Dr. D’s Blog

Cold & Flu Season Prevention Tips

To sign up and get your FREE wholesale account click here.

The second wave of this season’s flu from China is again a coronavirus, looks as deadly as 2003’s SARS, except easier to transmit human to human, and launching just ahead of the Chinese New Year massive travel migration in Asia. 

Every year’s flu starts in China: swine, avian flu, SARS.  The Hong Kong Flu in 1967 killed 3m people.  The “WWI flu” or “Spanish flu” that killed more than died in the conflict?  The pathogen has been traced by the CDC to Southern China. 

Some preventions below.  Focus on the Ai/E10 Ultra (colostrum) product in bold and big typeface.  Take at first symptom, 2-4 capsules twice a day for 2-3 days, then taper off or stop.  Don’t take it until first symptom.  It is colostrum, the first squeeze of mammalian milk, spikes macrophages and killer-T cells to stop a virus dead in its tracks.  It is the clear fluid before yellow-ish milk.  Mothers who nursed will be familiar  We harvest ours from a special herd of cows and then take out all the “cow-ness,” is okay for Hindus or anyone abstaining from an animal product.

I caught the precursor cough to this bug when I was in Hong Kong mid-December, drags on for three weeks.  Colostrum and ginger/lemon tea helped.  I would advise seeing a doctor immediately, for the precursor cough and definitely anything more serious.  This was the first flu in decades that my Ai/E10 didn’t crush. 

I lived in Asia a long time, at or close to ground zero for each year’s flu pandemic.  I remember SARS in 2003.  A month prior a very bad flu spread through Asia.  In Japan most schools closed for a week as it washed through.  Then the serious version hit, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, though it focused on China and Hong Kong.

It is like a surfing set, where the first big wave is not in fact the biggest, but the second or third.  And not so much fun as surfing.

Below are Pharmanex immunity solutions.   If you have Rewards Points from subscriptions (ADRs), they can be free.  Order in particular the Ai/E10 Ultra.

Disclaimer: We are not a pharmaceutical company and cannot claim to prevent, cure, or mitigate disease.  Please consult with your physician if you do anything outside their prescribed treatments.  And consult with a physician at first symptom of this beast.

1.      EPOCH HAND SANITIZER: First line of defense:  Hand sanitizer that moisturizes instead of dries:  

2.      PROBIOPCC: Second line of defense:  Probiotic for gut health:  

3.      AI/E10:  Third line of defense:  Daily immune booster: 

4.      AI/E10 ULTRA:  Emergency defense:  Take only at first symptom of cold/flu, kills it dead in 1-2 days: 

Every family should have this in their medicine cabinet, every traveler in their carry-on.

5.      REISHIMAX & TEGREEN97: Chronic illnesses (i.e., cancer and auto-immune, see above disclaimer): 

6.   BIOPHOTONIC SCANNER:  Measure our antioxidant immunity to serious disease (30 seconds, non-invasive, contact me to arrange):

7.       AGELOC YOUTH:  What should eat or take for healthy aging?  Consider the “blue zones” of the planet, where people live young a long time.  ageLOC has isolated the specific ingredients in those diets and combined them into 2 capsules twice a day that turn back on over 1300 Youth Gene Clusters that repair damage and resist normal aging (20-second glance):

           1:50 on YouTube:  

Bionic Bob Howe, Nuskin Independent Distributor

ageLOC

We Age You Younger

Cholesterol Myth, You Don’t need cholesterol medication

High cholesterol does NOT cause heart attacks. Cholesterol medications have no basis in medical research for preventing death from heart disease. The statin drugs they prescribe actually cause more damage than they prevent, like Lipitor damages the liver and cuts off a vital nutrient called CoQ10 which the heart really depends on. This is why your medical doctor runs blood tests on your liver every few months when you are taking these dangerous medications.

Having cholesterol above 200 is FINE! Many studies from Europe showed that cholesterol levels above 300 were actually good for longevity and overall well being.

So why does my doctor prescribe cholesterol medications if it’s not a problem and the medications are dangerous? They don’t have the time to do the research on their own to find out. I don’t know I guess they just listen to the drug company sales reps that knock on their doors every day and take them out to lunch and pay for exotic trips. Who knows? But you can ask your MD to read a few good books on the subject and see what they do.

Here is a wonderfully researched article by Dr. Mercola, DO.

What? No time read it then use our handy Cholesterol Guide Graphic, click here.

Could it be possible that nearly everything your doctor and the media is telling you about high cholesterol and how it relates to heart disease and strokes is wrong?

Absolutely!

The media and health experts have been giving out massive misinformation about cholesterol. In a thought-provoking two-part series, Dr. Ernest N. Curtis, a doctor of internal medicine and cardiology, puts to rest several decades-old studies that supposedly “proved” the cholesterol-heart disease link.

Debunking the Cholesterol “Science” and Unveiling the Truth

If high cholesterol and high-fat diets are really NOT the cause of heart disease, then how did this massive misinformation campaign start? It actually started more than 100 years ago when the Lipid Hypothesis or the Cholesterol Theory was developed by a German pathologist named Rudolph Virchow. After studying arterial plaques from corpses, he theorized that cholesterol in your blood led to the development of plaques in your arteries.

Meanwhile, in 1913 in St. Petersburg, Russia, Nikolaj Nikolajewitsch Anitschkow fed rabbits cholesterol and determined that it led to atherosclerotic changes (apparently no one questioned the fact that rabbits are herbivores and do not naturally consume cholesterol!). This started the notion that eating cholesterol leads to plaque deposits in your arteries, and at that time it was believed that all cholesterol in your blood was due to dietary sources.

