Cancer update email forward

You might have gotten an email entitled "Cancer update email" or "Johns Hopkins update - very good article", which claims to be from an article sent out by the Johns Hopkins newsletter. The email gets stranger and stranger as you read it. Chemotherapy doesn't work to help cancer, it claims but changing your diet will do it. By the time you get down to the bottom which informs you that milk produces mucus which "feeds the cancer", you might be wondering about it.

This article of unknown origin never went out on Johns Hopkins newsletter according to Snopes and Hoaxslayer, the latter which suggests that especially with medical forwards, it's best to check them out before sending to friends.

Johns Hopkins, not real impressed (to put it mildly) about the email stating so many myths about cancer being attributed to them, dedicated a page on their website to deny and debunk the email, point by point.

To "Google" a forward, take the title and put it in quotes. In the case of this, since the title was more generalized, I also took a few key words like "cancer" and "alternate" and "Johns Hopkins" and added them to my search. With the search engines being so comprehensive and computers being so fast, it only takes a couple of seconds to check out a forward and it's really worth doing rather than sending out wrong information especially in the medical arena.

The Krispy Kreme Challenge

Taking place in North Carolina, is a fun run which seems right on the edge.

Sponsored by the manufacturers of artery clogging Krispy Kreme donuts, and raising money for a children's hospital, this competition draws thousands of participants every year.

In 2009, they logged over 5000 runners and in 2011, the expectation was over 7500 runners.

The race, which seems to draw people of all sizes and all ages (although it takes place in a college town and originated with 5 college students) consists of running two miles from the start to the Krispy Kreme store, consuming one dozen Krispy Kreme donuts and then, running back, all in one hour or under, if possible.

The reality of the race from a youtube video, filmed by a participant, seemed less pretty than MSNBC news made it appear. The only concern the news media had was perhaps the runners won't run off the calories contained in 12 donuts.

The video maker described squishing three donuts together in order to gulp them down more quickly. This morphed the donuts into a concoction which was anything but appetizing. He also said to get back into the race, to finish it, he had to walk over several piles of vomit from those less successful in consuming the dozen.

"Some of the participants just did the run and only ate 1 or 2 Krispy Kremes", he commented.

Considerably less people appeared to finish the race than were at the start line and those coming in all looked like they'd been sucked through a keyhole backwards.

Were those who just ate a couple of Krispy Kremes wiser than those who attempted the eating contest? Considering that donuts are among the most artery clogging foods available, probably not.

The race seems the epitomy of American insanity - combining a healthy activity like running with eating the type of food which would seem to negate any good health effects of the exercise.

From regularly reading Runner's magazines for several years, I found that quite often they had articles about folks who had heart attacks or cancer, unusual for regular exercisers. (Many studies suggest those who exercise have a 40 percent lower risk of heart disease, than non exercisers.)

Could it be that the underlying message of such events as the Krispy Kreme Challenge i.e. if one can "run off the calories" than one can consume unhealthy foods with abandon, is very misleading? I vote yes on that question.

A better idea would seem to be to exercise with abandon and skip the donuts. According to a PBS news story video, participants are not required to eat any donuts.

One of the reporters who participated commented that "they have pills for people who do things like this."

Related video: how Krispy Kremes are made.

Bias against female athleticism and muscle again on TV

This is Lauren Powers. She is a gorgeous bodybuilder, 48 years old who has won 30 competitions. She's totally ripped and symmetrical. Naturally she is an awesome athlete who puts in the hours, working out. She was featured on "My strange Addiction" and sorry but I object! Why don't they say Olympian, Michael Phelps has a "strange addiction" when he works out more than Lauren does. To me, this is the typical bias against female muscle in specific and female athletes in general. That is if a female athlete has too many muscles, this is "bad". But if a female is bone slim that is good. Lauren who is 5'5", weighs 180 lbs and is a very low bodyfat percentage. She is a person who should be spoken about with utter respect! Would you believe, later on in the show, they have her going to a psychologist who tells her how "unhealthy" her "strange addiction" i.e. athleticism and successfully winning 30 competitions, is?

Here is a clip from the discovery channel show:

"My Strange Addiction - Lauren"

Here is a partial list of the 30 competitions she has won:

1st place Open Heavyweight in the NPC Orange County Classic, then 1st Place and Overall at the NPC Jan Tana show, and also Overall Ms. Muscle Beach Classic in Venice Beach.

I know she probably did the show to create awareness of female bodybuilding with the idea that "there is no such thing as bad publicity, only publicity". I hope it works in a positive way for her but the jist of the show was that there must be something wrong with her for being an awesome athlete because she is a bodybuilder!

Lauren's official website:

http://www.laurenpowers.com/

Please write to TLC and let them know your feelings. (Click on email address below)

tlc@discovery.com

Do they put dead dogs and cats in dog food?

Lately a forward (really a video) has crossed my desk (or computer?) about how when they euthanize animals at animal shelters etc, they send them out, in a semi rotting condition, also diseased animals (they get graphic) for rendering into dog and cat food. Of course, this author, Andrew Lewis, is not giving away his book - he's selling it and then, you don't even get a hard copy... you pay to download it. Great for his overhead - maybe not so good for you?

