Greater Self-Reliance in Health and Wellness - New Website

So I am finally getting to bring together my interests and qualifications and put them to good use! I have started a new project that aims to help people use herbal medicine and wellness tools to increase self-reliance in terms of their health and well-being. A little later I will also be offering herbal consultations, but I will tell you about that a little nearer the time.

This project is great because I get to do what I really love, follow my interests, and (hopefully) really help others! It draws on my experiences of the last several years, the study I have been doing, and the perspectives I have been, and am, developing. I am integrating my interests in herbal medicine, human development and well-being, an integral (or holistic) approach, and sustainability and self-reliance.

Sustainability and self-reliance I think is a really important issue: the signs as I read them are that issues that we are facing across the globe, such as financial instability, environmental problems, and a looming energy crisis, are not going to go away in a hurry. Therefore I believe that what we can do to increase our own self-reliance, and the sustainability of our communities and culture, we should do. This is true in many areas, not least in healthcare. What we can do to improve our health and well-being, and to manage simpler illness ourselves, will decrease the burden on our healthcare system so that it is better able to help us when we really need it. Of course, improving our health and well-being and treating simple conditions naturally is a good thing in its own right, and it is something I highly encourage no matter what the rest of the world is doing!

It is still early days for my project, but part of it is up and running and I am continually developing it. I will be running some online courses in the near future, with the first one being ready in a few weeks. What is up and running already is my blog, and a mailing list through which you can learn a new medicinal plant and practical tool for developing your well-being every month, and as part of that I have just started a free mini-series called Little Acts of Wellness.

Little Acts of Wellness

Often (and I know this from personal experience) it can be quite difficult to find the time or motivation for caring properly for your health and well-being. There can be so much to gain from regular exercise, eating good food, developing your inner self, your spiritual practice, your relationships, and your being in the world, but often life just gets in the way! By using Little Acts of Wellness you can overcome the time and motivation problem by making small changes or designing small activities that support and care for the many aspects of your being (that can then be expanded when time and energy allow). It is a useful way to get doing something rather than nothing, and to open up the possibility of sometimes doing more. Check out my post on Little Acts of Wellness to find out more and to join my mailing list and receive future installments.

Thank you for reading, and if this at all inspires you please join me! 

Do you know of anyone who may also be interested in this? Please click on the share buttons below or on my other post to share it.

Best wishes,

Mark

An Open Letter to the Pope.

Dear Pope,

Following your recent statement that AIDS 'cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms' but that they 'even aggravate the problems', I feel that I must offer you some advice: it is really about time that you get a technician to have a look at your direct connection to God, I fear there is some interference on the line. Have you thought of upgrading to broadband?

I have heard, as no doubt must you (though I can certainly get you references if you have not), that God is both loving and wise. AIDS as you may or may not know causes vast suffering, causing many, many deaths, including leaving countless children orphaned. You therefore understand that God must want this situation remedied? Now I know your life in the Vatican is a little sheltered, but surely in your time in the Hitler Youth you must have learnt that most ordinary humans like sex. You must also realise that God is wiser than to suggest for an entire continent not to have sex until the AIDS epidemic ceases and that therefore condoms, and education on the proper use of condoms, is the best option.

I therefore suggest that the message from God was not that AIDS 'cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms' but that they 'even aggravate the problems', but rather 'AIDS CAN be overcome through the distribution of condoms, and good education on their use can FURTHER HELP the problems'. I hope this clears up any confusion on your behalf and I am sure you now understand the importance of maintaining a good quality connection. If you ask my advice, Virgin Media seem to offer quite a reliable broadband connection service - I have never had any problems connecting to my friends, it is also aptly named for a Pope!

Yours sincerely

Mark J

PS. Thousands of millions of men, women and children are dying of malnutrition, ever thought of using the church's vast wealth and influence to feed them?

Sustainable Eating Challenge Part IV: The Final Day

I'm here, I've done It!

Well pretty much anyway! The couple of days I spent at CAT I ate whatever - people have got used to cooking vegetarian or dairy free food, but specifying the country where you want your food to come from would probably be a bit much for most people! I also couldn't take three days worth of food with me - ok so I could, but I didn't ok, stop judging me!

Oh and one day I ate egg sandwiches of unknown origin! Hmm, also brought some bread who main ingredients were from the UK but other ingredients may not of been. And then there were the crisps that were likewise.

But other than that, all was good! It all became second nature in the end, I became used to it. I guess we become creatures of habit and even when a huge range of food is open to us we tend to stick to a few common dishes, so whether you can eat all foods or only a type of foods the amount of variety in your diet still evens out to about the same.

