Move to decriminalise abortion in New South Wales voted down

A proposal to decriminalise abortion has been voted down in the New South Wales parliament.

Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi’s abortion law reform bill was defeated 25 to 14 in the state parliament’s upper house on Thursday. Public members in the gallery shouted “shame” as the result of the conscience vote was announced in the state’s legislative council.

The defeat means that abortion will remain an offence in the NSW Crimes Act, and unlawfully procuring abortion will continue to be punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment under the act.

Unlawfully supplying a drug or instrument for an abortion will also continue to be punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

Abortions in NSW are currently made legal by an interpretation of the Crimes Act by the NSW district court in 1971.

That interpretation, known as the Levine ruling, allows doctors to approve an abortion if a woman’s physical or mental health is in danger, and taking into account social, economic or other medical factors.

Proponents of reform said the current situation created considerable uncertainty for doctors and women, stigmatised abortion, and was archaic.

But the Catholic church mobilised in opposition to Faruqi’s bill, led by Sydney archbishop, Anthony Fisher.

“Archbishop Fisher has asked all Catholics in Sydney and others of goodwill to defend life by giving a voice to unborn and signing a petition to the NSW members of parliament,” a statement on the archdiocese’s website said last month.

The Greens’ bill had the support of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Marie Stopes, Family Planning NSW and many other groups.

The ACT has decriminalised abortion completely and Tasmania and Victoria have also successfully pursued abortion law reform.

But similar attempts in Queensland ran into difficulty and were delayed earlier this year, following opposition from the state’s Liberal National party.

Move to decriminalise abortion in New South Wales voted down

Asylum seekers and the poorest parts of the UK are being let down | Letters

“Most refugees sent to the poorest parts of the UK” (Front page headline, 10 April). Here are suggested headlines for the remainder of the week: “Lowest life expectancy in the poorest parts of the UK”; “Proportionately highest levels of indirect taxation…”; “Worst maintained private and public housing…”; “Highest levels of prescription drugs…”; “Highest attendance at A&E departments…”; “Least investment in schools…”; “Highest number incarcerated…”; and more.

Condescending notions such as “responsibilisation” are used to deflect the political, economic, structural dynamics and suffering of poverty. Zero-hours contracts are recast as “flexible and adaptive working”; low-waged health support workers are declined travel time; part-time contracts without holiday pay or security underpin; essential services are cut to the bone. The list is endless.

On estates of poverty-induced resentment, the comparatively few refugees and asylum seekers entering Britain are warehoused and managed by private, profit-driven companies with, at best, questionable track records – G4S and Serco to name but two. The lack of coherent, integrated, humanitarian policies and interventions is the outworking of inadequately funded public authorities, reflecting a cynical and divisive betrayal by central government of those most in need, whether citizens, refugees or asylum seekers.
Professor Phil Scraton
School of Law, Queen’s University, Belfast

• I was saddened but not surprised by your front page. An asylum seeker living with me has told me how he was initially sent to a hostel in Manchester after his arrival in Kent, but when he put in his asylum application, he was transferred to a house in a remote suburb of Liverpool. Unable to afford public transport, he had to walk for an hour or more to shops or to meet people: “it was like being in prison,” he says.

The charities I have been in contact with tell me there are enough potential hosts to house all the asylum seekers they are dealing with, but they lack the resources to assess their suitability. Why can’t the government work with these charities to enable more asylum seekers to be housed with people who are keen to help them learn English and find out more about life in the UK?
Cary Bazalgette
London

• Yvette Cooper and the home affairs select committee are absolutely right to criticise the government’s policy on asylum seekers, and in particular its reliance on private sector providers of accommodation. In Newcastle some years ago, one such provider housed Iranian and Iraqi refugees in the same premises. More recently, the change from the provision of accommodation and support by Your Homes Newcastle (a public sector body leading management of the issue in the north-east) to G4S and its subcontractor Jomast, coupled with a reduction in funding, has effectively led to the disappearance of support services.

Treating the issue as a matter of housing alone is unsatisfactory, both for the asylum seekers and refugees and for the other residents of what tend to be the most disadvantaged areas of towns and cities in the least prosperous parts of the country.
Jeremy Beecham
Labour, House of Lords

• Your front page says the home affairs select committee is calling for changes to the “appalling” system of sending these hapless people to the poorest parts of the country. Since government policy for their dispersal has been framed around the inability and unwillingness of local councils to provide education, health and other services for them, the outcome of location in impoverished ghettoes is inevitable. These same blanket policies mean that private hospitality, widely and generously offered, is effectively prevented from being taken up. Thus a Kindertransport scheme was made impossible.

Keith Vaz, as its previous chairman, presided over a select committee on the Shaw report, which highlighted many of the shortcomings in government policy but was kicked into the long grass.

The Home Office claims the UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need our protection. We now seem to be at the end of history.
Tommy Gee
Wingfield, Suffolk

• Zoe Stewart (Passport checks for patients is an abandonment of NHS principles, theguardian.com, 7 April) is right to say that health tourism costs the NHS a relatively small amount (0.3% of a £130bn annual budget or some £330m). That is still the cost of a new hospital, so not insignificant, but she misses the bigger issue entirely.

The NHS, social housing and all of our public infrastructure were built by previous generations, out of their taxes, with an expectation that not only they but their descendants would benefit. The reason that “health tourism” sticks in the craw is that it breaks the implicit promise of “social goods” being passed on from generation to generation. People do have a sense of ownership over great public enterprises, and with that there is resentment of newcomers who are perceived as not having contributed to the development of the “common weal”, and who are then perceived as taking their jobs, houses and healthcare.

Proclaiming the “universality” of rights or benefits, while attractive as a principle, only really works in stable, homogenous societies. Immigration, of any variety, can dent that sense of communal solidarity, and hence “cracking down on health tourism”, an important though relatively minor financial amelioration, has a wider and justifiable significance.
Simon Diggins
Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

Asylum seekers and the poorest parts of the UK are being let down | Letters

Trump tried to burn down Obamacare. He set his hair on fire instead | Ross Barkan

Burning Obamacare to the ground was always a House Republican obsession that Trump, in the heat of the campaign, took up to spite the president while tossing a little red meat to Republicans. “Repeal and replace” is alliterative, after all: it sounds nice enough on an arena stage. It’s just hard to pull off in the real world, as Donald Trump found out on Friday.

Blessed with total control of government, Republicans can only think of how best to burn the house down – and they’re not even doing a good job at that. The House speaker, Paul Ryan, unjustly heralded as a policy wonk, tried to rush his healthcare bill to the floor for a vote on Thursday, only to find the moderates and extremists in his party rebelling. On Friday, Donald Trump was forced to pull the bill, due to lack of support from his own party.

It was a humiliating defeat, which he tried to blame – unbelievably – on the Democrats.

Paul Ryan on failed healthcare bill: ‘This is a disappointing day’

Ryan’s Trumpcare was a horrendous concoction and should disabuse fawning congressional reporters of the notion that the speaker is a man of deep intellect and self-reflection. Had the bill not fallen flat on its face this Friday, it would have had little chance of passing the Senate.

What remains is the fact that Donald Trump couldn’t close the deal. He is hoping everyone blames Ryan, and Trump is lucky that his supporters might do just that. The diehards, inhabiting his post-factual universe, will simply write Ryan off as a loser – they hated him anyway – and hail their king for the bounties he’s still promising.

But healthcare will ultimately be Donald Trump’s problem. That’s how our politics work. So far, the president has been more fatuous than fascistic, though he belatedly realized what an albatross the bill had become. His negotiating powers, whatever they ever were, failed.

Were Trump the deal-making genius his ego tricked himself into believing he was, he would never have taken up this healthcare venture. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that only 17% of Americans approved of Trumpcare. Trump’s poorest and least educated supporters had much to lose and nothing to gain from the legislation.

That’s why demolishing Obamacare never made sense. After all, Trump, via Steve Bannon, promised economic nationalism, a robust spending plan for those who he believed deserved it most: the white and native born. Trump wasn’t going to lose any votes by focusing on immigration and infrastructure spending at the expense of Obamacare, which rank-and-file conservatives resent less now that Obama himself has been removed from the equation.

President ‘pulled out every stop’ to pass healthcare bill, Spicer says

Far from upholding the most basic protections for the working-class, the Trump administration has, instead, evolved into one of the most rightwing in recent memory. It is stocked with the kind of appointees (Mick Mulvaney, Tom Price) who could have been plucked from Congress by Presidents Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.

