THE GREATEST MEDICINE OF ALL… IS TEACHING PEOPLE HOW NOT TO NEED IT
Avoid Clogged Arteries by Eating MORE Butter and Cheese?!
By Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D.
For decades, mainstream experts have been wagging their fingers at those of us who enjoy eating rich, delicious, nutritious, and wholesome dairy foods—such as butter, cheese, milk, and yogurt.
They’ve tried to claim that the saturated fat in these foods will clog your arteries, cause cardiovascular diseases, and eventually kill you.
But that argument has been all wrong, all along.
For one, dairy is an integral part of the Mediterranean diet—which experts far and wide consider to be the best diet on the planet for your heart…and your overall health! In fact, in the Mediterranean, they eat rich, full-fat dairy with just about every meal.
And now, a major, new study shows that people who eat MORE dairy have a much LOWER risk of suffering a deadly heart attack or stroke compared to their peers.
An international team of scientists looked at the connections among dairy consumption, cardiovascular diseases, and death in more than 4,000 Swedish men and women, with an average age of 60 years.
First, the researchers measured blood levels of a particular fatty acid found primarily in dairy foods. (This approach is far more accurate and reliable than using food surveys or questionnaires, as people tend to forget how often they do or don’t eat certain foods.)
Next, the researchers followed the men and women for an average of 16 years to see who suffered a heart attack, stroke, or other serious circulatory event. They also noted how many of the participants died.
It turns out, those with the highest levels of dairy fatty acids had the lowest risks of suffering one of these serious cardiovascular events. In addition, they had NO increase in all-cause mortality risk (death from ANY cause) compared to their peers.
This finding is important in three ways…
First, it means that men and women who ate more full-fat dairy did NOT suffer from more heart disease events. And, on the contrary, eating more of it clearly PROTECTED them from these harmful events.
Second, men and women who ate more dairy clearly did not die more often—or sooner—than their peers who avoided it.
Third, we should note that the blood testing measured natural dairy fats. Meaning if you consume the highly processed, low-fat or fat-free dairy products, you will NOT gain the same protection as the people in this study.
Add dairy to your daily diet
The researchers decided to confirm their initial findings in Sweden by combining them with 17 other previous studies, which included 43,000 people from Denmark, the U.K., and the U.S.
Using this much larger pool of people, the researchers, here again, found that men and women with the highest levels of natural dairy fat had the lowest risk of developing cardiovascular disease.
The study’s lead author, Dr. Kathy Trieu, said, “Our study suggests that cutting down on dairy fat or avoiding dairy altogether might not be the best choice for health.”
Indeed!
And, as I always suggest, make sure to add at least THREE servings of full-fat, organic dairy foods to your daily diet. You’ll get some heart-healthy fats into your diet, and you’ll also get calcium—which should only ever come from your diet and preferably not supplements.
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, January 6, 2022
'Ministry of Truth' vs Nutritional Medicine
Commentary by Damien Downing, MBBS, MRSB
OMNS (Jan. 6, 2022) Just outside the local primary school here in north London, somebody has sprayed these words on a phone or cable junction box, highly visible to the mums and tots:
"COVID 1984"
I often cycle past there, and have always thought "Mmm, a bit extreme", but now I'm starting to wonder.
In George Orwell's novel "1984," Winston Smith works at the Ministry of Truth, which administers Newspeak, deciding what the "truth" is, propagating it, and rewriting history when necessary. Newspeak is "characterized by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts are reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning" according to our old friends Wikipedia. The purpose is thought control; you know the saying "The French have a word for it"? If you don't have a word for it you struggle to think it. So words like "anti-vaxxer" polarize opinions and prevent any subtlety of thinking about viruses and vaccinations.
For two years, we at the OMNS have been stating one simple message:Nutritional therapy works on Covid, as it does on all viruses.
On January 26, 2020 the OMNS Editor in Chief, Andrew W. Saul, wrote a news release: "Vitamin C Protects Against Coronavirus." It also made recommendations for vitamin D3, magnesium, zinc and selenium, which strengthen the immune system. We have continued to repeat and expand the message again and again. And have been suspended by Facebook again and again.
Others, including highly respected front-line physicians such as Paul Marik, have also figured out the importance of these nutrients. In fact, we have known about the anti-infective potential of vitamin C for over 50 years, since it was reported by Frederick Klenner. He described traditional sources such as acerola cherries, which are very rich sources of C. That puts the knowledge back way before we named it "vitamin C."
And it makes nonsense of the narrative that there is only one solution to Covid: vaccinate, again and again.
Two years ago, I failed to persuade mainstream colleagues of the utility of this. "It's not evidence-based," they said. Now two review papers have shown the evidence, and it's pretty solid.
The first, in the journal Life, is called "Vitamin C Intervention for Critical COVID-19: A Pragmatic Review of the Current Level of Evidence." It shows clearly that "this simple vitamin saves lives when given in the right dose." In fact, vitamin C saves about 80% of the lives of critically ill Covid patients.
