If someone you love has battled cancer, you know all too well the horrible side effects of the established cancer "treatments...Chemo & Radiation"
Vomiting-Nausea-Explosive diarrhea-Constipation-Severe pain-Fatigue
Hair-loss-Anemia-Immune suppression-Infection-Blood clotting-Kidney damage
Reproductive damage-Nerve & muscle damage-Damage to healthy cells, tissues, and organs... Even death!
And that's just to name a few. The fact is—
It's an OUTRAGE—
Chemo Drugs and Radiation are POISON!
It really chaps my hide that these mistreatments were ever approved for widespread use in the first place. It's a crime against humanity!
Consider this...
The September 1993 edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute of NIH reported that a major study, which included just about every type of cancer, determined that chemotherapy provided a "durable response" in just 3% of all cases. Another 4% of the patients in the study were found to have a "significantly long survival period."
In other words, only about 7%—less than 1 in 10—of all patients who undergo chemotherapy actually get much benefit out of it.
It's a roll of the dice! That's a lot of hair loss, vomiting, and death for such long odds, don't you think?
Why is it, then, that the medical establishment—after more than 60 years—still dogmatically adheres to these expensive and dangerous "treatments"?
Consider all the breakthroughs in other disciplines throughout the years. Just look at how far science and technology has come over the last six decades!
But these recommended cancer "treatments" are 60 years old and counting. Very little change. Precious little progress.
Maybe it's the way the entire medical establishment is set up to protect the status quo...
'Beneficial Potential'
...or the fact that the drug cos have their tentacles so deep in established medicine, that doctors get nearly all of their education on drug therapies from the drug companies themselves.
(Can you really trust a 'tonic and snake oil' peddler to disclose all the facts? Just remember the Vioxx fiasco.)
Make no mistake about it. Cancer is big business. And all those tonic-peddling fat cats are dining on your wallet at the expense of your life.
This unholy marriage between the pharmaceutical behemoths and the medical establishment is the classic wolf in sheep's clothing. They've succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public. But all the while, they've been committing highway robbery—not to mention mass murder—and getting away with it scot-free.
I could go on, and on, and ON. The simple truth is, the medical establishment has failed.
They've failed to end cancer. They've failed the American public. And they've failed you and your loved ones.
The Doctor Who Cures Cancer
The Story of Emanuel Revici, M.D.
His medical breakthroughs, innovative treatments, and struggle for recognition.
by William Kelley Eidem
Their Only Interest is Revenue along with common stock prices-options-bonuses fpr Officers etal !
My success with Curing 2007 Stage IV Metastised Prostate Cancer with a PLANT BASED DIET. Also Baking Soda for high pH. MANY have duplicated my success.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
25 Breast Cancer Myths Busted
25 Breast Cancer Myths Busted
10/26/11 FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING
Breast Cancer , Breast Cancer Awareness Month , Breast-Cancer , Breast-Cancer-Awareness-Month , Breast Cancer Myths , Deodorant Breast Cancer , Underwire Breast Cancer , Healthy Living News
1. Myth: Only women with a family history of breast cancer are at risk.
Reality: Roughly 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors for the disease. But the family-history risks are these: If a first-degree relative (a parent, sibling, or child) has had or has breast cancer, your risk of developing the disease approximately doubles. Having two first-degree relatives with the disease increases your risk even more.
2. Myth: Wearing an underwire bra increases your risk of getting breast cancer.
Reality: Claims that underwire bras compress the lymphatic system of the breast, causing toxins to accumulate and cause breast cancer, have been widely debunked as unscientific. The consensus is that neither the type of bra you wear nor the tightness of your underwear or other clothing has any connection to breast cancer risk.
3. Myth: Most breast lumps are cancerous.
Reality: Roughly 80% of lumps in women's breasts are caused by benign (noncancerous) changes, cysts, or other conditions. Doctors encourage women to report any changes at all, however, because catching breast cancer early is so beneficial. Your doctor may recommend a mammogram, ultrasound or biopsy to determine whether a lump is cancerous.
4. Myth: Exposing a tumor to air during surgery causes cancer to spread.
Reality: Surgery doesn't cause breast cancer and it doesn't cause breast cancer to spread, as far as scientists can tell from the research so far. Your doctor may find out during surgery that your cancer is more widespread than previously thought, however. And some animal studies have shown that removing the primary tumor sometimes enables metastatic cancers to grow, but only temporarily; this has not been demonstrated in humans.
5. Myth: Breast implants can raise your cancer risk.
Reality: Women with breast implants are at no greater risk of getting breast cancer, according to research. Standard mammograms don't always work as well on these women, however, so additional X-rays are sometimes needed to more fully examine breast tissue.
6. Myth: All women have a 1-in-8 chance of getting breast cancer.
Reality: Your risk increases as you get older. A woman's chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer is about 1 in 233 when she's in her 30s and rises to 1 in 8 by the time she's reached 85.
7. Myth: Wearing antiperspirant increases your risk of getting breast cancer.
Reality: The American Cancer Society pooh-poohs this rumor, but admits that more research is needed. One small study did stumble on traces of parabens in a tiny sample of breast cancer tumors. Parabens, used as preservatives in some antiperspirants, have weak estrogen-like properties, but the study in question made no cause-and-effect connection between parabens and breast cancer, nor did it conclusively identify the source of the parabens found in tumors.
8. Myth: Small-breasted women have less chance of getting breast cancer.
Reality: There's no connection between the size of your breasts and your risk of getting breast cancer. Very large breasts may be harder to examine than small breasts, with clinical breast exams -- and even mammograms and MRIs -- more difficult to conduct. But all women, regardless of breast size, should commit to routine screenings and checkups.
9. Myth: Breast cancer always comes in the form of a lump.
Reality: A lump may indicate breast cancer (or one of many benign breast conditions), but women should also be on the alert for other kinds of changes that may be signs of cancer. These include swelling; skin irritation or dimpling; breast or nipple pain; nipple retraction (turning inward); redness, scaliness, or thickening of the nipple or breast skin; or a discharge other than breast milk. Breast cancer can also spread to underarm lymph nodes and cause swelling there before a tumor in the breast is large enough to be felt. On the other hand, a mammogram may pick up breast cancer that has no outward symptoms at all.
Women with a rare type of breast cancer called inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) rarely have a breast lump. Symptoms of IBC include swelling, redness, itchiness, or warmth in the breast; tenderness or pain; a change in the nipple, such as retraction; skin that appears thick and pitted like an orange peel or with ridges and small bumps; an area of the breast that looks bruised; or swollen lymph nodes under the arm.
Doctors encourage women to report any changes that they notice in their breasts.
10. Myth: You can't get breast cancer after a mastectomy.
Reality: Some women do get breast cancer after a mastectomy, sometimes at the site of the scar. Or the original cancer may have spread. For women at high risk of breast cancer who have their breasts removed as a prophylactic or preventive measure, there's still a chance, though a small one, that they can get breast cancer. After prophylactic mastectomy a woman's risk for developing breast cancer is reduced by an average of 90 percent.
11. Myth: Your father's family history of breast cancer doesn't affect your risk as much as your mother's.
Reality: Your father's family history of breast cancer is just as important as your mother's in understanding your risk. But to find out about the risk stemming from your father's side of the family, you need to look primarily at the women; while men do get breast cancer, women are more vulnerable to it. Associated cancers in men (such as early-onset prostate or colon cancer) on either side are also important to factor in when doing a full family-tree risk assessment.
12. Myth: Caffeine causes breast cancer.
Reality: No causal connection has been found between drinking caffeine and getting breast cancer; in fact, some research suggests that caffeine may actually lower your risk. So far it's inconclusive whether breast soreness may be linked to caffeine.
13. Myth: If you're at risk for breast cancer, there's little you can do but watch for the signs.
Reality: There's a lot that women can do to lower their risk, including losing weight if they're obese, getting regular exercise, lowering or eliminating alcohol consumption, being rigorous about examining their own breasts, and having regular clinical exams and mammograms. Quitting smoking wouldn't hurt either. Some high-risk women also choose to have a prophylactic mastectomy to decrease their risk by roughly 90 percent. They can take other proactive steps such as having regular MRIs, exploring chemo prevention with treatments such as tamoxifen, and participating in clinical trials. The important thing to do if you think you might be at high risk is to talk to an expert who can evaluate your situation and discuss your options. High-risk women's clinics and preventive-care programs are great places to start.
14. Myth: Women with lumpy breasts (also known as fibrocystic breast changes) have a higher risk of developing breast cancer.
Reality: In the past, women with lumpy, dense, or fibrocystic breasts were believed to be at higher risk of getting breast cancer, but there doesn't appear to be a connection after all. However, when you have lumpy breasts, it can be trickier to differentiate normal tissue from cancerous tissue, so you may experience false alarms. Women with fibrocystic breasts often follow up their mammograms with an ultrasound.
15. Myth: Annual mammograms expose you to so much radiation that they increase your risk of cancer.
Reality: While it's true that radiation is used in mammography, the amount is so small that any associated risks are tiny when compared to the huge preventive benefits reaped from the test. Mammograms can detect lumps well before they can be felt or otherwise noticed, and the earlier that lumps are caught, the better one's chances for survival. The American Cancer Society recommends that all women age 40 and older receive a screening mammogram every year.
16. Myth: Needle biopsies can disturb cancer cells and cause them to spread to other parts of the body.
Reality: There's no conclusive evidence for this claim. Despite some previous concerns, a 2004 study found no increased spread of canceramong patients undergoing needle biopsies compared to those who did not have the procedure.
