1. Relationships can be invisible roadblocks to Health and Wealth.

    Listen to the on-demand replay on The Optimal Health Hour Here!

    Relationships are the number one influence on your health and wealth. What if you can truly clear out the energy of current and past relationships? What if you could move forward into the life you keep saying you want and move into the new relationship that has been blocked by old programing? This type of clearing is available to you in a simple 3 step process. You can experience relief from one relationship and use new tools to clear other relationships that have affected you. You can clear energy from people, living or dead. You can clear out relationship energy whether you’re still in a relationship or it’s a relationship from the distant past. Join us for a very important episode and discover how to clear relationship energy road blocks so you can finally achieve optimal health and wealth.

  2. 40 million people in the USA suffer from anxiety and panic attacks. Discover a holistic approach that elimates the cause.

    Listen to the on-demand replay on The Optimal Health Hour Here!

     

    People often find themselves in a place where they are physically and emotionally exhausted, having to dig deep just to deal with day-to-day life events. Anxiety can cause our brain and body to “lock up” just like a computer when it gets overloaded with too many demands. Drugs have undesirable side effects and are the typical way to mask the symptoms however the underlying cause is still there. In this episode we will discover that there is a way to remove the cause of anxiety and panic attacks using a variety of holistic techniques that give people their lives back. Join us for an exciting episode and find out why a holistic approach to treating anxiety and panic attacks is the safe and effective way to eliminate the cause of this debilitating condition.

  3. DANIEL WEBER RESEARCH: SHOCKING RESULTS ABOUT FALLING MALE SPERM COUNTS

    By Daniel Weber, PHD MSC

    Sperm counts among western men have halved in last 40 years – study

    Reasons for the shocking drop are unclear, say researchers, and represent a huge and neglected area of public health

    The Guardian
    July 25, 2017

    Sperm counts among men have more than halved in the last 40 years, research suggests, although the drivers behind the decline remain unclear. The latest findings reveal that between 1973 and 2011, the concentration of sperm in the ejaculate of men in western countries has fallen by an average of 1.4% a year, leading to an overall drop of just over 52%.

    “The results are quite shocking,” said Hagai Levine, an epidemiologist and lead author of the study from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. While infertility treatments such as IVF can offer solutions to potential ramifications of the decline on one level, little has been done to address the root of the issue, said Levine, pointing out low sperm counts might also be an indicator of poorer health among men more generally. “This is a classic under the radar huge public health problem that is really neglected,” he said.

    It is not the first time researchers have highlighted concerns about sperm counts, but previous studies have been criticized, with some saying the decline could be down to changing laboratory methods, or studies failing to take into account whether participants were selected on the basis of infertility problems.

    But the authors of the latest study say they have addressed such concerns, analyzing only studies that used the same sperm count method, were of a reasonable size and involved men not known to have infertility problems or disease, among other measures. The study, published in the journal Human Reproduction Update by an international team of researchers, drew on 185 studies conducted between 1973 and 2011, involving almost 43,000 men. The team split the data based on whether the men were from western countries – including Australia and New Zealand as well as countries in North America and Europe – or from elsewhere.

    After accounting for factors including age and how long men had gone without ejaculation, the team found that sperm concentration fell from 99 million per ml in 1973 to 47.1 million per ml in 2011 – a decline of 52.4% – among western men unaware of their fertility. For the same group, total sperm count, the number of sperm in a semen sample, fell by just under 60%. In addition, a less dramatic decline in sperm concentration since the 1970s was seen for western men who were known to have conceived with a partner, but there was no clear trend for total sperm count in this group. By contrast, no such trends were seen for men in other countries although the authors caution that far fewer studies have been carried out among such populations.

    Richard Sharpe, an expert in male reproductive health and professor at the University of Edinburgh, welcomed the study, saying the research has tackled many of the problems of previous analyses, adding that it “is about as close as we are going to get” to being sure of the decline. But he stressed it still unclear what is behind the drop, meaning that it is difficult to address. “That is primarily because we have seriously under-invested in male reproductive research,” he said.

    Tina Kold Jensen of Syddansk University in Denmark, who was not involved in the current research, said she was surprised by the new findings. “I thought it would probably have stopped,” she said of the decline, pointing out that she had been involved in a 15-year Danish study focusing on young men recruited for military service which found no drop in sperm counts. But, she noted, that might be because many of the men had poor sperm counts anyway.

    Levine agreed that research into potential causes was needed. Numerous possibilities have been mooted, with research suggesting links to body weight, a lack of physical activity, smoking, and exposure of pregnant women to chemicals found in myriad household products, known as endocrine disruptors.

