The Fantome's Shadow

acta est fabula plaudite

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

The anti-saturated fat spin machine continues to roll along. Thursday morning, Good Morning America reported on a paper by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/americas-favorite-movie-snacks-thumbs/story?id=9119503). The paper (found here: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/nahpopcorn.pdf) focused on movie theater cuisine, primarily the theater staple of popcorn as well as snack foods.
I will agree that the calorie values for the foods tested are downright shocking. However, that is almost to be expected. Is there really anything healthy served at a movie theater?

What really caught my attention in the story was the mention of coconut oil and the suggestion that coconut should be replaced by canola oil. The intimation is that coconut oil, because of its level of saturated fat, is harmful to use while canola oil would be better. It is this battle of the oils I want to examine.

One the one hand is the much maligned coconut oil, which is said to be bad because it has the highest level of saturate fat of any oil. However, based on the work of the Doctors Eades, Tim Ferriss highlights seven reasons to eat more saturated fat (http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/06/06/saturated-fat/):

Improved cardiovascular risk factors
Stronger bones
Improved liver health
Healthy lungs
Healthy brain
Proper nerve signaling
Strong immune system

Others have noted that coconut oil in particular is beneficial for heart disease, lowers Lp(a) (a better indicator of heart disease than cholesterol), is an antimicrobial (even able to treat MRSA), and can be a poison antidote (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/coconut-oil-studies.html). For more information on the health benefits of dietary fats, please read Dr. Mary Enig's "The Skinny on Fats".

One the other hand is canola oil. I personally like the term "The Great Con-ola". In an article entitled "Canola Oil: The Truth" the Canola Council of Canada makes the bold claim that "Canola oil is the healthiest of all commonly used cooking oils." While the rest of the article is not technically inaccurate, it is mainly geared to combat urban legends about canola oil.

In my mind, just the description of the processing that goes into canola oil makes me want to avoid it:

The oil is removed by a combination of high temperature mechanical pressing and solvent extraction. Traces of the solvent (usually hexane) remain in the oil, even after considerable refining. Like all modern vegetable oils, canola oil goes through the process of caustic refining, bleaching and degumming--all of which involve high temperatures or chemicals of questionable safety. And because canola oil is high in omega-3 fatty acids, which easily become rancid and foul-smelling when subjected to oxygen and high temperatures, it must be deodorized. The standard deodorization process removes a large portion of the omega-3 fatty acids by turning them into trans fatty acids. Although the Canadian government lists the trans content of canola at a minimal 0.2 percent, research at the University of Florida at Gainesville, found trans levels as high as 4.6 percent in commercial liquid oil. The consumer has no clue about the presence of trans fatty acids in canola oil because they are not listed on the label. (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/conola.html)

Follow that up with the statement "A large portion of canola oil used in processed food has been hardened through the hydrogenation process, which introduces levels of trans fatty acids into the final product as high as 40 percent" (http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/conola.html).

The mention of trans fat raises the issue that the research that indicted saturated fats never differentiated between natural saturated fats and man-made trans fats. Saturated fats became the scapegoat of the edible oil industry. The anti-saturated fat agenda started with Ancel Keys' famous Seven Countries Study, which stated that nations with the highest fat intake also had the high cardiovascular disease. That study though has received much criticism on two counts. First, the original study include 22 countries, which had they all been included would have removed any correlation. Second, even when only counting the seven countries, the study only found correlation, not causation. In fact, even after four decades study after fails to find a link between fat intake and heart disease (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724).

I do not believe this media slight against saturated fat is founded. That does not mean I would condone the gorge-fest that is theater food.While I do not believe the calories in, calories out mindset, nothing good can come from eating a few thousand calories in a couple of hours. Also, anyone who knows me knows that I preach loudly against sodas in all forms. Soda increases risk of obesity as well as several diseases (http://www.squidoo.com/soda-demages).I believe the elimination of all sodas from one's diet is the single best decision you can make for your health. Also, cutting out refined sugars and processed foods is a great help. That does not leave much to eat in a movie theater.

So, the next time you decide to see a movie in a theater (and who can actually afford that in this economy), try to enjoy it without busting your diet.

in fine

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

The results are finally in and my official time from last weekend's 5K Run for Wellness was 26:04. Someone even managed to snap this photo of a staff member and me just before the finish line:

si vales bene est

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

This week's big medical news has been the change in recommendations for women getting mammograms (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=106&sid=1814506). I realize that being male means I am completely unqualified to discuss this subject. Therefore, I will do my best to refrain from opinion. Simply allow me to make two points:

To begin, this is not the first time a professional group expressed doubt in the effectiveness of mammography. Nearly seven years ago, the PDQ Screening and Prevention Editorial Board found flaws in studies that were the basis of the recommendations at the time, thus causing them to amend the recommendations (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/24/health/24BREA.html). In fact, some members "thought it was unlikely that there were benefits that could make the test worthwhile."

Second, some doctors have become worried about the radiation exposure due to medical imaging (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE5226IR20090303; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/health/research/27scan.html?emc=eta1) Hundreds of thousands are annually exposed to more radiation from diagnostic tests than would be allowed for nuclear power plant employees. This alone could result in tens of thousands of additional cancers.

quod me nutrit me destruit

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Allow me to start with this premise: I have a problem with the fact that a person can buy a couple fast food cheeseburgers for under a dollar, but to get the same number of calories from vegetables costs several times more. I think that speak volumes of the problems in this country, and leads us to ask why is bad food so cheap and good food so expensive?
Where this really bothers me is in terms of lower income families. When the ends barely meet, few can justify splurging on quality food. I have a good job and therefore I can purchase high quality food from farmers I trust. Why should something as vital as food be just the purview of the financial well-off? What has happened to our economy that has allowed junk food to become the least expensive dietary option?