17. Myth: After heart disease, breast cancer is the nation's leading killer of women.
Reality: Breast cancer kills roughly 40,000 women a year in the United States but stroke (96,000 deaths), lung cancer (71,000), and chronic lower respiratory disease (67,000) are each responsible for more deaths annually.
18. Myth: If your mammography report is negative, there is nothing else to worry about.
Reality: Despite their importance for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, mammograms fail to detect around 10 to 20% of breast cancers. This is why clinical breast exams and, to some extent, breast self-exams are crucial pieces of the screening process.
19. Myth: Hair straighteners cause breast cancer in African-American women.
Reality: A large 2007 study funded by the National Cancer Institute found no increase in breast cancer risk due to the use of hair straighteners or relaxers. Study participants included African-American women who had used straighteners seven or more times a year for 20 years or longer.
20. Myth: Removing the entire breast gives you a better chance of surviving cancer than having a lumpectomy with radiation therapy.
Reality: Survival rates are about the same for women who have mastectomies and for women who choose the breast-conserving option of removing only part of the breast and following the surgery with radiation treatments. However, there are some cases -- such as with extensive DCIS disease, the presence of BRCA gene mutations, or particularly large tumors -- when lumpectomy and radiation may not be an appropriate treatment option.
21. Myth: Overweight women have the same breast cancer risk as other women.
Reality: Being overweight or obese does increase your breast cancer risk -- especially if you're past menopause and/or you gained the weight later in life.
22. Myth: Fertility treatments increase the risk of getting breast cancer.
Reality: Given estrogen's connection to breast cancer, fertility treatments have come under suspicion -- most recently when Elizabeth Edwards's breast cancer recurred. (She'd previously had fertility treatments.) But several studies have found that these prospective moms are likely to have no higher risk of breast cancer. As yet, no large, long-term, randomized studies have eliminated this concern entirely; it merits more research to find a definite answer.
23. Myth: Living near power lines can cause breast cancer.
Reality: A 2003 study aimed at explaining what appeared to be a high incidence of breast cancer in certain counties on Long Island, N.Y., found no link between the disease and electromagnetic fields emitted by power lines. An earlier study conducted in the Seattle area yielded a similar conclusion. Research into potential environmental risk factors is ongoing.
24. Myth: Having an abortion raises your risk of getting breast cancer.
Reality: Because abortion is believed to disrupt hormone cycles during pregnancy and breast cancer is linked to hormone levels, numerous studies have investigated a causal link -- but found no conclusive evidence for one.
25. Myth: Breast cancer is preventable.
Reality: Alas, no. Although it is possible to identify risk factors (such as family history and inherited gene mutations) and make lifestyle changes that can lower your risk (reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption, losing weight, getting regular exercise and screenings, and quitting smoking), roughly 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors, meaning that the disease occurs largely by chance and according to as-yet-unexplained factors. It's crucial, however, to get regular breast exams and mammograms and always consult with your doctor whenever you notice any changes in your breasts. When identified and caught early enough, breast cancer is treatable and very often beatable.
10/26/11 FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING
Breast Cancer , Breast Cancer Awareness Month , Breast-Cancer , Breast-Cancer-Awareness-Month , Breast Cancer Myths , Deodorant Breast Cancer , Underwire Breast Cancer , Healthy Living News
1. Myth: Only women with a family history of breast cancer are at risk.
Reality: Roughly 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors for the disease. But the family-history risks are these: If a first-degree relative (a parent, sibling, or child) has had or has breast cancer, your risk of developing the disease approximately doubles. Having two first-degree relatives with the disease increases your risk even more.
2. Myth: Wearing an underwire bra increases your risk of getting breast cancer.
Reality: Claims that underwire bras compress the lymphatic system of the breast, causing toxins to accumulate and cause breast cancer, have been widely debunked as unscientific. The consensus is that neither the type of bra you wear nor the tightness of your underwear or other clothing has any connection to breast cancer risk.
3. Myth: Most breast lumps are cancerous.
Reality: Roughly 80% of lumps in women's breasts are caused by benign (noncancerous) changes, cysts, or other conditions. Doctors encourage women to report any changes at all, however, because catching breast cancer early is so beneficial. Your doctor may recommend a mammogram, ultrasound or biopsy to determine whether a lump is cancerous.
4. Myth: Exposing a tumor to air during surgery causes cancer to spread.
Reality: Surgery doesn't cause breast cancer and it doesn't cause breast cancer to spread, as far as scientists can tell from the research so far. Your doctor may find out during surgery that your cancer is more widespread than previously thought, however. And some animal studies have shown that removing the primary tumor sometimes enables metastatic cancers to grow, but only temporarily; this has not been demonstrated in humans.
5. Myth: Breast implants can raise your cancer risk.
Reality: Women with breast implants are at no greater risk of getting breast cancer, according to research. Standard mammograms don't always work as well on these women, however, so additional X-rays are sometimes needed to more fully examine breast tissue.
6. Myth: All women have a 1-in-8 chance of getting breast cancer.
Reality: Your risk increases as you get older. A woman's chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer is about 1 in 233 when she's in her 30s and rises to 1 in 8 by the time she's reached 85.
7. Myth: Wearing antiperspirant increases your risk of getting breast cancer.
Reality: The American Cancer Society pooh-poohs this rumor, but admits that more research is needed. One small study did stumble on traces of parabens in a tiny sample of breast cancer tumors. Parabens, used as preservatives in some antiperspirants, have weak estrogen-like properties, but the study in question made no cause-and-effect connection between parabens and breast cancer, nor did it conclusively identify the source of the parabens found in tumors.
8. Myth: Small-breasted women have less chance of getting breast cancer.
Reality: There's no connection between the size of your breasts and your risk of getting breast cancer. Very large breasts may be harder to examine than small breasts, with clinical breast exams -- and even mammograms and MRIs -- more difficult to conduct. But all women, regardless of breast size, should commit to routine screenings and checkups.
9. Myth: Breast cancer always comes in the form of a lump.
Reality: A lump may indicate breast cancer (or one of many benign breast conditions), but women should also be on the alert for other kinds of changes that may be signs of cancer. These include swelling; skin irritation or dimpling; breast or nipple pain; nipple retraction (turning inward); redness, scaliness, or thickening of the nipple or breast skin; or a discharge other than breast milk. Breast cancer can also spread to underarm lymph nodes and cause swelling there before a tumor in the breast is large enough to be felt. On the other hand, a mammogram may pick up breast cancer that has no outward symptoms at all.
Women with a rare type of breast cancer called inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) rarely have a breast lump. Symptoms of IBC include swelling, redness, itchiness, or warmth in the breast; tenderness or pain; a change in the nipple, such as retraction; skin that appears thick and pitted like an orange peel or with ridges and small bumps; an area of the breast that looks bruised; or swollen lymph nodes under the arm.
Doctors encourage women to report any changes that they notice in their breasts.
10. Myth: You can't get breast cancer after a mastectomy.
Reality: Some women do get breast cancer after a mastectomy, sometimes at the site of the scar. Or the original cancer may have spread. For women at high risk of breast cancer who have their breasts removed as a prophylactic or preventive measure, there's still a chance, though a small one, that they can get breast cancer. After prophylactic mastectomy a woman's risk for developing breast cancer is reduced by an average of 90 percent.
11. Myth: Your father's family history of breast cancer doesn't affect your risk as much as your mother's.
Reality: Your father's family history of breast cancer is just as important as your mother's in understanding your risk. But to find out about the risk stemming from your father's side of the family, you need to look primarily at the women; while men do get breast cancer, women are more vulnerable to it. Associated cancers in men (such as early-onset prostate or colon cancer) on either side are also important to factor in when doing a full family-tree risk assessment.
12. Myth: Caffeine causes breast cancer.
Reality: No causal connection has been found between drinking caffeine and getting breast cancer; in fact, some research suggests that caffeine may actually lower your risk. So far it's inconclusive whether breast soreness may be linked to caffeine.
13. Myth: If you're at risk for breast cancer, there's little you can do but watch for the signs.
Reality: There's a lot that women can do to lower their risk, including losing weight if they're obese, getting regular exercise, lowering or eliminating alcohol consumption, being rigorous about examining their own breasts, and having regular clinical exams and mammograms. Quitting smoking wouldn't hurt either. Some high-risk women also choose to have a prophylactic mastectomy to decrease their risk by roughly 90 percent. They can take other proactive steps such as having regular MRIs, exploring chemo prevention with treatments such as tamoxifen, and participating in clinical trials. The important thing to do if you think you might be at high risk is to talk to an expert who can evaluate your situation and discuss your options. High-risk women's clinics and preventive-care programs are great places to start.
14. Myth: Women with lumpy breasts (also known as fibrocystic breast changes) have a higher risk of developing breast cancer.
Reality: In the past, women with lumpy, dense, or fibrocystic breasts were believed to be at higher risk of getting breast cancer, but there doesn't appear to be a connection after all. However, when you have lumpy breasts, it can be trickier to differentiate normal tissue from cancerous tissue, so you may experience false alarms. Women with fibrocystic breasts often follow up their mammograms with an ultrasound.
15. Myth: Annual mammograms expose you to so much radiation that they increase your risk of cancer.
Reality: While it's true that radiation is used in mammography, the amount is so small that any associated risks are tiny when compared to the huge preventive benefits reaped from the test. Mammograms can detect lumps well before they can be felt or otherwise noticed, and the earlier that lumps are caught, the better one's chances for survival. The American Cancer Society recommends that all women age 40 and older receive a screening mammogram every year.
16. Myth: Needle biopsies can disturb cancer cells and cause them to spread to other parts of the body.
Reality: There's no conclusive evidence for this claim. Despite some previous concerns, a 2004 study found no increased spread of canceramong patients undergoing needle biopsies compared to those who did not have the procedure.
