Created on Saturday, 16 August 2014 11:22
I, like everyone else, was shocked by the suicide death of actor and comedien Robin Williams, and I have to wonder why he did it. It obviously wasn't because of financial hardship or ruin- which is a leading cause of suicide worldwide. It wasn't because of any particular tragedy in his personal life that we know of.
Was it because of lost love? He was married, although I don't know what his relationship with his wife was like. But, even if he was having martial problems, millions go through it without committing suicide. Besides, he had three children, and I don't presume he was on the outs with them. He also had many close friends, and he had countless fans and admirers all over the world. So, it can't be that. His life definitely wasn't devoid of love.
Intractable health problems are a leading cause of suicide. I know he underwent coronary bypass surgery, so he had heart disease. But, in a recent interview, he said he was riding his bike a lot. and he was looking good. And, he was working at a feverish pace, so he obviously wasn't physically incapacitated.
His wife said he was diagnosed with an early stage of Parkinson's disease. I sure hope he didn't kill himself over that. My mother was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease 8 years ago, and it has barely worsened at all. And now she is 93.
Robin Williams abused alcohol and drugs for much of his life, although reportedly, it was under control of late.
However, it was also reported that Robin Williams suffered with clinical depression, and that is obviously a leading cause of suicide. But, another leading cause of suicide are the drugs that given to treat depression and other mental illnesses.
I imagine there were a lot of drugs going into Robin Williams. They must have had him on heart drugs for his heart disease, including a statin drug. Statins have been associated with clinical depression, both as a direct effect of the drugs and as an indirect effect of lowering cholesterol. Did they have him on high blood pressure drugs? Both beta blockers and calcium channel blockers have been linked to depression, and sometimes they prescribe both to heart patients. Between those drugs and the psych drugs and whatever other drugs he may have been taking on his own initiative which may have included alcohol which is a known depressant, it was very likely that the combined effect of all the drugs is what pushed him over the edge to suicide. That is my best guess at this time.
It is ironic that a commedien should be so depressed, but then again, they have been writing songs and operas about clowns who are in tears for a very long time.
Robin Willliams seemed to be a very nice guy, a really warm person. I think he was loved for that reason- as much as for his talent. Of course, I didn't know him, but if I had to say what probably drove him to suicide, my answer would be: the drugs.
Created on Saturday, 12 July 2014 03:04
I just finished reading the autobiography of Michael J. Fox entitled Lucky Man. The theme of the book is that even though he came down with Parkinson's disease at the age of 30, he considers himself a lucky man because of how he dealt with it and found meaning and purpose in his life.
First, I always thought he was a very talented actor. If you've never seen Back to the Future, it is a very fun movie, and it all revolves around him. And although he has done a lot of comedy, he is presently playing a cutthroat corporate lawyer on The Good Wife, and he is really carrying the role. In it, his character has tardive dyskinesia which are involuntary movements, and I assume it is his Parkinson's disease and the effect of all the medications he has had to take.
He came from a working class family in British Columbia, Canada. In school, he did poorly in the academic subjects, but he soared in the artistic ones, including music (he is an accomplished guitarist) art (he is an accomplished cartoonist) and, of course, drama. His involvement in school plays led to small roles on Canadian television and also some work doing commercials. But, he dropped out of high school to pursue an acting career in Hollywood.
So, his father drove him down from Vancouver to Los Angeles and helped him get settled. Then, for two years, Michael struggled. He got work, but nothing major, and between paying his agent and his coach, and others, including the tax man, he could barely squeak by. In fact, he almost gave up to return to B.C. to resume a more normal and ordinary life.
But, his big break came with his audition to be on the show Family Ties, and the rest, as they say is history. It was a huge success, and he became the star. That wasn't intended. His was supposed to be a supporting role. But, he simply upstaged everyone else.
And it was while he was doing Family Ties that he was approached by Steven Spielberg and others to play the lead in Back to the Future. But, he was making Family Ties at the time, and the producer would not release him to do the other. So, what it came down to was that he made Family Ties during the day, and he made Back to the Future at night, and he simply didn't sleep much at all for 4 months or more.
