AUTISM-CAUSING PESTICIDES FOUND IN BREAKFAST CEREALS & ELSEWHERE "Each year, more than 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on American crops, primarily on 'Roundup-ready' corn and soybeans genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide. But when it comes to the food we eat, the highest glyphosate levels are not found in products made with GMO corn. Increasingly, glyphosate is also sprayed just before harvest on wheat, barley, oats and beans that are not genetically engineered. Glyphosate kills the crop, drying it out so that it can be harvested sooner than if the plant were allowed to die naturally." From Dr. Temkin's article by the EWG being discussed today. Monsanto has a line of GMO seeds known as "Roundup Ready". The plants produced by Roundup Ready seeds have the ability to withstand being doused in the broadleaf weedkiller, Roundup. Although there are a host of health problems associated with exposure to Roundup or similar pesticides / herbicides (ENDOCRINE SYSTEM DISRUPTION is a major one), one is rightfully gaining a great deal of media exposure.
It's become obvious that there is an intimate relationship between GLYPHOSATE (Roundup's active ingredient) and autism --- a relationship which is becoming more pronounced with every published study (HERE and HERE) not to mention those that are never published (HERE). And now this. Last week we discovered from the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) testing of oat-containing cereals and cereal-like products (breakfast bars, granola, etc) that they all contained glyphosate; most of them significant amounts of glyphosate. In fact, one of the samples of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats contained a whopping 1,300 parts per billion (ppb), with another sample coming in at 1,000. And while several "TRUST US" governmental watchdog agencies have said that glyphosate is safe to consume in concentrations of 160 ppb or less, a quick peek at the chart produced by the EWG (using independently verified lab results) showed that several products contained much higher levels. For instance, Cheerios came in at almost 500 ppb, while Quaker Dinosaur Eggs, Brown Sugar, Instant Oatmeal averaged a stunning 700 ppb per sample. Study author, Dr. Alexis Temkin, wrote..... The EPA has calculated that 1-to-2-year-old children are likely to have the highest exposure, at a level twice greater than California’s No Significant Risk Level and 230 times EWG’s health benchmark. Did you catch that? 230 times higher? By the way, this is not the first study of its kind. Back in October of 2016, the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) published a report titled Do Breakfast Cereals Contain Endocrine-Disrupting Pesticides? which stated, "Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are natural or artificial substances that are foreign to the human body. Exposure to these chemicals can interfere with the endocrine system and induce many adverse effects on an individual or on a person's children or grandchildren. Many pesticides or biocides are either proven or strongly suspected to be EDCs. On average, 9.4 residues were found in the non-organic samples. Of the 70 non-organic samples that could be quantified, the average concentration of residues was .177 mg/kg per sample - a level 354 times higher than the maximum allowable concentration (MAC) tolerated in drinking water for all pesticides!" And now this; just days ago the American Journal of Psychiatry (Association of Maternal Insecticide Levels With Autism in Offspring From a National Birth Cohort) concluded that this relationship to AUTISM is not only real, it's strong. "Prenatal exposure to neurotoxins including persistent organic pollutants are common in the pregnant population and are suggested to influence risk of neurobehavioral syndromes including outcome. The odds of autism among offspring were significantly increased with maternal DDE levels that were in the highest 75th percentile, with adjustment for maternal age, parity, and history of psychiatric disorders. The odds of autism with intellectual disability were increased by greater than twofold with maternal DDE levels above this threshold. These findings provide the first biomarker-based evidence that maternal exposure to insecticides is associated with autism among offspring." Here's what's really crazy about this study. When the authors were interviewed by Kristen Monaco for MedPage Today (Pesticide Exposure in Pregnancy Tied to Autism Risk), they made it clear that these results were not a shocker. "Brown added that his group wasn't particularly surprised by this DDE-autism link, given that this chemical class was associated with other developmental outcomes in prior research." All of this begs the question of what are DDE's? According to PubChem, "Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) is a chemical compound formed by the loss of hydrogen chloride from DDT. DDE is an organochlorine pesticide, it is the ethylene metabolite of DDT. DDE is a breakdown product of DDT, which was used in the past as an insecticide." DDT was banned decades ago because it weakened the shells of various bird's eggs. For instance, when I first started running the CURRENT RIVER 25 years ago, there were no eagles. About 15 years ago or so I started seeing a few eagles, and when you saw one it was a big deal. Now, if you don't see an eagle (or several) it's a big deal. The reason I mentioned DDT is because our government's ATSDR profile on DDE (Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD) states, "Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent than DDT." Wikipedia says this of DDE. "DDE is particularly dangerous because it is fat-soluble like other organochlorines; thus, it is rarely excreted from the body, and concentrations tend to increase throughout life. The major exception is the excretion of DDE in breast milk, which transfers a substantial portion of the mother's DDE burden to the young animal or child." What can you do to protect yourself and your family above and beyond limiting their exposure? The studies mentioned above show that while eating organic oats or other foods is helpful, thanks to cross-contamination, it doesn't completely solve the problem, and it certainly doesn't solve the problem of it getting into groundwater. Speaking of cross-contamination, if you want to see what it looks like, look no farther than the increasingly common phenomenon known as "Dicamba Drift". Dicamba is a weed killer that has gotten more popular as weed resistance to Roundup has increased (just like ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE), and has the propensity to vaporize after spraying and then "drift" over to neighboring fields. How big is this problem? One short month ago, EcoWatch (New Dicamba Drift Estimate: 1.1 Million Acres Damaged Already in 2018) stated that, "A University of Missouri report estimates that drift damage from the pesticide dicamba has occurred across 1.1 million acres of agricultural crops...." The most famous case of Dicamba Drift in these parts happened down in Missouri's boot heel area in Campbell. Campbell, MO is famous for their peaches. If you've never had a Campbell peach, you are truly missing out. Unfortunately, thanks to Dicamba Drift, enjoying these peaches has gotten much more difficult as the St. Louis Post Dispatch (Missouri's Largest Peach Farmer Sues Monsanto Over Alleged Damage from Illegal Herbicide Use) recently revealed. "In 2015, about 7,000 trees in Bader’s orchards were damaged, leading to a loss of $1.5 million, according to the lawsuit. This year an estimated 30,000 trees are considered a permanent loss, amounting to a financial blow that has yet to fully come into focus. 'Those numbers are still being estimated,' said Bev Randles of Randles & Splittgerber, a Kansas City law firm. 'The losses will certainly be in the millions.'" The point of today's post? We are swimming in a sea of chemicals, including not only those you just read about, but PRESCRIPTION DRUGS and VACCINES as well, which have side effect profiles that are, according to scores of studies, underestimated by almost two orders of magnitude (100 times --- HERE). It's also why taking care of your body's natural detox systems (BIOTRANSFORMATION) is more critical than ever, and part of THE PROTOCOL I give my patients and readers to help them start the process of taking their lives back. If you appreciate what you are reading or find yourself spending more time on our site than originally intended, be sure and share the wealth by liking, sharing or following on FACEBOOK. It's the easiest way I know to reach those you love and care about most with pertinent health-related information.
0 Comments
WHAT ABOUT YOUR BABY'S REFLUX PROBLEM? Although PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS (PPI's, otherwise known as stomach acid blockers) are one of the more commonly-prescribed class of drugs in a nation that consumes mass quantities of drugs in the first place (HERE), they've been in the news for the past several years not only because of their increasingly-exposed SIDE EFFECT PROFILE, but because they are mis-prescribed almost 100% of the time. I well remember the shock I had the first time I had a patient tell me that their baby had been prescribed a PPI --- some time around Y2K. Now it's common. How common?
"GER in preterm infants is most often diagnosed and treated on the basis of clinical and behavioral signs rather than on specific testing to prove or disprove pathology, and many infants continue to be treated after they are discharged from the hospital. Indeed, routine use of anti-reflux medications for the treatment of symptomatic GER in preterm infants was one of the therapies singled out as being of questionable value in the recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Choosing Wisely campaign. The primary mechanism of GER in preterm infants is transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR). TLESR is an abrupt reflex decrease in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure to levels at or below intragastric pressure, unrelated to swallowing. Preterm infants have dozens of episodes of TLESR each day, many of which are associated with some degree of GER. As such, GER is a normal phenomenon in preterm infants, which is exacerbated by a pure liquid diet and age-specific body position. Preterm infants with clinically diagnosed GER are often treated with pharmacologic agents; however, a lack of evidence of efficacy together with emerging evidence of significant harm (particularly with gastric acid blockade) strongly suggest that these agents should be used sparingly, if at all, in preterm infants. GER is a normal developmental phenomenon that will resolve with maturation." Not particularly effective and not nearly as safe as we've been led to believe (not surprisingly they are also being linked not only to OSTEOPOROSIS in adults, but BONE FRACTURES IN CHILDREN). Not to mention the fact that (are you ready for this shocker?) babies burp up (TLESR). What's a person to do if you feel they may be burping up more than "normal" (whatever normal really is)? Firstly, read Dr. Robert Mendelsohn's book (he is a pediatrician), HOW TO RAISE A HEALTHY CHILD IN SPITE OF YOUR DOCTOR. Secondly, if your child has COLIC, click the link. And thirdly, if you want to learn why stomach acid is not your enemy but your friend, HERE is the place to start. And if you know someone that needs this information, a great way to reach them is on FACEBOOK (like, share, or follow). WHY AREN'T WE ASKING WHAT'S |
 Aleser |  Vveia784 |
There are any number of lower extremity injuries that kids tend to get as the result of sports. OSGOOD SCHLATTER is a common one, as are ANKLE SPRAINS of varying degrees. I also see a lot of kids (as well as adults) with PATELLO-FEMORAL SYNDROME, aka Patellar-Tracking Syndrome. The cool thing is that I can usually help people dealing with these sorts of problems, often seeing results immediately (click the links). Immediate results, however, are not something you are going to get with stress fractures of the heel or "calcaneus".
The first thing you have to do is to determine whether or not your child (or you for that matter) has a stress fracture of the calcaneus (heel bone). Although you can go have X-rays, CT SCANS, bone scans, etc, this is just about like X-raying a rib to see whether or not it might be cracked (we are not talking "shattered" here as might be seen in severe trauma). Considering the treatment is the same whether it is or isn't, why bother? The test for determining a Calcaneal Stress Fracture simply involves grabbing the sides of the heel with your thumb and forefinger (see the black arrows above) and giving a firm (firm) squeeze. If there is pain, then there is likely a stress fracture.
What exactly is a stress fracture? Stress fractures occur mostly in the lower extremity and foot, and occur mostly due to overuse. When muscles get fatigued, they have a diminished ability to act in their secondary role as shock absorbers (their primary role is contracting). The result is a tiny fracture that may or may not show up on X-ray. And like almost every other health problem out there, females are more prone than men. The best way to deal with a stress fracture is by staying off of it for 4-6 weeks --- the amount of time it will take the fracture to heal (my experience is that in kids they will often heal faster than that). Beyond rest, other forms of treatment that might prove helpful (or measures that might prevent recurrence) include....
How common are these calcaneal stress fractures in kids? The December 2014 issue of the Brazilian medical journal, Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Stress Fractures in the Foot and Ankle of Athletes) gives us a pretty good idea. " Stress injuries are common among athletes and military recruits, accounting for approximately 10% of all orthopedic injuries. Prospective and retrospective studies show a higher incidence among Caucasians. When compared to American black and Hispanic individuals, white individuals are more susceptible to stress fractures. The same occurs with age: older individuals present a higher incidence of such fracture. Stress fractures are less common in children than adolescents and adults. In relation to sex, some studies have shown that military women have an incidence 5 to 10 times higher than men."
Because of my experience, I think we may be way underestimating these particular stress fractures in kids. I not only saw calcaneal stress fractures in at least 3 OF MY 4 KIDS (all are soccer players), but I saw it in kids I coached as well (not to mention in patients). Soccer-wise, it was most common during dry periods when the fields were hard as proverbial rocks, or in kids who were both playing soccer and running cross country or playing basketball.
The first thing you have to do is to determine whether or not your child (or you for that matter) has a stress fracture of the calcaneus (heel bone). Although you can go have X-rays, CT SCANS, bone scans, etc, this is just about like X-raying a rib to see whether or not it might be cracked (we are not talking "shattered" here as might be seen in severe trauma). Considering the treatment is the same whether it is or isn't, why bother? The test for determining a Calcaneal Stress Fracture simply involves grabbing the sides of the heel with your thumb and forefinger (see the black arrows above) and giving a firm (firm) squeeze. If there is pain, then there is likely a stress fracture.
What exactly is a stress fracture? Stress fractures occur mostly in the lower extremity and foot, and occur mostly due to overuse. When muscles get fatigued, they have a diminished ability to act in their secondary role as shock absorbers (their primary role is contracting). The result is a tiny fracture that may or may not show up on X-ray. And like almost every other health problem out there, females are more prone than men. The best way to deal with a stress fracture is by staying off of it for 4-6 weeks --- the amount of time it will take the fracture to heal (my experience is that in kids they will often heal faster than that). Beyond rest, other forms of treatment that might prove helpful (or measures that might prevent recurrence) include....
- CALCIFOOD: Despite ingesting far more calcium than most of the rest of the world, incidence of fractures (stress fractures included) are exploding in the pediatric population (HERE). The solution is not taking more calcium supplements (HERE)! Learn why there is only one real calcium supplement out there, and it comes from raw bone meal (HERE).
- LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY: In case you haven't heard, LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY is good for almost anything and everything. Click the link to find out why.
- BETTER SHOES & ORTHOTICS: Unfortunately, way too many people --- even people who spend lots of money on their footwear --- are wearing the wrong shoes for their foot type. For example, it's not uncommon for me to find a person with a high-arched rigid foot (a supinator), wearing "stability" shoes used to correct pronation. The result is that people are often thrown into the very posture or position they are trying to avoid. How do you find out if a certain shoe is right for you? One of the best ways is to have a video gait analysis done by someone who knows the score (HERE for instance). While this is relatively simple in large urban areas with huge shoe stores or departments, you won't find it in our neck of the woods.
- STAY OFF THE CONCRETE: Look; I completely realize that you aren't going to be able to live you life barefoot on the beach. Just remember that HARD SURFACES will eat you up over time, and that they are a huge contributing factor to stress fractures as well.
- DON'T OVERTRAIN: This one is huge. Of the people who love to work out, a significant portion works out too much, too often, too intensely, or too long. The results of overtraining are never good. It all comes back to the concept of MED or Minimal Effective Dose. For instance, if three sets of ten pull-ups is optimal for muscular development, anything more than that is at best a waste of time, and at worst counterproductive or even harmful. While it's true that sunshine is healthy, exposing your skin to anything over a certain amount is going cause varying degrees of damage in the form of a sunburn. If you are overtraining, you are causing varying degrees of damage to certain body tissues.
- USE GOOD FORM: Honestly, this is a no-brainer. I don't care whether it's playing tennis, running, lifting weights, or throwing a baseball, poor form is going to adversely affect your body, leading to increased chances of developing a stress fracture.
- ENGAGE IN REGULAR STRENGTH TRAINING: Because stress fractures often start with fatigued, weak, or underworked muscles, one of the very best ways to solve (or better yet, prevent) the problem is make sure your muscles are strong. Muscles are strengthened by resistance training, not straight cardio. It's why the importance of adding STRENGTH TRAINING to whatever kind of training you are doing cannot be overlooked. If you are an athlete who finds yourself injured but needing to train, the pool or bicycle can be great alternatives to pounding-type exercises.
How common are these calcaneal stress fractures in kids? The December 2014 issue of the Brazilian medical journal, Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Stress Fractures in the Foot and Ankle of Athletes) gives us a pretty good idea. " Stress injuries are common among athletes and military recruits, accounting for approximately 10% of all orthopedic injuries. Prospective and retrospective studies show a higher incidence among Caucasians. When compared to American black and Hispanic individuals, white individuals are more susceptible to stress fractures. The same occurs with age: older individuals present a higher incidence of such fracture. Stress fractures are less common in children than adolescents and adults. In relation to sex, some studies have shown that military women have an incidence 5 to 10 times higher than men."
Because of my experience, I think we may be way underestimating these particular stress fractures in kids. I not only saw calcaneal stress fractures in at least 3 OF MY 4 KIDS (all are soccer players), but I saw it in kids I coached as well (not to mention in patients). Soccer-wise, it was most common during dry periods when the fields were hard as proverbial rocks, or in kids who were both playing soccer and running cross country or playing basketball.
IF YOU THINK YOUR GENERATION HAS HEALTH PROBLEMS... WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT'S COMING!
 |  |
"Despite their greater life expectancy, the adults of today are less "metabolically" healthy than their counterparts of previous generations. The prevalence of obesity in our youngest generation of men and women at the mean age of 40 is similar to that of our oldest generation at the mean age of 55. This means that this younger generation is 15 years ahead of the older generation and will be exposed to their obesity for a longer time." From the April 2013 issue of the Journal of Invasive Cardiology (Today's Adult Generations Less Healthy Than Previous Generations). In other words, for 'Generation Z' 30 will be the new 45.
A society that lives longer, but with more chronic health problems. It's BIG PHARMA'S wet dream. But how long before people aren't living as long, and what about the sorry quality of life associated with this phenomenon? Via the latest issue of their journal (Circulation), the American Heart Association has issued a "Scientific Statement" called Cardiovascular Health Promotion in Children: Challenges and Opportunities for 2020 and Beyond. In this paper, thirteen prominent cardiologists and Ph.D researchers presented their case that our nation's children not only have overall poor health now, but are at risk for terrible health as they age --- the major reason I continue to argue that our current healthcare trajectory is UNSUSTAINABLE.
In this "pediatric focused" paper, the authors let us know that (no big surprise here) OBESITY is at the root of numerous health problems. How bad has the problem of childhood obesity gotten in the good ole USA? "The number of overweight children has risen dramatically over the past four decades for youth 2 to 19 years of age, with a recognized epidemic occurring between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s in the United States. 17% of 2 to 19-year-olds are obese and an additional 15% are overweight." Interesting. Not only do we see that one in three of our nation's children are packing excess weight, we see that incidence of this exploded (they use the word 'epidemic') in the decade of the mid 80's to the mid 90's. Make sure and ask yourself why?
I would contend that you can largely thank our government for this decade of dietary debacle. How so? The decade being discussed would best be described as the "Low Fat / Fat Free" era --- an era I wholeheartedly bought into while at KSU as a nutrition major (HERE). Face it; science has gotten any number of things wrong over the years --- particularly when it comes to diet. For instance, they've told us that things like SALT, EGGS, RED MEAT, GREENS, etc are bad for us, while things like GRAINS, MSG, ASPARTAME, and HFCS are just fine. And despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, they continue to beat us over the head about DIETARY FAT. There was an expensive and concerted effort that started in that ten year span to make sure that everyone knew that it did not matter so much what you ate, as long as it wasn't fat. There was no such thing as a "GOOD FAT". Fat was fat was fat, and it was all equally bad --- except that one particular fat that supposedly came from heart-healthy "vegetables" (TRANS FATS ----- made from corn). What was the result?
Look around you. 40% of our nation's women are obese, with another third being simply overweight (HERE). And men aren't too far behind. As America became increasingly fat-phobic, they became not only more and more obese, but they ended up with all the problems associated with rampant carb-consumption (HERE), including hardcore addictions (HERE). The problem is, it has taken the government decades to get their act together as far as telling us what we should be eating --- and it's still screwed up. In fact, no one but maybe the medical profession itself (HERE), continues to offer worse dietary advice than our government. Don't believe me? Case in point, our government's current recommended diet --- DASH --- the specific diet recommended by the authors of the study we are talking about today. But the free fall doesn't end there.
The metrics that the AHA looks at to determine one's level of cardiovascular health include SMOKING, BMI, EXERCISE LEVEL, BLOOD PRESSURE, CHOLESTEROL, BLOOD SUGAR, and of course, diet. The first question I have to ask is how bad has it gotten when children are taking DRUGS FOR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, DRUGS FOR HIGH CHOLESTEROL, and DRUGS FOR TYPE II DIABETES? Although this sort of thing was unheard of when I was a kid back in the 1970's, today it's not uncommon at all. The second question I must ask is why is the sort of dietary advice the government is dishing out so behind-the-times? Is it any better than the debacle we've seen in the past? Maybe a bit. In this study they promoted a, "diet emphasizing fruits, vegetables, fish, whole grains, low sodium, and few sugar-laden foods and drinks."
Some of this is fine. Getting off the sugar and junk carbs is a fantastic place to start. However, it's our grain-based diet of the old 'Food Pyramid' that helped push us to where we're at now. Furthermore, unless you are getting wild, cold-water fish, there is not a an iota of health benefit. In fact, some people say that farm-raised fish is one of the worst foods you can eat (HERE). The truth is that DEER or FRESCOLN BEEF is far better. As for fruits and vegetables; can we please stop talking about them as though they are a single entity (HERE)? And about the whole "low sodium" thing, click my earlier link on "salt" and you'll quickly notice that this is another of the numerous areas where the "experts" are confused (or outright lying to you). But lets forget all of this for a moment. Why is this whole paper a huge we've-heard-it-all-before pipe dream as far as making real changes are concerned? Take a listen to what the authors reveal.
"Unfortunately, children in the United States score most poorly in regard to a healthy diet. Approximately 91% of US children are classified as having a poor diet score, while less than 0.5% are classified as having an ideal diet score. Moreover, a higher percentage of children than adults are ranked in the poor category for diet quality. This worrisome finding is consistent across all pediatric age groups, races, and sex."
There you have it folks; kid's diets are bad --- really bad. And not only are they really bad, they are significantly worse than adults. Across the board. Mostly this is the fault of moms and dads who have failed to step up to the plate and parent, making sure little Junior does not leave the table until he eats his broccoli. Pretty soon, when Junior is a senior in high school, he's eating Skittles and Coke for breakfast, fries and ketchup for lunch, and a frozen pizza and cold cereal for supper. And we wonder why things look so bleak for the future of cost-efficient healthcare.
The older generation may think they have it bad as far as health-related problems are concerned. But they grew up eating non-processed foods and garden vegetables. Although few of these elders will be around to see the consequences, just wait until people get a load of what's coming down the pike as far as health problems are concerned. We are talking here about a generation (Gen Z) who has never let a garden vegetable parse their lips --- and has no intention of doing so. No matter what sort of CATCHY PSA you hit them with.