This, of course, is not true, as it’s now known that your liver makes about 75 percent of your body’s cholesterol. That’s right! Even if you didn’t eat any cholesterol, you would still have cholesterol in your body, which is a good thing considering it’s needed by every one of your cells to produce cell membranes.

Your diet is actually an afterthought when it comes to what your cholesterol levels will be, but this simple truth is largely ignored or unrealized even by many physicians.

In the early 1900s, the Cholesterol Theory was already taking root, but it received even more completely flawed support in the 1950s and subsequent years thereafter. The string of research that effectively solidified the cholesterol myth we know all too well today.

The Seven Countries’ Study Incorrectly Links Dietary Fat to Heart Disease

Several decades ago, Dr. Ancel Keys published a seminal paper that serves as the basis for nearly all of the initial scientific support for the Cholesterol Theory. The study is known as the Seven Countries Study, that linked the consumption of dietary fat to coronary heart disease. What you may not know is that when Keys published his analysis that claimed to prove the link between dietary fats and coronary heart disease (CHD), he selectively analyzed information from only seven countries to prove his correlation, rather than comparing all the data available at the time — from 22 countries.

As you might suspect, the studies he excluded were those that did not fit with his hypothesis, namely those that showed a low percentage fat in their diet and a high incidence of death from CHD as well as those with a high-fat diet and low incidence of CHD. If all 22 countries had been analyzed, there would have been no correlation found whatsoever; it should have been called the 22 Countries Study!

The nutrition community of that time completely accepted the hypothesis, and encouraged the public to cut out butter, red meat, animal fats, eggs, dairy and other “artery clogging” fats from their diets — a radical change at that time that is still very much in force today.

Most of the experts I know believe that Dr. Keys’ research was pivotal for perpetuating the low-fat approach to health. This is a major part of the solid science you will need to know if anyone seeks to disagree with you when you share this information; this study is really the foundation that triggered the massive emphasis on low-fat diets and the flawed belief that cholesterol is so pernicious. 

More Flawed “Proof”: The Framingham Study

The next major support for the cholesterol theory came from a study you have likely heard of called the Framingham Heart Study, which is often cited as proof of the lipid hypothesis. This study began in 1948 and involved some 6,000 people from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts who filled out detailed questionnaires about their lifestyle habits and diets. The study is credited with identifying heart disease risk factors, such as smoking, high blood pressure, lack of exercise and, yes, high cholesterol.

The cholesterol link was weak, as researchers noted those who weighed more and had abnormally high blood cholesterol levels were slightly more at risk for future heart disease, but widely publicized. What you don’t hear about is the fact that the more cholesterol and saturated fat people ate, the lower their cholesterol levels.

In a 1992 editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr. William Castelli, a former director of the Framingham Heart study, stated:

“In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. The opposite of what… Keys et al would predict…We found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.”

The “MrFit” Study: Hypothesis Proven by Omission

The U.S. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT), sponsored by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, is another study that is highly misleading. It compared mortality rates and eating habits of over 12,000 men, and the finding that was widely publicized was that people who ate a low-saturated fat and low-cholesterol diet had a marginal reduction in coronary heart disease.

What did they leave out?

Their mortality from all causes was higher! As Mary Enig and Sally Fallon stated in The Truth About Saturated Fat:

“The few studies that indicate a correlation between fat reduction and a decrease in coronary heart disease mortality also document a concurrent increase in deaths from cancer, brain hemorrhage, suicide and violent death. After 10 years of lowering fat intake and not smoking, they found no significant difference in death from heart disease or total death compared to the control group of smokers, poor diet etc.”

Statistical Lies: The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (LRC-CPPT)

Around the same time as the MRFIT study was the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (LRC-CPPT), which cost $150 million and is often cited to justify a low-fat diet, even though dietary factors were not tested in the study at all. Instead, the study tested the effects of cholestyramine, a cholesterol-lowering drug.

As Enig and Fallon wrote:

” Their statistical analysis of the results implied a 24% reduction in the rate of coronary heart disease in the group taking the drug compared with the placebo group; however, non-heart disease deaths in the drug group increased — deaths from cancer, stroke, violence and suicide. Even the conclusion that lowering cholesterol reduces heart disease is suspect.

Independent researchers who tabulated the results of this study found no significant statistical difference in coronary heart disease death rates between the two groups. However, both the popular press and medical journals touted the LRC-CPPT as the long-sought proof that animal fats are the cause of heart disease …”

What really happened, and how LRC-CPPT came to lend further support to the lipid hypothesis was nothing more than another masterful case of statistical manipulation. As Dr. Curtis stated:

“After 10 years the number dying from coronary heart disease (CHD) plus those suffering a non-fatal myocardial infarction (NFMI) were totaled for both groups. The total incidence in the cholestyramine group was 7.0% and the control group 8.6%.

This small difference of 1.6% was reported as a 19% reduction in death and heart attack by using relative risk reduction (the difference of 1.6% is roughly 19% of 8.6) in place of the less misleading absolute risk reduction (1.6%). Furthermore, this tiny difference was given the designation of “statistically significant” by changing the criteria originally given for determination of significance after the data was in.”

It is often the case that leaders who want to use the cholesterol agenda use statistics to “prove” their point.

Cholesterol Drug Benefits Perpetuated by Statistical Myths

The LRC-CPPT study was only able to show a meaningful benefit because it focused on relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reduction. What’s the difference? You can find a very simple explanation of relative risk vs. absolute risk at the Annie Appleseed Project web site, but let me sum it up here.

