Researcher warns: watching medical TV shows can make you feel sick

(NaturalNews) According to a new study out of the University of Rhode Island (URI), watching a lot of television can be bad for your health. And, no, this isn’t more research about how being a couch potato and munching on junk food while watching the boob tube is unhealthy. Instead, this study zeroes in on the heavy dose of medical content in doctor-centered dramas like “House”, “Grey’s Anatomy” and “E.R.”, as well as the evening news. It turns out, according to study author Yinjiao Ye, assistant professor of communications studies at URI, TV exposure to information about health risks and diseases that are supposedly lurking around every corner can lead people to worry about their bodies and wonder whether it’s even possible to protect their own health. For her study, Dr. Ye surveyed 274 students in the College of Communications at the University of Alabama about their TV viewing and life satisfaction. The students, who were in an age group (18 to 31) associated with good health and energy, did not know the purpose of the study. Dr. Ye found that regularly watching television shows that dramatized disease and pushed medical issues actually reduced a person’s satisfaction with their life. The research, just published in the journal Mass Communication and Society , suggests people who watch a lot of medical-themed TV come away with the idea that people frequently get sick and there’s not much that can be done about major illness. That leads them to believe they have a great likelihood of being victimized by health risks and diseases. In addition, it also promotes a strong belief in the severity of those risks and problems. In a statement to the media, Dr. Ye pointed out that the mass media are powerful in disseminating health knowledge — but they also can lead people to think they are more likely to suffer from the diseases presented on TV. So, if you are really interested in the health benefits of life satisfaction on health and longevity, she suggested that leisure activities such as socializing and exercise may be better options that spending time watching medical themed television shows. Another reason to beware of disease and doctor-centered programs: previous research that analyzed popular TV dramas like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “House” found some of the medical information presented, especially the first aid techniques portrayed on these shows, was not correct or even safe. For example, a study presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s annual meeting held in Toronto earlier this year revealed that 59 seizures occurred in 327 episodes of these shows. Almost all were shown taking place in a hospital and first aid was performed by “nurses” or “doctors” who, over half the time, delivered emergency care that was inappropriate — including holding the person down, trying to stop involuntary movements or putting something in the person’s mouth. In addition, when Duke University researchers studied almost 100 episodes of a variety of doctor-themed programs, including “ER”, they found CPR portrayals were two to five times more successful than real-life situations and created false and potentially dangerous impressions about the risks and benefits of this rescue technique. Specifically, the study found that in the fictional world of doctor dramas, patients either fully recovered or immediately died after CPR. The shows virtually ignored the very real possibility of long-term or permanent disability caused by their disease, treatment or the CPR itself. For more information: http://www.uri.edu/news/releases/?id=5513 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20677058