For instance, one study concluded that "Household income was the strongest predictor of obesity among women. Overweight and obesity are inversely associated with socioeconomic status." (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2009/625168.abs.html) There is the example of the Pima (Akimel O'odham) tribe of native Americans who have the highest prevalence of type two diabetes in the world. For them, this condition coincided with a shift from agricultural goods to processed foods that occurred when their local economy was devesatated . (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pima#Modern_life)

There seems to be an inverse correlation between the wage a job pays and the amount of manual labor required on the job. Based on that, the lowest income households are probably the ones with the most physical exertion. When those same households are forced to choose how to spend their money, such as between food and heat, I cannot imagine there are a lot of extra calories going around. This logic flies in the face of the theory that obesity is simply a matter of eating too much and exercising too little.

Here is what I think happened to our economy: There is no money, no economy of scale in providing whole, natural foods. But as soon as something can be created in a factory, suddenly we have a process that can be made more efficient so to speak and constantly improved. Consider that in the 1930s 25% of the US population lived on a farm, but now only 2% live on a farm with only 0.1% with farming as its full-time occupation. Over the decades there has been a shift from small family farms to large corporate farms. And that is just the input to a system that values technology and chemistry over providing us the nutrition we need. What hubris of us to think we can improve upon nature.

Obviously something has to be done. For those who can afford it, Michael Pollan offers a couple pieces of advice (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/10/11/magazine/20091011-foodrules.html):

Eat foods in inverse proportion to how much its lobby spends to push it.
Avoid snack foods with the “oh” sound in their names: Doritos, Cheetos, Tostitos, Ho Hos, etc.

If we take government subsidies as an indicator, that means we should eschew grains, wheat, rice, and soy in that order. Considering the ingredients of those snack foods, we have double reason not to partake.

For those who cannot afford high quality foods, I am glad to see that our local farmers willingly give to gleaning programs (http://www.freshfarmmarket.org/programs/gleaning.html, http://www.takomaparkmarket.com/History/). It is a small step, and more needs to be done, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

mala fide

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Congratulations go to Bill Gates for placing himself squarely back on my hit list. Those who have known me at least for several years know that I used to think of Microsoft as the antichrist of technology. Then as I started trying to be healthier I realized that Microsoft was just small change compared to agribusiness. At that point I stopped caring about Microsoft. It was not that Microsoft got any better; rather I picked different battles.

How did Bill Gates earn this distinction in my mind? Last month at the World Food Prize 2009 symposium, Bill Gates spoke on behalf of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on the topic of "Support for the World's Poorest Farmers" (http://208.109.245.191/assets/Symposium/2009/transcripts/2009-Borlaug-Dialogue-Gates-brief.pdf). In his comments he states "This global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two." Mr. Gates also says there is a need to "develop crops that can grow in a drought; that can survive in a flood; that can resist pests and disease. We need higher yields on the same land in harsher weather. And we will never get it without a continuous and urgent science-based search to increase productivity...." And the part of his speech that worries me most: "In some of our grants, we include transgenic approaches because we believe they can help address farmers’ challenges faster and more efficiently than conventional breeding alone."

It is that last point I want to discuss. Despite what many agricultural biotechnology companies like to advertise, such as Monsanto's "Produce More, Conserve More" campaign, the results of genetic modification have not lived up to the promises. The actual results have been no increased yields over conventional counterparts, increased costs to farmers, increased pesticide use, increased harm to wildlife, and increased death and sickness in human consumers.

The Union of Concerned Scientists in its publication "Failure to Yield" has stated that after a record of "more than 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization in the United States...", "we conclude that GE [genetic engineering] has done little to increase overall crop yields." The report further states "Most of the gains are due to traditional breeding or improvements of other agricultural practices." Also, scientists are warning that transgenic foods may be a cause of cancer and chronic illness (http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18515.cfm, http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/GettheFacts/HealthDangers/index.cfm).

Finally, there is the case that transgenic crops have performed so poorly in India that an estimated 180,000 farmers have taken their own lives in the decade between 1997 and 2007 (http://www.sustainlane.com/reviews/1-500-indian-farmers-commit-mass-suicide-why-we-are-complicit-in-these-deaths/USSXPLOHQPR98XCSAKFUPUI4MO3A,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA&feature=player_embedded).

This post could be far longer if I continued citing examples. It all makes me wonder if Mr. Gates actually researched the facts rather than the corporate propaganda. Hopefully he puts more effort into this than into his software. This is more than a potential inconvenience; this affects lives.

Attempting to remain free of genetically modified organisms is getting more and more difficult. First, there is the problem that there is no labeling requirement for foods containing GMOs. The prime way to avoid GMOs is to buy local. However, for those that do not have that opportunity organic is the next option. However, be careful because the USDA standard only requires that food bearing the certified organic seal to contain only 95% organic ingredients. But to assist there are the following non-GMO food guides:

http://www.geaction.org/truefood/shoppersguide/
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/BuyNon-GMO/index.cfm

non loqui sed facere

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Last week I was riding home from work on the bus when I had the opportunity to overhear a conversation between a young man and young woman behind me. Amazingly, as dense as I am about such matters, it was obviously to me within the first couple of minutes that this young man was trying to pick up his seat mate. The reason for this post is the part of this exchange that made me cringe.

