According to the results of a new federal study, published in last Monday’s Archive of Internal Medicine , eating red meat increases your chances of death.  (Who knew, right?)  The study, which is the largest ever of its kind, studied over half a million men and women.

Researchers state that eating the equivalent of a quarter-pound hamburger a day over ten years gave men a 22% higher risk of dying from cancer and a 27% higher risk of dying from heart disease.  For women the results were a 20% higher risk of death from cancer and a 50% higher risk of death from heart disease.

This was in comparison with people who ate 5 oz of red meat a day, I would like to know the figures compared to those who do not eat meat at all.  The study does not address this.

For as much as people complain about high health care costs, they rarely complain about the lack of responsibility they take for their own health.  If you stay healthier, you will have fewer health care costs, simple as that.  So where does Descartes come into this?

Interestingly, he was the first to give meat-eaters a non-Biblical justification for eating flesh.  It was his belief that animals did not have souls, that they were purely matter, and matter could not think, so matter could not feel pain and experience suffering.  To him, animals were machines, nothing more.   Meat-eaters ran with this idea, ignoring the common-sense fact that animals do feel pain.

And yet, Descartes himself was a vegetarian -  for health reasons.  He saw the body (animal and human) as a mechanism and found meat did not agree with the human mechanism.  The human mechanism, with its soul, did feel pain and suffering, and key to the long life of this machine was a vegetable based diet.

Meanwhile, back in 2009, studies continue to prove Decartes right on this point.  The lack of animal pain however….yeah.

For your punk rock fans, check out Propagandhi’s recent release, “Supporting Caste.”  It includes a great song relative to this discussion entitled “Human(e) Meat.”  Listen to it on their myspace page. 

Also check out vegetarian death metal band Cattle Decapitation - essentially everything they’ve done has to do with treating humans how we treat animals.  It’s great, great stuff.

Sources: Yahoo News - Study:Lots of red meat increases mortality risk March 23, 2009

Stuart, Tristram.  The Bloodless Revolution: A Cultural History of Vegetarianism from 1600 to Modern Times.  2006

According to new research from the World Cancer Research Fund , there is an easy, cheap, safe way to cut cancer rates - (ready?) - healthy food and exercise.  Who would have thought?

Yes, new research shows that simple changes in diet and exercise can prevent some 40% of breast and pancreatic cancers, 36% of lung cancers, 60% mouth cancers, 25% kidney cancers and 45% of bowel cancers.  Cancer is the #2 killer in the United States, after heart disease.

Meanwhile, President Obama wants $634 billion to begin national health care.  Personally I do not have health care at the moment because I cannot afford it.  However, I do everything in my power to stay healthy.  Eating healthy does not have to be expensive by any means.   Substituting a meal as simple as rice and beans in place of fast food brings you much greater nutrition at an even cheaper cost.

And….exercise is free.  Absolutely free.  You do not need to buy anything at all to exercise - no fancy machines, no gym membership, nothing.  Something as simple as parking farther away from the grocery store so you have to walk a greater distance increases your exercise and your health.

Yet, under nationalized health care my tax dollars would go to people who do absolutely nothing positive for their own health, as well as those that need help.  It seems that many people who advocate national health care are the ones eating crap while drinking and smoking themselves to death.  Now, if that is what you want to do with your life, more power to you, but it is absurd to say I should pay for the inevitable problems that result from such a lifestyle.

Certainly there are many people who need help paying valid health related bills, but it should be the responsibility of every individual to do whatever they can for their own health.

But America doesn’t want that.  They want to be taken care of like children and have a pill created for every disease (real and metaphorical alike).  There is no secret to being healthy - take care of yourself.  Of course unexpected things will come up, but there is so much that you can do in your everyday life to greatly minimize such events.

Source: Natural News - How to Slash World Cancer Rates by 9o Percent February 26, 2009

Bloomberg - Obama wants $634 million to start on health care February 26, 2009

With increased knowledge of how the brain works and the ever increasing pharmacratic state, the military is plowing full speed ahead to figure out how to alter the minds of U.S. soldiers, as well as the enemy.

The National Research Council drafted a report for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency a few months ago titled, “Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies.”   The focus of the report was basically to determine neuroscience technologies and knowledge of the mind’s functioning will affect the police and military.  (Just a quick aside - there is no such thing as the mind and so we can never know the functioning of something that does not exist.  The brain is a different matter.)

According to report co-author Jonathan Moreno, “It’s way too early to know which — if any — of these technologies is going to be practical, but it’s important for us to get ahead of the curve. Soldiers are always on the cutting edge of new technologies.”