The prevailing thought in America has been, and largely continues to be, a DRUGS-FIRST approach. In case you were wondering how well this is working out, wonder no more. Simply start reading the titles of THESE POSTS and you'll quickly realize you've been bamboozled. Swindled. Sold a bill of goods. Sold down the river. Use whatever analogy you want, but the drugs aren't doing what the TV commercial told us they would (HERE). You can go back and look at my earlier links, or you can read what the authors themselves wrote about this cycle of crappy habits, crappy diets, and and crappy health.
"Unfortunately, over time, most children experience a decline in health factors and behaviors, resulting in loss of cardiovascular health as they reach adulthood. It is well known that achieving sustained lifestyle changes in adults is difficult, and risk factor control through the use of medication cannot fully restore the low-risk state present in ideal cardiovascular health."
This whole paragraph one giant understatement. Medications are largely a myth and do not do what they claim they are going to do --- except provide you with untold numbers of side effects (HERE). We also know that bad habits you carry through from childhood to adulthood are tougher to break the older you get. For instance, if you are an overweight gamer and computer junkie who never gets off the couch as a kid, what makes you think it gets easier when you get to adulthood? What's the result of this whole cycle? Easy. "A decline in health factors and behaviors children reach adulthood." Unfortunately, this decline rapidly turns into a free-fall.
The government welcomes 'Captain Obvious' to the discussion when they state, "Overall, it is clear that much of the benefit of ideal cardiovascular health factors is lost in childhood and adolescence. This is due in large part to the adoption of unhealthful diet and physical activity behaviors." Great; but let's get to that point where the rubber meets the road. How are we going to turn this around and change 35 years of heading down the wrong path? SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS certainly aren't getting it done. Neither is the admonishment to exercise more, smoke less, and eat more vegetables. And we've already seen how well these sorts of programs really work anyway (HERE). Of course the government's solution is more studies, more and bigger analytics, and (drum roll please), more funding ---- way more funding.
A society that lives longer, but with more chronic health problems. It's BIG PHARMA'S wet dream. But how long before people aren't living as long, and what about the sorry quality of life associated with this phenomenon? Via the latest issue of their journal (Circulation), the American Heart Association has issued a "Scientific Statement" called Cardiovascular Health Promotion in Children: Challenges and Opportunities for 2020 and Beyond. In this paper, thirteen prominent cardiologists and Ph.D researchers presented their case that our nation's children not only have overall poor health now, but are at risk for terrible health as they age --- the major reason I continue to argue that our current healthcare trajectory is UNSUSTAINABLE.
In this "pediatric focused" paper, the authors let us know that (no big surprise here) OBESITY is at the root of numerous health problems. How bad has the problem of childhood obesity gotten in the good ole USA? "The number of overweight children has risen dramatically over the past four decades for youth 2 to 19 years of age, with a recognized epidemic occurring between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s in the United States. 17% of 2 to 19-year-olds are obese and an additional 15% are overweight." Interesting. Not only do we see that one in three of our nation's children are packing excess weight, we see that incidence of this exploded (they use the word 'epidemic') in the decade of the mid 80's to the mid 90's. Make sure and ask yourself why?
I would contend that you can largely thank our government for this decade of dietary debacle. How so? The decade being discussed would best be described as the "Low Fat / Fat Free" era --- an era I wholeheartedly bought into while at KSU as a nutrition major (HERE). Face it; science has gotten any number of things wrong over the years --- particularly when it comes to diet. For instance, they've told us that things like SALT, EGGS, RED MEAT, GREENS, etc are bad for us, while things like GRAINS, MSG, ASPARTAME, and HFCS are just fine. And despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, they continue to beat us over the head about DIETARY FAT. There was an expensive and concerted effort that started in that ten year span to make sure that everyone knew that it did not matter so much what you ate, as long as it wasn't fat. There was no such thing as a "GOOD FAT". Fat was fat was fat, and it was all equally bad --- except that one particular fat that supposedly came from heart-healthy "vegetables" (TRANS FATS ----- made from corn). What was the result?
Look around you. 40% of our nation's women are obese, with another third being simply overweight (HERE). And men aren't too far behind. As America became increasingly fat-phobic, they became not only more and more obese, but they ended up with all the problems associated with rampant carb-consumption (HERE), including hardcore addictions (HERE). The problem is, it has taken the government decades to get their act together as far as telling us what we should be eating --- and it's still screwed up. In fact, no one but maybe the medical profession itself (HERE), continues to offer worse dietary advice than our government. Don't believe me? Case in point, our government's current recommended diet --- DASH --- the specific diet recommended by the authors of the study we are talking about today. But the free fall doesn't end there.
The metrics that the AHA looks at to determine one's level of cardiovascular health include SMOKING, BMI, EXERCISE LEVEL, BLOOD PRESSURE, CHOLESTEROL, BLOOD SUGAR, and of course, diet. The first question I have to ask is how bad has it gotten when children are taking DRUGS FOR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, DRUGS FOR HIGH CHOLESTEROL, and DRUGS FOR TYPE II DIABETES? Although this sort of thing was unheard of when I was a kid back in the 1970's, today it's not uncommon at all. The second question I must ask is why is the sort of dietary advice the government is dishing out so behind-the-times? Is it any better than the debacle we've seen in the past? Maybe a bit. In this study they promoted a, "diet emphasizing fruits, vegetables, fish, whole grains, low sodium, and few sugar-laden foods and drinks."
Some of this is fine. Getting off the sugar and junk carbs is a fantastic place to start. However, it's our grain-based diet of the old 'Food Pyramid' that helped push us to where we're at now. Furthermore, unless you are getting wild, cold-water fish, there is not a an iota of health benefit. In fact, some people say that farm-raised fish is one of the worst foods you can eat (HERE). The truth is that DEER or FRESCOLN BEEF is far better. As for fruits and vegetables; can we please stop talking about them as though they are a single entity (HERE)? And about the whole "low sodium" thing, click my earlier link on "salt" and you'll quickly notice that this is another of the numerous areas where the "experts" are confused (or outright lying to you). But lets forget all of this for a moment. Why is this whole paper a huge we've-heard-it-all-before pipe dream as far as making real changes are concerned? Take a listen to what the authors reveal.
"Unfortunately, children in the United States score most poorly in regard to a healthy diet. Approximately 91% of US children are classified as having a poor diet score, while less than 0.5% are classified as having an ideal diet score. Moreover, a higher percentage of children than adults are ranked in the poor category for diet quality. This worrisome finding is consistent across all pediatric age groups, races, and sex."
There you have it folks; kid's diets are bad --- really bad. And not only are they really bad, they are significantly worse than adults. Across the board. Mostly this is the fault of moms and dads who have failed to step up to the plate and parent, making sure little Junior does not leave the table until he eats his broccoli. Pretty soon, when Junior is a senior in high school, he's eating Skittles and Coke for breakfast, fries and ketchup for lunch, and a frozen pizza and cold cereal for supper. And we wonder why things look so bleak for the future of cost-efficient healthcare.
The older generation may think they have it bad as far as health-related problems are concerned. But they grew up eating non-processed foods and garden vegetables. Although few of these elders will be around to see the consequences, just wait until people get a load of what's coming down the pike as far as health problems are concerned. We are talking here about a generation (Gen Z) who has never let a garden vegetable parse their lips --- and has no intention of doing so. No matter what sort of CATCHY PSA you hit them with.
The prevailing thought in America has been, and largely continues to be, a DRUGS-FIRST approach. In case you were wondering how well this is working out, wonder no more. Simply start reading the titles of THESE POSTS and you'll quickly realize you've been bamboozled. Swindled. Sold a bill of goods. Sold down the river. Use whatever analogy you want, but the drugs aren't doing what the TV commercial told us they would (HERE). You can go back and look at my earlier links, or you can read what the authors themselves wrote about this cycle of crappy habits, crappy diets, and and crappy health.
"Unfortunately, over time, most children experience a decline in health factors and behaviors, resulting in loss of cardiovascular health as they reach adulthood. It is well known that achieving sustained lifestyle changes in adults is difficult, and risk factor control through the use of medication cannot fully restore the low-risk state present in ideal cardiovascular health."
This whole paragraph one giant understatement. Medications are largely a myth and do not do what they claim they are going to do --- except provide you with untold numbers of side effects (HERE). We also know that bad habits you carry through from childhood to adulthood are tougher to break the older you get. For instance, if you are an overweight gamer and computer junkie who never gets off the couch as a kid, what makes you think it gets easier when you get to adulthood? What's the result of this whole cycle? Easy. "A decline in health factors and behaviors children reach adulthood." Unfortunately, this decline rapidly turns into a free-fall.
The government welcomes 'Captain Obvious' to the discussion when they state, "Overall, it is clear that much of the benefit of ideal cardiovascular health factors is lost in childhood and adolescence. This is due in large part to the adoption of unhealthful diet and physical activity behaviors." Great; but let's get to that point where the rubber meets the road. How are we going to turn this around and change 35 years of heading down the wrong path? SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS certainly aren't getting it done. Neither is the admonishment to exercise more, smoke less, and eat more vegetables. And we've already seen how well these sorts of programs really work anyway (HERE). Of course the government's solution is more studies, more and bigger analytics, and (drum roll please), more funding ---- way more funding.
NO SURPRISE HERE
BABY FORMULA MAKERS HAVE BEEN LYING TO YOU FOR YEARS
"Immune mediated health conditions such as allergic and autoimmune diseases seem to have increased in prevalence in many countries and are leading causes of chronic illness in young people. There is evidence that dietary exposures in infancy can influence the risk of these diseases, with a specific concern that early exposure to intact cows’ milk protein in the form of infant formula could trigger the onset of allergic or autoimmune disease. Current infant feeding guidelines in North America, Australasia, and Europe recommend the use of hydrolysed formula in the first 4-6 months of life in place of a standard cows’ milk formula for the primary prevention of allergic diseases in childhood. This has also been supported by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by a Cochrane systematic review." From the study we are discussing today
The medical community is fun to watch. One day they tell us that EGGS are bad for us, the next they reveal that they're a 'super food'. We all grew up being told that RED MEAT AND SATURATED FATS were the worst possible things we could put in our collective mouths, but that vegetable oils (mostly corn or soy) and TRANS FATS were actually 'heart healthy'. Then they started trying to take away your SALT SHAKER in the name of health. It's the never-ending yo-yo that shows the very nature of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE. As long as billions of dollars are at stake, you can't trust it any more than you can trust politicians. Baby formula has proven no different.
Baby Formula is an interesting topic in its own right because since it was first introduced for commercial production back in the latter 1800's, it has largely been marketed on the premise it's superior to mother's milk. For instance, chapter 3 of a 2004 book called Infant Formula: Evaluating the Safety of New Ingredients, says that, "Soy formulas now account for about 40 percent of formula sales in the United States." That's fantastic! If you happen to be a soybean farmer or commodities trader. Otherwise, IT'S WORSE THAN YOU COULD EVEN IMAGINE!
Because of this historical emphasis from the medical community on formula being better than mother's milk, we saw a steady decline in the nation's percentage of infants being breast fed --- particularly after the first few months. This is only recently being reversed. Unfortunately, it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Case in point, the recent study from the British Medical Journal (Hydrolysed Formula and Risk of Allergic or Autoimmune Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis).
Over a dozen medical doctors and researchers (and a few medical students) analyzed 52 studies that involved over 19,000 infants from 1946 (the year after WWII ended) to the present, trying to determine whether or not hypo-allergenic infant formulas were really hypo-allergenic. What did they find? Amazingly enough, they found that babies fed these hypo-allergenic formulas rarely if ever developed allergies or autoimmune diseases. Hold on. Wait a minute. That's what the manufactures of these products have always wanted people to believe. What the researchers actually found was that.......
"There was no evidence to support the health claim approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that a partially hydrolysed formula could reduce the risk of eczema nor the conclusion of the Cochrane review that hydrolysed formula could [improve] allergy to cows’ milk. These findings do not support current guidelines that recommend the use of hydrolysed formula to prevent allergic disease [ASTHMA, RHINITIS, ECZEMA, FOOD ALLERGIES, TYPE I DIABETES, etc] in high risk infants. Our findings conflict with current international guidelines, in which hydrolysed formula is widely recommended for young formula fed infants with a family history of allergic disease."
In other words folks, you've been lied to by both COCHRANE and the FDA (In Cochrane's defense, they found the evidence to be moderate to weak. There is no excuse for the FDA). Which begs a couple of questions. What exactly is "Hydrolyzed Infant Formula" and how much money is as stake?
Before I answer that, let me give you a brief history of Infant Formula.
Baby Formula is an interesting topic in its own right because since it was first introduced for commercial production back in the latter 1800's, it has largely been marketed on the premise it's superior to mother's milk. For instance, chapter 3 of a 2004 book called Infant Formula: Evaluating the Safety of New Ingredients, says that, "Soy formulas now account for about 40 percent of formula sales in the United States." That's fantastic! If you happen to be a soybean farmer or commodities trader. Otherwise, IT'S WORSE THAN YOU COULD EVEN IMAGINE!
Because of this historical emphasis from the medical community on formula being better than mother's milk, we saw a steady decline in the nation's percentage of infants being breast fed --- particularly after the first few months. This is only recently being reversed. Unfortunately, it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Case in point, the recent study from the British Medical Journal (Hydrolysed Formula and Risk of Allergic or Autoimmune Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis).
Over a dozen medical doctors and researchers (and a few medical students) analyzed 52 studies that involved over 19,000 infants from 1946 (the year after WWII ended) to the present, trying to determine whether or not hypo-allergenic infant formulas were really hypo-allergenic. What did they find? Amazingly enough, they found that babies fed these hypo-allergenic formulas rarely if ever developed allergies or autoimmune diseases. Hold on. Wait a minute. That's what the manufactures of these products have always wanted people to believe. What the researchers actually found was that.......
"There was no evidence to support the health claim approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that a partially hydrolysed formula could reduce the risk of eczema nor the conclusion of the Cochrane review that hydrolysed formula could [improve] allergy to cows’ milk. These findings do not support current guidelines that recommend the use of hydrolysed formula to prevent allergic disease [ASTHMA, RHINITIS, ECZEMA, FOOD ALLERGIES, TYPE I DIABETES, etc] in high risk infants. Our findings conflict with current international guidelines, in which hydrolysed formula is widely recommended for young formula fed infants with a family history of allergic disease."
In other words folks, you've been lied to by both COCHRANE and the FDA (In Cochrane's defense, they found the evidence to be moderate to weak. There is no excuse for the FDA). Which begs a couple of questions. What exactly is "Hydrolyzed Infant Formula" and how much money is as stake?
Before I answer that, let me give you a brief history of Infant Formula.
THE SORDID HISTORY OF INFANT FORMULA
"In 1867, a Swiss pharmacist named Henri Nestlé mixed together a liquid food from cow’s milk, wheat flour, and sugar for a neighbor’s baby who wouldn’t nurse. This became the first infant formula, and it helped create an international food conglomerate that now sells ground and instant coffee, chocolate candy, L’Oréal cosmetics, Friskies and Alpo pet foods, Libby’s vegetables, and more than 50% of all infant formula sold worldwide." From the opening paragraph of Lauren Pomerantz's 2001 piece called History of the Boycott
"If you are a 'mature' pediatrician—one older than 40 years or so—there is a good chance that, if you were not breastfed as an infant, you were fed a formula created by mixing 13 oz of evaporated milk with 19 oz of water and two tablespoons of either corn syrup or table sugar." Dr. Andrew Schuman from the opening paragraph of the February, 2003 issue of Contemporary Pediatrics (A Concise History of Infant Formula --- Twists and Turns Included)
"Convincing doctors of the virtues of artificial milks — or at least neutralizing their resistance — is the key to establishing bottlefeeding. Babymilk companies spend untold millions of dollars subsidizing office furnishings, research projects, gifts, conferences, publications and travel junkets of the medical profession. The American Academy of Pediatrics received a renewable $1 million grant from Abbot Laboratories. The purpose is to generate physician good will toward the company and its products. An Abbott Laboratories trade publication states, ‘In effect, we are striving to make the physician a low-pressure salesman for Abbott’. And of course it is the ordinary purchaser of artificial babymilk who must pay a portion of the cost of every cocktail that a doctor sips at conventions like the recent ‘Ski-and-Study’ symposium at a California mountain resort which Abbott Laboratories helped finance. The tactics work. Physicians continue to allow free infant formula samples to be distributed despite the evidence that this discourages breastfeeding." Taken from Edward Bauer's piece in the April 1982 issue of New Internationalist called Babies Means Business
The end of WWII ushered in a time of great change in America. The pessimism and hardship that characterized the war years (1941 -1945) as well as the dust bowl years of the Great Depression (otherwise known as the "Dirty Thirties") --- left people with a feeling of unbridled optimism. Economies exploded as huge industrial growth took place. Millions of soldiers took advantage of the GI Bill to return to school and advance their education. Because of this bright outlook on the future, people were no longer afraid to have children. This helped to bring about what's come to be known as the "Baby Boom". The combination of increasing incomes and lots of babies saw the creation of a new market --- the market for Infant Formula.
Thanks to influence that was bought and paid for by by the food industry, medical schools, and physicians organizations, the Formula Industry began to promote the use of their products not only for women who struggled to nurse, but to women in general. Thanks to an intentional barrage of propaganda, nursing was seen as a sign of poverty --- something that only the poor, minorities, uneducated, or country bumpkins did. On the contrary, the ability to provide your babies with formula showed that you had money, class, dignity, and intelligence. And in similar fashion to the way that our politicians were talking about eradicating sickness and disease through "science" (chiefly VACCINES and ANTIBIOTICS), people were being led to believe that similar scientific breakthroughs had occurred with formula that could actually make the bottle healthier for your baby than nursing.
As bottle-feeding became increasingly popular, it began to be promoted by our government (WIC) as well as being exported around the world --- chiefly to third world countries. One of the biggest health-related scandals of the 20th century concerns the disgusting manner in which Nestle made billions taking it's baby formula business world wide. How was this accomplished in such grand fashion?
What was the result of all this? By the time these women realized they could not afford the formula, it was too late. Usually they ended up diluting it to try and stretch it until they could afford more. The result was the death of infants by the millions. There are any number of books that detail Nestle's culpability in the epidemic of infant and child mortality. You can read about it yourself in THIS 1981 article published in the New York Times. The echos of this scandal are still with us today.
"China is a nation hooked on milk powder, with just a third of its babies exclusively breastfead." From Sarah O'Meara's October 2013 article in The Telegraph called How the Aggressive Formula Industry Spoiled China's Breast Milk
History always seems to repeat itself and the issue of nursing has proven itself no different. As ridiculous as it sounds, there is a growing body of intellectuals (researchers, university professors, M.D.'s, Ph.D's, etc, etc) that are --- I'm not making it up folks --- telling people that the benefits of nursing are overstated and oversold. They claim that what the research really shows is that formula-fed babies seem to grow into healthy adults just as well as breast-fed babies (a great example is Viv Groskop's piece in a Feb 2013 piece in The Guardian called Breast Is Best - Isn't It? Debate Rages Over the Effect on Mother and Child.
I read the article and (sort of) see where they're coming from. But like most myopic ideas about nutrition promoted by the mainstream (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few), they're missing the bigger picture. Today's babies / children are growing up, consuming the vast majority of their calories from soda and heavily-processed junk (HERE) --- a fact touted by research from BMJ that came out just a couple of days ago. Our children also happen to be coming down with Autoimmune Diseases and Chronic Inflammatory Degenerative Diseases such as Arthritis, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, Obesity, and others (HERE) at rates that could not even have been imagined 30 years ago. Breast feeding and nursing expert, Dr. Jack Newman (MD), put this debate into perspective when he stated......
"You don’t have to prove that normal and natural is better than the artificial. You have to prove that the artificial is at least as good as the normal. Demanding that breastfeeding, which is, incidentally, much more than breast milk, be proved better than artificial feeding, is yet another example of turning the world on its head. No thinking scientist would accept that you have to prove that getting to sleep naturally is better than taking a sleeping pill to get to sleep".
I'm not going to get into it very deeply here, but the benefits of nursing are legion. And, like Dr. Newman reveals, these benefits go far beyond the chemical make up of the milk. Besides the proven benefits of the regular skin-to-skin, one-on-one contact that baby has with mom, we know that nursing prevents infectious disease (Beaudry, 1995 and Dewey, 1995), increases the development of the nervous system (Mortensen, 2002), and protects against chronic diseases (Saarinen and Kajosaari, 1995). But the benefits don't end there --- not by a long shot. We can't leave this section without at least mentioning the effect of nursing on Gut Health.
GUT HEALTH is the most critical aspect of your health that you are likely not as aware of as you should be. If you want to really put this issue in perspective, I would suggest spending some time on DR. ART AYERS' site, Cooling Inflammation. Listen to the conclusions of a 2009 study by three RN's (who also happen to have doctorates) published in the Journal of Perinatal Education (A History of Infant Feeding).
"Breastfeeding rates in the United States have decreased significantly in the 21st century, resulting in serious health issues that include atopy, diabetes mellitus, and childhood obesity. Research suggests that breastfeeding prevents adverse health conditions, whereas formula-feeding is linked with their development. This evidence confirms breastfeeding is still the best source of infant nutrition and the safest method of infant feeding."
"If you are a 'mature' pediatrician—one older than 40 years or so—there is a good chance that, if you were not breastfed as an infant, you were fed a formula created by mixing 13 oz of evaporated milk with 19 oz of water and two tablespoons of either corn syrup or table sugar." Dr. Andrew Schuman from the opening paragraph of the February, 2003 issue of Contemporary Pediatrics (A Concise History of Infant Formula --- Twists and Turns Included)
"Convincing doctors of the virtues of artificial milks — or at least neutralizing their resistance — is the key to establishing bottlefeeding. Babymilk companies spend untold millions of dollars subsidizing office furnishings, research projects, gifts, conferences, publications and travel junkets of the medical profession. The American Academy of Pediatrics received a renewable $1 million grant from Abbot Laboratories. The purpose is to generate physician good will toward the company and its products. An Abbott Laboratories trade publication states, ‘In effect, we are striving to make the physician a low-pressure salesman for Abbott’. And of course it is the ordinary purchaser of artificial babymilk who must pay a portion of the cost of every cocktail that a doctor sips at conventions like the recent ‘Ski-and-Study’ symposium at a California mountain resort which Abbott Laboratories helped finance. The tactics work. Physicians continue to allow free infant formula samples to be distributed despite the evidence that this discourages breastfeeding." Taken from Edward Bauer's piece in the April 1982 issue of New Internationalist called Babies Means Business
The end of WWII ushered in a time of great change in America. The pessimism and hardship that characterized the war years (1941 -1945) as well as the dust bowl years of the Great Depression (otherwise known as the "Dirty Thirties") --- left people with a feeling of unbridled optimism. Economies exploded as huge industrial growth took place. Millions of soldiers took advantage of the GI Bill to return to school and advance their education. Because of this bright outlook on the future, people were no longer afraid to have children. This helped to bring about what's come to be known as the "Baby Boom". The combination of increasing incomes and lots of babies saw the creation of a new market --- the market for Infant Formula.