What I want to do is give my female readers a brief glimpse into the male mind, as scary as that might be.
During the bus ride I heard the young man ask the woman out. But, the woman was not interested so she turned him down. The problem is that she did not stop at "I'm sorry, but no." She added that most dreaded coda "But you're a very nice guy." I nearly twitched I heard that.

Let me tell you why this is such a bad thing. Women need to keep in mind that men are far simpler than you give them credit for. Have you ever wondered why there are so few 'nice guys' out there? Part of the problem is the simple Pavlovian response to being consistently told "you're such a nice guy" but not getting anywhere. Eventually, the guys stop being so nice. Why do I say this? Because the whole 'you're a nice guy' routine just messes with a guy's mind.

Here is my advice: It does not matter whether or not you believe that the guy is nice, never mention the world nice or any synonym of nice. In fact, if you are going to turn a man down, say 'no', maybe say 'I'm not interested', but whatever you do stop there. You do not have to explain yourself, justify yourself, or even soften the blow. Be quick and be done. If you feel the urge to say "nice", stop and shut up. Maybe some soul will be saved by this action.

virtus tentamine gaudet

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:00:00 -0500

For those of you who are in the area, there is still time to join me Sunday for the Run for Wellness at the Holton-Arms School (http://www.holton-arms.edu/page.cfm?p=1609). This will be my second attempt at a 5K. Wish me well.

sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Last week I wrote about the tainted beef episode. Here is what scares me: Over the last several years we have seen food safety as a whole crumbling before our eyes. Nearly everyone in this county has been affected by some food recall or has gotten sick because of poorly processed food. The FDA has for some time been pushing irradiation has a means to supposedly increase safety and has been expanding its use (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/health/policy/22spinach.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin).

Allow me to give an example why this is a problem. Earlier this year the University of Wisconsin published a study about the ability of a cat's nervous system to repair itself (http://www.physorg.com/news157654992.html). Specifically, the study discusses demyelination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelin#Demyelination_and_dysmyelination) of the central nervous system of cats and the eventual recovery. Demyelination can result in symptoms similar to multiple sclerosis. While the fact that recovery is wonderful, I am more interested in the protocol that the scientists used to induce demyelination.

The abstract of the study (Duncan, I.D., et al. "Extensive remyelination of the CNS leads to functional recovery." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 106.16 (2009): 6832+.) includes this quote: "We show that cats fed an irradiated diet during gestation developed a severe neurologic disease resulting from extensive myelin vacuolation and subsequent demyelination." Yes, the scientists simply fed the cats irradiated food during pregnancy. Maybe the scientists learned of this when the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service realized that importing irradiated pet food was causing serious neurological dysfunction in cats (http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/import/general-info/ian/09/33-2009).

What worries me more is the lead scientist's reaction to the condition caused by irradiation: "We think it is extremely unlikely that [irradiated food] could become a human health problem," Duncan explains. "We think it is species specific. It's important to note these cats were fed a diet of irradiated food for a period of time." My question to Duncan is "Has anyone ever tested this?" And for the record, the period of time involved was three to four months.

It appears to me that the FDA is once again going to turn the American population into unwilling test subjects. Personally, I am going to do my best to avoid irradiated food. I am glad that my local farmers do not have the resources for such a procedure. Remember, irradiation works by intentionally damaging the DNA of pathogens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_irradiation). However, what prevents it from damaging the DNA of the food itself at the same time? The FDA has also been trying to replace the term irradiation with 'cold pasteurization' (http://www.consumersunion.org/pub/core_food_safety/004680.html). Be sure you familiarize yourself with irradiation labeling: http://www.ftcldf.org/aa/aa-23sep2008.htm. Diligence will be the only way we can keep this technology out of our food supply.

vox clamantis in deserto

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

This weekend I was reminded of a George Carlin sketch that I think is appropriate for this year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s&feature=player_embedded. Thank you Mike for sharing this.

While I do not agree with everything Mr. Carlin said, for instance I do wash my hands far more frequently than he did, I think his comments should give us pause. Maybe this is why he lived to see 71. Or maybe he could have lived longer if he washed his hands more often or ate higher quality food.

Speculation aside, he does bring up a good point: we are slowly preventing our bodies from having their natural immune reaction. For example, the hygiene hypothesis states that the rise in allergic diseases is partly explained by an increase in cleanliness standards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis). Based on that we have at least one generation of naive immune systems. This makes me wonder whether or not today's high school and college graduates will live as long as their parents or grandparents. Only time will tell. Until then, I will attempt to make my immune system as strong as Mr. Carlin's.

I think one of the greatest modern fallacies of logic is that being exposed to pathogens automatically results in disease. If that were the case what is the point of having an immune systems. We are not in a sterile environment. There are germs all around us, many of which are on us or in us. If all of them produced their respective disease, we would never know what it is like to not be sick. It seems obvious that disease is not a result of germs but rather a result of poor health. It is likely that the more germs one is exposed to the stronger that person's immune system will be.

cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Late in October, the NY Daily News reported this article about the dangerous side effects of the flu vaccine: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2009/10/30/2009-10-30_sorry_bout_the_shot_public_school_nurses_give_swine_flu_vaccine_to_kids_without_.html. The point I want to make is the almost maniacal quest of public officials to vaccinate everyone. In this particular case the mistake seems innocent enough, as innocent as a medical accident can get. This is an example of too many people not paying attention while doing something that is arguably more dangerous than they would like to admit.

