Showing posts with label New Scientist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Scientist. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Friday, 14 August 2009
I'm puzzled about the New Scientist
Note added on August 17th:
I can now access the New Scientist website again. My comment has not been reinstated. I can now read the Terms and Conditions and I am still unaware of any way that I could be considered to have breached them. I put my real name to my comment and, where the form asked for website URL, I gave it. I gave it because the form asked for it. I studiously avoided putting any links in the comment itself. Anyone could click near my name to reach my website www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk which is a non-commercial website that warns of the harmful side-effects of prescribed steroids and other prescribed drugs and explains about the benefits of eating less salt, principally the benefit of losing excess weight easily and safely. I created the website because as a steroid victim myself I wanted to save others from the great and unnecessary suffering caused by the reckless over-prescribing of these and other drugs. The website does not sell or advertise anything and it has no sponsors.
August 14th: It's weird.
I receive emails from the New Scientist each week as I am on their mailing list, and I read many of their interesting articles. Occasionally I submit a comment on an article.
This week there was an article about weight control. The article is called "The fat that makes you thin," and I submitted a comment about how to reduce obesity easily, swiftly and safely. The comment appeared beneath the article and I did actually get a visitor to my website as a result so I know it was seen by at least one other person. - But I can't get to that exact webpage now and my comment appears to have been removed from the page though I can still find the comment in some archived pages on the internet. I can't access the New Scientist's terms and conditions for contributing comments so I can't check to see if I could possibly have contravened them. What I wrote has no connection with any adverts or sponsors and is simply facts/advice to help their readers. - I'm puzzled as to why my comment has been removed.
I do not seem to be able to access the New Scientist website at all. I'm disappointed about this and I'm genuinely baffled as to why I have apparently been banned. The New Scientist more than any other publication should, one feels, be open to new thinking about obesity.
This is what I wrote:
"Obesity is easily, swiftly and safely reduced by cutting down on salt and salty food, because this reduces fluid retention, the real cause of obesity. Reducing sodium intake also reduces fat retention, which most commonly caused by fluid retention aka salt retention. Increasing potassium intake assists because potassium displaces some excess sodium (and its attendant water) from the body.
Increasing calcium intake also reduces fat retention because it increases the amount of fat excreted in the faeces. The role of calcium in weight loss was explained on a BBC2 programme, The Truth About Food, a few years ago.
All of these safe, simple ways of reducing excess weight are nothing whatsoever to do with calorie intake or calorie reduction.
It is easy to put to the test what I have suggested. If you are overweight I urge you to try my suggestions. You will definitely lose weight and will also feel a lot better."
I can now access the New Scientist website again. My comment has not been reinstated. I can now read the Terms and Conditions and I am still unaware of any way that I could be considered to have breached them. I put my real name to my comment and, where the form asked for website URL, I gave it. I gave it because the form asked for it. I studiously avoided putting any links in the comment itself. Anyone could click near my name to reach my website www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk which is a non-commercial website that warns of the harmful side-effects of prescribed steroids and other prescribed drugs and explains about the benefits of eating less salt, principally the benefit of losing excess weight easily and safely. I created the website because as a steroid victim myself I wanted to save others from the great and unnecessary suffering caused by the reckless over-prescribing of these and other drugs. The website does not sell or advertise anything and it has no sponsors.
August 14th: It's weird.
I receive emails from the New Scientist each week as I am on their mailing list, and I read many of their interesting articles. Occasionally I submit a comment on an article.
This week there was an article about weight control. The article is called "The fat that makes you thin," and I submitted a comment about how to reduce obesity easily, swiftly and safely. The comment appeared beneath the article and I did actually get a visitor to my website as a result so I know it was seen by at least one other person. - But I can't get to that exact webpage now and my comment appears to have been removed from the page though I can still find the comment in some archived pages on the internet. I can't access the New Scientist's terms and conditions for contributing comments so I can't check to see if I could possibly have contravened them. What I wrote has no connection with any adverts or sponsors and is simply facts/advice to help their readers. - I'm puzzled as to why my comment has been removed.
I do not seem to be able to access the New Scientist website at all. I'm disappointed about this and I'm genuinely baffled as to why I have apparently been banned. The New Scientist more than any other publication should, one feels, be open to new thinking about obesity.
This is what I wrote:
"Obesity is easily, swiftly and safely reduced by cutting down on salt and salty food, because this reduces fluid retention, the real cause of obesity. Reducing sodium intake also reduces fat retention, which most commonly caused by fluid retention aka salt retention. Increasing potassium intake assists because potassium displaces some excess sodium (and its attendant water) from the body.
