Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Diet & Lifestyle Choices of Parents Have Effects on Their Child

Story at-a-glance+

  • Several new studies find the health and lifestyle choices of both mother and father have permanent impacts on future generations
  • One study showed sperm can carry the memory of a father's environment and lifestyle patterns to an embryo; nutritional deficiencies of the father can significantly increase a baby's risk of birth defects
  • Another new study shows that children and grandchildren of obese fathers can inherit obesity and metabolic problems, even when they eat healthfully
  • Children of overweight or obese mothers are more likely to have children predisposed to obesity; the heavier the mom is, the more significant the effect
  • The number of overweight and obese adults in the developing world has nearly quadrupled since 1980 and now hovers around one billion
View All Health Topics
 

Studies Show Diet and Lifestyle Choices of Both Parents Have Multigenerational Health Effects

December 29, 2014 | 138,758 views
| Available in EspañolDisponible en Español
Share This Article Share

By Dr. Mercola

What if your lifestyle choices affected not only your own health but also your children's health, for life? What if avoiding exercise actually affected the health of your grandchildren? Would knowing this cause you to make different choices? As far-fetched as this sounds, several recent studies suggest this may be the case.

It will probably not come as much of a surprise that the health and lifestyle choices of pregnant women have been shown to affect the health of their unborn children. However, a groundbreaking new study suggests that the father's lifestyle choices and health might be just as critical as those of the mother.

Research from the University of Adelaide is turning what we thought we knew about the transmission of genetic traits on its head. The Australian study, published in the FASEB Journal,1 found that sperm from obese fathers can raise the obesity risk for their children AND grandchildren.

Molecular signals in these "fat sperm" can somehow lead to obesity and diabetes-like symptoms in two generations of offspring—even when the offspring eat healthfully.

Researchers say this is the first report of both male and female offspring inheriting a metabolic disease due to their father's obesity. These effects appear to be the result of epigeneticprocesses.

Your Lifestyle Choices May Have Multigenerational Effects

We now know that your genes are malleable, not fixed, influenced and shaped by your environment, thoughts, and emotions. The big surprise is that epigenetic traits can be passed on to your children, and even to subsequent generations.

The Australian study found an increased risk of developing metabolic disease similar to type 2 diabetes for both male and female offspring. And for female offspring, there was an added risk of becoming overweight or obese.


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/29/parents-lifestyle-children-health.aspx

Severe Obesity Youth illness state of

I certainly believe that more kids than ever before are suffering neurological harm from a grossly inadequate diet, lack of exercise, and an onslaught of environmental toxins. But Dr. Frances makes a good point: improved diagnosis and increased use of medication is NOT the answer. It in no way, shape, or form addresses any of the root causes. If our government was really intent on providing better health for children, they'd face reality and address the root causes head on. But they choose not to. Probably because it would require a major transformation of the entire food system, for starters. It would also require reverting back to more traditional school systems that includes plenty of physical education.

Teach Your Kids the Basic Tenets of Optimal Health

While the situation appears bleak when viewed from the perspective of what the "authorities" are doing (or not doing), I urge you to consider your own role. YOU have the power to make the needed alterations within your own family. Leading by example is also one of the most effective teaching tools there is, which will set your children up to be better equipped to maneuver an increasingly toxic world as they themselves become parents.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/31/childhood-obesity.aspx?e_cid=20141231Z1-USCanada_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20141231Z1-USCanada&et_cid=DM63348&et_rid=787105706

Severe Obesity on the Rise Among American Youth

For example, the US government (and your tax dollars) still subsidizes the growing of genetically engineered (GE) corn and sugar beets, which fuels the production of cheap, processed junk food that fatten up our youth and cause cascading health problems, courtesy of the insulin resistance such a diet brings. 

It's not rocket science to figure out that the American diet is primarily to blame for our expanding waist lines and declining health. It contains the same "nutritional balance" used for decades to purposefully fatten up livestock. Why would anyone think that sugar, grains,artificial sweeteners, hormones, and low-dose antibiotics would suddenly produce different results when consumed by humans?