That was not a healthy situation, and it was not the only thing that was unhealthy. It sounds like his diet was never very good. His father got to be obese, and I mean over 300 pounds. That should tell you something about the quality of the diet in the Fox household. (By the way, Michael Fox is his real name, but he added the middle initial “J”.) And when he talked about the food he lived on, especially when he was struggling, it was all fast-food.
Then, he smoked. And his father was a big smoker, so he was around it even as a child. I don't believe it stated whether his mother smoked. But, Michael J. Fox became a heavy smoker, and I mean from when he was a teenager.
And he liked to drink alcohol. He drank a lot. He got soused- often. He didn't drink while he worked, but when he got done working, he starting drinking and drinking heavy. That was his habit.
He didn't say anything in the book about indulging in illegal drugs, such as: marijuana, cocaine, etc. Does it mean he didn't use them at all or that he didn't use them much? I don't know.
But at the age of 30, he was diagnosed with early-onset Parkinson's disease, which started with a twitching in one of his pinkies.
No one in his family ever had Parkinson's disease, and he didn't have any other risk factor, such as working around pesticides. So, why did he get it? My impression is that nobody claimed to know.
I can't tell you either, but I do know that smoking, drinking, eating a terrible diet, and incurring a monstrous sleep deficit are very damaging to health, including the health of the brain.
What if Michael J. Fox had never abused himself the way he did with substance abuse, sleep deprivation, and bad food? Would he still have developed Parkinson's disease at the age of 30? Neither I nor anyone else can answer that definitively, but I suspect that the outcome would have been quite different.
And I should add that the drug treatments were only palliative, meaning that they didn't cure the condition, nor did the stop the further progression of it. However, they did effectively suppress the manifestations, and he got to being very good at using the drugs to his best advantage so that he could work.
By the way, the book is very well written and very thoughtfully written. He may be uneducated, but he is a very bright man, and I respect him.
At one point, he submitted to a very high-tech brain surgery to destroy certain cell clusters with laser in the hope it would lessen his symptoms. It actually helped with his shakiness on his left side, but shortly after the surgery, he started shaking on his right side, which had never shook before.
After making a string of movies- some successful and some not- he went back into television to do Spin City where he played the right-hand man and chief strategist of the mayor of New York. It was another big success, and it was funny. And that's when he was really dosing himself heavily to keep his symptoms at bay during taping. But, they never went away completely, and it was really a challenge to pull it off, calling for some very creative tactics on his part. And, it was after that that he finally went public with his diagnosis and started to devoting himself to Parkinson's research and fund-raising.
And through it all he got married and had 4 children, 2 of whom are twins. At the time he found out he had Parkinson's disease, he had just one child, a son, Sam. It took a lot of courage for him to continue having children after that. But, he wasn't going to let the disease dictate the course of his life.
It's nice to see Michael J. Fox back to acting again because he is awfully good at it. But, here is what I think:
Medicine knows very little about the cause or causes of Parkinson's disease.
Medical treatment is palliative at best, and it may come at a high price since the drugs do have adverse effects. If it were me, I doubt I would take any of the Parkinson's drugs that are in common usage.
3. Michael's very destructive and abusive lifestyle had to play a major role in his contracting the disease.
And my guess is that the thing that played the single largest role in activating this disease in him was severe chronic sleep deprivation.
Created on Sunday, 11 May 2014 21:00
It's mid-May, so you may want to cut back on your VItamin D3 supplement if you get a lot of summer sun. I get quite a bit, and what I do is reduce my supplementary intake from 5000 IUs to 2000 IUs. However, I realize that there are many people who aren't out biking and swimming like I am, and they may get little more sun in the summer than they do in the winter. And if that's the case for you, you should continue taking 5000 IUs.