So what have I learnt? Well, that eating locally is the most environmentally sound option all other things being equal. The problem is, all other things are very rarely equal at all! If you get foods that are locally grown but out of season the energy used in storing them might be greater than transportation cost, also if the foods you get locally were grown in a very energy intensive way (non organically and using much machinery) that may be worse for the environment than transporting more naturally grown food. Most importantly, it may be more difficult to get non-animal sources of protein, oils and fats locally - I couldn't get oils to use in cooking from the UK so had to use butter, and I also ended up using milk and cheese that I rarely normally use.

Lets have a look at the case of animal foods: eating meat is responsible for the largest environmental costs in food production, followed by dairy - this is because vast amounts of resources are taken up just keeping the animals alive. The following facts I found cited in the excellent book 'The Prophet's Way' by Thom Hartmann. I haven't included everything but if you are interested the full list can be found here where the proper author is cited and references given.

(The most relevant bits are in bold)

Distribution of food resources & world hunger

• Amount of soy grown in the United States consumed by livestock: 90%
  
• Amount of corn grown in the United States consumed by livestock: 80%
  
• How frequently a child on Earth dies as a result of malnutrition and starvation: Every 2.3 seconds.
  
• Amount of total US grain production consumed by livestock: 70%
  
• Amount of US grain exports consumed by livestock: 66%
  
• Number of children who die as a result of malnutrition and starvation every day: 38,000
  
• Amount of world grain harvest consumed by livestock throughout the 1980's: Half
  
• Number of people who will die this year as a result of malnutrition and starvation: 20,000,000
  
• Number of people who can be nourished with the nutritional value of the grain and soy used to produce the meat, poultry and dairy products by the average American each year: 7
  
• Number of people who could be fed using the land, water and energy that would be freed up from growing livestock if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100,000,000
  

Resource utilization

• By 1977, the amount of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by the US, devoted to the production of livestock: one-third
  
• Pounds of grain and soy used to produce 1 pound of food from: Beef 16, Pork 6, Turkey 4, Chicken/egg 16
• Amount of nutrient wasted by cycling grain and soy through livestock: Protein 99%, Carbohydrate 99%, Fiber 100%
  

Land utilization

• Amount of Earth's land mass grazed by livestock: one-half
  
• Amount of US cropland producing livestock feed: 64%
  
• Amount of US cropland and producing fruits and vegetables: 2%
• Pounds of edible product that can be produced on one acre of prime land: Cherries 5000, Green beans 10000, Apples 20000, Carrots 30000, Potatoes 40,000, Tomatoes 50000, Celery 60000, Beef 250
  

Energy consumption

• Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78
• Calories of fossil fuel expended to produce 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2
  
• Amount of total energy expended in American agriculture devoted to livestock production: almost half
  
• Energy expended to produce one pound of grain-fed beef: equivalent to one gallon of gasoline
  

Water consumption

• Activity that accounts for more than half of all water consumed for all purposes in the United States: livestock production
  
• In California, the number of gallons needed to produce 1 edible pound of: Tomatoes 23, Lettuce 23, Potatoes 24, Wheat 25, Carrots 33, Apples 49, Oranges 65, Grapes 70, Milk 130, Eggs 544, Chicken 815, Pork 1630, Beef 5214
• How long it takes a person to use 5200 gallons of water showering (at 5 showers per week, 5 minutes per shower, with a flow rate of 4 gallons per minute) : One year
  

Soil erosion

• Current annual topsoil loss on agriculture land in the US: Over 5 billion tons
• Amount of original US cropland permanently removed from production due to excessive soil erosion: one third
• Pounds of topsoil lost in the production of one pound of feedlot steak: 35
• Current annual topsoil loss on agriculture land worldwide: 26 billions tons
• Time required for nature to form one inch of topsoil: 200 to 1000 years
• Direct and indirect costs of soil erosion and runoff in the US annually: 44 billion
• Historic cause of demise of many great civilizations: Topsoil depletion
  

Desertification

• Regions most effected by desertification: All cattle-producing areas, including the western half of the United States, Central and South America, Australia and sub-Saharan Africa.
• Amount of Earth's land rendered unproductive by desertification annually: 52 million acres
• Percentage of Earth land mass suffering desertification: 29%
• The five leading causes of desertification: Overgrazing of livestock, over-cultivation of land, improper irrigation techniques, deforestation, prevention of reforestation
  
• Primary contributing factor in all cases: Cattle production.
  