17. Myth: After heart disease, breast cancer is the nation's leading killer of women.
Reality: Breast cancer kills roughly 40,000 women a year in the United States but stroke (96,000 deaths), lung cancer (71,000), and chronic lower respiratory disease (67,000) are each responsible for more deaths annually.
18. Myth: If your mammography report is negative, there is nothing else to worry about.
Reality: Despite their importance for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, mammograms fail to detect around 10 to 20% of breast cancers. This is why clinical breast exams and, to some extent, breast self-exams are crucial pieces of the screening process.
19. Myth: Hair straighteners cause breast cancer in African-American women.
Reality: A large 2007 study funded by the National Cancer Institute found no increase in breast cancer risk due to the use of hair straighteners or relaxers. Study participants included African-American women who had used straighteners seven or more times a year for 20 years or longer.
20. Myth: Removing the entire breast gives you a better chance of surviving cancer than having a lumpectomy with radiation therapy.
Reality: Survival rates are about the same for women who have mastectomies and for women who choose the breast-conserving option of removing only part of the breast and following the surgery with radiation treatments. However, there are some cases -- such as with extensive DCIS disease, the presence of BRCA gene mutations, or particularly large tumors -- when lumpectomy and radiation may not be an appropriate treatment option.
21. Myth: Overweight women have the same breast cancer risk as other women.
Reality: Being overweight or obese does increase your breast cancer risk -- especially if you're past menopause and/or you gained the weight later in life.
22. Myth: Fertility treatments increase the risk of getting breast cancer.
Reality: Given estrogen's connection to breast cancer, fertility treatments have come under suspicion -- most recently when Elizabeth Edwards's breast cancer recurred. (She'd previously had fertility treatments.) But several studies have found that these prospective moms are likely to have no higher risk of breast cancer. As yet, no large, long-term, randomized studies have eliminated this concern entirely; it merits more research to find a definite answer.
23. Myth: Living near power lines can cause breast cancer.
Reality: A 2003 study aimed at explaining what appeared to be a high incidence of breast cancer in certain counties on Long Island, N.Y., found no link between the disease and electromagnetic fields emitted by power lines. An earlier study conducted in the Seattle area yielded a similar conclusion. Research into potential environmental risk factors is ongoing.
24. Myth: Having an abortion raises your risk of getting breast cancer.
Reality: Because abortion is believed to disrupt hormone cycles during pregnancy and breast cancer is linked to hormone levels, numerous studies have investigated a causal link -- but found no conclusive evidence for one.
25. Myth: Breast cancer is preventable.
Reality: Alas, no. Although it is possible to identify risk factors (such as family history and inherited gene mutations) and make lifestyle changes that can lower your risk (reducing or eliminating alcohol consumption, losing weight, getting regular exercise and screenings, and quitting smoking), roughly 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no identifiable risk factors, meaning that the disease occurs largely by chance and according to as-yet-unexplained factors. It's crucial, however, to get regular breast exams and mammograms and always consult with your doctor whenever you notice any changes in your breasts. When identified and caught early enough, breast cancer is treatable and very often beatable.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Ten Acupressure points lead to a healthy wholesome life
Ten acupressure points lead to a healthy wholesome life
Friday, Oct. 21, 2011 by: Dr.Sanjay Pisharodi
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033933_accupressure_health.html#ixzz1bVLLTddI
(NaturalNews) Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is a science dating back thousands of years. This medical science is based on the understanding of the energetic make up of the body. It classifies all the organs and functions of the body into a manifestation and interaction of 5 basic energies, which are wind, heat, humidity, dryness and coldness. These energies flow through their respective meridians (energy channels) all over the body. There are specific points on these meridians through which these energies enter or exit the body. Diseases are caused as a result of imbalance in the energies of the body, and this imbalance can be corrected by application of pressure at these specific points on the body which are the gateways of the five energies. Pressure is applied for 3 to 5 minutes with your finger or a blunt object, which activates these points and balances the energies.
There are 10 golden points out of more than 350 which are the most important for preventing and treating all illnesses.
The 10 golden acupressure points are:
1.Stomach 36 (ST 36): This is the 36th point on the stomach meridian. It balances the digestion power of the body. According to TCM, diabetes begins with increase of stomach fire. So this point can prevent diabetes. It can also prevent aging and weakness for which it is commonly used in China. Locally good for arthritis.
2. Large intestine 11 (LI 11): 11th point on the LI meridian which is one of the best for improving immunity and persistent infections. Also used for elbow stiffness.
3.Large intestine 4 (LI 4): This is one of the best analgesic points for any type of pain, for e.g. headache, body ache etc. It is very helpful to clear excess heat in the body which causes nose bleeds, fevers etc.
4. Urinary Bladder 40 (BL 40): This point is very useful in back pain, lumbago and knee stiffness in arthritis. Lower back pain is a common problem for which this is a panacea.
5.Liver 3 (LIV 3): This is the best point for hypertension, insomnia, diabetes and painful breasts. By regularly pressing this point one can get rid of hypertension for good.
6.Gallbladder 34 (GB 34): This point controls the wind rising up to the head that causes insomnia, migraine and anxiety. Also prevents gallstones and is used for swollen knees due to arthritis etc.
7.Lung 7 (LU 7): This is a very good point for relief in asthma, breathlessness and migraine.
8.Heart 7 (HE 7): This point balances all the emotional issues in the heart and harmonizes its function.
9.Spleen 6 (SP 6): Massaging this point improves digestion and relieves feeling of distention after having food which many people experience. It nourishes the spleen and increases blood production. It relieves feeling of heaviness and tiredness.
10.Kidney 1 (KID 1): This point is very important for the elderly. As we age the kidney grows weaker according to TCM and its fire dwindles. Along with acupressure, warm this point with any kind of heat or immerse feet in warm water for 15 minutes daily.
For pictures of location of these acupoints you can see the following URL http://www.purnarogya.com/general/a...
Acupressure is best avoided on empty or full stomach. Pressure can be applied on these points 30 min after meals. SP 6 and LI 4 should be avoided during pregnancy. Thus, regular application of pressure on the above mentioned 10 acupressure points is very good for maintaining overall health of body and mind.
Reference:
A manual of acupuncture by Peter Deadman
http://www.itmonline.org/arts/madan...
http://altmedicine.about.com/od/tcm...
About the author
Dr. Sanjay Pisharodi is an integrated holistic health practitioner, specialized in hospice and palliative medicine from Cardiff University (UK) and University of California (USA). He is also qualified in several alternative natural therapies-Ayurveda,Traditional chinese medicine,Naturopathy,Energy medicine,Sujok,Medical astrology & Yoga. He is the Founder-Director of Purnarogya Holistic Health Care. He conducts seminars and workshops for corporates and private groups. You can visit his website at http://www.purnarogya.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033933_accupressure_health.html#ixzz1bVKuaKSk
Friday, Oct. 21, 2011 by: Dr.Sanjay Pisharodi
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033933_accupressure_health.html#ixzz1bVLLTddI
(NaturalNews) Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is a science dating back thousands of years. This medical science is based on the understanding of the energetic make up of the body. It classifies all the organs and functions of the body into a manifestation and interaction of 5 basic energies, which are wind, heat, humidity, dryness and coldness. These energies flow through their respective meridians (energy channels) all over the body. There are specific points on these meridians through which these energies enter or exit the body. Diseases are caused as a result of imbalance in the energies of the body, and this imbalance can be corrected by application of pressure at these specific points on the body which are the gateways of the five energies. Pressure is applied for 3 to 5 minutes with your finger or a blunt object, which activates these points and balances the energies.
There are 10 golden points out of more than 350 which are the most important for preventing and treating all illnesses.
The 10 golden acupressure points are:
1.Stomach 36 (ST 36): This is the 36th point on the stomach meridian. It balances the digestion power of the body. According to TCM, diabetes begins with increase of stomach fire. So this point can prevent diabetes. It can also prevent aging and weakness for which it is commonly used in China. Locally good for arthritis.
2. Large intestine 11 (LI 11): 11th point on the LI meridian which is one of the best for improving immunity and persistent infections. Also used for elbow stiffness.
3.Large intestine 4 (LI 4): This is one of the best analgesic points for any type of pain, for e.g. headache, body ache etc. It is very helpful to clear excess heat in the body which causes nose bleeds, fevers etc.
4. Urinary Bladder 40 (BL 40): This point is very useful in back pain, lumbago and knee stiffness in arthritis. Lower back pain is a common problem for which this is a panacea.
5.Liver 3 (LIV 3): This is the best point for hypertension, insomnia, diabetes and painful breasts. By regularly pressing this point one can get rid of hypertension for good.
6.Gallbladder 34 (GB 34): This point controls the wind rising up to the head that causes insomnia, migraine and anxiety. Also prevents gallstones and is used for swollen knees due to arthritis etc.
7.Lung 7 (LU 7): This is a very good point for relief in asthma, breathlessness and migraine.
8.Heart 7 (HE 7): This point balances all the emotional issues in the heart and harmonizes its function.
9.Spleen 6 (SP 6): Massaging this point improves digestion and relieves feeling of distention after having food which many people experience. It nourishes the spleen and increases blood production. It relieves feeling of heaviness and tiredness.
10.Kidney 1 (KID 1): This point is very important for the elderly. As we age the kidney grows weaker according to TCM and its fire dwindles. Along with acupressure, warm this point with any kind of heat or immerse feet in warm water for 15 minutes daily.
For pictures of location of these acupoints you can see the following URL http://www.purnarogya.com/general/a...
Acupressure is best avoided on empty or full stomach. Pressure can be applied on these points 30 min after meals. SP 6 and LI 4 should be avoided during pregnancy. Thus, regular application of pressure on the above mentioned 10 acupressure points is very good for maintaining overall health of body and mind.