Study shows fluoride may not help teeth at all

(NaturalNews) Fluoridation of public water supplies offers no meaningful health benefit, according to a new study comparing cavity rates in two different Ontario provinces. “Fluoridation is no longer effective,” said Hardy Limeback, head of the University of Toronto’s preventive dentistry program. Considering all the dangerous effects of fluoride consumption, in fact, he concluded that fluoridation is “more harmful than beneficial.” Fluoridation, the addition of fluoride to public water supplies, has been popular in First World countries for more than six decades, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control classifies it as one of the greatest health breakthroughs of the 20th century. Fluoridation proponents claim that the mineral strengthens teeth, thereby cutting cavity rate by 20 to 40 percent. Yet the practice has always been controversial, primarily due to fluoride’s undisputed status as a highly reactive neurotoxin. More recent studies suggest that ingestion of fluoride can damage the thyroid gland and reduce children’s IQ levels. In 2006, a study published in Cancer Causes and Control found that exposure to large amounts of fluoridated water made seven-year-old boys four times more likely to develop a rare bone cancer known as childhood osteosarcoma. In the new study, conducted on behalf of The Globe and Mail , researchers from Statistics Canada compared the tooth decay rates in the provinces of Ontario, which has Canada’s highest fluoridation rate, and Quebec, which has the lowest. Using data on more than 5,000 people, the researchers found no clinically significant difference. Among children between the ages of six and 19, the tooth decay rate was only half a cavity higher in Quebec. The average number of cavities among children aged six to 11 was 1.76 in Quebec, compared with 1.7 in Ontario. In children aged 12 to 19, the absolute number of cavities increased but the difference did not; Ontario children averaged 2.35 cavities, compared with 2.79 in Quebec. According to 2007 data, more than 75 percent of Ontario residents drink fluoridated water, in contrast with less than 6 percent of Quebec residents. Since the data were collected, the government of Quebec City has passed a law ending the use of fluoridation there. Barring significant differences in rates of tooth brushing, bottled water consumption, or other relevant variables, the study suggests that the effectiveness of fluoridation has been strongly exaggerated. All of Canada’s dental associations and its national health agency, Health Canada, officially endorse water fluoridation. In response to the Globe and Mail report, Health Canada immediately sought to cast doubt on the study, pointing out that it failed to assess individual fluoride intake and correlate that with cavity rates. Nevertheless, the agency admitted that the study data were accurate. The Canadian study is not the first to cast doubt on the effectiveness of fluoridation. Recent studies have shown that cavity rates have declined at similar rates worldwide, independent of fluoridation. “The parallel reduction in [cavities] in countries with a lot of fluoridation and countries with not much fluoridation is quite dramatic,” said Warren Bell, former head of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. Although researchers in the 1940s believed that fluoride acted systemically in the body to strengthen teeth, more recent research suggests that it acts topically on the outside of the tooth. This means that brushing with fluoride toothpaste (which is then spit out) is both safer and more effective than drinking fluoridated water. Some scientists have therefore suggested that increased rates of tooth brushing, rather than water fluoridation, have led to improved dental health worldwide. Other suggested causes include better overall oral hygiene (including flossing and more frequent brushing), lower sugar consumption, widespread use of antibiotics, and increased exposure to vitamin D in certain populations. Sources for this story include: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/ontario-fluoride-may-make-minor-difference/article1535873/.

The total failure of modern psychiatry

(NaturalNews) Modern psychiatry went wrong when it embraced the idea that the mind should be treated with drugs, says Edward Shorter of the University of Toronto, writing in the Wall Street Journal . Shorter studies the history of psychiatry and medicine. Modern U.S. psychiatry has adopted a philosophy that psychological diseases arise from chemical imbalances and therefore have a very specific cluster of symptoms, he says, in spite of evidence that the difference between many so-called disorders is minimal or nonexistent. These “disorders” are then treated with expensive drugs that are no more effective than a placebo. “Psychiatry seems to have lost its way in a forest of poorly verified diagnoses and ineffectual medications,” he writes. Shorter calls for U.S. psychiatry to abandon its emphasis on “psychopathology” and instead adopt the European approach, which focuses on the symptoms and needs of people as individuals. Yet the draft of the latest edition of psychiatric diagnostic “Bible,” the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), shows that U.S. psychiatry has no intention of changing course. “With DSM-V, American psychiatry is headed in exactly the opposite direction: defining ever-widening circles of the population as mentally ill with vague and undifferentiated diagnoses and treating them with powerful drugs,” Shorter writes. U.S. psychiatry was not always obsessed with psychopharmacology, he notes. Its early years were marked by a psychoanalytic approach that categorized mental disorders in broad, fluid categories such as “nerves,” “melancholia” or “manic-depressive illness.” These categories sufficed because similar treatments would work for people suffering from any version thereof: lithium treated both mania and severe depression, for example, while the specific symptoms experienced by an anxious person had little influence on the therapies needed. “Our psychopathological lingo today offers little improvement on these sturdy terms,” Shorter said. “A patient with the same symptoms today might be told he has ‘social anxiety disorder’ or ‘seasonal affective disorder.’ … The new disorders all respond to the same drugs, so in terms of treatment, the differentiation is meaningless and of benefit mainly to pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for these niches.” In the 1950s and ’60s, a new wave of psychiatrists sought to turn away from psychoanalysis — perceiving it as focusing excessively on “unconscious psychic conflicts” — and toward a more “scientific” model instead. As a result, the DSM-III introduced the vague new categories of “major depression” and “bipolar disorder,” even though evidence suggests that there is no substantial difference between the two conditions. At the same time, “major depression” absorbed what Shorter calls two very different conditions, “neurotic depression” and “melancholia.” “This would be like incorporating tuberculosis and mumps into the same diagnosis, simply because they are both infectious diseases,” he writes. DSM-V only continues the trend of extending the disordered label to more and more normal people, Shorter warns: “To flip through the latest draft of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in the works for seven years now, is to see the discipline’s floundering writ large.” For example, the new disorder of “psychosis risk syndrome” associates a whole new class of people with full-blown schizophrenia, under the logic, Shorter says, that “even if you aren’t floridly psychotic with hallucinations and delusions, eccentric behavior can nonetheless awaken the suspicion that you might someday become psychotic.” The implication, of course, is that such people should be treated with antipsychotics. Symptoms of “psychosis risk syndrome” include such vague descriptors as “disorganized speech.” Other new “disorders” include hoarding, mixed anxiety-depression and binge eating. “Minor neurocognitive disorder” describes a reduction in cognitive function over time, such as that normally experienced by people over the age of 50, while “temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria” refers to children who suffer from outbursts of temper. “DSM-V accelerates the trend of making variants on the spectrum of everyday behavior into diseases,” Shorter says, “turning grief into depression, apprehension into anxiety, and boyishness into hyperactivity.” Sources for this story include: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083700227601116.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_lifestyle.

