If you think all great hospitals are in big cities

I have written many words about the failures of modern medicine.  The drug companies, some doctors, many researchers, and others in the business of medicine much rather see you sick.  After all, there is no real money to be made from healthy people.  They never take medicines, they never wind up in hospital. So if you want to make big money you need a lot of sick people.  With one exception that I want to discuss today.

That exception is known as acute care for acute illnesses.  You are in a automobile wreck, your heart valve starts to leak, your kidneys fail, you call off a ladder or any other of a wide range of health issues that come on suddenly and you know the event that caused the problem.  These are the problems that modern medicine in the United States is exceptionally qualified to treat.

If I am in a car wreck take me to Grady Memorial hospital in downtown Atlanta or Kennestone Hospital in Marietta.  They handle those types of cases routinely and have all the equipment and expertise to patch people back together in no time and because of their experience, they do it right and do it quick.  That is key to recovering from this type of trauma.  Oh they also handle a lot of gunshot wounds so they do well with that or any other types of trauma to the body.

Next in this area are the cardiac surgery centers.  Fortunately, the best of these are not in a big city.  If y0u have a leaky heart valve and need it repaired or replaced or you need other type of heart surgery, then you should go to the The Ronnie Green Heart Center at the Northeast Georgia Health System, Inc. in Gainesville Georgia.  Here you will find the best care  in Georgia or perhaps the world.  The Doctors are first rate and the hospital is at least five star.

I have always grumbled that for what hospitals charge, they should provide patient services at least as good as a five start hotel.  Well, I have found one that does. From a toothbrush and a warm wash cloth when you awake from surgery to a newspaper and a snack in the evening, they have it all along with hundreds of smiling faces and laughter ringing down  the hall for most of the day.

I discovered this place when I was diagnosed with a leaking mitral valve in my heart.  I was sent to Dr. Wolfe to repair the valve.  It seems that Dr Wolfe has pioneered the process of valve repair and replacement using a robotic arm.  No more opening up the chest and pulling out the heart.  He makes a small incision under the arm, slides the robotic arm between the ribs and repairs the valve.  There is no huge dose of radiation, he watches the operation process with sound waves and he looses so little blood that at transfusion is seldom necessary.

The best way to describe the entire process is to relate a giant billboard I saw a few blocks from the hospital.  HUGE HEART SURGERY – itty bitty hole.  In short I was out of the hospital and feeling good on Friday after the operation on Tuesday.  While it was no walk in the park it was a thousand times better than the older way. I get to go home for Christmas thanks to Dr Wolfe and the five star hospital in north Georgia.

So as you read my tirades about the lousy medical system in the United States, never forget the acute care in America is still the best in the world. Where it all comes apart is when they try to pretend that our bodies got sick because they are low on patented medicine and the cure is to stuff them with lousy food or worse medication.

Posted in Medicine | Leave a comment

… If you believe in “evidence based” medicine

How often have you heard some politician or medical expert expound on the need to have evidence based medicine.  It seems that every time I turn on the TV or look a newspaper, or Google News, there is someone that thinks evidence based medicine is the only way to practice medicine.  In fact, I heard this so often that I looked into what exactly they meant by this simple phrase.

On the surface it is a simple concept, before you prescribe a treatment for a patient, you need some evidence that the treatment will solve the problem.  Otherwise you will be accused of being a quack or perhaps a charlatan.  Unfortunately, this simple concept is not so simple in practice.

What is Evidence?

The first problem faced by the practitioner of evidence based medicine is identifying the evidence.   Let’s examine two simple cases.

Case 1 – We assemble 10,000 people and a design double blind test (one that neither the doctor nor the patient knows who got the medicine) to see if our new statin drug actually prevents a heart attack.  We establish some dose then we establish the end points we wish to check and pick a placebo for the other half the patients.  When we finish we apply some statistics to show that the people that took our drug had 20%  fewer heart attacks during the trial than the people that took the placebo.  In our study that number was a significant number so  we declare that our drug successful and ask the FDA to approve it for sale.

Case 2 – We are an old country doctor in the mid west.  There is no money to pay for fancy drugs for our patients so we ask a local indian friend what they recommended for curing a sore throat.  He said to take the leaves of a specific local plant and boil it in water for 5 minutes.  Then let it cool,  Give the patient about a shot glass full of the liquid every 3 hours.  We tried this remedy on our next sore throat.  To our surprise it worked so we started bottling it and giving it to all our patients with sore throats.  We became very popular because everyone that tried it was healed in a few days.

Which case has the best evidence for a successful cure?  The stain drug with FDA approval or the medicine man’s cure for a sore throat?  Before you answer consider the following:

In the case of the medicine man almost 100% of the people taking the cure were healed and none were harmed.  Meanwhile it was determined that you had to give the statin drug to 120 people to prevent one heart attach and at the same time when you gave the statin drug to 112 people, you caused one case of diabetes.  Thus for every heart attack prevented someone died from the effects of the diabetes.

Most doctors and clearly the drug companies say that the FDA approved medicine is evidence based medicine.  This goes for Clelebrex, Bacol, and many other drugs that were FDA approved until it was discovered they were killing people by the thousands and were then taken off the market.  Were they actually part of evidence based medicine?

This problem is not limited to drugs.  Almost none of the surgeries that we take for granted have any evidence that they are better than doing nothing.  Take for example the stinting process that props open arteries.  They are a huge money maker for the hospitals and doctors that perform them, but there is now actual evidence that they are no better than using drugs or doing nothing.  Yet they are still considered part of evidence based medicine and performed every day.

On the other side of the coin, people take vitamin D to reduce the chance of getting the flu.  There are several studies that show this works.  It works because the population of the United States are low in Vitamin D.  We are low because we do not get outside, and when we do we use sunscreen or wear clothes that cover us completely.  This “evidence”  gets dismissed because it is anecdotal therefore not valid.