As just one example, virtually all beef sold in American grocery stores comes from cattle injected with hormones. Corn fattens the cattle, but consumers don't like all that gristle and fat, so hormones are used to make the animal produce more lean muscle tissue.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/31/childhood-obesity.aspx?e_cid=20141231Z1-USCanada_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20141231Z1-USCanada&et_cid=DM63348&et_rid=787105706

The Bitter & Ugly Truth About Sugar

Cancer cells need glucose to thrive, and carbohydrates turn into glucose in your body. In order to starve the cancer cells, you have to eliminate its primary food source, i.e. the sugars, which include all non-vegetable carbohydrates. Otto Warburg actually received a Nobel Prize back in 1934 for his research on cancer cell physiology, which clearly demonstrated cancer cells require more sugar to thrive. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today.

The latest World Cancer Report,4 issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), predicts worldwide cancer rates to rise by 57 percent in the next two decades. But the report also notes that half of all cancers are preventable and can be avoided if current medical knowledge is acted upon. Diet (and exercise) is included in their list of known cancer prevention strategies.

I firmly believe that reducing sugar and processed food consumption is part and parcel of the long-term answer. Even in terms of treatment, cancer has been shown to respond to diet alone. A ketogenic diet, which is high in healthy fat and very low in sugar, has been shown to reverse cancer in many cases, and a lot of very exciting research is being done in this area. It can be very useful in addressing the underlying insulin resistance. Once the insulin resistance resolves, the ketogenic diet is typically not required.

New Study Reveals Sugar Also Initiates Cancer Growth

Oncologists will surely have to start paying closer attention to the issue of sugar if they want to purport to practice science-based medicine. Not only is there a solid scientific basis for the claim that sugar feeds existing cancer; according to a study5 published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in January, sugar also appears to initiate cancer growth. As reported by GreenMedInfo.com,6 this study:

"'...provide[s] evidence that increased glycolytic activation itself can be an oncogenic event...' That is to say, the activation of sugar-based metabolism in a cell – driven by both the presence of increased quantities of glucose and the increase glucose receptors on the cell membrane surface (i.e. 'overexpression of a glucose transporter') – drives cancer initiation.

Moreover, the study found that 'Conversely, forced reduction of glucose uptake by breast cancer cells led to phenotypic reversion.' In other words, interfering with sugar availability and uptake to the cell causes the cancer cell to REVERSE towards its pre-cancer structure-function (phenotype).

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/31/bitter-truth-sugar.aspx?e_cid=20141231Z1-USCanada_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20141231Z1-USCanada&et_cid=DM63348&et_rid=787105706

The Bitter & Ugly Truth About Sugar

According to Dr. Lustig, there's a conspiracy around the sugar in soda. Soft drinks contain caffeine, a mild diuretic that makes you urinate more, thereby eliminating water from your body. It also contains about 55 mg of salt, and when you take in salt and excrete water, you get thirstier.

The reason why soda contains so much sugar is because they have to mask the taste of the salt... "They [the soda companies] know what they're doing, and this is very specific," Dr. Lustig says, "because they have made it so that you will buy more. This is their business strategy."

Unfortunately, it's a business strategy that is slowly killing customers... Adding insult to injury, sugar has also been found to be eight times as addictive as cocaine,2 which also ensures that you'll stay hooked on processed foods and sweet drinks.


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/31/bitter-truth-sugar.aspx?e_cid=20141231Z1-USCanada_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20141231Z1-USCanada&et_cid=DM63348&et_rid=787105706

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

resign over tax evasion

Even the rich and powerful get caught. 

Grimm was indicted in April on federal charges including mail fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, employing undocumented workers and perjury in relation to a Manhattan fast-food restaurant he once co-owned and operated.

Grimm admitted that he had made "off the books" payments to employees and under-reported nearly $1 million in gross receipts to the Internal Revenue Service and New York state tax collectors. 

He also admitted that he lied during a deposition about whether employees had been paid in cash, and whether he had used email accounts to operate the restaurant.


N.Y. Rep. Michael Grimm says he will resign over tax evasion

Vaccine Injuries

It's important to understand that ALL vaccines carry a risk for provoking an immediate acute adverse reaction, such as anaphylactic shock, fainting, or having a seizure, which could be truly life threatening if you're driving a car or crossing a street after you have left the store where you got vaccinated, for example. Further, vaccines can impair and alter immune system responses and can also cause brain inflammation (encephalitis or encephalopathy) that may lead to permanent brain damage.


