Hormonal Health

by Keith Wassung – ICPA:hormonal health

When the body is in a state of homeostasis, the precise amount of hormones are released into the bloodstream and things proceed smoothly. But when the control system malfunctions-either too much or too little of a particular hormone is secreted, or when an organ or a tissue does not respond efficiently – the results can be severe and can result in numerous health conditions including, but not limited to, thyroid disorders, diabetes, osteoporosis, and depression. Thyroid disorders are either classified as “hypo-thyroid” meaning too little thyroid activity or “hyper-thyroid” meaning too much thyroid activity. At any given time in the U.S. more than twenty million people suffer from a thyroid disorder, More than ten million women have a low grade thyroid imbalance and nearly eight million people with the imbalance remain un-diagnosed. More than 500,000 new cases of thyroid imbalance occur each year.

15.7 Million Americans have diabetes and it is estimated that 5 million of them are undiagnosed. Each year there are 789,000 new cases of diabetes. diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death in the U.S. and total direct and indirect costs of diabetes in the U.S is over 100 billion dollars.

The endocrine pancreas is regulated by hormonal activity controlled by the hypothalamus. The dysfunction of the regulation of islet hormone secretion as well as its mechanisms and the pathophysiology of the islet dysfunction is primarily a breakdown in the neuroendocrine control.

Osteoporosis is a major health threat for 28 million Americans, 80% of which are women. Annual treatment costs for osteoporosis exceeds 15 billion dollars. One out of every two women and one in eight men will have an osteoporosis-related fracture at some time in their life.

“Interference with bone remodeling-that is, the imbalance between bone formation and bone reabsorption-underlies nearly every disease that influences the skeleton. Most such disorders are caused by imbalances in hormones and related chemicals in the blood.”

“The key to stopping osteoporosis lies in a balanced body chemistry and a delicate balance of minerals in order to maintain a calcium homeostasis in the blood”

Depression is on pace to be the world’s second most disabling disease (after heart disease) by the year 2000; already the World Health Organization ranks it first among women and fourth overall. In the United States, depression afflicts 18 million people at any given time, one in five over the course of a lifetime and costs over 40 billion dollars a year in lost work time and health care.

The term “depression” often carries a stigmatism with it that denotes a certain sort of sadness, but research has revealed that the majority of the cases of clinical depression are due to imbalances in hormonal levels and are related to a dysfunction in neurological signaling and chemistry.

“Today, neuroscientists know that in many cases, psychopathology (ie depression) arises because of dysfunctions in particular brain structures or particular brain chemicals”

“In fact, it takes an incredibly strong person to bear the burden of the depression condition. The name, “hypothalmo-pituitary-adrenal-axis dysfunction” an appropriate jargony medical description that is accurate but would never make it into the headlines”

Traditional Approach to Hormonal Health

The medical approach to endocrine disorders and hormonal imbalances is to use a variety of drugs in an attempt to artificially compensate for a hormone deficiency. In the case of an overactive gland, radiation and surgical procedures are used. Drugs and related synthetic chemicals may be necessary and appropriate in certain situations, but they do little to correct the cause of the disorder or imbalance since they can do nothing to correct the original cause of the problem, which is often in the system of the control mechanism. Drugs often create an even greater chemical imbalance, which can result in harsh side effects that are much worse than the original condition.

“Too many medical remedies get in the way of the body’s ability to heal itself”…

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

How the Fed Destroys the Middle Class

submitted by jwithrow.the Fed

Journal of a Wayward Philosopher
How the Fed Destroys the Middle Class

January 15, 2015
Hot Springs, VA

The S&P opened at $2,013 today. Gold is up to $1,262 per ounce. Oil rallied back up to $48 per barrel. Bitcoin has dived to $216 per BTC, and the 10-year Treasury rate opened at 1.81% today.

The big news in the markets today comes from the Swiss National Bank which announced that they will abandon the Franc’s peg to the Euro. This move suggests the SNB is expecting Europe to ramp up its very own quantitative easing program in a big way. If that happens we can expect the U.S. dollar to strengthen, Treasury rates to continue their decline, and gold to rise in price. Such a move could also spark another bull cycle for gold miners in the equity markets. We shall see.

If you ask the media, they will tell you the economy is recovering quite nicely. They will tell you they are a little disappointed the recovery has taken this long, but a recovery it is nonetheless. And sure enough, the economic landscape does look better now than it did in 2009. If you live in a metropolitan area you may even be tempted to think the media is absolutely correct – happy days are here again! The stock market has boomed, mortgage rates are on the floor, and the banks are lending once again… what more could anyone ask for?

Regretfully, I must point out that whatever recovery has taken place is due exclusively to a credit expansion of historic measures. Take a look at this chart from the Fed’s Board of Governors.