This is the difference between Trump and someone like the French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, the Front National leader who identifies closely with the billionaire. Le Pen’s fiscal platform is unapologetically leftist, rejecting the austerity measures embraced by Europe’s financial class.

Trump rages with all the hate of Le Pen and none of the savvy. Blaming Ryan for Trumpcare’s failure will not absolve him of trying to do a very stupid thing. If he chooses to weaken healthcare in other ways – to somehow prove Obama left the country with a self-destructing system – he’ll still be the president when premiums skyrocket as insurers struggle to adapt to this instability.

In 2018, 2019, and 2020, screaming Obama’s name won’t matter anymore. The country will just know President Trump and the damage being done.

Trump tried to burn down Obamacare. He set his hair on fire instead | Ross Barkan

Child who died was let down by NHS, Jeremy Hunt tells memorial

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has told the private memorial service for a one-year-old boy who died from blood poisoning that the child was let down by the NHS and the government.

Speaking at the service in Cornwall, Hunt said he had “come here to say sorry” to the family of William Mead, who died after the emergency services failed to diagnose a fatal case of septicaemia.

Hunt told those gathered at Truro Cathedral in Cornwall: “I as health secretary, the government, and the NHS, let down William.

“I’ve come here to say sorry. This weekend William should have been enjoying beautiful Cornish sunshine with his parents.

“We didn’t spot his sepsis before it was too late.”

William’s mother, Melissa Mead, has become a prominent campaigner for better diagnostics of sepsis, saying last year that the NHS system was “broken”.

She has also described her son’s final hours, his symptoms and her repeated pleas to health services in painstaking detail on her blog site.

An NHS England report revealed there were 16 mistakes associated with William Mead’s death. Photograph: PA

The health secretary became aware of the case last year and has taken a personal interest in Mead’s campaign, a Department of Health spokesman said.

The spokesman added: “He went down at the request of the family and was also down there to visit a hospital. He had obviously become quite close to Melissa and they have worked quite a lot on the campaign on sepsis.”

An NHS England report last year found there were four missed opportunities to save William’s life in December 2014. Doctors and the 111 non-emergency helpline failed to diagnose pneumonia and the common but lethal infection of sepsis, and he died within 12 hours of Melissa Mead’s last call.

The report found there were 16 mistakes contributing to his death, which included that the “tickbox” system used by call handlers failed to include “sepsis red flags”.

It added that doctors were under constant pressure not to prescribe antibiotics and that doctors working out of hours were unable to access patients’ medical records.

Melissa Mead (@amotherwithout)

RT: Official Sepsis Public Awareness Campaign Video. Do you know the #SymptomsOfSepsis Please watch & RT to help us save thousands of lives. pic.twitter.com/5jV6ePxBaO

December 14, 2016

Sepsis – which includes common symptoms of fever, increased heart rate and confusion – kills approximately 37,000 people each year in England.

Melissa Mead said on Sunday: “We invited Jeremy to William’s memorial as he’s played a pivotal part in the sepsis campaign and we couldn’t have got it off the ground without his government support.

“Jeremy agreed to come in a personal capacity and it was a very intimate event for friends and family. The relationship that we have shows how productive a constructive approach can have.

“We know William was let down, but William didn’t know blame or regret, only love, and it is with this love that we keep putting one foot in front of the other.”

Hunt has admitted letting the family down and in January 2016 Mead welcomed his apology then.

She said: “We are quite overwhelmed, to be honest. We are just a little family from Cornwall but William is going to make an impact on the world and we are very thankful for that.”

The Department of Health spokesman added that Hunt was working with Mead’s awareness campaign in conjunction with Public Health England and the UK Sepsis Trust.

Child who died was let down by NHS, Jeremy Hunt tells memorial

"He was really really let down": Thomas Orchard"s family speak out

The ordeal began for Thomas Orchard’s mother, Alison, as she strolled beside a river in Devon in October 2012. She took a call from her son’s social worker saying he had missed an appointment for a mental health assessment.

“I remember thinking: ‘Tom needs my help.’ I ran back home. There was this incredible knock on the door. It was two police officers. Their first words were: ‘We have some worrying news.’ They blue-lightedme into the hospital. I kept asking the police officers: ‘What’s happened?’ I thought he was dead.”

Orchard was not dead but unconscious. At first his family thought he had suffered a heart attack, though he was a physically fit young man. Gradually, as they kept vigil at his bedside over the next seven days, sketchy details emerged. He had been involved in a disturbance in Exeter city centre. He was taken to a police station and from there was rushed to hospital, gravely ill.

“It was very hard to get any information,” said Alison. “We didn’t know what had happened. I don’t think the medical team did either.” Orchard was put into a medically induced coma. “I remember doing things like getting his deodorant to give him a familiar smell,” said Alison. “We were talking to him constantly. But there came a time when it was obvious life was not possible, so the machines were turned off.”

Thomas’s sister, Jo, said they were baffled. “We had a lot of questions about why a 32-year-old healthy man would go into a police cell and come out essentially dead,” she said.

For four-and-a-half years now, the Orchard family – Alison, Thomas’s father, Ken, and his siblings, Jo and Jack – have fought to find out the truth of why he died. Now they believe they have an answer. “I’m completely certain that had it been picked up as a mental health crisis and taken to a place where that was understood, he would be alive,” Alison said.

The family were to discover that Orchard, who was being treated for paranoid schizophrenia, had had a mental breakdown and was arrested after approaching a passerby and beginning an argument. Police were called and he was pinned down in the street and restrained by his hands, legs and ankles.

At Heavitree police station in Exeter an emergency response belt (ERB), a heavy cloth device with handles most often used to secure prisoners around the body so that they can be carried, was held over his face. He was carried in the prone position to a cell, where he was searched while lying on his front, still masked by the ERB. The belt was removed and he was left alone, face down, in the cell. He suffered a cardiac arrest and brain damage. The ERB had been applied to his face for a total of five minutes and two seconds.

Orchard’s family were devastated when they found out what had happened to him. “It wasn’t dealt with appropriately,” said Alison. “I think they made assumptions that Tom was either drunk or on drugs or was an angry man. I know he was very frightened. That’s why he was acting as he was.”

Jo said: “Tom was really, really let down. It was clearly a medical crisis, not a criminal one.” His family believe Orchard’s confusion and fear would been exacerbated by the use of the ERB. “I think the [ERB] being used over the face is barbaric anyway,” said Jo. “If you add mental health crisis into that, it must be so, so scary.”

In their defence the officers made it clear they did not know Orchard had a mental health condition and thought they were dealing with an angry, aggressive man. They believed the force they used was proportional and lawful and pointed out that the ERB had been approved by Devon and Cornwall police for use as a bite or spit hood.

Orchard was raised in rural Devon. “As a child he was very physical,” said Alison. “Small, wiry, fit. He was a very free spirit. He was deeply sensitive.”

He struggled academically and began to suffer mental health problems. “He hit teenage years very badly,” his mother said. “He got into drugs and into petty crime associated with drugs. He was homeless for a while. He never settled in a job.”

On his 21st birthday Orchard was sectioned and, over the next decade, spent lengthy periods in hospital. There he found religion and, when he was judged fit enough to be treated in the community, was discharged. He had digs in Exeter and became a member of St Thomas’s church, where he acted as a part-time caretaker.

“He didn’t have any close friends except God,” said Alison. “He was very devout, very OCD-ish about saying the Lord’s prayer in exactly the same way. He loved crosses and candles.”

By the end of September 2012, his condition began to deteriorate. He stopped taking his medication, heard voices and had hallucinations. On the morning of 3 October, precisely at the time when he should have been arriving for the mental health assessment, he was in the city centre involved in the disturbance.

The officers involved in the arrest and detention clearly saw Orchard as violent. Their explanation for using the ERB was that he was threatening to bite.

Violence is not a trait his family recognise. “I had childhood spats with him but never in adult life have I seen him be violent,” said Jo. “The exact opposite. He would plant seeds and want to save the world.” His mother saw him get angry. “But, at heart, he was incredibly sensitive and gentle,” she said.

It was seven months before Orchard’s family got his body back for a funeral. “That was hugely difficult,” said Alison. “Tom became the property of the state.”

Almost two years after Orchard’s death – August 2014 – the family saw CCTV footage from the police station. “To see how they treated Tom, it was very deeply shocking,” said Alison. The worst part of the video for her is the section in which he is left alone in his cell and remains apparently motionless. “That’s the image that stays with me, that haunts me. It’s a deep, gut-wrenching, sickening feeling. It’s an achingly long time he is lying there and I am willing someone to go in.”