Reference:
A manual of acupuncture by Peter Deadman
http://www.itmonline.org/arts/madan...
http://altmedicine.about.com/od/tcm...
About the author
Dr. Sanjay Pisharodi is an integrated holistic health practitioner, specialized in hospice and palliative medicine from Cardiff University (UK) and University of California (USA). He is also qualified in several alternative natural therapies-Ayurveda,Traditional chinese medicine,Naturopathy,Energy medicine,Sujok,Medical astrology & Yoga. He is the Founder-Director of Purnarogya Holistic Health Care. He conducts seminars and workshops for corporates and private groups. You can visit his website at http://www.purnarogya.com
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033933_accupressure_health.html#ixzz1bVKuaKSk
Thursday, October 20, 2011
New study - Whole food vegetarian diets reverse & eliminate many serious illnesses
New study - Whole food vegetarian diets reverse & eliminate many serious illnesses
Monday, Oct 03, 2011 by: Kim Evans http://www.naturalnews.com/033756_vegetarian_diet_disease_prevention.html#ixzz1ZoJnKImt
(NaturalNews) A new study found that plant based diets are a fundamental solution to our public health crisis, especially with some of the most serious & debilitating illnesses. The physicians at the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute found that the frequency & the cost of many illnesses, including obesity, cancer, diabetes, & heart disease, can be considerably reduced just by switching to a whole food, nutrient dense, Plant-Based Diet that doesn't include meat or dairy. Sometimes, the diseases were reversed just with these diet changes. .
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, who led the study, said: "We are potentially on the cusp of what could be a seismic revolution in health. This will never come about from another pill, another procedure, another operation, or construction of another cardiac cathedral. It will come about when we are able to show the public the lifestyle that will halt & eliminate 75% of these common, chronic killing diseases. The most essential component of this lifestyle is whole food plant-based nutrition."
This is foundational for a population that often eats meat & dairy daily & also one that often has one health problem or another. It's also eye opening for people who still believe that medical doctors have the health care answers, even though MD's are often only required to take one nutrition class (& that class is often about how foods & drugs interact). That seems to be lacking quite a bit when dietary changes can reverse & eliminate 75% of the most serious problems - & most people get the serious problems after having several smaller problems.
Dr. Esselstyn initiated this study to treat seriously ill patients with coronary artery disease with plant-based nutrition, & he generally succeeded in the reversal or removal of their disease.
According to Dr. Esselstyn, "Patients lose weight, blood pressure normalizes, & type 2 diabetes improves or resolves, as does angina, erectile dysfunction, & peripheral vascular & carotid disease." He also added that today's adolescents are but a decade or two away from compounding our healthcare epidemic.
Of course, the best time to start a dietary program that has the potential to change the quality of your future is always today. While adding tons of fruits & veggies to your diet & dropping the meat & dairy can reverse many diseases, it's also definitely better to just avoid the disease route all together. Many people who practice this type of diet also find that they feel better emotionally & have better energy, which just equates to a better overall quality of life too.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033756_vegetarian_diet_disease_prevention.html#ixzz1ZoJdHFLJ
Monday, Oct 03, 2011 by: Kim Evans http://www.naturalnews.com/033756_vegetarian_diet_disease_prevention.html#ixzz1ZoJnKImt
(NaturalNews) A new study found that plant based diets are a fundamental solution to our public health crisis, especially with some of the most serious & debilitating illnesses. The physicians at the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute found that the frequency & the cost of many illnesses, including obesity, cancer, diabetes, & heart disease, can be considerably reduced just by switching to a whole food, nutrient dense, Plant-Based Diet that doesn't include meat or dairy. Sometimes, the diseases were reversed just with these diet changes. .
Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, who led the study, said: "We are potentially on the cusp of what could be a seismic revolution in health. This will never come about from another pill, another procedure, another operation, or construction of another cardiac cathedral. It will come about when we are able to show the public the lifestyle that will halt & eliminate 75% of these common, chronic killing diseases. The most essential component of this lifestyle is whole food plant-based nutrition."
This is foundational for a population that often eats meat & dairy daily & also one that often has one health problem or another. It's also eye opening for people who still believe that medical doctors have the health care answers, even though MD's are often only required to take one nutrition class (& that class is often about how foods & drugs interact). That seems to be lacking quite a bit when dietary changes can reverse & eliminate 75% of the most serious problems - & most people get the serious problems after having several smaller problems.
Dr. Esselstyn initiated this study to treat seriously ill patients with coronary artery disease with plant-based nutrition, & he generally succeeded in the reversal or removal of their disease.
According to Dr. Esselstyn, "Patients lose weight, blood pressure normalizes, & type 2 diabetes improves or resolves, as does angina, erectile dysfunction, & peripheral vascular & carotid disease." He also added that today's adolescents are but a decade or two away from compounding our healthcare epidemic.
Of course, the best time to start a dietary program that has the potential to change the quality of your future is always today. While adding tons of fruits & veggies to your diet & dropping the meat & dairy can reverse many diseases, it's also definitely better to just avoid the disease route all together. Many people who practice this type of diet also find that they feel better emotionally & have better energy, which just equates to a better overall quality of life too.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033756_vegetarian_diet_disease_prevention.html#ixzz1ZoJdHFLJ
Study: Organic farming outperforms conventional in yields, economic viability, conservation, & health
Study: Organic farming outperforms conventional in yields, economic viability, conservation, and health
Thursday, October 20, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033925_organic_farming_crop_yields.html#ixzz1bL7MuxmN
(NaturalNews) A popular myth purports that organic farming is inadequate to feed the growing populations of the world, and that cultivating so-called high yield conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops is a necessary solution. But data compiled by the Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial (FST) shows that quite the opposite is true -- in every single category, organic farming systems proved to be far more viable and sustainable than any conventional or GM system.
Initiated back in 1981, Rodale's FST is the longest running, side-by-side comparison of organic and chemical agriculture that has ever been conducted in the US. Researchers from the institute have been carefully examining the similarities and differences between the two systems for over 30 years and, much to the shock of the mainstream food community, have found that organic farming is far superior to chemical farming in every way.
The Rodale team focused specifically on corn and soy cultivation for the study, as these represent two of the most popular staple crops grown in the US. From there, the team conducted an extensive, comparative analysis of organic manure, organic legume, conventional synthetic, no-till, and GM farming systems for both crops.
In the short term, organic yields appeared to be smaller than chemical-based yields. But over time, organic yields eventually caught up to, and even exceeded, chemical-based yields. Organic production also proved to be more profitable to farmers than chemical-based production because it requires significantly less energy input, representing a nearly 50 percent reduction over chemical-based farming.
At the same time, chemical-based farming was shown to emit as much as 40 percent more greenhouse gases than organic farming. Chemical-based farming was also shown to significantly destroy soil health, which makes maintaining viable soils far more expensive and laborious than it is in an organic system.
"Organic farming is far superior to conventional systems when it comes to building, maintaining and replenishing the health of soil," says the Rodale Institute. "For soil health alone, organic agriculture is more sustainable than conventional. When one also considers yields, economic viability, energy usage, and human health, it's clear that organic farming is sustainable, while current conventional practices are not."
Be sure to check out the full Rodale FST report:
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/file...
Sources for this article include:
http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst3...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033925_organic_farming_crop_yields.html#ixzz1bL778ABJ
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
U.S. Healthcare Gets Bad Grades on Scorecard
U.S. Healthcare Gets Bad Grades on Scorecard
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: October 18, 2011
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. healthcare system is not improving much despite the fact that the cost of care is higher than ever, according to a national healthcare scorecard released by the Commonwealth Fund on Tuesday.
The U.S. scored a 64 out of 100 overall for key measures of healthcare performance that pitted the nation as a whole against high-performing regions in the U.S., as well as against other countries.
The nation's overall score has declined slightly since the organization's last such report in 2008.
The scorecard measures the U.S. healthcare system across 42 indicators of healthcare quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives, and compares U.S. averages to rates achieved by the top 10% of states, regions, health plans, hospitals, other providers, and other top-performing countries.
The U.S. had more preventable deaths that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care than any of the other 15 industrialized countries included in the report.
The report also found that the average U.S. infant mortality rate is 35% higher than rates in the top-performing states in the U.S. Other high-income countries still have infant mortality rates that are significantly lower than the best-performing states in the U.S.
If the U.S. did as well as the top-performing country in that category -- France -- 91,000 fewer infants would die prematurely each year, Cathy Schoen, senior vice president at Commonwealth Fund told reporters in a Tuesday afternoon call.
"These statistics are real," she said. "They are real human lives."
Access also stood out in this year's report for how quickly and drastically it deteriorated, the report authors said. In 2010, 81 million adults were uninsured, up from 61 million in 2003.
And there's the cost issue. It's an oft-cited statistic that the U.S. spends more per person on healthcare than any other country. The Commonwealth Fund report said the nation spends up to double as much as other high-income countries, but doesn't have better care to show for it.
"We are headed toward spending $1 of every $5 of national income on healthcare," the report authors said. "We should expect a better return on this investment."
The high cost of healthcare is taking a toll on personal finances, the report found. By 2010, 40% of working-age adults had medical debt or had problems paying medical bills, up from 34% in 2005.
The bad news continued in the category of efficiency: The U.S. scored only 53 out of 100 in that category, which looked at whether patients were receiving duplicative services and whether hospitals had high readmission rates, among other indicators.
The report also found:
•44% of adults reported that they didn't have a primary care provider in 2008, and only half said they received all recommended preventive care. If the U.S. did as well as top performers, 38 million more adults would have a primary care doctor and 66 million more would receive all recommended preventive care.