The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expanded from $890 billion ($890,000,000,000) to $4.5 trillion ($4,500,000,000,000) in just six years. This balance sheet expansion represents the acquisition of assets by the Federal Reserve – U.S. Treasury Bonds and mortgage-backed securities specifically. What this means is the Fed purchased bonds from the federal government to finance government deficits and the Fed purchased mortgage-backed securities from Wall Street to bail out the banks.

The Fed saved the day!

But we must ask – where did the Fed get the dollars to save the financial system? Well if you are familiar with our work on fiat money then you know the Fed created those dollars out of thin air. That’s 3.61 trillion ($3,610,000,000,000) extra dollars floating around in the financial system conjured into existence. Is it any wonder interest rates hit the floor and stocks boomed?

Go back and ask the media and they will tell you this is normal. The Fed did what it was supposed to do, they will say, it exists to manage the financial system. The media has had six and half years to feel confident in this assessment. But the Fed itself shows us what the problem is – the recovery is unsustainable!

Let’s go back and look at the chart. The Fed has classified the period from the end of 2007 to the middle of 2009 as a recession. The Fed shows how it printed $1.41 trillion during that time period and brought an end to the recession. But then the Fed kept on printing – in even greater quantities! If the recession ended in 2009, why did the Fed need to create another $2.2 trillion over the next five years?

The answer is clear as day and the Fed shows us why – the recovery is solely dependent upon exponential credit expansion. It’s game over as soon as the credit stops expanding.

The fact is no structural reforms have taken place within the financial system since the crash of 2008. All of the underlying problems are still present; they have simply been papered over by credit creation of historic proportions. As much as the media would have you believe otherwise, you just can’t cure a debt problem with more debt.

”Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.” said Robert Louis Stevenson.

For those living outside of the major U.S. metropolitan areas, that banquet of consequences is here. Middle America has been hollowed out and small town U.S.A. has been destroyed by the fiat monetary system that has been employed since 1971. Income inequality has risen rapidly, not because of greedy capitalists, but because politically-connected institutions have been the recipients of enormous quantities of money and credit created from nothing. What is occurring is a wealth transfer of epic proportions.

It is the middle class that bears the brunt of this massive wealth transfer. As we mentioned in our first journal entry of 2015, the Cantillon Effect is in full swing. The individuals and businesses farthest away from the printing press have their wealth systematically transferred away from them to the institutions with their cup under the money spigot. Don’t believe me? Take a trip to K-Street and observe what goes on there.

Of course there’s nothing new under the sun. This dynamic has played out numerous times in various places throughout modern history. It always leads to the destruction of the middle class and then the destruction of the monetary system itself.

Fortunately, individuals can insulate themselves from some of the financial destruction if they understand what is happening. It is understanding that is the most difficult part.

Until the morrow,

Signature

 

 

 

 

 

Joe Withrow
Wayward Philosopher

For more of Joe’s thoughts on the “Great Reset” and the fiat monetary system please read “The Individual is Rising” which is available at http://www.theindividualisrising.com/. The book is also available on Amazon in both paperback and Kindle editions.

How the Fed Grows Government

by Hunter Hastings – Mises Daily
Article originally published in the January 2015 issue of BankNotesEccles Building

We are told that elections are important, but the most powerful state institution, the central bank, is totally out of reach of the voter.

Ludwig von Mises viewed democracy as a utilitarian concept. It was the form of political organization that allowed the majority to change the government without violent revolution. In Socialism, Mises writes “This it achieves by making the organs of the state legally dependent on the will of the majority of the moment.” He identified this form of political process as an essential enabler of capitalism and market exchange.

Mises extended this concept of utilitarian democracy to citizens’ control of the budget of the state, which they achieve by voting for the level of taxation that they deem to be appropriate. Otherwise, “if it is unnecessary to adjust the amount of expenditure to the means available, there is no limit to the spending of the great god State.” (Planning for Freedom, p. 90).

Today, this utilitarian function of democracy, and the concept of citizens’ limitations on government mission and government spending, has been taken away by the state via the creation and subsequent actions of central banks. The state carefully created a central bank that is independent of the voters and unaffected by the choices citizens express via the institutions of democracy. In the case of the US Federal Reserve, for example, the Board of Governors state that the Federal Reserve System “is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”

Independent from Voters, But Not from Politicians

Importantly, the central bank is independent of the citizens in this way, but, in practice, not independent of politicians. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is quoted as asserting, “I never said the central bank is independent,” alluding to similar statements in two books he has written, and pointing to one-sided political pressure significantly limiting the FOMC’s range of discretion.

This institutionally independent, but politically directed central bank spearheads a process that enables largely unlimited government spending. It expands credit and enables fiat money, which is produced without practical limitation. Fiat money enables government to issue debt, which, at least so far, also has been pursued without restraint. The unlimited government debt enables unrestrained growth in government spending. The citizenry has no power to change this through any voting mechanism.

Thus, the state is set free from having to collect tax revenue before it can spend, and as Mises explained, in such a case, there is no limitation on government at all:

The government has but one source of revenue — taxes. No taxation is legal without parliamentary consent. But if the government has other sources of income it can free itself from this control.