    But controversy remains. While Allan Pacey, professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, said the latest study is the best he’d ever read on the decline, he said the jury is still out on whether the trend is real. “You need to go out to answer that question. For example you take a random sample of every 18-year-old in the UK and you test 10,000 18-year-olds every year prospectively over the course of 20-25 years,” he said, emphasizing that Jensen’s study using such an approach had found no decline. “We have got very little epidemiological evidence to say what might be causing it, so we are still scratching our heads a little bit in my view,” said Pacey.

    But he agreed there is cause for concern around male reproductive function, pointing out that rates of testicular cancer are on the rise, and stressed that men who are concerned about their sperm count and who wish to have children should not delay. “If you are a guy with a low sperm count and you try for a baby when you are 21, you are probably not going to notice you’ve got a problem,” Pacey said. “But if you are trying with your partner when she is 35 then that’s when the heartache comes, because by then you have got low sperm count, you’ve got an older partner and you haven’t got a lot of time to try and fix it medically.”

  4. Some Interesting News!

    By Annie, Best Answer For Cancer

    I ran across a very interesting piece of news recently that I want to share with you. The Susan G. Komen organization is pulling out of Arizona. Mary Budinger, an Advisory Board member who lives in Arizona, sent me two articles from the Arizona Republic newspaper which says SGK: “will close in July because of dwindling donations and event participation … 7,500 people ran in the 2016 Race for the Cure, a number significantly lower than in previous years, which at one time saw upward of 30,000 participants.” Lower participation and donations are attributed to the fact that Arizona’s weather permits many organizations to hold races and outdoor fundraising events. The executive director suggests there is simply too much competition.

    Nice try, but there is much more to it than that. I’ll let Wikipedia hit some of the high points: “In 2012, Komen’s controversial attempt to withdraw funding for mammogram referrals provided by Planned Parenthood caused a significant decline in donations, event participation and public trust. The organization was further criticized for its use of donor funds, the CEO’s 64% pay raise after the significant drop in donations, its administration costs, its choice of sponsor affiliations, its role in commercial cause marketing, and its use of misleading statistics in advertising. In March 2013, Komen dropped from Charity Navigator’s highest rating of four stars down to three stars and then to two stars in 2014.”

    I still remember when SGK slathered their pink on M&M candies and buckets of fried chicken—foods no cancer patient should touch—in return for sponsorship money. The organization chooses to beat the drum for annual mammograms, despite a mountain of evidence that they represent a poor early detection technology. Why not make the choice to promote some form of thermography? Why not wage a war on sugar, cancer’s favorite food? Why not come out against trans fats which we’ve known for decades to be carcinogenic? Why not give voice to the 2005 research by Environmental Working Group which detected 287 chemicals in umbilical cord blood, of which 180 are known to cause cancer in humans or animals? Or give voice to the more recent work of Dr. Thomas Seyfried? You get the idea.

    Seems the American public is getting the same idea. SGK, founded in 1982, started out with a promise to find a cure for cancer. In 2016, SGK announced their “Bold Goal to reduce the current number of breast cancer deaths by 50% in the U.S. by 2026.” Given how they choose to operate, it is hard to imagine SGK could even make a small dent in the coming fatalities.

    It is my opinion that so many people have had cancer now, or known family members and friends who have had cancer, that they have glimpsed the harsh realities of the cancer industry’s machinery. And SGK, advocating for the status quo, is part of that machinery. Increasingly, the public is rejecting the status quo.

    So to all of you on the front lines of innovative, integrative care—keep it up. The public is waking up and rejecting the status quo. Yes, many still fall for the mainstream marketing because getting the diagnosis of cancer can scare the living daylights out you. Having some good survival statistics for alternative therapies can help people look at the options that are available.

    I strongly encourage all of you to participate in one of our clinical studies to get quotable survival stats for alternative medical therapies. Write me and I’ll tell you how. I also encourage us all to amplify our messaging and let people know good options exist.

    Our efforts ARE making a difference! Change IS happening!

    Thank you for all you do,
    Annie

  5. What Screen Time and Screen Media Do To Your Child’s Brain and Sensory Processing Ability

    By: Amy (Friedy) Guttman-Singer and Evelyn (Roizy) Guttman (HandsOnOT)

    It’s a scene we’re sure you’ve witnessed again and again. A family is sitting in a restaurant having dinner. The four year old is clearly fed up with sitting, and starts to complain, jump on her seat or run around. But a few moments later, she’s quietly in her seat again, enabling her parents and older siblings to enjoy a peaceful meal and conversation for the next 30 minutes. What happened? Her father handed her his iPhone. It’s a scene we see repeated in doctors’ waiting rooms, supermarkets, public transportation… and while we entirely understand it, it also saddens us. So many caring, well-meaning parents are unaware of the developmental damage caused to their children by exposure to screen time and screen media.