Then you look at the evidence for the benefits of a flu shot.  The only real test to see if they work is to do one of the double blind placebo controlled trials described in Case 1 above.  You  may be surprised to learn that no such test has ever been done.  The claim is that because we know they work it would be unethical to deprive people of a treatment that works so we can not perform the test.

So long as this circular logic is used, there will never be any test to see if they actually work.  Meanwhile, there are several trials that show that in some populations they do not work.  One such population is the older people it is supposed to protect.  Even the drug companies now say flu shots do not work in older people so what did they do, they created a new formulation available this year that doubles the dose.  Still no evidence this shot works, but the Government and the drug companies are working hard to get us all to roll up our sleeves and get stuck.

After I wrote this original article I discovered that I have a heart valve that is leaking.  So I am going to submit to a surgical heart valve repair that as no “evidence” that it works.  There has been no double-blind placebo controlled trial of this procedure, yet I am confident that the surgeon will succeed in correcting my heart valve.  So it is clear that some evidence is better than or at lease as good as the double blind placebo controlled studies that many focus on when they talk about evidence based medicine.

Conclusion

While this is only the briefest brush on this subject I think the answer is clear.  The evidence in “evidence based medicine” is like beauty.  It is in the eye of the beholder.  If you are a drug company, the only evidence that is allowed is that which shows that your drug works.  If you are a country doctor, the only evidence you need is happy well patients and if you are me?  I just want what works for me!  So it all comes down to who do you trust and the people I distrust the most are those that say  we must only have evidence based medicine.  They are they ones to watch because they have  a agenda to protect and they are not disclosing it.

Posted in Medicine | Leave a comment

If You Like Industrial Food.

Industrial Food?  What is that you may ask.

Industrial Food is food created by the food system in the United States and other countries.  This food system was spawned by the fast food industry.  Starting with McDonalds and continuing with Burger King, Kelly’s Jet System Hamburgers, Red Robin and all the others there was created a requirement for large quantities of low cost ingredients.  The supply needed to be reliable as it was sold all year, not just in season, it needed to be consistent so every hamburger tasted the same and could be prepared by low cost labor, and above all it had to bee cheep.

This demand coupled with the government decision to make food as cheep and reliable as possible created the modern industrial food system based primarily on corn.   (Note: I will use McDonalds as an example to make the discussion simpler, do not think I am only pointing the finger to McDonalds.   Swanson Frozen Foods and most other large companies are now in this same category)

If you look at a “normal” southern (US) meal from Mcdonalds consisting of a Big Mac, French Fries, and a Coke you will find that it could not exist without corn.  The meat in the hamburger is fed corn as its primary food.  The bread and Coke uses corn sweetener called High Fructose Corn Syrup.  The tasty costing on the french fries is from meat fed corn, and it is fried in corn oil.  So why all the corn?   Corn is subsidized heavily by the Federal Government to create cheep food.  This means that the corn in all these foods is partially paid for by tax revenue through the agricultural subsidy to keep the consumer price low.

While the government subsidy creates the low price, the massive fields of corn from many parts of the country, the corn processing and storage operations coupled with the massive feed lots create the consistency. See :  http://youmightbeanidiot.com/?p=15

This is a quick history of the origins of industrial foods.  There are other influences that push business such as the “low-fat” diet that was devised to sell low cost carbohydrates instead of protein and fats from animals and are much more expensive to produce and many other influences that you can easily identify by “following the money”

What is not to like?

Perhaps not everyone has tried a McDonalds hamburger or a frozen diner, if you fit that description, then you should make it a point to pick up a dinner an prepare it at home or pick up a McDonalds meal on the way home tonight.  In both cases sit quietly, engage you dinner partner in conversation , and enjoy all the flavor the Industrial Food system has to offer.  Everyone should try this at least once in their life because there is no other flavor like it in the world.  It is completely man made.  All the flavor comes from additives because neither the meat nor what passes a vegetables have taste on their own.

While you are eating,  try not to think about how the animal was raised.  Try to forget about the fact that the corn or soy bean that was fed the animals was raised on the same piece of land year after year.  In a similar manner you should ignore the fact that the vegetables you are eating are grown year after year on the same land.  To get the plants to grow at all, the farmers adds fertilizer made from petroleum, but the trace minerals that sustain life and provide taste have long been depleted from the soil. 

You should also try to forget about the massive amount of petroleum used in the production of this meal.  Starting with the oil used to make the fertilizer, to the fuel needed to move the fertilizer to the farm.  Then you must ignore the tractor fuel used to plow the hard compact soil, and the oil used to make the weed killer and pesticides used on the plants. Next you need to ignore the fuel used to transport the food to the factory where it was processed into the form you are eating, then even more fuel to refrigerate and store the food before it is again transported to you local store.  Finally you need to consider the fuel you used to carry this “food” from the store to your home for consumption one meal at a time.

The reason you must ignore all those things if that if you consider then, you will find that your cheap meal requires more energy to produce than you will receive by eating it.  Such is the price of Industrial Food.  If you understand this and the fact that all this fuel use is made possible by government spending our tax dollars. you will understand the first myth the Food Industry wants you to keep believing. 

Myth:  Industrial Food is cheap.

Clearly it is not since it cost hidden taxes and fuel uses far beyond its nutritional value.

Upon further reflection you will also note there is no truth to the second myth the Industrial Food Conglomerates want you to continue to believe:

Myth: Industrial Food Is Efficient.

With all the cross country transportation, storage, environmental impact there is little in the way of efficiency left, but the grandaddy of all myth’s is:

Myth: Industrial Food is Healthy.

This one phrase is the most important reason not to consume Industrial Food.  The old saw that goes: “You are what you eat.” contains more truth than most people understand.  The only place your body can get the building materials it needs to build new cells, ward off disease, and increase intelligence is from the food you eat.  If you eat Industrial Food that is missing nutrients due to poor soil and repeated plantings of the same crops year after year, you will become weak, and riddled with the diseases so prevalent in developed nations.