In other words, when faced with the possibility of voter reprisals, members of Congress are reluctant to raise taxes. But if government spending no longer necessitates taxes, government becomes much more free to spend.

Without restraints on government spending, there are no restraints on government’s mission, or on the growth in the bureaucracy that administers the spending. The result is a continuous increase in regulations, and a continuous expansion of state power.

Has The Central Bank Limited Itself?

In the one hundred years since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, US federal government spending has grown from $15.9 billion to a budgeted $3,778 billion in 2014 (a number we now refer to as $3.8 trillion to make the numerator seem less egregious). Spending as a percentage of GDP has advanced from 7.5 percent to 41.6 percent over the same period. A comparison of regulation growth is more difficult, but over 80,000 pages are published in the Federal Register annually today, versus less than 5,000 annually in 1936.

The evidence, therefore, is that voting makes no difference to this lava flow of spending and regulation. Whatever the will of the majority of the moment, government spending and government power will continue to expand, with consequent reduction in the economic growth that is the primary goal of the society that is being governed.

John Locke opined that, when governments “act contrary to the end for which they were constituted,” they are at a “state of war” with the citizens, and resistance is lawful. (Two Treatises of Government, p. 74). The theory and practice of unhampered markets and individual liberty are particularly relevant at election time.

Hunter Hastings is a member of the Mises Institute, a business consultant, and an adjunct faculty member at Hult International Business School

Please see the January 2015 issue of BankNotes for this article and others like it.

Homeostasis

by Keith Wassung – ICPA:homeostasis

The word “homeostasis” describes the body’s ability to maintain relatively stable internal conditions even though the outside world is constantly changing. Homeostasis indicates a dynamic state of equilibrium or a balance in which internal conditions change and vary but always within relatively narrow limits. Communication within the body is essential for homeostasis and is accomplished chiefly by the nervous and endocrine systems.

Homeostasis: (ho`me-o-sta’sis) a tendency to stability in the normal body state (internal environment) of the organism. It is achieved by a system of control mechanisms activated by negative feedback. 1

Many of the most vital functions of the human body are influenced by the endocrine system, which consists of glands that secrete hormones, or chemical messengers into the bloodstream. The hypothalamus, located in the brain, acts like a radar, receiving incoming information from the nervous system. It then uses this information to manufacture hormones that either target specific part of the body, or to target other glands to produce specific hormones for homeostatic regulation.

The endocrine system consists of the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, pineal gland, the thyroid gland, the parathyroid gland, the pancreas, the adrenal glands, the ovaries and the testes. All of the organs of the endocrine system are glands, but not all glands are part of the endocrine system. Other organs that produce hormones, but are not part of the endocrine system include the placenta in the pregnant female, glands in the gastro-intestinal tract, structures in the heart and blood vessels, and structures in the kidneys.

Hormones are the body’s internal chemical messengers. They carry the information that controls the function of almost all of the body’s cells and tissues. Most hormones are themselves are controlled by a mechanism called feedback, which is similar to a thermostat in a central heating system. When a gland is working harder than the body needs it to, the hormone system switches off; when the body needs the gland to speed up, the nervous system turns on the switch again.

Hormones reach every part of the body, and the membrane of every cell has receptors for one or more hormones that stimulate or retard a specific body function. The hypothalamus, located at the base of the brain, acts as the mastermind that coordinates hormone production, producing regulatory or releasing hormones; these travel a short distance through special blood vessels and nerve endings to the pituitary gland, which is often referred to as the “master gland”. Attached to the hypothalamus by a short stalk, the pea-sized pituitary gland hangs from the base of the brain and is composed of two parts, an anterior and a posterior lobe. Some of its hormones act indirectly by stimulating target glands to release other hormones. Others have a direct effect on the function of target glands or tissues.

Hormones can work in astonishingly small concentrations. On the high end, the ratio of hormone molecules to blood molecules is 1 to 5 billion, and on the low end side the ratio is 1 to 5 zillion, ( 1 in 5,000,000,000,000,000) This would be the equivalent of putting one drop of liquid in a swimming pool that was filled with the water of 660 railroad boxcars. A train with 660 boxcars would be six miles in length.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

The Real Meaning of the 1914 Christmas Truce

by Ron Paul – Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity:Ron Paul

One hundred years ago last week, on Christmas Eve, 1914, German and British soldiers emerged from the horrors of World War One trench warfare to greet each other, exchange food and gifts, and to wish each other a Merry Christmas. What we remember now as the “Christmas Truce” began with soldiers singing Christmas carols together from in the trenches. Eventually the two sides climbed out of the trenches and met in person. In the course of this two day truce, which lasted until December 26, 1914, the two sides also exchanged prisoners, buried their dead, and even played soccer with each other.