There is now available a vegetarian Vitamin D3, which is made from a certain kind of marine moss. We don't offer it, but it's available from several different companies, which you can easily find online. So, just do a search for "vegan Vitamin D3" and you'll find it. The standard Vitamin D3 is made from sheep's lanolin.
The news continues to be good about the health benefits of Vitamin D. Here are a few examples from the Vitamin D Council. The benefit of Vitamin D3 to tuberculosis patients was demonstrated in a study, but that's hardly surprising since 100 years ago there were TB sanitariums in which sunlight exposure was a central part of the regimen to help these patients. In another study, liver cancer patients who were given Vitamin D had significantly longer survival. Another found that cigarette smoking erodes the body's Vitamin D reserves, but I presume everyone reading this is well past being a cigarette smoker. Another study found that Vitamin D3 contributed to weight loss. A study among the elderly found that the seniors with higher Vitamin D blood levels reported a higher quality of life. Another study found that among lupus patients, those with higher Vitamin D levels reported longer sleep and better sleep quality. And among college students, those with higher Vitamin D levels were found to have greater cardiovascular fitness.
But, there was one negative study. Among rheumatoid arthritis patients, those taking Vitamin D2 reported no improvement and may have experienced a worsening of their condition. I have been saying for a long time that you shouldn't take Vitamin D2, and now that this vegan Vitamin D3 is available, there is no longer any justification for anybody to be taking Vitamin D2. It is not Vitamin D; it is really just a Vitamin D-like drug, an analogue of Vitamin D. It has no normal relationship to human life, and I say avoid it like the plague.
Unfortunately, millions of Americans continue to be grossly deficient in Vitamin D, and thousands of American doctors continue to be ignorant of how much Vitamin D their patients really need. Getting everyone in the country up to speed on Vitamin D would be relatively inexpensive, and what it's likely to save in medical expenses is at least many tens of billions of dollars. And that's being very conservative. It could easily be over $100 billion. And that's every year. The inhibitory effect that Vitamin D has on cancer and heart disease would do that alone, and at least. It really is a tragedy that so many people are literally in the dark about this- metaphor intended.
So, if you know about the importance of Vitamin D to your general health (not just your bones) and if you realize that the proper dosing is in the thousands of IUs not the hundreds, then consider yourself lucky. And spread the word.
Created on Thursday, 24 April 2014 14:29
Now, a new study out of France has shown that young adults who smoke marijuana may be at risk for serious or even fatal heart problems.
The findings in the Journal of the American Heart Association raises new concerns about the safety of marijuana, just as many parts of the world are relaxing laws on its recreational use, and medicinal marijuana is gaining popularity for treating certain health conditions.
The risk of heart complications appeared small in the study, which included nearly 2,000 people who sought medical attention for complications related to smoking marijuana from 2006 to 2010.
Of those, two percent, or 35 people, had heart attacks or circulation problems related to arteries in the brain and limbs.
Of greater concern was the high death rate. One in four of the patients with cardiovascular complications died, said the researchers.
The analysis also found that the percentage of reported cardiovascular complications more than tripled from 2006 to 2010.
"The general public thinks marijuana is harmless, but information revealing the potential health dangers of marijuana use needs to be disseminated to the public, policymakers and healthcare providers," said lead author Emilie Jouanjus, a medical faculty member at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse in Toulouse, France.
"There is now compelling evidence on the growing risk of marijuana-associated adverse cardiovascular effects, especially in young people," Jouanjus said.
Doctors should be aware of the heart risks and consider marijuana use as a potential contributor to cardiovascular disease in some patients, said Jouanjus.
People with pre-existing conditions appeared most vulnerable, the study added.
Valentin Fuster, director of Mount Sinai Heart and Physician-in-Chief of The Mount Sinai Hospital, said the study appeared to support some observations he has made at his own clinic in New York City.
"I am concerned about cannabis because we are running a clinic of young people who come to us with coronary artery disease. I have seen a number of cases in whom I was not able to identify any other risk other than the use of cannabis," said Fuster, who was not involved in the research.
"So I think this registry in France supports the issue that cannabis is not free of danger," he added.