It is believed there is widespread use of drugs such as Ritalin and Modafinil among U.S. soldiers to fight against combat fatigue.  The report says new and more powerful drugs will be available for that and many other purposes.  There is already usage of drugs to keep soldiers awake and alert for days at a time.

The report also details how pharmaceuticals could be used to attack the minds of the enemy.   It states, “Drugs can be utilized to achieve abnormal, diseased, or disordered psychology” and “How can we disrupt the enemy’s motivation to fight? Is there a way to make the enemy obey our commands?”

Among the suggestions are “pharmacological landmines,” where weaponized drugs are deployed when disturbed.    Also, in a bit of updated Orwellian thought crime, the authors are optimistic that neuroimaging technologies could be used to scan the motivations, plans and memories of enemy soldiers or civilians at checkpoints.  How soon before the technology would be turned on their own “disloyal” citizens?

Interjecting some ethics into the debate, Hugh Gusterson of George Mason University stated, “I think most reasonable people, if they imagine a world in which all sides have figured out how to control brains, they’d rather not go there. Most rational human beings would believe that if we could have a world where nobody does military neuroscience, we’ll all be better off. But for some people in the Pentagon, it’s too delicious to ignore.”

If history is any lesson, these drugs are already being tested out on U.S. soldiers on the battlefields, most likely without their knowledge.  The story on Wired featured the disturbing thought on the minds of many Pentagon researchers, “If we can alter the brain, why not control it?”

There are millions in the U.S. alone who have been convinced by the pharmacratic state that they cannot exist without taking some sort of prescribed psychoactive drug.  Every one of those drugs is being used to unnaturally alter the brain, the next step is control.

Sources: Natural News - Big Pharma’s Drugs to be Weaponized to Fight “Mind Wars” on future battlefields February 2, 2009

Wired - Uncle Sam Wants Your Brain - August 13, 2009

Two new U.S. studies show that nearly half of commercial high-fructose corn syrup samples contained mercury, while one-third of popular brand-name food items made with HFCS also contained mercury.

HFCS is regulary used to sweeten products in place of sugar, with the average American consuming 12 teaspoons of it per day.  Teens and other high consumers consume up to 80% more than the average.  (You have Congress to thank for the prevalence of HFCS in your food, but more on that later.)

The first study, appearing in the current Environmental Health, found mercury in 9 out of 20 samples of commercial HFCS.  The second, done by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade policy, a non-profit watchdog, sampled 55 brand name foods which had HFCS listed as the first or second ingredient.  They found that nearly 1 in 3 contained mercury.

Dr. David Wallinga of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade policy , who co-authored both studies, said, “Mercury is toxic in all its forms. Given how much high-fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply.”

The President of the Corn Refiners Association (the ones behind those insulting “Sweet Surprise!” commercials ) shot back, “This study appears to be based on outdated information of dubious significance.  Our industry has used mercury-free versions of the two re-agents mentioned in the study, hydrochloric acid and caustic soda, for several years. These mercury-free re-agents perform important functions, including adjusting pH balances.”

However, the IATP found four plants in Georgia, Tennessee, Ohio and West Virginia that still use the “mercury-cell” technology.

So why don’t we just use sugar in more products?  Big government.   Ron Paul even used the issue in his book The Revolution.   Basically, Archer Daniels Midland and others lobbied Congress to enact limits on the amount of sugar that could be imported to the U.S., greatly raising its cost.

Archer Daniels Midland currently buys over 1/10th of the nation’s corn crop (which is highly subsidized by the federal government), turning most of it into HFCS, at a huge profit.

We don’t have more products made with real sugar because we pretty much can’t, thanks to Congress.

 Sources: Washington Post -Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury January 28, 2009

A United States Geological Survey (USGS) study conducted last year shows that many man-made chemicals remain in drinking water after treatment processes.

The study tested water samples for about 260 commonly used chemicals.  To create a nationally representative study they used sites in Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas.  130 of those chemicals, including pesticides, gasoline hydrocarbons and household cleaning products, were found in water before treatment at public water treatment plants.

So most were filtered out, right?  Not quite.  About two out of every three  of the 130 chemicals were found in the water after treatment.  The study says that many are concentrated at the level equivalent to a thimble full of water in an olympic-sized swimming pool, and that they do not pose a threat to human health.

However, safe levels for many of these chemicals have not been established.  Tom Schrempp, director of production at Water District No. 1 of Johnson County explains, “We are concerned that they have been detected, but at this point there is insufficient information to really judge anything. Because there are no standards set for most of the compounds, there isn`t a basis for whether there is a health effect.”