How amazing to think that the celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace could bring a brief pause in one of the most destructive wars in history. How sad that it was not to last.

The Christmas Truce showed that given the choice, people do not want to be out fighting and killing each other. It is incredibly damaging to most participants in war to face the task of killing their fellow man. That is one reason we see today an epidemic of PTSD and suicides among US soldiers sent overseas on multiple deployments.

The Christmas Truce in 1914 was joyous for the soldiers, but it was dangerous for the political leadership on both sides. Such fraternization with the “enemy” could not be tolerated by the war-makers. Never again was the Christmas Truce repeated on such a scale, as the governments of both sides explicitly prohibited any repeat of such a meeting. Those who had been greeting each other had to go back to killing each other on orders from those well out of harm’s way.

As much as governments would like to stamp out such humanization of the “enemy,” it is still the case today that soldiers on the ground will meet and share thoughts with those they are meant to be killing. Earlier this month, soldiers from opposing sides of the Ukraine civil war met in eastern Ukraine to facilitate the transfer of supplies and the rotation of troops. They shook hands and wished that the war would be over. One army battalion commander was quoted as saying at the meeting, “I think it’s a war between brothers that nobody wants. The top brass should sort things out. And us? We are soldiers, we do what we’re told.”

I am sure these same sentiments exist in many of the ongoing conflicts that are pushed by the governments involved — and in many cases by third party governments seeking to benefit from the conflict.

The encouraging message we should take from the Christmas Truce of 100 years ago is that given the opportunity, most humans do not wish to kill each other. As Nazi leader Hermann Goring said during the Nuremberg war crimes trials, “naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.” But, as he added, “the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

This is where our efforts must be focused. To oppose all war propaganda perpetrated by governments against the will of the people.

Article originally posted at The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity.

Pharmaceuticals are Gateway Drugs

by Colleen Huber, NMD – ICPA:gateway drugs

Gateway drugs to more serious substance abuse have often been thought of as just the illegal drugs: marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine to begin, and worse drugs, such as heroin, later. However, there are other gateway drugs, and these affect a much larger proportion of the population, and are perfectly legal.

You probably know all too well that pharmaceuticals often have side effects that result in the prescribing of additional pharmaceuticals.

One of the most common problems I see in my practice is the over-prescription of beta-blockers. These are utterly useless drugs. Sure they lower the blood pressure, which is why they’re prescribed. But they do that by weakening the whole cardiovascular system. So much so that at times, I have had patients who were then diagnosed with congestive heart failure. Furthermore, beta-blockers, because they weaken circulation, destroy libido, which then leads to the prescription of Viagra®, a drug that has been shown to cause blindness in some men.

Beta-blockers also cause weight gain, for which pharmaceutical corrections are then desperately sought. And perhaps worst of all, the beta-blockers cause fatigue, which is then interpreted by an incompetent or rushed physician as depression, and an anti-depressant is ordered.

In fact, anti-depressants seem to be gaining ground as the treatment of choice for doctors who simply have no idea what to do with the patient in front of them. The doctor’s inadequate understanding of the patient’s health is interpreted as “all in the patient’s head,” which then justifies the prescription of antidepressants. Some illnesses, not yet understood by conventional doctors, are treated this way more than others. Fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, Epstein-Barr and Lyme disease are especially treated with unhelpful antidepressants.

But anti-depressants are not at all innocent. Just the psychological symptoms of them include suicidal thoughts and attempts and anxiety. (Don’t worry; there are more drugs to control the anxiety.)
The first drug opens up one wound, and then as sloppy bandaging of that wound begins, other wounds develop, until there are multiple wounds, and multiple inadequate bandages.

Many times the first pharmaceuticals are prescribed for someone else. According to the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, published September, 2007, every day 2500 teenagers, aged 12 to 17 years, try a painkiller for the first time. This is often right out of their parents’ medicine cabinet, such as drugs left over from a surgery or simply left unguarded. Teens are finding drugs and taking large amounts so they can get high. In fact, for 12- and 13-yearolds, prescription drugs are the drugs of choice. For teens, prescription drugs are second only to marijuana for getting high. Unfortunately, because they were acquired legally, and were prescribed for a family member, kids assume they are safer.

But the problem is these kids don’t realize that prescribed drugs can be just as dangerous as illegal drugs. So, even if your kids would never try street drugs, they may be getting high out of your medicine cabinet.

In the specific case of painkiller abuse, which is the biggest accelerating problem for youth, these drugs are often opioid derivatives. A huge problem is the well-known mental impairment from these drugs. Another problem is the severe constipation that such drugs can cause. The rockhard constipation that can result from these drugs is not so easily resolved with fiber, and may require stool softeners and lead to accumulated toxicity in the body.

Sometimes the prescription or legal drugs are gateway drugs, not just to other pharmaceuticals, but to street drugs as well.