Thanks to influence that was bought and paid for by by the food industry, medical schools, and physicians organizations, the Formula Industry began to promote the use of their products not only for women who struggled to nurse, but to women in general. Thanks to an intentional barrage of propaganda, nursing was seen as a sign of poverty --- something that only the poor, minorities, uneducated, or country bumpkins did. On the contrary, the ability to provide your babies with formula showed that you had money, class, dignity, and intelligence. And in similar fashion to the way that our politicians were talking about eradicating sickness and disease through "science" (chiefly VACCINES and ANTIBIOTICS), people were being led to believe that similar scientific breakthroughs had occurred with formula that could actually make the bottle healthier for your baby than nursing.
As bottle-feeding became increasingly popular, it began to be promoted by our government (WIC) as well as being exported around the world --- chiefly to third world countries. One of the biggest health-related scandals of the 20th century concerns the disgusting manner in which Nestle made billions taking it's baby formula business world wide. How was this accomplished in such grand fashion?
- First, they created a market where there was no need for a market. In the vast majority of cases, the last thing these people needed was baby formula, which is exactly what they got.
- Secondly, they convinced these women that they would be like "Western" women if they bottle-fed. Furthermore, they let them know through huge advertising campaigns that this method of feeding their baby was much healthier and could prevent many of the common illnesses these people faced.
- Thirdly, in almost identical fashion to the way drug pushers operate, they provided free samples. They did this through doctors, physician organizations, hospitals, nurses, or salespeople. The sample would often provide just enough days of formula that mother's breast milk would dry up. Then she had no choice but to purchase their product --- a product that took up a huge portion of an impoverished family's income.
What was the result of all this? By the time these women realized they could not afford the formula, it was too late. Usually they ended up diluting it to try and stretch it until they could afford more. The result was the death of infants by the millions. There are any number of books that detail Nestle's culpability in the epidemic of infant and child mortality. You can read about it yourself in THIS 1981 article published in the New York Times. The echos of this scandal are still with us today.
"China is a nation hooked on milk powder, with just a third of its babies exclusively breastfead." From Sarah O'Meara's October 2013 article in The Telegraph called How the Aggressive Formula Industry Spoiled China's Breast Milk
History always seems to repeat itself and the issue of nursing has proven itself no different. As ridiculous as it sounds, there is a growing body of intellectuals (researchers, university professors, M.D.'s, Ph.D's, etc, etc) that are --- I'm not making it up folks --- telling people that the benefits of nursing are overstated and oversold. They claim that what the research really shows is that formula-fed babies seem to grow into healthy adults just as well as breast-fed babies (a great example is Viv Groskop's piece in a Feb 2013 piece in The Guardian called Breast Is Best - Isn't It? Debate Rages Over the Effect on Mother and Child.
I read the article and (sort of) see where they're coming from. But like most myopic ideas about nutrition promoted by the mainstream (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few), they're missing the bigger picture. Today's babies / children are growing up, consuming the vast majority of their calories from soda and heavily-processed junk (HERE) --- a fact touted by research from BMJ that came out just a couple of days ago. Our children also happen to be coming down with Autoimmune Diseases and Chronic Inflammatory Degenerative Diseases such as Arthritis, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, Obesity, and others (HERE) at rates that could not even have been imagined 30 years ago. Breast feeding and nursing expert, Dr. Jack Newman (MD), put this debate into perspective when he stated......
"You don’t have to prove that normal and natural is better than the artificial. You have to prove that the artificial is at least as good as the normal. Demanding that breastfeeding, which is, incidentally, much more than breast milk, be proved better than artificial feeding, is yet another example of turning the world on its head. No thinking scientist would accept that you have to prove that getting to sleep naturally is better than taking a sleeping pill to get to sleep".
I'm not going to get into it very deeply here, but the benefits of nursing are legion. And, like Dr. Newman reveals, these benefits go far beyond the chemical make up of the milk. Besides the proven benefits of the regular skin-to-skin, one-on-one contact that baby has with mom, we know that nursing prevents infectious disease (Beaudry, 1995 and Dewey, 1995), increases the development of the nervous system (Mortensen, 2002), and protects against chronic diseases (Saarinen and Kajosaari, 1995). But the benefits don't end there --- not by a long shot. We can't leave this section without at least mentioning the effect of nursing on Gut Health.
GUT HEALTH is the most critical aspect of your health that you are likely not as aware of as you should be. If you want to really put this issue in perspective, I would suggest spending some time on DR. ART AYERS' site, Cooling Inflammation. Listen to the conclusions of a 2009 study by three RN's (who also happen to have doctorates) published in the Journal of Perinatal Education (A History of Infant Feeding).
"Breastfeeding rates in the United States have decreased significantly in the 21st century, resulting in serious health issues that include atopy, diabetes mellitus, and childhood obesity. Research suggests that breastfeeding prevents adverse health conditions, whereas formula-feeding is linked with their development. This evidence confirms breastfeeding is still the best source of infant nutrition and the safest method of infant feeding."
HYPOALLERGENIC BABY FORMULA
Let's now briefly discuss the study we started with at the beginning of this post, Hydrolysed Formula and Risk of Allergic or Autoimmune Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The very name of this study leads me to ask the question, what does increase risk of ALLERGIES and AUTOIMMUNITY entail? That's easy. The biggest risk can be described in one word, Dysbiosis.
DYSBIOSIS is almost always caused by ANTIBIOTICS, although there are many NON-ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS that can destroy the Microbiome as well. These antibiotics can come from mom's milk, but are mostly the result of what is prescirbed to baby by their physician for things like runny noses or EAR ACHES. In case you were not aware, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few of the studies showing what these drugs do to children that take them --- not only in the present, but for the rest of their lives as well. Oh; in case you were wondering, Vaccines can cause Dysbiosis as well (HERE and HERE are a couple of examples). Once Dysbiosis is off and running, it is fed via THE HIGH-CARB LIFESTYLE lived by the majority of US citizens.
The idea that a certain type of baby formula can create babies with fewer allergies than breast-fed infants is, in all but extremely rare cases, laughable. In the rare case that some sort of formula is necessary, there are actually recipes for doing it yourself. The best? The venerable Dr. Tim O'Shea has one on his website; at the end of an amazing article called PEDIATRICIANS, BRAIN FATS, FORMULA, AND RAW MILK: THE JIG IS UP.
I can't leave this post without a brief discussion of Colic. No one is really sure what Colic is, other than to say it causes crabby, gassy, babies. Although there are any number of websites that give advice (much of it excellent) on things mom can do to make her milk easier for her baby to digest and assimilate, studies usually show that Colic occurs equally in breast fed babies and bottle fed babies. The solution? Read THIS SHORT ARTICLE I wrote on the topic a number of years ago.
DYSBIOSIS is almost always caused by ANTIBIOTICS, although there are many NON-ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS that can destroy the Microbiome as well. These antibiotics can come from mom's milk, but are mostly the result of what is prescirbed to baby by their physician for things like runny noses or EAR ACHES. In case you were not aware, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few of the studies showing what these drugs do to children that take them --- not only in the present, but for the rest of their lives as well. Oh; in case you were wondering, Vaccines can cause Dysbiosis as well (HERE and HERE are a couple of examples). Once Dysbiosis is off and running, it is fed via THE HIGH-CARB LIFESTYLE lived by the majority of US citizens.
The idea that a certain type of baby formula can create babies with fewer allergies than breast-fed infants is, in all but extremely rare cases, laughable. In the rare case that some sort of formula is necessary, there are actually recipes for doing it yourself. The best? The venerable Dr. Tim O'Shea has one on his website; at the end of an amazing article called PEDIATRICIANS, BRAIN FATS, FORMULA, AND RAW MILK: THE JIG IS UP.
I can't leave this post without a brief discussion of Colic. No one is really sure what Colic is, other than to say it causes crabby, gassy, babies. Although there are any number of websites that give advice (much of it excellent) on things mom can do to make her milk easier for her baby to digest and assimilate, studies usually show that Colic occurs equally in breast fed babies and bottle fed babies. The solution? Read THIS SHORT ARTICLE I wrote on the topic a number of years ago.
PICKY EATING HABITS?
NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THIS CAUSES A TENDENCY TOWARD ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND ADHD IN CHILDREN
I hear it constantly from parents. "My child won't eat anything but CHOCOLATE CAKE AND CHEETOS." Or, "My son will only eat "KID FRIENDLY FOODS". Or maybe it's, "My daughter doesn't like anything but CHICKEN NUGGETS and COLD CEREAL." And as astounding as it sounds, I actually have parents tell me that their child won't drink anything but SODA (most of the time it's because they won't drink anything other than soda either).
This month's issue of the journal Pediatrics carries a study on this subject done at Duke University (Psychological and Psychosocial Impairment in Preschoolers With Selective Eating). One of the more interesting aspects of reviewing this study was that the authors gave a peer-reviewed history lesson revealing that psychological problems have been known to be associated with picky eating for a very long time. This new study goes on to say that.....
"Eating problems among preschool-aged children are so pervasive that clinicians and researchers often treat them as developmentally normal. Particularly prevalent is picky or selective eating (SE): 14% to 20% of parents report that their preschooler (ages 2–5 years old) is “often” or “always” selective with food. Yet, the fact that a behavior is relatively common does not mean that it is harmless. SE has been associated with impairment in emotional, physical, and social domains.
children with severe SE were more than twice as likely to have a comorbid diagnosis of depression or social anxiety... With regard to psychiatric symptoms, both moderate and severe SE was associated with significantly elevated symptoms of depression, social anxiety, and generalized anxiety. However, moderate levels of SE were also associated with symptoms of separation anxiety and ADHD."
Of course, the reason given for this study was so that physicians could screen children and "intervene". But what sort of intervention are they really talking about here? About the best you could possibly hope for is that your busy doctor hands you a pamphlet called "Solutions for Selective Eaters" and then tells you they'll grow out of it. Worst case scenario? That's easy. They'll do what they've been increasingly DOING FOR DECADES --- prescribe DRUGS. In case you are one of those people who is not aware of the many dangers associated with RITALIN or ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS, make sure to read the links.
Although the experts tell us that "Selective Eating" is not really an issue of "likes and dislikes," in the vast majority of cases, I'm not convinced (HERE). Just like you, as a little kid, there were foods that I did not like. However, the rule at our house was that we ate everything on our plate. If we refused to eat it for supper, we got it for breakfast --- cold. Needless to say, it did not take many such breakfasts to learn my lesson. Most of today's parents look at such "old school" methods as a medieval form of torture. Whatever methods you choose to use, it's up to you to educate your children about the importance of eating their vegetables, and then figure out what it's going to take to get from here to there. Don't be their enabler. Because the old cliche, "You are what you eat" is just as true today as it ever was.
This month's issue of the journal Pediatrics carries a study on this subject done at Duke University (Psychological and Psychosocial Impairment in Preschoolers With Selective Eating). One of the more interesting aspects of reviewing this study was that the authors gave a peer-reviewed history lesson revealing that psychological problems have been known to be associated with picky eating for a very long time. This new study goes on to say that.....
"Eating problems among preschool-aged children are so pervasive that clinicians and researchers often treat them as developmentally normal. Particularly prevalent is picky or selective eating (SE): 14% to 20% of parents report that their preschooler (ages 2–5 years old) is “often” or “always” selective with food. Yet, the fact that a behavior is relatively common does not mean that it is harmless. SE has been associated with impairment in emotional, physical, and social domains.
children with severe SE were more than twice as likely to have a comorbid diagnosis of depression or social anxiety... With regard to psychiatric symptoms, both moderate and severe SE was associated with significantly elevated symptoms of depression, social anxiety, and generalized anxiety. However, moderate levels of SE were also associated with symptoms of separation anxiety and ADHD."
Of course, the reason given for this study was so that physicians could screen children and "intervene". But what sort of intervention are they really talking about here? About the best you could possibly hope for is that your busy doctor hands you a pamphlet called "Solutions for Selective Eaters" and then tells you they'll grow out of it. Worst case scenario? That's easy. They'll do what they've been increasingly DOING FOR DECADES --- prescribe DRUGS. In case you are one of those people who is not aware of the many dangers associated with RITALIN or ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS, make sure to read the links.
Although the experts tell us that "Selective Eating" is not really an issue of "likes and dislikes," in the vast majority of cases, I'm not convinced (HERE). Just like you, as a little kid, there were foods that I did not like. However, the rule at our house was that we ate everything on our plate. If we refused to eat it for supper, we got it for breakfast --- cold. Needless to say, it did not take many such breakfasts to learn my lesson. Most of today's parents look at such "old school" methods as a medieval form of torture. Whatever methods you choose to use, it's up to you to educate your children about the importance of eating their vegetables, and then figure out what it's going to take to get from here to there. Don't be their enabler. Because the old cliche, "You are what you eat" is just as true today as it ever was.
OBESITY
THE POINT OF NO RETURN / IGNORANCE IS BLISS
Gigi Ibrahim
"Ignorance is bliss." Thomas Gray from his mid 1700's poem (Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College)
"The kids are alright." The Who from their 1965 song, and the 1979 documentary that bears the same name
"Current weight management programs focused on dieting and exercise are not effective in tackling obesity at population level." Cherry-picked from the July 16th issue of Science News (Low Chance of Obese People Recovering Normal Body Weight)
"The kids are alright." The Who from their 1965 song, and the 1979 documentary that bears the same name
"Current weight management programs focused on dieting and exercise are not effective in tackling obesity at population level." Cherry-picked from the July 16th issue of Science News (Low Chance of Obese People Recovering Normal Body Weight)
I remember a grade school buddy's T-shirt; "An Ounce of Prevention" on the front, with, "Weighs More Than Your Brain" on the back. Of course, this was a play on words concerning the old adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Nowhere is this more true than with OBESITY. What would possibly make me say this?
After scouring the health records of nearly 280,000 adult patients over the past decade, researchers writing in this month's issue of the American Journal of Public Health (Probability of an Obese Person Attaining Normal Body Weight: Cohort Study Using Electronic Health Records) revealed that if you were fighting the battle of the bulge, "the annual probability of attaining normal weight was 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women." Stop and re-read that and let it sink in for a moment. That's less than a half percent success rate for overweight men, and less than a one percent success rate for their female counterparts. Shocking; isn't it? But it's actually much worse than that.
The statistic above is for men and women with a BMI between 30 and 35. If you go over 35 ("morbid obesity"), your odds of successfully returning to a normal weight decrease, "to 1 in 1290 for men and 1 in 677 for women." Study co-author, Dr. Martin Gulliford of King's College (London) says that the chief methods of dealing with Obesity are not working. What are these methods? I mentioned both in a quote at the top of the page --- "Cutting calories and boosting physical activity." We should not be surprised, as I've shown you repeatedly that this approach doesn't work (HERE).
Bottom line; if you are not preventing Obesity in the first place, you are already behind the eight ball --- in a very big way. In fact, lead researcher, Dr. Dr Alison Fildes, told the BBC News that, "the greatest opportunity for fighting the obesity epidemic might be in public health policies to prevent it in the first place at a population level." The problem is (and as we just saw via the quote from her co-author) that their approaches aren't working. Maybe they are advocating for a new sort of "Food Police" here? Not sure, but another brand new study lets us know that we have a doubly hard row to hoe in front of us when it comes to educating our progeny about this issue.
Most of the older generation has noticed a trend. That trend is that when you compare TODAY'S CHILDREN and adolescents to those of YEARS GONE BY, they tend to be heavier, more sedentary, and as often as not, less motivated. For the most part, this can be laid directly at the feet of parents who have found that it's easier to coddle or pacify than train. Among other things, their children are living on "KID FRIENDLY FOODS" such as CHICKEN NUGGETS, COLD CEREAL, a VAST ARRAY of junk carbs, and hot dogs. One result of this sort of lifestyle is that studies are showing that today's adults are both overestimating their own health as well as underestimating their weight.
Unfortunately, these same parents are now underestimating their children's 'weight problem' as well (HERE). But the trend doesn't stop there. Now we see that the children themselves no longer realize they weigh too much. Lest you think I am simply trying to be mean, take a look at two studies that were published exactly one year apart. One year ago this month, the CDC released a report (Perception of Weight Status in U.S. Children and Adolescents Aged 8–15 Years, 2005–2012). This report revealed that.......
"Approximately 81% of overweight boys and 71% of overweight girls believe they are about the right weight. Nearly 48% of obese boys and 36% of obese girls consider themselves to be about the right weight."
Exactly one year later (this month) we were given this gem from the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (More Overweight Adolescents Think They Are Just Fine: Generational Shift in Body Weight Perceptions Among Adolescents in the U.S.). Researchers compared the BMI's of children (ages 12 to 16) who answered the question, "Do you consider yourself to be overweight, underweight, or just about the right weight?" in the early 1990's, to the BMI's of children who answered the same question just a couple years ago. Although BMI's in this age group increased by a whopping 27% in the two decades between the questions........
"the probability of self-perceiving as "overweight" declined by 29% for overweight / obese adolescents interviewed recently. The declining tendency of accurately self-perceiving as overweight was most pronounced among whites. Both boys and girls interviewed recently were significantly less likely to accurately self-perceive as overweight."
We have a huge problem on our hands folks. Approximately 70% of our population is overweight, and over half those are obese. And neither the obese children nor their obese parents realize there's a problem. When it comes to dealing with this, we've already seen (repeatedly) that simply telling people to eat less and exercise more does not work. What does work? Certainly not another visit to your doctor (HERE, HERE, HERE, or HERE).
If you want to LOSE WEIGHT permanently, you'll have to, in the words immortalized in the movie Cool Hand Luke, "get your mind right". The very first thing you need to do is understand WHAT INFLAMMATION IS, and realize that there is a strong (causal) link between it and Obesity. The second thing you need to do is realize that not only is SUGAR EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY, if you can control your BLOOD SUGAR (note that I am not talking about whether or not your numbers are within 'normal' range on a blood test) --- especially from your youth ---- you will be much less apt to require taking THIS QUIZ. Thirdly, if you fail to grasp the importance of GUT HEALTH as it pertains to your weight, you will likely remain heavy for the rest of your days. Because there are any number of other things that might need to be dealt with in order to be successful, you can take a look at them HERE.
After scouring the health records of nearly 280,000 adult patients over the past decade, researchers writing in this month's issue of the American Journal of Public Health (Probability of an Obese Person Attaining Normal Body Weight: Cohort Study Using Electronic Health Records) revealed that if you were fighting the battle of the bulge, "the annual probability of attaining normal weight was 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women." Stop and re-read that and let it sink in for a moment. That's less than a half percent success rate for overweight men, and less than a one percent success rate for their female counterparts. Shocking; isn't it? But it's actually much worse than that.
The statistic above is for men and women with a BMI between 30 and 35. If you go over 35 ("morbid obesity"), your odds of successfully returning to a normal weight decrease, "to 1 in 1290 for men and 1 in 677 for women." Study co-author, Dr. Martin Gulliford of King's College (London) says that the chief methods of dealing with Obesity are not working. What are these methods? I mentioned both in a quote at the top of the page --- "Cutting calories and boosting physical activity." We should not be surprised, as I've shown you repeatedly that this approach doesn't work (HERE).
Bottom line; if you are not preventing Obesity in the first place, you are already behind the eight ball --- in a very big way. In fact, lead researcher, Dr. Dr Alison Fildes, told the BBC News that, "the greatest opportunity for fighting the obesity epidemic might be in public health policies to prevent it in the first place at a population level." The problem is (and as we just saw via the quote from her co-author) that their approaches aren't working. Maybe they are advocating for a new sort of "Food Police" here? Not sure, but another brand new study lets us know that we have a doubly hard row to hoe in front of us when it comes to educating our progeny about this issue.
Most of the older generation has noticed a trend. That trend is that when you compare TODAY'S CHILDREN and adolescents to those of YEARS GONE BY, they tend to be heavier, more sedentary, and as often as not, less motivated. For the most part, this can be laid directly at the feet of parents who have found that it's easier to coddle or pacify than train. Among other things, their children are living on "KID FRIENDLY FOODS" such as CHICKEN NUGGETS, COLD CEREAL, a VAST ARRAY of junk carbs, and hot dogs. One result of this sort of lifestyle is that studies are showing that today's adults are both overestimating their own health as well as underestimating their weight.
Unfortunately, these same parents are now underestimating their children's 'weight problem' as well (HERE). But the trend doesn't stop there. Now we see that the children themselves no longer realize they weigh too much. Lest you think I am simply trying to be mean, take a look at two studies that were published exactly one year apart. One year ago this month, the CDC released a report (Perception of Weight Status in U.S. Children and Adolescents Aged 8–15 Years, 2005–2012). This report revealed that.......
"Approximately 81% of overweight boys and 71% of overweight girls believe they are about the right weight. Nearly 48% of obese boys and 36% of obese girls consider themselves to be about the right weight."
Exactly one year later (this month) we were given this gem from the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (More Overweight Adolescents Think They Are Just Fine: Generational Shift in Body Weight Perceptions Among Adolescents in the U.S.). Researchers compared the BMI's of children (ages 12 to 16) who answered the question, "Do you consider yourself to be overweight, underweight, or just about the right weight?" in the early 1990's, to the BMI's of children who answered the same question just a couple years ago. Although BMI's in this age group increased by a whopping 27% in the two decades between the questions........
"the probability of self-perceiving as "overweight" declined by 29% for overweight / obese adolescents interviewed recently. The declining tendency of accurately self-perceiving as overweight was most pronounced among whites. Both boys and girls interviewed recently were significantly less likely to accurately self-perceive as overweight."