ASIDE:  Consider for a moment the purpose of bacteria, virus, and fungi.  They are nature’s clean-up crews.  If you have a dead animal, or fish, or even a piled of dead plants, what happens?  The cleaning crew arrives to convert this living tissue back to the form that can be used to start and sustain new life.  Is it any surprise that when we do not nourish ourselves that we get attached by these same scavengers.  They are doing the job nature intended by removing the weakest of us to make way for new life to form.

What to Eat!

By this time I hope you will find Industrial Food somewhat revolting, but wondering what to eat as everyone must eat something to survive. Here is what I suggest you research as you are looking for something nourishing to eat.

1 – Know the Farmer that grows your food.

As a society, we have lost the bond between the farmer and the consumer.  This is problem is clearly visible each time there is a food recall.  The food producer did not care about the welfare of the eater.  If they did, they would not send out food that contains contamination. In my youth, I knew Mr. Lambert. his wife, sons. and daughters that ran the dairy where my family purchase milk.  I knew the truck farmer, that purchased produce in season and brought to my house on a truck.  I knew the neighbors that shared their produce with our family and shared in the bounty of food that my family grew.  I even knew the freed slave that lived in the house across the road and supplied mother with the best moonshine available to moisten her fruitcakes.  In short, the entire community where I grew up knew where our food came from and we never worried about it making us sick because all the people that produced the food also ate what they produced and they cared about their neighbors and would never knowingly cause harm to any of them.  This statement applied equally to the man that owned the bank, owned the pharmacy, or cleaned the dairy.  

I hereby hope you find such a environment in which to get your food.

Posted in Industrial VS Organic | Leave a comment

If you believe modern health care will improve your health.

Health Care – health care – healthcare

How many times have we heard those two words. – Hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions?  Have you ever stopped to ask what those words really mean?  In the media, I have discerned many meanings ascribed to those words. To some it clearly means having health insurance.  To others it means standardized free access to tests like x-rays and mammograms.  To still others it means doctor visits, or drugs and the list goes on and on.  Unfortunately, none of these things will bring good health and some of them may kill you.

For the purpose of this discussion, I will define health care as caring for my health.  By that I mean taking action that keeps me feeling good and able to function fully in my environment.

With this definition, modern health care is a blessing and  a life saver to some while killing millions of others.  My wife would not be here without the modern miracle of dialysis which we do at home with a marvelous system called NxStage.  I would be looking at sure death as I have a leaking heart valve that is soon to be repaired and through the modern miracle of robotic surgery, I am told that I will be as good as new in a few days/weeks.  When dealing with these acute illnesses and many others, the health care system in the US is among the best in the world.  If I have a broken bone (from a motorcycle accident), a gunshot (never had one thankfully), or other acute health problem, there is no place I would rather be than in  the emergency room of a large metropolitan hospital.  They deal with this type of health problem every day.  They have pills to alleviate the pain, they have splints to stabilize the bones, and they have the knowledge to use them to allow the body to restore itself, and  in many cases the body will heal itself to the point that the prior problem is almost undetectable.

The system fell apart when the doctors and the drug companies tried to apply the same thought process to chronic diseases like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure and the like.  In acute illnesses, there is an obvious problem that occurred over a short period of time. Both the doctor and the patient can clearly see that something is wrong.  Think about a bad case of constipation, a high fever or a broken bone.  The problem is easy to detect, and the need for correction is immediate.  In addition, the cure will be seen to work immediately or in most cases, less than a few months. (Broken bones take time to heal)

With these conditions, researchers can test any new procedure or drug on animals and after safety is established again in humans.  The test can last long enough to see if the cure is effective and possibly determine if the new cure is better than older cures.  This was the path of medicine for many years.

Then science began to report degenerative diseases like osteoporosis and chronic diseases like diabetes and cancer.  These diseases start later in life, have a long incubation period, and the person can live with the disease for many years.  These conditions make it unethical or in some cases impossible to run real research to determine if the proposed cure works or fails.  The test would last a lifetime therefore would be of no use to anyone living today.  Further, testing against the current protocols for treating the disease would mean depriving half of the patients the best treatment now available and no one would agree to that procedure.  Without  informed consent it is completely unethical to run a trial on humans.

How do the trials get accomplished?

First  some alternate endpoint is selected that might have some bearing on the actual disease. For example they determined that most of the men that had already had a heart attack also had high LDL cholesterol.

Remember correlation like this does not imply causation.  For example everyone that breathes dies  (Correlation) therefore we might conclude that breathing causes dying (Causation). If this were true then we should all stop breathing if we want to live long.  While this example is preposterous on its face.  The causation between high LDL and heart disease  is just a preposterous although not as obvious. ( Food for thought, If high LDL causes heart disease then why do more than 50 % of all heart patients have normal LDL?)

With these observation I am going to work for a pretend drug company and I am going to see if I can design some trials that will allow my company to sell the new statin drug we have produced that lowers LDL in animals.  I make the claim that high LDL cholesterol causes heart problems and that our statin drug lowers LDL and therefore prevents heart disease.  We have already given our drug to multiple animals with no observable effect other than lowered LDL cholesterol in some of them.

For my first study, I identify a group of men that have had a heart attack and randomly assign one half of these men to receive my new statin drug and the other half an identical pill that only contains an inert ingredient like sugar (This is called placebo – more on that later).  I make the selection in such a way that neither the doctor nor the patient knows which patient got the pill with my drug and which got the inactive pill.

Now I follow these men for several years.  At the end we discover that fewer of the men that took the statin drug had recurrent heart problems compared with those that took the placebo.  What a great drug we have.  Men that take it have fewer heart problems.

After I run at least two of these trials that show fewer men had heart problems after 4 years, the FDA will let my company market our statin drug as a cure for heart problems that occur after a patient has had an initial heart attack.

As my trial progressed, I noted it hat the cholesterol is lower in the patients as I had predicted therefore I conclude that high LDL cholesterol causes heart problems in men that have already had a heart attack.