Increasing calcium intake also reduces fat retention because it increases the amount of fat excreted in the faeces. The role of calcium in weight loss was explained on a BBC2 programme, The Truth About Food, a few years ago.
All of these safe, simple ways of reducing excess weight are nothing whatsoever to do with calorie intake or calorie reduction.
It is easy to put to the test what I have suggested. If you are overweight I urge you to try my suggestions. You will definitely lose weight and will also feel a lot better."
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Scale of pharmaceutical industry's payments to US medical schools revealed. - Is this a bit of bribery and corruption?
Scale of pharma payments to med schools revealed
Extract from report in New Scientist:
"Stock options, free meals, lecture fees - the pharmaceutical industry showers them all on department heads at some US medical schools."
Obviously there should be curbs on this dodgy largesse...
Extract from report in New Scientist:
"Stock options, free meals, lecture fees - the pharmaceutical industry showers them all on department heads at some US medical schools."
Obviously there should be curbs on this dodgy largesse...
Friday, 17 August 2007
Sunday, 17 June 2007
Laughter improves breast milk's health effect - New Scientist
Laughter improves breast milk's health effect - New Scientist
Extract:
"Breastfed babies with eczema experienced milder symptoms if their mothers laughed hours before feeding them, according to a study by Hajime Kimata at the Moriguchi-Keijinkai Hospital in Osaka, Japan."
Both mothers and babies would benefit if mothers reduced their intake of salt/sodium and salty food to a minimum. This would improve many aspects of health, including the severity of eczema, and it would lower the risk of the babies gaining excess weight. See http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/conditions.html and http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/children.html
Lose weight by eating less salt! Go on! - Try it! - You will feel so much better!
See my website www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk
(The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.)
Extract:
"Breastfed babies with eczema experienced milder symptoms if their mothers laughed hours before feeding them, according to a study by Hajime Kimata at the Moriguchi-Keijinkai Hospital in Osaka, Japan."
Both mothers and babies would benefit if mothers reduced their intake of salt/sodium and salty food to a minimum. This would improve many aspects of health, including the severity of eczema, and it would lower the risk of the babies gaining excess weight. See http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/conditions.html and http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/children.html
Lose weight by eating less salt! Go on! - Try it! - You will feel so much better!
See my website www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk
(The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.)
Thursday, 7 June 2007
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Information about Complete MoisturePlus contact lens solution.
Blinding amoebas cause health scare in US - New Scientist
Extract:
"An outbreak of a rare type of eye infection that can lead to blindness has sparked concern among people in the US who wear contact lenses."
Extract:
"An outbreak of a rare type of eye infection that can lead to blindness has sparked concern among people in the US who wear contact lenses."
Thursday, 17 May 2007
Rebecca Riley - a four year old - has died because of medication prescribed for "a bipolar personality"...)o:
Bipolar children - is the US overdiagnosing? - New Scientist
Extract:
"Rebecca Riley seemed a normal, playful young child, if at times a little boisterous. Then, aged 2, she was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and at 3 as having a bipolar personality. By the age of 4, Rebecca was dead, killed by an overdose of the drug clonidine, which was being used to treat her condition. She was also taking the anti-convulsant Depakote (valproate) and the anti-psychotic Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate) to stabilise her mood."
I believe it is foolhardy and indefensible to give psychotropic drugs to children, especially to such a young child as this. Children should be protected BY LAW from being prescribed these drugs. Prescription drugs are potentially very harmful, particularly to children. And attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not a real disease, of course, only a putative disease. - This poor child was given THREE dangerous drugs, apparently all at the same time. - Giving more than one dangerous drug at the same time potentiates the risk...)o:
Extract:
"Rebecca Riley seemed a normal, playful young child, if at times a little boisterous. Then, aged 2, she was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and at 3 as having a bipolar personality. By the age of 4, Rebecca was dead, killed by an overdose of the drug clonidine, which was being used to treat her condition. She was also taking the anti-convulsant Depakote (valproate) and the anti-psychotic Seroquel (quetiapine fumarate) to stabilise her mood."
I believe it is foolhardy and indefensible to give psychotropic drugs to children, especially to such a young child as this. Children should be protected BY LAW from being prescribed these drugs. Prescription drugs are potentially very harmful, particularly to children. And attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is not a real disease, of course, only a putative disease. - This poor child was given THREE dangerous drugs, apparently all at the same time. - Giving more than one dangerous drug at the same time potentiates the risk...)o:
Is peanut allergy misdiagnosed in a lot of children?
