From the monthly archives: "October 2010"
Moldy chocolate

Trick or treat, smell my feet, give me something good to eat!  Just make sure it hasn’t been sitting around for too long.  Some candy has limited shelf life–something for parents to think about before hiding and storing Halloween candy meant to be doled out to the kids later.

According to Karen Blakeslee, an extension associate for food safety at Kansas State University, shelf life can vary anywhere from two weeks to a year, depending on the type of candy, packaging and storage conditions.  Hard candy may last indefinitely, but chocolate can go bad.  Oh boo hoo…I know.  People have suffered from salmonella poisoning from eating spoiled chocolate.

Some signs to look for are extreme stickiness and/or graininess in chocolate.  Sound pretty nasty to me, so I can’t imagine anybody failing to catch that.  Also look out for an unusual flavor, as well as a change in color.  With chocolate candy containing fruits or nuts, be on the look out for mold.

Typically, the softer the candy, the shorter the shelf life.  Storing in a cool, dry and dark place is always best.

Look, why not ration out a week’s worth, and then toss the rest?  That’s the safest and easiest way to approach things.  You might need to check the individual candies, since there’s no way of telling which misers kept their candy from last Halloween to hand out this year.   But saying that, if most people are like me, that candy’s not lasting more than a week no matter what the amount.  Darn Halloween.

TMJ syndrome is a painful condition of the jaw joint (temporomandibular joint).  Many people suffer from TMJ syndrome without even knowing it.  They may have neck pain; they may have headaches; they may have no pain at all, but an annoying clicking and popping of the jaw.

TMJ syndrome does not have to be a chronic condition, though.  I treat many people with TMJ syndrome in my Los Angles, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood chiropractic clinic.  To see how I might treat someone with this painful jaw condition, please watch the video below.

For more information on TMJ syndrome–it’s causes as well as it’s solution, please read the article here.

I know, we all want green tea to work for something; but when it comes to preventing breast cancer, green tea comes up short.  A recent Japanese study failed to show any protective effects against breast cancer from drinking green tea.

The study, conducted by the Epidemiology and Prevention Division at the Research Center for Cancer Prevention and Screening of the National Cancer Center in Tokyo, collected data on 53,793 women who were surveyed between 1995 and 1998.  As part of the survey, the women were asked how much green tea they drank.  A follow up survey was conducted at five years where they the women were asked the same questions but also which types of green tea were drunk (Sencha or Bancha/Genmaicha).

The survey results showed that 12% drank less than one cup of green tea per week, while 27% drank five or more cups a day.  There were also women who drank more than 10 cups per day.

They followed the women for almost fourteen years and found that 350 of them developed breast cancer in that time period.  But researchers found no less risk in women who drank green tea than in those who did not.

According to scientists, the strength in this study was its research design, particularly that green tea consumption was recorded before breast cancer was diagnosed, thus eliminating “the exposure recall bias inherent to case-control studies,” lead researcher Dr. Motoki Iwasaki said.

Still, some people want to hang on.  Like I said, we all really want green tea to be beneficial.  Case in point, Jennifer J. Hu, professor of epidemiology and public health at the University of Miami School of Medicine‘s Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center.  Says Hu, “just by drinking green tea you don’t get enough of the [possible cancer-fighting ingredient] to make much of a difference.”  She also states that population-based studies fail to localize single factors, as many more factors may play a part.

Yes, I can see Ms. Hu’s point.  Perhaps a study on freebasing green tea may produce the results she wants.  Let’s not all hold our breaths, though.

Numbness and tingling can be an unnerving symptom no matter where it is felt.  When it happens in the arms and hands it can be especially disconcerting since we use our upper limbs constantly.  What causes numbness and tingling in the arms and hands?  Well the most oft-diagnosed condition is carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), but I’m telling you it’s what we call a BS diagnosis.  Along with “tendonitis,” “sprain/strain,” and “arthritis,” carpal tunnel syndrome is just another way of saying, “I’m really busy; I don’t have time to investigate, and ultimately, I don’t know what you’ve got.”

Any doctors reading this?  If what I say pisses you off, it’s because IT”S TRUE!  Doctors not versed in musculoskeletal problems give the BS carpal tunnel syndrome diagnosis (it’s a guess), and quite often, they’re wrong.  It wouldn’t be such a big deal except that the treatment for CTS is the ol’ snip-snip.  Can’t reverse that, so it behooves one getting this diagnosis to seek a second opinion.  I’d try an orthopedist or sports chiropractor; these professionals focus on musculoskeletal complaints and thus have a good grip on what might be going on.