Dark-skinned immigrants to Canada urged to take vitamin D supplements

(NaturalNews) Canadian doctors and nutritionists are urging dark-skinned immigrants coming to Canada to supplement with vitamin D in order to stay healthy. Many Canadian immigrants have relocated from countries with warmer, sunnier climates, and are exposed to far less natural sunshine in Canada than in their native lands. As a result, many of them have become deficient in vitamin D. Immigrants come to Canada to work, to go to school, and simply to live, but few realize that the change in climate conditions could have devastating effects on their health. Darker-skinned people who come from places that receive more sunlight and are warmer for more months out of the year often have trouble maintaining healthy vitamin D levels in places like Canada that are colder and get less overall sunlight. According to Dr. Kevin Pottie, nearly all of the immigrant and refugee patients he tests have low vitamin D levels, especially during the wintertime when the angle of the sun is at its lowest and the fewest ultraviolet-B (UVB) rays make their way to people’s skin. Reinhold Vieth, a researcher from the University of Toronto, explained in a CBC News interview that the color of a person’s skin actually plays a role in how much vitamin D that person produces when exposed to sunlight. People with lighter skin tend to produce far more vitamin D when exposed to natural sunlight than do those with darker skin. People from countries with lots of natural sunlight and warm climates generally have dark skin, a trait that Vieth believes has developed throughout their ancestries in order to protect them from sun damage. As a result, dark-skinned people must be exposed to far more sunlight than light-skinned people in order to produce the same amount of vitamin D. “Basically, what we’re doing is transplanting people from an area for which their skin is optimized in terms of its color to an area where their skin is often too dark to be healthy,” he explained in an interview. A University of Toronto study co-authored by Vieth found that those of South Asian descent are six times more likely to have vitamin D deficiency than those from European descent. Researchers believe this is due, in part, to a diet that is low in foods containing vitamin D. Many women from these cultures also wear traditional clothing that covers nearly all their skin, limiting their exposure to the sun. Immigrants who generally spent a lot of time outside in their native lands tend to stay indoors in Canada due to the colder weather and harsh winters. As a result, they are more prone to vitamin D deficiency diseases like bone density loss, arthritis, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and even mental illness. The Canadian Cancer Society is recommending that people take 1,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D every day throughout the year in order to maintain good health. Sources for this story include: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/02/12/ottawa-immigrants-vitamin-d.html