Watching the three officers on trial has been difficult. “I have a range of emotions,” said Alison. “From compassion, to disdain, to loathing.” The family remains angry at Devon and Cornwall police. “I think I have seen an arrogance and I think I’ve seen them not take this death seriously,” said Alison. “None of the officers involved were suspended until they were charged with manslaughter.”

The conclusion of the six-week trial, with three officers cleared of manslaughter, does not spell the end. Through the campaign group Inquest, the Orchards have spoken to other families who have lost loved ones in custody including relatives of Sean Rigg, a musician with schizophrenia who died at Brixton police station in south London after being held for eight minutes in a prone position.

Orchard’s mother and sister are contemplating a life of campaigning. Jo said: “This is a lifelong cause for us now. There are a lot of deaths in custody.” Alison said: “I’ve got to stop thinking it will be all right once this trial is over. I’ve got to accept that this is my purpose in life. It’s not the road I would have chosen in my life but I hope I can be there for anyone else who has to go through this.”

"He was really really let down": Thomas Orchard"s family speak out

Cancer drug prices must come down, say leading research institutes

The high price of new cancer drugs is indefensible and unsustainable, say two of the world’s leading cancer research institutions, who propose a different way to develop them that could sideline big pharma.

“There is a clear and urgent necessity to lower cancer drug prices to keep lifesaving drugs available and affordable to patients,” say leading scientists from the Institute of Cancer Research in the UK and the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, where many important new cancer drugs have been invented, in a paper in the journal Cell.

In the US, cancer bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcy, while in the UK, drugs that might prolong life are rejected for NHS use because of their price. Many new drugs have to be used in combination, adding to the cost. Treatment with the two new immunotherapy drugs nivolumab and ipilimumab costs $ 252,000, which is more than the median cost of a US home ($ 240,000 in 2016), they write.

Fantastic scientific work is going on – for instance, in sequencing cancer genomes – which should lead to advances in treatment, said Prof Paul Workman, chief executive of the Institute of Cancer Research in London, which is the world’s most successful academic cancer drug discovery organisation. “All this invention is meaningless if patients cannot afford these drugs,” he said.

“It is unsustainable. For those of us involved in research, it is disturbing that the amount of research that goes on and the success that is made is not translated into treatment for patients. And for patients it is a terrible situation.”

Pharmaceutical companies used to justify their prices by pointing to the high cost of clinical trials involving many thousands of patients. But that is no longer always necessary, the scientists say in their paper. The new targeted drugs require a test for a genetic biomarker to see whether patients will respond or not. That means the drug can be trialled on far fewer people. The drug crizotinib, used for advanced lung cancer, was approved following a trial involving only 347 patients, they point out. Trastuzumab (Herceptin) was first approved for advanced breast cancer and later for early breast cancer, increasing the market for the company but with no reduction in price.

“Some drugs are tested on 50 or 100 patients and yet these drugs still go to Nice [the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which decides whether the NHS can afford a new drug] at the maximum price,” said Workman.

Workman, together with colleagues from the US and the Netherlands, proposes that academic discovery centres like his should forge relationships with new commercial partners – probably not the major drug companies but smaller biotech or generic drug firms.

Academics should take greater control of the drugs they discover, they argue, and join with small companies that will agree to cap the price when the drug reaches the market. They would not have the expectation of big profit margins, as the major pharmaceutical companies do. But in an era where drugs are tested on smaller populations and genetic testing means they are more likely to be effective, they would not need to “cost in” all the failed attempts at producing blockbusters, as the big companies do.

Workman said the institute was already talking to small companies about the possibility of a new way of developing more affordable cancer drugs. He believes other scientists will support the ideas in the paper. “We’re calling for a more mature and open conversation about how this could be done and offering a solution,” he said.

Cancer drug prices must come down, say leading research institutes

Put Down the Breakfast Cereal & Learn to Soak

Why Soak Grains?

You can soak grains before cooking or baking them. Soaking grains (and nuts, seeds, and legumes) helps to neutralize phytic acid, an anti-nutrient, present in them. Phytic acid blocks the absorption of critical vitamins and minerals (phosphorus, calcium, iron, zinc) from being assimilated into the body. Phytic acid also inhibits enzymes from assisting our digestion. Breakfast cereals and other packaged foods have had all of the vitamins and enzymes stripped away, leaving the phytic acid to do damage to your gut.

Phytic acid = Locks Up Vital Vitamins, Enzymes & Minerals

Grains to soak:

• Oats


• Rice


• Millet


• Quinoa


• Faro


• Teff


• Wheat flour


• Spelt flour


• All gluten-free flours

Polenta & cornmeal need a different process (soaking in dolomite powder + water)

Other foods that need soaking:

• Nuts


• Seeds


• Beans


• Dried Peas

Does Soaking Help with Weight Loss?

There is evidence that an unhealthy gut (with low levels of bacterial diversity), can hinder diabetics and obese patients from losing weight. This is because bad gut bacteria will take more carbohydrates from a food and turn it into body fat. Probiotics alone will not solve the problem, but likely a myriad of solutions are needed. Eating a diet of highly processed foods makes gut bacteria diversity plummet. The bran in whole grains (touted to be healthier), actually has more phytic acid than refined flours. So, if you want to eat whole grains soak them! Anything that we can do to strengthen the gut bacteria and help digestion is going to help with weight loss.

Grain/Nut Foods Not Soaked = Hard on Our Gut Bacteria = Tougher to Lose Weight

How Soaking Works

When you soak grains in warm water with fresh whey from yogurt (or lemon juice), it activates the phytase enzyme that unlocks the minerals and vitamins. Also, it unlocks more B Vitamins and helps digestion. Nuts have the highest amount of phytic acid of any food (other than cocoa), so it is especially important to soak nuts before eating them.

Grains, beans, seeds and nuts are all a seed of a plant, and that plant wants to ensure that it’s “baby” will germinate in optimal conditions for producing another plant and more babies. So the seeds are designed to wait for moisture, warmth, and rain (which has a small amount of acid in it, just like our lemon juice or yogurt). Therefore, all of the nutrients that we can be absorbing from the life-giving seeds of a plant are being blocked unless we prepare them properly.

Store-bought packaged granola, granola bars, quick oats, cookies, store-bought breat, breakfast cereals, and other packaged grain foods will have high amounts of phytic acid in them and should be avoided altogether. Try making sourdough bread at home, it is very healthful.

Side Note: Vitamin D and Calcium in fermented dairy products (kefir, yogurt, cultured butter, buttermilk, cream cheese) will help counteract the phytic acid present in bread products if you eat them together.

What is Whey?

Fresh whey from yogurt is simply the watery stuff that pools in a container of yogurt after taking a few scoops out. Furthermore, it is not powdered whey protein. Whey protein powder is highly processed with no good bacteria or acid in it to bring out the enzyme phytase. You can get fresh whey from store-bought yogurt or homemade yogurt. Just scoop some yogurt out of the container. Then wait for the whey “water” to pool in the yogurt. You can use that to soak your grains, beans, and seeds.

If you are allergic to dairy products or you are vegan, you can use lemon juice instead.

[embedded content]

Step by Step Instructions

For Grains:

1. Pour grain into a pot or bowl & add double the water (room temperature). Try to use filtered water, as it doesn’t have chlorine which kills good bacteria.


2. Add 1-2 Tablespoons of fresh whey or lemon juice


3. Stir


4. Let sit in a warm place for 24-48hrs


5. Cook as usual

For Oats:

1. Pour oats into a pot & add double the water (room temperature). Use filtered water.


2. Add a generous sprinkle of sprouted or freshly milled rye flour. Rye has the highest amount of the good enzyme phytase which helps the phytic acid decrease (since oats do not have much phytase).


3. Add 1-2 Tablespoons of fresh whey or lemon juice


4. Stir


5. Let sit in a warm place for 24-48hrs

For Beans/Legumes

1. Pour beans in a bowl & fill the bowl with water until it is up to the top. Beans absorb lots of water


2. Add 1 Tablespoon of lemon juice


3. Stir


4. Let sit in a warm place for 24 hrs

For Nuts & Seeds

1. Pour nuts or seeds into a bowl & fill the bowl with water until it is up to the top.


2. Add a very generous sprinkle of sea salt (not table salt, which uses anti-caking agents). Taste the water, it should be very salty.


