My latest blog explains all you need to know about protein. At first, mentioning the word “protein” you may think we know it all, but I found many people are confused about the meaning of protein.
Do You Know Protein?
This article explains protein from many angles. This is a first of many articles to come, with the goal of educating about various common health-related terms that are often used misinterpreted.
The American Diabetes Association (ADA) released its 2019 Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes (both type 2 and type 1) in advance of the official January, 2019 publish date. It is open access to all. I decided to summarize one particular part that seems to have “hit the road” by various other blogs, some twisting it out of context completely. As a member of the ADA, in this blog I feel obligated to summarize the essence of the new guide so that there is no confusion about what it does or doesn’t recommend. I also provide my thoughts at the end.
The ADA Standards of Medical care has 16 chapters, of which, in terms of the treatment of diabetes (both T2 and T1), Chapter 5. Lifestyle Management is most important, so I will focus most of this summary on that chapter with few exceptions. The following is a long section of quotes from the document, in which I emphasized some sentences by bold to call special attention. Continue reading
anti-veganism in India
I filed a petition with the FDA in 2014 to ban the Flouriquinolone Class of antibiotics from common prescription use. I requested it to have the label changed so that it is not used for everyday conditions, such as UTI, bronchitis, and similar diseases that are easily treatable by other antibiotics and which do not need a broad spectrum antibiotic. I recommended to have Fluroquinolones be reserved for life-and-death situations only when there are no alternatives and to change the label reflecting all adverse side effect that were already well understood, and to “blackbox” the medication. In my previous article on this subject, found here, I updated the FDA information, since new side effects made it imperative to immediately restrict all quinolones from common use. Why is this all interesting now? Because of a letter I just received from the FDA!
I have written many times about the fluoroquinolones family of antibiotics, referred to as quinolones on the run and often by the condition they so far were the most well-known for: causing major neurological damage–often permanent–leading to a condition termed FLOXED. I spent quite a bit of time fighting for blackboxing quinolones, which was finally achieved in 2016. There were many lawsuits on the part of those injured by quinolones as well. I wrote many articles about the trouble they cause, health stories, even about a suicide, and general information. See some here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source’s financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word “grassroots.” The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a “true” or “natural” grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a “fake” or “artificial” appearance of support. (source: you guessed it, Wikipedia)
And who is the most well-known astroturfing entity that is publicly visible and is used by millions every day for what they think is good information? Wikipedia!
And you thought you knew Wikipedia! And you may even have donated money to Wikipedia every year–like I have been–thinking it is for an open database of great information that knowledgeable people edit and update. Right? Wrong.
According to the above TEDx, Wikipedia is Astroturfing and indeed, it is. I had my own Continue reading
The image shows how cardiovascular disease is not associated with high cholesterol, yet the article concluded that high cholesterol causes coronary cardiovascular events.
coronary artery disease cause
Yellow highlighting is mine to show what actually does contribute to cardiovascular events.
How strange that scientists have to conclude the opposite of what their data shows to be able to publish!
Sugar Pack in Sri Lanka–photograph by Marc Richard
I run a Facebook migraine group with thousands of members. The goal is to become migraine free, using only nutritional methods, which over the years has turned into what I call the Stanton Migraine Protocol(R). We have many discussions on foods in the group and sugar often comes up–sugar is something migraineurs should not ever eat. The members also post hundreds of testimonials into the group, which I then ask for permission to share on my testimonials page. Take a look at our success stories.
In September, a “carbage” (carb garbage) article was published in The Lancet Public Health based on very inadequate data analysis, that made the headlines in less than 5 minutes around the world. I have written two previous blog articles about it. See how bad the science was in that paper here and see the ripple effects of such bad science here.
The headlines of that academic article suggested that the consumption of reduced carbohydrates is dangerous. Lots of news flashes followed and several generations of hard nutrition-science work were swept under the rug by those who benefit from industrial profits and those with conflicts of interests (including some of the original authors, who didn’t declare such conflicts of interests!). However, sensationalism is just about that: no one cares about truth and facts, only headlines. In fact, headlines were twisted to make it even more sensational, stopping just short of suggesting that you will die tomorrow if you don’t eat a slice of cake today.
Richard Feinman, the Other
Pondering life and faith
A New Way of Being Migraine Free
Conversations with the Heartmind
A girl, PCOS, insulin resistance, and her journey to change her relationship with carbs
Explaining the link between itching, hot flashes, hormones, and menopause.
Be brave, little fighter. There's a warrior within you.
..................................The Case of HOUSTON versus HOUSTON.................................
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
The life of PASSION
A great WordPress.com site
Providing Help for Migraine Sufferers
Understand what makes us do what we do.
Each day is what you make it
Preventing and treating migraines without medicines
Enhance Your Knowledge
the Story within the Story
Clueless Doctors & Scientists 
NIH Commentary for Nutrition Research
What Research Should Be Funded?
In November 2018 through December 15, 2018, the NIH invited public comments to guide the kind of research they will support for the next decade. This comment period was short but critical. Historically, the NIH has been influenced tremendously by business interests that provide huge chucks of financial support to the government and thereby to the NIH. Thus there has ever been any unbiased research funding for nutrition research. This may also be true of other research areas–I am no familiar with them.
I found it very important to submit my commentary, which I did on the 11th of December, so a few days before the deadline. Here I copy-paste my commentary so you can see what I see as weakness in the NIH funding process through my recommendations. There is no way to know if the NIH considers anyone’s recommendations at all. However, it cannot hurt to try. Right? Right. So here is my comment, which starts with the greeting letter. I copy-paste the whole thing. I also attach it in a PDF in case you want to download it–it is a public document now: NIH–comment–AAStanton–12-11-2018 Continue reading →
Share this: