The diabetes drug Avandia is linked with tens of thousands of heart attacks, and drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline knew of the risks for years but worked to keep them from the public, a Senate committee report released Saturday says.

The 334-page report by the Senate Finance Committee also criticized the Food and Drug Administration, saying that the federal agency that regulates food, tobacco and medications overlooked or overrode safety concerns found by its staff.

"Americans have a right to know there are serious health risks associated with Avandia, and GlaxoSmithKline had a responsibility to tell them," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, the committee chairman. "Patients trust drug companies with their health and their lives, and GlaxoSmithKline abused that trust."

A Senate report released Saturday says GlaxoSmithKline, the drug company that makes Avandia, a diabetes medication, tried to limit public knowledge about the drug's links to thousands of heart attacks. GlaxoSmithKline denies the accusations.

GlaxoSmithKline rejected Saturday any assertions that the drug is not safe.

"We disagree with the conclusions in the report," company spokeswoman Nancy Pekarek told CNN. "The FDA had reviewed the data and concluded that the drug should be on the market."

Seven clinical trials on the drug prove that it is not linked to heart attacks, Pekarek said.

"None of that data shows a statistically significant correlation between Avandia and myocardial ischemia or myocardial infarction," she said.

The Senate committee investigation stems from concerns that Avandia and other high-profile drugs put "public safety at risk because the FDA has been too cozy with drug makers and has been regularly outmaneuvered by companies that have a financial interest in downplaying or under-exploring potential safety risks," the report states.

The FDA did not immediately answer a telephone message Saturday asking for comment.

The Senate report was developed over the past two years by committee investigators who reviewed more than 250,000 pages of documents provided by GlaxoSmithKline, the FDA and several research institutes. Committee investigators also conducted numerous interviews and phone calls with GlaxoSmithKline, the FDA and anonymous whistle blowers.


Click here for full article

The government is taking steps to curb use of some long-acting asthma drugs taken by millions, issuing safety restrictions Thursday to lower an uncommon but potentially life-threatening risk that asthma could worsen suddenly.

The Food and Drug Administration's warnings cover the drugs Advair, Symbicort, Foradil and Serevent. The FDA said they should be used only by asthmatics who can't control their lung disease with other medications — and then only for the shortest time possible.

Nor should LABA-containing drugs ever be used without simultaneous use of a different asthma-controlling medication, such as an inhaled corticosteroid — a move that specifically targets two of the drugs, Foradil and Serevent, the FDA said.

Why? These four drugs contain an ingredient that relaxes muscles around stressed airways, called a long-acting beta agonist or LABA. While they're very helpful at preventing day-to-day symptoms for some patients, the way LABA-containing drugs work also sometimes masks that inflammation is building in the airways. That means patients may not realize a serious asthma attack is brewing until they're gasping for air.

The FDA cited studies that showed an increased risk of hospitalization and even some deaths, particularly among children. One study found three extra adverse events — mostly hospitalizations — for every thousand patients who took a LABA-containing drug compared to another asthma medication, said FDA's Dr. Gerald Dal Pan.

It's hard to translate how big a risk that really is to the average person, but "it's probably not going to be a major problem," said Dr. Thomas Casale of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology.

Still, "there was a tendency to overuse" these medications, Casale added, saying too many doctors prescribed Advair or its relatives before trying standard treatment.

The big change: FDA's advice that patients quit the LABA-containing drugs as soon as their asthma is under control and go back to standard medications such as inhaled corticosteroids for day-to-day maintenance.

"We want to emphasize to our patients that they should not stop using a LABA until they consult with their physicians," Casale stressed. "This is going to be a personal decision based on how well the patient's asthma is under control."

Medical guidelines already urge people to use a LABA together with an inhaled corticosteroid to relieve inflammation. Advair and Symbicort combine both kinds of medicine in one inhaler. Over a year ago, the FDA's scientific advisers had urged that LABA-only medications, Foradil and Serevent, no longer be used to treat asthma — and that none of the four drugs be used in children.

The FDA said Thursday it was taking a somewhat stronger step. People with other lung diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD, use the drugs without the asthma risk, and just saying they shouldn't be used for asthma would have little practical effect, said Dr. John Jenkins, FDA's director of new drugs. So FDA labeled LABA-containing medications as contraindicated without simultaneous use of a different asthma-controlling medication — a legal term with more enforcement muscle to limit prescription. FDA will monitor that, to see if doctors follow the rules.

"Our goal is to overall reduce the use of LABAs, to manage the risk while at the same time keeping them available for those patients who really need them," said Jenkins, a pulmonologist.

"The reality is the available options to treat asthma are not that great," he added. For patients not well-controlled by inhaled corticosteroids alone, "their options for additional therapy are, in and of themselves, drugs with a lot of risk."

Other warnings:

•Children and teens should be prescribed only the combination LABA drugs to ensure compliance with both medications. That mostly happens today, as pediatric use of the single-agent drugs has plummeted with publicity about the risk.

See USA Today article

This is a time of year when many people find themselves challenged with upper respiratory infections. The symptoms associated with the clearing of these infections can last several weeks and can be very challenging. Many people eventually end up going to see their family medical doctor and most end up taking antibiotics even though the doctor never performs a culture to verify if the infection is viral or bacterial.

You may not know it, but the “Physician’s Desk Reference” clearly states that antibiotics should not be prescribed unless a culture reveals the presence of a bacterial infection. Just this past week, three different practice members came in and told me they were taking antibiotics without a culture being done.

One of these three people told me that her doctor must have guessed right because she was definitely feeling better since she had started taking the antibiotic. Her fever had diminished, her coughing had decreased and her energy had begun to return within 2 days of starting the medicine. Many people make this mistake of believing that because symptoms begin to disappear when taking a medicine that the medicine is the reason they are feeling better and that they are on their way to a “cure.”

You must understand that when you begin to see symptoms, it is really your body beginning to CLEAR the infection - the infection had already taken hold. Once symptoms appear, it means that your body’s Innate Wisdom has identified a problem and is taking steps to eliminate a problem. Now, let’s say your body is in full swing eliminating a virus. You have all the signs and symptoms – fever, headache, chills, lethargy, runny nose, cough, etc. Then you introduce an antibiotic – a powerful drug whose name literally means “against-life” – into your body. But you do NOT have a bacterial infection for this antibiotic to work on – only a viral infection, upon which antibiotics have no affect whatsoever.

Ask yourself which of these two – a virus or a chemical poison – is a more immediate threat to your well-being. The answer of course is that the antibiotic is a more urgent problem. As such, your body immediately takes steps to eliminate the poison (antibiotic). One of the things that the body’s Innate Intelligence does in order to accomplish this is to temporarily stop trying so hard to eliminate the virus. As a result, your symptoms begin to go away! Unfortunately, many misinterpret this as a sign that the antibiotic is making you “well.”

Don’t get me wrong – I am not saying you should never take an antibiotic. I am simply saying that all of the proper protocols must be followed in order to avoid doing more harm than good to your body, and our society. Numerous articles are being written on the “superbugs” we have created and are continuing to create due to the improper use of antibiotics.

Finally, realize that flies don’t cause garbage! You wouldn’t look at a pile of garbage and complain that the flies caused it! Flies can only live and thrive in an environment that is favorable for them to do so. Your body is normally strong and resistant to most outside stresses including viruses and bacteria. If an infection has occurred in your body it means that some process has been gradually changing your normally healthy and resistant environment into something more favorable for some critter to come calling and set up house.

Make sure to begin living a health-creating lifestyle right away including creating a peaceful environment, laughing as much as possible, deep breathing, lots of clean water, a high energy diet and a balance of movement and rest – including enough sleep and exercise. Last, but certainly not least, make sure you get your nerve system checked regularly by your chiropractor to ensure that your Life Force is flowing from above down and inside out as completely as possible.

To follow Kevin Donka, D.C.

It’s being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer’s speakers’ bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.

It wasn’t the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.

As a result of Dr. Reuben’s faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 “scientific” papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.

After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck

He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years.

Business as usual in Big Pharma

What’s notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the fact that so-called “scientific” medical journals published his fabricated studies. It’s not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.

The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Reuben’s actions really aren’t that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.

Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn’t operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.

Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben’s faked studies even though this journal claims to be a “scientific” medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn’t it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.

Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on “good science.” It’s all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being “woo woo” wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that’s based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.

You just have to laugh, actually, when you hear pushers of vaccines and pharmaceuticals claim their medicine is “scientific” while natural medicine is “unproven.” Sure it’s scientific — about as scientific as the storyline in a Scooby Doo cartoon, or as credible as the medical license of a six-year-old kid who just received a “let’s play doctor” gift set for Christmas. Many pharmaceutical researchers would have better careers as writers of fiction novels rather than scientific papers.

For all those people who ignorantly claim that modern pharmaceutical science is based on “scientific evidence,” just give them these three words: Doctor Scott Reuben.

Drug companies support fraudulent research
Don’t forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben’s research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.

The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben’s research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to “prove” that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). “Here’s another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink).”

And before long, Dr. Reuben would magically materialize a brand new study that just happened to “prove” exactly what the sponsoring drug company wanted to prove. Advocates of western medicine claim they don’t believe in magic, but when it comes to clinical trials, they actually do: All the results they wish to see just magically appear as long as the right researcher gets paid to materialize the results out of thin air, much like waving a magician’s wand and chanting, “Abra cadabra… let there be RESEARCH DATA!”

Shazam! The research data materializes just like that. It all gets written up into a “scientific” paper that also magically gets published in medical journals that fail to ask a single question that might exposed the research fraud.

I guess these people believe in magic after all, huh? Where science is lacking, a little “research magic” conveniently fills the void.

The whole system makes a mockery of real science. It is a system operated by criminals who fabricate whatever “scientific evidence” they need in order to get published in medical journals and win FDA approval for drugs that they fully realize are killing people.
What is “Evidence-Based Medicine?”

The fact that a researcher like Dr. Reuben could so successfully fabricate fraudulent study data, then get it published in peer-reviewed science journals, and get away with it for 13 years sheds all kinds of new light on what’s really behind “evidence-based medicine.”

The recipe for evidence-based medicine is quite simple: Fabricate the evidence! Get it published in any mainstream medical journal. Then you can quote the fabricated evidence as “fact!”

When pushers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines resort to quoting “evidence-based medicine” as their defense, keep in mind that much of their so-called evidence has been entirely fabricated. When they claim their branch of toxic chemical medicine is based on “real science,” what they really mean is that it’s based on fraudulent science but they’ve all secretly agreed to call it “real science.” When they claim to have “scientific facts” supporting their position, what they really mean is that those “facts” were fabricated by criminal researchers being paid bribes by the drug companies.

“Evidence-based medicine,” it turns out, hardly exists anymore. And even if it does, how do you know which studies are real vs. which ones were fabricated? If a trusted, well-paid researcher can get his falsified papers published for 13 years in top-notch science journals — without getting caught by his peers — then what does that say about the credibility of the entire peer-review science paper publishing process?

Here’s what is says: “Scientific medicine” is a total fraud.

And this fraud isn’t limited to Dr Scott Reuben, either. Remember: he engaged in routine research fraud for 13 years before being caught. There are probably thousands of other scientists engaged in similar research fraud right now who haven’t yet been caught in the act. Their fraudulent research papers have no doubt already been published in “scientific” medical journals. They’ve been quoted in the popular press. They’ve been relied on by FDA decision makers to approve drugs as “safe and effective” for widespread use.

And yet underneath all this, there’s nothing more than fraud and quackery. Sure, there may be some legitimate studies mixed in with all the fraud, but how can we tell the difference?

How are we to trust this system that claims to have a monopoly on scientific truth but in reality is a front for outright scientific fraud?
Keep up the great work, Dr Reuben

Thank you, Dr Scott Reuben, for showing us the truth about the pharmaceutical industry, the research quackery, the laughable “scientific” journals and the bribery and corruption that characterizes the pharmaceutical industry today. You have done more to shed light on the true nature of the drug industry than a thousand articles on NaturalNews.com ever could.

Keep up the good work. After paying your fine and serving a little jail time, I’m sure your services will be in high demand at all the top drug companies that need yet more “scientific” studies to be fabricated and submitted to the medical journals.

You may be a dishonest, disgusting human being to most of the world, but you’re a huge asset to the pharmaceutical industry and they need you back! There are more studies that need to be fabricated soon; more false papers that need to be published and more dangerous drugs that need to receive FDA approval. Hurry!

Because if there’s one place that extreme dishonesty is richly rewarded, it’s in the pharmaceutical industry, where poisons are approved as medicines and fiction is published as the truth.




Read full article here

The benefits of chiropractic care for your health are numerous.  Some of the many benefits include pain relief in your joints, back, or head. Others may include increased mobility, performance, balance, coordination or energy.

Our Creator God has given us all the power of health within our own bodies enabling your body to heal itself. It is not normal or healthy to have chronic pain or even the occasional cold or headache. A person can be unhealthy without any symptoms whatsoever. For example, 35% of all heart attacks happen without any prior symptoms or warning signs. Were those 35% healthy the day before their heart attack?

How Does Chiropractic Care Enhance Your Immune System?

Since its inception, chiropractic has asserted that viruses and microbes don't threaten us all equally and that a healthy immune system easily repels most invaders. The immune system protects us from the flu, as well as any other infectious disease, and strives to get us well again when we do fall ill. Our immune system, like every other system in the body, is coordinated and controlled by the nervous system. For example, nerve cell endings in the skin and white blood cells of the immune system are in intimate contact, and chemicals secreted by the nerves can shut down immune system cells nearby.

Chiropractic corrects spinal abnormalities called vertebral subluxations that result in interference of the nervous system by placing pressure on nerves. Since the nervous system controls all functions of the body, including the immune system, chiropractic care can have a positive effect on immune function.

During an immune response, the brain and the immune system 'talk to each other' and this process is essential for maintaining homeostasis or balance in the body. If the Nervous System is not functioning properly, then the Immune System cannot function at 100%, thus the body becomes fertile ground for bacteria, viruses and illness

Children who have regular Chiropractic adjustments have fewer colds, ear infections and flu. "People who receive regular chiropractic adjustments have immune system competency that is 200% greater than those who don't." (Dr. Ron Pero. New York Preventative Medicine Institute and Environmental Health at NYU)

Even though you are not sick, your body may be acquiring misalignments of the spine (subluxations) that are interfering with your nervous system and thus your immune system. Regular chiropractic check-ups can help you to maintain a healthy immune system and stave off illnesses or allergies. A chiropractic adjustment will restore the balance of your nervous system and restore the flow of energy and information throughout the body, thus validating one of the great benefits of chiropractic care!

To read more about your immune system and remedies click here.

The American Heart Association has, for the first time, identified seven health factors and lifestyle behaviors its research indicates are necessary to keep your heart in good shape.
The AHA says ideal cardiovascular health for adults is defined by these health measures:

1. Never smoked or quit more than a year ago

2. A healthy body mass index (BMI)

3. Physical activity, and the more the better

4. Blood pressure below 120/80.

5. Fasting blood glucose less than 100 milligrams/deciliter

6. Total cholesterol of less than 200 milligrams/deciliter

7. Eating a healthy diet

The AHA hopes the seven factors could improve the cardiovascular health of Americans by 20 percent by the year 2020, and also reduce deaths from cardiovascular-related diseases and strokes by 20 percent.

For more details visit

Dwight Freeney's ankle injury is a major story leading into this weekend's superbowl. Though the Colts have kept their cards close to the chest on the whole matter, some details have leaked as to what they are doing to treat the issue.

We do know that the Colts are very active with their treatments and Freeney is using some methods that have helped him in the past. The main one is Dr. Leon Mellman, Freeney's Chiropractor, is making sure not only his ankle is getting the proper care, but is also monitoring how his newly guarded walk is effecting the rest of his body. Most notably how his lower back could be adversely affected due to his newly acquired limp.

Freeney's injury is being treated as any other low ankle sprain would be in the NFL with some minor tweaks. Although he was seen in a boot very recently, he spoke openly about keeping the motion in the ankle joint to promote healing. Very recently this became common place in joint surgeries; where immediately following the surgery, the joint is put into passive motion to prevent adhesion buildup and promote a quicker recovery. Freeney was spotted walking the beach without his boot on, most likely advised by team doctors for the same reason: a quicker recovery.

Studies suggest that the popular drugs are no more effective than a placebo. In fact, they may be worse.