For example, Ritalin® and others in the methylphenidate class, such as Adderall®, Strattera™, and Concerta® have an identical molecular structure to amphetamines. Although these drugs are designed for the short-term palliation of hyperactivity or inattentiveness in kids (ADHD and ADD), patients never feel that they are permanently healed from these drugs. So, if the doctor after some years stops prescribing the ADD drug, the teenager very often ends up on a methamphetamine afterward. There are naturopathic physicians who have had numerous young men consult them in order to break the addiction to both Ritalin® and to the secondary addiction to crystal methamphetamines.

Both legally and morally, the pharmaceutical industry and the physicians who carelessly prescribe these drugs should be held accountable for this whole expanded branch of the street drug trade.

One of the main reasons that people come to naturopathic physicians is that they are tired of being on so many drugs, with the side effects and the expense. One of the main things we as naturopaths do is to taper people off poorly prescribed drugs. This is usually a gradual process because some drugs will cause a possibly dangerous rebound effect if stopped suddenly.

For every human ailment there are natural treatments. In fact they can treat more human ailments than drugs can resolve. So, consider this option for yourself and your family.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

How to Get Paid Up Front to Buy Stocks

submitted by jwithrow.stocks

Want to get paid up front to buy stocks you want to own at a price you specify? Selling put option contracts allows you to do just that.

Put options are a contractual agreement between two parties. The owner of the put option contract has the right to sell the designated stock to the counter-party at the agreed upon strike price at any time prior to the specified expiration date. In exchange for this right the owner of the put option must pay a market-based premium to the seller up front. Each contract is for 100 shares of the underlying stock.

For the owner, put options can serve two purposes – either as a downside hedge or as speculation. Generally speaking, the owner of the put option profits from the deal if the stock declines below the strike price.

In order to get paid up front to buy the stocks you want you simply need to “be the store” for hedgers and speculators and sell puts on stocks you would like to own. You choose the stock, the strike price, and the expiration date and you receive the premium immediately upon execution. That premium is yours to keep no matter what happens. If the stock is still above the strike price on expiration day then you walk away from the trade with pure profit. If the stock is below the strike price and the put option is exercised then you are obligated to buy 100 shares of the stock per option contract sold and the premium you were paid up front serves to reduce your cost basis in that position.

There are two basic strategies for selling put options. The first is to sell in-the-money puts on stocks you absolutely want to buy. This strategy can enable you to buy the stock at a lower price than it is trading for at the time.

Let’s use AUY as an example of this strategy (not a recommendation). AUY is currently trading at $4.48 per share. Instead of purchasing AUY at $4.48/share you could sell the February 20 5.5 Put for approximately $1.30 per share. This would obligate you to purchase 100 shares per put contract of AUY at $5.50 per share on or before February 20 and you would be paid $130 per contract up front to do so.

Now there are only two possible results. If AUY is trading above $5.50/share on February 20 then the put option expires worthless and you walk away with $130 per contract sold and you can explore selling more put options on AUY if you want. If AUY is still trading below $5.50/share on February 20 then you will be “put” the stock and you must purchase 100 shares per contract at $5.50/share. But you were already paid $1.30 per share so you would effectively be buying AUY at $4.20 per share ($5.50-1.30). Recall AUY was trading at $4.48 when you sold the put so you are buying the stock at a lower price than you could have originally.

The second strategy is to sell out-of-the-money puts on blue-chip stocks that you don’t think will dip below the strike price but you wouldn’t mind owning if they did. This is primarily a low-risk strategy for generating income and the lower premiums reflect this.

Let’s use WMT as an example of this strategy (not a recommendation). WMT is currently trading at $89.68 per share. We could sell the WMT March 20 82.5 Put for approximately $0.70 per share. In this example WMT would have to decline by roughly 8% in a little over two months for the put contract to be exercised. We walk away with $70 per contract unless that sharp decline happens.

As you can see, selling put options involves limited risk. You must keep enough cash in your brokerage account to purchase the underlying stock should the option be exercised but that is the most you can lose in each trade. If done properly, selling put options is actually less risky than buying stocks outright.

As always, be mindful of your asset allocation model before venturing into the equity markets.

Rethinking Modern Medicine’s Germ Theory

by Daniel A. Middleton, DC – ICPA:germ theory

The germ theory states that diseases are due to specific microorganisms, which are capable of transmission from body to body. Yet although it is widely accepted by medical professionals, forming the basis for billions of dollars of healthcare spending (actually sickness care, but that’s another article), the fact that so many people believe it to be true doesn’t make it so. This is one of the classic logical fallacies: argumentum ad populum, the appeal to the majority, where a thing is stated to be true simply because so many people believe it.

That didn’t work for the belief that the earth was flat, and it shouldn’t work for a theory of disease that is increasingly coming under fire from the scientific community and whose fundamental premise was known to be flawed almost from the beginning. I am reminded of the famous quote by Anatole France: “If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.”