  • Relative risk reduction is calculated by dividing the absolute risk reduction by the control event rate
  • Absolute risk reduction is the decrease in risk of a treatment in relation to a control treatment

In plain English, here’s what that means: let’s say you have a study of 200 women, half of whom take a drug and half take a placebo, to examine the effect on breast cancer risk. After five years, two women in the drug group develop breast cancer, compared to four who took the placebo. This data could lead to either of the following headlines, and both would be correct:

“New Miracle Drug Cuts Breast Cancer Risk by 50%!”

“New Drug Results in 2% Drop in Breast Cancer Risk!”

How can this be?

The Annie Appleseed Project explains:

“The headlines represent two different ways to express the same data. The first headline expresses the relative risk reduction — the two women who took the drug (subjects) and developed breast cancer equal half the number (50%) of the four women who took the placebo (controls) and developed breast cancer.

The second headline expresses the absolute risk reduction — 2% of the subjects (2 out of 100) who took the drug developed breast cancer and 4% of the controls (4 out of 100) who took the placebo developed breast cancer — an absolute difference of 2% (4% minus 2%).”

You can now see why clinical trials, especially those funded by drug companies, will cite relative risk reductions rather than absolute risk reductions, and as a patient you need to be aware that statistics can be easily manipulated.

As STATS at George Mason University explains:

“An important feature of relative risk is that it tells you nothing about the actual risk.”

How Statins Really Work Explains Why They Don’t Really Work

A new look at statin cholesterol-lowering drugs from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claims that no study has ever proven that statins improve all-cause mortality — in other words, they don’t prolong your life any longer than if you’d not taken them at all. And rather than improving your life, they actually contribute to a deterioration in the quality of your life, destroying muscles and endangering liver, kidney and heart function.

According to Stephanie Seneff, author of this stunning revelation:

“Statin drugs inhibit the action of an enzyme, HMG coenzyme A reductase, that catalyses an early step in the 25-step process that produces cholesterol. This step is also an early step in the synthesis of a number of other powerful biological substances that are involved in cellular regulation processes and antioxidant effects.

One of these is coenzyme Q10, present in the greatest concentration in the heart, which plays an important role in mitochondrial energy production and acts as a potent antioxidant …

Statins also interfere with cell-signaling mechanisms mediated by so-called G-proteins, which orchestrate complex metabolic responses to stressed conditions. Another crucial substance whose synthesis is blocked is dolichol, which plays a crucial role in the endoplasmic reticulum. We can’t begin to imagine what diverse effects all of this disruption, due to interference with HMG coenzyme A reductase, might have on the cell’s ability to function …

There can be no doubt that statins will make your remaining days on earth a lot less pleasant than they would otherwise be … “

It’s widely known that statins lower your CoQ10 levels by blocking the pathway involved in cholesterol production — the same pathway by which Q10 is produced. Statins also reduce the blood cholesterol that transports CoQ10 and other fat-soluble antioxidants.

The loss of CoQ10 leads to loss of cell energy and increased free radicals which, in turn, can further damage your mitochondrial DNA, effectively setting into motion an evil circle of increasing free radicals and mitochondrial damage.

There are no official warnings in the U.S. regarding CoQ10 depletion from taking statin drugs, and many physicians fail to inform you about this problem as well. Labeling in Canada, however, clearly warns of CoQ10 depletion and even notes that this nutrient deficiency “could lead to impaired cardiac function in patients with borderline congestive heart failure.”

As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure, so it is imperative if you take statin drugs that you take CoQ10 or, if you are over the age of 40, the reduced version called ubiquinol.

Statins May Even Cause Diabetes!

Statins carry other side effects as well, including diabetes. A meta-analysis, published in JAMA in June, concluded that those taking higher doses of statins were at increased risk of diabetes compared to those taking moderate doses. What this means is that the higher your dose, the higher your risk of developing diabetes.

The “number needed to harm” for intensive-dose statin therapy was 498 for new-onset diabetes—that’s the number of people who need to take the drug in order for one person to develop diabetes. In even simpler terms, one out of every 498 people who are on a high-dose statin regimen will develop diabetes. (The lower the “number needed to harm,” the greater the risk factor is.)

(As a side note, the “number needed to treat” per year for intensive-dose statins was 155 for cardiovascular events. This means that 155 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one person from having a cardiovascular event.)

Aside from what I’ve already covered above, statin drugs are associated with a rather extensive list of harmful side effects, including:

Weakness, polyneuropathy, sexual dysfunction, cataracts, pancreatic disease, Rhabdomyolysis, a serious degenerative muscle tissue, muscle pain and aches, Suppressed immune function, Increased cancer risk, anemia and acidosis!