The example of E. coli was raised, as it was not regulated in drinking water until the 1980s.  Also noted is the idea of the “stew effect” - what happens when trace amounts of this chemical meets up with trace amounts of that chemical?

Also important to note is the amount of pharmaceuticals that have been found in drinking water.  Last year the Associated Press discovered trace amounts in the drinking water of at least 46 million Americans. The Pharmacratic State is alive and well in America, pushing pills for everything imaginable.  Many of the chemicals in these drugs are not fully absorbed in the body and are released in the urine.

One of these is oestrogen hormones, released by women taking birth control.  Numerous studies have shown that these hormones have mutilated fish, with many male fish growing eggs in their testes.  And then we drink this water.  This is certainly not a call to ban birth control (I found lots of “religious” websites discussing how this proves birth control is the work of the devil) but we do need to be aware what we are doing and its possible effects in the long run.

One easy thing to do to reduce this problem is use natural cleaning agents.  They are more readily available than ever and many cost about the same as harsh chemical cleaners.

Also, only take the medication that you really need.  Our society is one that always looks for the easy answer and so, if you have a problem, there’s a pill for that.  Many health problems that are treated with pharmaceuticals can be improved by simply eating better and exercising.

Sources: Natural News - Many Man-Made Chemicals Detected in Drinking Water Supplies  January 26, 2009

MSNBC - Drugs in water affect 46 million in U.S. September 11, 2008

New Scientist - Top 11 compounds in US drinking water January 12, 2009

New Scientist - Hunt the Hormones March 23, 2002

In one of the first comprehensive studies to compare prescription patterns among children of different nations, researchers at the University of Maryland’s School of Pharmacy found U.S. children are prescribed psychotropic drugs at a rate of three times higher than European children.

Using data from 1999-2000, the researchers found U.S. children by all measures were more medicated.  Lead researcher Julie Zito stressed that U.S. prescription rates have most likely increased since then.

They found that 6.7% of those under 20 in the U.S. were on at least one psychotropic drug.  For children ages 5-9, the U.S. rate of children on psychotropic drugs was 8%, four times the European rate.  U.S. children were also routinely on more than one drug.

Perhaps most disturbingly, more than 75% of those of the drugs prescribed to U.S. children were “off label” - for uses not approved by the FDA.

Among reasons for the difference, researchers cited more lax requirements in the U.S. to diagnosing mental disorder/disease.

Wait.  If these diseases and disorders are real, as the majority hold they are, how can there possibly be a different set of standards? I cannot imagine being diagnosed with, say, diabetes in the U.S. and then going to England only to be told I don’t really have it.  So then, if ADHD is real, shouldn’t we be able to test for it?

The fact of the matter is that there is no objective scientifically verifiable test for ADHD or any other mental disorder.  Real diseases are diagnosed though the use of symptoms (what the patient complains of) and signs (identifiable abnormalities/lesions in the body that can be tested for).  Conditions such as ADHD are based solely on symptoms.  They symptoms may be very real, but that does not mean the child has a disorder.

Yet millions of children are put on brain-altering drugs based on this “diagnosis.”  The Drug Enforcement Agency classifies Ritalin (Methylphenidate) as a schedule II class drug, ranking it alongside cocaine and opium.  Drugs under this class meet three criteria:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.

(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

Is this really what we want to put in our children? Dr. Peter Breggin summed the issue up nicely in his testimony before Congress:

“Children become diagnosed with ADHD when they are in conflict with the expectations or demands of parents and/or teachers.  The ADHD diagnosis is simply a list of the behaviors that most commonly cause conflict or disturbance in classrooms, especially those that require a high degree of conformity.

By diagnosing the child with ADHD, blame for the conflict is placed on the child.   Instead of examining the context of the child’s life—why the child is restless or disobedient in the classroom or home—the problem is attributed to the child’s faulty brain.  Both the classroom and the family are exempt from criticism or from the need to improve, and instead the child is made the source of the problem.

The medicating of the child then becomes a coercive response to conflict in which the weakest member of the conflict, the child, is drugged into a more compliant or submissive state.  The production of drug-induced obsessive-compulsive disorder in the child especially fits the needs for compliance in regard to otherwise boring or distressing schoolwork.”

Sources: Natural News - Americans Drug Their Children with 300 Percent More Psychotropic Meds January 21, 2009

Peter R. Breggin M.D. Testimony September 29, 2000
Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Education and the Workforce
U.S. House of Representatives

And I highly recommend the book Pharmacracy by Thomas Szasz. Along with everything else he has ever written.