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/30/vaccine-injury-compensation-program.aspx?e_cid=20141230Z1-USCanada_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20141230Z1-USCanada&et_cid=DM65689&et_rid=785489770

Seizures Vaccine

According to the GAO's report, while the VICP was established to assist children injured by government-recommended childhood vaccines, most claims are now filed by adults suffering vaccine injury after receiving influenza vaccine. The flu vaccine was added to the VICP in 2005.14 

Most cases involve adults developing Guillain-Barre Syndrome(GBS)—a crippling condition in which your immune system attacks your nerves. GBS has been a known side effect of influenza  vaccines for nearly 40 years.

According to the book, The Vaccine Court: The Dark Truth of America's Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, the swine flu vaccine program was cut short in 1976 when it became clear that the swine flu vaccine was associated with serious neurological side effects such as GBS and transverse myelitis. Congress also passed the "Swine Flu Act" that same year, which transferred liability for vaccine injuries associated with the swine flu vaccine from the vaccine manufacturers to the federal government. Some influenza vaccines, including the adult high-dose flu vaccine for seniors sold under the name Fluzone, also list GBS as a potential side effect in its package insert.15


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/30/vaccine-injury-compensation-program.aspx?e_cid=20141230Z1-USCanada_DNL_art_1&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20141230Z1-USCanada&et_cid=DM65689&et_rid=785489770

Computer Generated Studies Get Published in Respected Journals


Scientific Journal

Story at-a-glance+

  • In 2005, three MIT graduate students created a program called SCIgen that randomly generates fake scientific papers. Since its inception, over 200 computer generated papers have been published in scientific journals
  • A French computer scientist has developed a program to detect SCIgen-generated studies, which anyone can use for free to find out if a study might be generated by a computer
  • Many health care professionals rely on published research to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be affected when false findings make their way into otherwise respected journals
  • The prevalence of anti-scientific science is how we've ended up in a world of toxic chemical-based agriculture and subsidized junk food 
  • Many health care professionals rely on published research to make treatment recommendations, and large numbers of patients can be affected when false findings make their way into otherwise respected journals.

Unfortunately, this happens more frequently than you might think. In recent years, it's become quite clear that the scientific field has a major problem on its hands, as seriously flawed, and worse, outright falsified, research is entering the system at an increasing rate.

Bad information is usually worse than no information at all, especially when we're talking about health and treatment protocols that affect hundreds of thousands of patients.

Today, a majority of public health, diet, and medical treatment recommendations are flat out wrong, and this is precisely why allopathic care continues to become progressively more dangerous, killing patients rather than making them well.

The prevalence of anti-scientific science is also how we've ended up in a world of toxic chemical-based agriculture and subsidized junk food that deteriorates rather than supports health.

Industry and Medical Journals Are Destroying Credible Science

The problem, to a great extent, can be traced back to industry-based and industry-funded research, which has overtaken most scientific fields of inquiry. Independent research, where funding is unrelated to findings, has become a rarity, and the end result is a dramatic deterioration of credible science.

Chemical technology companies likeMonsanto also fund colleges and universities, thereby gaining control over research, science, policy, and public opinion.

As an example of the quick deterioration of reputable science, consider the following: between 1966 and 1997, 37 percent of scientific retractions were due to scientific misconduct,1 which includes data falsification or fabrication, questionable veracity, unethical author conduct, or plagiarism.

Fast-forward a little more than a decade and that number skyrockets to 72 percent!2 The highest number of incidents of scientific misconduct occurred in the drug literature, where nearly 75 percentof the drug studies retracted between 2000 and 2011 were attributed to misconduct. Gone are the days when bad research was primarily due to honest human error, it seems.

Fake Science Run Amok

In recent years, a number of individuals have taken it upon themselves to prove just how easily the system can be fooled by fake science. One "sting operation" was concocted by a science journalist at Harvard University who wanted to test how likely it would be for bad research to be published in Open Access journals. 

