The Cow Has No Legs

November 27, 2009 at 8:25 am (Cancer, Critical Thinking, Current Events, Nutrition, Vegan & Vegetarianism)
Tags: , , , , , ,

 

Many people, of course, prefer food in what the vegetarians call ’the secondhand form’, i.e. after it has been digested and converted into meat for us by domestic animals kept for this purpose. In all these processes, however, ninety-nine parts of the solar energy are wasted for every part used. We shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing, by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.”

Winston Churchill, 1931

“Fifty Years Hence“

Strand Magazine

Know what you call a cow with no legs?  Ground beef.  Know what you call beef with no cow?  Me neither.  But Winston Churchill once opined that it would be possible to grow meat without needing to tend to an actual animal.  This sci-fi concept of Jurassic Park meets Transmetropolitan meets Soylent Green is showing the vat cloning of livestock becoming a reality.   Scientists are growing nuggets of meat in laboratories without the ongoing use of animals.  In vitro meat production is a specialized form of tissue engineering, a biomedical practice in which scientists try to grow animal tissues like bone, skin, kidneys and hearts. Proponents say it will ultimately be a more efficient way to make animal meat, which would reduce the carbon footprint of meat products.  Much of the newest technology was presented at the Norwegian In Vitro Meat Symposium (motto: “Tastes Like Chicken!”).

This process seemingly solves many of the problems with a meat-eating world.  Contamination issues could be nearly eliminated.  Environmental issues such as the wasting of land, greenhouse gasses and water concerns raised by factory farming would be a thing of the past. And the problems of animal cruelty and barbaric slaughter processes would be non-existant in the laboratory kitchens.  Once the animal has been cloned, there really is no further suffering at the cost of producing the meat.  It’s like the joke about the lady in the supermarket’s meat section who couldn’t find the larger turkeys.  She asks the young clerk: 

“Sonny, do these turkeys get any bigger?”

“No, Ma’am.  They’re dead.”

Dead is dead and the damage has been done.  For PETA, not killing animals is good enough.  They have offered $1 million to the first people who produce an in vitro chicken-meat product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh to non-meat-eaters and meat-eaters alike.   And to the animals, not killing them is the good part.   But therein lies the (dry?) rub.  The reduction of our planet’s suffering and that of her animals are not really the only problems at hand.  The damage to humans from cloned, lab produced meat probably doesn’t occur until the meat is eaten.  In case you’ve forgotten, the evidence is very strong that eating animal protein causes cancer.  Like an on/off switch.  Eat enough of it…you are many times more likely to develop cancer.  Eat very little or none of it, you markedly reduce your likelihood of developing many cancers and heart disease.

Whether the animal product is from a test tube or gnawed off the animal itself, I do not think this fact will change. Cloned meat will probably prove to be just as unhealthy, just as dangerous and just as carcinogenic as farmed meat albeit a bit nicer to the donor.  Which makes it a slightly better idea than picking up packages of dead animal flesh from your friendly neighborhood grocer as long as you don’t plan to eat it.

Dr. Brett Kinsler writes for RochesterChiro.wordpress.com and doesn’t think lab meat sounds tasty at all.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

2 Comments

Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts

November 21, 2009 at 2:31 pm (Nutrition, Patient Information, Vegan & Vegetarianism)
Tags: , , , , , ,

Food labeling cartoonAs chiropractors, we often get asked about diet and lifestyle in addition to the usual neck and back pain complaints.  In the current word-of-mouse era we live in, patients have access to an unprecedented amount of information only a click away.  Most have done their own research before they bring the subject up in our office.  Sometimes this is helpful.  Other times, it has only served to confuse them.  Some patients choose to follow each and every bit of nutritional news which only serves to drive them crazy.  Today, eggs are bad but coffee is good for you.   Yesterday it sounded like coffee was the Devil’s drink but eggs were the perfect nutritional powerhouse.