One thing that can cause numbness and tingling in the arms and hands is an ulnar nerve entrapment or impingement syndrome.  The ulnar nerve, which innervates or controls the last two fingers (ring to pinky), can become compressed by the forearm muscles.  When this happens forearm pain and numbness and/or tingling in the last two fingers can occur.

A good sports chiropractor can alleviate this discomfort and teach you stretches and exercises to prevent further problems.  I highly suggest getting any arm, forearm or hand numbness/tingling checked by a doctor, because any nerve irritation can lead to long-term damage.  While waiting to get in to see the doc, however, you can do some things at home on your own.  Watch the video below to get some tips on alleviating arm and hand numbness and tingling.

And please, before you get the ol’ snip-snip, go see a sports chiropractor (or an orthopedist) for a second opinion.

Oh yeaaahhhh…Four Lokos, beatches.  Ya heard?  Four Lokos is the stuff: alcohol and caffeine–a goofy combination.  And goofy is what you’ll be when you drink the Four Lokos.  23 ½-ounces of fruity malt liquor, 12% alcohol, liquid speed and sugar–woo-boy, boing!  Can’t say it better than the official Facebook page:

“you will remember absolutely nothing in the morning, probably acted like a slut, and possibly tried to fight someone. It’s a four loko thing…”

This is no joke…it’s Four Lokos, mang.  It’s like drinking four beers at a time.  Double fist it, brah!  Yeh boyeee….

Nine Central Washington University freshmen were hospitalized after an Oct. 8th party, where when cops arrived they found “three girls sprawled on a bed, a barely conscious young man was being dragged out of the backyard, a girl was prostrate on the bathroom floor and three young people were splayed senseless in a car outside.”

Many CWU students couldn’t believe it either; they thought that, perhaps, roofies were involved.  They just couldn’t believe that this motley scene might be tied to the Four Lokos, which is also known as, the “blackout in a can.”  The students hospitalized had blood alcohol levels ranging from .123 to .35.  Doh!  Anything over .30 can lead to alcohol poisoning and death.  That’s right, G…don’t be a sissy, pound that twit.

For $2.50 a can???  Man, you can’t get that drunk since Night Train.  Yeh boyeee….

But not everybody’s laughing.  A Washington, D.C.-based consumer advocacy group Center for Science in the Public Interest sued Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing Co., who eventually agreed to take their own “energy beverages” off the market.

As pointed out by the L.A. Times:

“That lawsuit cited a study by the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, which found that young drinkers of so-called alcospeed beverages were more likely to binge drink, become injured, ride with an intoxicated driver or be taken advantage of sexually than drinkers of conventional alcoholic drinks.”

Although their aren’t any studies yet showing the effects of alcosopeed on the body, some believe the combination of alcohol and caffeine gives young drinkers a false sense of alertness, enticing them to drink more and more, leading to potentially dangerous blood alcohol levels.  The FDA will push for studies before setting out regulations on the alcospeed.

But don’t think for a second that Phusion Projects LLC of Chicago–manufacturers of Four Lokos–are not abhorred by the “irresponsible use” of their energy beverages.  Company officials said,

“The events in central Washington this month were inexcusable. And most would expect our company to disagree with recent decisions to ban our products from college campuses… We do not. We agree with the goals that underlie those sentiments,” 

Aw mang, don’t pull my Four Lokos…pleeease!!!  How am I gonna git “F”ed up for two-fifty, mang?  Guess I’ll have to go back to robotripping.

Does your child drink caffeine?  How young is too young to drink “the fuel?”  As an ingredient to many children’s favorites from sodas to candy to ice cream, as well as many over-the-counter pain and cold medications, it behooves parents to know just how caffeine may affect your child.

According to the Nemours Foundation–a pediatric health system and research group–here are some of the ways caffeine affects a child’s body:  Can cause

  • nervous and jittery feelings
  • an upset stomach.
  • headaches.
  • trouble concentrating and sleeping.
  • a spike in heart rateand blood pressure

Madness, to me, is the thought of parents giving their children full-on coffee drinks as beverages.  But hey, who am I to judge?  If it’s no problem for you to handle a screaming, caffeine-amped maniac, then more power to ya.