And explain to me what was going through the nurse's mind when he attempted to get Nikiyah Torres' mother to sign a consent form after the fact? He was just trying to cover his mistake and she was rightfully insulted.

Speaking of mistakes, as a side point, as pointed out in the article "To Err is Human: Building A Safer Health System," some doctors estimate there are between 44,000 and 98,000 iatrogenic deaths annually. For those unfamiliar with the concept, iatrogenesis is adverse effects of medical treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis). Even the low estimate is more than the 36,000 deaths the CDC attributes to influenza every year. To me it seems like our energies would be better spent fixing the medical system rather than attempting to attack diseases that are minor by comparison.

For those parents who are interested in better protecting their children a pharmaceutical stabbing, here is a letter drafted by Mike Adams to assist with dealing with school officials on the vaccine issue: http://www.naturalnews.com/027395_swine_flu_hospital_vaccine.html. However, even that will not stop every accident that could happen. Who would have thought that after watching their children leave for school in the morning, parents could wind up seeing their child in a hospital? Take the precautions you can, be sure to kiss and hug your babies every morning, and pray for their safe return.

corpus vile

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Anyone who was awake this past weekend knows that the U.S. House passed its version of the health care reform bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110701504.html?referrer=emailarticle). The bill narrowly passed on a 220-215 vote, which included near unanimous opposition from Republican members. This is hardly what I would call bipartisan action. Only time will tell how this schism will play out in Congress.

Some have called the bill socialist. Some call it a punishment of those who already have health insurance (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc). I think a bit differently. It appears our legislators are looking for a monetary answer to problems of health.

First, I cannot support this bill because I cannot support anything that would add layers of bureaucracy to our government. As readers of this blog know, I think government is far too big as it is. Second, I cannot support it because it completely misses the point of health care.

The bill simply perpetuates the current medical paradigm of disease management. Please see my previous comments about just one aspect of health care that bothers me: http://fantomeshadow.blogspot.com/2009/10/naturalia-non-sunt-turpia.html. My issue with the current medical system is that it always looks for cures in pill form or after-the-fact fixes for acute problems. I think what we need are more prevention rather than cures, but worrying about insurance does none of that. If we could cut down on disease, we would not need so much much insurance or high-priced drugs.

Just think of the price of drugs for a moment. Pharmaceuticals spend $30 billion per year on advertising alone (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/7/673). Considering there are just over 800,000 doctors in the US (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0156.pdf), that works out to over $37000 per year for every doctor. Or more personally, that would be just shy of $100 for each an every American. This is what we are paying for in every prescription.

I think there is a better way. This is definitely a topic for another post, but I personally believe that the food we consume is responsible for at least 80% of the chronic illness in this country. Most of us eat so much imitation food. Do we really believe science can outperform nature? We sacrifice good health for cheap food. But this is a case of pay now or pay later. Processed foods mean we have higher medical bills. maybe we would not have such a health care crisis if we simply had a better food supply.

nunc est bibendum

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Mon, 9 Nov 2009 20:00:00 -0500

This morning's Washington Post included the article "Industry pushes chocolate milk in schools." The article describes the new "Raise Your Hand For Chocolate Milk" campaign, which is brought to us by the same people who asked us "Got milk?"

From my reading of it, the gist of this campaign is twofold. First, there is the element of drink more milk. The milk processors will like that because it creates more demand and elevates their bottom line. Second, there is the element of trade in soft drinks and other sugary beverages for milk instead. It is hard for me to disagree with that point. Personally, I believe that the single most effective change a person can make is to remove soft drinks (both regular and diet) from one's diet.

One thing that always seems to happen during any drink milk campaign is that milk and calcium are almost used interchangeably. According to the USDA, children require between 800 and 1300 mg of calcium daily (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI//DRI_Calcium/71-145.pdf). Considering, there is between approximately 285 and 300 mg of calcium in an eight-ounce glass of milk, we can see the source of the three glasses per day recommendation.

But is milk the best source of calcium? By volume, milk is top of the list of calcium sources. However, calorie for calorie, milk falls significantly. More information can be found in this Live Science article: http://www.livescience.com/health/090624-milk-myth.html. Not to mention there is the problem of lactose intolerance in a significant portion of the population. Therefore, we can ask, is milk the best source of calcium for them?

I see that the site talks a lot about science and the nutrients in both milk and chocolate milk. However, what I see missing from this campaign are the cold, hard facts. Though chocolate milk may be better than soft drinks, how does chocolate milk compare to white milk? And is it better to drink more chocolate milk or less white milk?

First the first question I went to Calorie Count to find some quick information. For instance, comparing 1% milk to 1% chocolate milk, the chocolate milk has 60% more calories (100 v 160) and nearly double the sugars (12.7g v 25g) in each eight ounce serving. Although, it does appear that the nine essential nutrients (calcium, potassium, phosphorous, protein, vitamins A, D and B12, riboflavin and niacin) are comparable between the two.

