Hi Jim
Is there any scientific truth in the statement that the bacteria inside Yogurt ‘eats’ the sugar and therefore it’s actually a low-carb (sugar) product ?
Especially Plain Yogurt with more fat that the low-fat version..
Regards
JayCee
My response;
Hi JayCee!
So the most common bacteria in yogurt, providing the active yogurt cultures is the Lactobacillus acidophilus organism. Lactobacillus is a facultative anaerobe, meaning it needs a little bit of oxygen to survive, but too much oxygen and it will die.
There are some species of lactobacillus that are indeed used to produce beer ( L. casei and L. brevis), but the species found in yougurt generally is not. Lactobacillus produces more lactic acid than anything and this will result in a lower ph reading, giving the acidy flavor to the yogurt, more detectable in the plain yogurt.
L. acidophilus is important in intestinal health as it prevents the overgrowth of other bacteria, thus preventing infections. An intestinal infection sometimes seen when antibiotics are used is something referred to as Clostridium difficle or C. difficile colitis. Since some antibiotics selectively kill off the normal protective L. acidophilus, and not the C. difficile bacteria, C. difficile will grow unchecked and can create a life threatening infection.
L. acidophilus is also found in the vaginal flora and this is why some women experience yeast infections after taking antibiotics. Same thing happens in the vagina that happened in the intestine. Only within the vagina it is a fungus that overgrows.
LOL. Never heard this one:-) Where'd you come across this statement:-)
An interesting outcome, if the bacteria in yogurt utilized the sugar and created alcohol, alot more people would be, uh, happier after eating their yogurt...
I can see it already..No, ossifer, i waz jus eaching mine yogurts, I swearz I haz noding to drunk,hiccough!!
So I guess my final answer, being that I never got drunk or even buzzed after eating yogurt is; No, doubt it. Interesting fact is that plain yogurt does indeed have fewer carbs than the ones with fruit. Since plain yogurt tastes kinda yucky, everyone goes for the low fat, higher carb containing yogurts which are bad for us as they provide more sugar; but do taste alot better.
As always, just love your questions...
jim
Monday, December 28, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Here's My Answer to a Question Posed to Me on My Website About Cholesterol Profiles
Dr. Carlson,
I have listened to your thoughts on low carb from your interview with Jimmy Moore and wanted to get your advice. I had my cholesterol checked 2 days ago and here are the comparisons from my previous results.
From August of 2009 before starting low carb:
LDL = 153 HDL= 54 Trigs= 50
Yesterday's Results:
LDL= 158 HDL= 65 Trigs=37
The nurse told my wife that she was gonna talk to the doc and that something had to be done (I'm assuming statins). Tell me your thoughts...... Also, what are those equations Total/HDL or Trig/Total or something? I would think my risks would be lower now with the better HDL and lower Trigs.
Thanks!!!
My response:
Hi There!
First off, your numbers are obviously better. I noticed you didn't mention what the Total Cholesterol was; that is good because it means nothing anyway. I ignore the LDL because it is usually calculated and I can guarantee by the way you reported it to me it was.
So the only 2 numbers you need to worry about are the HDL and the Trigs.Notice your HDL went higher and your Trigs went lower. Once the HDL becomes greater than 59, you have a negative risk for heart disease (and many other disease processes).
Now the ratio I use is the Trig/HDL ratio and I want this at 2 or less. Yours is obviously less than 1. Great job!
My only argument for the use of statins is for plaque stabilization. That is, if there is plaque already on an artery, the statins make it less likely for the plaque to rupture as it is the rupturing of plaque that causes the heart attacks and strokes.
How do you know if you have plaque on the coronary arteries? Well, if you've been eating low fat/cholesterol and you're in your forties, you probably have plaque within your coronary arteries.
Important point: the plaque that builds up on our arterial walls comes from the modification of sugar molecules in the diet NOT from the fat/cholesterol in the foods we eat.Most doctors think the opposite to be true.
So if you're in your forties, been eating low fat/cholesterol, you probably have plaque. I generally start a statin while I'm waiting for the HDL to raise, once I get my patient on the right way to eat. But your HDL is 65, so I could easily argue against the use of a statin.
BTW, if your doc tries to start you on anything other than a statin...just say no. The agents such as Zetia, Tricor and Trilipex are a waste of a drug, and the only docs who use them are the one's who are ignorant of the correct way to eat. Oh wait, that means just about every doctor...
