Monday, November 24, 2014

Glycemic Index, the fascinating science showing the world pseudo-facts for personal interpretation and profit


Oh come on, I think we all know that results in science are driven by the needs of those paying the bills. This is just simple interpretation of the reality of our world. Big drug companies have been fined billions of dollars for falsifying data, the US FDA approves chemicals to be added to foods that the US EPA has declared too toxic to be ingested by humans in any amount, and of course Genetically Modified foods are approved with short term feeding studies that legitimate scientists aren't allowed access to for review. It happens, it's part of our existence. And the glycemic thing is helpful, we just have to take the interpretations of those trying to sell you something for what they are.

Anyway, what is the Glycemic Index? This is a very interesting concept and the reality is that although it gives us a measure of how specific food items are digested and broken down within the human digestive system; it is an imperfect and subjective measurement at best, and at worst, it gives pseudo-scientific credence to internet gurus as well as those selling books, supplements and the ideal way of life to unsuspecting people. It isn't the panacea for those that want you to drink the Kool-Aid, even though they want you to believe that it. It isn't snake oil, but it is helpful. Back in 1980 this guy, Dr. David Jenkins working at the University of Toronto developed the concept. Since then, there have been a bunch of other researchers doing the testing to produce their very own GI charts. Probably the one most often cited as gospel on the internet is the one done by Harvard University. The way that the GI is measured is a group of test subjects, usually students needing extra money, are first given control foods to eat. Normal controls are table sugar and then on a separate day, white bread. The blood glucose is then tested over several hours and the changes are plotted as a curve comparing time and rise in blood glucose levels. These are the BASE LINE results and then differing foods are then fed to the test subjects to get similar graphs for each food item and this is then compared to the base line graphs for white bread and sugar. From that comparison we derive the Glycemic Index rating for that particular food. For a very simple explanation of how it is calculated, the Linus Pauling Institute has a great one that's easy to understand. (Linus Pauling

Now comes the bad part that I have to explain. The whole thing is subjective, and interpretation of the data is not in anyway conclusive proof of any specific individual food item when consumed by any specific individual. The GI charts are drawn up giving a MEDIAN average of individuals with those individuals being young students in much better health and vitality than the people reading about it all. And of course the big one, the chart gives the GI for the food items that the researchers chose to test. It may have very little to do with the diet that you or anyone else might be consuming. It has little to do with the food I eat. And in fact a huge portion of it just doesn't make any sense at all. Although the Harvard chart states that 30 grams of a baguette has a glycemic index of 95, a 30 gram portion of a hamburger bun has a GI of 61. That part is hard to understand, a baguette by definition is nothing but flour water salt and yeast whereas most hamburger buns contain High Fructose Corn Syrup. So how does that work out? The chart also tests commercial baked breads that aren't common in the Western US with most of those that have high percentages of cracked or unprocessed whole wheat to have much lower GI numbers than plain processed whole wheat flour breads. This makes sense as plain wheat kernels have a GI of 30. I can't examine those breads to determine how they were made but since they are commercial brands I can only assume they are made as cheaply and quickly as all the commercial brands made around here. Now comes the part where we can't really use the GI charts to determine what's good for us or not. When the Harvard, and well all the others doing this testing, did their research, they don't tell us how the foods they test were prepared. We do know that the big ways to make whole natural foods healthier for us are soaking, sprouting, fermenting and steaming. All of these preparation techniques make food better for us by breaking down the lectins and phytic acids and they also breakdown the cellular structure to make them more digestible. However, we have no idea if that in anyway alters the GI ratings of any of the foods.