So what are they looking for from us?  Google “diabetes”  or “heart disease” and you will get well over ten million hits.  Most likely, after the cereal, shake and snack bar Googlemercials, the next few links will be to popular sources like WebMD.  These have their place but they are supported largely by pharmaceutical ad revenue.  Even if patients found their way to Medline (a source for medical journals) the average person is not used to reading technical and often seemingly contradictory research studies.

What patients are looking for is a way to look out at the endless sea of information and fish out from it the most relevant facts to their own situation.  This should be the role of their health care provider — to assist in this process.  Yet, in many cases, the information from the health care provider does not help in a positive way.

 The cycle goes something like this:

  • patient gets diagnosis (or is told to “lose a few”)
  • patient finds the latest “diet” and follows it
  • patient loses a couple pounds then hits a plateau
  • patient gets frustrated and goes back to old habits
  • this becomes another “diet” that they tried that didn’t work. 

Any diet can work, especially in the short term.  The problem is most are unhealthy and are being used as a temporary fix.  Even diets like the South Beach Diet, which is very effective at weight loss in the beginning, is not an effective long term plan for health when taking into account factors like cancer and heart disease due to too much reliance upon animal protein and complicated “what you can eat when” charts.

Nutritional science can be very technical and complex.  Even if you make it a full time endeavor, keeping up on all the latest research is nearly impossible.  What is a person to do?  First, forget about the current politics of food.  Using only common sense, imagine what a healthy, nutritional meal might look like.  Chances are you imagined a plateful of vegetables.  Maybe there was some meat or fish on the side but the bulk of the plate was filled with plant foods.  Well, let’s start there.  Make your meals (and snacks) look like that imagined ideal meal.  Dramatically reduce (or eliminate if you can) the size of the animal protein (meat, fish, dairy) you have on the plate.  Push it off to the side and fill the rest of the space with several different plant foods.  Add a heap of brown rice or a plain baked or sweet potato.  Then add sauteed spinach, roast carrots, steamed broccoli and/or peas.  See what you did there?  Without even going to night school to get your Masters in Clinical Nutrition, you just put together a perfectly healthy meal.  Just make sure the vast majority of stuff on your plate is unprocessed and plant based.  Still hungry?  Try some whole grain bread with your meal and some fruit for dessert.  Getting started really is that simple.

Dr. Michalene Elliott is a chiropractor in Rochester, NY who has gotten started.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Leave a Comment

Rethinking Cancer Screening

November 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm (Cancer, Critical Thinking, Current Events, Screening)
Tags: , , , , , , ,

 

Mark Twain sent a note to the New York Journal in 1897 responding to a story error in which the illness of Mark Twain’s cousin was incorrectly reported as Twain’s death. Twain told the Journal: “The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society told the New York Times on October 21, 2009, “We don’t want people to panic, but I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated.”  In other words, the reports of the benefits of screening have been greatly exaggerated.

The recommendations for mammograms and prostate cancer screening have been off target and set against what the evidence suggested for decades.   An article in the October 21, 2009 issue of Journal of the American Medical Association, titled “Rethinking Screening for Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer”, says so.  Millions of patients have been damaged by the universal and overly enthusiastic recommendations of early detection programs and screenings.   Oops.  The American Cancer Society’s sorry.  Their bad.  Buy you a drink? 

Enough good scientific evidence to stop these screening programs has been readily available for more than 30 years.  In 1976 Pietro M. Gullino presented his findings on the natural history of cancer, showing early detection is really late detection.  Many other researchers have stated that mammography, breast self-examination, PSA and digital rectal exam are really late detection methods and cannot be expected to save lives by catching cancer before it spreads. By the time these methods “catch” a tumor, the likelihood is that it has already metastasized. 

Sadly, as in so many other fields, there is no money to be made in telling the truth and more than $20 billion is spent annually on screening for breast and prostate cancer.  And while the press may have you believing that there has been a massive breakthrough in the literature leading to the guideline changes, the truth is that the evidence has not changed — only now, more people are willing to tell the truth and give up their chunk of the $20 billion screening pie and hundreds of billions more for the tests and treatments that follow.

