Deadly Drugs

Most Americans are aware that heart disease, cancers and strokes are the three leading causes of death in the United States today. They may not be aware of #4: the adverse effects of prescription medications. Every year, more Americans die from drug errors than from traffic accidents - forty people a day from prescription pain killers alone. And while nearly 40,000 of these deaths arise from behavior that might fairly be described as "drug abuse", nearly 750,000 perish is what can only charitably be called "mistakes".

To make matters worse, a recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine concluded that nearly 60% of the prescription medications taken by patients are not needed, and that 88% of patients reported feeling better when taking fewer or no drugs.

Let's take a look at just one type of prescription medication, the statins that are prescribed to lower cholesterol and which are the most prescribed, highest selling prescription drugs in the USA. One study published in the journal Pharmacotherapy found that 75% of people taking statins reported memory loss or other cognitive problems, and that fully 90% of them who stopped taking the medication showed rapid improvement. Other major side effects are well known and include muscle pain and weakness, neuropathy and an elevated risk of developing diabetes.

One of the less well known (among us non-experts anyway) measures of drug effectiveness is the so-called Number Needed to Treat (NNT). NNT is a measurement of how many people would need to take the drug in order for it to produce one beneficial outcome. Obviously the lower the number the better. For the popular statin drug Lipitor the NNT is 168. This means that 168 people would have to take Lipitor (for 4 years) to prevent one "cardiovascular event". Unfortunately, the risk for side effects can be as high as 1 in 10. That means 16 people will suffer the side effects so that 1 person may be helped. No doubt the fact that statin drugs produce an annual revenue of about $25 billion dollars in no way influences their popularity at the prescription pad. But to me these seem to be stunningly bad odds.

If you are taking two prescription medications a day, the odds of having a bad interaction between them is about 6%. If you are taking 5 per day, the odds skyrocket to about 50%.... 1 person in 2. With half (yes, half) of Americans taking at least one prescription drug (and nearly 1 in 5 taking 3 or more) this quickly produces large numbers of endangered people. We may be the most medicated nation on the planet.

I'll close with a personal story. About 10 years ago my mother, who was living in Florida and suffering from advancing Alzheimers disease, was no longer able to care for herself safely. As a result, she moved to California to be close to my brother. One of the first things he did was make an appointment with a neurologist, and on their first visit he took a list of the prescription medications that she was taking on a daily basis. She had prescriptions for diabetes, cholesterol, blood pressure, arthritis, degenerative heart disease and, of course, Altzheimers. Eight medications in all. When the doctor reviewed the list, she reacted with a combination of alarm and disbelief. Four of those medications were "mutually exclusive" - meaning that they had known interactions and were not prescribed together. Reducing my mothers medications to 3 per day produced an immediate, allbeit temporary, improvement in her mental and physical condition.

How could this happen? Because she was seeing four different "specialists", each of whom were prescribing medications without any idea what the others were doing. The doctors failed her, the pharmacist failed her, the insurance companies failed her, the healthcare system failed her and, to be fair, her family failed her.

The late Stephen Covey, in his book "First Things First", describes what he called "the rescue fantasy". "Most of us understand that a good percentage of the health problems we have are lifestyle-related. We live the way we want to live - little or no exercise, poor nutrition, burning the candle at both ends - and then when there is a problem we expect the medical profession to fix it. There's a pill for that."

There may be, but as more and more of us turn to medication to "fix" ourselves, we are starting to see that the cure may be more deadly than the problem.

Lifespan vs Healthspan

Most people - and governments, healthcare providers and charitable organizations - are focused on extending our lives. Our Lifespan. This is hardly surprising. When I ask a room full of people, "Who wants to live a long life?", about 100% of the hands go up. But as I make the question more specific, and more real - "Who wants to live a long life confined to a long term care facility? On medication to manage disease and chronic pain? Tethered to an oxygen tank? Bedridden?" - I am usually left with very few, if any, hands in the air. And this illuminates an important issue.

When we think about a long life, we rarely think of ourselves as infirm. Rather we picture good health, mobility, activity, interaction with family and friends. In other words, we picture ourselves healthy, not simply alive. "We need to adjust our thinking and aim for 'healthspan'," says Prof. Michael Thorner, an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia. "Improving how long we have a robust and functional life."

In the United States (2009 data), the average lifespan for a male is 75 years (81 years for a female). This is up from 66 years in 1960, quite an impressive improvement. But after age 50, 1 in 4 of us is diabetic. By the time we reach age 60, 60% of us will have hypertension. At age 65, 41% of us will have cancer - 21% fatally. Our Lifespan is exceeding our Healthspan by 25 - 30 years! This is fantastic news if you are a healthcare provider or a pharmaceutical company. For the rest of us, no so much.