3. Stir


4. Let sit for 12-18 hrs. In the middle of this time period, change the water.


5. Roast on low 175° F or in a dehydrator for a crispy treat

What About Soaking for Babies?

Babies are still developing their gut flora and don’t fully have a mature system until 2 or 3 years old. So it is especially important to avoid giving babies the following:

• rice cereal that is store-bought (make your own by soaking rice)


• crunchy breakfast cereals


• muffins


• quick breads


• tortillas, corn chips


• whole wheat breads, white breads


• cookies, crackers, etc. that have not been prepared right.

Babies do not need grains until 1 year old. Also, they need easy-to-digest foods with lots of fat (such as avocados, coconut oil, butter, fermented dairy) as breast milk is naturally 50% fat.

Soak grains, beans, nuts and seeds as often as you can and it will help your digestion and keep your family healthy! In addition, start slow and experiment with doing it for one meal you make, such as oatmeal or beans. Questions? Contact me on my website or twitter (@RosemaryPure1).

Rosemary Hansen is a published author on Amazon, a Traditional Foods Chef, and a devoted Mama. You can learn more about her Pure Living Course + nourishing tips at: www.RosemaryPureLiving.com

Disclaimer: The information contained in this article is intended for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for advice, diagnosis or treatment by a licensed physician. It is not meant to cover all possible precautions, drug interactions, circumstances or adverse effects. You should seek medical care for any health issues and consult your doctor before using alternative medicine or making any changes to your regimen.

http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/living-with-phytic-acid/

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1988 47:270-4; J Anal At Spectrum. 2004 19,1330 –1334; Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 1994, 42:2204-2209.

https://chriskresser.com/a-healthy-gut-is-the-hidden-key-to-weight-loss/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-gut-bacteria-help-make-us-fat-and-thin/

Put Down the Breakfast Cereal & Learn to Soak

Aging is Inevitable, luckily Lifestyle Intervention may Help Slow it Down

Anybody living in this world cannot avoid of growing old. Many people may assume that aging is simply physiological changes or transformation experienced by anyone, however, the truth is that it also affects mental and emotional aspects of life.

Although the aging process is natural and cannot be stopped, there are ways for us to slow down the process. That being said, it is essential to understand what is aging before adopting suggested tips that might be helpful in decelerating the process.

There is no definite definition of aging as it is a very complex phenomenon involving several determinants, including biological, behavioral, and social factors. It may generally be defined as a group of symptoms, which involves a gradual decline in the efficiency of bodily systems.

Possible causes

To date, many scientists have looked into many possible causes of aging from many perspective, including changes in DNA sequence during replication, DNA mutation due to mutagen attacks, errors occur during DNA repair and accumulate as we age, and deterioration of DNA repair machinery.

Other possible causes include epigenetic shifts, telomere trouble, misfolded proteins inside cells, reduced regenerative capacity of stem-cell populations impeding cells self-regeneration at molecular levels, decreased numbers of growth differentiation factor 11 (GDF11), cellular miscommunications, and inflammation caused by over-activation of certain types of cytokines leading to cell degeneration.

Still, other possible cause of aging are the changes of the composition of the gut microbiota and decreased levels of a critical coenzyme for enzymes that fuel reduction-oxidation reactions, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide  (NAD).

Increased inflammation and high free radical levels are among possible causes of degeneration of the cell and its components, including DNA, mitochondria, and telomeres. Degenerative diseases such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and cancer are believed to cause those who experience them age much faster than those who are healthy.

It is because those diseases are associated with oxidative stress, which eventually leading to free radical attacks on cells (cause oxidative damage). Chronic stress and toxin build-up  in the body due to sluggish detoxification is also said to increase oxidative stress.

Matt Kaeberlein and his colleagues believe that age is the greatest risk factor for nearly every major cause of mortality in developed nations. They voice their concern regarding several government agencies that focuses on individual disease processes without much consideration for the relationships between aging and diseases. They “propose that greater emphasis should be placed on research into basic aging processes because interventions that slow aging will have a greater impact on quality of life than disease-specific approaches.”

The authors further argue that

“…..despite significant advances in management, we have been largely unsuccessful at postponing, ameliorating, or preventing the accumulation of morbidities during aging. As a consequence, people are living longer but often suffering from multiple diseases or disabilities of aging. This has important societal and economic implications. Many families struggle to care for elderly relatives who survive with reduced quality of life for years or even decades, while nations devote an increasing proportion of finite resources toward medical care for aging populations.”

Their concern is very true indeed.

Adopting healthy lifestyle throughout life is so crucial in order to live longer, stay active and healthier.

Eat real food

Base your diet on real, whole foods as they are loaded with all the necessary nutrients, which are essential for sustained regeneration of cells and replenishment of neurotransmitters, hormones, and enzymes.

Foods like meat and fish, poultry, dairy, eggs, fruits and vegetables, nuts and seeds, and potatoes and sweet potatoes are believed to serve the physiological needs. Whenever possible, take organic foods as they offer more nutrients and lesser chemicals.

All the aforementioned foods and most herbs are highly bioavailable, meaning they are easily absorbable.

Fats promote the absorption of certain types of nutrients such as magnesium. Besides vitamin E, extra virgin olive oil offers beneficial nutrients, including bioflavonoids, carotenoids, and phytosterols.

Saturated and monounsaturated fats are said to be much better choice than polyunsaturated fats for cooking purposes as they get less easily oxidized when exposed to heat. Take broil meats once in a while as charred foods contains high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) that promote inflammation. Cooking oil heated at a high temperature as used in deep fry is also said to contain high PAH levels.

When heated, polyunsaturated fats found to oxidize and turn into aldehydes, which are oxidizing agents thought to be much more hazardous compared to trans fats. Monounsaturated fats produce lesser aldehydes while saturated fats produce the least amounts.

Avoid overeating, ultra-processed foods, foods causing inflammation, and food reactions as much as possible as they can cause oxidative stress. Avoid adding table sugar to your foods and drinks as much as possible. Little use of it might be OK as a high amount taken regularly for a prolonged period may cause deleterious effects to health. Fruits high in sugar contents such as ripe watermelon, cantaloupe, and banana should be taken in moderation or avoid them altogether if you suspect they cause overweight or increased blood glucose levels.

Holistic healings

When you get sick go see a doctor in order to get you health condition diagnosed. Avoid taking prescriptions unless when really necessary or unavoidable. There are many types of alternative medicines that may be used as substitutes. Be aware that many prescriptions especially antibiotics, chemotherapies, statins, and antidiabetics could be detrimental to your health and eventually may accelerate aging if taken for  a longer period.

Peace of mind

Nowadays, it is a fact that everybody has to deal with so many kinds of stressful events that occur almost every day. Prolonged stress is said to cause chaotic hormonal balances, for instance, increased cortisol levels, which is associated with  the formation of many degenerative diseases.

Psycho-emotional well-being plays a vital role in maintaining super healthy body and mind. If you believe in any religion, having good faith and sincerely practicing the religious teachings may promote a peaceful mind.

If you are a working person and have very busy schedules throughout the weekdays, spending more time with your family and pets, talking to your neighbor, and socializing with peers might help relieve stress.

Replenish body fluid

Our body is composed of roughly 70% water. Always be sensitive to your body cues telling you the need for water replenishment according to daily physical activities, or how much sunshine you are exposed to (depends on the region you live in). Take most of your water in the form of spring water as it is rich in minerals.

Drinking enough water every day will help in flushing out toxins from the body. Herbal teas such as Gotu Kola or Chrysanthemum teas drank throughout the whole day are acceptable. They not only replenish water but may also help relax our brain, muscle and aid digestion. In the long term, all these are beneficial in slowing down aging.

Healthy microbiota

Imbalance of the composition of the gut microbiota between good and bad ones has long been shown to cause many inflammatory conditions. Nutritious foods are believed to help maintain a balanced composition of the gut microbiota, on the other hand, ultra-processed foods, sugary foods/drinks, food intolerance and prescriptions such as antibiotics cause the imbalance leading to inflammation. Chronic stress and unattended irritable bowel diseases are also believed to produce a similar result.

Exercise

Moderate exercise such as walking, jogging swimming done at least 30 minutes per day done 3-5 times per week may be sufficient for busy people to maintain good health. Recently, there has been a suggestion from many experts that one should perform their daily task by doing more standing position rather than sitting the whole day in order to lengthen lifespan.

Sleep

Sleep plays a vital role in good health and well-being throughout your life. Studies found that adults should get between 6-7 hours of sound sleep every day in order to prevent diseases, hence, results in healthier life.