Chiropractor Chairs World Health Organization Meeting on Health Promotion

Dr. Elsangak, MD, DC Head of Clinical Proficiency at Life University

LIFE UNIVERSITY’S DR. HUSSEIN ELSANGAK MODERATES PANEL AT WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION FORUM ON HEALTH PROMOTIONLife University (LIFE) faculty member Dr. Hussein Elsangak, M.D, D.C., recently moderated a panel discussion at the 9th Global Forum on Health Promotion, held at the headquarters of the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland.   The November 12 forum was organized by the Alliance for Health Promotion (A4HP) in partnership with the WHO, with the theme “health promotion as a critical pathway to achieving Universal Health Coverage” (UHC). The event followed a historic political declaration by the United Nations in September 2019 which UN Secretary-General António Guterres hailed as “the most comprehensive agreement ever reached on global health – a vision for Universal Health Coverage by 2030.”   Dr. Elsangak is a full-time faculty member in the Clinical Sciences division of Life University’s College of Chiropractic and a member of the Alliance board. LIFE is home to the world’s largest single-campus Doctor of Chiropractic program, in addition to offering undergraduate and graduate degrees in a number of fields within the health sciences. Dr. Elsangak also serves as the Life University Global Initiatives Liaison for Europe, Eastern Mediterranean and Africa.   According to Dr. Elsangak, recent action by the UN and WHO prove that that the holistic approach to health has finally arrived.   “The creation of the WHO Division on Healthier Population is a testament to that, with an emphasis on people’s empowerment and healthy living choices rather than treating disease,” Dr. Elsangak said. “Life University is on the right path for global health. Its principles, philosophy and health education are in exact line with current global thinking and future direction.”   The 9th Global Forum on Health Promotion was held in the WHO Executive Board Room and brought together more than 100 international public health experts, including high-level WHO officials, discussing how their organizations are working toward healthier populations.   Opening remarks were delivered by Alliance President Bernard Kadasia and WHO Assistant Director-General Dr. Naoko Yamamoto. A keynote address was delivered by WHO Deputy Director-General Zsuzsanna Jakab. The first panel included a speech by Dr. Rüdiger Krech, WHO Director of Health Promotion.   The second panel, moderated by Dr. Elsangak, was called “Translating Global Declarations into Actions.” It highlighted the roles of academia, research, hospitals and civil society in health promotion, achievement of Sustainable Development Goals and implementation of UHC. A video of the entire forum can be found here.   Founded in 1997, the Alliance for Health Promotion is a nongovernmental agency whose membership is comprised of health institutions, agencies and individuals from around the world. A4HP is in Official Relations with the WHO and holds Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).   Life University has been an A4HP member for several years, according to Dr. John Downes, University Vice President for Global Initiatives.   “Life University is pleased to continue our sponsorship and participation in the Alliance for Health Promotion and their annual global forum on health promotion,” Dr. Downes said. “As a board member, Dr. Elsangak continues to provide excellent leadership in the Alliance and holds important responsibilities within the forum through design and implementation, and as a moderator.”   In November 2018, Life University President Dr. Rob Scott participated in the 8th Global Forum on Health Promotion, which focused on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. Dr. Scott was a panelist on both the “High-Level Panel: Translating Global Declarations into Grass Roots Realities” and “Thematic Session 1: evidence-based health promotion strategies and actions to fight NCDs,” the latter of which was moderated by Dr. Elsangak.   In addition to its Office of Representation in Geneva and its membership in the A4HP, LIFE partners with three educational institutions in China and with Universidad de Iberoamérica (UNIBE) in Costa Rica. For more information about Life University’s Global Initiatives, click here.

To view the electronic version of this press release, click here.You can view all Life University press releases by clicking here.

About Life University Founded in Marietta, Georgia in 1974, Life University is a health sciences institution most known for its chiropractic program, the largest single campus chiropractic program in the world. Life University is regionally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) to award baccalaureate, master’s, and Doctor of Chiropractic degrees, and also has programmatic accreditation through the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE), the Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics (ACEND) and the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic  Training Education (CAATE). The mission of Life University is to empower students with the education, skills and values necessary for career success and life fulfillment, based on a vitalistic philosophy.

Is there Radium in your water?

Does your tap water contain the radioactive element radium? You might be surprised to hear that tap water for more than 170 million Americans contains the compound, and a new interactive map shows the water systems where this potentially hazardous element was found.

The map was made by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit advocacy organization in Washington D.C. that focuses on environmental issues and public health.

The data for the map comes from an EWG analysis of water quality tests from 2010 to 2015. Of the 50,000 water utilities, 22,000 utilities serving over 170 million people in all 50 states reported detectable levels of radium, EWG said. (The map includes only water systems with detectable levels of radium.)

Radium is found naturally in soil and rock, and can get into groundwater supplies. Exposure to the element in high doses — much higher than the levels seen in drinking water — are known to cause cancer. There is no amount of exposure to radium that’s considered “risk free,” but the risk of cancer decreases at lower doses, EWG says.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a legal limit for the combined level of two forms of radium, known as radium-226 and radium-228, that are allowed in drinking water: 5 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). A picocurie is a measure of radioactive decay. At this level, researchers would expect to see about 7 cancer cases per 100,000 people exposed to radium in drinking water over their lifetimes, EWG said.

Only a small percentage of water systems have radium at levels that exceed this limit. From 2010 to 2015, 158 public water systems serving 276,000 Americans in 27 states reported radium at levels that exceeded the federal limit, EWG said.

However, EWG says that the federal limit is based on data from more than 40 years ago, and needs to be updated. (Most of the water systems shown in the group’s interactive map have radium levels below the legal limit.)

In 2006, the California Office of Environmental Hazard Assessment, a department of the California state government, set new public health goals for radium in drinking water. The limits set in these goals were about 60 to 70 times lower than the federal limits, EWG said. (The California public health goal for radium-226 is 0.05 picocuries per liter, and the goal for radium-228 is 0.019 picocuries per liter.) At this level, a person risk of cancer from exposure radium in to drinking water over their lifetime would be about 1 in a million, EWG said.

People who want to know if there are radioactive elements in their drinking water can check EWG’s Tap Water Database and enter their zip code. If their water provider isn’t listed, they can contact their water utility for records of testing, EWG said.

If radium is found in your water, you can consider buying a water filter that is certified to remove radium, such as certain reverse osmosis filters, EWG said.

Original article on Live Science.

Welcome Lisa Fischer to Our Office!