Because this is a difficult one to check up on, Mr Andrews' video is upsetting dog and cat lovers all over the place. Mr Lewis is apparently some kind of vegan who suggests giving all veggies to your four footed friends.

This is not a good idea since dogs and cats are carnivores which mean they only can digest meat. Things like kibbles are given to clean and exercise their teeth and provide roughage but dogs and cats should also be fed a goodly portion of meat as their staple food (cats have a habit of catching their own meat like mice etc - occasionally they will, to be nice to their owners, bring in a freshly killed mouse or rat for their human to admire and enjoy!) :)

So are Andrew Lewis' claims true? From my research, I would say, definitely no, they are not true!

He claims that since there was a study which found traces of sodium pentobarbital in dogfood (the sedative medication used to euthanize dogs and cats), that "proves" that dog food is made out of euthanized pets.

Actually, when the scientists at the FDA found the trace amounts of this drug in dog food, they wondered about the same thing, so they devised a test to look for dog or cat DNA in dog food:

CVM scientists also developed a test to detect dog and cat DNA in the protein of dog food. Since pentobarbital is used to euthanize dogs and cats at animal shelters, finding pentobarbital in rendered feed ingredients could suggest that pets were rendered and used in pet food. Test results indicated a complete absence of protein material that would have been derived from euthanized dogs or cats. As a result of their study, CVM scientists assume the source of the pentobarbital in dog food is cattle or horses euthanized and then rendered.

It should be noted that small amounts of pentobarbital are not lethal, even for humans - to euthanize an animal, an overdose of this medication must be administered. Otherwise, it's just a sedative (although it's likely the trace amounts found in dog food don't have much of an effect on the animals).

Andrew's first claim is easily disproved by this study! But I decided to look into it further since Andrew seems so passionate about his claims.

I called several animal shelters run by the state or county, both in my state and in New Jersy. All of them told me that they try hard to find homes for pets and if they have to euthanize them, it's done by injection i.e. an overdose of sedative (apparently no more decompression chambers!). The carcasses are buried in a mass grave (in my state) or sent out to be mass cremated in New Jersey.

Checking up on rendering plants (which would be guilty of recycling the animals), I found that they only get dead farm animals, and the leftovers from the slaughter-houses. This is sterilized and cooked into mush and dried into powder and made into tallow used in candles etc as well as feed for swine and chickens. Apparently it's no longer given to cows for fear of "mad cow disease" since cows are included in the dead farm animals and also from the slaughtering plants.

Since those farm animals are apparently euthanized by injection, some of what goes to the rendering plant includes the euthanizing drug. However, I would like to point out that in regular tap water, there are also traces of drugs including female hormones. And no, house water filters do not filter this out - they only filter particulates ( stuff floating in the water) and if you don't change them every two weeks or so, they do not filter out any impurities - two reasons. First, the water does not sit long enough in the filter for reverse osmosis to work well for that and second, the filters get saturated quickly. But if you do change them every two weeks, it gets prohibitively expensive and it's way cheaper to buy bottled water which is more efficiently filtered and sanitized than the best of home filters could do.

Bottom line, anything in which tap water is used in the processing, contains all kinds of traces of medications.

Final claim of Mr Lewis: plastic collars etc are rendered along with the dead animals. Keep in mind, this is not in the dog food but in the feed given to chickens and swine. And according to my research this is true but then, it's also true of human food that there are trace amounts of "other" in it. Other can contain all kinds of things and it's well known that the human body has a good tolerance for the "other" stuff. If we cannot digest it, we pass it on through. Since most of us eat fast and processed food at least some of the time but are living longer than ever, there is no evidence that the "other" in food is lethal as some would want us to believe. So it certainly isn't going to be lethal in the feed for chickens and swine either.

More expensive dog food has more meat and less "filler" like starchy stuff in it. If you want to cook hamburger for your dog, your dog will like it but we've raised healthy dogs on both hamburger and good dog food and found neither was more healthy than the other. The jury seems to be out on whether a part of the dog diet should include kibble type food. Health in dogs seems to be how much you love them and how much exercise they get and not whether you feed them hamburger or dog food. Dogs need cardio once a day just like humans - best is to have a place for them to run or there are available, dog treadmills. Turns out our animals are often as under-exercised as we are. Cardio is the only way to exercise the heart muscle - whether you are a dog or a human.

That being said, I know folks who feed their dogs, garbage from the table and kibbles only and still have healthy dogs with good coats and great longevity - go figure.

Much as we like to think of our dogs as human, they are not - they do like to drink out of toilets and will eat their own feces without any seemingly bad side effects. They also eat human feces and it has been said that this is how dogs and humans first formed an alliance - the dogs would hover around the caves where humans dwelled and eat the human feces, eventually becoming friendly with their human "food suppliers".

So when you look at your pampered pet, which has just finished its carefully prepared meal, comfortably sitting on its own easy chair or your lap, you can definitely say (like the commercial) "You've come a long way baby!"