Everyone has heard of the Black Plague that swept through Europe in the Middle Ages, resulting in the death of nearly a third of the European population (25 million people dead over the five-year period between 1347 and 1352). What is most interesting, however, is the other two-thirds—the ones who didn’t die. Many times the survivors were members of the same family as the victims, sharing a home and meals across the same family table. What about them—why didn’t they ‘catch’ the disease? Were they just lucky?

I’m not denying that the disease itself existed; it’s well-documented. The Bubonic Plague, associated with the bacterium named Versenia pestis, was one of the deadliest pandemics in human history—and one of the most studied. Instead, my argument is against the ‘germ theory of disease’ itself, the overriding idea in many people’s minds that exposure to a germ almost always equals disease, when common sense tells us that this simply is not the case.

The germ (or virus or bacteria) might well be the agent of disease, but the cause is much more complex than that. Otherwise, as chiropractic pioneer B.J. Palmer said, eventually no one would be alive to tell you about it! If our bodies can be kept whole and healthy, then the germs, which we come into contact with every day, would have no purchase. One of the goals of chiropractic is to have your body function at such a level that you don’t get sick very often—and that when you do, your immune system, stronger because of more efficient body-brain communication, is better able to fight off the disease, letting you recover more quickly.

Chiropractic is a vitalistic way of looking at our ideas of health and wellness, of how we get sick and why. Very often, it’s at odds with the predominant (mechanistic) model of health that everyone is used to. With the number of drug ads on television and in magazines, and news shows touting the latest medical advancement to treat this or that disease (many of which show up later with unpredicted—maybe even unpredictable—side effects or problems) and the countless TV shows idolizing medicine (e.g. House, ER, Grey’s Anatomy, Nip/Tuck, etc.) all the way back to the early days of television (City Hospital and The Doctor first appeared back in 1951, with the more well-known and iconoclastic Dr. Kildare and Ben Casey showing up ten years later).

Is it any wonder that we all grew up believing in the medical model of health care? After all, surely we could trust Robert Young’s kindly and grandfatherly Marcus Welby, M.D. In fact, we trusted him so much that Young made a subsequent commercial for a popular pain reliever (“I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV…”) that became a well-worn cliché. But what if the foundation on which the entire medical model rests is flawed? What if the “germ theory of disease” is not quite so cut and dried as we’ve been led to believe? Highly controversial when it was first proposed, the germ theory is now the cornerstone of modern medicine, and its chief proponent, Louis Pasteur, a demigod in the medical canon. But is what we remember Pasteur for the last he said on the subject?

Everyone is familiar with Pasteur’s name, but one of his contemporaries and chief opponents was a scientist named Claude Bernard (1813–1878), who argued that it was not the ‘seed’ (the germ) that caused disease, but was instead the ‘soil’ (the human body). Bernard argued that germs are nothing more than opportunistic organisms. It was an argument that persisted throughout their careers, and for his entire life Pasteur was convinced that germs lay at the cause of all disease. Only on his deathbed—with Claude Bernard present—did Pasteur finally admit that Bernard was right. In the end, Pasteur came to realize that the germ was not the only element in determining who became sick and who remained well.

What this tells us is that modern medicine (or Big Pharma, as the pharmaceutical companies with revenues exceeding $3 billion are often called) has based its fundamental premise on a theory that even its most well-known proponent—as Pasteur arguably was—recanted in the end. For the past one hundred years, modern medicine has pursued a theory that is, at best, only a single aspect of the cause of disease and, at worst, a theory flawed at its core.

How much better spent would our health dollars be—in treatment, education and research—if they supported instead research into how to make the “soil” less hospitable to the “seed,” rather than chasing cures and potions for every collection of symptoms that can be named? Just as in a court of law deathbed confessions are given an extra weight, so too should we regard Pasteur’s final comment on his most famous theory: “Bernard avait raison. Le germ n’est rien, c’est le terrain qui est tout.” (“Bernard was right. The seed is nothing, the soil is everything.”)

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.

Charting Your Homeschool Course

by Vicki Bentley – HSLDA:homeschool library

When I mention the word curriculum, what comes to mind? Most of us think of books. While your studies will surely include books, the word curriculum simply means “course of study” (its root translates from the French courir, “to run,” and Latin counterparts). Think of your curriculum as the road map for your homeschool journey.

Now, a little secret about maps and me: I am hopelessly geographically challenged. I have been known to call my husband on my cell phone from the parking garage of the state convention, unable to find an exit—even after 11 years at the same facility. Not long ago, I got lost for 20 minutes, a mile from my own house—after four years at the same address.

So if I called you for directions, you’d probably ask me where I am now and where I want to go, so you could help me figure out the best way to get from here to there. Similarly, in mapping out your homeschool course, you must determine where you are now, where you plan to go, then ascertain the best way to get from here to there (lest you be “lost in the parking garage” of homeschooling). This can seem overwhelming, but don’t panic! Let’s take a “rest stop” to determine your philosophy of education, which will guide you on the rest of your journey.