In a first of its kind study, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control estimate that roughly 1 in every 200 kids in the United States is a vegetarian.  This works out to about 367,000 kids.  Other studies have estimated that the number among older teens, who have more control over what they eat, could be four to six times higher.

(Let me preface the rest of this report by saying, although I am a vegan, I cannot see what could possibly come out of this report that would justify spending taxpayer money to determine the number of vegetarian kids. Okay, back to the story…)

Some estimate that the number of vegetarian adolescents is rising in part due to videos of slaughtered animals on sites such as YouTube.  That was the case with 14 year old Nicole Nightingale from Safety Harbor, Florida.  She was reading about chicken online and found a video showing chickens being slaughtered, posted by PETA.  Revolted, she told her parents she wanted to be a vegan, which led her mom to send an angry letter to PETA.  However, the veganism is working fine for Nicole and her mom is slowly eating more vegetarian.

Nicole said it is typical of her generation, “A lot more kids are using the Internet. They’re curious about stuff and trying to become independent and they’re trying to find out who they are.”

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch First U.S. Count finds 1 in 200 kids are vegetarian January 11, 2009

What also seems typical to me is the initial reaction of Nicole’s mother.  She did not become angry that some 9 billion chickens are killed in the U.S. every year (that’s 269 chickens killed every second), but instead angry at PETA for showing what happens between that cute chick being born and the fried chicken on your plate.

I cannot count the number of times I have encountered similar reactions.  I have never once told anyone “Don’t eat meat.”  Never.  However, I want people to know what is going on.  If they don’t have a problem with all the bloody horrors, there is nothing I could say anyways.  Confrontation in such a manner turns people off immediately and is counterproductive.

To me it seems natural that children raised on movies featuring animals that we eat (Babe is one of the greatest movies ever) would have an aversion to seeing their cute movie heros slaughtered for them to eat.  (Actually, the human star of Babe,  James Cromwell became an ethical vegan after doing the film.)

If you show a child a film of wheat being cut down to make pasta while they are eating spaghetti, you will most likely not get any reaction whatsoever, even after you explain how the pasta they are eating can only be made by cutting down the wheat.  Show a child a film of a cow being hit in the head to “stun” it, being hung upside down and slaughtered while they are eating a hamburger, they will most likely be disgusted and revolted.  When you explain that the burger they’re eating can only be made by killing the cow, they’ll most likely be even more revolted.

Why?

A recent study from Seoul National University shows that a common additive used in processed meats may be linked with increased cancer growth.

High amounts of inorganic phosphate salts are used to add to the texture and flavor of processed meats.  They are also added to cheese, bread and cakes.    The research study examined the impact of phosphates on mice which were bred to be vulnerable to lung cancer.  The mice on a high additive diet developed tumors faster than those on a conventional diet.

The study’s findings, published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, show enough evidence to begin looking for a link between phosphates and cancer in humans.

While some amounts of phosphates are necessary for a healthy diet, the amount in the average diet has been steadily increasing the past few decades.  Processed meats have also been recently linked to increased risk of bowel cancer.

Source: Daily Mail - Additives in bacon, ham and chicken ‘could make cancer grow’ December 30, 2008 

Not all researchers are ready to make the jump from cancer in mice to cancer in humans after this study.  However, I believe it is another good example of why we should eat our food as close as possible to how it is found in nature.  The farther we remove it from its natural state, the less benefit we can derive from it.  Why are we willing to spend great sums of money on fancy cars, houses, etc, but continue to put utter crap in our bodies?

One easy way to increase health is by eating raw food on a daily basis - fruit, veggies, nuts (unroasted).  When we cook our foods we destory essential vitamins, nutrients and naturally occuring digestive enzymes.  These enzymes help the body digest and absorb food, resulting in less acid being produced by the stomach and a wealth of other benefits.

I have a neighbor who barbecues nearly every day in the summer.  When he found out I was a vegan he was a little confused by the concept but also curious.  He swore he’d try it for a week, and much to my suprize, actually followed though.  By the end of the week he said he was no longer waking up during the night, stopped snoring, had more energy.  As it was the only thing he changed, it had to be from his diet.

He thanked me for introducing him to the idea, shook my hand, and then cooked a huge slab of ribs the next night.  I give him great credit for his experiment, I guess I just don’t understand sacrificing feeling better all the time for the momentary and fleeting pleasure of eating meat. So it goes.