The bogus paper described a simple experiment supposedly showing that lichens can slow cancer cell growth.3More than half the journals—157 of the 304—accepted the fake paper for publication. The other half rejected it. The result of his "experiment" was published in Science magazine.4

However, traditional pay-for-access journals are not immune to publishing flawed studies. Most are also beholden to drug companies in one way or another. Investigations have repeatedly shown that studies funded by drug companies favor drugs 80 percent of the time.

This makes such conflicts of interest between Big Pharma and medical journals a major hurdle when it comes to upholding scientific excellence. Earlier this year, a study was published that showed nearly ONE MILLION Europeans were killed over a five-year span through the inappropriate prescription of beta blockers for non-cardiac surgery.

The research serving as the basis for this deadly prescription guideline was published in prestigious peer reviewed journals.

It's also important to realize that all research is NOT published. And it should come as no surprise that drug studies funded by a pharmaceutical company that reaches a negative conclusion will rarely ever see the light of day. This is equally, if not more, detrimental to science-based medicine.

Hundreds of Computer Generated Studies Have Been Published

But it actually gets worse. The featured article in Slate magazine,5 headlined "How Gobbledygook Ended Up in Respected Scientific Journals," is an ominous warning of what is happening to the scientific field as a whole.

"In 2005, a group of MIT graduate students decided to goof off in a very MIT graduate student way: they created a program called SCIgen that randomly generated fake scientific papers. Thanks to SCIgen, for the last several years, computer-written gobbledygook has been routinely published in scientific journals and conference proceedings,"Slate magazine reports.

"According to Nature News,Cyril Labbé, a French computer scientist, recently informed Springer and the IEEE, two major scientific publishers, that between them, they had published more than 120 algorithmically-generated articles.6

In 2012, Labbé had told the IEEE of another batch of 85 fake articles. He's been playing with SCIgen for a few years—in 2010 a fake researcher he created, Ike Antkare, briefly became the 21st most highly cited scientist in Google Scholar's database."

So, just how many papers containing computer generated nonsense have been published? It appears no one knows. The creators of SCIgen made the program available by free download, and other people, besides its three creators, have been using it, too.7

Labbé, mentioned above, developed a way to detect SCIgen generated manuscripts, and have alerted publishers about 205 of them so far. But there's no telling how many people, researchers included, have used SCIgen or how many of its papers have actually been accepted for publication. Nature8 writes:

"'The papers are quite easy to spot,' says Labbé, who has built a website9where users can test whether papers have been created using SCIgen. His detection technique, described in a study10 published in Scientometrics in 2012, involves searching for characteristic vocabulary generated by SCIgen."

How Academic Publishing Contributes to Demise of Science

As reported in the featured Slatearticle,11 other major contributing factors to this deterioration of scientific merit is the fact that a) academic publishing has became incredibly lucrative, and b) in order to advance your academic career, you have to publish lots of papers.12 As explained by Slate magazine:

"Today, the most critical measure of an academic article's importance is the 'impact factor' of the journal it is published in. The impact factor... measures how often articles published in a journal are cited...13 There is an analogy here to the way Google and other search engines index Web pages. So-called search-engine optimization aims to boost the rankings of websites...

Scientists routinely add citations to papers in journals they are submitting to in the hopes of boosting chances of acceptance. They also publish more papers... in the hopes of being more widely cited themselves. This creates a self-defeating cycle... The only solution, as Colin Macilwain wrote in Nature14 last summer, is to 'Halt the avalanche of performance metrics.'"

NIH Vows to Tackle Science's Reproducibility Problem

In March 2012, Reuters15 reported the shocking finding that the vast majority of the "landmark" studies on cancer cannot be reproduced, and that a high proportion of those unreliable studies come from respectable university labs. Former drug company researcher Glenn Begley looked at 53 papers in the world's top journals, and found that he and a team of scientists were unable to replicate 47 of the 53 published studies—all of which were considered important and valuable for the future of cancer treatments! The allegations appeared in the March 28, 2012 issue of the journal Nature.16

"It was shocking," Begley told Reuters.17"These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development. But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value."