Now that I have established that high cholesterol causes heart problems in men I make the leap that it will work the same way in women. Thus with no more trials I have doubled the number of people that will be helped by our drug and doubled our sales potential.

Next I note that in my earlier animals trials that lowering cholesterol using our drug will also reduce the risk of the first heart attack so we start  a similar trial in humans.  Taking the same approach as before we show that lowering the cholesterol in men will reduce the chance of an initial heart attack.

Now I have a real drug that will make millions.  The FDA looks at my studies only since they have no other data and approves my statin drug for prevention of heart disease in both men and women, we market to the public and doctors then low and behold we are making Billions (with a B) of dollars per year and our stock holders are ecstatic.

Now I take it one step further,  since there is a committee that recommends the safe levels of LDL cholesterol and my company and similar companies are the experts in this field, we are on the committee.  The committee meets, looks at my studies and the studies of others that have developed a similar drug and conclude that 200 is too high for LDL to be safe from heart problems so the committee lowers the level to 100 thereby tripling the potential client base.

So what is wrong with this picture?

First off, you can tell from my italics that my studies were only in men.  There were never any studies in women. While the bodies of men and women are both human with many similarities, there are also many differences.  To this date there is no indication that statins work in women.  In fact, there is no study to date that shows taking a statin drug increases the life span of a woman by as much and one day.

Next take a look at my actual studies.  How many people did I have to treat with my statin drug to prevent one heart problem.  The number varies with the study, but it is about 121.  This means that you must give a drug to 120 people that does them no good to save one heart problem in the 12i’st person.  Not what I would call really good odds.

Upon further examination of my studies, you will note they only ran for about 4 years at the longest and many were shorter, meanwhile I am marketing my drug to be taken for a lifetime.  What does my test say about long term safety of my drug.  In a word, nothing. They did not last long enough to make that determination.  In fact I even stopped one of the studies 2 years early.  (Read on for the reason)

Unfortunately later studies done by others show that for every 110 people that take my drug one gets diabetes.  Whoops. I have saved one heart attack,  but give another man diabetes.  Is that a good trade-off.  Of course it is my company also makes a drug for diabetes that controls blood sugar so we win again.

While this is a fictitious account, if you look for the details, you can see the thread of truth in my account.  As for the reason my study was stopped, I noticed in the preliminary data that the all-cause-death was increasing at the same time the drug was reducing heart problems by 50% so I stopped the study before the all-cause-death was larger in the drug group and told everyone that I stopped it to give the people in the placebo group access to the drug so they could be protected as well as the treated group.

While there are many other problem with actual statin drugs I will close with one final observation.  There are very few studies that include all cause death as a test conclusion.  The few that do show that after 5 years the all cause death number increase to the point that more people are dying among those taking the statin drug than those taking placebo. (Note the problem with diabetes described above)  Since my drug is only approved to prevent heart disease I get to keep selling it for that purpose, all the while everyone ignores the fact that I am killing more people than I am helping.

What to do?

After much reading, I find that real statin drugs do more than lower cholesterol.  They also lower the homocysteine levels.  Elevated homocysteine has been shown to cause heart problems thus the statin drugs likely work through this mechanism on people with elevated homocysteine.  The other thing I learned is that there are natural ways to lower homocysteine.  The take a pill and call me in the morning solution is to try a combination of B6, B12, and folate.  This inexpensive quick solution will work for most people, but the real solution is to eat nutrient dense food from a farmer you know and be sure to include enough coconut oil and the saturated fats from real meat grown on pasture. In any case run as fast as you can from any form of a low-fat diet.

Disclaimer – I am not a doctor.  I do not give medical advice.  If you think I have, you are mistaken.  Nothing on this web site has been FDA approved. The entire site is for your entertainment only.  Nothing on this site is  intended to prevent or treat any disease nor is it to be construed as medical advice.

Posted in Medicine | Leave a comment

If you believe Industrial Food is just as good at Organic Food

Before I begin this topic, I must define a few terms:

1 – Organic Food – Food that is produced in accord with the USDA standards for Organic food.  These foods are allowed to include the USDA Organic label on the packaging.  The Organic label for those that have not seen it looks like this:

USDA Organic Logo

USDA Organic Logo

When food is labeled with this logo, you can be sure of several things.

1 – No Genetically modified plants or animals

2 – Otherwise minimal standards  as to growing methods

Click the logo link to see what the FDA has to say about the logo.

It is unfortunate that the large corporations have taken over the USDA Organic logo to sell more of the same food they were selling before just stiffed up with a new label.  Sure, they have had to make some changes, but in general there is little difference between what is called Organic and the standard food grown in the US.

To understand this, consider the organic chicken.  To be grown as “organic” chickens must have “access to pasture at all times”.  That may seem to be a worthwhile addition as chickens raised on pasture have many improved qualities over those grown in giant chicken houses as I will describe later.  The problem is that these chickens can also be raised in large chicken houses.  They can be 100 wide by 1000 feet long.  They usually have completely closed sides so the light can be controlled and the chickens are shoved together so closely they can scarcely turn around.  To meet the organic requirement, the producers cut a chicken sized hole in the end of the house with a fenced in a 10 x 10 lot outside that door.  Now the chickens have “access” to this yard at all times.  Unfortunately, it is the nature of the chicken to stay close to home at all times.  It is possible to put a small chicken coop in the middle of a 10 acre field and the chickens will not roam more that about 100 feet from the coop.  So exactly what good is it to have a chicken door in the organic chicken farm.  None, except that it allows the producer to stamp the chicken with the word organic when you purchase it in the store.

2 – Certified Naturally Grown food – Small growers previously called their food Organically Grown to distinguish it from the other food in the supermarket.  The large producers of food saw the rapid rise in demand for this so called Organic food and pressed the USDA to define what was meant by organic.  The resulting regulations are much less than organic because they leave large loopholes as I described for the chickens above that the large companies exploit to maintain their production and still keep the organic label.  Once the people that were really growing organic food discovered their name had been taken over by the large growers they took action. Note: it cost $25,000.00 dollars and a three year wait, plus other hoops to jump through to have your farm certified as organic.