    Screens - Televisions. Computer monitors. Tablets. Smartphones. Dumb phones. Children’s toy computers. Kindles. The Apple watch. If it gives off electromagnetic radiation in the visual spectrum, it’s a screen. In many ways screens have changed our lives for the better. In other ways, they’ve changed our lives and the lives of our children – and not necessarily for the better.

    The original official policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics (made in 1999 and reaffirmed in 2011) states that “pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television [or other media] viewing for children under the age of two years.” Children between 2 and 5 should be limited to “no more than 1 hour per day.” In 2016 they issued a policy adjustment stating that pediatricians should discourage any media use under the age of 18 months, except for video-chatting (as often happens with far-away relatives). Between 18 and 24 months, if a parent wants to introduce screen media, then they should choose high-quality apps and use it together with their toddlers. (Although the policy indicates that the educational benefits for children under the age of 24 months are low, and come mainly from parent interaction with the child, and not from the media itself.). While the original policy of the AAP called for children older than 5 to be viewing no more than 2 hours of media daily, the update 2016 recommendations explains that in today’s world, when media is everywhere, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. Families need to make themselves aware of the risks and benefits of media use, and create individualized plans for their children, including enough sleep and physical exercise.

    Reasons given by the AAP – and other research studies – include associations with obesity, sleep issues, aggressive behaviors, less time spent in developmentally helpful interaction with parents and siblings, language delays and attention issues. Reference is made to the potentially harmful effect of media exposure during the rapid brain development period of age 0-2, but most studies – and even the AAP policies – don’t delve into the details of the impact on your child’s brain.

    We’d like to give you a peek behind the scenes, and show you what happens to the brain when it’s in the process of viewing screen media.

    Screens Give Your Body the Blues

    We’ve all been fooled by the “what color is white light?” question. Answer: all of them! Natural daylight, provided by our sun, is made up of all the colors of the visual spectrum, although there does tend to be a little more blue light emitted than the other colors.

    emission spectrum natural daylight comments

    The blue light of natural sunlight does some great things for our body. It boosts attention, reaction times and mood, and it suppresses melatonin (the hormone that regulates your circadian rhythms and makes you sleepy when it increases) so you can be awake and alert during your active hours. That’s great for your body – in the daytime. When your body is supposed to be winding down for sleep, however, it’s another story. Most of today’s devices are illuminated by LEDs, which have a much higher percentage of blue lightwaves than any other light source – natural or artificial. Here’s what “white” light is really made of in the following artificial light sources:

    emission spectrum artificial light comments

    (The above image comes from the Molecular Vision Journal. The markup is our own.)

    White LEDs are almost entirely blue light, combined with a chemical compound to make it look white. Night-time exposure to LED-illuminated devices (most of the screens out there today: computers, tablets, phones, flat screen TVs, e-readers, video games) suppresses melatonin and disrupts the natural sleep cycle. A Scientific American article describes a study where volunteers spent several evenings reading for a prolonged period of time before a 10PM imposed bedtime. Some used printed books and some used e-readers. Those who used e-readers took longer to fall asleep, had less REM sleep and felt sleepier and less alert for hours after they woke up in the morning – even if they had gotten the same amount of sleep.

    We repeatedly see sleep cycle issues in the children who come to our clinic. When we probe, we almost inevitably hear that they’re playing video games, using social media or watching TV for an extended period before they go to bed.  Sleep cycle disruptions are a siginificant contributor to ADHD and other mood and behavioral issues. One of the first things we work with these parents and children on is significantly reducing screen time before bed. Blue light – it’s not for night!

    Fast Forward

    Okay, fine, you might be saying. I’ll curtail the screens at night, and let my children play their video games, use the computer and watch TV in the afternoon. We wish it were that simple. If your child’s screen use is focused on reading chapter books off a Kindle or typing in a word processing program, no problem. (Again, as long as it’s not at night when the blue wavelengths in the white LEDs will impact sleep patterns). But who among our kids spends his primary media time doing that? Our kids are playing fast-paced video games, watching cartoons and TV shows with plenty of action and jumping from photo to chat to status update on social media.

    The rapid-fire changes that happen in most screen activities, from video games to recorded entertainment to social media updates, affect two parts of the brain: the visual processing system and the vestibular system

    The Eyes Have It

    Let’s discuss the visual processing system first. The faster the changes in the sensory information you’re taking in, the faster your brain needs to process it in order to keep up. If the pace required is so fast it exceeds your brain’s threshold, you may experience sensory overload. That’s the “STOP! TOO MUCH! I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE!” feeling – the one we sometimes get when we’re trying to cook dinner AND our baby is screaming and smelling like a horrendously dirty diaper AND our 3 year old is yanking on our shirt hem and whining he’s hungry AND our 6 year old is shoving a drawing in front of our eyes and yelling, “Look, Mom! Look at it!”

    Too much to process. Shut down. Good night. (Well, we wish. We parents usually have to recover pretty fast in situations like that.)