Rasayana

Rasayana is a term in Sanskrit word  in early ayurvedic medicine refers to the science of lengthening lifespan. Many tonic herbs, especially when carefully blended based on its alterative as well as an affinity for multiple organ systems is believed to act as rasayana. Triphala, a blend of three popular herbs prescribed by Ayurvedic practitioners is an example of rasayana. In fact, it is regarded as an important rasayana in Ayurvedic Medicine.

If you think your overall diet does not provide sufficient nutrients, you may decide to take supplements along with your daily diet. Choose supplements that are made of real foods as much as possible. Please remember that supplements aren’t intended to be a food substitute as they cannot replicate all of the nutrients and benefits of whole foods, such as fruits and vegetables. So, take them wisely.

Aging is Inevitable, luckily Lifestyle Intervention may Help Slow it Down

Health chief: obesity warning letters to parents must not be watered down

School letters sent to parents telling them their children are overweight should not be watered down despite widespread anger, the chief medical officer has said, arguing against the “normalisation” of obesity.

Dame Sally Davies was speaking as new figures emerged from the child measurement programme that showed levels of obesity among children are still getting steadily worse. Twice as many children – nearly 20% – are obese in year 6 as in reception, where 9.3% are obese.

More than one in five children start school either overweight or obese, and by the time they leave primary school, that is one in three. “What on earth are we doing?” asked Dame Sally.

“What worries me is how we have started to normalise it,” she said. “In my generation it was normal to see [children’s] ribs on the beach. That was healthy. How have we lost this national understanding of what is healthy and what is unhealthy?”

There were now size 16 mannequins in shop windows and fat can be beautiful, she said, but added: “It isn’t healthy. Here, we are talking about children and children can’t talk for themselves. They need to be helped.”

When children are measured in school and found to be overweight or obese, the parents received a letter from the school, advising them on where to get help and advice. Some become angry. Postings on social media urge parents to throw the letters in the bin.

But Dame Sally said the letters should spell out the problem. “I don’t think we should water down those letters,” she said at the Childhood Obesity Summit, held in London. “There was a move to stop them saying your child is obese because people felt it was offensive and went into denial. But it is a physical description.”

Work needed to be done on how to encourage people to take action. “It is a real worry to me,” she said.

Obesity is a very serious issue for the NHS, she said, costing £5.1bn in a single year in England alone. There were further huge costs to productivity and the economy. “We are spending more every year on the treatment of obesity and diabetes than we do on the police, fire service and judiciary combined,” she said.

She is concerned by the growing snacking culture, she said. “I was absolutely aghast to read about how crisp packet sizes have increased. Food is everywhere. We are doing much more snacking and eating out.”

People are grazing rather than eating regular meals around a table with others, she said. Teenagers who came to stay with her would be found at the fridge, snacking. “Snacking is now a £375bn industry worldwide.”

Dr Sarah Wollaston, Conservative chair of the parliamentary health select committee, deplored the omissions from the government’s childhood obesity strategy. “I don’t think we should consider what is in the national plan as the job done,” she said.

“It was particularly disappointing to see promotions and price promotions fall out of the original draft – 40% of everything consumed at home is bought on promotion. A staggering amount of that is unhealthy food and drink.”

The emphasis in the strategy is on industry reformulation of food – and particularly to remove 20% of sugar over time. Wollaston wanted to know what would happen to companies that did not take part.

“What should it look like if in a year from now nothing has happened or some sections of the industry have completely ignored this? What will be the penalty to stop sections of the industry going back to where it was before?”

Alison Tedstone, director of diet and obesity at Public Health England, said that removing 20% of sugar – 5% in the first year to August 2017 – from products was only the first step. Next year the government’s scientific advisory committee on nutrition would be reporting on saturated fat in the nation’s diet – which is also too high. PHE will then be talking to industry about reducing saturated fats and also calories in foods.

Health chief: obesity warning letters to parents must not be watered down

By failing to update their warnings, drug regulators are letting patients down

US drug regulator the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued warnings about possible side effects of taking varenicline. Varenicline (marketed as Chantix in the US, and Champix in the UK) is a drug which can help people stop smoking. The FDA’s warnings are out of date, do not reflect the scientific evidence, and urgently need to be updated. They may have led the public and clinicians to incorrectly believe that there was strong scientific evidence that varenicline causes or exacerbates mental health problems. Given varenicline is the most effective way to successfully stop smoking, these safety concerns may have resulted in fewer people successfully stopping smoking.

A brief history FDA’s warnings over varenicline

In May 2006 the FDA approved varenicline for use as a medication to help people stop smoking. This was the first treatment licensed for smoking cessation since 1997, and initial evidence suggested that people who took it were more likely to successfully stop smoking. However, it was not long before concerns were raised that people prescribed varenicline were experiencing mental health side effects. Newspapers reported a series of anecdotes that people taking varenicline had suicidal behaviour. The FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) suggested patients prescribed varenicline were more likely to report suicidal behaviour than patients prescribed other medications. The key question was, are these differences a result of taking varenicline, or is it just that patients prescribed it had a higher risk of these events even before they were prescribed treatment? Were they due to correlation or causation?

The FDA attempted to answer this question in a safety review that was published in February 2008. They concluded that “[varenicline] may cause worsening of a current psychiatric illness even if it is currently under control and may cause an old psychiatric illness to reoccur.” In July 2009, after pressure from the media and consumer groups, the FDA went further, mandating that varenicline carry a “Black Box warning”. Black Box warnings are the FDA’s strongest warning about possible side effects of drugs. The Black Box warning for varenicline highlights “the risk of serious neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients using these products”. Symptoms included changes in behaviour, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts and behaviour, and attempted suicide.

The FDA then commissioned two large observational cohort studies to examine the risks associated with varenicline. They also instructed Pfizer to conduct a large randomised trial to investigate the side effects of varenicline in people with mental health problems.

Results from the observational studies were reported in October 2011. In both studies people prescribed varenicline had similar risks of being hospitalised for psychiatric problems as patients prescribed nicotine replacement therapy – in other words, there was no evidence of increased risk. However, these were observational studies, rather than experimental (randomised trials), so could not prove that varenicline did not cause adverse outcomes. However, most epidemiologists would regard these studies as more reliable evidence than the anecdotal case reports and newspaper reports which originally raised concerns about these risks. Nevertheless, in response to this new evidence, the FDA “determined that the current warnings in the varenicline drug label, based on post marketing surveillance reports, remain appropriate” and did not remove the Black Box warning.

Meanwhile, further observational studies were amassing evidence about whether varenicline use is associated with adverse events. In 2009, our colleagues found no evidence that patients in UK prescribed varenicline had higher risks of suicidal behaviour. In 2013, we updated this evidence to include over 100,000 patients, and again found that patients prescribed varenicline had similar risks of suicidal behaviour and similar rates of self-harm. In 2015, we systematically reviewed the literature of randomised controlled trials, and again found that participants given varenicline had similar risks of suicide and self-harm as those given placebo.

In March 2015 the FDA issued a further update. Despite mounting evidence about the safety of varenicline, they did not change their warnings. In 2016, the randomised controlled trial the FDA commissioned reported its findings. This trial randomised 8,144 people to receive varenicline, nicotine patch, bupropion or placebo, and found that people allocated to varenicline rather than nicotine replacement products experienced fewer moderate and severe mental health adverse events. The European Medicine Agency, which regulates pharmaceuticals in Europe, recently updated the information it provides about varenicline. In contrast, to date the FDA has refused to update its warnings.

Correlation does not equal causation

Patients who take medications are different from the general population. This means that even if patients prescribed a drug are more likely to have a particular adverse event this does not necessarily prove that these events are caused by the drug. In the case of varenicline, people who smoke are different from the general population on average; they are usually poorer, sicker, and more likely to have mental health problems. So the fact that patients taking varenicline reported higher rates of suicidal behaviour than patients prescribed other drugs in the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System, may have been because these patients were at higher risk of these events, before taking varenicline. This means these adverse events are unreliable evidence of the difference when taking varenicline or other nicotine replacement products.

Spurious safety warnings can be extremely harmful

In 1998 a paper was published which suggested that there might be an association between taking the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and developing autism. These claims were false, and multiple, large, well-conducted studies have proven that these claims were false, and the MMR vaccine is not associated with, and does not cause autism. Nevertheless, these warnings led to a substantial fall in vaccination rates, and an increase in cases of measles. So it is vital for regulators to distinguish between side effects which are caused by drugs, and potential events which the drugs do not cause. These could be events that are correlated with a medication, or risks for which the regulator does not have any reliable evidence.

