Example of Medical Science is still primative

[hh5]

Watch the Video unless you already seen it 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THB8yTg3kkE

 

It seems that medical\drug science dictates to test for Women (drug science) is to test it in men.

It took 20 years of sitting before FDA n Science to realize that there is a difference.

 

But they won't re-test all the medical stuff is to make sure how compatible it is for women.

 

Gosh I think the reason behind all this is business employed into science essentially to cut the cost of testing in half. Thus we learn only half the story about drug science and thus do more harm than good but we look the other way. I guess its been happening for as long as we've been making medicine.

 

Gosh a real scientist (who also knows statistics) already knows that assumptions usually makes an ass of the situation. It seems that it took years of finding out how wrong science rather than learning to test things correctly. I guess we will see how slow or fast will the FDA change the requirements of testing as well as scientist learning about how to medically solve a health issue. Its really the companies that might prove to be resistance in progress for the better.

 

One concern is for trainy if the body is female and the doctor miss prescribes for male or visa versa. Perhaps for some they consult their doctor to make sure the drug to prescribe right and some don't know to do this.

 

The FDA only advice for anyone is to test out how low of a dose is effective for you than to take the MAN dose.

 

lol, my mom hates medicine but she already believes in taking the least long before FDA would make a ruling.

 

When I first experienced my negative reaction to a prescribe drug, I just skipped the meds all together and went for the alternative. The raw lesson was that the meds where a waste of money when lower cost alternatives could help.

 

I am curious how far this same issue is prevalent in other practices or life?

Edited March 4, 2014 by hh5

[Bill W]

Maybe dosages should be based on a combination of factors, such as gender, age and weight.  I'm sure each has some impact on the drugs effectiveness, yet me are always instructed to take so many of the OTC pills, without these other issues being pointed out.  The only exception is for children under the age of x.  Go figure.  

[Celethiel]

i could have told you a long time ago that Medical science is still primitive....

[C J]

Maybe some day people will start thinking and realize that health isn't about taking pills.  The faith people put in doctors and drugs is one of the most perplexing things there is.  It's also one of the most lucrative businesses in the world.  Too bad humans aren't more thoughtful about one of the most important aspects of their lives.  Of all the things people need to do, they allow the most important one to be dealt with by someone else.  If they would learn how to keep themselves healthy and make it a routine daily thing then the world would be a lot happier and a lot less money would be wasted on drugs and other ridiculous medical treatments.

 

Oh well, I guess people can't be expected to care more about themselves than they do TV and Mountain Dew.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ghostboy

[Cia]

Some people like sleeping pills. Some people need sleeping pills. My husband loves them. Other people can change their diet and exercise routine. EVERYTHING you do for your health should be researched by YOU and with the advice of a doctor when it comes to medication though. I run anemic, but have to be careful of my iron intake too. So I don't take a supplement. But I did drink a low-cal 9 gram protein drink this morning and just had an all natural larabar with pea protein that hit me with another 10 grams, about a fifth or so of what I need for a day.

 

People can have my caffeine when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers though! LOL I do try to limit the soda and drink tea (herbal/natural tea I make at home without sugar, not bottled stuff) when I can. I don't sleep much and don't care too, though.

[Kitt]

  If they would learn how to keep themselves healthy and make it a routine daily thing then the world would be a lot happier and a lot less money would be wasted on drugs and other ridiculous medical treatments.

 

Spoken like someone who has never had a catastrophic illness touch their lives. I sincerely hope that does not change. But there are situations you cannot control, such as cancer, which must be treated with drugs that sometimes seem worse than the illness they treat, and to be quite frank most if it is out of our hands! I said to one of my doctors that basically they were pumping me full of poison, and hoping the cancer dies before I do. After a moment of complete shock, she nodded her head and said "That about sums it up".

[Graeme]

 If they would learn how to keep themselves healthy and make it a routine daily thing then the world would be a lot happier and a lot less money would be wasted on drugs and other ridiculous medical treatments.

 

Spoken like someone who has never had a catastrophic illness touch their lives. I sincerely hope that does not change. But there are situations you cannot control, such as cancer, which must be treated with drugs that sometimes seem worse than the illness they treat, and to be quite frank most if it is out of our hands! I said to one of my doctors that basically they were pumping me full of poison, and hoping the cancer dies before I do. After a moment of complete shock, she nodded her head and said "That about sums it up".

To be fair, Ghostboy said "a lot less money". He didn't say that drugs wouldn't be needed.