Although the year is young, it has already brought my first moral dilemma. In early January a friend mentioned that his New Year's resolution was to beat his chronic depression once and for all. Over the years he had tried a medicine chest's worth of antidepressants, but none had really helped in any enduring way, and when the side effects became so unpleasant that he stopped taking them, the withdrawal symptoms (cramps, dizziness, headaches) were torture. Did I know of any research that might help him decide whether a new antidepressant his doctor recommended might finally lift his chronic darkness at noon?

The moral dilemma was this: oh, yes, I knew of 20-plus years of research on antidepressants, from the old tricyclics to the newer selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that target serotonin (Zoloft, Paxil, and the granddaddy of them all, Prozac, as well as their generic descendants) to even newer ones that also target norepinephrine (Effexor, Wellbutrin). The research had shown that antidepressants help about three quarters of people with depression who take them, a consistent finding that serves as the basis for the oft-repeated mantra "There is no question that the safety and efficacy of antidepressants rest on solid scientific evidence," as psychiatry professor Richard Friedman of Weill Cornell Medical College recently wrote in The New York Times. But ever since a seminal study in 1998, whose findings were reinforced by landmark research in The Journal of the American Medical Association last month, that evidence has come with a big asterisk. Yes, the drugs are effective, in that they lift depression in most patients. But that benefit is hardly more than what patients get when they, unknowingly and as part of a study, take a dummy pill—a placebo. As more and more scientists who study depression and the drugs that treat it are concluding, that suggests that antidepressants are basically expensive Tic Tacs.

Hence the moral dilemma. The placebo effect—that is, a medical benefit you get from an inert pill or other sham treatment—rests on the holy trinity of belief, expectation, and hope. But telling someone with depression who is being helped by antidepressants, or who (like my friend) hopes to be helped, threatens to topple the whole house of cards. Explain that it's all in their heads, that the reason they're benefiting is the same reason why Disney's Dumbo could initially fly only with a feather clutched in his trunk—believing makes it so—and the magic dissipates like fairy dust in a windstorm. So rather than tell my friend all this, I chickened out. Sure, I said, there's lots of research showing that a new kind of antidepressant might help you. Come, let me show you the studies on PubMed.

See the complete Newsweek article

Do you eat on the run? Have a drive-thru habit? Grab a daily snack from the vending machine? We’ve heard repeatedly how important breakfast is, but lagging lunches are certainly an overlooked health danger in these times. What about your kids?

Some of the worst meals around are school lunches and those from vending machines. We take it for granted that our kids are getting a square meal when we send them school to eat meals established by government guidelines, but our trust is ill-placed.

Consider some of these statistics:

    * Most schools use nutritional guidelines that haven’t been updated since the 1970’s.
    * An average cafeteria meal contains 31 grams of fat.
   * “Fruit-on-the-bottom” yogurt gives your child 30 grams of sugar, not to mention the   negatives associated with pasteurized dairy.
    * 80% of the foods offered in vending machines are candy, chips and pastries.
    * Most granola bars have 15 grams of added sugar.
    * 75% of the drinks in school vending machines are made with artificial juice, high fructose corn syrup and sugar.
    * 75% of high schools and 65% of middle schools have exclusive soft drink contracts.
    * “Natural” Capri Sun Pacific Coolers have 100 calories and 26 grams of sugar.
    * Ketchup and salsa count as vegetable requirements in schools.
    * The USDA reimbursement to schools covers only one vegetable per meal.
    * 2002 data showed that 70% of schools met the nutritional guidelines for some nutrients, 6 to 7% of meals met all the guidelines and 42% of schools offered no fruits or vegetables for lunch.
    * As of 2007, less than 20% of our nation’s schools met dietary guidelines.

Even if your school assures you that the lunches are healthy; that doesn’t mean your child eats them! They can get a bagel and a yogurt instead, a substitute loaded with processed flour, calories, fat, sugar and pasteurized dairy.

Because schools have so many kids to feed, the food is often prepared hours ahead of time. Preservative-laden food holds up much better under these conditions than fresh. And after lining up in their classrooms, lining up at the cafeteria entrance and lining up to be served and cash out; kids are often left with as little as 10-15 minutes to eat, socialize and empty their place of trash—and line up again.

The National School Lunch Program is inextricably entwined with government-subsidized foods and food service lobbyists.