One last thing. An indirect way to assess if you might have coronary artery plaque is by having a carotid Doppler done. If you have mild thickening on the carotids, studies have shown you most likely have thickening on the smaller diameter coronary arteries. In this case I start my patients on a baby aspirin (so long they are not pregnant or nursing).
If no plaque is present, and I start you on the correct way to eat, no matter what your lipid panel is to start---YOU GET NO CHOLESTEROL LOWERING MEDS FROM ME!
And I'll leave with the statement "Lowering total cholesterol has never been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease.never,ever,ever..."Hope that helps!
Dr Jim
I have listened to your thoughts on low carb from your interview with Jimmy Moore and wanted to get your advice. I had my cholesterol checked 2 days ago and here are the comparisons from my previous results.
From August of 2009 before starting low carb:
LDL = 153 HDL= 54 Trigs= 50
Yesterday's Results:
LDL= 158 HDL= 65 Trigs=37
The nurse told my wife that she was gonna talk to the doc and that something had to be done (I'm assuming statins). Tell me your thoughts...... Also, what are those equations Total/HDL or Trig/Total or something? I would think my risks would be lower now with the better HDL and lower Trigs.
Thanks!!!
My response:
Hi There!
First off, your numbers are obviously better. I noticed you didn't mention what the Total Cholesterol was; that is good because it means nothing anyway. I ignore the LDL because it is usually calculated and I can guarantee by the way you reported it to me it was.
So the only 2 numbers you need to worry about are the HDL and the Trigs.Notice your HDL went higher and your Trigs went lower. Once the HDL becomes greater than 59, you have a negative risk for heart disease (and many other disease processes).
Now the ratio I use is the Trig/HDL ratio and I want this at 2 or less. Yours is obviously less than 1. Great job!
My only argument for the use of statins is for plaque stabilization. That is, if there is plaque already on an artery, the statins make it less likely for the plaque to rupture as it is the rupturing of plaque that causes the heart attacks and strokes.
How do you know if you have plaque on the coronary arteries? Well, if you've been eating low fat/cholesterol and you're in your forties, you probably have plaque within your coronary arteries.
Important point: the plaque that builds up on our arterial walls comes from the modification of sugar molecules in the diet NOT from the fat/cholesterol in the foods we eat.Most doctors think the opposite to be true.
So if you're in your forties, been eating low fat/cholesterol, you probably have plaque. I generally start a statin while I'm waiting for the HDL to raise, once I get my patient on the right way to eat. But your HDL is 65, so I could easily argue against the use of a statin.
BTW, if your doc tries to start you on anything other than a statin...just say no. The agents such as Zetia, Tricor and Trilipex are a waste of a drug, and the only docs who use them are the one's who are ignorant of the correct way to eat. Oh wait, that means just about every doctor...
One last thing. An indirect way to assess if you might have coronary artery plaque is by having a carotid Doppler done. If you have mild thickening on the carotids, studies have shown you most likely have thickening on the smaller diameter coronary arteries. In this case I start my patients on a baby aspirin (so long they are not pregnant or nursing).
If no plaque is present, and I start you on the correct way to eat, no matter what your lipid panel is to start---YOU GET NO CHOLESTEROL LOWERING MEDS FROM ME!
And I'll leave with the statement "Lowering total cholesterol has never been shown to lower one's risk for heart disease.never,ever,ever..."Hope that helps!
Dr Jim
Monday, December 21, 2009
How Profound the Ignorance Goes
I think all my followers thus far realize the profound invasive ignorance of the medical profession in regards to the correct way to eat. Even though laypersons continue to represent the majority of people who understand the correct way to eat; there are still many people who fall victim to the profound, abysmal, heinous, egregious dissemination of the incorrect dietary info---this all has to stop.
Click here to review the story as it pertains to food packaging labeling changes. More importantly, read the responses. Mine is on page 4 as of this date.
Dr Jim
PS. Sorry I haven't been blogging as much. The Holiday season gets kinda hectic on my end, but something tells me I'm preaching to the choir.
Bye for now...
Click here to review the story as it pertains to food packaging labeling changes. More importantly, read the responses. Mine is on page 4 as of this date.
Dr Jim
PS. Sorry I haven't been blogging as much. The Holiday season gets kinda hectic on my end, but something tells me I'm preaching to the choir.