Peanut allergy is misdiagnosed in many children - New Scientist
Extract:
"Many children are erroneously told they have a peanut allergy because the standard skin-prick test is not accurate enough, a new study suggests."
Extract:
"Many children are erroneously told they have a peanut allergy because the standard skin-prick test is not accurate enough, a new study suggests."
Monday, 2 April 2007
Liver disease: the silent epidemic caused mainly by fluid retention and salt sensitivity
Liver disease: the silent epidemic - New Scientist
I'm afraid I have to disagree fundamentally with the main assertion in this New Scientist article. My comments will follow after the following extract from the article:
"There's more than one way to destroy your liver - and excessive eating is fast becoming the number one culprit
PETE had a truly awful Christmas. A few weeks earlier he was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver and the news was still sinking in while all around him the alcohol-fuelled festivities were in full swing. "I don't even drink," he told the specialist incredulously when given the diagnosis. Surely only hardened alcoholics get cirrhosis?
In November, feeling tired and washed-out, he had gone to see his doctor. Apart from being overweight he seemed to be in good health. Yet blood tests indicated he was anaemic and an endoscopy revealed a burst blood vessel in his gullet, a sign of cirrhosis, the final stage of liver disease. Weeks later Pete's abdomen swelled alarmingly as it filled with fluid - another sign - and a liver biopsy confirmed the diagnosis. He was only 35. "
It is, of course, correct that cirrhosis of the liver does not develop only in hardened alcoholics, though that is the impression we tend to get because that is mostly what is conveyed to us by health professionals. This article suggests that the cause is overeating. - It isn't. - The main and often exclusive cause is fluid retention and the salt sensitivity that results in the fluid retention. - The fluid retention causes obesity, which could also be said to be the cause of the liver disease. - But obesity is NOT caused by overeating. - That is the point.
The way to protect the liver from this grave illness is to avoid dieting and to minimise salt/sodium intake because this minimises the fluid retention and results in swift, safe weight reduction as some of the excess fluid is excreted from the body.
The liver is also damaged by having to metabolise medications, so it is best to avoid taking prescribed or over the counter drugs if they are not really necessary.
Obesity is not caused by overeating. It is caused by fluid retention, which in turn is usually caused by sodium retention. The blood vessels become distended with extra sodium and the water it attracts to itself. There is no evidence to support the calorie theory about obesity. - And reducing calories does not reduce obesity. - Reducing salt intake DOES reduce obesity because it reduces the fluid retention by enabling the body to excrete excess salt and water in the urine.
Calorie counting and advice about increasing exercise and reducing fat and carbohydrate intake to reduce obesity are ineffective, counter-productive and often damaging. - See the article in the British Medical Journal of November 2003 BMJ article for actual research on what happens when this advice is followed! - Over 800 obese adults were put on energy deficit diets, given diet sheets and plenty of instruction and help from trained staff, and apparently, visited fortnightly for a year, at the end of which they had GAINED weight! This mirrors the real experience of obese people, viz. - dieting makes you fat.
It is commonly accepted now, except by the 'experts', that less than 5% of dieters actually lose weight, and most gain weight as a result of dieting. - Even the ones who manage to lose weight do not usually improve their health. - See Guardian article for a report in The Guardian of Monday, June 27th 2005. It is about a huge research study of nearly 3000 people over a period of 18 years. The study found that overweight people who diet to reach a healthier weight are more likely to die young than those who remain fat. It also found that dieting causes physiological damage that in the long term can outweigh the benefits of the weight loss.
See http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/conditions.html for the many health problems that will be ameliorated by salt reduction.
I'm afraid I have to disagree fundamentally with the main assertion in this New Scientist article. My comments will follow after the following extract from the article:
"There's more than one way to destroy your liver - and excessive eating is fast becoming the number one culprit
PETE had a truly awful Christmas. A few weeks earlier he was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver and the news was still sinking in while all around him the alcohol-fuelled festivities were in full swing. "I don't even drink," he told the specialist incredulously when given the diagnosis. Surely only hardened alcoholics get cirrhosis?