Rainforests

• Estimated area of rainforest destroyed annually: 125,000 square miles.
• Amount of meat imported in 1987 by US from Central and South America: 300 million pounds
• Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests and related habitats: 1,000/year
• Amount of medicines available today that have been derived from plants: one-quarter
• Leading cause of rainforest destruction in Central America: Cattle production
• Amount of Central American rainforests cleared to create pastureland for cattle: 25%
• Monetary value of 50 years harvest from one hectare of naturally occurring rainforest produce: $6,330
• Monetary value of 50 years production of cattle ranching from one hectare of cleared and burned rainforest: $2,960

Carbon dioxide

• Amount of global carbon dioxide emissions created by the burning of fossil fuels: two-thirds
• Amount of fossil fuels burned to produce the beef currently eaten annually by the average US family of four: 200 gallons
• Amount of carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere by burning 200 gallons of fossil fuels: 2 tons
• Amount of carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere by the average American car in six months: 2.5 tons
• Estimated atmospheric carbon dioxide released in the production of an average steak: The same as a 25-mile drive in a typical American car.
• Amount of global carbon dioxide emissions created by the burning of biomass: one third
• Amount of carbon dioxide released since 1970 from rainforest cleared and burned for cattle pasture: 1.4 billion tons

Water pollution

• Production of excrement by US livestock: 230.000 pounds per second
  
• Amount of waste created by 10.000-head feedlot: Equal to a city of 110.000 people
• Amount of wells and surface streams in the US contaminated by agriculture pollutants: half
• Water pollution attributable to US agriculture, including runoff of soil, pesticides and manure: greater than all municipal and industrial sources combined
  

Pesticides

• Increase in overall pesticide use since 1945 (when petrochemical based agriculture became popular): 3300%
• Increase in overall crop losses due to insects since 1945: 20%
• Increase in the amount of pesticides applied per acre of corn since 1945: 100000%
  
• Increase in corn crop losses since 1945: 400%
• Amount of total herbicides used that are applied to corn and soybeans (primarily feed crops): 61%

Health

• Calcium content in various foods (per 100g): Broccoli 246, Kale 74, Chickpeas 75, Soybeans 131, Sunflower seeds 40, Hazel nuts 60, Cow milk 28, Eggs 27, Cheese 100/350
• Diseases linked to excess animal protein consumption: Osteoporosis and kidney disease
• The average measurable bone loss of female meat-eaters at age 65: 35%
  
• The average measurable bone loss of female vegetarians at age 65: 18%
  

Pesticides

• Major source of pesticide residues in the western diet: meat, poultry and dairy products
• Food most likely to cause cancer from herbicide residue: Beef
• Number of slaughtered animals tested for toxic chemical residues: One in every quarter million
• Amount of US non-vegetarian mother's milk with significant levels of DDT: 99%
• Amount of US vegetarian mother's milk with significant levels of DDT: 8%
  

Antibiotics, Hormones and other Drugs

• Amount of total antibiotics need in US that are fed on livestock: 55%
• Staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13%, in 1988 91%
• Major contributing cause: The breeding of antibiotic resistant bacteria in factory farms due to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock
• Amount of US livestock and poultry receiving drugs during their lifetime: 80%
• Amount of FDA (Federal Drug Administration) that failed to verify the data on the safety of new drugs used on animals to the General Accounting Office (US) : 54%
• Effectiveness of the FDA data review process: highly questionable as it is made to detect fraud in reports on new drugs
• Substances found in 63% to 86% of milk samples in 1991: Sulfa drugs, tetracycline and other antibiotics
• Potential cancer-causing substances detected in recent years in the meat supply: choramphenicol, cabadox, nitrofurazone, dimitridazole, and ipronidazole

Sooooooooooo, it can be be concluded that as I ended up eating more dairy food on this diet that some of the benefits of me eating local food have been offset!

Basically then, the best diet environmentally (and probably also healthwise) is one where meat and dairy are minimised and where local, organic, in season food is consumed and ideally (for health as much as anything) in its least manufactured form.

So where do I go from here? Well, I think I will largely continue with eating UK foods, such as, jacket potatoes and mushy peas, maple peas and barley and homemade apple cake, which are a few of my favorites. But I will use olive oil and oat milk instead of the dairy (which didn't seem to agree with me anyway). I will continue eating organic, local and in season vegetables. Although I will not eat foods from abroad as a major part of my diet I will at times treat myself to some such food, for example, chocolate! In fact, I may just stay up till past midnight tonight to do just that!

Medicine, Money, Malaria and You!

The production and supply of pharmaceutical products is an entirely commercial venture, or in other words, your medicine is supplied by those who have to put profit before social and environmental costs. In the words of the Director of Roche in Korea "We are not in business to save lives, but to make money. Saving lives is not our business."

I have discussed before the problem of pharmaceutical companies manipulating the medical profession in order to make money (see here), but in this post I will address the issue of the provision of health care, of who gets treatment and who doesn't, of who lives and who dies.

In an article in the Independent today it was stated that the weak value of the pound could lead to a shortage of drugs in the UK as imports become less profitable and exports more profitable (see article). Basically, you may not get the medicines you need on time because the money market dictated otherwise. This situation is, however, a very positive one compared to how it is in some other countries or how it could be here in the future.

I first became aware of this problem a few years back, about the time I was becoming interested in studying herbal medicine, when I went to a seminar on using natural medicines in the tropics. The seminar was run by an amazing charity call Anamed (www.anamed.net), whose basic aim is to educate people who may not have access to medicines, such as in parts of Africa, to be able to treat common conditions, such as malaria, effectively with herbs. It was when reading up on the information for this seminar that I found out about the problems concerning the provision of medical treatment and realised how they might apply to Western countries in the future.

In parts of Africa the reasons for the lack of medicines can be many, though mainly it comes down to money. Often drugs are simply not affordable. In some cases where a person can buy the drugs even simple medication may cost a month's wage. In other cases it is the problem of infrastructure that makes drugs inaccessible - health centers are too far away, roads are too poor, deliveries can't get through. So what is done? well, a lot do the only thing that can be done: die. They may die of a serious case of malaria, or they may just die of diarrhoea. So this is where Anamed comes in - teaching simple things like oral rehydration solution for diarrhoea, herbs for malaria (Artemisia annua) and other things.

The question of poverty in Africa is a topic for a different post, but I will look here at how it relates to a specific case, that of malaria. Artemesinin is (in combination with a few other medicines) the leading drug for the treatment of malaria and it is currently extracted from the plant Artemisia annua. It is grown in huge plantations in some African countries, is purchased by pharmaceutical companies at a very low price, it is shipped over to America or a European country, the artemesinin is extracted and then sold back to the African country at a price most people can't afford - so people die. Where the drug is purchased by those rich enough, the money goes back to the pharmaceutical company, meaning the African country gets poorer. The actual herb Artemisia annua can be drunk as a tea to treat malaria and is just as effective as the drug, though taking slightly longer to have its effect.

So anyway, drugs become scarce if a country becomes poor or the infrastructure breaks down, and pharmaceutical corporations follow where the money leads. Who is to say that our country will always stay rich and function smoothly? When you consider the far reaching effects of financial instability (which is likely to increase in the long term) and the looming problems of both the energy crisis and climate change it seems wishful to think that we are immune to these problems. Pharmaceutical companies are no more stable than other industries, such as the automotive industry, or the money grabbing industry. So as things can't or won't stay the same, and as millions are already dying due to the lack of health care, what needs to happen?

Take the money out of medicine

Pharmaceutical corporations should not be allowed to profit from what they do, health should not correlate with your pay packet, essential medicine should be freely available to all whether an individual has money or not. An option may be nationalising the pharmaceutical industry with the development and production of drugs being paid for by the government. This would be easily funded by the savings gained from the NHS not having to buy drugs from pharmaceutical companies and by the profits from the sale of non-essential over-the-counter drugs. Knowledge of how to manufacture the drugs could be freely shared between countries further increasing benefit. Or maybe there is some other scheme that would work, but however it is done it should not be a profit making business. If this was done it would also have the following benefits:

• Doctors would have less bias information on the effectiveness of drugs.
• Research showing harmful effects of drugs would not be hidden.
• More holistic drugs could be researched (pharmaceutical companies don't want people too healthy, it is bad for business).
• Drugs would be freely accessible to all.
• Drug supply would be more stable.
  
• Government money would provide more medicine instead of making a few rich.
• Effective alternative treatments would not be suppressed.
  

Increase the use of natural medicines

• They can be produced where ever in the world you are.
• They are cheap.
  
• They have been shown to be effective (Artemisia annua can effectively treat malaria, with treatment only lasting a couple more days than treatment with Artemisinin).
• People could easily treat themselves for minor complaints, therefore reducing the pressure on the NHS.
  
• They have limited side-effects and are generally more safe.
  
• They can help the local economy when produced and used locally.
• They are much more environmentally sustainable.
  
• Focusing on a more holistic approach to health would mean less people getting ill in the first place.

As always your comments are welcome.

Nature helps you think - it's official!

Taking a stroll through nature can significantly improve cognitive function compared to walking in a city, according to a recent study (article - Natural Thinking).

But why bother studying it, is it not just obvious to anyone who has ever walked through the wonders of nature, or do we need studies now before we can contemplate such a thing?

"Shall I spend another five hours in front of the TV, or shall I go for a stroll through the woods?"
"Well you'd improve your cognitive function by over 20% if you did walk"
"OK I'll do it! It will help me understand the complex story lines going on in Coronation Street"

Walking in nature is good also because there is lots of, er, nature. For me that is enough, anything else is just a bonus!

The weekend just gone I had a really good 20% improvement in cognitive function. You will be able to read all about it shortly, but I advise that you don't: switch your computer off, strap on your walking boots and stroll! :-)

Detoxes Dont Work, In Skeptisism We Trust

DETOXES DON'T WORK

A common headline at this time of year.

This is generally said by a scientist of the evangelical skepticist type. Or by one of their disciples.

Of course they say this strutting along with their heads held high in the knowledge that they alone are saved from the fiery pits of superstition and are living in the kingdom of true and everlasting knowledge.

But as is often the case with those who state absolutes, their absoluteness makes them wrong.

In science there is not The Truth, there are only competing bodies of evidence. I have read evidence supporting some types of detox (fasting), no doubt the skeptics have some evidence that shows some types don't work, probably, or maybe not, some scientists are just as religious as the rest of us: once they have formed a set of beliefs they will dismiss or fight alternative beliefs and will criticise perfectly valid research. Once the scientific / medical world ridiculed the idea that washing hands before performing a medical procedure was a good idea!

OK, actually I want to make something clear, science is good and useful, it is dogmatic belief which is not. Science done properly is a remedy against dogmatic belief: if evidence comes to light that contradicts your beliefs you should take that evidence seriously and question your beliefs. Sadly in practice this isn't always done, instead evidence that contradicts beliefs is treated harshly while evidence that supports those same beliefs is warmly accepted no questions asked.

So anyway, if lots of people feel better after doing a detox it is no good going up to them, slapping them in the face and telling them to stop feeling good because actually their liver was doing a good enough job of detoxing them anyway. OK, the word detox is very poorly defined, and the money addicts are of course cashing in on this as much as anything else, but the statement 'Detoxes don't work' is wrong. Saying some detoxes or detox products don't work may very well be true, but for some people some types of detox do have a positive effect - or so I believe anyway!

Doctor good, pharma bad?

I know a fair few medical doctors (including four of my own relatives) and without exception all are very good people and very skilled: they are kind and caring, wish the best for others having dedicated their lives to serving others and have undergone extensive and difficult training. How then did they end up with such jerks as pharmaceutical companies? It is like a beautiful, caring, intelligent woman ending up in a relationship with an ugly, twisted, malicious monster!

I'm sure there are nice people working in pharmaceutical companies - in my more sceptical moments I think they just wondered in by mistake and couldn't find the exit, but I'm sure they are there, fervently trying to design a new drug to save the lives of those around them. BUT THEN THERE IS THIS:

"We are not in business to save lives, but to make money. Saving lives is not our business." (Director of Roche in Korea when challenged about providing AIDS drugs to those who couldn't afford them) (article)

"Disease mongering" - Pharmaceutical companies undertaking marketing to convince healthy people they are sick and to make people think mild diseases are more serious (BMJ article)

Pharmaceutical companies trying to bribe governments into allowing their products to be used - even if the science says they are no good (Guardian article)

Pharmaceutical companies ghost writing research to make it look unbiased (journal article) or forcing researchers not to mention harmful effects of drugs (article).

Adverse drug reactions killing over 100,000 people a year in the US (Lancet article) with serious side effects of drug affecting many many more.

Basically, when doctors get a large amount of their information about drugs from drug reps; when training or research centers can be under the pay of pharmaceutical companies; when research and clinical trials contain, for many different reasons, bias; when all other alternatives are suppressed; when pharmaceutical products can involve hidden (or overt) harms: where does that leave medicine?

On the plus side however, I really believe that if pharmaceutical companies' money making motives were removed, the doctor's art and the amazing advances of biomedicine that have been made would loose their tarnish and medicine would really shine again.

As always, your comments are welcome.