So what’s subsidized? Corn, soy and wheat of course. Highly processed and refined. Orange cheese, processed chicken…schools get a break on these commodities. Industrial lobbyists end up determining what is subsidized.

The commodity processing system allows schools to divert the subsidized food to food processing companies. They turn it into heat-and-serve, unhealthy foods for the schools. The companies get cheap chicken for their nuggets and our kids get gypped. Schools divert about half of their government surplus this way.

Schools also make money from contracts with fast food suppliers, food preparers and purveyors, and vending machine companies. The lowest bid wins. 80% of a school’s food budget goes to outside vendors who provide ready-made meals three-quarters of the time. Vending machine foods are not regulated by any nutritional guidelines.  

Nutritional guidelines? Those for schools don’t even match the USDA posted daily requirements for all of us. Schools are required to provide foods that fulfill a minimum nutrient level over the course of a week. There is no maximum limit. Foods high in calories, preservatives and sodium are no-holds-barred.

In 1994, a School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children was passed that required schools to conform to US dietary guidelines by 1996. Many schools were given a 2-year waiver. In 1996? Nothing happened because no enforcements were built into the initiative.

In 2004, another law was passed. This one mandated that schools create health and wellness policies. Some did, but no committee was established to enforce their implementation.

One amazing study found that when healthy foods were substituted for unhealthy options; kids chose the good over the bad and the swap did not reduce sales.

Another “field study” was conducted by Vice Principal Bryan Bass in Minneapolis. The school district wanted to keep their profitable vending machine contract with Coca-Cola no matter the negative effects on their kids.

Bass kept the contract but he stocked 12 of the 16 machines with water only for 75 cents a bottle; 3 machines carried $1 juices and sports drinks; 1 machine carried $1.25 cans of soda. Bass also banned juice and soda from classrooms.

The school’s profits from the machines nearly tripled in two years. “Water,” Bass says, “has become ‘cool’.”

Eat This, Not That! authors David Zinczenko and Matt Goulding say that only 2% of our kids are getting their daily food requirements and that the USDA recommendations lack qualifiers.

For instance, they point out that “a serving of white rice and quinoa both count toward the daily recommended six servings [of grains], despite the fact that one is packed with fiber, healthy fat and essential amino acids (quinoa) and the other is a nutritional black hole (white rice) and one-quarter of all vegetables consumed by kids are French fries.”

Brain work requires brain food. You’ll save money and teach your kids healthy eating habits by packing them lunch. Be patient and perseverant. And remember that ‘dessert is a treat, not a staple.’

ACTION STEPS:

1. Plan your next trip to the grocery store with brown bag lunches in mind. Choose whole foods over packaged foods.
2. Avoid artificial food coloring and preservatives in foods, as they are linked to ADD/ADHD, hyperactivity and reduced cognition.
3. Look for nitrite and nitrate-free cold cuts at the deli counter.
4. I would recommend staying away from the vast majority of grains in general, but if you are going to make your child a sandwich, opt for a sprouted grain bread like Ezekiel bread.
5. Read the labels on everything, but especially fruit drinks. Even organic juice boxes can have tons of sugar and additives. Water is your child’s best option.
6. Be creative. We eat with our eyes first. Make food fun by including lots of colorful veggies (like carrots, celery and bell pepper sticks) with hummus or guacamole and packing a wide variety of nuts, seeds and dried fruit.

Physical Therapist Nate Koch reviews and grades several treatment options for common overuse injuries.

Overuse injuries have been rampant in triathlon since its inception and will continue to do so long into the future. One study in 2003 reported that overuse injuries accounted for 68 percent of preseason and 78 percent of competition season injuries. The term overuse injury can encompass just about any injury in the sport that does not involve a collision. Some examples of overuse injuries are Achilles tendinosis/tendinopathy, plantar fasciosis, anterior knee pain, ITB syndrome and sciatica. The medical terminology that describes the overuse injury and available treatments can be overwhelming.

Recognizing that all injuries and potential treatments cannot be addressed in one article, the most common treatment options for overuse injuries are highlighted below.

Eccentric Exercise
Augmented Soft-Tissue Mobilization (ASTYM)
Graston Technique
Platelet-rich plasma injections (PRP)
Iontophoresis (IONTO)
Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT)
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs)
Cortisone Injections

Read the full article