NutritionResponseTestingRegulation
Lisa getting checked by Dr. D for her Nutrition Response Testing Program

Lisa Fischer is our new Public Director so keep your eyes open as she may be bumping into you at the store or come into your local business to introduce our office here in Ruckersville, Virginia. She is promoting our community outreach program right now and offering discounts on New Patient First Day Exam fees. If you missed her and did not get your coupon call the office and ask for one of our Fall New Patient Coupons and save on your initial exam!

Nutrition Response Testing, What is it?

NutritionResponseTestingRegulation
Nutrition Response Testing for organ regulation

Nutrition Response Testing is a non-invasive system of analyzing the body in order to determine the underlying causes of ill health. When these are corrected through safe, natural, nutritional means, the body can repair itself in order to attain and maintain more optimum health.

Nutrition Response Testing is very precise and scientific. However, if we were to analyze you using Nutrition Response Testing before it was explained to you, you might find it strange, or simply not believable – only because it is probably very different from anything you have used or experienced.

If you want restored health and longevity for yourself and your family, it is important that you understand what Nutrition Response Testing is and what our recommendations are based on. Otherwise, you are less likely to comply with your own program and your family members won’t experience the amazing benefits that are routinely attainable if you give up on yourself and quit too soon.

The only reason we are here is to help the people in our community feel better and have healthier lives based on the “natural laws” of health.  We have a very high success rate of helping people get results based on improving their overall health.  Many of them were able to quit all their prescription medications after completing our nutritional monitoring program!  We have become known as  one of the top natural healers in our community. We have no other reason for being here. That is why we want to make sure you get the correct understanding of what Nutrition Response Testing is, right from the start.

In medical practice there are two key parts: the diagnosis (identifying and/or naming the “disease” or syndrome) and the treatment (drugs, surgery, etc.). In Nutrition Response Testing we do not diagnose or treat disease—but we also have two parts: the analysis (the assessment of your body’s current health status) and the personalized health improvement program (using designed wholefood clinical nutrition).

First, the Analysis.

The analysis is done through testing the body’s autonomic nervous system(ANS).

Nutrition Response Testing analyzes different areas on the surface of the body that relate to the state of health and to the flow of energy in each and every organ and function of the body.

This information is derived from the part of the nervous system whose job it is to regulate the functions of each and every organ namely your autonomic nervous system.  The autonomic nervous system has two parts, the Sympathetic(SNS) and Parasympathetic(PSNS).  The “active system” or “fight or flight” is your sympathetic nervous system and the “healing or repair” system is called the parasympathetic nervous system.  We call this part of the nervous system the “automatic nervous system” controlled via your subconscious mind which monitors all survival reflexes and physiological and immune functions of the body.  Your subconscious mind will and does over-ride your conscious mind in order to protect the body from harm.  It will warn or signal the conscious mind subtly, you would call this your  ”intuition” or a “feeling” you  get about your surroundings or current situation.

Interestingly, since the human anatomy has not changed significantly in thousands of years, the monitoring of your organs areas by your autonomic nervous system has become extremely useful in our practice because it so accurate!

Each area that were test by putting pressure on it  will give a response that represents a specific organ, tissue or function, and indicates the effect that energy or the lack of energy it is having on the body. By testing these organs areas we have a system of monitoring your body at each visit that has proven to be extremely accurate clinically and that helps us identify exactly what the body needs and how well we are meeting that need.

Instead of connecting electrodes to the areas being tested, as in an EKG, the Nutrition Response Testing practitioner contacts these areas with his/her own hand. With the other hand, he/she will test the muscle of your extended arm. If the organ area being contacted is “active” the nervous system will respond by reducing energy to the extended arm and the arm will weaken and drop. This drop signifies underlying stress or dysfunction related to the area or tissue being contacted which can be affecting your health.

Second, the Personalized Health Improvement Program.

Let’s say the liver or kidney areas are active. Then what?

Our next step is to test specific, time-tested and proven, highest-possible quality nutritional formulas against those weak areas, to find which ones bring the organ areas back to strength.

Our decades of clinical experience tell us that when we have found the correct nutritional supplements, as indicated by this procedure and have worked out a highly personalized nutritional supplement schedule we have identified the most important first step in correcting the underlying deficiency or imbalance.  This “weakness” or nutritional barren tissue is most likely what caused the organ area to be active in the first place. By following the program as precisely as possible you are well on your way to restoring normal function and improving your health. It’s that simple!

In medicine, the medical doctor makes a diagnosis and then uses drugs or surgery to attack or suppress the symptom or to surgically remove the “offending” organ or malfunctioning part. In Nutrition Response Testing we use designed clinical nutrition to correct the cause of the problem, so that the body can rebuild the weakened tissue or system, gaining the ability to correct itself.

What is Designed Clinical Nutrition?

“Designed Clinical Nutrition” is exactly that: designed (especially prepared based on a specific plan) clinical (pertaining to the results gotten in clinical use or actual practice on huge numbers of patients over many years) nutrition (real food, designed by nature to enable the body to repair itself and grow healthfully).

In most cases it is concentrated whole food, in a tablet, capsule or powder, prepared using a unique manufacturing process that preserves all of the active enzymes and vital components that make it work as Nature intended. These real food supplements have been designed to match the needs of the body, as determined by the positive response shown when tested against the active Nutrition Response Testing organs areas that were found on your individual Nutrition Response Testing analysis. These are nutrients you are simply not getting, or not assimilating, in your current diet.

These deficiencies may be due to your past personal eating habits and routines but it is for sure due in some large extent to the lack of quality in the foods commercially available in grocery stores or restaurants today.