Bye for now...
Saturday, December 12, 2009
My Response To A Question About Low Carbs and Pancreatitis
Tying in to the low carb/health theme here, I've got a relative who'sbeen having issues related to a fatty liver. He's in a hospital rightnow with complications resulting from gall stones blocking hispancreatic duct(s) and has a nasty case of pancreatitis. Nearly everything I've read on the web recommends (not surprisingly) a highcarb, low fat diet for pancreatitis, which just strikes me as soooooowrong (fat is inflammatory and will make your pancreas work harder??)!I've found great articles on low carb for fatty liver, but nothingdefinitive regarding pancreatitis. Any ideas?Thanks!
My response;
Pancreatitis is a tricky thing.The term pancreatitis refers to inflammation of the pancreas. Unfortunately in this condition the pancreas literally 'eats itself.' When the pancreas is inflamed the treatment is generally to starve the body and allow the inflammation of the pancreas to subside. Problem is that the pancreas is responsible in the digestion of all foods. That is, carbs, proteins and fats.So even backing off on the carbs, the inflammation will persist since the pancreas creates the enzymes needed to digest protein and fat (cholesterol is utilized in a different manner, it is not digested like proteins and fats are.)
Having said that, certainly backing off on carbs will help the pancreas heal because it will not have to create the enzymes needed for carb digestion, and since insulin is also created by the pancreas, this secretion will be less as well. Thus, backing off on carbs will help the pancreas get its well needed rest, and will be beneficial in this disease as well. Of course, the individual will stay on a restricted carb regimen for the rest of their life; not jut while they treat the pancreatitis.
Now with a patient with gallstones, all bets are off. First off, they usually need the gallbladder removed, this almost always cures the pancreatitis. (Side note-the 2 most common causes of pancreatitis are gallstones and alcohol abuse.) If the stones have blocked the pancreatic duct, they will usually have a diagnostic test referred to as an MRCP (Magnetic Resonance Cholangio Pancreatography) this will help show the docs where all the stones are that may be blocking the pancreatic duct. In this particular situation, that is, gallstones which have migrated to the pancreatic duct, the gallbladder will be removed.
Once the gallbladder is out, the person may start a low carb regimen. The only caveat is that they need to be careful with their fat and cholesterol consumption in the first few months, and sometimes up to a year after the gallbladder was removed. This is to allow the body to adjust to the amounts of fat/cholesterol the person is consuming. Therefore, this person may well have to eat 5-6 meals a day, instead of the usual/customary three.
Remember that the gallbladder is the reservoir for bile and in response to a fatty or cholesterol containing meal (and after the gallbladder is greeted with a hormone referred to as cholecystokinin) it contracts, releases bile, and the bile helps to emulsify the fatty/cholesterol containing food particle; thus aiding in digestion.
I have had many a patient start a low carb eating style after removal of their gallbladders. So long they eat smaller fatty/cholesterol meals, they do just fine. As a side note, since the gallbladder contracts in response to a fatty/cholesterol meal, that is precisely why we need to avoid these foods when we have stones. If we eat a meal with fat/cholesterol, the gallbladder will contract. Not only is this extremely painful for the person, it can cause infection of the gallbladder and facilitate the progression to a gangrenous gallbladder.
As another side note, the reason we develop gallstones is because we are NOT eating fat/cholesterol in our foods. Reason: The gallbladder responds to a fat/cholesterol meal by releasing the bile stored within. If one follows a fat/cholesterol free diet, the gallbladder has nothing to do, the bile just sits there, and eventually starts to precipitate stones. It is because the person is not eating fat/cholesterol that stones develop. After the stones develop and the person eats fat/cholesterol, it will cause severe pain and the person winds up in the ED or doc's office. It is there that the misguided physician will exclaim "Ah,hah. See eating fat and cholesterol did this, so you need to not ever eat that stuff again." This doc obviously does not understand that it was the avoidance of fat/cholesterol that created the stones, not the other way around.
There was mention of steatosis, or fatty liver, and yes, this condition absolutely responds to a low carb regimen. I have a number of patients with this condition who have been cured with a low carb approach. Unfortunately, I have a few patients who had a fatty liver and were treated the conventional way (low fat/cholesterol) before they got to me who went on to develop cirrhosis. Luckily, they are responding to a low carb approach and even though I limit their protein intake, they are still eating more than mainstream medicine suggests; and their numbers continue to improve.