We have a huge problem on our hands folks. Approximately 70% of our population is overweight, and over half those are obese. And neither the obese children nor their obese parents realize there's a problem. When it comes to dealing with this, we've already seen (repeatedly) that simply telling people to eat less and exercise more does not work. What does work? Certainly not another visit to your doctor (HERE, HERE, HERE, or HERE).
If you want to LOSE WEIGHT permanently, you'll have to, in the words immortalized in the movie Cool Hand Luke, "get your mind right". The very first thing you need to do is understand WHAT INFLAMMATION IS, and realize that there is a strong (causal) link between it and Obesity. The second thing you need to do is realize that not only is SUGAR EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY, if you can control your BLOOD SUGAR (note that I am not talking about whether or not your numbers are within 'normal' range on a blood test) --- especially from your youth ---- you will be much less apt to require taking THIS QUIZ. Thirdly, if you fail to grasp the importance of GUT HEALTH as it pertains to your weight, you will likely remain heavy for the rest of your days. Because there are any number of other things that might need to be dealt with in order to be successful, you can take a look at them HERE.
OBLIVIOUS!
NOT ONLY TO THEIR OWN OBESITY,
BUT TO THAT OF THEIR CHILDREN AS WELL
"Whether or not knowledge is reliably power, denial and delusion are reliably disempowering. We do not always fix what we know to be broken, but we virtually never fix what we are overlooking—whether at the personal level or that of our culture." From Dr. David Katz brand new editorial on parents' propensity to ignore or underestimate their children's obesity. "Children routinely get what used to be 'adult onset' diabetes." Ibid
"Percentages of parents who inappropriately perceived their overweight child as just about the right weight was 96.6% and 94.9%. As high as 78.4% of parents perceived their obese child as just about the right weight. There was a declining tendency among parents to perceive overweight children appropriately." From the actual study Katz is dealing with above, in the same issue of the same journal; Childhood Obesity (Change in Misperception of Child's Body Weight among Parents of American Preschool Children)
"Percentages of parents who inappropriately perceived their overweight child as just about the right weight was 96.6% and 94.9%. As high as 78.4% of parents perceived their obese child as just about the right weight. There was a declining tendency among parents to perceive overweight children appropriately." From the actual study Katz is dealing with above, in the same issue of the same journal; Childhood Obesity (Change in Misperception of Child's Body Weight among Parents of American Preschool Children)
If you look at the picture above, it will help you remember (or at least understand) that America did not used to be the land of the large. In fact, not that long ago, not only was it fairly uncommon to see OBESE adults, seeing an OBESE CHILD was downright rare. Unfortunately, things have changed. In a big way (no pun intended). Today the majority of our population is overweight, and all you have to do is visit a local classroom, movie theater, or swimming pool to see the proof. But the real evidence is the fact that we are regularly witnessing diseases that were previously thought to occur only in obese adults (Fatty Liver Disease, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, HIGH CHOLESTEROL, METABOLIC SYNDROME, TYPE II DIABETES, and any number of others) in children. Not surprising considering the amount of BELLY FAT they are carrying from very early ages.
There are numerous studies from numerous countries showing the same thing --- that not only are kids getting fatter and fatter, but that parents are increasingly turning a blind eye. Current research shows that parents not only discount or ignore their own weight issues, they are ignoring their kid's weight issues as well. Interestingly enough, Dr. David Katz, Director of Yale's Prevention Research Center and Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Childhood Obesity, just published an editorial (Oblivobesity: Looking Over the Overweight That Parents Keep Overlooking) on this very topic.
Katz begins his editorial by discussing a brand new study from The British Journal of General Practice (Child Obesity Cut-Offs as Derived From Parental Perceptions: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire). After looking at almost 3,000 obese children and the way their parents viewed their weight, the authors determined that, "Parents become more likely to classify their children as overweight at the 99.7th percentile or above." Stop and think about this for a moment. As fat as our nation's kids are, unless they are in the top .003% of the heaviest children (the very fattest of the fat), their parents will deny there's an issue.
Without directly saying so, Katz admits that we have been lying to ourselves about our children's weights by promoting slogans in the public schools such as, "Okay At Any Size". It's one thing to teach children that "Fat Shaming" is neither nice nor polite, but it's a whole other thing altogether not to teach kids that being fat is a serious health risk that carries an almost limitless array of devastating / ugly consequences. For instance, we know that Obesity itself is considered "INFLAMMATORY" and that INFLAMMATION is the root of virtually every disease you can name, including the heavy hitters like those mentioned earlier, as well as CANCER, HEART DISEASE, AUTOIMMUNITY, and a host of others.
Furthermore, studies show that most parents are also underestimating how active their kids are. Oh; no Dr. Jones.... My little Junior can't be overweight. In fact, he is really quite active and plays all day long. What mom is not telling "Dr. Jones" is that he plays video games all day long, while munching on his favorite snacks. A 2010 issue of the International Journal of Pediatrics (Parental Misperception of Their Child's Body Weight Status Impedes the Assessment of the Child's Lifestyle Behaviors) concluded that, "16%, 55%, and 77% of normal weight, underweight and overweight or obese children were perceived inaccurately, respectively. Erroneous body weight status identification impedes the evaluation of eating habits of all children as well as physical activity and fitness levels of underweight and obese or overweight children. Parental misclassification of the child's body weight status and lifestyle habits constitutes an unfavorable context for healthy body weight management." Sadly enough, part of the problem is that like most parents, most doctors are also turning a blind eye to this problem.
This was seen in the 2011 study published in Pediatrics (Parental Perceptions of Weight Terminology That Providers Use With Youth). Parents of overweight children from all over the US were quizzed about the potential words their doctor might use to describe the fact that their child was in fact, overweight (extremely obese, high BMI, weight problem, unhealthy weight, weight, heavy, obese, overweight, chubby, and fat were some of the terms used). On a scale of one to five, "the terms 'fat,' 'obese,' and 'extremely obese' were rated as the most undesirable, stigmatizing, blaming, and least motivating." Parents will put their kids on round after round after round of OBESITY-CAUSING ANTIBIOTICS, but they don't want their doctor telling them their kid is more than just a little chubby.
I have gone as far to tell people that if your kids are fat and you are CHOOSING NOT TO ADDRESS IT, you are condemning them (a difficult word, but true) to a life of physical and emotional misery. Katz would undoubtedly find me a bit harsh (he believes that this problem can be solved with, "a focus on health, family, and love") but would probably agree with me in principle. "Our disinclination to weigh our kids routinely is not sparing them our culture's unfortunate preoccupation with weight. It is merely distorting their perspective of their own weight, what is healthy, and how to get there from here". In this context, there is a normal weight, and here would be overweight or obese.
Katz himself admits that his views on how to fix this are quite possibly a pipe-dream, when he reveals that what he said in the quote at the very top of the page might be one of the many things that sound so good on paper, but don't always work out so well in real life (Communism is another that comes immediately to mind). "Knowledge may or may not translate into power. Obliviousness far more reliably translates into powerlessness. Parents cannot ignore the threat of obesity to our children and still hope to fix it." There is only one way that parents can even hope to fix this problem --- leading from the front. Unfortunately, here in America most parents are leading from the couch. If you are 100lbs overweight, can no longer climb a set of stairs without huffing and puffing, are making constant trips to Dairy Queen, and spending your evenings in front of the TV eating chocolate cake and Cheetos, do you really think your kids are going to listen to anything you have to say on the subject?
If you want to see what it's going to require to take your life back, get your weight down, and beyond that, get healthy; you need to read THIS POST. And while measuring how overweight one is is certainly a starting point in the discussion of health and sickness, it is by no means the only one --- especially when you factor in the people who are either SKINNY FAT or are measuring their health by whether or not they can still get into that old pair of jeans. But until we can be completely honest with ourselves, nothing is going to change.
There are numerous studies from numerous countries showing the same thing --- that not only are kids getting fatter and fatter, but that parents are increasingly turning a blind eye. Current research shows that parents not only discount or ignore their own weight issues, they are ignoring their kid's weight issues as well. Interestingly enough, Dr. David Katz, Director of Yale's Prevention Research Center and Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Childhood Obesity, just published an editorial (Oblivobesity: Looking Over the Overweight That Parents Keep Overlooking) on this very topic.
Katz begins his editorial by discussing a brand new study from The British Journal of General Practice (Child Obesity Cut-Offs as Derived From Parental Perceptions: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire). After looking at almost 3,000 obese children and the way their parents viewed their weight, the authors determined that, "Parents become more likely to classify their children as overweight at the 99.7th percentile or above." Stop and think about this for a moment. As fat as our nation's kids are, unless they are in the top .003% of the heaviest children (the very fattest of the fat), their parents will deny there's an issue.
Without directly saying so, Katz admits that we have been lying to ourselves about our children's weights by promoting slogans in the public schools such as, "Okay At Any Size". It's one thing to teach children that "Fat Shaming" is neither nice nor polite, but it's a whole other thing altogether not to teach kids that being fat is a serious health risk that carries an almost limitless array of devastating / ugly consequences. For instance, we know that Obesity itself is considered "INFLAMMATORY" and that INFLAMMATION is the root of virtually every disease you can name, including the heavy hitters like those mentioned earlier, as well as CANCER, HEART DISEASE, AUTOIMMUNITY, and a host of others.
Furthermore, studies show that most parents are also underestimating how active their kids are. Oh; no Dr. Jones.... My little Junior can't be overweight. In fact, he is really quite active and plays all day long. What mom is not telling "Dr. Jones" is that he plays video games all day long, while munching on his favorite snacks. A 2010 issue of the International Journal of Pediatrics (Parental Misperception of Their Child's Body Weight Status Impedes the Assessment of the Child's Lifestyle Behaviors) concluded that, "16%, 55%, and 77% of normal weight, underweight and overweight or obese children were perceived inaccurately, respectively. Erroneous body weight status identification impedes the evaluation of eating habits of all children as well as physical activity and fitness levels of underweight and obese or overweight children. Parental misclassification of the child's body weight status and lifestyle habits constitutes an unfavorable context for healthy body weight management." Sadly enough, part of the problem is that like most parents, most doctors are also turning a blind eye to this problem.
This was seen in the 2011 study published in Pediatrics (Parental Perceptions of Weight Terminology That Providers Use With Youth). Parents of overweight children from all over the US were quizzed about the potential words their doctor might use to describe the fact that their child was in fact, overweight (extremely obese, high BMI, weight problem, unhealthy weight, weight, heavy, obese, overweight, chubby, and fat were some of the terms used). On a scale of one to five, "the terms 'fat,' 'obese,' and 'extremely obese' were rated as the most undesirable, stigmatizing, blaming, and least motivating." Parents will put their kids on round after round after round of OBESITY-CAUSING ANTIBIOTICS, but they don't want their doctor telling them their kid is more than just a little chubby.
I have gone as far to tell people that if your kids are fat and you are CHOOSING NOT TO ADDRESS IT, you are condemning them (a difficult word, but true) to a life of physical and emotional misery. Katz would undoubtedly find me a bit harsh (he believes that this problem can be solved with, "a focus on health, family, and love") but would probably agree with me in principle. "Our disinclination to weigh our kids routinely is not sparing them our culture's unfortunate preoccupation with weight. It is merely distorting their perspective of their own weight, what is healthy, and how to get there from here". In this context, there is a normal weight, and here would be overweight or obese.
Katz himself admits that his views on how to fix this are quite possibly a pipe-dream, when he reveals that what he said in the quote at the very top of the page might be one of the many things that sound so good on paper, but don't always work out so well in real life (Communism is another that comes immediately to mind). "Knowledge may or may not translate into power. Obliviousness far more reliably translates into powerlessness. Parents cannot ignore the threat of obesity to our children and still hope to fix it." There is only one way that parents can even hope to fix this problem --- leading from the front. Unfortunately, here in America most parents are leading from the couch. If you are 100lbs overweight, can no longer climb a set of stairs without huffing and puffing, are making constant trips to Dairy Queen, and spending your evenings in front of the TV eating chocolate cake and Cheetos, do you really think your kids are going to listen to anything you have to say on the subject?
If you want to see what it's going to require to take your life back, get your weight down, and beyond that, get healthy; you need to read THIS POST. And while measuring how overweight one is is certainly a starting point in the discussion of health and sickness, it is by no means the only one --- especially when you factor in the people who are either SKINNY FAT or are measuring their health by whether or not they can still get into that old pair of jeans. But until we can be completely honest with ourselves, nothing is going to change.
ADHESED FASCIA IN CHILDREN
MORE COMMON THAN YOU MIGHT SUSPECT
In response to YESTERDAY'S POST on childhood headaches, I had someone drop me an email accusing me of "making up" problems. They did not believe that children could develop SCARRING OF THE FASCIA in similar fashion to adults. The truth is, they do --- and whether it falls under the category of DENSIFICATION, FASCIAL ADHESION, or FIBROSIS, the results are essentially the same; pain and dysfunction. And if you think your pediatrician is going to figure this out, think again.
The May issue of Practical Pain Management carried an article called Pain in Children that dealt with everything from HEADACHES, Growing Pains, Abdominal Pain, etc, etc. But since it did not tell me how many children are dealing with pain on a day-to-day basis, I went to the peer-reviewed literature. The December, 2011 issue of Pain (The Epidemiology of Chronic Pain in Children and Adolescents Revisited: A Systematic Review) had the statistics, but they were all over the place. "Prevalence rates ranged substantially, and were as follows: headache: 8-83%; abdominal pain: 4-53%; back pain: 14-24%; musculoskeletal pain: 4-40%; multiple pains: 4-49%; other pains: 5-88%. Pain prevalence rates were generally higher in girls and increased with age for most pain types."
Several months prior to that, The Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences (Pain in Children and Adolescents: Prevalence, Impact on Daily Life, and Parents' Perception, A School Survey) came to similar conclusions. "Pain problems in children and adolescents have increased during the last 20 years and have been identified as an important public health problem. Sixty per cent of the children and adolescents reported pain within the previous 3 months. Pain increased with age, where girls aged 16-18 years reported the most pain. Total prevalence of chronic pain was 21%. Children reported impact on social life; inability to pursue hobbies, disturbed sleep, absence from school, and inability to meet friends because of pain. The girls reported significantly more frequently disturbed sleep, loss of appetite, and use of medication, compared to the boys. There was little agreement between parents and children regarding pain. Pain is a common problem and influences the daily lives of children and adolescents." This statement raised a couple of good questions. Why would pain be increasing in children, and why would there not be much agreement between parents and children about said pain? Answering these two questions will help get us to the crux of the matter.
Many, if not most, of the most common forms of Childhood Pain are FUNCTIONAL. In other words, when we look at things like MRI or blood work, there is no overt pathology present. And as far as musculoskeletal pains go, much of this inability of doctors not being able to determine what is really wrong with a child has to do with the fact that FASCIA DOES NOT IMAGE well with standard tests despite the fact that it is far more linked to health (or a lack of it) than you have ever imagined (HERE). Even though various forms of MUPS are thought to be the most common reason for physical problem in America, patients (in this case, children) are sent home and their parents are told there is nothing really wrong with them (Growing Pains is the most common 'bucket diagnosis' for this age group). Thus you can see the reason that there is disagreement between parents and children. And as far as non-musculoskeletal problems in children, THIS POST should begin to help you understand the discrepancy.
The May issue of Practical Pain Management carried an article called Pain in Children that dealt with everything from HEADACHES, Growing Pains, Abdominal Pain, etc, etc. But since it did not tell me how many children are dealing with pain on a day-to-day basis, I went to the peer-reviewed literature. The December, 2011 issue of Pain (The Epidemiology of Chronic Pain in Children and Adolescents Revisited: A Systematic Review) had the statistics, but they were all over the place. "Prevalence rates ranged substantially, and were as follows: headache: 8-83%; abdominal pain: 4-53%; back pain: 14-24%; musculoskeletal pain: 4-40%; multiple pains: 4-49%; other pains: 5-88%. Pain prevalence rates were generally higher in girls and increased with age for most pain types."
Several months prior to that, The Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences (Pain in Children and Adolescents: Prevalence, Impact on Daily Life, and Parents' Perception, A School Survey) came to similar conclusions. "Pain problems in children and adolescents have increased during the last 20 years and have been identified as an important public health problem. Sixty per cent of the children and adolescents reported pain within the previous 3 months. Pain increased with age, where girls aged 16-18 years reported the most pain. Total prevalence of chronic pain was 21%. Children reported impact on social life; inability to pursue hobbies, disturbed sleep, absence from school, and inability to meet friends because of pain. The girls reported significantly more frequently disturbed sleep, loss of appetite, and use of medication, compared to the boys. There was little agreement between parents and children regarding pain. Pain is a common problem and influences the daily lives of children and adolescents." This statement raised a couple of good questions. Why would pain be increasing in children, and why would there not be much agreement between parents and children about said pain? Answering these two questions will help get us to the crux of the matter.
Many, if not most, of the most common forms of Childhood Pain are FUNCTIONAL. In other words, when we look at things like MRI or blood work, there is no overt pathology present. And as far as musculoskeletal pains go, much of this inability of doctors not being able to determine what is really wrong with a child has to do with the fact that FASCIA DOES NOT IMAGE well with standard tests despite the fact that it is far more linked to health (or a lack of it) than you have ever imagined (HERE). Even though various forms of MUPS are thought to be the most common reason for physical problem in America, patients (in this case, children) are sent home and their parents are told there is nothing really wrong with them (Growing Pains is the most common 'bucket diagnosis' for this age group). Thus you can see the reason that there is disagreement between parents and children. And as far as non-musculoskeletal problems in children, THIS POST should begin to help you understand the discrepancy.
WHAT CAUSES FASCIAL ADHESIONS IN CHILDREN?
There are essentially two reasons that children --- sometimes very young children --- end up with Fascial Adhesions. For all intents and purposes, they are the same two reasons that adults end up with Fasical Adhesions; injury and Inflammation. By injury, this could be an acute injury like a fall, a SPORTS INJURY, a FIGHT, etc; or it could be a chronic injury such as POOR POSTURE, too much sitting, or performing repetitive activities. I believe, however, that CHRONIC INFLAMMATION does a better job of explaining why pain is increasing in children. Due to increasingly cruddy diets, increasing numbers of ALLERGIES and FOOD SENSITIVITIES, diminished time spent outdoors PLAYING IN THE DIRT, increasing amounts of ANTIBIOTICS (and NON-ANTIBIOTICS), as well as exposure to an increasing amount of TOXIC CHEMICALS, we are all becoming increasingly inflamed at a decreasing age.
To grasp this concept, you first have to understand what Inflammation really is (HERE). Secondly, you have to realize that there are any number of things that can drive it (GLUTEN, MOLD, YEAST, DYSBIOSIS, screwed up MICROBIOMES, a LEAKY GUT, MERCURY TOXICITY, HIGH CARB DIETS, etc, etc, etc). And finally, it is critical to realize that the end result of Inflammation is always the same thing --- Scar Tissue and Fibrosis (HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE). I have seen Fascial Adhesions in very young children (my own son had some issues in his neck as the result of a minor TRAMPOLINE incident when he was four or five). One of my "EARLY PATIENTS" this morning was an 11 year old gymnast with OSGOOD SCHLATTER SYNDROME --- a perfect example of a painful childhood condition that is tissue-based.
To grasp this concept, you first have to understand what Inflammation really is (HERE). Secondly, you have to realize that there are any number of things that can drive it (GLUTEN, MOLD, YEAST, DYSBIOSIS, screwed up MICROBIOMES, a LEAKY GUT, MERCURY TOXICITY, HIGH CARB DIETS, etc, etc, etc). And finally, it is critical to realize that the end result of Inflammation is always the same thing --- Scar Tissue and Fibrosis (HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE). I have seen Fascial Adhesions in very young children (my own son had some issues in his neck as the result of a minor TRAMPOLINE incident when he was four or five). One of my "EARLY PATIENTS" this morning was an 11 year old gymnast with OSGOOD SCHLATTER SYNDROME --- a perfect example of a painful childhood condition that is tissue-based.
SOLVING PAINFUL CONDITIONS IN CHILDREN
The first thing I want to make clear to you is that I am not telling you that you should not take your child to a doctor in order to have your him or her DIAGNOSED with whatever diseases might be present. Next, you'll have to educate yourself. Use my site as a resource, but never blindly follow anything that any doctor (self included) tells you --- always do your own research. The next step is making the appropriate lifestyle changes. Contrary to what YOU MIGHT BE THINKING, it's not impossible. And lastly (especially when it comes to CHRONIC PAIN), make sure your child is getting the appropriate biomechanical care.
The really cool thing is that when it comes to ADJUSTING CHILDREN, few things are easier. And as for the BRUISING associated with clearing out problems with the Fascia, not only do I rarely have to get that intense with really young kids, if I do, they almost universally tolerate it better than you might think. And the neat thing is, many of these changes are IMMEDIATE, as opposed to requiring months of treatment --- or using DANGEROUS DRUGS to mask symptoms, while hoping (keep those fingers crossed) that the problem eventually takes care of itself. If you are looking for some general guidelines, HERE they are.
The really cool thing is that when it comes to ADJUSTING CHILDREN, few things are easier. And as for the BRUISING associated with clearing out problems with the Fascia, not only do I rarely have to get that intense with really young kids, if I do, they almost universally tolerate it better than you might think. And the neat thing is, many of these changes are IMMEDIATE, as opposed to requiring months of treatment --- or using DANGEROUS DRUGS to mask symptoms, while hoping (keep those fingers crossed) that the problem eventually takes care of itself. If you are looking for some general guidelines, HERE they are.
CHILDREN IN PAIN
(HEADACHES)
"Children and their parents should understand that there are no miracle cures for headaches." Dr Lawrence Robbins from the article discussed today.
I just received the May issue of Practical Pain Management, and was immediately drawn to the cover's title --- Children In Pain: From Headaches to Growing Pains. Most of all I was interested in the article by Dr. Lawrence Robbins (Managing Headaches in Children and Adolescents). Although Robbins is undoubtedly a brilliant doctor with world-wide credentials (he is a Neurologist, and his website states that he is, "considered to be one of the top 10 experts in the country on management of headache medication. He started the American Headache Society section on refractory headaches, and has written as much on the topic as anyone in the world"), this article not only shows how differently MD's think, but reveals OLD PREJUDICES as well.