Why are you homeschooling?

Is this something you feel “called” to do, or are you “trying it out” for a year? This will steer your curriculum choices somewhat. If you are planning to put your child into public school in the near future, you may want to use a fairly conservative approach, possibly a pre-packaged curriculum (maybe a correspondence course), or you may want to compare your customized curriculum to the grade-level standards of learning for your state. For placement (knowing where to begin), determine what your child already knows versus what is covered in the material. Just because he is a first-grader doesn’t mean he has to be constrained to covering first grade reading skills again if he is already reading well above grade level.

(Note: If you are removing a child from a conventional school setting and you have a concern that he is not up to the cognitive levels indicated by his grade level, you may wish to have him take a standardized test or have him evaluated in some way to provide a baseline for you. That way, at the end of the year, you have a starting point against which to evaluate his progress.)

If you are committed to homeschooling for at least several years, you will have more latitude in your choices, since you will be responsible for setting the long-term standards for your child’s education. What is your concept of an education? What skills, knowledge, and/or experience will your child need in order for you to consider him ready to be on his own? If you can’t think that far ahead right this moment, at least consider what you want him to have accomplished by the end of this year. These goals should be measurable—how will you know when they have been accomplished? Discuss with your spouse and your child (if appropriate) how these objectives fit into the “big picture” of his future.

This is also a good time to set some goals for yourself and your family in general. As you choose activities and curriculum for your children, evaluate these against the goals you have set for this year. Will this activity move you closer to your stated objective? Is a good activity or book or class keeping you from having time to do what is best? Maybe it is something that can wait until another time.

Will you use a packaged curriculum to get started? Or will you choose various books and games that fit into your plan? Are there some subjects that you can teach to all the children at one time in a multi-level approach? Do you prefer the security and continuity of a traditional textbook approach, or do you like the idea of an integrated unit study approach? Maybe the patriotism of the principle approach excites you, or possibly your maternal instincts go into overdrive when you read about Charlotte Mason’s gentler approach to learning. As you read, you may find that the classical approach sounds like what you equate with homeschooling, or maybe you are attracted to the relaxed approach of studying what is of interest in your family at the moment. Feel free to borrow and re-arrange from all these different approaches; they are not mutually exclusive. That’s one of the wonderful benefits of homeschooling—you can create a custom curriculum!

There is no one “right” way to homeschool, no “perfect” curriculum. What works for one family may not be the best for another, or what works for you one year with one child may not work for the next. Don’t compare your children to the support group leader’s children or your friend’s children; compare your family only to God’s ideal for your family.

Have a great time along the way, and be prepared for an incredible journey!

Article originally posted at HSLDA.org.

Cooking for Learning

by Laura Grace Weldon – ICPA:cooking

It’s easier to cook when our children aren’t in the way. Bubbling pots and sharp knives, after all, are hardly child-friendly. But the kitchen shouldn’t be off-limits to kids.

Yes, dinner takes longer to make when Mason snips the cilantro to shreds and Sophie reads the recipe out loud. And you’ve got places to go—probably places to take your darling children, like T-ball practice or that great science program at the museum.

But how much, really, do our beloved children benefit from a steady schedule of, well, scheduled activities? We tend to forget that ordinary activities, such as cooking together, can be flexible, hands-on, purposeful experiences, too.

As they snip, read and converse with us, our kids are learning physical, mental and social skills. Here’s how cooking can be educational for them.

Mirror neurons. Even a baby in an infant seat benefits from time in the kitchen. She pays attention to your actions. She’s delighted when you talk to her and show her what you’re doing. Due to mirror neurons in our brains, all of us mentally duplicate actions and emotions we see. This inborn way of learning means that we’re continually participating in what we observe. Your baby’s mirror neurons allow her to vicariously experience what you’re doing. As she sees you wash, peel and cut carrots, she’ll form a mental template for that task, essentially allowing her to practice in advance.

If you change an element of that familiar activity— perhaps by using garden-fresh carrots with long waving fronds instead of milled carrots from a plastic bag—your little one will pay heightened attention. If your knife slips and you cut yourself, she’ll react to your surprise and pain, making her understanding of sharp implements more real than any warning might accomplish.

Meaning. Young children clamor to be included. When a preschooler begs to help prepare dinner, he doesn’t want to play with a toy cooking set; he wants to participate in the real work that’s taking place. It slows us down to let him cut fresh mushrooms with a butter knife (and restraint to avoid criticizing or re-cutting), but your child recognizes his contribution toward dinner. He’s also more likely to eat it.

Responsibility. Research has shown that children who participated in household tasks starting at age 3 or 4 were more likely to succeed in adulthood. I’m talking about educational completion, career success, and good relationships with family and friends. Even I.Q. scores had a weaker correlation with success than giving children early responsibilities. And waiting until children were older tended to backfire. We spend much time and money on enriching activities and products for our children, but if they don’t get the chance to take on real responsibilities, we’re depriving them of key components of adult competency.

Higher-level learning. Kitchen-related tasks allow our children to learn more than how dry pinto beans are transformed into enticing refried beans. Kids begin to see scientific principles at work. They develop personal qualities such as patience. They are motivated to apply what they’re learning to more challenging endeavors. Sure, it doesn’t hurt to know what it takes to grow the tomatoes, make the sauce, and prepare the beans for tonight’s bean enchiladas. But more importantly, as our children become proficient in the kitchen, they also see themselves as capable learners. That perception transfers across all endeavors.

Sensory learning. Full sensory learning has staying power. Apart from nature, it’s hard to find a more sensory rich environment than the kitchen. As your child’s little fingers crumble blue cheese into dressing, add raisins to a measuring cup, or tear mint leaves for chutney, the tactile and olfactory pleasure help encode specific memories. Perhaps the happiness your daughter feels making mint chutney with you today will be evoked each time she smells mint in the future. We humans must see, hear, smell, touch and, yes, taste to form the complex associations that make up true comprehension.

Active learning. Childhood is a period of major neuroplasticity, when learning actually changes the brain’s functional anatomy. Hands-on experiences are particularly vital at this time. In fact, the child who spends plenty of time with manipulatives (arranging cookies on a platter, sifting flour, washing silverware) and using real-world math (measuring ingredients, counting celery stalks, following recipes) has a strong foundation of representational experience, which in turn enables better understanding of abstract mathematical concepts. These hands-on experiences also contribute to reading readiness. Another benefit of kitchen learning? Cooking and tasting the results a short time later provides wonderful lessons in cause and effect.

Simplicity. Children accustomed to blinking, beeping toys and rapidly changing screen images may become so wired to this over-stimulation that without it, they’re bored. The slower pace of kitchen conversation and cooking tasks can be an important antidote, especially when we’re willing to go at a child’s pace. Young children tend to balk when they’re hurried. They show us, stubbornly and often loudly, that there’s nothing more important to them than the here and now. So whenever possible, simplify so you can make your time together in the kitchen enjoyable. Slowing down is better for digestion, concentration and overall happiness. Letting a small child spread his own peanut butter, cut his own sandwich and pour milk from a tiny pitcher into his cup is a way of affirming the value of the present moment. It also makes for an effortless tea party.

Skill building. There’s no denying that children who help out in the kitchen pick up useful skills. They learn that a cake takes lots of mixing, but muffins very little. They can set the table, toss a salad, make a sandwich and boil pasta. Not right away, but eventually. They also learn from the examples we show them, such as how to handle pressure and ways to learn from mistakes. Whether we’re 4 years old or 40 years old, gaining competency feels good. It doesn’t hurt to give credit where it’s due. So if your child has been busy peeling potatoes and crumbling bacon, try renaming the entrée “Max’s special potato soup” for extra reinforcement.

Purpose. When we prepare a family meal, bake a cake to celebrate a friend’s good news, or change a favorite recipe to accommodate Grandpa’s diabetes, our efforts have noticeable value. As our children participate along with us, they feel that same satisfaction. So many educational tasks put before our children serve no purpose other than to instruct. But when learning is connected to something truly purposeful, it can’t help but spark enthusiasm. Children feel honored to be included in real work that includes real challenges. If we pay attention, we’ll see that’s just what they pretend to do when they play.

Getting Started
Even toddlers can help. Let small children cut mushrooms, pears, bananas and other soft items with a blunt knife. Encourage them to stir (as long as you or they hold the bowl). They’ll be happy to add ingredients, tear lettuces and grate cheese. When putting together forgiving dishes like soups or casseroles, have them help you choose herbs and spices by smell before you toss in a pinch or two.

Encourage your small fry to wash unbreakable items in a sink of warm, soapy water. Let them clean up crumbs on the floor with a small whisk broom or handheld vacuum. Put them in charge of setting out napkins on the table and calling family members to dinner. Give them the job of stacking unbreakable containers in a low cabinet. Solicit their opinions on aroma, taste and appearance as you cook together. And remember to thank them for their assistance.

As they get older, children can read recipes, plan meals and do nearly every task required to make the dishes they enjoy. The time will come when they won’t want you in the room explaining how to fix a lumpy cream sauce or talking about how Nana always mixed pastry dough with her fingers. They’re on their way to making the kitchen a proving ground for their own culinary adventures. Hopefully you’ll be invited to taste-test while you relax for a change.

Parking the kids in front of the TV while we dash to get dinner ready may be efficient, but it’s not the way young people have matured throughout human history. Children need to watch, imitate, and gain useful skills. They’re drawn to see how their elders handle a crisis, fix a car, create a soufflé, build a bookshelf, heal what’s broken, and fall in love.

So welcome your little ones into the kitchen. And let the cooking begin.

Article originally posted at ICPA.org.