One failing of that website is that it does not provide an ingredients list of the products in its database. However, I checked out one site that listed the ingredients in that manufacturer's chocolate milk: http://www.prairiefarms.com/index.php?p=454&i=50. Notice that the second and third ingredients are high fructose corn syrup and sugar. I will let you draw your own conclusions from that, but keep in mind that I believe that high fructose corn syrup is the scourge of the processed food industry. While fructose does occur naturally, there is nothing natural about high fructose corn syrup (http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html, http://www.corn.org/FDAdecision7-7-08.pdf).

Of course there is the unwritten difficulty I see with milk in general. Most of the milk sold in this country is processed in some way. Of course, very few want to admit that could be causing us, the consumers, problems. Here is a good article about the consequences of modern milk: http://proliberty.com/observer/20000208.htm. I found this quote from the article rather intriguing: "Curiously, the U.S. as a whole records the highest consumption of dairy products in the world and also boasts the highest incidence of bone fractures and osteoporosis in the world." And of course there is the wonderful site http://www.realmilk.com.

Having said all of that, while the campaign may be technically accurate that chocolate milk is better that soft drinks and juices, it misses the point of what is really wholesome food. This leads me back to a premise I have stated before: eat natural, whole foods, not the processed, fractionated, chemically modified impostors of food so prevalent around us. Therefore, lowfat chocolate milk is on my list of foods to avoid. I will continue with my farm fresh real milk any day.

cui bono

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Last week the Parent's Television Council requested CW Network affiliates to preempt the 9 November episode of Gossip Girl (http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/news/release/2009/1104.asp). I find myself asking: "Why?" Never forget that the CW Network and it affiliates are businesses with a bottom line goal to make their stockholders money. If that includes showing programming that might not meet the standards of some, then so be it. I am not passing judgement on the decision one way or another, rather, I am simply stating the facts.

If I do not like a particular program I have the power to do this amazing thing called changing the channel. Or even better, I can turn off my television, which is something I realize I do not do often enough. No one is forcing me to watch a particular program. In fact, as far as I know, no one in this country is forcing anyone to watch a particular program.

Would I want to allow a child to see the program in question? Absolutely not. However, I do not believe it is right to allow a single group to censor a program simply because it does not meet with the group's approval.

My point is, I think the PTC could make better use of their time and resources by helping parents teach values to their children. That way, when objectionable material is broadcast, those children will be equipped to make an appropriate decision.

Removing a single episode of a television show from the airwaves does not remove all of the other sources of objectionable material, such as other television programs, the Internet, schools, etc. Preempting a program teaches children nothing. Actively teaching children how to distinguish the appropriate from the inappropriate trains them for life.

tu quoque

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Can someone please explain to me when did Jay Leno contract Brett Favre syndrome? http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=NTY3MzQyOQ==.

ubi dubium ibi libertas

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

The biggest lesson I want people to get out of this blog is this:

Think for yourself.
Question what you read and hear.
Decide for yourself whether or not what is going on is good for you, your family, and your community.
Be accountable for your actions.

Sad to say, I think most of our fellow citizens have become sheep. Do people actually think about what they politicians are telling us? What about what we see and read in the news? If you are not asking questions then I want you to start today.

Another problem I see is that people refuse to take responsibility for their actions. A small example is someone spilling coffee and then suing the store for getting burned. A big example is running a large bank into the ground and getting a handout from the government.

We have taken common sense out of the equation and replaced it with infinite regulation. Does we really require a document that says everything we can and cannot do? No wonder legislation is out of hand. The only people who benefit from this obfuscation are the politicians who promulgate it and the attorneys who are the only one who can understand it.

I consider myself somewhat intelligent, at least in a few areas. I am a computer engineer who is practically halfway to being a math teacher. Yet, I have to go to my local tax preparer hat-in-hand with all of my confusing documentation in order to make sure I meet all of the government's demands, and to make sure the government does not cheat me.

Now, once I have handed my local tax preparer my documentation I do not care what he does with it. Considering how complicated the tax code is, for all I know he could be taking my papers into the back room, burning them, dancing around the fire, after which he smears the ashes all over his face, looks into a mirror, and screams "Refund!" Watching them use the tax preparation software looks like just as much voodoo to me.

Here is what I would like to see: I want a personal tax code that is so simple that it will fit on the front and back of a single 8.5 x 11" sheet of paper in a font no less than ten point written in language the average high school graduate can understand.

That little sidetrack is just one example of legislation out of control. If we all could be just a little kinder to each other, if we could stand firm in our beliefs when necessary and yet acquiesce on the little things when it would promote the general well-being of our relationships and communities. As one celebrity says: "Can't we all just get along?"

alterum non laedere

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

Three days ago we were greeted with another example of the failings of the big agriculture industry, http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=NTY0MTE2OQ==. My heart goes out to those who were sickened or killed by this event.

What I wanted to say is that this is another reason I only trust my food when I can talk with the hard working people who raised it. In fact, I trust my local farmers enough that I would eat their products raw and I would not worry about catching any disease.

My second point is that we have become the McDonald's generation. Most people are completely disconnected from their source of food. We have consolidated and vertically integrated the industry to the point where only a few large players have most of the market. Not only that, but a small problem, like a few microbes of E. coli, turn into a huge problem threatening hundreds or even thousands.

Michael Pollan recently reiterated the idea "Don’t eat anything that took more energy to ship than to grow" (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/10/11/magazine/20091011-foodrules.html). This is why I eat local. By that rule eating food that was born and bred in one state, slaughtered in another, processed into a meal in yet another, and consumed in a fourth would be out of the question. So to those who claim that being carnivorous as I am is harmful to the environment I say my solution is not avoid meat but rather eat local meat that was raised the way nature intended. Check out this recent NY Times article discussing meat and global warming: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31niman.html?emc=eta1.