Robbins gets the ball rolling by telling us that, "Headache is a common complaint among children and adolescents." Because he doesn't tell us just how prevalent HEADACHES are in this population, I looked at the science. The December, 2013 issue of Pediatrics in Review (Pediatric Headache: A Review) stated that, "Headaches are common in children and adolescents and are a frequent chief complaint in office and emergency department visits. Depending on the study definition of headache, population involved, and time periods studied, 17% to 90% of children report headaches, with an overall prevalence of 58% reporting some form of headache in the past year." How many of these Headaches are MIGRAINE HEADACHES? In a brand new article for Medscape (Migraine in Children), Dr. William C. Robertson reveals that, "Migraine is a common disorder in children. Estimates indicate that 3.5-5% of all children will experience recurrent headaches consistent with migraine."
We learn that in similar fashion to adults, "the vast majority of headaches in children and adolescents are.... migraine, tension-type headache, and chronic daily headache." He goes on to tell us how said headaches should be diagnosed --- via a "thorough history and physical examination." What's interesting is that regardless of anything that Dr. Robbins is doing in his clinic, what should be and what is, are two very different things. For instance, for years I have been increasingly hearing the same thing from people visiting specialists for all sorts of musculoskeletal complaints --- I went to yet another doctor and he didn't examine me either. In fact, I find it particularly ridiculous that despite the huge amounts of peer-reviewed literature linking abnormal ranges of motion of the cervical spine to Headaches, THESE RANGES OF MOTION are rarely if ever checked --- particularly in children, and particularly if there is no history of trauma (HERE).
Instead, even though Dr. Robbins lets us know that the guidelines clearly state that most diagnostic tests are completely, "unnecessary" (laboratory investigation usually is not warranted.... Neuroimaging studies usually are not indicated in children with a normal neurologic examination...., especially migraine or tension-type headache. These children usually will not have significantly abnormal findings on head CT scans or MRI), the first thing that most physicians immediately order is some sort of advanced imaging --- HERE (especially CT) and blood work --- just to make sure that we're not dealing with a brain tumor.
Robbins gets the ball rolling by telling us that, "Headache is a common complaint among children and adolescents." Because he doesn't tell us just how prevalent HEADACHES are in this population, I looked at the science. The December, 2013 issue of Pediatrics in Review (Pediatric Headache: A Review) stated that, "Headaches are common in children and adolescents and are a frequent chief complaint in office and emergency department visits. Depending on the study definition of headache, population involved, and time periods studied, 17% to 90% of children report headaches, with an overall prevalence of 58% reporting some form of headache in the past year." How many of these Headaches are MIGRAINE HEADACHES? In a brand new article for Medscape (Migraine in Children), Dr. William C. Robertson reveals that, "Migraine is a common disorder in children. Estimates indicate that 3.5-5% of all children will experience recurrent headaches consistent with migraine."
We learn that in similar fashion to adults, "the vast majority of headaches in children and adolescents are.... migraine, tension-type headache, and chronic daily headache." He goes on to tell us how said headaches should be diagnosed --- via a "thorough history and physical examination." What's interesting is that regardless of anything that Dr. Robbins is doing in his clinic, what should be and what is, are two very different things. For instance, for years I have been increasingly hearing the same thing from people visiting specialists for all sorts of musculoskeletal complaints --- I went to yet another doctor and he didn't examine me either. In fact, I find it particularly ridiculous that despite the huge amounts of peer-reviewed literature linking abnormal ranges of motion of the cervical spine to Headaches, THESE RANGES OF MOTION are rarely if ever checked --- particularly in children, and particularly if there is no history of trauma (HERE).
Instead, even though Dr. Robbins lets us know that the guidelines clearly state that most diagnostic tests are completely, "unnecessary" (laboratory investigation usually is not warranted.... Neuroimaging studies usually are not indicated in children with a normal neurologic examination...., especially migraine or tension-type headache. These children usually will not have significantly abnormal findings on head CT scans or MRI), the first thing that most physicians immediately order is some sort of advanced imaging --- HERE (especially CT) and blood work --- just to make sure that we're not dealing with a brain tumor.
After talking about "collaboration" and before mentioning his belief that, "a multidisciplinary approach is the most successful for patients with severe headaches," Dr. Robbins discusses "Nonpharmacologic Treatments". Behavioral Specialists and PTs are the practitioners he mentions by name. As far as "lifestyle strategies" are concerned, he suggests that, "It helps to say [to patients] that migraines are a genetic medical condition, just as asthma or diabetes are," and suggests things like, "relaxation techniques, such as biofeedback, deep breathing, and imaging." I'll deal with the rest of his statement later, but just remember that in most cases --- probably the vast majority of cases --- blaming 'bad genes' on your health problems (Genetics) is being discarded in favor of something called EPIGENEICTICS.
So, when Robbins says that, "Nonpharmacologic treatments are particularly important because they typically are more effective in children and help to minimize the use of medications and their related side effects," I'm not fully convinced that he is being completely sincere. Even though he mentions things like diet, food, allergies, missed meals, perfume or other smells, stress, hormones, cigarette smoke, exercise --- to much or lack of (he recommends a half hour per day and specifically mentions swimming, walking, biking, and yoga by name), there is little time spent in discussion of any of these ---- despite having just spoken so highly of their collective benefits. When you get down to it, the focus of this paper is the drugs used most often to treat these kids.
Unfortunately, when you talk to the average person who struggles with severe headaches (child or adult), you'll find that while drugs can certainly provide some relief in some instances, drugs are not a great therapy for most people, and the results are always short-lived. There are several tables in the article and all but one concern the two classes of drugs used for treating children with headaches.
Some of the drugs that are specifically mentioned include NSAIDS, various forms of ACETAMINOPHEN & IBUPROFEN, Caffeine (which also acts as a trigger for many people), NEURONTIN, ANTIDEPRESSANTS (children are the new frontier for this class of drug), BETA BLOCKERS, CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS, BOTOX, Topomax, Imatrex, and an array of others. In his defense, he does mention Magnesium as well as several herbs as showing benefit against Headaches.
But what do we already know happens to these kids once their Headaches are severe enough they are seeing doctors for them? They end up being prescribed NARCOTICS. In case you think I am being harsh or simply making this up, HERE are the studies. And if we are honest with each other (and regardless of what Dr. Robbins is doing in his clinic), we already know that not one doctor in 100 is giving any sort of meaningful dietary advice to the families of children with Headaches, other than possibly the sort given here; "eat a proper diet" (HERE'S WHY). In light of the science, I'm almost not sure how an article like this could be written without at least taking a few sentences to discuss the GLUTEN / MIGRAINE CONNECTION or mention the premise of fellow Neurologist, David Perlmutter's #1 best selling book, Grain Brain?
And in this age of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, how can an overview of Childhood Headaches fail to spend at least a paragraph on one of the hottest topics in Headache Research today (not to mention for the past decade); REBOUND HEADACHES (the headaches that are both relieved and caused by the same medications)? And what about manipulation? He fails to as much as mention it in any capacity. When a combination of CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENTS and SCAR TISSUE REMODELING are used for patients with Chronic Headaches, the results are frequently nothing short of miraculous (HERE). And when this approach doesn't work, it's time to find the source of the INFLAMMATION that's driving the problem.
There are any number of Inflammatory drivers that children (or adults) can potentially be dealing with that are causing their Chronic Headaches. One of the chiefest of these has to do with GUT HEALTH. When you look at the research linking Chronic Migraine to the combination of messed up MICROBIOMES and LEAKY GUT SYNDROME, you should already be thinking along these lines ---- particularly when Dr. Robbins specifically mentions that DEPRESSION (heavily linked to Gut issues --- HERE or HERE) and GI PROBLEMS are both common "comorbidities" of Chronic Headaches. There's nothing in his article about MOLD. There's nothing said about YEAST. There's nothing mentioned about DYSBIOSIS or the various drugs that cause it (HERE). The silence on some of these issues is deafening.
Maybe this was just an issue of space (not enough of it), and Dr. Robbins did not have enough time to deal with some of these issues. But methinks not. I would contend that if Dr. Robbins combined what he already knows about Headaches, with some of DR. CARRICK'S FUNCTIONAL NEUROLOGY (or just hire a Functional Neurologist) and a took a "Functional Medicine" approach, his results would go through the ceiling. Naturally, there would be much less time spent discussing medication in his articles. If you are looking for a starting point as far as getting your child off their Headache Medications, or preventing some time on the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND, why not at least take a quick gander at THIS POST.
As always, the information in this post and on my site is just that --- information. It is not meant to diagnose or treat any sort of disease. THE FDA has declared that drugs and surgery are the only "cures" for diseases. If you feel you or your child has a disease, make an appointment with your doctor immediately, as this post is not meant to take the place of medical advice.
So, when Robbins says that, "Nonpharmacologic treatments are particularly important because they typically are more effective in children and help to minimize the use of medications and their related side effects," I'm not fully convinced that he is being completely sincere. Even though he mentions things like diet, food, allergies, missed meals, perfume or other smells, stress, hormones, cigarette smoke, exercise --- to much or lack of (he recommends a half hour per day and specifically mentions swimming, walking, biking, and yoga by name), there is little time spent in discussion of any of these ---- despite having just spoken so highly of their collective benefits. When you get down to it, the focus of this paper is the drugs used most often to treat these kids.
Unfortunately, when you talk to the average person who struggles with severe headaches (child or adult), you'll find that while drugs can certainly provide some relief in some instances, drugs are not a great therapy for most people, and the results are always short-lived. There are several tables in the article and all but one concern the two classes of drugs used for treating children with headaches.
- PREVENTATIVE: These are headache meds that are taken daily with the hope that they will keep the child from getting a headache in the first place. Because these meds tend towards the harsh side, I appreciate Dr. Robbins mentioning that it is important to, "attempt to avoid daily preventive medication." If they see a 30% improvement with this class of drug, it is considered successful.
- ABORTIVE: Once the child has a headache, the goal is to catch it early enough that the medication(s) can head the brunt of it off at the pass.
Some of the drugs that are specifically mentioned include NSAIDS, various forms of ACETAMINOPHEN & IBUPROFEN, Caffeine (which also acts as a trigger for many people), NEURONTIN, ANTIDEPRESSANTS (children are the new frontier for this class of drug), BETA BLOCKERS, CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS, BOTOX, Topomax, Imatrex, and an array of others. In his defense, he does mention Magnesium as well as several herbs as showing benefit against Headaches.
But what do we already know happens to these kids once their Headaches are severe enough they are seeing doctors for them? They end up being prescribed NARCOTICS. In case you think I am being harsh or simply making this up, HERE are the studies. And if we are honest with each other (and regardless of what Dr. Robbins is doing in his clinic), we already know that not one doctor in 100 is giving any sort of meaningful dietary advice to the families of children with Headaches, other than possibly the sort given here; "eat a proper diet" (HERE'S WHY). In light of the science, I'm almost not sure how an article like this could be written without at least taking a few sentences to discuss the GLUTEN / MIGRAINE CONNECTION or mention the premise of fellow Neurologist, David Perlmutter's #1 best selling book, Grain Brain?
And in this age of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, how can an overview of Childhood Headaches fail to spend at least a paragraph on one of the hottest topics in Headache Research today (not to mention for the past decade); REBOUND HEADACHES (the headaches that are both relieved and caused by the same medications)? And what about manipulation? He fails to as much as mention it in any capacity. When a combination of CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENTS and SCAR TISSUE REMODELING are used for patients with Chronic Headaches, the results are frequently nothing short of miraculous (HERE). And when this approach doesn't work, it's time to find the source of the INFLAMMATION that's driving the problem.
There are any number of Inflammatory drivers that children (or adults) can potentially be dealing with that are causing their Chronic Headaches. One of the chiefest of these has to do with GUT HEALTH. When you look at the research linking Chronic Migraine to the combination of messed up MICROBIOMES and LEAKY GUT SYNDROME, you should already be thinking along these lines ---- particularly when Dr. Robbins specifically mentions that DEPRESSION (heavily linked to Gut issues --- HERE or HERE) and GI PROBLEMS are both common "comorbidities" of Chronic Headaches. There's nothing in his article about MOLD. There's nothing said about YEAST. There's nothing mentioned about DYSBIOSIS or the various drugs that cause it (HERE). The silence on some of these issues is deafening.
Maybe this was just an issue of space (not enough of it), and Dr. Robbins did not have enough time to deal with some of these issues. But methinks not. I would contend that if Dr. Robbins combined what he already knows about Headaches, with some of DR. CARRICK'S FUNCTIONAL NEUROLOGY (or just hire a Functional Neurologist) and a took a "Functional Medicine" approach, his results would go through the ceiling. Naturally, there would be much less time spent discussing medication in his articles. If you are looking for a starting point as far as getting your child off their Headache Medications, or preventing some time on the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND, why not at least take a quick gander at THIS POST.
As always, the information in this post and on my site is just that --- information. It is not meant to diagnose or treat any sort of disease. THE FDA has declared that drugs and surgery are the only "cures" for diseases. If you feel you or your child has a disease, make an appointment with your doctor immediately, as this post is not meant to take the place of medical advice.
HAVE YOUR BABIES OR YOUNG
CHILDREN BEEN GIVEN ANTIBIOTICS?
IF SO, THEIR HEALTH IN JEOPARDY!
"The average child in the United States will receive between and 10 and 20 courses of antibiotics by the time he or she is 18 years old." Dr Aviva Romm (MD) from her website (Stop Killing the Good Guys! Protect Your Child’s Microbiome from Antibiotic Overuse). The stats she is quoting come from the Center for Disease Control.
"Eight weeks after antibiotic treatment of infants, the diversity of gastrointestinal flora remained diminished, although the number of individual bacteria was back to normal, according to a new paper. Additionally, the potentially disease-causing Proteobacteria [bad bacteria] were now the dominant population in the treated infants." From the November 2012 issue of the American Society for Microbiology Summary (Antibiotics Disrupt Gut Flora in Infants: Recovery Still Incomplete After Eight Weeks). By the way, the first sentence is a perfect description of Dysbiosis.
"Mothers give a newborn baby a gift of germs—microbes that help to kick-start the infant's immune system. But antibiotics, used to fend off infection, may paradoxically interrupt a newborn's own immune responses, leaving already-vulnerable premature babies more susceptible to dangerous pathogens. A new animal study by neonatology researchers at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) sheds light on immunology in newborns by revealing how gut microbes play a crucial role in fostering the rapid production of infection-fighting white blood cells." From the April 21, 2012 issue of Infection Control Today (Study of Gut Microbes, Antibiotics: Clues to Improving Immunity in Premature Infants). This study pertained to FMT.
"Formula Is not breast milk, it’s not even close. Formula is cheap to produce, but expensive to buy. Formula is promoted as the next best substitute for milk from a baby’s own mother, but that isn’t true either. The next best alternative is mother’s milk from a certified human milk bank. It is available at a reasonable cost. Hospitals should know better and provide the only appropriate alternative. Early formula use dramatically increases healthcare costs... [Mother's] milk provides complete nutrition, controls gut flora, promotes gut development -- formula doesn’t." Dr. Art Ayers from an August 2010 article on his website "Cooling Inflammation" (Why Discuss Mother’s Milk on an Inflammation Blog?). This article sheds light on the fact that milk-based Probiotics are probably better for infants than adults (HERE). Dr Ayers is a huge promoter of natural VAGINAL DELIVERIES.
"Eight weeks after antibiotic treatment of infants, the diversity of gastrointestinal flora remained diminished, although the number of individual bacteria was back to normal, according to a new paper. Additionally, the potentially disease-causing Proteobacteria [bad bacteria] were now the dominant population in the treated infants." From the November 2012 issue of the American Society for Microbiology Summary (Antibiotics Disrupt Gut Flora in Infants: Recovery Still Incomplete After Eight Weeks). By the way, the first sentence is a perfect description of Dysbiosis.
"Mothers give a newborn baby a gift of germs—microbes that help to kick-start the infant's immune system. But antibiotics, used to fend off infection, may paradoxically interrupt a newborn's own immune responses, leaving already-vulnerable premature babies more susceptible to dangerous pathogens. A new animal study by neonatology researchers at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) sheds light on immunology in newborns by revealing how gut microbes play a crucial role in fostering the rapid production of infection-fighting white blood cells." From the April 21, 2012 issue of Infection Control Today (Study of Gut Microbes, Antibiotics: Clues to Improving Immunity in Premature Infants). This study pertained to FMT.
"Formula Is not breast milk, it’s not even close. Formula is cheap to produce, but expensive to buy. Formula is promoted as the next best substitute for milk from a baby’s own mother, but that isn’t true either. The next best alternative is mother’s milk from a certified human milk bank. It is available at a reasonable cost. Hospitals should know better and provide the only appropriate alternative. Early formula use dramatically increases healthcare costs... [Mother's] milk provides complete nutrition, controls gut flora, promotes gut development -- formula doesn’t." Dr. Art Ayers from an August 2010 article on his website "Cooling Inflammation" (Why Discuss Mother’s Milk on an Inflammation Blog?). This article sheds light on the fact that milk-based Probiotics are probably better for infants than adults (HERE). Dr Ayers is a huge promoter of natural VAGINAL DELIVERIES.
Children are a blessing. Probably why we have two of our own and two we adopted. I've worked hard to see that my children were never on Antibiotics. But for every child that has taken zero ANTIBIOTICS by the time they turn 18, there is another child who has had 20 to 40 rounds. In fact, I have seen children who get 10 to 20 courses of Antibiotics per year. COLDS, COUGHS, SORE THROATS, SINUS INFECTIONS, FEVER, UPPER RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS, EAR INFECTIONS, FLU..... none of these problems require Antibiotics.
Unfortunately, way too many parents --- probably the vast majority --- freak out when when their child gets sick (HERE) and rush them to the doctor. Children taken to the doctor with such problems as those listed above are usually prescribed Antibiotics. Although this might seem like the proper and loving thing to do at the time, click on the previous link to see why that is not usually the case. Today we are going to discuss the consequences, both short term and long term, of this sort of misguided behavior. These are in no particular order.
What is the common denominator in all these problems? Easy. INFLAMMATION. This is why controlling Inflammation is critical for solving Chronic Health Problems of all sorts --- whether it's you we're talking about or your child. I've shown you what you can do to help control Inflammation if you are an adult (HERE). But what about protecting the flora of your infants? There are actually a plethora of things that can be done.
For starters, don't "OVER-CLEAN" them (or HERE). If it falls out, put their pacifier in your mouth to clean it off (HERE). And it should go without saying, but keep them off all drugs if at all possible. This is because we now know that many if not most drugs have ANTIBIOTIC-LIKE CHARACTERISTICS. Oh, and if you are really interested in stepping outside the lines; the chief way that VACCINES create side-effects is by fouling up normal gut flora (HERE is an example).
Unfortunately, way too many parents --- probably the vast majority --- freak out when when their child gets sick (HERE) and rush them to the doctor. Children taken to the doctor with such problems as those listed above are usually prescribed Antibiotics. Although this might seem like the proper and loving thing to do at the time, click on the previous link to see why that is not usually the case. Today we are going to discuss the consequences, both short term and long term, of this sort of misguided behavior. These are in no particular order.
- RECURRENT INFECTIONS: Think about why children given Antibiotics might get recurrent infections. Every time your child gets sick you take them to to the doctor who prescribes Antibiotics. Antibiotics kill bacteria indiscriminately, including the good ones that make up 80% OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM, leaving your child susceptible to the next infection. Repeat cycle.
- DYSBIOSIS: DYSBIOSIS is the name given for having too many bad bacteria and not enough good ones. Click on the link to see any number of posts on the subject.
- OBESITY: Just how big a deal is the relationship between your normal flora (Gut bacteria) and a normal weight? Look no further than the recent evidence linking OBESITY to DIET SODA. We've known for quite sometime that Diet Soda makes people fatter than does regular soda but we never knew why. Now we do. It's due to the destruction of the normal flora (HERE). Thus, it should not come as any surprise to see that there ARE STUDIES linking early Antibiotics to Obesity.
- ASTHMA: I have shown you two different studies (HERE and HERE) linking Antibiotics given in infancy / childhood to ASTHMA in older childhood and adulthood. Asthma is another one of those health-related issues that could have easily made the list in my first paragraph.
- ECZEMA & ALLERGIES: Antibiotics given in childhood / infancy have been linked to both ALLERGIES and ECZEMA. In a meta-analysis of 20 studies published in the November 2013 issue of the British Journal of Dermatology (Does Early Life Exposure to Antibiotics Increase the Risk of Eczema? A Systematic Review), the authors concluded that when a pregnant woman takes Antibiotics or a child / infant is given Antibiotics, their chances of developing Eczema increase by a whopping 40%. Furthermore, in a study funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration and presented at 2013's Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Dr. Bryan Love (the study's head) told Medscape Medcial News that, "Exposure to more than 2 courses of antibiotics in the first year of life is associated with a significantly increased rate of food allergy. We believe it may be related to a disruption of normal gut flora. Systemic antibiotics not only kill bacteria causing an infection... [they] are also distributed to other parts of our body where they can kill susceptible bacteria that are part of our normal flora — especially in the gastrointestinal tract." The GI Tract or "GUT" as it is sometimes referred to, is where the majority of your Immune System resides --- in the form of; you guessed it --- bacteria.
- INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: Inflammatory Bowel Disease covers a lot of territory. Not only are most of these problems AUTOIMMUNE (IBS, for instance), but are heavily linked to other problems that are also associated with Antibiotic use as well (see next bullet). A 2010 issue of The American Journal of Gastroenterology (Association Between the Use of Antibiotics in the First Year of Life and Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease) came to the conclusion that children who had been given Antibiotics in their first years, were three times more likely to be diagnosed with IBD (Crohn's Disease or Ulcerative Colitis) later in life.
- ALL THE PROBLEMS ADULTS GET (DIABETES / DEPRESSION / AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, ETC: The thing is, the studies on children and Antibiotics have just recently gotten underway. What you're seeing in these bullet points is just the tip of the iceberg. Some of the health problems linked to Antibiotic use include DIABETES, DEPRESSION, FIBROMYALGIA, a wide array of AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, etc, etc, etc. In fact, HERE is a study tying Diabetes and Depression to Antibiotic use.
What is the common denominator in all these problems? Easy. INFLAMMATION. This is why controlling Inflammation is critical for solving Chronic Health Problems of all sorts --- whether it's you we're talking about or your child. I've shown you what you can do to help control Inflammation if you are an adult (HERE). But what about protecting the flora of your infants? There are actually a plethora of things that can be done.