In 2007 3.9 million patients took varenicline in the US. In 2012, after the safety warnings were issued, only 1.2 million patients took varenicline. Thus a potential cost of issuing safety warnings is that fewer patients take otherwise effective medications.

What should we do now?

From the first warnings about potential adverse effects of varenicline on mental health in November 2007 to today, 4.1 million people are likely to have died from smoking related disease in the US alone. The FDA’s Black Box warning of mental health problems associated with varenicline is inconsistent with the latest scientific evidence. Ultimately, it could discourage people from using the most effective smoking cessation treatment. In 14^th of September 2016, the FDA’s expert advisory group for drug safety met and again reviewed the evidence about the side effects associated with varenicline. The vote was close: they voted 10 to 9 in favour of advising the FDA to remove its warning. However, given the committee’s lack of consensus, it is not clear if the FDA will follow their guidance. In our opinion, given the evidence, the FDA needs to urgently revise this safety warning.

Dr Kyla Thomas is a National Institute for Health Research funded Clinical Lecturer in Public Health Medicine based at the University of Bristol and an Honorary Consultant in Public Health. She tweets sporadically @drkyla_thomas. Dr Neil Davies is an epidemiologist based in the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol. He occasionally tweets from @nm_davies. These views are their own.

A longer more detailed version of this blog post was published in the Addiction journal available here.

By failing to update their warnings, drug regulators are letting patients down

Jamie Oliver says PM"s obesity strategy has let down every UK child

Jamie Oliver has accused Theresa May of letting down young people and parents, in a strongly worded attack on the government’s “travesty” of a plan to tackle childhood obesity.

The chef said he would be “really, really annoying” for the rest of this parliament as a result of Theresa May’s “unforgiveable” failure to introduce strong enough measures.

“Everything about the childhood obesity strategy that’s just come out is a complete stinking herring. It’s a terrible job Theresa May’s done there,” Oliver told the Radio Times.

“She’s completely let every child in Britain down, let parents down, everyone has been let down. The stuff on the shelf with her predecessor [David Cameron] was going to be much more robust.”

The chef has campaigned on children’s nutrition issues since his 2005 Channel 4 series Jamie’s School Dinners. He is scathing about the planned sugar tax being the only element of the childhood obesity “plan of action” published last month that will force food companies to change their practices.

“If you look at the strategy, the only thing that’s mandatory – and I can honestly tell you that I put it there – is the sugary drink tax … Take that out, there’s nothing [else],” he said.

Oliver railed against the government’s decision to step back from using regulation, such as the plan’s failure to limit junk food advertising or ban promotion of sweets at supermarket checkouts.

“It’s the same old bull. And the same old bull hasn’t worked for 20 years. And it was done when they were all on holiday, in August. It just means ‘don’t care, don’t care, don’t care, get it under the radar.’ It’s a travesty,” he added.

He and fellow obesity campaigners intend to “be really, really annoying for the whole [parliamentary] term. But I do think British parents don’t want to hear bad news all the time. People just want stuff to be fixed,” he said.

The Department of Health declined to respond directly to Oliver’s comments. But it maintained that its plan was a world leader in combating obesity. “We are fully committed to reducing childhood obesity and are confident our world-leading plan will make a real difference to help reverse a problem that has been decades in the making. This is the start of a conversation and we haven’t ruled out further measures if we do not see the progress we need,” a spokesman said.

The Children’s Food Campaign, an alliance of health, children’s and education groups, backed Oliver. “Jamie is spot on. Many parents, teachers and health professionals have been in touch with us to express their anger at the weaknesses of the childhood obesity plan,” said its co-ordinator Malcolm Clark.

He added: “The food industry has embarked on a war against the academic evidence and the government’s own public health advice. Sadly, on many aspects – including marketing and price promotions – the government sided with them.”

Jamie Oliver says PM"s obesity strategy has let down every UK child

Low UK breastfeeding rates down to social pressures over routine and sleep

Social pressure on new mothers to get their babies into a feeding routine and to sleep through the night is a key factor in why the UK has the lowest rate of breastfeeding in the world, an expert has warned.

Speaking at the British Science Festival, Amy Brown of Swansea University said not enough was being done to support new mothers to breastfeed. In particular, she said, advice given to mothers to impose a feeding regime whereby babies don’t feed frequently, contributed to why many women felt that they weren’t producing enough milk and abandoned breastfeeding.

“One of the key things about breastfeeding is that you have to feed the baby very regularly,” Brown, a GP and member of the department of public health, policy and social sciences at Swansea University, told the Guardian. “That’s easily every two hours.”

But, she says, that doesn’t chime with common advice.

“We are told by so-called experts that you should get your baby in a feeding routine and your baby should not wake up at nights,” said Brown. “But that is really incompatible for breastfeeding. If you try and feed them less, you make less milk. You need to feed at night to make enough milk.”

[embedded content]

Should babies sleep through the night?

Elizabeth Duff, senior policy adviser at the National Childbirth Trust, agreed that frequent feeding is necessary. “It is obviously easier for everyone if they begin to sleep more during the night, but if you are fully breastfeeding you will have to feed for at least once and probably two or three times during the night,” she said. “The daily patterns will come, but it won’t be in the first few days or the very first weeks.”

Duff agrees that mothers are not given enough support to breastfeed. “Understanding a bit about the physiology of breastfeeding can be really helpful,” she added. “Some women who have not been able to find that information think that the baby isn’t getting very much [milk, but] a couple of teaspoons-worth is probably enough at any one time.”

According to a recent report published in the Lancet, the UK has the lowest rate of breastfeeding in the world, with only 1 in 200 women breastfeeding their children after they reach their first birthday. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommend just breast milk for six months, with breastfeeding to form part of a baby’s diet up to two years of age.

“We have known that breastfeeding rates aren’t great in the UK for a long time,” said Brown. “We have about 80% of women starting breastfeeding at birth, but by the end of the first week, over half of those babies have had formula in some way.”

Speaking ahead of the publication of her book, Breastfeeding Uncovered, Brown said that while a large proportion of mothers struggle to breastfeed, few of them have underlying conditions that prevent the process.

Surveying around 300 women who had stopped breastfeeding in the first six months, Brown found that around 80% cited pain and difficulty as contributing, while 40% referenced public attitudes, 60% lack of support from others and 20% blamed embarrassment.

“The vast majority of women who are having problems, it isn’t really to do with a primary inability to breastfeed, it is to do with their experience,” said Brown. “Eighty per cent of women who stop breastfeeding in the first six weeks do not want to. They want to keep breastfeeding but they feel that they can’t.”

Among the issues faced by new mothers, Brown criticised aggressive advertising by formula companies, and negative public perceptions of breastfeeding that have seen women asked to cover up when feeding their baby. “Babies have to breastfeed in public – it is called eating,” said Brown.

Duff agrees that breastfeeding should be welcomed. “Everywhere should be parent friendly and baby-feeding friendly,” she said.

Pressures on women to return to their pre-baby lives is also part of the problem, said Brown, while cuts affecting funding for breastfeeding peer support groups, as well as cuts to midwife services and the NHS more widely, are limiting help for new mothers.

[embedded content]

How you can help to support a breastfeeding mother.

“The way forward is that we need a complete societal change to how we look at breastfeeding, how we accept it, but also how we accept and value mothering in general,” said Brown, adding that raising breastfeeding rates could save the NHS millions due to a reduction in common infant infections. “Women should not be held responsible for this, is the key message,” she added. “We need to raise breastfeeding rates, but it is not their fault.”

Rebecca Schiller, director human rights for childbirth charity Birthrights, said it is of great concern that many women were giving up breastfeeding sooner than they wished, and criticised a lack of support for new mothers. “I think it is a huge cruelty to women to tell them that there is something wonderful that they should be doing and then to make it very difficult for them to do that,” she said. “We also don’t think that anyone should be pressured into feeding in any particular way.”

Dr Nigel Rollins from the department of maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health at WHO, said it was important to acknowledge that breastfeeding can be challenging, and criticised negative public attitudes to breastfeeding, particularly in England. What’s more, he said, whether a particular routine is adopted varies greatly between babies.

“This sense that ‘achieving’ or ‘accomplishing’ breastfeeding is the responsibility only of the mother and therefore [a] judgement as to whether she is ‘adequate’ or not, I think is one that I would counter strongly,” he said. “There are so many things that make it more manageable to breastfeed than not,” he added, pointing out that lack of support from a partner, family, health worker and even negative comments from neighbours can all play a role in making it harder. “All of those things chip away at a woman’s confidence as to whether she has enough milk,” he said.