Also one big thing that I do is use a wheat grinder to make my fermented breads. A wheat grinder for home use is a lot different from the high speed roller mills used by commercial flour mills and commercial bakers. We have no idea if that alters the GI rating of the breads that I and a million other home bakers produce. The thing to remember about all of this is that the science behind it all is all subjective and open to interpretation and that even though certain websites out there make big claims (all the Paleo diet gurus wanting you to buy their crap) that it isn't true that a slice of bread has a greater Glycemic Index than table sugar. The truth is that GI charts are just one minor tool that can be used to help you determine what sort of diet you as an individual needs to consume. I think that most reputable doctors and scientists will tell you that your life will be better if you stick to less meat, more unprocessed foods and never ever eat at McDonalds

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Statistical Evidence is not fact. Any theory deduced is false, at least any proposing concepts contrary to the perception fed to us by the prevailing establishment

Well that's a long title. And for those not quite sure what it means, let me explain. Science dominates our modern existence. And there are a lot of differing studies of science. Some, have very little room for interpretation. From the basic arithmetic functionality of how computers operate to the complex calculus and physics needed to design buildings, roadways and well, the basic structure of the man made portion of our world. The other sciences, are all based on subjective interpretation of data normally collected either via experimentation or observation of existing phenomena and even specific extrapolation of our recorded history. Scientists gather the data they need, from whatever source being used, then draw conclusions about their research based on Statistically significant trends as determined by analysis of the raw data.

Here's a simple example, look at the database that contains all the car crashes in say, Arizona; and determine the casualty rate based on speed of crash. Look at car crashes at 10 mph and on a graph, plot how many deaths per accident occured. Then do the same for 20 mph, then 30 and 40 and 50. We won't get a straight line, it will curve sharply upwards. And it will perform in a measurable, specific way. And from that chart, we can pretty accurately predict what will happen at 70, 80, 90 miles an hour. This is a statistical probability of the causality effects of speed in car crashes based on statistical evidence. This technique is pretty much used EVERYWHERE in science. This differs dramatically from anecdotal evidence. By that I mean that you sister's boyfriend's cousin's next door neighbor was driving at 200 mph and hit a wall and lived. That has little to do with the statistical determination that driving faster and crashing gives a greater risk of dying. That's an anecdotal plot on the graph of life and probably not true, but fun to tell.

A long time ago, (yikes, I really am that old) I noticed something when working with commercial mushroom growers. They had problems with transference of the mycillium to new beds from existing ones. Micrographs showed small subtle degradation of the mitochondria in some samples. When examining the specifics of the substrate for each specimen a graph was made that showed a significant trend, a statistical probability of the outcome due to specific conditions in the individual environment of each bed used for growing. Science, and statistics in action.

These are just two examples of how statistics are used in science, from the gleaning of data already available to experimental research gathering specific data to reach conclusions. I'm not that interested in doing research in a lab any more, too old, too poor, too tired. But I do like to sit at my computer and look at the research that others do. And I see statistical evidence showing specific protocols that modern industrial economic and governmental ruling classes don't want to admit exist. And all of them deny whole heatedly and completely that all of this doesn't exist and is in error. There is wholesale denial of statistical evidence.

Case study number 1. Vaccines. I have written about them before and everything that I have printed here I have gleaned from the volumes of research available to anyone using the internet. The salient point here is that according to published DATA from a wide variety of sources, things are not what we are told. In the EU where they actually publish these things (as opposed to the US where it is kept secret) more adults die from the flu vaccine than die from the flu. In the US, American children are mandated to have 49 vaccinations before the age of 6, and are 34th in infant mortality having a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba and other underdeveloped countries. In the US blacks have an infant mortality rate of 18.6 per 1,000 live births and whites 8.8. Overall vaccination rates for whites has dropped since 2002 with an overall rate of infant children receiving all 49 vaccines before age 6 now being less than 71%. Whereas blacks have overall compliance of slightly under 91%. Despite hours of trying, I have never been able to find the total number of claimants that have used the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, otherwise known as Vaccine Court. They do not allow access to the public of that information. I do know that the Feds set aside 200 billion dollars to compensate those injured by vaccines. This has nothing to do with autism, this is all about the quantifiable evidence that a very large percentage of children and adults that receive vaccines suffer from nearly 100 known adverse serious side effects other than rash and fever. The Feds own HRSA even has a webpage that gives a timetable to watch for specific side effects and how long it takes to materialize and the parameters needed in order to make a successful claim to the Vaccine Court for payment. Given the multitude of problems with CURRENT manufacturing processes for CURRENT vaccines, there is Statistical Evidence that they are unsafe, poorly designed and a causitive factor in many many long and short term health problems up to and including death.