The "reproducibility problem" has become so great that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently vowed to tackle it head on, lest science lose all credibility. As reported by FierceBiotech:18

"[T]hanks to some high-profile failings in some of the world's leading journals, the call for reform has reached a fever pitch, and National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins has taken up the baton. In an essay published in Nature, Collins and Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak write that 'the checks and balances that once ensured scientific fidelity have been hobbled' over the past few years, as researchers strive to be provocative at the cost of explaining their methodology. 

That shoot-for-the-moon paradigm is only made worse by funding agencies, academic centers and journals, the two write, as many science financiers encourage hyperbole in hopes of snagging headlines. 
And while the problem starts at the preclinical level, it can quickly trickle up into the drug development world. As Reuters19 reports, Amgen found in 2011 that its researchers could confirm just 6 of the 53 breakthrough cancer studies they vetted, while Bayer said in 2012 that of 67 landmark studies in oncology, women's health, and cardiovascular disease, it could verify only 14." [Emphasis mine]

What's Being Done to Get Science Back on Track?

According to the NIH, part of the reproducibility problem stems from poor training, so a program is being developed to educate researchers on good experimental design and transparent conduct. It really is hard to imagine why researchers would not have received this type of training previously, as this is exactly the kind of training you should get when studying at some of the most respectable universities in the country. In my mind, this is yet another strong indication that industry funding research institutions is a trend loaded with potential for massive abuse.

Other strategies under consideration by the NIH include conducting more in-depth reviews to ensure appropriate scientific basis and viability of research. The NIH is also calling on journals, academics, and industry to assist in correcting current flaws. Journals, for example, are asked to highlight failed studies and corrections, while universities are urged to change priorities to avoid incentivizing premature publication in the interest of gaining tenure. Individual researchers are also urged to explain their methodology in greater detail, to facilitate evaluation of their work. Last but not least, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology will be holding hearings in which researchers and journal editors will be interviewed to get a better grasp of the problems. If deemed necessary, policy recommendations may be issued.

The Era of Decision-Based Evidence Making Is Upon Us; Can This Trend Be Reversed?

It's become quite clear that instead of evidence-based decision making, we now have decision-based evidence making... Scientific evidence appears to be largely concocted to support analready established corporate agenda, and any scientific investigation that refutes or questions it is either suppressed or squelched by virtually any means.

The public is further deceived by clever and highly paid PR firms, disguised as scientific organizations but set up specifically for the purpose of controlling how the media reports new science and portrays industry. Two examples are Science Media Centre (SMC) and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), both of which are heavily funded by industry. The problem is made worse by the fact that many journalists today are not doing their due diligence in fact-checking their sources.

These organizations are anything but independent, from their scientists to their governing boards. SMC has branches all over the world, its primary purpose being to control the press using a team of not-so-independent scientists who spin science news in industry's favor. SMC "experts" (physicians, research scientists, university professors, etc.) have undisclosed and far-reaching affiliations with biotech giants, including EFSA, Bayer, Pioneer-DuPont, Syngenta, and Monsanto. You've likely seen these so-called experts on the evening news spinning scientific information more times than you can count.

Who and What Can You Trust?

The bottom line is that you need to be skeptical of ANY published study, particularly if it comes from an obscure journal. But you can no longer completely trust even the most respected journals, for all of the reasons discussed above. Always consider the source of the information... Who funded the study and where it was published? Also do not accept the findings of any single paper, as scientific results are only reliableafter replication and the building of consensus through time. Always look for corroboration.

In order to determine the best course of action in any situation, you've got to use all the resources available to you, including your own common sense and reason, true expert advice, and the experience of those you trust. Remain skeptical but open. Even if it is something I'm saying, you need to realize that YOU are responsible for your and your family's health, not me—and certainly not the pharmaceutical and/or chemical technology industries who will try to sell you their wares and seduce you with innovative (but often risky) "science-based solutions."

If you're facing a health challenge, make sure your healthcare practitioners really understand health at a foundational level and have extensive experience helping others. In the meantime, be proactive! Making wise lifestyle choices will keep you healthy and decrease your odds of needing risky medical interventions in the future.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/30/fake-scientific-journals.aspx?e_cid=20141230Z1-USCanada_DNL_art_2&utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20141230Z1-USCanada&et_cid=DM65689&et_rid=785489770