Even worse, though, is the number of parents feeding their children liquid sugar.  If that isn’t enough caffeine and sugar to whack them out physically and mentally, then throw in some Cap’n Crunch.  Be my guest…it’s your kid.  My girls won’t get caffeine before high school if we can help it, and maybe even college if it’s entirely up to me.

But it’s a tough one with caffeine and sugar permeating most popular kids’ drinks.  In any case, if you are allowing your child to drink soda and coffee beverages to their juvenile hearts’ content, then don’t be surprised when they’re put on the Ritalin at school–it’s a natural progression.

Adversity in life is necessary to build resilience and adaptation, so says a recent study published in the October issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  According to the study, people that experienced some adverse events reported better mental health and well-being than those exposed to high levels of adversity or no adversity at all.

Researchers at the University at Buffalo looked at 2,398 people who took part in a national survey each year from 2001 to 2004, and found that people with a history of some lifetime adversity appeared to weather recent adverse events better than other people.

“Our findings revealed that a history of some lifetime adversity–relative to both no adversity or high adversity–predicted lower global distress, lower functional impairment, lower [post-traumatic stress] symptoms and higher life satisfaction,” said study author Mark Seery, an assistant professor of psychology at the university.

The study looked at “major lifetime adversity,” but the authors note that even relatively mundane challenges may increase overall resilience.

Well no surprises here, as I know how important challenges are to our physical, mental and spiritual growth.  Sure we can call it resilience, although I’d just call it evolution.  Avoiding or resisting challenges and having others provide constant protective support does not allow for maximal growth.  Neither does an overload of stress for that matter, so these results would be expected.  I’m just pleased to see that they’ve now put a study to what appears to me a experiential-truth.

Good job America, you’re on the road to hyperglycemia–yes diabetes–and you’re doing it right.  According to officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 3 Americans will have diabetes by 2050.  Awesome!  Eat more sugar, eat more processed junk food, you’ll get there soon enough.  Stay focused people…FOCUS!

Ten years ago, experts at the CDC estimated that as many as 39 million Americans could have diabetes by mid-century, but today they say it could be in the 76 million to 100 million range.  Nice America, don’t you love exceeding expectations?

Here’s what you can expect from your diabetes, folks:

So keep drinking them sodas, peeps; diabetes will not be far off.  I know, I know it’s tough.  Temptations lay all around us.  The inability to practice discipline in the face of desire is a human enigma that has baffled great thinkers for millennia.  But remember you do have a choice in the matter: Type 2 diabetes represents 90-95% of all diagnosed cases, and it is lifestyle related.

Those who have high levels of physical activity, a healthy diet, do not smoke, and consume alcohol in moderation have an 82% lower rate of diabetes. When a person is of  normal weight, the rate is 89% lower.  Obesity contributes to approximately 55% of type 2 diabetes cases.

So it’s up to you, folks: Want to be in the group of people without diabetes in 2050, or you want to be a 1/3er?  Got to make the choice and changes now.

Buttock pain has many sources, none more irritating than piriformis syndrome.  Piriformis syndrome is a condition of a tight, inflamed piriformis muscle that clamps down on the sciatic nerve.  Piriformis syndrome, then, can lead to sciatica, a sharp, burning electrical pain down the leg and sometimes into the foot.

Piriformis syndrome needs to be diagnosed by a doctor–preferably a sports chiropractor, since you can get diagnosed and treated in the same office.  There are, however, some things that can be done at home to alleviate the symptoms.

Watch the video below to get some tips on how to take care of your own hip or buttock pain caused by piriformis syndrome.  Or you can also read the article here to learn more about piriformis syndrome

Everybody knows about PMS, but do women change their behavior during ovulation?  Current research says they do, sexually…and these changes may have evolutionary significance in spreading our genes.Two new studies in the November issue of the journal Evolution and Human Behavior find that women get a little wilder during their most fertile days of the month.  One study found that ovulating women are more open to the idea of hooking up with a stranger or acquaintance, while the other study found that women with less masculine-looking partners are more likely to lust after men with “masculine” traits–like strong, square jaws–than women with partners already possessing those traits.In the past, most research on the menstrual cycle focused on premenstrual syndrome (PMS), but these new studies are two of more than twenty focusing on behavioral changes brought about by ovulation.  Researchers in evolutionary biology have taken it for granted that ovulation is of slight significance since humans have deviated from the typical estrus cycle (heat) of mammals, and can be up for sex anytime of the month.This, however, is just a theory, and a wrong one at that.  For instance, men can tell when a woman is ovulating, although they do so imperfectly.  Some experts believe it’s through smell–of pheromones, excreted chemicals that triggers a social response in members of the same species–but this is just a hypothesis.  Several studies, however, have found that women report that their men become more attentive and jealous around fertile days. One study, in fact, found that when women were fertile, their male partners saw other men as a greater threat.Further, women do have a sort-of “heat” phase, yet instead of simply being more receptive to sex, they want it for different reasons.  Consider this phase a lust-cycle, where women want sex for sex’s sake and not for intimacy, which might be more the reason outside of the cycle.