Case study number 2. Genetically Modified Food. Again, I write about this all the time. The establishment of the ruling class in America has decreed that Genetically Modified Foods are necessary to produce enough food for the world. In America, there are 3,537,455 square miles of land. The US produced 1,006,000 metric tons of milk on that land using rBGH hormones to increase milk production. The USDA estimates that approximately 85% of milk produced in the US is done using rBGH hormone treatment. The EU has 1,707,462 square miles of land and produced 1,400,00 metric tons of milk. None of it had rBGH as it is illegal to use in the EU and just about every other country in the world. Crop yields according to the USDA ERS are mixed, with only slight increases; however total costs for farmers initially dropped after the introduction of GM crops because of labor and mechanical costs were lower; but in recent years costs of GM seeds has risen over 3000%. EU farmers growing traditional crops have seen yield growth in double digits due to improved computerized farming methods. In the world today, GM crops we have been told are the future to world hunger. However 72% of all corn and 88% of all soy grown is used for animal feed. Western dietary habits with extremely HIGH percentage of meat intake is the driving force for the shift from agrarian biodiversity to agrigiant monoculture for meat production. There is Statistical Evidence that Genetically Modified foods are NOT the answer to feeding the growing world population.

Case study number 3. Pesticides. Again, I write about these things here on my blog a lot. Whereas the US government EPA gives us the "Animal Farm" belief that GM crops are reducing the total amounts of pesticide usage in the world today, the actual facts differ when information is gleaned from reports from the manufacturers of chemical pesticides in the forms of Herbicides glyphosate, 2,4-D, atrazine, metachlor-S, acetaclor, and pendamethalin; Fumigants meta sodium, dichloropropene, mythyl bromide, and chloropicrin; and Insecticides which comprise a wide variety of chemicals in eighteen groups. The EPA tells us that from 2007 to 2009 pesticide usage dropped 2.2%. Sales by weight of pesticides increased in the same time period according to manufacturer's information by nearly 7%. Independent testing of the herbicide glyphosate shows that when fed to mice at a rate of .005 parts per million of their feed, there was significant neural damage along with developing renal tumors. Because of the overuse of herbicides there are now sixteen reported species of weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate which has driven the increase in its usage. Mounting pressure from agribusinesses forced the EPA to raise the allowable limit of glyphosate on animal feed from 1 ppm to 200 PARTS PER MILLION.

There is Statistical Evidence that Americans are being lied to by our leaders, our corporate masters, and the media. Anyone that produces evidence to the contrary is denounced as using bad science.

However, it's all right there for anyone to see.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Change is coming, we have a new power in the Senate

If you really think it matters which political party controls the U.S. Senate, please answer these questions. Don’t worry, they’re not that difficult:

With much hoopla and celebration, many Americans are ecstatic to see that the Republican Party now controls the Senate of the United States of America. To some, this is a great thing, to others, it has been likened to the downfall of civilization. However you feel about this event, here are questions that will explain to you what happens when one political party controls the Presidency, the Senate or the House,

1. Will the US foreign policy in the Mideast change from current incoherent and disjointed efforts on numerous fronts of war not being a war? Answer, This first question is simple, it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.

2. Will basic civil liberties be returned to citizens? Answer, This second question is simple, it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.
3. Will the influence of big corporate money no longer be an issue in election campaigns. Answer, This third question is simple, it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.

4. Will the predatory policies of the Federal Reserve that profits Wall Street Do Nothings and is the main cause of the disparity in economic wealth of Americans change. Answer, This fourth question is simple, it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.

5. Will the policies controlling the administration of drugs, food and beverage change in ways that will benefit the populace that elected those that represent us. Answer, This fifth question is simple, it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.

6. Will there be any prudent assessment of unaffordable weapons systems being developed currently such as the F35 fighter which doesn't work, is over budget and completely antiquated even before being finished. Answer, This sixth question is simple, it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.