"I am not sure if it is more risky than tobacco cigarette smoking or less, but one thing is clear, it's affecting young people."
Dr. Allen Taylor, professor of medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine, said:
"This study shows a some preliminary evidence of cardiovascular harm from marijuana. It amounts to a signal of risk between marijuana smoking and heart troubles," he said.
Taylor added that more research needs to be done to assess the risks posed by marijuana.
"It is a shame that we simply don't know more about a substance that potentially carries the risk of serious bodily harm. It seems that public perception is ahead of the science. We should remain open to the scientific facts as they evolve."
Created on Sunday, 20 April 2014 15:56
This article is by Christine Savich first appeared on Natural Society. The bottom line for me is that the vast majority of pharmaceutical drugs are entirely disruptive and destructive in their effects and should not be taken- not by anybody who is pursuing health. Metformin for diabetes, which is based on a natural herbal substance, is an exception.
While Americans comprise only 5 percent of the world population, we consume an incredible 50 percent of Big Pharma’s drugs, as explained in Jeff Hays’ documentary film, Doctored. Make no mistake. These drugs are meant to keep us imprisoned in poor health, not heal us. It’s time to kick the drug habit America. Tell the drug pushers – Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, GlaxoSmith Kline, Abbott, Astra-Zeneca, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Sanofi (along with the FDA and CDC) that you are going cold turkey, and learn what true health really means.
Sadly, Americans are more familiar with names like Abilify, Nexium, Humira, Plavix, Crestor, Advair Diskus, Enbrel, and Cymbalta, the top selling drugs of Big Pharma, than names like Aloe barbadensis, Curcuma longa, Allium sativum, Moringa oleifera, Vitis vinifera L, all indigenous plants that have healed millions around the world.
You’ve likely heard the phrase before – just a dozen huge corporations are keeping Americans popping pills while they rake in billions, but have you really thought of what these numbers translate into, in terms of real health?
Annual sales for just one drug, Humira, was $9.3 billion. That puts Abott squarely at the top of the list as one of the most successful drug companies of all time.
One drug. One year. $9.3 billion.
This particular drug is meant to inhibit cancerous tumor growth, but there are dozens of natural remedies for the same purpose. Consider: turmeric, papaya leaf, grape seed extract, ginger, cannabis, and a host of other inexpensive plants can treat cancer. Here are 4 cancer fighting foods. Cost – around $3 per day per item.
Or the ‘what if’ scenarios:
- A d v e r t i s e m e n t
- What if that $9.3 billion were used to clean up the environmental messes from fracking, oil drilling, oil spills, mining, nuclear meltdowns, chemtrails, pesticide and herbicide spraying, chemical dumping, and more, that cause cancer to begin with?
- What if we hired comedians to visit patients with cancer, using the proven technique of laughter therapy to treat many diseases, cancer among them?
Our money and our health is wasted on these companies, but we have to unplug from the drugs. We are overworked, under-nourished, over-fed, and lied to. You don’t need another pill. What really needs to pop is the illusory bubble that Big Pharma is the answer.
Created on Friday, 18 April 2014 16:39
Created on Monday, 31 March 2014 11:05
We do have euthanasia in this country. We have it all over the country. It's called morphine. Under hospice care, they administer fatal doses of morphine to patients who are terminal and in pain. It doesn't kill them immediately, but it quickens their death for sure. And I am not complaining that they do it. I am complaining about how they do it. I think they should do it openly and honestly and bring death on faster.
I had a beloved cousin who died recently. He was my age, and he had cancer. We were very close growing up, and he was more like a brother to me than a cousin. He was put on hospice, and he received very good care overall. But, I feel that he was allowed to hover in a state near death for too long. They were giving him morphine and other drugs for pain, but it is my earnest belief that they should have given him more. They should have ended it for him decisively. He knew he was dying. He was completely accepting of it. He wanted it to be over sooner rather than later, and he expressed that wish. He had taken care of everything that needed taking care of. And it had reached the point where his existence had to be nightmarish for him- where he was trapped inside this dying body.