For starters, don't "OVER-CLEAN" them (or HERE). If it falls out, put their pacifier in your mouth to clean it off (HERE). And it should go without saying, but keep them off all drugs if at all possible. This is because we now know that many if not most drugs have ANTIBIOTIC-LIKE CHARACTERISTICS. Oh, and if you are really interested in stepping outside the lines; the chief way that VACCINES create side-effects is by fouling up normal gut flora (HERE is an example).
THE CRAZY CONSEQUENCES OF OVER-MEDICATING AMERICA'S CHILDREN
"I don't think that crashing a 727 jet every day and killing everybody aboard is a good standard of care in U.S. hospitals. If that happened in aviation, they would shut the airlines down." From Paul Levy's Not Running a Hospital Blog. Levy is an author, speaker, and former CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
"Prescribing errors are the most common medication errors in primary care practices. Most of the medication errors in primary care practices are prescribing errors, and more than half of these errors reach patients, concludes a new study. Since 2003, 200,000 out-of-hospital medication errors have been reported to poison control centers (PCCs) in the United States annually, and∼30% of these involve children under 6 years of age." From the February 2009 issue of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Prescribing Errors are the Most Common Medication Errors in Primary Care Practices: Research Activities).
"The Institute of Medicine's report, “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System” bears witness to the fact that medical errors are not uncommon. According to this report, which defined an error as “the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim”, over one million preventable adverse events occur each year in United States hospitals as a result of healthcare. Of these events, an estimated 100,000 caused patients serious harm, while between 44,000 and 98,000 led to death in hospitals in the United States. According to this report, more people die annually from preventable adverse events related to healthcare than from motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297), or AIDS (16,516) in the United States. This grim report indicates how common it is for medical practitioners to make errors in their day to day clinical practice." Dr. AK Edwin from a 2009 issue of the Ghana Medical Journal (Non-Disclosure of Medical Errors an Egregious Violation of Ethical Principles).
"Any preventable medication event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the health care professional, patient, or consumer." The definition of "Medical Error" from the study discussed below.
"Prescribing errors are the most common medication errors in primary care practices. Most of the medication errors in primary care practices are prescribing errors, and more than half of these errors reach patients, concludes a new study. Since 2003, 200,000 out-of-hospital medication errors have been reported to poison control centers (PCCs) in the United States annually, and∼30% of these involve children under 6 years of age." From the February 2009 issue of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Prescribing Errors are the Most Common Medication Errors in Primary Care Practices: Research Activities).
"The Institute of Medicine's report, “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System” bears witness to the fact that medical errors are not uncommon. According to this report, which defined an error as “the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended or the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim”, over one million preventable adverse events occur each year in United States hospitals as a result of healthcare. Of these events, an estimated 100,000 caused patients serious harm, while between 44,000 and 98,000 led to death in hospitals in the United States. According to this report, more people die annually from preventable adverse events related to healthcare than from motor vehicle accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297), or AIDS (16,516) in the United States. This grim report indicates how common it is for medical practitioners to make errors in their day to day clinical practice." Dr. AK Edwin from a 2009 issue of the Ghana Medical Journal (Non-Disclosure of Medical Errors an Egregious Violation of Ethical Principles).
"Any preventable medication event that may cause or lead to inappropriate medication use or patient harm while the medication is in the control of the health care professional, patient, or consumer." The definition of "Medical Error" from the study discussed below.
A Jumbo Jet crashes, killing everyone on board. It's a big deal --- in the news and on the TV for weeks --- maybe months. Now realize that Paul Levy's quote from above gets it all wrong. The truth is, we've known for at least a decade that medical errors are killing far more Americans than this every single day of the week, every month of the year, all year round (HERE & HERE). There are multitudes of studies on drug errors concerning adults. But what about our nation's children? Unfortunately, excepting COUGH MEDICATIONS, the rates of medication errors for every major class of children's drug continues to skyrocket.
A brand new study from the latest issue of Pediatrics (Out-of-Hospital Medication Errors Among Young Children in the United States, 2002–2012). The studies conclusions ----- "Increased efforts are needed to prevent medication errors" --- don't even come close to telling the whole story (between 2002 and 2012, a medication error occurred every eight minutes in America's six and under population --- an average of 63,358 per year). Now let's hear, in the immortal words of Paul Harvey, the rrrrrrrrest of the story.
Firstly, the data was all (that would be all as in "all") taken from the National Poison Database System, which monitors and records calls made to 55 different Poison Control Hotlines here in America. Doesn't it make you wonder how many people either took their child to the ER, called their physician, or didn't call anyone at all (or maybe they called Uncle Bob)? These children were not counted in the statistics. Heaven only knows how many other children were not counted as well. Quite possibly, the vast majority. But who would know? It's called UNDERREPORTING and in this case was probably purposeful.
There is one thing we do know for certain. When it comes to drug reactions (including VACCINE REACTIONS), the number of people contacting the reporting agencies is less than the number of people who don't --- in most cases, far less. In fact, many of the studies I looked at said that this number was in the 1 in 100 range (see previous paragraph). In other words, the statistics above may be so low due to "under-reporting" as to be worthless. Listen to to these cherry-picked sentences of a 2008 report by Dr. Zane Robinson Wolf, dean and professor, La Salle University School of Nursing and Health Sciences, and Dr. Ronda G. Hughes, senior health scientist administrator for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Chapter 35 of Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses; Error Reporting and Disclosure).
Believe me when I tell you that this is merely scratching the surface of under-reporting medication errors. But let's forget this for a moment. What we really need to be collectively asking ourselves why our children are in this position to become "statistics" in the first place. Let me explain what I mean. It is my contention that the vast majority of doctor visits for children (not to mention the drugs they are prescribed) are unnecessary (HERE). We can easily see this when we look at one single class of drugs (ANTIBIOTICS), and the crazy numbers of health issues they are being over-prescribed for (URI's and EAR INFECTIONS are two of many). Some doctors would agree. For a better explanation, I would suggest that everyone own a copy of Dr. Robert Mendelsohn's How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor (HERE).
A brand new study from the latest issue of Pediatrics (Out-of-Hospital Medication Errors Among Young Children in the United States, 2002–2012). The studies conclusions ----- "Increased efforts are needed to prevent medication errors" --- don't even come close to telling the whole story (between 2002 and 2012, a medication error occurred every eight minutes in America's six and under population --- an average of 63,358 per year). Now let's hear, in the immortal words of Paul Harvey, the rrrrrrrrest of the story.
Firstly, the data was all (that would be all as in "all") taken from the National Poison Database System, which monitors and records calls made to 55 different Poison Control Hotlines here in America. Doesn't it make you wonder how many people either took their child to the ER, called their physician, or didn't call anyone at all (or maybe they called Uncle Bob)? These children were not counted in the statistics. Heaven only knows how many other children were not counted as well. Quite possibly, the vast majority. But who would know? It's called UNDERREPORTING and in this case was probably purposeful.
There is one thing we do know for certain. When it comes to drug reactions (including VACCINE REACTIONS), the number of people contacting the reporting agencies is less than the number of people who don't --- in most cases, far less. In fact, many of the studies I looked at said that this number was in the 1 in 100 range (see previous paragraph). In other words, the statistics above may be so low due to "under-reporting" as to be worthless. Listen to to these cherry-picked sentences of a 2008 report by Dr. Zane Robinson Wolf, dean and professor, La Salle University School of Nursing and Health Sciences, and Dr. Ronda G. Hughes, senior health scientist administrator for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Chapter 35 of Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses; Error Reporting and Disclosure).
- "The focus on medical errors that followed the release of the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) report To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System1 centered on the suggestion that preventable adverse events in hospital were a leading cause of death in the United States."
- "Because many errors are never reported voluntarily or captured through other mechanisms, these improvement efforts may fail."
- "Near misses (i.e., an event/occurrence where harm to the patient was avoided), can occur 300 times more frequently than adverse events."
- "Traditional mechanisms have utilized verbal reports and paper-based incident reports to detect and document clinically significant medical errors; yet the correlation with actual errors been low. Error-reporting mechanisms may capture only a fraction of actual errors."
- "Many errors go unreported by health care workers. Self-reporting errors can be thwarted by several factors."
Believe me when I tell you that this is merely scratching the surface of under-reporting medication errors. But let's forget this for a moment. What we really need to be collectively asking ourselves why our children are in this position to become "statistics" in the first place. Let me explain what I mean. It is my contention that the vast majority of doctor visits for children (not to mention the drugs they are prescribed) are unnecessary (HERE). We can easily see this when we look at one single class of drugs (ANTIBIOTICS), and the crazy numbers of health issues they are being over-prescribed for (URI's and EAR INFECTIONS are two of many). Some doctors would agree. For a better explanation, I would suggest that everyone own a copy of Dr. Robert Mendelsohn's How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor (HERE).
GIVE YOUR BABY ANTIBIOTICS, AND THEY ARE MORE
LIKELY TO BE OVERWEIGHT BY AGE FIVE
"Infants who were given multiple courses of broad-spectrum antibiotics had a 20% increased risk of becoming obese toddlers." From Medscape's November 19, 2013 coverage of Obesity Week 2013: The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and the Obesity Society Joint Annual Scientific Meeting
It's not quite a year since the study above was presented, and today we know that this problem is worse than originally believed --- much worse (HERE). But if you're a reader of my site, none of this is brand new information. I've shown you before that ANTIBIOTICS (even just A ROUND OR TWO) are intimately linked to a myriad of health problems, including obesity (HERE). We also know that fat children tend to be fat adults. Now try this one on for size (no pun intended).
A recent study of nearly 65,000 children by Dr. Charles Bailey of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia has concluded in the October issue of JAMA Pediatrics (Association of Antibiotics in Infancy With Early Childhood Obesity) that, "Repeated exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics at ages 0 to 23 months is associated with early childhood obesity." In other words, the more Antibiotics your child takes before they are two, the greater the chances they will be OBESE by five. Scary stuff! But every cloud has a silver lining, and I will get to this one shortly.
The study went on to say that, "common childhood infections were the most frequent diagnoses co-occurring with broad-spectrum antibiotic prescription". What kinds of infections are they talking about here? Stop and think about it. What sort of infections do little kids and infants typically get? It's a no-brainer.
The real problem though, is not just that these massive amounts of Antibiotics are helping to make our nations children the fattest generation in history (HERE), it's the fact that this is simply a side effect of what's going on underneath the surface. Antibiotics destroy GUT HEALTH, and the 80% of your body's Immune System that lives there (HERE). Once you begin to understand the fact that Antibiotic use causes DYSBOISIS, and that Dysbiosis is associated not only with Obesity, but with AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES as well as cancer (HERE), you should start to realize that this information cannot be taken lightly (again, no pun intended) if you care about the futures of your children / grandchildren.
The really cool thing is that when we talk about "chronic" health problems as they relate to children (these are the problems that only adults used to have), they tend to respond like gang-busters when the correct treatment is applied. What makes up "correct treatment"? in this context? Only your doctor can legally tell you that, but suffice it to say, they may not be telling you the whole story (for Pete's sake; they are the ones that prescribed the antibiotics --- the vast majority "inappropriately" --- in the first place!). For a better idea of what will work for helping your kids get back on track, click HERE.
A recent study of nearly 65,000 children by Dr. Charles Bailey of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia has concluded in the October issue of JAMA Pediatrics (Association of Antibiotics in Infancy With Early Childhood Obesity) that, "Repeated exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics at ages 0 to 23 months is associated with early childhood obesity." In other words, the more Antibiotics your child takes before they are two, the greater the chances they will be OBESE by five. Scary stuff! But every cloud has a silver lining, and I will get to this one shortly.
The study went on to say that, "common childhood infections were the most frequent diagnoses co-occurring with broad-spectrum antibiotic prescription". What kinds of infections are they talking about here? Stop and think about it. What sort of infections do little kids and infants typically get? It's a no-brainer.
- EAR INFECTIONS: Dr. Bailey actually mentioned that EAR INFECTIONS are the number one reason that infants are prescribed Antibiotics. Too bad he's not aware of the information available to parents when they click this bullet point's link. But then again, this is the sort of thing that doctors like to keep under wraps as much as possible.
- SORE THROATS: Sore throats are one of several URI's ("Upper Respiratory Infection"). See the bullet point below. By the way, the same issue of JAMA Pediatrics that carried this study, carried another on sore throats (Pharyngitis) in infants. In this study, physicians looked at records of children with sore throats from 1997 to 2010. Their conclusions? "Viral infections account for the majority of pharyngitis episodes..." In other words, the vast majority of sore throats in infants are viral, and not bacterial as you'll see in the next bullet (hint; the antibiotics will not benefit viral infections). Those of you who are worried about Strep Throat need to read famous pediatrician, Dr. Robert Mendelsohn's magnum opus, HOW TO RAISE A HEALTHY CHILD IN SPITE OF YOUR DOCTOR. An amazing book that I would not want to raise my kids without.
- COLDS & UPPER RESPIRATORY INFECTIONS: All Colds and FLU are viral infections, and approximately 90% of all URI's are viral (HERE), despite the fact that many (probably not a stretch to say "most") physicians continue to prescribe Antibiotics for them.
- FEVER: FEVERS have numerous causes, but if you are interested in the low-down, click on the link.
The real problem though, is not just that these massive amounts of Antibiotics are helping to make our nations children the fattest generation in history (HERE), it's the fact that this is simply a side effect of what's going on underneath the surface. Antibiotics destroy GUT HEALTH, and the 80% of your body's Immune System that lives there (HERE). Once you begin to understand the fact that Antibiotic use causes DYSBOISIS, and that Dysbiosis is associated not only with Obesity, but with AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES as well as cancer (HERE), you should start to realize that this information cannot be taken lightly (again, no pun intended) if you care about the futures of your children / grandchildren.
The really cool thing is that when we talk about "chronic" health problems as they relate to children (these are the problems that only adults used to have), they tend to respond like gang-busters when the correct treatment is applied. What makes up "correct treatment"? in this context? Only your doctor can legally tell you that, but suffice it to say, they may not be telling you the whole story (for Pete's sake; they are the ones that prescribed the antibiotics --- the vast majority "inappropriately" --- in the first place!). For a better idea of what will work for helping your kids get back on track, click HERE.
CHILDHOOD ATHLETES AND CONCUSSIONS
IS THERE A SOLUTION?
 BruceBlaus |  BruceBlaus |
| Typically, it is caused by a direct impact to the head but can occur as a result of any ‘impulsive’ force transmitted to the head. In the United States, between 1.7 and 3.8 million TBIs occur each year, with over 240,000 of these injuries occurring due to sports and recreational activities. Between 2001 to 2009, the number of sports-related TBIs seen in emergency departments (EDs) increased 62%, from 153,375 to 248,418; the highest rates are among males between 10 and 19 years of age, with 70% (173,285) of the TBIs occurring in this population. TBI was cited as a contributing factor in approximately 30% of all injury-related deaths—accounting for 52,000 deaths per year. From an article in the latest issue of Practical Pain Management, called Recognizing and Treating Concussions Related to Sports Injuries. |
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TBI AND SRC (SPORTS-RELATED CONCUSSIONS)
As we are beginning to find out that concussions (otherwise known as TBI or Traumatic Brain Injuries) can be far more serious than anyone could have guessed just one short decade ago. For instance, we now know that AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES are heavily linked to TBI's. Who would have thought? But as the hits keep coming, the problems don't stop there. Although there are a myriad of symptoms associated with TBI, this article focuses on the top four, which are
- Headache (this is the most common of the four)
- Sleep Disturbances (an inability to either get to sleep or stay asleep)
- Cognitive Deficits (slow reaction times, feeling like you are in a fog)
- Neuropsychiatric Issues (emotional reactions or lack of reaction, mood swings, irritability, rage, depression)
DRUGS -vs- NO DRUGS FOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES
As the article stated, its chief thrust is to, "focus on non -pharmacologic therapy of pain after an SRC (Sports Related Concussion) because, "it is widely accepted as the most important intervention in the management of SRC" . Furthermore, the authors (a medical student in neurosurgery, a prominent neuro-psychologist, and top neuro / orthopedic surgeon) go on to warn readers that the drugs which are typically given for those who have suffered SRC's, "are not supported by strong evidence," and should be used "cautiously" if at all. All of this begs the question of what constitutes the best non-pharmacological approach to managing Traumatic Brain Injuries / Sports-Related Concussions in young athletes? Fortunately they tell us. But be warned. Much of this is not the kind of thing that many athletes or coaches want to hear.
The authors tell us that the single best form of treatment for individuals who have been through an SRC / TBI, "involves physical and cognitive rest until the acute symptoms have resolved". They specifically mention that this means resting from things like, "homework and video games" as well as "at least 24 to 48 hours" of physical rest after the concussion. From there, the young athlete is supposed to, "follow a stepwise graduated return to play protocol". As you can see, there is potential wiggle-room for coaches who want their athletes back quicker than they should (and let's face it, as a coach myself, I can assure you that no coach likes playing without their best players on the field). Beyond this, you have to understand that in order to get back on the field, athletes will often lie (just Google "I lied about concussions" to see how prevalent this phenomenon is in all levels of athletics).
Coaches must be educated about this --- particularly the specifics of the return-to-play protocol. My sincerest wish is that once they understand the potential for lifelong, yet often occult (hidden --- at least at first) consequences of these supposed "mild" brain injuries, they will err on the side of caution. Ethically, they must. When you add the fact that the authors tell us that most ("80-90%") of these concussions take "7-10 days" to recover from, due to the fact that, "athletes who have suffered previous concussions are at a significantly higher risk for incurring a repeat concussion, especially in the acute post-concussive period," you can see the potential for disaster.
This would be as good a time as any to allow me to reiterate the "no drugs" message being touted by these authors. After talking about some of the drugs that these children could be prescribed for their post-concussive symptoms, and then discussing the array of potential side effects, they come to a final conclusion in the paper's last paragraph. "The evidence behind the majority of these pharmacologic therapies is lacking..... Non-pharmacologic therapy with physical and behavioral rest, as recommended by CISG2 should be attempted prior to the initiation of pharmacologic therapy." This is good advice for coaches, parents, and athletes themselves. Just remember that your young athlete is likely to lie in order to get back on the field. You must be aware of this fact and protect them from themselves!
The authors tell us that the single best form of treatment for individuals who have been through an SRC / TBI, "involves physical and cognitive rest until the acute symptoms have resolved". They specifically mention that this means resting from things like, "homework and video games" as well as "at least 24 to 48 hours" of physical rest after the concussion. From there, the young athlete is supposed to, "follow a stepwise graduated return to play protocol". As you can see, there is potential wiggle-room for coaches who want their athletes back quicker than they should (and let's face it, as a coach myself, I can assure you that no coach likes playing without their best players on the field). Beyond this, you have to understand that in order to get back on the field, athletes will often lie (just Google "I lied about concussions" to see how prevalent this phenomenon is in all levels of athletics).
Coaches must be educated about this --- particularly the specifics of the return-to-play protocol. My sincerest wish is that once they understand the potential for lifelong, yet often occult (hidden --- at least at first) consequences of these supposed "mild" brain injuries, they will err on the side of caution. Ethically, they must. When you add the fact that the authors tell us that most ("80-90%") of these concussions take "7-10 days" to recover from, due to the fact that, "athletes who have suffered previous concussions are at a significantly higher risk for incurring a repeat concussion, especially in the acute post-concussive period," you can see the potential for disaster.
This would be as good a time as any to allow me to reiterate the "no drugs" message being touted by these authors. After talking about some of the drugs that these children could be prescribed for their post-concussive symptoms, and then discussing the array of potential side effects, they come to a final conclusion in the paper's last paragraph. "The evidence behind the majority of these pharmacologic therapies is lacking..... Non-pharmacologic therapy with physical and behavioral rest, as recommended by CISG2 should be attempted prior to the initiation of pharmacologic therapy." This is good advice for coaches, parents, and athletes themselves. Just remember that your young athlete is likely to lie in order to get back on the field. You must be aware of this fact and protect them from themselves!
MANAGING THE ATHLETE WHOSE SYMPTOMS LAST LONGER THAN 10 DAYS
This is the group (those who do not fall into the 80-90% of the previous section) for which the authors think pharmacological therapy might be warranted. They say that individuals from this group,"should be managed in a multidisciplinary setting by clinicians with experience in sports-related concussion". They then go on to discuss which of the myriad of drugs out there might benefit those suffering the effects of a concussion. Be sure to understand that before talking about the many side effects, the authors declare that, "unfortunately, there is still a lack of published evidence delineating the role of pharmacologic agents for SRCs".
Take my word for it when I tell you that the drugs chiefly discussed in this article are for the purpose of covering the symptoms listed earlier. This is because, "there have been few clinical trials of medications that modify the underlying pathophysiologic processes" associated with TBI's. This is not really news. Ask those who have PCS (Post-Concussive Syndrome) whether the drugs really help them, and virtually all will answer in the negative (HERE IS AN EXAMPLE). The authors do let us know that athletes on drugs for TBI caused by SRC are not allowed to return to the field / court while still on drugs. Furthermore, because HEADACHES are the most common symptom (slightly less often, these can be MIGRAINES), I feel that I must mention that the authors concluded that they, "strongly recommend against the use of opioids in PTH [post-traumatic headache]". They also discussed "Rebound Headaches" (aka "Medication Overuse Headaches") --- headaches that are actually caused by the very medication(s) people take for their headaches.
Take my word for it when I tell you that the drugs chiefly discussed in this article are for the purpose of covering the symptoms listed earlier. This is because, "there have been few clinical trials of medications that modify the underlying pathophysiologic processes" associated with TBI's. This is not really news. Ask those who have PCS (Post-Concussive Syndrome) whether the drugs really help them, and virtually all will answer in the negative (HERE IS AN EXAMPLE). The authors do let us know that athletes on drugs for TBI caused by SRC are not allowed to return to the field / court while still on drugs. Furthermore, because HEADACHES are the most common symptom (slightly less often, these can be MIGRAINES), I feel that I must mention that the authors concluded that they, "strongly recommend against the use of opioids in PTH [post-traumatic headache]". They also discussed "Rebound Headaches" (aka "Medication Overuse Headaches") --- headaches that are actually caused by the very medication(s) people take for their headaches.