In November, feeling tired and washed-out, he had gone to see his doctor. Apart from being overweight he seemed to be in good health. Yet blood tests indicated he was anaemic and an endoscopy revealed a burst blood vessel in his gullet, a sign of cirrhosis, the final stage of liver disease. Weeks later Pete's abdomen swelled alarmingly as it filled with fluid - another sign - and a liver biopsy confirmed the diagnosis. He was only 35. "
It is, of course, correct that cirrhosis of the liver does not develop only in hardened alcoholics, though that is the impression we tend to get because that is mostly what is conveyed to us by health professionals. This article suggests that the cause is overeating. - It isn't. - The main and often exclusive cause is fluid retention and the salt sensitivity that results in the fluid retention. - The fluid retention causes obesity, which could also be said to be the cause of the liver disease. - But obesity is NOT caused by overeating. - That is the point.
The way to protect the liver from this grave illness is to avoid dieting and to minimise salt/sodium intake because this minimises the fluid retention and results in swift, safe weight reduction as some of the excess fluid is excreted from the body.
The liver is also damaged by having to metabolise medications, so it is best to avoid taking prescribed or over the counter drugs if they are not really necessary.
Obesity is not caused by overeating. It is caused by fluid retention, which in turn is usually caused by sodium retention. The blood vessels become distended with extra sodium and the water it attracts to itself. There is no evidence to support the calorie theory about obesity. - And reducing calories does not reduce obesity. - Reducing salt intake DOES reduce obesity because it reduces the fluid retention by enabling the body to excrete excess salt and water in the urine.
Calorie counting and advice about increasing exercise and reducing fat and carbohydrate intake to reduce obesity are ineffective, counter-productive and often damaging. - See the article in the British Medical Journal of November 2003 BMJ article for actual research on what happens when this advice is followed! - Over 800 obese adults were put on energy deficit diets, given diet sheets and plenty of instruction and help from trained staff, and apparently, visited fortnightly for a year, at the end of which they had GAINED weight! This mirrors the real experience of obese people, viz. - dieting makes you fat.
It is commonly accepted now, except by the 'experts', that less than 5% of dieters actually lose weight, and most gain weight as a result of dieting. - Even the ones who manage to lose weight do not usually improve their health. - See Guardian article for a report in The Guardian of Monday, June 27th 2005. It is about a huge research study of nearly 3000 people over a period of 18 years. The study found that overweight people who diet to reach a healthier weight are more likely to die young than those who remain fat. It also found that dieting causes physiological damage that in the long term can outweigh the benefits of the weight loss.
See http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/conditions.html for the many health problems that will be ameliorated by salt reduction.
Lose weight by eating less salt! Go on! - Try it! - You will feel so much better! See my website http://www.wildeaboutsteroids.co.uk/ (The site does not sell anything and has no banners or sponsors or adverts - just helpful information.)
Addendum 1:
The first 'Anonymous' has added a comment below this post, saying "I consume more salt than any other person I know, I occationally just pour some in my hand and eat it. I weight 145lbs @ 5'10 and depending on the day can be at body fat percentage that is just below the healthy minimum. Explain that." - Well I am not able to add a comment myself because of a technical problem, but the answer to Anonymous is that only people who are sensitive to salt become overweight/obese and suffer from fluid retention, so obviously Anonymous is not sensitive to salt and that is why he is slim and can eat lots of salt without gaining weight. He has good strong healthy veins that are strong enough to resist becoming swollen with excess salt and the water attendant on it.
Slim people are slim because they have healthy veins and kidneys and are not sensitive to salt.
Addendum 2:
The second 'Anonymous' comment asks if there is something other than salt in the diet that is causing the weak veins and the salt sensitivity and the answer is that there are many prescribed pharmaceutical drugs that cause weak veins and salt sensitivity. If Japanese people take fewer prescribed pharmaceutical drugs than people in the western world then they are much less likely to become obese. Pharmaceutical drugs are a major cause of obesity, especially of morbid obesity, so people who value their health would be wise to avoid taking prescribed pharmaceuticals unless there is very good reason to do so. See my Mensa article on Obesity and the Salt Connection
Thursday, 8 March 2007
Male circumcision to fight HIV may pose risk to women
Male circumcision to fight HIV poses risk to women - from the New Scientist
Extract:
"Policy-makers must exercise caution when including male circumcision among their tactics for fighting AIDS, researchers said on Tuesday. Early data from a trial in Uganda suggests the practice could increase infections in women."
Extract:
"Policy-makers must exercise caution when including male circumcision among their tactics for fighting AIDS, researchers said on Tuesday. Early data from a trial in Uganda suggests the practice could increase infections in women."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