An example of a whole food could be carrots. Carrots are high in Vitamin A Complex. A “complex” is something made up of many different parts that work together. Synthetic Vitamin A does not contain the whole “Vitamin A Complex” found in nature. So, if we were looking for a food high in Vitamin A, carrots might be one of our choices.

If one actually were deficient in any of the components of Vitamin A Complex, one would be wise to seek out a supplement that was made from whole foods that were rich in this complex – not from chemicals re-engineered in a laboratory to look like one little part of the Vitamin A Complex that has erroneously been labeled as “Vitamin A.”

Over-the-counter vitamins are pharmaceutically engineered chemical fractions of vitamin structures reproduced in a laboratory NOT wholefood complexes. These cannot be used in lieu of whole food supplements in a designed clinical nutrition program. The label “natural” is misleading when applied to nutritional products, as the FDA will approve such labeling based on a small percentage naturally sourced components. Such products don’t correct existing imbalances and may introduce new ones.

Your vitality and energy is derived from live food. Most foods available today are dead or are not really foods at all: boxed cereals, canned vegetables, sodas, fruit juice cocktails, etc. You can readily understand the difference between dead, devitalized pseudo-foods, with the synthetic or isolated vitamins on the one hand and “Designed Clinical Nutrition” and a diet of real foods, on the other.

So-called “scientific research,” done with these shoddy substitutes, repeatedly “proves” that vitamins don’t do much good for anyone! Can you imagine who pays for these “studies”?

There is a Great Deal of Technology and Know-How Behind What We Do.

1. Through an analysis of your body’s organs areas, we help you to determine the exact nutrients you need to supplement your diet, in order to bring about balance and better health.

2. We make these highly concentrated therapeutic formulations available to you in tablets, capsules, or in powdered form to “supplement” your current diet. That’s why they are called “food supplements.”

3. Depending on your individual situation, we might also require that you make some specific changes in your diet and eating habits, and in your routines, in order to bring about the best possible results.

Having been designed through decades of clinical use on tens of thousands of patients, and on patients from many different types of health care practitioners, you can be assured that Nutrition Response Testing is capable of evaluating and solving your health concerns.

An analysis of your active organs  areas will be performed on each follow up visit. Often these follow up visits also reveal additional layers of dysfunction. These can then be addressed in the correct sequence for your body.

Each patient gets a completely individualized program.

Very much like opening a combination lock, you must use the right numbers in the right sequence and in the right direction at the right time – then the lock opens easily.

Therefore, since every case is different, by following the correct sequence as revealed through Nutrition Response Testing, even the most complicated cases can be handled.

I look forward to working with, helping and most of all teaching YOU how be the healthiest YOU, you can be!

Could High Cholesterol Make Us Live Longer?

Bacon and eggs a great meal full of good fats and vitamins!
Bacon and eggs a great meal full of good fats and vitamins and healthy cholesterol!

Original article by. P. D. Mangan Health Author.

Is it possible that mainstream medicine got cholesterol all wrong? That not only does cholesterol have no connection to heart disease, but that high cholesterol is actually a good thing? Yes, it’s more than possible — here I’ll show some evidence that higher cholesterol is associated with longer life.

All-cause mortality vs heart disease

Obviously, people die from many causes, whether natural, such as heart disease, cancer, or infection, or unnatural, such as from homicide, suicide, or accidents.

Should we be concerned about what cause we die from?

Yes, and no. On the one hand, if you’re dead, you’re dead, no matter from what. On the other, dying in your sleep in old age may be preferable to a long, lingering illness.

Nevertheless, from a public health standpoint, it seems a mistake to focus on changing something that lowers the risk of death from one cause only to raise that risk from another.

While total cholesterol is a poor if not utterly worthless risk marker for heart disease, doctors have focused on it to the exclusion of how it might affect other causes of death. It does you little good to save yourself from heart disease if it means that you increase your risk of death from cancer.

All-cause mortality — death from anything — is the most appropriate measure to use when looking at risk factors.

Older people with higher cholesterol live longer

Population studies in Japan show that people of all ages with higher cholesterol live longer.1

Overall, an inverse trend is found [in Japan] between all-cause mortality and total (or low density lipoprotein [LDL]) cholesterol levels: mortality is highest in the lowest cholesterol group without exception. If limited to elderly people, this trend is universal. As discussed in Section 2, elderly people with the highest cholesterol levels have the highest survival rates irrespective of where they live in the world.

Consider the chart above, taken from the paper. It shows all-cause mortality by cholesterol levels, men on the left, women on the right.

Current guidelines call for keeping cholesterol at 200 mg/dl or lower, yet higher levels meant lower death rates.

What about outside Japan? The following chart shows cumulative all-cause mortality of people older than 85 in Leiden, The Netherlands, by cholesterol level.

The cohort with an average cholesterol of 252 mg/dl, the highest, had the lowest death rates.

The following shows data from elderly people in Finland. Those with cholesterol greater than 232 mg/dl had the lowest death rates.

The data from Japan is for all ages; the data from outside Japan is for the elderly. What about the data for all ages, outside of Japan? The authors believe that the presence of people with familial hypercholesterolemia, which causes a very high cholesterol level and which raises the risk of death, in the highest cholesterol categories, accounts for higher death rates in those categories. They also argue that cholesterol levels in that disorder are not the cause of increased death rates.

A recent review in the prominent medical journal BMJ regarding LDL cholesterol, the risk marker considered most significant, found either no association or an inverse association between LDL and death rates.2

High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.

The Honolulu Heart Program was one of the first studies to find this inverse relation between total cholesterol and death rates in elderly people, aged 71 to 93. It found that compared to the lowest quartile (fourth) of cholesterol level, increasing quartiles of cholesterol had cholesterol had 28%, 40%, and 35% decreased death rates, respectively.