POST-CONCUSSION DEPRESSION & INSOMNIA
The fourth item mentioned was Neuropsychiatric Issues. The most common of these are, "depression and emotional disturbances". Despite the fact that the authors tell us that, "depression after SRCs usually resolves spontaneously in a short period of time," they turn around and tout several different medications and tell us that, "SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants should be used to treat depression related to TBIs". I would very much disagree with this approach in virtually all cases. Once you understand a bit about DEPRESSION and the drugs used to treat it, you'll not want your children on them.
I found it interesting that while they discussed INSOMNIA, they were not enamored with the drugs used to treat it. They did promote the concept of "Sleep Hygiene," which entails things like, "using the bed only for sleeping, avoiding coffee, alcohol, and nicotine, going to bed at the same time every night, and avoiding sources of stimuli in bed, such as televisions, computers, and mobile phones". Interestingly enough, they also talked about supplementing with Melatonin --- a chemical made by your body to regulate Circadian Rhythms and Sleep Cycles. I was troubled to see that they promoted RITALIN and similar drugs (HERE) for the "Cognitive Deficits" seen with TBI / SRC.
Overall, I think the article was good. It seemed however, that despite the fact that over and over again the authors spoke about drugs not being good options for treating children with concussions, they spent an awful lot of time talking about various drugs used to treat children with concussions. To better understand why this is, you can read a commentary I wrote on this topic a few years ago (HERE). Honestly, the more one understands the way that EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE works (or doesn't work), the less you are surprised by this frequent doublespeak. If your child is suffering the after-effects of a TBI (whether it's sports-related or not), have them checked out by a Functional Neurologist trained by Ted Carrick. Trust me when I tell you that TBI's can lead to some places you do not want your children to go (HERE).
I found it interesting that while they discussed INSOMNIA, they were not enamored with the drugs used to treat it. They did promote the concept of "Sleep Hygiene," which entails things like, "using the bed only for sleeping, avoiding coffee, alcohol, and nicotine, going to bed at the same time every night, and avoiding sources of stimuli in bed, such as televisions, computers, and mobile phones". Interestingly enough, they also talked about supplementing with Melatonin --- a chemical made by your body to regulate Circadian Rhythms and Sleep Cycles. I was troubled to see that they promoted RITALIN and similar drugs (HERE) for the "Cognitive Deficits" seen with TBI / SRC.
Overall, I think the article was good. It seemed however, that despite the fact that over and over again the authors spoke about drugs not being good options for treating children with concussions, they spent an awful lot of time talking about various drugs used to treat children with concussions. To better understand why this is, you can read a commentary I wrote on this topic a few years ago (HERE). Honestly, the more one understands the way that EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE works (or doesn't work), the less you are surprised by this frequent doublespeak. If your child is suffering the after-effects of a TBI (whether it's sports-related or not), have them checked out by a Functional Neurologist trained by Ted Carrick. Trust me when I tell you that TBI's can lead to some places you do not want your children to go (HERE).
ANTIBIOTICS, INFANTS, AND ASTHMA
BruceBlaus
| "Antibiotic use in the first year life is associated with an increased risk of early-onset childhood asthma that began before 3 years of age. The apparent effect has a clear dose response. Heightened caution about avoiding unnecessary use of antibiotics in infants is warranted." The conclusions of a study published in the March, 2014 issue of Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology (Consequences of Antibiotics and Infections in Infancy: Bugs, Drugs, and Wheezing). "Overall, children given antibiotics in their first half-year were 2.6 times more likely to develop allergic asthma, the team told a meeting of the European Respiratory Society on Tuesday. With broad-spectrum antibiotics, which kill a wide range of bacteria, the risk was far higher: children were 8.9 times more likely to suffer from asthma." From the October 1, 2003 "Biomedical Archives" of FuturePundit.com. The study itself was done in the Henry Ford Hospital of Detroit, Michigan (they have 5 hospitals in their network). |
In case you were not aware, the risk of ASTHMA goes up significantly when babies under a year old are given ANTIBIOTICS. A few years ago (click the first links above), I reported to you that Antibiotics given to the very young, dramatically increased their chances of developing Asthma. All you have to do is look at the quotes at the top of this page to realize that this was not new information, as the two studies were published over a decade apart. In fact, if you get on your computer and Google "Antibiotics Cause Asthma", you'll get 1.2 million hits. Yet the insanity continues virtually unabated (HERE), causing an even greater number of health problems than the uninitiated could possibly begin to fathom. Allow me to explain.
Asthma is not the only consequence of prescribing infants antibiotics. A quick review of the scientific literature tells us that Asthma is not the only thing that Infant Antibiotics are associated with. Studies tell us that this class of drug is related to everything from ALLERGIES to OBESITY, to DIABETES, to IBS, to eczema and other AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (including FIBROMYALGIA), to CHRONIC EAR INFECTIONS, to ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE, to SYSTEMIC YEAST / CANDIDA INFECTIONS, and on and on and on. These are just some of the many reasons that I have been telling my readers that Antibiotics are one of the single largest long-term health destroyers in America.
We do not really need more taxpayer-funded research telling us that ANTIBIOTICS DESTROY HEALTH and cause lifetime health-related problems. We need educated parents and doctors who will stand up and say, "no; I am not giving little Junior an antibiotic. That's not what he needs right now". But the solution to this problem does not end with simply not killing off one's good bacteria with antibiotics. One must actually expose themselves / their children to bacteria in order to be healthy (I have written about this previously HERE, HERE and HERE). Let me share with you what the 2003 article from the top of the page said about this matter.
Asthma is not the only consequence of prescribing infants antibiotics. A quick review of the scientific literature tells us that Asthma is not the only thing that Infant Antibiotics are associated with. Studies tell us that this class of drug is related to everything from ALLERGIES to OBESITY, to DIABETES, to IBS, to eczema and other AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES (including FIBROMYALGIA), to CHRONIC EAR INFECTIONS, to ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE, to SYSTEMIC YEAST / CANDIDA INFECTIONS, and on and on and on. These are just some of the many reasons that I have been telling my readers that Antibiotics are one of the single largest long-term health destroyers in America.
We do not really need more taxpayer-funded research telling us that ANTIBIOTICS DESTROY HEALTH and cause lifetime health-related problems. We need educated parents and doctors who will stand up and say, "no; I am not giving little Junior an antibiotic. That's not what he needs right now". But the solution to this problem does not end with simply not killing off one's good bacteria with antibiotics. One must actually expose themselves / their children to bacteria in order to be healthy (I have written about this previously HERE, HERE and HERE). Let me share with you what the 2003 article from the top of the page said about this matter.
| "This "hygiene hypothesis" has been gathering strength in recent years. The latest result certainly strengthens the argument considerably. The idea is basically reminiscent of the saying "idle hands are the devil's workshop". Remove the normal antigens that the immune system is exposed to and it starts reacting to things it ought not react to. Our ancestors lived in dirt floor dwellings and had much more exposure to animals, dirt, and nature in general. We live lives which bring us in much less exposure to the antigens we evolved to deal with. Exposure to those antigens appear to be necessary to instruct the immune system on what it should identify as a threat." |
I would challenge all parents and grandparents to click on some of these links and learn why you do not want your children (or yourself) taking antibiotics. Is it possible to actually live a life free of antibiotics? My four children, ages 16 to 9 (HERE are some pics) have never been on antibiotics. Yes, they have had all of the same childhood health issues yours have had. But 999 times out of a thousand, antibiotics are not needed to get over these infections. If we will simply nurture our God-given Immune Systems, we will realize that they are infinitely more powerful than a pill or shot.
PROBIOTICS FOR BABIES?
WHY NOT?
Mskathrynne - K - Philippines - Pixabay
| "Infantile colic is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder of early infancy. ...Infantile colic has a substantial deleterious impact on society by negatively affecting parental health, resulting in decreased family functioning years later.... The immediate impact on the infant is unknown; they certainly do not seem happy. Ten years later, these infants with colic become children who have an 11-fold increased risk for developing recurrent abdominal pain, as well as an increased risk for allergic diseases and psychological disorders." - Bruno P. Chumpitazi, MD, MPH and Robert J. Shulman, MD from their recent editorial in JAMA Pediatrics called Five Probiotic Drops a Day to Keep Infantile Colic Away? Shulman is a Professor of Pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine. "Chiropractors are rarely qualified to diagnose a baby's ailment. A baby who cries inconsolably may have colic, or he may have constipation, acid reflux or a milk allergy" - Victor Turow, M.D., a pediatrician at North Shore University Hospital in Great Neck, New York from a 2011 post of mine called COLIC & CHIROPRACTIC. |
COLIC, REFLUX, Constipation, and ALLERGIES / SENSITIVITES. These common GI problems are frequently found in infants. What's the standard medical treatment for such maladies? Unfortunately, for most of you who have not read DR. MENDELSOHN'S BOOK yet, the answer is all to frequently 'drugs'. As amazing at it seems, I have seen several infants in the one-month-old range on the very same ACID BLOCKING DRUGS used for adults. Furthermore, the authors of the above quote tell us that INFANTILE COLIC leads to dramatically greater chances of developing things like Allergies (GLUTEN SENSITIVITY), RECURRENT ABDOMINAL PAIN, or PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS later in life. Should we be surprised? Only if you have not been following this blog (follow the links to see what I am talking about)!
Not only do we know that virtually all drugs have wide ranging and nasty side effects, we should be aware of the lack of scientific validity for most of them (HERE). It all leads us to wonder what in the world we should do for our newborn's health? If you have been reading our posts on GUT HEALTH (particularly the one on NEWBORNS), you already know the answer to this one. Avoid ANTIBIOTICS as if your life depends on it, and do whatever it takes to RESTORE AND MAINTAIN GOOD BACTERIA. Although I used to be vilified as a quack for telling my patients these kinds of things, the medical community is finally starting to come around.
Not only do we know that virtually all drugs have wide ranging and nasty side effects, we should be aware of the lack of scientific validity for most of them (HERE). It all leads us to wonder what in the world we should do for our newborn's health? If you have been reading our posts on GUT HEALTH (particularly the one on NEWBORNS), you already know the answer to this one. Avoid ANTIBIOTICS as if your life depends on it, and do whatever it takes to RESTORE AND MAINTAIN GOOD BACTERIA. Although I used to be vilified as a quack for telling my patients these kinds of things, the medical community is finally starting to come around.
Case in point; the brand new study from Italy's Dr. Flavia Indrio and a dozen other medical doctors (Prophylactic Use of a Probiotic in the Prevention of Colic, Regurgitation, and Functional Constipation). The latest issue of JAMA Pediatrics published his group's study of nearly 600 infants that were randomly divided into two groups. They wanted to know if a "uni-bug" PROBIOTIC (Lactobacillus Reuteri) given prophylactically over the infant's first three months of life would make a difference in the following categories.
- Episodes of regurgitation / reflux
- Duration of inconsolable crying (minutes per day)
- Number of bowel movements per day
- Feeding changes
- Number of visits to pediatricians
- Number of visits to a pediatric emergency department for a perceived health emergency
- Hospitalizations
- Pharmacological interventions
- Loss of parental working days
The conclusions of the study are as follows. "Prophylactic use of L Reuteri during the first 3 months of life reduced the onset of functional gastrointestinal disorders and reduced private and public costs for the management of this condition." In other words, when babies were simply given the single bacteria probiotic L. Reuteri (5 drops orally) during their first three months after being born, they had far fewer health problems, required less medical intervention, and did not put as much financial strain on their caregivers or the government (as is the case in most of Europe, Italy's healthcare system is socialized / nationalized). The cost savings per child averaged out to just under $260.00 over the course of the three months. Let me firstly say that this is really cool stuff. Let me secondly say that it could have been better.
Although Lactobacillus Reuteri --- an organism widely considered to be "universal" in animals --- has dozens of scientifically proven benefits (inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria, infections, E. Coli, H. PYLORI, yeasts, fungi, and protozoa; boosting immune system function; resolves diarrhea-causing ailments, including INFLAMMATORY BOWEL PROBLEMS; prevents tooth decay; helps the body absorb nutrients better; and promotes overall health). But again, like the probiotic Acidophilus, L Reuteri is only one organism. What can be done to see that your baby gets a plethora of beneficial bacteria into their systems?
Although Lactobacillus Reuteri --- an organism widely considered to be "universal" in animals --- has dozens of scientifically proven benefits (inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria, infections, E. Coli, H. PYLORI, yeasts, fungi, and protozoa; boosting immune system function; resolves diarrhea-causing ailments, including INFLAMMATORY BOWEL PROBLEMS; prevents tooth decay; helps the body absorb nutrients better; and promotes overall health). But again, like the probiotic Acidophilus, L Reuteri is only one organism. What can be done to see that your baby gets a plethora of beneficial bacteria into their systems?
Not only is supplementing your children proving to be popular and effective, you need to take care of your own Gut Health. Avoid the Antibiotics, stop feeding the bad bacteria their food of choice --- SUGAR; and eat more fermented foods. Oh; several studies on Probiotics have also shown we are often times too clean (HERE and HERE are what I am talking about). But the number one thing you can do for your baby is to Breast Feed them. This is not rocket science, and there are dozens upon dozens of studies dealing with this particular issue, and the way it helps to maintain their proper gut flora.
ADULT HEALTH PROBLEMS
IN OUR NATION'S CHILDREN
(Joenomias) Menno de Jong - Nederland (Netherlands) - Pixabay
Lest you think that I am a lone voice who is sensationalizing a small problem, you need to read the brand new article from Time Magazine called Young Kids, Old Bodies. Although I cannot say that I was shocked, reading about the sheer magnitude and numbers of children dealing with diseases that have historically been thought of as adult diseases of lifestyle (DIABETES, HIGH CHOLESTEROL, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, OBESITY, many of the INFLAMMATORY or AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES, etc, etc, etc), was frankly quite depressing. Especially knowing that as a nation, we are teetering on the brink of financial insolvency. My best guess is that our government (ACA) has underestimated future health costs by at least 10 times --- probably more.
The article in Time dealt extensively with the health problems that millions of school aged kids are going through, which are very different than what previous generations went through. Remember back when the worst health issue kids faced was acne (HERE)? Doctors who were interviewed for the article talked at length about the seriousness of this problem. One thing that really stood out to me was their saying they could not tell the blood work of unhealthy kids from the blood work of unhealthy adults who were 30 - 40 years older. I am not going to go into detail here, but it would be worth your time to take 10 or 15 minutes to read the article.
The article in Time dealt extensively with the health problems that millions of school aged kids are going through, which are very different than what previous generations went through. Remember back when the worst health issue kids faced was acne (HERE)? Doctors who were interviewed for the article talked at length about the seriousness of this problem. One thing that really stood out to me was their saying they could not tell the blood work of unhealthy kids from the blood work of unhealthy adults who were 30 - 40 years older. I am not going to go into detail here, but it would be worth your time to take 10 or 15 minutes to read the article.
Over the years, I have made the case that if you think the health of our current senior citizens is bad, just wait until the younger generation gets a few more years on them. For the most part, our geriatric population grew up totally different than kids are growing up today. PROCESSED FOODS, SUGAR, SODA, TRANS FATS, genetically modified grains (HERE), and exposure to toxic elements (HERE) from an early age, have wreaked havoc on the health of our nation's under forty crowd --- particularly those under 20.
Honestly, the craziest part of the entire thing was not the kids. The truth is, if you leave children to their own devices, most will do exactly what they are currently doing --- sitting around, eating junk, and watching 8-10 hours of screens a day. No, the problem is not really the kids. The problem is the parents who are not doing something about this prior to the radical step of putting their kid(s) on the MEDICAL MERRY-GO-ROUND. The advice that I gave parents a couple of years ago, rings more true today than ever. "Seems like most of this stuff is just plain old common sense. Just take a deep breath and repeat after me, "I am the parent. I am the parent". Now, go make the changes that need to be made! The day will come that your children thank you for it. If they are little, they will never really know the difference" (from a 2012 post on ADHD).
Listen up folks. You are the parent. If you put any sort of value on your health or the health of your family, it may be time to go to lifestyle boot camp. Fail to change, and you will never be anything more to Big Pharma / Corporate Medicine than what you really are ---- a commodity ---- a walking, breathing, dollar sign ---- a person whose health issues are severe enough that you are looked at by multiple entities as a lifetime source of income. Start clicking the links and educate yourself. Knowledge is power. Learn what it will take to get your family moving in a healthy direction. No go and do it! HEALTHY CHILDREN can be a reality if you change the way you are living.
Oh; for those of you who were wondering, the pic at the top left is of a teenage male.
Listen up folks. You are the parent. If you put any sort of value on your health or the health of your family, it may be time to go to lifestyle boot camp. Fail to change, and you will never be anything more to Big Pharma / Corporate Medicine than what you really are ---- a commodity ---- a walking, breathing, dollar sign ---- a person whose health issues are severe enough that you are looked at by multiple entities as a lifetime source of income. Start clicking the links and educate yourself. Knowledge is power. Learn what it will take to get your family moving in a healthy direction. No go and do it! HEALTHY CHILDREN can be a reality if you change the way you are living.
Oh; for those of you who were wondering, the pic at the top left is of a teenage male.
SPANKING........
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R79742 / CC-BY-SA
DOES IT REALLY CAUSE HEALTH PROBLEMS LATER IN LIFE?
When I was a kid, there was little debate on the issue of corporal punishment. If you failed to toe the line, you got spanked --- period. It was that simple. My dad, a school principal, kept his paddle (The Board of Education) hanging on the wall behind his desk. It was the size of a small canoe paddle and had dozens of holes drilled in it. Just looking at that paddle could put the fear of God into a kid. Needless to say, I couldn't really say how many times I was spanked growing up, but it was a bunch. Fast forward to 2013.
There has been a steadily growing outcry against spanking over the course of the past several decades. I am not sure that I know any government schools that allow spanking today for fear of a lawsuit. But ask the average public school teacher why our schools are all too often more like the Wild West than a classroom, and you'll quickly realize that they have been neutered as far as their ability to administer effective punishment is concerned. Spanking is not only being associated with child abuse, it is now being cited as a causal factor in developing heart disease, arthritis, and obesity.
According to research from Dr. Tracie Afifi of the University of Manitoba in Canada, children who receive "harsh physical punishment" were nearly 25% more likely to be OBESE, 35% more likely to develop ARTHRITIS, and significantly more likely to end up with heart disease than those who were not punished in a physically harsh manner. And it was just a year ago that her research tied corporal punishment to DEPRESSION, mental illness, and addictions to things like drugs, alcohol, and gambling. The conclusions of Dr Afifi's study, as reported by the latest issue of the journal Pediatrics (Harsh Physical Punishment in Childhood and Adult Physical Health) are as follows.
There has been a steadily growing outcry against spanking over the course of the past several decades. I am not sure that I know any government schools that allow spanking today for fear of a lawsuit. But ask the average public school teacher why our schools are all too often more like the Wild West than a classroom, and you'll quickly realize that they have been neutered as far as their ability to administer effective punishment is concerned. Spanking is not only being associated with child abuse, it is now being cited as a causal factor in developing heart disease, arthritis, and obesity.
According to research from Dr. Tracie Afifi of the University of Manitoba in Canada, children who receive "harsh physical punishment" were nearly 25% more likely to be OBESE, 35% more likely to develop ARTHRITIS, and significantly more likely to end up with heart disease than those who were not punished in a physically harsh manner. And it was just a year ago that her research tied corporal punishment to DEPRESSION, mental illness, and addictions to things like drugs, alcohol, and gambling. The conclusions of Dr Afifi's study, as reported by the latest issue of the journal Pediatrics (Harsh Physical Punishment in Childhood and Adult Physical Health) are as follows.
| "Harsh physical punishment in the absence of child maltreatment is associated with some physical health conditions in a general population sample. These findings inform the ongoing debate around the use of physical punishment and provide evidence that harsh physical punishment independent of child maltreatment is associated with a higher likelihood of physical health conditions." |
I have some issues with Dr. Afifi's research as well as the way that it is erroneously being portrayed in the media. Firstly, if you simply look around you and compare things in America today to the way things were 50, 60, or 100 years ago, what do you see? You see that despite the fact that everyone used to get spanked as kids, there was far less obesity, heart disease, mental illness, arthritis, and depression than you find today. And ask anyone who was alive back then; the average child behaved far better than than they do today. Secondly, I would say that spanking is an entirely different animal than the things she specifically defines as "harsh physical punishment" (pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting). In fact, these things probably could / should fall under the category of "Child Maltreatment" she talks about in her conclusion above. The headlines of local news outlets are not helping things by using the word "spanking" in their headlines, and erroneously associating it with child abuse. Although many will disagree with me, when done properly, spanking is quite different than any of the forms of punishment found on her list.
By the way, although I have not read it yet (I have read excerpts and articles about it), the same issue of Pediatrics contains an opposing editorial by Dr. Rachel Berger of the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Dr. Adam Zolotor of the the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. They believe that her conclusions are "lacking".
By the way, although I have not read it yet (I have read excerpts and articles about it), the same issue of Pediatrics contains an opposing editorial by Dr. Rachel Berger of the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and Dr. Adam Zolotor of the the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. They believe that her conclusions are "lacking".
HOME BIRTHS
SAFER OR MORE DANGEROUS THAN HOSPITAL BIRTHS
Lola Kabuki
Despite the fact that American physicians and doctor groups continue to decry home births, much (if not most) of the rest of the world must surely wonder what all the fuss is about. A recent study of 150,000 Dutch women who were classified as "low risk" was published in the current issue of one of the oldest medical journals on the planet; the British Medical Journal. The results? Low risk women who had given birth previously and planned a home birth, had half the number of serious complications as did women of the same group who had a planned their delivery to be in a hospital setting. For those of you who decided against home births because they are "dangerous" re-read that last sentence.
For women who were having their first child, the rate of serious complication was 1 per 1,000 higher in the home birth group than in the hospital group. When you put all of this together, it is probably why the rate of home births in Denmark is almost 50% higher than hospital births (in America, home births are less than 1% of all births). Could things ever work like this here in America? Not as long as groups like the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics have official policies against home births. In fact, the AAP's policy statement against home births says this about home births, "Obstacles are pervasive and systemic and include wide variation in state laws and regulations, lack of appropriately trained and willing providers, and lack of supporting systems to ensure the availability of specialty consultation and timely transport to a hospital". All of these "obstacles" to home births could be easily changed if the medical community wanted to change them. The truth is, there is not much money in a home birth.