Hope this helps!
dr jim
My response;
Pancreatitis is a tricky thing.The term pancreatitis refers to inflammation of the pancreas. Unfortunately in this condition the pancreas literally 'eats itself.' When the pancreas is inflamed the treatment is generally to starve the body and allow the inflammation of the pancreas to subside. Problem is that the pancreas is responsible in the digestion of all foods. That is, carbs, proteins and fats.So even backing off on the carbs, the inflammation will persist since the pancreas creates the enzymes needed to digest protein and fat (cholesterol is utilized in a different manner, it is not digested like proteins and fats are.)
Having said that, certainly backing off on carbs will help the pancreas heal because it will not have to create the enzymes needed for carb digestion, and since insulin is also created by the pancreas, this secretion will be less as well. Thus, backing off on carbs will help the pancreas get its well needed rest, and will be beneficial in this disease as well. Of course, the individual will stay on a restricted carb regimen for the rest of their life; not jut while they treat the pancreatitis.
Now with a patient with gallstones, all bets are off. First off, they usually need the gallbladder removed, this almost always cures the pancreatitis. (Side note-the 2 most common causes of pancreatitis are gallstones and alcohol abuse.) If the stones have blocked the pancreatic duct, they will usually have a diagnostic test referred to as an MRCP (Magnetic Resonance Cholangio Pancreatography) this will help show the docs where all the stones are that may be blocking the pancreatic duct. In this particular situation, that is, gallstones which have migrated to the pancreatic duct, the gallbladder will be removed.
Once the gallbladder is out, the person may start a low carb regimen. The only caveat is that they need to be careful with their fat and cholesterol consumption in the first few months, and sometimes up to a year after the gallbladder was removed. This is to allow the body to adjust to the amounts of fat/cholesterol the person is consuming. Therefore, this person may well have to eat 5-6 meals a day, instead of the usual/customary three.
Remember that the gallbladder is the reservoir for bile and in response to a fatty or cholesterol containing meal (and after the gallbladder is greeted with a hormone referred to as cholecystokinin) it contracts, releases bile, and the bile helps to emulsify the fatty/cholesterol containing food particle; thus aiding in digestion.
I have had many a patient start a low carb eating style after removal of their gallbladders. So long they eat smaller fatty/cholesterol meals, they do just fine. As a side note, since the gallbladder contracts in response to a fatty/cholesterol meal, that is precisely why we need to avoid these foods when we have stones. If we eat a meal with fat/cholesterol, the gallbladder will contract. Not only is this extremely painful for the person, it can cause infection of the gallbladder and facilitate the progression to a gangrenous gallbladder.
As another side note, the reason we develop gallstones is because we are NOT eating fat/cholesterol in our foods. Reason: The gallbladder responds to a fat/cholesterol meal by releasing the bile stored within. If one follows a fat/cholesterol free diet, the gallbladder has nothing to do, the bile just sits there, and eventually starts to precipitate stones. It is because the person is not eating fat/cholesterol that stones develop. After the stones develop and the person eats fat/cholesterol, it will cause severe pain and the person winds up in the ED or doc's office. It is there that the misguided physician will exclaim "Ah,hah. See eating fat and cholesterol did this, so you need to not ever eat that stuff again." This doc obviously does not understand that it was the avoidance of fat/cholesterol that created the stones, not the other way around.
There was mention of steatosis, or fatty liver, and yes, this condition absolutely responds to a low carb regimen. I have a number of patients with this condition who have been cured with a low carb approach. Unfortunately, I have a few patients who had a fatty liver and were treated the conventional way (low fat/cholesterol) before they got to me who went on to develop cirrhosis. Luckily, they are responding to a low carb approach and even though I limit their protein intake, they are still eating more than mainstream medicine suggests; and their numbers continue to improve.
Hope this helps!
dr jim
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A Makeover for Food Labels?
So here was my response to an article on the proposed new food labeling.
Click Here to read the article first, then read my response below. Notice how an add for a psychotropic (Seroquel) appears at the top of the page;
While I agree that knowing the sugar and carbohydrate content is (the most) important information; the 'new' labeling still continues to propagate the incorrect dietary thoughts/beliefs that have created our obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer pandemics.