These growers selected a new name to once again distinguish their product. The new name for what these small producers were selling is Certified Naturally Grown.  They also have a logo that looks like this:

Naturally grown logo

Naturally grown logo

If you see this logo you will know that the farmer that grew the food subscribes to the practices of the naturally grown organization.  These practices are much more closely aligned to what normal people think organic should mean.  Certified Naturally Grown chickens actually have to live in the pasture, only coming inside when it is foul weather or when they lay eggs.  These farmers  do not rely on the government for subsidies or inspections.  They pay their own way and use other farmers to inspect each farm to assure compliance.

While this logo is relatively new and hard to find. It is growing rapidly and is worth looking for.  Click the logo to learn more.

3 – Locally Grown food - This is food that is grown by a farmer in your area.  Whether it is beef or beets, it comes from a local grower that in most cases is more organic than that with the USDA Organic lable.  The real benefit of both this and the Certified Naturally Grown is that you can get to know your food producer.  That interaction between the grower and the eater is the best guarantee that you will get safe, tasty foods.

This food has no logo, but you will know it by the company it keeps namely the farmer that grew it.  You will find it in the field, in a CSA, in a farmers market and in food stands along the rows and byways of America.  You can even find it on the Internet at the Local Harvest web site.

4 – Industrial Food – This is the majority of food available in the market.  It is primarily grown as a monoculture (One crop in the same field year after year, using chemicals, and fertilizers made from pretorleum or natural gas).  It is harvested with large machines and the varieties are chosen for fast growth, good appearance, and long shelf life. The animals are grown in large confinement operations called CAFO’s.  You can learn more about then in other parts of my blog.

There are many logo’s for this type of food and they are advertised on TV, radio, newspapers, and the Internet.  They have names like Swanson, McDonalds, General Foods, Kellogs, Cysco Foods, Souix bee, Burger King, Waffle House, Campbells, and the list goes on and on.  These names are all in the business of supplying food to the growing mass of people on this planet.

Which of these is the best food to eat?

I your goal is to get the largest volume of food for the least money, then the Industrial Food is where you will find all the action.  The agricultural research divisions of the land grant universities in the US, the UDSA, and the research arms of all these large companies have worked very hard for over 100 years to discover methods that would create the most food for the least money.  Monoculture allows each farmer to specialize in one crop.  They get all the latest equipment and quickly produce as much of that crop as they can at the lowest cost.  The large companies have added massive factories to combine these farm products into tens of thousands of products from dehydrated food for backpackers to breakfast cereals, to body building muscle drinks.  So if cheep is your goal, then get a sackful at McDonalds and enjoy your corn based dinner as you drive to the bar to have a drink with your friends.  If you prefer to roll your own so to speak, look at the center isles of any grocery store, or look on the shelf of your nearby minimart.  You will find the best this division of agriculture has to offer.  From Twinkies to Swanson T.V. Dinners it is all there.  Packaged in bright colors and boasting of all manner of benefits to your health in big letters on the front of the package.

Before you head off in this direction you should take note of a few things that have occurred in the rush to cheep food.  First and foremost, none of the research that pushed for higher yields and cheeper production paid any attention to the nutritional value of the foods they were producing.  In the 1950′s a scientist ran an experiment.  He feed some of his rats the cereal from a prominent cereal producer while he ground up the box and fed it to the other group of rats.  He surprised everyone by reporting that the ones that at the box lived longer.  He noted that both groups died earlier that normal, but if he had to chose, he would eat the box. You can imagine the stir that created.  The outcome was that all cereals began to “Fortify” their cereals with a few of the vitamins and minerals they took out in processing or lost in the farming methods so his experiment would fail if anyone tried it again.  I will leave it you to ponder if taking out all the nutrients then adding back some manmade imitations are the best for your health.

Highest yield is not always good

The plants and animals grown in Industrial Food production are chosen for highest yield or the shortest time to market, or the best transportation characteristics. All at the lowest cost.  Since there is only one perfect plant or animal of each type, the variety of foods grown has shrunk to very close to one per type and this one is not the one with the most nutrition or the best taste.  It is the one that makes the food companies the most money.

Monoculture destroys the land

The monoculture farming method is only possible because they add chemical fertilizers to the soil.  This means that over the years of farming, the plants use up all the micro nutrients in the soil and they are never replaced.  This means that the plants delivered to the market are missing key ingredients, iodine, iron, selenium to name a few that are required for your good health.  Every year that goes by, poorer and poorer quality foods are being delivered into the market. This gives rise to some of the diseases that beset civilization.  Don’t believe this, do a little research or keep reading.

Is Organic Food any better? You bet it is!

First of all,  in many countries and here in the United State if the food contains Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) it may not be labeled organic.  While the FDA and the USDA continue to claim that GMO foods are identical to the non modified versions of the food, they seem to have no basis for that claim.  No studies are available to indicate one way or the other.  At present much of the food in your local grocery contains GMO ingredients.  The vast majority of Corn (And therefore High Fructose Corn Syrup – soon to be known as corn sugar), soybeans, crook neck squash, cotton, and sugar beets produced in the United States are known to be GMO.  In fact, just recently the sugar beet producers have complained that there may be a shortage of sugar in the US because a judge ruled that GMO sugar beets may not be planted.  That shows how truly dependent we are on GMO products.  Since these GMO foods have never been tested in actual feeding trials, in human or animals, we as consumers do not know what if anything they do differently when consumed.  I would like to believe the FDA, but they do not have a track record of honesty in my book. So until there are some studies showing the safety of GMO foods, I will stick to the categories that do not include the GMO  items.