And what do you think is the #1 thing that anyone can do to increase their Healthspan? If you said "lose weight" you'd be correct. The consequences of being overweight, let alone obese, are well known and significant. Carrying extra pounds makes you far more likely to suffer from diabetes, heart disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis and other chronic problems. Coincidentally, these are the very things that kill us, and drain an approximate $215B out of our economy annually.

Here is a wonderful, simple to remember and simple to use formula that you can use to regain control of your Healthspan: Eat Less CRAP; Eat More FOOD.

C - Carbonated drinks                           F - Fruits and vegetables
R - Refined sugar                                 O - Organic lean proteins
A - Artificial colors and sweeteners        O - Omega3 fatty acids
P - Processed foods                              D - Drink lots of water

Losing weight is not about dieting. In fact the "weight loss industry" grows apace with our waistlines. It is about making lifestyle choices that will keep you not only alive but healthy. A better diet, better nutrition, more exercise, a positive attitude. None of these things are beyond the means or ability of anyone.

So what will it be? A long life? Or a long, healthy life? It's your choice.

Retirees Nervous about Size of Nest Egg

Retirement isn't what it used to be - if it ever was. Recently and soon-to-be retired Americans share a host of worrisome concerns and only 39% of them believe that they have or are building a sufficient nest egg to allow them to retire at all. (In fact, studies by Transamerica and others indicate that the real number is probably closer to 5%, but that is a story for another day.) More than half plan to work past the "traditional" retirement age of 65 in the hope of amassing more assets and slightly more than 50% say they will never be able to stop working entirely. As in not ever.

Future health-care costs are the most common worry, cited by 3-in-4 retirees. Not considering any expenses related to long-term care or nursing facilities, Fidelity Investments estimates that the average retired American faces medical costs of $240,000 with a 6% rate of annual inflation. When you consider that the average 64 year old American about to retire has total retirement savings of about $70,000 you can see why people are nervous.

The traditional advice to "save more" is valid of course, but much more so for the 25 year old than the 65 year old. Continuing to work "forever" is certainly an option. If a person has a job that they can still do. Perhaps its time for people to dust off those "network marketing pyramid schemes" and take another look. There is something to be said for a business that allows you to create a residual (i.e., ongoing) income that will last you the rest of your life.

Social Security or residual income? I know where my bet is going.

Sneaky Salt

When the calendar flipped over to 2013, I made a decision to consume less sodium. This in turn was driven by the unexpected realization (I make a real effort to eat healthy) that I was routinely taking in 150% - 200% of the recommended level every day - and those percentages are based on the upper end of the recommended range.

Ok, no problem. I never add salt to anything anyway so I will just look at the food labels and buy things with less sodium. Woah! Did you ever DO that dude?

What I discovered was that many of the things I was eating had enough sodium in them that they probably ought to be considered poisons. Just a few of the more egregious offenders:

• Campbells's regular Condensed soups. These things should just be labeled "liquid salt". One serving of Cream of Chicken soup sports a hefty 790mg of sodium. But "servings" are just one of the clever ways that food manufacturers manipulate the labeling. Who eats just one serving? Eat the entire can and you get 1,975mg - nearly a whole day's worth. If you must eat this stuff look for the their "Healthy Request" line. They still have 800mg - 900mg per can, but less is better.
• Marie Callender's frozen pot pies. "Only" 800mg there. But wait, that's per serving again (half a pie). Eat the whole thing and you get 1,600mg - again just about your whole day's worth.
• How about a can of chili while watching the game? 900mg. Oops! Per serving. Eat the whole can and plan on a heart pounding 1,800mg.

Are you starting to see how this works? Well it gets worse when you eat out and there are no labels. Olive Garden's "Tour of Italy" dinner ought to let you accumulate points toward a free bypass surgery, clocking in at an astounding 3,830mg of sodium. Thinking of just having the salad instead? Fugeddaboutit. If you put dressing on the salad (and who doesn't) you are wolfing down 1,530mg. Its easy to pick on McDonald's of course. But have a Big Mac and a large fries and you can plan on taking in 1,420mg. Just 1/4th of the "healthier" Tour of Italy.

What is the recommended amount? It depends who you ask. Food labels and the food industry suggest 2,400mg per day. The Center's for Disease Control and Prevention - who do not to my knowledge sell any food products - recommend "less than 2,300mg, with 1,500mg being a completely adequate level for most Americans". I'm shooting for 2,000mg.

I've been doing much better at limiting my sodium to under my 2,000mg target level, but its taken some detective work. Its also required eating a lot less canned and processed frozen foods and changing my choices when I do.

The lesson here is that you cannot rely on claims or even food labels to know whether what you are eating is truly good for you or not. (Lean Cuisine? Healthy Choice? Read the labels.) Its your body, and so far as I know we are all only issued one. You might want to start reading what you eat before you start chewing it.