 

There is a lot of things that can be either prevented, or have reduced likelihood of problems. I have a friend who had a heart-attack at the age of 35. This is not because he was in a high risk category because of his lifestyle, but because of a medical condition that increased his risk. That condition could be controlled, to a degree, through maintaining a high degree of fitness, but he hadn't maintained that fitness level. He was lucky that he was talking to his doctor (who was also a personal friend) when the heart-attack started, and the doctor picked up on it straight away.

 

That's an example of how a non-drug approach can sometimes be an alternative to drugs, but it's not a universal solution because it was only appropriate for his particular medical condition.

 

I have a family member who had a heart attack a few years ago who again wasn't in the high-risk category. Indeed, the doctors afterwards expressed surprise that she'd had a heart-attack at all, because the only thing they found was a blockage in one small artery. It was just one of those things. However, to ensure it doesn't happen again (because the heart attack did damage the heart), she had a large set of pills that she takes on a daily basis.

 

In her case, the drugs are necessary, given what has happened.

 

That's two examples of heart-attacks. One can be controlled through non-drugs and one has to be controlled through drugs. This is what I believe Ghostboy is saying. Drugs should not be the first port-of-call for fixing a medical issue. Sometimes, they will be (often, even), but they shouldn't always be the solution. Modern society does not give enough support to preventative measures, because it's hard to gauge their cost-benefit. Insurance companies are starting to work it out, though, which is why some health insurance policies include coverage for gym memberships -- they are recognising that staying fit and healthy helps keep medical bills down (and hence makes health insurance companies more profitable).

[C J]

I know that it's not possible to completely eliminate illness, but it is certainly possible to minimize it to the point that it's rare.  There's no good reason for the amount of illness that exists in the world now.  The fact that there is says a lot about the state of the healthcare system.  They like to talk about how advanced medicine is, but they don't account for the increase in sickness.  I think it's an issue that's more important than devising ways to keep funneling money into a system that's basically not working as well as they want us to believe it is.  A system that educates people on healthy living instead of buying services after your sick would be a huge advance.  The majority of illnesses are avoidable, and that's where the focus should be.  Unfortunately, that's exactly where the focus is not in the current system.

[W_L]

I know that it's not possible to completely eliminate illness, but it is certainly possible to minimize it to the point that it's rare.  There's no good reason for the amount of illness that exists in the world now.  The fact that there is says a lot about the state of the healthcare system.  They like to talk about how advanced medicine is, but they don't account for the increase in sickness.  I think it's an issue that's more important than devising ways to keep funneling money into a system that's basically not working as well as they want us to believe it is.  A system that educates people on healthy living instead of buying services after your sick would be a huge advance.  The majority of illnesses are avoidable, and that's where the focus should be.  Unfortunately, that's exactly where the focus is not in the current system.

 

 

Ghostboy, it's called preventive medicine Insurance has been pushing people to do it for the last few years now; certain plans like mine even offer free gym benefits (I need to get into that, but I am worried I will be too busy checking guys out) and even nutritionists.

 

Biggest issue with this model now is that it is only available to middle income earners; the poor and lower wage earners don't have these benefits readily available in most plans. There are community programs for it, but those are usually grant sponsored or are privately funded with eligibility requirements and wait list.

 

Health care has two main hurdles, cost issues and regulatory/legal issues. For example, Is gym membership considered a fringe benefit that can be taxable? (That's a loaded question) Is it feasible for insurers to put out 100.00 per month per beneficiary versus not paying anything and collecting 150.00 per month from employee/employers?

 

The Devil's advocate point is not much value can be generated from lower cost plans if these benefits were offered. However, the highest cost of medicine is from lower income people with chronic illnesses like Diabetes, which requires constant maintenance.

 

Been reading on the back burner and watching you all argue, so might as well add a few points of interests.

[Celethiel]

it's hardly advice when the doctor says: here take these it'll make you feel better....

and doesn't even do the nessarry leg work to find out if these pill will counteract with ones you already take for one or for two if it's even whats really wrong with you.

[Zombie]

I know that it's not possible to completely eliminate illness, but it is certainly possible to minimize it to the point that it's rare.  There's no good reason for the amount of illness that exists in the world now.  The fact that there is says a lot about the state of the healthcare system.  They like to talk about how advanced medicine is, but they don't account for the increase in sickness.  I think it's an issue that's more important than devising ways to keep funneling money into a system that's basically not working as well as they want us to believe it is.  A system that educates people on healthy living instead of buying services after your sick would be a huge advance.  The majority of illnesses are avoidable, and that's where the focus should be.  Unfortunately, that's exactly where the focus is not in the current system.

 

When people died from smallpox they were blameless. There was nothing they could do. Likewise polio - a crippling disease.

These were not "rare" diseases. They killed and maimed millions.

 

But it is healthcare systems that have had incredible success in completely eradicating smallpox across the world, and largely eradicating polio in the Western world, not life choices. These are just two examples of the huge benefits of healthcare systems.

 

And there are many other examples, like surgery which can repair people's damaged bodies so they can resume a normal active life after illness or accident, and many others I won't bore you with.

 

You are right about choices, and no-one can seriously doubt that life choices play a big part in people's health. But life choices are only - and will only ever be - one part of a much broader and more complicated picture.

 

[hh5]

hehehe, another issue is that medicine in the usa is for profit and it can be outrageously expensive.

At the end of every contract term a company starts looking for cheaper insurance companies.

Now companies are starting to not insure family members. Sending the indirect message that everyone needs to work in order to be insured.

 

The good question is why can't we cap the insurance and medical costs? It outgrows ppl salary.

 

I've been told the reason for expensive insurance n medical cost is due to how many ppl who visit the emergency room just for minor injuries or for an aspirin.

(True, they now have some cheaper onsite clinics at some emergency locations, perhaps more would help alleviate some of the problem.)

Its expensive to keep emergency staff, on call staff, and equipment in an emergency readiness.

Gosh over the years emergency seem to expanded their services like providing emergency dental, imagine how many abuse the service to avoid dental bills.

 

Perhaps in the trivial cases the emergency should charge the customer and say its not covered to discourage the abuse to the emergency system.

Nowadays i heard that the usa search n rescue, they charge for the service depending upon how unnecessary one has put oneself in danger.

 

Anyone seen the korean commercials for medical care? For the price of a certain treatments in the usa you could get better service in Korea. They even give a customer a booklet of results documenting how healthy one is. I think taiwan does this too.

 

Still the issue of primitive medicine is when the industry n gov't hasn't updated their protocols or bothered to review how antiquated their studies are.

20 years sitting on the issue that women metabolize meds diff than men

any statistics guy can tell the studies for years has been garbage in garbage out while trying to cut fda trial studies by 50%

 

Japan pharma industry is just as bad, in the news the sales ppl manipulated the data on the drug that was sent to univ professors monitoring the drug study prior to approval. Japan recent stress stem cell paper needs to be retracted because other experts could not verify the results

Edited March 12, 2014 by hh5

[C J]

Ghostboy, it's called preventive medicine Insurance has been pushing people to do it for the last few years now; certain plans like mine even offer free gym benefits (I need to get into that, but I am worried I will be too busy checking guys out) and even nutritionists.

 

Biggest issue with this model now is that it is only available to middle income earners; the poor and lower wage earners don't have these benefits readily available in most plans. There are community programs for it, but those are usually grant sponsored or are privately funded with eligibility requirements and wait list.

 

Health care has two main hurdles, cost issues and regulatory/legal issues. For example, Is gym membership considered a fringe benefit that can be taxable? (That's a loaded question) Is it feasible for insurers to put out 100.00 per month per beneficiary versus not paying anything and collecting 150.00 per month from employee/employers?

 

The Devil's advocate point is not much value can be generated from lower cost plans if these benefits were offered. However, the highest cost of medicine is from lower income people with chronic illnesses like Diabetes, which requires constant maintenance.

 

Been reading on the back burner and watching you all argue, so might as well add a few points of interests.

 

 

There is no reason for people to depend on insurance, or a gym membership, or even a nutritionist, to help them stay healthy.  All the things those offer can be acquired for free.

 

As for diabetes, the majority of cases here are in fact the result of poor personal choices.  Those that are born with it are a lot fewer than those who acquire it, and it is both avoidable and curable.  Of course, the so-called "healthcare professionals" are unlikely to tell anyone that.  They aren't going to work at eliminating the source of their income.

[C J]

When people died from smallpox they were blameless. There was nothing they could do. Likewise polio - a crippling disease.

These were not "rare" diseases. They killed and maimed millions.

 

But it is healthcare systems that have had incredible success in completely eradicating smallpox across the world, and largely eradicating polio in the Western world, not life choices. These are just two examples of the huge benefits of healthcare systems.

 

And there are many other examples, like surgery which can repair people's damaged bodies so they can resume a normal active life after illness or accident, and many others I won't bore you with.

 

You are right about choices, and no-one can seriously doubt that life choices play a big part in people's health. But life choices are only - and will only ever be - one part of a much broader and more complicated picture.

 

 

 

I wasn't saying the system is worthless and not needed,  I'm simply saying it's overused and depended on in ways that are not necessary.

 

People can learn to maintain their health so that they don't develop so many health issues.  The problem is the amount of resources being devoted to healthcare, and the fact is that it wouldn't be that way if people were responsible enough to take proper care of themselves in the first place.

 

Emergency care is one thing.  Depending on the system for general health maintenance is irresponsible, and no amount or type of insurance is going to change the situation.

[Zombie]

I wasn't saying the system is worthless and not needed,  I'm simply saying it's overused and depended on in ways that are not necessary.

 

People can learn to maintain their health so that they don't develop so many health issues.  The problem is the amount of resources being devoted to healthcare, and the fact is that it wouldn't be that way if people were responsible enough to take proper care of themselves in the first place.

 

Emergency care is one thing.  Depending on the system for general health maintenance is irresponsible, and no amount or type of insurance is going to change the situation.

 

Well, I didn't say you said healthcare was worthless and not needed. I was simply countering your statement that "it is certainly possible to minimize [illness] to the point that it's rare", "There's no good reason for the amount of illness that exists in the world now" and "The majority of illnesses are avoidable".

 

The fact is there are many reasons for many illnesses which are completely outside anyone's control - genetic causes, infection, epidemics etc. These reasons are a major cause of illness all across the world and back through history and, sadly, it is not currently possible "to minimize [ illness caused by these reasons] to the point that it's rare". That's why we need healthcare systems. But you are absolutely right about the unnecessary use of healthcare by millions who develop disease and poor health because of their unhealthy lifestyles and the waste of lives, money and resources. The solution probably seems obvious to you and me but that's a discussion that needs to take place in a blog where we can let rip

 

[C J]

Well, I didn't say you said healthcare was worthless and not needed. I was simply countering your statement that "it is certainly possible to minimize [illness] to the point that it's rare", "There's no good reason for the amount of illness that exists in the world now" and "The majority of illnesses are avoidable".

 

The fact is there are many reasons for many illnesses which are completely outside anyone's control - genetic causes, infection, epidemics etc. These reasons are a major cause of illness all across the world and back through history and, sadly, it is not currently possible "to minimize [ illness caused by these reasons] to the point that it's rare". That's why we need healthcare systems. But you are absolutely right about the unnecessary use of healthcare by millions who develop disease and poor health because of their unhealthy lifestyles and the waste of lives, money and resources. The solution probably seems obvious to you and me but that's a discussion that needs to take place in a blog where we can let rip

 

 

 

The illnesses that make up the bulk of healthcare expenditures are indeed avoidable.  Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and a lot of others are, for the most part, preventable.  The prevention depends on the individual, and not the system.  The system is geared toward dealing with symptoms. 

 

Like everything, there are exceptions to this, but for the most part this is how things are.  Depending on the system for heath maintenance is a mistake, and an expensive one.

[Zombie]

The illnesses that make up the bulk of healthcare expenditures are indeed avoidable.  Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and a lot of others are, for the most part, preventable.  The prevention depends on the individual, and not the system.  The system is geared toward dealing with symptoms. 

 

Like everything, there are exceptions to this, but for the most part this is how things are.  Depending on the system for heath maintenance is a mistake, and an expensive one.

 

OK now I understand. You're not talking about illness and disease per se, you're talking about illness, disease and costs in the US. Taking into account the lifestyle / chronic obesity problem in the US - which is now showing up in many other countries too - that makes sense. But the causes of that problem are not healthcare, they're to do with issues that can only be fully explored in a blog because what will be home truths and common sense to you and me will be heresy to some

[C J]

OK now I understand. You're not talking about illness and disease per se, you're talking about illness, disease and costs in the US. Taking into account the lifestyle / chronic obesity problem in the US - which is now showing up in many other countries too - that makes sense. But the causes of that problem are not healthcare, they're to do with issues that can only be fully explored in a blog because what will be home truths and common sense to you and me will be heresy to some

 

 

Yup, that's pretty much what I was saying. 

 

Your right, healthcare isn't the cause of the problem.  The cause is people's unwillingness to take personal responsibility for their health.  It's a messy issue for sure, and I suppose it will take a long time and a lot of changes before we see any real progress.  People don't like change in general, so there's a battle to be fought.

[W_L]

There is no reason for people to depend on insurance, or a gym membership, or even a nutritionist, to help them stay healthy.  All the things those offer can be acquired for free.

 

As for diabetes, the majority of cases here are in fact the result of poor personal choices.  Those that are born with it are a lot fewer than those who acquire it, and it is both avoidable and curable.  Of course, the so-called "healthcare professionals" are unlikely to tell anyone that.  They aren't going to work at eliminating the source of their income.

 

Not really, everything has a cost towards it. Food products are usually bought with ignorance to what you actually need to maintain a natural calorie balance to exertion, along with excess fats and sodium. Most people buy things based on value, not nutritional content, unless you can afford it and are not living under economic pressure.

 

While you can argue that it is free to learn and free to acquire if given enough "time" and "incentive", both concepts are part of our productive limits as humans.

 

Should a person learn how to eat better to prevent diabetes? Yes

 

Does a lower income person who works in excess of 10 hours a day have the time and incentive? Probably not

 

"Time = Money" is a very simple concept used by many people in business, but I would also apply it to why health care professionals exist. A person working 8-10 hours does not usually have the time to study in meaningful ways on a subject that has no actual bearing on their productivity, i.e. their jobs. Thus, they seek assistance with doctors, nutritionists, or fitness instructors at gyms.

 

Remember your Econ 101 class, comparative advantage and game theory would dictate that you would trade a portion of you income for such goods. However, the cost of gym membership or out of pocket medical costs like these would not be equivalent to other things you need in life, i.e. shelter, clothing, and food.

 

While traditionally, it was believed that higher income nations usually contained the greatest rates of obesity, recent studies have shown that poverty is intrinsically linked to obesity and diabetes. Lower income earners would hold higher rates of obesity and diabetes as studies from NIH have shown:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198075/

 

Industrialized nations have less manual labor; more service sector jobs that reduces exertion and increases obesity. With the rise of low wage service sector jobs, you have a very ugly picture: sedimentary workplace and low income that does not give access to things that could aid healthy lifestyles.

 

That concept shows why lower income people would need such professionals, but can't afford them. It's a vicious cycle of poverty and chronic disease.

 

On the other hand, employers and corporations like mine, who want to maintain their stall of capable professionals (salaried slaves ) would be willing to buy into insurance plans to maintain their staff's productivity level. Sure, I have time to go jog with my dog and run on my treadmill, unlike production staff. However, they are still pushing for me to lose weight and maintain my health to its fullest potential.

 

Why is that done versus a minimal approach to production staff?

 

In the eyes of senior management, Corporate staff are intrinsically more valuable than production staff; even in service sector work. It's a basis of our economic model that favors skilled labor versus unskilled labor.

 

For instance, at my company, unskilled labor makes about 10.50/hr at the high end with minimal benefits; while skilled staff makes 30-50/hr with loads of benefits. I hate to say it this way, but production staff in the eyes of large companies are short term expenses for production, while skilled staff are long term investments. That is not about personal responsibility, but a matter of economic perspective and how we manage our resources as a company and society.

 

Ghostboy, it is not merely about personal responsibility; economics play a major part in health care issues. If you only made 10.50/hr can you afford to have decent exercise and food, while paying rent, utilities, and other necessary things. Remember that is only $21,840.00 in annual earnings, split out across 26 bi-weekly pay cycles with 840.00 before income tax and average rent goes from 750.00-1,500.00. in the area near your job.

 

@zombie: I know, evil American society (By the way, the US is not alone with this ugly trend of poverty and vicious health cycles, a lot of European countries havie begun to have higher poverty from low income "temp" jobs that last less than minimum hours rules)

Edited March 13, 2014 by W_L

[C J]

I agree with a lot of what you say W-L, but I don't agree that the poor have no access to healthy food and exercise.  Poor people can afford decent food, and exercise doesn't require machines or trainers.  I do know some poor people, and they can afford good food.  Keep in mind that eating nutritious food tends to satisfy your appetite, therefore you will eat less than if you eat cheap starch ridden stuff. 

 

Most poor people have internet access, and those who don't can go to the library in most towns and use the internet there for free.  This gives them access to excellent resources that help them develop an exercise plan to keep themselves shaped up.

 

Poor people certainly have more challenges but they have resources available to overcome their financial shortcomings.  A little struggling might be involved, but that shouldn't stop anyone.

 

I think when you get down to the bottom line, there are no excuses.  Some of the most successful people in the world came from poverty, and it wasn't because someone came along and gave them a break, it's because they were determined and willing to work for it.  If poor people can overcome poverty then they can overcome any other obstacles.

 

I think hope comes from inside people more than any other source, whether they are poor or not.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Ghostboy

[W_L]

I agree with a lot of what you say W-L, but I don't agree that the poor have no access to healthy food and exercise.  Poor people can afford decent food, and exercise doesn't require machines or trainers.  I do know some poor people, and they can afford good food.  Keep in mind that eating nutritious food tends to satisfy your appetite, therefore you will eat less than if you eat cheap starch ridden stuff. 

 

Most poor people have internet access, and those who don't can go to the library in most towns and use the internet there for free.  This gives them access to excellent resources that help them develop an exercise plan to keep themselves shaped up.

 

Poor people certainly have more challenges but they have resources available to overcome their financial shortcomings.  A little struggling might be involved, but that shouldn't stop anyone.

 

I think when you get down to the bottom line, there are no excuses.  Some of the most successful people in the world came from poverty, and it wasn't because someone came along and gave them a break, it's because they were determined and willing to work for it.  If poor people can overcome poverty then they can overcome any other obstacles.

 

I think hope comes from inside people more than any other source, whether they are poor or not.

 

Depends on several factors:

 

Location, I know for instance based on our facility in Florida that there is no mass transit in the Palm Beach area that would reach the residential apartments complexes our employees live in. They must drive into work, paying the cost of gas as well to get from home to work daily. It adds to the sedimentary lifestyle and cost of living.

 

As for cost of living. Food prices are not uniform across the 50 states, nor is other cost of living like rent and utilities.

 

You also must plan to take time out of your day for exercise, which after a long workday may be less incentive than most people would imagine. When you are that tired, you just want to get to sleep.

 

As for poverty and success, I agree with you that people can internally strive for success. I am one-eyed accounting manager, who paid my grad school costs by working as an Office Administrator (You guys didn't know that when I first joined GA ).

 

However, I am practical guy; I know not everyone has the internal drive to fight and keep on fighting until either you die or you reach your goals. People like me are rare in the world; the vast majority need to be motivated, trained, and directed. Not everyone can reach their full potential, because beyond personal responsibility, there is "drive".

[C J]

Excellent point about drive.  I think most people truly don't have the drive, or ambition, to accomplish things that they wish they would.  Whatever will we do to save them from their fate?  I haven't the answer, but I'm sure there is one.  Whatever it is, I'm sure it involves that horrifying thing called change.  God help us, the world is not what we wish it was!  Of course, if it was the way we wanted it then what would be left to motivate us?  

[hh5]

in one of the talk shows there was a challenged made ... based on the belief of sugar and obesity have a definite relationship

the challenge was to live on 15gm of sugar every day

 

Edited March 13, 2014 by hh5

[Kitt]

The reduction of sugar in the daily diet is something pretty much everyone should strive for. How it is reduced however should be carefully watched. Sure you can buy diet sodas etc that have zero calories and no sugars, but they are sweetened with artificial sweeteners. 

 

We saw in the hairbo thread a few weeks back what some artificial sweeteners can do to the human digestive system.  They can also cause liver and kidney damage.

 

Like pretty much everything else in life, its a trade off. Less sugar by using artificial sweeteners, vs possible health risks from the substitutes.  Healthier side dishes like quinoa instead of rice. vs the added cost - you can buy a 5 pound bag of rice for what a 4 cup bag of quinoa costs.  It's one hell of a juggling act, most notably for lower income families who have parents working 10 and 12 hours a day to bring home a poverty level income. working at any job 12 hours a day is exhausting, but at a blue collar level it is even more so, then home to take care of home and family, unfortunately something has to give.

[hh5]

It seems that processed foods is no good for a good number of ppl. Some ppl has return to the basics of preparing meals.

My brother developed a peculiar allergy to wine, spices, etc. It seems that he has to grow his own veggies to get around the health issues.

 

There are ppl who allergic to wheat and other things. Its strange to those who don't have the problem.

 

Food Manufacturers putting in simulated flavorings may be affecting ppl health just to lower costs n make a profit.

 

Just because china threw in basically poison into some of their processed food its like no different to usa food manufacturers except to how soon one dies.

The FDA refined things which basically allowed the industry to do harm to ppl.