Here are some other examples differences in organic vs industrial foods:

Tomatoes From BBC news:

A ten-year study comparing organic tomatoes with standard produce found almost double the level of flavonoids – a type of antioxidant.  Flavonoids have been shown to reduce high blood pressure, lowering the risk of heart disease and stroke.

. . .

Dr Alyson Mitchell, a food chemist at the University of California, and colleagues measured the amount of two flavonoids – quercetin and kaempferol – in dried tomato samples that had been collected as part of a long-term study on agricultural methods. They found that on average they were 79% and 97% higher respectively in the organic tomatoes than in the conventionally grown fruit.

New Scientist magazine reported that the different levels of flavonoids in tomatoes are probably due to the absence of fertilisers in organic farming.

Milk – Again from the BBC:

Milk was tested from cows who were farmed organically and conventionally.

The study found cows farmed organically produced milk which was, on average, 50% higher in Vitamin E than conventionally produced milk. Organic milk was also 75% higher in beta carotene, which is converted into Vitamin A in the body. It was also two to three times higher in the antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthine.

Dr. Anne Nugent, British Nutrition Foundation dismissed these finding by stating: “ Even if regular milk is slightly lower in some nutrients than organic milk, chances are you will be already be meeting your dietary needs for these nutrients by consuming other foods.”

Does that sound like good advice to you?

On the subject of Strawberrys:

Reganold JP, Andrews PK, Reeve JR, Carpenter-Boggs L, Schadt CW, et al. (2010) Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Strawberry Agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12346. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012346

Our findings show that the organic strawberry farms produced higher quality fruit and that their higher quality soils may have greater microbial functional capability and resilience to stress. These findings justify additional investigations aimed at detecting and quantifying such effects and their interactions.

If you would like to experience this difference for yourself, go into a store like Whole Foods, Kroger, or Publix during local strawberry season.  Walk over to the display of organic strawberries.  Smell.  Most likely you actually began to smell the sweet fragrance before you even reached the display.  Now go over to the standard strawberries and smell.  Smells like some organic pesticide instead of sweet succulent strawberries.  I have experienced this even when the strawberries were produced by the same company.  I now only purchase strawberries that smell like a strawberry, because I know when I get them home, they will taste just like a strawberry.

Grass fed beefUniversity of California Cooperative Extension Service (Warning: Large Power point slide) reported research that concluded:

[The cows] Diet significantly altered the lipid profiles within beef. Grass diets produced a product lower in overall SFA {Saturated Fatty Acids}, higher in PUFA {Polyunsaturated fatty acids} and a more desirable Omega 6 to 3 ratio. Grass-based rations increased CLA {Conjugated Linoleic Acid} by 50% and Omega 3 FA (Fatty Acids} by 40%

Free Range Chicken Eggs – Mother Earth News conducted research into the benefits of eggs from pastured chickens and found that:

Eggs from pastured chickens had 4 to 6 times more vitamin D, and

• 1⁄3 less cholesterol
• 1⁄4 less saturated fat
• 2⁄3 more vitamin A
• 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
• 3 times more vitamin E
• 7 times more beta carotene

This tells me that all forms of foods that are Certified Naturally Raised,  Locally Raised, Organic, or just about any other way you can name to create food produces better food than the Industrial Complex that is now in charge of our food production.

I will leave you with this thought provoking quote.

People are fed by the food industry, which pays no attention to health,and are healed by the health industry, which pays no attention to food.  ~Wendell Berry


Posted in Industrial VS Organic | Leave a comment

If you believe breast cancer awareness month is helping cure anything!

From the LA Times online edition October 4, 2010 we read:

As predictably as the leaves turn yellow in autumn, America turns pink each October with the arrival of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. From shopping malls to football stadiums, the campaign’s signature pink ribbons seem to be everywhere.  …

The stark reality is that in the 26 years since the campaign began, deaths from breast cancer have dropped only slightly — about 2% per year, starting in 1990. According to the National Breast Cancer Coalition in Washington, D.C., 117 women in the U.S. died of breast cancer every day in 1991; today that number is 110.  …

But now, Welch says, scientists have come to understand that breast cancer isn’t one disease but many. Some tumors are indolent and never cause trouble. Others grow slowly and may eventually spread. The most aggressive cancers metastasize before doctors and patients even know they’re there.  …

Unfortunately, doctors can’t tell which tumors are harmless and which are truly dangerous — so they wind up treating all of them as if they were the worst kind.  …

“If it’s not broken, I don’t think we should try and fix it,” said spokeswoman Laurie Casaday, senior manager of corporate affairs in oncology for drug maker AstraZeneca, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month’s founding sponsor.  …

It took the author of this article, Christie Aschwaden, a lot of words to get to the real reason this pink save the Ta-Tas silliness has continued unabated for so many years. Check out the last sentence of the quoted section above.  There you will find that the founding organizers are none other than the deep pockets of the drug company AstraZeneca.  Read that statement carefully, then read the following quote from Wikivest where they are discussing AstraZeneca’s 2009′s profits of $7.5 BILLION dollars:

AstraZeneca has a strong portfolio of three blockbuster oncology drugs. Arimidex, which had sales growth of 7% last year and $1.92 billion in revenues, is one of the world’s most successful breast cancer drugs.

It is now clear.  The pink ribbon movement came from the drug companies as a way to get more women to get a mammogram of dubious value to discover they have some kind of lump the doctors must treat as the worst kind of cancer thus use more of the drugs that are making them billions of dollars each year.

If you think mammograms are a really good thing, consider for a moment that each mammogram subjects the tissue to enough radiation to increase the chance of getting radiation caused cancer by 2 %.  Now get a mammogram every year starting at age 40 and by age 70 you have increased your rink of cancer by 60%.  Note: this also increases the chance you will take one of AstraZeneca’s drugs by 60%

Or looking at another angle.  Doctors are taught in residency training to handle breast lumps carefully and not to mash them.  They are taught this because if you accidentally break one open and it is cancerous the cancer will spread (metastasize).  So what happens when you get a mammogram.  They stick the breast in a vice and clamp it tight (especially so for women with dense breasts).  This means that if you happen to have one of the slow growing cancers that will likely never cause you harm, it spreads all over your body and can no longer be “cured” but you will get to use a lot of cancer drugs before you croak.  The stock holders in AstraZeneca will thank you all the way to the bank.