Heal yourself in 15 days with the people around you (part thirteen)

(NaturalNews) Continuing with our 15-day self-healing article series, today we venture into the realm of what I call social healing . I wouldn’t have believe this even two years ago, but I have since come to realize that WHO you are living with is just as important (or perhaps more important) than WHERE you are living. Living among healthy-minded, high-energy individuals who remain engaged in the pursuits of health and happiness has an extremely powerful rubbing off effect on you. These people can lift your spirits, inspire you to embrace positive changes and serve as shining examples of the health results you wish to achieve. That all sounds fine, you might say, but what about the people around you who aren’t on board with your desire to live a more healthful life? This is the challenging part: What do you do about family and friends who consistently pursue a comparatively unhealthy lifestyle… and who tend to drag you down along with them? That’s the tough part, and the closer the people are to you, the more difficult it can be. The classic situation I see from talking to readers is a middle-aged woman who is genuinely attempting to pursue a more healthful lifestyle but whose husband is a meat-and-potatoes kind of guy who wants nothing at all to do with salads, superfoods or nutrition. So what do you do in these cases? Here’s a simple, three-step approach that you may find valuable: Three steps to uplifting the health of those around you Step 1) Keep your goals private (at first) . Even though you may have a goal of losing a certain number of pounds, or overcoming a specific disease, or improving your health in some noticeable way, don’t necessarily announce that to the people around you. Why? Because if they’re not aligned with your health goals, they will immediately dismiss the idea or even attack you for daring to pursue such a thing. By keeping your goals private (at first), you’ll be able to keep them present in your own consciousness while you experiment with new choices in food and lifestyle habits to find out what’s working for you — without the pressure of everybody watching over your shoulder to second guess what you’re doing. Step 2) Pursue your health changes with an attitude of enjoyment . Simply start making the dietary changes you have decided are good for you — and the exercise changes you might need — and when you’re asked by anyone why you’re making these changes, just answer, “Because I enjoy doing this.” Or you can say, “I like this!” You don’t have to explain more. Simply enjoying it is reason enough. Step 3) Be the example that others admire . As you pursue these new health habits for yourself, changes will begin to occur over time. You may notice improved skin, a reduction of excess body fat, enhanced energy or stamina, improved mood, a reduction in the symptoms of degenerative disease and so on. As this happens, the people around you will take notice. That’s the point where they will begin to get curious about what you’re doing that’s working so well. And at some point they will ask you questions like, “Hey, you’re looking younger and more energetic these days. What’s your secret?” Everybody loves to hear a secret. Especially if it’s a secret that makes them look better or feel better. So you can say something like, “Do you really want to know the secret? Because it’s so simple, and so easy, and anybody can do it, and it’s really working. But are you sure you want to know it?” At that point, no one can resist the temptation to learn the secret. So they’ll lean in and say, “Yes! I want to know the secret!” That’s when you whisper in their ear, “Juicing” or “daily walking for one hour” or whatever your secret has been. At this point, they will tend to greatly value the information you’re sharing with them. You see, if you came out and simply told them all this without waiting for them to ask first, they might have discounted the information. But because they noticed something in you that they wanted to experience for themselves, and because they asked you , they will now value the information so much more. So the secret here is to refrain from pushing information onto others. Let them come to you and ask, and then be ready to give them good information about what’s working for you so that they can try it out for themselves. The positive ripple effect In time, as this phenomenon unfolds in your life, impacting your circle of family and friends, you will actually begin to see a ripple effect of positive health changes in the people around you. This, in turn, will translate into mutual support for your healthy lifestyle choices, and you may even find some people who you thought could never be interested in health suddenly turning around and becoming interested. You may also find that