•One-in-four elderly Medicare beneficiaries were prescribed a "potentially inappropriate drug."
•About one-third of kids ages 10 to 17 are overweight or obese.
• 20% of Medicare patients hospitalized for certain conditions or procedures were readmitted within 30 days in both 2003 and 2009.
But the report did note some improvements: there was more public reporting of quality data than in previous years; more hospitals adhered to recommended protocols to prevent surgical complications; the percentage of adults who smoke declined from 21% in 2004 to 17% in 2010; and a greater number of people were controlling their high blood pressure than in previous years.
Most of the data in the report came from 2007-2009, which was before the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The study authors point out that the law will likely lead to improved scores on some of the categories, such as access and affordability.
For instance, 25% of the population in 15 states lacked health insurance. But the ACA will require everyone have health insurance in 2014. It also will lower the threshold for Medicaid so more low-income people will be eligible, and provide government subsidies to others who can't afford to buy insurance on their own.
Also, the poor scores on primary care measures likely stem from the "nation's weak primary care foundation and from inadequate care coordination and teamwork." The ACA contains provisions to encourage team-based care, including accountable care organizations and giving primary care doctors bonus payments for coordinating care of their Medicare patients.
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: October 18, 2011
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. healthcare system is not improving much despite the fact that the cost of care is higher than ever, according to a national healthcare scorecard released by the Commonwealth Fund on Tuesday.
The U.S. scored a 64 out of 100 overall for key measures of healthcare performance that pitted the nation as a whole against high-performing regions in the U.S., as well as against other countries.
The nation's overall score has declined slightly since the organization's last such report in 2008.
The scorecard measures the U.S. healthcare system across 42 indicators of healthcare quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives, and compares U.S. averages to rates achieved by the top 10% of states, regions, health plans, hospitals, other providers, and other top-performing countries.
The U.S. had more preventable deaths that could have been prevented by timely and effective medical care than any of the other 15 industrialized countries included in the report.
The report also found that the average U.S. infant mortality rate is 35% higher than rates in the top-performing states in the U.S. Other high-income countries still have infant mortality rates that are significantly lower than the best-performing states in the U.S.
If the U.S. did as well as the top-performing country in that category -- France -- 91,000 fewer infants would die prematurely each year, Cathy Schoen, senior vice president at Commonwealth Fund told reporters in a Tuesday afternoon call.
"These statistics are real," she said. "They are real human lives."
Access also stood out in this year's report for how quickly and drastically it deteriorated, the report authors said. In 2010, 81 million adults were uninsured, up from 61 million in 2003.
And there's the cost issue. It's an oft-cited statistic that the U.S. spends more per person on healthcare than any other country. The Commonwealth Fund report said the nation spends up to double as much as other high-income countries, but doesn't have better care to show for it.
"We are headed toward spending $1 of every $5 of national income on healthcare," the report authors said. "We should expect a better return on this investment."
The high cost of healthcare is taking a toll on personal finances, the report found. By 2010, 40% of working-age adults had medical debt or had problems paying medical bills, up from 34% in 2005.
The bad news continued in the category of efficiency: The U.S. scored only 53 out of 100 in that category, which looked at whether patients were receiving duplicative services and whether hospitals had high readmission rates, among other indicators.
The report also found:
•44% of adults reported that they didn't have a primary care provider in 2008, and only half said they received all recommended preventive care. If the U.S. did as well as top performers, 38 million more adults would have a primary care doctor and 66 million more would receive all recommended preventive care.
•One-in-four elderly Medicare beneficiaries were prescribed a "potentially inappropriate drug."
•About one-third of kids ages 10 to 17 are overweight or obese.
• 20% of Medicare patients hospitalized for certain conditions or procedures were readmitted within 30 days in both 2003 and 2009.
But the report did note some improvements: there was more public reporting of quality data than in previous years; more hospitals adhered to recommended protocols to prevent surgical complications; the percentage of adults who smoke declined from 21% in 2004 to 17% in 2010; and a greater number of people were controlling their high blood pressure than in previous years.
Most of the data in the report came from 2007-2009, which was before the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The study authors point out that the law will likely lead to improved scores on some of the categories, such as access and affordability.
For instance, 25% of the population in 15 states lacked health insurance. But the ACA will require everyone have health insurance in 2014. It also will lower the threshold for Medicaid so more low-income people will be eligible, and provide government subsidies to others who can't afford to buy insurance on their own.
Also, the poor scores on primary care measures likely stem from the "nation's weak primary care foundation and from inadequate care coordination and teamwork." The ACA contains provisions to encourage team-based care, including accountable care organizations and giving primary care doctors bonus payments for coordinating care of their Medicare patients.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Doctors speak out: healthcare has been reduced to a making money factory
NaturalNews)
Two doctors from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard's teaching hospital, have taken an unusual step for the medical profession. These courageous physicians are speaking out about today's healthcare system which
emphasizes money over individualized patient care.
In an article just published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Pamela Hartzband, MD, and Jerome Groopman,MD, are blunt about their frustration with a system that has "reduced medicine to economics." In fact, they go so far as to say hospitals have been turned into "factories" that reduce clinical encounters between a patient and doctor into simply "economic transactions."
"Patients are no longer patients, but rather customers or consumers. Doctors and nurses have transmuted into providers," Pamela Hartzband, MD, and Jerome Groopman MD, wrote. "We are in the midst of an economic crisis and efforts to reform the health care system have centered on controlling spiraling costs. To that end, many economists and policy makers have proposed that patient care should be industrialized and standardized. Hospitals and clinics should be run like modern factories and archaic terms like doctor, nurse and patient must therefore be replaced with terminology that fits this new order."
One of the problems, according to Dr. Hartzband and Dr. Groopman, is that the knowledge physicians and nurses have and should be able to use to help patients individually is getting lost. Instead, the current "factory" system of medicine values prepackaged, off-the-shelf solutions that substitute "evidence-based practice" for "clinical judgment." Simply put, healthcare providers are no longer expected to spend time carefully considering patients as individuals and using their experience to make the best decisions for specific people and their health problems. Instead, doctors and nurses are supposed to offer a cookie cutter approach that moves patients through the system quickly as though they were things to be processed on a conveyor belt, not complex human beings to be treated as individuals.
"Reducing medicine to economics makes a mockery of the bond between the healer and the sick," the doctors wrote in their article. "For centuries doctors who were mercenary were publicly castigated. Such doctors betrayed their calling. Should we now be celebrating the doctor whose practice, like a successful business, maximizes profits from customers?"
Individualized care has been replaced by a factory-like business
Dr. Hartzband and Dr. Groopman pointed out the new emphasis on "evidence-based practice" is not really a new concept because evidence was routinely presented during daily rounds or clinical conferences where doctors debated numerous research findings in the past.
"But the exercise of clinical judgment, which permitted the assessment of data and the application of study results to an individual patient, was seen as the acme of professional practice," they emphasized in their paper. "Now some prominent health policy planners and even physicians contend that clinical care should essentially be a matter of following operating manuals containing preset guidelines, like factory blueprints, written by experts."
In a media statement, the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center physicians noted that working with the same data, different groups of experts often come up with totally different guidelines for conditions as common as hypertension and elevated cholesterol levels or for the use of screening tests for prostate and breast cancer. "The specific cutoffs for treatment or no treatment, all necessarily reflect the preferences of experts who write the recommendations. And these preferences are subjective, not scientific," they concluded. The doctors are also upset about the new politically correct ways to describe patients and physicians -- and how this new vocabulary is impacting healthcare in the U.S. "Recasting their roles of doctors and nurses, as providers who merely implement prefabricated practices diminishes their professionalism. Reconfiguring medicine in economic and industrial terms is unlikely to attract creative and independent thinkers with not only expertise in science and biology but also an authentic focus on humanism and caring," Dr. Hartzband and Dr. Groopman stated.
"When we ourselves are ill, we want someone to care about us as people, not paying customers. We want to be treated as individualize and we want our treatment according to our values. Despite the lip service paid to patient-centered care, by the forces promulgating the new language of medicine, their discourse shifts the focus from the good of the individual to the system and its costs," they added. "We believe doctors, nurses and others engaged in care should eschew the use of such terms that demean patients and professionals alike and dangerously neglect the essence of medicine."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033881_health_care_profits.html#ixzz1b2DA6C7p
Two doctors from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard's teaching hospital, have taken an unusual step for the medical profession. These courageous physicians are speaking out about today's healthcare system which
emphasizes money over individualized patient care.
In an article just published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Pamela Hartzband, MD, and Jerome Groopman,MD, are blunt about their frustration with a system that has "reduced medicine to economics." In fact, they go so far as to say hospitals have been turned into "factories" that reduce clinical encounters between a patient and doctor into simply "economic transactions."
"Patients are no longer patients, but rather customers or consumers. Doctors and nurses have transmuted into providers," Pamela Hartzband, MD, and Jerome Groopman MD, wrote. "We are in the midst of an economic crisis and efforts to reform the health care system have centered on controlling spiraling costs. To that end, many economists and policy makers have proposed that patient care should be industrialized and standardized. Hospitals and clinics should be run like modern factories and archaic terms like doctor, nurse and patient must therefore be replaced with terminology that fits this new order."
One of the problems, according to Dr. Hartzband and Dr. Groopman, is that the knowledge physicians and nurses have and should be able to use to help patients individually is getting lost. Instead, the current "factory" system of medicine values prepackaged, off-the-shelf solutions that substitute "evidence-based practice" for "clinical judgment." Simply put, healthcare providers are no longer expected to spend time carefully considering patients as individuals and using their experience to make the best decisions for specific people and their health problems. Instead, doctors and nurses are supposed to offer a cookie cutter approach that moves patients through the system quickly as though they were things to be processed on a conveyor belt, not complex human beings to be treated as individuals.