The second study of the pair looked at women’s phenotypic preference for masculine traits during fertile periods.  Several previous studies had found that, when ovulating, women tended to go for more masculine-looking men.  Masculine traits fertile women prefer are strong-jawed faces, muscular bodies, dominant behaviors, deep voices and tallness.

(Example of test picture to the left–women, which face do you prefer?)

In the latest study, researchers found that if a woman is partnered with a man without a masculine face, her eye is more likely to wander during her fertile days. Now this doesn’t mean she’ll necessarily act on her wandering eye, but she’ll likely look nonetheless.  And other studies have shown that the hormonal fluctuations surrounding ovulation do change women’s attitudes and behavior.  For instance, fertile women seem to be more open than non-fertile women to the idea of taking “sexual pleasures where [they] find them.”  According to the authors of the study, women in ovulation are more likely to express interest in sleeping with an attractive stranger or someone they don’t care about.  Just sex.

Women in ovulation also tried harder to look nice for pictures, according to a 2006 study, showing that the hormonal changes may also affect female decision making.  An online shopping experiment reveals fertile women are also more likely to choose sexy clothes and accessories than women who weren’t fertile, according to the study published online in the Journal of Consumer Research in August.  Finally, in a widely publicized study published in Evolution and Human Behavior in 2007, researchers found that ovulating strippers made an average of $30 more an hour than menstruating strippers and $15 more an hour than non-ovulating, non-menstruating strippers.

So to conclude, during fertile periods, women tend to be a bit friskier, make decisions about their attractiveness, look harder at masculine features, and be more likely to engage in casual sex.  Why?  To ensure the likelihood of fertilization and to increase the probability of finding successful genes, biologically speaking that is.  I don’t know about you, but it sounds to me like the human female is as much a product of her biology as a man is.  Cool, huh?

With regard to HIV and race, blacks have the highest infection rates. And black men may be playing a significant role as a result of homophobic beliefs. This was the hypothesis recently studied to determine why blacks have disproportionately high HIV numbers.

The study conducted at the University of Washington in Seattle looked at social factors in men who have sex with men (MSM), not risky sexual behavior, as previous studies have shown this not to be a factor with blacks as compared to whites. What the researchers found was a prevailing attitude of homophobia among black men in general, and even in black MSM.

Using data from a U.S. health survey, the researchers found that, in general, African-Americans were more likely than whites to report a negative attitude toward homosexuality.

In 2008, 72% of black adults said that homosexuality was “always wrong”—a rate that had changed little since the 1970s. Among whites, 52% expressed that view in 2008, which was down from 71% in 1973.

A similar pattern was seen among men who reported having sex with other men. Of these men, 57% of African Americans said they believed homosexuality was always wrong, versus 27% of whites.

When the researchers looked at the men’s reported rates of HIV testing, they found that those who regarded homosexuality as wrong were less likely to have ever been tested: 36%, versus 73% of those with a more favorable view of homosexuality.

Hmmm….I see the dilemma here. First, let me say this is an excellent study, as it seeks to understand a phenomenon not explainable by sexual behavior alone, and it is important to understand why. Let’s look at the numbers.

  • 1 in 16 black Americans will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime—more than twice the risk for Hispanics and eight times that of whites
  • in 2006 African-Americans accounted for nearly half (45%) of new infections in the 50 states and the District of Columbia
  • Blacks accounted for 56% of deaths due to HIV in 2009 and their survival time after an AIDS diagnosis is lower on average than it is for most other racial/ethnic groups
  • African-Americans account for 24% of reported HIV cases among gay and bisexual men in the U.S.