those who might have criticized you at first (if you had shared your plans with them up front) will suddenly come to you when they are in need of a health solution. They may return from the doctor’s office one day with a diagnosis of diabetes, for example, or a lump in their breast. And all of a sudden they’re really interested in solving their health problem by searching for new answers. So they may turn to you with renewed interest and start asking questions about health and nutrition that never interested them before. That’s when it’s your time to shine as an example of a healthy, happy person living a healthful lifestyle. You don’t have to preach to others, of course, or condemn their current choices in unhealthful foods. Nobody likes to be called an idiot for eating hot dogs and drinking pasteurized cow’s milk. But you can simply invite them to explore the possibility that they may experience improved results by making improved choices . And you can guide them in some directions for exploration as rapidly as they are interested in making those shifts. This is how you can work over time to uplift the health of those around you (and thereby create a more supportive community of family and friends that will embrace your own health habits, too). Thinking of moving? There’s another way to uplift your supporting community of family and friends: Move to a city that’s more into health . I’m from the Kansas City area, which is more famous for Barbeque than health, and when I visit Kansas City, it’s always difficult to find places to buy fresh juice or organic vegetables. I was in North Carolina a year ago and noticed much the same thing there, too. I hear Cleveland isn’t exactly a health hub of the country either. But other cities like Miami, New York, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, Houston, San Diego, Toronto and Sante Fe are great places to find lots of health-conscious people who are totally into the same things you’re into! If you feel out of place where you currently live, and you want to surround yourself with more health-conscious people, the general advice is to head to either the East or West coast and you’ll find more health-conscious communities there. Moving to a different city may sound a little drastic, but if you’ve run out of options in the place where you live, and you feel like you would benefit from the support of a community that’s more aligned with your goals, then moving can be one of the best decisions of your life! I’ve found that surrounding yourself with health-conscious people who are aligned with your own lifestyle priorities is one of the most important things you can do to keep yourself on that path, too. So consider this option. Keep your mind open to this possibility, and check out all the options that can help surround you with a supportive, aligned community of people who demonstrate the kind of health-oriented lifestyle you aspire to make your own. Once you surround yourself with those people, before long you’ll find yourself becoming one of them and getting the results they’re getting, too! Healthy begins to rub off on you rather quickly once you’re in the company of healthy, supportive people. Social healing works . And you can make a conscious decision to either uplift those around you, or move to a different location where you can find more like-minded people who will support your lifestyle choices. Either way, you come out healthier and happier. Enjoy! Previous articles in this 15-day “Heal Yourself” series Part One – Remove barriers to healing http://www.naturalnews.com/028053_self_healing_quality_of_life.html Part Two – Unleash your inner healing potential http://www.naturalnews.com/028060_self_healing_immune_system.html Part Three – You are what you absorb http://www.naturalnews.com/028067_self_healing_digestion.html Part Four – Transform your health by making new blood http://www.naturalnews.com/028075_blood_health_transformation.html Part Five – Experience the healing potential of living plant juices http://www.naturalnews.com/028100_self_healing_fresh_juice.html Part Six – Accelerate your healing with a 24-hour fast http://www.naturalnews.com/028117_self_healing_fasting.html Part Seven – Heal yourself by rejecting the mainstream crowd http://www.naturalnews.com/028136_self_healing_crowd_psychology.html Part Eight – Stop making disease http://www.naturalnews.com/028153_self_healing_disease.html Part Nine – Correct your nature deficiency http://www.naturalnews.com/028203_nature_deficiency_self_healing.html Part Ten – Protect your skin exposures http://www.naturalnews.com/028249_skin_health_consumer_products.html Part Eleven – Eat MORE, not less http://www.naturalnews.com/028298_superfoods_self_healing.html Part Twelve – The Attitude of Gratitude http://www.naturalnews.com/028399_gratitude_self_healing.html