Furthermore, the Honolulu study seems to provide evidence that actually raising cholesterol is protective, since “Only the group with low cholesterol concentration at both examinations had a significant association with mortality.”

The authors of the study concluded, “We have been unable to explain our results. These data cast doubt on the scientific justification for lowering cholesterol to very low concentrations (<4.65 mmol/L) [<180 mg/dl] in elderly people.”

Is high cholesterol protective?

Why would people with low cholesterol die at higher rates than those with higher cholesterol?

Several things could be going on.

Cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis.3

Cholesterol may protect against cancer.4

A strong association was found between low cholesterol and violence. Odds ratio of violence for cholesterol of <180 mg/dl was 15.49. 5

Several studies have found an association between low cholesterol and suicide. For instance, one study found that those in the lowest quartile (fourth) of cholesterol concentration had more than 6 times the risk of suicide as those in the highest quartile.6

Conclusion

A number of studies have found that, at least in people older than 60, high cholesterol is associated with lower death rates.

This fact casts considerable doubt on the cholesterol hypothesis of heart disease.

Why, with so much evidence against it, does the cholesterol theory still have so much traction? To quote the authors in the first cited study, it’s all about the money:

We believe the answer is very simple: for the side defending this so-called cholesterol theory, the amount of money at stake is too much to lose the fight.

Update: I hadn’t seen this before I wrote this article, but Uffe Ravnskov, a co-author of some of the above-cited studies, has a good article with many relevant citations, The Benefits of High Cholesterol.

West Nile Virus- Not to Worry

West Nile Virus Infection Symptoms and Risk Factors

West Nile Virus is spread to humans from birds via mosquitos

What is West Nile virus?

West Nile virus was first observed in the U.S. during the summer of 1999 and is believed to be permanently established (endemic) in the U.S. at this time. A member of the flavivirus family, West Nile virus is related to the St. Louis encephalitis virus that is also found in the U.S. West Nile virus is commonly found in Africa, the Middle East, and in the western parts of Asia. It infects mosquitoes, birds, horses, humans, and some other mammals. In 2012, West Nile virus infections reached epidemic levels in Texas, and were reported in many other states.

How do you get West Nile?

Humans normally acquire the viral infection through a mosquito bite. The early fall, from late August to early September, is the most common time for infection to occur in the U.S. West Nile virus has the potential to cause a very serious illness, although 60%-80% of people infected will not develop any symptoms at all. The others most commonly develop a mild illness, sometimes termed West Nile fever, which is characterized by:

  • fever,
  • tiredness,
  • headaches,
  • body aches,
  • swollen lymph nodes, and
  • sometimes a rash.

West Nile fever develops two to 15 days following the bite of an infected mosquito and persists for a few days to a few weeks.

How dangerous is West Nile virus?

In less than 1% of cases, West Nile virus infection leads to severe illness that is referred to as “neuroinvasive” disease since it affects the nervous system. This severe form of West Nile virus infection results in an inflammation of the brain (encephalitis) or the meninges, tissues that cover the brain and central nervous system (meningitis). A combination of the two (meningoencephalitis) can also occur, and the disease can be fatal. People over 50 years of age, pregnant women, infants, and those with weakened immune systems due to medications, HIV, or cancer are at greatest risk for severe illness related to West Nile virus infection. Neuroinvasive West Nile virus infection is characterized by:

  • high fever,
  • neck stiffness,
  • stupor,
  • disorientation,
  • coma,
  • seizures,
  • muscle weakness, and
  • potentially permanent neurological disturbances.

West Nile virus infection cannot be spread by casual contact such as touching or kissing an infected person. In addition to transmission via mosquito bites, less common modes of transmission of the virus include organ transplantation, blood donation, and from mothers to their fetuses in the womb or to infants via breast milk.

How can I prevent West Nile virus?

The best way to avoid West Nile virus infection is to prevent mosquito bites. There is no human vaccine available, although a vaccine against West Nile virus has been licensed for use in horses. No specific treatment is available for the illness. West Nile fever generally resolves on its own, and those with severe infections must be hospitalized to receive supportive care.

Medically reviewed by Robert Cox, MD; American Board of Internal Medicine with subspecialty in Infectious Disease

REFERENCE:

United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “West Nile Virus.”

Now for Dr. D’s Information based on the Virginia Dept. of Health

According to the Virginia Department of Health Department here are their tips on how to keep your odds low of contracting West Nile Virus.

Wear insect repellent (use natural non-toxic brands do not spray on infants or small children as it can be toxic to them.

Wear light colored long and short sleeve clothing when ever possible to keep “biteable” areas covered.

Repair holes in window screens and door screens.

Keep gutters clean and clear so standing water cannot gather to breed mosquitos.

Get rid of old tires, plant pots and any container that can hold rain water. Even an ounce of standing water can breed mosquitos!

Fill low places in the yard with sand or level them with top soil.

Keep ditches clear of grass, leaves, trash and any debris so rain water doesn’t sit and accumulate in them.

Cover trash can to keep out rain water or drill a small hole in the bottom so water cannot fill the bottom of trash cans.

Add sand to outdoor plant pot trays so that not standing water accumulates there but yet your plants can stay watered.

Fill tree root holes in the yard.

Fill tree stump holes and tree branch holes in large trees with sand to stop free standing water from accumulating there.

Keep the lawn mowed and short. Keep shrubs trimmed and the bottom area around the bushes clean and neat.