We all need to realize that eating saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods DOES NOT cause an increase in obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes or cancer risk; in fact, when we eat foods containing the alleged 'bad stuff' (cholesterol and fat) we lower our risk of the above disease entities (as well as many others).
Implicit in this new label is that saturated fat and cholesterol is bad, whole grains are good, and the ever present myth of this fictitious 'natural sugar' still pervades.
I urge anyone who wishes to learn the correct way to eat to go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first 10 chapters of my book for free. Also, go to you tube and type in the search box 'dr james carlson' to watch an hour long presentation of the correct way to eat, and how/why physicians dietary ignorance continues to kill and mame us, all while allowing the drug companies to take our hard earned dollars away from us.
Dr. Jim
Click Here to read the article first, then read my response below. Notice how an add for a psychotropic (Seroquel) appears at the top of the page;
While I agree that knowing the sugar and carbohydrate content is (the most) important information; the 'new' labeling still continues to propagate the incorrect dietary thoughts/beliefs that have created our obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer pandemics.
We all need to realize that eating saturated fat and cholesterol containing foods DOES NOT cause an increase in obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes or cancer risk; in fact, when we eat foods containing the alleged 'bad stuff' (cholesterol and fat) we lower our risk of the above disease entities (as well as many others).
Implicit in this new label is that saturated fat and cholesterol is bad, whole grains are good, and the ever present myth of this fictitious 'natural sugar' still pervades.
I urge anyone who wishes to learn the correct way to eat to go to my website www.drjamescarlson.com and read the first 10 chapters of my book for free. Also, go to you tube and type in the search box 'dr james carlson' to watch an hour long presentation of the correct way to eat, and how/why physicians dietary ignorance continues to kill and mame us, all while allowing the drug companies to take our hard earned dollars away from us.
Dr. Jim
Monday, December 7, 2009
Diet Coke is Now 'In Support of Women's Heart Health Programs.'
My first thought when I saw this on the 12 pack of Diet coke I bought over the weekend was, uh oh. So I just went to the site a few minutes ago to review what they think is the proper 'heart health.' Turns out Diet Coke has teamed up with the American Dietetic Association (also known as the ADA; remember the other ADA is the American Diabetes Association), and is promoting the ADA's view on what the ADA feels is the right way to eat. Here are a couple of excerpts I am taking verbatim (I tried to cut and paste but I wasn't allowed for some reason);
'When it comes to fruits and vegetables,more matters'
The site goes on to say;
'Here are some easy ways to meet your daily recommendation:
Toss a handful of berries or sliced fruit on cereal, pancakes or waffles or in a cup of plain low-fat yogurt.
Add a refreshing crunch to sandwiches with a slice of pineapple or apple. Replace jelly with banana slices on a peanut butter sandwich.
Fruit is an excellent on-the-go snack. Bring an apple with you in your gym bag, throw a banana in your briefcase or a plum in your purse.
Pack more nutrition into pasta dishes by adding colorful steamed vegetables.
Boost your intake by adding vegetables to sandwiches and pizzas.'
My comment;
OMG! Are they serious? Remember the whole sugar is sugar is sugar thing? Uh, I hate to break the bad news, but most of what was written on that site I could write a whole book on why it's wrong....Oh wait, I did that already:-)
Another comment taken directly from the Diet Coke site;
'Which is healthier, butter or margarine?'
The ADA's answer, on Diet Coke's site;
'From a fat and calorie standpoint, butter and margarine are the same with about 35 calories and four grams of fat per teaspoon. Both are primarily fat; only the source differs. Butter contains more saturated fat than most margarine. Because margarine is made from vegetable oil, it has no cholesterol.
For a spread with less saturated fat and minimal or no trans fat, buy soft tub or liquid margarine. Whipped versions of butter or margarine have less fat per tablespoon, too. Reduced-fat margarine is also available but is not suitable for some recipes.
Whether you prefer the taste of butter or margarine, enjoy in small portions. And for margarine, choose liquid or tub, rather than stick.'
My comment-
obviously the ADA feels that margarine is better than butter, which is completely false from a biochemical perspective. They did mention trans fats, but failed to mention that the majority (if not all)of margarines contain trans fats.Hmmm, I guess the ADA isn't aware of how dangerous trans fats are and the fact that margarine implicitly has trans fats contained within it.