The sad part is there are screening methods that have none of these problems,  one is thermography.  You get a little chilly sitting in a cold room for about 10 – 15 minutes while your temperature stabilizes then an infrared picture is taken of you standing up.  The cancer nodes if any exist stand out in bright contrast to the rest of the image because the blood flow is higher in that location.  You leave the room slightly chilly, but otherwise none the worse for the ware.  Is anybody promoting these?  Nope – they are cheep, accurate and have many fewer false positives.  Remember, false positives are frequently treated “just in case” so the drug companies love these as well as the actual cancers.

This whole activity from the awareness month, to the mammograms, to the monthly breast exam is a worthless waste of time and money.  If it really worked, you would think that the death rate from breast cancer would have taken a nose dive sometime over the last 20 years.  Hasn’t happened and it won’t happen in the future.  So exactly why are you carrying a pink ribbon?  Do you like to work for or donate to the big drug companies?

I can think of many worthwhile causes that could actually use my money to help real people and not big drug companies.  Perhaps you could donate to the continuation of this web site (Click the donation box on the right).  I promise to spend your money foolishly so I can keep writing this insightful rhetoric.

I leave you with the words of every good drug ad:

Remember, You should ask your doctor if taking my advice is right for you!

Posted in Breast Cancer, Medicine | Leave a comment

If you believe cows eat grass and hay

If you are like me, you have seen or at least seen pictures of cows on a pasture.  Earlier posts have pictures of this wonderful setting.  Cows in the foreground standing in green grass up to their knees. Fresh clean water in a nearby pond, and a young girl and boy sitting in the rocking chair of the nearby farmhouse porch.  This is a wonderful picture because grass is what cows naturally eat.  They are well equipped to eat grass, which humans can not digest, and produce high quality meat and milk that are well suited for the human digestive system.

So if  the cows do not live on grassy meadows, where do they live?

Most cows today are kept in a CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) where hundreds or perhaps thousands of cows are kept in “confined situitations” where the “feed is brought to the animal rather then the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland.”  From the EPA website. Since these animals are essentially caged, they can not get to food or water unless it is brought to them.  This is done in large trucks and “shoveled” to the pens with tractors.

CAFO Feeding

CAFO feeding

While the picture looks rather clean, consider for a moment  what happens when it rains.

In the following picture, notice the large feed storage bins in the background. This is where the feed is mixed and prepared for trucking to the animals.  Notice the slope of the land and wonder what happens to all the poo and urine after a rain.  As a side note, this is a lightly loaded area.  Many CAFO’s have many more cows on this amount of land.

CAFO Feed lot

Clean CAFO Feed Lot - From EPA website

What is in those silo’s for the cows to eat?

According to the EPA web site milk cows eat:

  • Corn silage (Fermented corn)
  • Alfalfa/grass silage (Fermented grass)
  • Alfalfa hay
  • Corn
  • Soybean meal
  • Fuzzy whole cottonseed
  • Commodity feeds (corn gluten, distillers grains, soybean hulls, citrus pulp, candy bars, etc.)

Citrus Pulp, Candy Bars, etc.?! Do I want drink milk from cows fed candy bars and orange juice tailings.  And  exactly what is included in ETC?  To answer that question, take a look at the web site of one of  the larger feed producers Archer Daniels Midland or ADM for short. Here is what they think is included in the ETC. category.

Examples of commodity products include hulls and meals from oilseed extraction; spent distillers or brewers grains from beverage or fuel ethanol production; brans, germs, and chaff from various grain milling operations; as well as fermented/enzymatically cleaved sugars, starches, and bran from sweetener production; along with pulps from sweetener or juice production. Another class of commodity feeds include various industrial food wastes which vary in nutritional value including potato wastes, snack food waste (corn and potato chips, pretzels, etc.), fruit and vegetable cannery waste, bakery feeds, candy processing wastes, and chocolate wastes.

This is not cow feed, this is garbage.  Is it any wonder these cows get sick?

I will leave you with one final website to explore.  It belongs to the “Cereal Byproducts Company”  they offer a “wide variety of choices in serving the feed and food industries.  Here is their products web page.  On this page you can find such tasty treats for your animals as “Yellow Grease”,  ”Hydrolized Leather Meal”, ”Poultry Byproduct Meal”, “Corn Dust” and my favorite “Hydrolized Poultry Feather Meal”.

While these things may make the animals grow, what is it doing to the nutrition of the milk and the beef?  You can read more about what it is doing in the next article.

Organic Food is the same as Industrial Food?

Posted in Cows eat grass | Leave a comment

If you believe cows are milked in a clean environment

As with the beef cows, there are idyllic pictures of milk cows.  They are in the same type of green pastures shown for beef cows.  Here is a sample from the EPA website:

Holstein Cow

The cows are almost always black and white, because the Holstein has been bred to have large milk sacks and produce large amounts of milk.  Unfortunately, this also means they have less cream in the milk than Jerseys, Brown Swiss or Guernsey.  This problem was solved many years ago by having whole milk redefined to have only 4% butterfat which was later reduced to 3.5%.  US EPA Dairy Products

Unfortunately, this is not what a real dairy cow looks like.  First, this cow has a tail.  Because the tail is bothersome when milking, (Notice the proximity between the tail and the faucets on the milk sack.) most industrial dairies cut off the tails in a process called docking.  The USDA explains the process better than I can.  Click the picture to see the entire article.

Tail Docking

Before and after docking

Even these pictures are very tame compared to a real industrial milking parlor.  For one more look at what the industry and the EPA says milking parlors look like, examine this wonderful scene below.