With a roll-call of experts saying vitamin C can save lives, what has been the response of the authorities, the powers-that-be?
The UK's National Health service responded back in 2020 by promising a trial of intravenous vitamin C. Until that evidence becomes available, they have continued to say that there is no good evidence that vitamin C works. Scientists including the authors of the above paper sent them studies and they still said that. Finally, a freedom of information (FOI) request established that the NHS had received the papers and had ignored them, for at least a year.
But the promised international multi-center trial would fix this, right? The only problem is, apparently, that the NHS had already signed an exclusive contract with a single company to supply the vitamin C, and that company was and still is unable to provide any. So, the trial still has not started. Even for a piece of fiction, you couldn't make it up! I could lend them some tomorrow.
The second review is by my colleague, independent researcher Rachel Nicoll: "COVID-19: Presenting the case for vitamin D: A cheap, effective measure overlooked by most governments."
As always with Rachel's writings this is very information-rich. Here's just one sentence;
A meta-analysis of 23 studies containing 11,901 participants found that in patients with vitamin D deficiency, the risk of being infected with COVID was 3.3 times higher and the risk of developing severe COVID was around 5 times higher compared to those with more healthy vitamin D levels.
Our knowledge of vitamin D and its importance for immunity has progressed by leaps and bounds in this pandemic, but a lot of this too we have known for ages. I wrote a book about it back in 1988; there's a team in San Diego that has been studying sunlight and health for decades.
Just as modern agriculture has been depriving us of many essential nutrients, modern lifestyles have been depriving us of sunlight and therefore vitamin D. Lucky you if you live somewhere sunny like San Diego, because here in London nearly everybody is vitamin D deficient. Not that things are perfect in San Diego; we all shun the sun these days, often due to scare tactics about skin cancer.
That's a story for another time, but here's a take-home thought about vitamin D levels. It has been shown that a population needs a vitamin D blood level above about 75 nmol/L (30 ng/ml) to stop deaths from Covid, but precious few of us manage it. So what should our blood level be? Where's the benchmark when nearly everybody is deficient? If you take our nearest evolutionary relatives, non-human primates, they have around twice that level, 125 to 200 nmol/L (50-80 ng/ml). We're not just falling behind them, we're missing it by a mile. You need at least 10,000 IU per day long-term to achieve that.
Guess what comes next? When the "experts," at least in the UK, are asked about the safety and toxicity of vitamin D, they say we should not take more than 2000 IU per day. But this is based on the UK's Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) 2016 report. SACN cited a 2006 paper by Vieth as showing toxic effects above this level. However, the Vieth paper actually states that toxicity may occur at 25(OH)D concentrations beyond 500 nmol/L (200 ng/ml), levels which could not be achieved unless an individual was taking extremely high doses for a prolonged period of time (such as 30,000 IU/day for three months). This warning has been misunderstood and misquoted and has given rise to a lot of pointless restriction of vitamin D intake. So even though the error about vitamin D safety was pointed out 15 years ago, and repeatedly since then, it is still being perpetuated by supposed experts.
Two years down the line, then, we at the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service are still saying the same simple message that nutrition works. And the bureaucrats at the 'Ministry of Truth' are still deleting it.
Humans Have a Long History With Salt
Salt has always played a critical role in human history. Wars were fought about it. Trade routes were opened for it. And even ancient roads were built to bring it to population centers.
We spend so much time and energy acquiring salt because every cell in the human body needs—and uses—it. Even our tissues and fluids maintain a natural, internal “sea” of saltwater!
Of course, it makes sense that we would need salt to survive…as all life, starting with single-cell organisms, arose from saltwater oceans. Just remember, saltwater in the world’s oceans—as well as inside the human body—contains many other key electrolytes and minerals, in addition to salt.
These electrolytes and minerals help pass along the electrical impulses between the cells in the brain, the nervous system throughout your body, and your muscles (including your heart muscle). In fact, they’re ultimately what allow you to move your body and pump blood into your heart and tissues!
So, now that you know that your body NEEDS some salt in the diet…let’s move on to what kind of salt you should use in your cooking.
Choose wisely when cooking with salt
There are many different types of salt products on the market today. Here are some tips for how to pick the right kind to use in your cooking…
1.) Table salt. Table salt, which is simply sodium chloride, is the form of salt most often found in salt shakers. Manufacturers mine it, like a mineral, from underground sources (often “salt domes”). Then, they grind and process it into a fine texture.
Of course, this process typically strips out other healthy minerals and electrolytes. Plus, most table salt also contains an artificial ingredient to prevent the grains from clumping together. Not to mention, manufacturers also add iodine to most table salt to help address the widespread problem of iodine deficiency. But a better way to combat this deficiency—at least, in my opinion—is to skip the processed table salt and instead get your iodine from fish and seafood—which also contain healthy, essential, omega-3 fatty acids to boot!