"Reducing medicine to economics makes a mockery of the bond between the healer and the sick," the doctors wrote in their article. "For centuries doctors who were mercenary were publicly castigated. Such doctors betrayed their calling. Should we now be celebrating the doctor whose practice, like a successful business, maximizes profits from customers?"
Individualized care has been replaced by a factory-like business
Dr. Hartzband and Dr. Groopman pointed out the new emphasis on "evidence-based practice" is not really a new concept because evidence was routinely presented during daily rounds or clinical conferences where doctors debated numerous research findings in the past.
"But the exercise of clinical judgment, which permitted the assessment of data and the application of study results to an individual patient, was seen as the acme of professional practice," they emphasized in their paper. "Now some prominent health policy planners and even physicians contend that clinical care should essentially be a matter of following operating manuals containing preset guidelines, like factory blueprints, written by experts."
In a media statement, the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center physicians noted that working with the same data, different groups of experts often come up with totally different guidelines for conditions as common as hypertension and elevated cholesterol levels or for the use of screening tests for prostate and breast cancer. "The specific cutoffs for treatment or no treatment, all necessarily reflect the preferences of experts who write the recommendations. And these preferences are subjective, not scientific," they concluded. The doctors are also upset about the new politically correct ways to describe patients and physicians -- and how this new vocabulary is impacting healthcare in the U.S. "Recasting their roles of doctors and nurses, as providers who merely implement prefabricated practices diminishes their professionalism. Reconfiguring medicine in economic and industrial terms is unlikely to attract creative and independent thinkers with not only expertise in science and biology but also an authentic focus on humanism and caring," Dr. Hartzband and Dr. Groopman stated.
"When we ourselves are ill, we want someone to care about us as people, not paying customers. We want to be treated as individualize and we want our treatment according to our values. Despite the lip service paid to patient-centered care, by the forces promulgating the new language of medicine, their discourse shifts the focus from the good of the individual to the system and its costs," they added. "We believe doctors, nurses and others engaged in care should eschew the use of such terms that demean patients and professionals alike and dangerously neglect the essence of medicine."
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033881_health_care_profits.html#ixzz1b2DA6C7p
Friday, October 14, 2011
Are Fish Bad For you ?
Fish Contains Worm Larvae - Janice Stanger, Ph.D.
This beautiful fish enjoys her ocean home, just as nature intended
Ten Reasons Seafood Is Not Safe or Appetizing
Government, media, and even health professionals flood you with advice to load up your diet with fish and fish oil. The alleged health benefits of eating fish center on a two nutrients: omega-3 fatty acids and protein.
Don’t be fooled by industry and government hype. Plants are the base of the food chain on planet earth. Plants are nutrient factories, while animals are nutrient consumers. Fish are animals, and as such get all their nutrients from plants or from smaller fish who ate plants. On a whole foods, plant-based diet, you get all the nutrients in fish, plus many more. Your food is beautiful and appealing. All you give up on a plant-based diet are the dangerous drawbacks of fish.
Here are ten reasons to throw fish out of your diet and back into the water where they belong.
One. While fish does contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, these animals get this fat by eating marine algae that made the omega-3s in the first place. No animal has the ability to manufacture omega-3s. Unhealthy fats come packaged with fishy omega-3s. For example, according to a US Department of Agriculture database, 3 ounces of cooked wild salmon has about a gram of dangerous saturated fat – just about exactly that same amount it has of omega-3s. Plus this salmon has 47 milligrams of cholesterol, a substance your body makes naturally and that contributes to clogged arteries when you eat it.
You can get all the omega-3s you need from plants, which form this beneficial fat in the first place.
2. A much-touted “benefit” of fish is its high concentration of animal protein. Few know that animal protein can directly raise the amount of cholesterol in your blood, in addition to the role that animal fat also plays in this process. Excessive dietary protein can damage your kidneys and liver and may spark the chronic inflammation that underlies most chronic illness.
Proteins are the basis of all life, both plants and animals. These proteins are linked assemblies of 20 amino acids – the same aminos form both plant and animal proteins. Only plants can make essential amino acids, the ones you need from diet. Get your proteins directly from the plant factory, not the animal middleman.
3. Fish concentrate persistent organic pollutants and other manmade contaminants. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are highly dangerous chemicals that include PCBs, DDT, dioxins, and PBDEs (flame retardants), among many others. Cancer, nervous system damage, behavior problems, Parkinson’s disease, reproductive disorders, immune system disruption and autoimmune disorders, diabetes, and allergies can all result from exposure to POPs. Animal foods are most likely the source of 89% to 99% of POPs in your body. A study of U.S. supermarkets found the product most contaminated with PBDE, a class of POPs used as flame retardants, was fish.
If you decide to go for distilled or “purified” fish oil in hopes of avoiding the POPs in whole fish, you are out of luck. Laboratory studies show that even distilled, highly processed fish oil capsules still contain these dangerous pollutants. Fish farm owners may deliberately contaminate the fish they raise with drugs and other chemicals that are banned for human consumption. The goal is to keep these animals alive in the filthy, crowded conditions of fish farming. Imported seafood, which is most often tainted with these harmful contaminants (some carcinogenic) accounts for 80% of the fish Americans eat. The government inspects only about 1% of the fish that enter the US.
Fish is not accurately labeled and it is practically impossible to determine where it came from or how it was raised. So if you eat much fish, the likelihood that your meals are contain toxic contaminants is overwhelming.
4. Fish is the leading dietary source of mercury, a potent neurotoxin. While a developing fetus is most susceptible to this poison, adults can be harmed as well. There is no safe level of mercury in your food. Don’t be fooled by “low mercury” fish. Virtually all fish are contaminated with this toxic metal, which also increases the risk of heart attack.
5. Fish can also be contaminated by microbes that cause food poisoning. This is especially true for imported seafood and fish that have not been properly refrigerated somewhere between their death and your dinner plate. Possible pathogens in fish include E. coli, salmonella, staph, and botulism.
6. When excess fertilizer and nitrogen (often from factory farms) floods fresh water, cyanobactera thrive. These microbes produce a number of toxins. Microcystin, one of these toxins, harms the liver. In addition, it may be a tumor promoter and have an effect similar to estrogen on the body, disrupting reproduction. Microcystin accumulates in fish. If you eat enough
of it, damage to your liver may be severe and irreversible. There is no easy therapy.
7. An adequate amount of omega-3 fatty acids is essential. An excessive amount, however, as may result if you consume fish oil or a lot of fish, has perilous consequences. An unnatural amount of these fatty acids can lead to increased bleeding time, interfere with wound healing, raise LDL cholesterol, and suppress the immune system
8. Fish oil tastes bad and leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. It can cause indigestion and burping. Fish oil is just plain gross. It’s more susceptible than vegetable oil is to becoming rancid, and rancid oil can damage your liver. When fish start to decompose, unscrupulous companies may cover up the odor with chemicals – for example, a mixture of chlorine, trisodium phosphate, lemon juice, and copper sulfate.
9. Speaking of gross, parasitic worms and/or their larvae are common in fish, including the fish muscle that people eat. For example, one study found that every single one of 50 wild sockeye salmon caught during their spawning migration contained the larvae of the parasitic worm Anisakis simplex. Eight-seven percent of the larvae were in the salmon’s muscle – the part of the animal that people eat. A National Institutes of Health fact sheet on the fish tapeworm, another parasite, warns that these worms can infect humans who eat raw or undercooked freshwater fish. The worm will grow in your intestinal tract, possibly becoming 30 feet long and causing anemia and intestinal blockage. To avoid humans becoming hosts for fish parasites, the U.S. government mandates that all seafood that is to be served raw be frozen at very low temperatures for extended periods of time. Note these are temperatures often not achieved by home freezers. However, there is no guarantee that the business which supplied the fish you are eating actually complied to the extent the larvae were frozen to death.
Even if all the fish larvae you eat are dead – killed either by cooking or freezing – you can have an allergic reaction to them. Even if you have no reaction and are not infested, how appetizing is it to eat worm larvae? Would you order worm larvae in a restaurant?
When you think about it, wouldn’t you rather just have a nice black bean burrito or hummus sandwich?
10. Finally, 90% of the large fish in the ocean have already been killed and the oceans are being overfished at a totally unsustainable rate. A recent panel of 27 top scientists concludes the oceans are on the brink of catastrophic extinction. Does that one fish you plan to eat make a difference? Yes, it does. Every time you eat, you vote for either survival or extinction. Which will it be?
You may be thoroughly confused by now, thinking of all the studies you’ve heard about that say fish is healthy. Well, those are the industry and government hyped studies. Actually, a mountain of studies show fish does NOT have positive effect on health, but you never hear about those.
For example, a study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009 followed 195,204 adults for almost 3 million person-years. The researchers found that eating a lot of fish increased the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Another study, published in 2011 in American Journal of Epidemiology, found that men with higher levels of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (which often indicates eating more fish or fish oil) were more likely to develop high-grade prostate cancer.
What’s more, the studies that do show any benefit for fish and fish oil are comparing people who eat fish (people who are generally health conscious and may pair their fish with spinach and baked sweet potatoes) with people who eat a standard diet of fast food burgers, chips, and donuts. If you were to compare the health of people who eat fish and fish oil to the health of people on a whole foods, plant-based diet, you don’t need much imagination to see who would come out on top. Humans are land animals, not natural fish eaters. Animals designed by nature to eat fish catch their food without manufactured hooks or nets. True fish eaters, such as seals, dolphins, pelicans, and grizzly bears, eat their prey raw and whole. If you were meant to eat fish, you would have the teeth and digestive system to bite into, chew, and swallow an entire raw fish, including not just the carefully filleted muscle
Dead fish...not appetizing. Look at the horror in the eyes of these creatures. With such an abundance of healthy, beautiful food, why would you choose to eat this?