For stagnant ponds or other areas where free standing water cannot be drained use environmentally safe larvicides that are safe for pets and people. Follow package instructions. This will kill mosquito larvae and not harm your pets or people if they should drink or get the water on them.

For more information visit the Virginia Dept. of Health website at, www.vdh.virginia.gov or contact your local health department.

Kids with Horns, “Text Neck”

By Isaac Stanley-Becker

Mobile technology has transformed the way we live — how we read, work, communicate, shop and date.

But we already know this.

What we have not yet grasped is the way the tiny machines in front of us are remolding our skeletons, possibly altering not just the behaviors we exhibit but the bodies we inhabit.

New research in biomechanics suggests that young people are developing hornlike spikes at the back of their skulls — bone spurs caused by the forward tilt of the head, which shifts weight from the spine to the muscles at the back of the head, causing bone growth in the connecting tendons and ligaments. The weight transfer that causes the buildup can be compared to the way the skin thickens into a callus as a response to pressure or abrasion.

The result is a hook or hornlike feature jutting out from the skull, just above the neck.

In academic papers, a pair of researchers at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, Australia, argues that the prevalence of the bone growth in younger adults points to shifting body posture brought about by the use of modern technology. They say smartphones and other handheld devices are contorting the human form, requiring users to bend their heads forward to make sense of what’s happening on the miniature screens.

The researchers said their discovery marks the first documentation of a physiological or skeletal adaptation to the penetration of advanced technology into everyday life.

Health experts warn of “text neck,” and doctors have begun treating “texting thumb,” which is not a clearly defined condition but bears resemblance to carpal tunnel syndrome. But prior research has not linked phone use to bone-deep changes in the body.

“An important question is what the future holds for the young adult populations in our study, when development of a degenerative process is evident in such an early stage of their lives?” ask the authors in one paper, published in Nature Research’s peer-reviewed, open-access Scientific Reports. The study came out last year but has received fresh attention following the publication last week of a BBC story that considers, “How modern life is transforming the human skeleton.”

Since then, the unusual formations have captured the attention of Australian media, and have variously been dubbed “head horns” or “phone bones” or “spikes” or “weird bumps.”

Each is a fitting description, said David Shahar, the paper’s first author, a chiropractor who recently completed a PhD in biomechanics at Sunshine Coast.

“That is up to anyone’s imagination,” he told The Washington Post. “You may say it looks like a bird’s beak, a horn, a hook.”

However it is designated, Shahar said, the formation is a sign of a serious deformity in posture that can cause chronic headaches and pain in the upper back and neck.

Part of what was striking about the findings, he said, was the size of the bone spurs, which are thought to be large if they measure 3 or 5 millimeters in length. An outgrowth was only factored into their research if it measured 10 millimeters, or about two-fifths of an inch.

The danger is not the head horn itself, said Mark Sayers, an associate professor of biomechanics at Sunshine Coast who served as Shahar’s supervisor and co-author. Rather, the formation is a “portent of something nasty going on elsewhere, a sign that the head and neck are not in the proper configuration,” he told The Post.

Their work began about three years ago with a pile of neck X-rays taken in Queensland. The images captured part of the skull, including the area where the bony projections, called enthesophytes, form at the back of the head.

Contrary to conventional understanding of the hornlike structures, which have been thought to crop up rarely and mainly among older people suffering from prolonged strain, Shahar noticed that they appeared prominently on X-rays of younger subjects, including those who were showing no obvious symptoms.

The pair’s first paper, published in the Journal of Anatomy in 2016, enlisted a sample of 218 X-rays, of subjects ages 18 to 30, to suggest that the bone growth could be observed in 41 percent of young adults, much more than previously thought. The feature was more prevalent among men than among women.

The effect — known as enlarged external occipital protuberance — used to be so uncommon, Sayers said, that one of its early observers, toward the end of the 19th century, objected to its title, arguing that there was no real protrusion.

That’s no longer the case.

Another paper, published in Clinical Biomechanics in the spring of 2018, used a case study involving four teenagers to argue that the head horns were not caused by genetic factors or inflammation, pointing instead to the mechanical load on muscles in the skull and neck.

And the Scientific Reports paper, published the month before, zoomed out to consider a sample of 1,200 X-rays of subjects in Queensland, ages 18 to 86. The researchers found that the size of the bone growth, present in 33 percent of the population, actually decreased with age. That discovery was in stark contrast to existing scientific understanding, which had long held that the slow, degenerative process occurred with aging.

They found instead that the bone spurs were larger and more common among young people. To understand what was driving the effect, they looked to recent developments — circumstances over the past 10 or 20 years altering how young people hold their bodies.

“These formations take a long time to develop, so that means that those individuals who suffer from them probably have been stressing that area since early childhood,” Shahar explained.

The sort of strain required for bone to infiltrate the tendon pointed him to handheld devices that bring the head forward and down, requiring the use of muscles at the back of the skull to prevent the head from falling to the chest. “What happens with technology?” he said. “People are more sedentary; they put their head forward, to look at their devices. That requires an adaptive process to spread the load.”

That the bone growth develops over a long period of time suggests that sustained improvement in posture can stop it short and even ward off its associated effects.

The answer is not necessarily swearing off technology, Sayers said. At least, there are less drastic interventions.

“What we need are coping mechanisms that reflect how important technology has become in our lives,” he said.

Shahar is pressing people to become as regimented about posture as they became about dental hygiene in the 1970s, when personal care came to involve brushing and flossing every day. Schools should teach simple posture strategies, he said. Everyone who uses technology during the day should get used to recalibrating their posture at night.

As motivation, he suggested reaching a hand around to the lower rear of the skull. Those who have the hornlike feature can probably feel it.