2.) Kosher salt. Kosher salt may seem less processed than regular table salt…but the two really aren’t much different. In fact, manufactures mine kosher salt, like table salt, from the Earth or harvest it from under the sea.
Plus, just like table salt, kosher salt often contains anticlumping agents and other artificial additives. And manufacturers often process it in a way that eliminates other beneficial minerals and electrolytes. That’s why I suggest avoiding it in your cooking.
3.) Sea salt. Sea salt is the only kind I ever use in my cooking. Manufacturers make it the old-fashioned way—by evaporating sea water—with minimal processing.
Plus, it has a few other things going for it, too…
For one, it contains naturally occurring, trace amounts of other essential minerals and electrolytes—such as calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium, and zinc. Second, unrefined sea salt doesn’t typically contain anticlumping agents or artificial additives. Third, the taste is more potent and natural, so you tend to use less of it. Fourth, as Italian chefs well know, sea salt is simply the best source for your cooking!
So, in the end, instead of eliminating salt in your cooking, feel free to use a reasonable amount of sea salt. Then, if you find your dishes need more flavoring, instead of adding more salt, reach for some healthy spices, like turmeric, cayenne, and even cinnamon. The best part? These approaches are all Mediterranean-diet approved.
Stressed? This Increasingly Popular “Remedy” May Raise Heart Attack Risk
Since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, more people than ever have started using marijuana to grapple with increased anxiety, stress, pain, or insomnia.
But the science tells us this newly popular habit may SABOTAGE your health…not improve it… depending upon how you approach it. (My warning relates to the particular danger of smoking this “remedy”.)
In fact, according to a new study, even young, casual users increase their risk of suffering a heart attack by a staggering percentage compared to non-users.
Regular marijuana users more than DOUBLE their heart attack risk
For this new study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, researchers looked at the link between marijuana use and heart attacks in young Americans between the ages of 18 and 44 years. (Marijuana use for this group included smoking, vaping, and eating edibles.)
It turns out, 1.3 percent of marijuana users suffered a heart attack during the study period. By comparison, 0.8 percent of non-users suffered one.
Now, I know those findings might not stand out to you at first glance. And in an interview, one skeptical professor of psychology claimed the “absolute risk” difference between the two groups was just 0.5 percent.
But what was that guy smoking? And—did he ever study statistics in college?
First of all, we should ideally see ZERO heart attacks in this age group. It’s just too young to suffer that kind of serious, potentially deadly event.
Second, we should NOT look at the numbers in “absolute risk” difference, as the professor did. Instead, we should look at RELATIVE RISK. (That’s the tool statisticians use to compare the risk of an event happening in two different groups of people.)
And in this study, when you look at relative risk…it means that young people who used marijuana had a 63 percent higher risk of suffering a heart attack compared to non-users.
Furthermore, the researchers found a dose-response effect, which means the more often young people used marijuana…the HIGHER their heart attack risk. In fact, in this study, people who used marijuana more than four times per month had a staggering 240 percent increased risk of suffering a heart attack compared to non-users. That’s more than double the risk of non-users!
For marijuana users, four times a month, or once a weekend, is pretty typical. That’s NOT considered heavy use.
Long history of causing heart problems
According to the American Heart Association (AHA), there are three major reasons why marijuana could cause harm to the heart…
1.) It can stimulate your “fight-or-flight” response. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana—interacts with receptors that stimulate the sympathetic nervous system. In other words, it may trigger your body’s “fight–or–flight” stress response, which makes your heart beat too rapidly and/or irregularly (arrythmia).
2.) It raises blood pressure. We know that marijuana use constricts your blood vessels, which raises blood pressure. Of course, some people try to chalk this up to feeling paranoid after use. But rest assured, things are happening inside of your body—even when you feel “relaxed.”
In addition, as this study’s researchers noted, the marijuana sold today contains much higher levels of THC. In fact, the study’s lead researcher, Karim Lada of University of Toronto, said, “There’s been a tremendous increase in the amount of THC and as a result, a lot of the assumptions and knowledge that we thought we had about the public health implications of widespread cannabis use really don’t apply to what’s going on today.”
3.) The “Valsalva maneuver” interferes with blood supply. In my view some of smoking marijuana’s unique dangers also relate to the Valsalva maneuver…the particular way in which people inhale and deeply hold the smoke in their breath. This maneuver traps carbon dioxide and combustion products, like carbon monoxide, in the lungs and raises pressure in the chest, which interferes with blood supply to the heart.
Plus, according to the AHA, smoking marijuana increases the concentration of carbon monoxide in your blood by 500 percent. This deadly poison has been associated with heart problems such as abnormal heart beats, chest pain, and—yes—heart attacks.
So with this new information, you may want to think twice about smoking pot even if it is viewed as a “safe” drug. It isn’t as safe as you may think.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
The information on this blog is provided for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical care, and medical advice and services are not being offered. If you have, or suspect you have, a health problem you should consult your physician (preferably a Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment