Lighting a fire under asbestophobics
The banning of asbestos insulation has caused unnecessary deaths worldwide: the World Trade Center, a nightclub in Rhode Island, and now another night club fire, this one in Buenos Aires, which burned 175 people to death.
And then there’s the ones you don’t hear about, like the blaze that swept a Paraguayan super-market last August, killing 434 people.
All of these tragedies, including the collapse of the WTC towers, could have been avoided with the proper use of asbestos insulation.
How many more victims will have to burn to death before we demand the reinstallation of asbestos fireproofing in all public buildings?
If you’re a new reader, you’re probably thinking I’m nuts. But stick with me and eventually you’ll see how so many of the things we’ve been brainwashed into being afraid of are not only harmless but, in many cases, actually beneficial to your health—if we’re allowed to use them.
I realize you still may not be convinced about asbestos, but check out my article on it in the January 2004 issue of Real Health Breakthroughs. You can download it for free by visiting www.realhealthnews.com and signing on to the subscriber-only portion of the site with the username and password listed on page 8.
Baby fat: Cute doesn’t mean healthy
Pediatricians can’t seem to get over the idea that a fat baby is a healthy baby.
Since formula-fed babies tend to be fatter than those that are breast fed, many baby doctors are quick to tell young mothers to switch from breast to bottle if the child isn’t in the “healthy” weight range on their precious growth charts.
For awhile, breast feeding was back in style (and make no mistake that medicine follows fads and trends just like fashion). About 20 years ago, pediatricians made a remarkable discovery—breast-fed babies developed faster and were more resistant to infection than formula-fed babies.
So they reversed themselves and did something sensible for a change—they encouraged mothers to breast-feed.
But when it didn’t seem to be turning enough infants into human puffer fish, the pediatricians got worried and started backpedaling.
Now, in the early 21st Century, they’re going off on a bottle-feeding tangent again.
The problem is, it turns out that the healthy weight guidelines they’re basing these recommendations on are flawed.
According to the World Health Organization, the growth charts most pediatricians use to evaluate their tiny patients are based on studies of babies who were fed formula, so they don’t really reflect what’s “normal” or “healthy” for breast-fed infants.
The article I read said that “These ‘flawed’ figures—used by health authorities in countries throughout the developed and developing worlds—suggest a healthy one-year-old weight between 22.5 lbs. and 28.5 lbs, when in fact the true healthy weight is 21 lbs. to 26 lbs.”
Baby fat might be cute, but it isn’t healthy—and it just sets the child up for a lifetime of health problems. And I’m not the only one who thinks so.
Dr. Mercedes de Onis, a nutrition expert for the UN, remarked to a Scottish newspaper that “children who have been breastfed go on to suffer less obesity; they have lower rates of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes and so on. We are storing up health problems for the future.”
No matter what your child’s or grandchild’s pediatrician says, the breast is still best.
Reference: “Health U-turn over breastmilk,” The Scotsman (www.thescotsman.com), 2/5/05