that many expected the government will end up with the power to decide when treatment should stop for old people.

A look at each of those points:

THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said such counseling "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

The bill would prohibit coverage of counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, who has been a proponent of coverage for end-of-life counseling under Medicare, said such sessions are a voluntary benefit, strictly between doctor and patient, and it was "nuts" to think death panels are looming or euthanasia is part of the equation.

But as fellow conservatives stepped up criticism of the provision, he backed away from his defense of it.


THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.

THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.


THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.

THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.

At issue is a proposed "exchange" or "marketplace" in which a new government plan would be one option for people who aren't covered at work or whose job coverage is too expensive. The exchange would offer some private plans as well as the public one, all of them required to offer certain basic benefits.

That's a long way from a government takeover. But when Obama tells people they can just continue with the plans they have now if they are happy with them, that can't be taken at face value, either. Tax provisions could end up making it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage, nudging some patients into a public plan with different doctors and benefits.

It's unclear now whether Obama is committed to the public option. He described it recently as "just one sliver" of health reform, suggesting it was expendable if lawmakers could agree on another way to expand affordable coverage. Now the White House is emphasizing his strong support for it.


THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.

THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion, but the bill says a beneficiary's own money — not taxpayer funds — must be used to pay for the procedure. How that would be enforced has not been determined.

Obama has stated that the U.S. should continue its tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." Current laws prohibiting public financing of abortion would stay on the books.

Yet abortion guidelines are not yet clear for the government-supervised insurance exchange. There is strong sentiment in Congress on both sides of the issue.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Read this

This is borrowed from the website Please visit it to read the rest of the article.

Why dairy products won't help
you maintain healthy bones

Building strong bones and keeping them that
way is easier than you may have thought.

This Web page focuses on debunking a myth sold to the American public by a multibillion-dollar industry—an industry that has repeated its marketing message so often and for so long that most people now believe that dairy products are essential to bone health, despite extensive evidence to the contrary. The dairy industry has an army of dietitians, public relations consultants, and lobbyists on its payroll but does not have the evidence on its side.

The dairy pushers pay dietitians, doctors, and researchers to endorse dairy products, spending more than $300 million annually, just at the national level, to retain a market for their products. The dairy industry provides free teaching materials to schools and pays sports stars, celebrities, and politicians to push an agenda based on profit, not public health. Dr. Walter Willett, veteran nutrition researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, says that calcium consumption via dairy-product intake "has become like a religious crusade," overshadowing true preventive measures such as physical exercise. To hear the dairy industry tell it, if you consume three glasses of milk daily, your bones will be stronger and you will be able to rest assured that osteoporosis is not in your future. Not so.

After examining all the available nutritional studies and evidence, Dr. John McDougall concludes: "The primary cause of osteoporosis is the high-protein diet most Americans consume today. As one leading researcher in this area said, 'eating a high-protein diet is like pouring acid rain on your bones.'" Remarkably enough, both clinical and population studies show that milk-drinkers tend to have more bone breaks than people who consume milk infrequently or not at all. For the dairy industry to lull unsuspecting women and children into complacency by telling them to be sure to drink more milk so that their bones will be strong may make good business sense, but it does the consumer a grave disservice.

Much of the world's population does not consume cow's milk, and yet most of the world does not experience the high rates of osteoporosis found in the West.. .

Read the rest of the article at

Friday, August 14, 2009

The difference between "virgin" and "extra virgin" olive oil

what's the difference between Virgin Olive Oil and Extra Virgin Olive Oil? Virgin Olive Oil has never been laid. Extra Virgin is SO ugly, that it WILL NEVER get laid.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

What's wrong with socialized medicine?

The word "Socialized" conjures images of bread lines in Russia. Socialized only means that it is a service that everyone pays to provide. Right now we have many socialized services. The police, fire department, streets and sanitation, schools, medicare, social security, libraries, state schools, parks, water treatment, border patrol, coast guard, and military are all supported with your tax dollars. Why draw the line there? It could be argued that all of these group-expenditures benefit all of us. Protecting my neighbor from burglars protects my house too; putting out my neighbors fire protects my house; uneducated populace is a threat to my safety; etc. But I would argue that the health of your neighbor affects you as well. The higher his/her health risk, the higher everyone in his/her insurance plan has to insure. The health of a nation can be one of its greatest assets. For us, our poor health has become a huge liability.

We currently have socialized medicine here in the US. We also have a single- payer system. And then we have the pay-or-die system. The US military provides socialized medicine. The doctors receive a salary from the government so they don't need to try to maximize patient visits. The single-payer system is where the gov't acts as an insurance provider and is called Medicare. The rest of us have a pay-or-die system where if you can't pay, or if your insurance does not want to pay, you don't get treatment. Medicare and the Veteran's administration are consistently rated higher in satisfaction from their consumers, and they cost less. A lot of physicians and medical offices prefer working with government plans because they are not always changing the rules and dodging the way the private insurance companies do.

If I am traveling in France and get sick. They will treat me virtually for free. No one in France has a problem with this, because they all get free treatment as well. Most other industrialized nations have either socialized medicine or a single-payer system. And none of them would trade theirs for our system. Have you ben to Paris? It is nothing like the cold-war era Soviet Union. So don't be fooled by all this throwing around of the term "socialized".
This system of making profit off of illness, and others maximizing profit by not paying for treatment is terrible.

I am willing to pay more taxes to support this project. Right now, my family costs up to 20k a year to insure. I would gladly pay 3k a year more in tax if it would remove that 20k.

And as a business owner, why should I be responsible for paying for the health insurance of my employees? I cannot afford to hire anyone if I have to pay an additional 10k/year to subsidize their health care? Making businesses responsible for providing health care makes it harder for businesses to thrive. Everyone should contribute, and everyone should try to stay healthy. The government should run ads and billboards telling people to eat right and exercise.

Check out the Mad As Hell Doctors website.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Book Signing and lecture this Sunday

Come to the Evanston Public Library this Sunday (Aug 9th) for a lecture and book signing regarding "The Asian Diet: Simple secrets for eating right, losing weight, and being well. The event is free, and you get 1/2 price off admission for evey friend you bring with. The lecteure is ate 3pm. I hope everyone can come and learn how to become and remain healthy.