Homophobic beliefs may be contributing. It’s important to point out here that the results of the recent study do not prove that homophobia is a factor in the racial disparity in HIV infection among gay and bisexual men in the U.S., according to the study’s authors. It only gives researchers information for further study, while advocacy groups now have a point a focus politically and within community services.

“These kinds of studies are important,” said Francisco Roque, director of community health for Gay Men’s Health Crisis, a New York-based non-profit that provides HIV/AIDS education and services. According to Roque, such research-based data are helpful for gaining support for campaigns to address homophobia, as well as HIV/AIDS prevention.

How would homophobia contribute to the disproportionate numbers of HIV infection among black men? Little known is that MSM among “straight” men (SMSM) in the black community is not uncommon (it happens in all racial and ethnic groups incidentally). Because of the stigma of homosexuality in the African-American community, many infected SMSM are not getting tested, thus acting as an asymptomatic carrier.

With 36% of black MSM who look at homosexuality unfavorably not getting tested, HIV is likely being spread to both men and women in the black community with a big fat, “Huh?!?!” Again, we can’t use this study as proof, but it looks like a plausible explanation.

More stupidity coming out of the flu shot camp this year.  Same old propaganda.  Here’s the deal according to experts: You’re an idiot if you don’t get the flu shot.  All your reservations against getting the flu shot are false.  Not one thing you think negatively about the flu shot is proven, but get this…the flu shot is based on sound evidence.  Har, har, har.  Sounds like today’s best political style–if they disagree, denigrate them.

According to a recent report, many Americans are planning to bypass the flu shot this year.  A survey conducted by the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases (NFID) found that 43% of Americans will not be getting a flu shot this season.  Additionally, a second study found that one-third of American mothers said they have no plans to get a flu shot for their children.  Booyah!

I love it.  But the medical establishment doesn’t.  They’ve been ramming the flu shot malarkey down our throats for years, and they are WRONG!  Wrong.  I’ve been reporting on this sham for the last four years.  Every year they say the same thing.  2007 saw record flu shots given, yet the incidences of flu were off the charts.  The shot gave little protection that year.  In 2008, people kept away from the bull shot.  Guess what?  Flu cases went down!  Get it?

I’ve said this before, getting the flu strains right* in any particular year is very much like predicting the weather–it’s a crap shoot.  It’s freakin’ bogus.  But what really offends me is the arrogance by which the establishment belittles people who see this and choose not to swallow the BS being fed to them.

“Flu is serious. Every year millions of people get sick; more than 200,000 people are hospitalized and thousands of people die from influenza,” Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Yes, sick people, unhealthy people, immunocompromised people and malnourished children.  My children have had the flu every year–they’re alive.  God bless their immune systems.  If you want a flu shot–go get one; it’s available.  We’ll pass, though, thank you.  Are we stupid?  OK, I’ll take that under consideration.

Flu expert Dr. Marc Siegel believes that many people who opt not to get a flu shot are falling prey to myths about the vaccine. “It’s all because of this nonsense that’s been circulating that somehow the flu shot is dangerous.”

No doctor, listen up: It’s because the seasonal flu shot is bogus.  Plain and simple.  Wake up.

And his thoughts on the belief of some people that hand-washing helps prevent spread of the flu: “The idea that you are not going to spread the flu by washing your hands has never been proven,” Siegal noted.

And the sham that getting a flu shot prevents the flu has not only never been proven, it fails to do so many years–think 2007-2008.

I’ll keep reporting on this nonsense every year until the numbers of rejecters reaches high eighty percent.  Until then, hats off dissenters.  Glad you recognize the agenda.

* This year’s shot will contain the H1N1 strain…the same one they had to burn last season because nobody wanted.  Guess they found use for it.  How does it feel to be part of a massive public health experiment?

Low back pain can be caused by tight hip flexors.  The hip flexor muscle group is made up of the psoas, iliacus and rectus femoris (part of the quadriceps) muscles.  When tight, they pull the low back into a hyperlordosis, or an over-arch.  This causes pressure on the lumbar disks, leading to pain and stiffness of the low back.

The hip flexors can be loosened with a simple runners stretch.  You can do this at home finding complete low back pain relief, or it might be a good temporary fix before you get in to see your sports chiropractor.

Watch the video below to see the proper way of stretching the iliopsoas, or hip flexor complex.  If you need a good Los Angeles, Beverly Hills or West Hollywood sports chiropractor, check here.