And Dr. Brawley (chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society) has “never had a PSA and I do not desire one.” He compares prostate screening to the Tuskegee Experiment—research on the natural progression of untreated syphilis performed on black male patients between 1932 and 1972. This study caused serious mistrust by the black community toward public health efforts in the United States, the ripples of which continue to be evident in some areas today.   Ironically, black males are heavily targeted for prostate cancer screening and treatments.  Brawley has further noted that he is aware of twenty-three different organizations of experts in screening around the world who have considered the question and all have chosen not to make the blanket statement that screening saves lives and men should be screened. Most actually recommend men not get the test because it is not proven effective.

So when the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced changing its guidelines for mammography and no longer recommending routine screening for women between the ages of 40 and 49 Brawley seems to have changed his tune somewhat. “The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40. When recommendations are based on judgments about the balance of risks and benefits, reasonable experts can look at the same data and reach different conclusions.” Okidokie, spin doctor.  Interesting how his views change once he is on the payroll for the ACS (his anti-screening opinions were published when he was at the NCI).

The benefits of screening and early detection are theoretically possible for prostate and breast cancer.  But as of yet, these benefits are unknown.  What is known are the risks and harms of screening and the resultant unnecessary treatment for millions that lead to morbidity, mortality, breast mutilation or loss of sexual function.

So the ACS is sorry they have mislead you.  I’m sure they promise never to do it again.  In fact, given the extremely strong evidence linking the consumption of animal protein to cancer, the ACS clearly states that people should, “limit intake of processed and red meats”.  Wow!  Strong words, there.  Limit intake?  Whoa.  Let me process that for a while.  Oh, and we are suggested to ”choose fish or poultry”.  Right, because they’re plants, right?  “When you eat meat, choose lean cuts.” 

This is a very interesting strategy on the part of the American Cancer Society.  They are already preparing us for the next big apology.  See, in another 15 or 20 years, they are going to report on the evidence which we already know today.  Animal protein increases cancer rates.  They’re so sorry.  Really. They should have told you that sooner, too.  Buy you a drink?

- BLK

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

3 Comments

Could Your PCP Pick You Out Of A Line Up?

November 10, 2009 at 4:44 pm (Communication, Critical Thinking, Current Events, Managed Care, Medical Ethics, Patient Information, health insurance)
Tags: , , ,

DocBaker

I doubt mine could.  Which makes me think about Little House on the Prairie.  Anyone around in the 1970s remembers idyllic Walnut Grove, where Doc Baker took care of everyone and their pets.  He gave advice, dispensed medicines and sent the tough cases to Mancato (the big city).  People ran into him at the general store and he promised to stop on by the next time he was out their way.  To our modern ears, it sounds very quaint until you realize that this is the model of health care that we aspire to and were supposed to get with the onset of HMOs.  Under that model, we were each supposed to have a PCP who would monitor our health, give us lifestyle advice and send us to a specialist if any red flags showed up.  This would be the ‘gatekeeper’ (insurance term) that would be familiar enough with our health history that his or her decision would be one based on a long view of our individual health status.  Unfortunately, this model was managed to death by efficiency experts until it is neither efficient or effective.  The political choices we have before us continue this trend. Until we as patients demand better, the push will be for PCPs to do more with less.  In a recent poll (Investors Daily)  45 % of primary care physicians will consider quitting medicine if the government takes over the health care system.  That is approximately 360,000 doctors that will consider quitting practice.  Clearly, doctors are as frustrated as their patients.  Health care reform, to make any meaningful changes needs to redefine the role of doctor and patient.  The most efficient role the doctor can play is health coach in a proactive way.  That can’t be done in 5-10 minutes once a year. Or with a quick blood test.  Patients that are empowered by their relationship with their doctor will make the most beneficial (and coincidentally, the most cost-effective) changes to their own health.  In that climate, there will be less of a role for bean counters and government pencil pushers.  Let’s not give up the idea of Doc Baker too quickly. 

Dr. Michalene Elliott is a chiropractor in Rochester, NY who doesn’t want to be managed anymore.

Leave a Comment