Besides, eating local means my farmers are personally accountable to me. If I get sick from something I eat, chances are it is because I failed to cook it properly. If not, I know exactly who to complain to. It is between the farmer and me. I do not need to get anyone else involved, especially not any government agencies. Considering consumers like me are the livelihood of local farmers, I am sure they are committed to providing a product of utmost quality. Is anyone really going to tell me that large multi-national firms are going to care so much about the individuals they serve?

ex opere operantis

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Wed, 4 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

With all of this talk about government budgets and how to make ends meet, I had an epiphany: The government should not have jailed Bernie Madoff; it should have hired him to run Social Security. Think about it, that is all Social Security really is, a humongous ponzi scheme, one that is sanctioned by our federal government. First, it takes money from one group to pay another. Second, it is a house of cards ready to fall at any moment. And that is just one federal program that moves large sums of money around. What better manager could there be than an accomplished multi-billion dollar criminal? He would probably run the Treasury better than the current administration. At least Madoff paid taxes on his legitimate gains.

mens sana in corpore sano

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:00:00 -0500

I am glad to finally see some vindication for my pro-vitamin D stance: http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59S4JB20091029?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews. I have said before that vitamin D is far more important for our health than current medical wisdom would like to admit.

nolentem trahunt fata

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:00:00 -0400

As anyone reading the news knows, President Obama has declared the H1N1 (swine) influence a national emergency (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=106&sid=1793721; http://www.flu.gov/professional/federal/h1n1emergency10242009.html). As reported, this is to allow "hospitals move emergency rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect noninfected patients," or "to set up an alternative screening location for patients away from the hospital’s main campus," among other uses.

In answer to the question of "Why do this now?" the government has answered: "The H1N1 epidemic is moving rapidly. By the time regions or healthcare systems recognize they are becoming overburdened, they need to implement disaster plans quickly." However, I find myself asking, "Is the epidemic really moving that quickly?" CBS investigator Sharyl Attkisson researched the actual N1H1 statistics state-by-state. The overall conclusion she drew was "only a small fraction of cases that doctors flagged as most likely to be swine flu actually tested positive for swine flu at state labs. The vast majority of cases were negative."

Keep in mind that a couple months ago the CDC advised states to stop testing specifically for H1N1 (http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/reportingqa.htm). According to the new recommendations, states should count all cases of influenza (not just H1N1) whether or not they are confirmed or probable. That means no one really has a handle on the true numbers of those infected with H1N1. Yet statements like "Of patients who have tested positive for flu this summer, 98 percent have been found to have swine flu," are still being published (http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article1022338.ece).

Again, let us have a moment of perspective. First, the United States appears to be ratcheting up its response to H1N1 while other locations are pulling back. For example, Finland downgraded its response to H1N1 because "bulk of patients appeared to recover well without medication or hospital care" (http://newsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=22386&group=General). Second, the World Health Organization has stated that as of 17 October 2009 there have been about 5000 deaths due to H1N1 out of about 415000 confirmed cases (http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_10_23/en/index.html). I only hope that the WHO has better testing protocols than the CDC.

Compare those statistics with another disease, for example malaria. Anywhere from one quarter to one half of a billion people are infected with malaria annually, with one million dying from it annually (http://www.cdc.gov/malaria/facts.htm). That works out to am average of 2700 deaths from malaria every day. So, in the past two days more people have died from malaria than the WHO has admitted died from H1N1 so far this year.

I am glad to see someone in the media finally speaking out against vaccines. Here is a clip from Real Time with Bill Maher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB5DLf1Qt78. Of course, the commenters believe it is unethical for Bill Maher to talk against vaccines. However, I believe it is unethical for the government to force something into our bodies against our will.

I wonder whether or not there is an unspoken reason for all of the fear mongering by the government. Will hospitals really need to make room for an overwhelming number of patients when there has been no flood of sick individuals?

Even though I despise conspiracy theories, there is still a part of me that thinks about them. Think about the fact that the National Emergencies Act of 1976 allows for the revocation of the constitutional rights of habeas corpus and the right to a grand jury for members of the National Guard when in actual service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act). Also, remember that an emergency declaration allows FEMA to manage the situation, the same group that blundered so well after hurricane Katrina. If FEMA handles the swine flu they same way they managed the hurricane aftermath, we might all need emergency triage.

Maybe I am paranoid, but I cannot help but worry what the future may hold. Is this simply just a case of the government being prepared? Considering how I believe the government has been corrupted by the money of large corporations, I do not think that is the case. Will the emergency triage tent villages be turned into interment camps for those of us who refuse the vaccine? I hope not, but who knows for sure? Once production is stepped up again will the rest of us be forced to submit to vaccination against our will? What will happen remains to be seen, but let it be known that the current pattern scares me to death.

veritas curat

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:00:00 -0400

I have one piece of advice to everyone about this H1N1 pandemic: Don't panic!

From my completely unscientific observation it would seem about 99% of people fall into two categories:

Those who are swept up in the hysteria and act as if the sky is falling.
Those who are ignoring the situation completely as if nothing is happening.