Low UK breastfeeding rates down to social pressures over routine and sleep

Wheatgrass Literally Can Turn Gray Hair Back to its Natural Colour & Slows Down Aging

Wheatgrass Literally Can Turn Gray Hair Back to its Natural Colour & Slows Down Aging

Childhood obesity strategy may be watered down, campaigners fear

Health campaigners fear that the government’s childhood obesity strategy, expected this week, has been watered down under relentless pressure from the food and drinks industry and will prove ineffective in changing the habits of an overweight nation.

The strategy is supposed to be based on recommendations from Public Health England after an investigation into the measures that would work best. A third of children are overweight or obese by the time they leave primary school.

PHE urged curbs on buy-one-get-one-free and multipack price promotions on crisps, sweets and other junk foods in supermarkets, and came out in favour of tackling junk food advertising to children. It supported a tax on sugary drinks, although it said the other measures would work better.

Health groups fear industry lobbying may have prevailed and that the measures have at least been diluted, although the levy on sugary drinks – announced in George Osborne’s last budget in March – is expected to go ahead. Details of the tax are expected to be announced by the Treasury in a consultation document to be published this week alongside the childhood obesity strategy.

Critics are concerned about the timing of the launch. David Cameron made childhood obesity a personal issue and the strategy was being put together inside No 10. However, it is now expected to appear while Theresa May is on holiday in Switzerland, suggesting she will not champion it in the same way.

The Children’s Food Campaign, a member of the Obesity Health Alliance, which includes charities and health organisations such as the royal colleges, is concerned by suggestions that the tough action they wanted on cut-price junk food and TV advertising will not happen.

Leaks suggest there will be no ban on multi-buy promotions in supermarkets. “Price promotions were one of the big issues that Public Health England majored on,” said Malcolm Clark, of the campaign. “It looks like the government is failing to listen to its own public health experts.

“Industry likes to paint us as nanny-statists, but PHE is not a campaigning organisation. They have done a very thorough literature review of peer-reviewed evidence and come up with a recommendation on that.”

The Children’s Food Campaign has lobbied hard for a ban on adverts for foods high in salt, fat and sugar during family TV programmes. A ban on such ads on children’s TV is not enough, they say, because of the huge numbers of children who watch family programmes such as Britain’s Got Talent and The X Factor. They have called for a 9pm watershed, at which time viewing figures for under-15s drop.

The food and drink industry has been strongly opposed to a ban on such adverts before 9pm because it would cover programmes watched by millions of viewers.

Tam Fry, patron of the Child Growth Foundation and spokesperson for the National Obesity Forum, said that if the hoped-for measures did not come about, “it will spell disaster for obesity. It will not be the game-changing document promised by [the health secretary] Jeremy Hunt with draconian measures to tackle the epidemic, but a limp repetition of the flawed responsibility deal.

“The government’s own senior health advisers have called obesity a national risk, requiring a Cobra-style crisis management response. Apart from the government appearing to be resolute about a sugar levy, its intentions are light years away from what is needed.”

Childhood obesity strategy may be watered down, campaigners fear

New study finds sitting down too much costs the world $67.5bn

New research published in peer-reviewed medical journal the Lancet attempts to put a price tag on our latest health crisis: sitting too much. According to an international team of researchers, a sedentary lifestyle cost the world a whopping $ 67.5bn in 2013. That’s equivalent to the total GDP of Costa Rica in the same year.

In modern life, there is more temptation than ever to spend most of the day sitting. Between the prevalence of desk jobs and the 2.8 hours of TV the average American watches each day, we’re all guilty of some couch potato tendencies. Most office workers don’t take a lunch break, eating instead at their desks, further cutting down time spent on their feet. We commute to work in cars, and on buses and trains, adding more sedentary time to our day.

The Lancet study attempted to estimate the financial impact of five diseases associated with humans’ increasingly sedentary lifestyle across 142 countries: coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer and colon cancer.

Related: An emotional support animal is just a mouse click away

Like all population studies, findings in the paper are based on estimates, as it would be impossible to quantify the exact contribution of a sedentary lifestyle to each case of disease.

The study used the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for physical activity – a modest 150 minutes per week – and relied on individuals’ self-reported data, which is not the most reliable.

While the authors fully admit that the data is “imperfect” , the survey does provide a starting point in the conversation around what all that sitting means to the global economy. The Lancet study is the first global estimate of what our collective lack of exercise means in economic terms.

The staggering costs – both from healthcare spending and loss of productivity – are meant as more of a wake-up call to governments and businesses to devote more resources to tackling sedentary lifestyles. Though the personal out-of-pocket costs as estimated in the global study ($ 9.7bn) are also a pretty big chunk of change.

But there is good news amongst the gloom. This price tag comes on the heels of another study in the Lancet, part of the same series on physical activity, that finds that just an hour of moderate exercise each day is enough to offset the health effects of all that sitting.

So go ahead and take a brisk walk during your lunch break. Walk on a treadmill while catching up on your favorite Netflix guilty pleasure. Join an amateur soccer team. You won’t just be doing your health a favor and saving yourself future out-of-pocket health costs: you’ll also be helping to reduce your country’s overall spending and boosting the economy.

New study finds sitting down too much costs the world $67.5bn

A GMO “hooker” backs down

So, there is this man named Richard Brill that is a professor of science at the Honolulu Local community College that wrote an report for our Hawaii newspaper about GMOs that was comparatively innocuous. The report was entitled, “GMO crops could set off yet another Green Revolution.” What caught my eye was a comment at the finish of the report that said,

“Critics also assert that GMO crops have not been established universally secure. This criticism is with out validity considering that absolutely nothing can be proved scientifically. Science is a process of verification and disproof, not 1 of evidence. Yet, decades of investigation have failed to discover conclusive proof that GMOs are a well being danger.”

Now the entertaining started. So I replied to his article with the following:

“I actually liked your article. You say that illness from ingesting GMOs has not been established and that is correct. But, with so numerous illnesses arising from diet plan, how can we especially say the place hefty metal poisoning has come from?

We know that heavy metal poisoning is a actuality. We know that when our armed forces had been exposed to Agent Orange in Viet Nam, numerous came home with extreme debilitating illnesses that stayed with them. And however, our government denied responsibility and their care for them

We know that 2-four-D, the lively ingredient in Agent Orange, is now getting sprayed on the cornfields in the contiguous U.S. So, in spite of the lack of being able to especially pinpoint the culprit, would it not be safer to let individuals to be ready to make a option with regard to what they consume? This is why labeling GMOs is crucial.

HIM:
“Thanks for reading through and writing the note Hesh. I agree with what you say. I am personally neither for nor towards GMO labeling. That there could or may possibly not be many dietary illnesses does not relate to GMO labeling in my mind. Why not label food with complete chemical analyses down to POB levels? Then a complete transcription of the genome?”

ME:
“This is why organics are labeled. To give individuals a choice in purity vs. chemicalization.

HIM:
“What about labels for food that is grown adjacent to fields exactly where two-four-D is sprayed?

ME:
“It’s all component of the scam. If a GMO seed blows over to a neighboring discipline, Monsanto sues them for theft and patent infringement.”

HIm:
“Where does hefty metal ingestion come into the conversation about GMOs?”
ME:
“2-4-D and Roundup Ready pesticide are hefty metals that are enormously sprayed on GMO crops. For me, I tell men and women if it does not say “organic”, do not buy it.”

HIM:
“The danger with GMO labeling is ignorance and a supernatural worry. Due to the fact of uninformed or unwell informed activists, GMOs have become the equivalent of McCarthy’s communists in every single closet. You can aid by spreading information about GMOs to men and women who may not consider the time to grow to be informed and who act out of emotion and concern.”

ME:
“I do this by telling people if soy, corn, or cotton merchandise do not say natural or non-GMO, they need to not get them. And, under no conditions need to they buy any kind of canola oil.”

HIM:
“If I thought that folks knew what is actually involved, and how broad the variety of transgenic meals, there would be significantly less fear of poisoning and government conspiracies. Yes, folks need to be ready to make choices about what they eat. But they need to be informed alternatives, not based mostly on myth or superstition.”

ME:
When you buy a food, do you examine the excess fat, sodium, or sugar content material or the calorie count? If so, why can not they know if it is a GMO or not? If the stuff is so excellent and so useful and protected, wouldn’t individuals acquire it in droves if they knew what and where it was?”

HIM:
“I agree with all of this, despite the fact that I’m not convinced that the ‘organic’ label helps make foods any ‘better’. Apart from, most people can not afford to spend the premium for natural foods. The only undesirable factor about GMO labeling are the emotional troubles. Are all GMO foods a undesirable issue, or is it that activists have brought as well much mysticism to the label? When the typical person sees GMO on the label he/she is frightened away due to the fact the only see typically held is a single of ignorance of the pros and cons. Who is going to feed the world’s developing population? Is it much better to preserve relying on petroleum based mostly fertilizers, or to revert to 19th century ‘organic’ farming that cannot make adequate food to feed the population and which costs more. GMOs might not be all negative. Certainly the core problem is that we are producing too a lot of babies. Though population growth is slowing markedly in Europe, much less so in North America. Africa and Asian populations have however to get the message since famines nevertheless reduce the dimension of households unpredictably. Yet, birth control is nevertheless an problem. Then there is the abortion issue. By 2050, the globe will have to produce 70 percent far more food, such as a billion tons a lot more cereal to preserve up with population development. Where does 1 suppose this food will come from? Not probably from organic farming.
International population is predicted to reach 10 billion by the finish of this century. The carrying capacity of Earth is estimated at 9 billion. It is the ability of the planet to cleanse itself, not just a battle in between population and meals supplies. FYI: 90 percent of corn, soy, and cotton grown in the US are genetically modified in some way, 75 % of processed foods contain genetically engineered components, and 1000′s of unlabeled goods containing foreign or altered genes have been eaten by millions of individuals.
As you seem to be to be anti-GMO, I am neither for or towards GMOs. I just go with the facts as very best I can.”

ME:
“Here’s the deal: Former Monsanto employees head government agencies in charge of foods and agriculture

Monsanto pays off local politicians to hold them on their side.

Big Agriculture lobbies like crazy to make confident items really do not adjust.

Big Food poisons people each and every day due to the fact of insuring shelf –life for, if you will pardon the expression, “foods”, they create.

In India, thousands of farmers committed suicide simply because GMO seeds are “terminator seeds”, which can only be used after. Becoming bad, they have been in no place to get seeds each and every year.

Then there’s the animals – in a forest in India, foods were hung from two trees. A single tree had dangling ‘regular’ food and the other tree had dangling GMO food. When the individuals came back the typical food was gone and the GMO meals was untouched. If the animals wouldn’t eat them why need to people? Unless it is a technique to reduce the over-populated population. But committing suicide?

What has took place is that the weeds the GMOs had been developed to destroy have morphed into “superweeds” that are impervious to what they are sprayed with. Monsanto’s reply? Spray more or create a lot more weed lethal poisons.

But folks do not really have to be concerned about eating the meals sprayed on it due to the fact the world is so in excess of-populated that somebody has to get obligation for feeding them, right? I wouldn’t be shocked if Monsanto open the initial “Soylent Green” factory.

As far as feeding the word’s developing population goes, producing it so that seeds can not be harvested for the up coming crop is undoubtedly way counter-productive for a struggling farmer.

As far as birth handle goes, in China people are killing female babies due to the fact they want boy infants. How’s that for admirable parenting?

But, then again, we have Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, and Ted Turner funding the eugenics plan. I guess we must praise their humanitarian efforts, huh?

Perhaps if much more small, nearby farms had been supported and maybe if the huge meals had reductions in their subsidies, and maybe if the chemical businesses had been not paying off the politicians, the men and women would have a far better shot.

What has occurred is the government of, for, and by the People has been transformed into a government of, for, and by the CORPORATION.

This is surely not the time for complacency, apathy, and lack of compassion.

HIM:

ME:
I am nonetheless waiting for a reply. Such is the world of science?

Aloha!

To discover far more about Hesh, pay attention to and read hundreds of wellness associated radio shows and content articles, and learn about how to remain healthful and reverse degenerative illnesses through the use of organic sulfur crystals and other remarkable superfoods, please check out www.healthtalkhawaii.com, or email me at heshgoldstein@gmail.com or call me at (808) 258-1177. Considering that going on the radio in 1981 these are the only merchandise I started to promote due to the fact they work.
Oh yeah, going to www.asanediet.com will allow you to go through a variety of elements of my guide – “A Sane Diet For An Insane World”, containing a great comment by Mike Adams.

A GMO “hooker” backs down

The diabetes crisis will not be above till the body fat lady puts down her biscuits

Very good morning Britain, it’s time for your wake-up contact. So place down the doughnut and step away from the super-sized triple chocolate mocha. We need to speak.

Correct now, far more than three.three million men and women are residing with some type of the situation, up from two.one million in 2005, whilst hundreds of 1000′s far more have diabetes but just really don’t know about it but.

This rise is of epidemic proportions. And it is very, really critical. The problems of uncontrolled blood sugar levels can end result in nerve harm, loss of eyesight and organ harm. Diabetes is also the reason why 135 people in Britain have a foot amputated every single week.

The value of treating diabetes is really serious as well. Medicine now charges the NHS £869m a yr – 10 per cent of the complete NHS medication bill – and that is just a fraction of the total £10bn in dealing with diabetes.

So what are we performing about it? Er, not much really.

Due to the fact in spite of the truth that diabetes is on the rise, and regardless of the reality that we know WHY diabetes is on the rise, no one desires to tell diabetes sufferers the truth.

That truth is very basic and it also has the added advantage of getting really cheap: end eating so considerably. Yep, that is the remedy for most people with diabetes in a nutshell.

Just before we go any additional, let’s be clear who we are speaking about right here. There are two kinds of diabetes. 1 in ten folks with diabetes have Type 1 and are unable to generate the hormone insulin to handle their blood sugar levels. This has nothing to do with their weight. The other three million have Sort two diabetes and, for about two.four million of them, their issue is most likely the result of consuming as well significantly.

And but no one particular seems prepared to tell these diabetes patients what they do not want to hear: “This illness is entirely YOUR fault! You did this to by yourself! And brief of locking you in a area and limiting your meals consumption for the rest of your daily life, you are the only 1 who can assist by yourself. So get on with it ahead of the nation goes bankrupt.”

Rather, government ministers and the health-related occupation all skirt close to the situation, speaking about people’s “lifestyle choices”, as if eating a family members-sized pack of Doritos for a mid-morning snack is somehow akin to picking to reside in the Outer Hebrides.

Diabetic patient measuring glucose with glucometer and test strips  Photograph: ALAMY

Even the admirable charities in this area skirt around the problem. Diabetes Uk claims to “work for people with diabetes” and, on its site, provides assist on “living with diabetes” and even an “informal online course to support individuals with Kind 2 diabetes recognize and manage their problem effectively.”

This, with all due respect to the charity’s good intentions, is codswallop. The vast majority of people with diabetes really do not need to have to “learn how to live with it” or to “manage” it, they want to stop possessing diabetes.

That is not possible – but it is attainable, with challenging work and dedication, to control the problem so properly that it properly disappears.

However the NHS spends billions of lbs each year assisting sufferers “manage” their diabetes. By handing out medication to support alleviate the signs and symptoms of this condition, they send out two dangerous messages to sufferers: this is a medical concern and it is not something you require to do anything about.

Medical professionals ought to rather be sincere with their sufferers. For most, diabetes is not a health-related issue, it is a “put down the fork” problem.

This is what they ought to say – and with out sugar-coating it with wonderful euphemisms: “Here’s the thing, fatty, you have diabetes since you are disgustingly obese. That is not since of your thyroid gland or the Government or a conspiracy between the supermarkets and your local chip store. You are unwanted fat since you consume also significantly. Way too significantly. And way too a lot of rubbish meals.

“The decision is yours: you can carry on eating and you will probably go blind and have your foot amputated prior to you die a horrible unpleasant death from organ failure. Or you can get healthful and dwell. Your selection.”

  Photograph: PA

The a single decision they need to not get is to hold on eating while taking taxpayer-funded drugs to enable them to do that. NHS money are not a bottomless pit and that income is essential to deal with men and women who really don’t have any decision about whether they are ill or not, like young children with leukaemia.

So let’s cease pretending we are dealing with this situation. We’re not. We’re simply “managing” it. The diabetes epidemic won’t be over right up until the excess fat lady sings. And puts down her super-sized family members pack of biscuits.

The diabetes crisis will not be above till the body fat lady puts down her biscuits