Sorry cat lovers, but it is a dog in the home that might just help prevent eczema in your child.  Yup, poochie prophylactics we call ’em, and a recent study shows that it might just do the trick, immunologically, to keep your kid from developing the itchy skin inflammation.

The study, done in Cincinnati, found that children with a dog in the home at age 1 had a significantly reduced risk of eczema at age 4, but children who had a cat were more likely to have the ailment at the same age.  And get this, a dog in the child’s home also seemed to protect against allergies to cats.  Woof, woof, woof…

Over 600 newborns were looked at, some testing positive for dog allergies (meaning they were allergic even though they had no symptom), some not.  Of those testing positive, the children that did not live with a dog had four times the risk of getting eczema by age 4 than those who tested positive and did own a dog.  The higher the dog allergen levels were in the homes, the lower the risk was for the child developing eczema.

“It’s speculative, but possible that the protective effect is due to a sort of natural immunotherapy where children who are exposed to dogs become tolerant over time in the same way that people on allergy shots develop tolerance to allergens,” said study author Dr. Tolly Epstein, an assistant professor in the division of immunology, allergy and rheumatology at the University of Cincinnati Medical School.

Not all experts see the results as definitive, though.  Dr. Wanda Phipatanakul, an associate physician at Children’s Hospital in Boston, contends that other research has shown conflicting results on the impact of cats and dogs on the development of eczema.

“The jury is still out,” said Phipatanakul, who is also an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. “I don’t think anyone, including the authors, is saying to go get a few dogs, or don’t get a cat to reduce your risk.”

True, but you’ve got to admit, the results are interesting.  Preliminary as they may be, with more studies surely on their way, these findings are encouraging.  If they turn out to be correct, then the results might just show a greater symbiosis between man and his best friend.

Just to show you that today’s health care is all politics and money, let’s discuss the uproar over new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Thomas Frieden’s latest statement on the six priorities–or winnable battles–that the center should focus on: smoking, AIDS, obesity/nutrition, teen pregnancy, auto injuries and health care infections.

So what’s the uproar?  Think of all the other groups that want political backing and money: cancers, heart disease, eating disorders, mental health…SWINE FLU for crying out loud!  These left out groups just ain’t gonna see the money, baby.

Many advocates, legislators and others in public health have dedicated their lives to problems that did not make Frieden’s short list, so the complaints are rolling in…wah, wah, wah…and you thought health care was just about health.

Part of the problem for the groups left out is that most of Frieden’s “priorities” are long-standing, major challenges that get a lot of attention already.  Like, let somebody else in the club.  Corn nut allergies are grossly overlooked time and time again.

“So is hepatitis C,” cry pundits of this condition.  Heps B and C is are ticking time-bombs ready to explode, according to experts, so why not move smoking to the side for a decade or two?  Isn’t it enough that we’ve banned nearly all public smoking, and have reduced cigarette smokers to ostracized lepers?  

Frieden is known to somewhat shake the system.  As New York City’s health commissioner in 2002, he began by identifying the city’s most pressing health issues, leading campaigns to ban smoking in the workplace, tax soda, cut salt in processed foods, and ban artificial trans fats in restaurants.

Frieden calls his new short list “winnable battles” because, he says, proven programs can save lives and reduce harm from each of these health problems.  He believes government can make dramatic improvements if available money and manpower are focused.

I’ve personally got nothing against the CDC’s fight against “winnable battles.”  I might focus on six different priorities, but Frieden’s choices are certainly noble.   No doubt smoking and poor nutrition/obesity are the cause of numerous health problems.  Auto accidents kill many people unnecessarily, and with texting the new drinking for driving, we are going to have our hands full for quite awhile, I presume.

AIDS, frankly, doesn’t scare me as much as syphilis does, but…well, I’ll just say it…lots of money and politics there.  Reality is that many cases could be prevented through safe sex.  And nobody can convince me that there just aren’t enough free condoms to go around.  Uh huh…and infections continue to soar in certain populations, although we all know better…hmmm.

Health care infections?  Just a part of today’s overuse of medical care.  Got to change a whole paradigm to make a shift there, but the fact that the CDC considers it a priority is a move int he right direction.

I must say that I am pleased at the attention health and health care has been getting nationally.  Everybody is thinking about it these days–good, as it should be.  But I still can’t help but marvel at the bickering among health groups and organizations over which health malady is most important…especially since we all know that would be health maintenance.  But of course.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.