You would chomp down on and consume the skin, bones, fins, guts, and eyes. Does this sound appealing to you, or even possible? If the answer is no, you are not designed to eat fish. You have zero requirements for consuming fish or fish oil. Seafood, far from being necessary to your health, can speed its destruction. The total fish nutritional package, when you balance the omega-3s against all the toxic components, is decidedly negative. Instead of seafood, see your food for what it really is. You will happily choose plant-based nutrition. If you want to learn more about how a whole foods, plant-based diet gets you the omega-3s you need in a healthy package, check out the post Five Ways You Thrive with Flax Seeds for Pennies a Day.
Intrigued? Now you can use our Whole Foods Blog Finder to target informative, fun postings on plant-based nutrition. Quick information at no cost!
Blog posting by Janice Stanger, Ph.D. Janice authored The Perfect Formula Diet: How to Lose Weight and Get Healthy Now With Six Kinds of Whole Foods. This easy-to-follow eating plan is built on whole foods, plant-based diet that can prevent, and even reverse, most chronic disease as well as get you to your perfect weight. And this book does not advise you to eat worm larvae.
This beautiful fish enjoys her ocean home, just as nature intended
Ten Reasons Seafood Is Not Safe or Appetizing
Government, media, and even health professionals flood you with advice to load up your diet with fish and fish oil. The alleged health benefits of eating fish center on a two nutrients: omega-3 fatty acids and protein.
Don’t be fooled by industry and government hype. Plants are the base of the food chain on planet earth. Plants are nutrient factories, while animals are nutrient consumers. Fish are animals, and as such get all their nutrients from plants or from smaller fish who ate plants. On a whole foods, plant-based diet, you get all the nutrients in fish, plus many more. Your food is beautiful and appealing. All you give up on a plant-based diet are the dangerous drawbacks of fish.
Here are ten reasons to throw fish out of your diet and back into the water where they belong.
One. While fish does contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, these animals get this fat by eating marine algae that made the omega-3s in the first place. No animal has the ability to manufacture omega-3s. Unhealthy fats come packaged with fishy omega-3s. For example, according to a US Department of Agriculture database, 3 ounces of cooked wild salmon has about a gram of dangerous saturated fat – just about exactly that same amount it has of omega-3s. Plus this salmon has 47 milligrams of cholesterol, a substance your body makes naturally and that contributes to clogged arteries when you eat it.
You can get all the omega-3s you need from plants, which form this beneficial fat in the first place.
2. A much-touted “benefit” of fish is its high concentration of animal protein. Few know that animal protein can directly raise the amount of cholesterol in your blood, in addition to the role that animal fat also plays in this process. Excessive dietary protein can damage your kidneys and liver and may spark the chronic inflammation that underlies most chronic illness.
Proteins are the basis of all life, both plants and animals. These proteins are linked assemblies of 20 amino acids – the same aminos form both plant and animal proteins. Only plants can make essential amino acids, the ones you need from diet. Get your proteins directly from the plant factory, not the animal middleman.
3. Fish concentrate persistent organic pollutants and other manmade contaminants. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are highly dangerous chemicals that include PCBs, DDT, dioxins, and PBDEs (flame retardants), among many others. Cancer, nervous system damage, behavior problems, Parkinson’s disease, reproductive disorders, immune system disruption and autoimmune disorders, diabetes, and allergies can all result from exposure to POPs. Animal foods are most likely the source of 89% to 99% of POPs in your body. A study of U.S. supermarkets found the product most contaminated with PBDE, a class of POPs used as flame retardants, was fish.
If you decide to go for distilled or “purified” fish oil in hopes of avoiding the POPs in whole fish, you are out of luck. Laboratory studies show that even distilled, highly processed fish oil capsules still contain these dangerous pollutants. Fish farm owners may deliberately contaminate the fish they raise with drugs and other chemicals that are banned for human consumption. The goal is to keep these animals alive in the filthy, crowded conditions of fish farming. Imported seafood, which is most often tainted with these harmful contaminants (some carcinogenic) accounts for 80% of the fish Americans eat. The government inspects only about 1% of the fish that enter the US.
Fish is not accurately labeled and it is practically impossible to determine where it came from or how it was raised. So if you eat much fish, the likelihood that your meals are contain toxic contaminants is overwhelming.
4. Fish is the leading dietary source of mercury, a potent neurotoxin. While a developing fetus is most susceptible to this poison, adults can be harmed as well. There is no safe level of mercury in your food. Don’t be fooled by “low mercury” fish. Virtually all fish are contaminated with this toxic metal, which also increases the risk of heart attack.
5. Fish can also be contaminated by microbes that cause food poisoning. This is especially true for imported seafood and fish that have not been properly refrigerated somewhere between their death and your dinner plate. Possible pathogens in fish include E. coli, salmonella, staph, and botulism.
6. When excess fertilizer and nitrogen (often from factory farms) floods fresh water, cyanobactera thrive. These microbes produce a number of toxins. Microcystin, one of these toxins, harms the liver. In addition, it may be a tumor promoter and have an effect similar to estrogen on the body, disrupting reproduction. Microcystin accumulates in fish. If you eat enough
of it, damage to your liver may be severe and irreversible. There is no easy therapy.
7. An adequate amount of omega-3 fatty acids is essential. An excessive amount, however, as may result if you consume fish oil or a lot of fish, has perilous consequences. An unnatural amount of these fatty acids can lead to increased bleeding time, interfere with wound healing, raise LDL cholesterol, and suppress the immune system
8. Fish oil tastes bad and leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. It can cause indigestion and burping. Fish oil is just plain gross. It’s more susceptible than vegetable oil is to becoming rancid, and rancid oil can damage your liver. When fish start to decompose, unscrupulous companies may cover up the odor with chemicals – for example, a mixture of chlorine, trisodium phosphate, lemon juice, and copper sulfate.
9. Speaking of gross, parasitic worms and/or their larvae are common in fish, including the fish muscle that people eat. For example, one study found that every single one of 50 wild sockeye salmon caught during their spawning migration contained the larvae of the parasitic worm Anisakis simplex. Eight-seven percent of the larvae were in the salmon’s muscle – the part of the animal that people eat. A National Institutes of Health fact sheet on the fish tapeworm, another parasite, warns that these worms can infect humans who eat raw or undercooked freshwater fish. The worm will grow in your intestinal tract, possibly becoming 30 feet long and causing anemia and intestinal blockage. To avoid humans becoming hosts for fish parasites, the U.S. government mandates that all seafood that is to be served raw be frozen at very low temperatures for extended periods of time. Note these are temperatures often not achieved by home freezers. However, there is no guarantee that the business which supplied the fish you are eating actually complied to the extent the larvae were frozen to death.
Even if all the fish larvae you eat are dead – killed either by cooking or freezing – you can have an allergic reaction to them. Even if you have no reaction and are not infested, how appetizing is it to eat worm larvae? Would you order worm larvae in a restaurant?
When you think about it, wouldn’t you rather just have a nice black bean burrito or hummus sandwich?
10. Finally, 90% of the large fish in the ocean have already been killed and the oceans are being overfished at a totally unsustainable rate. A recent panel of 27 top scientists concludes the oceans are on the brink of catastrophic extinction. Does that one fish you plan to eat make a difference? Yes, it does. Every time you eat, you vote for either survival or extinction. Which will it be?
You may be thoroughly confused by now, thinking of all the studies you’ve heard about that say fish is healthy. Well, those are the industry and government hyped studies. Actually, a mountain of studies show fish does NOT have positive effect on health, but you never hear about those.
For example, a study published in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009 followed 195,204 adults for almost 3 million person-years. The researchers found that eating a lot of fish increased the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Another study, published in 2011 in American Journal of Epidemiology, found that men with higher levels of long-chain omega-3 fatty acids (which often indicates eating more fish or fish oil) were more likely to develop high-grade prostate cancer.
What’s more, the studies that do show any benefit for fish and fish oil are comparing people who eat fish (people who are generally health conscious and may pair their fish with spinach and baked sweet potatoes) with people who eat a standard diet of fast food burgers, chips, and donuts. If you were to compare the health of people who eat fish and fish oil to the health of people on a whole foods, plant-based diet, you don’t need much imagination to see who would come out on top. Humans are land animals, not natural fish eaters. Animals designed by nature to eat fish catch their food without manufactured hooks or nets. True fish eaters, such as seals, dolphins, pelicans, and grizzly bears, eat their prey raw and whole. If you were meant to eat fish, you would have the teeth and digestive system to bite into, chew, and swallow an entire raw fish, including not just the carefully filleted muscle
Dead fish...not appetizing. Look at the horror in the eyes of these creatures. With such an abundance of healthy, beautiful food, why would you choose to eat this?
You would chomp down on and consume the skin, bones, fins, guts, and eyes. Does this sound appealing to you, or even possible? If the answer is no, you are not designed to eat fish. You have zero requirements for consuming fish or fish oil. Seafood, far from being necessary to your health, can speed its destruction. The total fish nutritional package, when you balance the omega-3s against all the toxic components, is decidedly negative. Instead of seafood, see your food for what it really is. You will happily choose plant-based nutrition. If you want to learn more about how a whole foods, plant-based diet gets you the omega-3s you need in a healthy package, check out the post Five Ways You Thrive with Flax Seeds for Pennies a Day.
Intrigued? Now you can use our Whole Foods Blog Finder to target informative, fun postings on plant-based nutrition. Quick information at no cost!