7. Will there be any changes to the system of lechery paid for by Washington lobbyists garnering favors for Big business, Wall Street do-nothings and anyone with vast sums of money. Answer, This seventh question is simple, it doesn't matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.

I'm sorry, those that actually believe that who is in power actually makes a difference will be sadly disappointed to learn the truth. Power corrupts, and those seeking the power to make change are all corrupt right from the get go. 

America, It is the best place to be, but far from ideal.

Monday, November 3, 2014

MILK, it does a body, well, not so good!

It's true, I don't drink milk. Not for any particular beliefs or protests or whatever. My lack of desire for the stuff is based on something a little more, mundane and in fact my aversion to the stuff goes way back some thirty years or more. But it would seem that there in fact is a good reason for me not to drink the stuff after all. New studies have recently been published that give us some very disturbing views of the this once heralded product that has long been claimed to be liquid health in a bottle.

I know there are a lot of skeptics out there that want proof, and just saying something is true doesn't make it so, even on the internet. So I have some interesting research to present to you that begins to make those old homilies about always drink your milk for strong bones and teeth, a little less believable. Last month the prestigious British Medical Journal published an article that compiled the data from a TWENTY year study that involved over a hundred and five THOUSAND people that answered specific questions regarding their eating habits, with one of the factors looked at and recorded was consumption of milk. Now here is where it gets a little odd, when the researchers looked at both groups, men and women, they discovered that the mortality rate for both was considerably higher (very nearly DOUBLE) for regular milk drinkers than it was for non or occasional milk drinkers. And the worst part, that regular milk drinkers had dramatically higher incidences of bone and hip fractures over those that didn't drink milk.

Yikes, that isn't what the American Dairy Associations have been telling us now for decades.

No, it isn't. However in America large corporations have the ability to declare whatever they want to be true and we as citizens are required to believe their lies. That's the way the system works, private businesses and humans of wealth give money to elected servants of the people to use their influence to make changes in the Code of Laws of the "Government of the People" that will allow them as the wealthy or businesses to do what they desire.  If you think this is baloney, then you just need to take a look at the IRS tax codes to verify how true this statement is. The little booklet you get with your return has very little to do with the six thousand pages of loopholes added to the Tax Code by privateers. I think that is but one very prominent and visible example of how our government works, there are of course many many more. (Just for fun, search Keating Five to see how much Senators cost)

I digress, sorry. Anyway this isn't the first study like this done. In 1994 the American Journal of Epidemiology published a similar study reporting that women that drank milk on a regular basis had greater incidences of bone and hip fractures than women that rarely or never drank milk. And in 1997 the The American Journal of Public Health published the Harvard Nurses study detailing the 12 year long study of over seventy-seven thousand women showing a definitive increase in bone fractures as consumption of milk increased. And then there is Dr. Amy Lanou, director of nutrition for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine who has come right out and stated that WORLDWIDE the countries that have the highest consumption of milk have the highest rates of osteoporosis. And the connection between calcium consumption in the form of milk and overall bone health is almost nonexistent.

But wait a minute, the TV has ads on it ALL THE TIME telling us to drink milk because it's good for our bone health and prevents those things. How can they not be true? Indeed.

All is not bad though, the BMJ study did in fact indicate that when milk is fermented, as in the making of yogurt, kefir or other ferments, the exact opposite was true. Then the milk had beneficial effects. But milk itself, not so good.
  • Studies show that drinking 3 glasses or more of milk per day show increases in both prostate and ovarian cancers. 2009 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
  • World wide countries that have higher milk consumption have greater rates of multiple sclerosis. 1992 issue of Neuroepidemeology 
  • Milk increases atherosclorisis and arthritis in humans 1992 Journal of Nutrition
  • Milk is the food item with the highest rate of allergies in the world. 2007 Allergy Clinical Immunology
Here in America what we are told, is not always the truth. We as consumers need to verify for our own protection any products that we buy. Snake oil, is everywhere.

Milk, it does a body good!