We need to maintain a little perspective. Yes, the situation serious. Keep in mind that people have died, so this is more than just a tummy ache. On the other hand this is not Ebola either. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

quot homines tot sententiae

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:00:00 -0400

Last week, the national news was hit with headlines about Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Louisiana's Tangipahoa Parish (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1786708). The articles revolve around his refusal to marry an interracial couple. His action has stirred up a whirlwind around him, which include Louisiana's governor Bobby Jindal calling for an investigation.

Allow me to preface my comments by saying that I unequivocally disagree with Mr. Bardwell's opinion. In terms of interracial couples, I have dated interracially myself. In fact, all of my dates have been interracial (I can only assume black women are just not interested in me). As far as the children of interracial couples, I have many friends whose children seem quite well-adjusted. That includes my own nieces. Therefore, do I think Mr. Bardwell is wrong? Yes.

As the article pointed out, Miss Humphrey and Mr. McKay did get married. So, Bardwell's refusal was merely a speed bump on their path to matrimony. If it had been me, I would have simply said "okay" and moved on. Instead, they and others made a national incident of the situation.

Personally, I believe his removal sets a bad precedent. Right or wrong, I think that his action was based on his opinion, and I believe everyone has a right to, and should be free to have, his or her own opinion. Where would we be if we were forced to agree on everything? To me, removing him says "You have a job to do; we don't care what you think about it, but you'll do it the way we tell you."

We are human endowed with emotions, consciences, and opinions that permeate everything we do, including our jobs. Removing him diminishes us all because it provides more motivation to make us conform. All to often the words "I was only following orders" have been used as an excuse for far too many tragedies. If your employer asked you to do something that you believed was wrong, wouldn't you want the ability to follow your conscience and refuse?

Please keep in mind that, no, I emphatically do not condone Bardwell's actions. But in the same light I opposed the protest against him. Remember, he has been doing his job for 34 years. If you do not like how he operates, he will be gone soon enough.

This outcry over personal opinion reminds me of a situation that occurred in Montgomery County, MD nearly three years ago. Winston Churchill High School principal Dr. Joan Benz was condemned in January of 2007 for commenting "Every incident revolving around this two month ordeal has been Black-on-Black violence" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/05/AR2007010500676.html). Dr. Benz found herself in her own whirlwind based on her comments that were deemed by both parents and her own administration as racially insensitive. She was forced to apologize (http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1024771&nid=25) in a letter that read as if she herself just went through a reeducation camp.

When I first heard this story, I thought to myself "Is what Dr. Benz said true or false?" Her comments were either correct or incorrect. If she was correct, then she did nothing wrong; she simply pointed out a fact. If she was incorrect, then say she committed an act of libel. It seems to me her only "mistake" was making a statement that categorized individuals by race.

I am not privy to what goes on inside Montgomery County Public Schools, so I do not have the facts at hand. However, I am certain it would have been easy for someone inside MCPS to check the facts, but chances are the facts would have simply gotten in the way of a good argument. I read the news articles and all I saw was that, right or wrong, Dr. Benz stated a fact.

Does this mean we can no longer include race in any discussion? Should the CDC stop reporting mortality statistics by race? Can we no longer talk about health issues that may afflict one race more than another? I'm sorry, but the United States is not as color blind as some people would like it to be, and rightfully so.

I think people have become far too thin-skinned. I have two words I want to scream to everyone: "Grow up!" One of the problems of having freedom is that everyone is free. We cannot expect every words that comes from everyone's mouth to make us happy. That is reality. Deal with it. Sometimes I think we are surrounded by too many people with thick heads and thin skins. Making a legal case out of every slight is asinine. No wonder the legal system is so overloaded.

vincit qui se vincit

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 08:00:00 -0400

Yesterday I participated in my first 5K race. It was the Mike Tyler 5K at Watkins Mill High School (http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/schools/watkinsmillhs/mike_tyler/mike_tyler09.pdf). Considering I am so new to this my only goal was to finish, and finish in a reasonable amount of time. Well, I did finish, and I managed to do it in 29:50. I think that was pretty good considering I was expecting something closer to 35 minutes.

Remember, this was a high school event. The part that amazed me was how many of the teenage athletes I beat. I guess I have conditioned myself much better than they did. I was surprised by how many were out of breath climbing the hills of the course. To any of those kids I say: "You're half my age. You should have done better." Actually, I cannot complain. I am sure any one of them wipe the floor with me in their chosen sport. At least I can also say I'm in the best shape of my life.

ubi non accusator ibi non iudex

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:00:00 -0400

Last night, all I could say was "I just want to get home." I realize that traffic in and around DC is nuts on a good day. Of course, yesterday had the added fun of rain. First observation: Washingtonians have no clue how to drive in weather.

Keep in mind that while I was born in DC and in many respects consider this to be my true hometown, in reality I grew up in rural Pennsylvania. At least during that time I was less than two hours away. Anyway, that means I learned to drive in the country. Remember the adage about Pennsylvanians: Our grandmothers are doing 60 in a blizzard. How many DC natives have actually been young drivers on rolling country roads feeling their vehicles go airborne every so often?

The point of this post is that while on my way home I was stopped at a light on River Road waiting to make the right turn in order to head north to catch the beltway home. When the light turned green for me, luckily I turned my head left before going. I turned just in time to see not one, not two, but three cars run the red light right in front of me and everyone else waiting at that intersection. What in the world were those people thinking? It was not like they were in the middle of the intersection as the light turned red. It appeared they never stopped, never slowed down as they one-by-one proceeded through to ignore the traffic signal.