I really don't know what I was thinking. I should've known better when I saw Diet Coke trying to be heart healthy..is that, like, an oxy-moron. Any way, I had to check out the website to see what they had to say. There was so much wrong on this site I just hope no woman goes to this site for information.
And why would they; I mean, does anyone equate Diet Coke with being healthy--I know, I know, how can I pick on them when I drink it myself. I'm not bashing diet coke per se, moreso the fact they think they are providing us with useful information..it is anything but...
Bye for now...
Dr Jim
'When it comes to fruits and vegetables,more matters'
The site goes on to say;
'Here are some easy ways to meet your daily recommendation:
Toss a handful of berries or sliced fruit on cereal, pancakes or waffles or in a cup of plain low-fat yogurt.
Add a refreshing crunch to sandwiches with a slice of pineapple or apple. Replace jelly with banana slices on a peanut butter sandwich.
Fruit is an excellent on-the-go snack. Bring an apple with you in your gym bag, throw a banana in your briefcase or a plum in your purse.
Pack more nutrition into pasta dishes by adding colorful steamed vegetables.
Boost your intake by adding vegetables to sandwiches and pizzas.'
My comment;
OMG! Are they serious? Remember the whole sugar is sugar is sugar thing? Uh, I hate to break the bad news, but most of what was written on that site I could write a whole book on why it's wrong....Oh wait, I did that already:-)
Another comment taken directly from the Diet Coke site;
'Which is healthier, butter or margarine?'
The ADA's answer, on Diet Coke's site;
'From a fat and calorie standpoint, butter and margarine are the same with about 35 calories and four grams of fat per teaspoon. Both are primarily fat; only the source differs. Butter contains more saturated fat than most margarine. Because margarine is made from vegetable oil, it has no cholesterol.
For a spread with less saturated fat and minimal or no trans fat, buy soft tub or liquid margarine. Whipped versions of butter or margarine have less fat per tablespoon, too. Reduced-fat margarine is also available but is not suitable for some recipes.
Whether you prefer the taste of butter or margarine, enjoy in small portions. And for margarine, choose liquid or tub, rather than stick.'
My comment-
obviously the ADA feels that margarine is better than butter, which is completely false from a biochemical perspective. They did mention trans fats, but failed to mention that the majority (if not all)of margarines contain trans fats.Hmmm, I guess the ADA isn't aware of how dangerous trans fats are and the fact that margarine implicitly has trans fats contained within it.
I really don't know what I was thinking. I should've known better when I saw Diet Coke trying to be heart healthy..is that, like, an oxy-moron. Any way, I had to check out the website to see what they had to say. There was so much wrong on this site I just hope no woman goes to this site for information.
And why would they; I mean, does anyone equate Diet Coke with being healthy--I know, I know, how can I pick on them when I drink it myself. I'm not bashing diet coke per se, moreso the fact they think they are providing us with useful information..it is anything but...
Bye for now...
Dr Jim
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Disturbing Restrictions Hidden Within National Health Care Reform
In one of my many medical journals I receive weekly, was some very disturbing information. Now, I am not out to re-start the age old pro-choice v pro-life debate; but hidden in this bill is the fact that women would only be allowed to have abortions under cases of incest, rape, or if the mom's health is at risk due to the pregnancy.
This would make it illegal for any women covered under the National Health care coverage, which would be many, to have an abortion under any other situation. It would also make it illegal for physicians to provide those services as well.
My mind immediately flashed back to back alley abortion clinics, clandestine, surreptitious clinics performing abortions; and all the de-regulation that comes with any medical procedure not fully scrutinized.
I was frightened, very frightened. What else is in the bill I thought?
A doctor in Sweden was recently cited for malpractice when she attempted to put her patients on a low carb regimen to help them loose weight. This doctor who was once overweight, placed herself on low carbs, lost a good amount of weight, so she decided to share this with her patients. Gosh, it's what I do for my patients on a daily basis.
The Swedish medical societies would have none of that; they immediately sued her for malpractice; the reason, because everyone 'knows' that eating more fat and cholesterol is bad for us.' You read that right. The Doctor was not sued by any of her patients, it was her medical governing bodies that brought the suit. It took this doctor 2 years to finally win the trial, but I ask myself "At what cost?"
Please keep in mind that the Swedish Health Care System is all government funded.
Is this what I have to look forward to?
The good news is "I'm ready for the fight!"