EPA Milking parlorNote the clean floor, clean cloths, and sanitizing solution. Everything is a perfect picture of cleanliness.  Since I spent several summers while in high school working at Lambert’s dairy, I pretty much thought this was the way modern dairies ran until I saw ” Dirty Jobs” with Mike Rowe episode 11 aired April 21,  2008. Note:  I would like to produce a link to that episode as it was on the web a few weeks ago, but as of this writing it had been removed.  There are many episodes still there so what happened?  Your guess is as good as mine, so I will just continue along.

In this episode Mike was wearing rubber boots and stood in a mixture of milk, cow poo and urine to accomplish the milking task.  The cows were covered in filth as they came into the stall.  Each cow was fed some sweet feed and Mike used a bucket and rag to wash the milk sac and faucets*, then he attached the milking machine.  The machine sucked the cow dry in a few minutes, the machine was removed from the cow and the milk, which was collecting in a large clear plastic container hung from the ceiling over the muck on the floor, was sucked into the cooler through a pipe.

The next cow had mastitis. (A bacterial disease of the quarters*).  This cow was milked in a similar manner after being washed from the same bucket.  When the milking was finished and the cow left the stall, the bottom of the plastic container was opened and the contaminated milk drained on the floor to mix with the poo and urine.

The next cow arrived to receive the same treatment with the same wash water This time there was no indication of mastitis king so the milk was sucked into the cooler.  I noted that neither the lines nor the plastic container were cleaned before this action so the pus and possibly bacteria milked from the second cow was sucked into the cooling system along with the milk.  This bothered me, so I looked up the standards for milk and found that:

1 – The technical term for pus is Somatic Cells which are white blood cells, or internal milk sac tissue cells.  The number in one milliliter of  milk are counted which results in a measure called SCC.

2 –  The US has the highest acceptable SSC of all major developed milk producing nations at 750,000 cells per mL of milk.

3 – The higher the SSC the more infection is present in the cows.

4 – The milk storage on the “farm” is called a bulk tank and the SSC for the bulk tank is directly related to the number of infected quarters.

As a result, the allowed SSC of 750,000 would  mean that 25% of the quarters being milked are infected.  Thus if there were one infected quarter on each cow, every cow in the herd could be infected and the milk would still pass as good milk.  This is not a result I wanted to see sitting in the pretty white or yellow jug on the grocers shelf.

I also learned that  the higher the SSC the greater chance of antibiotics and astonishingly the greater number of pathogens that exist in the milk as well.  This leaves me with not such a good feeling about the quality of milk produced at the giant dairies.  It is a good thing they cook it before it is sent to the store.  If they did not it is likely there would be widespread illness.  As it is, you just get to drink milk with cooked pus in it.  Yum!

Note: Before anyone misunderstands, there is no processing of the milk to remove the pus before or after it is cooked.

To read more about this issue, read the report Milk Quality – A Worldwide Perspective by K. Larry Smith and J. S. Hogan from The Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio.

Clearly there must be a better way.  That way is small farms that actually have the idyllic pasture and house as shown in the pictures.  They dot this country and produce safe delicious milk unfortunately they still have to cook it if they want to ship it across state lines.  In addition, there are many states where it has to be cooked to be sold anywhere within the state even thought the farmer is producing delicious tasting safe raw milk the same way they have done for thousands of years.

Find out more about raw milk here:

Weston A Price foundation’s  - RealMilk.com

Information  by Randolph Jonsson, Webmaster/ Nutrition Consultant, Marin County, California  - www.raw-milk-facts.com

* Note:  Yes I know the names for the cow’s equipment, but if I type those words here then that I might lost my G rating and get blocked in some libraries so to save some child from reading the truth about farm animals I will use the euphemisms milk sac, and faucets.  Normal cows have one milk sac and 4 faucets which are called quarters. If you still don’t get it, here is a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Posted in Clean milking environment | Leave a comment

If you believe cows are raised on pasture.

Many  people have seen pictures similar to this on TV, in magazines ads, and even on the side of milk cartons.

Cows on pasture

Cows on pasture - from wikimedia.org (Click image to see credits)

In each case, the  intent of the advertiser is to show the customer how neat and humanly their cows are raised.  The pasture is neat, there is not even a hint of cow manure on the property.  The fences are few and neat, the cows look contented and the farm houses and barns are idealistic.  In short the viewer gets the impression that this is a Norman Rockwell painting come to life with real cows.

Unfortunately, this is all a myth perpetrated by both the dairy and beef industry.  While there are indeed small farms like this dotting the countryside in the United States, the industrial food industry that paints this image have farms that look nothing like this picture.  In fact, it is hard to find a clear picture of an industrial beef or dairy farm.  The beef and dairy producers do not want you to see the filth surrounding your food.

The majority of beef and milk in the United States in produced in what is known as an AFO or CAFO which stands for Animal Feeding Operation or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation.  The EPA defines an AFO as:

Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) are agricultural operations where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland.

A CAFO must meet additional requirements of size (usually over 200 cows) and:

• has a manmade ditch or pipe that carries manure or wastewater to surface water; or

• the animals come into contact with surface water that passes through the area where they’re confined.

Note that nowhere in these definitions –  taken from the US EPA web – site do you find cows eating grass or on open ranges as in the picture above.  Instead, they are kept in large numbers, in small pens, and the food is carried to them.  The manure and urine is carried away in pipes or ditches and may even be dumped into “surface water passing through the area” – read streams.

The US EPA web site has the following two pictures that indicate the problem, but these are relatively tame pictures compared to what really happens.

CAFO

The front and back of a "clean" CAFO operation - from EPA web site

Thus instead of the pretty picture of cows on pasture, you have cows standing in mud and eating food they were never created to eat.  Do you really want to eat beef or drink milk from cows treated this way.

Related posts:

Myth: Milk cows are milked in a clean environment

Myth: Cows eat grass

Truth: A better beef to eat

Truth: A better milk to drink

Posted in Cows are raised on pasture | Leave a comment