Therefore, A Correct Diet Shall Include Animal Protein of High Biological Value
This is a sentence taken from a textbook I picked up that I fell in love with after reading into it somewhere–perhaps PubMed or at the publisher’s site, where they allowed to read a small part of a chapter.
It is originally written in Spanish and translated to English, published in 2017. Why do I think that non-American text books are always better than American?… my be my imagination… Continue reading
Posted in Healthcare, Interesting reading, Must Read, nutrition, This & That, Thoughts
Tagged all about nutrition, animal meat is healthy, animal meat is killing us, are soybeans nutritious, difference between diets, essential amino acids, how do I become a vegan, how much soybean, milk is bad for you, milk is healthy, need for more protein, nonessential amino acids, should I eat more protein, vegan food in not good, what about protein, what about protein shakes, what diet is bad, what diet is good, what do vegans eat, what is biological value, what protein is best, what protein shakes, why do people hate vegans
Why Would You Ever Choose Olive Oil Over Butter?
A comparison table with data taken from the USDA database for olive oil here and for butter here. This is merely a compiled data. Rows where zeros were in both were deleted to reduce space. I created this to compare EVOO, a butter consistency olive oil that some people choose to eat, thinking they eat something healthier than butter. Do they? Continue reading
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 New ADA Standards of Medical Care
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
Posted in diabetes, Healthcare, Interesting reading, Must Read, nutrition, Press Release, This & That, Thoughts
Tagged ADA low carbs diet, ADA standards of care, are sugar substitutes good in diabetes, benefit of dairy in diabetes, dairy in diabetes, diabetes standard of care, fruit juice in diabetes, low carbs and diabetes, metformin and vitamin deficiency, protein in diabetes, standards of care in diabetes, starches in diabetes, sweeteners in diabetes
A Slow Response But At Least A Response
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!
4-Years in the Making and an Invalid Response
Fluoroquinolones Back in the News
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.
The Drugs in the Fluoroquinolones Class:
- ciprofloxacin (CIPRO, CILOXAN)
- enoxacin (PENETREX)
- levofloxacin (LEVAQUIN)
- moxifloxacin (AVELOX)
- norfloxacin (NOROXIN, CHIBROXIN)
- ofloxacin (FLOXIN, OCUFLOX)
Posted in Big Pharma, Drugs of Shame, FDA, Healthcare, Interesting reading, Must Read, This & That, Thoughts
Tagged fluoroquinolones are harmful, quinolone damage, quinolones and low blood sugar, quinolones are harmful, quinolones cause aneurysm, quinolones kill
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
Posted in diabetes, Healthcare, Interesting reading, Must Read, nutrition, Thoughts
Tagged funded nutrition research, NIH commentary, NIH nutrition research, NIH research funding, NIH research guidelines, what is nutrition, what research exist in nutrition
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.
Wikipedia is Astroturfing
According to the above TEDx, Wikipedia is Astroturfing and indeed, it is. I had my own Continue reading
Posted in Big Pharma, Healthcare, Interesting reading, Must Read, nutrition, This & That, Thoughts, Videos
Tagged is wikipedia paid by pharma/, what is astroturf, who pays wikipedia, wikipedia is astroturf, wikipedia is biased
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!