And although C-sections can be potentially life saving surgeries, they were probably the chief reason that the risk factor was actually higher for hospital births than home births in this study (HERE). In fact, the study's authors went as far as actually stating in BMJ that, "It is important to limit the use of caesarean section because of its association with various adverse outcomes at the current birth, and the risk of uterine scar rupture during the next pregnancy and birth."
My suggestion in this matter is simple. If you are a healthy woman who takes care of herself, talk to a competent midwife about the potential for a home birth. Our midwife had done over 1,000 home births when our daughter was born over 13 years ago. Is there potential for things to go wrong? Certainly. But as you see in this study, with a competent mid-wife, home births for healthy women are actually quite safe and should not automatically be treated as a pathological condition requiring all sorts of medical intervention.
For women who were having their first child, the rate of serious complication was 1 per 1,000 higher in the home birth group than in the hospital group. When you put all of this together, it is probably why the rate of home births in Denmark is almost 50% higher than hospital births (in America, home births are less than 1% of all births). Could things ever work like this here in America? Not as long as groups like the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics have official policies against home births. In fact, the AAP's policy statement against home births says this about home births, "Obstacles are pervasive and systemic and include wide variation in state laws and regulations, lack of appropriately trained and willing providers, and lack of supporting systems to ensure the availability of specialty consultation and timely transport to a hospital". All of these "obstacles" to home births could be easily changed if the medical community wanted to change them. The truth is, there is not much money in a home birth.
And although C-sections can be potentially life saving surgeries, they were probably the chief reason that the risk factor was actually higher for hospital births than home births in this study (HERE). In fact, the study's authors went as far as actually stating in BMJ that, "It is important to limit the use of caesarean section because of its association with various adverse outcomes at the current birth, and the risk of uterine scar rupture during the next pregnancy and birth."
My suggestion in this matter is simple. If you are a healthy woman who takes care of herself, talk to a competent midwife about the potential for a home birth. Our midwife had done over 1,000 home births when our daughter was born over 13 years ago. Is there potential for things to go wrong? Certainly. But as you see in this study, with a competent mid-wife, home births for healthy women are actually quite safe and should not automatically be treated as a pathological condition requiring all sorts of medical intervention.
SOCCER HEADERS, BRAIN DAMAGE, & SCAR TISSUE
My kids are all good soccer players. In fact, they have been playing soccer since they were about three years old. Although I grew up playing football, I have been coaching soccer since the early 1990's (nope; didn't have a clue when I started). One of the very first columns I ever wrote for our local newspaper (probably in 1992) concerned a study showing that soccer "headers" (using your head to contact the soccer ball) were being linked to Degenerative Arthritis in the necks of professional soccer players. Because we now know that Degenerative Arthritis is caused, at least to a large degree, by abnormal joint motion, it is not a reach to theorize that it is linked to LOSS OF PROPRIOCEPTION, SUBLUXATION, and FASCIAL ADHESIONS as well. In fact, it has been thought that heading the soccer ball is like repeated miniature WHIPLASH INJURIES whose effects accumulate over time (HERE). Via TBI, this can lead to AUTOIMMUNITY. Now we are hit with another study that may be even worse.
If you are even a casual sports fan, you know that other than Tony Parker's hamstring, concussions (TBI --- Traumatic Brain Injuries) are currently the number one discussed SPORTS INJURY. A brand new study from New York's Albert Einstien's School of Medicine ("Soccer Heading Is Associated with White Matter Microstructural and Cognitive Abnormalities"), is shedding some new light on this topic.
The study, from the medical journal Radiology, suggested that soccer players who repeatedly "head" the soccer ball, end up with significant amounts of brain trauma that cannot be explained away by repeated concussions. According to the study's conclusions, "Heading is associated with abnormal white matter microstructure and with poorer neurocognitive performance. This relationship is not explained by a history of concussion". These findings are consistent with patients who have undergone MTBI (Mild Traumatic Brain Injury), which is why I do not allow headers on the youth soccer teams I have coached.
If you are even a casual sports fan, you know that other than Tony Parker's hamstring, concussions (TBI --- Traumatic Brain Injuries) are currently the number one discussed SPORTS INJURY. A brand new study from New York's Albert Einstien's School of Medicine ("Soccer Heading Is Associated with White Matter Microstructural and Cognitive Abnormalities"), is shedding some new light on this topic.
The study, from the medical journal Radiology, suggested that soccer players who repeatedly "head" the soccer ball, end up with significant amounts of brain trauma that cannot be explained away by repeated concussions. According to the study's conclusions, "Heading is associated with abnormal white matter microstructure and with poorer neurocognitive performance. This relationship is not explained by a history of concussion". These findings are consistent with patients who have undergone MTBI (Mild Traumatic Brain Injury), which is why I do not allow headers on the youth soccer teams I have coached.
CHILDHOOD OBESITY IS
OFF THE CHARTS
Thayne Tuason
Seven of ten American adults are overweight. Half of these are obese. Is this a health crisis? You better believe it is! Just ask the politicians who are trying to figure out how we going to raise enough revenue (i.e. increase taxes enough) to pay for the crazy amount of healthcare required to take care of a largely overweight population and their vast array of diseases? The government's answer? Utterly stupid ideas like PSA'S, SODA BANS, and more USELESS, EXPENSIVE PROGRAMS. Unfortunately, the problem continues to get worse. One of the biggest differences in yesterday and today? A large percentage of today's oversized adults were normal sized children. Think about your childhood for a moment. Back in the day it was rare to have an overweight classmate. But as you look at forty years worth of statistics, you find that this is becoming the norm.
My son recently attended a grade school "Track Meet" at a Midwest suburban public school. His comment to me was, "I have never seen so many overweight little kids in my entire life!". According to government stats (the CDC), one in four children in the 2-5 age group is overweight, while about one in three school aged children is overweight. These stats are much worse if you are a minority or if you live in the South, nor does it take into account the numerous children that are MONW. It all begs the question of what you should do as a parent to combat childhood obesity and help your child get to and maintain a healthy weight.
The first thing you need to do in order to lose weight and get healthier in the process is CONTROL YOUR BLOOD SUGAR --- even if you have not (yet) been diagnosed with DIABETES. Fail to do this and you are wasting your time. Next, you need to take a look at some of the things I have written on this topic of OBESITY. The great thing is that working with children is easy compared to working with adults. In most cases, they have not had their problem long enough to set up the diseases of obesity.
Do not wait another day to get started on this project. Oh, and one more thing. If you think that feeding your child a steady diet of crap is OK because they are of a normal weight (or even underweight), you are sadly mistaken (HERE). Not only are you setting them up for a future of overweight / obesity, you are likely condemning them to a lifetime of CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASES as well AUTOIMMUNITY. As you can see, creating HEALTHY CHILDREN is not something that happens automatically without some effort on your part.
My son recently attended a grade school "Track Meet" at a Midwest suburban public school. His comment to me was, "I have never seen so many overweight little kids in my entire life!". According to government stats (the CDC), one in four children in the 2-5 age group is overweight, while about one in three school aged children is overweight. These stats are much worse if you are a minority or if you live in the South, nor does it take into account the numerous children that are MONW. It all begs the question of what you should do as a parent to combat childhood obesity and help your child get to and maintain a healthy weight.
- REALIZE THAT YOUR CHILD'S WEIGHT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY: That's right, your child's weight is up to you. This might mean no more SCHOOL LUNCHES. It might also mean that you will actually have to revive your role as the parent and decide what your child will and won't eat. I routinely get parents in my office make excuses for their children like this. "I realize what you are saying is true, but little Johnny simply hates vegetables". Or, "little Johnny won't eat anything other than chocolate cake and Cheetos" (HERE). Or here is one I heard the other day. "Little Johnny would not eat his lunch so I gave him cookies. He had to eat something didn't he?". Take a deep breath and repeat to yourself. I am the parent and they are the child --- I am the parent and they are the child. You will also have to...............
- TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN WEIGHT: Have you ever gone to an overweight doctor? Or a doctor who smokes cigarettes? When SOMEONE IN AUTHORITY tells you to do as they say and not as they do, there is a huge loss of credibility. If you are overweight and trying to get your kids to eat healthy while constantly eating JUNK yourself, you have no credibility with your kids. As a parent, make sure you are leading from the front. Period. Leadership means that you must........
- EDUCATE YOURSELF AND YOUR CHILDREN ABOUT HEALTH, DIET, AND EXERCISE: There is all sorts of advice on getting to and maintaining a healthy weight (HERE are some examples). It is up to you to educate yourself and then pass it along to your family (children included). The problem is that there is lots of conflicting advice out there. This is why I have simplified the process for you and given you some great links to follow. They are found in the paragraph below.
The first thing you need to do in order to lose weight and get healthier in the process is CONTROL YOUR BLOOD SUGAR --- even if you have not (yet) been diagnosed with DIABETES. Fail to do this and you are wasting your time. Next, you need to take a look at some of the things I have written on this topic of OBESITY. The great thing is that working with children is easy compared to working with adults. In most cases, they have not had their problem long enough to set up the diseases of obesity.
Do not wait another day to get started on this project. Oh, and one more thing. If you think that feeding your child a steady diet of crap is OK because they are of a normal weight (or even underweight), you are sadly mistaken (HERE). Not only are you setting them up for a future of overweight / obesity, you are likely condemning them to a lifetime of CHRONIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASES as well AUTOIMMUNITY. As you can see, creating HEALTHY CHILDREN is not something that happens automatically without some effort on your part.
HOW TO RAISE A HEALTHY CHILD
IN SPITE OF YOUR DOCTOR
"One grandmother is worth two MD's." Dr. Robert M
When I started Chiropractic School back in 1988, I was assigned a book. Along with the many big and expensive medical tests that I had to purchase, a 5 dollar paperback; Robert Mendelsohn's How to Raise a Healthy Child... in Spite of your Doctor was on my required-reading list as well.
Needless to say, when you are 21 years old, single with no children of your own, taking 30 credit hours per trimester, and working part time; reading a book like this is not at the top of your priority list. At the time, it was a book that I skimmed to get the information needed to pass the class, and then forgot about ---- that is until Malachi was born in 1998. Like all parents do, I quickly realized that there is nothing scarier than a sick child ---- a fact echoed by Dr Mendelsohn himself. Needless to say, I pulled the book off my office shelf and began reading.
In this easy-to-read book, Dr Mendelsohn lays out the medical issues that you need to be worried about (a short list) and the things that you needn't fret about (a very long list). He has chapters on protecting your child before they are born, NUTRITION, FEVER, headaches, stomach aches, colds / flu, strep throat, EAR INFECTIONS, skin conditions, orthopedic conditions, ASTHMA, ALLERGIES, ADD / ADHD, CHILDHOOD VACCINATIONS, choosing the right doctor, and many others. Amy and I found this book so valuable that for a very long time, it was what we gave young couples as a wedding gift, or for their baby shower.
I will admit, some of the information in his book is out of date (it was published during my senior year in high school). There are also some things that I would not agree with. My guess is that if Mendelsohn were alive today, he himself would argue against some of the things he wrote about nearly three decades ago. Just remember that reading this book is an exercise in logic and common sense when it comes to thinking about and taking care of sick children. If you are into numerous examples of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, I would suggest you take a look at his other famous book, CONFESSIONS OF A MEDICAL HERETIC.
DR MENDELSOHN'S BIO:
Robert Mendelsohn, America's most beloved Pediatrician, earned his medical degree in 1951 from the prestigious University of Chicago School of Medicine. In addition to several decades of seeing tens of thousands of children in his thriving practice, he wore many different hats. Some of these included......
Although Dr. Mendelsohn died a few short months before I was assigned to read his book, his legacy lives on. If you have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or friends, I would STRONGLY suggest that you buy a copy of this book for yourself, and one to loan out or give away. Amazon still carries it. And while you are at it, read a few of the Customer Reviews. It's really a shame that more doctors are not bucking the system and carving their own trails like Medelsohn did. Great man. Great book. Thanks doc!
When I started Chiropractic School back in 1988, I was assigned a book. Along with the many big and expensive medical tests that I had to purchase, a 5 dollar paperback; Robert Mendelsohn's How to Raise a Healthy Child... in Spite of your Doctor was on my required-reading list as well.
Needless to say, when you are 21 years old, single with no children of your own, taking 30 credit hours per trimester, and working part time; reading a book like this is not at the top of your priority list. At the time, it was a book that I skimmed to get the information needed to pass the class, and then forgot about ---- that is until Malachi was born in 1998. Like all parents do, I quickly realized that there is nothing scarier than a sick child ---- a fact echoed by Dr Mendelsohn himself. Needless to say, I pulled the book off my office shelf and began reading.
In this easy-to-read book, Dr Mendelsohn lays out the medical issues that you need to be worried about (a short list) and the things that you needn't fret about (a very long list). He has chapters on protecting your child before they are born, NUTRITION, FEVER, headaches, stomach aches, colds / flu, strep throat, EAR INFECTIONS, skin conditions, orthopedic conditions, ASTHMA, ALLERGIES, ADD / ADHD, CHILDHOOD VACCINATIONS, choosing the right doctor, and many others. Amy and I found this book so valuable that for a very long time, it was what we gave young couples as a wedding gift, or for their baby shower.
I will admit, some of the information in his book is out of date (it was published during my senior year in high school). There are also some things that I would not agree with. My guess is that if Mendelsohn were alive today, he himself would argue against some of the things he wrote about nearly three decades ago. Just remember that reading this book is an exercise in logic and common sense when it comes to thinking about and taking care of sick children. If you are into numerous examples of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, I would suggest you take a look at his other famous book, CONFESSIONS OF A MEDICAL HERETIC.
DR MENDELSOHN'S BIO:
Robert Mendelsohn, America's most beloved Pediatrician, earned his medical degree in 1951 from the prestigious University of Chicago School of Medicine. In addition to several decades of seeing tens of thousands of children in his thriving practice, he wore many different hats. Some of these included......
- Instructor at Northwest University Medical College
- Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Community Health and Preventive Medicine at the University of Illinois College of Medicine
- President of the National Health Federation
- National Director of Project Head Start's Medical Consultation Service
- Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of the State of Illinois
- Appearing on over 500 television and radio talk shows
- Author of several books.
Although Dr. Mendelsohn died a few short months before I was assigned to read his book, his legacy lives on. If you have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or friends, I would STRONGLY suggest that you buy a copy of this book for yourself, and one to loan out or give away. Amazon still carries it. And while you are at it, read a few of the Customer Reviews. It's really a shame that more doctors are not bucking the system and carving their own trails like Medelsohn did. Great man. Great book. Thanks doc!
COUGH MEDICINE FOR KIDS?
NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!
NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!
OpenClipart
Most of us have taken cough medicine at some point in our lives. Many parents routinely give cough syrup to their children. They are probably not aware of just how dangerous this practice really is. Not only are numerous deaths reported each year, these cough medications have been proven over and over and over to be no better than a placebo at halting COUGHS.
As recently as a few years ago, Pharmaceutical Companies were touting medications like Toddler's Dimetapp, Triaminic Infant, and Little Colds ----- many with pictures of babies on the label. They said that the medications were "safe" if used as directed. Of course that's what they said, but is it really true? You know it's not!
Parents; if you have been paying attention, you are already aware that the FDA has recommended that no children under the age of two be given cough medications. In January of 2008, the FDA "strongly recommended" that OTC cough and cold medicines not be used for infants and children younger than two. America is talking about raising this age to six (Canada has already done this), and Britain (already at 6) is contemplating increasing their recommendations all the way to age 12. Why is this happening? Much of it comes down to narcotics.
Cough Syrups work because they contain NARCOTICS --- mostly HYDROCODONE or Codeine. They essentially suppress coughs by depressing the central nervous system. Too much depressing the CNS has caused the deaths of thousands of infants and young children (and probably a significant number of older children and adults as well). It also caused the arrest and ultimate failure of one multi-million dollar quarterback ---- JaMarcus Russell; the infamous first-round washout of the Oakland Raiders.
When I first heard about Russell's arrest, I was not surprised. He had proven himself to be a fat, lazy, oaf --- a prime example of the absurdity of throwing tens of millions of dollars at an athlete that has unlimited physical potential, but no interest in winning or keeping their lives in order. I was certainly not surprised by the fact that he was busted for drugs. What I was surprised about was the fact that his drug of choice was cough syrup. Yes, cough syrup.
Cough syrups containing Codeine or Hydrocodone are mixed with 7-Up, and then sweetened with Jolly Ranchers to make something called "Purple Drank" (yes, that's how it's spelled) aka "Sizzurp". Apparently, this is a huge and growing problem in many parts of the country ---- especially in the South. A 2004 study by University of Texas Medical School showed that over 8% of Texas high school students had used codeine-based cough syrup to get stoned.
Like I said, do you really want your babies taking this stuff? Come back for Monday's Blog on taking care of coughs naturally. And while you're at it, forward this message on to someone you know needs it. You can also spread the word by liking us on FACEBOOK as well.
As recently as a few years ago, Pharmaceutical Companies were touting medications like Toddler's Dimetapp, Triaminic Infant, and Little Colds ----- many with pictures of babies on the label. They said that the medications were "safe" if used as directed. Of course that's what they said, but is it really true? You know it's not!
Parents; if you have been paying attention, you are already aware that the FDA has recommended that no children under the age of two be given cough medications. In January of 2008, the FDA "strongly recommended" that OTC cough and cold medicines not be used for infants and children younger than two. America is talking about raising this age to six (Canada has already done this), and Britain (already at 6) is contemplating increasing their recommendations all the way to age 12. Why is this happening? Much of it comes down to narcotics.
Cough Syrups work because they contain NARCOTICS --- mostly HYDROCODONE or Codeine. They essentially suppress coughs by depressing the central nervous system. Too much depressing the CNS has caused the deaths of thousands of infants and young children (and probably a significant number of older children and adults as well). It also caused the arrest and ultimate failure of one multi-million dollar quarterback ---- JaMarcus Russell; the infamous first-round washout of the Oakland Raiders.
When I first heard about Russell's arrest, I was not surprised. He had proven himself to be a fat, lazy, oaf --- a prime example of the absurdity of throwing tens of millions of dollars at an athlete that has unlimited physical potential, but no interest in winning or keeping their lives in order. I was certainly not surprised by the fact that he was busted for drugs. What I was surprised about was the fact that his drug of choice was cough syrup. Yes, cough syrup.
Cough syrups containing Codeine or Hydrocodone are mixed with 7-Up, and then sweetened with Jolly Ranchers to make something called "Purple Drank" (yes, that's how it's spelled) aka "Sizzurp". Apparently, this is a huge and growing problem in many parts of the country ---- especially in the South. A 2004 study by University of Texas Medical School showed that over 8% of Texas high school students had used codeine-based cough syrup to get stoned.
Like I said, do you really want your babies taking this stuff? Come back for Monday's Blog on taking care of coughs naturally. And while you're at it, forward this message on to someone you know needs it. You can also spread the word by liking us on FACEBOOK as well.
Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).
|
|
RSS Feed
BLOG ARCHIVES
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
|
|
|
BLOG CATEGORIES
All
Addictive Carbs
Adhd
Adrenal Fatigue
Aging Gracefully
Allergies
Anemia
Antibiotics
Apex Energetics
Arthritis
Aspartame
Aspirin
Asthma
Atstill
Autismvaccines
Autoimmunity
Beta Blockers
B.J. Palmer
Blood Sugar
Brain Based Therapy
Breakfast
Breast Cancer
Bursitis
Cancer
Candida
Can You Help
Cardio Or Strength
Carpal-tunnel-syndrome
Case Histories
Cheat Days
Chiropractic Miracles
Cholesterol
Christianity
Chronic Pain
Cold Laser Therapy
Colic
Core
Corticosteroid Injection
Coughs
Current River
Dangerous Foods
Death By Medicine
Degenerative Disc
Degenerative Joint Disease
Depression
Dequervains Syndrome
Diet Soda
Drug Culture
D's Of Chronic Pain
Dysbiosis
Ear Infections
Elimination Diet
Endocrine System
Erectile Dysfunction
Estrogen Dominance
Ethiopian Adoption
Evidence Based Medicine
Evolution
Ewot
Face Pain
Facet Syndrome
Fascia Disease
Fascial Adhesions
Fever
Fibromyalgia
Fish Oil
Flu Shots
Football Concussions
Functional-neurology
Functional-problems-vs-pathology
Geriatrics
Gl1800
Gluten
Gluten Cross Reactivity
Gout
Gut Health
Gym Equipment
Headaches
Health Pharisees
Healthy Children
Herniated Disc
Hfcs
H Pylori
Hypertension
Ice Or Heat
Infertility
Inflammation
Inversion Tables
Jacks Fork River
Junk Food
Ketogenic Diet
Kettlebell
Knee Pain
Leaky Gut Syndrome
Ligaments
Low Carb
Medical Merrygoround
Migraine Headaches
Mold
Mri Overuse
Msg
Muscle-strains
Narcotics
Neck Pain
Neuropathy
Number One Health Problem
Nutrition
Obesity
Osgood Schlatter
Osteoporosis
Oxygen
Paleo Diet
Parasites
Pcos
Piriformis Syndrome
Platelet Rich Therapy
Post Surgical Scarring
Posture
Prostate Cancer
Re Invent Yourself
Rib And Chest Pain
Rotator Cuff
Royal Lee
Salt
Scar Tissue Removal
School Lunch
Sciatica
Setting Goals
Sexual Dysfunction
Shingles
Shoulder Dislocation
Shoulder Impingement
Shoulder Pain
Shoulder-separation
Sleeping Pills Kill
Smoking
Soccer Headers
Soda Pop
Spanking
Spinal Decompression
Spinal Stenosis
Spinal Surgery
Standard Process
Statin Drugs
Stay Or Go
Stool Transplant
Stretching Post Treatment
Sugar
Sympathetic Dominance
Sympathetic-dominance
Systemic Illness
Systemic-inflammation
Tendinosis
Tendinosis Treatment
Tensegrity And Fascia
The Big Four
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Thyroid Epidemic
Tissue Remodeling
Trans Fats
Treatment Diary
Trigger Points
Unhealthy-doctors
Universal Cure
Vaccinations
Vertigo
Video Testimonials
Weight Loss
Whiplash
Whole Body Vibration
Winsor Autopsies