And that was not the only nutty driving I saw last night. After I exited the interstate and was on the road home, there was some guy in the left turning lane who suddenly decided he actually wanted to go straight. Of course, that was right in front of me. Then at the next intersection he proceeded to do exactly the same thing. Finally, at the intersection where I make my left turn he was in front of me. Yet again, he decide this was not actually is left turn. I wonder how far down the road he did that.

I see stupid maneuvers all the time in the metro area. So often I see drivers making left turns from right turning lanes and vice versa. People ignoring traffic signals. People nearly broadsiding each other. Then there is the uncooperative me first attitude so many people have. I will never understand people on a highway who will jump into an entrance ramp just to pass one or two other cars. I guess no one understands that their actions just slow everyone down. If there was just a bit more cooperation we would all get to work faster.

Is it any wonder I cannot stand driving around here. I hope not to be here forever. I cannot imagine how much driving around here is shortening my life span.

primum non nocere

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:00:00 -0400

I only have one thing to say in response to the congressional bickering about health care reform:

It does not matter what Congress finally passes. If the legislation contains the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, it will be bad for us all. Of course the pharmaceutical industry is not the only one trying to get in on the action. The insurance industry wants its say (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1783734).

My question is: "Why isn't anyone looking for simple solutions?" I look at the American health care system and see only disease maintenance. Granted, this country is second to none when it comes to acute care. This is one of the best places to be if you have a heart attack or end up in a serious traffic accident. But when it comes to chronic illness, the system just wants to give you a pill and send you on your way.

What is my solution? The same one I have mentioned before, namely vitamin D. It seems like such a simple thing, but I guess if it cannot be patented no one wants to promote it. Some in the industry believe that if every American maintained a serum level of vitamin of about 50 ng/ml it would cut health care costs by 25 — 50%. Of course, one would have to calculate the effects of reduced illness (http://www.grassrootshealth.net/media/download/disease_incidence_prev_chart_101608.pdf).

Dr. Donald Miller crunched the numbers for us:

The U.S. government and its citizens currently spend $2,000 billion dollars ($2 trillion) on "health care," i.e., sickness care, each year. The cost of taking a 5,000 IU supplement of vitamin D every day for a year is $22.00. The cost for 300 million Americans taking this supplement would be $6.6 billion dollars. The number and variety of diseases that vitamin D at this dose could prevent, starting with a 50 percent reduction in cancer, is mind-boggling. If everyone took 5,000 IU/day of vitamin D, the U.S. "health care" industry would shrink. It would no longer account for 16 percent of the gross domestic product. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller25.html.)

Personally, I think he woefully underestimates the cost of vitamin D, mainly because I would only use a natural source. But even my expensive version would cost less than $300 billion if supplied to every citizen. Again, even if that only prevented half the incidence of the diseases mentioned in the chart linked above, that would cut a significant portion of the health care budget. However, this would also reduce the profits of the big players of the health care industry.

Take for example the topic of the year, H1N1 influenza. There are doctors who believe that vitamin D can make a difference between those who survive and those who unfortunately do not (http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Non-food/Disease/swine_flu_deaths_what_you_need_to_know_111020090534.html). Too bad I have not heard one word about vitamin D and the flu. The government instead seems hellbent on jabbing us with concoctions, which of course costs money.

Please, do not think I am making a blanket attack on the health care industry. I am absolutely sure that many, if not most, of the individuals who work in health care genuinely want to help people. I have family members who work, and do an incredible job, in health care. However, I do believe that the industry has guided itself offtrack. "First, do no harm" seems to have gotten lost somewhere.

I believe all of the talk about health care reform is ludicrous without consider what we take into our bodies, and not just the pills and injections. Our poor nutrition as a society is slowly killing us. The food industry has foisted upon us processed, fractionated, hydrogenated, genetically modified, irradiated facsimiles of real food. It is such great hubris to think we can improve upon what humans have been eating for thousands of years.

naturalia non sunt turpia

fantome@fantomeshadow.com (Matthew) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:00:00 -0400

I was doing a little research on the IRS website and I discovered an interesting line of reasoning. In particular, I wanted to know what medical expenses are deductible (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf). I found an interesting paragraph, pretty much because it was the paragraph that answered my original question:

Nutritional Supplements

You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional supplements, vitamins, herbal supplements, "natural medicines," etc. unless they are recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician. Otherwise, these items are taken to maintain your ordinary good health, and are not for medical care. (p. 16)

It was that last sentence that stuck me as odd. I never thought there was a difference between medical care and the maintenance of good health. However, I looked in the dictionary and the definition of medical care is "professional treatment for illness or injury" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/medical%20care). At least the definition of healthcare makes a passing reference to prevention (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/healthcare).

I have mentioned before that I believe the government encourages or discourages behavior based on whether an activity is taxed or subsidized. That leads me to believe that since the government gives a tax break for medical care, that is treatment for illness or injury, but it does not give a tax break for maintaining good health, the government encourages a break/fix mentality rather than a preventative mentality.

This attitude typifies what is wrong with health care in this nation. Is it any wonder this country is so good at acute health care but is so bad at wellness? 'We'll gladly fix you if you're broken, but don't expect us to keep you from breaking.' To use a car illustration: It would be like discouraging people from getting regular oil changes, which may cost $30 or so; but as soon as the engine explodes everyone is willing to pitch in to help with the thousands of dollars for its replacement. As it stands, this is a great place to be if you happen to have a heart attack, but if you would like to keep from having a heart attack you would be better off elsewhere.