Dr Jim
This would make it illegal for any women covered under the National Health care coverage, which would be many, to have an abortion under any other situation. It would also make it illegal for physicians to provide those services as well.
My mind immediately flashed back to back alley abortion clinics, clandestine, surreptitious clinics performing abortions; and all the de-regulation that comes with any medical procedure not fully scrutinized.
I was frightened, very frightened. What else is in the bill I thought?
A doctor in Sweden was recently cited for malpractice when she attempted to put her patients on a low carb regimen to help them loose weight. This doctor who was once overweight, placed herself on low carbs, lost a good amount of weight, so she decided to share this with her patients. Gosh, it's what I do for my patients on a daily basis.
The Swedish medical societies would have none of that; they immediately sued her for malpractice; the reason, because everyone 'knows' that eating more fat and cholesterol is bad for us.' You read that right. The Doctor was not sued by any of her patients, it was her medical governing bodies that brought the suit. It took this doctor 2 years to finally win the trial, but I ask myself "At what cost?"
Please keep in mind that the Swedish Health Care System is all government funded.
Is this what I have to look forward to?
The good news is "I'm ready for the fight!"
Dr Jim
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
My Take on the White House Party Crashers
OK, so this couple allegedly crashed a party at the White House. Though uninvited (on a morning show today they said they were invited, uh huh, then why all the hoopla) they managed to get by, supposedly, the best security the world has to offer, eat a meal, dance, and even shake hands with our President.
Now the couple faces charges because they were able to pull off this amazing feat. This scenario is a prime example as to how most people, including major organizations, tend to focus on the wrong thing and not analyze how or what they should be focused on.
Instead of bringing this couple up on charges, they should be asking this duo how they got by (the worlds best??) security without an invitation. This is the more important issue. What if they were terrorists? What if they were there to not only hurt our President but others at this event?
Thankfully they were not terrorists just two people looking for a free meal, a nice dance floor to rumba on, and to hopefully meet with the most powerful leader of the free world.
Prosecuting the party crashers is missing a major point. Just like saying that eating fat and cholesterol containing foods are bad; the major organizations and societies are missing a major point as well. They are not focused on analyzing what they should be, but instead continue to follow their inquiries down the wrong path, which results in incorrect proclamations about the truth.
When I heard about the party crashers and how they would be brought up on charges, I immediately drew a corollary between that event and the pervasive ignorance about nutritional biochemistry that still holds true today. Some may think it's a far-fetched analogy; but I don't think so. This whole White House party crashing thing just underscores the profound, abysmal ignorance organizations so ostentatiously exhibit, whenever they focus on the wrong issues, and ignore the more pressing ones.
Dr Jim
Sorry I haven't Blogged in a while. Between the Holiday, the radio show and Web Cast, its been difficult to get on here. Thanks again for following me on my almost daily Blog :-)
Click Here to watch my first Web Cast and let me know what you think!
Now the couple faces charges because they were able to pull off this amazing feat. This scenario is a prime example as to how most people, including major organizations, tend to focus on the wrong thing and not analyze how or what they should be focused on.
Instead of bringing this couple up on charges, they should be asking this duo how they got by (the worlds best??) security without an invitation. This is the more important issue. What if they were terrorists? What if they were there to not only hurt our President but others at this event?
Thankfully they were not terrorists just two people looking for a free meal, a nice dance floor to rumba on, and to hopefully meet with the most powerful leader of the free world.
Prosecuting the party crashers is missing a major point. Just like saying that eating fat and cholesterol containing foods are bad; the major organizations and societies are missing a major point as well. They are not focused on analyzing what they should be, but instead continue to follow their inquiries down the wrong path, which results in incorrect proclamations about the truth.
When I heard about the party crashers and how they would be brought up on charges, I immediately drew a corollary between that event and the pervasive ignorance about nutritional biochemistry that still holds true today. Some may think it's a far-fetched analogy; but I don't think so. This whole White House party crashing thing just underscores the profound, abysmal ignorance organizations so ostentatiously exhibit, whenever they focus on the wrong issues, and ignore the more pressing ones.
Dr Jim
Sorry I haven't Blogged in a while. Between the Holiday, the radio show and Web Cast, its been difficult to get on here. Thanks again for following me on my almost daily Blog :-)
Click Here to watch my first Web Cast and let me know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