    The rapid-fire changes on typical screen entertainment are much faster than the typical visual changes of ordinary, unscreened life – the visual changes that our brain has been wired over the millennia to deal with.

    Yet these rapid changes don’t often cause perceptible visual sensory overload. They usually come in just under the threshold. The child can keep up with the processing, but their brain is working super-fast to do so.

    Often parents of children with ADD/ADHD diagnoses will tell us, puzzled, “I don’t understand. My child has trouble focusing on most things, but when it comes to TV or video games, I can’t get him to stop. I can wave my hand in front of his face, touch him or say his name loudly and it’s like I’m not there. He seems super-focused!”

    And he is. Children (especially with ADHD) often get into a state of hyper-focus, because their brain is so super-busy processing all the fast-changing visual information. This hyper-focus affects children more than adults (and in younger children more than older children) because the visual system itself is still developing, so the younger a child is, the more they have to focus in order to deal with all the information coming in. Eventually you pull them away from the screen. And pandemonium breaks loose. If they were super-focused before, they are now super-UNfocused. They’re hyper. They’re acting out. They’re in an awful mood. What HAPPENED?

    Coming off the Visual Fast-Track

    Your child’s brain was in super-fast, super-busy mode, processing all that visual stimuli. Suddenly all that visual stimuli stops. There’s nothing left to process. But the brain is still in super-fast, “hyper” mode. Until it readjusts to real life and a normal pace (which takes time), your child will be bouncing off the walls in an unconscious attempt to find stimuli moving at the artificially fast pace of his brain.

    That’s not all. The visual system is closely linked to the vestibular system – the sensory system that controls balance and your perception of where your body is in space. The vestibular system also has a significant impact on mood. The perception of linear, acceleration is calming (as most of us have experienced when rocking, swinging, walking or driving a cranky baby to sleep) and the perceptional of rotational acceleration is arousing. When your child’s visual system was super-busy processing, it locked up the vestibular system, putting mood on an artificially even keel. Remember your child’s lack of response when you waved your hand in front of his face? He wasn’t in a bad mood; he wasn’t in a good mood; he was in NO mood. Now his vestibular system has been released from its freeze, and it’s having just as hard a time readjusting. Mood swings, anyone?

    Let’s take a look at how to get your child from screen time back to real life without crashes and meltdowns.

    Jump My Sillies Out

    When you end your child’s screen time, don’t just let her chill out. Because she WON’T be chilling out. She’ll be jumping out of her skin.

    To reset the pace of her body and brain, jump her back INTO her skin. Use the vestibular system. Get your child moving. Jump, swing, run around. The linear acceleration will reset the vestibular system and calm the entire body. This is even if your child has had “active” screen time, like working out with a Wii or playing Pokemon Go or some other augmented reality game. They may be getting exercise, but they’re also overstimulating their visual processing system. The screen offsets the vestibular benefit of the movement, so you’ll still need some “unplugged” movement in order to reset the vestibular system and get the body back on track.

    Long-term Consequences

    Using physical activity is a good short-term technique to reset the vestibular and visual system and get your child back into normally-paced life more smoothly. As a long-term strategy, it leaves much to be desired. As we mentioned above, a child’s visual processing system is still significantly developing before the age of 2, and final development isn’t reached until 8 or 9 years old. It’s still unclear exactly what the effects of media exposure with its rapid-fire changes are for a developing system.

    There is a concern, however, that repeated incidents of super-busy processing during stages of development could cause permanent changes in the processing pace that the brain seeks. Your two-year old could potentially grow up feeling “comfortable” in the super-fast pace of screen media stimulation and uncomfortable in the normal pace of everyday life.Her performance might be high in gaming and internet information processing, but what about performance in low-tech activities such as building relationships? Parenting? Achieving greatness at anything, from sports to music to business? These true, satisfying achievements happen only at the pace of the natural world, not at the artificially accelerated pace of the screened world. They require focus, dedication, persistence and patience – even when the going seems slow, frustrating and boring in the moment.

    Set Your Child Up for Success

    We appreciate how much parents want to give their child the tools and resources to achieve the most they can. That’s why it pains us. Because while the parent thinks they’re doing something positive – or at least neutral – for their child by setting them in front of screen media, they’re actually interfering with the child’s natural, healthy development. The younger the child is, the greater the interference and future consequences.

    Why set a child up for issues and limitations that may or may not be conquerable?

    Why put a child on track for difficulties in life from age 2?

    We work all the time with children to enable them to overcome behavioral and emotional limitations caused by processing issues, so they can have a happy, functioning life full of achievement and satisfaction. You, as a parent, have an even more powerful role to play. You can give your child the best shot at that life from the outset, and minimize the chances of needing external intervention. As a caring, dedicated parent, we know you want it. And you can do it.