"The less you know the better," say Dairy Industry Groups

"... milk flavored with non-nutritive sweeteners should be labeled as milk without further claims so that consumers can 'more easily identify its overall nutritional value.'"

This quote comes from a petition to the Food and Drug Administration by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) in which they are proposing that artificial chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose be included in the definition of "milk" so that they would no longer have to be listed as an ingredient on the nutritional labels. That's right. They are arguing that you and I would be able to make better food and nutritional choices for ourselves if the actual ingredients in the food we eat were kept hidden from us. The less consumers know, according to the dairy industry, the better off they will be.

If granted, the industry would have permission to add artificial sweetening agents not only to milk, but to 17 different dairy products including yogurt, cream, sour cream, eggnog and whipping cream. Legally, the very definition of "milk" would include the additives and so eliminate the requirement to inform consumers of their presence.

There is quite a public debate going on regarding the safety of these additives, as well as the suitability of milk and milk products themselves. Regardless of which side you take in these disputes, how can any reasonable person agree that withholding information from consumers helps them to make better choices?

The public comment period on this petition is open until May 31, 2013. If you do not agree that less is more when it comes to nutritional information on the foods you feed yourself and your family, this would be a good time to make your feelings known. You can provide your comments here, and you can review the content of the actual petition on that same page.

Here is a summary and editorialized report on the petition from NaturalNews.com.

Sleep Plays a Large Role in Weight Loss

We all realize that adequate sleep is vital to maintaining our health and aiding in recovery from illnesses. But new research indicates it also plays an important role in healthy cognitive function, losing weight and avoiding chronic problems such as diabetes and heart disease. How much sleep is enough? Listen to the full report and find out.

Doing Your Due Diligence

Its time (ok, past time) to wrap up the discussion of network marketing and why it makes sense for pretty much everyone to at least take an informed look at the business model before deciding if it has a place in your financial future. Like any other business opportunity that you are seriously considering, you need to carefully research, examine and verify that this is legitimate, sustainable and a good fit for you. Here are some of the things I looked for before becoming involved with my direct selling business.

• A product or service that you love, believe in and want to use yourself, regardless of whether or not you enter the business. Because network marketing is based on personal relationships and trust, the odds of being successful with a company who's products you are not genuinely excited about are very low.
• A company that has been in business continuously for at least 5 years. The idea that you have to be an early entrant to make any money in a network marketing business is a variation of the pyramid scheme mentality. A track record indicates stability and attractive products. Network marketing companies are easy to start, and a good many of them never see their second birthday. Also, a company that has been in business for a few years has done the hard work of figuring out how to be successful selling its products, which means you don;t need to figure that out through trial and error.
• A compensation plan based upon sales, not on recruiting. If you are being paid each time you recruit a new distributor into your network, for recruiting them, be suspicious. In many (maybe most) companies, salespeople are paid commissions for the sales they make. Not for hiring more salespeople. Network marketing is no different. Of course you make more money as your distribution network grows. But it should be because a larger network produces more sales. If you are being paid simply for signing people up, regardless of whether or not they ever sell anything, ask yourself how long that can continue.
• A low initial fee to enter the business (under $100). It is perfectly reasonable for a company to charge a "license fee" to become and remain a distributor. They will be providing you a basket of services (tax reporting and collection, company web sites, product distribution, distribution network record management tools, etc) that will have definite value to you and your business. But charging a fee of hundreds of dollars should raise eyebrows.
• Minimal or no monthly purchase requirement. If the product or service offered is a good one, people will want it and buy it. There should be no reason to require distributors to make minimum monthly purchases. The company should be selling its products or services to consumers, not distributors. The cost of supporting a distributor should be covered in the license fee. Walk away.
• Minimal inventory requirement and direct distribution from the company. You want to be selling products, not delivering them. A modest inventory, enough to get new customers started, is reasonable. But look for a company that provides an online and/or phone ordering service for your customers and that ships directly.
• A money-back guarantee on the products AND on the business. You should have an escape hatch if for any reason you decide after starting that the company or the business is not for you. Rather than leave you with a garage full of inventory, companies should have a clear buy-back policy.
• And active, ongoing system of training, support and selling resources. Reliv likes to say that its distributors are in business for themselves, but not by themselves. Any company you join should have a local, active program to train you, support you and connect you with other distributors.
• Direct Selling Association membership. There are no guarantees in life, but membership in the invitation only DSA is a strong indication that the company has and follows ethical business practices. Require it.

Starting your own business always involves some level of risk. This is why most people never do it.  A network marketing may not be right for you, but its unique combination of low start-up costs, flexible hours and long term residual income potential makes it a business model that you owe it to yourself to consider.