Blog posting by Janice Stanger, Ph.D. Janice authored The Perfect Formula Diet: How to Lose Weight and Get Healthy Now With Six Kinds of Whole Foods. This easy-to-follow eating plan is built on whole foods, plant-based diet that can prevent, and even reverse, most chronic disease as well as get you to your perfect weight. And this book does not advise you to eat worm larvae.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Steve Jobs Gave us Important Lessons !
12 lessons for us all from the life of Steve Jobs...
Commentary: What Apple co-founder's achievements tell the rest of us
10/07 12:01 AM
BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Are there any life lessons for the rest of us from the career, and legacy, of Steve Jobs?
The death of the Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) co-founder has dominated the news from Cupertino, Calif., to Kuala Lumpur. Many are focusing on the way his products and services changed our world. Others are talking about Jobs, the man.
But this was the most successful business leader of his era, and one of the greats. Few have achieved so much, so quickly, and publicly. It got me thinking: What are the lessons we can all take away? What do his extraordinary achievements tell the rest of us?
Here are 12 lessons from the life of Jobs:
1. Yes, you can make a difference
Anyone trying to achieve real change -- in life, in a company or in any organization -- probably feels the urge to give up half a dozen times a day. The naysayers and seat-polishers will do everything to slow you down. No one is suggesting that what Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) achieved was the result of Jobs alone, but his career is proof of just how much one individual can change things.
2. You need a vision
It's not enough to conduct opinion polls and customer surveys, and rely on consultants' projections. Those are all based on the conventional wisdom and the world as it is today. Jobs imagined things -- most obviously the iPod, and the iTunes services -- that didn't yet exist and for which the market was uncertain. While his competitors were still building the products of yesterday, he was imagining, and building, those of tomorrow.
3. It's not about you
It's horrifying how many business decisions are still made on the assumption that "well, we have to do something with XYZ division, so let's give them this project" or "Buggins has seniority so he's in charge." Do you think the customer cares about Buggins or XYZ division? Jobs built Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) into a streamlined operation, focused on the output, nothing else.
4. Focus, focus, focus
Hard to believe, but mediocre managers everywhere like to keep their staff "busy" because they think that's "productive." It isn't. (Ask them what their top priority is, and they'll name two things. Or four. Or 16.) Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) sure was "busy, busy, busy" when Jobs arrived. And it was going bust. One of the first things he did was axe about 90% of their activities and focus -- first on the iMac, then on the iPod.
5. 'OK' is not OK
Look at the way Apple's (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) competitors keep putting out mediocre or unfinished products and thinking they'll get away with it. Are they for real? The days when you could get by with second best are so over. Jobs was famous for a fanatical perfectionism. It was a core element of Apple's (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) success.
6. It's not about the money
Steve Jobs' life was a thumping rebuttal to all those who are obsessed with cash. The guy had billions: Far more than he could ever spend, even if he had lived to 100. Yet he kept working, and striving to achieve greater things. Money? Bah. Something to think about the next time a CEO demands another $20 million a year as an incentive to show up.
7. It ain't over till it's over
Fifteen years ago Steve Jobs appeared to be a has-been in Silicon Valley. And Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) was circling the drain: The company was plagued with losses, executive firings, reorganizations, desperate asset sales and research cuts. Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) stock hit a low of $3.23 in 1996, and hardly anyone wanted it even at that price.
8. Give people what they really want
Sound obvious, right? But most companies don't do it. They simply produce what they've always produced, or what's comfortable, or what Buggins thinks people want. For years the computer industry churned out ugly, clunky beige products with complicated operating systems. They all did it, and they all assumed that's what people wanted. Turns out it wasn't at all.
9. Destroy your own products -- before someone else does
Jobs made sure that Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) kept innovating, and rendering its own products out of date. Creative destruction came from within! That's why Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) is a $354 billion company, and, say, Palm has vanished from the Earth, even though a 2004 iPod is just as out of date as a 2004 Treo. How rare is this? Jobs knew full well his $500 iPad threatens to cannibalize sales of $1,000 laptops. But he moved forward nonetheless. Most companies wouldn't.
10. We are all spin-doctors now
Critics point out that a lot of what Jobs achieved at Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) was put down to hype and hustle. But that was the point. And Jobs was a master at it -- the product teasers, the showmanship on stage, even down to the black turtlenecks. Truth be told, we live in a superficial age of infinite media. We are all in the spin business. Deal with it.
11. Most people don't know what they're doing
It takes nothing away from Steve Jobs to point out that he couldn't have done it without his competitors. Microsoft, Palm, Nokia, Dell, HP -- the list goes on. They missed opportunities, stayed complacent, failed to innovate and generally mishandled the way their industry changed. It's normal to assume that the people around us -- and in power -- know what they are doing. As Jobs proved, often times they don't.
12. Your time is precious -- don't waste it
Steve Jobs was just 56 when he died -- a comparatively young man -- and yet during his short spell on Earth he revolutionized the way we live, several times over. What are we doing with our time? It is the resource we waste the most -- and it's the one we cannot buy. Make the most of your short spell on this planet.
Make each day and hour count.
Commentary: What Apple co-founder's achievements tell the rest of us
10/07 12:01 AM
BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- Are there any life lessons for the rest of us from the career, and legacy, of Steve Jobs?
The death of the Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) co-founder has dominated the news from Cupertino, Calif., to Kuala Lumpur. Many are focusing on the way his products and services changed our world. Others are talking about Jobs, the man.
But this was the most successful business leader of his era, and one of the greats. Few have achieved so much, so quickly, and publicly. It got me thinking: What are the lessons we can all take away? What do his extraordinary achievements tell the rest of us?
Here are 12 lessons from the life of Jobs:
1. Yes, you can make a difference
Anyone trying to achieve real change -- in life, in a company or in any organization -- probably feels the urge to give up half a dozen times a day. The naysayers and seat-polishers will do everything to slow you down. No one is suggesting that what Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) achieved was the result of Jobs alone, but his career is proof of just how much one individual can change things.
2. You need a vision
It's not enough to conduct opinion polls and customer surveys, and rely on consultants' projections. Those are all based on the conventional wisdom and the world as it is today. Jobs imagined things -- most obviously the iPod, and the iTunes services -- that didn't yet exist and for which the market was uncertain. While his competitors were still building the products of yesterday, he was imagining, and building, those of tomorrow.
3. It's not about you
It's horrifying how many business decisions are still made on the assumption that "well, we have to do something with XYZ division, so let's give them this project" or "Buggins has seniority so he's in charge." Do you think the customer cares about Buggins or XYZ division? Jobs built Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) into a streamlined operation, focused on the output, nothing else.
4. Focus, focus, focus
Hard to believe, but mediocre managers everywhere like to keep their staff "busy" because they think that's "productive." It isn't. (Ask them what their top priority is, and they'll name two things. Or four. Or 16.) Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) sure was "busy, busy, busy" when Jobs arrived. And it was going bust. One of the first things he did was axe about 90% of their activities and focus -- first on the iMac, then on the iPod.
5. 'OK' is not OK
Look at the way Apple's (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) competitors keep putting out mediocre or unfinished products and thinking they'll get away with it. Are they for real? The days when you could get by with second best are so over. Jobs was famous for a fanatical perfectionism. It was a core element of Apple's (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) success.
6. It's not about the money
Steve Jobs' life was a thumping rebuttal to all those who are obsessed with cash. The guy had billions: Far more than he could ever spend, even if he had lived to 100. Yet he kept working, and striving to achieve greater things. Money? Bah. Something to think about the next time a CEO demands another $20 million a year as an incentive to show up.
7. It ain't over till it's over
Fifteen years ago Steve Jobs appeared to be a has-been in Silicon Valley. And Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) was circling the drain: The company was plagued with losses, executive firings, reorganizations, desperate asset sales and research cuts. Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) stock hit a low of $3.23 in 1996, and hardly anyone wanted it even at that price.
8. Give people what they really want
Sound obvious, right? But most companies don't do it. They simply produce what they've always produced, or what's comfortable, or what Buggins thinks people want. For years the computer industry churned out ugly, clunky beige products with complicated operating systems. They all did it, and they all assumed that's what people wanted. Turns out it wasn't at all.
9. Destroy your own products -- before someone else does
Jobs made sure that Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) kept innovating, and rendering its own products out of date. Creative destruction came from within! That's why Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) is a $354 billion company, and, say, Palm has vanished from the Earth, even though a 2004 iPod is just as out of date as a 2004 Treo. How rare is this? Jobs knew full well his $500 iPad threatens to cannibalize sales of $1,000 laptops. But he moved forward nonetheless. Most companies wouldn't.
10. We are all spin-doctors now
Critics point out that a lot of what Jobs achieved at Apple (AAPL:$377.37,00$-0.88,00-0.23%) was put down to hype and hustle. But that was the point. And Jobs was a master at it -- the product teasers, the showmanship on stage, even down to the black turtlenecks. Truth be told, we live in a superficial age of infinite media. We are all in the spin business. Deal with it.
11. Most people don't know what they're doing
It takes nothing away from Steve Jobs to point out that he couldn't have done it without his competitors. Microsoft, Palm, Nokia, Dell, HP -- the list goes on. They missed opportunities, stayed complacent, failed to innovate and generally mishandled the way their industry changed. It's normal to assume that the people around us -- and in power -- know what they are doing. As Jobs proved, often times they don't.
12. Your time is precious -- don't waste it
Steve Jobs was just 56 when he died -- a comparatively young man -- and yet during his short spell on Earth he revolutionized the way we live, several times over. What are we doing with our time? It is the resource we waste the most -- and it's the one we cannot buy. Make the most of your short spell on this planet.
Make each day and hour count.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)