You see, my cousin was strong by nature. He had been an athlete his whole life. So, his heart was strong. That's why it was taking him so long to die. And that's why I think they should have helped him to die faster.
There are rumors that Jackie Kennedy Onassis died through decisive euthanasia, where she was given a fatal cocktail of drugs which killed her in one night. I think that others who are in that situation should be given the same option. I think it's the humane thing to do. I don't think people should be forced to endure the final stages of decrepitude that often accompany dying, that is, if they don't want to.
We often take charge of the process of birth. I have a new grandson- Bryce London Cinque- who was born on February 25 of this year, and the date of his birth was decided in advance by the obstretician. He was born by Cesarean section. There were medical reasons why this was deemed prudent, and everything went fine. But, if we can oversee the process of birthing to that extent, why not the process of dying?
No one should be left to suffer pain at the end of their life, but likewise, they shouldn't be forced to suffer the protracted and nightmarish decay that often accompanies dying either- if it is their will to end it sooner. I think that, with the help of their doctors, they should be allowed to take control of the whole dying process and to do it on their own terms. Nature can be cruel, but we should always be compassionate. I hope I receive that much compassion when it's my time to die.
So, I think the resistance to frank euthanasia is unwarranted, and I sincerely hope that societal mores about it change and soon.
Created on Tuesday, 25 February 2014 05:16
A severe polio-like illness has afflicted up to 25 children in California, and doctors say that the outlook for these children looks grim. It has all the earmarks of polio: an enterovirus infection with a rapid onset and sudden paralysis of one or more limbs.
A leading California neurologist, Dr. Keith VanHaren said: "Although poliovirus has been eradicated from most of the globe, other viruses can also injure the spine, leading to a polio-like syndrome.”
Dr. VanHaren has been studying 5 of the afflicted children, all of whom were vaccinated against polio. In fact, these children were all “fully vaccinated” meaning that they had received all of the recommended childhood vaccines.
A cynic might say this is polio but they are not calling it polio because that would call into question the effectiveness of the polio vaccine.
But, I am going to try very hard not to be cynical. So instead I’ll say this:
Even if it is a different virus, what is the point of getting vaccinated if this kind of vulnerability remains after vaccination? If this kind of vulnerability and this magnitude of disaster can follow a course of childhood vaccinations, then something is wrong, and I mean terribly wrong.
I wonder if those doctors realize that it’s no consolation to be told:
“Don’t worry; it wasn’t the polio virus that struck you. You were vaccinated against that. This was another virus. So yes, it is a catastrophe, and we’re very sorry for it. But, the important thing is not to question the theory of vaccination or its safety and effectiveness."
One thing I think you can count on: If most or even some of those children had not been vaccinated, the mainstream media would be screaming it to the high heavens. The fact that they haven’t tells you that these kids got stricken despite having been “protected”.
I don’t claim to know what exactly is going on here, but I have to wonder if vaccines are at least partly responsible for the mysterious outbreak. And, it is reasonable to ask considering that the children were all vaccinated. And it wouldn’t be the first time. There was a well known, widely recognized immunization catastrophe in 1955 in which a bad batch of polio vaccine was said to have caused 200 cases of polio. That's the official number, but the actual number of cases among vaccinated children was 1359. My source for that is Dr. Herbert Ratner, Child and Family vol 19 “Story of the Salk Vaccine.”
I had only one child, a boy, and my wife and I did not vaccinate him- at all. And fortunately, it wasn’t terribly difficult for us to avoid it. I believe it is much harder today, or so I am told. The medical establishment, the schools, and the government are adamant about it. And of course, the number of vaccinations has grown immensely.
I received vaccines as a child, but it was the 1950s, and at least there were fewer. And I have had no vaccines since becoming health-conscious att the age of 19.
If I had a child today, I would not vaccinate him or her, and I would leave the country, if necessary, in order to avoid it. I hope that makes my position about this clear.I do not believe in vaccinations.