Eating chocolate regularly may prevent strokes

(NaturalNews) Stroke takes an enormous toll on health. In fact, it’s the third leading cause of death in the US, according to the American Stroke Association. So imagine how much money Big Pharma could rake in if drug manufacturers came up with a medication that not only reduced the risk of having a stroke but slashed the risk of dying from a stroke in half. It turns out there’s a substance already on the market that does just that. Only, it isn’t an expensive prescription drug but a delicious, natural food — chocolate. A report just released by Canadian scientists from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and the University of Toronto provides evidence that consuming chocolate regularly significantly reduces the odds of having a stroke. What’s more, if a person who eats chocolate does suffer a stroke, their risk of dying afterwards is almost half that of non-chocolate eaters. The research team reached these conclusions after analyzing three studies for any links between chocolate intake and strokes. Although one study didn’t reveal any risk or benefit, two others did. A large study of 44,489 people showed that those who ate at least one serving of chocolate each week were 22 percent less likely to have a stroke than the research participants who didn’t indulge in chocolate. Another study of 1,169 people found that when someone did experience a stroke, if they ate 50 grams of chocolate each week they were about 50 percent less likely to die afterwards than those who had strokes but didn’t eat chocolate. The researchers stated that chocolate’s abundant antioxidant content could be the key to its apparent stroke-protective effect. “More research is needed to determine whether chocolate truly lowers stroke risk, or whether healthier people are simply more likely to eat chocolate than others,” study author Sarah Sahib, BScCA, of McMaster University, said in a statement to the media. Historically, traditional healers have long contended that chocolate is good for body and spirit. For example, the ancient Aztecs and Mayans are believed to be the first people who drank a chocolate drink to help matters of the heart. And in recent years, scientists have found that some phytochemicals in chocolate can alter a person’s sense of well being, producing a lift similar to the feeling of being in love. As NaturalNews has previously reported (http://www.naturalnews.com/023499_cocoa_diabetes_disease.html), Harvard Medical School scientists have discovered that cocoa, which is the main component of chocolate, may literally be good for the heart — their research shows it could reduce the risk of heart disease and also cancer. For more information: http://www.aan.com/press/index.cfm?fuseaction=release.view&release=799 http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/stroke.html

Plant-Based "Eco-Atkins Diet" Boosts Health, Drops Body Fat

(NaturalNews) Researchers have found evidence that it may be possible to use a version of the Atkins diet to improve health, rather than harming it — a vegetarian version dubbed the “Eco-Atkins” diet. The Atkins diet is a form of high-protein, low-carbohydrate diet that was popular in 2003 and 2004. Many health professionals blasted the diet as dangerously high in fat, and research indicated that although it lowered levels of blood triglycerides and raised levels of HDL (“good”) cholesterol, it also raised levels of the dangerous LDL (“bad”) cholesterol. In the current study, conducted by researchers from the University of Toronto and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine , researchers fed 22 overweight adults with elevated LDL cholesterol levels a low-carbohydrate diet high in proteins from gluten (wheat), soy, nuts, cereals, vegetable oils, fruits and vegetables. They were compared with 22 people who ate a diet low in fat and high in carbohydrates, with high levels of low-fat dairy and whole grains. All participants were fed only enough good to meet 60 percent of their estimated daily calorie needs, and lost an average of 8.8 pounds. Participants in the “Eco-Atkins” group had lower levels of LDL and blood pressure than those in the control group, however. In an accompanying commentary, Katherine Tuttle and Joan Milton of Washington School of Medicine said that the research might provide a safer way to consume a low-carbohydrate diet, but stopped short of recommending it without larger, long-term studies on the potential risks. High-protein, low-carbohydrate diets can lead to excessive water loss and kidney damage. Dr. Dean Ornish said that the diet used in the study was quite similar to the diet he advocates, although slightly higher in vegetable fat. He objected to calling it a version of the Atkins diet, however, for fear that it might encourage people to eat the more traditional, meat-based version. “People so badly want to believe that Atkins is good for them that they stretch things beyond credibility,” Ornish said. “What it’s going to be is confusing to people, and that’s why I have a problem with it.” Sources for this story include: www.reuters.com; www.abcnews.go.com.

« Previous Page